Hanford City Council
December 6, 2022

December 6, 2022
7:00 PM – Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.

4:00 PM CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION:

ROLL CALL BY THE CITY CLERK:

PUBLIC COMMENT:

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

STUDY SESSION:

A. Introduction to Council of the recently awarded cannabis permit recipient, Embarc Ha nford, and Presentation of their proposed Retail Boutique and future revitalization of the entire downtown block
B. Presentation by Peters Engineering regarding the Downtown Pedestrian and Traffic Safety project and Council direction regarding the proposed roundabouts or 4 -Way stops at the Douty Intersection locations
CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF THE FOLLOWING:

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/

A. 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
Negotiating Party:

Kensington Way, between Richardson and Leland Ways
APN: 008-192-011
Agency Negotiators: Mario Cifuentez and Ty Mizote
Negotiating Party: Eric Delgado
CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION:

ROLL CALL:

INVOCATION:

Jay Rubalcalva
FLAG SALUTE:

COUNCIL REPORTS/GENERAL REPORTS:

Brief information -only reports from City Council and/or Staff, in cluding 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 may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights (Gov. Code sec. 54954.2). A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

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

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

B. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the November 15, 2022, Meeting.

C. Administration: Authorization for the City Manager to execute a contract with George Hills Company, Inc. to provide Third -Party General Liability Administration services, effec tive January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2027, for a monthly fee of $4,425 with a one time on - boarding fee of $7,800.

D. Community Development: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 22-08, 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 wit hin 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).

E. Public Works: Approval of the Notice of Completi on for the Civic Park Boring and Electrical Project and Authorization for the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said Notice with the Kings County Recorder's Office.

F. Public Works: Approval of the Notice of Completion for the Campus D rive Reconstruction Project and Authorization for the Mayor to execute and the City Cl erk to attest and file said Notice with the Kings County Recorder's Office.

G. Public Works: Adoption of Resolution 22 -46-R setting various Refuse related fees that are n ot subject to the Prop 218 process, such as extra empties, temporary bin rentals, spec ial event service, etc.

H. Fire: Approval of the purchase of one 2023 Chevrolet Tahoe from Keller of Hanford; approval of upfitting as an emergency response vehicle; and appropriation of $63,530, ($36,972 from Fleet Replacement Fund, $14,133 from the Gener al Fund and $12,425 from the Fire Department Ambulance Fine Reserve).

I. Police: Authorization to enter into a contract with Alarm Program Services (APS), at an annual cost of $12,000 for the overall administration of the Alarm Permitting process for the C ity of Hanford and Appropriation of an additional $7,000 for the Police Department's budget for the remainder of the year.

J. Police: Approval of the Purchase of a Mustan g Mach E Police Admin Vehicle from Keller Ford of Hanford, CA in the amount of $62,379 .99 and up to $2,500 for outfitting costs with Cooks Communications (Fresno).

K. Finance: Authorize amendment to professional services agreement, in an amount not to exce ed $48,700, with SDI Presence LLC (Carmichael, CA) and appropriate said funding from t he Computer Replacement Fund (0414) to assist in completion of the Tyler Software Implementation.

L. Finance: Review and Approval of the City of Hanford's Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Annual Report of Development Impact Fees (AB 1600 Mitigation Fee Act).

GENERAL BUSINESS:

A. Administration: Council consideration of the renewal of the annual contract with Integrated Avian Solutions to continue to provide F alconer services in Downt own Hanford, for an amount not to exceed $53,600 for Calendar Year 2023.

B. Public Works: Presentation and Council consideration of authorization for a water conservation education and incentive program consisting of three sub prog rams: 1) Outreach educati on campaign, 2) Installation of sign boards on all City Refuse trucks, and 3) a turf replacement program from $300,000 previously allocated by City Council from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA).

COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS:

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

December 7: City County Coordinating Meeting, Hosted by: City of Avenal Location: Avenal Theater & Event Center 5:30 p.m.

December 20: Regular City Council Meeting
December 23, 26, 30: Holiday, City offices closed
January 17: Regular City Council Meeting
January 18-20: New Mayors and Council Members in Sacramento February 1-3: New Mayors and Council Members in Universal City 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: 12/6/2022

AGENDA SECTION: A

SUBJECT:

Introduction to Council of the recently awarded cannabis permit recipient, Embarc Hanford, and Presentation of their proposed Retail Boutique and future revitalization of the entire downtown block

BACKGROUND:

City Staff recently solicited and scored applications for the City’s third retail commercial cannabis permit in accordance with the City’s approved review process. The process includes several steps prior to a selection being made:
• Application Solicitation
• Phase 1: Determination of Eligibility and Application • Background Check
• Proposed Location
• Indemnification Agreements
• Phase 2: Initial Ranking
• City scores applications based on approved criteria
• Applicants receiving an 80% or higher move on to Phase 3 • Phase 3: Second Ranking
• Applicants are interviewed and scored based on approved criteria • Staff sends final scores and rankings to the City Manager • Phase 4 City Manger’s Recommendation
• City Manager reviews scores and makes selection
• All applicants are notified of City Manager’s selection and are given an opportunity to appeal (10 Days)
• Property owners within 500 feet are notified of the selection and may comment (20 Days)
• Scoring and licensee are presented to City Council

4.A
Packet Pg. 5
The City received five applications from the following companies: Culture Cannabis Club, Element 7, Embarc, GBH Retail and MMD Hanford.

City Staff scored applications based on several criteria including safety, location, benefits to the local economy and labor force, and compatibility with the neighborhood. Based on the City’s approved scoring criteria the results after Phase III were as follows:

Culture: 92%
Element 7: 76%
Embarc: 98%
GBH: 88%
MMD: 92%
Following the Phase III scoring process, the City Manager reviewed the scoring and applications and Embarc was selected as the recipient of the available retail commercial cannabis permit.

All applicants were notified of the selection on November 15th and were given 10 days to appeal the proposed selection. The City did not receive any formal appeals and the appeal period closed on November 25th. Property owners within 500 feet of the project were notified on November 15th of the proposed selection were invited to submit questions and comments to the City. As of December 1st the City has received an email from a property owner requesting clarification on the location of the business. The City provided a response to the owner indicating the location but no appeal has been filed.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

4.A
Packet Pg. 6

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 12/6/2022

AGENDA SECTION: B

SUBJECT:

Presentation by Peters Engineering regarding the Downtown Pedestrian and Traffic Safety project and Council direction regarding the proposed roundabouts or 4-Way stops at the Douty Intersection locations

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council direct staff to move forward with the design of the Downtown project and indicate the Council's preference for either roundabouts or 4-way stops at the intersections of Douty Street at Sixth, Seventh and Eighth.

BACKGROUND:

On May 5, 2015, staff presented an item to City Council for the removal of five midblock crosswalks. These crosswalk locations were determined as non-compliant with current ADA requirements and need excessive improvements required to bring into compliance. The Council heard comments and voted to remove two of the five crosswalks, and to evaluate the others for upgrades to meet ADA compliance. Attachment No. 1 is an exhibit of Mid-Block Crosswalks for Elimination, along with the direction by Council.

In September of 2018, as directed by City Council, a Downtown Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety Committee was formed. Their purpose was to meet with staff and consultants to discuss potential conversions to one-way streets, traffic calming at intersections, safety lighting, and traffic controls in the downtown area, with the intention of meeting with City Council to provide recommendations for a final report and plan for downtown improvements that will provide added benefit to pedestrian and vehicular safety in the downtown area. The committee consisted of local downtown business owners and representatives.

4.B
Packet Pg. 7
At the February 16, 2021 City Council meeting, staff along with the City’s consultant, Peters Engineering, presented the Council with the results of the Downtown Committee’s recommendations for the Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Study. Council directed staff to move forward with the recommendations of the committee. The recommendations included roundabouts along Douty Street at Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Street, the removal of five mid-block crosswalks on Irwin, Douty, and Sixth Street, and construction of pedestrian curb extensions at twenty eight (28) intersections in the downtown study area.

At the September 7, 2021 City Council Study Session, staff discussed the Downtown traffic circulation and related improvements to improve Safety and Walkability and potential funding opportunities of the Clean California Local Grant Program administered by the California Department of Transportation. Staff presented the committee project recommendations for the Council's review and direction. The Council further discussed the mid-block crosswalks and the project budget. It was the Council consensus to direct staff to move forward with the recommendations. Additional appropriations would be presented to the Council at a future meeting for review and approval.

At the June 21, 2022 Council meeting Study Session, the Finance department presented the ARPA funding information to Council and requested approval for allocations. Council approved the recommendation to allocate $4.4 million for Downtown Street Economic Development of Sixth Street, Seventh Street and Eighth Street improvements. Should additional funding become available, or if existing funding is redirected, additional downtown intersections could be improved with curb extensions as identified in the Study.

As requested by Council, Peters Engineering Group, along with City staff, will present a fly-thru video of the downtown roundabouts. It should be noted that the animation is intended to help visualize how the round-a-bout will function for vehicles and pedestrians. It is not meant to represent every detail of how the project will be constructed nor the size of the circles themselves.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no immediate financial impacts as a result of any Council actions related to this matter.

The initial financial impact will result from the award of a design contract for the project.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1- remove crosswalks with Council direction Photos Downtown Ped and Traffic Study Report Section
Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR

4.B
Packet Pg. 8

2.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Crosswalk Locations (Crosswalk Removals)
3 4
5 1
2 3

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Location Map (UE: Public Hearing for the Removal of five mid-block crosswalks in the Downtown area)

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Attachment 1- remove crosswalks with Council direction -PDBUJPO


2.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Crosswalk Locations (Crosswalk Removals)

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Ramp Photos (UE: Public Hearing for the Removal of five mid-block crosswalks in the Downtown area)

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Attachment 1- remove crosswalks with Council direction Photos (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements) -PDBUJPO


2.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Crosswalk Locations (Crosswalk Removals)

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Ramp Photos (UE: Public Hearing for the Removal of five mid-block crosswalks in the Downtown area)

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Attachment 1- remove crosswalks with Council direction Photos (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements) -PDBUJPO


2.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Crosswalk Locations (Crosswalk Removals)

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Ramp Photos (UE: Public Hearing for the Removal of five mid-block crosswalks in the Downtown area)

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Attachment 1- remove crosswalks with Council direction Photos (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements) -PDBUJPO


2.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Crosswalk Locations (Crosswalk Removals)

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Ramp Photos (UE: Public Hearing for the Removal of five mid-block crosswalks in the Downtown area)

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Attachment 1- remove crosswalks with Council direction Photos (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements) -PDBUJPO


2.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Crosswalk Locations (Crosswalk Removals)

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Ramp Photos (UE: Public Hearing for the Removal of five mid-block crosswalks in the Downtown area)

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Attachment 1- remove crosswalks with Council direction Photos (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements) -PDBUJPO


2.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Crosswalk Locations (Crosswalk Removals)

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Ramp Photos (UE: Public Hearing for the Removal of five mid-block crosswalks in the Downtown area)

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment 1- remove crosswalks with Council direction Photos (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements) -PDBUJPO


2.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Crosswalk Locations (Crosswalk Removals)

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Ramp Photos (UE: Public Hearing for the Removal of five mid-block crosswalks in the Downtown area)

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment 1- remove crosswalks with Council direction Photos (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements) -PDBUJPO


2.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Crosswalk Locations (Crosswalk Removals)

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Ramp Photos (UE: Public Hearing for the Removal of five mid-block crosswalks in the Downtown area)

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment 1- remove crosswalks with Council direction Photos (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements) -PDBUJPO


2.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Crosswalk Locations (Crosswalk Removals)

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Ramp Photos (UE: Public Hearing for the Removal of five mid-block crosswalks in the Downtown area)

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment 1- remove crosswalks with Council direction Photos (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements) -PDBUJPO


2.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Crosswalk Locations (Crosswalk Removals)

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Ramp Photos (UE: Public Hearing for the Removal of five mid-block crosswalks in the Downtown area)

4.B.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment 1- remove crosswalks with Council direction Photos (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Peters Engineering Group
City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety &
Traffic Circulation Project
January 27, 2021

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Downtown Ped and Traffic Study Report Section (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements)

DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN SAFETY & TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PROJECT 1 BACKGROUND
The project includes identifying intersections in the Central Parking and Business District that can potentially benefit from pedestrian safety and accessibility improvements. The analysis will include consideration of traffic calming (bulb-outs), evaluation of one-way streets downtown for traffic flow and parking/pedestrian safety, evaluation of conversion of Douty Street and Seventh Street to one lane with traffic calming, and design of intersection improvements for pedestrian safety/ADA compliance.

Figure 1 presents the boundary of the downtown area which includes twenty eight (28) intersections and nine (9) mid-block crosswalks.

Figure 1 – Study Area

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Downtown Ped and Traffic Study Report Section (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements)

DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN SAFETY & TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PROJECT 2 DOWNTOWN COMMITTEE / PUBLIC MEETINGS
During the course of the preparation of this report, Peters Engineering Group participated in several meetings with the City of Hanford Downtown Committee. The purpose of the meetings was to collaborate with members of the downtown community and receive input on the analysis and recommendations being developed. The three coordination meetings and a brief summary of discussion items are presented below:

December 13, 2018 – A meeting was held in person with the Committee at the City Hall training room. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the scope of the project and receive initial feedback from members regarding the study.

February 21, 2019 – A meeting was held in person with the Committee at the City Hall training room. The purpose of the meeting was to present the initial traffic analysis related to mid-block crosswalks, roadway operations and traffic signal operations.

August 27, 2020 – A virtual meeting was held with the Committee utilizing Zoom. The Committee was presented with findings and recommendations regarding mid-block crosswalks, proposals for roadway modifications, and the recommendations regarding signalized intersections.

Throughout the process the Committee provided feedback and recommendations that in some instances are contrary to Peters Engineering Group recommendations. The feedback from the Committee will be presented in this report in addition to the traffic recommendations herein.

CIRCULATION ANALYSIS
A traffic analysis was performed to evaluate the following proposed circulation modifications:

1. Conversion of Seventh Street and Sixth Street to one-way traffic in the downtown area to potentially create additional parking on the street.

2. Conversion of Douty Street and Seventh Street to single lane with angled parking in the downtown area.

Twenty-four-hour traffic counts were performed on each approach to the various study intersections in order to perform the analysis. Manual traffic counts, including turning movements, were performed at all intersections between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on a weekday. Pedestrian and vehicle counts were performed at mid-block crosswalks between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. and between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.

The results of the PM peak hour analysis is presented in Table 1.

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Downtown Ped and Traffic Study Report Section (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements)

DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN SAFETY & TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PROJECT 3 Table 1 – PM Peak Hour Analysis
Redington Irwin Douty Harris Redington Irwin Douty Harris 7th Street A B A A 7th Street BBBB
6th Street BBCB 6th Street C C E C
Redington Irwin Douty Harris Redington Irwin Douty Harris 7th Street BBCB 7th Street D B D C
6th Street BBCB 6th Street C C E C
Redington Irwin Douty Harris Redington Irwin Douty Harris 7th Street D C F E 7th Street FFFF
6th Street F C F F 6th Street FEFF
Redington Irwin Douty Harris Redington Irwin Douty Harris 7th Street BBCC 7th Street C C E D
6th Street C C C F 6th Street E C E F
ONE-WAY, TWO LANES (E xisting traffic signals removed) ONE-WAY, TWO LANES (E xisting traffic signals removed) EXISTING 2040
EXISTING (Existing traffic signals removed) 2040 (Existing tra ffic signals removed) ONE-WAY, ONE LANE ( Existing traffic signals removed) ONE-WAY, ONE LANE ( Existing traffic signals removed) The analysis concluded that Seventh Street and Sixth Street operate within acceptable levels of service without one-way conversion. Furthermore, if the streets were to be converted to one-way operation, two lanes would be required which would not allow for additional parking to be developed.

Douty Street and Seventh Street were analyzed to determine if a reduction in the number of lanes in each direction, otherwise known as a “lane diet,” would provide adequate capacity and allow for the development of angled parking. The analysis concluded that the street segment portions of the roadways would operate at acceptable levels of service with a single lane in each direction until the year 2040. However, the intersections will require additional lanes to operate efficiently. Because the intersections are relatively closely spaced, very little of the roadway, if any, would be available for angled parking. Therefore, reducing these streets to one-lane in each direction is not a long-term solution.

Another alternative considered in the analysis was the construction of compact roundabouts on Douty Street at Sixth Street, Seventh Street, and Eighth Street. Figure 2 presents the proposed compact roundabouts on Douty Street.

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Downtown Ped and Traffic Study Report Section (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements)

DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN SAFETY & TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PROJECT 4 Figure 2 – Douty Street Compact Roundabouts
The proposed Douty Street compact roundabouts will operate at an acceptable level of service through the year 2040 and will provide opportunities for development of angled parking between intersections.

It is recommended that the streets remain two-way operation and that the roundabouts are pursued at a time in the future when funding can be secured for construction of the facilities.

An interim alternative was identified that includes reducing Douty Street to one lane in each direction with the addition of angled parking between Sixth Street and Eighth Street. While not a permanent solution, implementing this alternative would only allow for implementation of additional parking along this segment until funding for the roundabouts can be secured.

Only a single approach lane on Douty at the 6
th / 7 th and 8 th Street intersections would be
provided under this alternative. This would require modifications to the signalization at 7 th Street to provide for split phasing on the Douty Street approached so that left turning vehicles do not impair through movements.

The Downtown Committee concurred with maintaining the two-way operation on both Seventh and Sixth Streets, pursuing the interim alternative of reducing Douty Street to one lane in each direction with angled parking, and supported pursuing the roundabout alternatives in the future if/when funding becomes available.

Traffic analysis calculations are included in the Appendix.

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Downtown Ped and Traffic Study Report Section (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements)

DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN SAFETY & TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PROJECT 5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
The study performed intersection analyses to ascertain the operational conditions at following five (5) existing signalized intersections:

1. Seventh Street / Harris Street

2. Seventh Street / Irwin Street

3. Seventh Street / Douty Street

4. Seventh Street / Redington Street

5. Lacey Boulevard / Redington Street
The purpose of the analysis was to determine which, if any, of the multi-way stop sign and traffic signal criteria presented in the most recent California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CMUTCD) are satisfied. The intent of this task is to determine whether traffic signals or multi-way stop control is the preferred intersection control.

The traffic analysis concluded that traffic signals should be removed at the following intersections due to the fact that they do not currently meet warrants and are non-standard signal installations:

1. Seventh Street / Harris Street

2. Seventh Street / Irwin Street

3. Seventh Street / Douty Street (possibly replaced with a roundabout) Traffic signal warrants are met at both the Seventh Street / Redington Street and Lacey Boulevard / Redington Street intersections. It is recommended to maintain traffic signals at both locations due to the intersections meeting warrants and the traffic signals being mostly in compliance with modern standards. The Downtown Committee concurred with this recommendation.

MID-BLOCK CROSSWALKS
Several mid-block crosswalks were analyzed to determine the safety and effectiveness of these facilities. Warrants for installation of mid-block crosswalks are as follows:

Pedestrian volume (>10/hr)
Speed Limit (<45 mph)
Nearest crosswalk (>800 feet)
If minimum criteria are met further evaluation is necessary i. Number of pedestrians
ii. Effectiveness of crosswalk (visibility, channelization, etc.) iii. Available gaps in traffic

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Downtown Ped and Traffic Study Report Section (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements)

DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN SAFETY & TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PROJECT 6 A summary of the mid-block crosswalk metrics is presented in Table 2.

Table 2
Mid-Block Crosswalk Summary
Location Street Adjacent Streets Near
Alley?
Pedestrian
Peak Hour
Volume
Conflicting
Vehicular
Peak-Hour
Volume
Time
Period Special Notes
A Lacey Blvd. Redington / Irwin N o 7 530 Mid-day Curb in median blocks accessi bility B Eighth St. Phillips / Redington No 26 228 Mid-day Relatively good access exists C Eighth St. Redington / Irwin No 13 309 Mid-day Relatively good access exists D Irwin St. 7th / 8th Yes 15 305 Mid-day No ramps, difficult access E Douty St. 7th / 8th Yes 17 558 PM No ramps, difficult access, fire hydran F Seventh St. Phillips / Redington No 14 609 Mid-day Relatively good access exists G Seventh St. Douty / Harris No 15 460 PM Relatively good access exists H Irwin St. 6th / 7th Yes 27 126 PM No ramps, difficult access, fire hydran I Douty St. 6th / 7th Yes 18 590 PM No ramps, difficult access, poles J Sixth St. Redington / Irwin No 5 427 Mid-day Relatively good access exists K Sixth St. Irwin / Douty No 19 418 Mid-day Relatively good access exists L Sixth St. Douty / Harris No 4 523 PM No curb ramp on north side The analysis focused on determining whether each individual crosswalk was warranted and, if so, if improvements could be made to enhance safety. If the crosswalk was not warranted and exhibited safety deficiencies it would be identified to be removed. An example of a crosswalk that met warrants and included sufficient safety features, such as ramps and sufficient sight distance, is shown in Figure 3.

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Downtown Ped and Traffic Study Report Section (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements)

DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN SAFETY & TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PROJECT 7 Figure 3
Sixth Street between Irwin Street and Douty Street
An example of a crosswalk that did not meet warrants and exhibited deficiencies, such as inadequate ramps and insufficient sight distance, is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4
Sixth Street between Douty Street and Harris Street.

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Downtown Ped and Traffic Study Report Section (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements)

DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN SAFETY & TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PROJECT 8 A summary of recommendations at the seven mid-blo ck crosswalks analyzed is presented in Table 3.

Table 3
Mid-Block Crosswalk Recommendations
Location Recommendation
Irwin Street (6th / 7th) Remove
Irwin Street (7th / 8th) Remove
Douty Street (6th / 7th) Remove
Douty Street (7th / 8th) Remove
Sixth (Douty / Harris) Remove
Lacey (Redington / Irwin) Maintain
Sixth (Redington / Irwin) Maintain
The Downtown Committee reviewed these recommendations and disagreed with the recommendation to remove both of the mid-block crosswalks on Irwin Street as well as the removal of the mid-block crosswalk on Douty Street between 6 th and 7 th streets. The
remaining recommendations were accepted by the Committee. For the three mid-block crosswalks that the committee wishes to maintain, it is recommended that the additional safety improvements be considered at the crosswalks:

Rapid Flashing Beacons (RFB) – Install RFB’s at the crosswalks to alert approaching traffic of pedestrian activity. Additionally, install led warning signs that activate on alley approaches similar to Figure 5 below.

Figure 5
RFB Application

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Downtown Ped and Traffic Study Report Section (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements)

DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN SAFETY & TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PROJECT 9 Speed Tables – The City could consider installing low-profile speed tables at the crosswalk locations to slow approaching vehicles. An example of a speed table is shown in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6 – Speed Table

INTERSECTION PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
In an effort to provide a more walkable pedestrian friendly environment in the downtown area, intersections were evaluated to determine improvements which would promote pedestrian travel and improve safety. Figure 7 presents curb extension improvements proposed at twenty eight (28) intersections in downtown:

Figure 7
Pedestrian Intersection Treatment
Existing Intersection Proposed Intersection
The Downtown Committee concurred with the benefits of the proposed pedestrian improvements and concurred with the recommendation to pursue these improvements.

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Downtown Ped and Traffic Study Report Section (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements)

DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN SAFETY & TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PROJECT 10 Preliminary layouts of curb extension improvements for each of the twenty eight intersections are included in the Appendix.

CONCLUSIONS/SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The study conclusions and recommendations are summarized as follows:

Recommendation Committee Response
Sixth Street and Seventh Street should be maintained as two-way streets Concurred.

Compact roundabouts should be considered on Douty Street at Sixth Street, Seventh Street, and Eighth Street in the future if/when funding becomes available.

Concurred.

As in interim project, Douty Street between 6th Street and 8th Street should be reduced to one-lane in each direction and angled parking should be developed along this segment. This will require split phase signal operations at Douty / 7th.

Concurred.

Traffic signals should be removed at Seventh Street / Harris Street, Seventh Street / Irwin Street, and Seventh Street / Douty Street and maintained at Seventh Street / Redington Street and Lacey Boulevard / Redington.

Concurred.

Pedestrian curb extensions should be installed at twenty eight (28) intersections included in the study area.

Concurred.

Remove mid-block crosswalk on Irwin Street between 6th/7th. Maintain crosswalk – install safety improvements.

Remove mid-block crosswalk on Irwin Street between 7th/8th. Maintain crosswalk – install safety improvements.

Remove mid-block crosswalk on Douty Street between 6th/7th. Maintain crosswalk – install safety improvements.

Remove mid-block crosswalk on Douty Street between 7th/8th. Concurred.

Remove mid-block crosswalk on Sixth Street between Douty / Harris. Concurred.

Maintain mid-block crosswalk on Lacey Blvd between Redington/Irwin. Concurred.

Maintain mid-block crosswalk on Sixth Street between Redington/Irwin. Concurred.

4.B.b
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Downtown Ped and Traffic Study Report Section (PW: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements)

DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION STUDY December 6, 2022

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and September 2018 – by Council direction
Downtown Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety Committee
was selected.

Committee members:
´Johnathan Doyel – Public Works Director
´David Peters – Project Manager
´John Rowland – Project Engineer
´Downtown Committee (downtown business owners)
Three meetings were held
´Initial
´Traffic Operations
´Recommendations

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and STUDY OBJECTIVES: to improve
pedestrian and vehicular safety.
´ Evaluate existing mid-block crosswalks
§ Verify if crossings area Warranted
§ Determine ADA and Safety Improvements needed
´ Evaluate conversion of 6th & 7th to one-way streets
´ Evaluate conversion of Douty & 7th to single lane in each direction w/ angled parking
´ Evaluate traffic signal warrants at existing signalized intersections
´ Evaluate intersections for pedestrian safety improvements including:
§ Curb extensions (bulb outs)
§ Striping / Signing Improvements
§ Other safety enhancements

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and

STUDY AREA
Central Parking and
Business Imp. area
Focused Study
Area

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and

MID-BLOCK CROSSWALKS
´ For a Crosswalk to be installed, it must meet Warrants ´Pedestrian volume (>10/hr – any hour of day)
´Speed Limit (<45 mph)
´Nearest crosswalk (>800 feet)
´If minimum criteria are met further evaluation is necessary ´Number of pedestrians
´Effectiveness of crosswalk (visibility, channelization, etc.) ´Available gaps in traffic

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and Maintain Crosswalk “K”
6th between Irwin & Douty

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and Remove Crosswalk “D”
Irwin between 7th & 8th

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and

MID-BLOCK XWALKS CONCLUSIONS
´ Eliminate at:
´Irwin (6th/7th)
´Irwin (7th/8th)
´Douty (6th/7th)
´Douty (7th/8th)
´Sixth (Douty/Harris)
´Maintain low-volume crosswalks (due to quality
improvements) at:
´Lacey (Redington/Irwin)
´Sixth (Redington/Irwin)

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and

MID-BLOCK XWALKS CONCLUSIONS
´Reasons for Removal
´< 800 feet from nearest crosswalk
´Disabled accessibility
´Visibility

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and 6th & 7th One-Way Conversion Benefits
´Better operations / capacity on higher
volume roads w/ complex intersections
´Potential for additional parking
´Pedestrian safety

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and 6th & 7th One-Way Conversion
Disadvantages
´Circuitous routes
´Confusion
´Wrong way drivers
´Pedestrian safety

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and One-Way Conversion Conclusions
´Streets operate well in 2040 without conversion
´One-way operation would require two-lane
streets
´Will not allow for additional parking
´One-way single lane streets would operate
acceptably now, but will fail by 2040
´Recommend streets remain two-way operation

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and Douty & 7th “Lane Diet” Benefits
´4 Lane -> 2 Lane
´Additional parking opportunities
´Bike lane opportunities
´Pedestrian Safety (curb extensions &
visibility)

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and Douty & 7th “Lane Diet” Disadvantages
´Traffic operations
´Roadways
´Intersections

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and Douty Street “Lane Diet”

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and “Lane Diet” Conclusion
´2-lane Douty street segment expected to
operate at an acceptable LOS now and in
2040
´Intersections (6th/7th/8th) also expected to
operate at acceptable LOS now but will fail
by 2040
´Can cause concentrated delays at signalized
intersection (Douty / 7th)
´Can not mitigate Douty / 7th intersection delay
with 4-way stop - will need to consider other
options such as split phasing or roundabouts

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and Douty Street Roundabouts

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and Roundabout Traffic Operations
´Single lane roundabouts sufficient
´Roundabouts will operate at acceptable
levels through 2040.
´Queuing will not be excessive
´Opportunities for additional parking

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and Traffic Signal Removal Benefits
´Possible increase in pedestrian safety
´Eliminates non-standard facility
´Decreases delay during off-peak hours
´Improves safety for left turning vehicles
´Decreased maintenance and operations
costs.

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and Signal Conclusions / Recommendations
´Remove signals that do not meet warrants:
´7th / Harris
´7th / Irwin
´7th / Douty ***
´Maintain 7th / Redington (meets warrants)
´Maintain Lacey / Redington (meets warrants)
´*** Possibly replaced with roundabout

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and Existing Intersection

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and Modified Intersection

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and Recommendations
Recommendation Committee Response
Sixth Street and Seventh Street should be maintained as two-way streets Concurred.

Compact roundabouts should be considered on Douty Street at Sixth Street, Seventh Street, and Eighth Street in the future if/when funding becomes available.

Concurred.

As in interim project, Douty Street between 6th Street and 8th Street should be reduced to one-lane in each direction and angled parking should be developed along this segment.

This will require split phase signal operations at Douty / 7th.

Concurred.

Traffic signals should be removed at Seventh Street / Harris Street, Seventh Street / Irwin Street, and Seventh Street / Douty Street and maintained at Seventh Street / Redington Street and Lacey Boulevard / Redington.

Concurred.

Pedestrian curb extensions should be installed at twenty eight (28) intersections included in the study area.

Concurred.

Remove mid-block crosswalk on Irwin Street between 6th/7th. Maintain crosswalk – install safety improvements.

Remove mid-block crosswalk on Irwin Street between 7th/8th. Maintain crosswalk & install safety improvements.

Remove mid-block crosswalk on Douty Street between 6th/7th. Maintain crosswalk – install safety improvements.

Remove mid-block crosswalk on Douty Street between 7th/8th. Concurred.

Remove mid-block crosswalk on Sixth Street between Douty / Harris. Concurred.

Maintain mid-block crosswalk on Lacey Blvd between Redington/Irwin. Concurred.

Maintain mid-block crosswalk on Sixth Street between Redington/Irwin. Concurred.

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and Questions

4.B.c
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Downtown Study Final Report Powerpoint 12-6-22, JR (PW: Downtown Traffic and

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 12/6/2022

AGENDA SECTION: B

SUBJECT:

City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the November 15, 2022, Meeting

Recommendation:

Approve the minutes of the November 15, 2022 Meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

11.15.2022

12.B
Packet Pg. 55

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
November 15, 2022 7:00 PM
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.

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 6:54 PM
Art Brieno Council Member Late 7:01 PM
Kalish Morrow Mayor Present 6:50 PM
Amanda Saltray Council Member Present 6:40 PM
Francisco Ramirez Council Member Present 6:45 PM

INVOCATION:

The invocation was led by Stella Yarbrough.

FLAG SALUTE:

The flag salute was led by Mayor Morrow.

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).

The 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.

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: 11.15.2022 (Clerk: 11.15.2022 Minutes)

Rusty Brookshire spoke in opposition of the traffic circles project.

Jim Nelson requested to pull item E from the consent calendar.

Chad Draxler asked the Council to hold off making any major decisions until the beginning of the year. He also expressed his concerns regarding the Boys and Girls Club.

Bob Ramos commented on the Boys and Girls Club. H e also suggested allowing the seniors to use the old Goodwill building again.

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.

It E was pulled by the public and Council Member Brieno pulled item H.

Motion to approve except the items approved for separate consideration.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Diane Sharp, Vice Mayor
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 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: Approval of A mendment No. 2 of the License Agreement between the Carnegie Museum of Kings County and the City of Hanford to extend the term of t he agreement until December 31, 2023
F. 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 negotiati on process a nd authorization for City Administration to amend all other documents as may be necessary to implement the updates.

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

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: 11.15.2022 (Clerk: 11.15.2022 Minutes)

1. 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.
[Item E]
Jim nelson expressed his concerns regarding the services.

City Manager Cifuentez responded to the questions and comments fr om the Council . City Manager Cifuente z suggested a future study session presentation by Integrated Avian Sol utions Falconer. After a brief discussion, Council Member Ramirez motioned to table the item.

RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 12/6/2022 7:00 PM
MOVER: Francisco Ramirez, Council Member
SECONDER: Art Brieno, Council Member
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez

2. 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 Repl acement Fund and of $12,162 from Wastewater Fund for the purchase.
[Item H]
Pulled by Council Member Brieno.

Deputy Public Works Director Jim Ross and City Manager Cifuentez answered questions fr om 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
PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A. Community Development: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-31: A request to certify that the project will not have a significant eff ect on the environment with t he 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 incompa tibility with the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The proposed land use designation is compatible w ith 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 wit hin 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).

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: 11.15.2022 (Clerk: 11.15.2022 Minutes)
Mayor Morrow opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. and called for the staff report. Vice Mayor Sharp and Council Member Brieno recused themselves. Deput y City Manager Jason Waters d iscussed the project and answered questions from the Council.

Public Comment:

IN-FAVOR
Chad Draxler spoke in favor.

Bob Ramos spoke in favor.

OPPOSED
None.

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

Mayor Morrow closed the public hearing at 7:31 p.m.

RESULT: APPROVED [3 TO 0]
MOVER: Francisco Ramirez, Council Member
SECONDER: Kalish Morrow, Mayor
AYES: Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
ABSTAIN: Sharp, Brieno
GENERAL BUSINESS:

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

Before the discussion, Vice Mayor Sharp recused her self. City Manager Cifuentez discussed project and Introduced Retail Strategies Inc. Director of Busine ss Matthew Tate and President Jenn Gregory (teleconference). Mr. Tate introduced the Retail Strategies, Inc . team and provided an overview of goals and partnerships. City Manager Cifuentez discussed funding sources and t he importance of community input. Staff and the consultant answered questions from the Council.

Motion to approve.

RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 0]
MOVER: Francisco Ramirez, Council Member
SECONDER: Art Brieno, Council Member
AYES: Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
ABSTAIN: Sharp
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 the City M anager to execute all related documents.

Parks and Community Services Director Brad Albert discussed the grant program and concept. Staff addressed the Council's questions and concerns.

Motion to approve.

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: 11.15.2022 (Clerk: 11.15.2022 Minutes)
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Art Brieno, Francisco Ramirez
SECONDER: Amanda Saltray, Council Member
AYES: Sharp, Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
C. 5614 : CC: Chamber Fee Waiver Request
City Manager Cifuentez provided an overview of the request f rom the Chamber of Commerce and answered questions from the Council. Chamber of Commer ce Executive Director Amory Marple discussed the past partnership with the city for the Candy Cane Charity event an d the Distinguished Awards Ceremony. The Council discussed the organizations benefiting from the event s. Vice Mayor Sharp spoke in o pposition to the request.

Motion to approve.

RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Francisco Ramirez, Council Member
SECONDER: Amanda Saltray, Council Member
AYES: Brieno, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
NAYS: Sharp
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, subjec t to Council Policies and Procedures, they may reque st 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)
None.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mayor Morrow adjourned the meeting at 8:43 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Natalie Corral
City Clerk

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: 11.15.2022 (Clerk: 11.15.2022 Minutes)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 12/6/2022

AGENDA SECTION: C

SUBJECT:

Administration: Authorization for the City Manager to execute a contract with George Hills Company, Inc. to provide Third-Party General Liability Administration services, effective January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2027, for a monthly fee of $4,425 with a one time on- boarding fee of $7,800.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council, by motion, Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with George Hills Company, Inc. to provide Third-Party General Liability Administration services, effective January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2027, for a monthly fee of $4,425 with a one time on- boarding fee of $7,800, and authorize the City Manager to settle claims when the action would be consistent with the recommendation by George Hills, within the fiscal authority granted to the City Manager.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Hanford had an existing contract with York Risk Services Group for Third Party General Liability Administration services. York Risk Services Group was then acquired by Sedgwick in September of 2019, and the City continued our contracted TPA relationship following the acquisition.

Due to the lack of service that the City began to experience in late 2021, it was determined that consideration of alternative services was needed. In the Spring of 2022, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was sent to three (3) companies who specialize in general liability claim administration services and are recognized by Public Risk Innovation, Solutions, and Management (PRISM), the City’s Risk Management Insurance Pool. All three companies submitted RFP’s prior to the deadline.

A committee, which included the City Manager, Human Resources Manager, Risk Management Analyst and City Attorney’s office reviewed the three proposals and unanimously determined that George Hills proposal, responsiveness, experience, and corporate structure would best suit

12.C
Packet Pg. 61
the City of Hanford’s needs. Accordingly, staff is proposing to recommend for Council to approve an annual contract, with four (4) additional one-year options to commence effective January 1, 2023, with George Hills Company, Inc.

George Hills is the only known California TPA with a legal division. They are adept in litigation management and experienced in working with city municipalities. In addition to this, they offer claims and litigation management training to their clients. Another service that George Hills provides is subrogation recovery, which the City is currently contracted with them to provide.

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

To take over the current general liability claims administration beginning January 1, 2023, George Hills would perform the following tasks on an ongoing basis, with guidance from and in concert with City of Hanford staff:
· Promptly set up a claim file upon receipt of claims and maintain claim files on each potential or actual claim reported.
· Investigate accidents or incidents as warranted, to include on-site investigation, photographs, witness interviews, determination of losses and other such investigative services necessary to determine all City of Hanford losses but not to include extraordinary investigative services outside their expertise. · Access and evaluate the nature and extent of each claim, establish claims reserves for indemnity and legal expense.
· Ensure timely tort claim handling, including contact and follow-up with claimants regarding claim issues and processing.
· Maintain service on a 24-hour, 7 days per week basis, to receive reports of any incident or accident which may be subject of a liability claim and provide immediate investigative services to the extent necessary to provide a complete investigation. · Report claims to the excess insurer in compliance with excess carrier’s reporting requirements and coordinate with the excess insurer on a claim’s progress in accordance with the excess insurer’s insurance requirements.
· Obtain settlement contracts and releasees upon settlement of claims or potential claims not in litigation.
· Perform the necessary data gathering for the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) and the Set Aside Contracts in compliance with Section 111 of the MMSEA including the required reporting.
· To the extent there is privileged information or PHI shared between agencies, which is subject to protection under HIPAA, implement all necessary measures in compliance with the Act and execute a Business Associates Agreement (BAA).

12.C
Packet Pg. 62
· Establish and maintain a trust fund to pay indemnity and expenses that may be due on claims.
· Monitor account balance, prepare replenishment requests as needed. · Monthly bank reconciliations, prepared and sent to client. · Monthly loss runs and claim reports, prepared, and sent to client.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fee requested by George Hills Company, Inc. is $4,425 per month ($53,100 per year) with a one-time onboarding fee of $7,800. The funding for these services will be drawn from various General and Enterprise Fund departmental budgets. Overall, the City anticipates saving money compared our current process as the need for legal oversight will reduce significantly.

ATTACHMENTS:
2023 George Hills Contract

12.C
Packet Pg. 63

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 1 of 32

CLAIMS ADJUSTING AND ADMINISTRATION

SERVICE CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF HANFORD AND GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC.

January 1, 2023 – December 31, 2027

This Contract is made, entered into, and shall be effective as of, this 1st day of January 2023 by and between the CITY OF HANFORD, hereinafter referred to as “CLIENT,” and GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC., hereinafter referred to as “GH.”
GH is a California Corporation doing business as licensed, independent insurance adjusters and administrators, with John Chaquica, Chief Executive Officer, responsible for contract compliance, terms and corporate governance. Chris Shaffer, Chief Operating Officer, shall oversee the daily operations. The company's corporate office i s located at P.O. Box 278 , Rancho Cordova, California, 95741, telephone, (916) 859-4800.

The CLIENT is an incorporated public entity located at 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA 93230.

IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between the parties signing this contract as follows:

1. GENERAL
CLIENT is desirous of availing itself of liability and property claims adjusting and administration services for those claims assigned per the Scope of Services (Section II). GH is a Third-Party Claims Administrator handling self-insured claims and is ready to and capable of performing such services. As such, GH may act as a representative of the CLIENT when directed for the investigation, adjustment, processing, and evaluation of general liability, motor vehicle, and potential money damage claims or incidents filed by third parties against the CLIENT, or against parties for whom the CLIENT is alleged to be legally responsible, which are premised upon allegations of willful, intentional, negligent, or careless acts and/or omissions (“CLAIMS”).

For all other claims, CLIENT will report to GH monthly only for purposes of input into the claims system to ensure complete and accurate reports are provided to the excess carrier.

2. SCOPE OF SERVICES
GH agrees to provide complete claim handling services on each accident or incident, as directed by CLIENT. Each CLAIM will be subject to the Scope of Services form, attached hereto as Attachment A and incorporated herein as part of the Contract, which shal l be completed by the CLIENT. The Scope of Services form shall be the controlling document for the claims adjusting services to be provided by GH for and on behalf of CLIENT and may be amended as needed during the Contractual period.

3. DENIAL, COMPROMISE, OR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS
It is agreed that CLIENT has granted no authority to GH for the pur pose of compromising , settling, and paying any claims against CLIENT being handled by GH. GH will issue payment for legal expenses as defined in the Client Expressed Scope of Work form. Prior approval to compromise or settle any claim or pay any expense will be obtained from the designated claims officer or employee on matters exceeding the authority granted above.

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 2 of 32

4. FILE RETENTION
GH shall serve as the custodian of the client’s data , for documents related to each of the claims subject to this agreement only, and as such shall electronically retain all related records through the life of this c ontract. Upon termination of this contract, GH shall electronically transfer all of the data pertaining to all claims, either to the CLIENT or to a recipient designated by the CLIENT, within 30 days of termination. CLIENT and GH may agree via a separate signed agreement to retain records and/or data for a longer period of time, but in the absence of such separate agreement, GH will remove all data received, held, used, or stored in relation to George Hill’s performance pursuant to this contract, from its sy stem after 30 days from termination.

5. CONFIDENTIALITY
All data, documents, discussions, or other information developed or received by or for GH In performance of this Contract are confidential and not to be disclosed to any person except as authorized by CLIENT or CLIENT’s designee, or as required by law.

6. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
In the event GH receives a claim from the CLIENT in which there arises a "conflict of interest," GH shall immediately notify CLIENT, and suggest handling instructions in the address of the conflict. CLIENT may then, at their expense choose to hire another well-qualified claim firm to handle that particular claim to a conclusion. GH covenants that it presently knows of no interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of services required under this contract.

7. CLIENT RESPONSIBILITY
CLIENT agrees that it shall:
1) Cooperate with GH as reasonably necessary for GH to perform its services. 2) Provide direction to GH as requested regarding particular project requirements. 3) Communicate any changes in expectations and/or in the event GH is not performing in an acceptable manner so GH can immediately address such changes and/or performance issues.
4) Identify a primary contact person (s) for an account as well as for billing and loss run submission. In addition, CLIENT shall be responsible for reporting all changes in the primary point of contact to GH.
5) Be responsible for reporting to GH all Bodily Injury Claims in addition to all other items noted in Attachment B to this Agreement “Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA).”
6) Be responsible for updating GH on any changes to coverage/policy language; including limits, retentions/deductibles and coverage changes before the start of each policy term. 7) Obtain any necessary consent in the collection of any CLIENT data that is transmitted to a third party (i.e., lawyer, actuary, or auditor). CLIENT shall provide GH wi th reasonable assurances that it has the necessary consent to transmit CLIENT data to a third

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 3 of 32
party. CLIENT acknowledges that the claims data may contain confidential and/or protected health information (“PHI”). In the event CLIENT authorizes and directs G H to provide claims data to a third party, CLIENT will indemnify, defend and hold harmless GH from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from:(i) any action a gainst GH that is based on any negligent act or omission of CLIENT or a third party in transmitting and/or disclosing the PHI and/or claims data; or (ii) the violation of any state or federal statute, ordinance, or regulation by CLIENT or a third party in transmitting and/or disclosing the claims data.

8. COMPENSATION, FEES AND EXPENSES
The following compensation, fees and expenses, shall be paid in consideration for the services provided by GH as described in this Contract at Section 2 – Scope of Services. This Section shall remain in force and services provided during the entire term of this Contract, unless otherwise amended pursuant to Section 21 of this Contract.

The amounts to be paid pursuant to this Contract are detailed in two distinct areas of services:

First, “Administration Fees and Expenses,” (subsection “A” below);

Second, “Fees for Claim Adjusting Services,” (subsection “B” below).

The Fees and Costs/Expenses pursuant to both subsections “A” and “B” will be billed together monthly in a standard invoice format utilized by GH. Additionally, if the CLIENT elects any optional services identified in subsections “C” or “D” below, all additional amounts will also be billed together monthly where applicable.

All pricing in this Contract is based on the anticipated average of 40 new claims per year.

Should the claim volume change more than 10% in severity or frequency in a year, GH reserves the right to request reevaluation of our pricing under the Contract.

A. Administration Fees and Expenses

1) One Time On-Boarding Fee: $7,500

GH will charge a one-time startup fee which includes, but is not limited to, the planning and coordination of the onboarding process and documentation, detailing specific claims handling instructions, communication protocols, personalize design of claims management information system (“ CMIS”), new client setup for bank account, vendors, W-9, etc., and claims triage and assignments. This fee is billed in the first month of service.

2) Annual Administration Fee: $3,600* which is billed annually at the beginning of the Contract period and thereafter upon the anniversary of the Agreement.

3) Mileage – Adjuster: Mileage is reimbursed to GH at the IRS rate.

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 4 of 32
4) MMSEA: There is a one -time setup fee of $ 300 and a $5 00 annual reporting fee, charged to support our contract with our service provider for reporting to CMS. This fee is billed annually at the beginning of the Contract period.

5) Adjuster Travel Expense s: GH will separately charge for any travel expenses in connection with attendance at mediations, settlement conferences, trials, etc. This will be subject to prior approval and that actual expenses will be submitted with receipts on a monthly basis.

6) System Access Fee: Access to the claims management information system, “CMIS”, carries a value of $1,500 annually. That cost is included in the annual administration fee and includes the setup and management of up to five (5) “read only” user accounts. “Read/write” access to the system can be obtained for an additional fee.

7) iMetrics Report Fee: There will be no charge for our iMetrics business intelligence reports with executive in-person debriefs.

8) George Hills Client Portal: GH operates a client interface which is intended to provide the CLIENT with information regarding claims related and loss information. CLIENT will be provided with access for two (2) users at no additional cost.

9) Custom Reports : Additional charges for custom reporting shall be defined as, requiring a third-party programmer for three hours or more and is client specific.

10) Conversion Fee: GH will pay the Conversion Fee subject to the terms stated below.

The Conversion Fee covers costs associated with electronic data conversion, transition, reconciliation of financials, all reports created and vetted, and CLIENT sign- off on CMIS set up.

GH extends to new clients the following: GH believes in the establis hment of a long- term partnership, and as such shall pay 100% of all costs relating to the data conversion, which is estimated at $20,000. This is based solely on GH being retained under this Contract for five years (whether it is this Contract or an extens ion of/amendment to this Contract). If, for any reason the GH is not retained for five years, the CLIENT will be subject to a fee of 20 percent of the full Conversion Fee for each year not retained.

The Conversion Fee does not include, the shipping, stori ng, scanning, copying, or otherwise handling open or closed paper claims files. Please see subsection M, “Paper Files” below.

Upon early termination of this Contract , any remaining fee will be added to the penultimate invoice and if not paid, will result in an additional balance due and owed to Contractor

11) Catastrophic Fees (not applicable when fees are based on Time and Expense) :

GH recognizes that there are events t hat are unanticipated and catastrophic. When such events occur, it requires additional hours for the handling of such claims. As such, to preserve the quality and efficiency of service for which we are known, GH proposes

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 5 of 32
that should any one catastrophic event occur resulting in five or more claimants, or two or more claimants with their own attorneys, CLIENT shall be billed at the current hourly rate for all services.

12) Annual Fee Escalator : The Annual Fixed Fee and all hourly rates in this Contract shall be adjusted at the beginning of the second year of the term by the lesser of, 5% or in accordance with the changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for all Urban Consumers for the West Region area (Size Class B/C) using the most recently published month annual percentage change, but in any event such increase shall be less than 3%.

13) General File: A general administrative file shall be established and maintained to track effort related to services necessary to fulfi ll our contractual obligations and not otherwise associated with a claim.

14) Paper Files: GH is prepared to take the lead to arrange for all services relating to conversion storage, copying, scanning, shipping, and disposal. GH will provide you a quote for any services related to storage, retrieval, copying, scanning, shipping, and disposal of paper files.

B. Fees for Claim Adjusting Services

1) Annual Fixed Fee of $49,000 *. In exchange for the services provided under this Contract by GH, CLIENT shall pay to GH the Annual Fixed Fee(s) stated above.

After the first year of the Contract, CLIENT may elect to implement a different fee arrangement based on the two options identified below:

Option A1: Time and Expense: The GH Claims team will charge time to each claim using 1/10th of an hour increments for each task performed on a claim. The time and further descriptions of each task shall be stated on each monthly invoice. The current hourly rates are:

Claims Supervisor: $121/hour*
Claims Adjuster: $97/hour*
Claims Processing: $80/hour*

Option A2: Time and Expense with a Cap of $75,000*. The GH Claims team will charge time to each claim using 1/10th of an hour increments for each task performed on a claim. The time and further descriptions of each task shall be stated on each monthly invoice. Our cumulative billing, however, shall not exceed the annual cap referenced above, which cap is subject to annual adjustments. The cap is a movable target that shall be reviewed and potentially adjusted annually, whether by increase or decrease, as circumstances deem appropriate and agreed to by the parties.

*All hourly rates and fees are subject to an annual increase as stated in paragraph A(12) of this Contract.

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 6 of 32
C. First Party Subrogation Services And Fees

GH is a claim administration firm experienced in the handling of first party subrogation claims and is ready and capable of performing such services on behalf of CLIENT. CLIENT elects to incorporate the Subrogation Services, as desired and as described more fully in Attachment A, Scope of Services, Section (I)(A)(J).

D. Optional Services

GH employs “in-house” attorneys which have vast experience in claims and litigation handling, problem resolution, issue identification and investigation, and advice and consultation, for all types of claims and issues which may arise for a public entity. Should the special circumstance arise whereby CLIENT requests additional services by a GH attorney, including those identified in the list below, the services will be provided on a time and expenses basis and at the rate of $185.00 per hour, billed using 1/10th of an hour increments for each task performed on a claim or issue. The fees charged for these services will be in addition to any other compensation defined in this
Litigation Management
Monitoring Counsel
Outside General and Special Counsel
Trial/Mediation/Board Meeting Attendance
Legal Training and Seminars
GH can also provide Professional and Financial Services related to risk management and loss prevention in alignment with the scope of services for the same rate referenced above.

NOTE: These services are traditionally Time and Expense, however an annual fee can be considered.

E. Payment Schedule
GH will submit its invoices to CLIENT, and payment shall be made by CLIENT, within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed thirty (30) days from the date of the invoice.

F. Electronic Funds Transfer or Direct Deposit
GH has determined that the most efficient and secure default form of payment for goods and/or services provided under Contract with CLIENT shall be Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) or direct deposit, unless an alternative method of payment is deemed appropriate by both GH and CLIENT and agreed to in writing.

GH will submit a direct deposit authorization request via to CLIENT with banking and vendor information, and any other information that the CLIENT determines is reasonably necessary to process the payment and comply with all accounting, record keeping, and tax reporting requirements.

At any time during the duration of the Contract, GH may submit a written request for an exemption to this requirement . Such request must be based on specific legal, business or

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 7 of 32
operational needs and GH will explain why the payment method designated by the CLIENT is not feasible and an alternative is necessary.

9. TERM AND TERMINATION
Term: The term of this contract shall be for five (5) years commencing on January 1, 2023 and remaining in full force and effect through and including December 31, 2027. Either party may terminate this contract for any reason upon issuing a ninety (90) day written notice to the other party pursuant to section 18 of this Contract. The term of this Contract may be extended for two (2) periods of one (1) year each by mutual agreement of CLIENT and GH executed pursuant to Section 19 on this Contract.

Termination for Convenience: The parties may at any time and for any reason terminate this Agreement upon ninety (90) days written notice to the other party pursuant to Section 18 of this Contract. Notice shall be deemed served on the date of mailing. Upon receipt of such notice, GH shall discontinue services at the end of the 90 -day period in connection with the scope of services of this Agreement. Upon such termination, GH shall be entitled to payment from CLIENT for services completed and provided through the date of termination, per Section

8. Termination Costs: If termination takes plac e in less than five (5) years from start of term, CLIENT may be subject to a fee , not to exceed $2,500 , intended to cover costs associated with outgoing data conversion, transition and contract close out.

Upon completion of data conversion and return of data back to CLIENT (electronic and/or hard copy), GH will destroy any remaining files.

10. FAIR EMPLOYMENT
It is the policy of GH to provide fair and equal treatment to all staff members. GH is an Equal Opportunity Employer and does not discriminate in any way against any person on the basis of age, race, sex, color, national origin, national ancestry, physical disability, medical condition, mental disability, religion, creed, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identification, gender expression, use of family care leave or any other classification deemed protected by law.

11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
In performing claims administrative services herein agreed upon, GH, and all GH employees, shall have the status of an independent contractor of the CLIENT and shall not be deemed to be an officer, employee, or agent of CLIENT.

12. INDEMNIFICATION
GH will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless CLIENT from and against all claims, demands, actions, or causes of action arising directly or indirectly from the negligent action, conduct, or failure to act by GH personnel (“Indemnity Event”), except that indemnity under this section does not apply with respect to any claim, demand, action, or cause of action arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the CLIENT . This right to indemnity shall not cover any claims in which there is a failure to give GH prompt and timely notice, within thirty (30) days of notice received by the CLIENT which implicates this provision , but only if and to the extent that such failure materially prejudices the defense of such claims . For an Indemnity

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 8 of 32
Event, the ma ximum amount recoverable by CLIENT against GH for damages and costs (inclusive of attorneys’ fees) is limited to the insurance policy limits, of the policy which covers the Indemnity Event held by GH, in place at the time of the Indemnity Event.

CLIENT will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless GH, and/or employees of GH, from and against all claims, demands, actions, or causes of action, which may arise, from the action, conduct, or failure to act by CLIENT. In any cases subject to this indemnity provision, wherein GH, or any employee of GH, is named in a filed or verified complaint simply by virtue of the fact it is the CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION firm , or an employee thereof, on a given claim, the CLIENT will defend GH, and/or its employees, at no cost to GH or its employees.

13. INSURANCE
a. GH, at GH’s own cost and expense, shall procure and maintain, for the duration of this Agreement, the following insurance policies.
i. Workers Compensation Coverage. As required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with a limit of no less than ONE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. ii. Commercial General Liability (CGL) Coverage. Coverage will be written on form in common use in the insurance industry and acceptable to the CLIENT, including products and completed operations, with a limit of no less than TWO MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, an d a general aggregate limit of no less than FOUR MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($4,000,000).
iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. If GH will utilize automobiles in its performance of services hereunder, GH will maintain automobile liability coverage written on form in common use in the insurance industry and acceptable to the , or if GH has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (non-owned), with a limit no less than ONE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. iv. Professional Liability Coverage. GH will maintain Professional Liability coverage with limits no less than THREE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($3,000,000) per occurrence or claim, and THREE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($3,000,000) policy aggregate.

If GH maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by GH.

GH’s insurance policies shall be “occurrence” policies and not “claims -made” coverage except for Professional Liability Coverage. “Claims -made” policies must satisfy the following requirements: (i) the retroactive date of coverage must be shown and must precede the effective date of the contract; (ii) coverage shall be maintained and evidence of coverage must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract work; and (iii) if coverage is canceled or non -renewed and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date preceding the contract effective date, GH must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work.

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 9 of 32
GH may maintain an Umbrella policy in conjunction with the insurance policies referenced above. In such case, GH shall be deemed to have satisfied the insurance requirements of this contract as long as: (i) the coverage limits of the Umbrella policy and of the underlying liability policy(ies), when combined, satisfy each of the per occurrence and aggregate requirements identified in this section; and (ii) coverage under the Umbrella policy is as broad as and includes all incidents and events covered by the underlying insurance that it supplements.
b. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to the City. The City may require GH to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. Alternatively, the City may require GH to provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. If the City requests GH purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention, the City agrees to pay the difference in premium amount necessary to obtain the requested coverage. c. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
i. The City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL and automobile liability policies with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of GH including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations; products used by GH; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by GH. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to GH’s insurance at least as broad a nd coverage will be written on form in common use in the insurance industry and acceptable to the CLIENT. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City and its officers, officials, emplo yees or volunteers.
ii. For any claims related to this contract, GH’s insurance coverage shall be primary coverage at least as broad a nd coverage will be written on form in common use in the insurance industry and acceptable to the CLIENT as respects the City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City and/or its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be in excess of GH’s insurance and shall be non-contributory.
iii. If any insurance policy required above is to be canceled, GH will give notice to the City of such intended cancellation within 5 days of receiving any notice of cancellation from the carrier.

Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A to A- which still provides reputable and secure coverage but allows for more carriers.

GH shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences.

However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the GH’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 10 of 32
d. GH hereby grants to the City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of GH may acquire against the City and/or its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. GH agrees to obtain endorsements necessary to effe ct this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

14. EMPLOYEE SOLICITATION
During the period of this contract, and for a period of one (1) year thereafter, GH agrees not to solicit for employment any CLIENT employee contacted during the performance of this contract. During the period of this contract, and for a period of one (1) year thereafter, CLIENT agrees not to solicit for employment, or employ either directly or by contract, any employee of GH contacted by the CLIENT during the performance of this contract.

15. PERMITS, LICENSES, CERTIFICATES
GH, at GH’s sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Contract, all permits, licenses, and certificates required in connection with the performance of services under this Contract, including appropriate business license.

16. ARBITRATION
GH and CLIENT agree that in the event of any dispute with regard to the provisions of the Contract, the services rendered, or the amount of GH’s compensation and the dispute cannot be settled through informal negotiation, the parties agree first to try in good faith to settle the dispute by mediation before resorting to arbitration. The parties agree that any and all disputes, claims or controversies arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be submitted to JAMS, or its successor, for mediation, and if the matter is not resolved through mediation, then it shall be submitted to JAMS, or its successor, for final and binding arbitration. Either party may commence mediation by providing to JAMS and the other party a written request for mediation, setting forth the subject of the dispute and the relief requested. The parties will cooperate with JAMS and with one another in selecting a mediator from the JAMS panel of neutrals and in scheduling the mediation proceedings. The parties agree that they will participate in the mediation in good faith and that they will share equally in its costs. All offers, promises, conduct and statements, whether oral or written, made in the course of the mediation by any of the parties, their agents, employees, experts and attorneys, and by the mediator or any JAMS employees, are confidential, privileged and inadmissible for any purpose, including impeachment, in any arbitration or other proceeding involving the parties, provided that evidence that is otherwise admissible or discoverable shall not be rendered inadmissible or non -discoverable as a result of its use in the mediation. Either party may initiate arbitration with respect to the matters submitted to mediation by filing a written demand for arbitration at any time following the initial mediation session. The mediation may continue after the commencement of arbitration if the parties so desire. Any arbitration arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be conducted in accordance with the expedited procedures set forth in the JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures as those Rules exist on the effective date of this Agreement, including Rules 16.1 and 16.2 of those Rules. In any arbitration arising out of or related to this Agreement, the arbitrator shall award to th e prevailing party, if any, the costs and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred by the prevailing party in connection with the arbitration.

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 11 of 32

17. FORCE MAJEURE CLAUSE.

GH shall be relieved of any liability if unable to meet the terms and conditions of this Agreement due to any "Act of God", natural disasters such as earthquake or fires, floods, riots, epidemics, pandemics, including COVID-19 regulations or restrictions issued by federal, state or local governmental authorities, strikes, or any act or order which is beyond the control of GH, provided GH takes all reasonable steps practical and necessary to effect prompt resumption of its responsibilities hereunder.

18. NOTICES
All notices to GH shall be sent via certified U.S. Mail , postage prepa id, to the following address:

GH
George Hills Company
Attn: John Chaquica, CEO
P.O. Box 278
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741.

All notices to the CLIENT shall be personally served or mailed, postage prepaid, to the following address:

Client:

Shauna Biagio, Risk Management Analyst
City of Hanford, Administration
319 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
This Section only, regarding Notices, may be amended unilaterally by either party by and through the mailing of new or amended contact information to the other party via certified U.S.

Mail at any time.

19. AMENDMENT
GH and CLIENT agree that the terms and conditions of the Contract may be reviewed or modified at any time. Any modifications to this Contract, however, shall be effective only when agreed to in writing by both the CLIENT and GH, excepting only, modifications to the contact information to which Notices shall be sent under subsection XVIII.

20. CONTRACTOR NOT A PUBLIC OFFICIAL
Neither GH, nor any employee of GH, is a "public official" for purposes of Government Code §§ 87200 et seq. GH conducts research and arrives at conclusions, provides advice, recommendation, or counsel independent of the control and direction of the CLIENT or any official of the CLIENT, other than normal contract monitoring. In addition, GH possesses no authority with respect to any CLIENT decision beyond these conclusions, advice, recommendation, or counsel.

21. ENTIRE CONTRACT
GH and CLIENT agree that this Contract constitutes the entire Contract of the parties

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 12 of 32
regarding the subject matter described herein and supers edes all prior communications, contracts, and promises, either written or oral.

22. TIME OF ESSENCE
Time is of the essence in respect to all provisions of this Contract that specify a time for performance: provided, however that the foregoing shall not be construed to limit or deprive a party of the benefits of any grace or use period allowed in this Contract.

25. COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which is an original, and all of which together constitute this Agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties represent and warrant they each of them have read, understand, and negotiated the terms and conditions contained herein, and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions of this Contract as outlined in this document and all attachments and/or exhibits included herewith, which are fully incorporated into the Contract.

Approved as to Content:

_________________________
Mario Cifuentez, City Manager
City of Hanford

_______________________________
John E. Chaquica, CEO
George Hills Company, Inc.

Attest:

_________________________
Name
Title, Client

Approved as to Form:

_________________________
Name
Title, Client

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 13 of 32

ATTACHMENT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
This Attachment A is intended to provide the Scope of Services referenced in Section 2 of the Contract and also the specific service expectations in the Contract, that would not otherwise require revision during the Contract period, and which may differ from, or elaborate upon, our Client Service Profile. Services to be provided by GH on behalf of CLIENTS may include some or all of the following, I. SERVICES INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT

A. General Administrative Services
Throughout each year GH performs numerous functions which support claims administration on behalf of the Client, but do not include any claims handling, and are performed by non-claims personnel. Additionally, in the first year of a new client there are several “on -boarding” services that are general and administrative in nature.

Below is a list of such services which are included within the terms of this Contract:
1) Access to CMIS and training.
2) A monthly listing of open claims, showing expense categories, reserves, and total incurred.
3) Monthly claim summary reports.
4) Providing loss run data and required reports.
5) Providing annual reports to outside agencies.
6) Filing of regulatory reports (such as 1099, W-9, etc.). 7) Establish and maintain a trust fund to pay indemnity and expenses that may be due on claims. The amount to be maintained in the trust fund shall be determined by CLIENT. If the trust fund is set-up with the GH preferred bank—California Bank and Trust, GH covers the cost of Positive Pay and Payee Match
8) If the trust fund is not set -up with the GH preferred bank—California Bank & Trust, there may be an additional set -up fee (other banks processes can be extraordinarily time consuming).
9) New bank account set up (signature cards, test checks, online access, set up bank in CXP).
10) Discussion and agreement on the Approval process.
11) Process checks weekly.
12) Submit positive pay if applicable/monitor positive pay (review daily emails from bank for exceptions).
13) Maintain a copy of all checks drawn by GH to pay claims and claims related expenses. 14) Submit monthly check registers of all transactions made for the period. 15) Monitor account balance, prepare replenishment requests as needed (customize request for each client’s need).
16) Monthly bank reconciliation (prepared and sent to CLIENT). 17) Special reports that requested to go with billing invoices (by member, claim type, etc.). 18) Payment of invoices that are pass -throughs ( i.e., invoices for medical record copies, ExamWorks, etc.).
19) Certificates of insurance as required by the Contract. 20) Respond to outside financial auditors
21) Provide reports to CLIENT actuaries and claims auditors

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 14 of 32
22) Annually submit GH SSAE 16 reports

B. Investigative Services
1) Receipt and examination of all reports of accidents or incidents that are or may be the subject of claims.
2) Investigate accidents or incidents as warranted, to include on -site investigation, photographs, witness interviews, determinat ion of losses and other such investigative services necessary to determine all CLIENT losses but not to include extraordinary investigative services outside the expertise of GH.
3) In the event CLIENT or other agency conducts any investigation, and upon Clien t’s request, GH shall review and analyze for liability and/or damage issues and for possible additional follow-up investigation.
4) Maintain service on a 24-hour, 7 days per week basis, to receive reports of any incident or accident which may be the subject of a liability claim and provide immediate investigative services to the extent necessary to provide a complete investigation. 5) Undertake items of investigation requiring special handling for CLIENT at the direction of the CLIENT’s Attorney or authorized representative.

C. Liability and Claim Handling Services
1) Promptly set up a claim file upon receipt of the claim and maintain a claim file on each potential or actual claim reported.
2) Assess and evaluate the nature and extent of each claim and esta blish claims reserves for indemnity and legal expense.
3) GH will follow any CLIENT policy regarding tort claim rejection instructions, including rejection and return of an untimely or insufficient claim. 4) Ensure timely tort claim handling, including contact and follow-up with claimants regarding claim issues and processing.
5) Any bodily injury claim that is being pursued shall be indexed. Notice only matters or precautionary bodily injury claims that are not pursued do not need to be indexed. 6) Determine the need for defense representation, recommend legal counsel, and support litigation activity.
7) Report claims to the excess insurer in compliance with excess carrier’s reporting requirements and coordinate with the excess insurer on a claim’s progress in accordance with the excess insurer’s reporting requirements.
8) Maintain records on any such claim and notify CLIENT when CLIENT is about to exhaust the Self-Insured Retention.
9) Obtain settlement contracts and releases upon settlement of claims or potential claims not in litigation.
10) Perform periodic reviews, as needed, of CLIENT files and claims as well as statutory requirements to ensure compliance including excess insurance related requirements. 11) Perform the necessary data gathering for the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) and the Set Aside Contracts in compliance with Section 111 of the MMSEA including the required reporting. (See Attachment B) 12) To the extent there is privileged information or PHI shared between agencies, which is subject to protection under HIPAA, GH shall implement all necessary measures in compliance with the Act and will execute a Business Associates Agreement (BAA).

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 15 of 32
D. Litigation Support Services
1) Upon notification by the CLIENT that litigation has been filed on an open claim, GH shall follow the litigation referral process as outlined in the Client Expressed Scope of Work Instructions form.
2) Work cooperatively with CLIENT in choosing outside counsel from approved panel, and assist defense counsel in on-going litigation defense efforts. 3) Obtain and maintain a Litigation Plan and Budget.
4) Review legal bills for compliance with Litigation Plan and Budget; Review, evaluate and adjust defense counsel invoices for legal services.
5) Cooperate with and assist defense counsel assigned to litigation of open claims and provide such investigative services as directed during pre-trial and trial stages. 6) Assist in responding to discovery or preparing discovery. 7) At the request of the CLIENT, attend mandatory settlement conferences on behalf of CLIENT.
8) Appear on behalf of CLIENT in small claims actions filed against CLIENT on open claims handled by GH.
9) Review and evaluate case evaluations, correspondence and status reports forwarded to GH by counsel. Regularly discuss, review, and direct investigation, discovery, and case strategy with counsel.
10) Cooperate with counsel as a team with an open communication approach on each case to obtain the most economical and best result for the CLIENT.

E. Reports and Procedures
1) Within thirty (30) days of assignment, or sooner if practicable, required, or requested, GH will provide CLIENT with a report pursuant to specified claims handling instructions, showing name(s) of claimant(s), type of claim, date of loss, comments on liability, reserve recommendations, settlement recommendations, and other pertinent information.

Subsequent to the initial thirty (30) day report, GH will report as often as warranted by any important change in status but no longer than every ninety (90) days until the claim closes unless extended diary is appropriate.
2) All original reports, documents, and claim data of every kind or description, that are prepared in whole or in part by or for the GH in connection with this contract shall be CLIENT's property and constitute the GH’s work product for which compensation is paid.

A copy of all reports, documents, and claim data of every kind or description that is in whole or in part by or for the CLIENT is the property of GH. Additional copies of original reports, documents, and data requeste d by CLIENT will be at CLIENT’s expense in accordance with this contract.
3) GH agrees that CLIENT have access and the right to audit and reproduce any of the GH’s relevant records to ensure that the CLIENT is receiving all services to which the CLIENT is entitled under this Contract or for any purpose relating to the Contract.

F. Data
1) Utilize GH’s claims management system—CXP (ClaimsXpress), or a substantially similar equivalent with comparable features and functionality. CLIENT will be provided “read- only” access to the claims system. “Read-write” access may be obtained at the CLIENT’s additional expense.
2) Record all claim information including all financial data.

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 16 of 32
3) Provide CLIENT and broker Read only on -line access to the claims data system (up t o five users), if desired by CLIENT.
4) Provide monthly standard loss run and check register. 5) Provide annual claims data report upon request. Written authorization and/or a Business Associate Agreement may be required for confidential information protected by HIPAA. 6) Provide assistance to CLIENT in developing customized reports when requested (may require additional charge).
7) Arrange for electronic file conversion for any open and closed claims at the direction of CLIENT.

G. Claim Review Meetings
GH shall, on a mutually agreed periodic basis, meet with Client to review and discuss the CLIENTS claims inventory and claims results of specified periods and delivery of services by CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR.

H. Financial Accounting
1) Establish and maintain a trust fund for the purpose of paying indemnity and expenses that may be due on the claims. The amount to be maintained in the trust fund shall be determined by the Client.
2) Maintain a copy of all checks drawn by the GH to pay claims and claims related expenses. 3) Submit monthly check registers of all transactions made for the period. 4) Complete or update Attachment B “Preferred Method of Check Processing” for check processing options.
5) Approval process shall be documented in GH Client Expressed Scope of Work Standards and Instruction Form.
6) GH will provide monthly bank reconciliation reports to CLIENT for audit purposes.

I. Third Party Subrogation Services

In any claim in which CLIENT is alleged to be liable or case in which CLIENT is a named defendant, GH will identify additional parties to that dispute which may also bear responsibility or liability for the damages claimed by the claimant(s) and/or plaintiff(s). Where additional individuals or entities are identified as having some responsibility, GH will perform the following services:

1) Identify to the CLIENT, the additional individuals or entities and the basis for potential liability.
2) Prepare and file a claim with each identified individual or entity. 3) As applicable, tender defense to or seek recovery from any identified individual or entity. 4) With client’s prior approval and with the assistance of counsel, GH will prepare and file, or caused to be prepared and filed, any necessary l itigation required to affect the claim of recovery on behalf of the CLIENT.
5) Manage litigation related to such claims or cases made to or filed against the other individual or entity.
6) All costs and expenses of litigation filed pursuant to this section, incl uding attorney fees for outside counsel where necessary and approved, will be paid by the CLIENT.

J. First Party Subrogation Services

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 17 of 32
In the event that CLIENT identifies damages it has sustained which a value of $1,000 or greater and for which any individual or entity is believed to be liable or responsible, the following may be performed:
1) CLIENT may authorize GH to act as a representative of CLIENT for the investigation, adjustment, processing, supervision, and evaluation of an ultimate recovery of potential money from the identified individuals or entities.
2) With prior approval of the CLIENT, GH my engage the services of one of the CLIENT’s litigation at torneys to consult, review, and determine the best legal strategy available leading to recovery for the CLIENT. Upon determination by the attorney that a civil action is in the best interest of the CLIENT, GH will notify the CLIENT and obtain authorization to initiate litigation in accordance with the recommendations of the CLIENT and its attorney.
3) Where GH is able to recover money from an identified individual or entity, in addition to any other compensation identified in this contract, CLIENT will pay a S ubrogation Fee in the amount of 30% of the gross amount recovered for each recovery obtained by GH. The minimum amount to be paid to GH will be $250 per claim upon recovery. However, GH has the authority to reject any claim for any reason, relieving the CL IENT of any fiscal responsibility for rejected claims only. The amounts due under this section shall invoiced to the CLIENT on a monthly basis following receipt of the recovery payment from the at - fault party.
4) While GH is handling a subrogation claim for the CLIENT pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, and the institution of a civil action is determined by the CLIENT to be the best course of action, CLIENT may elect to, at CLIENT’s expense, recall the claim to the CLIENT’s control so that CLIENT may pursue recovery in a manner in the best interest of the CLIENT. In the event the CLIENT recalls the claim as indicated above, CLIENT shall be responsible for payment to GH for any and all time and expense incurred by GH’s subrogation claim adjuster, and/or su brogation division staff, up to the time wherein the claim has been recalled by the CLIENT.
5) Where requested, GH shall consult with CLIENT on claims and other related matters not specifically assigned to GH for handling under this Agreement. 6) GH reserves the right to cease working on any claim whereas information has not been made available to GH within 120 days after GH has submitted the information and/or documentation to the CLIENT, at such time, the claim will be closed. 7) Due to the nature of these services, in that compensation is contingent upon recovery, if the contract is terminated prior to recovery or other closure of any claim, the CLIENT shall pay GH for all expenses and time spent, to date, on any claims(s) currently open and recovery in process. Payment shall be based on the current hourly rate of GH of $95.00 per hour. GH will submit final invoice within five business days of termination. 8) All costs and expenses of litigation filed pursuant to this section, including attorney fees for outside counsel where necessary and approved, will be paid by the CLIENT. 9) GH does not handle subrogation claims with a value less than $1,000.

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 18 of 32
II. CLIENT EXPRESSED AUTHORITY AND LIMITATIONS APPLICABE TO SERVICES

The list immediately below contains numerous services provided in this Contract for which GH requests the CLIENT expressly establish authority and/or limitations, on the ability of GH to act on behalf of the CLIENT. The CLIENT will check the appropriate box establishing the authority of GH to act or the limitation as to that authority.

INVESTIGATION:

George Hills will conduct all investigations
CLIENT will conduct all investigations
CLIENT will direct GH on each claim as to who performs investigations In the event the Client or other agency conducts any investigation, GH shall review for completeness.

Retention of Vendors (appraisers, translators, copy services, Independent Adjuster, IME’s, Surveillance, etc.):

Must be preauthorized by CLIENT
Does not need preauthorization

REJECTION OF CLAIMS:

CLIENTS position regarding rejections (e.g., if entity so dictates, a claim will be rejected for insufficiency). Check all that apply.

Protocols for Rejections
GH needs authorization
GH does not need authorization
GH sends the Rejection
CLIENT sends the Rejection
GH sends out Denial Letter simultaneously with Rejection outlining the reason

LITIGATION:

Check all that apply.

GH will handle litigated claims
Full
As assigned
Check Issuance and Data Input
Data Input only
CLIENT will handle litigated claims inhouse, with GH to capture data into SIMS

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 19 of 32
CLIENT will send data to GH weekly
CLIENT will send data to GH monthly
Mandatory Settlement Conferences
GH always attends
At CLIENT request only
Small Claims Actions filed against CLIENT
GH always appears
At CLIENT request only
Legal Counsel
GH must have CLIENT authorization to refer to outside Legal Counsel GH does not need CLIENT authorization to refer to outside Legal Counsel GH must use CLIENT approved Legal Panel for Attorney selection CLIENT does not have an approved Legal Panel for Attorney selection All Litigation to be handled by CLIENT inhouse Legal
GH always sends Litigation Assignment packets to Legal Counsel CLIENT specific Litigation Guidelines: Yes No CLIENT specific Litigation Referral Form/Letter: Yes No CLIENT specific Litigation Budget Form: Yes No Pay fees for Experts, photocopies, medical records as: Expense Legal EXCESS REPORTING:

GH will report claims to the excess insurer in compliance with excess carrier’s reporting requirements and coordinate with the excess insurer on a claim’s progress in accordance with the excess insurer’s reporting requirements.

CLIENT will report claims to the excess insurer in compliance with excess carrier’s reporting requirements and coordinate with the excess insurer on a claim’s progress in accordance with the excess insurer’s reporting requirements.

AUTHORITY LEVELS:

Reserve within SIR:
$0.00 - Adjuster must seek approval from (client contact) to post indemnity reserves above authority level.
$ [specify amount] – Adjuster may set reserves up to the stated amount without approval.

Medical Treatment:

Medical Authorizations should only be sent to the claimant once liability is determined to be adverse to the CLIENT.

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 20 of 32
Medical Authorizations should go out as soon as it is determined that a BI claim is being pursued.

CLAIMS EXCEEDING SIR:

GH stops tracking activity once the SIR has been reached.

GH will continue to track all activity at and/or above the SIR. The Excess JPA/Carrier will provide GH with activity documentation above the SIR.

GH will reserve to Full Value and track recoveries.

THIRD PARTY SUBROGATION SERVICES:

GH is authorized to initiate third party subrogation claims on behalf of CLIENT GH must obtain authorization to initiate third party subrogation claims on behalf of CLIENT.

FIRST PARTY SUBROGATION SERVICES:

CLIENT elects to incorporate the first party subrogation services of GH into the contract CLIENT authorizes GH to initiate first party subrogation claims on behalf of CLIENT CLIENT agrees to the additional compensation payable to GH for its first party subrogation services as follows:

GH shall be entitled to 30% of the gross recovery for each claim initiated by GH through its first party subrogation efforts.

CLIENT agrees to the terms and conditions stated in Attachment A-1, Subrogation Services.

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 21 of 32
ATTACHMENT A-1

SUBROGATION AGREEMENT
This Subrogation Agreement is made and entered into this 1st day of January, 20 23 by and between the CITY OF HANFORD , hereinafter referred to as “CLIENT”, and GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC., hereinafter referred to as “GH”.

I. GH does not handle subrogation claims with a value of less than $1000. For those claims in excess of $1000, CLIENT may, at CLIENT’s own expense:
a. Authorize GH to act as a representative of CLIENT for the investigation, adjustment, processing, supervision, and evaluation of an ultimate recovery of potential money from damage claims against parties for whom it is alleged to be legally responsible.
b. Authorize GH to engage the services of a litigation attorney to consult, review, and determine the best legal strategy available at the time to obtain the best possible result for CLIENT. Upon determination by the attorney that a civil action is in the best interest of CLIENT, GH will notify CLIENT and obtain authorization to pursue recovery in accordance with the recommendations of the litigation attorney. c. While GH is handling a subrogation claim for CLIENT pursuant to the terms of this Contract, the institution of a civil action is determined by CLIENT to be the best course of action, CLIENT may elect to do so at CLIENT’s own expense. i. Recall the claim to CLIENT’s control so that CLIENT may pursue recovery in a manner to be determined by the CLIENT’s attor ney to be in the best interest of the CLIENT.
ii. In the event CLIENT recalls the claim as indicated above, CLIENT shall be responsible for payment to GH for any and all time and expense incurred by GH’s subrogation claim adjuster and/or other subrogation division staff up to the time wherein the claim has been recalled by CLIENT.

II. CLIENT will pay a Subrogation Fee in the amount of 30% for each and every recovery obtained. The minimum amount to be paid to GH will be $250 per claim upon recovery.

However, GH has the authority to reject any claim for any reason, relieving CLIENT of any fiscal responsibility for rejected claims only.
a. Generally, no recovery shall be agreed to involving payment plans if the recovery is less than $5,000 and/or greater than a one-year term. Exceptions can be made on a case -by-case basis. If a recovery is agreed to exceed this amount and/or length of time , Subrogation fee shall be 45%. In the event a payment plan is authorized and entered into, the subrogation fee will be based upon the total amount of the lien and will be invoiced to the CLIENT upon the entry of the payment agreement. GH will make every attempt to enforce the provisions of the payment agreement with the claimant, but in no way guarantees the fulfillment of the terms of the payment agreement. In the event the terms of the payment agreement are not fulfilled and warr ant pursuit through the small claims process, authority to pursue through small claims will be requested.

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 22 of 32
b. Authorize GH to appear in small claims court for recovery of funds. Authority for the pursuit of recovery through small claims will be requested prior to the filing of documents with the court to initiate the small claims action. Each appearance will be an additional fee of $150. All costs for the handling of small claims court actions, i.e., service of process of documents on the responsible parties, mileage, parking, and toll shall be an additional cost and will be the responsibility of the CLIENT.

Additional allocated costs shall be billed separately upon the cost being incurred, such as, but not l imited to: skip tracing, service of process, and third -party subcontracted investigation.
c. GH reserves the right to cease working on any claim whereas information has not been made available to GH within 120 days after GH has submitted the information and/or documentation request to CLIENT, at such time the claim will be closed. d. Due to the nature of these services, in that compensation is contingent upon recovery, if the contract is terminated prior to recovery or other closure of any claim, the CLIENT shall pay GH for all expenses and time spent, to date, on any claim(s) currently open and recovery in process. Payment shall be based on the current hourly rate of GH. GH will submit the final invoice within five business days of termination.

III. General Terms and Conditions
a. Successors and Assigns.

All of the rights, benefits, duties, liabilities, and obligations of the parties shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, their respective successors and assigns. b. Construction.

The title and headings of the Sections in this Agreement are intended solely for reference and do not modify, explain, or construe any provision of this Agreement.

All references to sections, recitals, and the preamble shall, unless otherwise stated, refer to the Sections, Recitals, a nd Preamble of this Agreement. In construing this Agreement, the singular form shall include the plural and vice versa.

This Agreement shall not be construed as if it had been prepared by one of the parties, but rather as if both parties have prepared the Agreement. c. Integration.

This Agreement, and all related documents referred to in this Agreement, constitute the entire Agreement between the parties. There are no oral agreements which are not expressly set forth in this Agreement and the related documents being executed in connection with this Agreement. This Agreement may not be modified, amended, or otherwise changed except by a writing executed by the party to be charged.
d. Third-Party Rights.

Nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to confer upon any person, other than the parties and their respective successors and assigns, any rights, or remedies.
e. Severability.

If any term or provision of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected.

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 23 of 32
f. Waivers.

No waiver or breach of any provision shall be deemed a waiver of any other provision, and no waiver shall be valid unless it is in writing and executed by the waiving party. No extension of time for performance of any obligation or act s hall be deemed an extension of time for any other obligation or act. g. Counterparts.

This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instr ument. The execution of this Agreement shall be deemed to have occurred, and this Agreement shall be enforceable and effective, only upon the complete execution of this Agreement by Seller and Purchaser. h. Authority of Parties.

All persons executing this Agreement on behalf of a party warrant that they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of that party. i. Governing Law.

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with California law.

________ BY: _____________________________________
Date John E. Chaquica, CEO GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC.

_________ BY: _____________________________________
Date Mario Cifuentez, City Manager

CITY OF HANFORD

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 24 of 32

ATTACHMENT B
MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AND SCHIP EXTENSION ACT OF 2007 (MMSEA) This law requires liability insurers, self -insurers, no fault insurers, and workers’ compensation insurers to report certain information to The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) concerning Medicare beneficiaries. The penalty for failure to c omply is $1,000 per day, per claimant.

George Hills C ompany, Inc. ( GH) has contracted with ExamWorks for Mandatory Insurer Reporting (MIR) for the CLIENT. ExamWorks shall represent the CLIENT and Responsible Reporting Entity (RRE) to this existing contract and this addendum and will be the designated reporting agent. GH will be responsible for gathering and reporting accurate claims data required by MMSEA to ExamWorks in a timely manner . GH agrees to assume the responsibility for reporting data to ExamWorks to meet all reporting requirements in accordance with MMSEA, on behalf of the RRE; including assuming responsibility for any fines or penalties that are directly caused by GH’s non-compliance. GH further agrees to indemnify and hold -harmless, RRE, and staff, for any penalties or fines resulting from GH’s direct failure to timely and accurately provide the reporting data to ExamWorks. The above -mentioned obligations to indemnify and hold - harmless shall not be applicable to matters relating to delays caused by RRE or other third parties, or inaccurate data supplied to GH by RRE or other third parties.

By contract with GH, ExamWorks will indemnify and hold GH harmless from and against any claim, damage, fine, loss and expense, arising in connection with, or as a result of, any error, omission, or negligent performance of it s obligations as reporting agent, which indemnity will include all reasonable costs of litigation and attorneys’ fees incurred. Without in any way limiting the indemnity set forth in this Contract, all work performed by ExamWorks will be done in a professional manner.

GH shall perform the necessary data gathering for RRE and ExamWorks; as such GH shall include in our monthly invoicing the time incurred for such work at our contract hourly rate or will be included in your monthly flat fee or claims adjusting.

ExamWorks will perform the MMSEA Mandatory Insurer Reporting function for GH, and its RREs, shall be charged as an Allocated Expense, as defined in Attachment C, subject to the following.

RRE will designate ExamWorks, unless otherwise requested , as its exclusive vendor for all of RRE’s “Qualified Referrals” (those claims determined to require Medicare Set Aside (MSA) or a Claim Settlement Allocation (CSA) and RRE will utilize other ExamWorks services related to Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) compliance identified in their fee schedule.

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 25 of 32

ATTACHMENT C

PREFERRED METHOD OF CHECK PROCESSING

1. Selection of Bank
a) GH uses CA Bank & Trust
b) Clients Choice
Name
Address
Please provide signature cards, sample check, starting check number, name of contact person

2. Trust Balance Desired $10,000.00

3. Account funding: GH will notify client when the balance falls below required balance 4A. Number of Signatures Required
a) One
b) Two on all checks
c) Two on checks in excess of $__________
4B. If two signatures are required, please specify:
a) Both GH
b) One GH, one client
GH signers: John Chaquica, CEO and Chris Shaffer, COO;

5. Accountability
a) Positive Pay: Yes No
GH recommends positive pay to mitigate the potential for fraud. b) Check Registers: Yes No
Weekly Monthly
c) Statement to be balanced by client, or
Statement to be balanced by GH with copies to client

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 26 of 32

ATTACHMENT D

ALLOCATED EXPENSES
Typically, allocated expenses are those expenses that are generated by a claim (by outside vendors other than George Hills) that cannot be foreseen nor included in an agreement. These are generally allocated back to the specific claim file for which the cost was incurred and then charged back to the entity whose claim incurred that cost. In most situations are pass -through costs (with processing fees) for services and/or fees not directly generated by the TPA, but rather by a third -party GH where the TPA ha s acted as an agent on behalf of the entity to necessarily outscore services to a third -party GH and/or miscellaneous fees applicable to the specific claim applied by an outside entity, such as a court or copy service. Below, George Hills has provided a li st, by no means an exhaustive list, of typical allocated expenses. ▪ Fees of outside counsel for claims in suit, coverage opinions, and litigation, and for representation and hearings or pretrial conferences;
▪ Fees of court reporters;
▪ All court costs, court fees, and court expenses;
▪ Fees for service of process;
▪ Costs of undercover operatives and detectives;
▪ Costs for employing experts for the preparation of maps, professional photographs, accounting, chemical or physical analysis, or diagrams;
▪ Costs for employing experts for the advice, opinions, or testimony concerning claims under investigation or in litigation for which a declaratory judgment is sought; ▪ Costs for independent medical examination or evaluation for rehabilitation; ▪ Costs of legal transcripts of testimony taken at coroner’s inquests, or criminal or civil proceeding; ▪ Costs for copies of any public records or medical records; ▪ Costs of depositions and court reporting;
▪ Costs and expenses of subrogation, (if not George Hills); ▪ Costs of engineers, handwriting experts, or any other type of expert used in the preparation of litigation or used in a one-time basis to resolve disputes;
▪ Witness fees and travel expenses;
▪ Costs of photographers and photocopy services (if not George Hills—our costs for this is included in our rate);
▪ Costs of appraisal fees and expenses not included in flat fee or performed by others; ▪ Costs of indexing claimants;
▪ Services performed outside the TPA’s normal geographical regions; ▪ Costs associated with Medicare Set -Aside analysis and submission or Medicare Conditional Lien negotiation;
▪ Investigation of possible fraud including SIU services and related expenses; and/or ▪ Any other similar cost, fee, or expense that is not otherwise included in the TPA’s service fees that is reasonably chargeable to the investigation, negotiation, settlement, or defense of a claim or loss or to the protection or perfection of the subrogation rights of the entity, including travel related expenses.

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 27 of 32

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 28 of 32

ATTACHMENT E

BUSINESS ASSOCIATE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN CLIENT CITY OF HANFORD
AND GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC.

This Business Associate Agreement (“BAA”) is made and entered into this 1st day of January, 2023 by and between the CITY OF HANFORD , hereinafter referred to as “CLIENT,” and GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC., hereinafter referred to as “GH.” I. RECITALS
WHEREAS, on or about the date referenced above , GH entered into a written contract with CLIENT to perform obligations and services related to the handling and administration of general liability claims filed against or with CLIENT.

WHEREAS, the obligations of the Contract require that CLIENT provide to GH date, documents, and information which may contained protected health information (“PHI”) and/or electronic PHI (“ePHI”) within the definition of the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) related to the general liability claims, for the purpose of administering those claims.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the parties and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and suffici ency of which is hereby acknowledged, the PARTIES hereto agree as follows:

II. DEFINITIONS
Catch-all definition:

The following terms used in this AGREEMENT shall have the same meaning as those terms in the HIPAA Rules: Breach, Data Aggregation, Designated Record Set, Disclosure, Health Care Operations, Individual, Minimum Necessary, Notice of Privacy Practices, Prote cted Health Information, Required By Law, Secretary, Security Incident, Subcontractor, Unsecured Protected Health Information, and Use.

Specific definitions:
(a) Business Associate. “Business Associate” shall generally have the same meaning as the term “business associate” at 45 CFR 160.103, and in reference to the party to this agreement, shall mean GEORGE HILLS COMPANY.
(b) Covered Entity . “Covered Entity” shall generally have the same meaning as the term “covered entity” at 45 CFR 160.103, and in reference to the party to this agreement, shall mean CLIENT.
(c) HIPAA Rules. “HIPAA Rules” shall mean the Privacy, Security, Breach Notification, and Enforcement Rules at 45 CFR Part 160 and Part 164.

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 29 of 32
III. OBLIGATIONS AND ACTIVITIES OF BUSINESS ASSOCIATE
Pursuant to this agreement GH agrees to:
(a) Not use or disclose protected health information other than as permitted or required by the Agreement or as required by law;
(b) Use appropriate safeguards, and comply with Subpart C of 45 CFR Part 164 with resp ect to electronic protected health information, to prevent use or disclosure of protected health information other than as provided for by the Agreement; (c) Report to covered entity any use or disclosure of protected health information not provided for by the Agreement of which it becomes aware, including breaches of unsecured protected health information as required at 45 CFR 164.410, and any security incident of which it becomes aware;
(d) In accordance with 45 CFR 164.502(e)(1)(ii) and 164.308(b)(2), if applicable, ensure that any subcontractors that create, receive, maintain, or transmit protected health information on behalf of the business associate agree to the same restrictions, conditions, and requirements that apply to the business associate with respect to such information; (e) Make available protected health information in a designated record set to the GH as necessary to satisfy covered entity’s obligations under 45 CFR 164.524; (f) Make any amendment(s) to protected health information in a des ignated record set as directed or agreed to by the covered entity pursuant to 45 CFR 164.526, or take other measures as necessary to satisfy covered entity’s obligations under 45 CFR 164.526; (g) Maintain and make available the information required to pro vide an accounting of disclosures to the GH as necessary to satisfy covered entity’s obligations under 45 CFR 164.528;
(h) To the extent the business associate is to carry out one or more of covered entity's obligation(s) under Subpart E of 45 CFR Part 164, comply with the requirements of Subpart E that apply to the covered entity in the performance of such obligation(s); and (i) Make its internal practices, books, and records available to the Secretary for purposes of determining compliance with the HIPAA Rules.

IV. PERMITTED USES AND DISCLOSURES BY BUSINESS ASSOCIATE (a) Business associate may only use or disclose protected health information for the purposes described in the Contract between GH and CLIENT, specifically for the purpose of adjusting and administering the general liability claims filed against CLIENT. (b) Business associate may use or disclose protected health information as required by law.

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 30 of 32
(c) Business associate agrees to make uses and disclosures and requests for protected health information consistent with covered entity’s minimum necessary policies and procedures. (d) Business associate may not use or disclose protected health information in a manner that would violate Subpart E of 45 CFR Part 164 if done by covered entity [if the Agreement permits the business associate to use or disclose protected health information for its own management and administration and legal responsibilities or for data aggregation services as set forth in optional provisions (e), (f), or (g) below, then add “, except for the specific uses and disclosures set forth below.”]
(e) Business associate may use protected health information for the proper management and administration of the business associate or to carry out the legal responsibilities of the business associate.
(f) Business associate may disclose protected health information for the proper management and administration of business associate or to carry out the legal and contractual responsibilities of the business associate, provided the disclosures are re quired by law, or business associate obtains reasonable assurances from the person to whom the information is disclosed that the information will remain confidential and used or further disclosed only as required by law or for the purposes for which it was disclosed to the person, and the person notifies business associate of any instances of which it is aware in which the confidentiality of the information has been breached.
(g) Business associate may provide data containing PHI and or ePHI to third party entities for storage, security, and/or aggregation services relating to the claims administration services provided by GH.

V. PROVISIONS FOR COVERED ENTITY TO INFORM BUSINESS ASSOCIATE OF

PRIVACY PRACTICES AND RESTRICTIONS
(a) Covered entity shall notify busi ness associate of any limitation(s) in the notice of privacy practices of covered entity under 45 CFR 164.520, to the extent that such limitation may affect business associate’s use or disclosure of protected health information. (b) Covered entity shall notify business associate of any changes in, or revocation of, the permission by an individual to use or disclose his or her protected health information, to the extent that such changes may affect business associate’s use or disclosure of protected health information.
(c) Covered entity shall notify business associate of any restriction on the use or disclosure of protected health information that covered entity has agreed to or is required to abide by under 45 CFR 164.522, to the extent that such re striction may affect business associate’s use or disclosure of protected health information.

VI. PERMISSIBLE REQUESTS BY COVERED ENTITY

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 31 of 32
Covered entity shall not request business associate to use or disclose protected health information in any manner that would not be permissible under Subpart E of 45 CFR Part 164 if done by covered entity.

VII. TERM AND TERMINATION
(a) Term. The Term of this Agreement shall be effective as of DATE and shall terminate on DATE or on the date covered entity terminates for cause as authorized in paragraph (b) of this Section, whichever is sooner.
(b) Termination for Cause . Business associate authorizes termination of this Agreement by covered entity, if covered entity determines business associate has violated a material term of the Agreement and business associate has not cured the breach or ended the violation within the time specified by covered entity.
(c) Obligations of Business Associate Upon Termination.

Upon termination of this Agreement for any reason, business associate, wit h respect to protected health information received from covered entity, or created, maintained, or received by business associate on behalf of covered entity, shall:

Retain only that protected health information which is necessary for business associate to continue its proper management and administration or to carry out its legal and contractual responsibilities;
Return to covered entity, or destroy, the protected health information that the business associate maintains in any form;
Continue to use appropriate safeguards and comply with Subpart C of 45 CFR Part 164 with respect to electronic protected health information to prevent use or disclosure of the protected health information, other than as provided for in this Section, for as long as business associate retains the protected health information; Not use or disclose the protected health information retained by business associate other than for the purposes for which such protected health information was retained and subject to the same conditions set out above under “Permitted Uses and Disclosures By Business Associate” which applied prior to termination; and
Return to covered entity, or destroy, the protected health information retained by business associate when it is no longer needed by business asso ciate for its proper management and administration or to carry out its legal and contractual responsibilities. (d) Survival. The obligations of business associate under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

_______________ BY: _____________________________________

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

Claims Adjusting and Administration Services Contract
Between the City of Hanford and George Hills Company
page 32 of 32
Date John E. Chaquica, CEO
GEORGE HILLS COMPANY INC.

________________ BY: _____________________________________ Date Mario Cifuentez, City Manager

CITY OF HANFORD

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: 2023 George Hills Contract (Admin: General Liability Third Party Administrator)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 12/6/2022

AGENDA SECTION: D

SUBJECT:

Community Development: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 22-08, 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).

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council, by motion, approve the second reading of Ordinance 22-08 and adopt Prezone No. 2021-14.

BACKGROUND:

November 15, 2022 staff report attached.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C
Ordinance No. 22-08
Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31
Attachment 2 - Lavenson-Avedisian comments to City Council re Zoning Changes_10-26- 2022_SIGNED

12.D
Packet Pg. 96

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.

12.D.a
Packet Pg. 97
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.

12.D.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Figure 1
Project Location

12.D.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Figure 2
Current General Plan Land Use Designation

12.D.a
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Figure 3
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation

12.D.a
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Figure 4
Current Zone District

12.D.a
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Figure 5
Proposed Zone District

12.D.a
Packet Pg. 103
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.

12.D.a
Packet Pg. 104
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,

12.D.a
Packet Pg. 105
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.

12.D.a
Packet Pg. 106
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.

Analysis: That the anticipated land uses of the sites designated for Corridor Mixed Use would be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses. The parcels will be developed as typical uses of the Corridor Mixed Use designation, which according to General Plan Policy L66, include duplexes, townhomes, apartments, small retail shops, eating establishments,

12.D.a
Packet Pg. 107
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.

Analysis: That this application has been reviewed by County departments, utility companies, City Fire Department, City Building Department, and other involved departments. Any mitigation required for public health and safety were applied to the proposal and required in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

3. That the amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City.

Analysis: That jobs-housing balance is achieved by increasing opportunities for people to work and live in close proximity. The ratio is expressed as the number of jobs divided by the number of housing units. The jobs-housing balance is a general tool for analyzing where people work, where they live, and how effectively they can travel between the two. In the planning area, the existing jobs -housing balance ratio in 2013 -2014 was 1.17. It is estimated that the implementation of the General Plan would increase the jobs-housing balance by 0.45 to 1.62, which would make the planning area a jobs-rich area. The proposal to change the designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use will not affect the City’s ability to maintain an appropriate balance of l and uses within the City, both jobs and housing are permitted in the Corridor Mixed Use designation. Commercial and housing opportunities would be limited to the density and intensity allowable within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

4. That the anticipated land uses on the subject site would be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses.

Analysis: That the anticipated land uses of the sites designated for Corridor Mixed Use would be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses. Th e parcels will be developed as

12.D.a
Packet Pg. 108
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:

12.D.a
Packet Pg. 109
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

12.D.a
Packet Pg. 110
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"

12.D.a
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Staff Report - General Plan Amendment 2021-01 C (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.

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 112
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.

Analysis: That this application has been reviewed by County departments, utility companies, City Fire Department, City Building Department, and other involved departments. Any mitigation required for public health and safety were applied to the proposal and required in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

3. That the amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City.

Analysis: That jobs-housing balance is achieved by increasing opportunities for people to work and live in close proximity. The ratio is expressed as the number of jobs divided by the number of housing units. The jobs-housing balance is a general tool for analyzing where people work, where they live, and how effectively they can travel between the two. In the planning area, the existing jobs -housing balance ratio in 2013- 2014 was 1.17. It is estimated that the implementation of the General Plan would increase the jobs -housing balance by 0.45 to 1.62, which would make the planning area a jobs-rich area. The proposal to change the designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use will not affect the City’s ability to maintain an appropriate balance of land uses within the City, both jobs and housing are permitted in the Corridor Mixed Use designation. Commercial and housing opportunities would be limited to the density and intensity allowable within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 113
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:

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 114
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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Exhibit A
Prezone No. 2021-14

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Current Zone District

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Proposed Zone District

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Ordinance No. 22-08 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Exhibit B:

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 119
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.

• 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.

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 120
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.

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.

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 121
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.

MM BIO-3: The Project shall implement the following
measures to mitigate for loss of nesting habitat of the Project in compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and relevant Fish and Game Codes:

• Avoidance. In order to avoid impacts to nesting
raptors and migratory birds, the Project will be constructed, if feasible, from September 16th and January 31st, which is outside the avian nesting season.
• Preconstruction Surveys. If Project activities must
occur during the nesting season (February 1-September
15), a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys for active raptor and migratory bird nests within 10 days prior to the start of these activities. The survey will include the proposed work area(s) and surrounding lands within 500 feet, where accessible, for all nesting raptors and migratory Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
ground
-
disturbing
activities
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City
of Hanford to
verify.

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 122
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.

Should the nature of construction activity significantly change, such that a higher level of disturbance will be generated, monitoring will occur daily for one week and then res
ume the once-a-week regime. If, at any time, the biologist determines that construction activity may be compromising nesting success, construction activity within the designated buffer will be altered or suspended until the biologist determines that the nest site is no longer susceptible to deleterious disturbance.

Cultural Resources
MM CR-1: In order to avoid the potential for impacts to historic and prehistoric archaeological resources, the
following measures shall be implemented, as necessary, in conjunction with the construction of each phase of the
Project:

a. Cultural Resources Alert on Project Plans. The project proponent shall note on any plans that require ground
disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources.

b. Pre-Construction Briefing. The project proponent shall retain Santa Rosa Rancheria Cultural Staff to provide a pre- construction Cultural Sensitivity Training to construction staff regarding the discovery of cultural resources and the
potential for discovery during ground disturbing activities, which will include information on potential cultural material Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prio
r to
ground-
disturbing
activities
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City
of Hanford to
verify.

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 123
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.

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 124
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.

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.

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 125
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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 126
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

12.D.c
Packet Pg. 127
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

12.D.c
Packet Pg. 128
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

12.D.c
Packet Pg. 129
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

12.D.c
Packet Pg. 130
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

12.D.c
Packet Pg. 131
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

12.D.c
Packet Pg. 132
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:

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 10

Figure 2-1 Project Location

12.D.c
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 | 11

Figure 2-2 Project Vicinity Map

12.D.c
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 | 12

12.D.c
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 | 13
Figure 2-3 APN Map

12.D.c
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 | 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).

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 16

Figure 2-4 General Plan Designated Land Use

12.D.c
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 | 17

Figure 2-5 Current Zoning

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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,

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (CD: Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)

12.D.c
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 | 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).

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
Packet Pg. 154
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

12.D.c
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 | 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/

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 32

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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?

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 43

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 45
f) Conflict with provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan.

X

4.4.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located within the City of Hanford’s SOI and is planned for urbanized uses. The site is mostly vacant with some existing structures that are primarily residential and commercial.

The vacant portion of the Project site is relatively flat and is highly disturbed as a result of periodic grading and discing. The existing biotic site conditions and resources of the vacant portion can be defined primarily as herbaceous vegetation with minimal trees and shrubs existing on site.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife – Special-Status Species Database The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) operates an “Information for Planning and Consultation” (IPaC) database, which is a project planning tool for the environmental review process that provides general information on the location of speci al-status species that are “known” or “expected” to occur ( note: the iPaC database does not provide occurrences; refer to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Natural Diversity Database below). 4 i Specifically,
the iPaC database identifies 12 endangered species known or expected to occur in the city of Hanford including the: Fresno kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, giant garter snake, California red -legged frog, California ti ger salamander, Delta smelt, monarch butterfly, conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp.

No Critical Habitats are identified in the city .5, The closest federally designated Critical Habitat is located approximately 8.2 miles northeast of the Project site for California tiger salamander

4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Information and Planning Consultation Online System. Accessed on December 28 , 2021, https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
5 NOAA Fisheries. Critical Habitat. Accessed on March 18, 2022, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/critical-habitat#key-regulations Once a species is listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, NOAA Fisheries is required to determine whether there are areas that meet the definition of Critical Habitat. Per NOAA Fisheries, Critical Habitat is defined as:
“Specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain physical or biological features essential to conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 48

Figure 4-1 CNDDB Species Occurrences

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 51

Figure 4-2 Surface Water Features

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 53
one week, and thereafter once a week, throughout the duration of construction activity.

Should the nature of construction activity significantly change, such th at a higher level of disturbance will be generated, monitoring will occur daily for one week and then resume the once-a-week regime. If, at any time, the biologist determines that construction activity may be compromising nesting success, construction acti vity within the designated buffer will be altered or suspended until the biologist determines that Swainson’s hawks at the nest site are no longer susceptible to deleterious disturbance. • Nest Tree Replacement. In the unlikely event that a SWHA nest tree is found on the site during preconstruction surveys, LOA recommends that the nest tree be replaced with appropriate native tree species plantings at a ratio of 3:1 at or near the Project site or in other immediately suitable lands.

MM BIO-2: The Project shall implement the following measures to mitigate for loss of suitable habitat and impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox during ground-disturbing activities of the Project site:
• Pre-construction Surveys. Preconstruction surveys for the SJKF shall be conducted on and within 200 feet of the project site, where accessible, within 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance activities on the site. The primary objective is to identify kit fox habitat features (e.g., potential dens and refugia) on and adjacent to the site and evaluate their use by kit foxes.
• Avoidance. Should active kit fox dens be detected during preconstruction surveys, the Sacramento Field Office of the USFWS and the Fresno Field Office of CDFW will be notified.

A disturbance-free buffer will be established around the burrows in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW, to be maintained until an agency -approved biologist has determined that the burrows have been abandoned.
• Exclusion. If the kit fox does not abandon the burrow, then a den exclusion plan will be developed in consultation with USFWS and CDFW. The exclusion plan would, at a minimum, include the following elements.
o Kit fox will be excluded from the den(s), outside the natal season (June 1-December 31), through installation of one-way doors consisting of a 5” pipe with a plastic flap over the top. The one-way doors will be installed in all onsite burrows large enough to accommodate the San Joaquin kit fox. The one -way doors will be supported by sandbags to ensure a tight fit in the burr ow and to discourage the foxes from digging around the one-way doors to gain access to the dens. o The one -way doors will be monitored for three days through the placement of motion sensing cameras and daily review of the captured images by a qualified biologist.

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 57

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?

X

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

X

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

X

4.5.1 Environmental Setting
Generally, the term ‘cultural resources’ describes property types such as prehistoric and historical archaeological sites, buildings, bridges, roadways, and tribal cultural resources. As defined by CEQA, historical resources include sites, structures, obje cts, or districts that may have historical, prehistoric, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. Such resources are eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources by the State Historical Resources Commission.

The city of Hanford has three (3) buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places:

Hanford Carnegie Library, Kings County Courthouse, and Taoist Temple. Some of these types of cultural resources are readily apparent on the ground surface, some may be buried and therefore unknown until discovered through ground disturbances. The Project site is not in the vicinity of these buildings.

The Project site is located within the City of Hanford’s SOI and is planned for urbanized uses. The site is mostly vacant with some existing structures that are primarily residential and commercial.

None of these structures are identified as historic or cultural resources by the City, state, or federal governments nor is the site considered an area of archeological potential significance. The vacant portion of the Project site is undeveloped, relatively flat, and is highly disturbed as a result of periodic grading and discing.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 62
that other historical or archeological resources exist on the Project site, there is some possibility that additional hidden and buried resources may exist with no surface evidence. Hanford General Plan Policy O49 partially mitigates for archaeological resources that are encountered unexpectedly during construction. To further assure construction activities do not result in significant impacts to any potential resources discovered below ground surface, the Project shall incorporate MM CR- 1 as described above in criterion a). Thus, if such resources were discovered, implementation of MM CR-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant. As a result, the Project will have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . There is no evidence that human remains exist on the Project site. Nevertheless, there is some possibility that non -visible buried human remains may exist and may be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities which would constitute a significant impact. If any human remains are discovered during construction, CCR Section 15064.5(e), PRC Section 5097.98, and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 will mitigate for the impacts. To further assure construction activities do not result in significant impacts to any potential resources or human remains discovered bel ow ground surface, the Project shall incorporate MM CR -2 as described below. Therefore, if any human remains were discovered, implementation of this mitigation and referenced regulations would reduce the Project’s impact to less than significant.

MM CR-2: Protection of Buried Human Remains. In order to avoid the potential for impacts to buried human remains, the following measures shall be implemented, as necessary, in conjunction with the construction of each phase of the Project:
a. Pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(e) and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, if human bone or bone of unknown origin is found at any time during on- or off-site construction, all work shall stop in the vicinity of the find and the Kings County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the California State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who shall identify the person believed to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The project proponent and MLD, with the assistance of the archaeologist, shall make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment of human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects with appropriate dignity (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.5(d)).

The agreed upon treatment shall address the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects. California Public Resources Code allows 48 hours for the MLD to make their wishes known to the landowner after being granted access to the site. If the MLD and the other parties do not agree on the reburial method, the project

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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).

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 82
reductions when available, and will work with applicants to incorporate design features that reduce emissions.

Policy AQ 4.3: Ensure that air quality and cli mate change impacts identified during California Environmental Quality Act review are minimized and consistently and fairly mitigated to the greatest extent feasible.

OBJECTIVE AQ 10: Identify and achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction targets consistent with the City’s proportionate fair share as may be allocated by the California Air Resources Board and Kings County Association of Governments.

Policy AQ 10.1: As recommended in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Guidance fo r Valley Land -use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (December 2009), the City establishes an initial goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from development projects within its authority by 29 percent below year 202 0 business as usual emissions. The City will also work with Kings County Association of Governments to ensure that it achieves its proportionate fair share reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as may be identified under the provisions of SB 375 (2008 Chapter 728) for any projects or activities requiring approval of Kings County Association of Governments.

Program AQ 10.1: The City will require development projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and not otherwise exempt to provide a quantitative assessment of greenhouse gas emissions. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District has proposed Best Performance Standards that when included in a project would demonstrate that it would meet emission reduction targets without requirin g quantification. Project specific Best Performance Standards have not been completed; therefore, as an interim measure, projects requiring an Environmental Impact Report should include quantification of the benefits of adopted regulations, design features and mitigation measures that demonstrate that the project would achieve a 29 percent reduction from business as usual in 2020. Projects requiring a negative declaration should include a qualitative assessment of greenhouse gases and describe the project features that reduce greenhouse gases.

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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. 12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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/

12.D.c
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 | 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?

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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/.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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:

12.D.c
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 | 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) .

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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:

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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)?

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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?

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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:

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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 .

12.D.c
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 | 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)?

12.D.c
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 | 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?

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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.

X

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.

12.D.c
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 | 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 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 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.

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

12.D.c
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 | 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.

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 qualifie d, professional consultant first conduct a field survey to determine if any cultural resources are present. If no ground

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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.

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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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. .

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.

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.

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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/

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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.

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:

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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 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.

12.D.c
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 | 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.

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:

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

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 147

12.D.c
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 | 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

12.D.c
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 | 149 7 APPENDICES

12.D.c
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 | 150 Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files
Prepared by Precision Civil Engineering, Inc. dated February 1, 2022.

12.D.c
Packet Pg. 276
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