Agenda packet — Hanford City Council, November 15, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

November 15, 2022
7:00 PM – Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.

CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION:

ROLL CALL:

INVOCATION:

Stella Yarbrough
FLAG SALUTE:

COUNCIL REPORTS/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).

PUBLIC COMMENT:

This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters 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. 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 m ay 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:

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/

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 wi ll 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 October 4, 2022, Meeting C. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the October 18, 2022, Meeting D. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the November 1, 2022, Meeting E. Administration: Authorization to renew the annual contract with In tegrated Avian Solutions to continue to provide Falconer services in Downtown Hanford, for an amount not to exceed $53,600 for Calendar Year 2023.

F. Administration: Approval of Amendment No. 2 of the License Agreement between the Carnegie Museum of Kings County and the City of Hanford to extend the term of the agreement until December 31, 2023
G. Administration: Approval of the City of Hanford Salary Schedules, as required by CCR 570.5, to reflect the state minimum wage increase for part -time employees and recent increases approved through the labor negotiation process and authorization for City Administration to amend all other documents as may be necessary to implement the updates.

H. Public Works: Approval of a Sole -Source Purchase Order for One (1) 2024 Peterbilt/McClellan 2000 Gallon W ater Truck from E.M. Tharpe of Porterville, in the amount of $144,539, and appropriation of $132,377 from Fleet Replacement Fund and of $12,162 from Wastewater Fund for the purchase.

I. Finance: Acceptance and authorizatio n for staff to File the City of Ha nford's Quarterly Investment Portfolio and Transactions Reports as of 9/30/2022 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 environm ent 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).

GENERAL BUSINESS:

A. Administration: Authorization for the City Manager to execute contracts with Retail Strategies, Inc for an amount not to exceed $70,000, for the Develo pment of a 5 -Year Downtown Strategic Plan and Retail consulting and appropriation of $45,000 from the Downtown Parking and Improvement fund and $25,000 from the General Fund to cover the costs of the contracts.

B. Parks and Community Services: Adoption of Resolution 22-43-R, Authorizing the submittal of a Grant Proposal for the Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety Grant Program for the purpose of funding a Boys & Girls Club in the City of Hanford and Authorization for th e City Manager to execute all related documents.

C. Council: Consideration of a Request for Waiver of Fees for the use of the Civic Auditorium by the Hanford Chamber of Commerce
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 a ction 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 18: Employee Night at Winter Wonderland 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/
December 6: Regular City Council Meeting
December 20: Regular City Council Meeting
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: 11/15/2022

AGENDA SECTION: B

SUBJECT:

City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the October 4, 2022, Meeting

Recommendation:

Approve the minutes of the October 4, 2022 Meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

10.4.2022

7.B
Packet Pg. 4

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
October 4, 2022 7:00 PM
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.
4:00 PM CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION:

Vice Mayor Sharp called the study session and closed session to order at 4:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL BY THE CITY CLERK:

Present: Diane Sharp, Francisco Ramirez, Amanda Saltray, Art Brieno

Absent: Kalish Morrow
PUBLIC COMMENT:

Comments from the public are limited to items 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 Alarm Program Services (APS) regarding their automated system for the overall administration of the Alarm Permitting process for the City of Hanford.

The presentation was postponed until October 18, 2022.

RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Saltray, Ramirez
ABSENT: Morrow
B. Discussion regarding the impacts of homelessness in the City of Hanford; the City resources available and being used to address the issue; and direction from Council regarding future efforts and resources needed to address the issue.

Police Chief Parker Sever discussed the problems that the city is experiencing in various city departments, from criminal matters that occur, dangers to the staff, and problem s staff experiences with maintaining park facilities.

Staff also discussed the issues the city's residents and businesses are experiencing and the fiscal impact to the city for addressing the homelessness issue. Chief Sever also addressed the hostile architecture in some areas in the city and suggested removing them. Deputy City Manager Jason Waters and Administrative Analyst Sandra Lerma discussed possible funding sources for a low -barrier shelter, long-term solutions, solutions used by othe r cities/agencies, key partnerships, and the process to move forward on a low -barrier navigation center. Staff

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 5
Attachment: 10.4.2022 (Clerk: 10.4.2022 Minutes)
answered questions from the Council. Kings Tulare Alliance Executive Director Miguel Perez discussed the organization's goals and mission, state resources, and funding sources and answered questions from the Council.

Parks and Community Services Director Brad Albert recommended closing the Civic Park restroom due to the homeless. After much discussion, the Council directed staff to move forward with removing benches in the problematic areas, removing the arbor and outlets at the old courthouse , and temporally closing the Civic Park bathrooms for no more than a two-week period. Council Member Brieno suggested signage for the restroom closure. Staff will bring back a study session for a future discussion with an action plan for the Council's review and direction.

C. Presentation to Council and Receive direction regarding proposed improvements to the C ivic Auditorium
Parks and Community Services Director Brad Albert discussed the continuing maintenance of the Civic Auditorium. He presented the suggested repairs and took the Council and the audience to view the site. Building Superintendent Randy Shaw discussed the flooring options, the budge t, and the project timeline. Staff answered questions from the Council. The Council directed staff to move forward with replacing the hardwood floor and ceiling paint. Staff will present the pr ojects at a future meeting for the Council’s review and approval.

CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF THE FOLLOWING:

The Council convened to the closed session at 6:10 a.m.

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

Property: APN 012-086-004
Agency Negotiators: Mario Cifunetez and Ty Mizote
Negotiating Party: A2Z Investments, LLC

Property: 113 Court St.

APN: 010-265-001-000
Agency Negotiators: Mario Cifunetez and Ty Mizote
Negotiating Party:

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

Vice Mayor Sharp called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Diane Sharp Vice Mayor Present 3:50 PM
Art Brieno Council Member Present 3:59 PM
Kalish Morrow Mayor Absent
Amanda Saltray Council Member Present 3:35 PM
Francisco Ramirez Council Member Present 3:54 PM

INVOCATION:

The invocation was led by Pastor Ignacio Valdez.

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment: 10.4.2022 (Clerk: 10.4.2022 Minutes)
FLAG SALUTE:

The flag salute was led by Kings United Way Executive Director Nanette Villarreal.

CLOSED SESSION ACTION REPORT:

None.

RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS:

P roclamation National Fire Prevention Week October 9-15, 2022 Vice Mayor Sharp issued a proclamation for National Fire Prevention Week. Chief Steve Pendergrass discussed fire prevention week.

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).

T
he Council discussed the meetings and events they attended.

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.

Abraham Valencia, Public Health Emergency Planner f or Kings County informed the C ouncil of programs offered by the county. He also discussed grant opportunities.

Nanette Villario, Executive Director of Kings Unite d Way requeste d a fee waiver for the non -profit organization Kings Commission on Aging for the use o f the Civic Auditorium, for a future event.

Bobbie Watson, Ex ecutive Director o f Kings County Commission on Aging, requested a fee waiver for the use of the Civic Auditorium and she discussed their events.

Amory Mar ple, Executive Director o f the Hanford Chamber o f C ommerce requested a partnership or alternative assistance from the city.

Bob Ramos commented on a pol itical commercial. He also co mmented on the traffic circles project a nd spoke in opposition.

Michael Quinn spoke in support of w aiving facility rental fees fo r non-profit organizations. He a lso expressed his concerns of the proposed placement of the traffic circles.

Lou Martinez s poke in favor of partnering with non- profit organizations. He also requested to pull i tems F a nd H from the consent calendar and he expressed his concerns about the lighting at the skate park.

Larry Faria spoke in favor of the request to waive rental fees for non-profit organizations. He also suggested adding a public comment period at the end of the study sessions.

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: 10.4.2022 (Clerk: 10.4.2022 Minutes)

Chad Draxler requested t o pull consent items F and H for clarification. He also stated the police department needs a new police station.

Mark Kairis commented on the Bob Hill sports complex lighting. He also spoke in support of the request to waiv e rental fees for non-profit organizations.

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.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Art Brieno, Council Member
SECONDER: Amanda Saltray, Council Member
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Saltray, Ramirez
ABSENT: Morrow
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 June 7, 2022 Meeting C. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the June 21, 2022 Meeting D. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the June 23, 2022 Special Meeting E. Public Works: Approval of an Annual Purchase Order with Martin Marietta, for a not to exceeded amount of $100,000 for street maintenance materials.

PULLED ITEMS:

1. Parks and Community Services: Approval of a contract with Fresno Fence Connection in the amount of $98,410 for the Skate Park Fencing Project.
[Item F]

Pulled during public comment.

Parks and Community Services Director Brad Albert discussed the contract for the Council's review and approval. Police Chief Sever provided his input on the condition of the current fence. Sta ff answered questions the Council.

Motion to approve.

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: 10.4.2022 (Clerk: 10.4.2022 Minutes)
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Art Brieno, Council Member
SECONDER: Amanda Saltray, Council Member
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Saltray, Ramirez
ABSENT: M orrow

2. Finance: Approval of a Contract amendment with Avenu - MuniServices LLC, to provide Cannabis tax audit services, for a contract amount not to exceed a $7,500 flat fee per retail establishment or 35% of additional Cannabis tax revenue collected by City, whichever is greater. [Item H]

Pulled during public comment.

Finance Director Chris Tavarez discussed the purpose of the audit. City Manager Cifuentez discussed the services provided by MuniServices and answered questions from the Council.

Motion to approve.

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

3. City Attorney: Approval of a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the Sale of the City -Owned Parking Lot at Southeast Corner of Redington and Sixth Streets to A2Z Investments, LLC. [Item E]

Pulled by Vice Mayor Sharp. She did not want to vote on the item due to a conflict of interest.

City Attorney Ty Mizote invited questions from the Council.

Motion to approve.

RESULT: APPROVED [3 TO 0]
MOVER: Art Brieno, Council Member
SECONDER: Amanda Saltray, Council Member
AYES: Brieno, Saltray, Ramirez
ABSTAIN: Sharp
ABSENT: Morrow
GENERAL BUSINESS:

A. Community Development: Authorization for Interwest, JAS and Rod Carsey to provide on- call plan check services and Crawford and Bowen to provide on- call environmental planning services and Willdan to provide on-call building inspection services each contract not to exceed $150,000 annually for the City of Hanford.

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: 10.4.2022 (Clerk: 10.4.2022 Minutes)
Deputy City Manager Jaso n Waters discussed the proposed services provided by Interwest, JAS, and Rod Carsey and the on- call building inspection services provided by Wildan, each contract not to exceed $150,000 annually for the City of Hanford. Dep. City Manager Waters answered questions from the Council.

Motion to approve.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Art Brieno, Francisco Ramirez
SECONDER: Amanda Saltray, Council Member
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Saltray, Ramirez
ABSENT: Morrow
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 concerning any ma tter or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (GOV. CODE SEC. 54954.2)

City Manager Cifuentez provided an update of the sale of the Comfort Inn parking lot and the lighting at the Bob Hill youth athletic complex.

The Council directed staff to bring back the following future agenda items:

• Review of facility rental fees for non-profit organizations. • Discussion of a Chamber Sub-Committee.

Council Future Agenda Items
ADJOURNMENT:

Vice Mayor Sharp adjourned the meeting at 8:04 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Natalie Corral
City Clerk

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: 10.4.2022 (Clerk: 10.4.2022 Minutes)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/15/2022

AGENDA SECTION: C

SUBJECT:

City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the October 18, 2022, Meeting

Recommendation:

Approve the minutes of the October 18, 2022 Meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

10.18.2022

7.C
Packet Pg. 11

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
October 18, 2022 7:00 PM
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.
5:00 PM CALL TO ORDER STUDY 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:

Rusty Brookshire spoke in opposition of the traffic circles project.

STUDY SESSION:

A. Presentation by Alarm Program Services (APS) regarding their automated system for the overall administration of the Alarm Permitting process for the City of Hanford.

Alarm Program Ser vices Vice President Brett Glass provided a bri ef overview of the company and discussed the proposal and goals, with a primary focus to reduce false alarms with a false alarm reduction program and creating awareness of the ordinance in the city. Police Chie f Parker Sever discussed commercial and residential registered alarms and the protocol for alarm calls. The Council discussed the ordinance and invoicing process.

Mr. Glass and staff answered questions and concerns from the Council. After much discussion the Council directed staff to move forward and amend the ordinance to reflect the services.

B. Presentation and Discussion Regarding the Rental and Usage of City of Hanford Facilities Parks and Community Services Director Brad Albert presented the facility rental usage and fees for the Council's direction. Recreation Supervisor Armando da Silva discussed the current rates and fees for non -profit organizations. He also answered questions from the Council regarding the park arbors and special events. King County Commission On Aging Executive Director Bobbie Watson discussed their events and past arrangement with the city. Staff addressed the questions and concerns from the Council. Council Member Ramirez suggested the city sponsor or host the Commission on Aging’ s Health Fair/Senior Day. The Council directed staff to bring back a revised resolution with the facility rental fees and the rules and regulations , and the cost of potentially sponsoring the Health Fair/Senior Day event.

CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF THE FOLLOWING:

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: 10.18.2022 (Clerk: 10.18.2022 Minutes)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (GC 54956.9(d)(1)):

Helena v. City of Hanford
Kings County Case No. 17C0102

Paula Lofgren v. City of Hanford
Kings County Case No. 21C0188

Mendoza, et al. v. City of Hanford, Fabian Avalos
Eastern District of California Case No. 1:21-cv-00721

Luis Ortiz Alonzo v. City of Hanford, Ruben Cano
Kings County Case No. 21C0396

David Ponce v. City of Hanford
Eastern District of California Case No. 1:21-cv-01045

Darlene Mata v. City of Hanford
Kings County Case No. 22C0077

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 4:30 PM
Art Brieno Council Member Present 4:37 PM
Kalish Morrow Mayor Present 4:28 PM
Amanda Saltray Council Member Present 4:35 PM
Francisco Ramirez Council Member Present 4:33 PM

INVOCATION:

The invocation was led by Pastor Pablo Róvere.

FLAG SALUTE:

The flag salute was led by Mayor Morrow.

CLOSED SESSION ACTION REPORT:

City Attorney Ty Mizote informed the Council that Francisco Ramirez was dismissed from the Darlene Mata lawsuit.

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: 10.18.2022 (Clerk: 10.18.2022 Minutes)
PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A. Public Works: Public Hearing regarding the City of Hanford's proposed refuse rate increase, including the counting of any protest votes and, if supported, adopt the proposed refuse rate increases and other report recommendations.

Mayor Morrow opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. and called for the staff report. IGS President Dan Bergman provided the Council with a presentation packet and presented the next steps, existing rates, the rate study, and Prop 218. Mr. Bergman and staff answered questions from the Council.

Public Comment:

IN-FAVOR:

None.

OPPOSED:

Brenda Griffin asked for clarification of the rate increase.

Deputy Public Works Director Jim Ross discussed the protest letter s received and the threshold. The city received 13 letters, two were the from the same residents. The Council discussed the cost of the tra sh bins, bin requirements and business enclosures. Dir. Ross and Mr. Bergman answered questions from the Council.

Motion to approve resolution 22-41-R
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Art Brieno, Council Member
SECONDER: Diane Sharp, Vice Mayor
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
Motion to approve:

• The purchase of one additional front load refuse vehicle at a cost of $374,066.54 from EM Tharpe utilizing a Souncewel l contract. This expense is slated for FY2024, but lead time on such vehicles is currently running 12 months.
• The hiring of two additional refuse driver at an annual cost of $65,000 each, including benefits. • The conversion of two part time refuse positions to full time positions. • The installation of scales on the refuse vehicles to reduce overweight loads; estimated cost is $125,000.

Mayor Morrow closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m.

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

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: 10.18.2022 (Clerk: 10.18.2022 Minutes)
The Council discussed the events and meetings they attended. Council Member Ramirez commented on the Mata lawsuit.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

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

This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters 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. State law does not allow the Counc il 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.

Andre Barone, 9 1/4 Avenue resident , commented on the high-speed rail and expressed his concern s regarding the safety on the east side of town. He also commented on Heroes Park and requested speed bumps on 9 1/4 Ave.

Bob Ramos commented on Heroes Par k. He also stated nobody wants traffic circles downtown. He also suggested other ways to use the ARPA funds.

Stella Yarbrough ques tioned the removal of the arbors at the old courthouse . She also spoke in opposition of the traffic circles.

Richard Tippton commented on the traffic circles project and the high-speed rail. He also questioned the traffic circles project bids. City Manager Cifuentez discussed the bid process for the project.

Larry Faria questioned the traffic circles project and asked why it has not been brought back for Council discussion.

Nathan Odom comment ed on the new cameras in the Council Chambers and the surveillance cameras throughout the city. He shared his concerns regarding the of license pla te reader cameras. He also shared some facts regarding surveillance cameras.

Joseph Garcia com mented on the traf fic circles project and spoke in opposition. He suggested using the funds for more police officers.

Anna Brookshire commented on the city ’s website. City Manager Cifuentez asked the Communications Relations Manager Brian Johnson to assist Ms. Brookshire with her questions outside of the Council Chambers.

Liz Toppan commented on city council candidate campaigning, and she questioned the social media policy for council members.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will b e 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.

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: 10.18.2022 (Clerk: 10.18.2022 Minutes)
Council Member Bieno pulled consent item D. Motion to approve the consent calendar except for the items pulled for separate discussion.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Francisco Ramirez, Council Member
SECONDER: Amanda Saltray. 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: Approval of the Minutes of the July 19, 2022 Meeting C. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the August 2, 2022 Meeting D. Fire: Approval of an Instructor Service Agreement (ISA) with Fresno City College to provide training services for the Hanford Fire Department
PULLED ITEMS:

1. Public Works: Approval of an invoice from Valley Pump & Dairy Systems in the amount of $61,099.63, for an emergency repair of Well #41, and appropriation of $61,099.63 from water capital reserves to fund the repair.
[Item D]

Pulled by Council Member Brieno.

Deputy Public Works Director Jim Ross answered questions from Council Member Brieno.

Motion to approve.

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

A. Police: Discussion and consideration of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System and associated costs for the acquisition of 25 Automated License Plate Reader Cameras from Flock Camera Systems
Police Chief Parker Sever discussed the system. Flock Safety representative Hector Soleman- Valdez was available for questions (tel econference). Chief Server also discussed the several private businesses that are currently using the system. Mayor Morrow expressed her concerns regarding the cost and retention period. Staff addressed the Council ’s questions and concerns. Vice Mayor Sharp and Council Membe r Ramirez spoke in support of the item.

Staff presented three options for the Council's review and consideration:

• Option 1: Direct staff to include as a possible project in the next two -year budget Capital Improvement

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: 10.18.2022 (Clerk: 10.18.2022 Minutes)
Program.
• Option 2: Authorize purchase agreement with Insight Public Sector and appropriate funding immediately in current fiscal year and future years.
• Option 3: Do not consider implementation at this time and have staff bring back in the future when additional funding is identified.

Motion to approve Option 1.

RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Diane Sharp, Council Member
SECONDER: Amanda Saltray, Council Member
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Morrow, Saltray
NAYS: Ramirez
B. Fire: Authorization for Interwest Consulting Group, Bureau Veritas, and Fire Safety Solutions to provide on-call fire plan check and fire safety inspection services; each contract not to exceed $100,000 annually for the City of Hanford.

Fire Chief Steve Pendergrass presented the authorization for Interwest Consulting Group, Bureau Verit as, and Fire Safety Solutions to provide on- call fire plan check and fire safety inspection services for the Council's review and consideration. Chief Pendergrass answered questions from the Council.

Motion to approve.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Francisco Ramirez, Council Member
SECONDER: Art Brieno, Council Member
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
C. Council: Consideration of the reformation of a Council Ad- Hoc subcommittee to work with the Hanford Chamber of Commerce for consideration of future City support of the Chamber City Manager Cifuentez discussed the background for the Council's direction. Council Member Saltray commended the Chamber staff and discussed her interest in reforming a subcommittee to partner with them without direct funding. Vice Mayor Sharp recommended reforming a subcommittee and suggested tabling the item until after the election . Hanford Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Amory Marpel addressed the rental fees and other cost for their upcoming events. City Manager Cifuentez suggested Ms. Marple provide a proposal to be presented at a future meeting for the Council's review and consideration.

RESULT: CONSENSUS
COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATION:

At this time, any Council Member may ask a question fo r 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 dire ct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (GOV. CODE SEC. 54954.2)
Council Future Agenda Items
City Manager Cifunetez provide d an update on the Civic Park restroom closures and the Hidden Valley Park rezoning.

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: 10.18.2022 (Clerk: 10.18.2022 Minutes)
ADJOURNMENT:

Mayor Morrow adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Natalie Corral
City Clerk

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: 10.18.2022 (Clerk: 10.18.2022 Minutes)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/15/2022

AGENDA SECTION: D

SUBJECT:

City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the November 1, 2022, Meeting

Recommendation:

Approve the minutes of the November 1, 2022 Meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

11.1.2022

7.D
Packet Pg. 19
CI

TY COUNCIL MEETING

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

Mayor Morrow called the study session and closed session to order at 4:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL BY THE CITY CLERK :

Present: Kalish Morrow, Diane Sharp, Amanda Saltray
L
ate: Art Brieno

Absent: Francisco Ramirez.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Comments f rom t he publ ic ar e l imited to items on the age nda (GC 54954 .3a). A m aximum of three m inutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residen ce.

Richard Douglas thanked City Clerk Natalie Corral for her assistance with a reference letter. He also thanked the Council fo r appo inting an alternate commissioner to the Planning Commission.

STUDY SESSION:

A. Community Development: Study Session - Presentation by LSA As sociates, Inc, of the DRAFT Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Deputy City Manager Jason Waters , Senior Planner Gabrielle Myers , and LSA Principal Ambarish Muk herjee (teleconference) presented and discussed Key Concepts of the CEQA VMT Analysis and the VMT Threshold and Implementation Gui delines. They also discussed how it can benefit the department . City Attorney Ty Mizote discussed the VMT threshold percentages , the current CEQA guidelines and project screening. Mr.

Mukherjee and staff answered questions from the Council. After much discussion, the Council directed staff to bring back the item for review and approval.

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.

Deputy City Manager Jason Waters and Senior Planner Gabrielle Myers discussed the process to in itiate several annexations, a sphere of influence amendment, general plan amendments, and pre -zoning. Staff answered questions from the Council. After a brief discussion, the Council directed staff to include the rezoning of Hidden Valley Park in the proposed general plan amendments.

C. 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.

7.D.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: 11.1.2022 (Clerk: 11.1.2022 Minutes)
Deputy Public Works Director Jim Ross and EN GIE Senior Manager Ashu Jain discussed the expansion of the Waste Water Treatment Plant for the Council's authorization to move forward with the next steps of refining the project scope. Mr. Jain and staff answered questions from the Counc il. After some discussion the Council directed staff to move forward with the proposal . Staff will return at a future Council meeting to present a final proposal at no cost to the city.

The Council convened to closed session at 5:58 p.m.

CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF THE FOLLOWING:

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

Property: 113 Court St.

APN: 010-265-001-000
Agency Negotiators: Mario Cifuentez and Ty Mizote
Agency Negotiating Party: Jerry Irons
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 3:50 PM
Art Brieno Council Member Late 4:02 PM
Kalish Morrow Mayor Present 4:55 PM
Amanda Saltray Council Member Present 3:39 PM
Francisco Ramirez Council Member Absent

INVOCATION:

The invocation was led by Pastor Marks Curts.

FLAG SALUTE:

The flag salute was led by Mayor Morrow.

CLOSED SESSION ACTION REPORT:

None.

RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS:

Small Business Saturday 2022
Mayor Morrow issued a proclamation recognizing Small Business Saturday.

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).

7.D.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: 11.1.2022 (Clerk: 11.1.2022 Minutes)
Mayor Morrow, Vice Mayor Sharp, and Council Member Saltray discussed the meetings and events they attended.

Council Member Brieno had nothing to report.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

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

Bob Ramos expressed his concerns regarding the use of the ARPA funds. He suggested the funds be used to help people in the community. Mayor Morrow responded to his comments.

Gabriel Venegas expressed his concerns regarding the homeless and crime in his area of the city. (Hume Ave. and Shepard Dr.).

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.

City Manager Cifuentez pulled it em G. Motion to approve the consent calendar except for the items pulled for separate discussion.

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

7.D.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: 11.1.2022 (Clerk: 11.1.2022 Minutes)
G. Public Works: Approval of the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement for Tract No. 929, Unit No. 2 (13th Ave. and Devon St.)
H. 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.

PULLED ITEMS:

1. 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. [Item G]

Pulled by City Manager Cifuentez.

City Manager Cifuentez discussed the selection process and introduced Michelle Rubalcava Nielsen , Merksamer represent ative for the City of Hanford. Senior Counsel Michelle Rubalcava provided a brief overview of the firm and discussed the services to be provided . Ms. Rubalcava addressed the Council's questions and concerns.

Motion to approve.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Amanda Saltray, Council Member
SECONDER: Art Brieno, Council Member
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Morrow, Saltray
ABSENT: Ramirez
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 Co rridor 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 Infl uence (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).

Due to a conflict of interest with two Council Members, the public hearing was tabled unt il November 15, 2022.

7.D.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: 11.1.2022 (Clerk: 11.1.2022 Minutes)
RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 11/15/2022 7:00 PM
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Morrow, Saltray
ABSENT: Ramirez
GENERAL BUSINESS:

A. Public W orks: Approval 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.

Deputy Public Work Directors Jim Ross discussed the contract and invited 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
ABSENT: Ramirez
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
Deputy City Manager Jason Waters discussed the grant and the modification to add Wells 51 and 52 as potential projects. Dep. City Manager Waters answered questions from the Council.

Motion to approve as amended.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Art Brieno, Council Member
SECONDER: Diane Sharp, Vice Mayor
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Morrow, Saltray
ABSENT: R amirez
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 ma y 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
None.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mayor Morrow adjourned the meeting at 7:47 p.m.

7.D.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: 11.1.2022 (Clerk: 11.1.2022 Minutes)
Respectfully submitted,

Natalie Corral
City Clerk

7.D.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: 11.1.2022 (Clerk: 11.1.2022 Minutes)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/15/2022

AGENDA SECTION: E

SUBJECT:

Administration: Authorization to renew the annual contract with Integrated Avian Solutions to continue to provide Falconer services in Downtown Hanford, for an amount not to exceed $53,600 for Calendar Year 2023.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council, by motion, authorize the City Manager to renew the annual contract with Integrated Avian Solutions for an amount not to exceed $53,600, and approve an appropriation of $20,000.00 from the Central Parking and Improvement Fund and $33,600 from the General Fund to cover the expenditure.

BACKGROUND:

This renewal contract includes a $2,000 reduction in the contract price for 2022. Efficiencies gleaned over the past year allowed the contractor to modify the schedule and continue to provide services at a slightly lower overall cost.

Large concentrations of American crows gather to roost in downtown Hanford year-round, reaching the highest numbers in the fall and winter. They come from the surrounding agricultural areas and residential neighborhoods to begin assembling just before sunset. The birds eventually settle in to roost in street trees and on power lines, and during the course of the night leave an unsightly and unhygienic mess on the sidewalks, benches, restaurant tables, lamp posts, parked vehicles, and everything else beneath them. Pressure washing can be cost-prohibitive and does not address the root of the problem. With the move of Thursday Night Market Place into the Civic Park and the hugely successful Winter Wonderland, the City now has two signature events in the downtown that span 9 months out of the year. Those events amplify the need to keep the crows from roosting in the downtown area.

Up until 2020, the approach to dealing with a growing Crow problem in the Downtown has been largely reactive. Through the efforts of the Main Street Hanford organization, they were able to work with the Falconer to dramatically reduce the crow population in downtown Hanford. Main

7.E
Packet Pg. 26
Street Hanford continues to support the Crow Abatement and, accordingly, their board has voted to continue to support the program at a level of $10,000 for Calendar Year 2023.

Past results have proven that a year-long program with the firm Integrated Avian Solutions would be advantageous in relocating the Crow population to a more appropriate roosting and nesting environment away from local businesses.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Appropriations of $20,000 from Fund 025 Central Parking and Improvments and $33,600 from the General Fund.

ATTACHMENTS:

Hanford Crow Proposal_2023

7.E
Packet Pg. 27

INTEGRATED AVIAN SOLUTIONS Falconry-based Bird Abatement for Industry & Agriculture California, Oregon, Washington www.avian-solutions.com 845.532.5401 Bird Abatement Proposal 8 October 2022 PURCHASER City of Hanford PURCHASER’S REPRESENTATIVE Mario Cifuentez (City Manager) – 559.585.2516 Integrated Avian Solutions (Vendor) has successfully cleared roosting crows from an approximately 30-block area of downtown Hanford, CA for the past 3 winters. Due to the project’s success we began providing year-round services over an expanded project area in 2021. Our work has provided an effective solution to the long-standing crow problem in Hanford, and virtually eliminated unsightly crow droppings. The need for a year-round crow abatement program in Hanford is evident and has been requested by several prominent businesses, including FAST Credit Union, Smart & Final, Aria Health Clinic, and Staples. We propose continuing the year-round program in 2023 (January 1 – December 31). The project area (Page 5) includes the core of Hanford’s BID as well as Woodrow Wilson and the surrounding businesses along 11th Ave. This proposal offers considerable value, in that we can expand the project area and deliver the work year-round for less than a 25 % increase over the cost of our previous 6-month program. Our proposed Schedule of Services is outlined on Page 2. Given the success of our program in 2021 and 2022 we suggest this same scheduling. Services for year-round work will be billed at $400 per day and total program costs will not exceed $53,600 for the entirety of 2023. This is actually a slight reduction from our program costs in 2022. Thank you for the opportunity to present our proposal. We look forward to helping you keep your community clean again this year. Sincerely, Adam Baz Kort Clayton Project Manager Principal 845.532.5401 971.217.0080

7.E.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Hanford Crow Proposal_2023 (Admin: 2023 Crow Abatement Contract)

Hanford Crow Proposal 2023 Page 2

SCHEDULE OF SERVICES Month Shifts/week Total shifts Rate Cost January 3 12 400 4,800 February 3 12 400 4,800 March 3 14 400 5,600 April 3 13 400 5,200 May 2 9 400 3,600 June 2 9 400 3,600 July 2 8 400 3,200 August 2 9 400 3,600 September 2 9 400 3,600 October 3 13 400 5,200 November 3 13 400 5,200 December 3 13 400 5,200 $53,600

7.E.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Hanford Crow Proposal_2023 (Admin: 2023 Crow Abatement Contract)

Hanford Crow Proposal 2023 Page 3

SCOPE OF WORK EXISTING SITUATION Impressive numbers of American crows gather to roost in downtown Hanford year-round, reaching the highest numbers in the fall and winter. They come from the surrounding agricultural areas and residential neighborhoods to begin assembling just before sunset. The birds eventually settle in to roost in street trees and on power lines, and during the course of the night leave an unsightly and unhygienic mess on the sidewalks, benches, restaurant tables, lamp posts, parked vehicles, and everything else beneath them. Pressure washing can be cost-prohibitive and does not address the root of the problem. Crows have roosted in downtown Hanford for decades. However, the population has escalated in recent years to levels that are now deemed problematic by much of the affected business community. Local businesses have filed complaints with the city and with Main Street Hanford. Past efforts made by City Council and the Hanford Police Department–including shooting crows and amplifying predator calls–have been unsuccessful and inhumane. At the request of Main Street Hanford, we first initiated a falconry-based crow control program on 1 October 2018, covering 30 blocks in historic downtown Hanford. Upon arrival we found high numbers of crows roosting in street trees throughout the BID, with notable pockets around the McDonalds, Burger King, FAST Credit Union, train station, and car dealership on 11th Ave. Within weeks of initiating our services the crows were absent from the project area, and remained at bay for the duration of the program. We were able to achieve these same results the following 2 years. Businesses have been exceptionally pleased with the results. We are the only company to have successfully implemented a crow abatement project of this scale, and we look forward to bringing our experience and knowledge to further resolve your crow problem in Hanford. BIRD CONTROL PROCESS Bird abatement is accomplished through hazing, which is any number of methods used to intimidate and displace pest birds. Conventional hazing tools such as amplified predator calls, reflective mylar strips, raptor decoys, propane canons, and pyrotechnic noisemakers only yield temporary results because they quickly lose effectiveness as pest birds become acclimated. We use a falconry-based hazing program. This method works, and because birds have an intrinsic fear of raptors, efficacy does not diminish. The sight of a hawk or falcon flying with purpose always compels birds to abandon what they are doing and flee the area. Birds never become habituated to the threat posed by a live, free-flying raptor. Our abatement team will include two licensed falconers with Harris’s hawks. The team will strategically clear the project area by “sweeping” crows from primary roosting corridors. Specifically, a falconer will walk along a street occupied by crows and their hawk will fly from perch to perch (including trees, signs, buildings, and the falconer’s glove). This approach will elicit a strong antipredator response from the crows, which will retreat as the hawk approaches. The crows will quickly learn that the project area is no longer a comfortable or safe place for them to loiter or roost. Falconers will work both independently and in coordination to efficiently clear the entire project area during each shift. Our team will adapt tactics to achieve maximum impact each night. For example, each falconer may work separate areas with their hawks, or we may work together by deploying

7.E.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Hanford Crow Proposal_2023 (Admin: 2023 Crow Abatement Contract)

Hanford Crow Proposal 2023 Page 4

multiple hawks in the same area. We will coordinate between falconers and execute flanking maneuvers to steer retreating crows outside of the project area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Vendor shall furnish the labor and falconry-trained raptors to assist in the abatement of roosting crows within the project area. Vendor is well experienced in bird abatement and possesses the relevant licenses and permit. All raptors used will be legally allowed for bird abatement. B. Services will commence on 1 January 2023. C. Services will include mobilization/demobilization to and from the project area, assessment and observation of pest birds, free flying of raptors, raptor feeding and maintenance, equipment maintenance, and tracking of wayward or lost raptors if required. Raptors are the primary method of bird abatement, but our falconers may use other tools such as noisemakers and visual deterrents (e.g., tree tappers, laser pointers, whistles, etc.). D. Abatement activities will begin around sunset when crows are staging to roost. Shifts will end once crows have retreated from the project area. Some pre-dawn shifts may also be implemented if needed. E. Vendor and Vendor’s falconers are independent contractors and are not employees of Purchaser. F. Purchaser shall assist Vendor in properly advertising the project and notifying relevant stakeholders (e.g., Police Department, City officials, local businesses, etc.) of the proposed activities. G. Vendor shall submit monthly invoices to Purchaser. Payment terms are Net 15. Invoices remaining unpaid beyond thirty (30) days may be subject to service charge of 5% per annum. H. This Proposal is conﬁdential and contains proprietary information and intellectual property of Vendor. The rates, schedule, scope-of-work or other elements may not be disclosed to anyone outside this agreement without the express written permission of Vendor. I. This agreement incorporates Vendor’s standard Terms and Conditions (available upon request).

7.E.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Hanford Crow Proposal_2023 (Admin: 2023 Crow Abatement Contract)

Hanford Crow Proposal 2023 Page 5

PROJECT AREA MAP

7.E.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Hanford Crow Proposal_2023 (Admin: 2023 Crow Abatement Contract)

Hanford Crow Proposal 2023 Page 6

DEMONSTRATION OF RESULTS The following images provide a before-and-after look at the crow situation during our work in Hanford. “Before” images are from October 2018, when the project began. “After” images are from December 2018, part way through our hazing efforts. The shaded green represents areas of crow activity, and the red line delineates the current project area.

7.E.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Hanford Crow Proposal_2023 (Admin: 2023 Crow Abatement Contract)

Hanford Crow Proposal 2023 Page 7

ABOUT US Integrated Avian Solutions is a network of talented falconers, experienced wildlife biologists, and passionate bird management professionals. We take a long and comprehensive view of every new opportunity and bring all our faculties and resources to bear with the singular goal of solving your bird problem. Our company is unique in that it is run and managed by falconers who also hold graduate degrees in wildlife biology. Thus, we offer a deep and unparalleled understanding of avian biology, which is invaluable for managing nuisance bird problems. Falconry is the foundation of our business and the most powerful bird management tool on the market. When everything else falls short, pest birds will not ignore the threat posed by a free-flying falcon or hawk. Our falconry programs are turn-key, natural, non-lethal, and sustainable. Kort Clayton (Principal) is a Master Falconer with 25 years of experience. He has delivered and managed bird abatement services for a broad spectrum of clients, including vineyards, berry farms, solid waste, commercial real estate, and heavy industry. Kort holds an M.Sc. in Wildlife Biology and is well versed in both state and federal wildlife regulations from his 15 years of environmental consulting experience. He was a former Director and President of the Oregon Falconers Association. Adam Baz (Project Manager) is a licensed falconer and holds an M.Sc. in Avian Biology from Portland State University. He has worked as a wildlife biologist for over 10 years throughout California and Oregon, focusing on birds and human-wildlife conflicts. He delivers abatement services and manages contracts throughout central and southern California.

7.E.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Hanford Crow Proposal_2023 (Admin: 2023 Crow Abatement Contract)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/15/2022

AGENDA SECTION: F

SUBJECT:

Administration: Approval of Amendment No. 2 of the License Agreement between the Carnegie Museum of Kings County and the City of Hanford to extend the term of the agreement until December 31, 2023

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council, by motion, approve Amendment No. 2 of the License Agreement between the Carnegie Museum of Kings County and the City of Hanford to extend the term of the agreement until December 31, 2023

BACKGROUND:

The Carnegie Museum of Kings County (CMKC) has occupied the City's Carnegie building since June of 2021 and have made significant improvements to the property and hosted several different exhibits. By all measures of success, CMKC has done a great job of developing their museum and building a reputation of offering items and exhibits that are of value to the citizens of Hanford. As the City and CMKC continue to work towards a long term lease or the possible sale of the property located at 109 E. Eighth Street, both parties agree that it is of mutual interest to extend the term of the current Agreement.

The major points of the current Agreement are as follows:

· Term: CMKC may occupy the property during the period January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023.

· License Fee: CMKC will pay ten dollars ($10.00) to the City for the right to occupy the property.

· City Repair Responsibilities: The City will address Fire Code issues associated with the former library building and will replace the building’s electrical panel. The City will also

7.F
Packet Pg. 35
be responsible for maintaining electrical, air conditioning, and plumbing systems and the property’s landscaping; provided however, the City’s responsibilities will be limited to the electrical panel and Fire Code work plus up to five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) in additional maintenance and repair work.

· Day-To-Day Maintenance: CMKC will be responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of the property, and CMKC will be allowed to paint the interior walls and ceilings of the former library building.

Should sales terms be successfully negotiated with CMKC, a Long-term lease or Purchase & Sale Agreement will be prepared and will be submitted to the Council for review in the future.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

Lic Agreement Amendment No 2
Lic Agreement Amendment No 1
Carnegie Agreement 2021

7.F
Packet Pg. 36

7.F.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Lic Agreement Amendment No 2 (Admin: License Amendment with CMKC)

7.F.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Lic Agreement Amendment No 2 (Admin: License Amendment with CMKC)

7.F.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Lic Agreement Amendment No 2 (Admin: License Amendment with CMKC)

7.F.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Lic Agreement Amendment No 2 (Admin: License Amendment with CMKC)

7.F.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Lic Agreement Amendment No 1 (Admin: License Amendment with CMKC)

7.F.c
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Carnegie Agreement 2021 (Admin: License Amendment with CMKC)

7.F.c
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Carnegie Agreement 2021 (Admin: License Amendment with CMKC)

7.F.c
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Carnegie Agreement 2021 (Admin: License Amendment with CMKC)

7.F.c
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Carnegie Agreement 2021 (Admin: License Amendment with CMKC)

7.F.c
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Carnegie Agreement 2021 (Admin: License Amendment with CMKC)

7.F.c
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Carnegie Agreement 2021 (Admin: License Amendment with CMKC)

7.F.c
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Carnegie Agreement 2021 (Admin: License Amendment with CMKC)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/15/2022

AGENDA SECTION: G

SUBJECT:

Administration: Approval of the City of Hanford Salary Schedules, as required by CCR 570.5, to reflect the state minimum wage increase for part-time employees and recent increases approved through the labor negotiation process and authorization for City Administration to amend all other documents as may be necessary to implement the updates.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council, by motion, approve the attached salary schedules to reflect the state minimum wage increase for part -time employees and recent increases approved through the labor negotiation process and authorize administration to amend all other documents as may be necessary to implement the updates.

BACKGROUND:

Pursuant to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) 570.5, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) requires that a publicly available pay schedule be used to determine pay rates. Additional ly, pay rates shall be limited to the amount listed on a pay schedule and must meet all of the following eight requirements:

1. Be duly approved and adopted by the employer's governing body in accordance with requirements of applicable public meetings laws

2. Identify the position title for every employee position

3. Show the pay rate as a single amount or multiple amounts within a range for each identified position

4. Indicate the time base, including, but not limited to, whether the time base is hourl y, daily, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, or annually

5. Be posted at the office of the employer or immediately accessible and available for public review from the employer during normal business hours or posted on the employer's website

6. Indicate an effective date and date of any revisions

7. Is retained by the employer and available for public inspection for not less than five years

7.G
Packet Pg. 49

8. Does not reference another document in lieu of disclosing the pay rate

Staff intends to continue to obtain City C ouncil approval on a frequent basis to satisfy the requirements set forth by the California Code of Regulations (CCR) 570.5.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The bargaining group increases were previously approved by City Council and 21/22 budget also included step increases to absorb potential increases. After labor negotiations some increases were higher than budgeted, however, staff believes most will be covered in exisiting budget but will provide an update at a mid year budget review.

ATTACHMENTS:

COH Salary Schedule Description
COH Part Time Salary Schedule 2023
HPOA Salary Schedule 11-15-22
Fire Salary Schedule 11-15-22
EMEA & Unrepresented Salary Schedule 11-15-22
SEIU Salary Schedule 11-15-22
GEMA Salary Schedule 11-15-22

7.G
Packet Pg. 50

CITY OF HANFORD

SALARY SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION
(Approved by City Council on November 15, 2022)

The City of Hanford (City) has created individual salary schedules based on bargaining group representation, if applicable. Below is additional information that identifies bargaining group, overtime and FLSA designation.

BARGAINING GROUP DESIGNATION
Executive Management Employees Association EMEA
General Employees Management Association GEMA
International Association of Firefighters IAFF
Hanford Police Officers Association HPOA
Service Employees International Union Local 521 SEIU
Unrepresented Unrep
Not Applicable NA

OVERTIME DESIGNATION
Management/Professional Employee 1. No compensation for overtime work Confidential/Other Employee 2. Shall be paid for overtime work General Employee 3. Shall be paid for overtime work
Fire/Police Employee 4. Shall be paid for overtime work

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) DESIGNATION
E – Exempt
40 - 40 hour, 7 day work period (non-exempt)
14 - 86 hours/14 day work period (7k exemption)
24 - 182 hour/24 day work period (7k exemption)

For detailed salary information for full-time and part-time job classifications, please refer to the separate salary schedules.

7.G.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: COH Salary Schedule Description (Admin: Approval of the City of Hanford Salary Schedules) Title
Bargaining
Group
Designation
Overtime
Designation
FLSA
Designation
Airport Manager $25.00 to $25.00 NA 3 40
Certified Instructor $15.50 to $21.50 NA 3 40
Clerical Support $15.50 to $17.50 NA 3 40
Code Enforcement Officer $15.50 to $17.50 NA 3 40
Community Service Officer $15.50 to $17.50 NA 3 40
Custodian $15.50 to $17.50 NA 3 40
Engineering Technician Aide $15.50 to $17.50 NA 3 40
Facilities Host $15.50 to $17.50 NA 3 40
Fire Inspector $25.00 to $25.00 NA 3 40
Fleet Mechanic (Helper) $15.50 to $23.50 NA 3 40
Graffiti Control Officer $15.50 to $17.50 NA 3 40
Intern $15.50 to $17.50 NA 3 40
Management Intern $15.50 to $20.50 NA 3 40
Meter Reader $15.50 to $17.50 NA 3 40
Paint Program Coordinator/Crew Leader $15.50 to $17.50 NA 3 40 Parking Control Officer $15.50 to $17.50 NA 3 40
Pool Manager $16.50 to $18.50 NA 3 40
Parks/Public Works Laborer $15.50 to $17.50 NA 3 40
Recreation Leader I $15.50 to $16.50 NA 3 40
Recreation Leader II $16.00 to $17.00 NA 3 40
Recreation Leader III $16.50 to $17.50 NA 3 40
Refuse Collector $15.50 to $19.00 NA 3 40
Reserve Police Officer (Level I) $22.24 to $26.40 NA 3 40 Sports Coordinator $22.00 to $22.00 NA 3 40
Sports Official $15.50 to $21.50 NA 3 40
Hourly Rate
Rates listed above go into effect December 26, 2022 (approved by City Council on November 15, 2022) All positions, to which appointments are made for part-time work, as outlined in the Hanford Merit Personnel System Rules and Regulations, may be paid at an hourly rate as high as Step “C/3” of the range to which the position has been allocated. Part-time appointments made at higher than Step “C/3” must be approved by the City Manager. If a part-time employee works more than 1,000 hours in a fiscal year he/she must become a member of CalPERS with the employee and the City making the appropriate contribution as defined by the City’s CalPERS contract. The employee will remain a CalPERS member until termination.

City of Hanford Salary Schedule
(Part-Time Employees)

7.G.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: COH Part Time Salary Schedule 2023 (Admin: Approval of the City of Hanford Salary Schedules)

BARGAINING OVERTIME FLSA SALARY
UNIT JOB TITLE DESIGNATION DESIGNATION RANGE 1/MIN 2 3 4 5/MAX 1/MIN 2 3 4 5/MAX HPOA Police Cadet 4 40 44 $3,267 $3,431 $3,602 $3,782 $3,971 18.85 19.79 20.78 21.82 22.91 HPOA Police Officer/Investigator* 4 14 105 $5,995 $6,295 $6,609 $6,940 $7,287 34.59 36.32 38.13 40.04 42.04 44.19 46.45 Longevity
HPOA Police Corporal 4 14 115 $6,622 $6,953 $7,301 $7,666 $8,049 38.20 40.12 42.12 44.23 46.44 48.76 HPOA Police Sergeant 4 14 130 $7,688 $8,073 $8,476 $8,900 $9,345 44.35 46.57 48.90 51.35 53.91 56.61 HPOA Police Lieutenant 1 E 144 $8,837 $9,279 $9,743 $10,230 $10,742 50.98 53.53 56.21 59.02 61.97 HPOA Police Captain 1 E 152 $9,570 $10,048 $10,550 $11,078 $11,632 55.21 57.97 60.87 63.91 67.11

MONTHLY SALARY HOURLY SALARY
Salary rates last updated effective 8-8-22 per MOU agreement approved by City Council on 8-2-22 Specialty Pay
*If EE is receiving specialty pay and is not at step 5/MAX they will receive the pay of the next step in the salary range.

Longevity and/or
Please refer to the City of Hanford Salary Schedule Description for Bargaining Group, Overtime and FLSA Designation

7.G.c
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: HPOA Salary Schedule 11-15-22 (Admin: Approval of the City of Hanford Salary Schedules)

BARGAINING OVERTIME FLSA SALARY
UNIT JOB TITLE DESIGNATION DESIGNATION RANGE 1/MIN 2 3 4 5/MAX 1/MIN 2 3 4 5/MAX IAFF Firefighter 4 24 61 $5,417 $5,688 $5,972 $6,271 $6,585 22.32 23.44 24.61 25.84 27.13 IAFF Fire Engineer 4 24 71 $5,984 $6,283 $6,597 $6,927 $7,274 24.66 25.89 27.19 28.55 29.97 IAFF Fire Captain 4 24 88 $7,087 $7,441 $7,813 $8,204 $8,614 29.20 30.66 32.20 33.81 35.50 IAFF Fire Battalion Chief 4 E 109 $8,734 $9,170 $9,629 $10,110 $10,616 35.99 37.79 39.68 41.66 43.75 IAFF Fire Battalion Chief* 1 E 142 $8,663 $9,096 $9,551 $10,029 $10,530 49.98 52.48 55.10 57.86 60.75 Please refer to the City of Hanford Salary Schedule Description for Bargaining Group, Overtime and FLSA Designation

MONTHLY SALARY HOURLY SALARY
*2080 hours worked annually
Salary rates last updated effecive 7-25-22 per MOU agreement approved by City Council on 7-19-22

7.G.d
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Fire Salary Schedule 11-15-22 (Admin: Approval of the City of Hanford Salary Schedules)

BARGAINING OVERTIME FLSA SALARY
UNIT JOB TITLE DESIGNATION DESIGNATION RANGE 1/MIN 2 3 4 5/MAX 1/MIN 2 3 4 5/MAX EMEA
Community Development
Director 1 E 165 $10,891 $11,436 $12,007 $12,608 $13,238 62.83 65.97 69.27 72.74 76.37 EMEA Finance Director 1 E 171 $11,561 $12,139 $12,746 $13,383 $14,053 66.70 70.03 73.54 77.21 81.07 EMEA Fire Chief 1 E 171 $11,561 $12,139 $12,746 $13,383 $14,053 66.70 70.03 73.54 77.21 81.07 EMEA
Parks & Community Services
Director 1 E 164 $10,783 $11,322 $11,888 $12,483 $13,107 62.21 65.32 68.59 72.02 75.62 EMEA Police Chief 1 E 177 $12,272 $12,886 $13,530 $14,207 $14,917 70.80 74.34 78.06 81.96 86.06 EMEA Public Works Director 1 E 179 $12,519 $13,145 $13,802 $14,492 $15,217 72.22 75.84 79.63 83.61 87.79 Unrepresented Human Resources Manager 1 E 153 $9,665 $10,149 $10,656 $11,189 $11,748 55.76 58.55 61.48 64.55 67.78 Unrepresented Deputy City Manager 1 E 185 $13,289 $13,954 $14,651 $15,384 $16,153 76.67 80.50 84.53 88.75 93.19 Unrepresented City Manager 1 E 198 $15,124 $15,881 $16,675 $17,508 $18,384 87.26 91.62 96.20 101.01 106.06

MONTHLY SALARY HOURLY SALARY
Salary rates last updated effective 7-25-22 per agreements approved by City Council on 7-19-22 Please refer to the City of Hanford Salary Schedule Description for Bargaining Group, Overtime and FLSA Designation

7.G.e
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: EMEA & Unrepresented Salary Schedule 11-15-22 (Admin: Approval of the City of Hanford

BARGAINING OVERTIME FLSA SALARY
UNIT JOB TITLE DESIGNATION DESIGNATION RANGE 1/MIN 2 3 4 5/MAX 1/MIN 2 3 4 5/MAX SEIU Office Assistant I 3 40 36 $3,017 $3,168 $3,327 $3,493 $3,667 17.41 18.28 19.19 20.15 21.16 SEIU Custodian 3 40 43 $3,235 $3,397 $3,566 $3,745 $3,932 18.66 19.60 20.58 21.60 22.68 SEIU Office Assistant II 3 40 46 $3,333 $3,500 $3,675 $3,858 $4,051 19.23 20.19 21.20 22.26 23.37 SEIU Parking Control Officer 3 40 46 $3,333 $3,500 $3,675 $3,858 $4,051 19.23 20.19 21.20 22.26 23.37 SEIU
Community Enhancement
Officer 3 40 53 $3,573 $3,752 $3,940 $4,137 $4,343 20.62 21.65 22.73 23.87 25.06 SEIU Maintenance Worker I 3 40 53 $3,573 $3,752 $3,940 $4,137 $4,343 20.62 21.65 22.73 23.87 25.06 SEIU Senior Custodian 3 40 53 $3,573 $3,752 $3,940 $4,137 $4,343 20.62 21.65 22.73 23.87 25.06 SEIU Police Records Assistant 3 40 54 $3,609 $3,790 $3,979 $4,178 $4,387 20.82 21.86 22.96 24.10 25.31 SEIU Accounting Clerk 3 40 55 $3,645 $3,827 $4,019 $4,220 $4,431 21.03 22.08 23.19 24.34 25.56 SEIU
Development Services
Assistant 3 40 56 $3,682 $3,866 $4,059 $4,262 $4,475 21.24 22.30 23.42 24.59 25.82 SEIU Meter Reader 3 40 56 $3,682 $3,866 $4,059 $4,262 $4,475 21.24 22.30 23.42 24.59 25.82 SEIU Police Service Technician 3 40 56 $3,682 $3,866 $4,059 $4,262 $4,475 21.24 22.30 23.42 24.59 25.82 SEIU WWTP/OIT 3 40 56 $3,682 $3,866 $4,059 $4,262 $4,475 21.24 22.30 23.42 24.59 25.82 SEIU
Facilities Maintenance
Technician I 3 40 58 $3,756 $3,943 $4,141 $4,348 $4,565 21.67 22.75 23.89 25.08 26.34 SEIU Animal Control Technician 3 40 61 $3,869 $4,063 $4,266 $4,479 $4,703 22.32 23.44 24.61 25.84 27.13 SEIU
Property and Evidence
Technician 3 40 61 $3,869 $4,063 $4,266 $4,479 $4,703 22.32 23.44 24.61 25.84 27.13 SEIU Refuse Collector 3 40 62 $3,908 $4,104 $4,309 $4,524 $4,750 22.55 23.67 24.86 26.10 27.41 SEIU Sweeper Operator 3 40 62 $3,908 $4,104 $4,309 $4,524 $4,750 22.55 23.67 24.86 26.10 27.41 SEIU Maintenance Worker II 3 40 63 $3,947 $4,145 $4,352 $4,569 $4,798 22.77 23.91 25.11 26.36 27.68 SEIU Utilities Maintenance Worker I 3 40 63 $3,947 $4,145 $4,352 $4,569 $4,798 22.77 23.91 25.11 26.36 27.68 SEIU Fleet Mechanic I 3 40 64 $3,987 $4,186 $4,395 $4,615 $4,846 23.00 24.15 25.36 26.63 27.96 SEIU
Senior Police Records
Assistant 3 40 64 $3,987 $4,186 $4,395 $4,615 $4,846 23.00 24.15 25.36 26.63 27.96 SEIU Administrative Assistant 3 40 65 $4,027 $4,228 $4,439 $4,661 $4,894 23.23 24.39 25.61 26.89 28.24 SEIU
Facilities Maintenance
Technician II 3 40 68 $4,149 $4,356 $4,574 $4,802 $5,043 23.93 25.13 26.39 27.71 29.09 SEIU Heavy Equipment Operator 3 40 68 $4,149 $4,356 $4,574 $4,802 $5,043 23.93 25.13 26.39 27.71 29.09 SEIU Shop and Parts Specialist 3 40 69 $4,190 $4,400 $4,620 $4,850 $5,093 24.17 25.38 26.65 27.98 29.38

MONTHLY SALARY HOURLY SALARY

7.G.f
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: SEIU Salary Schedule 11-15-22 (Admin: Approval of the City of Hanford Salary Schedules) SEIU Communications Dispatcher 3 40 71 $4,274 $4,488 $4,712 $4,948 $5,195 24.66 25.89 27.19 28.55 29.97 SEIU
Development Services
Technician 3 40 71 $4,274 $4,488 $4,712 $4,948 $5,195 24.66 25.89 27.19 28.55 29.97 SEIU WWTP Operator I 3 40 71 $4,274 $4,488 $4,712 $4,948 $5,195 24.66 25.89 27.19 28.55 29.97 SEIU Refuse Service Worker 3 40 72 $4,317 $4,533 $4,759 $4,997 $5,247 24.91 26.15 27.46 28.83 30.27 SEIU Engineering Technician I 3 40 73 $4,360 $4,578 $4,807 $5,047 $5,300 25.15 26.41 27.73 29.12 30.58 SEIU
Landscape Services
Technician 3 40 73 $4,360 $4,578 $4,807 $5,047 $5,300 25.15 26.41 27.73 29.12 30.58 SEIU Senior Maintenance Worker 3 40 73 $4,360 $4,578 $4,807 $5,047 $5,300 25.15 26.41 27.73 29.12 30.58 SEIU Utilities Maintenance Worker II 3 40 73 $4,360 $4,578 $4,807 $5,047 $5,300 25.15 26.41 27.73 29.12 30.58 SEIU Fleet Mechanic II 3 40 74 $4,404 $4,624 $4,855 $5,098 $5,353 25.41 26.68 28.01 29.41 30.88 SEIU Administrative Technician 3 40 75 $4,448 $4,670 $4,904 $5,149 $5,406 25.66 26.94 28.29 29.71 31.19 SEIU Housing Program Specialist 3 40 75 $4,448 $4,670 $4,904 $5,149 $5,406 25.66 26.94 28.29 29.71 31.19 SEIU
Water Conservation
Technician 3 40 75 $4,448 $4,670 $4,904 $5,149 $5,406 25.66 26.94 28.29 29.71 31.19 SEIU Recreation Coordinator 3 40 77 $4,537 $4,764 $5,002 $5,252 $5,515 26.18 27.49 28.86 30.30 31.82 SEIU Senior Refuse Collector 3 40 77 $4,537 $4,764 $5,002 $5,252 $5,515 26.18 27.49 28.86 30.30 31.82 SEIU Computer Technician 3 40 78 $4,583 $4,812 $5,052 $5,305 $5,570 26.44 27.76 29.15 30.61 32.14 SEIU WWTP Operator II 3 40 81 $4,721 $4,958 $5,205 $5,466 $5,739 27.24 28.60 30.03 31.53 33.11 SEIU Construction Inspector I 3 40 83 $4,816 $5,057 $5,310 $5,576 $5,854 27.79 29.18 30.63 32.17 33.77 SEIU Engineering Technician II 3 40 83 $4,816 $5,057 $5,310 $5,576 $5,854 27.79 29.18 30.63 32.17 33.77 SEIU
Senior Utilities Maintenance
Worker 3 40 83 $4,816 $5,057 $5,310 $5,576 $5,854 27.79 29.18 30.63 32.17 33.77 SEIU Senior Fleet Mechanic 3 40 84 $4,865 $5,108 $5,363 $5,631 $5,913 28.06 29.47 30.94 32.49 34.11 SEIU Building Inspector I 3 40 85 $4,913 $5,159 $5,417 $5,688 $5,972 28.35 29.76 31.25 32.81 34.45 SEIU Code Compliance Officer 3 40 85 $4,913 $5,159 $5,417 $5,688 $5,972 28.35 29.76 31.25 32.81 34.45 SEIU Traffic Control Technician 3 40 88 $5,062 $5,315 $5,581 $5,860 $6,153 29.20 30.66 32.20 33.81 35.50 SEIU
Communications Dispatch
Supervisor 3 40 92 $5,268 $5,531 $5,807 $6,098 $6,403 30.39 31.91 33.50 35.18 36.94 SEIU Construction Inspector II 3 40 93 $5,320 $5,586 $5,866 $6,159 $6,467 30.69 32.23 33.84 35.53 37.31 SEIU Building Inspector II 3 40 95 $5,427 $5,699 $5,983 $6,283 $6,597 31.31 32.88 34.52 36.25 38.06 SEIU Assistant Planner 3 40 96 $5,481 $5,756 $6,043 $6,345 $6,663 31.62 33.20 34.87 36.61 38.44 SEIU
Construction
Coordinator/Inspector 3 40 103 $5,877 $6,171 $6,479 $6,803 $7,143 33.90 35.60 37.38 39.25 41.21

7.G.f
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: SEIU Salary Schedule 11-15-22 (Admin: Approval of the City of Hanford Salary Schedules) Salary rates last updated effective 10-3-22 per MOU agreement approved by City Council on 9-20-22 Please refer to the City of Hanford Salary Schedule Description for Bargaining Group, Overtime and FLSA Designation

7.G.f
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: SEIU Salary Schedule 11-15-22 (Admin: Approval of the City of Hanford Salary Schedules)

BARGAINING OVERTIME FLSA SALARY
UNIT JOB TITLE DESIGNATION DESIGNATION RANGE 1/MIN 2 3 4 5/MAX 1/MIN 2 3 4 5/MAX Conf/Mid
Management Accounting Technician I 2 40 70 $4,232 $4,444 $4,666 $4,899 $5,144 24.42 25.64 26.92 28.26 29.68 Conf/Mid
Management Payroll Specialist 2 40 70 $4,232 $4,444 $4,666 $4,899 $5,144 24.42 25.64 26.92 28.26 29.68 Conf/Mid
Management Administrative Specialist 2 40 77 $4,537 $4,764 $5,002 $5,252 $5,515 26.18 27.49 28.86 30.30 31.82 Conf/Mid
Management Human Resources Technician 2 40 77 $4,537 $4,764 $5,002 $5,252 $5,515 26.18 27.49 28.86 30.30 31.82 Conf/Mid
Management Accounting Technician II 2 40 80 $4,675 $4,908 $5,154 $5,412 $5,682 26.97 28.32 29.73 31.22 32.78 Conf/Mid
Management Utility Billing Specialist 1 E 83 $4,816 $5,057 $5,310 $5,576 $5,854 27.79 29.18 30.63 32.17 33.77 Conf/Mid
Management Recycling Coordinator 2 40 84 $4,865 $5,108 $5,363 $5,631 $5,913 28.06 29.47 30.94 32.49 34.11 Conf/Mid
Management Fire Prevention Coordinator 1 E 85 $4,913 $5,159 $5,417 $5,688 $5,972 28.35 29.76 31.25 32.81 34.45 Conf/Mid
Management Parks Supervisor 1 E 86 $4,962 $5,210 $5,471 $5,744 $6,032 28.63 30.06 31.56 33.14 34.80 Conf/Mid
Management Administrative Analyst I 1 E 91 $5,215 $5,476 $5,750 $6,037 $6,339 30.09 31.59 33.17 34.83 36.57 Conf/Mid
Management Fleet Supervisor 1 E 91 $5,215 $5,476 $5,750 $6,037 $6,339 30.09 31.59 33.17 34.83 36.57 Conf/Mid
Management Payroll Analyst 1 E 91 $5,215 $5,476 $5,750 $6,037 $6,339 30.09 31.59 33.17 34.83 36.57 Conf/Mid
Management Recreation Supervisor 1 E 91 $5,215 $5,476 $5,750 $6,037 $6,339 30.09 31.59 33.17 34.83 36.57 Conf/Mid
Management
Regulatory Compliance
Analyst 1 E 91 $5,215 $5,476 $5,750 $6,037 $6,339 30.09 31.59 33.17 34.83 36.57 Conf/Mid
Management Refuse Supervisor 1 E 94 $5,373 $5,642 $5,924 $6,220 $6,531 31.00 32.55 34.18 35.89 37.68 Conf/Mid
Management
Sanitary Sewer Collection
Supervisor 1 E 96 $5,481 $5,756 $6,043 $6,345 $6,663 31.62 33.20 34.87 36.61 38.44 Conf/Mid
Management Code Compliance Supervisor 1 E 97 $5,536 $5,813 $6,104 $6,409 $6,729 31.94 33.54 35.21 36.97 38.82 Conf/Mid
Management Accountant 1 E 98 $5,592 $5,871 $6,165 $6,473 $6,797 32.26 33.87 35.57 37.34 39.21 Conf/Mid
Management Streets Supervisor 1 E 98 $5,592 $5,871 $6,165 $6,473 $6,797 32.26 33.87 35.57 37.34 39.21 Conf/Mid
Management Utilities Supervisor 1 E 100 $5,704 $5,989 $6,289 $6,603 $6,933 32.91 34.55 36.28 38.09 40.00 Conf/Mid
Management Administrative Analyst II 1 E 101 $5,761 $6,049 $6,352 $6,669 $7,003 33.24 34.90 36.64 38.48 40.40 Conf/Mid
Management Housing Analyst 1 E 101 $5,761 $6,049 $6,352 $6,669 $7,003 33.24 34.90 36.64 38.48 40.40 Conf/Mid
Management Plans Examiner 1 E 103 $5,877 $6,171 $6,479 $6,803 $7,143 33.90 35.60 37.38 39.25 41.21 Conf/Mid
Management WWTP Supervisor 1 E 103 $5,877 $6,171 $6,479 $6,803 $7,143 33.90 35.60 37.38 39.25 41.21 Conf/Mid
Management Assistant Engineer 1 E 104 $5,936 $6,232 $6,544 $6,871 $7,215 34.24 35.96 37.75 39.64 41.62

MONTHLY SALARY HOURLY SALARY

7.G.g
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: GEMA Salary Schedule 11-15-22 (Admin: Approval of the City of Hanford Salary Schedules) Conf/Mid
Management Human Resources Analyst 1 E 104 $5,936 $6,232 $6,544 $6,871 $7,215 34.24 35.96 37.75 39.64 41.62 Conf/Mid
Management Associate Planner 1 E 106 $6,055 $6,358 $6,676 $7,009 $7,360 34.93 36.68 38.51 40.44 42.46 Conf/Mid
Management Building Superintendent 1 E 107 $6,115 $6,421 $6,742 $7,079 $7,433 35.28 37.05 38.90 40.84 42.88 Conf/Mid
Management Fleet Superintendent 1 E 107 $6,115 $6,421 $6,742 $7,079 $7,433 35.28 37.05 38.90 40.84 42.88 Conf/Mid
Management Risk Management Analyst 1 E 107 $6,115 $6,421 $6,742 $7,079 $7,433 35.28 37.05 38.90 40.84 42.88 Conf/Mid
Management Financial Analyst 1 E 111 $6,364 $6,682 $7,016 $7,367 $7,735 36.71 38.55 40.48 42.50 44.63 Conf/Mid
Management Purchasing Agent 1 E 111 $6,364 $6,682 $7,016 $7,367 $7,735 36.71 38.55 40.48 42.50 44.63 Conf/Mid
Management Senior Administrative Analyst 1 E 111 $6,364 $6,682 $7,016 $7,367 $7,735 36.71 38.55 40.48 42.50 44.63 Conf/Mid
Management
Police Support Services
Administrator 1 E 112 $6,427 $6,749 $7,086 $7,441 $7,813 37.08 38.94 40.88 42.93 45.07 Conf/Mid
Management Senior Plans Examiner 1 E 113 $6,492 $6,816 $7,157 $7,515 $7,891 37.45 39.32 41.29 43.36 45.52 Conf/Mid
Management Fire Marshal 1 E 114 $6,557 $6,884 $7,229 $7,590 $7,970 37.83 39.72 41.70 43.79 45.98 Conf/Mid
Management City Clerk 1 E 117 $6,755 $7,093 $7,448 $7,820 $8,211 38.97 40.92 42.97 45.12 47.37 Conf/Mid
Management Information Systems Analyst 1 E 117 $6,755 $7,093 $7,448 $7,820 $8,211 38.97 40.92 42.97 45.12 47.37 Conf/Mid
Management Senior Planner 1 E 118 $6,823 $7,164 $7,522 $7,898 $8,293 39.36 41.33 43.40 45.57 47.85 Conf/Mid
Management Associate Civil Engineer 1 E 119 $6,891 $7,236 $7,597 $7,977 $8,376 39.76 41.74 43.83 46.02 48.32 Conf/Mid
Management Community Relations Manager 1 E 119 $6,891 $7,236 $7,597 $7,977 $8,376 39.76 41.74 43.83 46.02 48.32 Conf/Mid
Management Refuse Manager 1 E 121 $7,030 $7,381 $7,750 $8,138 $8,544 40.56 42.58 44.71 46.95 49.30 Conf/Mid
Management WWTP Manager 1 E 122 $7,100 $7,455 $7,828 $8,219 $8,630 40.96 43.01 45.16 47.42 49.79 Conf/Mid
Management Streets Manager 1 E 123 $7,171 $7,529 $7,906 $8,301 $8,716 41.37 43.44 45.61 47.89 50.29 Conf/Mid
Management Utilities Manager 1 E 123 $7,171 $7,529 $7,906 $8,301 $8,716 41.37 43.44 45.61 47.89 50.29 Conf/Mid
Management Project Manager 1 E 124 $7,243 $7,605 $7,985 $8,384 $8,803 41.78 43.87 46.07 48.37 50.79 Conf/Mid
Management Senior Civil Engineer 1 E 129 $7,612 $7,993 $8,392 $8,812 $9,252 43.92 46.11 48.42 50.84 53.38 Conf/Mid
Management
Information Technology
Manager 1 E 132 $7,843 $8,235 $8,647 $9,079 $9,533 45.25 47.51 49.88 52.38 55.00 Conf/Mid
Management Building Official 1 E 133 $7,921 $8,317 $8,733 $9,170 $9,628 45.70 47.98 50.38 52.90 55.55 Conf/Mid
Management Principal Planner 1 E 133 $7,921 $8,317 $8,733 $9,170 $9,628 45.70 47.98 50.38 52.90 55.55 Conf/Mid
Management Parks and Facilities Manager 1 E 134 $8,000 $8,400 $8,820 $9,261 $9,724 46.16 48.46 50.89 53.43 56.10

7.G.g
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: GEMA Salary Schedule 11-15-22 (Admin: Approval of the City of Hanford Salary Schedules) Conf/Mid
Management Finance Manager 1 E 138 $8,325 $8,741 $9,178 $9,637 $10,119 48.03 50.43 52.95 55.60 58.38 Conf/Mid
Management Engineering Manager 1 E 142 $8,663 $9,096 $9,551 $10,029 $10,530 49.98 52.48 55.10 57.86 60.75 Conf/Mid
Management Deputy Public Works Director 1 E 152 $9,570 $10,048 $10,550 $11,078 $11,632 55.21 57.97 60.87 63.91 67.11 Conf/Mid
Management City Engineer 1 E 160 $10,362 $10,881 $11,425 $11,996 $12,596 59.78 62.77 65.91 69.21 72.67 FLSA/OT Designation updated effective 12-26-22
Salary rates last updated effective 7-25-22 per MOU agreement approved by City Council on 7-19-22 Please refer to the City of Hanford Salary Schedule Description for Bargaining Group, Overtime and FLSA Designation

7.G.g
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: GEMA Salary Schedule 11-15-22 (Admin: Approval of the City of Hanford Salary Schedules)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/15/2022

AGENDA SECTION: H

SUBJECT:

Public Works: Approval of a Sole-Source Purchase Order for One (1) 2024 Peterbilt/McClellan 2000 Gallon Water Truck from E.M. Tharpe of Porterville, in the amount of $144,539, and appropriation of $132,377 from Fleet Replacement Fund and of $12,162 from Wastewater Fund for the purchase.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Approve the purchase of one 2024 Peterbilt 536 water truck from E.M.Tharp Inc., of Porterville, in the amount of $144,539;

2. Appropriate $132,377 from Fleet Replacement Fund and $12,162 from the Waste Water Fund;

3. Declare an existing 1994 water truck and a 1992 Chevy Kodiak dump truck as surplus and authorize the sale of the vehicles.

BACKGROUND:

The Streets division, along with Waste Water, utilizes a water truck when performing various maintenance activities. The current water truck is a former refuse truck, a 1994 Peterbilt, that was converted into a water truck after the useful service life as a refuse truck. The 28 year old truck, vehicle #190, has far exceeded its useful life and needs to be replaced.

Due to the changing maintenance performed by City streets, a large capacity two axle water truck is no longer needed. Instead, staff intends to purchase a smaller, single axle truck which is not only less costly, but also more maneuverable.

Because water trucks are typically available for rent, staff evaluated the option of renting a truck when needed as opposed to purchasing. Monthly rental rates are about $3,350 per month. Since maintenance activities require a water truck year-round, annual cost would be about $40,000.

Since a water truck has a 20 useful life span, total rental cost over that time frame would be over $400,000. Purchase price is less than half that figure at $144,539.

The Fleet Replacement Reserve Fund has collected $63,377.72 to replace the water truck. An

7.H
Packet Pg. 62
additional $60,999.68 has been collected to replace a 1992 Chevy Kodiak dump truck which will not be replaced and will be eliminated from the fleet, an additional $8,000 from radio reserves will be used as well. The total of $132,377 will be applied and appropriated from the Fleet Replacement Fund to the purchase price of the new water truck. An appropriation of $12,162 is needed from Waste Water Fund.

The City has received a quote through Sourcewell cooperative purchasing, which allows participating municipal agencies to purchase equipment for a lower overall purchase price due to larger overall quantity and contract pricing (Contract code No. 060920-PCM). The City of Hanford is a member of Sourcewell (#85061).

FISCAL IMPACT:

The FY22 Fleet Replacement Reserve Budget provided an estimate of $60,999.68 for the purchase of one replacement water truck and $63,377.72 for the purchase of one replacement dump truck for the Street Division, with an additional $8,000 coming from radio reserves. To date, a combined total of $132,378.40 has been collected through the City's fleet replacement program. Staff recomends using $12,162 from Waste Water Fund and $132,377 from Fleet Replacement Fund to complete the funding for the purchase of $144,539.

ATTACHMENTS:

EM Tharpe Quote
Sorcewell Contract
Tank Quote

7.H
Packet Pg. 63

7.H.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: EM Tharpe Quote (PW: Purchase of a 2024 Peterbilt/McClellan Water Truck for $144,539)

7.H.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: EM Tharpe Quote (PW: Purchase of a 2024 Peterbilt/McClellan Water Truck for $144,539)

7.H.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Sorcewell Contract (PW: Purchase of a 2024 Peterbilt/McClellan Water Truck for $144,539)

7.H.c
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Tank Quote (PW: Purchase of a 2024 Peterbilt/McClellan Water Truck for $144,539)

7.H.c
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Tank Quote (PW: Purchase of a 2024 Peterbilt/McClellan Water Truck for $144,539)

7.H.c
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Tank Quote (PW: Purchase of a 2024 Peterbilt/McClellan Water Truck for $144,539)

7.H.c
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Tank Quote (PW: Purchase of a 2024 Peterbilt/McClellan Water Truck for $144,539)

7.H.c
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Tank Quote (PW: Purchase of a 2024 Peterbilt/McClellan Water Truck for $144,539)

7.H.c
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Tank Quote (PW: Purchase of a 2024 Peterbilt/McClellan Water Truck for $144,539)

7.H.c
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Tank Quote (PW: Purchase of a 2024 Peterbilt/McClellan Water Truck for $144,539)

7.H.c
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Tank Quote (PW: Purchase of a 2024 Peterbilt/McClellan Water Truck for $144,539)

7.H.c
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Tank Quote (PW: Purchase of a 2024 Peterbilt/McClellan Water Truck for $144,539)

7.H.c
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Tank Quote (PW: Purchase of a 2024 Peterbilt/McClellan Water Truck for $144,539)

7.H.c
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Tank Quote (PW: Purchase of a 2024 Peterbilt/McClellan Water Truck for $144,539)

7.H.c
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Tank Quote (PW: Purchase of a 2024 Peterbilt/McClellan Water Truck for $144,539)

7.H.c
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Tank Quote (PW: Purchase of a 2024 Peterbilt/McClellan Water Truck for $144,539)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/15/2022

AGENDA SECTION: I

SUBJECT:

Finance: Acceptance and authorization for staff to File the City of Hanford's Quarterly Investment Portfolio and Transactions Reports as of 9/30/2022

Recommended Motion
That the City Council accept the City of Hanford's Quarterly Investment Portfolio and Transactions Report.

Background
Quarterly Investment Report. The City has approximately $112.9 million in investments and cash as of 09/30/2022.

Recent Activity. The City actively maintains its Wells Fargo cash accounts at a minimum of $2.5 million while typically investing excess cash in the Tulare County Investment Pool (TCIP).

The interest rate for TCIP has consistently remained higher than the Local Agency Investments Fund (LAIF) until most recently. On an ongoing basis, securities which mature are quickly reinvested to avoid idle cash making little to no interest. In August, $4 million was wired to a money market account in Umpqua Bank in accordance with provisions for the Council approved Pension Obligation Bond. This maintained deposit will allow for the City to receive a reduced interest rate on the Pension Obligation Bond.

Current Investment Environment. Interest rates continue to steadily increase. The Federal Reserve key short-term interest rate is currently in a range of 3.75% to 4% following a fourth consecutive rate hike of three-quarters of a percentage point the first week of November.

Predictions are favoring that in December an additional hike will put the interest rate range to

4.25% to 4.75% (CNN). The 10 year Treasury Note interest is currently at 4.22%, an almost point and a half increase from last quarter. In comparison, last year same time the rate was at

7.I
Packet Pg. 80

1.45%
Proposed Actions. With the close of fiscal year end 2022, the Finance Department will review current cash balances and make determinations on liquid cash needs for the current and upcoming fiscal years. With foreseen continued inflation increases and volatile 2022 stock market, great care and consideration will be taken in the placement of idle cash.

The City will be adding an additional broker to assist with the City's investment portfolio. Funds will be withdrawn from money pools or bank account if excess cash is determined available.

With the City being a buyer in the current market we can capitalize off of the current high interest rates that we have not seen in the last 3-4 years.

Summary. The primary purpose of the City’s cash is to provide residents of Hanford with services. In order to maximize the earnings potential on the City’s idle cash, the City utilizes registered securities dealers to purchase low-risk investments which will provide a higher return versus allowing the cash to be held in savings accounts earning little to no interest. Additionally, idle cash is also held with government pools including Tulare County Investment Pool and LAIF. It is the policy of the City to invest public funds in a manner that will provide a high investment return with a high level of security while meeting the daily cash flow demands of the entity and conforming to all state and local statutes governing the investment of public funds.

Attachments: Quarterly Treasurer's Report- As of September 30, 2022 Quarterly Investment Detail Report- As of September 30, 2022 Quarterly Transactions Report- 07/01/2022-09/30/2022

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

Quarterly Treasurer's Report 09.30.22
Quarterly Investment Detail Report 09.30.22
Quarterly Transaction Report 07.01.22-09.30.22

7.I
Packet Pg. 81
CITY OF HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Treasurer's Report
September 30, 2022
Performance
Weighted Average Yield 1.166%
Diversification | Security Sector % of Portfolio YTM @Cost Days to Maturity
Face Amount /
Shares Cost Value Market Value
Cash 4.72% 0.00% 1 5,269,732 5,269,732 5,269,732
Money Market 3.60% 0.02% 1 4,024,309 4,024,309 4,024,309 Local Government Investment Pool 72.07% 1.37% 1 80,469,226 80,469,226 80,469,226 Certificate of Deposit | Negotiable 9.13% 1.15% 472 10,632,000 10,632,000 10,190,481 Corporate Bonds 6.69% 0.67% 431 7,700,000 7,967,867 7,465,306 US Agency Bonds 3.79% 0.68% 751 4,575,000 4,575,000 4,232,546 100.00% 1.166% 101 112,670,267 112,938,134 111,651,599

4.72% 3.60%

72.07%

9.13% 6.69% 3.79%
09/30/2022
Cash
Money Market
Local Government Investment Pool
Certificate of Deposit | Negotiable
Corporate Bonds
US Agency Bonds

7.I.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Quarterly Treasurer's Report 09.30.22 (Finance: Quarterly Investment Portfolio and Description CUSIP/Ticker Security Sector Settlement Date YTM @ Cost Face Amount/Shares Cost Value Market Value Maturity Date Days To Mat urity % of Portfolio Higgins Cash HIGGINSCASH Cash 9/30/2022 0.000 1,278,430.42 1,278,430.42 1,278,430.42 N/A 1 1.13 Goldman Sacs NY 2.3 10/11/2022 38148PRA7 Certificate Of Deposit 10/11/2017 2.300 200,000.00 200,000.00 199,958.00 10/11/2022 11 0.18 CD Bank of Ruston 2.3 12/29/2022 06427LCH6 Certificate Of Deposit 12/29/2017 2.300 250,000.00 250,000.00 249,385.00 12/29/2022 90 0.22 Genoa Banking OH 2.25 12/29/2022 372348BY7 Certificate Of Deposit 12/29/2017 2.250 250,000.00 250,000.00 249,355.00 12/29/2022 90 0.22 Morgan Stanley UT 2.65 1/25/2023 61747MH46 Certificate Of Deposit 1/25/2018 2.650 64,000.00 64,000.00 63,825.92 1/25/2023 117 0.06 Morgan Stanley UT 3 4/19/2023 61747MV32 Certificate Of Deposit 4/19/2018 3.000 186,000.00 186,000.00 185,083.02 4/19/2023 201 0.17 BMW Bank UT 3 4/20/2023 05580AMJ0 Certificate Of Deposit 4/20/2018 3.000 250,000.00 250,000.00 248,762.50 4/20/2023 202 0.22 UBS Bank UT 3.15 5/30/2023 90348JCR9 Certificate Of Deposit 5/30/2018 3.150 249,000.00 249,000.00 247,732.59 5/30/2023 242 0.22 Citbank National SD 3.55 11/24/2023 17312QW47 Certificate Of Deposit 11/23/2018 3.550 250,000.00 250,000.00 248,255.00 11/24/2023 420 0.2 2 Sallie Mae Bank UT 1.9 10/30/2024 7954504Z5 Certificate Of Deposit 10/30/2019 1.900 100,000.00 100,000.00 95,232.00 10/30/2024 761 0.09 First National Bank TX 1.8 12/30/2024 32112UDJ7 Certificate Of Deposit 12/30/2019 1.800 250,000.00 250,000.00 236,555.00 12/30/2024 822 0 .22 Wells Fargo NV 1.85 12/30/2022 949495AF2 Certificate Of Deposit 12/30/2019 1.850 245,000.00 245,000.00 244,113.10 12/30/2022 91 0.22 Merrick Bank UT 1.85 12/31/2024 59013KEP7 Certificate Of Deposit 12/31/2019 1.850 250,000.00 250,000.00 236,805.00 12/31/2024 823 0.22 Citadel Federal PA 1.65 2/27/2025 17286TAG0 Certificate Of Deposit 2/27/2020 1.650 250,000.00 250,000.00 234,755.00 2/27/2025 881 0.22 Nebraska State Bank NE 1 9/29/2023 63970BAK5 Certificate Of Deposit 3/30/2020 1.000 250,000.00 250,000.00 242,325.00 9/29/2023 364 0.22 Northstar Bank MI 1.15 3/31/2023 66704MEQ0 Certificate Of Deposit 3/31/2020 1.150 250,000.00 250,000.00 246,582.50 3/31/2023 182 0.22 Pacific Western Bank CA 1.2 4/17/2023 69506YRJ0 Certificate Of Deposit 4/16/2020 1.200 250,000.00 250,000.00 246,370.00 4/17/2023 199 0.2 2 Centerstate Bank FL 1.2 4/17/2023 15201QDC8 Certificate Of Deposit 4/17/2020 1.200 250,000.00 250,000.00 246,370.00 4/17/2023 199 0.22 Flagstar Bank MI 1.15 4/17/2023 33847E2Z9 Certificate Of Deposit 4/17/2020 1.150 250,000.00 250,000.00 246,302.50 4/17/2023 199 0.22 Nicolet National Bank WI 1.2 4/17/2023 654062KJ6 Certificate Of Deposit 4/17/2020 1.200 250,000.00 250,000.00 246,342.50 4/17/2023 199 0. 22 West Michigan Bank MI 1 4/24/2023 954444BW4 Certificate Of Deposit 4/24/2020 1.000 250,000.00 250,000.00 245,930.00 4/24/2023 206 0.22 Sterling Bank MO 1.05 4/27/2023 85916VDR3 Certificate Of Deposit 4/27/2020 1.050 250,000.00 250,000.00 245,972.50 4/27/2023 209 0.22 Morthwest Bank ID 1 4/28/2023 66736ABS7 Certificate Of Deposit 4/30/2020 1.000 250,000.00 250,000.00 245,830.00 4/28/2023 210 0.22 Pinnacle Bank TN 0.7 5/8/2023 72345SKU4 Certificate Of Deposit 5/8/2020 0.700 250,000.00 250,000.00 245,215.00 5/8/2023 220 0.22 Jonesboro State Bank LA 0.8 5/29/2025-20 48040PGX7 Certificate Of Deposit 5/29/2020 0.800 249,000.00 249,000.00 226,906.23 5/29/2025 972 0.22 Continental Bank UT 0.55 6/26/2025 211163KK5 Certificate Of Deposit 6/26/2020 0.550 175,000.00 175,000.00 158,040.75 6/26/2025 1,000 0.16 State Bank of India GA 0.95 6/26/2025 856283N69 Certificate Of Deposit 6/26/2020 0.950 250,000.00 250,000.00 226,760.00 6/26/2025 1,000 0 .22 Partners Bank AK 0.6 6/30/2025 70212VAB4 Certificate Of Deposit 6/30/2020 0.600 250,000.00 250,000.00 225,820.00 6/30/2025 1,004 0.22 Bank Baroda NY 0.65 7/22/2025 06063HMT7 Certificate Of Deposit 7/22/2020 0.650 198,000.00 198,000.00 178,819.74 7/22/2025 1,026 0.18 Luana Savings Bank IA 0.45 7/29/2025 549104RJ8 Certificate Of Deposit 7/29/2020 0.450 250,000.00 250,000.00 224,300.00 7/29/2025 1,033 0. 22 Medallion Bank UT 0.55 7/30/2025 58404DHQ7 Certificate Of Deposit 7/30/2020 0.550 250,000.00 250,000.00 224,772.50 7/30/2025 1,034 0.22 Enerbank UT 0.5 8/29/2025 29278TRA0 Certificate Of Deposit 8/31/2020 0.500 245,000.00 245,000.00 219,233.35 8/29/2025 1,064 0.22 BMO Harris Bank IL 0.5 3/28/2025-21 05600XAY6 Certificate Of Deposit 9/28/2020 0.500 249,000.00 249,000.00 226,575.06 3/28/2025 910 0.22 First Choice Bank CA 0.4 9/30/2025-21 319461DB2 Certificate Of Deposit 9/30/2020 0.400 249,000.00 249,000.00 221,380.92 9/30/2025 1,096 0 .22 Greenstate Credit Union 0.5 7/30/2024 39573LBQ0 Certificate Of Deposit 7/30/2021 0.500 250,000.00 250,000.00 233,390.00 7/30/2024 669 0.2 2 Texas Exchange Bank TX 0.5 7/30/2024 88241TLS7 Certificate Of Deposit 7/30/2021 0.500 249,000.00 249,000.00 232,451.46 7/30/2024 669 0.22 Pentagon Federal Credit Union 0.55 9/30/2024 70962LAR3 Certificate Of Deposit 9/29/2021 0.550 250,000.00 250,000.00 232,065.00 9/30/202 4 731 0.22 Live Oak Bank 0.5 12/11/2023 538036TF1 Certificate Of Deposit 12/10/2021 0.500 250,000.00 250,000.00 239,275.00 12/11/2023 437 0.22 Synchrony Bank 0.9 12/10/2024 87165HK41 Certificate Of Deposit 12/10/2021 0.900 250,000.00 250,000.00 232,307.50 12/10/2024 802 0.22 Bank of New York Mellon 1.6 4/24/2025-25 06406RAN7 Corporate 5/13/2020 1.216 1,000,000.00 1,018,368.00 923,760.00 4/24/2025 937 0.89 John Deer Capital 2.6 3/7/2024 24422EUX5 Corporate 5/15/2020 1.160 700,000.00 737,464.00 680,428.00 3/7/2024 524 0.62 Citibank NA 3.65 1/23/2024-23 17325FAS7 Corporate 5/22/2020 1.183 1,000,000.00 1,088,310.00 986,560.00 1/23/2024 480 0.89 Caterpillar Financial 3.75 12/24/2023 14912L5X5 Corporate 11/23/2020 0.466 1,000,000.00 1,100,500.00 990,840.00 12/24/2023 450 0.89 Toyota Motor Credit 0.45 1/11/2024 89236THU2 Corporate 9/20/2021 0.450 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 948,940.00 1/11/2024 468 0.89 FHLB 0.5 9/24/2024-21 3130ALKN3 US Agency 3/24/2021 0.500 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,847,180.00 9/24/2024 725 1.78 FHLB 0.57 10/15/2024-22 3130ALWW0 US Agency 4/15/2021 0.570 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 922,800.00 10/15/2024 746 0.89 FHLB 0.5 10/4/2024-22 3130AP4G7 US Agency 10/4/2021 0.500 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 922,640.00 10/4/2024 735 0.89 FHLB Step 1/27/2025-22 3130AQML4 US Agency 1/27/2022 1.370 325,000.00 325,000.00 303,306.25 1/27/2025 850 0.29 Sub Total / Average Brokerage | Higgins Capital 0.946 19,211,430.42 19,456,072.42 18,304,039.31 558 17.05 Bank of China/NY 0.2 11/29/2022 06428FUY1 Certificate Of Deposit 11/29/2021 0.200 250,000.00 250,000.00 248,801.49 11/29/2022 60 0.22 Israel Discount Bank 0.45 6/12/2023 465076SW8 Certificate Of Deposit 11/24/2021 0.450 250,000.00 250,000.00 244,010.20 6/12/2023 255 0.22 Safra Natl Bank 0.2 11/23/2022 78658RGA3 Certificate Of Deposit 11/24/2021 0.200 250,000.00 250,000.00 248,933.26 11/23/2022 54 0.22 Bank of India NY 0.2 11/25/2022 06279KU38 Certificate Of Deposit 11/26/2021 0.200 250,000.00 250,000.00 248,889.63 11/25/2022 56 0.22 State Bank of India 0.55 11/29/2023 856285YX3 Certificate Of Deposit 11/29/2021 0.550 250,000.00 250,000.00 239,783.40 11/29/2023 425 0.2 2 Cumberland Fed Bank 0.2 3/3/2023 23062KDQ2 Certificate Of Deposit 12/3/2021 0.200 250,000.00 250,000.00 246,288.15 3/3/2023 154 0.22 Goldman Sachs 0.6 12/15/2023 38149MQ22 Certificate Of Deposit 12/15/2021 0.600 224,000.00 224,000.00 214,619.85 12/15/2023 441 0.20 IADB 0.25 11/15/2023 4581X0DP0 Corporate 11/24/2021 0.586 500,000.00 496,710.00 479,200.00 11/15/2023 411 0.44 IFC 0.61 11/24/2023 45950VQS8 Corporate 11/24/2021 0.570 1,000,000.00 1,000,790.00 956,584.64 11/24/2023 420 0.89 IFC 2 10/24/2022-22 45950VLH7 Corporate 11/24/2021 0.127 1,500,000.00 1,525,725.00 1,498,992.98 10/24/2022 24 1.33 Wells Fargo Securities MM WFMM5968 Money Market 11/3/2021 2.290 24,271.71 24,271.71 24,271.71 N/A 1 0.02 FHLB 2.3 3/28/2025-22 3130AREM9 US Agency 3/28/2022 2.300 250,000.00 250,000.00 236,619.80 3/28/2025 910 0.22 Sub Total / Average Brokerage | Wells Fargo Securities 0.454 4,998,271.71 5,021,496.71 4,886,995.11 248 4.44 Local Agency Investment Fund LGIP LAIF6352 Local Government Investment Pool 2/28/2009 1.513 27,638,664.99 27,638,664.99 27,638,664.99 N /A 1 24.53 Sub Total / Average LGIP | LAIF 1.513 27,638,664.99 27,638,664.99 27,638,664.99 1 24.53 Tulare County Pool LGIP TULARE860 Local Government Investment Pool 5/5/2017 1.299 52,830,560.75 52,830,560.75 52,830,560.75 N/A 1 46.89 Sub Total / Average LGIP | Tulare County 1.299 52,830,560.75 52,830,560.75 52,830,560.75 1 46.89 City of Hanford
Quarterly Investment Detail Report
As of 9/30/22
Brokerage | Higgins Capital
Brokerage | Wells Fargo Securities
LGIP | LAIF
LGIP | Tulare County

7.I.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Quarterly Investment Detail Report 09.30.22 (Finance: Quarterly Investment Portfolio and Umpqua MM MM7248 Money Market 8/19/2022 0.010 4,000,037.13 4,000,037.13 4,000,037.13 N/A 1 3.55 Sub Total / Average Umpqua Bank 0.010 4,000,037.13 4,000,037.13 4,000,037.13 1 3.55 Wells Fargo | General Account Cash WFGENERAL5186 Cash 10/31/2007 0.000 55,570.00 55,570.00 55,570.00 N/A 1 0.05 Wells Fargo | Self Insurance Cash WFSELFINS1892 Cash 6/30/2020 0.000 173,507.01 173,507.01 173,507.01 N/A 1 0.15 Wells Fargo | Sweep Cash WFSWEEP5186 Cash 6/30/2020 0.000 3,762,224.84 3,762,224.84 3,762,224.84 N/A 1 3.34 Sub Total / Average Wells Fargo | Operating Accounts 0.000 3,991,301.85 3,991,301.85 3,991,301.85 1 3.54 Total / Average 1.162 112,670,266.85 112,938,133.85 111,651,599.14 107 100 Wells Fargo | Operating Accounts
Umpqua Bank

7.I.b
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Quarterly Investment Detail Report 09.30.22 (Finance: Quarterly Investment Portfolio and Description CUSIP/Ticker Settlement Date Face Amount/Shares Principal Interest/Dividends Total Portfolio Name Tulare County Pool LGIP TULARE860 8/11/2022 7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00 0.00 7,000,000.00 LGIP | Tulare County Umpqua MM MM7248 8/19/2022 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 0.00 4,000,000.00 Umpqua Bank Barclays Bank 2.25 9/27/2022 06740KKY2 9/27/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Higgins Capital Capital One 2.25 9/20/2022 14042RHW4 9/20/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Higgins Capital Capital One VA 2.25 9/20/2022 1404204Z0 9/20/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Higgins Capital Insbank TN 1 9/27/2022 45776NDN3 9/27/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Higgins Capital Lakeside Bank IL 1.1 9/30/2022 51210SRZ2 9/30/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Higgins Capital Local Agency Investment Fund LGIP LAIF6352 8/17/2022 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 0.00 4,000,000.00 LGIP | LAIF Deposit
Matured
Withdraw
City of Hanford
Quarterly Transaction Report
07/01/22-09/30/22

7.I.c
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Quarterly Transaction Report 07.01.22-09.30.22 (Finance: Quarterly Investment Portfolio and

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 11/15/2022

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

8.A
Packet Pg. 86

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.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: 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.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Figure 1
Project Location

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Figure 2
Current General Plan Land Use Designation

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Figure 3
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Figure 4
Current Zone District

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Figure 5
Proposed Zone District

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: 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.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: 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,

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: 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.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: 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.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: 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.

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

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: 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:

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: 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

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: 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"

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: 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

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (CD: 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.

2. That this amendment would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (CD: 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 -

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (CD: 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 )

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (CD: 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

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Exhibit A
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 C

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Current General Plan Land Use Designation

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (CD: 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.

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (CD: 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.

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (CD: 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.

• 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.

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (CD: 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.

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.

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (CD: 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

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (CD: 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.

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (CD: 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

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Resolution 22-42-R (CD: 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.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: 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.

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.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: 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:

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: 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

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Exhibit A
Prezone No. 2021-14

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Current Zone District

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Proposed Zone District

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Exhibit B:

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: 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.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: 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.

Developer to
provide (or
comply), City
of Hanford to
verify.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: 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.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: 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.

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.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: 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.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: 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.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: 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

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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:

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 12

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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).

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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,

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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).

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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/

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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?

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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?

b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?

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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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)).

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 203
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 204
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 205
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 206
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 207
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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).

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 208
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 209
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 210
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 211
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 212
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 213
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 214
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 215
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 216
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 217
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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. 8.A.d
Packet Pg. 218
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 219
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 220
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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/

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 221
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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?

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 222
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 223
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 224
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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/.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 226
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 227
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 228
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 229
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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:

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 230
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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) .

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 231
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: 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

28 Mid-Kings River Groundwater Sustainability Agency (2020). Tulare Lake Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan .

Accessed January 26 , 202 2, http://www.midkingsrivergsa.org/assets/tulare-lake-subbasin-groundwater- sustainability-plan%2c-january-2020.pdf

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 232
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 101 mentioned above, groundwater is and will continue to be the source supply in wet and dry hydrologic periods. Based on the UWMP and WSMP, the City will continue to monitor groundwater supplies as a sustainable resource in order to remain compliant with groundwater sustainability goals. In turn, future development projects are subject to compliance with the General Plan, all water quality control plans, and other hydrological requirements established by the City. Therefore, based on compliance with such plans, it can be determined that the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

4.10.3 Mitigation Measures
None Required.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 233
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 102

4.11 LAND USE PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X

4.11.1 Environmental Setting
In general, the Project site is an county island that will be annexed in the near future, creating an infill site within an area of the city that is predominately characterized by commercial and residential development. The Project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east, and south, and commercial and vacant land to the south and west. As such, the surrounding areas are largely characterized by development as well as typical infrastructure, such as roadways, streetlights, parking lot lights, and ambient light sources typical of commercial and residential development.

4.11.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
Less than Significant Impact. Typically, physical division of an established community would occur if a project introduced new incompatible uses inconsistent with the planned or existing land uses or created a physical barrier that impeded access within the community. Typical examples of physical barriers include the introduction of new, int ersecting roadways, roadway closures, and construction of new major utility infrastructure (e.g., transmission lines, storm channels, etc.).

Surrounding Land Uses
The Project site is an infill site within an area of the city that is predominately characte rized by commercial and residential development. The properties to the north and east are zoned and

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 234
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 103 planned for Low Density Residential and the properties to the south and west are planned for Corridor Mixed Use. The Project includes a General Plan Amendme nt that proposes a change to the site’s land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use and a Pre- Zone/Rezone that proposes the site to be zoned MX-C Corridor Mixed Use consistent with the proposed land use designation of Corrido r Mixed Use. Implementation of the Project would thereby introduce uses which would be generally consistent with the existing and planned land uses within the Project area.

Circulation System
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. The portion of the Project site that is developed with existing structures is generally accessible by East Whitney Drive, Jessie Avenue, and Kruger Avenue. While no specific development project is proposed, implementation of the Project would result in future development of the vacant portion that would require connections to existing roadways such as Whitney Drive, Lassen Dr ive, and Wilson Lane. These connections would not result in the introduction of new, intersecting roadways or roadway closures and would therefore not cause a physical divide.

Utility Infrastructure
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, sewer, stormwa ter, and wastewater services. Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications are provided by private companies. Utility systems are described and analyzed in Section 4.10 and Section 4.15. Based on the analysis, implementation of the Project would not result in the construction of new, major utility infrastructure.

Overall, the Project would not represent a significant change in the surrounding area.

Implementation of the Project would be generally consistent with the surrounding area and would not result in the physical separation of the established community. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than Significant Impact. Generally, p olicy conflicts are environmental impacts when they would result in direct physical impacts or where those conflicts relate to a voiding or mitigating

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 235
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 104 environmental impacts. As such, associated physical environmental impacts are discussed in this document under specific topical sections, such as Biological Resources , Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources. However, a discussion of certain land use plans, policies, and regulations that are applicable to the Project are included in Table 4-12. Table 4-12 provides a comparison of the Project’s characteristics with all applicable policies included in the General Plan as they relate to land use issues for the proposed Corridor Mixed Use land use designation. As discussed below, the Project is generally consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designation of Corridor Mixed Use.

Table 4-12 Discussion on Land Use Policies in the General Plan General Plan Policy Project Consistency
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.

Consistent. Project implementation would result in
new development projects. Individual projects would
be required to go through the appropriate
entitlement process through the City of Hanford. The
City would review and condition future projects for
compliance with the HMC and General Plan.

Policy L68 Location and Size of Corridor Mixed Use
Land Use Designation. Locate Corridor Mixed Use
land use designations alon g one or both sides of
portions of Arterial streets where a mix of
commercial and residential uses would benefit the
neighborhood. Specific locations shall include
portions of 10th Avenue, Lacey Boulevard, Garner
Avenue, and Hanford-Armona Road.

Consistent. The Project site is generally located east
of 10 th Avenue and north of East Lacey Boulevard ,
which are arterial streets. The site is also surrounded by commercial and residential uses. The proposed
land use designation of Corridor Mixed Use wou ld
complement the surrounding uses.

Overall, the entitlement process of future development projects that result from the Project would ensure that the Project complies with the General Plan, HMC, and any other applicable policies.

As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 236
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 105

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
X

4.12.1 Environmental Setting
The California Geological Survey (CGS) classifies and designates areas within California that contain or potentially contain significant mineral resources. Lands are classified into Aggregate and Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs), which identify known or inferred significant mineral resources.

According to the California Department of Conservation, CGS’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) Mineral Lands Classification (MLC) data portal , the city of Hanford is not within a mineral resource study area.29 In addition, according to the General Plan, the city of Hanford is not within a Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources recognized oil field. Rather, the General Plan identifies sand and gravel for road and building construction as the only likely mineral resources in the area. Lastly, according to the Kings County General Plan, there are no oil fields or areas designated for mineral recovery in the city of Hanford.

4.12.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:

29 California Department of Conservation. SMARA Mineral Land Classification. Accessed on January 26, 2022 , https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mineral-land-classification-smara

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 106 a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The Project site is not located in an area designated for mineral resource preservation or recovery. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. As described above, the Project site is not located in an area designated for mineral resource preservation or recovery and as a result, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Further, the site is not delineated on the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or other land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site, thus it would not result in the loss of availability of a loc ally important mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project.

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 238
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 107

4.13 NOISE
Would the project:

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

4.13.1 Environmental Setting
In general, there are two (2) types of noise sources: 1) mobile source and 2) stationary sounds.

Mobile source noises are typically associated with transportation including automobiles, trains, and aircraft. Stationary sounds are sources that do not move s uch as machinery or construction sites. Two (2) noise generating activities of the Project would include construction (short -term, temporary) and operational (long-term) noise.

The Hanford General Plan Noise Element and HMC outline policies and regulations to mitigate health effects of noise in the community and prevent exposures to excessive noise levels. In particular, policies in the General Plan regarding new development include:

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 108 Policy H41 Interior Noise Exposure. Adopt State Noise Insulation Standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24) and Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) concerning interior noise exposure for new single, multi-family housing, hotels and motels.

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

Policy H43 Non-Transportation Noise. Mitigate noise created by non -transportation noise sources so as not to exceed the maximum allowable interior and exterior noise level standards.

Policy H48 Noise Mitigation for Construction Activities. Require all development projects to mitigate noise impacts associated with construction activities.

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

Sensitive land uses include residential, schools, chur ches, nursing homes, hospitals, and open space/recreation areas. Commercial, farmland, and industrial areas are not considered noise sensitive and generally have higher tolerances for exterior and interior noise levels.

4.13.2 Impact Assessment
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards? Less than Significant Impact. 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 ambient noise source s typical of commercial and residential uses. While no development is currently proposed, implementation of the Project would result in future development such as commercial and office uses. Such uses would have noise generating activities typical of the a mbient noise currently generated by surrounding uses. Thus, the Project would not introduce a new significant source of noise that is not already occurring in the Project area. Further, future projects would be subject to compliance with the General Plan p olicies and Chapter 9.10 Loud or Annoying Noises of the HMC requirements. Compliance with applicable policies and regulations would ensure that the Project would have a less than significant impact regarding noise.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 109 b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. While no development is currently proposed, implementation of the Project would result in future development that would have noise generating activities. It is not anticipated that the Proje ct would generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels, given the type of development that would be permitted in the Project area (i.e., commercial, office). Further, a discussed under criterion a), future project-generated noise sources would be regulated by the HMC. Through compliance with the HMC, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.
c. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a publ ic airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. The nearest public use airport is the Hanford 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 County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)
30F
30 adopted in 1994 and the Hanford Municipal
Airport Master Plan adopted January 19, 2010.31F
31 According to the ALUCP, the Project site is located
within the airport influence area of the Han ford Municipal Airport. Because the site is within the airport influence 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 compl iance 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

30 County of Kings. (1994). Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Accessed January 26, 2022, https://www.countyofkings.com/home/showpublisheddocument/3094/635274871108830000 31 City of Hanford. (2010). Accessed on January 26, 2022, https://www.ci.hanford.ca.us/departments/airport/master_plan.php#revize_document_center_rz901

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 241
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 110 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.

Further, the Project includes a General Plan Amendment that proposes a change to the site’s land use de signation 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 dens ity (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. Therefore, the General Plan Amendment request to change the site’s land use designati on 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).

Although no specific project is currently proposed , future development projec ts would be reviewed to ensure compliance with the ALUCP policies for Zone B1 as shown in Table 4-10. In particular, future projects would be required to meet development conditions including: (1) locate structures maximum distance from extended runway centerline, (2) minimum NLR of 25 dBA in residential and office buildings, and (3) dedication of avigation easement. Through compliance, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area and impacts would be less than significant.

There are no private airstrips operating within or near the project. As a result, any noise associated with private airstrips would not res ult in substantial noise levels for the project. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts from adjacent and overhead aircraft noise on noise‐sensitive land uses. Therefore, impacts associated with noise produced by public, public use, or private airports in the Project Area would be less than significant.

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 242
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 111

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X

4.14.1 Environmental Setting
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that a CEQA document discuss the ways in which the Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environ ment. The CEQA Guidelines provide the example of a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant that may allow for more construction within the service area. The CEQA Guidelines also note that the evaluation of growth inducement should consider the characteristics of a project that may encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. Direct and Indirect Growth Inducement consists of activities that directly facilitate population growth, such as construction of new dwelling units.

4.14.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 243
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 112 Less than Significant Impact. 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 incompatibili ty with the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). According to the ALUCP, the Project site is located within Zone B1 (North) which restricts residential subdivisions and multi -family residential as non - acceptable uses in this zone. Ther efore, the proposed land use change would generally result i n future development of the site with uses that are compatible with uses allowed in Zone B1 (North) and the MX-C – Mixed Use Corridor zone district such as general commercial and office uses.

Further, the Project site is an infill site within an area of the city that is predominately characterized by commercial and residential development. 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. Implementation of the Project would thereby introduce uses which would be generally consistent with the existing and planned land uses within the Project area. In addition, future development that resu lts from Project implementation would not represent a significant change in the surrounding area as the site would be development with compatible uses and connected to existing roadways such as Whitney Drive, Lassen Drive, and Wilson Lane, and existing utility infrastructure. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact. b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or ho using, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The existing site is mostly vacant with some existing structures. The existing structures are generally located east of North 10 th 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 Driv e with no existing structures . No development is proposed by the Project and therefore the Project would not result in the physical displacement of people or housing .

Therefore, the Project would have no impact.

4.14.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 113

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other perform ance objectives for
any of the public services:

i. Fire protection? X
ii. Police protection? X
iii. Schools? X
iv. Parks? X
v. Other public facilities? X

4.15.1 Environmental Setting
Although the Project site is currently outside of city limits within a county island, and it is located with the City of Hanford’s SOI and is expected to be annexation in the near future. As a result of future annexation into city limits, future development resulting from Project implementation would be subject to fees to for the construction, acquisition, and improvements for public services:

Fire Protection Services
Fire Protection Services in the city are provided by the Hanford Fire Department (HFD). The HFD operates a total of three (3) fire stations that serve the city : Fire Station 1 located at 350 W.

Grangeville Boulevard, Fire Station 2 located at 10553 Houston Avenue, and Fire Station 3 located at 1070 S. 12 th Street. To address impacts to fire protection services, the City of Hanford has implemented the Fire Protection Development Impact Fee pursuant to Chapter 15.45 of the HMC, which requires developers to pay the “fair share” of capital improvements related to fire protection services and facilities . A Fire Protection Development Impact Fee is assessed for

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 245
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 114 projects based on size. Further, projects are subject to review by the HFD and to regulations and standards such as the Ca lifornia Uniform Fire Code (UFC), which includes regulations on construction, maintenance and building use. The UFC addresses fire department access, fire hydrants, sprinklers, fire alarm system, etc., for new buildings.

Police Protection Services
Police Protection Services in the city are provided by the Hanford Police Department (HPD). The HPD is located at 425 North Irwin Street, which is approximately 0.63-miles east of the Project site.

According to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-2022/2022-2023 City of Hanford Budget, the HPD handled over 60,478 incidents in FY 2019-2020. To address impacts to police protection services, the City of Hanford has implemented the Police Protection Development Impact Fee pursuant to Chapter

15.46 of the HMC, which requires d evelopers to pay the “fair share” of capital improvements related to police protection services and facilities. A Police Protection Development Impact Fee is assessed for projects based on size.

Schools
Educational services within the Project area are primarily served by Hanford Elementary School District (HESD) and Hanford Joint Union High School District (HJUHSD). Schools within a one (1) - mile radius of the Protect site include Kennedy Jr. High School, JFK Middle School, Lee Richmond Elementary School, and Shelly Baird School . Funding for schools and school facilities impacts is outlined in Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. seq. (State statutes) which govern the amount of fees that can be levied against new developmen t. These fees are used to construct new or expanded school facilities. Payment of fees authorized by the statute is deemed “full and complete mitigation.” A School Impact Fee is assessed for projects based on the Developer Fee rates in place at the time payment is due.

Parks and Recreation
The nearest park to the Project site is the Lacey Park, 0.6 miles northwest. Park and Recreation Facilities are overseen by the Hanford Parks and Community Services Department. According to the 2020 Parks and Recreation M aster Plan, the City currently offers 299.70 acres of park land which equates to a total Level of Service (LOS) of 5.06 acres of park land per 1,000 residents based on the City’s 2018 population. 37F
32 The 2035 General Plan includes a LOS standard goal of 3.5 acres

32 City of Hanford. (2020) Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2020. Accessed January 27, 2022, https://cms6.revize.com/revize/hanfordca/2020%20Hanford%20Parks%20Master%20Plan.pdf

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 246
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 115 per 1,000 residents for future growth. Similar to other public services, the City had established the Park Facilities Impact Fee pursuant to Chapter 15.44 of the HMC, which requires developers to pay for parks and recreational facilities improvements. The fee is assessed for all residential building permits for development.

4.15.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
b. Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact . The Project site is within 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 served by the HFD. The Project site would be in the service area of Fire Station 1, which is 1.2 miles from the site. Although no specific development projects are currently proposed, future development would be reviewed by the HFD for requirements related to water supply, fire hydrants, and fire apparatus access to the building(s) on site. HFD’s review and approval would ensure that future d evelopment could be served by existing facilities. In addition, to further reduce potential impacts, future projects are subject to Fire Protection Department Impact Fees pursuant to the Hanford Municipal Code (HMC) requirements. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact. c. Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact . The Project site is within 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 served by the HPD. The nearest police station to the Project is located approximately 0.5-miles west from the site. Although no specific development projects are currently proposed, future development would be reviewed by the HPD for requirements related to police protection services. HPD’s review and approval would ensure that future development could be served by existing facilities. In addition, to further reduce potential impacts, future projects are subject to Police Protection Department Impact Fees pursuant to the HMC . As a result, the Project have a less than significant impact. i. Schools?

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 247
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 116 Less than Significant Impact. The development and managing of school sites are the responsibility of school districts and elected governing school boards. The General Plan provides policy which focuses on collaboration with school districts to determine new school locations and utilization of school facilities for general public needs. Future development resulting from Project implementation would be subject to School Impact Fees in order to mitigate the effect of the project on schools. In particular, funding for schools and school facilities impacts is outlined in Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. seq., which governs the amount of fees that can be levied against new development. Payment of fees authorized by the statute is deemed “full and complete mitigation.” As a result , the Project have a less than significant impact.
ii. Parks?
Less than Significant Impact. Park and recreational facilities are typically impacted by an increase in use from proposed residential development. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be subject to Park Facilit ies Impact Fees . As a result , the Project would have a less than significant impact.
iii. Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. Although no specific development is currently proposed, future development resulting from Project implementation could increase the demand for other public services, such as libraries . However, the proposed General Plan amendment to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use wo uld result in fewer future residential uses and thereby lessened demand for other public services. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

4.15.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 248
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 117

4.16 RECREATION
Would the project:

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

4.16.1 Environmental Setting
Park and Recreation Facilities are overseen by the Hanford Parks and Community Services Department. According to the 2020 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the City currently offers 299.70 acres of park land which equates to a total Level of Service (LOS) of 5.06 acres of park land per 1,000 residents based on the City’s 2018 population. 38F 33 The 2035 General Plan includes a LOS
standard goal of 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents for future growth. Similar to other public services, the City had established the Park Facilities Impact Fee pursuant to Chapter 15.44 of the HMC, which requires developers to pay for parks and recreational facilities improvements. The fee is assessed for all residential building permi ts for development. Although no specific development projects are currently proposed, future development that proposes residential uses would be subject to the Park Facilities Impact Fee.

33 City of Hanford. (2020) Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2020. Accessed January 27, 2022, https://cms6.revize.com/revize/hanfordca/2020%20Hanford%20Parks%20Master%20Plan.pdf

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 249
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 118

4.16.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less than Significant Impact. Park and recreational facilities are typically impacted by a n increase in use from proposed residential development. Although no specific development projects are currently proposed, future development that proposes residential uses would be subject to the Park Facilities Impact Fee to mitigate for possible increase of use of parks or recreational facilities.

Project review and approval would ensure that future development could be served by existing recreational facilities. In addition, future projects are subject to Park Facilities Impact Fees described in Section 4.15. With mitigation incorporated, the Project’s impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant Impact . Future residential development resulting from the Project could include the construction of recreational facilities. In such cases, development projects would be reviewed and conditioned by the City to ensure that physical effects on the environment are less than significant. In addition, future projects are subject to Park Facilities Impact Fees described in Section 4.15. With mitigation incorporated, the Project’s impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

4.16.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 250
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 119

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

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

4.17.1 Environmental Setting
The Project is located within the southeast portion of the city of Hanford, California, generally located north of East Lacey Boulevard between North 10 th Avenue and 9 ¼ Avenue. North 10 th Avenue and Lacey Boulevard are the nearest arterial s identified by the General Plan Circulation Element. The po rtion of the Project site that is developed with existing structures is generally accessible by East Whitney Drive, Jessie Avenue, and Kruger Avenue. While no specific development project is proposed, implementation of the Project would result in future development of the vacant portion that would require connections to existing roadways such as Whitney Drive, Lassen Drive, and Wilson Lane, ultimately connecting to the arterials in the area.

Early Consultation
Early consultation was received from Caltrans on October 4, 2021, recommending that:

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 251
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 120 • Future site plans for any of the proposed development be submitted to Caltrans for review. • The project proponents(s) conduct a vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) study once development is proposed and that the preparer should refer to the Caltrans Vehicle Miles Traveled - Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide, dated May 20, 2020. • Alternative transportation policies should be applied to the development. An assessment of multi-modal facilities shou ld be conducted to develop an integrated multi-modal transportation system to serve and help alleviate traffic congestion caused by the project and related development in this area of the City.

SB 743 and VMT Analysis
Under Senate Bill 743 (SB743), traffi c impacts are related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The VMT metric became mandatory on July 1, 2020. Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in stead of Level of Service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual automobile travel (additional miles driven) a proposed Project would create on California roads. If the project adds excessive automobile travel onto roads, then the project may cause a signific ant transportation impact. Therefore, LOS measures of impacts on traffic facilities are no longer a relevant CEQA criteria for transportation impacts.

CEQA Guidelines
To implement SB 743, the CEQA Guidelines were amended by adding Section 15064.3. According to Section 15064.3, VMT measures the automobile travel generated from a proposed project (i.e., the additional miles driven). Here, ‘automobile’ refers to on-road passenger vehicles such as cars and light-duty trucks. If a proposed project adds excessive automobile travel on California roads thereby exceeding an applicable threshold of significance, then the project may cause a significant transportation impact.

Among its provisions, Section 15064.3(b) establishes criteria for analyzing transportation impacts.

Specifically, Section 15064.3(b) (1) establishes a less than significant presumption for certain land use projects that are proposed within ½ -mile of an existing major transit stop or along a high - quality transit corridor. If this presumption does not apply to a land use project, then the VMT can be qualitatively or quantitatively analyzed. The city of Hanford has not identified or designated any high quality transit corridors.

In the case that quantitative models or methods are not available to the lead agency to estimate the VMT for the project being considered, provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(3) permits the lead agency to conduct a qualitative analysis. The qualitative analy sis may evaluate factors including but not limited to the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, and

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 252
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 121 construction traffic.

Lastly, Section 15064.3(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a pr oject’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to refl ect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of ad equacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
OPR’s Technical Advisory
In April 2018, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) (revised December 2018) to provide technical recommendations regarding VMT, thresholds of si gnificance, and mitigation measures for a variety of land use project types.

Kings County Online VMT Mapping Tool
Pursuant to OPR’s Technical Advisory, t he Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) created an online VMT mapping tool that identifies VMT per capita and VMT per employee by traffic analysis zone (TAZ). 34 KCAG’s mapping tool was created utilizing trip -based transportation models created for the eight (8) San Joaquin Valley MPOs to satisfy the requirements of SB 375.

The modeling process is described in the Documentation for the Eight San Joaquin Valley MPO Traffic Models to Meet the Requirements of SB 375 (2012) which is incorporated herein by reference. According to Appendix VIII of KCAG’s 2018 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the 2012 transportation model was revalidated for a 2015 base year and is described on Appendix VIII page 26 as:
“The KCAG model was revalidated to a 2015 base year for the 2018 RTP. The revalidation included new inventories of base year housing and employment, updates to the road network and transit coverage to reflect recent changes in the transportation system, and updated traffic counts to represent the 2015 base year. The KCAG model traffic validation

34 Kings County Association of Governments. 2022. “Kings County Online VMT Mapping Tool.” Accesse d on February 15, 2022, https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=84b4b47b08ac41af88779212180ff36c .

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 253
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 122 is based on several criteria, including vehicle-miles of travel, total volume by road type, and percent of links within acceptable limits.”
Revalidation efforts utilized traffic data provided by the City of Hanford. The RTP and the City’s underlying traffic data are incorporated herein by reference. Page 26 o f Appendix VIII describes KCAG’s VMT projection process as follows:
“Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) were estimated from the travel demand model by multiplying link volumes by link distances. The model estimates intrazonal trips (trips remaining within a TAZ) but does not assign these trips to the model road network. The intrazonal trips were multiplied by the estimated intrazonal distances to calculate intrazonal VMT.” The KCAG mapping tool reflects a VMT per employee of 10.5 and 8.9 for the two TAZs in which the Project will be located, which is more than fifteen percent below the County average VMT per employee of 17.7. It can therefore be concluded that, based upon KCAG’s VMT mapping tool, the Project’s VMT impact will be less than significant because VMT associated with the Project will be below the fifteen-percent-below-existing-development threshold. Therefore, the Project may be presumed to cause a less than significant impact pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b).

However, future discretionary projects could still be subject to independent VMT analysis if KCAG’s modeled VMT thresholds change or if the City adopts different VMT thresholds.

4.17.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would be required to comply with all project level requirements implemented by a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Although no development is currently proposed, future development projects would be required to submit im provement plans, including roadway improvements, for review and approval by the City Engineer to ensure improvements will be consistent with City standards. Therefore, through compliance with the programs, plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the cir culation system (inclusive of transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities), a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 123 Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS).

As described previously in this initial study, for the purpose of CEQA analysis , this initial study assumes future development of general commercial development on all parcels that are currently vacant or underutilized according to the City of Hanford’s GI S data. Based on parcel size and location of the site (not adjacent to a major street), it can be assumed that the site will not be developed with regional commercial, but instead will be developed with local serving retail and employment uses. According to OPR, local serving retail can be presumed to have a less-than- significant-impact for any net increase in total VMT.

For employment related uses, the Kings County Online VMT Mapping Tool was utilized to determine average employee VMT in the project area in comparison to the County average. The Project site is located in TAZ 484 and 485. As shown in Table 4-13, the County average is 17.7 VMT per employee, while the employee VMT for TAZ 484 is 10.15 and the employee VMT for TAZ 485 is 8.91. Thus, the Project area’s employee VMT is 43% and 50% lower than the County VMT per employee average. This is much higher than the 15 percent reduction target , which is the identified significance threshold. Thus, the proposed project can be determined to have a less than significant impact as it related to VMT impacts.

Table 4-13 Percent reduction in VMT per employee
TAZ 484 TAZ 485 Kings County average
VMT per employee 10.15 8.91 17.7
Percent reduction to VMT per employee 43% 50% -
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. Although no development is currently proposed, future development projects will be reviewed by the city to ensure that project design does not contain any geometric design features that would create hazards. The Project will also be subject to review by th e City Engineer to ensure that improvements are designed pursuant to applicable federal, state, and local design standards. Compliance with such standards would ensure that any traffic hazards are minimized. Further, the Project does not propose an incompa tible use as it is consistent with the existing development in the area and is similar in nature to the surrounding uses. As a result, implementation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to hazards due to roadway design features or incompatible uses.
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 255
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 124 Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not involve a change to any emergency response plan. In addition, a lthough no development is currently proposed, future development projects will be reviewed by the City’s Engineering Department and Fire Department to ensure adequate site access including emergency access. In the case that future construction requires lane closures, access through existing roadways would be maintained through st andard traffic control and therefore, potential lane closures would not affect emergency evacuation plans. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

4.17.3 Mitigation Measures
Non required.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 256
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 125

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in PRC section 21074
as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined
in te rms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:

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

4.18.1 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, s ome may be buried and therefore unknown until discovered through ground disturbances.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 257
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 126 Hanford General Plan
The General Plan identifies policies on historic and cultural resources related to new development including:

Policy O46 Archaeological Site Consult ation. Consult with appropriate Native American associations about potential archaeological sites in 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 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 Kings 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 re quested to have a Native American monitor on site for development of the Project.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 258
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 127 consultation list of tribes received from the NAHC. The same five (5) tri bes 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 fr om 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 project 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 stat e forms properly completed for each identified resource, to the Regional Archaeological Information Center. Guidelines for the format and content of all types of archaeological reports have been developed by the California Office of Historic Preservation, and reports will be 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 historic 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 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 qualifie d, professional consultant first conduct a field survey to determine if any cultural resources are present. If no ground

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 259
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 128 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 information 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 within this project area and the way in which these resources might be managed.

4.18.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
Less than Significant Impact 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 encoun tered unexpectedly during construction. In addition, mitigation measure MM CR-1 and MM CR-2 are incorporated herein to mitigate for potential subsurface cultural resources. Therefore, if any cultural resources were discovered, implementation of related regulations and mitigation measures would reduce the Project’s impact to less than significant.
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . The Project site has not been determined by the City to be a significant resource pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1 and to-date, no substantial information has been provided to the city to indicate otherwise. According to the

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 260
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 129 NAHC records, no sacred sites or tribal cultural resources are known in or near the study area.

Further, the Project site, inclusive of site features, is not listed in t he California Register of Historical Sources. However, there is some possibility that a non-visible, buried site may exist and may be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities which would constitute a significant impact. Hanford General Plan Policy O49 imposes measures to mitigate when resources are uncovered during construction. In addition, mitigation measure MM CR-1 and MM CR-2 are incorporated herein to mitigate for potential subsurface cultural resources. Therefore, if any cultural resources were discovered, implementation of related regulations and mitigation measures would reduce the Project’s impact to less than significant.

4.18.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed 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.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 261
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 130

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effect?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
state or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 262
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 131

4.19.1 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, sewer, stormwater, and wastewater services. Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications are provided by private companies. Each utility system is described below.

Overall, the review of future development projects by the City and responsible agencies indicates that the Project would not require or result in the major relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities and as such, would not cause significant environmental effects.

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 Va lley 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.

Wastewater
The City of Hanford wastewater system provides for treatment, disposal, and reuse of effluent, which meets all of the state’s discharge requirements for the city. The wastewater system consists of a treatment plant and 21 sanitary sewer lift stations located throughout the city. The treatment facility has a capacity of 8.0 million gallons per day and is located south of Houston Avenue and east of 11th Avenue. The City’s wastewater s ystem also pursues water conservation strategies to ensure long-term reuse of treated disinfected wastewater to reduce the need for groundwater.

Solid Waste
Solid waste in the city is collected by a private contractor, Kings Waste Recycling Authority (KWRA).

Refuse is sorted at the KWRA facility to recover recyclable materials before being hauled to the landfills in Kettleman Hills.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 263
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 132 underground structures. The system consists of 30 pump stations, 57 miles of pipeline, and 220 acres of drainage basins and drainage ditches.

Natural Gas and Electricity
PG&E and Southern California Edison Company are the natural gas and electric service providers for the area, incrementally expands and updates its service system as needed to serve its users.

Pre-Consultation Received: Early consultation comments were received from PG&E on September 9, 2021, with information and requirements as it related to Gas facilities and Electric facilities. Such requirements shall be incorporated in Conditions of Approval for future development projects resulting from Project implementation.

Telecommunications
Accordingly, telecommunications providers in the area (AT&T and Comcast) incrementally expand and update their service systems in response to usage and demand.

4.19.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less t han Significant Impact. Although no specific development is currently proposed, future development projects resulting from the Project would be required to connect to water, stormwater, solid waste, and wastewater services. Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications provided by private companies. The City and responsible agencies will review the projects through the entitlement review process to determine adequate capacity in these systems and ensure compliance with applicable conne ction requirements. In addition, future projects would be served by the appropriate natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications providers for the Project area. As a result, t hrough compliance with the applicable connection requirements, the Project would have a less than significant impact. b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in detail in Section 4.10, potable water demands for the Project were estimated using land-use-based unit water demand factors last updated for the City

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 264
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 133 in 2018. The Project site has an existing General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential and proposes a cha nge 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 (gpd) per net acre, compared to 1,390 gpd/net acre for the Corridor Mixed Use land use. .

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 during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. In addition, adherence to connection requirements and recommendat ions 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 significan t impact would occur because of the Project.
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is the city’s facility for treatment, disposal, and reuse of wastewater for residential, commercial, and industrial accounts. Although no specific development project is currently proposed, the wastewater impacts of future development projects would be evaluated by the City Engineer to ensure compliance with the City’s wastewater treatment requirements and capacity. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impact. Although no specific development project is currently proposed, future construction and operation would be required to comply with HMC Chapter 13.12 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal, which outlines requirements and specifications for solid waste collection. In addition, the General Plan outlines goals and policies for source reduction and recycling:

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

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 265
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 134 Goal P6: Continued waste stream reduction through education, recycling and other means.

Policy P27 Recycling Programs. Participate in and encourage waste diversion and recycling programs and efforts.

Policy P28 Kings Waster Recycling Authority. Participate as a member and support the Kings Waste Recycling Authority.

Compliance with these measures a nd policies would serve to reduce impacts of solid waste by promoting regular collection and encouraging the recycling of materials. For this reason, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management an d reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. As described under criterion d) above, future development that generates solid waste would be handled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

4.19.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 266
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 135

4.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility
or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, Would the
project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post -fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
X

4.20.1 Environmental Setting
The Hanford Fire Department provides emergency and fire protection services within the city limits of Hanford. Emergency services provided by the Fire Department include technical rescue, hazardous materials response, emergency medical services, and emerge ncy disaster management. Station 1, located at 350 W. Grangeville Boulevard provides service north of SR 198, while Station 2 at 10553 Houston Avenue provides south of SR 198. The Project site is located north of SR 198 and therefore would be served by Station 1 upon future annexation.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 267
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 136 The Project site is located on a relatively flat property within the City’s SOI. Further, the Project site is not identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) or the City of Hanford as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ); rather, the site is within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) as defined by Cal Fire and is considered an area of low fire risk. 39F 35 Lastly,
the Project has been reviewed by the City and the Hanford Fire Depa rtment and future development projects resulting from Project implementation would be required to be developed and operate in compliance with all regulations of the current California Fire Code.

4.20.2 Impact Assessment
If located in or near state responsibility or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, Would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact . To determine adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation and emergency vehicle access, future development projects resulting from the Project would be reviewed and conditioned by the City’s Police Department and Fire Department for compliance with applicable code and regulations. Review an d approval by the City would ensure that future projects do not substantially impair the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project. b. Due to slope, prevailing wi nds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in a relatively flat area with minimal slope.

Further, the site is partially developed with residential and commercial uses and the vacant portion of the site is surrounded by a mix of urban uses. In addition, the site is not located within a wildland, which precludes the risk of wildfire. As such, the risk of downslope winds and other factors that could exacerbate wildfire risks is limited. For these reasons, Project implementation would not change the degree of exposure to wildfires and the Project would have a less than significant impact.

35 Cal Fire, “FHSZ Viewer.” Accessed on January 27, 2022, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 268
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 137 c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the City’s SOI in areas with existing or planned urban uses. As such, the site is generally served by existing infrastructure such as roads and utilities. As Project implementat ion results in future development, the installation and maintenance of new infrastructure would be reviewed and/or conditioned by the City for compliance with applicable standards, specifications, and code . Such infrastructure would be typical for urban us es within an urbanized area and would thereby not exacerbate fire risks or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Project.
d. Expose people or structures to significa nt risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. The Project site is located on a relatively flat property with minimal slope and is not subject to downs lope, downstream flooding, or landslides. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks and no impact would occur as a result of the Project.

4.20.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 138

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:

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

4.21.1 Impact Assessment
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 270
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 139 or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the Project would have potentially significant impacts resulting from the Project for biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources.

Mitigation measures are incorporated herein to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the project and consistency with environmental polic ies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. All project-related impacts were determined to be less than significant.

The Project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or creat e any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increased need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.). As such, Project impacts are not considered to be cumulatively considerable given the insignificance o f project -induced impacts. The impact is therefore less than significant.
c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the project is not expected to have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Standard requirements and conditions have been incorporated in the project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 271
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 140 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This mitigation measure monitoring and reporting c hecklist was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097 and Section 21081.6 of the PRC (PRC). The timing of implementing each mitigation measure is identified in in the checklist, as well as identifies the entity responsible for verifying that the mitigation measures applied to a project are performed.

Project applicants are responsible for providing evidence that mitigation measures are implemented. As lead agency, the City of Hanford is responsible for verifying that mitigation is performed/completed.

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 outsid e 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.

Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
ground-
disturbing
activities
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City of
Hanford to
verify.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 272
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 141 • Monitor Nest. Should construction activity be
necessary within the designated buffer ar ound 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, 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 Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
ground-
disturbing
activities
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City of
Hanford to
verify.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 273
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 142 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 in stalled 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.

Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City of

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 274
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 143 • 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, monitor ing 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.
ground-
disturbing
activities
Hanford to
verify.

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 Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City of

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 275
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 144 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.
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 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 the impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation ground-
disturbing
activities
Hanford to
verify.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 276
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 145 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 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, 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.

Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
ground-
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City of
Hanford to
verify.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 277
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 146 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 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.
disturbing
activities
Tribal Cultural Resources
See MM CR-1 and CR-2 under Cultural Resources

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 278
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 147

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 279
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 148 6 REPORT PREPARATION
Names of Persons Who Prepared or Participated in the Initial Study:

Lead Agency
Lead Agency City of Hanford
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
(559) 585-2578
Mary E. Beatie, Interim
Director, Community
Development Department
Initial Study Consultant
Initial Study Precision Civil Engineering
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 449-4500
Bonique Emerson, AICP, VP of
Planning
Jenna Chilingerian, Senior
Associate Planner
Shin Tu, Assistant Planner

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 280
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 149 7 APPENDICES

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 281
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 150 Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files
Prepared by Precision Civil Engineering, Inc. dated February 1, 2022.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 282
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Lot Acreage: total acreage of vacant and underutilized parcels Square Feet: assumes
50%
lot coverage and
1 -story buildings
Construction Phase - Lots are vacant thus would not need demolition.

Area Mitigation -
Energy Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
General Office Building
472.80
1000sqft

21.71 472,843.80
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)

2.7 45

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2025
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98

0.033
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays

20.00 0.00
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseEndDate
6/28/2022
5/31/2022
tblLandUse
LandUseSquareFeet
472,800.00
472,843.80
tblLandUse
LotAcreage

10.85 21.71
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM

Page 1 of 35 ends

Hanford City CouncilNovember 15, 2022

Hanford City Council
November 15, 2022