Hanford City Council
November 1, 2022

November 1, 2022
7:00 PM – Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.
4:00 PM CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION:

ROLL CALL BY THE CITY CLERK :

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Comments from the public are limited to items listed on the agenda (GC 54954.3a). A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

STUDY SESSION:

A. Presentation by LSA Associates, Inc, of the DRAFT Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines
B. Presentation, Council Discussion and Direction related to several upcoming annexations, an amendment to the Sphere of Influence, and related General Plan Amendments and pre-zoning.

C. Presentation by ENGIE Services regarding their proposal to perform modernization upgrades to the City's wastewater treatment facility via the design-build process.

CLOSED SESSION FOR DECUSSION OF THE FOLLOWING:

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS (GC 54956.8):

Property: 113 Court St.

Council Members will meet in-person in the Council Chambers.

The meeting will also be lived streamed on the City’s website:
http://livestream.hanford.city/
APN: 010-265-001-000
Agency Negotiators: Mario Cifuentez and Ty Mizote
Agency Negotiating Party: Jerry Irons
CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION:

ROLL CALL:

INVOCATION:

Peter Anderson
FLAG SALUTE:

CLOSED SESSION ACTION REPORT:

RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS:

Small Business Saturday 2022 Proclamation
COUNCIL REPORTS/COMMENTS:

Brief information-only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expenses (AB1234).

PUBLIC COMMENT:

This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters withi n the jurisdiction of the Hanford City Council. This is also the public’s opportunity to request an item from the Consent Calendar be pulled for discussion purposes or to comment on any item on the agenda. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights (Gov. Code sec. 54954.2). A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of thes e matters unless a request is made and then the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.

A. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: Waive reading in full of resolutions and ordinances and approval and adoption of same by reading title the only.

B. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the August 16, 2022 Meeting C. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the September 20, 2022 Meeting D. City Clerk: Denial of a claim for damages and authorization for the City Clerk to s end out notification of such to Jesse Torres.

E. City Clerk: Denial of a claim for damages and authorization for the City Clerk to send out notification of such to Sheryl Zamora.

F. Administration: Approval of the fee schedule for passport related fees as established by the U.S.

Department of State and the addition of a $15 photo/service fee per passport.

G. Administration: A uthorization for the City Manager to execute a contract with Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Gross and Leoni, LLP, of Sacramento to pr ovide state legislative advocacy services, effective January 1, 2023 through Dec. 31, 2023, for a monthly fee of $6,000.

H. Public Works: Approval of the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement for Tract No. 929, Unit No. 2 (13th Ave. and Devon St.)
I. Public Works: Appropriation of $499,067 in funding from the Refuse Capital Reserve fund to cover $374,066.54 in costs for new front load refuse truck and $125,000 for on-board truck scales to reduce overweight loads.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A. Community Development: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-31: A request to certify that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01C: A request to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use on 18 parcels totaling approximately 28 acres. The request is due to incompatibility with the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The proposed land use designation is com patible with the ALUCP. Prezone 2021-14: A request related to an annexation request in process for a County Island that i s within the City of Hanford Sphere of influence. A request to pre -zone/rezone the site from C-S – Service Commercial (County) to MX – C - Corridor Mixed Use (City), consistent with the proposed land use designation and the ALUCP, on 18 parcels totaling ap proximately 28 acres. The project is located north of East Lacey Boulevard between North 10th Avenue and 9 ¼ Avenue in a County Islan d and within the City of Hanford Sphere of Influence (APNs 014 -201- 006, -009, 014-202-005, -006, 014-203-002, -003, -004, -005, -006, 014-204-001, -002, 014-221- 017, -018, -019, -020, -021, -022, and 014-221-026).

GENERAL BUSINESS:

A. Public Works: Approva l of amendments to two (2) existing Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services to waive approximately $500,000 in under performance penalties; reduce future performance guarantees by 25%; and provide for a ten -year Operation and Maintenance (O&M) contract valued at $1,059,974.

B. Community Development: Authorization to submit a grant application for the Urban Community Drought Relief Program and, if awarded, authorization for the City to Accept the grant agreement and the City Manager to execute any related documents
COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS:

At this time, any Council Member may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on their activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (GOV. CODE SEC. 54954.2) Council Future Agenda Items

Upcoming Events and Important Dates:

November 8: Election Day
November 9: Coffee with a Cop, Starbucks 2453 E. Lacey Blvd.

November 11: Veterans Day, city offices will be closed
November 15: Regular City Council Meeting
November 18: Employee Winter Wonderland Celebration 4:00 pm, 6:00 pm, and 8:00 pm November 19: Holiday Boutique Civic Auditorium 10:00 am – 6:00 pm November 19: Winter Wonderland Celebration returns through January 8, 2023 https://www.hanfordwinterwonderland.com/
ADJOURNMENT:

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available to public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, California 93230, during normal business hours. Such agendas are also available at the city’s website, www.cityofhanfordca.com subject to staff’s ability to post the agenda before the meeting.

If you need a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s office, 559-585-2515, 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, California 93230, at least 2 days prior to the meeting {28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II}

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/1/2022

AGENDA SECTION: A

SUBJECT:

Community Development: Study Session - Presentation by LSA Associates, Inc, of the DRAFT Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines

Senate Bill (SB) 743, which became effective July 1, 2020, changes the way transportation impact assessments are conducted in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents.

Most notably, rulemaking in support of SB 743 r eplaces motor vehicle delay, as measured by Level of Service (LOS), with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the metric for use in CEQA transportation impact assessments.

In January 2019, the Natural Resources Agency and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) codified SB 743 into the Public Resources Code (PRC) and the State CEQA Guidelines.

OPR published a Technical Advisory (TA) in December of 2018, as a resource to guide the assessment of the VMT metric, establish thresholds of significance, a nd recommends mitigation measures. The laws and rules governing the CEQA process are contained in the CEQA statute (PRC Section 21000 and following), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 and following), publish ed court decisions interpreting CEQA, and locally adopted CEQA procedures. The TA is intended as a reference document; it does not have the weight of law. However, any decision to deviate from the TA recommendations must be supported by substantial evidence.

The State of California is committed to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and achieving long-term climate change goals. As a means for achieving statewide sustainability and climate goals, California legislation is focused on reducing VMT to achie ve statewide climate goals.

Over the last 40 years, across the state, VMT has far exceeded that of the state’s population increase during the same period. Transportation is the single largest sector contributing to California’s GHG emissions. Approximately 41 percent of statewide GHG emissions are generated by the transportation sector, primarily passenger cars and light -duty trucks. State mandates pertaining to GHG emissions include reducing the number of single-occupancy vehicle

4.A
Packet Pg. 5
trips and the length of vehicle trips.

LSA has drafted a report which establishes the City of Hanford’s (City) VMT thresholds of significance for use in CEQA transportation studies and provides substantial evidence to support those thresholds.

The document addresses:

· Screening Criteria: OPR acknowledges that certain projects are either low VMT generators, or, by virtue of their location, would have a less than significant impact. The document provides the screening criteria to identify potentially exempt projects. · VMT Thres hold Analysis for Development Projects: The document identifies the VMT thresholds of significance, which would result in a significant CEQA impact. · VMT Threshold Analysis for Transportation Projects: The document describes the methodology used to evalu ate significant CEQA impacts associated with transportation projects in the City. Many non -capacity capital projects may be presumed to have a less than significant impact. Capacity-enhancing transportation projects may produce significant VMT impacts and would therefore be subject to a comprehensive VMT analysis including an induced travel assessment.
· VMT Threshold Analysis for Land Use Plans: The document provides guidance and substantial evidence to support the City’s treatment of land use plans and th eir related CEQA transportation impact analysis requirements.
· VMT Mitigation Strategies: The document provides a reference and guide for use in the identification of feasible VMT mitigation options that may be used to offset project -related VMT impacts. It should be noted that this discussion is not intended to represent a full list of VMT mitigation measures available or feasible to the City. As in previous CEQA practice, it is generally the lead agency who identifies mitigation measures to offset the sp ecific project- related impacts identified in an environmental document.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022

4.A
Packet Pg. 6

October 2022

VMT THRESHOLDS AND IMPLEMENTATION

GUIDELINES

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines) This page intentionally left blank

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

October 2022

VMT THRESHOLDS AND IMPLEMENTATION

GUIDELINES

Prepared for:

City of Hanford
315‐321 North Douty Street
Hanford, California 93230
Prepared by:

LSA Associates, Inc.
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200
Riverside, California 92507
(951) 781‐9310
Project No. HNF2201

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines) This page intentionally left blank

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Senate Bill (SB) 743, which became effective July 1, 2020, changes the way transportation impacts are determined in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. SB 743 replaces the metric for determining transportation impacts using motor vehicle delay and Level of Service (LOS) to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in CEQA traffic impact studies. As a result of the SB 743 final rulemaking and the implementation deadline of July 1, 2020, the City of Hanford (City) is adopting a set of VMT thresholds to support the shift from a delay‐based analysis to VMT. This document provides a detailed discussion on implementing the CEQA VMT metric as applicable to the City of Hanford. Substantial evidence and explanation on establishing the “Region,” VMT screening criteria, and VMT analysis thresholds are also described.

The following topics establish the steps for preparation of VMT analysis. Each topic is discussed in more detail further in this report.
 Definition of ‘Region’: Kings County has been established as the region for VMT analysis purposes.  Standardized Screening Methods:   Projects  within  a  Transit  Priority  Area  that  meet  additional requirements,  local‐serving  retail  projects  up  to  50,000  square  feet  (sf),  residential,  office, industrial,  or  mixed‐use  projects  within  low‐VMT  generating  areas,  projects  with  100  percent affordable  housing  units,  and  projects  that  are  consistent  with  the  City’s  General  Plan  and generate fewer than 1,000 daily trips may be screened out from the need for a VMT analysis.

Additionally, projects that are not consistent with the City’s General Plan but generate fewer than 500 daily trips may also be screened out from a VMT analysis.  Appropriate VMT Significance Thresholds for Development Projects, Transportation Projects, and Community/General Plans:   For  all  projects  (except  retail),  a  significance  threshold  of  87 percent of the existing regional average of the respective VMT metric is recommended. For retail projects,  a  significance  threshold  of  no  net  increase  in  VMT  is  recommended.  For  mixed  use projects,  the  VMT  thresholds  are  based  on  the  respective  thresholds  for  the  various  land  use components. For transportation projects, net increase in induced VMT is recommended as the significance threshold. Finally, for land use plans, the existing regional average VMT per capita, VMT  per  employee,  and  VMT  per  service  population  are  recommended  as  thresholds  of significance.
 Feasible Mitigation Strategies: A  list  of VMT  mitigation  measures  applicable  to  development projects, transportation projects, and plans in the context of the City of Hanford are provided for projects  which  may  not  meet  the  recommended  significance  thresholds.  Additionally, implementation of a future VMT mitigation bank, VMT mitigation exchange, and/or VMT impact fee are discussed as potential future regional VMT mitigation mechanisms.

The City shall use the Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) Travel Demand Model (TDM) for  VMT  analysis  purposes.  The  KCAG  TDM  is  the  regional  travel  demand  model  applicable  to jurisdictions within Kings County including the City for evaluating project VMT. The appropriate use of the KCAG TDM for VMT calculations is further elaborated in subsequent chapters of this document.

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

ii
This page intentionally left blank

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. iii FIGURES AND TABLES ................................................................................................. v FIGURES ......................................................................................................................................... v TABLES ........................................................................................................................................... v ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................. vii

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

2.0  DEFINITION OF REGION: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED CONTEXT .............................. 3

3.0  SCREENING CRITERIA ........................................................................................... 6

3.1  DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS .................................................................................................... 6

3.1.1  Average Daily Trips (ADT) Threshold ................................................................................... 11

3.2  TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ............................................................................................. 21

4.0  VMT THRESHOLD ANALYSIS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ............................... 24

4.1  THRESHOLDS ...................................................................................................................... 24

4.2  IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 26

4.2.1  Agency Communication ....................................................................................................... 26

4.2.2  Project Screening ................................................................................................................. 31

4.2.3  VMT Identification ............................................................................................................... 31

4.1  MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................................... 32

5.0  VMT THRESHOLD ANALYSIS FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS .......................... 34

6.0  VMT THRESHOLD ANALYSIS FOR LAND USE PLANS ............................................ 38

7.0  MITIGATION STRATEGIES .................................................................................. 40

7.1  DEFINITION OF MITIGATION .............................................................................................. 40

7.2  MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES .................................................... 42

7.2.1  Land Development Projects and Community/General Plans .............................................. 42

7.2.2  Transportation Projects ....................................................................................................... 43

7.3  FUNDING MECHANISMS .................................................................................................... 44

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

iv
This page intentionally left blank

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

v

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 1: 2019 GHG Emissions in California by Economic Sector ........................................................... 2 Figure 2: Percentage of Total Trips Having Origins/Destinations within the City of Hanford and Terminating within the City of Hanford, within Kings County, or outside the County .......... 4 Figure 3: High‐Quality Transit Area within City of Hanford .................................................................... 9 Figure 4: VMT per Capita Screening Map for City of Hanford .............................................................. 13 Figure 5: VMT per Employee Screening Map for City of Hanford ........................................................ 15 Figure 6: VMT per Service Population Screening Map for City of Hanford .......................................... 17 Figure 7: SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets for the 18 California MPOs ....................................... 25 Figure 8: VMT Screening Methodology for Development Projects ..................................................... 27 Figure 9‐A: VMT Analysis Methodology for Non‐Screened Residential Projects ................................. 28 Figure 9‐B: VMT Analysis Methodology for Non‐Screened Non‐Residential (Non‐Retail) Projects ........................................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 9‐C: VMT Analysis Methodology for Non‐Screened Non‐Residential (Retail) Projects ............ 30 Figure 10: Induced Travel – VMT Attributable to Project .................................................................... 35 Figure 11: Caltrans Induced Travel Calculator ...................................................................................... 36 Figure 12: Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Bank ..................................................................................... 45 Figure 13: Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Exchange ............................................................................. 46 Figure 14: Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Impact Fee ........................................................................... 47

TABLES
Table A: Representative VMT and GHG Emissions from CalEEMod ..................................................... 19 Table B: CO2e Emission Rates by Land Use Type .................................................................................. 20 Table C: VMT Screening Thresholds for Sample Land Uses ................................................................. 21 Table D: VMT Metrics for Land Use Projects ........................................................................................ 31 Table E: Significance Thresholds for VMT Analysis .............................................................................. 32 Table F: Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects ...................... 48

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

vi
This page intentionally left blank

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

vii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADT  Average Daily Trips
CalEEMod  California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans  California Department of Transportation
CAPCOA  California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB  California Air Resources Board
CEQA  California Environmental Quality Act
City  City of Hanford
County  Kings County
CO2e  Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
EIR  Environmental Impact Report
EO  Executive Order
GHG  Greenhouse Gas
GWP  Global Warming Potential
HOT  High‐Occupancy Toll
HOV  High‐Occupancy Vehicle
HQTA  High‐Quality Transit Area
ITE  Institute of Transportation Engineers
KCAG  Kings County Association of Governments
LOS  Level of Service
MPO  Metropolitan Planning Organization
MT  Metric Ton
OPR  Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
PRC  Public Resources Code
RTP  Regional Transportation Plan
SB  Senate Bill
SCS  Sustainable Communities Strategy
sf  Square foot/Feet
SOC  Statement of Overriding Considerations
SOI  Sphere of Influence
TA  Technical Advisory
TDM  Travel Demand Model
TPA  Transit Priority Area
VMT  Vehicle Miles Traveled

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

viii
This page intentionally left blank

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Senate  Bill  (SB)  743,  which  became  effective  July  1,  2020,  changes  the  way  transportation  impact assessments are conducted in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. Most notably, rulemaking in support of SB 743 replaces motor vehicle delay, as measured by Level of Service (LOS), with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the metric for use in CEQA transportation impact assessments.

In January 2019, the Natural Resources Agency and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) codified SB 743 into the Public Resources Code (PRC) and the State CEQA Guidelines.

OPR published a Technical Advisory (TA) in December of 2018, as a resource to guide the assessment of the VMT metric, establish thresholds of significance, and recommends mitigation measures. The laws and rules governing the CEQA process are contained in the CEQA statute (PRC Section 21000 and following),  the  State  CEQA  Guidelines  (California  Code  of  Regulations,  Title  14,  Section  15000  and following), published court decisions interpreting CEQA, and locally adopted CEQA procedures. The TA is intended as a reference document; it does not have the weight of law. However, any decision to deviate from the TA recommendations must be supported by substantial evidence.

The State of California is committed to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and achieving long‐ term  climate  change  goals.  As  a  means  for  achieving  statewide  sustainability  and  climate  goals, California legislation is focused on reducing VMT to achieve statewide climate goals. Over the last 40 years, across the state, VMT has far exceeded that of the state’s population increase during the same period. As shown in Figure 1, transportation is the single largest sector contributing to California’s GHG  emissions.  Approximately  41  percent  of  statewide  GHG  emissions  are  generated  by  the transportation sector, primarily passenger cars and light‐duty trucks. State mandates pertaining to GHG  emissions  include  reducing  the  number  of  single‐occupancy  vehicle  trips  and  the  length  of vehicle trips.

This report establishes the City of Hanford’s (City) VMT thresholds of significance for use in CEQA transportation studies and provides substantial evidence to support those thresholds. The report is organized into the following seven chapters:
 Chapter 1 – Introduction: This chapter establishes the purpose and objective of this report.  Chapter 2 – Definition of Region: This chapter describes the comparative geographic baseline of a region for analysis purposes.
 Chapter 3 –Screening Criteria: OPR acknowledges that certain projects are either low VMT generators, or, by virtue of their location, would have a less than significant impact. This chapter provides the screening criteria to identify potentially exempt projects.  Chapter 4 –VMT Threshold Analysis for Development Projects:  This chapter identifies the VMT thresholds of significance, which would result in a significant CEQA impact. The actual VMT metric (either an efficiency rate or total VMT) is described. The process of VMT analysis is also described in this chapter.
 Chapter 5 – VMT Threshold Analysis for Transportation Projects:   This  chapter  describes  the methodology used to evaluate significant CEQA impacts associated with transportation projects

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

2 in the City. Many non‐capacity capital projects may be presumed to have a less than significant impact.  Capacity‐enhancing  transportation  projects  may  produce  significant  VMT  impacts  and would  therefore  be  subject  to  a  comprehensive  VMT  analysis  including  an  induced  travel assessment.
 Chapter 6 – VMT Threshold An alysis for Land Use Plans:   This  chapter  provides  guidance  and substantial  evidence  to  support  the  City’s  treatment  of  land  use  plans  and  their  related  CEQA transportation impact analysis requirements.
 Chapter 7 – VMT Mitigation Strategies:  The discussion provided in this chapter is intended as a reference and guide for use in the identification of feasible VMT mitigation options that may be used to offset project‐related VMT impacts. It should be noted that this discussion is not intended to represent a full list of VMT mitigation measures available or feasible to the City. As in previous CEQA practice, it is generally the lead agency who identifies mitigation measures to offset the specific project‐related impacts identified in an environmental document.

Source: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg‐inventory‐data
Figure 1: 2019 GHG Emissions in California by Economic Sector

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

3 2.0 DEFINITION OF REGION: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED CONTEXT To quantify a project’s impact related to the VMT metric, a geographic context must be established.

In the motor vehicle delay‐based (LOS) analyses, a project study area is the geographic context for measuring a project’s traffic impacts. A project study area is generally determined by the incremental increase in traffic generated by the project and the project’s potential to create travel delays in the area.  This  generally  includes  intersections  and  roadway  segments  where  the  project  would  add  a prescribed number of peak‐hour trips. Lead agencies typically limit the LOS‐based project study area boundaries within their jurisdictions.

Delay‐based  LOS  analyses  evaluate  intersections  or  segments  of  roadways  and  so  they  consider portions of trips at specific locations and do not take into consideration the effect of entire trip length (from starting location to ending location). Hence, unlike delay‐based LOS analyses, VMT produces a regional  impact  that  is  not  limited  by  roadway,  intersection,  or  jurisdictional  boundaries.  OPR acknowledges this in its TA (page 6), which states:
“Lead  agencies  should  not  truncate  any  VMT  analysis  because  of  jurisdictional  or other  boundaries,  for  example,  by  failing  to  count  the  portion  of  a  trip  that  falls outside  the  jurisdiction  or  by  discounting  the  VMT  from  a  trip  that  crosses  a jurisdictional boundary.”
On a daily basis, majority of trips are generated by the residents of the community or by residential land uses. Commute and school trips are typically considered mandatory trips for the residents. Also, based  on  2010  –  2012  California  Household  Travel  Surveys  (CHTS),  commute  trips  are  the  longest among trips by residents. Additionally based on CHTS, the majority of trips are commute and shopping trips occurring between residential, office, and retail uses. Therefore, pursuant to the OPR TA, the recommendations for VMT thresholds for the three primary land use types (residential, office, and retail) are based on a comparison to a regional average. OPR does not explicitly define the regional average, and instead, recommends:

1. In cases where the region is substantially larger than the geography over which most  workers  would  be  expected  to  live,  it  might  be  appropriate  to  refer  to  a smaller geography, such as the county, that includes the area over which nearly all workers would be expected to live. (page 16)

2. For  residential  projects  in  unincorporated  county  areas,  the  local  agency  can compare a residential project’s VMT to (1) the region’s VMT per capita, or (2) the aggregate  population  weighted  VMT  per  capita  of  all  cities  in  the  region. (page 15)
LSA surveyed other large urbanized areas around the state to identify what region has been established for VMT thresholds. In most cases, the county boundary has been identified as the region selected for VMT analysis. Mobility can be studied using a trip‐based approach or a tour‐based approach. The OPR TA states that “where available, tour‐based assessment is ideal because it captures travel behavior more comprehensively. But where tour‐based tools or data are not available for all components of an analysis, a  trip‐based  assessment  of  VMT  serves  as  a  reasonable  proxy.”  A  regional  travel  demand  model,

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

4 whether tour‐based or trip‐based, is one of the best available tools to estimate VMT. Given the current regional travel demand model is a trip‐based model and as described before, project VMT evaluation should be conducted using a relative comparison (project VMT metrics to the regional VMT metrics), the trip‐based model serves as an appropriate tool for VMT evaluation.

Since the Kings County Association of Governments’ (KCAG’s) Travel Demand Model (TDM) is a trip‐ based model, a trip‐based approach has been followed. LSA used the KCAG TDM to examine the trips into and out of Hanford. As such, consistent with the OPR TA, only trips having origins or destinations or both within the City were considered. External pass‐through trips were not considered.

As illustrated in Figure 2, out of the total trips, about 78 percent trips are contained within the City and its sphere of influence (SOI). Another 16 percent of trips originate or are destined within other jurisdictions in Kings County (County). The remaining 6 percent trips either originate or are destined outside  Kings  County.  Because  the  majority  of  the  trips  (94  percent)  are  contained  within  Kings County, the County will be used to define the region.

Source: KCAG TDM (2015 Scenario)
Figure 2: Percentage of Total Trips Having Origins/Destinations within the City of Hanford and Terminating within the City of Hanford, within Kings County, or outside the County The  OPR  guidance  recommends  consistency  in  approach;  once  a  region  is  established,  that  region should be used for all subsequent traffic analyses.
78%
16%
6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Within City and SOI Within  Kings County,
Outside of City SOI
Outside Kings County

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

5 It  should  be  recognized  the  use  of  the  County  as  the  region  defines  the  comparative,  or  the denominator,  in  the  identification  of  project‐related  impact.  The  numerator  is  the  project’s  VMT contribution.  This  project‐related  VMT  profile  may  go  beyond  the  County  boundary  and  not  be truncated by a jurisdictional boundary. For example, if a large employment generating development is proposed near the City’s northern boundary, it may generate VMT from as far away as Fresno or other  communities  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley.  In  that  case,  it  would  be  the  responsibility  of  the applicant and traffic study preparer to include the project VMT regardless of geographical limit to the satisfaction of City staff. This project‐related VMT profile would be compared against the Kings County regional average.

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

6 3.0 SCREENING CRITERIA
The TA acknowledges that certain activities and projects may result in a reduction of VMT and GHG emissions and may therefore be assumed to produce a less than significant transportation impact.

Due to a presumption of less than significant impact by meeting the following described criteria, a variety of projects may be screened out of SB 743‐related VMT analysis requirements.

3.1 DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
For development projects, screening factors may include a project’s size, location, proximity to transit, and  trip‐making  potential.  One  or  more  of  the  following  project  attributes  may  be  presumed  to produce a less than significant VMT impact:
 The  project  is  within  0.5  mile  (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 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 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).) Figure 3 depicts transit priority areas within Hanford, including high‐quality transit areas (within

0.5 mile of a major transit stop) served by the Kings Area Regional Transit with service intervals of 15 minutes or less. Projects proposed in these areas may be presumed to have a less‐than‐ significant transportation impact unless the project is inconsistent with the RTP/SCS, has an FAR less than 0.75, provides an excessive amount of parking, or reduces the number of affordable residential units identified in the City’s housing element for the proposed development.  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) demonstrate 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 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.

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

7  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 unit1.
 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. (See section

3.1.1 below.). 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.

1 “Income, Location, Efficiency, and VMT: Affordable Housing as a Climate Strategy” by Gregory L. Newmark Ph.D and Peter M. Hass Ph.D, Center for Neighborhood Technology.

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

8 This page intentionally left blank

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

9 Figure 3: High‐Quality Transit Area within City of Hanford

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

10 This page intentionally left blank

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

11  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 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.

3.1.1 Average Daily Trips (ADT) Threshold
Under Section 15301(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, existing facilities, including additions to existing structures of up to 10,000 sf are exempt from CEQA review if the project is located in an area where public infrastructure is available to allow for maximum planned development and the project is not located in an environmentally sensitive area.

2   City of Hanford VMT Screening Tool: Link Forthcoming

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

12 This page intentionally left blank

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

13 Figure 4: VMT per Capita Screening Map for City of Hanford

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

14 This page intentionally left blank

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

15 Figure 5: VMT per Employee Screening Map for City of Hanford

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

16 This page intentionally left blank

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

17 Figure 6: VMT per Service Population Screening Map for City of Hanford

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

18 This page intentionally left blank

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

19 The City’s trip screening threshold is based on reduction of GHG emissions as further described below.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) is a tool provided by CARB and is accepted as the statewide standard to evaluate air quality and GHG emission impacts for CEQA assessment. As such, CalEEMod was used to characterize the effect of changes in project‐related ADT to the resulting GHG emissions. To account for geographical relevance to project location, LSA calculated trip lengths from  the  KCAG  TDM  as  applicable  for  the  City.  The  trip  lengths  were  calculated  for  various  trip purposes. Table A shows the resulting annual VMT and GHG emissions produced by incremental ADT for single‐family residential projects.

Table A: Representative VMT and GHG Emissions from CalEEMod Average Daily Trips (ADT)
Annual Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT)
Vehicular GHG Emissions
(Metric Tons of CO2e per
year)
Total Project GHG
Emissions
(Metric Tons of CO2e per
year)
200  522,631  210.81  267.51
300  796,390  321.23  407.74
400  1,045,262  421.61  535.02
500  1,319,021  532.04  675.25
600  1,592,780  642.46  815.30
750  1,966,088  793.04  1,006.40
1,000  2,638,042  1,064.07  1,350.32
1,500  3,957,063  1,596.11  2,025.57
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0.

CalEEMod = California Emissions Estimator Model; GHG = Greenhouse Gas; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent GHG emissions threshold under CEQA can vary between 3,000 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent3  (CO2e)  per  year  (as  recommended  by  South  Coast  Air  Quality  Management  District (SCAQMD))  and  1,100  MT  CO2e  (as  recommended  by  Sacramento  Metropolitan  Air  Quality Management District). For purposes of this analysis, the threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e has been utilized.

As shown in Table A, a project with an ADT lower than 1,500 would generally be expected to have a total project emission of less than 3,000 MT CO2e/year. LSA conducted this exercise for several other land uses to identify appropriate GHG screening thresholds. Table B shows the potential maximum GHG screening thresholds (up to 3,000 MT) for these land uses.

3   CO2e is a concept developed to provide one metric that includes the effects of numerous GHGs. The global warming potential (GWP) of each GHG characterizes the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another GHG. The GWPs of all GHGs are combined to derive the CO2e.

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

20 Table B: CO2e Emission Rates by Land Use Type
Land Use  DU or TSF Total MTCO 2e per year  Annual MTCO2e per DU or TSF Single Family Residential  235 DU  2,993.68  12.74
Low‐Rise Multifamily Residential  345 DU  2,991.93  8.67 Mid‐Rise Multifamily Residential  482 DU  2,994.53  6.21 Office  531 TSF  2,994.52  5.64
Warehouse  893 TSF  2,999.26  3.36
Light Industrial  631 TSF  2,999.06  4.75
Hotel  569 Rooms  2,997.38  5.27
Medical Office  182 TSF  2,988.12  16.42
Hospital  265 Beds  2,994.77  11.30
Shopping Plaza  125 TSF  2,993.57  23.95
Strip Retail Plaza  223 TSF  2,994.17  13.43
Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2020.4.0.

DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent The 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold developed by the SCAQMD is based on a 90 percent emission “capture” rate methodology. The 90 percent emissions capture approach was one of the options suggested by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in their CEQA & Climate Change white paper from 2008. A 90 percent emission capture rate means that unmitigated GHG emissions from the top 90 percent of all GHG‐producing projects within a geographic area – the Air Basin in this instance – would be subject to a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts from GHG emissions, while the bottom 10 percent of all GHG‐producing projects would be excluded from detailed analysis. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate is appropriate to address the long‐term adverse impacts associated with global climate change because medium and large projects will be required to implement measures to reduce GHG emissions, while small projects, which are generally infill development projects that are not the focus of the State’s GHG reduction targets, are allowed to proceed. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial proportion of future development projects and demonstrate that cumulative emissions reductions are being achieved while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will, in aggregate, contribute approximate 1 percent of projected statewide GHG emissions in the Year 2050.

SCAQMD’s selection of the threshold at 3,000 MTCO2e per year was based on OPR’s database of projects containing 798 projects and information about their GHG emissions.  87 very large projects were eliminated from calculation because they would skew emissions values too high, leaving 711 as the sample population to use in determining the 90th percentile capture rate. The 711 projects analyzed by SCAQMD consisted of commercial, residential, and mixed‐use projects and included warehouses and other light industrial land uses but did not include industrial processes (i.e., oil refineries, heavy manufacturing, electric generating stations, mining operations). SCAQMD calculated emissions from each project to provide a consistent method of emissions calculations across the sample population and from projects within the sample population. In calculating the emissions, the SCAQMD determined that the 90th percentile ranged between 2,983 to 3,143 MTCO2e per year. The SCAQMD set the significance threshold at 3,000 MTCO2e per year to exclude small projects that are considered less than significant and do not need to provide further analysis.

Substantial evidence supporting this emission level is provided in the 2008 document, Draft

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

21 Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold and the documentation from subsequent working group meetings.

The GHG analysis above concludes that projects with up to 1,500 ADT may be screened out from VMT analysis. As a conservative approach, the City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines document adopts a daily trip threshold of 1,000 ADT be applied to projects that are consistent with the City’s General Plan. However, for projects that are not consistent with the City’s General Plan, a screening threshold of 500 ADT will be applied. Historically, the City required traffic studies (LOS analysis) for projects that generate 50 or more peak hour trips. Since 1 peak hour trip equates to approximately 10 ADT, 50 peak hour trips would equate to approximately 500 ADT. It is prudent to take a conservative approach, and important to be consistent with previous methodologies and past precedence. Therefore, 500 ADT has been determined as the screening criteria for development projects that are not consistent with City’s General Plan and takes precedence from previous transportation analysis procedures within the City. A sample list of size of projects generating fewer than 1,000 and 500 daily vehicle trips that are eligible for exemption from a VMT analysis are included in Table C.

Table C: VMT Screening Thresholds for Sample Land Uses
Land Use
Size of Projects
(Requiring a GPA) Size of Projects
(Not Requiring a GPA)
Single‐Family Residential1  53 DU  106 DU
Low‐Rise Multifamily Residential2  74 DU  148 DU
Mid‐Rise Multifamily Residential3  110 DU  220 DU
Office  46.125 TSF  92.250 TSF
Warehouse  292.397 TSF  584.795 TSF
Light Industrial  102.669 TSF  205.338 TSF
Hotel  62 Rooms  125 Rooms
Medical Office4  13.888 TSF  27.777 TSF
Hospital  22 Beds  44 Beds
Notes: DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Project sizes have been determined based on trip generation rates obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition). 1  The project sizes have been provided for single‐family detached residential only. 2  The project sizes have been provided for low‐rise multifamily residential (not close to rail transit) only. 3  The project sizes have been provided for mid‐rise multifamily residential (not close to rail transit) only. 4  The project sizes have been provided for stand‐alone medical office buildings only.

3.2 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
Transportation  projects  refer  to  capital  improvement  projects  that  relate  to  roadway  widening, roadway infrastructure improvements, active transportation projects or operational improvements.

The  primary  attribute  to  consider  with  transportation  projects  is  the  potential  to  increase  vehicle

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

22 travel demand, also referred to as ‘induced travel.’ While the City has discretion to continue to use a delay‐based  LOS  analysis  for  CEQA  disclosure  of  transportation  projects,  changes  in  vehicle  travel must be quantified. To comply with SB 743, the City will use VMT analysis, and will also require a LOS analysis  for  design,  traffic  operations,  and  safety  purposes  to  comply  with  the  City’s  General  Plan Circulation Element. The TA identifies the types of transportation improvement projects that would not likely lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel and which would, therefore, not  require  further  VMT  analysis.  Most  of  the  following  listed  projects,  except  new  local/collector streets  and  addition  of  toll  lanes,  either  increase  the  efficiency  of  the  existing  street  network  or discourage  vehicular  travel.  Hence  by  nature  of  the  listed  projects,  they  do  not  contribute  to  any additional VMT and therefore can be screened out from additional VMT analysis. These projects are included  under  California  Department  of  Transportation  (Caltrans)  Transportation  Analysis  under CEQA and  include the following:
 Rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement, safety, and repair projects designed to improve the condition  of  existing  transportation  assets  (e.g.,  highways;  roadways;  bridges;  culverts; Transportation Management System field elements such as cameras, message signs, detection, or signals; tunnels; transit systems; and assets that serve bicycle and pedestrian facilities) that do not add additional motor vehicle capacity.
 Roadside safety devices or hardware installation such median barriers and guardrails.  Roadway shoulder enhancements to provide “breakdown space,” dedicated space for use only by transit vehicles, to provide bicycle access, or to otherwise improve safety, but which will not be used as automobile vehicle travel lanes.
 Addition of an auxiliary lane of less than 1 mile in length designed to improve roadway safety.  Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic lanes that are not for through traffic, such as left‐turn, right‐turn, and U‐turn pockets, two‐way left‐turn lanes, or emergency breakdown lanes that are not utilized as through lanes.
 Addition  of  roadway  capacity  on  local  or  collector  streets,  provided  the  project  also  improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and, if applicable, transit.  Conversion of existing general‐purpose lanes (including ramps) to managed lanes or transit lanes, or changing lane management in a manner that would not substantially increase vehicle travel.  Addition of a new lane that is permanently restricted for use only by transit vehicles.  Reduction in the number of through lanes.
 Grade separation to separate vehicles from rail, transit, pedestrians, or bicycles, or to replace a lane  in  order  to  separate  preferential  vehicles  (e.g.,  high‐occupancy  vehicles  [HOV],  high‐ occupancy toll [HOT] lane traffic, or trucks) from general vehicles.  Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic control devices, including Transit Signal Priority features.
 Installation of traffic metering systems, detection systems, cameras, changeable message signs, and other electronics designed to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow.  Timing of signals to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow.

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

23  Installation of roundabouts or traffic circles.
 Installation or reconfiguration of traffic calming devices.  Adoption of or increase in tolls.
 Addition of tolled lanes, where tolls are sufficient to mitigate VMT increase.  Initiation of a new transit service.
 Conversion of streets from one‐way to two‐way operation with no net increase in the number of traffic lanes.
 Removal or relocation of off‐street or on‐street parking spaces.  Adoption  or  modification  of  on‐street  parking  or  loading  restrictions  (including  meters,  time limits, accessible spaces, and preferential/reserved parking permit programs).  Addition of traffic wayfinding signage.
 Rehabilitation and maintenance projects that do not add motor vehicle capacity.  Addition of new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facilities on existing streets/highways or within existing public rights‐of‐way.
 Addition of Class I bike paths, trails, multi‐use paths, or other off‐road facilities that serve non‐ motorized travel.
 Installation of publicly available alternative fuel/charging infrastructure.  Addition of passing lanes, truck climbing lanes, or truck brake‐check lanes in rural areas that do not increase overall vehicle capacity along the corridor.

Additionally, transit and active transportation projects reduce VMT and, therefore, may be presumed to cause a less than significant impact on transportation. This presumption may apply to all passenger rail projects, bus and bus rapid‐transit projects, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects.

The City may use this CEQA presumption of less than significant impact to aid in the prioritization of capital  improvement  projects,  as  the  CEQA  process  for  any  of  these  project  types  would  be  more streamlined than other capacity‐enhancing projects.

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

24 4.0 VMT THRESHOLD ANALYSIS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

4.1 THRESHOLDS
The TA states that SB 743 and all CEQA VMT transportation analyses refer to automobiles. Here, the term automobile refers to on‐road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light duty trucks (page. 4).

Heavy‐duty trucks can be addressed in other CEQA sections (air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, and health risk assessment analysis) and are subject to regulation in a separate collection of rules under CARB jurisdiction. This approach was amplified by Chris Ganson, Senior Advisor for Transportation at OPR,  in  a  presentation  to  the  Fresno  Council  of  Governments  (October  23,  2019)  and  by  Ellen Greenberg, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Deputy Director for Sustainability, at  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  Regional  Planning  Agencies’  Directors’  Committee  meeting  (January  9, 2020).

Trips in a travel demand model are categorized by trip purpose. Each trip has a starting and ending location. If either end of the trip (starting or ending locations) is the trip producer’s home, the trip is identified as a home‐based trip. The OPR has identified the subject of the thresholds as the primary trips in the home‐based typology: specifically, home‐based work trips. This includes residential uses, office uses, and retail uses. The home‐based work trip type is the primary trip type during the peak hours of commuter traffic in the morning and evening periods.

The impact of transportation has shifted from congestion to climate change, and the purpose of the CEQA analysis is to disclose and ultimately reduce GHG emissions by reducing the number and length of automobile trips. As part of the SB 375 land use/transportation integration process and the GHG goal setting, the State and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA) have agreed to reduce GHG  through  integrated  land  use  and  transportation  planning  by  a  statewide  average  of approximately 15 percent by 2035. Figure 7 illustrates the SB 375 regional GHG emission reduction targets for all 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in California that were established by the CARB in 2018. Furthermore, in its 2017 Scoping Plan‐Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals, the CARB recommends total VMT per capita rates approximately 15 percent below existing conditions.

The TA therefore recommends:
 A proposed (residential) project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional average VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact.  A similar threshold would apply to office projects (15 percent below existing regional average VMT per employee).
 VMT generated by retail projects would indicate a significant impact for any net increase in total VMT.

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

25 Source: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our‐work/programs/sustainable‐communities‐program/regional‐plan‐targets Figure 7: SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets for the 18 California MPOs CARB establishes GHG targets for each of the 18 MPOs in the State, reviews the SCSs, and makes a determination of whether the SCSs would achieve GHG reduction targets if implemented. In the spring of 2018, CARB adopted new GHG targets for all the 18 MPOs in the State based on the 2017 Scoping Plan and other new data as illustrated in Figure 7. CARB established a 13 percent GHG reduction target for 2035 for Kings County. The State recognizes that Kings County’s contribution to the aggregate 15 percent statewide GHG emission reduction is 13 percent. Other regions may achieve lower reductions to achieve the aggregate statewide goal.1 As such, reduction in GHG directly corresponds to reduction in VMT (VMT is the biggest contributor of GHG emissions as shown in Figure 1). In order to reach the statewide GHG reduction goal of 15 percent, the region (KCAG) must reduce GHG by 13 percent. The method of reducing GHG by 13 percent is to reduce VMT by 13 percent as well.

Therefore, the City has established a threshold for land use developments, specifically residential and office,  of  87  percent  of  the  existing  regional  average  as  indicative  of  a  significant  transportation impact. For retail projects, increase in total regional roadway VMT with the implementation of the project would indicate a significant transportation impact. In general, addition of new retail rediverts majority of trips from existing retail locations located further away. Given the potential redistribution of  majority  of  trips  rather  than  addition  of  trips,  a  comparison  of  total  regional  roadway  VMT  is appropriate to determine whether the retail project would benefit in overall reduction of regional VMT. Therefore, a net reduction in total VMT would be the appropriate metric to determine VMT

1   The latest GHG targets by region can be found at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our‐work/programs/ sustainable‐communities‐program/regional‐plan‐targets.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%GHG Emission Reduction Target
2020
2035

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

26 impacts  for  such  projects.  Total  roadway  VMT  needs  to  be  calculated  using  the  final  roadway assignment outputs from the KCAG TDM.

Other distinct land uses are not identified for threshold development in the OPR TA. For other non‐ residential  projects,  a  significance  threshold  of  87  percent  of  existing  regional  average  VMT  per employee has been established. The only exceptions would be hotels, hospitals, medical offices, and related  projects.  These  land  uses  are  service  oriented  facilities  which  includes  both  visitors  and employees.  Therefore,  for  such  projects,  VMT  per  service  population  (population/users  + employment) has been established as the VMT metric. Any other similar use could be evaluated using the same metric subject to approval of the methodology by the City on a case‐by‐case basis. As such, a significance threshold of 87 percent of the existing regional average VMT per service population is recommended for these projects.

Evaluation of mixed‐use projects should be for each land use component of the project using the most appropriate VMT metric. Credit for internal trip capture should be made. Internal trip capture may be calculated using the latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual,  the  KCAG  TDM,  or  other  applicable  sources  approved  by  the  City.  The  appropriate methodology for calculating a project’s internal capture would be determined in consultation with the City’s Traffic Engineer. The significance threshold for these projects would be the respective VMT thresholds for its different land use components.

4.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Figure  8  illustrates  the  VMT  screening  methodology  for  development  entitlement  projects.

Additionally,  Figures  9‐A  through  9‐C  illustrate  the  VMT  analysis  methodology  for  non‐screened projects.  Every  development  application  is  unique  and  may  create  alternative  or  modified  steps through  the  process  described  in  the  aforementioned  figures.  Each  step  that  diverges  from  this standard process should be accompanied with substantial evidence demonstrating compliance with other climate change and GHG emission reduction laws and regulations.

4.2.1 Agency Communication
As part of the site plan review process, the applicant should provide a detailed project description, including  potential  number  of  residents  added  or  created  by  the  project,  and  the  applicable  VMT analysis methodology. Key elements include a description of the project in sufficient detail to generate trips  and  the  potential  catchment  area  (i.e.,  trip  lengths  if  no  modeling  is  undertaken),  estimated project VMT, project design features that may reduce the VMT from the project development, and the project location and associated existing regional VMT percentages. Further, the applicant or their consultant shall prepare a transportation analysis scope of work for review and approval by the City.

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

27 Figure 8: VMT Screening Methodology for Development Projects

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

28 Figure 9‐A: VMT Analysis Methodology for Non‐Screened Residential Projects

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

29 Figure 9‐B: VMT Analysis Methodology for Non‐Screened Non‐Residential (Non‐Retail) Projects

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

30 Figure 9‐C: VMT Analysis Methodology for Non‐Screened Non‐Residential (Retail) Projects

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

31 Projects  that  will  influence  Caltrans  facilities  may  be  subject  to  the  Caltrans  Local  Development‐ Intergovernmental Review program. As part of the program, Caltrans may review the VMT analysis methodology, findings, and mitigation measures to ensure consistency with statewide standards.

4.2.2 Project Screening
Once  a  development  application  is  filed  and  determined  to  be  complete  for  processing  purposes, project screening may commence. 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 and a Notice of Exemption may be filed. The CEQA document should 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. This distinction is addressed later in this report.

4.2.3 VMT Identification
The project land use type will determine the appropriate metric to use (i.e., VMT per capita, VMT per employee, VMT per service  population, or total VMT). Appropriate VMT metrics for different land uses are stated in Table D.

Table D: VMT Metrics for Land Use Projects
Land Use VMT Metric
Residential  VMT per Capita
Office  VMT per Employee
Retail  Total VMT
Hotel, Hospital, Medical Office Building, or any similar use with approval from the City  VMT per Service Population Mixed‐Use, Land Use Plan (General Plan/Specific Plan)  Respective  VMT  metrics  for  its different land use components
Other Land Uses  VMT per Employee
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled

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  project‐generated  VMT  (per  capita,  per  employee,  per  service  population,  or  total)  is compared to the appropriate significance threshold provided in Table E. 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.

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

32 Table E: Significance Thresholds for VMT Analysis
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: KCAG TDM (2015 Scenario)
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled

Should project VMT metrics exceed the significance threshold, mitigation measures will be required.

It should be noted that the thresholds identified in Table E are based on the current version of the KCAG TDM (provided by KCAG in October 2021). These thresholds are subject to change when a newer version of the KCAG TDM is available.

4.1 MITIGATION MEASURES
State law requires the project applicant to identify feasible offsets to mitigate significant VMT impacts generated by the proposed project. These can come from the mitigation strategies provided in this document (as described in Table F at the end of Chapter 7.0) or selected by the applicant based on their CEQA project experience and expertise. A proposed mitigation measure must be supported by substantial evidence illustrating that the measure will mitigate VMT impacts to less than significant.

The City must approve and accept the final VMT mitigation program ascribed to the project and the related VMT percentage reduction. A detailed discussion about project‐specific mitigations is included in Section 7.2.1.

If it is determined that the selected VMT mitigation measures effectively reduce the project impact to less than the applicable threshold, the project is presumed to have an impact mitigated to a less than significant level for purposes of CEQA. No further VMT analysis is required in such case. If the project’s VMT impact cannot be mitigated to less than significant, the City may (1) request the project be redesigned to reduce the VMT impact, or (2) require the preparation of an EIR with a Statement of Overriding  Considerations  (SOC)  for  the  transportation  impacts  associated  with  the  project.  All feasible mitigation measures must be assigned to and carried out by the project even if an EIR and SOC are prepared.

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

33 This page intentionally left blank

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

34 5.0 VMT THRESHOLD ANALYSIS FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS The 2022 CEQA Guidelines include Section 15064.3.b.(2) to address transportation projects. It reads:

For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure  of  transportation  impact  consistent  with  CEQA  and  other  applicable requirements.

The City may continue to use motor vehicle delay (LOS) metrics for transportation project design and traffic operation purposes as long as impacts related to “other applicable requirements” are disclosed.

This has generally been interpreted as VMT impacts and other State climate objectives. These other applicable requirements may be found in other parts of an environmental document (e.g., air quality and GHG), or may be provided in greater detail in the transportation section.

In addition, projects processed under federal environmental rules have traditionally included a traffic operational  analysis  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  National  Environmental  Policy  Act.  Federal review  is  generally  required  if  a  project  uses  federal  funding  or  involves  federal  lands.  Additional safety evaluations may need to be conducted outside the CEQA process since some desirable safety improvements may not be directly related to CEQA safety impacts.

For projects on the State Highway System, Caltrans will require sponsoring agencies to use VMT as the  CEQA  transportation  impact  assessment  metric,  and  to  evaluate  the  amount  of  VMT  that  is “attributable  to  the  project”  (January  9,  2020,  conference).  Caltrans’  Intergovernmental  Review process  will  review  environmental  documents  for  capacity‐enhancing  projects  for  their  analysis  of VMT impact.

A VMT assessment of a transportation project should disclose the VMT profile without the project and  the  difference  in  the  VMT  profile  with  the  project.  Any  increase  in  VMT  attributable  to  the proposed  transportation  project  would  result  in  a  significant  impact.  A  significant  transportation project impact is presumed when VMT increases with the project as compared to the ‘No Project’ scenario.

Capacity  improvement  projects  have  the  potential  of  producing  significant  transportation  impacts because they tend to induce new travel. The OPR TA describes induced travel as the additional motor vehicle travel that is generated by the newly available capacity on the roadway. Induced travel may include route switching, time‐of‐day change, mode shift to single occupancy vehicle, longer trips, new trips to existing destinations, and additional travel due to new development. Current traffic models have limited abilities to forecast new trips and new developments associated with roadway capacity improvements, as land use or socioeconomic databases are fixed to a specific horizon date. OPR refers to a limited number of published studies that seek to define travel demand elasticities.

The most recent major study (Duranton & Turner 2011, p. 24) estimates an elasticity of 1.0, meaning that every one percent change in lane miles results in a one percent increase in VMT.

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

35 There  are  numerous  methods  to  quantify  induced  growth.  While  the  City  can  develop  its  own methodology to quantify induced growth, one method to quantify induced growth recommended by the OPR TA is:

To estimate VMT impacts from roadway expansion projects:

1. Determine the total lane‐miles over an area that fully captures travel behavior changes resulting from the project (generally the region, but for projects affecting interregional travel look at all affected regions).

2. Determine the percent change in total lane miles that will result from the project.

3. Determine the total existing VMT over that same area.

4. Multiply the percentage increase in lane miles by the existing VMT, and then multiply that by the elasticity from the induced travel literature:
[% increase in lane miles] × [existing VMT] × [elasticity] = [VMT resulting from the project] OPR assigns this induced growth to project‐induced changes in land use; that is, new land uses that are not included in any approved general or area plan and not accounted for in any traffic‐forecasting tool. Figure 10 provides a representative illustration of induced VMT attributable to a project.

Source: Presentation: Caltrans Transportation Analysis under CEQA or TAC: Significance Determinations for Induced Travel Analysis (SHCC Pre‐Release Session 2 Jeremy Ketchum, Division of Environmental Analysis, Caltrans; March 2, 2020)
Figure 10: Induced Travel – VMT Attributable to Project

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

36 Caltrans has identified a computerized tool to estimate VMT generation from transportation projects.

The  tool  (https://travelcalculator.ncst.ucdavis.edu)  was  developed  by  the  University  of  California, Davis,  and  is  based  on  travel  demand  elasticities  and  the  relationship  of  lane  mile  additions  with growth in VMT. It uses Federal Highway Administration definitions of facility type and ascribes VMT increases to each facility. Output data include increases in million miles of VMT per year. Caltrans is investigating the use of this tool for all of its VMT analyses of capital projects on the State Highway System.  The  NCST  tool  is  available  at  https://blinktag.com/induced‐travel‐calculator.  Figure  11 provides an illustration of that tool.

Source: https://blinktag.com/induced‐travel‐calculator/index.html Figure 11: Caltrans Induced Travel Calculator

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

37 Other options to identify induced growth‐ and project‐related VMT provided by the TA include:

1. Employ an expert panel. An expert panel could assess changes to land use development that would likely result from the project. This assessment could then be analyzed by the travel demand model to assess effects on vehicle travel. Induced vehicle travel assessed via this approach should be verified using elasticities found in the academic literature.

2. Adjust model results to align with the empirical research.  If the travel demand model analysis is performed without incorporating projected land use changes resulting from the project, the assessed vehicle travel should be adjusted upward to account for those land use changes. The assessed VMT after adjustment should fall within the range found in the academic literature.

3. Employ a land use model, running it iteratively with a travel demand model. A land use model can be used to estimate the land use effects of a roadway capacity increase, and the traffic patterns that result from the land use change can then be fed back into the travel demand model. The land use model and travel demand model can be iterated to produce an accurate result.

A final advisory from the TA is provided below:

Whenever employing a travel demand model to assess induced vehicle travel, any limitation or  known  lack  of  sensitivity  in  the  analysis  that  might  cause  substantial  errors  in  the  VMT estimate (for example, model insensitivity to one of the components of induced VMT described above) should be disclosed and characterized, and a description should be provided on how it could influence the analysis results. A discussion of the potential error or bias should be carried into analyses that rely on the VMT analysis, such as greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, energy, and noise. (OPR TA page 34)

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

38 6.0 VMT THRESHOLD ANALYSIS FOR LAND USE PLANS
The TA provides guidance on the treatment of CEQA traffic analyses for land use plans (General Plan, Specific Plan) as follows:
 Analyze the VMT outcomes over the full area over which the plan may substantively affect travel patterns (the definition of region).
 VMT should be counted in full rather than split between origins and destinations (the full impact of the project VMT).

Specifically, OPR states, “A general plan, area plan, or community plan may have a significant impact on transportation if proposed new residential, office or retail land uses would in aggregate exceed the respective  thresholds  recommended  above.”  (OPR  TA  page  18)  This  recommendation  refers  to  a threshold of 15 percent lower than the existing regional average for residential and office uses and no net gain for retail land uses.

To assess a land use plan, use of a traffic‐forecasting tool is recommended. The total VMT for the plan should be identified for all trips and all potential VMT contributors within the plan area. Model runs should be conducted for the existing base year and the horizon year (the future year scenario analyzed in the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan) with project (plan).

SB 375 establishes ambitious and achievable GHG reduction targets for the 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in the State. Achievement of these targets is to be accomplished through the improved integration of regional land use and transportation planning processes; not solely through the imposition of new regulation on passenger cars and light‐duty trucks.

CARB reviews the SCS that is produced as part of the RTP produced by each of the State’s MPOs. The SCS details the strategies and programs the regional agencies are planning to implement to achieve its designated GHG emission reduction targets. CARB approved the new GHG reduction targets for all 18 MPOs in the State in the spring of 2018. The 2018 targets are applicable to the third SCSs for the MPOs.

Other legislative mandates and State policies are also supportive of GHG reduction targets. A sample of these include:
 Assembly Bill 32 (2006) requires statewide GHG emissions reductions to 1990 levels by 2020 and continued reductions beyond 2020.
 SB 32 (2016) requires at least a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2030.  Executive Order (EO) B‐30‐15 (2015) sets a GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
 EO S‐3‐05 (2005) sets a GHG emissions reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.  EO B‐16‐12 (2012) specifies a GHG emissions reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 specifically for transportation.

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

39 These mandates suggest that a land use plan consistent with the regional RTP/SCS would generally help achieve the target GHG reductions for the region.

California PRC Section 15064.3(b)(4) states (in part) the following:

A  lead  agency  has  discretion  to  choose  the  most  appropriate  methodology  to  evaluate  a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household, or in any other measure.

Since VMT is the largest contributor to GHG emissions, a land use plan consistent with regional RTP/ SCS GHG reductions target does not constitute a significant VMT impact. Therefore, the methodology for conducting VMT assessments for land use plans shall be the comparison of existing VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and/or VMT per service population for the region with the respective expected horizon year VMT metrics for the different land use components (VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and/or VMT per service population) of the land use plan (project). If there is a net increase in the VMT metric under horizon year conditions, then the project will have a significant impact.

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

40 7.0 MITIGATION STRATEGIES
When a lead agency identifies a potentially significant CEQA VMT impact according to the thresholds described  in  this  report,  the  agency  must  identify  feasible  mitigation  measures  to  avoid  or substantially reduce that impact. Unlike LOS impacts, which may be mitigated with location‐specific motor  vehicle  delay  improvements,  VMT  impacts  typically  require  a  more  regional  approach  to mitigation, including the provision of incentives to effect changes in travel behavior. Enforcement of mitigation measures will still be subject to the mitigation monitoring requirements of CEQA, as well as the regular police powers of the agency. VMT mitigation measures may also be incorporated into the design of plans, policies, regulations, or projects.

7.1 DEFINITION OF MITIGATION
Section 15370 of the 2022 State CEQA Guidelines defines mitigations as follows:
“Mitigation” includes:
a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. b. Minimizing  impacts  by  limiting  the  degree  or  magnitude  of  the  action  and  its implementation.
c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. d. Reducing  or  eliminating  the  impact  over  time  by  preservation  and  maintenance operations during the life of the action.
e. Compensating  for  the  impact  by  replacing  or  providing  substitute  resources  or environments, including through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements.

Section  15097  of  the  CEQA  Guidelines  states  that,  “the  public  agency  shall  adopt  a  program  for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed  to  mitigate  or  avoid  significant  environmental  effects.  A  public  agency  may  delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or to a private entity which accepts the delegation; however, until mitigation measures have been completed the lead agency remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the program.”
VMT mitigations may not necessarily be physical improvements. Such improvements are complex in nature and will significantly depend on changes in traveler behavior. Therefore, it will be important that lead agencies develop an appropriate monitoring program to ensure the implementation of these mitigation measures throughout the life of a project, in compliance with CEQA. The City must also coordinate with other responsible agencies as part of the mitigation monitoring program to evaluate the ongoing feasibility and durability of the mitigations.

Historically,  mitigation  measures  for  LOS‐based  transportation  impacts  have  addressed  either  trip generation  reductions  or  traffic‐flow‐capacity  enhancements.  LOS  mitigation  measures  typically

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

41 include physical infrastructure improvements adding capacity to intersections, roadways, ramps, and freeways. However, transportation demand management activities, active transportation amenities, and other measures designed to reduce the number of new single‐occupancy vehicle trips are also potential LOS mitigation strategies.

VMT mitigation measures are significantly different. Most VMT mitigations may seem feasible from a theoretical perspective, but practical implementation of these strategies as formal CEQA mitigation measures in perpetuity is yet to be tested. Several of these mitigations are contextual and behavioral in nature. Their success will depend on the size and location of the project as well as expected changes in  travel  behavior.  For  example,  a  project  providing  a  bike  share  program  does  not  necessarily guarantee a travel mode change among the project’s affected population; the level of improvement may be uncertain and subject to the travel preferences and attitudes of the population affected.

LOS  mitigations  (such  as  addition  of  turn  lanes)  focus  more  on  rectifying  a  physical  CEQA  impact (strategy  “c”  of  State  CEQA  Guidelines  Section  15370).  On  the  contrary,  the  majority  of  VMT mitigations (such as commute trip‐reduction programs) aim at reducing or eliminating an impact over time through preservation and monitoring over the  life of  the project (strategy “d” of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15370). Additionally, some VMT mitigations (such as those focused on land use/ location‐based policies) aim at minimizing impacts by reducing the number of trips generated by the projects (strategy “b” of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15370).

Furthermore, it may be determined that some VMT impacts are not able to be feasibly mitigated at the  project  level.  Most  VMT  impacts  occur  within  the  context  of  a  regional  scale  of  analysis.  The incremental change in VMT associated with a project in its particular locational setting might indicate a greater VMT increase than individual mitigation strategies can offset. Only a regional solution (e.g., completion  of  a  transit  system,  purchase  of  more  transit  buses,  or  gap  closure  of  a  bicycle  lane network) may offer the incremental change necessary to reduce the VMT impact to an appropriate level of significance. Also, VMT, as a proxy for GHG emissions, may not require locational specificity.

A  project  does  not  necessarily  need  to  reduce  the  VMT  at  the  project  site  to  provide  regional  or statewide VMT and GHG reduction benefits. Offsets in an area where the benefit would be greater will have a more effective reduction in VMT and GHG and contribute to achievement of regional and statewide  climate  goals.  This  regional  perspective  provides  the  basis  for  cap‐and‐trade  style  VMT mitigation strategies.

The issues of regional scale, appropriate and timely fair share contributions from projects and/or local jurisdictions  (partial  versus  comprehensive  participation),  and  geographic  ambiguity  confound  the certainty of the City’s identification of an effective VMT mitigation strategy. Section 15126.4 of the State  CEQA  Guidelines  states,  “Where  several  measures  are  available  to  mitigate  an  impact,  each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. Formulation of mitigation measures shall not be deferred until some future time.” [Emphasis added.] Regional VMT mitigation is considered the most effective method for large‐scale VMT reduction, as cost and implementation barriers are often  greater  than one  project may  feasibly accommodate.  However, regionally scaled VMT mitigation strategies may be provided in the form of mitigation banks, fees, and/or exchanges, with individual projects subject to contribute to these programs consistent with applicable provisions to ensure compliance and consistency with CEQA and other legal requirements.

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

42 Section 21099 (b) (4) of the PRC states, “This subdivision [requiring a new transportation metric under CEQA] does not preclude the application of local general plan policies, zoning codes, conditions of approval, thresholds, or any other planning requirements pursuant to the police power or any other authority.” Hence, although automobile delay will no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA, the City can still require projects to meet the LOS standards designated in its zoning code or general  plan.  Therefore,  this  report  is  not  intended  to  supersede  LOS  assessment  in  the  City’s evaluation  of  projects,  and  a  project  may  still  be  required  to  propose  LOS  improvements  for congestion relief in addition to the implementation of any VMT mitigation strategies as required by CEQA.

7.2 MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

7.2.1 Land Development Projects and Community/General Plans Mitigations and project alternatives for VMT impacts
have been suggested by the OPR. VMT mitigations can
be  extremely  diverse  and  can  be  classified  under several  categories  such  as  land  use/location,  road pricing, transit improvements, commute trip reduction
strategies,  and  parking  pricing/policy.  However,  the issue  with  VMT  mitigations  is  the  quantitative
measurement of the relief provided by the strategies.

How  much  VMT  reduction  does  a  transportation
demand management program, a bike share program,
a  transit  route,  or  one  mile  of  sidewalk  provide? Improvements  related  to  VMT  reduction  strategies  have  been  quantified  in  sources  such  as  the California  Air  Pollution  Control  Officers  Association  (CAPCOA)  report  Handbook  for  Analyzing Greenhouse  Gas Emission Reductions,  Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities,  and Advancing Health and Equity (CAPCOA Manual) Final Draft, December 2021, and by various resources provided by CARB.

This information is generally presented with a wide range of potential VMT reduction percentages.

This  report  does  not,  however,  confirm  the  existence  of  substantial  evidence  supporting  the application  of  any  such  mitigation  measures  to  projects  within  the  City.  If  a  CAPCOA  mitigation measure will be considered for a project, it must be determined, through substantial evidence, that the  mitigation  measure  will  result  in  VMT  reduction  in  the  manner  suggested.  For  example,  if  a mitigation measure’s VMT reduction will be calculated by use of a mathematical formula, the formula, including each of its components, must be analyzed to confirm that they reflect the conditions existing in the City, and the analysis must be supported by substantial evidence. In other words, a mitigation measure, which is reliant upon a formula developed utilizing data from and conditions in a locale that is  dissimilar  to  the  City,  may  be  inapplicable  to  a  project  within  the  City.  Similarly,  any  mitigation measure  suggested  by  CAPCOA  that  depends  on  cited  reports  or  studies  must  be  assessed  to determine  whether  substantial  evidence  confirms  that  such  reports  and  studies  apply  to  the conditions under which a proposed project will be developed within the City. Mitigation measures will not be utilized merely because they are suggested by CAPCOA or another organization.

Table F provides a summary of various potential VMT mitigation measures and project alternatives presented  in  the  CAPCOA  Manual  (only  those  strategies  directly  attributed  to  transportation)  for

Transit in the City of Hanford
Source: https://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/on‐demand‐bus‐service‐ coming‐to‐hanford‐july‐1/article_1d4d0e7f‐44d4‐5be7‐9972‐ 8ae7837df0e6.html

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

43 development  projects.  For  any  VMT  mitigation  measure,  the  project  applicant  will  be  required  to provide  substantial  evidence  while  identifying  a  project‐specific  value.  If  that  information  is  not available,  the  project  should  apply  the  low  point  of  provided  ranges  for  VMT  reduction.  Where  a mitigation strategy does not have an identified VMT reduction range, the project applicant would be required to provide a reduction estimate supported by substantial evidence.

Additionally, the mitigation measures listed under Table F were compared with the City’s General Plan goals and policies. Mitigation measures that would be consistent with the City’s General Plan goals and policies have been noted in the table.

As for land use plans, the OPR TA does not specifically identify any VMT mitigations. The potential VMT mitigation measures for community/general plans are similar to those available for development projects, with certain modifications. Therefore, the mitigation measures provided in Table F can be used as appropriate. Additional measures may also be applied with substantial evidence.

It must be noted that Table F provides only summaries of the VMT mitigations provided in the sources indicated above. The reader should refer to the original source for further details and for subsequent updates  to  the  mitigation  measures.  Also,  Table  F  does  not  provide  an  exhaustive  list  of  VMT mitigation  measures  for  offsetting  CEQA  transportation  impacts.  Other  measures  can  also  be accepted by the City based on the provision of substantial evidence.

As additional mitigation measures are evaluated to offset VMT impacts in the future for the State CEQA  Guidelines  process,  linkages  between  a  specific  strategy  and  its  quantified  incremental  VMT reduction  effect  must  be  established.  This  process  may  be  based  on  the  observations  and measurements provided by other sources or by the City’s experience in these practices. The key to effective VMT mitigation is to base its efficacy on real and substantial evidence.

7.2.2 Transportation Projects
Although OPR provides detailed guidance on the assessment of induced‐growth impacts associated with transportation improvement projects, it leaves the subject of specific VMT mitigation measures ambiguous. Only four strategies are recommended as potential mitigation options:
 Tolling new travel lanes to encourage carpools and fund transit improvements (not applicable to the City);
 Converting existing general‐purpose lanes to HOV or HOT lanes (not applicable to the City);  Implementing or funding off‐site transportation demand management programs; and  Implementing Intelligent Transportation Systems strategies to improve passenger throughput on existing lanes.

No quantified reduction percentage is allocated to these strategies and currently available data do not offer any substantial evidence that may provide guidance on levels of significance after implementation of these strategies. Review of the four recommended mitigation strategies suggests that OPR is directing strategies  away  from  general‐purpose  mixed‐flow  lanes  on  expressways,  freeways,  and  arterial highways. It should be noted, however, that the first two mitigation strategies are not applicable to the

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

44 City. Additionally, the project description and Purpose and Need may conflict, since congestion relief measures will conflict with VMT reduction strategies. The City would be subject to an SOC for the capital project VMT impact that are not sufficiently mitigated.

7.3 FUNDING MECHANISMS
The  change in methodology used for the assessment of CEQA transportation impacts from LOS  to VMT will lead to a shift in and the scale of mitigation efforts from local and project‐specific, to a more regional approach. OPR acknowledges the regional nature of VMT impacts and states that regional VMT  reduction  programs  and  fee  programs  (in‐lieu  fees  and  development  impact  fees)  may  be appropriate forms of mitigation. Fee programs are particularly useful to address cumulative impacts.

It is very important for the City to coordinate with KCAG to develop such mitigation programs that may be used to fund new transit service or develop applicable active transportation plans or other regionally scaled VMT mitigation activities. These programs are regional in nature and best suited for administration by a regional agency. Projects may be able to pay into the fee program to offset project VMT impact. Regional agencies may also wish to coordinate with appropriate stakeholders, including participating local jurisdictions, developers, and other interests while conducting nexus studies and checking for rough proportionality and compliance with CEQA.

Most of the VMT mitigations included in Table F are applicable in urban areas. They are less effective in suburban and rural contexts, where traditional transportation demand management strategies are less feasible.  Thus,  site‐specific  strategies  are  more  suitable  in  more  densely  urbanized  areas,  whereas program‐level strategies may be more appropriate for some projects located in suburban or rural areas.

In the latter approach, the cumulative VMT mitigation contributions provided in support of individual developments may be used to fund regional VMT reduction strategies that would not be feasible or cost‐effective  at  the  individual  project  scale.  Apart  from  fee  programs,  program‐based  mitigation strategies may include VMT mitigation exchanges and/or VMT mitigation banks. The VMT mitigation exchange  concept  requires  a  developer  to  select  and  implement  mitigation  project(s)  from  a predetermined  list  of  projects  that  would  serve  to  reduce  the  excess  new  VMT  generated  by  the proposed project. On the other hand, a mitigation banking program would assign monetary values for VMT  reductions  that  would  allow  developers  to  purchase  the  applicable  number  of  VMT  reduction credits.  These  credits  would  be  used  to  fund  larger,  regionally  scaled  VMT  mitigation  projects throughout the affected region.

As previously discussed, VMT impacts are regional in scope. Hence, there may at times be mitigation requirements that extend beyond the control of the City, and without the ability of the City to manage these  mitigations,  the  impacts  might  remain  significant  and  unaddressed.  Additionally,  the identification and management of regionally scaled improvements where developers contribute their fair share to  mitigate impacts  might  prove to be  difficult.  Therefore, the City  may choose  to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions within the region to ultimately establish VMT mitigation fee programs,  mitigation  banks,  or  exchanges  to  establish  a  regional  mitigation  pathway  where developers  contribute  to  a  regionally  administered  VMT  mitigation  funding  pool  in  a  manner commensurate to the impact of their individual project. Procedural flow charts for VMT mitigation banks, exchanges, and impact fees are illustrated in Figures 12, 13, and 14, respectively.

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

45 Figure 12: Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Bank
Source: VMT Mitigation Through Banks and Exchanges: Understanding New Mitigation Approaches. A White Paper by Fehr & Peers (January 2020).

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

46 Figure 13: Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Exchange
Source: VMT Mitigation Through Banks and Exchanges: Understanding New Mitigation Approaches. A White Paper by Fehr & Peers (January 2020).

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

47 Figure 14: Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Impact Fee
Source: Understanding New Mitigation Approaches. A White Paper by Fehr & Peers (January 2020).

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

Mitigation Measure Measure  Description Related  City of Hanford General Plan Goal Related  City of Hanford General Plan Policy Locational  Context Scale  of Application Implementation  Requirements Expanded  Mitigation Options Formula VMT  Reduction 1T ‐1 Increase  Residential Density
This measure accounts for the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction achieved by a project that is designed with a higher density of dwelling units (DU) compared to the average
residential density in the U.S. Increased densities affect the distance people travel and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. Increasing residential density results in shorter and fewer trips by single‐occupancy vehicles and thus a reduction in GHG emissions. This measure is best quantified when applied to larger developments and developments where the density is somewhat similar to the surrounding area due to the underlying research being founded in data from the
neighborhood level.

Urban, Suburban Project/Site
This measure is most accurately quantified when applied to larger developments and/or developments where the density is somewhat similar to the surrounding neighborhood.

When paired with Measure T‐2, Increase Job Density,
the cumulative densification from these measures can
result in a highly walkable and bikeable area, yielding increased co‐benefits in VMT reductions, improved
public health, and social equity.

Refer to California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA) report Handbook for
Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reductions, Assessing Climate
Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health
and Equity (CAPCOA Manual), Final
Draft, December 2021, page 71.

Up to 30.0 percent project VMT
in the study area
2T ‐2 Increase  Job Density
This measure accounts for the VMT reduction achieved by a project that is designed with a higher density of jobs compared to the average job density in the U.S. Increased densities affect the distance people travel and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. Increasing job density results in shorter and fewer trips by single‐occupancy vehicles and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.

Urban, suburban Project/Site
This measure is most accurately quantified when applied to larger developments and/or developments where the density is somewhat similar to the surrounding neighborhood.

When paired with Measure T‐1, Increase Residential
Density, the cumulative densification from these
measures can result in a highly walkable and bikeable
area, yielding increased co‐benefits in VMT
reductions, improved public health, and social equity.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 74. Up to 30.0 percent project VMT in the study area
3T ‐3 Provide Transit‐Oriented
Development
This measure would reduce project VMT in the study area relative to the same project sited in a non‐transit‐oriented development (TOD) location. TOD refers to projects built in compact, walkable areas that have easy access to public transit, ideally in a location with a mix of uses, including housing, retail offices, and community facilities. Project site residents, employees, and visitors would have easy access to high‐quality public transit, thereby encouraging transit ridership and reducing the number of single‐occupancy vehicle trips and associated GHG emissions
Urban, suburban. Rural
only if adjacent to
commuter rail station with
convenient rail service to a
major employment center.

Project/Site
To qualify as a TOD, the development must be a residential or office project that is within a 10‐minute walk (0.5 mile) of a high frequency transit station (either rail, or bus rapid transit with headways less than 15 minutes).

Ideally, the distance should be no more than 0.25 to 0.3 of a mile but could be up to 0.5 mile if the walking route to station can be accessed by pedestrian‐friendly routes. Users should confirm “unmitigated” or “baseline” VMT does not already account for reductions from transit proximity.

When building TOD, a best practice is to incorporate
bike and pedestrian access into the larger network to
increase the likelihood of transit use.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 77. Up to 31.0 percent project VMT in the study area
4T ‐4 Integrate Affordable and Below
Market Rate Housing
This measure requires below market rate (BMR) housing. BMR housing provides greater opportunity for lower income families to live closer to job centers and achieve a jobs/housing match near transit. It is also an important strategy to address the limited availability of affordable housing that might force residents to live far away from jobs or school, requiring longer commutes. The quantification method for this measure accounts for VMT reductions achieved for multifamily residential projects that are deed restricted or otherwise permanently dedicated as affordable housing.

Urban, suburban Project/Site
Multifamily residential units must be permanently dedicated as affordable for lower income families. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (2021) defines lower‐income as 80 percent of area median income or below, and affordable housing as costing 30 percent of gross household income or less.

Pair with Measure T‐1, Increase Residential Density,
and Measure T‐2, Increase Job Density, to achieve
greater population and employment diversity.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 81. Up to 28.6 percent project/site multifamily residential VMT
5T ‐5 Implement Commute Trip Reduction
Program (Voluntary)
This measure will implement a voluntary commute trip reduction (CTR) program with employers. CTR programs discourage single‐ occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions. Voluntary implementation elements are described in this measure.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T50: Carpool Programs
Policy T58: Vanpool Programs
Policy T89: High Occupancy Vehicles
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban Project/Site
Voluntary CTR programs must include the following elements to apply the VMT reductions reported in literature.
▪ Employer‐provided services, infrastructure, and incentives for alternative modes such as ridesharing (Measure T‐8), discounted transit (Measure T‐9), bicycling (Measure T‐10), vanpool (Measure T‐11), and guaranteed ride home.
▪ Information, coordination, and marketing for said services, infrastructure, and incentives (Measure T‐7).

Other strategies may also be included as part of a
voluntary CTR program, though they are not included
in the VMT reductions reported by literature and thus
are
not incorporated in the VMT reductions for this
measure. This program typically serves as a
complement to the more effective workplace CTR
measures such as pricing workplace parking (Measure
T‐12) or implementing employee parking “cash‐out”
(Measure T‐13).

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 84. Up to 4.0 percent project/site employee commute VMT
6T ‐6
Implement Commute Trip Reduction
Program (Mandatory
Implementation and Monitoring)
This measure will implement a mandatory CTR program with employers. CTR programs discourage single‐occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T12:[Encourage] improved performance and expanded
capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T50: Carpool Programs
Policy T58: Vanpool Programs
Policy T89: High Occupancy Vehicles
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban Project/Site
The mandatory CTR program must include all other elements (i.e., Measures T‐7 through T‐11) described for the voluntary program (Measure T‐5) plus include mandatory trip reduction requirements (including penalties for non‐ compliance) and regular monitoring and reporting to ensure the calculated VMT reduction matches the observed VMT reduction.

This program typically serves as a complement to the
more effective workplace CTR measures, such as
pricing workplace parking (Measure T‐12) or
implementing employee parking “cash‐out” (Measure
T‐13).

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 87. Up to 26.0 percent project/site employee commute VMT
7T ‐7 Implement Commute Trip Reduction
Marketing
This measure will implement a marketing strategy to promote the project site employer’s CTR program. Information sharing and marketing promote and educate employees about their travel choices to the employment location beyond driving such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T50: Carpool Programs
Policy T58: Vanpool Programs
Policy T67: Bicycle Safety Programs
Policy T88: People Movement
Policy T89: High Occupancy Vehicles
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban Project/Site
The following features (or similar alternatives) of the marketing strategy are essential for effectiveness.
▪ Onsite or online commuter information services.
▪ Employee transportation coordinators.
▪ Onsite or online transit pass sales.
▪ Guaranteed ride home service.

This measure could be packaged with other commute
trip reduction measures (Measures T‐8 through T‐13)
as a comprehensive CTR program (Measure T‐5 or T‐
6).

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 90. Up to 4.0 percent project/site employee commute VMT
Table F ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects P:\HNF2201\VMT Mitigations_City of Hanford.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (10/21/2022)

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

Mitigation Measure Measure  Description Related  City of Hanford General Plan Goal Related  City of Hanford General Plan Policy Locational  Context Scale  of Application Implementation  Requirements Expanded  Mitigation Options Formula VMT  Reduction Table F ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects 8T ‐8 Provide  Ridesharing Program
This measure will implement a ridesharing program and establish a permanent transportation management association with
funding requirements for employers. Ridesharing encourages carpooled vehicle trips in place of single‐occupied vehicle trips, thereby reducing the number of trips, VMT, and GHG emissions.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T50: Carpool Programs
Policy T58: Vanpool Programs
Policy T89: High Occupancy Vehicles
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban Project/Site
Ridesharing must be promoted through a multifaceted approach. Examples include the following.
▪ Designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles.
▪ Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles.
▪ Providing an app or website for coordinating rides.

When providing a ridesharing program, a best practice
is to establish funding by a non‐revocable funding
mechanism for employer‐provided subsidies. In
addition, encourage use of low‐emission ridesharing
vehicles (e.g., shared Uber Green).

This measure could be paired with any combination of
the other commute trip reduction strategies
(Measures T‐7 through T‐13) for increased reductions.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 93. Up to 8.0 percent project/site employee commute VMT
9T ‐9 Implement Subsidized or Discounted
Transit Program
This measure will provide subsidized or discounted, or free transit passes for employees and/or residents. Reducing the out‐ of‐pocket cost for choosing transit improves the competitiveness of transit against driving, increasing the total number of transit trips and decreasing vehicle trips. This decrease in vehicle trips results in reduced VMT and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T88: People Movement
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Policy T92: Amenities that Support Alternative Modes of Transportation
Urban, suburban Project/Site
The project should be accessible either within 1 mile of high‐quality transit service (rail or bus with headways of less than 15 minutes), 0.5 mile of local or less frequent transit service, or along a designated shuttle route providing last‐mile connections to rail service. If a well‐established bikeshare service (Measure T‐22‐A) is available, the site may be located up to 2 miles from a high‐quality transit service.

If more than one transit agency serves the site, subsidies should be provided that can be applied to each of the services available. If subsidies are applied for only one service, all variable inputs below should also pertain only to the service that is subsidized.

This measure could be paired with any combination of
the other commute trip reduction strategies
(Measures T‐7 through T‐13) for increased reductions.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 96.

Up to 5.5 percent from
employee/resident vehicles
accessing the site
10 T ‐10 Provide  End‐of‐Trip Bicycle Facilities
This measure will install and maintain end‐of‐trip facilities for employee use. End‐of‐trip facilities include bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers. The provision and maintenance of secure bike parking and related facilities encourages commuting by bicycle, thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T66 Public Bicycle Parking
Policy T88: People Movement
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Policy T92: Amenities that Support Alternative Modes of Transportation
Urban, suburban Project/Site End‐of‐trip facilities should be installed at a size proportional to the number of commuting bicyclists and regularly maintained.

Best practice is to include an onsite bicycle repair
station and post signage on or near secure parking
and personal lockers with information about how to
reserve or obtain access to these amenities.

This measure could be paired with any combination of
the other commute trip reduction strategies
(Measures T‐7 through T‐13) for increased reductions.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 101. Up to 4.4 percent project/site employee commute VMT
11 T ‐11 Provide Employer‐Sponsored
Vanpool
This measure will implement an employer‐sponsored vanpool service. Vanpooling is a flexible form of public transportation that provides groups of 5 to 15 people with a cost‐effective and convenient rideshare option for commuting. The mode shift from long‐distance, single‐occupied vehicles to shared vehicles reduces overall commute VMT, thereby reducing GHG emissions.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T50: Carpool Programs
Policy T58: Vanpool Programs
Policy T89: High Occupancy Vehicles
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban, rural Project/Site
Vanpool programs are more appropriate for the building occupant or tenant (i.e., employer) to implement and monitor than the building owner or developer.

When implementing a vanpool service, best practice is
to subsidize the cost for employees that have a similar origin and destination and provide priority parking for employees that vanpool.

This measure could be paired with any combination of
the other commute trip reduction strategies
(Measures T‐7 through T‐13) for increased reductions.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 105. Up to 20.4 percent project/site employee commute VMT
12 T ‐12 Price  Workplace Parking
This measure will price onsite parking at workplaces. Because free employee parking is a common benefit, charging employees to park onsite increases the cost of choosing to drive to work.

This is expected to reduce single‐occupancy vehicle commute trips, resulting in decreased VMT, thereby reducing associated GHG emissions.

Urban, suburban Project/Site
Implementation may include the following.
▪ Explicitly charging for employee parking.
▪ Implementing above‐market rate pricing.
▪ Validating parking only for invited guests (or not providing parking validation at all).
▪ Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances.

In addition, this measure should include marketing and education regarding available alternatives to driving.

Best practice is to ensure that other transportation
options are available, convenient, and have
competitive travel times (i.e., transit service near the project site, shuttle service, or a complete active
transportation network serving the site and
surrounding community), and that there is not
alternative free parking available nearby (such as on‐
street). This measure is substantially less effective in environments that do not have other modes available
or where unrestricted street parking or other offsite
parking is available nearby and has adequate capacity
to accommodate project‐related vehicle parking
demand.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 110. Up to 20.0 percent project/site employee commute VMT
13 T ‐13 Implement Employee Parking Cash‐
Out
This measure will require project employers to offer employee parking cash‐out. Cash‐out is when employers provide
employees with a choice of forgoing their current subsidized/free parking for a cash payment equivalent to or greater than the cost of the parking space. This encourages employees to use other modes of travel instead of single occupancy vehicles. This mode shift results in people driving less and thereby reduces VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T50: Carpool Programs
Policy T58: Vanpool Programs
Policy T89: High Occupancy Vehicles
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Policy T92: Amenities that Support Alternative Modes of Transportation
Urban, suburban Project/Site
To prevent spill‐over parking and continued use of single occupancy vehicles, residential parking in the surrounding area must be permitted, and public on‐street parking must be market rate.

This measure could be paired with many other
commute trip reduction strategies (Measures T‐7
through T‐11) for increased reductions.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 114. Up to 12.0 percent project/site employee commute VMT
14 T ‐14 Provide Electric Vehicle Charging
Infrastructure
Install onsite electric vehicle chargers in an amount beyond what is required by the 2019 California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) at buildings with designated parking areas (e.g., commercial, educational, retail, multifamily). This will enable drivers of plug‐in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) to drive a larger share of miles in electric mode (eVMT), as opposed to gasoline‐ powered mode, thereby displacing GHG emissions from gasoline consumption with a lesser amount of indirect emissions from electricity. Most PHEVs owners charge their vehicles at home overnight. When making trips during the day, the vehicle will switch to gasoline mode if/when it reaches its maximum all‐ electric range.

Urban, suburban, rural Project/Site Parking  at the chargers must be limited to electric vehicles.

In addition to increasing the percentage of electric
miles for PHEVs, the increased availability of chargers from implementation of this measure could mitigate
consumer “range anxiety” concerns and increase the
adoption and use of battery electric vehicles (BEVs),
but this potential effect is not included in the
calculations as a conservative assumption. Expanded
mitigation could include quantification of the effect of this measure on BEV use.
‐‐
P:\HNF2201\VMT Mitigations_City of Hanford.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (10/21/2022)

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

Mitigation Measure Measure  Description Related  City of Hanford General Plan Goal Related  City of Hanford General Plan Policy Locational  Context Scale  of Application Implementation  Requirements Expanded  Mitigation Options Formula VMT  Reduction Table F ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects 15 T ‐15 Limit  Residential Parking Supply
This measure will reduce the total parking supply available at a residential project or site. Limiting the amount of parking available creates scarcity and adds additional time and inconvenience to trips made by private auto, thus disincentivizing driving as a mode of travel. Reducing the convenience of driving results in a shift to other modes and decreased VMT and thus a reduction in GHG emissions. Evidence of the effects of reduced parking supply is strongest for residential developments.

Urban, suburban Project/Site
This measure is ineffective in locations where unrestricted street parking or other offsite parking is available nearby and has adequate capacity to accommodate project‐related vehicle parking demand.

When limiting parking supply, a best practice is to do
so at sites that are located near high quality
alternative modes of travel (such as a rail station,
frequent bus line, or in a higher density area with
multiple walkable locations nearby). Limiting parking
supply may also allow for more active uses on any
given lot, which may support Measures T‐1 and T‐2 by
allowing for higher density construction.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 123.

Up to 13.7 percent from
resident vehicles accessing the
site
16 T ‐16 Unbundle Residential Parking Costs
from Property Cost
This measure will unbundle, or separate, a residential project’s parking costs from property costs, requiring those who wish to purchase parking spaces to do so at an additional cost. On the assumption that parking costs are passed through to the vehicle owners/drivers utilizing the parking spaces, this measure results in decreased vehicle ownership and, therefore, a reduction in VMT and GHG emissions. Unbundling may not be available to all residential developments, depending on funding sources.

Urban, suburban Project/Site
Parking costs must be passed through to the vehicle owners/drivers utilizing the parking spaces for this measure to result in decreased vehicle ownership.

Pair with Measure T‐19‐A or T‐19‐B to ensure that
residents who eliminate their vehicle and shift to a
bicycle can safely access the area’s bikeway network.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 127. Up to 15.7 percent project VMT in the study area
17 T ‐17 Improve  Street Connectivity
This measure accounts for the VMT reduction achieved by a project that is designed with a higher density of vehicle intersections compared to the average intersection density in the U.S. Increased vehicle intersection density is a proxy for street connectivity improvements, which help to facilitate a greater number of shorter trips and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T3: [Develop] city streets that meet the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, children, motorists, persons with disabilities, the elderly, users of public transportation, and commercial goods movers.

Policy T26: Cul‐de‐sac Non‐motorized Connectivity
Policy T39: Accommodating All Modes of Traffic
Policy T40: Pedestrian and Bicycle Placemaking
Policy T88: People Movement
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban Plan/Community
Projects that increase intersection density would be building a new street network in a subdivision or retrofitting an existing street network to improve connectivity (e.g., converting cul‐de‐sacs or dead‐end streets to grid streets).

Pair with Measure T‐18, Provide Pedestrian Network
Improvement, to best support use of the local
pedestrian network.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 131. Up to 30.0 percent from vehicle travel in the plan/community
18 T ‐18 Provide Pedestrian Network
Improvement
This measure will increase the sidewalk coverage to improve pedestrian access. Providing sidewalks and an enhanced
pedestrian network encourages people to walk instead of drive.

This mode shift results in a reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T3: [Develop] city streets that meet the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, children, motorists, persons with disabilities, the elderly, users of public transportation, and commercial goods movers.

Goal T8: [Provide] an interconnected bikeway and community pedestrian network that facilitates and encourages
nonmotorized travel throughout Hanford.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction
Policy T26: Cul‐de‐sac Non‐motorized Connectivity
Policy T39: Accommodating All Modes of Traffic
Policy T40: Pedestrian and Bicycle Placemaking
Policy T43: Safe Routes to Schools Program
Policy T70: Pedestrian Connections
Policy T71: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossings
Policy T72: Reduction of Pedestrian Barriers
Policy T88: People Movement
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban, rural Plan/Community
The GHG reduction of this measure is based on the VMT reduction associated with expansion of sidewalk coverage expansion, which includes not only building of new sidewalks but also improving degraded or substandard sidewalk (e.g., damaged from street tree roots). However, pedestrian network enhancements with non‐quantifiable GHG reductions are encouraged to be implemented, as discussed under Expanded Mitigation Options.

When improving sidewalks, a best practice is to
ensure they are contiguous and link externally with
existing and planned pedestrian facilities. Barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity, such as walls, landscaping buffers, slopes, and unprotected crossings
should be minimized. Other best practice features
could include high‐visibility crosswalks, pedestrian
hybrid beacons, and other pedestrian signals, mid‐
block crossing walks, pedestrian refuge islands, speed
tables, bulb‐outs (curb extensions), curb ramps,
signage, pavement markings, pedestrian‐only
connections and districts, landscaping, and other
improvements to pedestrian safety (see Measure T‐
35, Provide Traffic Calming Measures).

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 134. Up to 6.4 percent from vehicle travel in the plan/community
19 T ‐19‐A Construct  or Improve Bike Facility
This measure will construct or improve a single bicycle lane facility (only Class I, II, or IV) that connects to a larger existing bikeway network. Providing bicycle infrastructure helps to improve biking conditions within an area. This encourages a mode shift on the roadway parallel to the bicycle facility from vehicles to bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG emissions. When constructing or improving a bicycle facility, a best practice is to consider local or state bike lane width standards. A variation of this measure is provided as T‐19‐B, Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T3: [Develop] city streets that meet the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, children, motorists, persons with disabilities, the elderly, users of public transportation, and commercial goods movers.

Goal T8: [Provide] an interconnected bikeway and community pedestrian network that facilitates and encourages
nonmotorized travel throughout Hanford.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T26: Cul‐de‐sac Non‐motorized Connectivity
Policy T39: Accommodating All Modes of Traffic
Policy T40: Pedestrian and Bicycle Placemaking
Policy T43: Safe Routes to Schools Program
Policy T64: Bicycle Network Master Planning
Policy T65: Bicycle Network
Policy T69: Road Projects with Bicycle Facilities
Policy T71: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossings
Policy T88: People Movement
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban
Plan/Community. This
measure reduces VMT
on the roadway segment
parallel to the bicycle
facility (i.e., the
corridor). An adjustment
factor is included in the
formula to scale the VMT
reduction from the
corridor level to the
plan/community level.

The bicycle lane facility must be either Class I, II, or IV. Class I bike paths are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic. Class IV bikeways are protected on‐street bikeways, also called cycle tracks. Class II bike lanes are striped bicycle lanes that provide exclusive use to bicycles on a roadway.

Implement alongside Measures T‐22‐A, T‐22‐B, and/or
T‐22‐C to ensure that micromobility users can ride
safely along bicycle lane facilities and not have to ride along pedestrian infrastructure, which is a risk to
pedestrian safety.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 138. Up to 0.8 percent from vehicles on parallel roadways
20 T ‐19‐B Construct or Improve Bike
Boulevard
Construct or improve a single bicycle boulevard that connects to a larger existing bikeway network. Bicycle boulevards are a designation within Class III Bikeway that create safe, low‐stress connections for people biking and walking on streets. This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG emissions. A variation of this measure is provided as T‐19‐A, Construct or Improve Bike Facility, which is for Class I, II, or IV bicycle infrastructure.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T3: [Develop] city streets that meet the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, children, motorists, persons with disabilities, the elderly, users of public transportation, and commercial goods movers.

Goal T8: [Provide] an interconnected bikeway and community pedestrian network that facilitates and encourages
nonmotorized travel throughout Hanford.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction
Policy T26: Cul‐de‐sac Non‐motorized Connectivity
Policy T39: Accommodating All Modes of Traffic
Policy T40: Pedestrian and Bicycle Placemaking
Policy T43: Safe Routes to Schools Program
Policy T64: Bicycle Network Master Planning
Policy T65: Bicycle Network
Policy T69: Road Projects with Bicycle Facilities
Policy T71: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossings
Policy T88: People Movement
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban
Plan/Community. This
measure reduces VMT
on the roadway segment
parallel to the bicycle
facility (i.e., the
corridor). An adjustment
factor is included in the
formula to scale the VMT
reduction from the
corridor level to the
plan/community level.

The following roadway conditions must be met.
▪ Functional classification: local and collector if there is no more than a single general‐purpose travel lane in each direction.
▪ Design speed: <= 25 miles per hour.
▪ Design volume <= 5,000 average daily traffic.
▪ Treatments at major intersections: both directions have traffic signals (or an effective control device that prioritizes pedestrian and bicycle access such as rapid flashing beacons, pedestrian hybrid beacons, high‐intensity activated crosswalks, TOUCANs), bike route signs, “sharrowed” roadway markings, and pedestrian crosswalks.

Construct boulevards with forced turns for vehicles
every few blocks to minimize through traffic while
ensuring that speed and volume metrics are met.

Implement alongside Measures T‐22‐A, T‐22‐B, and/or
T‐22‐C to ensure that micromobility users can ride
safely along bicycle lane facilities and not pedestrian infrastructure, which is a risk to pedestrian safety.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 143. Up to 0.2 percent from vehicles on roadways
P:\HNF2201\VMT Mitigations_City of Hanford.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (10/21/2022)

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

Mitigation Measure Measure  Description Related  City of Hanford General Plan Goal Related  City of Hanford General Plan Policy Locational  Context Scale  of Application Implementation  Requirements Expanded  Mitigation Options Formula VMT  Reduction Table F ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects 22 T ‐20 Expand  Bikeway Network
This measure will increase the length of a city or community bikeway network. A bicycle network is an interconnected system of bike lanes, bike paths, bike routes, and cycle tracks. Providing bicycle infrastructure with markings and signage on appropriately sized roads with vehicle traffic traveling at safe speeds helps to improve biking conditions (e.g., safety and convenience). In addition, expanded bikeway networks can increase access to and from transit hubs, thereby expanding the “catchment area” of the transit stop or station and increasing ridership. This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG emissions. When expanding a
bicycle network, a best practice is to consider bike lane width standards from local agencies, state agencies, or the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Urban Bikeway Design Guide.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T3: [Develop] city streets that meet the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, children, motorists, persons with disabilities, the elderly, users of public transportation, and commercial goods movers.

Goal T8: [Provide] an interconnected bikeway and community pedestrian network that facilitates and encourages
nonmotorized travel throughout Hanford.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction
Policy T26: Cul‐de‐sac Non‐motorized Connectivity
Policy T39: Accommodating All Modes of Traffic
Policy T40: Pedestrian and Bicycle Placemaking
Policy T43: Safe Routes to Schools Program
Policy T64: Bicycle Network Master Planning
Policy T65: Bicycle Network
Policy T69: Road Projects with Bicycle Facilities
Policy T88: People Movement
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban Plan/Community The  bikeway network must consist of either Class I, II, or IV infrastructure.

As networks expand, ensure safe, secure, and weather‐
protected bicycle parking facilities at origins and
destinations. Also, implement alongside T‐22‐A, T‐22‐
B, and/or T‐22‐C to ensure that micromobility options
can ride safely along bicycle lane facilities and not
have to ride along pedestrian infrastructure, which is a risk to pedestrian safety.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 147. Up to 0.5 percent from vehicle travel in the plan/community
23 T ‐21‐A Implement Conventional Carshare
Program
This measure will increase carshare access in the user’s community by deploying conventional carshare vehicles.

Carsharing offers people convenient access to a vehicle for personal or commuting purposes. This helps encourage
transportation alternatives and reduces vehicle ownership, thereby avoiding VMT and associated GHG emissions. A variation of this measure, electric carsharing, is described in Measure T‐21‐ B, Implement Electric Carshare Program.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes Urban, suburban Plan/Community The GHG mitigation potential is based, in part, on literature analyzing one‐ way carsharing service with a free‐floating operational model. This measure should be applied with caution if using a different form of carsharing (e.g., roundtrip, peer‐to‐peer, fractional).

When implementing a carshare program, best practice
is to discount carshare membership and provide
priority parking for carshare vehicles to encourage use of the service.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 151. Up to 0.15 percent from vehicle travel in the plan/community
24 T ‐21‐B Implement Electric Carshare
Program
This measure will increase carshare access in the user’s community by deploying electric carshare vehicles. Carsharing offers people convenient access to a vehicle for personal or commuting purposes. This helps encourage transportation alternatives and reduces vehicle ownership, thereby avoiding VMT and associated GHG emissions. This also encourages a mode shift from internal combustion engine vehicles to electric vehicles, displacing the emissions‐intensive fossil fuel energy with less emissions‐intensive electricity. Electric carshare vehicles require more staffing support compared to conventional
carshare programs for shuttling electric vehicles to and from charging points. A variation of this measure, conventional carsharing, is described in Measure T‐21‐A, Implement
Conventional Carshare Program.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes Urban, suburban Plan/Community The GHG mitigation potential is based, in part, on literature analyzing one‐ way carsharing service with a free‐floating operational model. This measure should be applied with caution if using a different form of carsharing (e.g., roundtrip, peer‐to‐peer, fractional).

When implementing a carshare program, best practice
is to discount carshare membership and provide
priority parking for carshare vehicles to encourage use of the service.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 158.

Up to 0.18 percent GHG
reduction from vehicle travel in
the plan/community. Please
refer to VMT reduction formula
on CAPCOA Manual, page 158.
25 T ‐22‐A Implement Pedal (Non‐Electric)
Bikeshare Program
This measure will establish a bikeshare program. Bikeshare programs provide users with on‐demand access to bikes for short‐ term rentals. This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG emissions.

Variations of this measure are described in Measure T‐22‐B, Implement Electric Bikeshare Program, and Measure T‐22‐C, Implement Scootershare Program.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes Urban, suburban Plan/Community The GHG mitigation potential is based, in part, on literature analyzing docked (i.e., station‐based) bikeshare programs. This measure should be applied with caution if using dockless (free‐floating) bikeshare.

Best practice is to discount bikeshare membership and
dedicate bikeshare parking to encourage use of the
service. Also consider including space on the vehicle to store personal items while traveling, such as a basket.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 160. Up to 0.02 percent from vehicle travel in the plan/community
26 T ‐22‐B Implement Electric Bikeshare
Program
This measure will establish an electric bikeshare program. Electric bikeshare programs provide users with on‐demand access to electric pedal assist bikes for short‐term rentals. This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to electric bicycles, displacing VMT and reducing GHG emissions. Variations of this measure are described in Measure T‐22‐A, Implement Pedal (Non‐Electric) Bikeshare Program, and Measure T‐22‐C, Implement
Scootershare Program.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes Urban, suburban Plan/Community The GHG mitigation potential is based, in part, on literature analyzing docked (i.e., station‐based) bikeshare programs. This measure should be applied with caution if using dockless (free‐floating) bikeshare.

Best practice is to discount electric bikeshare
membership and dedicate electric bikeshare parking
to encourage use of the service. Consider also
including space on the vehicle to store personal items
while traveling, such as a basket.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 164.

Up to 0.06 percent from vehicle
travel in the plan/community.

This quantification
methodology does not account
for the miles traveled from
vehicle travel of program
employees picking up and
dropping off bikes.
27 T ‐22‐C Implement  Scootershare Program
This measure will establish a scootershare program. Scootershare programs provide users with on‐demand access to electric scooters for short‐term rentals. This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to scooters, displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG emissions. Variations of this measure are described in Measure T‐ 22‐A, Implement Pedal (Non‐Electric) Bikeshare Program, and Measure T‐22‐B, Implement Electric Bikeshare Program.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes Urban, suburban Plan/Community The GHG mitigation potential is based, in part, on literature analyzing docked (i.e., station‐based) bikeshare programs. This measure should be applied with caution given the likely higher popularity of scootershare compared to bikeshare.

Best practice is to discount scootershare membership
and dedicate scootershare parking to encourage use
of the service. Consider also including space on the
vehicle to store personal items while traveling, such as a basket.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 168.

Up to 0.07 percent from vehicle
travel in the plan/community.

This quantification
methodology does not account
for the miles traveled from
vehicle travel of program
employees picking up and
dropping off scooters.
28 T ‐23 Provide Community‐Based Travel
Planning
This measure will target residences in the plan/community with community‐based travel planning (CBTP). CBTP is a residential‐ based approach to outreach that provides households with customized information, incentives, and support to encourage the use of transportation alternatives in place of single occupancy vehicles, thereby reducing household VMT and
associated GHG emissions.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T50: Carpool Programs
Policy T58: Vanpool Programs
Policy T89: High Occupancy Vehicles
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban Plan/Community
CBTP involves teams of trained travel advisors visiting all households within a targeted geographic area, having tailored conversations about residents’ travel needs, and educating residents about the various transportation options available to them. Due to the personalized outreach method, communities are typically targeted in phases.

Pair with any of the Measures from T‐17 through T‐22‐
C to ensure that residents that are targeted by CBTP
who want to use alternative transportation have the
infrastructure and technology to do so.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 172. Up to 2.3 percent from vehicle travel in the plan/community
P:\HNF2201\VMT Mitigations_City of Hanford.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (10/21/2022)

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

Mitigation Measure Measure  Description Related  City of Hanford General Plan Goal Related  City of Hanford General Plan Policy Locational  Context Scale  of Application Implementation  Requirements Expanded  Mitigation Options Formula VMT  Reduction Table F ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects 29 T ‐24 Implement Market Price Public
Parking (On‐Street)
This measure will price all on‐street parking in a given community, with a focus on parking near central business districts, employment centers, and retail centers. Increasing the cost of parking increases the total cost of driving to a location, incentivizing shifts to other modes and thus decreasing total VMT to and from the priced areas. This VMT reduction results in a corresponding reduction in GHG emissions.

Urban, suburban Plan/Community
When pricing on‐street parking, best practice is to allow for dynamic adjustment of prices to ensure approximately 85 percent occupancy, which helps prevent induced VMT due to circling behaviors as individuals search for a vacant parking space. In addition, this method should primarily be implemented in areas with available alternatives to driving, such as transit availability within 0.5. mile or areas of high residential density nearby (allowing for increased walking/biking). If the measure is implemented in a small area, residential parking permit programs should be considered to prevent parking intrusion on nearby streets in residential areas without priced parking.

Pricing on‐street parking also helps support individual projects with priced onsite parking by removing
potential alternative parking locations.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 175. Up to 30.0 percent from vehicle travel in the plan/community
30 T ‐25 Extend Transit Network Coverage or
Hours
This measure will expand the local transit network by either adding or modifying existing transit service or extending the operation hours to enhance the service near the project site.

Starting services earlier in the morning and/or extending services to late‐night hours can accommodate the commuting times of alternative‐shift workers. This will encourage the use of transit and therefore reduce VMT and associated GHG emissions.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T6: [Encourage] a convenient and efficient transit system that serves as an alternative to automobile travel and meets basic transportation needs of the transit dependent.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T53: Adequate Transit Service Availability
Policy T54: KART Expansion
Policy T88: People Movement
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban Plan/Community
There are two primary means of expanding the transit network: by increasing the frequency of service, thereby reducing average wait times and increasing convenience, or by extending service to cover new areas and times.

This measure is focused on providing additional transit network coverage, with no changes to transit
frequency. This measure can be paired with Measure
T‐26, Increase Transit Service Frequency, which is
focused on increasing transit service frequency, for
increased reductions.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 179. Up to 4.6 percent from vehicle travel in the plan/community
31 T ‐26 Increase  Transit Service Frequency
This measure will increase transit frequency on one or more transit lines serving the plan/community. Increased transit frequency reduces waiting and overall travel times, which improves the user experience and increases the attractiveness of transit service. This results in a mode shift from single occupancy vehicles to transit, which reduces VMT and associated GHG emissions.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T6: [Encourage] a convenient and efficient transit system that serves as an alternative to automobile travel and meets basic transportation needs of the transit dependent.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T53: Adequate Transit Service Availability
Policy T54: KART Expansion
Policy T88: People Movement
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban Plan/Community Refer  to measure description.

This measure is focused on providing increased transit
frequency, with no changes to transit network
coverage. This measure can be paired with Measure T‐
25, Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours, which
is focused on increasing transit network coverage, for
increased reductions.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 185.

Up to 11.3 percent GHG
reduction from vehicle travel in
the plan/community. Please
refer to VMT reduction formula
on CAPCOA Manual, page 185.
32 T ‐27 Implement Transit‐Supportive
Roadway Treatments
This measure will implement transit‐supportive treatments on the transit routes serving the plan/community. Transit‐ supportive treatments incorporate a mix of roadway
infrastructure improvements and/or traffic signal modifications to improve transit travel times and reliability. This results in a mode shift from single occupancy vehicles to transit, which reduces VMT and the associated GHG emissions.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T3: [Develop] city streets that meet the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, children, motorists, persons with disabilities, the elderly, users of public transportation, and commercial goods movers.

Goal T6: [Encourage] a convenient and efficient transit system that serves as an alternative to automobile travel and meets basic transportation needs of the transit dependent.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T39: Acoommodating All Modes of Traffic
Policy T54: KART Expansion
Policy T88: People Movemen
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban Plan/Community
Treatments can include transit signal priority, bus‐only signal phases, queue jumps, curb extensions to speed passenger loading, and dedicated bus lanes.

This measure could be paired with other Transit
subsector strategies (Measure T‐25 and Measure T‐29)
for increased reductions.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 189. Up to 0.6 percent from vehicle travel in the plan/community
33 T ‐28 Provide  Bus Rapid Transit
This measure will convert an existing bus route to a bus rapid transit (BRT) system. BRT includes the following additional components, compared to traditional bus service: exclusive right‐ of‐way (e.g., busways, queue jumping lanes) at congested intersections, increased limited‐stop service (e.g., express service), intelligent transportation technology (e.g., transit signal priority, automatic vehicle location systems), advanced technology vehicles (e.g., articulated buses, low‐floor buses), enhanced station design, efficient fare‐payment smart cards or smartphone apps, branding of the system, and use of vehicle guidance systems. BRT can increase the transit mode share in a community due to improved travel times, service frequencies, and the unique components of the BRT system. This mode shift reduces VMT and the associated GHG emissions.

Urban, suburban Plan/Community
The measure quantification methodology accounts for the increase in ridership from (1) improved travel times from transit signal prioritization, (2) increased service frequency, and (3) the unique ridership increase associated with a full‐featured BRT service operating on a fully segregated running way with specialized (or stylized) vehicles, attractive stations, and efficient fare collection practices. To take credit for the estimated emissions reduction, the user should implement, at minimum, these components.

This measure could be paired with Measure T‐25,
Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours, and
Measure T‐29, Reduce Transit Fares, for increased
reductions.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 193.

Up to 13.8 percent from vehicle
travel in the plan/community.

Please refer to VMT reduction
formula on CAPCOA Manual,
page 195.

P:\HNF2201\VMT Mitigations_City of Hanford.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (10/21/2022)

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

Mitigation Measure Measure  Description Related  City of Hanford General Plan Goal Related  City of Hanford General Plan Policy Locational  Context Scale  of Application Implementation  Requirements Expanded  Mitigation Options Formula VMT  Reduction Table F ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects 34 T ‐29 Reduce  Transit Fares
This measure will reduce transit fares on the transit lines serving the plan/community. A reduction in transit fares creates incentives to shift travel to transit from single‐occupancy vehicles and other traveling modes, which reduces VMT and associated GHG emissions. This measure differs from Measure T‐8,
Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program, which can be offered through employer‐based benefits programs in which the employer fully or partially pays the employee’s cost of transit.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T6: [Encourage] a convenient and efficient transit system that serves as an alternative to automobile travel and meets basic transportation needs of the transit dependent.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Policy T92: Amenities that Support Alternative Modes of Transportation
Urban, suburban Plan/Community Transit fare reductions can be implemented systemwide or in specific fare‐ free or reduced‐fare zones.

This measure could be paired with other Transit
subsector strategies (Measure T‐25, Extend Transit
Network Coverage or Hours, and Measure T‐26,
Increase Transit Service Frequency) for increased
reductions.

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 200. Up to 1.2 percent from vehicle travel in the plan/community
35 T ‐30 Use  Cleaner‐Fuel Vehicles
This measure requires use of cleaner‐fuel vehicles in lieu of similar vehicles powered by gasoline or diesel fuel. Cleaner‐fuel vehicles addressed in this measure include electric vehicles, natural gas and propane vehicles, and vehicles powered by biofuels such as composite diesel (blend of renewable diesel, biodiesel, and conventional fossil diesel), ethanol, and renewable natural gas.

The full GHG emissions impact of cleaner fuels depends on the emissions from the vehicle’s tailpipe as well as the emissions associated with production of the fuel (sometimes termed “upstream” emissions). For example, tailpipe GHG emissions from renewable natural gas are identical to tailpipe GHG emissions from conventional natural gas; the GHG benefits of renewable natural gas come from the fact that it is produced from biomass. Similarly, BEVs have zero tailpipe emissions, but properly accounting for their GHG impacts requires quantifying the emissions associated with the electricity generation needed to charge the vehicle’s batteries.

Not‐applicable Project/Site or
Plan/Community ‐
If using electric vehicles, pair with Measure T‐14 to
ensure that electric vehicles have sufficient access to charging infrastructure.
‐‐
36 T ‐31‐A Locate Project in Area with High
Destination Accessibility
The measure requires development in an area with high
accessibility to destinations. Destination accessibility is measured in terms of the number of jobs or other attractions (e.g., schools, supermarkets, and health care services) that are reachable within a given travel time or travel distance, and tends to be highest at central locations and lowest at peripheral ones. When
destinations are nearby, the travel time between them is less, thus increasing the potential for people to walk and bike to those destinations and, therefore, reducing the VMT and associated GHG emissions. As an implementation consideration, projects should consider accessibility by people of all functional abilities and incorporate design principles such as Universal Design.

Policy L111: Complete Neighborhoods
Policy L112: Centralized Amenities
Policy L114: Service and Facilities
Policy L117: Neighborhood Retail Goods and Services
Policy L118: Full Service Grocery Stores
Urban, suburban Project/Site ‐ This is a variation of measure T‐31‐B. ‐‐ 37 T ‐31‐B Improve Destination Accessibility in
Undeserved Areas
This measure accounts for the VMT reduction that would be achieved by constructing job centers or other attractions (e.g., schools, supermarkets, and health care services) for residents in underserved areas (e.g., food deserts). When destinations are nearby, the travel time between them is less, thus increasing the potential for people to walk and bike to those destinations, reducing VMT and associated GHG emissions. As an
implementation consideration, projects should consider
accessibility by people of all functional abilities and incorporate design principles such as Universal Design.

Policy L111: Complete Neighborhoods
Policy L112: Centralized Amenities
Policy L114: Service and Facilities
Policy L117: Neighborhood Retail Goods and Services
Policy L118: Full Service Grocery Stores
Urban, suburban Plan/Community ‐ This is a variation of measure T‐31‐A. ‐‐ 38 T ‐32 Orient Project Toward Transit,
Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facility
This measure requires projects to minimize setback distance between the project and planned or existing transit, bicycle, or pedestrian corridors. A project that is designed around an existing or planned transit, bicycle, or pedestrian corridor encourages sustainable mode use. As an implementation
consideration, projects should consider accessibility by people of all functional abilities and incorporate design principles such as Universal Design
Urban, suburban, rural Project/Site ‐‐ ‐ ‐
39 T ‐33 Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike
Lane
This measure requires projects to be located within 0.5‐mile bicycling distance to an existing Class I or IV path or Class II bike lane. A project that is designed around an existing or planned bicycle facility encourages sustainable mode use. The project design should include a comparable network that connects the project uses to the existing off‐site facilities that connect to work/retail destinations. As an implementation consideration, projects should provide sufficient and convenient bicycle parking and long‐term storage, ideally near the bike lane itself, for residents, employees, and visitors, and a bicycle repair station with tools and equipment.

Urban, suburban Project/Site ‐ This measure can be implemented with Measure T‐9. ‐‐ 40 T ‐34 Provide  Bike Parking
This measure requires projects provide short‐term and long‐term bicycle parking facilities to meet peak season maximum demand.

Parking can be provided in designated areas or added within rights‐of‐way, including by replacing parking spaces with bike parking corrals. Ensure that bike parking can be accessed by all, not just project employees or residents.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T66: Public Bicycle Parking
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Policy T92: Amenities that Support Alternative Modes of Transportation
Urban, suburban, rural Project/Site or
Plan/Community ‐‐ ‐ ‐
P:\HNF2201\VMT Mitigations_City of Hanford.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (10/21/2022)

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

Mitigation Measure Measure  Description Related  City of Hanford General Plan Goal Related  City of Hanford General Plan Policy Locational  Context Scale  of Application Implementation  Requirements Expanded  Mitigation Options Formula VMT  Reduction Table F ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects 41 T ‐35 Provide  Traffic Calming Measures
This measure requires projects to include pedestrian/bicycle safety and traffic calming measures above jurisdictional requirements. Roadways should also be designed to reduce motor vehicle speeds and encourage pedestrian and bicycle trips with traffic calming features. Traffic calming features may include marked crosswalks, count‐down signal timers, curb extensions, speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, median islands, tight corner radii, roundabouts or mini‐circles, on‐ street parking, planter strips with street trees, chicanes/chokers, and others. Providing traffic calming measures encourages people to walk or bike instead of using a vehicle. This mode shift will result in a decrease in vehicle miles traveled. Traffic calming also promotes active transportation, which improves physical health.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T3: [Develop] city streets that meet the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, children, motorists, persons with disabilities, the elderly, users of public transportation, and commercial goods movers.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T39: Accommodating All Modes of Traffic
Policy T40: Pedestrian and Bicycle Placemaking
Policy T43: Safe Routes to Schools Program
Policy T48: Traffic Calming
Policy T64: Bicycle Network Master Planning
Policy T70: Pedestrian Connections
Policy T71: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossings
Policy T72: Reduction of Pedestrian Barriers
Policy T88: People Movement
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Policy T92: Amenities that Support Alternative Modes of Transportation
Urban, suburban, rural Plan/Community ‐‐ ‐ ‐
42 T ‐36 Create  Urban Non‐Motorized Zones
The measure requires projects to convert a percentage of its roadway miles to transit malls, linear parks, or other non‐ motorized zones. These features encourage non‐motorized travel and thus a reduction in vehicle miles traveled. This measure is only applicable to projects located in urban environments.

Consider access issues for paratransit users and those with mobility impairments.

Urban Plan/Community ‐‐ ‐ ‐
43 T ‐37 Dedicate  Land for Bike Trails
This measure requires projects to provide for, contribute to, or dedicate land for the provision of off‐site bicycle trails linking the project to designated bicycle commuting routes in accordance with an adopted citywide or countywide bikeway plan. Existing desire paths can make good locations, as it represents a community‐identified transportation need.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T3: [Develop] city streets that meet the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, children, motorists, persons with disabilities, the elderly, users of public transportation, and commercial goods movers.

Goal T8: [Provide] an interconnected bikeway and community pedestrian network that facilitates and encourages
nonmotorized travel throughout Hanford.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction
Policy T39: Accommodating All Modes of Traffic
Policy T40: Pedestrian and Bicycle Placemaking
Policy T43: Safe Routes to Schools Program
Policy T64: Bicycle Network Master Planning
Policy T65: Bicycle Network
Policy T69: Road Projects with Bicycle Facilities
Policy T88: People Movement
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban, rural Plan/Community ‐‐ ‐ ‐
44 T ‐38 Provide First and Last Mile TNC
Incentives
This measure requires a first‐last mile partnership between a municipality/transit agency and a transportation network company (TNC) for subsidized, shared TNC rides to or from the local transit station within a specific geographic area. This measure encourages a shift to transit mode for longer trips.

Consider providing inclusive mechanisms so people without bank accounts, credit cards, or smart phones can access the
incentives.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T11: [Encourage] passenger rail service that is integrated with other modes of travel.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T50: Carpool Programs
Policy T58: Vanpool Programs
Policy T79: Multi‐modal Connection to Amtrak
Policy T88: People Movement
Policy T89: High Occupancy Vehicles
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban, rural
(only if the project is
adjacent to a commuter
rail station with convenient
rail service to a major
employment center)
Plan/Community ‐‐ ‐ ‐
45 T ‐39 Implement Preferential Parking
Permit Program
This measure requires projects provide preferential parking in terms of free or reduced parking fees, priority parking, or reserved parking in convenient locations (such as near public transportation or building entrances) for commuters who carpool, vanpool, ride‐share or use sustainably fueled vehicles.

Projects should also provide wide parking spaces to
accommodate vanpool vehicles. Commercial preferential parking can accommodate workers who work non‐standard hours by
providing opportunities to participate. Residential preferential parking can consider an equitable distribution of permits, giving priority to owners of sustainably fueled vehicles.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T50: Carpool Programs
Policy T58: Vanpool Programs
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T92: Amenities that Support Alternative Modes of Transportation
Urban, suburban Project/Site ‐‐ ‐ ‐
46 T ‐40 Implement  School Bus Program
This measure will provide school bus service transporting students to a school project. A school bus service can reduce the number of private vehicle trips to drop‐off or pick‐up students, thereby reducing VMT and associated GHG emissions, as well as onsite air pollution emissions, especially if the bus is zero emissions. Best practices include concentrating service for students who live further away from schools, providing service both before and after school, and encouraging parents to utilize the service. This measure is more effective at schools that draw students from a larger enrollment area, such as high schools or private schools.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T89: High Occupancy Vehicles
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban, rural Project/Site ‐‐ ‐ ‐
47 T ‐41 Implement  a School Pool Program
This measure requires projects create a ridesharing program for school children. Most school districts provide bussing services to public schools only. School pool helps match parents to transport students to private schools, or to schools where students cannot walk or bike but do not meet the requirements for bussing. A school pool program can help reduce onsite air pollutant emissions at the school by reducing private vehicle trips, especially if the pool vehicle is zero emissions.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T50: Carpool Programs
Policy T58: Vanpool Programs
Policy T89: High Occupancy Vehicles
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban, rural Project/Site ‐‐ ‐ ‐
P:\HNF2201\VMT Mitigations_City of Hanford.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (10/21/2022)

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

Mitigation Measure Measure  Description Related  City of Hanford General Plan Goal Related  City of Hanford General Plan Policy Locational  Context Scale  of Application Implementation  Requirements Expanded  Mitigation Options Formula VMT  Reduction Table F ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects 48 T ‐42 Implement Telecommute and/or
Alternative Work Schedule Program
This measure requires projects to permit employee
telecommuting and/or alternative work schedules and monitor employee involvement to ensure forecasted participation matches observed participation. While this measure certainly reduces commute‐related VMT, recent research has shown that total VMT from telecommuters can exceed VMT from non‐
telecommuters. In addition, telecommuting affects commercial and residential electricity use, complicating the calculation of the net effect and attribution of emissions. More specifically, an office with fewer employees could result in a decrease in the project’s energy used to operate equipment and provide space heating and air conditioning. Conversely, an increase in telecommuters using their private homes as workspaces could result in a residential increase in energy for those same end uses and appliances. While this measure is currently not quantified and, according to some studies, could result in total VMT increases and other disbenefits, it is recommended that users review the most recent literature at the time of their project initiation to see if new findings more conclusively support a quantifiable emissions reduction.

Policy T91: Alternative Modes Urban,  suburban, rural Project/Site ‐‐ ‐ ‐ P:\HNF2201\VMT Mitigations_City of Hanford.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (10/21/2022)

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

Mitigation Measure Measure  Description Related  City of Hanford General Plan Goal Related  City of Hanford General Plan Policy Locational  Context Scale  of Application Implementation  Requirements Expanded  Mitigation Options Formula VMT  Reduction Table F ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects 49 T ‐43 Provide Real‐Time Transit
Information
This measure requires projects provide real‐time bus/train/ferry arrival time, travel time, alternative routings, or other transit information via electronic message signs, dedicated monitor or interactive electronic displays, websites, or mobile apps. This makes transit service more convenient and may result in a mode shift from auto to transit, which reduces VMT.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T6: [Encourage] a convenient and efficient transit system that serves as an alternative to automobile travel and meets basic transportation needs of the transit dependent.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Urban, suburban, rural Plan/Community ‐‐ ‐ ‐
50 T ‐44 Provide  Shuttles (Gas or Electric)
This measure will provide local shuttle service through coordination with the local transit operator or private contractor.

The shuttles will provide service to and from commercial centers to nearby transit centers to help with first and last mile connectivity, thereby incentivizing a shift from private vehicles to transit, reducing associated GHG emissions. Electric shuttle vehicles provide a marginally more effective reduction to GHG emissions compared to gas‐ or diesel‐fueled shuttles due to their use of less emissions‐intensive electric power. Shuttles that serve only the project residents and/or employees may be seen as increasing gentrification and exclusionary. Consider allowing all people to use the shuttle, regardless of status. Note that this measure can also be implemented at the Project/Site scale by a large employer as part of a Trip Reduction Program.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T6: [Encourage] a convenient and efficient transit system that serves as an alternative to automobile travel and meets basic transportation needs of the transit dependent.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T50: Carpool Programs
Policy T58: Vanpool Programs
Policy T79: Multi‐modal Connection to Amtrak
Policy T88: People Movement
Policy T89: High Occupancy Vehicles
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban Project/Site ‐‐ ‐ ‐
51 T ‐45 Provide  On‐Demand Microtransit
This measure will provide small‐scale, on‐demand public transit services that can offer fixed routes and schedules or flexible routes and on‐demand scheduling (e.g., Metro Micro) through coordination with the local transit operator or private contractor.

Microtransit aims to offer shorter wait times and improved reliability compared to the bus and rail system to further incentivize alternative transportation modes that are less emissions‐intensive than private vehicle trips. On‐demand rides can be booked using smartphone applications or call centers.

Note that this measure may also be applicable at the Project/Site scale for a large employer (e.g., Google’s Via2G pilot) as part of a Trip Reduction Program.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T6: [Encourage] a convenient and efficient transit system that serves as an alternative to automobile travel and meets basic transportation needs of the transit dependent.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T53: Adequate Transit Service Availability
Policy T54: KART Expansion
Policy T79: Multi‐modal Connection to Amtrak
Policy T88: People Movement
Policy T89: High Occupancy Vehicles
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban Project/Site or
Plan/Community ‐‐ ‐ ‐
52 T ‐46 Improve Transit Access, Safety, and
Comfort
This measure requires projects improve transit access and safety through sidewalk/crosswalk safety enhancements, bus shelter improvements, improved lighting, and other features. Work with the community to determine barriers to use, most desired improvements, and other access challenges.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T3: [Develop] city streets that meet the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, children, motorists, persons with disabilities, the elderly, users of public transportation, and commercial goods movers.

Goal T6: [Encourage] a convenient and efficient transit system that serves as an alternative to automobile travel and meets basic transportation needs of the transit dependent.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T39: Accommodating All Modes of Traffic
Policy T55: Transit Stops
Policy T56: Improve Access to Transit Stops
Policy T88: People Movement
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban, rural
(only if the project is
adjacent to a commuter
rail station with convenient
rail service to a major
employment center, or if
there is available transit
and the project is close to
jobs/services)
Plan/Community ‐‐ ‐ ‐
P:\HNF2201\VMT Mitigations_City of Hanford.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (10/21/2022)

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

Mitigation Measure Measure  Description Related  City of Hanford General Plan Goal Related  City of Hanford General Plan Policy Locational  Context Scale  of Application Implementation  Requirements Expanded  Mitigation Options Formula VMT  Reduction Table F ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects 52 T ‐47 Provide  Bike Parking Near Transit
This measure requires the project to provide short‐term and long‐ term bicycle parking near rail stations, transit stops, and freeway access points where there are commuter or rapid bus lines.

Include locations for shared micromobility devices as well as higher‐security parking for personal bicycles.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T11: [Encourage] passenger rail service that is integrated with other modes of travel.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T66: Public Bicycle Parking
Policy T79: Multi‐modal Connection to Amtrak
Policy T90: Existing Network
Policy T91: Alternative Modes
Urban, suburban Plan/Community ‐‐ ‐ ‐
53 T ‐48 Implement  Area or Cordon Pricing
This measure requires projects implement a cordon pricing scheme. The pricing scheme will set a cordon (boundary) around a specified area to charge a toll to enter the area by vehicle. The cordon location is usually the boundary of a central business district or urban center but could also apply to substantial development projects with limited points of access. The toll price can be based on a fixed schedule or be dynamic, responding to real‐time congestion levels. It is critical to have an existing, high quality transit infrastructure for the implementation of this strategy to reach a significant level of effectiveness. The pricing signals will only cause mode shifts if alternative modes of travel are available and reliable. This measure should provide an exception for low‐income residents or workers within the pricing zone.

Urban Plan/Community ‐‐ ‐ ‐
54 T ‐49 Replace Traffic Controls with
Roundabout
This measure requires projects install a roundabout as a traffic control device to smooth traffic flow, reduce idling, eliminate bottlenecks, and manage speed. In some cases, roundabouts can improve traffic flow and reduce emissions. The emission reduction depends heavily on what the roundabout is compared to (e.g., uncontrolled intersection, stop sign, traffic signal).

Design roundabout so cyclists have the option to join traffic or bypass the roundabout with an adjacent path.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T3: [Develop] city streets that meet the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, children, motorists, persons with disabilities, the elderly, users of public transportation, and commercial goods movers.

Policy T48: Traffic Calming Urban,  suburban, rural Plan/Community ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 55 T ‐50
Required Project Contributions to
Transportation Infrastructure
Improvement
This measure requires projects contribute to traffic‐flow improvements or other multi‐modal infrastructure projects that reduce emissions and are not considered as substantially growth inducing. The local transportation agency should be consulted for specific needs. Larger projects may be required to contribute a proportionate share to the development and/or continuation of a regional transit system. Contributions may consist of dedicated right‐of‐way, capital improvements, or easements. Ensure the jurisdictional fee system does not disadvantage infill projects over greenfield projects.

Urban, suburban, rural Plan/Community ‐‐ ‐ ‐
56 T ‐51 Install  Park‐and‐Ride Lots
This measure requires projects install park‐and‐ride lots near transit stops and high occupancy vehicle lanes. Park‐and‐ride lots also facilitate car‐ and vanpooling. Parking lots can also incorporate cool pavements, tree canopy, or solar photovoltaic shade canopies to reduce the urban heat island effect as well as evaporative emissions from parked vehicles and dedicated electric vehicle parking spots and/or charging infrastructure.

Goal T1: [Develop] a comprehensive, multi‐modal motorized and non‐motorized transportation system that improves the quality of life and facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods.

Goal T2: [Promote] increased use of shared and non‐motorized transportation alternatives resulting in a per capita reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Goal T11: [Encourage] passenger rail service that is integrated with other modes of travel.

Goal T12: [Encourage] improved performance and expanded capacity of the street network by means other than roadway widening or construction.

Policy T59: Transit Parking Lots
Policy T79: Multi‐modal Connection to Amtrak
Policy T90: Existing Network
Suburban, rural Plan/Community ‐‐ ‐ ‐
57 T ‐52 Designate Zero Emissions Delivery
Zones
This measure requires the municipality to designate certain curbside locations as commercial loading zones exclusively available for zero‐emission commercial delivery vehicles. Doing so replaces tailpipe diesel emissions from last‐mile delivery vehicles as well as heavy duty drayage trucks moving goods with less emissions‐intensive electric vehicles and potentially micromobility for food and parcel delivery. Locations should be prioritized based on land use density and existing exposure from air pollution.

Urban Plan/Community ‐‐ ‐ ‐
P:\HNF2201\VMT Mitigations_City of Hanford.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (10/21/2022)

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

Mitigation Measure Measure  Description Related  City of Hanford General Plan Goal Related  City of Hanford General Plan Policy Locational  Context Scale  of Application Implementation  Requirements Expanded  Mitigation Options Formula VMT  Reduction Table F ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects 58 T ‐53 Electrify  Loading Docks
This measure will require that Transport Refrigeration Units and auxiliary power units (APUs) be plugged into the electric grid at the loading dock instead of running on diesel. The indirect GHG emission from electricity generation can partially offset the emissions reduction from fuel reductions. Electrifying loading docks can reduce exposure to air pollutants for workers and drivers.

Urban, suburban, rural Project/Site ‐‐ ‐ ‐
59 T ‐54 Install Hydrogen Fueling
Infrastructure
The measure requires projects to implement accessible hydrogen fuel cell fueling infrastructure. Drivers of fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV), from individual passenger vehicles to haul truck fleets, will be able to refuel using this infrastructure. The expansion of hydrogen fueling locations indirectly supports the uptake of FCEV in place of the typical internal combustion engine vehicle fueled by carbon‐emitting gasoline and diesel.
‐ Project/Site or
Plan/Community ‐‐ ‐ ‐
‐
Source: Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity,  Final Draft, by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, December 2021.

P:\HNF2201\VMT Mitigations_City of Hanford.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (10/21/2022)

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (Study Session - VMT Guidelines)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/1/2022

AGENDA SECTION: B

SUBJECT:

Presentation, Council Discussion and Direction related to several upcoming annexations, an amendment to the Sphere of Influence, and related General Plan Amendments and pre-zoning.

BACKGROUND
City Staff intends to begin the process to initiate several annexations, a Sphere of Influence amendment, general plan amendments and pre-zoning.

The proposed annexations consist of three projects:
· Hanford Industrial Park annexation;
· Heroes Park annexation; and
· The annexation of several substantially surrounded islands.

In addition to the proposed annexations, the City will also need to amend the Sphere of Influence in several areas of the City. As part of the annexation and Sphere of Influence amendment the City will need to pre-zone several properties and process a general plan amendment, which will include the completion of the conversion of the Hidden Valley property from Residential use to Open Space.

In order to initiate this process, City Staff will need to circulate a Request for Proposals for a consultant to assist in the completion of the annexation application, complete the CEQA process and conduct public outreach. The purpose of this Study Session is to get Council direction on the proposed elements of this large projects so that the Scope of Work for the RFP can be completed and the work can commence.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

4.B
Packet Pg. 77

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/1/2022

AGENDA SECTION: C

SUBJECT:

Public Work: Presentation by ENGIE Services regarding their proposal to perform modernization upgrades to the City's wastewater treatment facility via the design-build process.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that Council consider the ENGIE proposal and authorize them to move forward with the next step of refining the project scope. No monetary commitment is being requested at this time.

BACKGROUND:

The City's wastewater treatment facility is a multi-million dollar facility with an annual operating budget in excess of $5 million. The current configuration of the plant is such that there are essentially two plants operating in parallel. The "old" side of the plant is a trickling filter plant that handles about 40% of the daily flow. The "new" side of the plant consists of an extended aeration ditch and handles the remaining 60% of flow.

Parallel operation of essentially two plants is inherently inefficient. Furthermore, the age, condition, and processes of the "old" plant necessitates significantly more maintenance, operational care, and power than does the "new" plant. In fact, maintenance costs of the "old" plant make up approximately 75% of all plant-wide costs and uses 50% more energy than does the "new" plant.

ENGIE approached the City with a proposal to design an expansion of the "new" plant at their cost, and then to construct the facilities. Their proposal would allow the City to pay for the cost of construction over time. ENGIE's proposal includes estimated cost savings over a 25 year period which will essentially become a lease payment to ENGIE. All savings thereafter will accrue to City, which is estimated to total $24M over the project's 35 year lifespan.

ENGIE is introducing this proposal to Council at the November 1, 2022 meeting. It is being requested that Council show a good-faith interest in the project and the design-build process.

4.C
Packet Pg. 78
Upon such direction, staff will work with ENGIE to refine the proposed project and will return at a future Council meeting to present a final proposal, at which time Council will be asked to authorize ENGIE to move forward with design (at no cost to City). Upon design completion, City will be asked to authorize ENGIE to move forward with project implementation and construction.

It should be noted that the "old" plant will require approximately $3M in maintenance costs over the next two years to rehabilitate structures and replace equipment. The majority of this cost can be avoided by expanding the "new" plant.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact at this time.

ATTACHMENTS:

4.C
Packet Pg. 79

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/1/2022

AGENDA SECTION: B

SUBJECT:

City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the August 16, 2022 Meeting

Recommendation:

Approve the minutes of the August 16, 2022 Meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

8.16.2022

14.B
Packet Pg. 80

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
August 16, 2022 7:00 PM
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.

5:00 PM CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION:

Mayor Morrow called the study session and closed session to order at 5:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL BY THE CITY CLERK :

Present: Kalish Morrow, Francisco Ramirez, Amanda Saltray, Art Brieno

Absent: Diane Sharp
PUBLIC COMMENT:

Comments from the public are limited to items listed on the agenda (GC 54954.3a). A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

Dennis Ham commented on the sign ordinance and expressed his concerns regarding political signs.

Chad Draxler commented on the sign ordinance restrictions. He also expressed his concerns about the need for more patrolling officers in the downtown area.

STUDY SESSION:

A. Discussion of Aut omated Meter Reading System evaluation and options Public Works Director John Doyel and Deputy Public Works Director Jim Ross discussed the current conditions of the system, non -functional equipment and the need for equipment to repaired and replaced. Staf f presented three options for the Council’s review and consideration:

• Option 1A: Replace All Non-functioning Zenner Equipment with Different Brand Total cost ~ $2,000,000 ($500 per site)
Note: cost could be up to 50% higher depending on number of non-functioning sites.

• Option 1B: Replace All Zenner Equipment
Total cost ~ $8,150,000 ($453 per site)
Completely new system

14.B.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: 8.16.2022 (Clerk: 8.16.2022 Minutes)
• Option 2: Repair Zenner Equipment
Estimated cost of Phase 1, equipment, and labor, ~$313,000 This would return the system to better than 97% functionality Phase 2: Sweep the remaining 14,000 sites and test, repair / replace as needed Estimated time frame of 34 weeks
Estimated cost of Phase 2, equipment, and labor, ~ $136,00 Because number of non- functioning sites could be as high as 6000, staff recommends an appropriation of $750,000 be made from Water Capital reserves for the project.

Staff addressed the Council’s questions and concerns. After much discussion the Council directed staff to move forward with option number 2.

Motion to approve.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Art Brieno, Council Member
SECONDER: Francisco Ramirez, Council Member
AYES: Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
ABSENT: Sharp
B. Presentation and Consideration of the City's Sign Ordinance Deputy City Manager Water s presented and discussed the Sign Ordinance , Hanford Municipal Code Chapter

17.56. The Council discussed increasing the duration of use for temporary signs to 60 days. They also discussed mural restrictions and the approval process . Staff addressed the Council's questions and concerns. Staff will prepare some options to be discussed at future Study Session for the Council's review and direction.

The Council convened to closed session at 6:00 p.m.

CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF THE FOLLOWING:

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-LABOR NEGOTIATIONS ( GC 54957.6):

Agency Designated Representatives: Che Johnson, Mario Cifuentez, Sarah Cardoza, Chris Tavarez, and Brenda Garcia.

Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union Local 521 (SEIU) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (GC 54956.9):

Litigation threatened over development project site claim.

CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION:

Mayor Morrow called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Diane Sharp Vice Mayor Absent
Art Brieno Council Member Present 4:57 PM
Kalish Morrow Mayor Present 4:50 PM
Amanda Saltray Council Member Present 4:40 PM
Francisco Ramirez Council Member Present 4:47 PM

14.B.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: 8.16.2022 (Clerk: 8.16.2022 Minutes)
INVOCATION:

The invocation was led by Reverend Bobby Guerra.

FLAG SALUTE:

The flag salute was led by Mayor Morrow.

CLOSED SESSION ACTION REPORT:

None.

RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS:

Fire: Recognition of Retired Fire Captain David Sumaya for his 33 years of dedicated service to the City of Hanford.

Fire Chief Steve Pendergrass recognized retired Captain David Sumaya. Congressman David Valadao presented Mr. Sumaya with a Certificate of congressional recognition.

COUNCIL GENERAL REPORTS:

Brief information -only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expenses (AB1234).

Council Members Ramirez, Saltray and Mayor Morrow discussed the meetings and events t hey attended. Council Member Saltray invited the public to volunteer to help with the fire station repairs. Council Member Brieno had nothing to report.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters not on the agenda within the jurisdiction of the Hanford City Council. This is also the public’s opportunity to request an item from the Consent Calendar be pulled for discussion purposes or to comment on any item on the agenda. Comments related to Public Hearing items will be heard at the time the item is discussed.

A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

Daniel Leon commented on a complaint that he filed on the police department . He provided his background in law enforcement and demanded a written apology from the officer in question.

Christopher Johnson commented on his claim against the city, item E on the consent calendar. The item was b pulled from the consent calendar for separate discussion.

Lou Martinez commented on the high temperatures this summer and asked the Council to extend the hours of the Plunge pool and the park splash pads. He also commented on the condition of the splash pads.

Bob Ramos commented on the discussion of the traffic circles project. He suggested letting the community decide how the ARPA funds should be used.

Stella Yarbrough addressed the City Manager's salary increase and asked that is be postponed. She also commented on homelessness.

14.B.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: 8.16.2022 (Clerk: 8.16.2022 Minutes)
Chad Draxler thanked Lou Martinez for addressing the park splash pads . He also commented on the traffic circles project and the Mayor's social media page.

John Doyel addressed the public’s comments on the traffic circles project. He also provided the background and the benefits of the project.

Michael Quinn commented on the traff ic circles project. He also provided his experience biking on roundabouts. He suggested putting them in a busier area of the city.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion.

There will be no separate discussi on of these matters unless a request is made an d then the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.

Item E was pulled during public comment. Council Member Brieno pulled item H.

Motion to approve the consent calendar except for the items pulled for separate discussion.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Art Brieno, Council Member
SECONDER: Amanda Saltray, Council Member
AYES: Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
ABSENT: Sharp
A. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: Waive reading in full of resolutions and ordinances and approval and adoption of same by reading title the only.

B. City Clerk: Denial of a claim for damages and authorization for the City Clerk to send out notification of such to Michael Ramirez.

C. City Cle rk: Denial of a claim for damages and authoriz ation for the City Clerk to send out notification of such to Jagar Singh Estate & Family Members.

D. City Clerk: Denial of a claim for damages and authorization for the City Clerk to send out notification of such to Joseph B. McCasland.

E. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the April 19, 2022 Meeting F. Public Works: Approve a Notice of Completion for the FY 21- 22 Pavement Resurfacing Project and authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest a nd file said Notice with the Kings County Recorder's Office.

PULLED ITEMS:

1. City Clerk: Denial of a claim for damages and authorization for the City Clerk to send out notification of such to Christopher Johnson.
[Item E]

Pulled by the claimant during public comment.

14.B.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: 8.16.2022 (Clerk: 8.16.2022 Minutes)
City Manager Cifuentez discussed the claim. Mr. Johnson discussed the damages and provided the background.

He asked the Council to settle the claim and questioned the scheduled maintenance of the tree. He also answered questions from the Council. City Attorney Ty Mizote addressed the process of denying the claim.

After a brief discussion, Council Member Ramirez motioned to table the item.

RESULT: TABLED [3 TO 1]
MOVER: Amanda Saltray, Francisco Ramirez
SECONDER: Art Brieno, Council Member
AYES: Brieno, Saltray, Ramirez
NAYS: Morrow
ABSENT: Sharp

2. Public Works: Authorization to reimburse Presidio JJR Bella Vista 128, LLC., $647,041.54 for the construction of off-site street improvements along the development frontage of Tract No. 919, Unit No. 1, authorize an additional appropriation of $447,041.54 from the Transportation Impact Fee Reserves, reimburse $25,533.45 for the oversizing of the water main within Centennial Drive from an 8 inch to an 18 inch, and reimburse $9,752.00 for the oversizing of the sewer main within Centennial Drive from an 8 inch to an 12 inch. (Centennial Drive and Fargo Avenue) [Item H]

Pulled by Council Member Brieno.

Public Works Director John Doyel discussed the project and answered questions from Council Member Brieno.

Motion to approve.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Art Brieno, Francisco Ramirez
SECONDER: Amanda Saltray, Council Member
AYES: Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
ABSENT: Sharp
PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A. Finance: Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution 22-34- R to authorize a comprehensive Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022 -23 which includes proposed new fees, deletion of fees and increases/adjustments to existing fees.

Mayor Morrow opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. and called for the staff report. Finance Manager Destin y Borba presented the staff report and discussed the amendments. Council Member Brieno expressed his concerns of the required utility servic e deposit fee and hardships of customers. He suggested lowering the fee . Staff addressed Mr. Brieno's concerns and reminded the Council of the rev ised Water Service Discontinuance Policy.

Council directed staff to create a payment plan policy.

Public Comments:

None.

Motion to approve.

Mayor Morrow closed the public hearing at 8:03 p.m.

14.B.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: 8.16.2022 (Clerk: 8.16.2022 Minutes)
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Art Brieno, Council Member
SECONDER: Francisco Ramirez, Council Member
AYES: Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
ABSENT: Sharp
GENERAL BUSINESS:

A. Parks and Community Services: Approval of a sole- source contract agreement with Sebastian Corporation for the design/build contract for the Civic Park Electrical Infrastructure Project in the amount of $159,194.12 and appropriate $175,113 including 10% contingency reserve from the ACO Fund for the project.

Parks and Community Service Director Brad Albert discussed the project and background. Staff answered questions from the Council. Dir. Albert also discussed the timeline for the Winter Wonderland. Ma yor Morrow expressed her concerns regarding the timeline and suggested increasing the contingency reserve to 15% .

Finance Director Chris Tavarez spoke in favor of the suggested increase. After much discussion, Council Member Salt ray made the motion to approve with the a mendment to increase the contingency reserve f ee to 15%.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Amanda Saltray, Council Member
SECONDER: Kalish Morrow, Mayor
AYES: Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
ABSENT: Sharp
COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATION:

At this time, any Council Member may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on their activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting c oncerning any matter or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (GOV. CODE SEC. 54954.2)
Council Future Agenda Items
City Manager Cifuentez and Mayor Morrow recognized Public Works Director John Doyel.

Parks and Commu nity Services Director Brad Albert addressed the comments made regarding the hours of the Plunge pool and splash pads. He also stated he will follow up on the condition of the splash pads.

It was a Council consensus to cancel the September 6th regular City Council meeting due to the conflict in traveling dates for the League of California Cities Annual Conference.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mayor Morrow adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

14.B.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: 8.16.2022 (Clerk: 8.16.2022 Minutes)

Natalie Corral
City Clerk

14.B.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: 8.16.2022 (Clerk: 8.16.2022 Minutes)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/1/2022

AGENDA SECTION: C

SUBJECT:

City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the September 20, 2022 Meeting

Recommendation:

Approve the minutes of the September 20, 2022 Meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

9.20.2022

14.C
Packet Pg. 88

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
September 20, 2022 7:00 PM
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.
5:00 PM CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION:

Mayor Morrow called the study session and closed session to order at 5:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL BY THE CITY CLERK:

Present: Kalish Morrow, Diane Sharp, Francisco Ramirez, Amanda Saltray, Art Brieno.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Comments from the public are limited to items listed on the agenda (GC 54954.3a). A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

None.

STUDY SESSION :

A. Presentation by the Carnegie Museum of Kings County (CMKC) regarding Facility Improvements and Programs offered by the Organization
The Carnegie Museum Executive Director Jack Schwartz provided a background, discussed facility repairs, exhibits, events, and partnerships with other agencies and non-profits. He thanked the city for their support. The Council commended Mr. Schwartz and thanked him for the presentation.

B. Presentation by Flock Safety on the proposed use of License Plate Readin g (LPR) cameras and technology by the Hanford Police Department to assist with crime follow-up.

Police Chief Parker Sever and Police Sgt. Justin Vallin provided an overview of the cameras and discussed how they will benefit the city and the department. Flock Safety Territory Sales Manager Anton Benbalit provided the background of Flock Safety and discussed the operating system. He also shared success stories from other agencies. Staff answered questions from the Council. Vice Mayor Sharp and Council Member Ramirez spoke in support of the cameras. Mayor Morrow expressed her concerns regarding the possible controversy. The Council directed staff to bring back a proposal for their review and consideration.

The Council convened to closed session at 6:14 p.m.

CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF THE FOLLOWING:

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-LABOR NEGOTIATIONS (GC 54957.6):

14.C.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: 9.20.2022 (Clerk: 9.20.2022 Minutes)
Agency Designated Representatives: Che Johnson, Mario Cifuentez, Sarah Cardoza, Chris Tavarez, and Brenda Garcia.

Employee Organizations: Hanford Police Officers Association (POA) and Service Employees International Union Local 521 (SEIU)

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (GC 54956.9(D)(2)):

Anticipated litigation over liability claim.

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS (GC 54956.8):

Property: APNs 028-240-018, 028-240-020, 08-310-005, 028-310-007, 028-310-008, 028-310- 025 Agency Negotiators: Mario Cifuentez and Ty Mizote
Negotiating Party: City Farm Industries, Inc.; Ross Lyndon-James and Mark Askey CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION:

Mayor Morrow called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Diane Sharp Vice Mayor Present 4:35 PM
Art Brieno Council Member Present 4:59 PM
Kalish Morrow Mayor Present 4:46 PM
Amanda Saltray Council Member Present 4:52 PM
Francisco Ramirez Council Member Present 4:30 PM

INVOCATION:

The invocation was led by Pastor John Malogi.

FLAG SALUTE:

Mayor Morrow led the flag salute.

CLOSED SESSION ACTION :

None.

COUNCIL GENERAL REPORTS:

Brief information -only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expenses (AB1234).

The Council discussed the events and meetings they attended. Council Member Ramirez addressed social media comments regarding his guest at the League of California Cities Annual Conference and apologized to the Council and the community.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters not on the agenda within the jurisdiction of the Hanford City Council. This is also the public’s opportunity to request an item from the Consent Calendar be pulled for discussion purposes or to

14.C.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: 9.20.2022 (Clerk: 9.20.2022 Minutes)
comment on any item on the agenda. Comments related to Public Hearing items will be heard at the time the item is discussed.

A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

Rose Shapely provided a letter with her suggestions for the refuse department.

Daniel Leon provided the Council with a letter addressing his concerns regarding illegal activity in the city.

Larry Faria commented on the traffic circles project and suggested city funds be used for city parks.

Lynn Nelson commented on the traffic circles and spoke in opposition of the project.

Rusty Brookshier spoke in opposition of the traffic circles.

Lee Caetano requested to pull item J from the consent calendar.

Bob Ramos commented on the traffic circles project and spoke in opposition of the project.

Lou Martinez commented on the ARPA funds and the traffic circles project. He requested the Council hol d a public hearing for the project.

Mayor Morrow addressed the public’s concerns of the traffic circles project.

Mark Kairis commented on the Bob Hill sports complex lighting and shared his concerns regarding the safety of the youth organizations that use the field.

Jim Nelson expressed his concern regarding the traffic circles project.

Stella Yarbrough commented on the areas in the city that need attention. She also spoke in opposition of the traffic circles project.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion.

There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made and then the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.

Item J was pulled during public comment and the Council pulled items L, O, P, and U.

Motion to approve the consent calendar except for the items that were pulled for separate consideration.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Amanda Saltray, Council Member
SECONDER: Francisco Ramirez, Council Member
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
A. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: Waive reading in full of resolutions and ordinances and approval and adoption of same by reading title the only.

B. City Clerk: Denial of a cla im for damages and authorization f or the City Clerk to send out notification of such to Tanya McBroom.

14.C.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: 9.20.2022 (Clerk: 9.20.2022 Minutes)
C. City Clerk: Denial of a claim for damages and authorization for the City Clerk to send out notification of such to Jorge Garoy.

D. City Clerk: Denial of a claim for damages and authori zation for the City Clerk to send out notification of such to Jose Luis Gallardo.

E. City Clerk: Denial of a claim for damages and authorization for the City Clerk to send out notification of such to Jacquelyn Johnson.

F. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the April 5, 2022 Meeting G. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the May 3, 2022 Meeting H. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the May 17, 2022 Meeting I. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the May 31, 2022 Special Meeting J. Administration: Adoption of Resolution 22- 37-R, Conflict of Interest Code, Designating the Filing Obligations for designated Employees
K. Public Works: Approval of the suggested Routes to School for Hanford Elementary School District and Saint Rose-Thomas McCarthy School for the upcoming 2022-23 School Year L. Public Works: Approval of the Suggested Routes to School plan for the Pioneer Union School District for the upcoming 2022-23 School Year
M. Public Works: Approval for the purchase of residential and commercial tras h, recycle, and organics containers from Wastequip of Statesville, NC in an amount not to exceed $590,000 for fiscal year 2022/23 and appropriation of funds for the purchase.

N. Public Works: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 2; Authorization for the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said Notice with the Kings County Recorder’s Office.

O. Public Works: Approval of a payment to Wastequip Mfg. Toter, LLC, for the purchase of refuse containers for Refuse Operations, in the amount is $115,432.50 P. Public Works: Purchase of one Red Devil paint mixer from Roadline Products, of Norwalk, CA in the amount of $12,548.47; declare equipment number 175, commercial paint shaker, as surplus, and appropriate $12,548.47 from Fleet Replacement Reserve for the purchase.

Q. Police: Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Kings County Office of Education (KCOE) for the installation, maintenance and access of Hanford Police And F ire radio equipment on KCOE tower sites.

R. Police: Authorization of a Sole-Source Purchase of One (1) 2022 Dodge Durango Pursuit vehicle from Wondries Fleet Group, of Watsonville, Ca.; Appropriation of $61,056 from the General Fund for the vehicle purchas e for a corporal position in the T raffic Enforcement Division with $46,872.50 of the cost to be covered by grant reimbursement.

PULLED ITEMS::

14.C.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: 9.20.2022 (Clerk: 9.20.2022 Minutes)

1. Administration: Approval of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Service Employees International Union Local 521 with changes to wages, benefits, and other working conditions, effective July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2025.
[Item J]

Pulled during public comment by Mr. Lee Caetano.

Mr. Lee Caetano, a city employee, requested the agreement take effect for the current pay period. He also mentioned his request for a special meeting to approve the agreement sooner. Human Recourses Manager Sarah Cardoza and Finance Director Chris Tavarez discussed the negotiation process and the effective date and answered questions from the Council. After a brief discussion, Vice Mayor Sharp made the motion to approve.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Diane Sharp, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Amanda Saltray, Council Member
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez

2. IT: Approval of the Annual Purchase of Microsoft Software Licensing in the amount of $53,782.07
[Item L]

Pulled by Council Member Saltray.

Finance Director Tavarez answered questions from Council Member Saltray.

Motion to approve.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Amanda Saltray, Council Member
SECONDER: F rancisco Ramirez, Council Member
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez

3. Public Works: Approve a Notice of Completion for the Civic Auditorium Reroofing Project and authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said Notice w ith the Kings County Recorder's Office.
[Item O]

Pulled by Mayor Morrow.

Mayor Morrow commended staff. Engineering Manager Lisa Dock and Public Works Deputy Director Jim Ross answered questions from the Council.

Motion to approve.

14.C.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: 9.20.2022 (Clerk: 9.20.2022 Minutes)
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kalish Morrow, Mayor
SECONDER: Diane Sharp, Vice Mayor
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez

4. Public Works: Approval of a Work Order, with Provost and Pritchard Consulting Group of Visalia, CA, for Professional Engineering Services for the Site Facilities design for Water Wells 51 and 52.
[Item P]

Pulled by Council Member Saltray.

Engineering Manager Lisa Dock and Public Works Deputy Director J im Ross answered questions from the Council.

Motion to approve.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Diane Sharp, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Amanda Saltray, Council Member
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez

5. Public Works: Award contracts to Power Design Electric, Inc., of Kingsburg, CA for the Civic Park Conduit Boring Project in the amount of $28,557.00 and the Civic Park Electrical Project in the amount of $57,590.00 and establish a construction contingency of $5,000 for each project. [Item U]

Pulled by Council Member Brieno.

Engineering Manager Lisa Dock answered q uestions from the Council. City At torney Ty Mizote addressed Mayor Morrow's concerns regarding the bid process.

Motion to approve.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Diane Sharp, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Art Brieno, Council Member
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A. Police: Public Hearing regarding the FY 2021 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant and authorization for the City Manager to execute an MOU between the City of Hanford and Lemoore PD for the Grant Funding, and appropriate $21,778.00 from the City's General Fund to fund the purchase new slide assemblies and romeo sights for the Hanford Police Department to be reimbursed by the FY2022 JAG Grant.

Mayor Morrow opened the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. and called for the staf f report. Chief Pa rker Sever discussed the MOU for the Council's review and consideration.

14.C.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: 9.20.2022 (Clerk: 9.20.2022 Minutes)
Public Comment:

None.

Motion to approve.

Mayor Morrow closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Francisco Ramirez, Council Member
SECONDER: Amanda Saltray, Council Member
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
B. Community Development: Public hearing to Accept comments and Approve the submission of the 2021/22 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consolidated Annual Perfor mance and Evaluation Report.

Mayor Morrow opened the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. and called for the staff report. Administrative Analyst Sandra Lerma discussed the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, accomplishments, activities, a nd resources. Ms. Lerma answered questions from the Council. The Council discussed the CDBG activity allocation. Staff answered questions from the Council.

Public Comment:

None.

Motion to approve.

Mayor Morrow closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Francisco Ramirez, Council Member
SECONDER: Diane Sharp, Vice Mayor
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
GENERAL BUSINESS:

A. City Attorney: Council review and direction regarding a claim filed by Christopher Johnson City Attorney Ty Mizote discussed the claim and the recommendation of the Third party Administrator for the Council's review and consideration. Mayor Morrow invited the claimant to come forward to discuss the incident. Mr. Johnson ques tioned the maintenance schedule of the tree and answered questions from the Council. After much discussion, Vice Mayor Sharp made the motion to approve.

14.C.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: 9.20.2022 (Clerk: 9.20.2022 Minutes)
RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Diane Sharp, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Kalish Morrow, Mayor
AYES: Sharp, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
NAYS: Brieno
B. Community Development: Authorization for City Staff to apply for the Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) Discretionary Grant Program for improvements to the SR 198 and 9th Street interchange.

Deputy City Manager Jaso n Waters discussed the background and the grant for the Council's review and consideration. Deputy Waters answered questions from the Council. Vice Mayor Sharp excused herself due to a possible conflict of interest. Council Member Saltray expressed her concerns regarding the city funding the project. Deputy Waters addressed her concerns.

Motion to approve.

RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 0]
MOVER: Francisco Ramirez, Council Member
SECONDER: Amanda Saltray, Council Member
AYES: Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
ABSTAIN: Sharp
C. Public Works: Approval of amendment to professional services agreement with QK, Inc. of Visalia, CA not to exceed $928,877 for the design and professional engineering services for the East Lacey Boulevard Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety project from 10th Avenue to east of Sierra Drive; and for design of Traffic Signal at Lacey Boulevard and 9th Avenue.

Vice Mayor Sharp excused herself due to a possible conflict of interest. Engineering Manager Lisa Dock discussed the project for the Council's review and consideration. Ms. Dock answered questions from the Council. Council Member Ramirez spoke in support of the project and commended staff. After much discussion, Council Member Ramirez made the motion to approve.

Motion to approve.

RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 0]
MOVER: Francisco Ramirez, Council Member
SECONDER: Amanda Saltray, Council Member
AYES: Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
ABSTAIN: Sharp
COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATION:

At this time, any Council Member may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on their activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, t hey may request staff to report ba ck to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (GOV. CODE SEC. 54954.2)

The Council directed staff to bring back future discussions f or park maintenance and homelessness. Council Member Saltray stated she would like to have a rescue mission like the city of Visalia.

14.C.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: 9.20.2022 (Clerk: 9.20.2022 Minutes)
Council Future Agenda Items
ADJOURNMENT:

Mayor Morrow adjourned the meeting at 9:23 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Natalie Corral
City Clerk

14.C.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: 9.20.2022 (Clerk: 9.20.2022 Minutes)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/1/2022

AGENDA SECTION: D

SUBJECT:

City Clerk: Denial of a claim for damages and authorization for the City Clerk to send out notification of such to Jesse Torres.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council, by motion, approve the denial of the claim and authorize the City Clerk to send out notification of such to the claimant.

BACKGROUND:

A claim for damages against the City was received by the following claimant: Jesse Torres.

After review by the Third Party Administrator, it was determined that the claim should be rejected based on applicable immunities of Government Codes:

Government Code 820.4; A public employee is not liable for his act or omission, exercising due care, in the execution or enforcement of any law.

Government Code 820.2; Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether such discretion be abused.

Qualified Immunity for the City under Penal Code 835a; Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.

Accordingly, it is the City Manager's decision to act in accordance with the recommendation of the Administrator to deny the claim.

FISCAL IMPACT:

14.D
Packet Pg. 98

ATTACHMENTS:

14.D
Packet Pg. 99

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/1/2022

AGENDA SECTION: E

SUBJECT:

City Clerk: Denial of a claim for damages and authorization for the City Clerk to send out notification of such to Sheryl Zamora.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council, by motion, approve the denial of the claim and authorize the City Clerk to send out notification of such to the claimant.

BACKGROUND:

A claim for damages against the City was received by the following claimant: Sheryl Zamora.

After review by the Third Party Administrator, it was determined that the claim should be rejected
based on applicable City Municipal Code 12.04.120 Abatement of Unauthorized Encroachments, Portable hoops cannot be placed anywhere on the right of ways including roadway and sidewalks. The property owner must place portable hoop on property owner’s driveway.

Accordingly, it is the City Manager's decision to act in accordance with the recommendation of the Administrator to deny the claim.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

14.E
Packet Pg. 100

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/1/2022

AGENDA SECTION: F

SUBJECT:

Administration: Approval of the fee schedule for passport related fees as established by the U.S.

Department of State and the addition of a $15 photo/service fee per passport.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that Council approve establishing passport related fees as established by the U.S. Department of State and a $15 photo/service fee per passport.

BACKGROUND:

Several months ago, with a goal of providing additional service to the city of Hanford and surrounding communities, staff in the Administration Department began the process to gain approval from the U.S. State Department. Upon receiving the tentative approval, staff began training and have recently been fully trained and certified as Passport Acceptance Agents and will soon be able offer services for passport processing in compliance with the U.S. Department of State regulations. In order to provide a "one stop" process for applicants, City of Hanford (City) staff have also acquired the appropriate equipment to be able to take passport photos and make copies, if necessary. There are several fees an applicant must consider that are outlined by the U.S. Department of State at travel.state.gov/passportfees and attached to this staff report.

For each passport, the City will receive a $35 Execution Fee, $15 photo service fee (if applicant does not already have a photo) and fee for copy services to offset labor and material costs.

Upon approval by Council these fees will be formally adopted and amended into the City's Master Fee Schedule.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There will be additional revenues added to the General Fund to offset the costs (labor and supplies) of providing these services to the community. Annual revenues would depend on the demand for services. For example if there are 20 passports requested monthly would generate annual revenue of $12,000 before any expenses incurred.

14.F
Packet Pg. 101

ATTACHMENTS:

Passport Fees Chart_TSG_JAN 2022 (002)

14.F
Packet Pg. 102
Submitting incorrect passport fees could delay the processing of your application. For more information regarding passport application fees, please visit travel.state.gov/passportfees or call 1-877-487-2778, TDD/TTY: 1-888-874-7793.

ADULT RENEWALS Please see Renewal by Mail.

What are you renewing? Use Form
Application Fee
*Paid to the
U.S. Department of State
Adult Passport Book DS-82 $130
Adult Passport Card
Not valid for international air travel. Valid only for travel by land and by sea to Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, and the Caribbean.

DS-82 $30
Adult Passport Book & Card DS-82 $160
ALL MINOR APPLICANTS (Under 16) Please see Children Under 16.

What are you applying for? Use Form
Application Fee
*Paid to the
U.S. Department of State
Execution Fee
(Acceptance Fee)
**Paid to the Acceptance Facility
Minor Passport Book DS-11 $100 $35
Minor Passport Card
A passport card is valid only for travel by land and by sea to the following locations: Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, and the Caribbean.

DS-11 $15 $35
Minor Passport Book & Card DS-11 $115 $35
OPTIONAL FEES (Paid to the U.S. Department of State)
Expedite Fee Paid per application, in addition to required fees. Provides faster processing than routine service. Please see Processing Times. $60
1-2 Day Delivery Paid per application for 1-2 day delivery of an issued passport book from the Department of State to the customer. Only applies to mailing addresses within the United States. Not valid for passport cards.
$18.32
File Search Fee A file search is necessary when an applicant is unable to present evidence of U.S. citizenship or verification of a previously issued U.S. Passport or Consular Report of Birth Abroad. Applicant must submit Form DS-11 and a written request for a file search. $150

UNITED STATES PASSPORT FEES
Updated January 2022
ADULT APPLICANTS (16 Years and Older) Please see Apply in Person.

What are you applying for? Use Form
Application Fee
*Paid to the
U.S. Department of State
Execution Fee
(Acceptance Fee)
**Paid to the Acceptance Facility
First-time Adult Passport Book DS-11 $130 $35
First-time Adult Passport Card
Not valid for international air travel. Valid only for travel by land and by sea to Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, and the Caribbean.

DS-11 $30 $35
First-time Adult Passport Book & Card DS-11 $160 $35
Adult Passport Card
For applicants who currently have a valid passport book. DS-82 $30 No Charge Payment Instructions: *The application fee is paid directly to the Department of State. **The Execution/Acceptance fee is paid directly to the acceptance facility. Two separate payments are required. ( Effective 1/10/2022)

14.F.a
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Passport Fees Chart_TSG_JAN 2022 (002) (Admin: Approval of passport related fees)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/1/2022

AGENDA SECTION: G

SUBJECT:

Administration: Authorization for the City Manager to execute a contract with Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Gross and Leoni, LLP, of Sacramento to provide state legislative advocacy services, effective January 1, 2023 through Dec. 31, 2023, for a monthly fee of $6,000.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council, by motion, Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Gross and Leoni, LLP, of Sacramento to provide state legislative advocacy services, effective January 1, 2023 through Dec. 31, 2023, for a monthly fee of $6,000.

SUMMARY and Background:

During the 2022/23 Council Goal setting meeting, Council directed staff to build upon the efforts of the City's Federal Lobbyist and begin the process to hire a state lobbying firm. Accordingly, the FY 2022/23 budget was amended to allow for both State and Federal advocacy services.

In the Spring of 2022, a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued for Government Relations and Legislative Advocacy Services. A total of seven (7) proposals were submitted by the deadline.

A review committee, which included the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager and Greg Burns from Thorn Run Partners (Federal Lobbyist) reviewed the proposals submitted by the 7 firms, and based upon the ranking of rated criteria, came up with a short list of the top three (3) ranked firms including Nielsen Merksamer.

The committee conducted interviews with the top three (3) candidates via Zoom on September 23rd. Based on the outcomes of the final interviews and discussion between the committee members, it was determined that Nielsen Merksamer was the best proposal. The original contract proposal included a $7,000 per month fee proposal but negotiations with the firm were successful in reducing the monthly fee to $6,000 per month. Accordingly, staff is proposing to

14.G
Packet Pg. 104
recommend that Council approve an annual contract, with four (4) additional one-year options to commence effective January 1, 2023, with Nielsen Merksamer.

The firm employs six lobbyists, five of whom are attorneys. For purposes of this contract, Nielsen Merksamer would assign Michelle Rubalcava and Rachael Blucher to represent the City of Hanford. Ms. Rubalcava will be the City’s primary lobbyist contact.

The full scope of services to be provided is included in the attached Proposal but the primary benefits are as such:

To implement the 2022-23 work plan, Nielsen Merksamer would perform the following tasks on an ongoing basis, with guidance from and in concert with City of Hanford staff:

· Provide strategic advice to best position the City of Hanford with policy makers in the legislature, the executive branch, and regulatory agencies.

· Monitor existing and new proposals originating from the legislature, state agencies, and departments. As directed by City staff, Nielsen Merksamer would engage with the legislature, departments, and agencies to secure favorable outcomes for the City.

· Review all introduced and amended legislation and budget proposals for matters that may impact the City of Hanford.

· Draft and secure amendments to pending legislation on an as-needed basis, in cooperation with City of Hanford staff. Because we are a law firm, we often draft legislation and work with Legislative Counsel in refining legislative language, and we provide research and suggestions to committee consultants analyzing priority City bills.

· Represent the City of Hanford by testifying at legislative hearings, as appropriate, or providing written testimony and counsel for City of Hanford representatives.

· Review and lobby budget proposals that may impact the City of Hanford.

· Facilitate meetings with the City of Hanford and key contacts around the state, as needed.

· Set up a regular, calendared communication schedule with City contact for regular updates. This can either be a standing conference call or zoom meeting. For emerging or urgent issues, our lobbyists always give out their cell phones so that we can be contacted immediately if an emergency issue arises. We are proud to know that our clients have never complained about lack of accessibility.

· Bill Tracking - We provide all our clients with legislative bill tracking services via State Net. The bill tracking is managed by Andrew Langley, who is able to tailor bill tracking reports and hearing calendars for clients in a variety of formats.

14.G
Packet Pg. 105
FISCAL IMPACT:

The fee requested by Nielsen Merksamer is $6,000 per month ($72,000 per year). This firm will be involved in lobbying activities for all aspects of City government, including both General Fund and Enterprise Fund activities. If this contract is authorized, funding for these services will be drawn from various General and Enterprise Fund departmental budgets.

ATTACHMENTS:

Final.City of Hanford.NM Response

14.G
Packet Pg. 106

May 9, 2022

Ms. Natalie Corral
City Clerk
City of Hanford
319 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Attn: City Clerk – RFP for Legislative Services

Re: City of Hanford: Request for Proposals: Government Relations and Legislative Advocacy Services

Ms. Corral:

Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP (hereinafter referred to as Nielsen Merksamer) is pleased to offer the attached proposal to provide state legislative advocacy services to the City of Hanford.

Thank you for the opportunity to put forth this proposal. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Michelle Rubalcava, Esq.

Senior Counsel
Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni, LLP
1415 L Street, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 446-6752
www.nngovlaw.com

14.G.a
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Final.City of Hanford.NM Response (Admin: State Lobbyist Contract Award)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. General Information and Experience of Company………………………………………. 3 II. Consultant Profiles………………………………………………………………………...3
III. Work Plan for City of Hanford…………………………………………………………....4 IV. References…………………………………………………………………………………6
V. Strategic Relationships…………………………………………………………………….8
VI. Conflicts of Interest………………………………………………………………………..8 VII. Modifications to Scope of Work…………………………………………………………..9 VIII. Retainer Amount…………………………………………………………………..............9 IX. Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………..9

14.G.a
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Final.City of Hanford.NM Response (Admin: State Lobbyist Contract Award)

I. GENERAL INFORMATION AND EXPERIENCE OF COMPANY

Nielsen Merksamer is one of the preeminent political law, government law, and lobbying firms in the country, serving a national clientele that includes local governments, public agencies, trade associations, non-profit organizations, large/small businesses, and individuals. We are a law firm specializing in legislative advocacy and election and political law. Our firm has two offices, one in Sacramento and one in San Rafael. Our Sacramento office is responsible for our legislative advocacy and strategic advice.

Our Attorneys/Lobbyists are from both political parties, each of them has been active in politics and government for many decades. Our firm has excellent relationships with both sides of the political aisle. Indeed, the ability to work well with Democrats and Republicans is a necessity in representing clients with a diversity of interests. Our firm employs six lobbyists, five of whom are attorneys. We excel in providing:

• Government law, grass roots advocacy planning, lobbying, and strategic advice regarding the legislative, regulatory, and administrative processes. • Representation of clients before the executive and legislative branches of government. In addition, representation of clients before regulatory bodies and stakeholder groups.
• Analysis, drafting, and editing of legislation, which impact the firm’s clients. • Advice to clients on compliance with lobbying, campaigns, ethics, and contractor disqualification laws at the local, state, and federal level in California. • Litigation advice on political, governmental, and constitutional issues at all levels of state and federal courts.
• Representation as campaign and election law counsel on all aspects of the electoral process, including most major California statewide initiatives or referenda in the past 30 years.

Nielsen Merksamer clients benefit from a full-service lobbying/law firm. Our firm has a unique understanding of how lobbying, communications, public relations, and grassroots all come together to provide an integrated strategy when representing our clients. We have provided legislative advocacy services in California for over forty (40) years.

II. CONSULTANT PROFILES

For purposes of this contract, Nielsen Merksamer would assign Michelle Rubalcava and Rachael Blucher to represent the City of Hanford.

Ms. Rubalcava has twenty-five (25) years of experience in state politics, starting off as legislative staff for the first ten (10) years and for the last fifteen (15) years as a contract lobbyist. As legislative staff, Ms. Rubalcava worked for several state legislators, specifically for an Assembly Budget Chair and a Senate Budget Chair. Prior to joining Nielsen Merksamer, Ms. Rubalcava, worked as an in-house lobbyist for the County of Los Angeles.

14.G.a
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Final.City of Hanford.NM Response (Admin: State Lobbyist Contract Award)

At Nielsen Merksamer we practice team law, Ms. Rubalcava and Ms. Blucher would split their time on behalf of the City of Hanford. For simplicity, however, Ms. Rubalcava, would be the City’s primary point of contact. In addition, we anticipate assigning Andrew Langley and Victoria Rodriguez to the City’s team, to assist with bill monitoring, advocacy drafting and other administrative actions. Our law firm has an office in Marin County, however, all Nielsen Merksamer staff assigned to the City of Hanford are located in the Sacramento office.

Ms. Rubalcava heads and directs Nielsen Merksamer’s local government section. She has had significant success on behalf of our local government clients. Specifically, Ms.

Rubalcava was able to save the City of Perris millions of dollars in potentially lost revenue; Ms. Rubalcava accomplished this by strategically securing the Governor’s veto on a bill that had received zero NO votes. This veto resulted in millions of dollars being saved for the City of Perris. Ms. Rubalcava has also been successful in securing much needed revenues to local government clients for critical city operations, as well as expansion of parks and other local amenities.

In addition, Ms. Rubalcava was able to secure favorable amendments to a bill that targeted her client, the University of Southern California (USC). Her ability to draft favorable amendments and work with all interested stakeholders lessened the potential negative impacts the original version of the bill would have on USC and its operations.

Rachael Blucher is Senior Counsel in the firm’s government law section. Ms. Blucher works for several of the firm’s local government clients, including the counties of San Diego, Marin, Contra Costa, and Yolo. She has particular expertise in health and human services, working on issues related to Medi-Cal, behavioral health, housing, and social services. Prior to joining Nielsen Merksamer, Ms. Blucher practiced law at a California- focused firm. Her prior law firm practice provides her with invaluable expertise on analysis, drafting, and editing of legislation, as well as the practical implication of legislative policy.

Our firm represents a diverse portfolio of clients and as such, we are able to leverage those relationships when necessary. We have deep relationships with existing key legislative leaders and within the Newsom administration. In addition, we have existing professional relationships with almost all regulatory appointees.

III. WORK PLAN FOR CITY OF HANFORD
Our firm provides to its city clients precisely the services set forth in the City’s Scope of Work. Nielsen Merksamer has been providing these services for decades and has extensive knowledge and expertise on legislation affecting local governments. Our expertise in the structure and operation of local and state government, including special districts and joint power authorities, is well recognized. Through our representation of a wide variety of clients we have developed expertise in local government administration, local government sales and use tax distribution, voting rights and redistricting issues, energy and water policy, housing, health, and public safety issues.

14.G.a
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Final.City of Hanford.NM Response (Admin: State Lobbyist Contract Award)

Over the years we have worked extensively with the League of California Cities, now rebranding themselves as CalCities, on a broad range of issues, including retention of local control, reimbursements for unfunded mandates, organics in the waste stream, redevelopment, broadband, public safety issues, and homelessness. Our breadth of expertise in a wide range of policy areas means our clients do not have to search for additional help when a legislative or regulatory issue touches on an unexpected area of law.

Our firm anticipates the 2022-23 legislative session to return to a more pre-pandemic state of business. The state is currently flush with an unanticipated windfall of revenues, we expect 2022-23 to still have a healthy financial outlook. As a result, there may be an ability to secure one-time funding for Hanford projects. The anticipated outyears do not look as promising as this incoming legislative session.

Legislative representation is critical as the City’s success as it will have to compete with other legislative priorities such as COVID-19 response and containment, public safety power shutoffs, pensions, housing, and homelessness. Our firm is currently involved in these issues for our existing clients and would easily be able to engage on behalf of the City of Hanford, upon direction to do so.

One of the cornerstones of our relationship with clients is the development of a strategic legislative advocacy plan. While our firm has significant experience in the policy areas of import for the City of Hanford, if selected, our first step would be to delve deeply into the specific policy considerations that face the City. Once our firm is selected by a client, we work with our City contact to calendar a full day of meetings with City management, department heads, and other critical stakeholders. From that “deep dive,” we would then work with the appropriate City of Hanford staff to develop the incoming year’s legislative priorities and a work plan to implement those priorities throughout the year.

Nielsen Merksamer has also worked with other City clients to draft and edit a City Legislative Platform that is adopted by the City Council and serves as a framework of the City’s stated legislative priorities and goals for a 2 year legislative session.

To implement the 2022-23 work plan, Nielsen Merksamer would perform the following tasks on an ongoing basis, with guidance from and in concert with City of Hanford staff:

• Provide strategic advice to best position the City of Hanford with policy makers in the legislature, the executive branch, and regulatory agencies. • Monitor existing and new proposals originating from the legislature, state agencies, and departments. As directed by City staff, Nielsen Merksamer would engage with the legislature, departments, and agencies to secure favorable outcomes for the City.
• Review all introduced and amended legislation and budget proposals for matters that may impact the City of Hanford.
• Draft and secure amendments to pending legislation on an as-needed basis, in cooperation with City of Hanford staff. Because we are a law firm, we often draft

14.G.a
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Final.City of Hanford.NM Response (Admin: State Lobbyist Contract Award)

legislation and work with Legislative Counsel in refining legislative language, and we provide research and suggestions to committee consultants analyzing priority City bills.
• Represent the City of Hanford by testifying at legislative hearings, as appropriate, or providing written testimony and counsel for City of Hanford representatives. • Review and lobby budget proposals that may impact the City of Hanford. • Facilitate meetings with the City of Hanford and key contacts around the state, as needed.
• Set up a regular, calendared communication schedule with City contact for regular updates. This can either be a standing conference call or zoom meeting. For emerging or urgent issues, our lobbyists always give out their cell phones so that we can be contacted immediately if an emergency issue arises. We are proud to know that our clients have never complained about lack of accessibility. • Bill Tracking - We provide all our clients with legislative bill tracking services via State Net. The bill tracking is managed by Andrew Langley, who is able to tailor bill tracking reports and hearing calendars for clients in a variety of formats.

At Nielsen Merksamer, we consider ourselves your first stop when tackling any government problem. We would be open to discussing any additional activities in which the City of Hanford would like us to participate or any additional milestones or benchmarks that the City of Hanford may wish to require.

IV. REFERENCES

Nielsen Merksamer currently represents three (3) cities and five (5) counties. A list of five (5) Nielsen Merksamer local government references can be found below:

1. City of Visalia
Dates of Service: 2011 - present
Description of Service: Nielsen Merksamer represents the City of Visalia before the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

Project Location: Sacramento
Completion Date: Ongoing
Organization Name: City of Visalia
Contact Person:

Leslie Caviglia
City Manager
707 W. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 713-4300

2. City of Perris
Dates of Service: 2018 - present
Description of Service: Nielsen Merksamer represents the City of Perris before the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

Project Location: Sacramento

14.G.a
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Final.City of Hanford.NM Response (Admin: State Lobbyist Contract Award)

Completion Date: Ongoing
Organization Name: City of Perris
Contact Person:

Clara Miramontes
City Manager
101 N. D Street
Perris, CA 92570
(951) 943-6100

3. City of Chula Vista
Dates of Service: 2021 - present
Description of Service: Nielsen Merksamer represents the City of Chula Vista before the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

Project Location: Sacramento
Completion Date: Ongoing
Organization Name: City of Chula Vista
Contact Person:

Anne Steinberger
Marketing and Communications Manager
276 Fourth Ave.

Chula Vista, CA 91910
Office: (619) 409-5446

4. County of San Diego
Dates of Service: 1996 - present
Description of Service: Nielsen Merksamer represents the County of San Diego before the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

Project Location: Sacramento
Completion Date: Ongoing
Organization Name: County of San Diego
Contact Person:

Caroline Smith
Director of Strategy and Government Affairs
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 298
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 531-5198

5. County of Contra Costa
Dates of Service: 1999 - present
Description of Service: Nielsen Merksamer represents the County of Contra Costa before the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

Project Location: Sacramento
Completion Date: Ongoing
Organization Name: County of Contra Costa
Contact Person:

Lara Delaney

14.G.a
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Final.City of Hanford.NM Response (Admin: State Lobbyist Contract Award)

Senior Deputy County Administrator
1025 Escobar Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 655-2057

For the purposes of convenience, a full list of Nielsen Merksamer’s clients can be found on our website: www.nmgovlaw.com or https://www.nmgovlaw.com/clients/our-firm/

V. STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIPS
The attorney/lobbyists at Nielsen Merksamer pride themselves on being the most informed advocates in any room. We have far-reaching relationships with key legislative members that allow us to sit down with these key decisionmakers to present our client’s needs and concerns. Specifically, our advocates have a long-standing relationship with Assembly Member Rudy Salas. Ms. Rubalcava and Mr. Salas have been personal friends for decades. As a relatively newer member of the City of Hanford legislative delegation, our advocates have developed a productive working relationship with Senator Melissa Hurtado.

As a result of our representation of other counties and cities, we also have a very productive and collaborative relationship with Senator Anna Caballero and member of the Assembly and Senate Local Government committees. Our diverse client portfolio has resulted in our firm developing and growing networks related to local government issues.

Nielsen Merksamer understands that the City of Hanford will require a highly qualified firm to engage legislative decision-makers on high priority issues. We also believe the City of Hanford will want to engage a firm with a reputation for zealously representing its clients, and one that is not afraid to go toe-to-toe with those opposing the City. There are many lobbying firms to choose from, but few that have a proven and recognized ability to do this.

We understand that communication at every level is critical to maintaining a productive collaboration between the City of Hanford and Nielsen Merksamer advocates. Our many years representing local governments has taught us that regularly scheduled calls and meetings with the City and its key staff will help us maximize our effectiveness.

To the extent it is within our control, the personnel proposed to work on behalf of the City of Hanford shall remain available for the full term of the contract. Our firm prides itself on a thoughtful, substantive approach to legislative advocacy, relying on our legal and strategic skills as well as the credibility we have developed over the years. Nielsen Merksamer provides both the expertise and the solid relationships necessary to bring continued and additional success for the City of Hanford.

VI. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Nielsen Merksamer is one of the preeminent political law, government law, and lobbying firms in the country, serving a national clientele that includes leading businesses, non- profits, trade associations, individuals, and public agencies. We believe that it is critical

14.G.a
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Final.City of Hanford.NM Response (Admin: State Lobbyist Contract Award)

to be well-informed, well-connected, and proactive in representing clients on legislative advocacy.

Because we are a law firm and our lobbyists are members of the State Bar of California, we are held to the ethical standards and laws that apply to all attorneys. We ensure that our firm and employees comply with the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

Further, due to our experience representing local government clients, we are particularly sensitive to laws conflict of interest laws and standards and are keenly aware of those issues.

Before bringing on a new client, we complete a thorough conflicts check. As a result, there is never a conflict of interest when we bring on a new client, or else we would not accept representation of that client. If a conflict were to arise after representation has been established, we use a policy of “first client in” -- if a true conflict exists, - the longer tenured client has the authority to request we walk away from a newly represented client.

VII. MODIFICATIONS TO SCOPE OF WORK
The City may want to consider the suggested additions to the proposed Scope of Work:
a. Maintain effective working relationships with Kings County legislative delegation, and with the City’s elected Assembly Member and Senator. b. Coordinate and cooperate with the League of California Cities and other organizations, agencies, municipalities, and stakeholders that have similar legislative objectives as the City.
c. Provide crisis communications support, if needed.
d. Prepare and file all applicable Fair Political Practices Commission lobbying documents and reports, within all applicable deadlines, per the provision of the Political Reform Act of 1974 as amended. Provide the City notifications of any changes or modifications that may be pertinent.

VIII. RETAINER AMOUNT
As a law firm we have two options for billing. We have set hourly rates and we have flat monthly retainers.

For the City of Hanford, we propose a monthly rate of $7,000/month. This is an annual retainer amount of $84,000.

IX. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Nielsen Merksamer acknowledges that an insurance certificate will be issued naming the City of Hanford as an additional insured if the contract is awarded to us.

Nielsen Merksamer acknowledges a contract in the form of Exhibit A will be executed if the contract is awarded to us.

14.G.a
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Final.City of Hanford.NM Response (Admin: State Lobbyist Contract Award)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/1/2022

AGENDA SECTION: H

SUBJECT:

Public Works: Approval of the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement for Tract No. 929, Unit No. 2 (13th Ave. and Devon St.)

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council, by motion,

1. Approve the Final Map for Tract No. 929 -2, Ella Gardens, and accept all easements and dedications, and authorize the execution of the Subdivision Agreement.

2. Adopt the attached Resolution approving an amende d Engineer’s Report and restructuring Landscape Assessment District No. 20 -01 to include Units I and II of Tract No. 929.

BACKGROUND:

The final subdivision map for Tract No. 929, Unit No. 2, a 78 -lot subdivision located as shown on the attached map, has been checked and approved by staff. The developer of Tract No. 929, Unit No. 2, is Woodside 06N, LP, a California Limited Partnership. All required fees have been paid, and the required improvement security for all required subdivision improvements has b een posted in accordance with the attached Subdivision Agreement. The Agreement has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Engineering Department and signed by the developer.

The tract conditions of approval require annexation to Landscape Assessment District No. 20-01 for purposes of funding maintenance of frontage landscaping and decorative wall improvements along 13th Avenue. Landscape Assessment District Annexation No. 20-01, encompassing phase I of Tentative Tract No. 929, was approved by the City Council on December 15, 2020, with the adoption of City Council Resolution No. 20-40-R. The proposed restructure of Landscape

14.H
Packet Pg. 116
Assessment District No. 20-01 comprises Units I and II of Tract 929. The restructuring of Landscape Assessment District No. 20-01 to include the 78 lots of Units II of Tract No. 929-2

FISCAL IMPACT:

The right of way dedications and easements are offered at no cost to the city, and all subdivision improvements will be constructed at the developer’s expense.

ATTACHMENTS:

Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement
Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Engineers Report
Final Map Tract 929 Unit 2

14.H
Packet Pg. 117

14.H.a
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.a
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.a
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.a
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.a
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.a
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.a
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.a
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.a
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.a
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.a
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.a
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.a
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.a
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.a
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.a
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.a
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.a
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Subdivision Agreement (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD) ATTACHMENT “A”
ENGINEER’S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20-01 (B)
(Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)
TRACT 929 Unit I and Unit II – WOODSIDE HOMES

Lisa Dock, Acting City Engineer and Engineer of Work for Landscape Assessment District No. 20- 01, City of Hanford, Kings County, California, makes this report as directed by City Council, pursuant to Section 22585 of the Streets and Highways Code (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972).

The improvements to be constructed and maintained in the District provide special benefits to all of the parcels within the District about and beyond general benefits conferred on parcels located in the District or to the public at large. Specifically, the particular and distinct special benefits include:

1. Reduction of traffic noise level from the street located adjacent to the District;

2. Restriction of unwanted pedestrian access onto the lots and parcels within the District;

3. Enhancement of appearance of the entrance into the subdivision which is included within the District;

4. Reduction of impact of dust and other particulate matter onto the lots and parcels within the District;

The improvements which are the subject of this report are briefly described as follows:

1. Decorative masonry block wall fencing, and landscape & irrigation system improvements located along 13th Avenue and Devon Street located adjacent to Tract 929 Unit I and Unit II.

2. The public park located at the southwest corner of Cedar Grove Street & N. Frontier Street of Tract 929.

3. Interior street lighting within Tract 929 Unit I and Unit II.

This report consists of six parts as follows:

Exhibit “A”: Plans and specifications for the improvements are filed with the City Clerk. Although separately bound, the plans and specifications are a part of this report and are incorporated herein by reference.

Exhibit “B”: An estimate of costs to maintain the improvements.

Exhibit “C”: An assessment of the estimated maintenance costs on each benefited parcel of land within the Assessment District.

14.H.b
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Engineers Report (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

ATTACHMENT “A” continued…

Exhibit “D”: A statement of the method by which the undersigned has determined the amount proposed to be assessed against each parcel.

Exhibit “E”: A list of the names and addresses of the property owners of real property within each assessment district as shown on the last equalized assessment roll for taxes, or known to the Clerk. The list is keyed to Exhibit “C” by assessment number.

Exhibit “F”: A diagram showing all of the parcels of real property within this assessment district.

The diagram is keyed to Exhibit “C” by lot number.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Dock
Acting City Engineer

14.H.b
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Engineers Report (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD) ENGINEER’S REPORT

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20-01 (B)
(Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)

TRACT 929, Unit I and Unit II – WOODSIDE HOMES

The undersigned hereby respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer’s Report as directed by the City Council.

DATED: ______________________________________

_____________________________________
Lisa Dock
Acting City Engineer

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer’s Report, together with Assessments and Assessment Diagram thereto attached was filed with me on the _____of_____________________________, 20___.

Natalie Ortega
City of Hanford, City Clerk
Kings County, California

By_____________________________________

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer’s Report, together with Assessments and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Hanford, California, on the ______ day of __________________________, 20___.

Natalie Ortega
City of Hanford, City Clerk
Kings County, California

By______________________________________

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer’s Report, together with Assessments and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed with the County Auditor of the County of Kings on the ______ day of __________________________, 20___.

Natalie Ortega
City of Hanford, City Clerk
Kings County, California

By ______________________________________

14.H.b
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Engineers Report (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD) EXHIBIT “A”

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20-01 (B)
(Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)

TRACT 929, Unit I and Unit II - WOODSIDE HOMES

Plans and specifications for the improvements are those prepared by Zumwalt-Hansen & Associates and Woodside Homes for the City Engineer. These plans and specifications have been filed separately with the Clerk of the Legislative Body and are incorporated in this report by reference.

14.H.b
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Engineers Report (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD) EXHIBIT “B”

CITY OF HANFORD
ENGINEER’S REPORT

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20-01 (B)
FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021

ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS
TRACT 929, Unit I and Unit II – WOODSIDE HOMES

FY 2020-2021

ITEM ESTIMATE NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS RATE AMOUNT

A. MAINTENANCE COSTS

1. Landscape and Irrigation System along 159,707.00 $ 0.3/SF $ 47,912.10 13th Avenue, Devon Street, and Park and
Parkway strip around the park
(Labor and Materials)

2. Decorative Block Walls along W. 2,364.00LF ± $ 0.50/LF $ 1,182.00 13th Avenue and Devon Street
Devon Street
(Labor and Materials)

3. Water Usage Three services $ 420.00/ea. $ 1,260.00 ($150/mo./Service x 12 =
$1800.00/Service)

4. Electricity Usage Three meters $ 360.00/ea. $ 1,080.00 ($30/mo./Meter x 12 =
$360.00/Meter)

5. Street Light Usage 36 St. Lights $ 144.00/ $ 5,184.00 Lt./Yr.
($12/Lt./Mo. x 12 = $144.00/Lt./Yr.)

B. INCIDENTAL COSTS/FORMATION COSTS

1. Staff Preparation of Documents $ 325.00

2. Notice of Public Hearing $ 75.00

3. Collection of Assessment $ 121.00

TOTAL ANNUAL SUBDIVISION ASSESSMENT AMOUNT $ 57,139.10 LOTS 1 THROUGH 158 SHALL BE ASSESSED, TOGETHER AND
WITH NO DESIGNATED REMAINDER PARCEL OF TRACT 929: $ 361.64

14.H.b
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Engineers Report (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

C. ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53739(b)(1).

The Annual Total Subdivision Assessment Amount will be adjusted for inflation on an annual basis in accordance with the following formula:

Commencing with the calendar year 2020-2021, and January 1 of each calendar year (“Adjustment Date”) thereafter during the life of the District, the Total Annual Subdivision Assessment Amount for the next fiscal year shall be an amount equal to the greater of:

(i) the Total Annual Subdivision Assessment amount in effect immediately prior to the Adjustment Date, or

(ii) the product obtained by multiplying the Total Annual Subdivision Assessment in effect immediately prior to the Adjustment Date by a fraction, the numerator of which is the Index published nearest but prior to the Adjustment Date and the denominator of which is the Index published nearest but prior to January 1 of the first year the Subdivision Assessment became effective.

The term “Index” means the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consolidated Statistical Area, 1982-1984, equals 100, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. If the Bureau of Labor Statistics revises the Index, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will be the sole judge of the comparability of successive indexes, but if that agency fails to supply indexes that it deems comparable or if no succeeding index is published, the City shall determine an appropriate alternative published price index.

14.H.b
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Engineers Report (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD) EXHIBIT “C”

ASSESSMENT ROLL AND
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20-01 (B)

TRACT 929, Unit I and Unit II – WOODSIDE HOMES

ASSESSMENT AMOUNT OF PROPERTY DESCRIPTION OR NUMBER ASSESSMENT ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER___ 1 Through 80 $361.64 Lots 1 through 80, Tract 929, Unit I 81 Through 158 $361.64 Lots 81 through 158 Tract 929 Unit II Tract 929, No Remainder
Total Assessment: $ 57,139.12

14.H.b
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Engineers Report (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD) EXHIBIT “D”

METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20-01 (B)
(Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)

TRACT 929, Unit I and Unit II – WOODSIDE HOMES

The method of apportionment of Landscape Assessment District 20-01 maintenance costs is as follows:

100% of the maintenance costs divided equally between Lots 1 through 158 and the Remainder.

14.H.b
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Engineers Report (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD) EXHIBIT “E”

PROPERTY OWNERS LIST

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20-01 (B)

TRACT 929, Unit I and Unit II – WOODSIDE HOMES

ASSESSMENT OWNERS

NUMBERS PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS NAME AND ADDRESS

1 through 80 Tract 929 Unit I Woodside Homes 9 River Park Place, Suite 430
Fresno, CA 93720

81 through 158 Tract 929 Unit II Woodside Homes 9 River Park Place, Suite 430
Fresno, CA 93720

14.H.b
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Tract 929, Unit No. 2 - Engineers Report (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.c
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Final Map Tract 929 Unit 2 (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.c
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Final Map Tract 929 Unit 2 (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.c
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Final Map Tract 929 Unit 2 (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.c
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Final Map Tract 929 Unit 2 (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.c
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Final Map Tract 929 Unit 2 (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

14.H.c
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Final Map Tract 929 Unit 2 (PW: Tract929-2 Final Map and Amendment to LAD)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/1/2022

AGENDA SECTION: I

SUBJECT:

Public Works: Appropriation of $499,067 in funding from the Refuse Capital Reserve fund to cover $374,066.54 in costs for new front load refuse truck and $125,000 for on-board truck scales to reduce overweight loads.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council, by motion, appropriate the following funds from the Refuse Capital Reserve account in accordance with the refuse rate study recommendations. · $374,066.54 for the purchase of a new front-load refuse truck from EM Tharpe utilizing a Souncewell contract. This expense is slated for FY2024, but lead time on such vehicles is currently running 12 months.
· $125,000 for the installation of scales on the refuse vehicles to reduce overweight loads.

BACKGROUND:

At the October 20, 2022 meeting, Council adopted new refuse rates in accordance with the Proposition 218 process. In addition, Council approved several items that were recommended in the refuse rate study conducted by IG Services, including the purchase of a new front -load refuse truck and the installation of on-board scales for the entire refuse fleet to reduce overweight loads.

Due to an oversight by staff, no motion was included for Council to appropriate the funds to purchase the above equipment. The authority to appropriate funding, regardless of whether or not it is approved in the budget, lies solely with the City Council. This recommended motion corrects the previous oversight.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is sufficient funds in the refuse capital reserve fund to fund the listed purchases.

14.I
Packet Pg. 151
FISCAL IMPACT:

Based on the recently approved refuse rate increase, there will be sufficient funds in the refuse capital reserve fund to fund the listed purchases.

ATTACHMENTS:

14.I
Packet Pg. 152

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/1/2022

AGENDA SECTION: A

SUBJECT:

Community Development: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-31: A request to certify that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01C: A request to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use on 18 parcels totaling approximately 28 acres. The request is due to incompatibility with the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The proposed land use designation is compatible with the ALUCP. Prezone 2021-14: A request related to an annexation request in process for a County Island that is within the City of Hanford Sphere of influence. A request to pre- zone/rezone the site from C-S – Service Commercial (County) to MX – C - Corridor Mixed Use (City), consistent with the proposed land use designation and the ALUCP, on 18 parcels totaling approximately 28 acres. The project is located north of East Lacey Boulevard between North 10th Avenue and 9 ¼ Avenue in a County Island and within the City of Hanford Sphere of Influence (APNs 014-201-006, -009, 014-202-005, -006, 014-203-002, -003, -004, -005, -006, 014-204-001, -002, 014-221-017, -018, -019, -020, -021, -022, and 014-221-026).

See staff report, attached.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C
Resolution 22-42-R
Ordinance No. 22-08
Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31
Attachment 2 - Lavenson-Avedisian comments to City Council re Zoning Changes_10-26- 2022_SIGNED

15.A
Packet Pg. 153

CITY OF HANFORD CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: Tuesday, November 1, 2022

PROJECT: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-31: A request to certify that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

General Plan Amendment No. 2021 -01C: A request to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use on 18 parcels totaling approximately 28 acres. The request is due to incompatibility with the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The proposed land use designation is compatible with the ALUCP.

Prezone 2021-14: A request related to an annexation request in process for a County Island that is within the City of Hanford Sphere of influence. A request to pre -zone/rezone the site from C -S – Service Commercial (County) to MX – C - Corridor Mixed Use (City), consistent with the proposed land use designation and the ALUCP, on 18 parcels totaling approximately 28 acres.

LOCATION: The project is located north of East Lacey Boulevard between North 10th Avenue and 9 ¼ Avenue in a County Island and within the City of Hanfor d Sphere of Influence (APNs 014 -201-006, -009, 014-202-005, -006, 014- 203-002, -003, -004, -005, -006, 014-204-001, -002, 014-221-017, -018, - 019, -020, -021, -022, and 014-221-026).

PLANNER: Gabrielle Myers, Senior Planner

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-31, certifying that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

2. Adopt Resolution 22-42-R approving General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01C.

3. Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 2022 -08, approving Prezone No. 2021-14.

RECOMMENDED MOTION

1. I move to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-31, certifying that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

2. I move to adopt Resolution 22-42-R approving General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01C.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

3. I move to introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 2022 -08, approving Prezone No. 2021-14.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 2021 -01C) and Pre -Zone/Rezone (Rezone No. 2021-14) pertaining to 18 parcels, totaling approximately 28 acres, located north of East Lacey Boulevard between North 10th Avenue and 9 ¼ Avenue in a County Island and within the City of Hanford Sphere of Influence (APNs 014 -201-006, -009, 014-202-005, -006, 014-203- 002, -003, -004, -005, -006, 014-204-001, -002, 014-221-017, -018, -019, -020, -021, -022, and 014-221-026) (See Figure 1). No physical development is proposed.

The General Plan Amendment is requested, due to incompatibility with the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). According to the ALUCP, a portion of the project site is located within Zone B1 (North), which limits the maximum residential density to one (1) unit per 10 acres. Residential subdivisions and multi -family residential use s are identified as non - acceptable uses in this zone. As such, the current planned land use designation of Medium Density Residential is incompatible with the ALUCP. The General Plan Amendment will change the General Plan land use designation from Medium D ensity Residential to Corridor Mixed Use (See Figure 2 and Figure 3). The proposed land use designation is compatible with the ALUCP.

The project is currently in a County unincorporated island within the City’s Sphere of Influence, but will be considered for annexation into the City at a future date. The Pre-Zone/Rezone is related to the annexation request in process for the project site. The site is currently zoned C-S – Service Commercial in Kings County (See Figure 4). The Pre-Zone/Rezone will pre-zone the site to MX- C – Corridor Mixed Use (See Figure 5). Various land uses within the MX -C Corridor Mixed Use zone district are permissible uses within the B1 zone and compatible with the ALUCP.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Figure 1
Project Location

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Figure 2
Current General Plan Land Use Designation

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Figure 3
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Figure 4
Current Zone District

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Figure 5
Proposed Zone District

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) As referenced in the table below, the project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east, and west and commercial uses to the south and west. The properties to the north and east are planned and zoned for low -density residential development and the properties to the south and west are planned for mixed use development.

Direction from the
project site
Existing Land Use Planned Land Use Zone District
North Single-family
residential
Low Density
Residential
R-L-5 Low Density
Residential
South America’s Best Value
Inn, Joe’s Tires,
Saldana’s Exhaust
and Muffler,
Medallion Supply,
Kings County Bowl
Corridor Mixed Use C-S – Service
Commercial (County)
East Single-family
residential
Low Density
Residential
R-L-5 Low Density
Residential
West Vacant, Bullet
Impressions, Champi
Fence Company,
Single-family
residential
Corridor Mixed Use PF – Public Facilities
(County)

BACKGROUND

General Plan and Zoning Designation

The General Plan designates the subject property as Medium Density Residential with a Kings County zone district of C-S – Service Commercial. In order to be consistent with the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) the City of Hanford is proposing to change the General Plan designation for the subject property to Corridor Mixed Use and the corresponding prezone district MX-C – Corridor Mixed.

The ALUCP locates the site within the Zone B of the plan, which deems medium and high densities as unacceptable land uses in this area. Thus, a clean -up action is required in order for the ALUCP, Hanford General Plan, and Hanford Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with each other.

There is not a development project associated with this requ est. Future development within the project area will be subject to review and compliance with the MX -C Corridor Mixed Use zone district if the designation change is permitted.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

PROJECT EVALUATION

General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01C

General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01C is a request to change the land use from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use on 18 parcels totaling approximately 28 acres. The request is due to incompatibility with the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The proposed land use designation is compatible with the ALUCP. GPA No. 2021 -01C is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan.

Goal L10: [Provide] a wide range of commercial shopping opportunities that serve people’s needs for goods and services at the neighborhood, citywide, and regional level, as well as the needs of the traveling public.

Analysis: The re-designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use will allow the site to be used for a wide range of commercial shopping opportunities that serves people’s needs for goods and services at the neighborhood and citywide level, while c omplying with the allowable uses in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The purpose of the Corridor Mixed Use designation is to promote a mix of commercial, office, and multi -family residential uses along transportation corridors at a scale compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods, with intent of creating a pedestrian-friendly environment that encourages walking between uses.

Goal L12: Compatibility of commercial land uses with adjacent, surrounding land uses.

Analysis: The re-designation of the project site from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use will not affect the ability of the project site to be compatible with adjacent, surrounding land uses. The project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east, and wes t and commercial uses to the south and west. The properties to the north and east are planned and zoned for low -density residential development and the properties to the south and west are planned for mixed use development. The uses allowed in the Corridor Mixed Use designation allow for a mix of commercial, office, and multi-family residential uses.

Policy L65 Purpose of Corridor Mixed Use Land Use Designation: Establish the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation to promote a mix of commercial, office, and multi-family residential uses along transportation corridors at a scale compatible with adjacent residential neighborhood, with the intent of creating a pedestrian-friendly environment that encourages walking between uses.

Analysis: The project’s re -designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use will not conflict with General Plan Policy L65. The parcels could be developed as uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the land use table for the MX -C Corridor Mixe d Use zone district, which allows for a mix of commercial, office, and multi-family residential uses. The existing site is mostly vacant with some existing structures. The existing structures are primarily residential and commercial, which is consistent with permitted uses in the Corridor Mixed Use designation.

Policy L66 Typical Uses in Corridor Mixed Use Land Use Designation Define the uses allowed in the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation to include small - and medium- scale commercial providing pri marily day -to-day goods and services, office, and multi - family dwellings, along with horizontal and vertical mixed -use developments that include these uses. Typical uses include duplexes, townhomes, apartments, small retail shops,

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) eating establishments, offices, service stations, medical and dental offices, convenience stores, dry cleaning and laundry services, beauty salons, and other similar uses. Both vertical and horizontal mixed-use developments are encouraged.

Analysis: The project’s re -designation to Corridor Mixed Use from High -Density Residential will not conflict with General Plan Policy L66. The parcels could be developed as uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the land use table for the MX-C Corridor Mixed Use zone district, which allows for commercial, office, and multi-family uses, as long as such uses are consistent with the ALUCP. The existing site is mostly vacant with some existing structures. The existing structures are primarily residential and commercial, which are consistent with permitted uses in the Corridor Mixed Use designation.

Policy L67: Design of the Corridor Mixed Use Land Use Designation: Require that new development projects and major site reconfigurations in the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation provide site layouts, buildings, landscaping, and walkways that are designed to encourage pedestrian access on the site and between adjacent sites. Strongly encourage buildings to be located near the street corridor, with parking to the side of or behind buildings.

Analysis: Any development of the project site would be subject to the Site Plan Review process, which would ensure that all requirements of the MX -C Corridor Mixed Use zone district were implemented. As a general provision and standard for all new construct ion in the MX-C Corridor Mixed Use zone district, the following is implemented as conditions of approval:

1. That Mixed Use Corridor zone districts shall be designed to provide and encourage walking within the commercial uses and between the commercial uses and the residential uses within the MX-C zone and other nearby residential uses. At a minimum, this shall be accomplished with a minimum six -foot wide pedestrian path of travel between site entrances and the public sidewalk.

The Site Plan Review process ensures that all new development projects and major site reconfigurations in the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation provide site layouts, buildings, landscaping, and walkways that are designed to encourage pedestrian access on the site and between adjacent sites.

Policy L68: Location and Size of Corridor Mixed Use Land Use Designation: Locate Corridor Mixed Use land use designations along one or both sides of portions of arterial streets where a mix of commercial and residential uses would benefit th e neighborhood.

Specific locations shall include portions of 10th Avenue, Lacey Boulevard, Garner Avenue, and Hanford-Armona Road.

Analysis: There are instances where the Corridor Mixed Use designation is located on portions of streets which are not arte rials as referenced in Policy L68. The subject project site is located where mixed-use development would benefit the neighborhood, as a continuation of commercial uses located adjacent to East Lacey Boulevard and North 10 th Avenue. The designation would provide as continuation of the Corridor Mixed Use designation existing west and south of the project area.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Rezone No. 2021-14

Pre-Zone/Rezone No. 2021 -14 is a request related to an annexation request in process for a County Island that is within the City of Hanford Sphere of influence. A request to pre-zone/rezone the site from C-S – Service Commercial (County) to MX – C - Corridor Mixed Use (City), consistent with the proposed land use designation and the ALUCP, on 18 parcels totaling approximately 28 acres.

FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL

General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01C

In accordance with HMC Section 17.88.040, before a general plan amendment may be approved, all of the following findings shall be made by the reviewing authority:

1. That the amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan.

Analysis: That General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01C is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, specifically consistent with Goals 10 and 12, and Land Use Policies L65, L66, and L67.

2. That this amendment would not be detri mental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.

Analysis: That this application has been reviewed by County departments, utility companies, City Fire Department, City Building Department, and other involved departments. Any mitigation required for public health and safety were applied to the proposal and required in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

3. That the amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City.

Analysis: That jobs-housing balance is achieved by increasing opportunities for people to work and live in close proximity. The ratio is expressed as the number of jobs divided by the number of housing units. The jobs-housing balance is a general tool for analyzing where people work, where they live, and how effectively they can travel between the two. In the planning area, the existing jobs -housing balance ratio in 2013 -2014 was 1.17. It is estimated that the implementation of the General Plan would increase the jobs-housing balance by 0.45 to 1.62, which would make the planning area a jobs-rich area. The proposal to change the designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use will not affect the City’s ability to maintain an appropriate balance of land uses within the City, b oth jobs and housing are permitted in the Corridor Mixed Use designation.

4. That the anticipated land uses on the subject site would be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses.

Analysis: That the anticipated land uses of the sites designated for Corridor Mixed Use would be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses. The parcels will be developed as typical uses of the Corridor Mixed Use designation, which according to General Plan Policy L66, include duplexes, townhomes, apartments, small retail shops, eating establishments,

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) offices, service stations, medical and dental offices, convenience stores, dry cleaning and laundry services, beauty salons, and other similar uses. The existing site is mostly vacant with some existing structure s. The existing structures are primarily residential and commercial, which is consistent with permitted uses in the Corridor Mixed Use designation. Further, the project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east, and west and commercial uses to the south and west. The properties to the north and east are planned and zoned for low-density residential development and the properties to the south and west are planned for mixed use development. The uses allowed in the Corridor Mixed Use designatio n allow for a mix of commercial, office, and multi-family residential uses.

Rezone No. 2021-14

In accordance with HMC Section 17.86.030, before a zone change may be approved, all of the following findings shall be made by the reviewing authority:

1. That the amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and the Municipal Code.

Analysis: That Rezone No. 2021 -14 is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, specifically consistent with Goals 10 and 12, and Land Use Policies L65, L66, and L67. All regulations per taining to MX -C – Mixed Use Corridor zone district will be enforced as development occurs through the Site Plan Review process.

2. That the amendment would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.

Analysis: That this application has been reviewed by County departments, utility companies, City Fire Department, City Building Department, and other involved departments. Any mitigation required for public health and safety were applied to the proposal and required in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

3. That the amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City.

Analysis: That jobs-housing balance is achieved by increasing opportunities for people to work and live in close proximity. The ratio is expressed as the number of jobs divided by the number of housing units. The jobs-housing balance is a general tool for analyzing where people work, where they live, and how effectively they can travel between the two. In the planning area, the existing jobs -housing balance ratio in 2013 -2014 was 1.17. It is estimated that the implementation of the General Plan would increase the jobs-housing balance by 0.45 to 1.62, which would make the planning area a jobs-rich area. The proposal to change the designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use will not affect the City’s ability to maintain an appropriate balance of l and uses within the City, both jobs and housing are permitted in the Corridor Mixed Use designation. Commercial and housing opportunities would be limited to the density and intensity allowable within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

4. That the anticipated land uses on the subject site would be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses.

Analysis: That the anticipated land uses of the sites designated for Corridor Mixed Use would be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses. Th e parcels will be developed as

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) typical uses of the Corridor Mixed Use designation, which according to General Plan Policy L66, include duplexes, townhomes, apartments, small retail shops, eating establishments, offices, service stations, medical and dental offices, convenience stores, dry cleaning and laundry services, beauty salons, and other similar uses. The existing site is mostly vacant with some existing structures. The existing structures are primarily residential and commercial, which is consistent with permitted uses in the Corridor Mixed Use designation. Further, the project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east, and west and commercial uses to the south and west. The properties to the north and east are planned and zoned for low-density residential development and the properties to the south and west are planned for mixed use development. The uses allowed in the Corridor Mixed Use designation allow for a mix of commercial, office, and multi -family residential uses. Commercial an d housing opportunities would be limited to the density and intensity permitted within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

CONSULTATION

Early Consultation

Early consultation to agencies outside of the City of Hanford (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082) was conducted for each project.

Early consultation was received from:
• Edgar Hernandez with Caltrans on October 4, 2021.
• Liliana Stransky with Kings County Department of Public Health on September 13, 2021. • Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe on October 19, 2021.

Early consultation letters are included and analyzed in the initial study and are provided in Attachment 1.

Consultation

In accordance with Section 15073 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent to the concerned agencies on April 5, 2022, No comments were received.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022 -31 is recommended for the project based on the following: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), General Plan Amendment No. 2021 -01C and Rezone No. 2021 -14 were evaluated in an Environmen tal Assessment/Initial Study. Based on the review, it was determined that the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures, therefore Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-31 has been prepared, attached as Attachment 1.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Notice of Public Hearing for the proposed projects was published in the Hanford Sentinel and mailed to property owners within 300 ft. of the project site on October 21, 2022.

The Community Development Department received one comment in favor of the project:

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

1. Kurt Lavenson & Lesly Avedisian – Attachment 2

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-31, certifying that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

2. Adopt Resolution 22-42-R approving General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01C.

3. Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 2022 -08, approving Prezone No. 2021-14.

Applicant: City of Hanford Owner(s): Champi Development Group, LLC 317 N. Douty Street 1951 Dalrymple Drive Hanford, CA 93230 Hanford, CA 93230

Champi Nick Enterprises
615 N 10th Avenue
Hanford, CA 93230

Vieyra Martin/Vieyra Fanny C
16210 18th Avenue
Lemoore, CA 93245

Lopez Lupe R 2005 Family Trust
421 E 5th Street
Hanford, CA 93230

Ortiz Arturo M & Olivia P Rev Trust
820 N Brown Street
Hanford, CA 93230

Dos Panchos Holdings, LLC
3780 Centre Street
San Diego, CA 92103

Hickman Everett L/Hickman Cindy F
608 N E Street
Tulare, CA 93274

Edgar Ramos
108 E Hanford Armona Road
Hanford, CA 93230

Sandoval Adrian/Sandoval Maria E
1550 Spring Crest Drive
Hanford, CA 93230

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

Davis Larry D/Davis Lona B
865 Whitney Drive
Hanford, CA 93230

Valdovinos Maria
600 Whitney Drive
Hanford, CA 93230

Fontana John & Kathleen Revoc Trust
2501 E Westcott Avenue
Visalia, CA 93292"

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) RESOLUTION NO. 22-42-R

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD

APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2021-01 C: A REQEST TO CHANGE THE LAND

USE DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO CORRIDOR MIXED USE ON 18 PARCELS TOTALING 28 ACRES.

THE PROJECT IS LOCATED NORTH OF EAST LACEY BOULEVARD BETWEEN NORTH 10TH AVENUE AND 9 ¼ AVENUE IN A COUNTY ISLAND AND WITHIN THE CITY OF HANFORD SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (APNS 014-201-006, -009, 014-202- 005, -006, 014-203-002, -003, -004, -005, -006, 014-204-001, -002, 014-221-017, -018, -019, - 020, -021, -022, AND 014-221-026).

At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford, duly called to order and held on November 1, 2022, at 7:00 p.m., it was moved by Council Member , and seconded by Council Member , and duly carried that the following resolution be adopted:

WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01 C ) proposes to amend the land use designation of certain real property as follows:

General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 C)
Approximately 18 acres from Medium-Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use , as shown in attached Exhibit A; and

WHEREAS, the proposed general plan amendment was presented to the Planning Commission of the City of Hanford; and

WHEREAS, the City of Hanford Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled meeting on May 10, 2022, held a public hearing and received testimony and evidence for and against the proposed general plan amendment. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission, by resolution, recommended that the City Council of the City of Hanford approve General Plan Amendment No. 20221-01 C); and

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hanford, at its regularly scheduled meeting on November 1, 2022, held a public hearing and received testimony and evidence regarding proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 C); and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hanford considered the evidence presented in the staff report and testimony presented during the public hearing; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hanford finds that no significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed project with the incorporation of mitigations, as presented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit B; and

WHEREAS, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-31 was prepared and adopted; and,

WHEREAS, on the basis of the application for the amendment to the general plan, the documentation and information provided in the staff report, and the evidence and tes timony submitted at the public hearing, the City Council of the City of Hanford hereby makes the following findings in accordance with Section 17.88.040 of the Hanford Municipal Code:

General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 C)

1. That the amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan.

Analysis: That General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01C is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, specifically consistent with Goals 10 and 12, and Land Use Policies L65, L66, and L67.

2. That this amendment would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
Analysis: That this application has been reviewed by County departments, utility companies, City Fire Department, City Building Department, and other involved departments. Any mitigation required for public health and safety were applied to the proposal and required in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

3. That the amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City.

Analysis: That jobs-housing balance is achieved by increasing opportunities for people to work and live in close proximity. The ratio is expressed as the number of jobs divided by the number of housing units. The jobs-housing balance is a general tool for analyzing where people work, where they live, and how effectively they can travel between the two. In the planning area, the existing jobs -housing balance ratio in 2013- 2014 was 1.17. It is estimated that the implementation of the General Plan would increase the jobs -housing balance by 0.45 to 1.62, which would make the planning area a jobs-rich area. The proposal to change the designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use will not affec t the City’s ability to maintain an appropriate balance of land uses within the City, both jobs and housing are permitted in the Corridor Mixed Use designation.

4. That the anticipated land uses on the subject site would be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses.

Analysis: That the anticipated land uses of the sites designated for Corridor Mixed Use would be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses. The parcels will be developed as typical uses of the Corridor Mixed Use designation, which according to G eneral Plan Policy L66, include duplexes, townhomes, apartments, small retail shops, eating establishments, offices, service stations, medical and dental offices, convenience stores, dry cleaning and laundry services, beauty salons, and other similar uses. The existing site is mostly vacant with some existing structures. The existing structures are primarily residential and commercial, which is consistent with permitted uses in the Corridor Mixed Use designation. Further, the project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east, and west and commercial uses to the south and west. The properties to the north and east are planned and zoned for low -

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
density residential development and the properties to the south and west are planned for mixed use development. The uses allowed in the Corridor Mixed Use designation allow for a mix of commercial, office, and multi-family residential uses.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hanford hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 2022- 01 C). Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford, duly called and held on November 1, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

KALISH MORROW
MAYOR of the City of Hanford

Attest:

NATALIE CORRAL

CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss

CITY OF HANFORD )

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

I, Natalie Corral , City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the __ day of ___________, 2022.

Date:

City Clerk

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
Exhibit A
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 C

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
Current General Plan Land Use Designation

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
Mitigation Measures Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible
for
Verification
Verification of
Completion
Date Initials
Biological Resources
MM BIO-1: The Project shall implement the following
measures to mitigate for possible disturbance to Swainson’s hawks if they are nesting within 0.5 miles of the Project site:
•
Avoidance. If feasible, vegetation removal and initial
grading of the Project site will occur outside the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 1-September 15).
• Pre-construction Surveys. If vegetation removal
and initial grading must occur between March 1 and
September 15, a qualified biologist will conduct pre-
construction surveys for Swainson’s hawk nests following the survey methodology developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SWHA TAC 2000) prior to
the onset of these construction activities. In addition, a pre- activity survey for active nests will be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 10 days prior to the start of Project implementation.

• Establish Buffers. Should any active nests be
discovered within 0.5 miles of proposed construction zones, the biologist will identify a suitable construction-free buffer around the nest. This buffer will be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged.
• Monitor Nest. Should construction activity be
necessary within the designated buffer around an active Swainson’s hawk nest, a qualified biologist will monitor the nest daily for one week, and thereafter once a week,
throughout the duration of construction activity. Should the nature of construction activity significantly change, such that a higher level of disturbance will be generated, monitoring will occur daily for one week and then resume the once
-a-
week regime. If, at any time, the biologist determines that construction activity may be compromising nesting success, Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
ground
-
disturbing
activities
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City
of Hanford to
verify.

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
construction activity within the designated buffer will be altered or suspended until the biologist determines that Swainson’s hawks at the nest site are no longer susceptible to deleterious disturbance.
• Nest Tree Replacement. In the unlikely event that a
SWHA nest tree is found on the site during preconstruction surveys, LOA recommends that the nest tree be replaced
with appropriate native tree species plantings at a ratio of 3:1 at or near the Project site or in other immediately suitable lands.

MM BIO-2: The Project shall implement the following
measures to mitigate for loss of suitable habitat and impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox during ground-disturbing activities of the Project site:
• Pre-construction Surveys. Preconstruction surveys
for the SJKF shall be conducted on and within 200 feet of the project site, where accessible, within 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance activities on the site. The primary objective is to identify kit fox habitat features (e.g., potential dens and refugia) on and adjacent to the site and evaluate their use by kit foxes.
• Avoidance. Should active kit fox dens be detected
during preconstruction surveys, the Sacramento Field Office of the USFWS and the Fresno Field Office of CDFW will be notified. A disturbance
-free buffer will be established around
the burrows in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW, to be maintained until an agency-approved biologist has
determined that the burrows have been abandoned.
• Exclusion. If the kit fox does not abandon the
burrow, then a den exclusion plan will be developed in
consultation with USFWS and CDFW. The exclusion plan
would, at a minimum, include the following elements.

o Kit fox will be excluded from the den(s), outside the natal season (June 1-December 31), through
installation of one-way doors consisting of a 5” pipe with a plastic flap over the top. The one-way doors will be Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
ground
-
disturbing
activities

Developer to
provide (or
comply), City
of Hanford to
verify.

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
installed in all onsite burrows large enough to
accommodate the San Joaquin kit fox. The one-way
doors will be supported by sandbags to ensure a tight fit in the burrow and to discourage the foxes from digging
around the one-way doors to gain access to the dens.
o The one- way doors will be monitored for three days
through the placement of motion sensing cameras and
daily review of the captured images by a qualified
biologist.
o Once the cameras show no more activity at a den
site, the interior of the den will be viewed through the use of a bore scope to ensure kit fox are absent from
the dens.
o Once the den is determined vacant it will be plugged
with sand bags and immediately and carefully
excavated following the USFWS Standardized
recommendations for protection of the endangered San
Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance
(USFWS 2011). The dens will be completely
excavated, backfilled, and compacted to prevent later
use by kit foxes.

MM BIO-3: The Project shall implement the following
measures to mitigate for loss of nesting habitat of the Project in compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and relevant Fish and Game Codes:

• Avoidance. In order to avoid impacts to nesting
raptors and migratory birds, the Project will be constructed, if feasible, from September 16th and January 31st, which is outside the avian nesting season.
• Preconstruction Surveys. If Project activities must
occur during the nesting season (February 1-September
15), a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys for active raptor and migratory bird nests within 10 days prior to the start of these activities. The survey will include the proposed work area(s) and surrounding lands within 500 feet, where accessible, for all nesting raptors and migratory Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
ground
-
disturbing
activities
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City
of Hanford to
verify.

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
birds. If no active nests are found within the survey area, no further mitigation is required.
• Establish Buffers. Should any active nests be
discovered near proposed work areas, no disturbance
buffers of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and 500 feet around active nests of non-listed
raptors will be established. If work needs to occur within these no disturbance buffers, a qualified biologist will monitor the nest daily for one week,
and thereafter once a
week, throughout the duration of construction activity.

Should the nature of construction activity significantly change, such that a higher level of disturbance will be generated, monitoring will occur daily for one week and then res
ume the once-a-week regime. If, at any time, the biologist determines that construction activity may be compromising nesting success, construction activity within the designated buffer will be altered or suspended until the biologist determines that the nest site is no longer susceptible to deleterious disturbance.

Cultural Resources
MM CR-1: In order to avoid the potential for impacts to historic and prehistoric archaeological resources, the
following measures shall be implemented, as necessary, in conjunction with the construction of each phase of the
Project:

a. Cultural Resources Alert on Project Plans. The project proponent shall note on any plans that require ground
disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources.

b. Pre-Construction Briefing. The project proponent shall retain Santa Rosa Rancheria Cultural Staff to provide a pre- construction Cultural Sensitivity Training to construction staff regarding the discovery of cultural resources and the
potential for discovery during ground disturbing activities, which will include information on potential cultural material Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prio
r to
ground-
disturbing
activities
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City
of Hanford to
verify.

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
finds and on the procedures to be enacted if resources are found.
c. Stop Work Near any Discovered Cultural Resources.

The project proponent shall retain a professional
archaeologist on an “on-call” basis during ground disturbing construction for the project to review, identify and evaluate cultural resources that may be inadvertently exposed during construction. Should previously unidentified cultural
resources be discovered during construction of the project, the project proponent shall cease work within 100 feet of the resources, and Kings County Community Development
Agency (CDA) shall be notified immediately. The
archaeologist shall review and evaluate any discoveries to determine if they are historical resource(s) and/or unique archae
ological resources under CEQA.
d. Mitigation for Discovered Cultural Resources. If the professional archaeologist determines that any cultural resources exposed during construction constitute a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource, he/she
shall notify the project proponent and other appropriate parties of the evaluation and recommended mitigation
measures to mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures may include avoidance,
preservation in-place, recordation, additional archaeological testing and data recovery, among other options. Treatment of any significant cultural resources shall be undertaken with the approval of the City of Hanford. The archaeologist shall document the resources using DPR 523 forms and file said forms with the California Historical Resources Information System, Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center.

The resources shall be photo documented and collected by the archaeologist for submittal to the Santa Rosa
Rancheria’s Cultural a
nd Historical Preservation
Department. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the County for review and approval a report of the
findings and method of curation or protection of the

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
resources. Further grading or site work within the area of discovery shall not be allowed until the preceding steps have been taken.
e. Native American Monitoring. Prior to any ground
disturbance, the project proponent shall offer the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe the opportunity to
provide a Native American Monitor during ground disturbing activities during construction. Tribal participation would be dependent upon the availability and interest of the Tribe. f. Disposition of Cultural Resources.

Upon coordination
with the City of Hanford, any pre-historic archaeological artifacts recovered shall be donated to an appropriate Tribal custodian or a qualified scientific institution where they would be afforded applicable cultural resources laws and guidelines.

MM CR-2. Protection of Buried Human Remains. In order to avoid the potential for impacts to buried human remains, the following measures shall be implemented, as necessary, in conjunction with the construction of each phase of the
Project:
a. Pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5(e) and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, if human bone or bone of unknown origin is found at any time during on- or off-site construction, all work shall stop in the vicinity of the find and the Kings County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the California State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who
shall identify the person believed to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The project proponent and MLD, with
the assistance of the archaeologist, shall make all
reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the
treatment of human remains and associated or
unassociated funerary objects with appropriate dignity
(CEQA Guidelines Se
c. 15064.5(d)). The agreed upon
treatment shall address the appropriate excavation,
Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
ground
-
disturbing
activities
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City
of Hanford to
verify.

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects. California Public Resources Code allows 48 hours for the MLD to make their wishes
known to the landowner after being granted access to the site. If the MLD and the other parties do not agree on the reburial method, the project will follow Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e)
which states that ". . . the
landowner or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance." b. Any findings shall be submitted by the archaeologist in a professional report submitted to the project applicant, the MLD, the City of Hanford, and the California Historical Resources Information System, Southern San Joaquin
Valley Information Center.

Tribal Cultural Resources
See MM CR-1 and CR-2 under Cultural Resources

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
ORDINANCE NO. 22-08

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HANFORD CITY COUNCIL APPROVING PREZONE NO. 2021-14, A REQUEST TO PRE-ZONE/REZONE THE SITE FROM C-S – SERVICE COMMERCIAL (COUNTY) TO MX – C - CORRIDOR MIXED USE (CITY) ON 18 PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 28 ACRES. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED NORTH OF EAST LACEY BOULEVARD BETWEEN NORTH 10TH AVENUE AND 9 ¼ AVENUE IN A COUNTY ISLAND AND WITHIN THE CITY OF HANFORD SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (APNS 014-201-006, -009, 014-202-005, -006, 014- 203-002, -003, -004, -005, -006, 014-204-001, -002, 014-221-017, -018, -019, -020, -021, -022, AND 014-221-026).

Section 1: The following described territory situated in the City of Hanford is hereby zoned under the terms of Chapter 17.86 of the Hanford Municipal Code:

Rezone No. 2021-14, filed by the City of Hanford:

FROM: County CS Service Commercial
TO: City MX-C Corridor Mixed Use
On property described as follows:

Approximately 18 acres, located north of East Lacey Boulevard between North 10th Avenue and 9 ¼ Avenue in a County Island and within the City of Hanford Sphere of Influence (APNs 014-201-006, -009, 014-202-005, -006, 014-203-002, -003, -004, -005, -006, 014-204-001, -002, 014- 221-017, -018, -019, -020, -021, -022, and 014- 221-026), as depicted in attached Exhibit A; and

Section 2: The Council does hereby find as a fact that the Planning Commission of the City of Hanford held a public hearing on May 10, 2022 after notice required by Section 17.70.110 of the Hanford Municipal Code and Government Code Section 65854. The City Council finds that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-31 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, depicted in attached Exhibit B, are approved in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council hereby finds that the pre zoning/rezoning is consistent with the objectives of the zoning regulations as set forth in Section 17.86 of the Hanford Municipal Code, and that this Ordinance has been introduced by the City Council after public hearing held on the 1
st day of November 2022, at 7:00 p.m. of said day after notice required under the provisions of Section 65856 of the Government Code.

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Section 3: That pursuant to Section 17.86.030, the City Council of the City of Hanford makes the following findings:

Prezone/Rezone No. 2021-14

1. That the amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and the Municipal Code.

Analysis: That Rezone No. 2021-14 is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, specifically consistent with Goals 10 and 12, and Land Use Policies L65, L66, and L67. All regulations pertaining to MX -C – Mixed Use Corridor zone district will be enforced as development occurs through the Site Plan Review process.

2. That the amendment would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.

Analysis: That this application has been reviewed by County departments, utility companies, City Fire Department, City Building Department, and other involved departments. Any mitigation required for public health and safety were applied to the proposal and required in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

3. That the amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City.

Analysis: That jobs-housing balance is achieved by increasing opportunities for people to work and live in close proximity. The ratio is expressed as the number of jobs divided by the number of housing units. The jobs-housing balance is a general tool for analyzing where people work, where they live, and how effectively they can travel between the two. In the planning area, the existing jobs -housing balance ratio in 2013- 2014 was 1.17. It is estimated that the implementation of the General Plan would increase the jobs -housing balance by 0.45 to 1.62, which would make the planning area a jobs-rich area. The proposal to change the designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use will not affect the City’s ability to maintain an appropriate balance of land uses within the City, both jobs and housing are permitted in the Corridor Mixed Use designation. Commercial and housing opportunities would be limited to the density and intensity allowable within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

4. That the anticipated land uses on the subject site would be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses.

Analysis: That the anticipated land uses of the sites designated for Corridor Mixed Use would be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses. The parcels will be developed as typical uses of the Corridor Mixed Use designation, whi ch according to General Plan Policy L66, include duplexes, townhomes, apartments, small retail shops, eating establishments, offices, service stations, medical and dental offices, convenience stores, dry cleaning and laundry services, beauty salons, and ot her similar uses. The existing site is mostly vacant with some existing structures. The existing structures are primarily residential and commercial, which is consistent with permitted uses in the Corridor Mixed Use designation. Further, the project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east, and west and commercial uses to the south and west. The properties to the north and east are planned and zoned for low -density residential development and the properties to the south and west are planned for mixed use development. The uses allowed in the Corridor Mixed Use designation allow for a mix of commercial, office, and multi - family residential uses. Commercial and housing opportunities would be limited to the density and intensity permitted within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Section 4: This ordinance shall take effect (30) days after its passage, and be published once in the Hanford Sentinel within fifteen (15) days after its passage or a summary of this ordinance shall be published in the Hanford Sentinel in a manner consistent with the requirements of the California Government Code.

Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on , by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

APPROVED

KALISH MORROW
MAYOR of the City of Hanford

ATTEST:

_______________________________________

NATALIE CORRAL

CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss

CITY OF HANFORD )

I, NATALIE CORRAL, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing ordinance was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford on the 1
st day of November 2022, and it was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the 15th day of November 2022.

_______________________________________

NATALIE CORRAL

CITY CLERK

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Exhibit A
Prezone No. 2021-14

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Current Zone District

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Proposed Zone District

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Exhibit B:

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Mitigation Measures Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible
for
Verification
Verification of
Completion
Date Initials
Biological Resources
MM BIO-1: The Project shall implement the following
measures to mitigate for possible disturbance to Swainson’s hawks if they are nesting within 0.5 miles of the Project site:
•
Avoidance. If feasible, vegetation removal and initial
grading of the Project site will occur outside the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 1-September 15).
• Pre-construction Surveys. If vegetation removal
and initial grading must occur between March 1 and
September 15, a qualified biologist will conduct pre-
construction surveys for Swainson’s hawk nests following the survey methodology developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SWHA TAC 2000) prior to
the onset of these construction activities. In addition, a pre- activity survey for active nests will be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 10 days prior to the start of Project implementation.

• Establish Buffers. Should any active nests be
discovered within 0.5 miles of proposed construction zones, the biologist will identify a suitable construction-free buffer around the nest. This buffer will be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged.
• Monitor Nest. Should construction activity be
necessary within the designated buffer around an active Swainson’s hawk nest, a qualified biologist will monitor the nest daily for one week, and thereafter once a week,
throughout the duration of construction activity. Should the nature of construction activity significantly change, such that a higher level of disturbance will be generated, monitoring will occur daily for one week and then resume the once
-a-
week regime. If, at any time, the biologist determines that construction activity may be compromising nesting success, Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
ground
-
disturbing
activities
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City
of Hanford to
verify.

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) construction activity within the designated buffer will be altered or suspended until the biologist determines that Swainson’s hawks at the nest site are no longer susceptible to deleterious disturbance.
• Nest Tree Replacement. In the unlikely event that a
SWHA nest tree is found on the site during preconstruction surveys, LOA recommends that the nest tree be replaced
with appropriate native tree species plantings at a ratio of 3:1 at or near the Project site or in other immediately suitable lands.

MM BIO-2: The Project shall implement the following
measures to mitigate for loss of suitable habitat and impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox during ground-disturbing activities of the Project site:
• Pre-construction Surveys. Preconstruction surveys
for the SJKF shall be conducted on and within 200 feet of the project site, where accessible, within 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance activities on the site. The primary objective is to identify kit fox habitat features (e.g., potential dens and refugia) on and adjacent to the site and evaluate their use by kit foxes.
• Avoidance. Should active kit fox dens be detected
during preconstruction surveys, the Sacramento Field Office of the USFWS and the Fresno Field Office of CDFW will be notified. A disturbance
-free buffer will be established around
the burrows in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW, to be maintained until an agency-approved biologist has
determined that the burrows have been abandoned.
• Exclusion. If the kit fox does not abandon the
burrow, then a den exclusion plan will be developed in
consultation with USFWS and CDFW. The exclusion plan
would, at a minimum, include the following elements.

o Kit fox will be excluded from the den(s), outside the natal season (June 1-December 31), through
installation of one-way doors consisting of a 5” pipe with a plastic flap over the top. The one-way doors will be Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
ground
-
disturbing
activities

Developer to
provide (or
comply), City
of Hanford to
verify.

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) installed in all onsite burrows large enough to
accommodate the San Joaquin kit fox. The one-way
doors will be supported by sandbags to ensure a tight fit in the burrow and to discourage the foxes from digging
around the one-way doors to gain access to the dens.
o The one- way doors will be monitored for three days
through the placement of motion sensing cameras and
daily review of the captured images by a qualified
biologist.
o Once the cameras show no more activity at a den
site, the interior of the den will be viewed through the use of a bore scope to ensure kit fox are absent from
the dens.
o Once the den is determined vacant it will be plugged
with sand bags and immediately and carefully
excavated following the USFWS Standardized
recommendations for protection of the endangered San
Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance
(USFWS 2011). The dens will be completely
excavated, backfilled, and compacted to prevent later
use by kit foxes.

MM BIO-3: The Project shall implement the following
measures to mitigate for loss of nesting habitat of the Project in compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and relevant Fish and Game Codes:

• Avoidance. In order to avoid impacts to nesting
raptors and migratory birds, the Project will be constructed, if feasible, from September 16th and January 31st, which is outside the avian nesting season.
• Preconstruction Surveys. If Project activities must
occur during the nesting season (February 1-September
15), a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys for active raptor and migratory bird nests within 10 days prior to the start of these activities. The survey will include the proposed work area(s) and surrounding lands within 500 feet, where accessible, for all nesting raptors and migratory Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
ground
-
disturbing
activities
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City
of Hanford to
verify.

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) birds. If no active nests are found within the survey area, no further mitigation is required.
• Establish Buffers. Should any active nests be
discovered near proposed work areas, no disturbance
buffers of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and 500 feet around active nests of non-listed
raptors will be established. If work needs to occur within these no disturbance buffers, a qualified biologist will monitor the nest daily for one week,
and thereafter once a
week, throughout the duration of construction activity.

Should the nature of construction activity significantly change, such that a higher level of disturbance will be generated, monitoring will occur daily for one week and then res
ume the once-a-week regime. If, at any time, the biologist determines that construction activity may be compromising nesting success, construction activity within the designated buffer will be altered or suspended until the biologist determines that the nest site is no longer susceptible to deleterious disturbance.

Cultural Resources
MM CR-1: In order to avoid the potential for impacts to historic and prehistoric archaeological resources, the
following measures shall be implemented, as necessary, in conjunction with the construction of each phase of the
Project:

a. Cultural Resources Alert on Project Plans. The project proponent shall note on any plans that require ground
disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources.

b. Pre-Construction Briefing. The project proponent shall retain Santa Rosa Rancheria Cultural Staff to provide a pre- construction Cultural Sensitivity Training to construction staff regarding the discovery of cultural resources and the
potential for discovery during ground disturbing activities, which will include information on potential cultural material Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prio
r to
ground-
disturbing
activities
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City
of Hanford to
verify.

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) finds and on the procedures to be enacted if resources are found.
c. Stop Work Near any Discovered Cultural Resources.

The project proponent shall retain a professional
archaeologist on an “on-call” basis during ground disturbing construction for the project to review, identify and evaluate cultural resources that may be inadvertently exposed during construction. Should previously unidentified cultural
resources be discovered during construction of the project, the project proponent shall cease work within 100 feet of the resources, and Kings County Community Development
Agency (CDA) shall be notified immediately. The
archaeologist shall review and evaluate any discoveries to determine if they are historical resource(s) and/or unique archae
ological resources under CEQA.
d. Mitigation for Discovered Cultural Resources. If the professional archaeologist determines that any cultural resources exposed during construction constitute a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource, he/she
shall notify the project proponent and other appropriate parties of the evaluation and recommended mitigation
measures to mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures may include avoidance,
preservation in-place, recordation, additional archaeological testing and data recovery, among other options. Treatment of any significant cultural resources shall be undertaken with the approval of the City of Hanford. The archaeologist shall document the resources using DPR 523 forms and file said forms with the California Historical Resources Information System, Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center.

The resources shall be photo documented and collected by the archaeologist for submittal to the Santa Rosa
Rancheria’s Cultural a
nd Historical Preservation
Department. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the County for review and approval a report of the
findings and method of curation or protection of the

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) resources. Further grading or site work within the area of discovery shall not be allowed until the preceding steps have been taken.
e. Native American Monitoring. Prior to any ground
disturbance, the project proponent shall offer the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe the opportunity to
provide a Native American Monitor during ground disturbing activities during construction. Tribal participation would be dependent upon the availability and interest of the Tribe. f. Disposition of Cultural Resources.

Upon coordination
with the City of Hanford, any pre-historic archaeological artifacts recovered shall be donated to an appropriate Tribal custodian or a qualified scientific institution where they would be afforded applicable cultural resources laws and guidelines.

MM CR-2. Protection of Buried Human Remains. In order to avoid the potential for impacts to buried human remains, the following measures shall be implemented, as necessary, in conjunction with the construction of each phase of the
Project:
a. Pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5(e) and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, if human bone or bone of unknown origin is found at any time during on- or off-site construction, all work shall stop in the vicinity of the find and the Kings County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the California State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who
shall identify the person believed to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The project proponent and MLD, with
the assistance of the archaeologist, shall make all
reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the
treatment of human remains and associated or
unassociated funerary objects with appropriate dignity
(CEQA Guidelines Se
c. 15064.5(d)). The agreed upon
treatment shall address the appropriate excavation,
Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
ground
-
disturbing
activities
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City
of Hanford to
verify.

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects. California Public Resources Code allows 48 hours for the MLD to make their wishes
known to the landowner after being granted access to the site. If the MLD and the other parties do not agree on the reburial method, the project will follow Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e)
which states that ". . . the
landowner or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance." b. Any findings shall be submitted by the archaeologist in a professional report submitted to the project applicant, the MLD, the City of Hanford, and the California Historical Resources Information System, Southern San Joaquin
Valley Information Center.

Tribal Cultural Resources
See MM CR-1 and CR-2 under Cultural Resources

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

LASSEN DRIVE CORRIDOR MIXED USE

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 C
Rezone No. 2021-11

Initial Study prepared in accordance with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines

Prepared for
City of Hanford
Community Development Department
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230

Prepared by
Precision Civil Engineering, Inc.
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721

March 2022

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 2
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 7

1.1 Regulatory Information ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 7

1.2 Document Format ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8

1.3 Early Consultation Letters Received ................................ ................................ ................. 8 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9

2.1 Project Title................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 9

2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address ................................ ................................ ...................... 9

2.3 Contact Person and Phone Number ................................ ................................ ................. 9

2.4 Study Prepared By ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9

2.5 Project Location ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 9

2.6 Latitude and Longitude ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 14

2.7 General Plan Designation ................................ ................................ ............................... 14

2.8 Zoning ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 15

2.9 Description of Project ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 18

2.10 Site and Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ................................ .............................. 19

2.11 Technical Studies/Appendices ................................ ................................ .................... 19

2.12 Consultation with California Native American Tribes ................................ ................. 20 3 DETERMINATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 22

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................ ................................ ... 22

3.2 Determination ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 23 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................ ................................ ....... 24

4.1 AESTHETICS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 24

4.1.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ............................. 24

4.1.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 26

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................... 28

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ................................ ................................ .... 29

4.2.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ............................. 29

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 3

4.2.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 31

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................... 32

4.3 AIR QUALITY ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 33

4.3.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ............................. 33

4.3.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 40

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................... 43

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................ ................................ ................................ 44

4.4.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ............................. 45

4.4.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 52

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................... 56

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 57

4.5.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ............................. 57

4.5.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 60

4.5.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................... 63

4.6 ENERGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 64

4.6.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ............................. 64

4.6.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 66

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................... 67

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 68

4.7.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ............................. 69

4.7.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 72

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................... 75

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................ ................................ ....................... 76

4.8.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ............................. 76

4.8.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................ ................................ ....................... 77

4.8.3 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 83

4.8.4 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................... 86

4.9 HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ................................ ................................ ..... 87

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 4

4.9.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ............................. 88

4.9.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 90

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................... 94

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................ ................................ ............ 95

4.10.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ............................. 96

4.10.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 96

4.10.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................. 101

4.11 LAND USE PLANNING ................................ ................................ ................................ 102

4.11.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ........................... 102

4.11.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ 102

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................. 104

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 105

4.12.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ........................... 105

4.12.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ 105

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................. 106

4.13 NOISE ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 107

4.13.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ........................... 107

4.13.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ 108

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................. 110

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................ ................................ .................... 111

4.14.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ........................... 111

4.14.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ 111

4.14.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................. 112

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 113

4.15.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ........................... 113

4.15.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ 115

4.15.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................. 116

4.16 RECREATION ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 117

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 203
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 5

4.16.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ........................... 117

4.16.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ 118

4.16.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................. 118

4.17 TRANSPORTATION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 119

4.17.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ........................... 119

4.17.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ 122

4.17.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................. 124

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................ ................................ ................. 125

4.18.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ........................... 125

4.18.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ 128

4.18.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................. 129

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................ ................................ .............. 130

4.19.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ........................... 131

4.19.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ 132

4.19.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................. 134

4.20 WILDFIRE ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 135

4.20.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ........................... 135

4.20.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ 136

4.20.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ............................. 137

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................ ............................... 138

4.21.1 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ 138 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ................................ ................... 140 6 REPORT PREPARATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 148 7 APPENDICES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 149 Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files ................................ ................................ ........................ 150 Appendix B: CHRIS Search Records ................................ ................................ ......................... 151 Appendix C: Early Consultation Letters ................................ ................................ ................... 152

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 204
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 6
Figures
Figure 2-1 Project Location ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 10 Figure 2-2 Project Vicinity Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 11 Figure 2-3 APN Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 13 Figure 2-4 General Plan Designated Land Use ................................ ................................ .............. 16 Figure 2-5 Current Zoning ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 17 Figure 4-1 CNDDB Species Occurrences ................................ ................................ ........................ 48 Figure 4-2 Surface Water Features................................ ................................ ................................ 51 Figure 4-3 SJVAPCD’s GHG Thresholds of Significance ................................ ................................ .. 79

Tables
Table 2-2 Vacant and Underutilized Parcels ................................ ................................ .................. 18 Table 2-3 Existing Uses, General Plan Designations, and Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 Table 4-1 SJVAPCD Recommended Air Quality Thresholds of Significance2F ................................ . 35 Table 4-2 Vacant and Underutilized Parcels within Project site ................................ .................... 40 Table 4-2 Construction Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants, Unmitigated ................................ .... 40 Table 4-3 Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants, Unmitigated ................................ ...... 41 Table 4-2 Special-Status Species Occurrences within 5-mile radius of Project site....................... 46 Table 4-3 Essential Habitats and Potential Existence of Special-Status Species on Site ................ 49 Table 4-6 County-wide GHG Emissions by Source (2005) ................................ ............................. 80 Table 4-7 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year) ................................ .......... 84 Table 4-8 Scoping Plan Reduction Measures Consistency Analysis ................................ ............... 85 Table 4-9 Kings County ALUCP Primary Compatibility Criteria ................................ ...................... 93 Table 4-10 Summary of Total Water Demands by Land Use ................................ ......................... 98 Table 4-11 Discussion on Land Use Policies in the General Plan ................................ ................. 104 Table 4-12 Percent reduction in VMT per employee ................................ ................................ .. 123

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 205
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 7
1 INTRODUCTION
Precision Civil Engineering, Inc. (PCE) was retained by the City of Hanford to prepare this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on behalf of City of Hanford (City) to address the environmental effects of the proposed Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use Project (General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 C, Rezone No. 2021-11) hereafter “the Project”. Due to incompatibility with the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the Project requests approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 2021 -01 C) and Pre -zone/Rezone (Rezone No. 2021 -11) related to an annexation request already in process that is scheduled to be heard and anticipated to be approved (pursuant to Section 5637.3 of the Government Code) by Kings County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on March 30, 2022 . The GPA will change the General Plan land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use. The Pre -zone/Rezone will pre-zone the site to CMX – Corridor Mixed Use, which is consistent with the proposed land use designation of Corridor Mixed Use. Both the proposed land use designation and rezone permit uses are compatible with the ALUCP. This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), (PRC) Section 21000 et seq. and the Guidelines imp lementing CEQA, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15000 et seq. The City of Hanford is the Lead Agency for this Project. The site and the Project are described in detail in Section 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.

1.1 Regulatory Information
An Initial Study (IS) is a document prepared by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.) , also known as the CEQA Guidelines , Section 15064 (a)(1) states that an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the Project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mit igation measures or project alternatives that might avoid or reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. A negative declaration (ND) may be prepared instead if the lead agency finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole re cord that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. An ND is a written statement describing the reasons why a Project, not otherwise exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a ND or Mitigated ND (MND) shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a. The IS shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b. The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 206
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 8

1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals m ade by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and

2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

1.2 Document Format
This IS/MND contains five chapters plus appendices. SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION provides bases of the IS/MND’s regulatory information and an overview of the Project. SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION provides a detailed description of Project components. SECTION 3 DETERMINATION concludes that the Initial Study is a mitigated negative declaration, identifies the environmental factors potentially affected based on the analyses contained in this IS, and includes with the Lead Agency’s determination based upon those analyses. SECTION 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analyses for all impact areas and the mandatory findings of significance. A brief discussion of the reasons why the Project impact is anticipated to be potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation incorporated, les s than significant, or why no impacts are expected is included. SECTION 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM presents the mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the Project. The CalEEMod Output Files , CHRIS Record Search Results , and Early Consultation Letters are provided as Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C respectively, at the end of this document.

1.3 Early Consultation Letters Received
Early consultation with agencies outside of the City of Hanford (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082) was conducted for the Project as part of the entitlement process. Response to the Early Consultation were received from:
• Edgar Hernandez with Caltrans on October 4, 2021.
• Liliana Stransky with Kings County Department of Public Health on September 13, 2021. • Samantha McCarty, with Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe on October 19, 2021. • Plan Review Team, Land Management Div., with PG&E on September 9, 2021. “No Comment” responses were received from Hanford Elementary School District, Hanford Joint Union High School District, and Kings County Public Works Department.

Although not required, early consultation response letters are provided in -full in Appendix C and the comments provided are addressed in this document.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 207
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 9
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section describes the components of the Project in more detail , including project location , project objectives, and required project approvals.

2.1 Project Title
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use (General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 C, Rezone No. 2021-11)

2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Hanford
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230

2.3 Contact Person and Phone Number
Lead Agency
Community Development Department
Mary E. Beatie
Interim Director
(559) 585-2500
Applicant
City of Hanford
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230

2.4 Study Prepared By
Precision Civil Engineering
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721

2.5 Project Location
The Project is located in the southeast portion of the city of Hanford, California , generally located north of East Lacey Boulevard between North 10th Avenue and 9 ¼ Avenue in a County island and within the City of Hanford Sphere of Influence (SOI) (see Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2). The Project site consists of 18 parcels that total approximately 28 acres (see Figure 2-3). The site has not been assigned a street address yet but is identified by the Kings County Assessor as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 014-201-006, -009, 014- 202-005, -006, 014-203-002, -003, -004, -005, -006, 014-204-001, -002, 014-221-017, -018, -019, -020, - 021, -022, and 014-221-026 and is a portion of Section 3 0, Township 18 South, Range 2 2 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 208
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 10

Figure 2-1 Project Location

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 209
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 11

Figure 2-2 Project Vicinity Map

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 210
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 12

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 211
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 13
Figure 2-3 APN Map

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 212
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 14

2.6 Latitude and Longitude
The centroid of the Project area is 36.3309352896961, -119.63147792062374.

2.7 General Plan Designation
The Project site is currently in a county unincorporated island within the City of Hanford’s SOI, but will be considered for annexation into the City at the Kings County LAFCO meeting scheduled for March 30, 2022.

The Project site has a City General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential (see Figure 2-4). According to the General Plan Policy L34 , the Medium Density Residential land use designation includes residential uses such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and lower density apartment complexes, as well as non -traditional small single-family lots that range from 4,500 to 7,500 square feet. It is intended that development within this land use designation be conveniently serviced by neighborhood commercial and recreational facilities with access to major collector or arterial streets.

In anticipation of the annexation request being approved by LAFCO pursuant to GC Section 56375.3 the Project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 2021-01 C) that proposes a change to the site’s land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use, to ensure land use conformance with the ALUCP. According to the General Plan Policy L65, the purpose of the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation is to “promote a mix of commercial, office, and multi -family residential uses along transportation corridors at a scale compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods, with the intent of creating a pedestrian -friendly environment that encourages walking between uses.” Typical uses in the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation include small- and medium-scale commercial, providing primarily day-to-day goods and services, office.

The GPA is requested due to incompatibility with the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). According to the ALUCP, the Project site is located within Zone B1 (North) which limits the maximum residential density (dwelling units/acre) to one (1) unit per 10 acres. This density is incompatible with the site’s underlying General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential. Further, residential subdivisions and multi -family residential uses are identified as non-acceptable uses in this zone. In order to allow the property owners to develop the site with a compatible use, the site must be rezoned to a district th at allows alternative uses. The site cannot be rezoned without first changing the underlying planned land use. Therefore, the General Plan Amendment request to change the site’s land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use which would allow for future development of the site with uses that are compatible with uses allowed in Zone B1 (North).

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 213
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 15

2.8 Zoning
The Project site is currently in a county unincorporated island within the City of Hanford’s SOI, but will be considered for annexation into the City at the Kings County LAFCO meeting scheduled for March 30, 2022.

The site is in the County’s CS – Service Commercial Zone District (see Figure 2-5). Thus, the Project includes a Pre -Zone/Rezone (Rezone No. 2021 -11) to the City’s MX-C Corridor Mixed Zone District which is consistent with the proposed City General Plan land use designation of Corridor Mixed Use. According to the City of Hanford Municipal Code (HMC §17.08.030), the MX -C Zone District permits or conditionally permits uses including but not limited to single -family and multi -family dwellings, mixed commercial - residential, supportive housing, eating and drinking establishments, office and medical uses, community centers or facilities, convenience stores, and retail sales.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 214
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 16

Figure 2-4 General Plan Designated Land Use

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 215
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 17

Figure 2-5 Current Zoning

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 216
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 18

2.9 Description of Project
The Project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 2021-01 C) and Pre-zone/Rezone (Rezone No. 2021 -11) to facilitate the change of land use due to incompatibility with the Kings County ALUCP. According to the ALUCP, the Project site is located within Zone B1 (North) which limits the maximum residential density to one (1) unit per 10 acres. Residential subdivisions and multi-family residential are identified as non-acceptable uses in this zone. As such, the current city planned land use , RMD – Medium Density Residential, is not compatible with the AL UCP regulations since RMD zones are planned for residential uses. Thus, the GPA and related Rezoning to Corridor Mixed Use would allow for future development of the site with uses that are compatible with uses allowed in Zone B1 (North).

The Project does not propose any physical development, but rather proposes land use and zoning to allow future development by others that will be consistent with the ALUCP. Although no specific project is currently proposed, for the purpose of facilitating tiering of CEQA analysis for future development this initial study will apply the following assumptions so as to reasonably estimate the extent and magnitude of potential impacts that could result from future development:
• New development will be consistent with MX-C allowed uses (per HMC §17.08.030); • New development will take place on parcels that are currently vacant or underutilized according to the City of Hanford’s GIS data (Table 2-1); • Max allowable 50% coverage on all vacant or underutilized parcels; • All development will be single story; and,
• Future uses will not exceed allowable VMT significance thresholds that would result in determination of significant traffic impacts pursuant to the Kings County Association of Governments’ adopted VMT modeling or other VMT modeling methodologies acceptable to or adopted by the City of Hanford
Based upon the assumptions above, future development would result in approximately 472,843.8 square feet of corridor mixed use development.

Table 2-1 Vacant and Underutilized Parcels
Parcel Acreage Description
014-203-002 0.17 Vacant
014-201-006 0.83 Underutilized
014-221-019 0.10 Vacant
014-221-018 0.02 Vacant
014-221-021 0.19 Vacant
014-221-022 5.45 Vacant
014-221-020 0.79 Vacant

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 217
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 19
014-221-026 14.16 Vacant
Total 21.71 -

2.10 Site and Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The existing site is mostly vacant with some existing structures. The existing structures are generally located east of North 10th Avenue along Kruger Avenue, Jessie Avenue, and East Whitney Drive. The existing structures are primarily residential and commercial. The vacant portion of the Project site is generally located north of Lacey Boulevard between Whitney Drive and Lassen Drive.

This portion of the site is relatively flat and is highly disturbed as a result of periodic grading and discing for weed control and fire abatement. The existing biotic site conditions and resources of the vacant portion can be defined primarily as herbaceous (weedy) vegetation with minimal trees and shrubs existing on site. There are no water features present. As referenced in Table 2-2, the Project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, south, and east, and commercial and vacant land uses to the south and west. The properties to the north and east are zoned and planned for Low Density Residential and the properties to the south and west are planned for Corridor Mixed Use.

Table 2-2 Existing Uses, General Plan Designations, and Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties Direction
from the
Project site
Existing Land Use Planned Land Use Zone District
North Single-family dwellings RLD Low Density
Residential
R-L-5 Low Density
Residential
South Commercial, Vacant,
Residential MUC Corridor Mixed Use CS – Service Commercial (County)
East Single-family dwellings RLD Low Density
Residential
R-L-5 Low Density
Residential
West Commercial, Vacant MUC Corridor Mixed Use P-F – Public Facilities (County)

2.11 Technical Studies/Appendices
Some analyses of the Project throughout this Initial Study relied on technical studies prepared for the Project, as listed below, Other analyses relied on other existing sources, including, but no t limited to, the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No. 2015041024 adopted in 2017 for the City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update which is incorporated herein by reference. • Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files
• Appendix B: CHRIS Record Search Results
• Appendix C: Early Consultation Response Letters received by the City of Hanford

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 218
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 20

2.12 Consultation with California Native American Tribes The State, through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes, specifically Public Resources Code ( PRC) Section 21080.3.1 , and the CEQA Guidelines implementing this statute (California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15000 et seq.) requires: “Prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project, the lead agency shall begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project (as identified by the National American Heritage Commission) if: (1) the California Native American tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe, a nd (2) the California Native American tribe responds, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification, and requests the consultation.”
Through this process, the Lead Agency is required to consider the potential effects of proposed projects on Tribal Cultural Resources that may be identified by a notified Tribe and to initiate formal consultation opportunity with California Native American tribes if they have so requested consultation in writing. Tribal Cultural Resources can be sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and supported by substantial evidence, choose s to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)). According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Indian tribes. Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or Rancherias,
Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See PRC Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File p er PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

The City of Hanford conducted the formal tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes 2014) and SB 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes 2004) on December 28, 2021 with the following tribes as recommended by the Native American Heritage Commission:
• Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe,
• Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe,

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 219
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 21
• Table Mountain Rancheria,
• Tule River Indian Tribe, and
• Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band.

Consultation ended on January 26, 2022. A response was received from Table Mountain Rancheria which indicated the project site was beyond their area of interest. A response was received from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe requesting mitigation. The requested mitigation has been included in this document.

Early consultation was also conducted on October 19, 2021. The same five (5) tribes listed were included in the early consultation. In response, the City only received correspondence from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe. The Tribe requested to have “A Native American monitor shall be present for ground disturbing activities” at the Project site.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 220
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 22
3 DETERMINATION

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
As indicated by the discussions of existing and baseline conditions, and impact analyses that follow in this Chapter, environmental factors not checked below would have no impacts or less than significant impacts resulting from the project. Environmental factors that are checked below would have potentially significant impacts resulting from the project. Mitigation measures are recommended for each of the potentially significant impacts that would reduce the impact to less than significant.

Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal and Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire

The analyses of environmental impacts in SECTION 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS result in one of four impact statements (or conclusions), which shall have the following meanings pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.

Potentially Significant Impact. This category is applicable if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant, and no feasible mitigation measures can be identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If there are one or more “Potentially Signifi cant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. This category applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce an effect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure(s), and briefly explain how they would reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced).

Less Than Significant Impact. This category is identified when the Project would result in impacts below the threshold of significance, and no mitigation measures are required.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 221
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 222
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 24
4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.1 AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 21099,
would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock out -
croppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In non -urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are
experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the
project is in an urbanized a rea,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X

4.1.1 Environmental Setting
The city of Hanford can be characterized as small, urbanized city. However, the city lies within the San Joaquin Valley, the southern reach of the Great Central Valley of California, which is predominantly agricultural and the leading producer of many animal and cultivated food products in the nation. The city is predominately flat with minimal natural watercourses; no scenic vistas are identified by the Hanford General Plan. The Project is located within the southeast portion of the city of Hanford, California, generally located north of East Lacey Boulevard between North 10th Avenue and 9 ¼ Avenue in a County island and within the City of Hanford Sphere of Influence (SOI).

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 223
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 25
In general, the Project site is within an area of the city that is predominately characterized by commercial and residential development. Because the surrounding area is largely developed, there is existing infrastructure such as roadways, streetlights, parking lot lights, and ambient light sources typical of commercial and residential uses.

California Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highway Program was established in 1963 with the purpose to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors, through special conservation treatment. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view. There are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in the city of Hanford, inclusive of the Project area. The nearest eligible State Scenic Highways is a portion of SR-198 that is approximately 12.5 miles east from the Project site.1
Hanford General Plan
Regarding the proposed use, the Hanford General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element outlines policies related to aesthetics. The following policies are applicable to the Project.

Policy L67 Design of the Corridor Mixed Use Land Use Designation . Require that new development projects and major site reconfigurations in the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation provide site layouts, buildings, landscaping, and walkways that are designed to encourage pedestrian access on the site and between adjacent sites. Strongly encourage buildings to be located near the street corridor with parking to the side o f or behind buildings.

Policy L113 Infill Development in Neighborhoods. Protect the pattern and character of existing neighborhoods by requiring new infill developments to have complimentary building forms and site features.

1 Caltrans. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed on January 25, 2022, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 224
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 26
Hanford Municipal Code
Hanford Municipal Code (HMC) Section 17.50.140 – Outdoor Lighting Standards contains specific, enforceable requirements and/or restrictions for all new development, including the proposed development, intended to prevent light and glare impacts:

D. General Outdoor Lighting Standards. The following requirements and standards shall apply in all zone districts for the installation and use of outdoor lighting fixtures.

1. All lights and light fixtures, except public streetlights, shall be located, aimed or shielded so as to minimize light trespassing across property boundaries or skyward.

2. No lights or light fixtures shall flash, revolve, blink or otherwise rese mble a traffic control signal or operate in such a fashion to create a hazard for passing traffic.

3. Building mounted lighting fixtures shall be attached only to the walls of the building. The top of a light fixture attached to a building wall shall not be h igher than the top of the building parapet or the top of the roof eave, whichever is lower.

4. Canopy ceiling light fixtures shall be recessed or the sides of the lens area shall be shielded in order to eliminate emission of horizontal light.

5. The height of fr eestanding light fixtures including freestanding parking lot fixtures shall be measured from the top of a light fixture to the adjacent grade at the base of the support for that light fixture and shall not exceed the following:
a. Eighteen (18) feet in height , when located within fifty (50) feet of any residential zone district; and
b. Twenty-five (25) feet in height when located within fifty -one (51) to one hundred fifty (150) feet of any residential zone district; and
c. Thirty (30) feet in height when located more than one hundred fifty (150) feet from any residential zone district; and
d. Fifty (50) feet in height when located in the RC regional commercial zone or freestanding light fixtures for public outdoor recreational facilities.

4.1.2 Impact Assessment
Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The Hanford General Plan does not identify or designate scenic vistas within the City or Sphere of Influence, inclusive of the Project site . In addition, the Project site does not contain any visual features or historic resources as identified in the General Plan . As a result, the Project would not adversely affect scenic vistas and no impact would occur because of the Project.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 27
b. Substantially dam age scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. According to the California State Scenic Highway Program, the Project is not located within a state-designated scenic highway. As such, the Project would not damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway and no impact would occur because of the Project.
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is within an urbanized area surrounded by commercial and residential development. Although no specific project is currently proposed, future development projects in this area will go t hrough the entitlement review process, where the Project will be subject to compliance with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality including but not limited to the California Building Code, Hanford General Plan, and Hanford Municipal Code (HMC). In particular, future development would be required to comply with the desig n requirements contained in Chapter 17.26 Corridor Mixed Use Zone of the HMC.

Through compliance with the applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, future development resulting from the implementation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact.
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. Generally, lighting impacts are associated with artificial lighting in evening hours either through interior lighting from windows or exterior lighting (e.g., street lighting, parking lot lighting, landscape lighting, cars, and trucks). The Project does not include physical development, which would not result in creation of new light sources. Although no specific project is currently proposed, future development resulting from the implementation of the Project would incrementally increase the amount of light from streetlights, exterior lighting, and vehicular headlights. Such sources could create adverse effects on day or nighttime views in the area. Future developments would thereby be required to comply with Section 17.50.140 – Outdoor Lighting Standards of the HMC, which contain specific, enforceable requirements and/or restrictions intended to prevent light and glare impacts. In addition, future developments would be required to comply with Title 24 lighting requirements would also reduce impacts related to nighttime light. The Title 24 lighting requi rements cover outdoor spaces including regulations for mounted luminaires (i.e., high efficacy, motion sensor controlled, time clocks, energy

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 226
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 28
management control systems, etc.). As such, conditions imposed on future development by the City of Hanford pursua nt to the HMC and Title 24 would reduce light and glare impacts to a less than significant impact.

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 227
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 29

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farm -
land), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monito -
ring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non -
agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non -agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
X

4.2.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located within the City of Hanford’s SOI and is currently planned and zoned for urbanized uses. The site is mostly vacant with some existing structures. The existing structures are

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 228
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 30
generally located east of North 10th Avenue along Kruger Avenue, Jessie Avenue, and East Whitney Drive. The existing structures are primarily residential and commercial. The vacant portion of the Project site is generally located north of Lacey Boulevard between Whitney Drive and Lassen Drive.

This portion of the site is relatively flat and is highly disturbed as a result of periodic grading and discing. The existing biotic site conditions and resources of the vacant portion can be defined primarily as herbaceous (weedy) vegetation with minimal trees and shrubs existing on site. No agricultural or forestry resources are present on the site.

Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program
The California Department of Conservation manages the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) that provides maps and data for analyzing land use impacts to farmland. The FMMP produces the Important Farmland Finder as a resource map that shows quality (soils) and land use information. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation st atus, in addition to many other physical and chemical characteristics. The highest quality land is called “Prime Farmland” which is defined by the FMMP as “farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.” Maps are updated every two years. According to the FMMP, California Important Farmland Finder, the Project site is categorized as “Urban and Built -Up Land ” and therefore does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.2
California Land Conservation Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (i.e., the Williamson Act) allows local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict contracted parcels to preserve agricultural or open space uses. In return, property tax assessments of the restricted parcels are lower than full market value . The minimum length of a Williamson Act contract is 10 yea rs and automatically renews annually upon its anniversary date; as such, the contract length is essentially indefinite. Neither the Project site nor surrounding properties are subject to the Williamson Act Contract.

2 California Department of Conservation. (2016). California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed on January 25, 2022, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 229
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 31

4.2.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farm land Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The Project site and lands in its immediate vicinity are designated as “Urban and Built- Up Land” according to the FMMP. As such, the Project site is not located on lands designated as “Prime Farmland,” “Unique Farmland,” or “Farmland of Statewide Importan ce.” For this reason, the Project would result in no impact.
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Project site is not zoned for or located within an area zoned for agricultural uses and is not under Williamson Act contract. Thus, the Project would result in no impact. c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The Project site does not contain forest land or timberland as defined by PRC or GC sections, and it is not planned or zoned for forestry or timberla nd uses. As a result, the Project would have no impact.
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project site does not contain forest land and therefore will not result in the loss of or conversion of any forest land to non-forest uses. As a result, the Project would have no impact. e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No impact. The Project site is not planned or zoned for agricultural uses. Additionally, the site is not planned or zoned for forestry uses. For these reasons, the Project would have no impact.

The Project site and surrounding area does not contain any farmland or forest land nor is any use planned at the site that could result directly or indirectly in the conversion of other farmland or forest land to non-agricultural use. The nearest land used agriculturally are approximately two (2) miles from the site and is designated by the General Plan for Service Commercial. For these reasons, the Project would have no impact.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 230
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 32

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 231
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 33

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan (e.g., by having
potential emissions of regulated
criterion pollutants which exceed
the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control Districts (SJVAPCD)
adopted thresholds for these
pollutants)?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
X

4.3.1 Environmental Setting
The proposed project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) regulates air quality in eight (8) counties including:

Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanis laus, and Tulare. The SJVAPCD oversees the SJVAB.

Impacts on air quality result from emissions generated during short-term activities (construction) and long -term activities (operations). Construction -related emissions consist mainly of exhaust emissions (NOx and PM) from construction equipment and other mobile sources, and fugitive dust (PM) emissions from earth moving activities. Operational emissions are source specific and consist of permitted equipment and activities and non-permitted equipment and activities.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 232
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 34
Air pollution in the SJVAB can be attributed to both human -related (anthropogenic) and natural (non-anthropogenic) activities that produce emissions. Air pollution from significant anthropogenic activities in the SJVAB includes a variety of indust rial-based sources as well as on - and off-road mobile sources. Four main sources of air pollutant emissions in the SJVAB are motor vehicles, industrial plants, agricultural activities, and construction activities. All four of the major pollutant sources affect ambient air quality throughout the Air Basin. These sources, coupled with geographical and meteorological conditions unique to the area, stimulate the formation of unhealthy air. Air pollutants can remain in the atmosphere for long periods and can build to unhealthful levels when stagnant conditions that are common in the San Joaquin Valley occur.

Pollutants are transported downwind from urban areas with many emission sources which are also recirculated back to the urban areas.

Further, the SJVAB is in non -attainment for ozone, PM 10, and PM 2.5, which means that certain pollutants' exposure levels are often higher than the normal air quality requirements. The air quality standards have been set to protect public health, particularly the health of vu lnerable people. Therefore, if the concentration of those contaminants exceeds the norm, some susceptible individuals in the population are likely to experience health effects. Concentration of the pollutant in the air, the length of time exposed and the i ndividual's reaction are factors that affect the extent and nature of the health effects.

To assist local jurisdictions in the evaluation of air quality impacts, the SJVAPCD has published the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (QAMAQI). This guidance document includes recommended thresholds of significance to be used for the evaluation of short -term construction, long -term operational, odor, toxic air contaminant, and cumulative air quality impacts. Accordingly, the SJVAPCD -recommended t hresholds of significance are used to determine whether implementation of the Project would result in a significant air quality impact.

Projects that exceed these recommended thresholds would be considered to have a potentially significant impact to human health and welfare. The thresholds of significance are summarized, as follows:
(1) Criteria Air Pollutants: SJVAPCD adopted thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants, as shown in Error! Reference source not found. . The thresholds of significance are based on a calendar year basis. For construction emissions, the annual emissions are evaluated on a rolling 12- month period. The following summarizes these thresholds:

Short-Term Emissions of Particulate Matter (PM10): Construction impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the feasible control measures for construction in compliance with Regulation VIII as listed in the SJVAPCD guidelines are not

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 233
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 35
incorporated or implemented, or if project-generated emissions would exceed 15 tons per year (TPY).

Short-Term Emissions of Ozone Precursors (ROG and NOX): Construction impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project generates emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) or NOX that exceeds 10 TPY.

Long-Term Emissions of Particulate Matter (PM10): Operational impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project generates emissions of PM10 that exceed 15 TPY.

Long-Term Emissions of Ozone Precursors (ROG and NOX): Operational impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project generates emissions of ROG or NOX that exceeds 10 TPY.

Table 4-1 SJVAPCD Recommended Air Quality Thresholds of Significance 2F 3 Pollutant
Significance Threshold
Construction Emissions
(tons/year)
Operational Emission
(tons/year)
CO 100 100
NOX 10 10
ROG 10 10
SOX 27 27
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
(2) Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of Applicable Air Quality Plan: Due to the region’s nonattainment status for ozone, PM 2.5, and PM10, if the project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NO x) or PM 10 would exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds, then the project would be considered to conflict with the attainment plans. In addition, if the project would result in a change in land use and corresponding increases in vehicle miles traveled, the project m ay result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled that is unaccounted for in regional emissions inventories contained in regional air quality control plans.

3 SJVAPCD. (2015). Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Accessed on December 9, 2021, https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 234
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 36
(3) Local Mobile -Source CO Concentrations: Local mobile source impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project contributes to CO concentrations at receptor locations in excess of the CAAQS (i.e., 9.0 ppm for 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour). (4) Toxic Air Contaminants: Exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC) would be considered significant if the probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (i.e., maximum individual risk) would exceed 10 in 1 million or would result in a Hazard Index greater than one (1).

As recommended by the SJVAPCD, the latest approved California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) methodology was utilized as the screening methodology. According to the CAPCOA Guidance Document titled “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects,” there are two types of land use project that have the potential to cause long -term public health risk impacts. These project types are as follows:
• Type A: Land use projects with toxic emissions that impact receptors, and • Type B: Land use project that will place receptors in the vicinity of existing toxics sources.

In this Guidance document, Type A projects examples are (project impacts receptors):
• combustion related power plants,
• gasoline dispensing facilities,
• asphalt batch plants,
• warehouse distribution centers,
• quarry operations, and
• other stationary sources that emit toxic substances.
(5) Odor: The intensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential signi ficance of odor emissions. Specific land uses that are considered sources of undesirable odors include landfills, transfer stations, composting facilities, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, asphalt batch plants and rendering plants. The SJVAPCD has identified these common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and has prepared screening levels for potential odor sources ranging from one (1) to two (2) miles of distance from the odor -producing facility to sensitive receptors. Odor impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project has the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors. (6) Ambient Air Quality: The SJVAPCD applies the following guidance in determining whether an ambient air quality analysis should be performed: when assessing the significance of project - related impacts on air quality, it should be noted that the impacts may be significant when on-site emission increases from construction activities or operational activities exceed the 100 pounds

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 235
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 37
per day screening level of any criteria pollutant after implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures. Under such circumstance, the District recommends that an ambient air quality analysis be performed.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The SJVAPCD adopted rules and regulations for development projects prior to and during construction to reduce air contaminants, including but not limited to the following:

Rule 2010 – Permits Required. The purpose of this rule is to require any person constructing, altering, replacing or operating any source operation which emits, may emit, or may reduce emissions to obtain an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate. This rule also explains the posting requirements for a Permit to Operate and the illegality of a person willfully altering, defacing, forging, counterfeiting or falsifying any Permit to Operate.

Rule 2201 – New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule. The purpose of this rule is to provide for the following:

The review of new and modified Stationary Sources of air pollution and to provide mechanisms including emission tra de-offs by which Authorities to Construct such sources may be granted, without interfering with the attainment or maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards; and
No net increase in emissions above specified thresholds from new and modified Stationary Sources of all nonattainment pollutants and their precursors.

Rule 4001 – New Source Performance Standards. This rule incorporates the New Source Performance Standards from Part 60, Chapter 1, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Rule 4002 – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. This rule incorporates the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Part 61, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories from Part 63, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Rule 4102 – Nuisance. The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and safety of the public.

Rule 4601 – Architectural Coatings. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings. This rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling requirements.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 236
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 38
Rule 4641 – Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from asphalt paving and maintenance operations. This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance operations.

Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. The purpose of Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) is t o reduce ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM10) by requiring actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate anthropogenic fugitive dust emissions.

Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review. The purposes of this rule are to:

1. Fulfill the District’s emission reduction commitments in the PM10 and Ozone Attainment Plans.

2. Achieve emission reductions from the construction and use of development projects through design features and on-site measures.

3. Provide a mechanism for reducing emissions from the co nstruction of and use of development projects through off-site measures.

City of Hanford General Plan - Air Quality Element
Regarding local measures and thresholds for air quality impacts, the City of Hanford’s Air Quality Element outlines goals, objectives, and policies for addressing air quality. A sample of applicable goals and policies are as follows:

OBJECTIVE AQ 4: Accurately assess and mitigate potentially significant local and regional air quality and climate change impacts from proposed projects within the City. Where possible and financially feasible, retrofit existing uses and activities to reduce emissions and climate change impacts.

Policy AQ 4.1: Assess and mitigate project air quality impacts using analysis methods and significance thresholds recommended by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

Policy AQ 4.3: Ensure that air quality and cli mate change impacts identified during California Environmental Quality Act review are minimized and consistently and fairly mitigated to the greatest extent feasible.

Policy AQ 4.6: Work with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and developers to ensure that funds collected under Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review mitigation fees are used in Hanford and Kings County whenever possible to maximize local benefits to air quality and the economy.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 39
Policy AQ 4.7: Work with the San Joaquin Valley A ir Pollution Control District to ensure implementation of particulate emission controls required by Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 for construction and grading activities.

OBJECTIVE AQ 9: Reduce emissions of PM 10, PM2.5 and other particulates from sources with local control potential or under the jurisdiction of the City.

Policy AQ 9.1: Coordinate with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to ensure that construction, grading, excavation and demolition activities within City’s jurisdiction are regulated and controlled to reduce particulate emissions to the maximum extent feasible.

Policy AQ 9.2: Require all access roads, driveways, and parking areas serving new commercial and industrial development are constructed with materials that minimize particulate emissions and are appropriate to the scale and intensity of use.

CalEEMod
CalEEMod is a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land use projects. The mo del quantifies direct emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such as emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. The model also identifies mitigation measures to reduce criteria pollutant and GHG emissions. (1) CalEEMod Assumptions : Although no specific development project is currently proposed, short-term construction and long-term operational GHG emissions for the Project were estimated using CalEEModTM (v.2020.4.0) (See Appendix A) with the following assumptions (Table 2-1):
• Future General Commercial Development on vaca nt or underutilized parcels within the Project site as identified by the City of Hanford’s GIS Data (i.e., “Existing Land Use” of “Vacant” or “Underutilized”), totaling 21.71 acres.
• Lot Coverage of 50% Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and single -story development for a total floor area of 472,843.8 square feet on the 21.71 acres.
• CalEEMod default factors with the exception of construction factors. Because only vacant and underutilized parcels were included, “demolition” was removed as a construction phase as demolition of existing structures would not be required.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 238
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 40
Table 4-2 Vacant and Underutilized Parcels within Project site Parcel Acreage Description
014-203-002 0.17 Vacant
014-201-006 0.83 Underutilized
014-221-019 0.10 Vacant
014-221-018 0.02 Vacant
014-221-021 0.19 Vacant
014-221-022 5.45 Vacant
014-221-020 0.79 Vacant
014-221-026 14.16 Vacant
Total 21.71 -

4.3.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (e.g., by having potential emissions of regulated criterion pollutants which exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Districts (SJVAPCD) adopted thresholds for these pollutants)?
Less than Significant Impact. CalEEMod was used to determine the potential criterion pollutants for future development projects resulting from implementation of the Project (See CalEEMod Assumptions above). Table 4 -2 and Table 4-4 below show the potential construction and operational criteria pollutants (tons per year) based on the assumed future development in relation to the GAMAQI thresholds. As shown, the estimated pollutants of the assumed future development are below all significant thresholds established by the SJVAPCD and can therefore be determined to be consistent with the GAMAQI. CalEEMod Output Files are presented in Appendix A.

Table 4-3 Construction Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants, Unmitigated Emissions Source (Tons Per Year) CO NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5
Construction Year 2022 1.5734 1.7353 0.1859 0.4131 0.2055 Construction Year 2023 2.7358 2.3539 0.2771 0.3180 0.1500 Total Construction Emissions 0.4020 0.2967 3.3224 0.0349 0.0177 Maximum Emissions 2.7358 2.3539 3.3224 0.4131 0.2055
Significant Threshold 100 10 10 15 15
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0, ran on February 1, 2022

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 41

Table 4-4 Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants, Unmitigated Emissions Source (Tons Per Year) CO NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5
Area 0.0043 0.0000 2.1758 0.0000 0.0000
Energy 0.2516 0.2995 0.0329 0.0228 0.0228
Mobile 13.6146 2.5764 1.5399 3.1543 0.8634
Waste - - - 0.0000 0.0000
Water - - - 0.0000 0.0000
Total Operational Emissions 13.8705 2.8759 3.7487 3.1771 0.8862 Significant Threshold 100 10 10 15 15
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0, ran on February 1, 2022 Regarding TACs, anticipated development that would result from Project implementation would not be of the Type A land uses that have the potential to produce toxic emissions. Although no specific development is currently proposed, the Project includes a General Plan Amendment and Pre-Zone/Rezone to change the site’s land use designation and zoning to Corridor Mixed Use and MX-C Corridor Mixed Use, respectively. The Corridor Mixed Use land use designation and MX -C Corridor Mixed Use zone district do not permit c ombustion related power plants, asphalt batch plants, quarry operations , or other uses that would generate toxic emissions. Thus, future development resulting from the implementation of the Project that propose uses consistent with the General Plan and HMC would not result in production of significant TACs.

Lastly, future development projects resulting from Project implementation would be reviewed by the SJVAPCD for compliance with applicable rules and regulations including but not limited to Rule 9510 (Indirect Sourc e Review) , Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM 10 Prohibitions), Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 4402 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations). Thus, any impacts related to construction activities of future development projects would be regulated through SJVAPCD regulations and requirements.

Overall, the anticipated development of the Project site would not have potential emissions of regulated criterion pollutants that exceed the SJVAPCD adopted thresholds. In addition, future development projects may be subject to to meet additional rules and regulations administered by the SJVAPCD to minimize and mitigate on -site emissions. Consequently, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.
b. Result in a cumulatively consider able net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 42
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above (See Environmental Setting), the SJVAB is in non- attainment for ozone, PM 10, and PM2.5, which means that certain pollutants' exposure levels are often higher than the normal air quality requirements. Concentration of the pollutant in the air, the length of time exposed and the individual's reaction are factors that affect the ex tent and nature of the health effects. Although the construction and operations of the buildout of the Project would not exceed the thresholds of significant for criteria pollutants as set by the GAMAQI (See Table 4-3 and Table 4-4), there are PM 10, and PM 2.5 emissions associated with future development projects which would thereby contribute to cumulative increases. However, the construction and operational emissions analysis shows that future development projects are well below the substantial thresholds of the GAMAQI and thus the Project is compliant with the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant cumulative healt h impacts because the emissions are not at a level that would be considered cumulatively significant. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact. c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptor locations include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and reside ntial dwelling unit(s). The nearest receptors are single-family residences located immediately north and east of the site. As stated under criterion a) above, emissions during construction or operation would not reach the significance thr esholds and would not be anticipated to result in concentrations that reach or surpass ambient air quality requirements. Further, anticipated development that would result from Project implementation would not be uses that would generate toxic emissions (i.e., Type A uses i dentified by the CAPCOA TAC guidelines) . Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on any known sensitive receptor. d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. Specific land uses that are considered sources of undesirable odors include landfills, transfer stations, composting facilities, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants. Future development of the Project site would not consist of such land uses since they are not permitted within the proposed land use designation or zone district by the General Plan and HMC. Although some odors would be emitted during construction of the site (i.e., through diesel fuel and exhaust from equipment), these odors would be temporary and last only during construction activities. For these reasons, the odor impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 241
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 43

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 242
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 44

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect
on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 243
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 45
f) Conflict with provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan.

X

4.4.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located within the City of Hanford’s SOI and is planned for urbanized uses. The site is mostly vacant with some existing structures that are primarily residential and commercial.

The vacant portion of the Project site is relatively flat and is highly disturbed as a result of periodic grading and discing. The existing biotic site conditions and resources of the vacant portion can be defined primarily as herbaceous vegetation with minimal trees and shrubs existing on site.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife – Special-Status Species Database The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) operates an “Information for Planning and Consultation” (IPaC) database, which is a project planning tool for the environmental review process that provides general information on the location of speci al-status species that are “known” or “expected” to occur ( note: the iPaC database does not provide occurrences; refer to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Natural Diversity Database below). 4 i Specifically,
the iPaC database identifies 12 endangered species known or expected to occur in the city of Hanford including the: Fresno kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, giant garter snake, California red -legged frog, California ti ger salamander, Delta smelt, monarch butterfly, conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp.

No Critical Habitats are identified in the city .5, The closest federally designated Critical Habitat is located approximately 8.2 miles northeast of the Project site for California tiger salamander

4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Information and Planning Consultation Online System. Accessed on December 28 , 2021, https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
5 NOAA Fisheries. Critical Habitat. Accessed on March 18, 2022, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/critical-habitat#key-regulations Once a species is listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, NOAA Fisheries is required to determine whether there are areas that meet the definition of Critical Habitat. Per NOAA Fisheries, Critical Habitat is defined as:
“Specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain physical or biological features essential to conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 46
(Ambystoma californiense ) and 11.5 miles southwest of the Project site for Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus), which are outside the Project’s five (5)-miles radius.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Natural Diversity Database The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) operates the Califo rnia Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), which is an inventory of the status and locations of federal- and State-listed special-status plants and animals in California in addition to the reported occurrences of such species.6 According to the CDFW CNDDB, there are 13 special-status species occurrences that have been observed and reported to the CDFW in or near the city of Hanford (i.e., the Hanford Quad as designated by the United States Geological Survey (USGS): hoary bat, San Joaquin kit fox, and California alkali grass. Of the species, the San Joaquin kit fox is the only species that is a federally and state-listed special-status species.7F
7 Figure 4-1 shows the CNDDB-identified occurrences of the special-status animal and plant species within the Hanford Quad.

The CNDDB also provides CNDDB -known oc currences within a set geographic radius. Error! Reference source not found. lists all species CNDDB -known occurrences within the five (5) -mile radius of the Project site, organized by distance to the site. As shown, the nearest occurrences were 0.9 miles east (1971) and 1.6 miles northwest (2006). The CNNDB ranks occurrences by the condition of habitat and ability of the species to persist over time. As shown, the occurrences within the five (5)-mile radius of the Project site are primarily ranked as good or fair, and of those, the most recent occurrences of the kit fox and hawk were 2006 and 2016, respectively.

Table 4-5 Special-Status Species Occurrences within 5-mile radius of Project site Species Date Rank Distance to site
Hoary Bat 1991/4/22 Unknown 0.4 miles west
San Joaquin kit fox 1971/x/x Unknown 0.4 miles southeast California alkali grass 1942/4/11 Unknown 1.6 miles east San Joaquin kit fox 2006/6/12 Unknown 2.0 miles northwest San Joaquin kit fox 2000/8/15 Fair* 2.9 miles southwest Swainson’s hawk 2016/6/8 Good** 1.8 miles east
Swainson’s hawk 2012/8/8 Good** 3.0 miles northeast
Alkali-sink goldfields 1958/3/15 Unknown 3.6 miles east

or protection; and Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for conservation.” The process of Critical Habitat designation is complex and involves the consideration of scientific data, public and peer review, economic, national security, and other relevant impacts. 6 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Natural Diversity Database. Accessed on February 14, 2022, https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB
7 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Biogeographic Information and Observation System. Accessed on December 28, 2021, https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/?tool=cnddbQuick

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 245
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 47
Swainson’s hawk 2016/6/6 Good** 3.8 miles southeast
Swainson’s hawk 2009/6/29 Good** 3.9 miles southeast
Alkali-sink goldfields 1965/4/11 Unknown 4.2 miles northeast San Joaquin kit fox 1975/7/x Unknown 5.0 miles northeast Swainson’s hawk 2000/7/10 Poor*** 5.0 miles southeast
* Fair (C) - Population small and/or potentially not very viable OR habitat in disturbed, fragmented or otherwise suboptimal condition. Disturbances are more severe and can include nearby development, heavy recreational use, ORV use and damage, heavy weed infestation, and more. Population not expected to persist in the long term but may persist for 10 years.
** Good (B) - Population in very good condition and fairly large for this taxon AND habitat in reasonably good condition. Some disturbances may exist including dirt roads, weed encroachment, nearby incompatible land uses, logging nearby, grazing, etc., but none so severe as to seriously impair species' ability to persist over at least the next 25 years.
*** Poor (D) - Population very small and/or non-viable. Habitat may be in good condition, but usually it is not and shows multiple disturbances and features of degradation. Population not expected to persist over 5 years.

Table 4-6 details the essential habitats of these species and assesses their potential of existing on the Project site. As assessed, the Project site does not provide essential habitat for such species.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – National Wetlands Inventory The USFWS provides a National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) with detailed information on the abundance, characteristics, and distribution of U.S. wetlands. A search of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) shows no federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) on the Project site o r within the immediate vicinity (0.5-mile radius) of the Project area.8 The NWI does identify one (1) man-made R5UBFx riverine habitat within the Project site which has been further recognized as People’s Ditch (See Section 4.5). The R5UBFx indicates Riverine System (R) with an unknown perennial sub-system (5), of an unconsolidated bottom (UB), that is semi permanently flooded (F), and has been excavated by humans ( x) (i.e., an irrigation canal). The Project site is not within a riparian area.

8 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed January 25, 2022, https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 246
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 48

Figure 4-1 CNDDB Species Occurrences

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 247
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 49
Table 4-6 Essential Habitats and Potential Existence of Special-Status Species on Site Special-Status
Species
General Habitat Habitats Assessment
San Joaquin kit fox Annual grasslands
or grassy open
stages with
scattered shrubby
vegetation.
• Chenopod
scrub
• Valley &
foothill
grassland
The Project site is largely disturbed
and is surrounded by urban
development. The site does not
contain any grasslands or grassy
open stages. As such, the site does
not provide suitable habitat.

Swainson’s hawk Breeds in
grasslands with
scattered trees,
juniper-sage flats,
riparian areas,
savannahs, and
agricultural or
ranch lands with
groves or lines of
trees.
• Great Basin
grassland
• Riparian forest
• Riparian
woodland
• Valley &
foothill
grassland
The Project site is largely disturbed
and is surrounded by urban
development. The site does not
contain any grasslands, trees, or
riparian areas. In addition, the site
does not contain agricultural or
ranch lands. As such, the site does
not provide suitable habitat.

Hoary bat Prefers open
habitats or habitat
mosaics, with
access to trees for
cover and open
areas or habitat
edges for feeding.
• Broadleaved
upland forest
• Cismontane
woodland
• Lower
montane
coniferous
forest
• North coast
coniferous
forest
The Project site is largely disturbed
and is surrounded by urban
development. The site does not
contain any forests or trees. As
such, the site does not provide
suitable habitat.

California alkali
grass
Meadows and
seeps, chenopod
scrub, valley and
foothill grasslands,
vernal pools.
• Chenopod
scrub
• Meadow &
seep
• Valley &
foothill
grassland
• Vernal pool
The Project site is largely disturbed
and is surrounded by urban
development. The site does not
contain any grasslands, wetlands,
or riparian areas. As such, the site
does not provide suitable habitat.

Alkali-sink
goldfields
Vernal pools. • Vernal pool The Project site is largely disturbed and is surrounded by urban
development. The site does not
contain any wetlands or riparian

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 248
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 50
areas. As such, the site does not
provide suitable habitat.

Environmental Protection Agency – WATERS GeoViewer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WATERS GeoViewer provides a GeoPlatform based web mapping application of water features by location. According to the Waters GeoViewer, there are some surface water features (i.e., waterbodies, pipelines, cana ls, streams, coastlines, catchments, hydrologic units) that run through the Project site (see Figure 4-2) including canals, catchments, and hydrologic un its.9 Given that these same features are shown to run through adjacent developed property and are not visible on the site, they are either no longer existing or are piped underground.

Hanford General Plan
The General Plan identified special-status species potentially within the city to be the hoary bat, Swainson’s hawk, Western pond turtle, and San Joaquin kit fox. The Hanford General Plan outlines policies related to the conservation of biological resources:

Goal O4 Protection of natural habitat and other biological resources.

Policy O35 Impacts from Development. Ensure that potential impacts to biological resources and sensitive habitat are carefully evaluated when considering development projects.

Policy O37 Mature Trees. Promote the preservation of existing mature trees and encourage the planting of appropriate shade trees in new developments.

Policy O38 Native Tree Species and Drought Tolerant Vegetation. Encourage the planting of native tree species and drought-tolerant vegetation.

9 Environmental Protection Agency. WATERS GeoViewer. Accessed on January 25, 2022, https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ada349b90c26496ea52aab66a092593b

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 249
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 51

Figure 4-2 Surface Water Features

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 250
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 52

4.4.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Ca lifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site is in an urbanized area that is planned for urbanized uses consistent with the surrounding land use and zoning designations. The Project site is mostly vacant with some existing structures that are primarily residential and commercial. The vacant portion of the Project site is relatively flat and is highly disturbed as a result of periodic grading and discing, and the site vegetation can be primarily classified as herbaceous vegetation with minimal shrubs and trees . There are no water features present or above ground water features visible on the site. Further, as shown in Error! Reference source not found. there are no recorded occurrences of special-status or critical habitats on the Project site. Based on this analysis , the site conditions provide low suitability for habitat for any candidate, sensitive, or special status species that may occur within the Project area ( Table 4-6).

However, to assure construction activities do not result in significant impacts to any potential species discovered on-site or within the Project Area, the Project shall incorporate MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2, and MM BIO-3:

MM BIO -1: The Project shall implement the following measures to mitigate for possible disturbance to Swainson’s hawks if they are nesting within 0.5 miles of the Project site:
• Avoidance. If feasible, vegetation removal and initial grading of the Project site will o ccur outside the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 1-September 15). • Pre-construction Surveys. If vegetation removal and initial grading must occur between March 1 and September 15, a qualified biologist will conduct pre -construction surveys for Swainson’s hawk nests following the survey methodology developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SWHA TAC 2000) prior to the onset of these construction activities. In addition, a pre -activity survey for active nests will be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 10 days prior to the start of Project implementation. • Establish Buffers. Should any active nests be discovered within 0.5 miles of proposed construction zones, the biologist will identify a suitable construction-free buffer around the nest. This buffer will be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged. • Monitor Nest. Should construction activity be necessary within the designated buff er around an active Swainson’s hawk nest, a qualified biologist will monitor the nest daily for

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 251
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 53
one week, and thereafter once a week, throughout the duration of construction activity.

Should the nature of construction activity significantly change, such th at a higher level of disturbance will be generated, monitoring will occur daily for one week and then resume the once-a-week regime. If, at any time, the biologist determines that construction activity may be compromising nesting success, construction acti vity within the designated buffer will be altered or suspended until the biologist determines that Swainson’s hawks at the nest site are no longer susceptible to deleterious disturbance. • Nest Tree Replacement. In the unlikely event that a SWHA nest tree is found on the site during preconstruction surveys, LOA recommends that the nest tree be replaced with appropriate native tree species plantings at a ratio of 3:1 at or near the Project site or in other immediately suitable lands.

MM BIO-2: The Project shall implement the following measures to mitigate for loss of suitable habitat and impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox during ground-disturbing activities of the Project site:
• Pre-construction Surveys. Preconstruction surveys for the SJKF shall be conducted on and within 200 feet of the project site, where accessible, within 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance activities on the site. The primary objective is to identify kit fox habitat features (e.g., potential dens and refugia) on and adjacent to the site and evaluate their use by kit foxes.
• Avoidance. Should active kit fox dens be detected during preconstruction surveys, the Sacramento Field Office of the USFWS and the Fresno Field Office of CDFW will be notified.

A disturbance-free buffer will be established around the burrows in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW, to be maintained until an agency -approved biologist has determined that the burrows have been abandoned.
• Exclusion. If the kit fox does not abandon the burrow, then a den exclusion plan will be developed in consultation with USFWS and CDFW. The exclusion plan would, at a minimum, include the following elements.
o Kit fox will be excluded from the den(s), outside the natal season (June 1-December 31), through installation of one-way doors consisting of a 5” pipe with a plastic flap over the top. The one-way doors will be installed in all onsite burrows large enough to accommodate the San Joaquin kit fox. The one -way doors will be supported by sandbags to ensure a tight fit in the burr ow and to discourage the foxes from digging around the one-way doors to gain access to the dens. o The one -way doors will be monitored for three days through the placement of motion sensing cameras and daily review of the captured images by a qualified biologist.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 252
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 54
o Once the cameras show no more activity at a den site, the interior of the den will be viewed through the use of a bore scope to ensure kit fox are absent from the dens. o Once the den is determined vacant it will be plugged with sand bags and immediately and carefully excavated following the USFWS Standardized recommendations for protection of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance (USFWS 2011). The dens will be completely excavated, backfilled, and compacted to prevent later use by kit foxes.

MM BIO-3: The Project shall implement the following measures to mitigate for loss of nesting habitat of the Project in compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and relevant Fish and Game Codes:
• Avoidance. In order to avoid impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds, the Project will be constructed, if feasible, from September 16th and January 31st, which is outside the avian nesting season.
• Preconstruction Surveys. If Project activities must occur during the nesting season (February 1-September 15), a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys for active raptor and migratory bird nests within 10 days prior to the start of these activities. The survey will include the proposed work area(s) and surrounding lands within 500 feet, where accessible, for all nesting raptors and migratory birds. If no active nests are found within the survey area, no further mitigation is required.
• Establish Buffers. Should any active nests be discovered near proposed work areas, no disturbance buffers of 250 feet around active nests of non -listed bird species and 500 feet around active nests of non -listed raptors will be established. If work needs to occur within these no disturbance buffers, a qualified biologist will monitor the nest daily for one week, and thereafter once a week, throughout the duration of construction activity. Should the nature of construction activity significantly change, such that a higher level of disturbance will be generated, m onitoring will occur daily for one week and then resume the once -a- week regime. If, at any time, the biologist determines that construction activity may be compromising nesting success, construction activity within the designated buffer will be altered or suspended until the biologist determines that the nest site is no longer susceptible to deleterious disturbance.

Consequently, while the site provides low suitability for habitat for any candidate, sensitive, or special status species, measures incorporate d herein would ensure a less than significant impact on the species of concern and nesting birds. As a result, a less than significant impact would occur.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 253
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 55
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ot her sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. According to the Hanford General Plan, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there are no known riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities identified on the Project site or within the immediate vicinity of the Project. In addition, the site does not contain any water features that would provide habitat for riparian species, such as the Western pond turtle. Further, the site consists of scant vegetation. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project site does not provide any riparian or sensitive natural community habitat and thus, no impact would occur because of the Project. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected we tlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. Based on the search of the NWI, the Project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands. As a result, it can be determined that the Project site would not result in any impact on state or federally protected wetlands.
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species o r with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. Wildlife movement corridors are linear habitats that function to connect two (2) or more areas of significant wildlife habita t. These corridors may function on a local level as links between small habitat patches (e.g., streams in urban settings) or may provide critical connections between regionally significant habitats (e.g., deer movement corridors).

Wildlife corridors typic ally include vegetation and topography that facilitate the movements of wild animals from one area of suitable habitat to another, in order to fulfill foraging, breeding, and territorial needs. These corridors often provide cover and protection from predators that may be lacking in surrounding habitats. Wildlife corridors generally include riparian zones and similar linear expanses of contiguous habitat.

As previously mentioned, the Project site does not contain habitat that could support wildlife species in nesting, foraging, or escaping from predators. This is based on the existing conditions of the site including the site’s heavy alteration and lack of cover, vegetation, or visible water features.

Due to these conditions, it can be determined that the Project would not interfere with wildlife movement and no impact would occur as a result of the Project.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 56
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The General Plan outlines policies related to the conservation of biological resources and the HMC outlines regulations related to “heritage trees” – specifically, Section 12.12.310 of the HMC requires tree protection plans for “heritage trees” (i.e., native Oak Trees). Due to the lack of identified special-species or natural habitat on the Project site, in addition to lack of native oak trees, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Thus, the Project would have no impact.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. The Project site is within the PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP covers PG&E’s routine operations and maintenance activities and minor new construction, on any PG&E gas and electrical transmiss ion and distribution facilities, easements, private access routes, or lands owned by PG&E. The Project would not conflict or interfere with HCP. The Project is also located in the planning area of the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Val ley, which addresses recovery goals for several species. The Project would not conflict with the plan since the site does not provide appropriate habitat for the species mentioned and would comply to applicable General Plan policies regarding habitat conse rvation. The City, County, and Regional Planning Agency do not have any other adopted or approved plans for habitat or natural community conservation. For these reasons, the Project would have no impact.

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall imple ment and incorporate, as applicable, the Biological Resources related mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 as identified above and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contained in Chapter 5.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 255
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 57

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?

X

b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?

X

c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?

X

4.5.1 Environmental Setting
Generally, the term ‘cultural resources’ describes property types such as prehistoric and historical archaeological sites, buildings, bridges, roadways, and tribal cultural resources. As defined by CEQA, historical resources include sites, structures, obje cts, or districts that may have historical, prehistoric, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. Such resources are eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources by the State Historical Resources Commission.

The city of Hanford has three (3) buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places:

Hanford Carnegie Library, Kings County Courthouse, and Taoist Temple. Some of these types of cultural resources are readily apparent on the ground surface, some may be buried and therefore unknown until discovered through ground disturbances. The Project site is not in the vicinity of these buildings.

The Project site is located within the City of Hanford’s SOI and is planned for urbanized uses. The site is mostly vacant with some existing structures that are primarily residential and commercial.

None of these structures are identified as historic or cultural resources by the City, state, or federal governments nor is the site considered an area of archeological potential significance. The vacant portion of the Project site is undeveloped, relatively flat, and is highly disturbed as a result of periodic grading and discing.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 256
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 58
Hanford General Plan
The General Plan identifies policies on historic and cultural resources related to new development including:

Policy O46 Archaeological Site Consultation. Consult with appropriate Native American associations about potential archaeological sites i n the beginning stages of the development review process.

Policy O47 Archaeological Site Study. Require archaeological studies by a certified archeologist in areas of archeological potential significance prior to approval of development projects.

Policy O48 Cultural Site Consultation. Consult with the California Archaeological Inventory Southern San Joaquin Valley at California State University, Bakersfield about potential cultural sites on projects that could have an impact on cultural resources.

Policy O49 Cultural Site Discovery. Halt construction at a development site if cultural resources are encountered unexpectedly during construction.

Early Consultation
A consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within K ings County was requested and received from the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on October 25, 2021. Early consultation was conducted with the listed tribes on October 19, 2021 (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082). The listed tribes were:
• Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe,
• Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe,
• Table Mountain Rancheria,
• Tule River Indian Tribe, and
• Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band.

In response to the early consultation, the City received a comment letter dated October 19, 2021from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe. The Tribe requested to have a Native American monitor on site for development of the Project.

AB 52 and SB 18 Tribal Consultation
The City of Hanford conducted the formal tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes 2014) and SB 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes 2004) on December 28, 2021, utilizing the

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 257
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 59
consultation list of tribes received from the NAHC. The same five (5) tribes listed above were included in the formal consultation. Consultation ended on January 26, 2022. A response was received from Table Mountain Rancheria which indicated the project site was beyond their area of interest. A second response was received from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi -Yokut Tribe, requesting that a Native American monitor be present on-site during project construction.

California Historical Resource Information System Record Search The Southern San Joaquin Information Center (SSJIC) was requested by the City of Hanford to conduct a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Record Search for the Project site and surrounding “Project Area” area (0.5-mile radius from perimeter of pr oject site) on January 18, 2022. Full results are provided in Appendix B.

The CHRIS Record Searches generally review file information based on results of Class III pedestrian reconnaissance surveys of project sites conducted by qualified individuals or consultant firms which are required to be submitted, along with official state forms properly completed for each identified resource, to the nearest Regional Archaeological Information Center, in this case the SSJIC housed at California State University, Bakersfield. Guidelines for the format and content of all types of archaeological reports have been developed by the California Office of Historic Preservation, and reports are reviewed by the regional information centers to determine whether they meet those requirements.

The results of the SJJIC CHRIS Record Search indicate:
(1) There have been eight (8) studies previously conducted within the 0.5-mile radius.

(2) There is one (1) recorded cultural resource within the Project site, P -16-00246, and there are eight (8) recorded resources within the 0.5 -mile radius, consisting of histo ric era buildings, an historic era railroad, an historic era canal, and an historic era trash scatter .

Resource P-16-00246, People’s Ditch, has been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and is also listed in the Calif ornia Register of Historical Resources.

Resources P-16-000289, Taoist Temple, and 9-16-000290, Hanford Carnegie Library, which are located within the 0.5-mile radius, are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources.

Further, the SJJIC provided the following comments and recommendations:
(1) Because a cultural resources study has not been completed on the majority of this project site, it is unknown if any cultural resources are present. Therefore, if the project will result in any ground disturbance activities, we recommend a qualified, professional consultant first conduct a field survey to determine if any cultural resources are present. If no ground

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 258
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 60
disturbance will occur as a result of this project, then no further cultural resource investigation is recommended at this time.
(2) Contact the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento for a current list of Native American individuals/organizations that can assist with informat ion regarding cultural resources that may not be included in the CHRIS Inventory and that may be of concern to the Native groups in the area. The Commission can consult their "Sacred Lands Inventory" file to determine what sacred resources, if any, exist w ithin this project area and the way in which these resources might be managed.

4.5.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the CHRIS Record Search, there is one (1) known historical resource, People’s Ditch, on the Project site. While there is no evidence that other historical resources exist on the Project site, there is some possibility that additional hidden and buried resources may exist with no surface evidence. Hanford General Plan Policy O49 partially mitigates for cultural resources that are encountered unexpectedly during construction. To further assure construction activities do not result in significant impacts to any potential cultural resources discovered below ground surface, the Project shall incorporate MM CR-1. Thus, if such resources were discovered, implementation of the required mitigation measure would reduce the impact to less than significant. As a result, the Project will have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

MM CR -1: In order to avoid the potential for im pacts to historic and prehistoric archaeological resources, the following measures shall be implemented, as necessary, in conjunction with the construction of each phase of the Project:
a. Cultural Resources Alert on Project Plans. The project proponent shall note on any plans that require ground disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources.
b. Pre -Construction Briefing. The project proponent shall retain Santa Rosa Rancheria Cultural Staff to provide a pre-construction Cultural Sensitivity Training to construction staff regarding the discovery of cultural resources and the potential for discovery during ground disturbing activities, which will include information on potential cultural material finds and on the procedures to be enacted if resources are found.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 259
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 61
c. Stop Work Near any Discovered Cultural Resources. The project proponent shall retain a professional archaeologist on an “on -call” basis during ground disturbing construction for the project to review, identify and evaluate cultural resources that may be inadvertently exposed during construction. Should p reviously unidentified cultural resources be discovered during construction of the project, the project proponent shall cease work within 100 feet of the resources, and City of Hanford shall be notified immediately. The archaeologist shall review and evaluate any discoveries to determine if they are historical resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resources under CEQA. d. Mitigation for Discovered Cultural Resources. If the professional archaeologist determines that any cultural resources exposed during construction constitute a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource, he/she shall notify the project proponent and other appropriate parties of the evaluation and recommended mitigation measures to mitigate t he impact to a less -than-significant level. Mitigation measures may include avoidance, preservation in -place, recordation, additional archaeological testing and data recovery, among other options. Treatment of any significant cultural resources shall be undertaken with the approval of the City of Hanford. The archaeologist shall document the resources using DPR 523 forms and file said forms with the California Historical Resources Information System, Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. The reso urces shall be photo documented and collected by the archaeologist for submittal to the Santa Rosa Rancheria’s Cultural and Historical Preservation Department. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the County for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. Further grading or site work within the area of discovery shall not be allowed until the preceding steps have been taken. e. Native American Monitoring. Prior to any ground disturbance, t he project proponent shall offer the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe the opportunity to provide a Native American Monitor during ground disturbing activities during construction. Tribal participation would be dependent upon the availability and interest of the Tribe. f. Disposition of Cultural Resources. Upon coordination with the City of Hanford, any pre -historic archaeological artifacts recovered shall be donated to an appropriate Tribal custodian or a qualified scientific institution where they would be afforded applicable cultural resources laws and guidelines.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed under criterion a), there is one (1) known historical resource, People’s Ditch, on the Project site. While there is no evidence

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 260
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 62
that other historical or archeological resources exist on the Project site, there is some possibility that additional hidden and buried resources may exist with no surface evidence. Hanford General Plan Policy O49 partially mitigates for archaeological resources that are encountered unexpectedly during construction. To further assure construction activities do not result in significant impacts to any potential resources discovered below ground surface, the Project shall incorporate MM CR- 1 as described above in criterion a). Thus, if such resources were discovered, implementation of MM CR-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant. As a result, the Project will have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . There is no evidence that human remains exist on the Project site. Nevertheless, there is some possibility that non -visible buried human remains may exist and may be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities which would constitute a significant impact. If any human remains are discovered during construction, CCR Section 15064.5(e), PRC Section 5097.98, and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 will mitigate for the impacts. To further assure construction activities do not result in significant impacts to any potential resources or human remains discovered bel ow ground surface, the Project shall incorporate MM CR -2 as described below. Therefore, if any human remains were discovered, implementation of this mitigation and referenced regulations would reduce the Project’s impact to less than significant.

MM CR-2: Protection of Buried Human Remains. In order to avoid the potential for impacts to buried human remains, the following measures shall be implemented, as necessary, in conjunction with the construction of each phase of the Project:
a. Pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(e) and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, if human bone or bone of unknown origin is found at any time during on- or off-site construction, all work shall stop in the vicinity of the find and the Kings County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the California State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who shall identify the person believed to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The project proponent and MLD, with the assistance of the archaeologist, shall make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment of human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects with appropriate dignity (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.5(d)).

The agreed upon treatment shall address the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects. California Public Resources Code allows 48 hours for the MLD to make their wishes known to the landowner after being granted access to the site. If the MLD and the other parties do not agree on the reburial method, the project

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 261
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 63
will follow Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e) which states that ". . . the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance." b. Any findings shall be submitted by the archaeologist in a professional report submitted to the project applicant, the MLD, the City of Hanford , and the California Historical Resources Information System, Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center.

4.5.3 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Cultural Resources related mitigation measures CR-1 and CR-2 as identified above and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contained in Chapter 5.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 262
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 64

4.6 ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
X

4.6.1 Environmental Setting
Pursuant to PRC Section 21100(b)(3)), Appendix F – Energy Conservation of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance on the consideration of energy implications in project decisions, including a suggested discussion of the potential energy impacts with emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Per Appendix F, a project would be considered inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary if it violated existing energy standards, had a negative effect on local and regional energy supplies and requirements for additional capacity, had a negative effect on peak and base period demands for electricity and other energy forms, and affected energy resources.

Building Energy Efficiency Standards & Green Building Standards Code The California Energy Commission updates the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Parts 6 and 11) every three years as part of the California Code of Regulations. The standards were established in 1978 in effort to reduce the state’s energy consumption. They apply to new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residentia l and nonresidential buildings and relate to various energy efficiencies including but not limited to ventilation, air conditioning, and

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 263
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 65
lighting.12F
10 The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), Part 11, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, was developed in 2007 to meet the state goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to AB32 (year). CALGreen covers five (5) categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. 13F
11 The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards went into effect on January 1, 2020. Additionally, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) oversees air pollution control efforts, regulations, and programs that contribute to reduction of energy consumption.

Compliance with these energy efficiency regulations and programs ensure that development will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy sources.

California Energy Action Plan
The Energy Action Plan (EAP) for California was approved in 2003 and updated in 2008. The California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approved the Energy Action Plan (EAP) for California in 2003, with an updated in 2008. The 2008 EAP established goals and next steps to integrate and coordinate energy efficiency demand and response programs and actions.14F 12 Hanford General Plan
Energy resources and conservation are discussed in the Mineral and Energy Resources Element of the Hanford General Plan and include policies related to energy resources and conservation applicable to new development in order to reduce community-wide energy consumption in Hanford. The following would be potentially applicable to future discretionary and building permits [subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA within the Project area:

Policy O13 Solar Power Generation. Support and encourage solar generation facilities that support residential, commercial, and industrial uses.

Policy O14 Alternative Fuels and Rene wable Energy. Promote and encourage the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy.

10 California Energy Commission . 2019 Building Energy Ef ficiency Standards. Accessed on December 28 , 2021, https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2019-building- energy-efficiency
11 California Department of General Services. (2020). 2019 California Green Building Standards Code. Accessed on December 28, 2021, https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CGBC2019P3 12 State of California. (2008). Energy Action Plan 2008 Update. Accessed on December 28, 2021, https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/word_pdf/REPORT/28715.pdf

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 264
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 66
Policy O15 Energy -efficient Design Features. Require that new development incorporate energy-efficient design features for HVAC, lighting systems, and insulation that meet or exceed California Code of Regulations Title 24.

Policy O16 Vegetation to Conserve Energy. Encourage the use of native and dro ught tolerant shade trees and vines on southern and western exposure building walls as an energy conservation technique.

Policy O19 Recycling. Support recycling activities throughout the City.

4.6.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a. Result in potent ially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less than Significant Impact. Although no specific development project is currently proposed, future development that results from Project implementation would consume energy resources during construction and operations, further analyzed below.

Construction
Construction would be short -term and temporary. There are no unusual characterist ics or construction processes for the types of uses permitted in the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation or zone district that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities. Construction activities would include typical site preparation, grading, paving, architectural coating, and trenching – all of which would require the transportation of building materials and equipment. Therefore, the primary source of energy for construction activities would be diesel and gasoline (i.e., petroleum fuels). All construction equipment shall conform to current emissions standards and related fuel efficiencies including applicable CARB regulations (Airborne Toxic Control Measure), California Code of Regulati ons (Title 13, Motor Vehicles), and Title 24 standards. Compliance with such regulations would ensure that the short -term, temporary construction activities do not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

Operations
Operations of future uses would generally involve heating, cooling, equipment, and vehicle trips.

Energy consumption related to operations would be associated with natural gas, electricity, and

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 265
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 67
fuel. Future energy and natural gas consumption of new development, on vacant and underutilize parcels (See Section 4.3 ) were estimated using CalEEMod (Appendix A ) and vehicle trips were estimated through a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis (Section 4.17). Results from CalEEMod (see Section 4.3) and the VMT analysis (see Section 4.17) do not rise to a level of significance.

Further, applicable state and local regulations and programs identified above would be implemented at the building permit stage to reduce energy waste from operation. Therefore, future development projects would not consume energy in a manner that is wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary nor would the project conflict with any state or local plan for energy efficiency.

Thus, the project would have a less than significant impact.

Overall, the results of the analyses do not rise to a level of significance given the Project’s required compliance with various energy efficiency regulations [and policies] including CALGreen, Title 24, the General Plan, and CARB . Thus, through c ompliance, the Project is not expected to result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed under criterion a), the construction and operations of future development projects would be subject to compliance with applicable energy efficiency regulations including CALGreen, Title 24, General Plan, and CARB. Thus, applicable state and local regulations and programs would be implemented to reduce energy waste from construction and operations. Therefore, through mandated compliance, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plan for energy efficiency and a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures
None Required.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 266
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 68

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or Indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist -Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special
Publication 42.

X
ii. Strong seismic ground
shaking? X
iii. Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
X
iv. Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
on- or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18 -1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
X

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 267
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 69
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
X

4.7.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is in the San Joaquin Valley which is one of the two (2) large valleys comprising the Great Valley Geomorphic Province. The San Joaquin Valley is surrounded by Sierra Nevada (east), Coast Ranges (west), Tehachapi (south), and the Sacramento Valley (north). The topography of the city of Hanford is relatively flat with a gradual slope from east to west.

A brief discussion of the likelihood of seismic activities to occur in or affect Hanford is provided below. However, CEQA requires an analysis of the Project’s impacts on the environment, not the environment’s potential impacts on the Project; therefore, shaking, liquefaction, and other seismic activities are less than significant.

Faulting
There are no active faults mapped in the city of Hanford or Kings County, nor are the City or region located in any Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones. 13 Further, the Project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as established by the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act (Section 2622 of Chapter 7.5, Division 2 of the California Public Resources C ode). According to the Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, there is no history of earthquakes in the city of Hanford and the peak ground acceleration is low.14

13 California Department of Conservation. (2010). 2010 Fault Activity Map of California. Accessed on January 26, 2022, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Pages/Program-RGMP/2010_faultmap.aspx 14 Kings County Office of Emergency Management. (2012). Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Accessed on January 26, 2022,
https://www.countyofkings.com/home/showpublisheddocument/23875/637298992208470000

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 268
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 70
Subsurface Soils
A search of the Web Soil Survey by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service indicates that the Project site is categorized as 130 – Kimberlina fine sandy loam, saline alkali (0 to 2 percent slope, well drained, medium runoff , no flooding or ponding) and 167 – Urban land. 15 Generally, the vacant portion of the site contains the Kimberlina soil type and the developed portions of the Project site with existing structures contain the Urban land soil type, which is defined as “areas with a specific percentage of impervious cover, such as pavement, driveways, and buildings.” Expansive Soils
Expansive soils contain types of clay minerals that occupy more volume when wet than when they are dry. Volume changes of expansive soils can cause uplift or upheave of the ground when they become wet or can cause settlement when they dry out. According to the California Building Code, expansive soils have an expansion index greater than 20 as determined by expansion index tests.

The Project site does not contain expansive soils.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine‐grained granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subjected to high‐intensity ground shaking. Per the General Plan, the city of Hanford does not have a significant liquefaction potential since it is in a stable geologic formation. Further, liquefaction potential and risk in the Kings County is considered minimal due to the nature of the underlying soils, relatively deep-water table, and history of low ground shaking potential. This is evidenced by the Seismic Safety Map in the Kings County 2035 General Plan Health and Safety Element which shows that the city of Hanford is not in a zone where landslides, subsidence, or liquefaction could possibly occur.16

15 United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Serv ice. Web Soil Survey. Accessed on January 26, 2022, 2021, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 16 County of Kings. (2010). 2035 Kings County General Plan. Accessed on January 26, 2022, https://www.countyofkings.com/home/showpublisheddocument/3106/635274892972100000

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 71
Erosion
Wind and flowing water are the primary agents of erosion in the San Joaquin Valley. The Kings County Multi -Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan does not identify areas susceptible to erosion within Kings County or the city of Hanford.

Ground Subsidence
Ground subsidence is the settling or sinking of surface soil deposits with little or no horizontal motion. Soils with high silt or clay content are subject to subsidence. According to the Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, land subsidence in th e region rarely occurs and its impacts are not significant.

Hanford General Plan
The General Plan include objectives and policies relevant to earthquakes in its Health, Safety, and Noise Element:

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

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 gradin g activities where questionable conditions exist.

Hanford Municipal Code
Chapter 15.52 Flood Damage Prevention Regulations of the HMC contains the City’s floodplain management regulations. Methods and provisions contained in the chapter are applicable to all areas of special flood hazards within the city of Han ford. The Project site is designated as Zone X on the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06031C0185C dated June 16, 2009. 17 Zone X is an area o f minimal flood hazards with a 0.2 percent -annual-chance of flood (i.e., 500 - year flood). Therefore, HMC Chapter 15.52 is not applicable to the Project.

California Building Standards Code

17 FEMA. Flood Map Service Center. Accessed on January 26, 2022, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 270
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 72
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 is assigned to t he California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. The California Building Code incorporates by reference the International Building Code with necessary California amendments. The Internation al Building Code is a widely adopted model building code in the United States published by the International Code Council. About one-third of the text within the California Building Standards Code has been tailored for California earthquake conditions.

Construction within the City of Hanford is governed by the seismic safety standards of Chapter 16, of the Building Code . These standards are applicable to all new building s and are required to provide the necessary safety from earthquake-related effects em anating from any fault activity surrounding lands within the floor of the Central Valley.

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

No Impact. As documented above there are no known active earthquake faults in Hanford, nor is Hanford within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone as established by the Alquist -Priolo Fault Zoning Act. As such, development of the Project site in an area void of earthquake faults would not cause rupture of a known earthquake fault. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
No Impact. The Project site is in an area that is traditionally characterized by relatively low seismic activity. Further, the site is relatively flat with stable soils and is not near any fault lines. Although no specific project is currently proposed, future development of the Project site would be required to conform to current seismic protection standards in the California Building Code (CBC) and General Plan, which are intended to minimize potential risks. Therefore, because of the Project site’s stable soils and distance from active fault lines, and because of the Project’s conformance to CBC seismic safety standards , the Project does not have any aspect that could result in strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, no impact would occur because of the Project.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 271
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 73
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. The Project site is relatively flat with stable soils and no apparent unique or significant landforms. Further, the city of Hanford does not have a significant liquefaction potential since it is in a stable geologic formation . For these reasons , liquefaction or seismically induced settlement or bearing loss i s considered unlikely, even if there should be a substantial increase in ground water level. Although no specific project is currently proposed, development of the site would require compliance with the City’s grading and drainage standards. Therefore, bec ause of the Project’s relatively flat topography, stability of soils, infrequency of seismic activity, and required compliance with City standards, the Project does not have any aspect that could result in seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact. Landslides are not expected to affect the Project site as the city of Hanford is not located in a zone where landslides, subsidence, or liquefaction could possibly occur. Furthermore, the topography of the Project site is flat with stable soils. As such, development of the Project on a stable site in an area that is not susceptible to seismic activities or geologic instability would not cause landslides. Therefore, no impact would occur because of the Project. d. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Although no specific project is currently proposed, future development resulting from Project implementation would require typical site preparation activities such as grading and trenching which may result in the potential for short -term soil disturbance or erosion impacts. Construction would also involve the use of water which may cause further soil disturbance. Such impacts would be addressed through compliance with General Plan Policy O12, which requires new development to implement measures to minimize soil erosion related to construction, and regulations set by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).

Policy O12 Soil Erosion. Require new development to implement measures to minimize soil erosion related to construction.

Further, the SWRCB requires sites larger than one (1) acre to comply with the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (i.e., General Permit Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ). The General Permit requires the development of a Storm Wa ter Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). The SWPPP estimates the sediment risk associated with construction activities and includes best management practices (BMP) to control erosion. BMPs specific to erosion control cover erosion, sediment, tracking, and waste management controls.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 272
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 74
Implementation of the SWPPP for sites larger than one (1) acre, in addition to compliance with General Plan Policy O12 minimize the potential for future development resulting from the Project to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. With these provisions in place, impacts to soil and topsoil by the Project would be considered less than significant. e. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would b ecome unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
No Impact. The Project site is not located in a zone where landslides, subsidence, or liquefaction could occur. Further, the site is relatively flat with stable soils and no apparent unique or significant landforms. Therefore, future development resulting from the Project would occur on stable sites and would not cause landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
f. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Impact. The Project site is relatively flat with stable soils classified as Kimberlina fine sandy loam and Urban land. Thus, the site does not contain expansive soils as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994) and no impact would occur. g. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. Although the Project site is currently outside of city limits, it is located with the City of Hanford’s SOI and would be subject to future annexation. As a result of future annexation into city limits, future development resulting from Project implementation would be required to connect to water and sewer. Thus, future projects that would result from Project implementation would not involve the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Thus, no impact would occur because of the Project.
h. Directly or indi rectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 4.5, there is one (1) known historical resource, People’s Ditch, on the Project site. While there is no evidence that other historical, paleontological, or unique geologic resources exist on the Project site, there is some possibility that additional hidden and buried resources may exist with no surface evidence. As such, future development projects that result from Project implementation shall incorporate MM CR-1, MM CR-2, and MM CR-3 to mitigate impacts to existing and to potential subsurface cultural resources. As a result, the

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 273
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 75
Project will have a less than significant impact with mitigation measures incorporated. Thus, if such resources were discovered, incorporation of the mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant.

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 274
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 76

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X

4.8.1 Environmental Setting
Various gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth’s atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high- frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation.

Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor (H 2O), carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also GHGs, but they are, for the most part, solely a product of industrial activities. Although the direct greenhouse gases CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have changed their atmospheric concentrations. From the pre - industrial era (i.e., ending about 1750) to 2011, concentrations of these three GHGs have increased globally by 40, 150, and 20 percent, respectively (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2013).

GHGs, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 275
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 77
The emissions from a single project will not cause global climate change, however, GHG emissions from multiple projects throughout the world could result in a cumulative impact with respect to global climate change. Therefore, the analysis of GHGs and climate change presented in this section is present ed in terms of the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts and potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to GHGs and climate change.

Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one or more past, present, and future projects that, when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment. In determining the significance of a proposed project’s contribution to anticipated adverse future conditions, a lead agency should generally undertake a two‐step analysis. The first question is whether the combined effects from both the proposed project and other projects would be cumulatively significant. If the agency answers this inquiry in the affirmative, the second question is whether “the proposed project’s incremental effe cts are cumulatively considerable” and thus significant in and of themselves.

The cumulative project list for this issue (climate change) comprises anthropogenic (i.e., human made) GHG emissions sources across the globe and no project alone would reasonab ly be expected to contribute to a noticeable incremental change to the global climate. However, legislation and executive orders on the subject of climate change in California have established a statewide context and process for developing an enforceable s tatewide cap on GHG emissions.

Given the nature of environmental consequences from GHGs and global climate change, CEQA requires that lead agencies consider evaluating the cumulative impacts of GHGs. Small contributions to this cumulative impact (from whic h significant effects are occurring and are expected to worsen over time) may be potentially considerable and, therefore, significant.

4.8.2 Thresholds of Significance
In assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions, Section 15064.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a lead agency may consider the following:
• The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the environmental setting;
• Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project;
• The extent to which th e project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, guidance from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), SJVAPCD Climate Change Action Plan, and KCAG Regional Climate Action Plan is discussed below as thresholds of significance.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 276
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 78
2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan
The CARB 2017 Scoping Plan is the adopted statewide plan for reduction or mitigation of GHGs to implement State Bill (SB) 32. SB 32 was issued in 2016 to lay emission reduction goals beyond AB 32’s goal by 2020. It sets a statewide goal to reduce emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 20 30.

Consequently, the Scoping Plan involves several measures to reduce pollution and GHG emissions, indicating a decrease of GHG emissions to 389 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e by 2030. 2009 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Guidance As part of the SJVAPCD Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP), SJVAPCD adopted its Guidance for Valley Land‐use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA and the policy District Policy - Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency in 2009.
25F
18,
26F
19 Through this guidance document, SJVAPCD
recognized that project -specific emissions are cumulative and could be considered cumulatively considerable without mitigation. SJVAPCD suggested that the requirement to reduce GHG emissions for all projects is the best method to address this cumulative impact. In addition, this guidance provides screening criteria for climate change analyses, as well as draft guidance for the determination of significance. As shown in Figure 4-3, these criteria are used to evaluate whether a project would result in a significant climate change impact. Projects that meet one of these criteria would have less than significant impact on the global climate.

1. Exempt from CEQA;

2. Complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program;

3. Achieves 29 percent GHG reductions by using approved Best Performance Standards; or

4. Achieves AB 32 targeted 29 percent GHG reductions compared with “business as usual.”

18 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2009). Guidance for Valley Land -use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. Accessed January 26, 2022, http://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17-09/3%20CCAP%20-%20FINAL%20LU%20Guidance%20- %20Dec%2017%202009.pdf.
19 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2000). Environmental Review Guidelines: Procedures for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. Accessed January 26, 2022, http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/ERG%20Adopted%20_August%202000_.pdf

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 277
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 79

Figure 4-3 SJVAPCD’s GHG Thresholds of Significance
Source: SJVAPCD Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA – Land Use Development Projects 2009 Further, t he SJVAPCD requires quantification of GHG emissions for all projects which the lead agency has determined that an EIR is required. Although an EIR is not required for the Project, the GHG emissions are quantified below. Although no specific project is currently proposed, short- term construction and long-term operational GHG emissions for project buildout were estimated using CalEEMod TM (v.2020.4.0). (See Appendix A ). CalEEMod is a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify GHG emissions from land use projects. The model quantifies direct GHG emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect GHG emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. Emissions are expressed in annual metric tons of CO 2 equivalent units of measure (i.e., MTCO2e), based on the global warming potential of the individual pollutants.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 278
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 80
2014 KCAG Regional Climate Action Plan
At the local level, the Kings County Association of Governments prepared a Regional Climate Action Plan (CAP) 20 on behalf of the City of Avenal and the City of Hanford that outlines GHG emissions reduction targets and implementation. The CAP is the adopted plan for participating local governm ent agencies , namely the City of Avenal and the City of Hanford, that identifies reduction or mitigation of GHGs to implement California’s effort to reduce statewide emissions under AB 32. The CAP established a reduction goal to achieve emissions levels 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, consistent with AB 32.

The plan identified transportation and mobile sources to account for the major source of region wide GHG emissions in 200 5, as shown in Table 4-6. The CAP introduced a diversity of policies, including measures for energy efficiency, transportation and land use, solid waste and recycling, trees and vegetation, and community education and outreach, to achieve the reduction goals.

These reduction measures are targeted for compliance of the community or local agencies.

Table 4-7 County-wide GHG Emissions by Source (2005)
Source Sub-Source GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Percent of
Total
Electricity Consumption Electricity Consumption 358,694 31.5% Fuel Combustion
Residential 86,529 7.6%
Commercial 65,887 5.8%
Industrial 131,120 11.5%
Transportation
On-road Vehicles 470,435 41.3%
Off-road Vehicles 6,635 0.6%
Marine vessels/water craft 273 0.0%
Waste Management Landfills 11,394 1.0%
Wastewater Management 8,168 0.7%
Total 1,139,135 100.0%
Source: KCAG Regional Climate Action Plan, 2014
The CAP also streamlines the CEQA environmental review process in accordance with Sections 15152 and 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Per CAP, to tier and streamline the analysis of GHG emissions for projects under CEQA, “the jurisdiction must demonstrate effective implementation of applicable GHG reduction measures to achieve the jurisdiction’s 4.03 MT CO2e/SP target,

20 Kings County Association of Governments. (2014). Final Regional Climate Action Plan. Accessed on January 26, 2022, https://cms6.revize.com/revize/hanfordca/document_center/Planning/Plans/RegionalCAP-GHGAppendices.pdf

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 279
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 81
consistent with AB 32, as well as adherence to all requirements pursuant to Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.”
While this is the most recent climate action plan of adopted by the City of Hanford, the reduction goals of AB 32 are set for the year 2020 and are no longer relevant. 2018 KCAG Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) The 2018 KCAG RTP/SCS projects that the Kings County region would achieve the prescribed emissions targets set by CARB: a five (5) percent decrease in 2020 and a ten (10) percent decrease in 2035 from a base year of 2005 for the KCAG region. The ARB adopted new targets on March 22, 2018 will take effect in the 2022 RTP/SCS cycle. The new targets will be a five (5) percent decrease for 2020 and a 13 percent decrease for 2035. The KCAG SCS includes public transit projects (KART service, Amt rack, Vanpools), mobility enhancements (road improvements, roundabout, traffic signals), electric vehicle infrastructure, etc.
2035 Hanford General Plan
While the City of Hanford General Plan does not meet criteria of the CEQA Guidelines 15064.4(b)(3) for an appropriate GHG emissions reduction plan or program, the General Plan does have goals and policies relevant to climate change and minimizing GHG emissions and other pollutants, with an overall aim to reduce air quality impacts on the environment. These goals and policies are outlined in the Air Quality Element, as listed below.

Policy AQ 3.1: Through project review, evaluation, and conditions of approval, minimize air quality and potential greenhouse gas impacts when planning the locat ion and design of land uses and transportation systems needed to accommodate expected City population growth. Integrate decisions on land use and development locations with the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint.

Policy AQ 3.5: Minimize air quality and climate c hange impacts through project review, evaluation, and conditions of approval when planning the location and design of land use projects and transportation system projects needed to accommodate expected City population growth.

Policy AQ 4.2: Assess and mitigate project greenhouse gas/climate change impacts using analysis methods and significance thresholds as defined or recommended by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

Program AQ 4.2: The City will provide project applicants with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Best Performance Standards list for greenhouse gas

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 280
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 82
reductions when available, and will work with applicants to incorporate design features that reduce emissions.

Policy AQ 4.3: Ensure that air quality and cli mate change impacts identified during California Environmental Quality Act review are minimized and consistently and fairly mitigated to the greatest extent feasible.

OBJECTIVE AQ 10: Identify and achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction targets consistent with the City’s proportionate fair share as may be allocated by the California Air Resources Board and Kings County Association of Governments.

Policy AQ 10.1: As recommended in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Guidance fo r Valley Land -use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (December 2009), the City establishes an initial goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from development projects within its authority by 29 percent below year 202 0 business as usual emissions. The City will also work with Kings County Association of Governments to ensure that it achieves its proportionate fair share reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as may be identified under the provisions of SB 375 (2008 Chapter 728) for any projects or activities requiring approval of Kings County Association of Governments.

Program AQ 10.1: The City will require development projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and not otherwise exempt to provide a quantitative assessment of greenhouse gas emissions. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District has proposed Best Performance Standards that when included in a project would demonstrate that it would meet emission reduction targets without requirin g quantification. Project specific Best Performance Standards have not been completed; therefore, as an interim measure, projects requiring an Environmental Impact Report should include quantification of the benefits of adopted regulations, design features and mitigation measures that demonstrate that the project would achieve a 29 percent reduction from business as usual in 2020. Projects requiring a negative declaration should include a qualitative assessment of greenhouse gases and describe the project features that reduce greenhouse gases.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 281
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 83

4.8.3 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. As stated in the Thresholds of Significance above, SJVAPCD recommends a tiered approach to assess the significance of the GHG impacts on the environment (see Figure 4-3). Consequently, compliance with an adopted statewide, regional, or local plan for GHG emission reduction or mitigation would the project be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. As discussed in more detail under criterion b), the Project would be generally consistent with the applicable goals and policies related to GHG reduction measures, including CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, SJVAPCD Climate Change Plan and guidelines, and the City of Hanford General Plan goals and policies that aim to reduce air emissions and improve air quality, which reduces GHG emissions as a result. Through compliance with the CAP, Scoping Plan, SJVAPCD guidelines , and General Plan, it can be determined that the Project would not occur at a scale or scope with potential to contribute substantially or cumulatively to the generation of greenhouse gas emissions and therefore the impact would be less than significant. Lastly, Project -related emissions were estimated usin g CalEEMod in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 and Hanford General Plan Program AQ 10.1 .

Estimated emissions are presented and discussed below ( Table 4-8). Project assumptions are provided in Section 4.3.

Construction Emissions
The SJVAPCD does not recommend assessing pollution associated with construction, as pollution- related construction wi ll be temporary. However, other jurisdictions such as the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) have concluded that construction emissions should be included since they may remain in the atmosphere for years after construction is complete. The SMAQMD has established quantitative significance thresholds of 1,100 MT CO 2e per year for the construction phases of land use projects. As such, annual construction emissions below the 1,100 MTCO 2e would have a less than significant cumulative impact on GHGs. As presented below, maximum short-term annual construction emissions of GHG associated with development of the project are estimated to be 633.5833 MTCO2e. This is less than the 1,100 MTCO2e threshold of the SMAQMD.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 282
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 84
Operational Emissions
Regarding the long-term operational related GHG emissions, the estimated operational emissions for buildout of the Project incorporates the potential area source and vehicle emissions, and emissions associated with utility and water usage, and wastewater and solid waste generation .

Since the SJVAPCD guidance for addressing GHG impacts does not use numerical GHG emissions thresholds, at the lead agency’s discretion, a neighboring air district’s GHG threshold may be used to determine impacts. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted the staff proposal for an interim GHG significance threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year for GHG for construction and operational emissions. Though the Project is under SJVAPCD jurisdiction, the SCAQMD GHG threshold provides some perspective on the GHG emissions generated by the Project. As such, annual operational emissions below the 10,000 MTCO2e would have a less than significant cumulative impact on GHGs. As shown in Table 4 -8, the annual operational GHG emissions associated with buildout of the Project would be 4,175.2640 MTCO2e. This is less than the 10,000 MTCO2e threshold of the SCAQMD.

Table 4-8 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year) Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Construction
Construction, Unmitigated (max) 621.9419 0.0765 0.0327 633.5833 Operational
Operational, Unmitigated 3,894.2402 8.2553 0.2505 4,175.2640 Source: CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0, ran on February 1, 2022 Further, the Project would not exceed the thresholds of significance for construction or operations as discussed in Section 4.3 . Cumulatively, these emissions would not generate a significant contribution to global climate change over the lifetime of the Project. In addition, with the Project’s compliance with the KCAG Regional CAP, it can be determined that the Project would not occur at a scale or scope with potential to contribute substantially or cumulatively to the generation of GHG emissions and therefore the impact would be less than significant. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project complies wi th the KCAG CAP . In addition to this, the compatibility of the Project with the 2017 Scoping Plan and the SJVAPCD’s CCAP is evaluated below.

Consistency with the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan
Based on the evaluation shown in Table 4-9, the Project is consistent with the reduction measures identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 283
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 85
Table 4-9 Scoping Plan Reduction Measures Consistency Analysis Reduction Measure Measure Description Consistency/Applicability Determination SB 350 Renewable
Portfolio Standard
Statewide requirement to increase
the renewable energy mix from 33%
in 2020 to 50% in 2030. Renewable
energy sources include (but are not
limited to) wind, solar, geothermal,
small hydroelectric, biomass,
anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas.

Consistent. Future development resulting
from the Project will receive electricity
from PG&E, which is subject to the SB 350
Renewable Portfolio Standard.

Additionally, future development would
be required to meet the State Building
Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Parts
6 and 11).

Low Carbon Fue l
Standard
Requires fuel providers to meet an
18 percent reduction in carbon
content by 2030.

Not Applicable. This measure is a
statewide measure that is not
implemented by a project applicant or lead
agency. Therefore, the measure is not
applicable to the proposed project.

However, when the measure is initiated, it
would be applicable to vehicles that would
access the Project site.

Mobile Source
Strategy (Cleaner
Technology and
Fuels [CTF]
Scenario)
Vehicle manufacturers will be
required to meet existing
regulations mandated by the LEV III
and Heavy -Duty Vehicle programs.

The strategy includes a goal of
having 4.2 million ZEVs on the road
by 2030 and increasing numbers of
ZEV trucks and buses.

Not Applicable. This measure does not
have requirements that di rectly apply to
development projects. Therefore, the
measure is not applicable to the proposed
project. However, the Project would not
conflict or obstruct this reduction
measure.

SB 1383 Short-Lived
Climate Pollutant
(SLCP) Reduction
Strategy
The strategy requires the reduction
of methane and hydrofluorocarbon
(HFC) emissions by 40 percent from
2013 levels by 2030 and the
reduction of black carbon by 50
percent from 2013 levels by 2030.

Not Applicable . Black carbon is created
from the burning of fuels suc h as coal,
diesel, and biomass. Although no specific
development project is currently
proposed, heavy industrial uses are not
allowed in the proposed land use
designation or zone district and t hus,
future uses are not anticipated to emit
black carbon from diesel heavy duty truck
trips. Therefore, the measure is not
applicable to the proposed project.

SB 375 Sustainable
Communities
Strategies
The strategy requires Regional
Transportation Plans (RTPs) to
include a sustainable communities’
strategy for reduct ion of per capita
vehicle miles traveled.

Not Applicable. This measure is
implemented at the regional level. KCAG
RTP/SCS include policies to reduce VMT
per capita per SB 375. The Project would
not conflict or obstruct reduction
measures identified in the plan.

Post-2020 Cap-and-
Trade Program
This Program is to continue the
existing Cap -and-Trade Program.

The Program applies to large
industrial sources such as power
Not Applicable. Although no specific
development project is currently
proposed, heavy industrial uses are not
allowed in the proposed land use
designation or zone district. Therefore, the

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 284
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 86
plants, refineries, and cement
manufacturers.
measure is not applicable to the proposed
project.

Consistency with the SJVAPCD Climate Change Action Plan Maximum annual construction emissions of GHG associated with development of the Project are estimated to be 633.5833 MTCO2e and a nnual operational GHG emissions associated with buildout of the Project would be 4,175.2640 MTCO2e, which are under the threshold of 25,000 tons of CO2e per year. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Consistency with the 2035 Hanford General Plan
In reviewing the General Plan goals and policies on GHG reduction , most policies are to be implemented by the City and does not apply to indivi dual development projects. This environmental study provides quantitative and qualitative analysis of GHG emissions as regulated in Program AQ 10.1 and includes Policy AQ 4.2 and Policy AQ 4.3 , and will be subject to project review, evaluation, and conditions of approval pursuant of Policy AQ 3.1 and Policy AQ 3.5.

In conclusion, the Project contains features that would reduce GHG emissions in compliance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, guidance from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), SJVAPCD Climate Change Action Plan, KCAG Climate Action Plan, and 2035 Hanford Climate Action Plan. As such, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and therefore the impact would be less than significant.

4.8.4 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions related mitigation measures as identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Section

5. 15.A.d
Packet Pg. 285
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 87

4.9 HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
Would the project:

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

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 286
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 88
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X

4.9.1 Environmental Setting
For the purposes of this section, the term “hazardous materials” refers to "injurious substances," which include flammable liquids and gases, poisons, corrosives, explosives, oxidizers, radioactive materials, and medical supplies and waste. These materials are either generated or used by various commercial and industrial activities. Hazardous wastes are injurious substances that have been or will be disposed. Potential hazards arise from the transport of hazardous materials, including leakage and accidents involving transporting vehicles. There also are hazards associated with the use and storage of these materials and wastes. Hazardous materials are grouped into the following four categories based on their properties:
• Toxic: causes human health effect
• Ignitable: has the ability to burn
• Corrosive: causes severe burns or damage to materials • Reactive: causes explosions or generates toxic gases
“Hazardous wastes” are defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 25141(b) as wastes that: “…because of their quantity, con centration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, [may either] cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environ ment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.” A hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is discarded, abandoned, or slated to be recycled. If improperly handled, hazardous materials and hazardous waste can re sult in public health hazards if released into the soil or groundwater or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. Soil and groundwater having concentrations of hazardous constituents higher than specific regulatory levels must be handled and d isposed of as hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an aquifer. The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.20‐24 contains technical descriptions of toxic characteristics that could cause soil or groundwater to be classified as hazardous waste.

Hazardous waste generators may include industries, businesses, public and private institutions, and households. Federal, state, and local agencies maintain comprehensive databases that identify the location of facilities using large quantitie s of hazardous materials, as well as facilities generating hazardous waste. Some of these facilities use certain classes of hazardous materials that require risk management plans to protect surrounding land uses. The release of hazardous

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 287
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 89
materials would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations and is similar to the transport, use, and disposal of hazard materials.

Record Search
The California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor database21 and the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker database22 include hazardous release and contamination sites. A search of each database was conducted on January 26, 2022 . The searches revealed no hazardous material release sites on the Project site.

Pre-Consultation Received: Pre-Consultation was received from Liliana Stransky with Kings County Department of Public Health on September 13, 2021 , stating that the department has no comments for the proposed rezoning or amendments to the general plan at this time.

Hanford General Plan
The General Plan include objectives and policies relevant to hazards and hazardous materials in its Health, Safety, and Noise Element:

Goal H6: Avoidance of properties contaminated by toxic or hazardous materials.

Policy H29 Household Hazardous Materials. Coordinate with other public agencies to educate consumers about the proper household use and disposal of hazardous materials.

Policy H30 Industrial Hazardous Materials. Require industrial uses that rely extensively on the use of hazardous materials to adopt an acceptable use, storage, disposal, and emergency response program that has been approved by appropriate agencies.

Policy H31 Adequate Separation from Sensitive Uses. Require adequate separation between industrial areas where hazardous materials are present and sensitive uses such as schools, residential areas, parks, and public facilities.

21California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor. Accessed January 26, 2022, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
22 California State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. Accessed January 26, 2022, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 288
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 90
Policy H32 Project Review Evaluation. Evaluate the risks involving the disposal, transport, manufacture, storage and handling of hazardous material in Hanford in the project review process.

Policy H33 Educational Opportunities. Coordinate with Kings County to provide educational opportunities to the public regarding the generation of small quantity, household and agricultural waste products regarding their responsibilities for source reduction and proper and safe hazardous waste management.

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

Policy H35 Kings County Health Department . Coordinate with the Kings County Health Department for the implementation of the Hazardous Materials Disclosure Law.

4.9.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. Although no specific development is currently proposed, the Project includes a General Plan Amendment and Pre -Zone/Rezone to change the site’s land use designation and zoning to Corridor Mixed Use and MX -C Corridor Mixed Use, respectively. The Corridor Mixed Use land use designation and MX-C Corridor Mixed Use zone district do not permit manufacturing, processing, or heavy industrial uses . Rather, the land use designation and zone district permit residential, commercial, or office uses ; such uses would not result in operations that routinely transport, use, or d ispose of hazardous materials. Potential impacts during construction of future projects could result from the use of fuels and lubricants for construction equipment. However, these impacts would be short -term and temporary, and would be reduced to less tha n significant levels through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations in addition to standard equipment operating practices. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 289
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 91
Less than Significant Impact. As described under criterion a) above, it is not anticipated that the types of future development projects that would result from Project implementation will involve any operations that would require routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials .

Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through release of hazardous materials. While potential impacts could occur through construction-related transport and disposal of hazardous materials, such impacts would be short -term and temporary, and wou ld be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations in addition to standard equipment operating practices. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the Project site. As described under criteria a) and b) above, the future development projects that result from Project implementation are not anticipated to emit hazard emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or water that would pose a risk or threat to the school or surrounding area. Therefore, no impact would occur because of the Project.
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Sec tion 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. According to Envirostor and Geotracker, the Project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled p ursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public of the environment. For these reasons, there would be no impact. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a p lan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less than Significant Impact. The nearest public use airport is the Hanfor d Municipal Airport located approximately 0.44 miles southeast of the Project site. The Hanford Municipal Airport is owned and operated by the City of Hanford and has one (1) runway that is 2,200 feet long and 75 feet wide . The applicable airport land use plan for the Hanford Municipal Airport is the Kings

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 290
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 92
County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)
30F
23 adopted in 1994 and the Hanford Municipal
Airport Master Plan adopted January 19, 2010.31F
24 According to the ALUCP, the Project site is located
within the airport influence area of the Hanford Municipal Airport. Because the site is within the airport inf luence area, future development projects are subject to established airport compatibility policies within the ALUCP and General Plan ( including Policy T76, Policy T77 , and Policy H39 listed below) to ensure that projects would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the area.

Policy T76 New Development near Airport. Review of all new development in proximity to the Hanford Municipal Airport for compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements and compatibility with Hanford Airport Master Plan standards.

Policy T77 Land Use Compatibility. Evaluate the compatibility of airport uses, activities, and operations with all new development in proximity to the Hanford Municipal Airport prior to approval and protect sensitive uses, such as residences, schools, and hospitals from over - flight areas
Policy H39 Aircraft Noise. Evaluate proposed development proposals against the land use policies of the Kings County Airport land Use Compatibility Plan.

The Project includes a General Plan Amendment that proposes a change to the site’s land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use. The General Plan Amendment is requested due to incompatibility with ALUCP. According to the ALUCP, the Project site is located within Zone B1 (North) which limits the maximum residential density (dwelling units/acre) to one (1) unit per 10 acres. Further, residential subdivisions and multi -family residential are identified as non -acceptable uses in this zone. T herefore, the General Plan Amendment request to change the site’s land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use which would allow for future development of the site with uses that are compatible with uses allowed in Zone B1 (No rth). Although no specific project is currently proposed, future development projects would be reviewed to ensure compliance with the ALUCP policies for Zone B1 as shown in Table 4-10. Through compliance, the Project would not result in

23 County of Kings. (1994). Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Accessed January 26, 2022, https://www.countyofkings.com/home/showpublisheddocument/3094/635274871108830000 24 City of Hanford. (2010). Accessed on January 26, 2022, https://www.ci.hanford.ca.us/departments/airport/master_plan.php#revize_document_center_rz901

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 291
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 93
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4-10 Kings County ALUCP Primary Compatibility Criteria Zone B1
Location Approach/Departure Zone and Adjacent to Runway Impact Elements
• Substantial risk – aircraft commonly below 400 ft.

AGL or within 1,000 sf. of runway
• Substantial noise
Maximum Densities • Residential – 0.1 (10 ac-parcel)/ac • Other Uses – 60 people/ac
Required Open Land 30%
Prohibited Uses
• Children’s schools, day care centers, libraries
• Hospitals, nursing homes
• Highly noise-sensitive uses (e.g. outdoor theaters)
• Aboveground bulk storage of hazardous materials
• Hazards to flight*
Other Development Conditions
• Locate structures maximum distance from extended
runway centerline
• Minimum NLR of 25 dBA in residential and office
buildings
• Dedication of avigation easement
Normally Acceptable Uses
• Uses in Zone A
• Agricultural uses except ones attracting birds
• Single-family residences on existing lots
• Warehousing, truck terminals, low-intensity
manufacturing
• Single-story offices
• Low-intensity retail (e.g., auto, furniture sales)
Uses Not Normally Acceptable
• Residential subdivisions
• Multi-family residential
• Intensive retail uses
• Intensive manufacturing or food processing uses
• Multiple story offices
• Hotels and motels
* Hazards to flight include physical, visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraft operations. See supporting compatibility policies on air-space protection for details f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. Although no specific development is currently proposed , future projects would be reviewed to ensure that they do not impair infrastructure associated with evacuation, emergency response, and emergency access routes within the City or County.

Construction of off-site improvements may require lane closures; however, these activities would be short-term and access through existing roadways would be maintained through standard traffic

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 292
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 94
control. Following construction, the roadways would continue to provide access to the site.

Furthermore, future development projects would be subject to compliance with applicable standards for on-site emergency access including turn radii and fire access. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) , the city of Hanford, inclusive of the Project site, is not identified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ); rather, the site is wi thin an area of local responsibility and is considered an area of low fire risk.32F
25 Although no specific development project is currently proposed, future projects would be required to be developed and operate in compliance with all regulations of the current California Fire Code. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

25 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. FHSZ Viewer. Accessed on January 26, 2022, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 293
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 95

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

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

X
i. Result in a substantial
erosion or siltation on - or
off-site;
X
ii. Substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on-
or off-site:

X
iii. Create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X
iv. Impede or redirect flood
flows? X

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 294
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 96
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X

4.10.1 Environmental Setting
Although the Project site is currently outside of city limits, it is located with the City of Hanford’s SOI and would be subject to future annexation. As a result of future annexation into city limits, future development resulting from Project implementation would be required to connect to water and stormwater services. A brief overview of the systems and services is provided below.

Water
The City of Hanford’s water supply system is a groundwater system. The city is located within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region and is within the Tulare Lake Groundwater Subbasin which transmits, filters, and stores water from the main San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The system consists of 14 groundwater wells, three (3) storage reservoirs, distribution mains, and fire hydrants. The system does not use surface water. Groundwater is recharged by rain and snowfall in addition to percolation from storm water basins, local waterways, and agricultural irrigation.

Stormwater
The existing drainage infrastructure within the City of Hanford’ s Stormwater Management Program include natural drainage channels, retention basins, natural vegetation, piping, and pump stations. There are some areas where storm drainage is controlled by drainage inlets and underground structures. The system consists of 30 pump stations, 57 miles of pipeline, and 220 acres of drainage basins and drainage ditches.

4.10.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Although no specific development project is currently proposed , future projects resulting from Project implementation would be reviewed by the City to determine

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 295
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 97
adequate capacity in these systems and ensure compliance with applicable connection and discharge requirements.

For future development projects that are greater than one (1) acre in size, developer(s) would be required to prepare a SWPPP (Section 4.7) in compliance with the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (i.e., General Permit Order No. 2012 -0006- DWQ). The SWPPP estimates the sediment risk associated with construction activities and includes best management practices (BMP) to control erosion. BMPs specific to erosion control cover erosion, sediment, tracking, and waste management controls. These provisions minimize the potential for the future development p rojects to violate any waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

Further, runoff resulting from future development would be managed by the City in compliance with the Storm Drainage Master Plan in addition to approved grading and drainage plans. Thus, compliance with existing regulations including the General Construction Permit, BMPs, and Storm Drainage Master Plan would reduce potential impacts related to water quality and waste discharge to less than significant levels.
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact. The City’s long-term water resource planning for existing and future demand is addressed in the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and 2017 Water System Master Plan (WSMP) .26 27 These plans are intended to serve as a tool for planning and phasing the construction of future domestic water supply infrastructure for the projected buildout of the city of Hanford, in accordance with the General Plan.

According to these plans, the City uses groundwater wells as the sole source of supply. As such, groundwater should be viewed as a sustainable resource. As of 2017, there are 14 active groundwater wells with a rated supply of approximately 34.9 million gallons per day (mgd) that may increase or decrease in efficiency ratings as groundwater levels fluctuate and/or recover. To

26 City of Hanford (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed January 26, 2022, https://cms6.revize.com/revize/hanfordca/document_center/Public%20Works/Water%20Management/2015%20U WMP%20Chapter%201.pdf
27 City of Hanford (2017). 2017 Water System Master Plan. Accessed January 26, 2022, https://cms6.revize.com/revize/hanfordca/document_center/Public%20Works/2017_Water%20System%20Master %20Plan%20-%20FINAL%20-%20Reduced.pdf

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 296
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 98
account for these fluctuations, the plans recommend that the City monitor well efficiencies on a frequent basis to adequately manage the groundwater supply. In the case of persistent droughts, it may therefore be necessary for the City to construct additional wells to maintain adequate supply cap acity. According to the existing system map in the WSMP, there is an existing well (number 45) south of the Project site as well as existing six (6)-inch pipes surrounding the site.

Potable water demands for the Project were estimated using land -use-based unit water demand factors last updated for the City in 2018. The Project site has an existing General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential and proposes a change to Corridor Mixed Use .

According to the land-use based unit water demand factors for the City of Hanford, the Medium Density Residential land use has an average daily demand of 2,900 gallons per day (gp d) per net acre, compared to 1,390 gpd/net acre for the Corridor Mixed Use land use. .

Table 4-11 summarizes the total water demands to be expected by land use, indicating that the Corridor Mixed Use land use would generate significantly less demand for water than Medium Density Residential.

Table 4-11 Summary of Total Water Demands by Land Use
Land Use Area (ac) Water Demand Factor (gpd/ac) Average Daily Demand (gpd/ac) Existing
Medium Density
Residential
28 2,900 81,200
Proposed
Corridor Mixed Use 28 1,390 38,920
Source: City of Hanford, 2017 Water System Master Plan
Given the significant reduction in water demand from what is planned, it can be determined that the City’s existing and planned water supply will be adequate to support anticipated demands from the Project, and the Project wou ld thereby not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. In addition, adherence to connection requirements and recommendations pursuant to the City’s water supply planning efforts (i.e., compliance with California Plumbing Code, efficient appliances, efficient landscaping, etc.) should not negatively impact the City’s water provision. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 297
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 99
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less than Significant Impact. Erosion is a natural process in which soil is moved from place to place by wind or from flowing water. The effects of erosion within the Project Area can be accelerated by ground-disturbing activities associated with development. Siltation is the settling of sediment to the bed of a stream or lake which increases the turbidity of water. Turbid water can have harmful effects to aquatic life by clogging fish gills, reducing spawning habitat, and suppress aquatic vegetation growth.

Although no specific development project is currently proposed, during construction activities, and in compliance with the project’s SWPPP, construction -related erosion controls and BMPs would be implemented to reduce potential i mpacts related to erosion and siltation. These BMPs would include, but are not limited to, covering and/or binding soil surfaces to prevent soil from being detached and transported by water or wind, and the use of barriers such as straw bales and sandbags to control sediment. Together, the controls and BMPs are intended to limit soil transportation and erosion. In addition, the City will review and condition future projects to ensure proper drainage. Consequently, the review and approval by the City and compliance with standard requirements would mean that the Project would result in a less than significant impact. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less than Significant Impact. Future development projects resulting from Project implementation would increase impervious surfaces by installing paving, concrete pads, and sidewalks. Such impervious surfaces have the potential to increase the rate or amount of surface runoff that would be captured and drained within the existing drainage subbasin. Construction of these projects will be reviewed by the City to ensure that runoff would not exceed the capacity of the City's drainage systems. Compliance with regulations and approval by the City would ensure that surface runoff is controlled in a manner which would not result in flooding on - or off-site. For this reason, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less than Significant Impact. Future development projects resulting from Project implementation will be reviewed by the City. Conditioned drainage, grading, and site improvement plans for future projects will also be subject to review by the City prior to the final development approval. In addition, developer(s) of future projects shall comply with all applicable State of Cali fornia requirements pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) .

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 298
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 100 Therefore, the implementation of these requirements would ensure that surface runoff is controlled in a manner which would not result in the creation or contribution of runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage services or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. For this reason, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. Although the construction of future development projects that result from Project implementation would increase impervious surfaces, the projects would not alter drainage patterns because project-specific grading and drainage plans are required to be reviewed by the City before development approval. Through City review and required compliance , the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows and a less than significant impact would occur. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is not in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone (i.e., standing waves on river, reservoirs, ponds, and lakes). The Project site is approximately 94 miles from the Pacific Ocean and there are no rivers, reservoirs, ponds, or lakes within the site, and the Project site is designated as Zone X on the most recent Flood In surance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06031C0185C dated June 16, 2009. Zone X is an area of minimal flood hazards with a 0.2 percent- annual-chance of flood (i.e., 500 -year flood). In addition, the Project area as well as the city has historically been subject to low to moderate ground shaking and has a relatively low probability of shaking. Seiches are unlikely to form due to the low seismic energy produced the area. Therefore, as a low -risk area, the Project would have a less than significant impact as it relates to the risk release of pollutants due to project inundations.
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. A groundwater sustainability plan was adopted for the Tulare Lake Sub-basin in January 2020 by the Mid-Kings River Groundwater Sustainability Agency of which the City of Hanford is a member. 35F
28 Future development projects are required to comply with the adopted plan (Mid-Kings Groundwater) to meet the 2040 sustainability deadline for the basin. As