Agenda packet — Hanford City Council, December 20, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

December 20, 2022
7:00 PM – Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.

5:00 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. Community Development Housing the City’s First Time Homebuyer Assistance Program.

B. Presentation by City of Hanford Staff and 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:

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
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/

Negotiating Party: Jason Carvalho and Kevin Nickell
CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION:

ROLL CALL:

INVOCATION:

Pastor Orris Whitley
FLAG SALUTE:

COUNCIL REPORTS/GENERAL REPORTS:

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

PUBLIC COMMENT:

This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters within the jurisdiction of the Hanford City Council. This is also the public’s opportunity to request an item from the Consent Calendar be pulled for discussion purposes or to comment on any item on the agenda. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff 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 request is made and then the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.

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

B. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the December 2, 2022, Special Meeting C. City Clerk: Denial of a claim for damages and authorization for the City Clerk to send out notification of such to Earlene Carson.

D. Community Development: Adoption of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, establishing thresholds and guidelines for a ddressing VMT, in accordance with Senate Bill 743.

E. Public Works: Pre -authorization to provide disking services on City's 1600-acre farm property and appropriate $50,000 from the Wastewater Fund.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A. Community Development: Annexation No. 159: A request to annex approximately 19 acres into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction. Prezone No. 2021 -09: A request to pre - zone the annexation area as I -H Heavy Industrial, in accordance with the General Plan designation for the are a. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022 -62: An initial study was prepared, and it was determined that the project will not result in significant i mpacts; therefore, Mitigated Negative Declaration 2022 -62 has been prepared. The project is located south o f Iona Avenue, west of 10th Avenue (APN 018-242-014, 018-242-015, 018-242-016, 018-242-017, 018- 242-018, and 018-242-019).

GENERAL BUSINESS:

A. Public Works: Approve change orders and an appropriation transfer of $40,000 from the Accumulated Capital Outlay (ACO) Fund, to fully fund the completion of the Police Activities League Parking Lot project.

B. Public Works: Approve change orders and an appropri ation transfer of $39,000.00 from the Accumulated Capital Outlay (ACO) Fund, to fully fund the completion o f the Police Parking Lot Expansion Construction Project.

C. Council: Review and Approval of the 2023 Calendar of City Council Meetings COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS:

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

December 23, 26, 30: Holiday, city offices closed
January 2: 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: 12/20/2022

AGENDA SECTION: A

SUBJECT:

Community Development Housing the City’s First Time Homebuyer Assistance Program.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

Staff Report.122022 FTHB Presentation
"HOME SWEET HOME" Program Summary

4.A
Packet Pg. 4

CITY OF HANFORD CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: Tuesday, December 20, 2022

SUBJECT: Presentation by the Community Development Housing on the City’s First Time Homebuyer Assistance Program.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council receives the presentation from the staff, this item is informational and intended to provide the Council with an overview of a City program.

BACKGROUND

During a previous City Council meeting held on October 18, 2022, the Council requested staff to review additional information on the City’s First Time Homebuyer Program.

The City of Hanford has provided homebuyer assistance for over 2 8 years. To provide affordable housing opportunities in Hanford and to preserve the existing neighborhoods in our community, the City of Hanford offers the following housing programs:

First-Time Homebuyers Program

The HOME Sweet Home First -time Homebuyers Program offers qual ified first -time homebuyers the opportunity to borrow up to $75,000 for the down payment and closing costs to purchase a newly constructed or existing home within the Hanford city limits. This program offers a 30-year loan with deferred payments (meaning no payment due) for the entirety of the loan term. The loan carries a 2% fixed interest rate and is secured by a second Deed of Trust. Staff currently maintains an interest list for this program.

PROGRAM FUNDING

Historically, the homebuyer assistance program received funding from HOME, Community Development Block Grant, and CalHOME Program.

• There is a balance of $1,431,615 of HOME REUSE in the homebuyer assistance fund to support the HOME Sweet HOME Program.

• However, as of July 27, 2022, the State of California HOME Program is working with HUD to update some HOME First-Time Homebuyer (FTHB) program policies.

Until those policy updates are in place, all HOME Program grantees operating HOME FTHB programs temporarily suspend all HOME FTHB program activities.

Additional information is attached.

4.A.a
Packet Pg. 5
Attachment: Staff Report.122022 FTHB Presentation (Hanford Homebuyer Assistance Program)

HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

APPLICATION AND PROGRAM PROCESS

Thank you for your interest in the City’s Homebuyer Assistance Program. This program provides deferred payment loans to income qualifying households looking to purchase homes in Hanford. Please see the attached fact sheet for the terms and conditions of the program.

The City’s loan process has eight steps. More detail on the home selection and subsequent steps will be provided after your preliminary eligibility is determined.

Application
In order for the City to consider your loan request, you will need to complete a City of Hanford Homebuyer Assistance Program application. When submitting your application, keep in mind that you must:
 Submit an original application with all requested paperwork. The paperwork, paystubs, bank statements, etc., should be copies. The City will not return any paperwork submitted.
 Make sure to sign and date the application.
 Attach a lender’s pre-qualification or pre-approval letter.

Submit your completed application in person by appointment only to:

Sandra Lerma-Martinez, Housing Administrative Analyst 559-585-4766 Roberta Monzelli, Housing Administrative Technician 559-585-2587

City of Hanford Housing
317 North Douty St, Hanford CA 93230
TDD/TYY, Dial 711

Income Eligibility Determination
Once the City receives your application packet, staff will determine if your household meets basic income and eligibility requirements. The City will rely on the information included in the City’s application and the backup documentation provided.

Depending on the particular circumstances, the City may req uest additional information or documentation. Your ability to respond to the City quickly and accurately is critical. With your lender or agent, you are strongly encouraged to make a preliminary determination of income eligibility.

4.A.b
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment: "HOME SWEET HOME" Program Summary (Hanford Homebuyer Assistance Program)

After income eligibility has been determined, you will be given a Pre-Qualification letter from the City confirming income eligibility and describing the next steps in the process.

Housing Counseling
HUD funded programs require a potential homebuyer to complete a homebuyer counseling course by HUD certified housing counselors. All applicants must provide a certificate of completion prior to issuing the Pre-Qualification letter. Information for HUD certified housing counselors will be provided with the application.

Home Selection
Working with your real estate agent, you will select one or more homes on which to make an offer. The home must be in Hanford and within the purchase price limit for the program. When your offer is accepted, your agent will send the City a copy of the Purchase and Sale Agreement.

If the home was built before 1978, the City’s Housing staff also conducts a visual assessment. If deteriorated paint is found, such as peeling, chipping, chalking or cracking interior or exterior paint, the property is not eligible for purchase unless the deficiencies are corrected. The house must then be re -inspected and must pass the visua l assessment prior to closing. If the house passes the visual assessment, the purchase process can continue.

Seller may correct the defects using proper procedures listed on the Seller Certification Form .

Seller must submit the Seller Certification Form, obtain a Clearance Report and Lead Hazard Reduction Notice fr om a licensed risk assessor documenting that the house passed clearance prior to closing. See Program Guidelines for more requirements regarding homes built before 1978.

A visual assessment is al so conducted for all properties to verify basic health and safety conditions.

Senior Loan Package
Once a purchase offer has been accepted, your agent and lender will need to submit the loan package for the City’s review. City staff will review the loan request and accompanying documentation for compliance with the program guidelines. Information will also be reviewed for consistency and accuracy. City sta ff will work with the applicant, lender, and real estate agent to resolve any discrepancies.

4.A.b
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: "HOME SWEET HOME" Program Summary (Hanford Homebuyer Assistance Program)

Loan Committee
Once staff has determined that the loan request c onforms to the guidel ines, the property is eligible, and there are funds available, a request will be made to the Loan Committee. Any facts relevant to the lending decision will be noted in the request as will any conditions precedent to loan funding.

Loan Commitment and Funding
Once the Loan Committee has approved the loan request and all funding conditions have been met, staff will prepare loan documents and a request to fund escrow. The escrow funding request will be contingent on executed loan documents.

Closing
After close of escro w, the closing statement, HUD -1, will be reviewed by staff to confirm the details of the transaction as approved by the City and that you did not receive excess proceeds.

BUYER REQUIREMENTS
Income Limit 80% of area median income, as calculated by HCD (see below) Household size
(persons) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Maximum
gross income
(2022)
$43,650 $49,850 $56,100 $62,300 $67,300 $72,300 $77,300 $82,250 First-time homebuyer
status
No ownership in past three years, minimum of a 3 year period of continued employment and at present job a minimum of 6 months.

Occupancy requirement Owner-occupant, primary residence. Annual monitoring; City staff will obtain certification of primary residence from the homeowner each year throughout the 30-year lien. Loan due if not owner-occupied.

Homebuyer Education
Course
Homebuyer counseling course required. Must provide a
certificate of completion prior to closing escrow. Available in English or Spanish at:

4.A.b
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: "HOME SWEET HOME" Program Summary (Hanford Homebuyer Assistance Program)

Community Services & Employment Training (CSET)
312 NW 3rd Ave, Visalia CA 93291
www.cset.org or 559-732-4194

Self Help Enterprises
8445 W Elowin Court, Visalia CA 93291
www.selfhelpenterprises.org or 559-651-1000

Fresno locations also available, information will be provided if interested in those locations.

Credit history Charge off and collection accounts required to be paid through escrow.

PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS
Eligible types Single-family detached. May be newly constructed or existing, if existing, must be sound and not in need of rehabilitation, and property must comply with local
building codes. (second units, pools and/or spas are not allowed and cannot be tenant occupied).

Location Within incorporated limits of the City of Hanford.

Sales price limit 100% of Kings County median; $271,000 as of June 01, 2022, New Construction $316,000.

Inspection requirements Home inspection by qualified inspector required. Pest inspection required.

Flood insurance Required if in 100-year floodplain.

LOAN TERMS
Loan product 30-year “silent second” deferred-payment mortgage.

Use of funds Down payment and/or non-recurring closing costs.

Maximum loan amount Up to $75,000

4.A.b
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: "HOME SWEET HOME" Program Summary (Hanford Homebuyer Assistance Program)

Loan amount calculation Actual loan amount calculated on what is needed to make monthly housing cost affordable to buyer. Buyer is expected to spend approximately 25-33% of gross
income on housing.

Interest rate 2% simple.

Position City must be in second position. Approval of primary loan required.

Deed restriction None.

Required documents Loan Agreement, Promissory Note, Deed of Trust, Request for Notice of Default, statutory lending notices.

Special requirements Buyer eligibility must be confirmed prior to making purchase offer. Purchase offer must include City
contingencies.

SENIOR LOAN REQUIREMENTS
Loan product Fixed-rate, fully amortizing, 30-year mortgage.

Conventional, FHA, VA acceptable.

Maximum interest rate Current market rate. No temporary rate buy-downs.

Minimum housing debt-to-
income ratio
25%
Maximum housing debt-to-
income ratio
33%
Minimum total debt-to-income
ratio
33%
Maximum total debt-to-income
ratio
42%

4.A.b
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: "HOME SWEET HOME" Program Summary (Hanford Homebuyer Assistance Program)

Minimum borrower
contribution
1% of purchase price towards home purchase. (cannot be
used toward closing costs)
Gift funds Allowed. Must be evidenced by gift letter.

Impounds Taxes and insurance required.

The City of Hanford does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, disability, or sexual orientation in its employment opportunities, programs, services or activities.

4.A.b
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: "HOME SWEET HOME" Program Summary (Hanford Homebuyer Assistance Program)

PLEASE INCLUDE COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH THE ATTACHED APPLICATION:

Executed Financial Privacy Act Notice - attached
Executed Release of Information for all adults in the household - attached Most recent two (2) months of paystubs for all employed adults Current proof of income for other income sources for all adults Most recent 3 years of federal income tax returns with W-2s for all adults Most recent six months of all banking account statements for all adults (include all accounts and all pages of statements)
Most recent investment/retirement account statement for all persons (include all pages of statement)
Lender pre-qualification or pre-approval letter & Copy of Credit Report (from Lender)
Copy of Driver’s License/ID and Social Security Card (each Appli

4.A.b
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: "HOME SWEET HOME" Program Summary (Hanford Homebuyer Assistance Program)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 12/20/2022

AGENDA SECTION: B

SUBJECT:

Presentation by City of Hanford Staff and 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. 13
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.

At the December 6, 2022 Council requested that staff present the potential development scenarios for the downtown including the implications of each scenario.

As requested by Council, Peters Engineering Group, along with City staff, will present the development scenarios and the implications to traffic, parking, future planning and budget for each scenario.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Insert Fiscal Impact Here or Erase Completely

ATTACHMENTS:

4.B
Packet Pg. 14

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 12/20/2022

AGENDA SECTION: B

SUBJECT:

City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the December 2, 2022, Special Meeting

Recommendation:

Approve the minutes of the December 2, 2022 Special Meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

12.2.2022 SP

12.B
Packet Pg. 15
CI

TY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
December 2, 2022 5:00 PM
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.

CALL TO ORDER SPECIAL SESSION:

Mayor Morrow called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL BY THE CITY CLERK:

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Art Brieno Council Member Absent
Diane Sharp Vice Mayor Present 4:50 p.m.

Kalish Morrow Mayor Present 4:55 p.m.

Francisco Ramirez Council Member Present 4:53 p.m.

Amanda Saltray Council Member Present 4:50 p.m.

FLAG SALUTE:

Mayor Morrow led the flag salute.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Dave Ayers thanked the outgoing Council Members.

Bob Ramos thanked the outgoing Council Members and congratu lated the newly elected Council Members. He also commented on the roundabou t project.

Laria Faria thanked the outgoing Council Members and congratulated the newly elected Council Members.

GENERAL BUSINESS:

Recognition and remarks for Outgoing Council Members Amanda Saltray, Art Brieno, and Francisco Ramirez.:

Mayor Morrow presented Council Members Saltray and Ramirez with recognition plaques and thanked them for their service. The outgoing Council Members thanked the community for their support.

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: 12.2.2022 SP (Clerk: 12.2.2022 Minutes)
Certification of Election and Swearing in:
a. Adoption of Resolution 22-45- R, Declaring Canvass of Results of the Votes Cast and Statement of Election Results for the November 8, 2022, General Election.

Motion to approve.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Diane Sharp, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Francisco Ramirez, Council Member
AYES: Sharp, Morrow, Saltray, Ramirez
ABSENT: Brieno
b. Administer Oath of Office to Travis Paden, Mark Kairis, and Lou Martinez City Clerk Natalie Corral administered the oath to Travis Paden, Mark Kairis and Lou Martinez.

Reorganize of the City Council - Selection of the Mayor and Vice Mayor:

City Attorney Ty Mizote explained the reorganization process and called for the nominations for Mayor and Vice Mayor.

Council Member Kairis nominated Travis Paden for Mayor. The Council approved Travis Paden for Mayor. (4- 1)

Council Member Martinez nominated Mark Kair is for Vice Mayor. The Council approved Mark Kairis for Vice Mayor. (5-0)
Recess:

The Council moved to the next item on the agenda.

Council: Receive and discuss the list of Committees and Boards:
a. Discussion regarding the list of committees and boards that have City Council representation directly appointed by the Council and make Appointments as appropriate.

The Council discussed the list of committees and boards and selected representation.

League of California Cities Kalish Morrow Rep
Mark Kairis Alt

Kings Economic Development Corporation Kalish Morrow Rep Travis Paden Alt

Kings County Association of Governments Kalish Morrow Rep Travis Paden Alt

Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KART) Diane Sharp Rep Travis Paden Alt

Kings County Abandoned Vehicle Authority Kalish Morrow Rep Diane Sharp Alt

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: 12.2.2022 SP (Clerk: 12.2.2022 Minutes)
Kings Community Action Organization (KCAO) Lou Martinez Rep T ravis Paden Alt
Kings Waste and Recycling Authority (KWRA) Diane Sharp Rep L ou Martinez Alt
Cross-Valley Rail Joint Powers Authority Travis Paden Rep M ark Kairis Alt
City Selection Committee Travis Paden Rep
M ark Kairis Alt
City County Coordinating Task Force Travis Paden Rep
M ark Kairis Alt
Kings County Area Disaster Council Travis Paden Rep
M ark Kairis Alt
Mid-Kings River Groundwater Sustainability Agency Diane Sharp Rep M ark Kairis Alt
K ings County Homeles s Commission Lou Martinez Rep
(P oli ce Chief Sever is the Rep) Mark Kairis Alt
M
otion to approve.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kalish Morrow, Council Member
SECONDER: Mark Kairis, Vice Mayor
AYES: Paden, Sharp, Morrow, Martinez, Kairis
COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS:

At this time, any Co uncil 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 S ec. 54954.2)
The newly elected Council Members thanked their families, the community, and staff for their support during the e lection. Council Members Morrow and Sharp welcomed the new Council Members.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mayor Paden adjourned the meeting at 5:39 p.m.

R
espectfully submitted,
N
atalie Corral
City Clerk

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: 12.2.2022 SP (Clerk: 12.2.2022 Minutes)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 12/20/2022

AGENDA SECTION: C

SUBJECT:

City Clerk: Denial of a claim for damages and authorization for the City Clerk to send out notification of such to Earlene Carson

RECOMMENDATION:

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

BACKGROUND:

A claim for damages against the City was received by the following claimant: Earlene Carson

After review by the Third Party Administrator, it was determined that the city did not receive constructive notice prior to the incident; the claim should be rejected pursuant to Government code 835.4, a public entity is not liable under subdivision (a) of Section 835 for injury caused by a condition of its property if the public entity establishes that the act or omission that created the condition was reasonable.

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

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

12.C
Packet Pg. 19

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 12/20/2022

AGENDA SECTION: D

SUBJECT:

Community Development: Adoption of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, establishing thresholds and guidelines for addressing VMT, in accordance with Senate Bill 743

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.D
Packet Pg. 20
mandates pertaining to GHG emissions include reducing the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips and the length of vehicle trips.

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

The document addresses:

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

During Study Session on November 1, 2022, City Council received a report and directed staff to move forward with bringing forth the document for adoption by the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

VMT Guidelines Adoption Resolution
City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022

12.D
Packet Pg. 21
RESOLUTION NO. 22-47-R

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD ADOPTING

VMT THRESHOLDS AND IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES, PREPARED BY LSA,

IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH BY SENATE BILL (SB) 743
At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called to order and held on December 20, 2022 at 7:00 p.m., it was moved by Council Member _______________, and seconded by Council Member _______________, and duly carried that the following resolution be accepted:

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 743, which became effective July 1, 2020, changes the way transportation assessments are conducted in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents, most notably, replacing motor vehicle delay, as measured by Level of Service (LOS), with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the metric for use in CEQA transportation im pact assessments; and
WHEREAS, the document provides screening criteria to identify potentially exempt projects; and
WHEREAS, the document identifies VMT thresholds of significance for Development Projects, which would result in a significant VMT impact; and WHEREAS, the document provides guidance and substantial evidence to support the City’s treatment of land use plans and related CEQA transportation impact analysis requirements; and
WHEREAS, the document identifies potentially feasible VMT mitigation options that may be used to offset project-related VMT impacts; and
WHEREAS, LSA was determined to be the most qualified consultant to develop the VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines for the City of Hanford; and WHEREAS, LSA has prepared the VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines with City staff; and
WHEREAS, the City of Hanford City Council considered the evidence presented in the staff report; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines be adopted, in compliance with SB 743.

12.D.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: VMT Guidelines Adoption Resolution (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , on the basis of the facts and evidence provided in the staff report, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:

1. That the City Council adopts the VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines.

2. That the VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines shall be used to address transportation impacts, in accordance CEQA guidelines.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hanford hereby adopts the VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan .

Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on December 20, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

TRAVIS PADEN
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 Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the _____ day of ___________________, 2022.

12.D.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: VMT Guidelines Adoption Resolution (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

Date:

City Clerk

12.D.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: VMT Guidelines Adoption Resolution (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

October 2022

VMT THRESHOLDS AND IMPLEMENTATION

GUIDELINES

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption) This page intentionally left blank

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

October 2022

VMT THRESHOLDS AND IMPLEMENTATION

GUIDELINES

Prepared for:

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption) This page intentionally left blank

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

ii
This page intentionally left blank

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

iv
This page intentionally left blank

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

FIGURES AND TABLES

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

vi
This page intentionally left blank

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

vii

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

viii
This page intentionally left blank

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

3.1 DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
For development projects, screening factors may include a project’s size, location, proximity to transit, and trip‐making potential. One or more of the following project attributes may be presumed to produce a less than significant VMT impact:
 The project is within 0.5 mile (mi) of a transit priority area or a high‐quality transit area and is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), has a floor area ratio (FAR) equal or greater than 0.75, does not more parking than what is required by the City’s Municipal Code, or does not reduce the number of affordable residential units. In accordance with SB 743, “transit priority areas” are defined as “an area within one‐half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program. A “major transit stop” means: “a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” A high‐quality transit area or corridor is a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subds. (a)(7), (b)(1).) Figure 3 depicts transit priority areas within Hanford, including high‐quality transit areas (within

0.5 mile of a major transit stop) served by the Kings Area Regional Transit with service intervals of 15 minutes or less. Projects proposed in these areas may be presumed to have a less‐than‐ significant transportation impact unless the project is inconsistent with the RTP/SCS, has an FAR less than 0.75, provides an excessive amount of parking, or reduces the number of affordable residential units identified in the City’s housing element for the proposed development.  The project includes local‐serving retail with a combined area of less than 55,000 square feet (sf).

Whether a retail project is local‐serving or not will be determined at the discretion of the City. As included in Appendix A, a list of recently completed local serving retail projects (as identified by the City) demonstrate that retail projects up to 55,000 sf could be considered as local serving.

Additionally as shown in Table B, retail projects up to 125,000 sf would not have a significant GHG impact. As explained in section 3.1.1, projects not having a significant GHG impact would not also have significant VMT impact. However, based on substantial evidence for justifying local serving retail, as included in Appendix A, the City establishes retail projects less than 55,000 sf to be screened out.
 Redevelopment projects that result in an equal or net reduction in VMT can be considered to have less than significant VMT impact. A net reduction in VMT would occur if the land use proposed by the project would generate less VMT than the existing land use.

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

7  The project includes 100 percent affordable housing units. Affordable housing units consists of low‐income households and research has shown that low‐income households produce lower VMT compared to a market‐rate housing unit1.
 A project consistent with the City’s General Plan can be successfully screened if the project would generate fewer than 1,000 average daily trips (ADT), while a project not consistent with the City’s General Plan can be screened if the project would generate fewer than 500 ADT. (See section

3.1.1 below.). Consistency with the General Plan is required because the GHG and therefore VMT reduction targets for MPOs were established by CARB and are included in the RTPs. The RTP utilizes the latest version of City’s General Plan for analyzing GHG emissions.

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

8 This page intentionally left blank

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

10 This page intentionally left blank

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

11  Institutional/government and public service uses that support community health, safety and welfare may also be screened from subsequent CEQA VMT analysis. These facilities (e.g., police stations, fire stations, government offices, utilities, public libraries, community centers, and refuse stations) would be a part of the community and, as public services, the VMT would be accounted for within the community. A decision whether a particular project can be categorized as a public service facility will be determined at the discretion of the City. Similarly, any other similar use not included in the list can be approved on a case‐by‐case basis by the City as applicable. As such, these uses would result in reduction in total VMT due to the proximity of these services within the community. Additionally, many of these facilities would generate fewer than 1,000 ADT and/or use vehicles other than passenger‐cars or light‐duty trucks. These other vehicle fleets are subject to regulation outside of CEQA, such as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.  Local parks, daycare centers, student housing projects on or adjacent to a college campus, local‐ serving gas stations, banks, and K–12 public schools.
 Projects located in areas with low VMT may be screened out from further CEQA analysis. The TA acknowledges that residential and office projects located in areas having a low VMT, (which incorporate features such as density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), tend to exhibit similarly low VMT. Also, areas that are mapped as low VMT areas do not need to prepare any additional VMT analysis. Therefore, residential, office, industrial, or mixed‐use projects that are consistent with the City’s General Plan and located within low VMT areas (using the City of Hanford VMT Screening Tool2 and applying appropriate thresholds) can be presumed to have similar low VMT profiles and could be screened out from the need for further VMT analysis. It should be noted that if a project constitutes a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change, such projects will be evaluated on a case‐by‐case basis. Figures 4, 5, and 6 illustrate the VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and VMT per service population screening maps for the City.  The 2022 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15007 (c) states that “if a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is sent out for public review, the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements in Guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved.” Therefore, if a development/land use plan/ transportation project is already cleared by a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or an adopted Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration, then subsequent projects that are consistent with the approved project will not require a new VMT analysis.

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

2 City of Hanford VMT Screening Tool: Link Forthcoming

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

12 This page intentionally left blank

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

14 This page intentionally left blank

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

16 This page intentionally left blank

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

18 This page intentionally left blank

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

24 4.0 VMT THRESHOLD ANALYSIS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

27 Figure 8: VMT Screening Methodology for Development Projects

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

4.2.2 Project Screening
Once a development application is filed and determined to be complete for processing purposes, project screening may commence. If the project meets any one of the screening criteria, it may be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. No further VMT analysis would then be necessary and a Notice of Exemption may be filed. The CEQA document should enumerate the screening criteria and how the project meets or exceeds that applicable VMT threshold.

If project screening does not apply, a VMT analysis will be required. The extent of this analysis may be a simple algebraic demonstration or a more sophisticated traffic modeling exercise. This distinction is addressed later in this report.

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

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

For all projects that require a VMT analysis, use of the KCAG TDM is required unless the project includes a special land use that is difficult to analyze using a travel demand model. For the latter, the City may require a qualitative analysis or an analysis using empirical data as applicable to the project.

Next, the project‐generated VMT (per capita, per employee, per service population, or total) is compared to the appropriate significance threshold provided in Table E. If the project VMT metric is less than the significance threshold, the project is presumed to create a less than significant impact.

No further VMT analysis for CEQA purposes would be required.

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

32 Table E: Significance Thresholds for VMT Analysis
VMT Metric Threshold Regional Average
VMT per Capita 8.99 10.33
VMT per Employee 16.95 19.48
VMT per Service Population 21.84 25.10
Source: KCAG TDM (2015 Scenario)
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

33 This page intentionally left blank

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

To estimate VMT impacts from roadway expansion projects:

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

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

A final advisory from the TA is provided below:

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

7.2 MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 96.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

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

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

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 123.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 158.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 164.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 168.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 185.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refer to CAPCOA Manual, page 193.

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption) No.

CAPCOA
Mitigation
Measure No.

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

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

12.D.b
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_10-24-2022 (CD: VMT Guideline Adoption)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 12/20/2022

AGENDA SECTION: E

SUBJECT:

Public Works: Pre authorization to provide disking services on City's 1600 acre farm property and appropriate $50,000 from the Wastewater Fund.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council, by motion, appropriate $50,000 from the Wastewater fund and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract to provide disking services on 1600 acres of City-owned property.

BACKGROUND:

The Wastewater fund owns a 1600 acre parcel of land located about 5 miles south of the City of Hanford. The property was purchased as a potential disposal site for the City's wastewater treatment facility's effluent. In order to deliver effluent to the property, City would be need to construct a nine mile pipeline at significant cost.

Currently, the City has an agreement with Lakeside Irrigation District (LID) whereby City is allowed to discharge effluent to the LID canal and pays $30 per acre foot to do so. This costs the City approximately $75,000 per year.

The 1600 acre property has no working wells and has only minimal access to surface water for farming. Nevertheless, City Farm Industries (CFI) signed a long-term lease on the property in 2020, with the intent to develop the water system and farm commercial hemp. That vision failed to materialize and CFI abandoned the lease in October 2022.

Weeds on the property are significant and neighboring property owners are complaining that our weeds are starting to cause issues on their properties.

Staff has solicited bids for disking of the weeds and prices are coming in around $37,000 for disking alone, though more than one company has suggested shredding the weeds prior to disking in order to "do it right".

12.E
Packet Pg. 95
Because we are trying to stay ahead of the wet season, staff is seeking pre-authorization to enter into a one-time contract for the disking. If approved, staff will notify low bidder so that they can immediately provide the necessary insurance forms to finalize a contract and get started on the weed problem.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Appropriation of $50,000 from Wastewater Fund.

ATTACHMENTS:

12.E
Packet Pg. 96

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 12/20/2022

AGENDA SECTION: A

SUBJECT:

Community Development: Annexation No. 159: A request to annex approximately 19 acres into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction. Prezone No. 2021-09: A request to pre- zone the annexation area as I-H Heavy Industrial, in accordance with the General Plan designation for the area. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-62: An initial study was prepared, and it was determined that the project will not result in significant impacts; therefore, Mitigated Negative Declaration 2022-62 has been prepared. The project is located south of Iona Avenue, west of 10th Avenue (APN 018-242-014, 018-242-015, 018-242-016, 018-242-017, 018-242-018, and 018-242-019).

See staff report, attached.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

Staff Report - City Council Annex 159
Ordinance 22-09
Resolution 2022-48-R
Attachment 1 - Annexation 159
Attachment 2 - 2022-08-09 Planning Commission - Full Minutes Attachment 3 - Current Sphere of Influence (Adopted 2008) Attachment 4 - Plan for Services
Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159

13.A
Packet Pg. 97

CITY OF HANFORD CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
Tuesday, December 20, 2022

PROJECT: Annexation No. 159: A request to annex approximately 19 acres into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction.

Prezone No. 2021-09: A request to pre-zone the annexation area as I- H Heavy Industrial, in accordance with the General Plan designation for the area.

There is not a proposal for physical development of the project site, at this time. In accordance with the General Plan designation for the site, future development could include, the land uses permitted in the I-H Heavy Industrial zone district.

Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-62: An initial study was prepared, and it was determined that the project will not result in significant impacts; therefore, Mitigated Negative Declaration 2022-62 has been prepared.

LOCATION: The project is located south of Iona Avenue, west of 10 th Avenue (APN 018-
242-014, 018-242-015, 018-242-016, 018-242-017, 018-242-018, and 018- 242-019).

PLANNER: Gabrielle Myers, Senior Planner

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Certify Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-62 for the project.

2. Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance 22-xx, approving Prezone No. 2021-09.

3. Adopt Resolution 22-xx-R, initiating proceedings for Annexation 159 and direct staff to file the appropriate forms with the Kings County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).

RECOMMENDED MOTION

1. I move to certify Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-62 for the project.

2. I move to introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance 22-xx, approving Prezone No. 2021-09.

3. I move to adopt Resolution 22-xx-R, initiating proceedings for Annexation 159 and direct staff to file the appropriate forms with the Kings County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 2 of 26 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Annexation No. 159

The project is a request to annex approximately 19 acres into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction.

See proposed annexation Figure 1 and attached as Attachment 1.

Figure 1: Proposed Annexation Area

Prezone No. 2021-09

Prezone No. 2021-09 is a request to pre-zone the annexation area as I-H Heavy Industrial, in accordance with the General Plan designation for the area. The General Plan Designation for the area is Heavy Industrial, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 depicts the proposed pre-zoning.

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 3 of 26 ends

Figure 2:

General Plan Designation – Heavy Industrial

Figure 3 – Prezone No. 2021-09
I-H Heavy Industrial

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 4 of 26 ends

Project Location

The applicant’s annexation request includes the area located south of Iona Avenue, west of 10 th Avenue (APN 018-242-014, 018-242 -015, 018- 242-016, 018-242-017, 018-242-018, and 018 - 242-019), as shown in Figure 1.

The original annexation request submitted by the applicant included only the parcel located at 018-242-019, encompassing 12 acres, shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Original Annexation Request

Following consultation with Kings County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), in order to create concise city limits, it was recommended to utilize the proceedings allowed by Government Codes 56375(a)(4) and 56375.3., in order to annex the subject property and the parcels to the east, abutting 10
th Avenue.

The parcels shall be prezoned as I-H Heavy Industrial, consistent with the General Plan designation for the area, Heavy Industrial.

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 5 of 26 ends

State Law

To facilitate the annexation of county islands to contiguous cities, the state legislature has adopted specific provisions in the Government Code that require LAFCo annexation approval and waiver of protest proceedings if LAFCo makes certain findings and determinations. Those determinations are found in Government Codes 56375(a)(4) and 56375.3.

An island is defined as unincorporated territory substantially surrounded by a city.

The parcels proposed to be annexed are surrounded on three sides by City limits to the north, south, and west.

Government Code Section 56375
(a)(4) A commission shall not disapprove an annexation to a city, initiated by resolution, of contiguous territory that the commission finds any of the following:
(A) Surrounded or substantially surrounded by the city to which the annexation is proposed or by that city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean if the territory to be annexed is substantially developed or developing, is not prime agricultural land as defined in Section 56064, is designated for urban growth by the general plan of the annexing city and is not within the sphere of influence of another city. (B) Located within an urban service area that has been delineated and adopted by a commission, which is not prime agricultural land, as defined by Section 56064, and is designated for urban growth by the general plan of the annexing city. (C) An annexation or reorganization of unincorporated islands meeting the requirements of Section 56375.3.

Government Code Section 56375.3
(a) In addition to those powers enumerated in Section 56375, a commission shall approve, after notice and hearing, the change of organization or reorganization of a city, and waive protest proceedings pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 57000) entirely, if all of the following are true:
(1) The change of organization or reorganization is initiated on or after January 1, 2000.
(2) The change of organization or reorganization is proposed by resolution adopted by the affected city.
(3) The commission finds that the territory contained in the change of organization or reorganization proposal meets all the requirements set forth in subdivision (b). (b) Subdivision (a) applies to territory that meets all the following requirements:
(1) It does not exceed 150 acres in area, and that area constitutes the entire island. (2) The territory constitutes an entire unincorporated island located within the limits of a city or constitutes a reorganization containing several individual unincorporated islands.
(3) It is surrounded in either of the following ways:
(A) Surrounded, or substantially surrounded, by the city to which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean.

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 6 of 26 ends

(B) Surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed and adjacent cities. (4) It is substantially developed or developing. The finding required by this paragraph shall be based upon one or more factors, including, but not limited to, any of the following factors:
(A) The availability of public utility services.
(B) The presence of public improvements.
(C) The presence of physical improvements upon the parcel or parcels within the area.
(5) It is not prime agricultural land, as defined by Section 56064. (6) It will benefit from the change of organization or reorganization or is receiving benefits from the annexing city.
(7) This subdivision does not apply to any unincorporated island within a city that is a gated community where services are currently provided by a community services district.

While the final determination will be made by LAFCo, City staff has confirmed that the proposed island annexation satisfies all the requirements in these two State codes.

Notice of the proposal t o annex has been sent to the owners of parcels 018-242-014, 018-242- 015, 018-242-016, 018-242-017, and 018-242-018 , however, response has not been received.

The owners have not submitted consent to annex forms; therefore, there would not be 100% consent for the annexation.

Existing Land Use

The majority of the project area is comprised of vacant land. There are three large-lot single-family residences within the project site, located at 13400 10th Avenue, 13402 10th Avenue, and 13470 10th Avenue. There is a dilapidated residence with a former wrecking yard located at 13496 10 th Avenue.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

General Plan Designation

The General Plan designates the property as Heavy Industrial.

3.8 Industrial Land Use

Hanford industrial uses are mostly concentrated in the southern portion of the city. The area includes a wide range of uses including agriculture processing and packaging, storage yards, and both light and heavy industrial uses. The Kings Industrial Park is envisioned as a job center that will aid in the economic development and growth of Hanford by attracting more industrial uses.

The Industrial Land Use categories include both light and heavy industrial uses as described in detail in the paragraphs that follow. This section provides descriptions, development intensities, policies, and standards applicable to the industrial land use designation. The Hanford Zoning Ordinance provides the enforcement mechanism to implement the identified policies.

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 7 of 26 ends

Industrial Land Use Designations Goals

Goal L21: Enhanced and expanded economic and employment base.

Goal L22: Available land for a wide range of industrial uses that provide jobs for Hanford and Kings County residents.

3.8.2 Heavy Industrial

Policy L87 Purpose of Heavy Industrial Land Use Designation

Establish the Heavy Industrial land use designation to provide for manufacturing facilities and industries that may be obnoxious due to odor, dust, smoke, gas, noise, vibration, or similar causes and therefore require isolation from many other kinds of land uses.

Policy L88 Typical Uses in Heavy Industrial Land Use Designation

Define the uses allowed in the Heavy Industrial land use designation to include industrial parks, manufacturing, truck terminals, fabrication, processing, assembling, warehousing and distribution, large machinery sales and service, and research and development activities. The uses in this designation differ from uses in the light industrial designation in that operations are typically larger in scale, freight rail service may be needed, large trucks and equipment are utilized, outside processing and storage of materials may be permitted, and nuisance effects may be higher.

Policy L89 Location of Heavy Industrial Land Use Designation

Locate Heavy Industrial land use designations south of Houston Avenue, between 9th Avenue and 12th Avenue. Locate the Heavy Industrial land use designation adjacent to only a Light Industrial, Open Space, or Public Facilities land use designation to minimize conflicts with other land uses.

Policy L90 Generous Supply of Industrial Land

Maintain a generous supply of industrial land that is attractive and desirable to potential industrial developers.

Policy L91 Incompatible Adjacent Land Uses

Prohibit the establishment of residential and other sensitive land uses near Heavy Industrial land use designations.

County Zoning

The properties proposed to be annexed are zoned as IH Heavy Industrial by Kings County.

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 8 of 26 ends

Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:

Zoning General Plan
Designation Land Use
North I-H Heavy Industrial Heavy Industrial Industrial- Pitman Family Farms East County AG-20 Agricultural Heavy Industrial
Agricultural Land
South I-H Heavy Industrial Heavy Industrial Industrial – Former Calcot site; future cannabis cultivation site
West I-H Heavy Industrial Heavy Industrial Industrial - Pitman Family Farms

Landowners & Values:

Included in the Annexation with 100% Consent

APN Address Owner Name Registered
Voters Acres Land Value
018-242-019 n/a Phylis Parra Estate c/o
Helen Prince 0 12.64
47,187

Not included in the Annexation Request, Not Consented

APN Address Owner Name Registered
Voters Acres Land Value
018-242-014 13400 S. 10th Avenue Marcie Booker 0 0.91 32,970 018-242-015 13402 S. 10th Avenue Marcie Booker 2 1.81 12,931 018-242-016 n/a Thomas R and Berniece I
Parra Joint Trust 0 0.91 6,051
018-242-017 13470 S. 10th Avenue Thomas R and Berniece I Parra Joint Trust 0 0.65 7,845
018-242-018 13496 S. 10th Avenue Phylis Parra Estate
c/o Helen Prince 0 1.73 34,319

The Local Agency Formation Commission of Kings County (Kings County LAFCO) is the governing body, with the ultimate authority to make the determination of whether a property will be annexed.

An area is considered uninhabited if there are less than 12 registered voters within the annexation area. With less than 12 registered voters, this is considered an uninhabited annexation.

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 9 of 26 ends

Planning Commission

The annexation and prezone requires were presented to the Planning Commission on August 9, 2022.

The Planning Commission voted 5,0 on all items to:

1. Recommend adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-62 for the project to the City Council.

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-26, recommending approval of Prezone No. 2021-09 to the City Council.

3. Find that the proposed Annexation No. 159 is consistent with the Hanford General Plan Policies L15 and L17 and forward Annexation No. 159 to the City Council, with a recommendation that an application be made to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Kings County.

A copy of the minutes from the August 9, 2022 Planning Commission hearing are attached – Attachment 2.

PROJECT EVALUATION

Annexation of land into Hanford allows previously undeveloped land to become available for development and allows the City of Hanford to provide the territory that is annexed with its full range of City services. The annexation process can serve as an interim growth management tool, by limiting annexation to only the land that is needed for growth at the time.

The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed annexation and made a finding of consistency that Annexation 159 is consistent with the Hanford General Plan Policy L15 and L17.

Figure 5: Proposed Annexation Area

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 10 of 26 ends

Policy L15 Initiation of Annexations

Consider initiation of annexation of land into the City of Hanford only when the following criteria are met:

1. The land is within the Primary Sphere of Influence.

Analysis: The land is within the Primary Sphere of Influence, adopted by LAFCo in 2008 – shown in Figure 6 and Attachment 3.

Figure 6: 2008 Sphere of Influence

2. The capacity of the water, sewer, fire, school, and police services are adequate to service the area to be annexed or will be adequate at the time that development occurs.

Analysis: A Plan for Services has been prepared by Engineering for Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Storm Drainage. Services will be adequate at the time that development occurs. There is not a physical development proposed at this time.

Fire and Police

Fire and police services are adequate to service the area to be annexed. Impacts to fir e and police services will be mitigated through payment of impact fees.

School

The project involves the annexation of industrial property; therefore, there will be no impact to schools.

Notice of the proposed project was sent to the interested agencies for pre-consultation and normal consultation. Response was not received pertaining to city services.

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 11 of 26 ends

3. Land for development within the City limits is insufficient to meet the current land use needs.

Analysis: Land for industrial development is limited within the industrial park, as the majority is built out. The City Council took action on July 6 , 2021, directing City staff to proceed with the annexation of industrial land in order to accommodate industrial growth.

Although this area was not included in the Council’s directed industrial annexation efforts, depicted in Figure 7, it is consistent with the Council’s goal and the General Plan Goal L22, to make available land for a wide range of industrial uses that provide jobs for Hanford and Kings County residents.

Figure 7: Council Directed Annexation of Industrial Land (outlined in red)

4. The territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing developed areas.

Analysis: The territory to be annexed is directly contiguous to the current City limits to the north, west and south. The annexation area is bounded by industrial development to the north and west by Pitman Family Farms and to the south by the former Calcot site, now proposed as a cannabis cultivation facility – Figure 8.

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 12 of 26 ends

Figure 8: Surrounding Industrial Development

Policy L17 Plan for Services

Prepare and make publicly available a written Plan for Services that describes how urban services will be provided prior to initiating an annexation.

The Plan for Services was prepared by the Public Works Department and has been made publicly available, concurrent with the Notice of Public Hearing.

The Plan for Services is attached – Attachment 4.

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 13 of 26 ends

Favorable Factors for Annexation

Favorable and unfavorable factors for annexation have been adopted by LAFCO. The existence of favorable or unfavorable factors should not decide approval or denial; however, a substantial number of favorable or unfavorable factors may determine approval or denial of the proposal.

1. The proposed area is close to urban development and municipal-type services and would enhance its potential for full development.

Analysis: The proposed area is close to the existing City limits and is a logical extension of the City. The annexation area can be served by municipal -type services. The annexation area is designated as Heavy Industrial by the General Plan and is necessary to accommodate growth within the City of Hanford. The development proposed for the annexation area is consistent with the General Plan and the existing Sphere of Influence.

2. The proposed annexation conforms to the adopted General Plan.

Analysis: The annexation area is proposed to be prezoned I-H Heavy Industrial, in accordance with the General Plan. There is not a proposal for development at this time, however future development will be required to conform with the General Plan designation for the area, Heavy Industrial.

The annexation is consistent with the General Plan Section 3.2.4, which states, “Annexation of land into Hanford allows previously undeveloped land to become available for development and allows the City of Hanford to provide the territory that is annexed with its full range of City services.” The annexation area is also consistent with Policy L15 and L17 of the General Plan, as analyzed above.

3. The proposed area is consistent with the sphere of influence.

Analysis: The land is within the Primary Sphere of Influence, adopted by LAFCo in 2008 – shown in Figure 5 and Attachment 3.

4. The proposed annexation comes with 100% consent of all landowners.

Analysis: The annexation area does not come with 100% consent of the landowners , as described above, notice of the proposal to annex has been sent to the owners of parcels 018-242-014, 018-242-015, 018-242-016, 018-242-017, and 018-242-018, however, response has not been received. The owners have not submitted consent to annex forms; therefore, there would not be 100% consent for the annexation. The project is consistent with Government Code Sections 56375 and 56375.3.

Prezone No. 2021-09
Prezone No. 2021-09 is a request to pre-zone the annexation area as I-H Heavy Industrial, in accordance with the General Plan designation for the area. The General Plan Designation for the area is Heavy Industrial, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 depicts the proposed pre-zoning (above).

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 14 of 26 ends

FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL

Annexation No. 159

The Hanford Planning Commission made a finding of General Plan consistency, finding the proposed annexation consistent with the General Plan Policy L15 and L17 on August 9, 2022.

Policy L15 Initiation of Annexations

Consider initiation of annexation of land into the City of Hanford only when the following criteria are met:

1. The land is within the Primary Sphere of Influence.

Analysis: The land is within the Primary Sphere of Influence, adopted by LAFCo in 2008.

2. The capacity of the water, sewer, fire, school, and police services are adequate to service the area to be annexed or will be adequate at the time that development occurs.

Fire and Police

Fire and police services are adequate to service the area to be annexed. Impacts to fir e and police services will be mitigated through payment of impact fees when development is proposed.

School

The project involves the annexation of industrial property; therefore, there will be no impact to schools.

Notice of the proposed project was sent to the interested agencies for pre-consultation and normal consultation. Response was not received pertaining to city services.

3. Land for development within the City limits is insufficient to meet the current land use needs.

Analysis: Land for industrial development is limited within the industrial park, as the majority is built out. The City Council took action on July 6, 2021, directing City staff to proceed with the annexation of industrial land in order to accommodate industrial growth.

Although this area was not included in the Council’s directed industrial annexation efforts, it is consistent with the Council’s goal and the General Plan Goal L22, to make available land for a wide range of industrial uses that provide jobs for Hanford and Kings County residents.

4. The territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing developed areas.

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 15 of 26 ends

Policy L17 Plan for Services
Prepare and make publicly available a written Plan for Services that describes how urban services will be provided prior to initiating an annexation.

The Plan for Services was prepared by the Public Works Department and has been made publicly available, concurrent with the Notice of Public Hearing.

The Plan for Services is attached – Attachment 4.

Prezone No. 2021-09

In accordance with the Hanford Municipal Code 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 pol icies of the General Plan and the Municipal Code.

Analysis: That Prezone No. 2 021-09 is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, specifically consistent with Land Use Policies L15 and L17. There is not a plan for development at this time, however future development of the project area will be required to conform to the General Plan and Zoning regulations set forth for the I-H Heavy Industrial zone district.

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 prezone is considered an implementation of the General Plan, which designates the project site as Heavy Industrial.

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 16 of 26 ends

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

Analysis: That there is not a plan for development of the project area, at this time. The anticipated land uses on the subject site would be heavy industrial. Future development would be required to comply with the General Plan and zoning designation for the property. The industrial uses would be compatible with the existing and future surrounding industrial uses.

Existing residential within the annexation area are considered legally-existing nonconforming uses and can remain, subject to the regulations set forth in Section 17.90 of the Hanford Municipal Code. The residential properties are legally -existing non-conforming with the County’s zoning designation IH Heavy Industrial, as well.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

PRE-CONSULTATION

In accordance with Section 15603(g) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project proposal was forwarded to the responsible and interested agencies for early consultation. Comments were received from the following agency:

1. Brian Clements, Director of Permit Services, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Received July 14, 2022.

Responses to comments are addressed within the initial study and are as follows:

Pre-Consultation – San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District The following comments were received from the SJVAPCD:

Project: Annexation 159 and Prezone No. 2021-09
District CEQA Reference No: 20220843
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Annexation and Prezone from the City of Hanford (City). Per the project documentation, the project consists of the annexation of 12.64 acres into the City of Hanford and the pre-zoning of that property as I-H (Heavy Industrial), in accordance with the General Plan designation for the area (Project). The Project is located south of Iona Avenue and west of 10th Avenue, in Hanford, CA (APN 018-242- 019).

The District offers the following comments regarding the Project:

Project Related Emissions
At the federal level under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the District is designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standards and serious nonattainment for the particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) standards. At the state level under California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the District is designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone, PM10, PM2.5 standards.

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 17 of 26 ends

The annexation of property will not have an impact on air quality. However, if approved, future development projects will contribute to the overall decline in air quality due to construction activities, increased traffic, and ongoing operational emissions.

Recommended Model for Quantifying Air Emissions
For future development projects, project-related criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operational sources should be identified and quantified. Emissions analysis should be performed using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which uses the most recent CARB - approved version of relevant emissions models and emission factors. CalEEMod is available to the public and can be downloaded from the CalEEMod website at: www.caleemod.com.

Health Risk Screening/Assessment
The City should evaluate the risk associated with the Project for sensitive receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) in the area and mitigate any potentially significant risk to help limit exposure of sensitive receptors to emissions.

To determine potential health impacts on surrounding receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day -care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) a Prioritization and/or a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) should be performed for future development projects. These health risk determinations should quantify and characterize potential Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) identified by the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment/California Air Resources Board (OEHHA/CARB) that pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

Health risk analyses should include all potential air emissions from the project, which include emissions from construction of the project, including multi -year construction, as well as ongoing operational activities of the project. Note, two common sources of TACs can be attributed to diesel exhaust emitted from heavy-duty off-road earth moving equipment during construction, and from ongoing operation of heavy-duty on-road trucks.

Prioritization (Screening Health Risk Assessment):

A “Prioritization” is the recommended method for a conservative screening-level health risk assessment. The Prioritization should be performed using the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) methodology. The District recommends that a more refined analysis, in the form of an HRA, be performed for any project resulting in a Prioritization score of 10 or greater. This is because the prioritization results are a conservative health risk representation, while the detailed HRA provides a more accurate health risk evaluation.

To assist land use agencies and project proponents with Prioritization analyses, the District has created a prioritization calculator based on the aforementioned CAPCOA guidelines, which can be found here:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/emission_factors/Criteria/Toxics/Utilities/PRIORITIZATION- CALCULATOR.xls

Health Risk Assessment:

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 18 of 26 ends

Prior to performing an HRA, it is strongly recommended that land use agencies/ project proponents develop and submit for District review a health risk modeling protocol that outlines the sources and methodologies that will be used to perform the HRA. This step will ensure all components are addressed when performing the HRA.

A development project would be considered to have a potentially significant health risk if the HRA demonstrates that the project-related health impacts would exceed the District’s significance threshold of 20 in a million for carcinogenic risk, or 1.0 for either the Acute or Chronic Hazard Indices.

A project with a significant health risk would trigger all feasible mitigation measures. The Distr ict strongly recommends that development projects that result in a significant health risk not be approved by the land use agency.

The District is available to review HRA protocols and analyses. For HRA submittals please provide the following information electronically to the District for review:
 HRA (AERMOD) modeling files
 HARP2 files
 Summary of emissions source locations, emissions rates, and emission factor calculations and methodologies.

For assistance, please contact the District’s Technical Services Department by:
 E-Mailing inquiries to: [email protected]
 Calling (559) 230-5900
Recommended Measure: Development projects resulting in TAC emissions should be located an adequate distance from residential areas and other sensitive receptors in accordance to CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective located at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf
.

Ambient Air Quality Analysis
An Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emissions increases from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The District recommends an AAQA be performed for any future development projects with emissions that exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant. An acceptable analysis would include emissions from both project-specific permitted and non-permitted equipment and activities. The District recommends consultation with District staff to determine the appropriate model and input data to use in the analysis.

Specific information for assessing significance, including screening tools and modeling guidance, is available online at the District’s website: www.valleyair.org/ceqa.

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 19 of 26 ends

on air quality. For example, thi s requirement would apply to large development projects (e.g., large residential project, large distribution center, large warehouse, etc.) that would have the potential to significantly impact air quality and is determined by the City to be allowed by use, not requiring a project specific discretionary approval from the City.

Truck Routing
Truck routing involves the assessment of which roads Heavy Heavy -Duty (HHD) trucks take to and from their destination, and the emissions impact that the HHD trucks may have on residential communities and sensitive receptors. Since the Project will be zoned Heavy Industrial, there is potential for an increase in truck trips.

The District recommends the City evaluate HHD truck routing patterns for future development projects, with the aim of limiting exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions. This evaluation would consider the current truck routes, the quantity and type of each truck (e.g., Medium Heavy-Duty, HHD, etc.), the destination and origin of each trip, traffic volume correlation with the time of day or the day of the week, overall Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and associated exhaust emissions. The truck routing evaluation would also identify alternative truck routes and their impacts on VMT and air quality.

Cleanest Available Heavy-Duty Trucks
The San Joaquin Valley will not be able to attain stringent health-based federal air quality standards without significant reductions in emissions from HHD trucks, the single largest source of NOx emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. The District’s CARB -approved 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes significant new reductions from HHD trucks, including emissions reductions by 2023 through the implementation of CARB’s Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation, which requires truck fleets operating in California to meet the 2010 standard of 0.2 g-NOx/bhp-hr by 2023. Additionally, to meet federal air quality attainment standards, the District’s Plan relies on a significant and immediate transition of HHD fleets to zero or near -zero emissions technologies, including the near-zero truck standard of 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx established by CARB.

For future development projects, the District recommends that the following measures be considered by the City to reduce Project-related operational emissions:
 Recommended Measure: Fleets associated with operational activities utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero (0.02 g/bhphr NOx) technologies.  Recommended Measure: All on- site service equipment (cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts, pallet jacks, etc.) utilize zero-emissions technologies.

Reduce Idling of Heavy-Duty Trucks
The goal of this strategy is to limit the potential for localized PM2.5 and toxic air contaminant impacts associated with the idling of Heavy-Duty trucks. The diesel exhaust from idling has the potential to impose significant adverse health and environmental impacts.

Since future development projects are expected to result in HHD truck trips, the District recommends the Annexation and Prezone include measures to ensure compliance of the state anti-idling regulation (13 CCR § 2485 and 13 CCR § 2480) and discuss the importance of limiting the amount of idling, especially near sensitive receptors.

Electric On-Site Off-Road and On-Road Equipment

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 20 of 26 ends

Since the Project will be zoned Heavy Industrial, future development projects may have the potential to result in increased use of off-road equipment (e.g., forklifts) and on-road equipment (e.g., mobile yard trucks with the ability to move materials). The District recommends that the Annexation and Prezone include requirements for project proponents to utilize electric or zero emission off-road and on-road equipment.

Vegetative Barriers and Urban Greening
For future development projects within the Project area, and at strategic locations throughout the Project area in general, the District suggests the City consider incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools, healthcare facilities).

While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, vegetative barriers have been shown to be an additional measure to potentially reduce a population’s exposure to air pollution through the interception of airborne particles and the update of gaseous pollutants. Examples of vegetative barriers include, but are not limited to the following: trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix of these. Generally, a higher and thicker vegetative barrier with full coverage will result in greater reductions in downwind pollutant concentrations. In the same manner, urban greening is also a way to help improve air quality and public health in addition to enhancing the overall beautification of a community with drought tolerant, low-maintenance greenery.

Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community
Since the Project consists of industrial development, gas -powered lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOx and PM2.5 emissions. Utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The District recommends the Project proponent consider the District’s Clean Green Yard Machines (CGYM) program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment.

More information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at:
http://www.valleyair.org/grants/cgym.htm and http://valleyair.org/grants/cgym-commercial.htm .

On-Site Solar Deployment
It is the policy of the State of California that renewable energy resources and zerocarbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045. While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, the production of solar energy is contributing to improving air quality and public health. The District suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for future development projects.

Electric Vehicle Chargers
To support and accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of required infrastructure, the District offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi -unit dwellings to install electric charging infrastructure (Level 2 and 3 chargers). The purpose of the District’s Charge Up! Incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles. The District

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 21 of 26 ends

recommends that the City and project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at future project sites, and at strategic locations.

Please visit www.valleyair.org/grants/chargeup.htm for more information.

Nuisance Odors
While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often resulting in citizen complaints.

The City should consider all available pertinent information to determine if future development projects could have a significant impact related to nuisance odors.

Nuisance odors may be assessed qualitatively taking into consideration the proposed business or industry type and its potential to create odors, as well as proximity to off-site receptors that potentially would be exposed to objectionable odors. The intensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to receptors influences the potential significance of malodorous emissions. Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors should be deemed to have a significant impact.

An unconfirmed complaint means that either the odor or air contaminant release could not be detected, or the source of the odor could not be determined.

District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.

The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.

District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 22 of 26 ends

Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and may require District permits. Prior to construction, the project proponents should submit to the District an application for an ATC.

Recommended Mitigation Measure: For projects subject to permitting by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, demonstration of compliance with District Rule 2201 shall be provided to the City before issuance of the first building permit.

For further information or assistance, project proponents may contact the District’s SBA Office at (559) 230-5888.

District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)
Future development projects within the Annexation and Prezone may be subject to District Rule 9510 if upon full buildout, the project would equal or exceed any of the following applicability thresholds, depending on the type of development and public agency approval mechanism:

Table 1: ISR Applicability Thresholds

District Rule 9510 also applies to any transportation or transit development projects where construction exhaust emissions equal or exceed two tons of NOx or two tons of PM.

The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources; specifically, the emissions associated with the construction and subsequent operation of development projects. The Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOx and PM emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the proposed development project clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that ultimately funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.

In the case the individual development project is subject to District Rule 9510, per Section 5.0 of the rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency. It is preferable for the applicant to submit an AIA application as early as possible in the public agency’s approval process so that proper mitigation and clean air design under ISR can be incorporated into the public agency’s analysis.

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 23 of 26 ends

Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRHome.htm.

The AIA application form can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRFormsAndApplications.htm.

District staff is available to provide assistance with determining if the Project OR future development projects will be subject to Rule 9510, and can be reached by phone at (559) 230- 5900 or by email at [email protected]
.

District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction)
Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) if the project would result in employment of 100 or more “eligible” employees. District Rule 9410 requires employers with 100 or more “eligible” employees at a worksite to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP) that encourages employees to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing pollutant emissions associated with work commutes.

Under an eTRIP plan, employers have the flexibility to select the options that work best for their worksites and their employees.

Information about District Rule 9410 can be found online at: www.valleyair.org/tripreduction.htm .

For additional information, you can contact the District by phone at 559-230-6000 or by e-mail at [email protected]

District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) In the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished, or removed, future development projects may be subject to District Rule 4002. This rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated.

Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/asbestosbultn.htm .

District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 4601 since it may utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements, or curbs. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings. In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4601.pdf

District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

Should the project result in at least 1-acre in size, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours prior to the project proponents intent to commence any

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 24 of 26 ends

earthmoving activities pursuant to District Rule 8021 (C onstruction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). Also, should the project result in the disturbance of 5- acres or more, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the project proponent shall submit to the District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.

The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at: https://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/forms/DCP-Form.docx

Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/pm10/compliance_pm10.htm

Other District Rules and Regulations
Future development projects may also be subject to the following District rules:

Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

Future Projects / Land Use Agency Referral Documents
Future development projects may require an environmental review and air emissions mitigation.

A project’s referral documents and environmental review documents provided to the District for review should include a project summary, the land use designation, project size, air emissions quantifications and impacts, and proximity to sensitive receptors and existing emission sources, and air emissions mitigation measures. For reference and guidance, more information can be found in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf

District Comment Letter
The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Matt Crow by email at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5931.

Sincerely,
Brian Clements
Director of Permit Services
For: Mark Montelongo
Program Manager

Analysis: As stated by the District, while the annexation and prezoning will not have an effect on the environment, future development has the potential to cause impacts to Air Quality. As such, future development shall be subject to the following mitigation measures and recommendations

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 25 of 26 ends

Mitigation Measures:

Air Quality MM2: That future development projects shall prepare a technical assessment in consultation with the District, and consider a VERA for development project determined to result in significant air quality impacts.

Air Quality MM3: That future development proponents ensure compliance of the state anti-idling regulation (13 CCR § 2485 and 13 CCR § 2480) in order to limit the amount of idling, especially near sensitive receptors.

Recommendations:

1. That future development proponents utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero (0.02 g/bhphr NOx) technologies for fleets associated with operation.

2. That future development proponents utilize zero-emissions technologies for all on-site service equipment (cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts, pallet jacks, etc.)

3. That future development of the annexation area incorporate vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools, healthcare facilities).

4. That future development project proponents incorporate solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for future development projects

5. That future development project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at future project sites, and at strategic locations.

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. Comments were not received as of the date of preparation of this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

In accordance with CEQA guidelines, Annexation No. 15 9 and Prezone No. 2021 -09 were evaluated in an Environmental 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. 2021-62 has been prepared (Attachment 5).

A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for comment from July 19 – August 8, 2022 [20-day comment period].

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Noticing of the project was published in the newspaper on December 9, 2022 and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on December 8, 2022. No comments have been received as of the date of preparation of this staff report.

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ANX 159
PRZ 2021-09

Page 26 of 26 ends

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Certify Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-62 for the project.

2. Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance 22-xx, approving Prezone No. 2021-09.

3. Adopt Resolution 22-xx-R, initiating proceedings for Annexation 159 and direct staff to file the appropriate forms with the Kings County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).

Applicant: Dale G. Mell and Associates
Dale G. Mell and Associates
2090 N. Winery Avenue
Fresno, CA 93703

Property Owner(s) – Consented:

Phylis Parra Estate
1460 N. Harrison Avenue
Fresno, CA 93728

Non-Consented:

Marcie Booker
13402 S. 10
th Avenue
Hanford, A 93230

Thomas and Berniece Parra
925 E. Terrace Drive
Hanford, CA 93230

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council Annex 159 (CD: Annexation 159) CC Ordinance Prrezone 2021-09, Page 1 of 3

ORDINANCE NO. 22-09
PREZONE NO. 2021-09

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD PREZONING

CERTAIN PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF HANFORD FROM COUNTY ZONING

IH HEAVY INDUSTRIAL TO I-H HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED SOUTH OF IONA AVENUE, WEST OF 10TH AVENUE (APN 018-242-014, 018-242-015, 018-242-016, 018-242-017, 018-242-018, AND 018-242- 019).

The City Council of the City of Hanford does ordain as follows:

Section 1: The following described territory situated in the City of Hanfor d is hereby prezoned under the terms of Chapter 17.86 of the Hanford Municipal Code:

Annexation 159 filed by Dale G. Mell on behalf of Phylis Parra Estate:

FROM: County zoning of IH Heavy Industrial
TO: City zoning I-H Heavy Industrial
On property described as follows:

Approximately 19 acres located at the south half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 13, Township 19 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, according to Government Township Plat approved April 15, 1855. Excepting Therefrom the west 50 feet thereof. (APN 018-242-014 through 019), as depicted in attached Exhibit A; and Section 2: The Council does hereby find as a fact that this Ordinance has been recommended for passage by the Planning C ommission of the City of Hanford after public hearing before the Planning Commission after notice required by Section 17.70.100 of the Hanford Municipal Code and Government Code Section 65854. The City Council finds that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-62 is approved, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council hereby finds that the prezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the zoning regulations as set forth in Section 17.06.010 of the Hanford Municipal C ode, and that this Ordinance has been introduced by the City Council after public hearing held on the 20
th day of December 2022 at 7:00 p.m. of said day after notice required under the provisions of Section 65856 of the Government Code.

Section 3: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage, and shall be published once in the Hanford Sentinel within fifteen (15) days after its passage, and the zoning will apply to such property in the event of subsequent annexation to the City under the provisions of Section 65859 of the Government Code.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Ordinance 22-09 (CD: Annexation 159)
CC Ordinance Prrezone 2021-09, Page 2 of 3

Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on the ____ day of ________, by the following roll call vote:

ATTEST:

Natalie Corral

APPROVED

_________________________
MAYOR of the City of Hanford

CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss

CITY OF HANFORD )

I, NATALIE CORRAL , City Clerk of the C ity 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 20 th day of December, 2022 and it was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of t he City of Hanford held on the _______ day of ______________, 2023.

Dated: _____________________ _____________________________ Natalie Corral
City Clerk

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Ordinance 22-09 (CD: Annexation 159)

CC Ordinance Prrezone 2021-09, Page 3 of 3

Exhibit A
Prezone No. 2021-09

Figure 1: Prezone 2021-09
Proposed: I-H Heavy Industrial

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Ordinance 22-09 (CD: Annexation 159)
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-48-R

A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF HANFORD REQUESTING THE

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION NO. 159, A REQUEST TO ANNEX APPROXIMATELY 19ACRES OF

UNINCORPORATED KINGS COUNTY LAND INTO THE CITY OF HANFORD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF IONA AVENUE, WEST OF 10TH AVENUE (APN 018-242- 014, 018-242-015, 018-242-016, 018-242-017, 018-242-018, AND 018-242-019).

RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hanford on December 20, 2022, that, WHEREAS, the City of Hanford desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese -Knox- Hertzberg Local Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3, commencing with Section 5600 of the California Government Code, an affected City, as defined therein, may by resolution adopted by its legislative body make a proposal for a change of organization and request initiation of proceedings thereon; and WHEREAS, notice of intent to adopt this resolution of application has been given, and this Council has conducted a public hearing based upon this notification; and WHEREAS, the principal reasons for the proposed annexation are as follows:

1. The land will be within the Primary Sphere of Influence.

2. The capacity of the water, sewer, fire, school, and police services are adequate to service the area to be annexed, or will be adequate at the time that development occurs.

3. Land for development within the City limits is insufficient to meet the current land use needs.

4. T
he territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing developed areas.

W
HEREAS, the following agency would be affected by the proposed jurisdictional changes:

Agency Nature of Change
City of Hanford Annexation
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to b e annexed is uninhabited, and a map and description of the boundaries of the territory are attached hereto as Exhibits A (annexation map) and B (legal description) and by this reference incorporated herein, and, WHEREAS, the proposal is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Hanford; and WHEREAS, it is desired to provide that the proposed annexation be subject to the following terms and conditions:

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Resolution 2022-48-R (CD: Annexation 159)

1. That the annexation area be prezoned I-H Heavy Industrial, in accordance with the General Plan.

WHEREAS, this proposal will be consistent with the spheres of influence for all agencies which would be affected by the annexation; and
WHEREAS, The Council certified that an Initial Study was prepared for the project, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the project would not result in significant impacts to the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022- 62 was adopted and mitigations measures required, as included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, shown in Exhibit C.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of Hanford and the Local Agency Formation Commission of Kings County is hereby requested to take proceedings of the annexation of territory as authorized in the manner provided by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the 20th day of December 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Council Member ________________________ ________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
NOES: Council Member ________________________ ABSTAIN: Council Member ________________________ ABSENT: Council Member ________________________

__________________________________________
MAYOR

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Resolution 2022-48-R (CD: Annexation 159)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)

COUNTY OF KINGS )

CITY OF HANFORD ) SS

I, Natalie Corral, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hanford at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of December 2022.

Dated: ______________________
__________________________________
City Clerk

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Resolution 2022-48-R (CD: Annexation 159)
Exhibit A
Annexation Map

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Resolution 2022-48-R (CD: Annexation 159)
2090 NORTH WINERY AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93703(559) 292-4046 * FAX 251-9220 * EMAIL: [email protected] G. MELLENGINEERING & SURVEYING SERVICES& ASSOCIATES1" = 'SCALE:D MGNORTH200

D MGNORTH

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Resolution 2022-48-R (CD: Annexation 159)
Exhibit B
Legal Description

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Resolution 2022-48-R (CD: Annexation 159)
/0 /1 /2 /3 /0 □ /5 /1 /6 /7 /8 /9 /10 /11 /9 /12 /13 □ /12 /14 □ /11 /1 /8 /8 /9 /11 /12 /8 /15 /3 /13 /13 /1 /16 /1 /5 □ /11 /12 □ /11 /17 /1
/7 /9 /11 /15 □ /12 /14 □ /17 /3/13 /14 /12 /8 /5
/3 /13 /13 /1 /16 /3 /11 /9 /12 /13 □ /13 /12 /18 □ /19 /20 /21 /22 /23 /24 /25 □ /27 /28 /29 /30 /31 /32 /31 /30 /27 /28 /32 □ /33 /34 /35 /36 /37 /38 /34 □ /27 /28 /39 /40 □ /41 /42 /43 /44 /37 /45 /41 /46 /47 /48 /34 /47 □ /45 /36 /37 /33 /34 □ /34 /49 /44 /50 □ /36 /50 □ /33 /34 /47 □ /45 /36 /37 /33 /34 /47 /49 /45 /33 □ /51 /37 /49 /35 /33 /47 /35 □ /36 /50 □ /33 /34 /47 □ /42 /36 /35 /33/34 /47 /49 /45 /33 □ /51 /37 /49 /35 /33 /47 /35 □ /36 /50 □ /52 /47 /43 /33 /41 /36 /42 □ /28 /53 /40 □ /48 /36 /54 /42 /45 /34 /41 /55 /28 /39 □ /52 /36 /37 /33 /34 /40 □ /56 /49 /42 /38 /47 □ /31 /28 □ /57 /49 /45 /33 /40 □ /58 /36 /37 /42 /33 □ /59 /41 /49 /60 /44 /36 □ /61 /49 /45 /47 □ /49 /42 /62 □ /58 /47 /35 /41/62 /41 /49 /42 /40 □ /49 /43 /43 /36 /35 /62 /41 /42 /38 □ /33 /36 □ /63 /36 /46 /47 /35 /42 /64 /47 /42 /33 /48 /36 /54 /42 /45 /34 /41 /55 □ /23 /44 /49 /33 □ /49 /55 /55 /35 /36 /46 /47 /62 □ /22 /55 /35 /41 /44 □ /28 /65 /40 □ /28 /29 /65 /65 /66 /57 /67 /43 /47 /55 /33 /41 /42 /38 □ /48 /34 /47 /35 /47 /50 /35 /36 /64 □ /33 /34 /47 □ /54 /47 /45 /33 □ /65 /27 □ /50 /47 /47 /33 □ /33 /34 /47 /35 /47 /36 /50 /66 /59 /58 /22 □ /23 /35 /36 /68 /47 /43 /33 □ /24 /36 /66 □ /28 /32 /30 /27 /65 /28 /23 /49 /38 /47 □ /28 □ /36 /50 □ /28

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Resolution 2022-48-R (CD: Annexation 159)
Exhibit C
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Resolution 2022-48-R (CD: Annexation 159)
Annexation 159 and Prezone No. 2021-09
Mitigation Measures
Mitigated Negative Declaration 2022-62

Mitigation Number Potential Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party

AESTHETICS
MM Aesthetics 1 The project could
substantially degrade the
existing visual character
or quality of the site and
its surroundings?
That the land be developed consistent with the General Plan, Hanford Municipal Code, and Tree Ordinance.

Developer
MM Aesthetics 2 The project may create a
new source of substantial
light or glare which would
adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the
area?
That future development complies with the Hanford Municipal Code Section 17.50.140 Outdoor Lighting Standards and the California Building Code for outdoor lighting standards.

Developer

AIR QUALITY
MM Air Quality 1 -5 The project may conflict
with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality
plan?
MM Air Quality 1: That future development projects be forwarded to the SJVAPCD for review and comments and that future development comply with the SJVAPCDC Air Quality Plan.

MM Air Quality 2: That future development projects shall prepare a technical assessment in consultation with the District, and consider a VERA for development project determined to result in significant air quality impacts.

MM Air Quality 3: That future development proponents ensure compliance of the state anti-idling regulation (13 CCR § 2485 and 13 CCR § 2480) in order to limit the amount of idling, especially near sensitive receptors.

MM Air Quality 4: That future development project operation and City to Require

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Resolution 2022-48-R (CD: Annexation 159)
construction be quantified using CalEEMod to ensure that development does not expose nearby residential receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

MM Air Quality 5: That future development projects be evaluated to ensure that operation does not create objectional odors, consistent with the Hanford Municipal Code Section 17.50.050.

Recommendations of Future Development:

1. That future development proponents utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero (0.02 g/bhphr NOx) technologies for fleets associated with operation.

2. That future development proponents utilize zero-emissions technologies for all on-site service equipment (cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts, pallet jacks, etc.)

4. That future development project proponents incorporate solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for future development projects

5. That future development project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at future project sites, and at strategic locations.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM Cultural
Resources 1-4
The project could
potentially cause a
substantial adverse
change in the significance
of an archeological
resource pursuant to
Public Resources Code
15064.5?
The project could
MM Cultural Resources 1: That a Burial Treatment Plan be entered to by the applicant/property owner prior to any earth disturbing activities. Developer to coordinate with
the Tachi Yokut
Tribe

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Resolution 2022-48-R (CD: Annexation 159)
potentially disturb human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries?

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
MM Geology 1 That the project may
expose people or
structures to potential
substantial adverse
effects including the risk
of loss, injury, or death
involving: - strong seismic
ground shaking; -
seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction; - landslides.

The project may 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?
That the future physical development of the project comply with the applicable General Plan policies, as well as the California Building Code.

City of Hanford
must ensure
conditions are set
forth to mitigate
impacts;
Developer to
comply with
standards
MM Geology 2 That the project may
expose people or
structures to potential
substantial adverse
effects including the risk
of loss, injury, or death
involving: - strong seismic
ground shaking; -
seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction; - landslides.

That a geotechnical and soil studies be prepared as a required by the Building Official (if applicable) for future physical development of the project area.

Building Official to
require; developer
to conduct study

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Resolution 2022-48-R (CD: Annexation 159)
The project may 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?
MM Geology 3 That the project could
result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
That the physical development of the project area comply with the Hanford Municipal Code Section 15.52 Flood Damage Prevention Regulation and the California Building Code, along with the plan check and development review process.

City to require;
developer to
comply

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
MM Hydrology 1 &
2 The project could
potentially violate water
quality standards or
waste discharge
requirements.

That the project could
potentially substantially
alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area,
including through the
alteration of the course of
a stream or river, in a
manner which would
result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
1) Future development that disturbs more than one acre is required to comply with the General Permit Order No. 2012- 0006-DWQ during construction. Proponents of new development would have to develop and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that specifies best management practices (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater, with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off -site and into receiving waters; eliminate or reduce non-
stormwater discharges to storm sewer
systems and other waters of the United States; and inspect all BMPs;

2) New development would be required to implement appropriate minimum contr ol measures (MCMs) and design standards in compliance with Phase II General Permit, as outlined in the Stormwater Management Plan, as well as the City’s grading plan and site development requirements.

City to require;
Developer to
provide

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Resolution 2022-48-R (CD: Annexation 159)
MM Hydrology 3 The project could
potentially substantially
alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area,
including through the
alteration of a stream or
river, or substantially
increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff
in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or
off-site?
New development must submit grading plans. Site development must comply with the requirements of the City Building Division and incorporate best management practices/design standards.

City to require;
Developer to
provide
MM Hydrology 4 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?
New development must submit grading plans. Site development must comply with the requirements of the City Building Division and incorporate best management practices/design standards.

City to require;
Developer to
provide
MM Hydrology 5 Otherwise substantially
degrade water quality?
New development would have to incorporate best management practices and adhere to design standards to maximize the reduction of pollutant loadings in runoff to the maximum extent practical.

City to require;
Developer to
provide

NOISE
MM Noise 1 Exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels
in excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other
That future development of the project site complies with applicable regulations and policies of the General Plan to ensure that construction - related impacts would be attenuated to the greatest extend feasible.

Residents and
developer; Police
to enforce

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Resolution 2022-48-R (CD: Annexation 159)
agencies?
MM Noise 2 & 3 Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise
levels?
The project could cause a
substantial temporary or
periodic increase in
ambient noise levels
existing without the
project?
That future construction is limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Developer; Police to enforce

PUBLIC FACILITIES
MM Public
Facilities 1
The project may 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. (Fire)
The project will be subject to fire impact fees. Developer to pay MM Public
Facilities 2
The project may 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. (Police)
The project will be subject to police impact fees. Developer to pay

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Resolution 2022-48-R (CD: Annexation 159)
MM Utilities 1 Would the project have
sufficient water supplies
available to serve the
project from existing
entitlements and
resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements
needed?
That the future development would be required to implement water conservation measures.

City to require and
ensure
compliance;
developer and
future occupants
to adhere
MM Utilities 2: Would the project comply
with federal, state, and
local statures related to
solid waste?
That the future project be required to comply with all statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

City to require;
developer to
provide

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Resolution 2022-48-R (CD: Annexation 159)
2090 NORTH WINERY AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93703(559) 292-4046 * FAX 251-9220 * EMAIL: [email protected] G. MELLENGINEERING & SURVEYING SERVICES& ASSOCIATES1" = 'SCALE:D MGNORTH200

D MGNORTH

13.A.d
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Annexation 159 (CD: Annexation 159)

MINUTES

PLANNING COMMISSION
of the

CITY OF HANFORD

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
400 N. Douty St.
5:30 PM, Tuesday, August 9, 2022

Commissioners will meet in person in the Council
Chambers. The meeting will also be livestreamed on the
City’s website: http://livestream.hanford.city/

CALL TO ORDER
Chair SANCHEZ called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Dennis Ham Present 5:10 PM
Richard Douglas Present 5:06 PM
Travis Paden Present 5:03 PM
Martin Devine Present 5:09 PM
Jacob Sanchez Present 5:03 PM
Gunther Norris (Alternate) Present 5:20 PM

INVOCATION
Pastor Bud Haskell led the invocation.

FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner PADEN led the flag salute.

PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters not on the agenda and that are within the jurisdiction of the Commission. 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

13.A.e
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Attachment 2 - 2022-08-09 Planning Commission - Full Minutes (CD: Annexation 159) for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

None.

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.

Approval of the July 12, 2022 Minutes
Motion to approve the minutes of the July 12, 2022 meeting RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Richard Douglas
SECONDER: Martin Devine
AYES: Ham, Douglas, Paden, Devine, Sanchez
.

PUBLIC HEARING

1. Variance No. 2022 -03, a requ est to de viate from t he standards of the Hanford Municipal Code Section 17.10.070(C), in order to reduce the rear setback from 15 feet to 5 feet for an irregular corner lot in the R-L-5 Low Density Residential zone district.

Chair SANCHEZ opened the public hearing and called for the staff report.

Assistant Planner Manha presented the staff report, recommended approval, and invited questions of staff.

Commissioner HAM had a question for clarification of the site plan. Mr. Manha provided the clarification.

Commissioner HAM then asked when the need for a variance was determined. Mr. Manha replied that it was determined during the building permit plan review.

Chair SANCHEZ opened Public Comment:

FAVOR
Nic Peters, of San Joaquin Valley Homes, spoke about the oddly shaped lot and why the variance was required.

John Zumwalt, working with San Joaquin Valley Homes and addressing Commissioner HAM, stated that the City's previous Zoning Ordinances referred to a "reverse corner lot." He noted that the current Ordinance does not have any reverse corner lot divisions, so the house has to face a certain way, or else it requires a variance.

OPPOSED
None.

Commissioner PADEN asked for clarification regarding Lots 53 and 54, and staff explained.

There being no further questions, Chair SANCHEZ closed the public hearing and called for a motion.

13.A.e
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Attachment 2 - 2022-08-09 Planning Commission - Full Minutes (CD: Annexation 159) Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2022-24, approving Variance 2022-03.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Richard Douglas
SECONDER: Travis Paden
AYES: Ham, Douglas, Paden, Devine, Sanchez

2. Variance No. 2022 -08, a request to deviate from the standards of the Hanford Municipal Code Section 17.10.070(C), in order to reduce the rear setback from 15 feet to 5 feet for an irregular corner lot in the R-L-5 Low Density Residential zone district.

Chair SANCHEZ opened the public hearing and called for the staff report.

Assistant Planner Manha presented the staff report, recommended approval, and invited questions of staff.

Commissioner HAM pointed out that the second slide of t he PowerPoint pres entation sho wed an incorrect address. It had not been changed from the previous project's address.

Commissioner PADEN asked if anyone knew who Kenny Thompson was (for whom the street was named ).

Neither staff nor the applicant knew. Mr. Zumwalt stated tha t the origin al developer had assigned the street names.

Chair SANCHEZ opened Public Comment:

FAVOR
Nic Peters, San Joaquin Valley Homes, noted that this house also has an irregular lot.

OPPOSED
None

Chair SANCHEZ called for a motion.

Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2022-25, approving Variance 2022-08.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Martin Devine
SECONDER: Richard Douglas
AYES: Ham, Douglas, Paden, Devine, Sanchez

3. Annexation No. 159: A request to annex approximately 19 acres into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction. Prezone No. 2021 -09: A request to pre - zone the annexation area as I -H Heavy Industrial, in accordance with the General Plan designation for the area. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022 -62: An initial study was prepared and it was determined that the project will not result in significant impacts; therefore, Mitigated Negative Declaration 2022 -62 has been prepared. The project is locate d south of Iona Avenue, west of 10th Avenue (APN 018 -242-014, 018- 242-015, 018-242-016, 018-242-017, 018-242-018, and 018-242-019).

Chair SANCHEZ opened the public hearing and called for the staff report. Senior Planner Myers presented the staff report, recommended approval, and invited questions of staff.

13.A.e
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Attachment 2 - 2022-08-09 Planning Commission - Full Minutes (CD: Annexation 159) Commissioner HAM:

1. Will residents will be allowed to stay, if the prezone goes through, even though the zone district does not allow residential? Ms. Myers replied that the existing residences would be considered legally existing, non - conforming and would be subject to th e provisions of Section 17.90 of the Municipal Code. They would be grandfathered in; however, if the buildings are destroyed over 75%, they would not be able to rebuild, exc ept as conforming uses.

2. Referring to the Initial Study Cultural Resour ces section requiring the developer to coordinate with the Tachi Yokut Tribe and enter into a Burial Treatment Plan prior to any earth -disturbing activities, Commissioner HAM aske d if this is standard or if it was specific to this project. Ms. Myers replie d that it is a standard comment in every project within City jurisdiction that requires an initial study.

Commissioner PADEN:

1. Who decides on the Sphere of Influence, and is the 2008 map the most current? Ms. Myers replied that it is decided by both t he City and the County, and they submit the proposed boundary changes to LAFCO [Local Agency Formation Commission]. Staff made a presentation to City Council last ye ar and subsequently applied to LAFCO to expand the City boundaries. The expansion is in pro cess, but there are still a few items to revolve. This location is in both the 2008 Sphere of Influence boundary and in the updated one that is yet to be completed.

Chair SANCHEZ opened Public Comment.

There being no comments, Chair SANCHEZ called for a motion.

Motion to recommend adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration of 2022 -62 for the project to City Council.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Travis Paden
SECONDER: Richard Douglas
AYES: Ham, Douglas, Paden, Devine, Sanchez

Motion to adopt Resolution 2022-26, recommending approval of Prezone No. 2021-09 to City Council.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Richard Douglas
SECONDER: Dennis Ham
AYES: Ham, Douglas, Paden, Devine, Sanchez

Motion to find that the proposed Annexation No. 159 is cons istent with the Hanford General Plan Policies L15 and L17 and forward Annexation No. 159 to the City Council, with a recomme ndation that an application be made to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Kings County.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Travis Paden
SECONDER: Martin Devine, Commissioner
AYES: Ham, Douglas, Paden, Devine, Sanchez

DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
New Community Development Director/Deputy City Manager Jason Waters introduced himself, and the Commissioners welcomed him.

13.A.e
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Attachment 2 - 2022-08-09 Planning Commission - Full Minutes (CD: Annexation 159) COMMISSIONER’S ITEMS OF INTEREST
At this time, any Commissioner may ask a question for clarification of matters within the Planning Commission’s jurisdiction, make an announcement, or report briefly on activities in their role as a Planning Commissioner. In addition, subject to the Planning Commissioner’s Handbook, Commissioners may request staff to report back to the Planning Commission at a subsequent meeting concerning any mater within Commissioner’s jurisdiction (GC 54954.2).

Chair SANCHEZ stated that he notified the City Clerk of his new residence, which is still within the City limits.

ADJOURNMENT
Chair SANCHEZ adjourned the meeting at 6:13 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Diana Black
Recording Secretary

13.A.e
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Attachment 2 - 2022-08-09 Planning Commission - Full Minutes (CD: Annexation 159)

13.A.f
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Attachment 3 - Current Sphere of Influence (Adopted 2008) (CD: Annexation 159)

13.A.g
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Attachment 4 - Plan for Services (CD: Annexation 159)

13.A.g
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Attachment 4 - Plan for Services (CD: Annexation 159)

13.A.g
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Attachment 4 - Plan for Services (CD: Annexation 159)

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 5:30 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted by the Hanford Planning Commission in the Council Chamber of the City of Hanford Civic Auditorium, 400 N. Douty Street, Hanford, California, pertaining to the following:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION:

o Annexation No. 159: A request to annex approximately 19 acres into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction.

o Prezone No. 2021-09: A request to pre-zone the annexation area as I -H Heavy Industrial, in accordance with the General Plan designation for the area.

o Location: The project is located south of Iona Avenue, west of 10 th Avenue (APN 018-242-014, 018-242-015, 018-
242-016, 018-242-017, 018-242-018, and 018-242-019).

There is not a proposal for physical development of the project site, at this time. In accordance with the General Plan designation for the site, future development would include, the land uses permitted in the I-H Heavy Industrial zone district.

Based on an Initial Study, the Community Development Department has determined that the project described above would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. You may review the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, proposed mitigation measures, reference material, and any comments received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration at the City of Hanford, 317 N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA 93230.

COMMENT PERIOD: July 19 to August 8, 2022 [20-day comment period]

PUBLIC COMMENT INVITED: All interested parties are invited to submit written comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration by A ugust 8, 2022 and/or to appear at the hearing described above to present testimony, in regard to the above-listed request. All comments should be submitted to the City of Hanford, Attention: Gabrielle Myers, at the above listed address.

If you challenge any action or decision regarding the project described in this notice in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City prior to, or at, the public hearing.

For further information, contact the Hanford Community Development Department at (559) 585- 2580 or 317 N. Douty Street, Hanford, California, 93230.

HANFORD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2022-62

Project Title: Annexation 159, Prezone No. 2021-09

File Number: ANX 159 (301-0227) and PRZ 2021-09 (510-0243)

State Clearinghouse Number: n/a

Lead Agency: City of Hanford

Responsible Agency: Kings County Local Area Formation Commission

Applicant: Dale G. Mell and Associates Property Owner(s): Phylis Parra Est. 2090 N. Winery Ave 1460 N. Harrison Ave
Fresno, CA 93703 Fresno, CA 93728

Non-Consented:

Marcie Booker
13420 S. 10th Avenue
Hanford, CA 93230

Thomas and Berniece Parra
925 E. Terrace Dr.

Hanford, CA 93230

Project Description:

o Annexation No. 159: A request to annex approximately 19 acres into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction.

o Prezone No. 2021-09: A request to pre-zone the annexation area as I -H Heavy Industrial, in accordance with the General Plan designation for the area.

o Location: The project is located south of Iona Avenue, west of 10th Avenue (APN 018-242-014, 018-242-015, 018- 242-016, 018-242-017, 018-242-018, and 018-242-019).

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159)

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159)

Attachments:

Initial Study (X)
Environmental Checklist (X)
Maps (X)
Mitigation Measures (X)
Letters (X)

Environmental Assessment: The Initial Study for the project is available for public review at the City of Hanford, Community Development Department, 317 N. Douty St., Hanford CA.

Declaration of No Significant Eff ect: The City of Hanford has completed the preparation of an initial study for the project described above. The initial study did not identify any potentially significant environmental effects that would result from the proposed project. This finding is based upon the criteria of the Guidelines of the State Secretary for Resources, Sections 15064 (Determining Significant Effect), 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance), and 15070 (Decision to prepare a Negative Declaration), and the following reasons as documented in the Initial Evaluation (Initial Study) for the project, which is attached.
(a) The project does not 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.

(b) The project does not have the potential to achieve short -term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.

Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual 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.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) (d) The environmental effects of the project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Hanford Community Development Department in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended.

Contact Person: Gabrielle Myers Phone: (559) 585-2578

Signature: Date: July 18, 202
Review Period: July 19 to August 8, 2022

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159)

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2022-62

Prepared For

Annexation 159 and Prezone No. 2021-09

Dell G. Mell and Associates

Prepared By

The City of Hanford

July 18, 2022

Responsible Agency

Kings County LAFCO

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159)

INITIAL STUDY

INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE

This document is an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Project. This MND has been prepared in acc ordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines.

The City of Hanford prepared a General Plan Update and certified a Program level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on April 18, 2017. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 states that subsequent activities must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine if the later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR. Consistent with 15165, if a project is not otherwise statutorily or catego rically exempt from CEQA, an Initial Study is conducted by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepar ed if the Initial Study indicates that the proposed project under review may have a potentially significant impact on the environment. A negative declaration may be prepared instead, if the lead agency prepares a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and, therefore why it does not require the preparation of an EIR. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a negative declaration shall be prepared when either:

1) The initial study show 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

2) The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects, but:

a) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and

b) 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.

If the Initial Study reveals that there may be a significant effect upon the environment, but those effects can be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level with revisions to the project plan and/or mitigation measures, and the applicant agrees to the revision and/or mitigation measures, the lead agency may prepare a mit igated negative declaration.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The project has t wo components. Annexation No. 159: A request to annex approximately 19 acres into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction. Prezone No. 2021- 09: A request to pre- zone the annexation area as I -H Heavy Industrial, in accordance with the General Plan designation for the area. There is not a proposal for physical development of the project site, at this time. In accordance with the General Plan designation for the site, future development would include Heavy Industrial uses.

Location: The project is located south of Iona Avenue, west of 10 th Avenue (APN 018- 242-014, 018-242-015, 018-242-
016, 018-242-017, 018-242-018, and 018-242-019).

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified for this project. The City of Hanford Land Use Element, Zoning Ordinance, and Climate Action Plan contain policies and regulations and measures that are designed to mitigate impacts to a level of non-significance. Environmental measures are methods, measures, standard regulations or practices that avoid, reduce, or minimize a project’s adverse effects on various environmental resources. Based on the underlying authority, they may be applied before, during, or after construction of the project. Environmental measures are also commonly listed as conditions of approval. The C ity Municipal Code and other agencies currently contain measures that assist to mitigate environmental impacts. Mitigation measures have been included in the environmental assessment that will mitigate any potential impacts to a level of less than significant.

In addition, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for Agriculture and Forestry Resources (program and cumulative), Air Quality (cumulative), Biological Resources (program and cumulative). Cultural Resources (program and cumulative), Greenhouse Gases (cumulative), and Population and Housing (program and cumulative) for the EIR

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) prepared for the 2035 General Plan Update. The project is being developed consistent with the land use designation that was evaluated in the 2017 General Plan EI R. The General Plan Update and EIR are herein incorporated by reference, including Resolution 17 -20-R. Other documents used in the preparation of this environmental assessment are listed as sources and also incorporated by reference.

PROJECT COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ZONES AND PLANS
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan.

SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IMPACT CONCLUSIONS An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the projects, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Hanford Municipal Code. The IS/MND for the proposed Project is tiered from the 2035 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041024), certified by the City Council on April 15, 2017, for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for Agriculture and Forestry Resources (program and cumulative), Air Quality (cumulative), Biological Resources (program and cumulative). Cultural Resources (program and cumulative), Green house Gases (cumulative), and Population and Housing (program and cumulative) for the EIR prepared for the 2035 General Plan Update.

The Proposed IS/MND analyzed the Project’s potential impacts with regard to the following environmental topical areas:
(1) aesthetics, (2) agriculture and forest resources, (3) air quality, (4) biological resources, (5) cultural resources, (6) geology and soils, (7) greenhouse gas emissions, (8) hazards and hazardous materials, (9) hydrology and water quality, (10) land use and planning, (11) mineral resources, (12) noise, (13) population and housing, (14) public services, (15) recreation, (16) transportation/traffic, and (17) utilities and services systems.

The proposed Project, as analyzed in the IS/MND, incorporates all r elevant General Plan policies, standards and Mitigation Measures (MMs), as adopted by the 2035 General Plan EIR for purposes of determining environmental impacts of Project implementation. Based on the Project -specific analysis presented in the IS/MND it w as determined that the Project in each topical area would have either no impact, a less than significant impact, impacts that could be mitigated to a less than significant level or that project impacts were adequately analyzed in the 2035 General Plan Update EIR. The IS/MND concluded that the proposed Project would have no impact or a less than significant Project-specific impact in the following topical areas: Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, and Population and Housing.

Further, it was concluded that the proposed Project would have less than significant cumulative impacts with mitigation measures. The initial study utilized the full build out of the General Plan Planning Area as the area for consideration of cumulative impacts. Significant and unavoidable impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources (program and cumulative), Air Quality (cumulative), Biological Resources (program and cumulative). Cultural Resources (program and cumulative), Greenhouse Gases (cumulative), and Population and Housing (program and cumulative) were identified with the full build out of the General Plan Planning Area. These impacts were analyzed in the 2035 General Plan EIR and determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact associated with implementation of the 2035 General Plan, of which the Project is a part and consistent with. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for these significant unavoidable impacts was adopted by the City Council as part of the approval of the 2035 General Plan Update. The proposed Project is consistent with and implements the General Plan and would not result in any new impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, nor would it increase the severity of any pr eviously identified impacts. Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations is re-affirmed for the proposed Project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the recommended appropriate environmental document for the proposed Project, in accordance with CEQA.

CONSULTATION
Pre-consultation was sent to the interested agencies on June 16, 2022

One comment was received:

1. Brian Clements, Director of Permit Services, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Received July 14, 2022.

SOURCES – hereunto annexed and incorporated by reference

2020 Urban Water Management Plan. (2021, October 21). City of Hanford -

California Building Standards Code 2016 (Title 24, California Code Regulations). Codes.

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update (2017).

City of Hanford General Plan Update, 2035 – Environmental Impact Report. (2017). Hanford, California.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159)

City of Hanford Storm Drainage Water Master Plan (1995, August)

City of Hanford Public Works Construction Standards

City of Hanford Water Master Plan

City of Hanford Waste Water Master Plan

County Important Farmland Data Information. Department of Ag (2012)

Final Staff Report – Climate Change Action Plan: Addressing GHG Emission Impacts under CEQA. (2009, December 17) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Climate Change Action Report.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), Revised March 19, 2015.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL)

Hanford Municipal Code (Hanford, California). (2017). Hanford Municipal Code.

United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map for Hanford (Community Panel Number 06031C 0185C, June 16, 2009)

Final Regional Climate Action Plan (May 28, 2014)

Traffic Signal Warrant Study, prepared by Peters Engineering Group: A California Corporation (January 26, 2018).

Pre-Consultation Letters Received:

1. Brian Clements, Director of Permit Services, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Received July 14, 2022.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159)

APPENDIX G: Initial Study and Findings

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 2022-62

1. Project Title Annexation No. 159; Prezone No. 2021-09 -

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Hanford
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230

3. Responsible Agency Name and Address: Local Agency Formation Commission, Kings County 1400 W. Lacey Boulevard
Hanford, CA 93230

4. Contact Person/Phone Number: Gabrielle Myers Senior Planner
Community Development Department
(559) 585-2578

5. Project Location: The project is located south of Iona Avenue, west of 10th Avenue

6. Project Sponsor’s Name/Address: Dale G. Mell 2090 N. Winery Ave
Fresno, CA 93703

7. General Plan Designation: Heavy Industrial

8. Zoning: I-H Heavy Industrial

9. Description of the Project: Annexation No. 159: A request to annex approximately 19 acres into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction.

Prezone No. 2021 -09: A request to pre -zone the annex ation area as I -H Heavy Industrial, in accordance with the General Plan designation for the area. There is not a proposal for physical development of the project site, at this time. In accordance with the General Plan designation for the site, future devel opment would include Heavy Industrial uses.

10. There is not a proposal for physical development of the project site, at this time. In accordance with the General Plan designation for the site, future development would include Heavy Industrial Uses.

Zoning General Plan Designation Land Use
North I-H Heavy Industrial Heavy Industrial Industrial- Pitman Family Farms East County AG-20 Agricultural Heavy Industrial
Agricultural Land
South I-H Heavy Industrial Heavy Industrial Industrial – Former Calcot site; future cannabis cultivation site West I-H Heavy Industrial Heavy Industrial Industrial - Pitman Family Farms

Other public agencies whose approval is required – Kings County LAFCO

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation and Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.

I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION , including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

FOR: CITY OF HANFORD

July 19, 2022
Gabrielle Myers DATE
Senior Planner
City of Hanford

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -12-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

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

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operation al impacts.

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

4) "Negative Declaration: L ess Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure s, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a pr eviously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

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

8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

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

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -13-
Issues:

Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
   
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not limited
to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state
scenic highway?
   
c) Substantially degrade
the existing visual
character or quality of the
site and its surroundings?
   
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare
which would adversely
affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
   

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:

SCENIC VISTAS AND CORRIDORS

Views consist primarily of broad panoramas of agricultural land. Most of the land surrounding the northern and western part of the city is characterized by flat, dry valley grasslands scattered throughout as well as grazing and other agricultural uses. The grasslands, grazing land, and large farms create open vistas at the northern and eastern edges of the City.

SCENIC HIGHWAYS

According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are no adopted Scenic Highways within the planning area. (Caltrans 2015).

VISUAL CHARACTER

Hanford is located in the northern portion of Kings County and has a total area of 16.6 square miles, all of which is flat land not covered by water. The only natural watercourse is Mussle Slough, remnants of which still exist on the City’s western edge. The Kings River is abo ut 6.5 miles north of Hanford. The People’s Ditch, an irrigation canal dug in the 1870s, traverses Hanford from north to south.

The Planning Area consists of urban agricultural, and grassland habitat areas located in transitional zone in the Central Valley between the flat valley floor and the Sierra Nevada foothills to the east. Hanford is surrounded by productive agricultural land, much of which is encumbered by Williamson Act contracts that prohibit development.

LIGHT AND GLARE

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -14-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

The majority of the City includes existing sources of daytime glare and nighttime lighting and illumination.

Significance Criteria
The Project may result in significant impacts to aesthetics if it substantially affects the view of a scenic corridor, vista or view open to the public, cause’s substantial degradation of views from adjacent residences, or results in new night lighting that shines into adjacent residences.

Checklist Discussion:

a) Less than Significant Impact – Views consist primarily of broad panoramas of agri cultural land. Most of the surrounding area is characterized by flat, dry valley grasslands scattered throughout as well as grazing and other agricultural uses. The land has been designated for Heavy Industrial by the General Plan. The project proposal does not include development of the land, however future physical development will be required to be consistent with the General Plan Designation. Future development of the land will include heavy industrial uses.

b) Less than Significant Impact – There are no designated State Scenic Highways, as identified by the California Scenic Highway Mapping System within the City’s General Plan Study area. There are also no rock outcroppings within the Study Area. The City does have an ordinance protecting trees in Chapter 12.12 Street Trees and Shrubs of the Municipal Code. The projects would be consistent with the tree ordinance. The projects would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway and impacts would be less than significant.

c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation: Several sections of the Hanford Municipal Code regulate physical development by controlling not only the appearance of new development, but also by controlling the placement of new development with consideration for surrounding uses. The project development will be required to comply with the General Plan, proposed zoning, I-H Heavy Industrial and the Tree Ordinance.

The project proposal does not include development of the land, however future physical development will be required to be consistent with the General Plan Designation. Future development of the land will include industrial development and be subject to further environmental review at the time of submittal.

d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation– The project proposal does not include development of the land, however future physical development will be required to be consistent with the General Plan Designation. Future development of the land will include industrial development and be subject to further environmental review at the time of submittal. Future development will be subject to the applicable provisions of the Hanford Municipal Code, such as Section 17.50.140 – Outdoor Lighting Standards. Additionally, the California Building Code contains standards for outdoor lighting that are intended to reduce light pollution and glare by regulation light power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls.

Mitigation Measures:

MM Aesthetics 1: That the land be developed consistent with the General Plan, Hanford Municipal Code, and Tree Ordinance.

MM Aesthetics 2: That future development complies with the Hanford Municipal Code Section 17.50.140 Outdoor Lighting Standards and the California Building Code for outdoor lighting standards.

Conclusion: Impacts to aesthetics ar e anticipated to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

Sources: 2035 General Plan, 2035 General Plan EIR, Hanford Municipal Code, California Building Code

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -15-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime
Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California
Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
   
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act
contract?
   
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))?
   
d) Result in the loss of
forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest
use?
   
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?
   

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -16-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Agriculture and Forestry Resources:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the impacts of the City’s urban growth on agricultural land and includes mitigation measures to reduce those impacts, however, impacts to agricultural lands remain significant and unavoida ble. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the impacts to agricultural lands.

Environmental Setting

The City’s climate, water availability and proximity to transcontinental transportation routes have made it a premier location for agricultural land development for over a century. Most of the land surrounding the urbanized area of Hanford was converted to agricultural uses over a century ago, leaving very little undisturbed natural landscape.

A majority of Prime Farmland is shown toward the northern and western portions of the study Area. Farmland of Statewide Importance is located on portions of land to
ward the southern edge of the Study Area. The acreage total for Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland within the Study and Planned Areas is categorized as follows:

There are 3,056 acres of land currently subject to a W illiamson Act contract within the Planned Area and 16,299 acres of land currently subject to a Williamson Act contract within the Study Area. There are 335 acres currently under non-renewal and are scheduled to be removed from the provisions of the Williamson Act in the Planned Area.

There are no forest lands found within the Study Area, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 12220 (g), which defines such areas as “land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allow for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” There is also no “timberland” found in the Study Area, as defined by the Public Resou
rces Code Section 4526, which defines such areas as “land…which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.”

Build-out of the General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to farmland conversion and conflicts with land under Williamson Act land use contracts. Thus, the overall impact of full -build out of the General Plan would be cumulatively significant and unavoidable.

Significance Criteria
The Project may result in significant impacts to agricultural resources since the project results in the removal of lands designated as prime farmland by the Department of Conservation.

Checklist Discussion:

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -17-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

a) Less than Significant Impact: The project is located within an area listed as Vacant or Disturbed Land. Vacant or Disturbed Land includes open field areas that do not qualify for an agricultural category, mineral and oil extraction areas, off road vehicles areas, electrical s ubstation, channelized canals, and rural freeway interchanges. The General Plan EIR evaluated the full build out of the Planned Area as a result of the General Plan Update and determined the General Plan would over the 2014 – 2035 planning period, convert approximately 2,706 acres of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland to non- agricultural use. In accordance with the General Plan EIR, development would have to adhere to Hanford Municipal Code Chapter 16.40.110 (Right to Farm) and proposed goals and policies of the General Plan related to agriculture. However, the loss of farmland as a result of the General Plan Update was determined to be significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted for th e significant impact to Agriculture, as a result of the General Plan Update. The project is consistent with the General Plan. Agricultural Land Use Protection Policy

b) Less than significant impact – The property is currently in the General Plan as Heavy Industrial and is proposed to be prezoned I-H Heavy Industrial , in accordance with the General Plan. The property is not within a Williamson Act Contract.

c) No impact – the projects would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, Forest Land, Timberland, or Timberland Zoned Timberland Production, as these designations do not exist within the City. There would be no impact.

d) No Impact – There is no forest land within the City. The projects would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use, as these designations do not exist within the City. There would be no impact.

e) No Impact – None.

Sources: 2035 General Plan, General Plan Update EIR, Hanford Subdivision Ordinance, California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – Kings County Map (2016); III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
   
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
   
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
   
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
   
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
   

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -18-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Air Quality:

Climatological/Topological Factors

The San Joaquin Valley’s topography and meteorology provide ideal conditions for trapping air pollution for long periods of time and producing harmful levels of air pollutants, including ozone and particulate matter. Low precipitation levels, cloudless days, high temperatures, and light winds during the summer in the San Joaquin Valley are conducive to high ozone levels resulting from the photochemical reaction of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Inversion layers in the atmosph ere during the winter can trap emissions of directly emitted particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (MN2.5) and PM2.4 precursors (such as NOX and sulfur dioxide [SO2] within the San Joaquin Valley for several days, accumulating to unhealthy levels.

The region also houses the State’s major arteries for good and people movement, Interstate 5 to the west and State Route 99 through the Central Valley, thereby attracting a large volume of vehicular traffic. Another compounding factor is the region’s historic ally high rate of population growth compared to other regions of California. Increased population typically results in an even greater increase in vehicle activity and more consumer product use, leading to increased emissions of air pollution, including NO X. In fact, mobile sources account for about 80% of the Valley’s total NOX emissions inventory. Since NOX is a significant precursor for both ozone and PM2.5, reducing NOX from mobile sources is critical for progressing the Valley towards attainment of ozone and PM2.4 standards.

The geography of mountainous areas to the east, west, and south, in combination with long summers and relatively short winters, contributes to local climate episodes that prevent the dispersion of pollutants. Transport, as affected by wind flows and inversions, also plays a role in the creation of air pollution.

The climate of the SJV is modified by topography. This creates climatic conditions that are particularly conducive to air pollution formation. The SJV is surrounded by mountains on three sides and open to the Sacramento Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area to the north.

Hanford is located in the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

The SJVAB is in the southern half of California’s Central Valley and is approximately 250 -miles long and averages 35- miles wide. The San Joaquin Valley is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, and the Tehachapi mountains to the south. There is a slight downward elevation gradient from Bakersfield in the southeast end to sea level at the northwest end where the valley opens to the San Francisco Bay at the Carquinez Straits. At its northern end is the Sacramento Va lley, which comprises the northern half of California’s Central Valley.

The bowl shaped topography inhibits movement of pollutants out of the Valley.

The SJV is in a Mediterranean Climate Zone. Mediterranean Climates Zones occur on the west coast and are influenced by a subtropical high- pressure cell most of the year. Mediterranean Climates are characterized by sparse rainfall, which occurs mainly in winter. Summers are hot and dry. Summertime maximum temperatures often exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the Valley.

The subtropical high- pressure cell is strongest during spring, simmer, and fall and produces subsiding air, which can result in temperature inversions in the Valley. A temperature inversion can act like a lid, inhibiting vertical mixing of the air mass at the surface. Any emissions of pollutants can be trapped below the inversion. Most of the surrounding mountains are above the normal height of summer inversion (1,500 to 3,000 square feet).

Winter-time high pressure events can often last many weeks with surface temperatures often lowering into the 30s degrees F. During these events, fog can be present and inversions are extremely strong. These wintertime inversions can inhibit vertical mixing of pollutants to a few 100 feet.

Wind

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -19-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Wind speed and direction play an important role in dispersion and transport of air pollutants. Wind at the surface and aloft can disperse pollution by mixing and transporting the pollution to other locations. The region’s topographic features restrict air movement an d channel the air mass toward the southeastern end of the Valley. The Coastal Range is a barrier to air movement to the west and the high Sierra Nevada range is a significant barrier to the east. A secondary, but significant, summer wind pattern is from the southeasterly direction and can be associated with nighttime drainage winds, prefrontal conditions, and summer monsoons.

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Monitoring

The SJVAB consists of eight counties, from San Joaquin County to the north to Kern County in the South. The closest monitoring station to the Study Area is located at Hanford’s South Irwin Street Monitoring Station. The station monitors particulates, ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide.

The SJVAB is nonattainment for ozone (1 hour an d 8 hour) and particulate matter. In accordance with the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), EPA uses the design value at the time of standard promulgation to assign nonattainment areas to one of several classes that reflect the severity of the nonattainment problem.

The SJVAB was reclassified from a “serious” nonattainment area for the 8- hour ozone standard to “extreme” effective June 4, 2010.

Maximum Pollutant Levels at Hanford’s South Irwin Street Monitoring Station

Pollutant Time Avg. 2012 Max. 2013 Max. 2014 Max. National Standards
State
Standards
Ozone (O3) 1 hour 0.109 ppm 0.104 ppm 0.108 ppm NA 0.009 ppm Ozone (03) 8 hour 0.094 ppm 0.098 ppm 0.0904 ppm 0.075 ppm 0.070 ppm Carbon
Monoxide
(C0)
8 hour 0.033 ppm * * 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
1 hour 0.056 ppm 0.058 ppm 0.050 ppm 100 ppm 0.18 ppm
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
Annual
Average

0.009 ppm 0.010 ppm 0.010 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm
Particulates
(PM 10)
24 hour 128.0 µg/m3 177.0 µg/m3 131.3 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 Particulates
(PM 10)
Federal
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean

40.3 µg/m3 50.3 µg/m3 47.8 µg/m3 NA µg/m3 20 µg/m3 Particulates
(PM 2.5)
24 hour 64 µg/m3 128.7 µg/m3 96.7 µg/m3 35 µg/m3 NA Particulates
(PM 10)
Federal
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean

14.8 µg/m3 18.1 µg/m3 17.4 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 Notes:

NA = Not Applicable (there is no standard for this pollutant) * = There was insufficient data available to determine the value ppm = parts per million
µg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter

Attainment Status

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -20-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

Air quality impacts from proposed projects within Hanford are controlled through policies and provisions of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). In order to demonstrate that a project would not cause further air quality degradation in either of the SJVAPCD’s plan to improve air quality within the air basin or federal requirements to meet certain air quality compliance goals, each project should also demonstrate consistency with the SJVAPCD’s adopted Air Quality Attainment Plans ( AQAP) for ozone and PM10. The SJVAPCD is required to submit a “Rate of Progress” document to ARB that demonstrates past and planned project toward reaching attainment for all criteria pollutants. The CCAA requires air pollution control districts with sever e or extreme air quality problems to provide a 5% reduction in non- attainment emissions per year. The Air Quality Attainment Plans prepared for the SJV by the SJVAPCD complies with this requirement.

Air pollution sources associated with stationary sources are regulated through the permitting authority of the SJVAPCD under the New and Modified Stationary Review Rule (SJVAPCD Rule 2201). Owners of any new or modified equipment that emits, recues, or controls air contaminants, except those specifically exempted by the SJVAPCD, are require to apply for an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate (SJVAPCD Rule 2010). Additionally, best available control technology is required on specific types of stationary equipment and are required to offset both stationary source emission increases along with increases in cargo carrier emissions if the specified threshold levels are exceeded (SJVAPCD Rule 2201, 4.7.1). Through this mechanism, all stationary sources within the Study Area would be subject to the standards of the SJVAPCD to ensure that new developments do not result in net increases in stationary sources of criteria air pollutants.

Existing Air Quality

Air pollutant emissions generated from projects constructed under the implementation of the General Plan would be required to adhere to SJVAPCD rules and regulations and therefore, would not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds.

Odor

The SJVAPCD has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the SJVAB.

The types of facilities that are known to produce odors are shown below along with a reasonable distance from the source within which, the degree of odors could possibly be significant. Information presented in the table will be used as a screening level of analysis for potential odor sources for new development as a result of implementation of the General Plan.

Type of Facility Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facility 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 mile
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operation (e.g., auto body shops) 1 mile Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile

Asbestos

New development’s construction phase may cause asbestos to become airborne due to construction activities. In order to control naturally-occurring asbestos dust, new development can use some of the following control actions to reduce the release of airborne asbestos fibers:

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -21-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
- Water wetting or road surfaces;
- Rinse vehicles and equipment;
- Wet loads of excavated materials; and
- Cover loads of excavated materials
Project Impacts

The project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

The SJVAB often exceeds the State and national ozone stands and if the new development as a result of the General Plan U pdate emits a substantial quantity of ozone precursors, it may contribute to an exceedance of the ozone standard. The SJVAB is also in nonattainment for State PM10 air quality standards and in nonattainment for State and federal PM2.5 air quality standards. Therefore, substantial project emissions may contribute to an exceedance for these pollutants.

District Rule 2201, the New and Modified Stationary Source Review (NSR), is a major component of the SJVAPCD’s attainment strategy as it relates to growth. I t applies to new and modified stationary sources of air pollution. The SJVAPCD’s attainment plans demonstrate that project-specific emissions below the SJVAPCD’s offset thresholds would have a less-than-significant impact on air quality. Thus the SJVAPCD c oncludes that use of the NSR Offset thresholds as the consistency in significance determinations within the environmental review process and is applicable to both stationary and non-stationary emission sources.

Project Type Pollutant/Precursor Emission (tons/year)
CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5
Construction Emissions 100 10 10 27 15 15
Operational Emissions (Permitted Equipment and
Activities)
100 10 10 27 15 15
Operational Emissions (Non-Permitted Equipment
and Activities)
100 10 10 27 15 15

Short-term (construction) emissions

Construction-related impacts are expected to be temporary in nature and can generally be reduced to a less -than- significant level through the use of mitigation measures and through compliance with applicable existing City, county, State and SJVAPCD regulations for reducing construction-related emissions. The SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII is applied to all construction sites and would constitute sufficient measures to reduce air quality impacts to a level considered less than significant.

Long-term (operational) emissions

Operational emissions are emitted from two main sources:

1) small, distributed sources known as area sources and 2) motor vehicles known as mobile sources.

All new development and infrastructure projects would be subject to SJVAPCD guidelines and regulations, including Rule 9510 (indirect source review) and R egulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Prohibitions). Existing businesses and new projects that are large employers (over 100 employees) would be subject to Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction). Individual projects would require a project -level analysis to det ermine necessary mitigation strategies. As appropriate, the City of Hanford would require the implementation of the above -notated mitigation strategy intended to avoid or reduce the significant impacts identified.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -22-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Short-term (construction) emissions

Fugitive dust control rules:

- Rule 8011 – Fugitive dust administrative requirements for control of fine particulate matter - Rule 8021 – Fugitive dust requirements for the control of fine particulate matter from construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and earthmoving activities.
- Rule 8071 – Fugitive dust requirements for the control of fine particulate matter from vehicle and/or requirement parking, shipping, receiving, transfer, fueling, and service areas one acre or larger Further, the new development should include the following local municipal code requirements:

- Water sprays or chemical suppressants must be applied to all unpaved roads to control fugitive emissions - All access roads and parking areas must be covered with asphalt-concrete paving Compliance with Regulation VIII under the SJVAPCD for all construction sites would constitute sufficient measures to reduce PM10 impacts to a level considered less than significant

Compliance with Regulation VIII under the SJVAPCD for all construction s ites would constitute sufficient measures to reduce PM10 impacts to a level considered less than significant.

The following measures from the Guide for Assessing and Mitigation Air Quality Impacts are required to be implemented at construction sites for all new development built during the planning cycle of the General Plan Update:

- All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.
- All on-site unpaved roads and off -site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
- All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking. - With the demolition of buildings up to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of the building shall be wetted during demotion.
- When materials are transported offsite, all materials shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least 6 inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained. - All operations shall limit or expediti ously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.
- Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
- Within urban areas, track out shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday.

Long-Term (operational) emissions
Long-term emissions from new development are generated by mobile source (vehicle) emissions and area sources such as water heaters and lawn maintenance equipment.

Future development projects in the City of Hanford would be subject to the SJVAPCD’s Indirect Source Review

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -23-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
(ISR) program. The purpose of the SJVAPCD ’s ISR Program is to reduce emissions of NOX and PM10 from new development projects. Further, all new developments and infrastructure projects would be subject to SJVAPCD guidelines and regulations, including the ISR rule and Regulation VIII. Existing busi nesses and new projects that are large employers (over 100 employees) would be subject to Rule 9410 (Employer based trip reduction).

The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Sensitive receptors are those individuals who are sensitive to air pollution, which may include children, the elderly, and persons with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. The Air District considers a sensitive receptor to be a location that houses or attracts children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. The six criteria pollutants include ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, particulate matter, and Pb. Of the six pollutants, particle pollution and ground -level o zone are the most widespread health threats.

The SJVAPCD has determined that any project would perform an ambient air quality analysis when construction activities or operational activities exceed the 100 pound per day screening level of any criteria pol lutant after implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures.

Exempt small development projects include:

- Residential projects with 50 dwelling units or less
- Commercial projects with 2,000 square feet or less
- Light industrial projects with 25,000 square feet or less - Heavy Industrial projects with 100,000 square feet or less - Medical Office projects with 20,000 square feet or less - General Office projects with 39,000 square feet or less - Educational projects with 9,000 square feet or less
- Government projects with 10,000 square feet or less
- Recreational projects with 20,000 square feet or less - Transportation or Transit projects with construction exhaust emissions of 2 tons of NOX or PM10 or less Pre-Consultation – San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District The following comments were received from the SJVAPCD:

The District offers the following comments regarding the Project:

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -24-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
District is designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone, PM10, PM2.5 standards.

Recommended Model for Quantifying Air Emissions
For future development projects, project-related criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operational sources should be identified and quantified. Emissions analysis should be performed using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which uses the most recent CARB-approved version of relevant emissions models and emission factors. CalEEMod is available to the public and can be downloaded from the CalEEMod website at:
www.caleemod.com.

To determine potential health impacts on surrounding receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) a Prioritization and/or a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) should be performed for future development projects. These health risk determinations should quantify and characterize potential Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) identified by the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment/California Air Resources Board (OEHHA/CARB) that pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

Note, two common sources of TACs can be attributed to diesel exhaust emitted from heavy-duty off-road earth moving equipment during construction, and from ongoing operation of heavy-duty on-road trucks.

Prioritization (Screening Health Risk Assessment):

Health Risk Assessment:

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -25-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
or 1.0 for either the Acute or Chronic Hazard Indices.

A project with a significant health risk would trigger all feasible mitigation measures. The District strongly recommends that development projects that result in a significant health risk not be approved by the land use agency.

For assistance, please contact the District’s Technical Services Department by:
 E- Mailing inquiries to: [email protected]
 Calling (559) 230-5900
Recommended Measure: Development projects resulting in TAC emissions should be located an adequate distance from residential areas and other sensitive receptors in accordance to CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective located at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.

Specific information for assessing significance, including screening tools and modeling guidance, is available online at the District’s website: www.valleyair.org/ceqa.

Allowed Uses Not Requiring Project-Specific Discretionary Approval In some cases, for future development projects, the City may determine that a project be approved as an allowed use not requiring a project-specific discretionary approval from the City. The District recommends the Annexation and Prezone include language supported by policy requiring such projects to prepare a technical assessment in consultation with the District, and recommending that a VERA be considered for development projects determined to result in a significant impact on air quality. For example, this requirement would apply to large development projects (e.g., large residential project, large distribution center, large warehouse, etc.) that would have the potential to significantly impact air quality and is determined by the City to be allowed by use, not requiring a project specific discretionary approval from the City.

Truck Routing
Truck routing involves the assessment of which roads Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks take to and from their destination, and the emissions impact that the HHD trucks may have on residential communities and sensitive receptors. Since the Project will be zoned Heavy Industrial, there is potential for an increase in truck trips.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -26-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
(VMT), and associated exhaust emissions. The truck routing evaluation would also identify alternative truck routes and their impacts on VMT and air quality.

Cleanest Available Heavy-Duty Trucks
The San Joaquin Valley will not be able to attain stringent health-based federal air quality standards without significant reductions in emissions from HHD trucks, the single largest source of NOx emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. The District’s CARB-approved 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes significant new reductions from HHD trucks, including emissions reductions by 2023 through the implementation of CARB’s Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation, which requires truck fleets operating in California to meet the 2010 standard of 0.2 g-NOx/bhp-hr by 2023. Additionally, to meet federal air quality attainment standards, the District’s Plan relies on a significant and immediate transition of HHD fleets to zero or near-zero emissions technologies, including the near-zero truck standard of 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx established by CARB.

For future development projects, the District recommends that the following measures be considered by the City to reduce Project-related operational emissions:
 Recommended Measure: Fleets associated with operational activities utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero (0.02 g/bhphr NOx) technologies.  Recommended Measure: All on-site service equipment (cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts, pallet jacks, etc.) utilize zero-emissions technologies.

Electric On-Site Off-Road and On-Road Equipment
Since the Project will be zoned Heavy Industrial, future development projects may have the potential to result in increased use of off-road equipment (e.g., forklifts) and on-road equipment (e.g., mobile yard trucks with the ability to move materials). The District recommends that the Annexation and Prezone include requirements for project proponents to utilize electric or zero emission off-road and on-road equipment.

Examples of vegetative barriers include, but are not limited to the following: trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix of these.

Generally, a higher and thicker vegetative barrier with full coverage will result in greater reductions in downwind pollutant concentrations. In the same manner, urban greening is also a way to help improve air quality and public health in addition to enhancing the overall beautification of a community with drought tolerant, low-maintenance greenery.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -27-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The District recommends the Project proponent consider the District’s Clean Green Yard Machines (CGYM) program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment.

More information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at: http://www.valleyair.org/grants/cgym.htm and http://valleyair.org/grants/cgym-commercial.htm.

Electric Vehicle Chargers
To support and accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of required infrastructure, the District offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric charging infrastructure (Level 2 and 3 chargers). The purpose of the District’s Charge Up! Incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles. The District recommends that the City and project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at future project sites, and at strategic locations.

Please visit www.valleyair.org/grants/chargeup.htm for more information.

Nuisance Odors
While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often resulting in citizen complaints.

The City should consider all available pertinent information to determine if future development projects could have a significant impact related to nuisance odors.

According to the District Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), a significant odor impact is defined as more than one confirmed complaint per year averaged over a three-year period, or three unconfirmed complaints per year averaged over a three-year period. An unconfirmed complaint means that either the odor or air contaminant release could not be detected, or the source of the odor could not be determined.

The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at:

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -28-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.

For further information or assistance, project proponents may contact the District’s SBA Office at (559) 230-5888.

Table 1: ISR Applicability Thresholds

District Rule 9510 also applies to any transportation or transit development projects where construction exhaust emissions equal or exceed two tons of NOx or two tons of PM.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -29-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the proposed development project clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that ultimately funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.

Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRHome.htm.

The AIA application form can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRFormsAndApplications.htm.

Information about District Rule 9410 can be found online at: www.valleyair.org/tripreduction.htm .

For additional information, you can contact the District by phone at 559-230-6000 or by e-mail at [email protected] District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) In the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed, future development projects may be subject to District Rule 4002. This rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at: http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/asbestosbultn.htm.

District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 4601 since it may utilize architectural coatings.

Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements or curbs. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings. In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at: http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4601.pdf

District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions)

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -30-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

Should the project result in at least 1-acre in size, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours prior to the project proponents intent to commence any earthmoving activities pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). Also, should the project result in the disturbance of 5- acres or more, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the project proponent shall submit to the District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.

The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at:
https://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/forms/DCP-Form.docx

Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/pm10/compliance_pm10.htm

Other District Rules and Regulations
Future development projects may also be subject to the following District rules:

Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

Future Projects / Land Use Agency Referral Documents
Future development projects may require an environmental review and air emissions mitigation. A project’s referral documents and environmental review documents provided to the District for review should include a project summary, the land use designation, project size, air emissions quantifications and impacts, and proximity to sensitive receptors and existing emission sources, and air emissions mitigation measures. For reference and guidance, more information can be found in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf

District Comment Letter
The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Matt Crow by email at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5931.

Sincerely,
Brian Clements
Director of Permit Services
For: Mark Montelongo
Program Manager

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -31-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Analysis: As stated by the District, while the annexation and prezoning will not have an effect on the environment, future development has the potential to cause impacts to Air Quality. As such, future development shall be subject to the following mitigation measures and recommendations

Mitigation Measures:

Recommendations:

1. That future development proponents utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero (0.02 g/bhphr NOx) technologies for fleets associated with operation.

2. That future development proponents utilize zero-emissions technologies for all on-site service equipment (cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts, pallet jacks, etc.)

4. That future development project proponents incorporate solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for future development projects

5. That future development project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at future project sites, and at strategic locations.

Checklist Discussion

a) Less than Significant Impact with mitigation incorporation – Future development of the project area will not disrupt implementation of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s Air Quality Plan.

Compliance with the Air District’s Air Quality Plan will be a requirement of the physical development of the project area. a requirement of development. Additionally, the applicant will be required to obtain any necessary permits through the SJVAPCD . With these mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact.

MM Air Quality 1: That future development projects be forwarded to the SJVAPCD for review and comments and that future development comply with the SJVAPCDC Air Quality Plan.

b) Less than Significant – There is not a physical development planned for the project site at this time. Future development will be evaluated at the time of proposal and may be subject to District rules and applications.

c) Less than Significant – In accordance with the consultation received from the District, this project – the proposed annexation and pre -zoning of a the land will not have an impact on any criteria pollut ant, however future development will need to be analyzed and may require mitigation. Referral documents for future development requiring discretionary approval will be forwarded to the District for review, upon application.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -32-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
d) Less than Significant Impact – The proposal does not include physical development, future development of the project site shall be qualified using CalEEMod, as recommended by the District, to ensure that development proposed does not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

MM Air Quality 4: That future development project operation and construction be quantified using CalEEMod to ensure that development does not expose nearby residential receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Less than Significant Impact – the proposed project does not include physical development, future development of the project site should ensu re that operation does not create objectionable odors affecting nearby residential receptors, consistent with HMC Section 17.50.050.

MM Air Quality 5: That future development projects be evaluated to ensure that operation does not create objectional odors, consistent with the Hanford Municipal Code Section 17.50.050.

17.50.050 Odorous gases and matter.

No use shall be permitted which emits odorous gases or other odorous matter in such quantities as to be dangerous, harmful, noxious, or otherwise objectionable at a level that is detectable with or without the aid of instruments at or beyond the project site boundary.

Mitigation Measures:

MM Air Quality 1: That future development projects be forwarded to the SJVAPCD for review and comment s and that future development comply with the SJVAPCDC Air Quality Plan.

MM Air Quality 5: That future development projects be evaluated to ensure that operation does not create objectional odors, consistent with the Hanford Municipal Code Section 17.50.050.

Conclusion: That the annexation and prezone will not have a substantial effect on the environment, however, since future development has the potential to have an effect on air quality, mitigation measures and recommendations shall be incorporated for future development, to ensure a less than significant impact on air quality.

Source(s): Hanford General Plan (2017), General Plan Environmental Impact Report (2017), San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, California Air Resources Board 2008, Ambient Air Quality Standards (4/1/2008) http://www.arb.ca.ags
; Consultation received from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District on July 14, 2022 (attached)

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
   

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -33-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
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?
   
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
   
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?
   
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
   
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?
   

Environmental Setting

Natural Communities

The natural communities tracked by the California Natural Diversity Database in the Study Area and surrounding vicinity include Valley Sacaton Grassland and Valley Sink Scrub.

Valley Sacaton Grassland is mid- height to three feet tussock -forming grasslan d dominated by alkali sacaton. The community is fine textured and poorly drained on usually alkaline soils with generally a seasonally high water table or are overflowed during winter flooding. This community was formerly extensive in the Tulare Lake Basin.

There are two patches of riparian woodlands identified by the State Dept. of Conservation mapping program that are within the study area (City of Hanford). Riparian woodlands are one of the richest wildlife habitats in the State; however, much has been severely degraded. Less that 1% of the Central Valley’s riparian vegetation is in a natural, high- quality condition. Riparian woodlands in the study area are located on the west side of 12 th Avenue between Houston and Iona
Avenues, and along the west side of 13th Avenue, north of Iona Avenue. They are 30 and 14 acres in size, respectively.

Valley oak woodland provides habitat components such as food, cover, nesting sites, and dispersal habitat for a wide variety of wildlife. The large oak trees present in this vegetation community provide nesting opportunities for many birds of prey. Typical wildlife species in this vegetation community include California ground squirrel, western fence lizard, western scrub jay, California quail, northern flicker, northern mockingbird, mourning dove, American kestrel, and red-tailed hawk.

Vegetation within the City of Hanford consists primarily of agricultural crops with little remaining non- agricultural vegetation. Agricultural crops consist of orchard, vineyard, annual dryland and irrigated grain crops, irrigated row and field crops, and some rice production. A good portion of the study area consists of urban development, but an almost equal

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -34-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
portion of the study area is agricultural development.

Waters/Wetlands

Queries of the National Wetland Inventory and National Hydrology Dataset reveal the presence of numerous wetlands and waters within the Study Area. The largest of the water bodies are holding ponds off of Iona Avenue and South 11 th Avenue. The system is artificia lly flooded and manmade. Other wetland and water features are reported including emergent wetlands, freshwater wetlands, freshwater ponds, canals and ditches, and blue-line stream courses.

The only natural watercourse is Mussel Slough, remnants of which still exist on the City’s western edge. The People’s Ditch, an irrigation canal dug in the 1870s, traverses Hanford from north to south and portions of it still exist north of Grangeville Boulevard and west of the Santa Fe Railroad. The Sand and Lone Oak s loughs once traversed the city north and south, and remnants still remain in the southern half of the City south of SR 198. The Kings River is about 4 miles north of Hanford.

Wildlife Corridors

Wildlife corridors are areas of habitat that connect two or more habitat patches that would otherwise be fragmented or isolated from one another.

Isolated “islands” of wildlife habitat have been created by the fragmentation of open space areas due to urbanization and other anthropogenic disturbance. Certain wildlife species, especially the larger and more mobile mammals, will not likely persist over time in fragmented or isolated habitat areas in the absence of habitat linkages due to the loss of gene flow required to maintain genetic diversity.

Within the urbanized areas of the Study Area, wildlife corridors are largely limited to linear water features, such as canals , water and flood control conveyance structures, and remnant natural ways. Surrounding the Study Area, agricultural fields and sparsely located and fragmented patches of lands containing non- agricultural vegetation located amongst the agricultural fields extend for many miles in all directions. Wildlife movement is largely uninhibited in thi s open space area of the Study Area outside of, and surrounding, the urbanized areas.

Standards of Significance
The project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:

1. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species.

2. Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants.

3. Substantially affect a rare, threatened, or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of a rare, threatened or endangered species.

Checklist Discussion
a) Less than significant impact –The site does not have value as a habitat for 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service. b) No Impact – the site does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. c) No Impact – the site is not identified as a federally protected wetland. d) Less than significant impact - The project would not interfere 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 wildlife nursery sites. Physical development of the project area will require further environmental review. e) No Impacts - The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation ordinance or p olicy; there is not an adopted ordinance protecting biological

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -35-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
resources.
f) Less than Significant Impact – the project pertains to land that has no value as natural habitat; therefore, the plan does not conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Conclusion: The site is proximal to an urban area of the City and contains no natural, undisturbed areas for habitat. The project would have a less than significant cumulative impact for biological resources , as physical development is not proposed. Future development will be subject to environmental review.

Source(s): Hanford General Plan (2017), General Plan Environmental Impact Report (2017) ; California Department of Fish and Wildlife

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Public Resources Code15064.5?
   
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
Public Resources Code 15064.5?
   
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
   
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
   

Ethnographic Setting

Hanford is situated between the former “delta” formed by the Kaweah River to the south and the Kings River to the north.

Yokuts lived in villages consisting of wood frame huts covered with large tule mats. The Hanford -Lemoore region on the south side of the Kings River was home to the Nutunutu Yokuts. Across the Kings River and north of the Nutunutu, were the Wimilche people. Only one village for the Wimilche and two for the Nutunutu have been described. The Wimilche village of Ugona was located north of the Kings River, 7 miles below Laton. The Nutunutu village of Cheou was across the reiver and directly west of Ugona. Kadistin, the other Nutunutu village of Cheou was across the river and directly west of Ugona. Kadistin, the other Nutunutu village, was at old Kingston on the south bank of the Kings River downstream from Laton. The better known Tachi Yokuts occupied the north and west shores of Tulare Lake.

The Yokuts subsistence economy emphasized fishing; hunting waterfowl; and collecting shellfish, root s, and seeds. Tules were abundant in the sloughs and their prodigious use in constructing shelters, boats, and as a food source reflected their significance in Yokuts life.

The dead were buried in a cemetery separate from the village with head facing wes t or northwest. Cremation was most common for the occasional individual who died away from home or in the event that the deceased was a shaman or medicine man. Among the Tachi, anyone of higher social status was cremated.

The 1833 epidemic, brought south from Oregon by a party of trappers, decimated an estimated 75% of California’s native people. Entire communities were wiped out, leaving few native people to consult during the early 1900s when anthropologists were recording the recollections of elderly s urvivors of what has been billed as a last attempt to reconstruct the lifeways of the native people before White contact.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -36-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
In 1851, the tribes gave up their lands for reservations. However, such a treaty was never ratified by Congress. The remnant of native people in the southern San Joaquin Valley was placed at the Tejon

Reservation at the foot of the Tehachapis and at the Fresno reservation at Madera. However, Tejon was later abandoned in favor of a reservation on the Tule River. Many of the Tule river residents were Tachi for whom a settlement was established near Lemoore.

By 1970, some 325 people identifying themselves as Yokuts lived on the 54,000-acre Tule River Reservation. Many of the residents were employed in the lumber industry or as laborers o n farms. About one- third of the population of the Tule River Reservation lived on the much smaller Santa Rosa Reservation. Santa Rosa families would follow seasonal agricultural work.

Pioneer Settlement Period

Early development and success of the community was dictated by the railroad. Southern Pacific established a depot early in 1877 in what would become Hanford. In 1877, when the Southern Pacific Railway laid lines from Goshen to Coalinga, their path crossed through a Chinese sheepherder’s camp. This camp reportedly was the beginning of the City of Hanford.

Hanford was named for James Madison Hanford, an auditor of the railroad, who also took a lively interest in the sale of town lots which began on January 17, 1877. Within a short time the settlement grew to a town, and, with the powerful backing of the railway interests, Hanford ultimately became the center of trade for the region.

In McKenney’s Pacific Coast Directory, San Francisco, 1886- 1887, Hanford was described as having a post, express and telegraph office, located along the Southern Pacific Railroad Company’s Goshen Division, 254 miles from San Francisco, and 22 miles from Visalia. At the time, the community numbered 1,000 inhabitants and was located in the heart of the “famous Mussel Slough country,” a region of rich top soils and important agricultural zone. Hanford was the principal depot for the local wheat industry and had several flouring mills along with schools, churches, and hotels.

Through the early pioneer years, a series of devas tating fires dampened the growth of Hanford. On July 12, 1887, a fire destroyed most of the downtown business district. On June 19, 1891, another fire destroyed portions of the downtown business district. The fires of early 1890s spurred new development using fireproof materials.

National Register of Historic Places

Hanford has three buildings listed on the NRHP. They are the Hanford Carnegie Library, the Kings County Courthouse, and the Taoist Temple. All three buildings are also listed on the California Register of Historic Places.

Hanford Carnegie Library

The Hanford Carnegie Library, now the Hanford Carnegie Museum, was built in 1905 as one of the many Carnegie libraries that were funded by steel magnate, Andrew Carnegie. The library was replaced by a new structure at a different location in 1968. The old library was subsequently renovated and reopened as the Hanford Carnegie Museum in 1974.

The building is of Romanesque Revival architecture, with displays of furniture and photos describing the history of the Hanford area.

Kings County Courthouse

The 1986 Kings County Courthouse was erected after Kings County was formed. The building served as the county’s courthouse until 1976 when it was replaced by the new Kings County Government Center on West Lacey Boulevard. The building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978.

Taoist Temple

The Taoist Temple at 12 China Alley dates from 1893. It was listed on the NRHP in 1972. It is historically significant as a surviving authentic structure from Hanford’s Chinatown. China Alley served the second largest population of Chinese in the U.S., behind San Francisco.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -37-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

While many urban Chinatowns continue to thrive, most rural Chinatowns have declined; Hanford’s China Alley is unique for its retention of many original features. China Alley’s surviv al is largely because many of its buildings are owned by a sigle third-generation family corporation that has, through the years, exhibited concern for the site’s future.

National Register of Historic Places – Eligible Resources

There are a number of resources within Hanford that contribute to its unique culture, yet are not officially listed as historic resources, including the following:

- Clark Center for Japanese and Art and Culture, 15770 10 th Avenue
- Temple Theater, 514 Visalia Street
- Fox Theater
- Kings Art Center, 605 N. Douty Street
- Hanford Civic Auditorium, 400 N. Douty Street
- Hanford Veteran’s Memorial Building
Paleontological Resources

A paleontological resources report was not prepared for the General Plan, as there are recent paleontological resources reports for areas within the vicinity. The geology of the area includes the Modesto Formation, Tulare Lakebeds, and Quanternary alluvium. Between overlies sediments of the late- Pleistocene to early -Holocene Modesto Formation. From Hanford south to approximately Delano, Tulare Lakebed deposits are exposed at or near the surface.

Consultation Received:

Consultation was received from Shana Powers with the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe on January 11, 2021, stating the following: Thank you for contacting Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe about the proposed project. The Tribe has concerns. We recommend contacting the NAHC. We recommend a cultural resource record search and survey. We are requesting those results. Based upon those findings, we may recommend monitoring. We are recommending a Cultural Presentation for construction staff, prior to ground disturbing activities, ma ndated by the conditional use permit or any other permit required.

Staff Analysis:

As requested, the City of Hanford consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission, NAHC, and received a list of potentially-affected tribes requiring consultation. Consultation was sent on March 1, 2021. Responses were not received, as of the date of preparation of this report.

A Cultural Resources Records Search was conducted by the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center for the General Plan Update on Febr uary 10, 2014. Within the Project Area, defined by the General Plan Update, there were 52 known/recorded cultural resources. The list was reviewed which did not include any known/recorded cultural resources within this specific project.

Consultation Meeting

On January 10, 2017, the City of Hanford met with the Tachi Yokut Tribe, on a different project in order to establish conditions, which would apply to all projects in the City of Hanford, which required an initial study.

In order to address the concerns of the Tachi Yokut Tribe, the City is requiring the following as mitigation measures:

• That a Burial Treatment Plan be entered to by the applicant/property owner prior to any earth disturbing activities. (This condition applies as a mitigation measure to all projects that require an initial study).

In accordance with Assembly Bill 52, formal notification of determination to undertake a project and notice of consultation

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -38-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
opportunity, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 was sent to the Tachi Yokut Tribe. A response has not been received, as of the date of preparation of this environmental assessment.

Thresholds of significance

The project would have a significant impact on cultural resources if it would:

- Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as defined in Section 15064.5 - Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an arc heological resource, pursuant to Section 15064.5;
- Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature; or - Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries • That a Burial Treatment Plan be entered to by the applicant/property owner prior to any earth disturbing activities.

Significance Criteria
The project may have a significant impact on cultural resources if it causes substantial adverse changes in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource as set forth by the California Register of Historic Places and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; directly or indirectly destroys a unique paleontological resource or site.

Checklist Discussion
a) Less than Significant Impact - at this time, there is not a physical project proposed for the project area. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15604.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, as the site is not registered as a historical resource. b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures – Due to the prior meeting with the Tachi Yokut Tribe on January 10, 2017, the lead agency is requiring that:
• That a Burial Treatment Plan be entered to by the applicant/property owner prior to any earth disturbing activities. c) Less than Significant Impact - The project will not directly or indirectly destroy any unique paleontological resource or site, as the site has not been identif ied as containing unique paleontological resource nor unique geological feature.
d) See B.

Mitigation Measures
- MM Cultural Resources 1: That a Burial Treatment Plan be entered to by the applicant/property owner prior to any earth disturbing activities.

Conclusion:

The incorporation of mitigation measures requested from the Tachi Yokut Tribe will reduce the impacts of future development of the project area on Cultural Resources.

Source(s): Hanford General Plan (2017), California Health and Safety Code, P ublic Resources Code, consultation letter sent in accordance with Public Resources Code, Section 21080.3.1(b); meeting with the Tachi Yokut Tribe on January 10, 2017.; California Historical Resources Information System Record Search (February 10, 2014).

ENERGY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Result in a potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources during project
construction or operation?
   

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -39-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
   
a) Less than significant - The proposed project would comply with the SJVAPCD requirements regarding the limitation of vehicle idling, and the use of fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment, to the extent feasible to reduce energy consumption during construction activities. The proposed project will not use natural gas during the site preparation or construction. Future development would be required to comply with California’s Title 24 energy efficiency requirements and other applicable City development standards. The project will also be required to comply with all applicable standards and building codes included in the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code regarding the use of energy-efficient lighting, low-flow toilets and faucets, drip irrigation, etc. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.
b) Less than significant – see a.

Energy-saving strategies will be implemented where feasible to reduce the proposed project’s energy consumption during project-related activities. Strategies being implemented include those recommended by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that may reduce both the project’s construction energy consumption, including diesel anti- idling measures, light-duty vehicle technology, usage of alternative fuels such as biodiesel blends and ethanol, and heavy-duty vehicle design measures to reduce energy consumption.

The future construction and the operation of the proposed project area would comply with State and local plans and regulations. The proposed project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. The Project will comply with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and CalGreen Code. Energy would also be indirectly conserved through water-efficient landscaping requirements consistent with the City Landscaping Ordinance.

Stringent solid waste recycling requirements applicable to proposed project construction and operation would reduce energy consumed in solid waste disposal. In summary, the Project will implement all mandatory federal, State, local conservation measures, project design features, and voluntary energy conservation measures to reduce energy demands further. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Project-related impacts are less than significant.

Conclusion: Future development of the project area will be required to adhere to all standards for Energy efficiency, thus the impact will be less than significant.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to 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.
   
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?    
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
   

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -40-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
iv) Landslides?    
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
   
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?
   
d) Be located on exp ansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
   
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
   
Environmental Setting

Geology
The topography of the City is relatively flat with a gradual slope generally from east to west. The City is located at 249 feet above mean sea level (msl).

The soil is defined as alluvial fan surfaces that are mantled with very deep, well -drained, saline-alkali soils. An alluvial fan is a fan-shaped alluvial deposit formed by a stream where its velocity is abruptly decreased.

Soil
The City of Hanford consists of the following soil types: 1) Cajon sandy loam, 2) Excelsior sandy loam, 3) Garces loam, 4) Kimberlina fine sandy loam, saline alkali 5) Kimberlina fine sand loam, sandy substratum, 6) Kimberlina salie alkali-Garces complex 7) Nord fine sandy loam, 8) Nord fine sandy loam, saline alkali, 9) Nord complex, 10) Wasco sandy loam (0- 5% slopes), and 11) Whitewolf coarse sandy loam. Each of these soil types is not subject to annual flooding or poinding, and for the most part has a very low to medium surface runoff class, and is well drained. A runoff class indicates the potential for a soil to become saturated when excess storm water begins to flow at the ground surface.

Seismicity
The greatest potential for seismic activity in the City is posed by the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately

46.5 miles southwest of the western boundary of the Study Area. The White Wolf Fault, located near Arvin and Bakersfield to the southwest in Kern County, which has the potential to cause seismic hazards for the County to a much lesser degree than the San Andreas Fault.

Fault Rapture
Kings County doesn’t have any major fault system within its boundaries.

Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Kings County has not experienced any damaging earthquake equal or greater than Richter Magnitude 6.0 over the last 200 years. The Uniform Building Code has four seismic zones in the US ranging from I to IV, the higher the number, the higher the earthquake danger. All of California lies within Seismic Zone III or IV, Kings County is within Zone III, which equates to the potential to experience 0.3 meters/second squared ground acceleration, which would result in very strong to sever perceived shaking and moderate to heavy potential.

Liquefaction

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -41-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Liquefaction occurs when saturated, loose materials are weakened and transformed from a solid to a near -liquid state as a result of increased pore water pressure. For liquefaction to occur, surface and near -surface soil must be saturated and be relatively loose. Liquefaction more often occurs in areas underlain by young alluvium where the groundwater table is higher than 50 ft. below
ground surface. In the City, the range is generally between 120 ft to 160 feet below ground surface, therefore, the potential for liquefaction is not very probable.

Soil Erosion
Soil erosion, which can be caused by wind and water runoff, is a type of soi l degradation. The potential for erosion to occur is affected by the soil’s properties. The soil in the City and surrounding study area is generally sandy loams, fine sandy loams, and loams. The area’s erodibility factor ranges from 0.19 to 0.38 depending on the soil type and percentage of organic matter. Based on this range, the soils in the study area have medium susceptibility to sheet and rill erosion by rainfall.

Lateral Spreading (Landslides)

Lateral spreading is large horizontal ground displacements due to earthquake-induced liquefaction. Lateral spreading also refers to landslides that commonly form on gentle slopes that have rapid, fluid- like movement. Lateral preading generally occurs on 0.3 to 5% slopes underlain by loose sand and shallow groundwater.

Subsidence
Land subsidence is the gradual settling or sudden sinking of the ground surface due to movement of the ground materials.

It is generally caused my three distinct water-related causes: 1) compression of layers of clay and slit within an aquifer, 2) oxidation and drainage of organic soils, 3) dissolution and collapse of susceptible rocks. Subsidence is occurring within the San Joaquin Valley. The primary causes for subsidence in the SJV are groundwater -level decline (due to overdraft) and subsequent aquifer compaction and hydrocompaction of moisture-deficient deposits above the water table.

Collapsible Soil
Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low -density materials that collapse and compact under the addition of water or excessive loading. These soils are found in areas of young alluvial fans, debris flow sediments, and loess deposits. Since the City and surrounding area includes soils that are derived from alluvial fans, there is the potential for collapsible soils.

Expansive Soil
Expansive soils are fine-grained soils that can undergo a significant increase in volume with an increase in water content, as well as a significant decrease in volume with a decrease in water content. The City and surrounding area’s soils contain percentages of clay that gen erally range between 7- 27%. When a soil has 35% or more clay content, it is considered a clayey soil. Since the soil types in the Study Area generally do not contain 35% clay content, the potential for expansive soils within the City and surrounding is low.

Septic Systems
The City does not have septic requirements for septic systems within the City.

Significance Criteria
The project may result in significant earth impacts if it causes substantial erosion or siltation, exposes people to geologic hazards or risk from faults, landslides or unstable soil conditions. Grading that disturbs large amounts of land or sensitive grading areas (such as slopes in excess of 20%) may cause substantial erosion or siltation.

Checklist Discussion
a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation - i. No Impact - No portion of the project area is located within an earthquake fault zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and therefore, development would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -42-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
ii. Less than Significant Impact w ith Mitigation Measures – Upon physical development of the project area, compliance with applicable City General Plan policies, as well as the California Building Code would reduce the potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adver se effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking to a less-than-significant level.

iii. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures – The potential for liquefaction in the project area is low. There is a m inute possibility that a rain event coupled with a concurrent seismic event may create a condition where liquefaction could occur. Upon physical development of the project area, compliance with applicable City General Plan policies, as well as the Californ ia Building Code would reduce the potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking to a less-than-significant level.

iv. Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures – the entire City is located within an area of low landslide incidence, but, there is still a possibility that landslides could occur within the City, as a result of erosion, slope weakening through saturation, or stresses by earthq uakes that make slopes fail.

Geotechnical and soil studies that identify potential hazards, including landslides, would be required prior to grading activities as part of the plan check and development review process for the physical development of the are a. Such technical studies would provide structural design, as needed, pursuant to the California Building Code requirements to reduce hazards to people and structures as a result of landslides.
b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures – development would result in construction- related ground disturbance, as a result of grading and excavation where topsoil is exposed, moved, and/or stockpiled.

Such construction- related ground disturbance could loosen soil and remove vegetation, which could l ead to
exposed or stockpiled soils made susceptible to peak storm water runoff flows and wind forces. Such disturbances could result in substantial soil erosion or topsoil, which is a potentially significant impact.

Adherence to the Hanford Municipal Code Chapter 15.52 Flood Damage Prevention Regulation, and the California Building Code, along with the plan check and development review process, would assist the development of property erosion controls during operation of future development to a less than si gnificant impact.
c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: See a. d) Less than Significant Impact – Expansive soils are fine- grained soils that can undergo a significant increase in volume with an increase in water content, as well as a significant decrease in volume with a decrease in water content. The City and surrounding area’s soils contain percentages of clay that generally range between 7-27%.

When a soil has 35% or more clay content, it is considered a clayey soil. Since the soil types in the Study Area generally do not contain 35% clay content, the potential for expansive soils within the City and surrounding is low.
e) No impact- The City does not have septic requirements for septic systems within the City. Septic is not proposed.

Mitigation Measures:

MM Geology 1: That the future physical development of the project comply with the applicable General Plan policies, as well as the California Building Code.

MM Geology 2: That a geotechnical and soil studies be prepared as a required by the Building Official (if applicable) for future physical development of the project area.

MM Geology 3: that the physical development of the project area comply with the Hanford Municipal Code Section 15.52 Flood Damage Prevention Regulation and the California Building Code, along with the plan check and development review process.

Conclusion
The project will not result in significant impacts to geophysical conditions with mitigation measures in place, therefore the impact is considered less than significant, cumulatively.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -43-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Source(s): General Plan and General Plan EIR (2017); California Building Code VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
   
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
   
Environmental Setting
Kings County and the City of Hanford
Climate change regulations require the City to take action to reduce emissions under its jurisdiction and influence. The countywide Regional Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a separate action through KCAG that was adopted by the City on May 27, 2014. The Kings County Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint are also incorporate policy into the General Plan. this strategy of integrating regional planning documents help Hanford identify land use, transportation, and related policy measures and investments that could reduce GHGs from passenger cars and light-duty trucks, as part of the development of a SCS in compliance with Senate Bill 375.

Commercial and residential space heating and cooling comprise a large share of direct energy use in Kings County. Other major energy users include agricultural production and industrial facilities. In Kings County, automobiles and commercial vehicles are the largest energy consumers in the transportation sector.

Global Climate Change
Climate change is a change in the average weather of the Earth that may be measured by alterations in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. These changes are assessed using historic records of temperature changes occurring in the past, such as during previous ice ages.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHG needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. The IPCC predi cted that global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2100, given six scenarios, could range from 1.1 degrees Celsius to 6.4 degrees C. Regardless of analytical methodology, global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios.

Increased Temperatures and Extreme Heat events
Climate change is expected to lead to an increase in ambient average air temperatures with greater increases expected in summer than in winter months. Larger temperature increases are anticipated in inland communities, as compared to the CA coast.

The potential health impacts from sustained and significantly higher than average temperatures include heat stroke, heat exhaustion, and the exacerbation of existing medical conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases,
diabetes, nervous system disorders, emphysema, and epilepsy. Increased temperatures also pose a risk to human health when coupled with high concentrations of ground -level ozone and other air pollutants, which may lead to increased rat es of asthma and other pulmonary diseases.

Other impacts related to increased temperatures and heat waves include:
- Increased urban “heat island” effect – urban heat islands are especially dangerous because they are both hotter during the day and do not cool down at night, increasing the risk of heat-related illness - Reduced freezing events –reduced freezes could lead to increase incidence of disease as vectors and pathogens do not die off. In addition, fewer events of freezing would impact CA’s food produc tion and indirectly the food supply in Kings County.
- Increased energy demand for air conditioning and refrigeration

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -44-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Greenhouse Gases
Gases that trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere are called greenhouse gases. Some of the solar radiation that enters Earth’s atmosphere is absorbed by the Earth’s surface, and some is reflected back toward space. of the radiation reflected back toward space, GHG’s will absorb a part. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is retained, resulti ng in a warming of the atmosphere. Some levels of GHGs are essential for maintaining temperatures supportive of life on Earth. Without naturally -occurring GHGs, the Earth’s surface would be about 61 degrees cooler. This phenomenon is known as the greenhous e effect, Many scientists believe that emissions from human activities – such as electricity generation, vehicle emissions, and farming and forestry practices have elevated GHGs in the atmosphere beyond naturally-occurring concentrations, contributing to global climate change. The six primary GHGs are:
- Carbon dioxide (C02), emitted when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) and wood and wood products are burned
- Methane (CH4), produced through the anaerobic decomposition of waste in landfil ls, animal digestion, decomposition of animal wastes, production and distribution of natural gas and petroleum, coal production, and incomplete fossil fuel combustion.
- Nitrous oxide (N20), typically generated as a result of soil cultivation practices, particularly the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning - Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs), primarily used as refrigerants - Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), originally introduced as alternatives to ozone depleting substances and typically emitted as by-products of industrial and manufacturing processes - Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), primarily used in electrical transmission and distribution systems There are currently no State r egulations in CA that establish ambient air quality standards for GHGs. However, the State of CA has passed legislation directing the CA Air Resources Board to develop actions to reduce GHG emissions.

Significance Criteria
The project would have a significant impact on GHG emissions if it would:
- Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or - Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs Checklist Discussion

a. Less than Significant Impact - In the General Plan EIR, impacts to Greenhouse Gas emissions were evaluated. The growth based on land use and population intensities proposed under the General Plan is anticipated to generate 1,134,876.19 metric tons of CO2e per year using an operational year of 2005, which includes area, energy, mobile, waste, and water sources. BAU is referred in ARB’s ABB 32 Scoping Plan (CARB 2012) as emissions occurring in 2020 if the average baseline emissions during the 2002- 2004 period grew to 2020 levels, without control. As a
result, an estimate of the General Plan Update’s operational emissions in 2005 were compared to operational emissions in 2020 in order to determine if the General Plan Update would meet the 29% emission reduction. The SJVAPCD has reviewed re levant scientific information related to GHG emissions and has determined they are not able to determine a specific quantitative level of GHG emissions increase, above which a project would have a significant impact on the environment, and below which woul d have an insignificant impact. As a result, the SJVAPCD has determined that the General Plan Update’s ability to achieve at least a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.

The project proposes to annex land and prezone the land in conformance with the General Plan.

Physical development of the project area would be required to comply with the General Plan policy, which includes emission reductions that mitigate GHG emission generation to a less than significant level.

Less than Significant Impact – The project proposes to annex land and prezone the land in conformance with the General Plan. Physical development of the project will be required to be development consistent with the policies of the General Plan, which consists of numerous land uses and goals and policies to provide for a more walkable community in the Hanford area. The g oals and policies of the General Plan are intended to assist in reducing operational emissions. In addition, the General Plan policy meet 10 of the 12 Smart Growth Principles cited in the

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -45-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
San Joaquin Valley Blueprint.

Conclusion
Future development of the project area will be required to be developed consistent with the General Plan, which provides policy to mitigate impacts of GHG to a less than significant level.

Source(s): General Plan Update (2017), General Plan Update EIR (20 17), San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Final Regional Climate Action Plan
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
   
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?
   
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
   
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?
   
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?
   
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
   
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
   
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
 
 
Environmental Setting
Hazardous material are substances that, because of physical or chemical properties, quantity, concentration, or other characteristics may either cause an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human h ealth or environment when improperly treated, stored,

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -46-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous materials have been and are commonly used in commercial, agricultural, and industrial applications and, to a limited extent, in residential areas.

Hazardous wastes are hazardous materials that no longer have practical use, such as substances that have been discarded, discharged, spilled, contaminated, or are being stored prior to proper disposal. Large quantities of hazardous materials are transported along State Route 198, 43, and freight rail lines that pass through Hanford, making it susceptible to hazardous spills, releases, or accidents.

Pursuant to AB 2948, Kings County adopted the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Under state law, all industries and agricultural operations that store or handle specific quantities of hazardous materials must provide the County with a hazardous materials business plan detailing the location and quantities of their hazardous materials.

Brownfields
A brownfield site is land previously used for industrial purposes or some commercial uses that may be contaminated by low concentrations of hazardous waste or pollution, and has the potential to be reused once it is cleaned up. the City has one brownfield site, located south of Third Street, north of Davis Street, west of the BNSF railroad tracks, and east of 11 th Avenue.

Airport Hazards
Hanford Municipal Airport – a general aviation facility serving Kings County and the surrounding communities of Hanford, Armona, and Lemoore in south-central CA.

Emergency Response
Kings County’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) is the County’s emerge ncy management agency, responsible for coordinating multi -agency responses to complex, large- scale emergencies and disasters within Kings County. OEM develops and maintain the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), which serves as a guideline for who will do what, as well as when, with what resources, and by what authority- before, during, and immediately after an emergency.

Significance Criteria
The project may result in significant hazards if it does any one of the following:

1. Create a public health hazard

2. Involve the use or production, disposal or upset of materials which pose a hazard to people in the area or interferes with an emergency response plan

3. Violates applicable laws intended to protect human health and safety or would expose workers to conditions that do not meet health standards.

Checklist Discussion
a) Less than Significant – that physical development of the project site will be evaluated upon application and required to comply with any applicable hazardous materials data sheets. b) See a.
c) Less than Significant Impact - The General Plan restricts land uses around schools, such as industrials uses, that could result in emitted hazardous emissions or handled hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes within ¼ mile of an ex isting or proposed school that would result in significant adverse impacts to school sites. The industrial site is a significant distance from any educational facility. d) No Impact – the project is not located on a site which is included on a list of haza rdous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
e) No Impact -The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport/airstrip therefore there is no impact. f) No Impact -The project site is not located within two miles of a private airport/airstrip therefore there is no impact. g) Less than Significant Impact - development has the potential to strain the emergency response and recovery capabilities of federal, state, and local government. Compliance with the General Plan po licies to ensure

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -47-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
adequate emergency response and maintain current plans reduces the impact of development. Th e proposal to annex the land and pre -zone the land in conformance with the General Plan is consistent with the policy of the General Plan, therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. h) Less than Significant Impact– The City of Hanford is located within a zone considered by CAL FIRE to have low to no potential for wildland fires, therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
Conclusion
The impact from hazards and hazardous materials are expected to be less than significant . Future development will be subject to evaluation and environmental review.

Source: 2017 General Plan and General Plan EIR, State of California Hazardous Waste and Substance List IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
   
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existi ng land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
   
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?    
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
   
e) 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?
   
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?     g) Place housing within a 100- year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
   
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
   

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -48-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
   
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?    

Environmental Setting

Climate

The City is located in the southwest portion of the Central Valley of CA and the City’s climate is semi -arid. Semi -arid climates in CA tend to have precipitation patters closer to Mediterranean climates with wet winters. The Central Valley has greater temperature extremes than coastal areas because it is less affected by the moderating influence of the Pacific Ocean. Most of the rainfall in Hanford occurs in the winter months as the Gulf Stream shifts southward from northern latitudes in the wintertime. However, be
cause of the inland location and “rainshadow effect” caused by the coastal mountain ranges, Hanford typically gets less rainfall during the winter than coastal areas to the west. The rainshadow effect refers to a reduction of precipitation commonly found on the leeward side of a mountain. Average precipitation is about 8 inches.

Surface Water Resources

Tulare Lake Basin

The City and surrounding area is located in the Central Valley’s Tulare Lake Basin. This Basin covers 10.5 million acres and encompasses the drainage area of the Central Valley south of the San Joaquin River. Surface water from this basin only drains into the San Joaquin River in years of extreme rainfall. The Tulare Lake Basin is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

South Valley Floor Watershed

The Study Area is located in the South Valley Floor Watershed, which is the largest watershed in the Tulare Lake Basin at about 8,235 square miles (5.3 million acres). A large portion of the surface water supply in the watershed comes from imported water, including water supplied through the San Luis Canal/CA Aqueduct System, Friant -Kern Canal, and Delta- Mendota Canal. Agriculture is the primary land use type in the watershed, encompassing approximat ely 67% of the total land area. Open space is secondary at 25% of the total land area and urban land uses represents about 6%.

Local

Most of the water surface features in the City and surrounding nearby areas are manmade conveyance structures for stormwater control. The only natural watercourse is Mussel Slough, remnants of which still exist on the City’s western edge. The People’s Ditch, an irrigation canal dug in the 1870s, traverses Hanford from north to south and portions of it still exist north of Grangeville Boulevard and east of the Santa Fe Railroad. The Sand and Lone Oak sloughs once traversed the city north and south, and remnants still remain in the southern half of the City south of State Route 198. The Kings River is about 4 miles north of Hanford.

Surface Water Quality

There are no surface water bodies within the vicinity of the City that are listed as impaired per the US Environmental Protection Agency 2010 CA List of Water Quality Limited Segments.

Groundwater Resources

Regional

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -49-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

The City and surrounding area is located in the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region, San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Tulare Lake Subbasin.

Local

The City exclusively uses groundwater for its potable water supply. The City’s municipal water system extracts its water supply from underground aquifers via 14 active groundwater wells with depths that range from 1300 to 1700 feet below ground surface (bgs). In cooperation with the Peoples Ditch Company and the Kings County Water District, excess Kings River water and stormwater flows are conveyed to 125 acres of drainage and slough basins located throughout the City to help replenish groundwater. The basins accou nt for approximately 568 acre- feet of available water retention and the City is planning to add approximately 317 acre feet of additional basins located along major drainage channels within the City for groundwater recharge as well as flood protection.

Groundwater Quality

Groundwater quality in the Tulare Lake Subbasin ranges from calcium bicarbonate in type in the northern portion to a sodium bicarbonate type in the lakebed. Total dissolved solids in the Subbasin typically range from 200 to 600 milligrams per liter and can be as high as 40,000 mg/L in shallow groundwater with drainage problems. the City reports electrical conductivity in 14 wells ranging from 560 micromhos per centimeter to 1,100 microhos per centimeter. There are also areas of shallow, saline groundwater in the southern portion of the Subbasin, localized areas of high arsenic and the City reports odors caused by the presence of hydrogen sulfide.

The EPA and State Water Resource Control Board have set the arsenic standard for drinking water at 0.01 parts per million and, in order to meet these standards, the City now drills wells up to 1,500 feet deep.

Floodplains

Only 48.6 acres are located within the 100-year floodplain. This accounts for 0.003% of the total area in the Planned A rea of the City.

Significance Criteria

The project may result in significant impacts if it would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge; subs tantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or substantially increase the rate of surface runoff; exceed the existing drainage system.

Checklist Discussion
a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures – the proposal does not contain a physical project, however, physical development of the project site will be required to adhere to the below mitigation measures:

- Construction: potential impacts on water quality arise from erosion and sedimentation are expect ed to be localized and temporary during construction of new development. All new development that disturb more than one acre are required to comply with the General Permit Order No. 2012- 0006-DWQ during construction. Proponents of new development would hav e to develop and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that specifies best management practices (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater, with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off -site and into receiving waters; eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the United States; and inspect all BMPs.

- Operation: The physical development of the project site will be required to implement appropriat e minimum control measures (MCMs) and design standards in compliance with Phase II General Permit as outlined in the Stormwater Management Plan as well as the City’s grading plan and site development requirements. New development would have to incorporate best management practices and adhere to design standards to maximize

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -50-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
the reduction of pollutant loadings in that runoff to the maximum extent practical. The City Building Division would review and approve grading plans and site development requirements for the new development, when a physical project is proposed.

b) Less than Significant Impact –The current and future efforts of the City and Kings County Water District coupled with the requirement to comply with the Sustainable groundwater management act thr ough the Groundwater Sustainability Plan process ensures that future development as an implementation of the General Plan would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.

c) See a.

d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures – future development will be required to obtain approval of grading plans and comply with site development requirements by the City Building Division that incorporates BMPs and design standards to ensure that future development would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite.

e) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures and impact fee payment – future development would be required to undergo a site development requirem ents approval process with the City Building Division that would include developing necessary stormwater drainage improvements to sufficiently capture and treat polluted runoff. New development would also be required to pay a stormwater system development fee. This development fee is required for all new development in order to pay the cost of capital improvements for the City of Hanford stormwater system.

f) See a.

g) No Impact. – the project site is not located within a flood zone as shown in the Flood Ins urance Rate Map for Hanford (Panel 06031C 0185C, June 16, 2009) therefore there is no impact.

h) See g.

i) See g.

j) No impact – the project site is not located by the ocean. Therefore, there is no risk that new development would be inundated by tsunami. A mudf low is a flow of soil or fine -grained sediment mixed with water down a steep unstable slope. The project area is relatively flat and does not contain slopes steep enough to cause mudflow.

The project would not be downgrade from aboveground water storage tanks.

Mitigation Measures:

Conclusion:

MM Hydrology 1: Future development that disturbs more than one acre is required to comply with the General Permit Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ during construction. Proponents of new development would have to develop and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that specifies best management practices (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater, with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off - site and into
receiving waters; eliminate or reduce non- stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the United States; and inspect all BMPs.

MM Hydrology 2: New development would be required to implement appropriate minimum control measures (MCMs) and design standards in compliance with Phase II General Permit, as outlined in the Stormwater Management Plan, as well as the City’s grading plan and site development requirements.

MM Hydrology 3: New development must submit grading plans. Site development must comply with the requirements of the City Building Division and incorporate best management practices/design standards.

MM Hydrology 4: New development would have to incorporate best management practices and adhere to design

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -51-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
standards to maximize the reduction of pollutant loadings in runoff to the maximum extent practical.

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures – With the incorporation of mitigation measures, the impacts to hydrology and water quality are considered less than significant.

Source: 2017 General Plan, 2017 General Plan Updat e, Hanford Storm Water Master Plan, State of California Department of Water Resources
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?    
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
   
c) Co nflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
   

Environmental Setting

The City is predominantly surrounded by agricultural land uses and is characterized as a low rise community dominated by low-density, single-family housing along with some limited pockets of multi -family housing, low -intensity commercial uses, and several industri al areas. The City’s older urban development lies north of the Union Pacific railroad tracks and south of Grangeville Boulevard, while the newly urbanized areas are north of Grangeville Boulevard. The majority of land within the City’s planned area consists of agricultural, open space, and single-family residential uses.

The area proposed to be annexed is within the Industrial Park of the City.

Analysis: The project has been evaluated for potential annexation.

Annexation – the subject property is currently in the County, annexation is required.

Analysis: According to the General Plan, annexation of land into Hanford allows previously undeveloped land to become available for development and allows the City of H anford to provide the territory that is annexed with its full range of City services. The annexation process can serve as an interim growth management tool by limiting annexations to only the land that is needed for growth at the time. The following policies define Hanford’s process for annexing new territory.

Policy L15 Initiation of Annexations: Consider initiation of annexation of land into the City of Hanford only when the following criteria are met:

a. The land is within the Primary Sphere of Influence.

Analysis: The land proposed to be annexed is within the Sphere of Influence, adopted by LAFCO in 2008.

b. The capacity of the water, sewer, fire, school, and police services are adequate to service the area to be annexed, or will be adequate at the time that development occurs.

Analysis: Development of the project area will be subject to impact fees for City services. Additionally, the Public Works department will have requirements to ensure adequate water and sewer services can be provided for the future annexed area. A plan for services has been prepared by the Public Works Department,

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -52-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
demonstrating that services can be extended to the proposed annexation area.

c. Land for development within the City limits is insufficient to meet the current land use needs.

Analysis: There is limited industrial land available within the City limits to provide for expansion of industrial uses.

d. The territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing developed areas.

Analysis: The proposed area to be annexed is contiguous to developed industrial land to the north, south, and west.

Favorable Factors for Annexation

a. The proposed area is close to urban development and municipal-type services and would enhance its potential for full development.

Analysis: The area proposed to be annexed is directly east, north and south of existing industrial uses within the City of Hanford. Development of the project area will be subject to impact fees for water, sewer, fire, and police services. Additionally, the Public Works department will have requirements to ensure adequate water and sewer services can be provided for the future annexed area. A plan for services was prepared for the annexation area, verifying that the City of Hanford has adequate capacity to serve the annexed area.

b. The proposed annexation conforms to the adopted General Plan.

The General Plan designated the area as Heavy Industrial. The proposal conforms to the adopted General Plan.

Future development will be required to comply with the General Plan designations assigned.

c. The proposed area is consistent with the sphere of influence.

Analysis: The area proposed to be annexed is within the primary sphere of influence, as adopted by LAFCO in 2008.

d. The proposed annexation comes with 100% consent of all landowners.

Analysis: The proposed annexation does not come with 100% consent of all landowners. The residents located at APN 018-242-014, 018-242-015, 018-242-016, 018-242-017, 018-242-018 did not consent to annexation.

e. The property to be annexed shall be pre- zoned. I-H Heavy Industrial is the appropriate zone designation for the project and is consistent with the General Plan designation, Heavy Industrial.

Significance Criteria
The project may result in significant impacts if it physically divides an established community, conflicts with existing off-site land uses, causes substantial adverse change in the types or intensity of land use patterns or conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation.

Checklist Discussion

a) Less than significant impact – the project proposes to annex and prezone approximately 19 acres into the City limits. The project will not physically divide an established community – no development is proposed under this

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 203
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -53-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
project. Physical development will be evaluated further.

b) Less than significant impact – The proposal to annex the property and pre- zone it consistent with the General Plan is consistent with the General Plan and LAFCo procedures.

c) No Impact – The City is not included in any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, nor are there plans to be involved.

Conclusion
That the project will have a less than significant impact on Land Use and Planning , as the annexation and prezone request are consistent with the City of Hanford General Plan.

Source: General Plan, LAFCo Sphere of Influence (2008), Municipal Service Review (2021)

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
   
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?
   
Environmental Setting

Oil and Gas
The planning area is not found within a Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources recognized oil fiel d and does not contain any areas that have been designated for mineral recovery by the Kings County General Plan.

Sand and Gravel
The only mineral resources that could occur within the vicinity of the City are sand and gravel operations for road and building construction, but there are currently no significant deposits and no active mines.

Significance Criteria
The project would cr eate significant impacts to mineral resources if there was a loss of availability of a known mineral resource.

Checklist Discussion
a) No Impact – No portion of the vicinity of the City is located within the boundaries of a DOGGR-recognized oil field.

There are currently no identified MRZ designated areas, no known significant sand and gravel deposits and no active mines within the vicinity of the City.

b) No Impact – no portion of the City or nearby vicinity is designated for mineral resources or zoned for m ineral resources. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resources recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

Conclusion
There will be no impact to mineral resources
XII. NOISE -- Would the project result in:

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 204
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -54-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
   
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
   
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
   
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
   
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 expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
   
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
   
Environmental Setting
Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and has been cited as being a health problem, not just in terms of actual physiological damages such as hearing impairment, but also in terms of inhibiting general wellbeing and contributing to stress and annoyance. Vehicular traffic noise is the dominant source in most areas, but aircraft and rail activities are also significant sources of environmental noise in the local areas surrounding these operations. Sources of noise within the City include mobile and stationary sources.

Highways and Roadways
Existing noise levels in the City are primarily generated by transportation noise sources. Highway and roadway traffic noise levels are generally dependent upon three primary factors, which include the traffic volume, traffic speed, and percent of heavy vehicles on the roadway.

Railroad
Local railroad lines include an east -west Union Pacific Railroad (UP) line and a north -south Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) line. The east-west UP tracks are currently used by the San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVR), which operates two trains of approximately 5 to 10 cars per day, five days per week, at approximately 10 to 20 miles per hour. The BNSF is located in the central portion of the City in a heavy commercial/industrial area. The BNSF line carries eight Amtrak passenger trains and 18 to 22 freight trans per day. Most north -south rail traffic moves through the county at approximately 50 mph.

As of early 2014, the CA High Speed Rail Authority has been moving forward on an alignment for the HST that would run through the far easterly portion of the planning area.

Airport
Hanford Municipal Airport is a general aviation facility serving Kings County and the surrounding Communities of Hanford, Armona, and Lemoore in south- central CA. The Hanford Municipal Airport Master Plan identified existing and future year noise contours as a result of airport operations.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 205
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -55-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Stationary Noise Sources
Stationary noise sources include commercial operations, agricultural production, school playgrounds, generators, and lawn maintenance equipment.

The following operations have been identified as major stationary noise sources in and around Hanford - Del Monte Foods
- Penny-Newman Milling Company
- Kings Waste and Recycling Authority Solid Waste Disposal Site - Agricultural production
- Kings Speedway
Significance Criteria
Impacts from the project would be considered significant if they would result in significant noise or exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the Hanford General Plan.

Checklist Discussion
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation – the project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

Future development of the project site would result in Short -term noise- related impacts , which would be temporary in nature, require compliance with applicable regulations, and policies of the General Plan further ensure that construction-related impacts would be attenuated to the greatest extend feasible.

Future operation of the industrial property will be required to adhere to the Noise Standards of the Hanford General Plan EIR.
b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation. – Construction activity can result in ground vibration, depending upon the types of equipment uses. Operation of construction equipment causes grou nd vibrations which spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance from the source generating the vibration.

Ground vibrations as a result of construction activities very rarely reach vibration levels that would damage structures, but can cause low rumbling sounds and feelable vibrations for buildings very close to the site.

Vibration levels from various types of construction equipment measured at 50 ft are as follows:

Type of equipment Sound Levels Measured (dBA of 50 ft)
Pumps 77
Dozers 85
Tractor 84
Front-End Loaders 80
Hydraulic Backhoe 80
Hydraulic Excavators 85
Graders 85
Air Compressors 80
Trucks 84

Future c onstruction activities would be temporary in nature and are expected to occur during normal daytime working

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 206
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -56-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
hours. Construction is limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. in order to mitigate impacts from ground vibration. c) Less than Significant – full b uild out of the General Plan would possibly result in a maximum increase of 2 decibels when compared to existing conditions. According to the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement, the average healthy ear can barely perceive noise level changes of 3 dBA. As a result, it is anticipated that full buildout of the General Plan, including future physical development of this site, would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels exiting without the project. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation - A temporary increase in ambient noise would occur in association with future construction activities. Construction noise is short term and will occur for limited times. As a mitigation measure, future construction activities would be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. e) Less than Significant Impact - The project is approximately 2.6 miles away from airport and will not be impacted by the public airport.
f) No Impact - The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, there is no impact.

Conclusion
The project would create temporary construction noise, but the impact of noise will be mitigated to a point that is considered less than significant with required conditions of the development of the property. Future operation of the industrial property would be required to adhere to the Noise standards set forth in the Hanford General Plan EIR.

Mitigation Measures:

MM Noise 1: That future development of the project site complies with applicable regulations and policies of the General Plan to ensure that construction- and operation-related impacts would be attenuated to the greatest extend feasible.

MM Noise 2-3: That future construction is limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Source: 2017 General Plan Update, 2017 General Plan Update EIR XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:
a) Induce substantial 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)?
   
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
   
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
   
Environmental Setting
Population
The estimated population on January 1, 2013, was 55,122. It is estimated that the General Plan Update could result in a population increase of 47,367 people in 2035 for an estimated total population of 102,489.

Housing
In 2013, there were 17,867 housing units in the Study Area. It is estimated that the implementation of the General Plan could result in 15,633 additional housing units in 2035 for an estimated total number of 33,520 housing units.

Employment
In 2014, there were 20,900 jobs in the planning a rea. It is estimated that the implementation of the General Plan could

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 207
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -57-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
result in 33,308 additional jobs in 2035 for an estimated total number of 54,208 jobs.

Jobs-Housing Balance
Jobs-housing balance is achieved by increasing opportunities of people to wo rk and live in close proximity. The ratio is expressed as the number of jobs divided by the number of housing units. SCAG uses the jobs -housing balance as 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.

Significance Criteria
The project may result in significant impact if it induces substantial growth, displaces a large number of people, or contributes to a job housing imbalance.

Checklist Discussion
a) Less than significant impact – The project will not induce population growth in the area. No development is proposed through this application.
b) Less than Significant – there are five residences within the annexation area. The property is zoned I -H Heavy Industrial within Kings County and de signated as Heavy Industrial by the General Plan. The property is proposed to be pre-zoned I-H Heavy Industrial. The residential uses are considered legally-existing non-conforming and are able to remain, as located, subject to the nonconforming standards set forth by Hanford Municipal Code Section

17.90. c) Less than Significant Impact - The project will not result in displacement of people, there are five residences within the annexation area. The property is zoned I -H Heavy Industrial within Kings County and designated as

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 208
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -58-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Heavy Industrial by the General Plan. The property is proposed to be pre -zoned I -H Heavy Industrial. The residential uses housing persons are considered legally -existing non -conforming and are able to remain, as located, subject to the nonconforming standards set forth by Hanford Municipal Code Section 17.90.

Conclusion
Less than significant impact - The project will not result in a significant impact to population and housing.

Source: 2017 General Plan Update, 2017 General Plan Update EIR

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES --
a) Would the project 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 signif icant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?    
Police protection?    
Schools?    
Parks?    
Other public facilities?    
Environmental Setting
The City of Hanford currently has three fire stations located within the north central, south central, and south west portions of the City of Hanford. These t hree stations protect approximately 16.5 square miles, Station 1 is located at 350 W.

Grangeville Blvd and covers the city limits north of SR 198 and station 2 is located at 10533 Houston Avenue and covers the city limits south of SR 198. Station 3 is located on S. 12th Avenue, on Woodland Drive. The City currently owns a land for a future station at Centennial Drive and Berkshire Lane. The Hanford Fire Department provides fires, rescue, hazardous materials response, and serves as a first responder for emergency medical service calls in the City. the HFD is also capable of responding to other situations such as high and low angle rescues, confined space emergencies, vehicle accidents, public assists, state-wide mutual aid responses and disaster management.

Police Protection
City residents receive police protection services from the Hanford Police Department, which currently operates out of a single station located at 425 N. Irwin Street. The City’s recent growing problem that requires the need of police services includes gag and drug issues. The HPD’s actual average response times are 6:30 minutes for Priority I incidents with an average of 32 Priority I incidents per day and a response time of 17:19 minutes for all other incidents with an average of 144 incidents per day. However, a response time of less than 2:30 minutes is a goal for the HPD to maintain in the future.

Schools
The City currently includes six elementary school districts and one high school district within the Study Area. These districts do not include the religiously affiliated private schools or charter schools located in the study area. The Hanford Elementary School District consists of 11 elementary and junior high schools that are all located in the study area.

Pioneer Union Elementary School District consists of two elementary schools and one junior high school that are all

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 209
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -59-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
located in the study area.

The Hanford Joint Union High School District consists of four comprehensive high schools.

Parks
See Environmental Setting for Recreation.

Other Public Services
Library Services
The current library is a branch of the Kings County Library.

Significance Criteria
The project may result in significant public service impacts if it substantially and adversely alters the delivery or provisi on of fire protection, police protection, schools, facilitates maintenance and other government services.

Checklist Discussion
a) (FIRE) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures (Payment of Impact Fees) – future development would have the potential increase demands on the HFD to provide fire protection and emergency services. Future development will be subject to Fire Impact fees in order to mitigate the effect of the project on Fire services.
b) (POLICE) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures (Payment of Impact Fees) future development would have the potential increase demands on the Hanford Police Department to provide police protection and emergency services. Future development will be subject to Police Impact fees in order to mitigate the effect of the project on Police services.
c) (SCHOOLS) Less than Significant Impact – the proposed annexation of the industrial property will not have an impact on schools as residences within the annexation area are limited (5) and will not increase the demand on schools.
d) (PARKS) Less than Significant Impact – the proposed annexation of the industrial property will not have an impact on parks, as residences within the ann exation area are existing and limited (5) and will not increase demand on parks.
e) (OTHER) Less than significant impact – Libraries – there is not a requirement or standard for the number or size of a library based on a city’s population. Policies encourage residents to utilize the library’s resources. Therefore, a significant impact is not anticipated.

Mitigation Measures:

MM Public Services 1: That the physical development of the project area will be subject to Fire Impact Fees.

MM Public Services 2: That the physical development of the project area will be subject to Police Impact fees.

Conclusion
The project area can be served by existing public services. Impact fees will be required of physical development.

Sources: 2017 General Plan and General Plan Update

XV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project 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?
   

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 210
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -60-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?
   
Environmental Setting
School Parks
All school sites have limited public access since their primary purpose is to support the educational mission of the school districts that control their use. There are 16 school sites within the City. The school facilities include athletic fields, conference rooms, gymnasiums, auditoriums, and swimming pools, which are open to the public after hours, during the summer, and on weekends for recreational use.

Indoor facilities
The Hanford Parks and Recreation Department also provides a wide array of programs for City residents. The Recreation Department is responsible for coordinating activities for the entire family including special classes, youth programs, and older adult activities, sports for youth and adults, as well as community events. These activities are conducted in a variety of indoor rec. facilities.

City of Hanford Parkland Standard
Combining the City’s 188 acres of parkland and 100 acres of school parks, the City has a total of 288 acres of developed parkland that go toward meeting the parkland standard. This does not include regional parks outside the planning area, greenways, private parks, or indoor recreation facilities. Based on the 2013 estimated population of 55,860 for the City of Hanford, the Study Area has approximately 5.2 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents in the City.

Significance Criteria
The project may create impacts if it creates demand for new expanded parks and recreation facilities or substantially alters existing facilities.

Checklist Criteria
a) No Impact – the project involves the annexation of land for heavy industrial use. The project will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. b) No Impact - the project involves annexation of land for heavy industrial use and does not involve or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

Conclusion: The project would have no impact on recreation.

Source: 2017 General Plan, 2017 General Plan EIR

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
   
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
§15064.3, subdivision (b)?
   
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
   

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 211
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -61-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?    

Environmental Setting

Existing Functional Roadway Classification System

State Freeways and Highways
There are two State Facilities serving the Study Area, namely SR-198 and -43.

Arterial Roads
Hanford’s arterial street pattern is generally one-mile spacing between the existing arterials.

Collector Streets
Similar to some arterials, collector streets have evolved from heavy use as opposed to formal development standards.

Local Streets
Local street provide access to individual homes and businesses. Local streets have on lane in each direction. Local streets connect single- family homes and other uses not appropriate adjacent to major roadways, to the arterial -collector network.

Existing Intersections
All of the study intersections are operating at acceptable levels of LOS.

Existing Roadway Segments
Results of the analysis of existing roadway segments show that all of the study roadway segments are currently operating at acceptable LOS.

Bicycle Facilities
The 2011 Kings County Regional Bicycle Plan contains the specific “Bicycle Plan for the City of Hanford.” The General Plan and the Bicycle Plan promote the establishment of a shared use roadway system, but encourages newly developing areas to provide for bicycle facilities along major roadways and off -road systems as part of open space and recreation amenities. The 2011 Regional Bicycle Master Plan then goes on to state Policy CI 8.4 of the 2002 General Plan: Bicycle lanes should be established where feasible along Major and Minor Collectors in newly developing areas. A bicycle route system should be identified which serves the existing developed City. This route system may not utilize Arterials or Collectors where travel ways are constrained, but rather parallel streets with less traffic. Where bicycle lanes are proposed they should be considered a shared facility with vehicular traffic on the street.

Mass Transit

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

KART Dial-A-Ride Service
Dial-A-Ride is an origin-to-destination service available to eligible residents of Hanford, Lemoore, Armona and Avenal.

Park-and-Ride lots
Park-and-Ride lots provide a meeting place where drivers can safely park and join carpools or vanpools or utilize existing public transit. Park -and-Ride lots are generally located near community entrances, near major highways or local arterial where conveniently scheduled transit service is provided. Hanford has one Park -and-Ride facility located at the northeastern entrance of the City at 10th Avenue and SR 43.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 212
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -62-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

KART-Vanpool Program
KART defines vanpooling as 7 t o 15 persons who commute together in a van- type vehicle and who share the operating expenses. The KART Vanpool Program provides passengers with reliable transportation to and from work. The vanpool program is not only to provide safe travel to work but to provide alternative transportation options, which would ultimately reduce the amount of vehicles on the road.

Rail Service

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

High Speed Rail
In N ovember 2008, Proposition 1A, a High Speed Rail bond, was passed by California voters. In 2009, the US Department of Transportation through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act program, announced the allocation of $8 billion to high speed rail projec ts throughout the US. Of that amount, $2.24 billion was allocated to California High Speed Rail. In November 2013, the California High Speed Rail Commission identified the preferred route through the Planning Area. The selected route, which runs along the eastern edge of Hanford, roughly follows a north- south route near the hgi voltage power lines between 7th and 8th Avenues.

Freight Service
Almost 87% of the total freight tonnage is moved out of the Valley by truck, while rail account for 11%. BNSF and S JVR railroads provide freight service to the Hanford Area. The BNSF mainline is double -tracked through the entire Planning Area. Over time, it is expected that the number of trains using the system will increase as demand for rail service increases. The BNSF railroad currently operates between 50 and 60 trains per day on the system.

Significance Criteria

The project may result in significant transportation/circulation impact if it does the following:

1. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic loads and capacity of the road system that are inconsistent with adopted standards.

2. Creates traffic conditions which expose people to traffic hazards.

3. Substantially interferes or prevents emergency access to the site or surrounding properties.

4. Conflicts with adopted policies or plans for alternative transportation.

a) Less than Significant Impact – Future development of the project area will be evaluated for consistency with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Traffic improvements in the area will be analyzed at the time of physical development. The project will be evaluated for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact and conditioned accordingly.

b) See a.

c) Less than Significant – access to the sites is pro vided through 10 th Avenue, which has already been constructe d.

Future development of the project sites will be evaluated and conditioned accordingly.

d) Less than Significant Impact - Emergency access to the site will be provided by 10 th Avenue. Future development of the project site will be reviewed and conditioned by the City Engineer and City Fire Department to ensure the project

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 213
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -63-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
includes adequate emergency access.

Conclusion
Future physical development will be subject to review and conditions will be applied, accordingly.

Source: City of Hanford General Plan and EIR 2017, City of Hanford Municipal Code

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
   
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of whic
h could cause
significant environmental effects?
   
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
   
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
   
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
projects projected demand in addition to the providers
existing commitments?
   
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the projects solid waste
disposal needs?
   
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
   
Environmental Setting
Wastewater
The City’s wastewater system provides for treatment, disposal, and reuse of effluent, which meets all of the state’s discharge requirements for the entire City of Hanford (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.

While the City is constantly working to improve and provide adequate services to t he population demand, the Irwin Street trunk main has become a priority issue for the City’s wastewater system. The Irwin Street trunk main is located south of the Downtown East Precise Plan area and may eventually be undergoing capacity issues. Sections of the trunk line are in poor condition, with adverse grades, inadequate pipe sizing, and near full capacity.

The City’s wastewater system has also pursued water conservation strategies to ensure long- term reuse of treated disinfected wastewater for agricu ltural purposes and to recharge groundwater supplies for agriculture. By doing so, the

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 214
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -64-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
City accomplishes two important water conservation efforts: 1) the additional supply for the City extends the surface water irrigation season and 2) reduces the need for agricultural pumping of groundwater in an area known to be low in groundwater.

Water Supply
The City’s water system is a groundwater system. The City is located within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region. Within that region, the City is located within the Tulare Lake Groundwater Subbasin, which transmits, filters, and stores water from the main San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin.

The City’s groundwater system consists of 13 supply wells, one standby well, three elevated storage tanks (all three of which have abandoned), one existing 0.5 million gallon ground -level storage tank at the Industrial Park, 3.5 million gallon ground-level storage tanks, and a piping network for distributing the water throughout the City (2 million gallon storage tank at Grangeville and Centennial Drive facility and 1 million gallon storage tank at the Fargo Avenue facility). No surface water is used by the water system as groundwater is contained in both an unconfined and confined aquifer lying beneath the City. Currently, the Ci ty maintains 206 miles of main lines and 15,870 service connections, which includes 8 -inch to 30-inch pipes with 12-inch mains laid out on an approximately 1- mile grid. Water is pumped from 13 deep wells. The well depth is determined by the water quality, but typically, is drilled to a minimum depth of 1,500 feet and below the Corcoran clay layer.

The City’s groundwater supply is recharged by rain and snowfall in the Sierra Nevada range and, to a lesser degree, from rainfall on the Valley floor. In additio n, the City, along with the Peoples Ditch Company and the Kings County Water District, deliver excess water flows from the Kings River and storm water runoff into the drainage and slough basins located throughout the City. This, as well as percolation from storm water basins, local waterways, and agricultural irrigation, help to replenish the City’s groundwater in surplus years.

Storm Water Drainage
The City is predominantly located within a 500- year Flood Zone as defined by FEMA Flood Insurance Maps. Area s subject to the 500-year flood zone have a moderate to low risk of flooding.

There are two major irrigation ditches that flow through the City. Lakeside Ditch, which is operated and maintained by the Lakeside Water District, and the Peoples Ditch, which is operated and maintained by the Peoples Ditch Company.

The Existing drainage infrastructure within the boundaries covered by the City’s Storm Water Management Program includes natural drainage channels, retention basins, natural vegetation, piping, and pump stations. There are numerous areas where storm drainage is controlled via drainage inlets and underground structures. The storm drainage system consists of 30 pump stations, 57 miles of pipeline ranging in size from 6- inch through 60-inch , and 220 acres of drainage basins and drainage ditches. The storm drainage system removes rainfall from surface streets and disposes the accumulated stormwater in drainage basins.

The City, in cooperation with the People’s Ditch Company and the Kings County Water Di strict, delivers excess water flows from the Kings River, along with storm water runoff, into the 125 acres of drainage and slough basins located throughout the City to help replenish the groundwater. Some of this acreage is located within the City’s park facilities.

Solid Waste Disposal
The City’s solid waste and recycling services are provided by the Kings Waste Recycling Authority (KWRA). The current KWRA facility is located at 7803 Hanford-Armona Road, southeast of the City near SR 43 and 198 and operates as a solid waste disposal and
recycling facility. The responsibilities of the KWRA include the siting, permitting, financing, construction, and operation of landfills, as well as a Material Recovery Plan and Transfer Station. The KWRA also ensures all activities and waste diversion goals required by the State at the closure, post -closure monitoring, and liabilities of all identified former landfills in Kings County. The KWRA is the leading contributor to helping the City meet the State’s recycling goals.

Refuse from both municipal and commercial haulers is sorted at the KWRA facility to recover a variety of recyclable materials. Once waste is separated from recyclable materials, it is then hauled by transfer trucks from the Material Recovery Facility to the State-permitted 320-acre Chemical Waste Management Landfill site in Kettleman Hills.

The landfills at the Kettlman Hills Facility are designed for municipal solid waste, which encompasses household and

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 215
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -65-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
commercial trash. The facility is permitted to receive a maximum of 2,000 tons of municipal solid waste per day.

The City has instituted a greenwaste collection mixed recycle collection program for single-family residential customers.

Dry Utilities
Gas and Electric Service
The City’s main electricity providers are Pacific Gas and Elec tric Company and Southern California Edison Company.

Within the Study Area, PG&E provides power to sites south of Iona Avenue and north of Flint Avenue via 12 kv and 70kv lines. SCE supplies power to sites north of Iona Avenue and south of Flint Avenue via 12 kv and 66kv lines.

Communication Systems
AT&T and Comcast are currently available in Hanford. AT&T provides telephone services that include ISDN and all other necessary high- technological services. Many cellular and long -distance services are also av ailable. Comcast, Dish Network, and Direct TV provide television services as well as internet access.

Consultation Received:

Consultation was received from Pacific Gas and Electric and is as follows:

Thank you for submitting the ANX 157 plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area. If the proposed project is adjacent/or within PG&E owned property and/or easements, we will be working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities.

Attached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1) and Electric facilities (Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure your safety and to protect PG&E’s facilities and its existing rights.

Below is additional information for your review:

1. This plan review process does not replace the application process for PG&E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work with PG&E Service Planning:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/business/services/building-and-renovation/overview/overview.page.

2. If the project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG&E’s facilities are to be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG&E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG&E services.

3. An engineering deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new installation of PG&E facilities.

Any proposed uses within the PG&E fee strip and/or easement, may include a California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG&E’s fee strip or easement. PG&E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851filing is required.

This letter does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. PG&E will provide a project specific response as required.

Analysis: At this time, physical development of the project area is not proposed. Future development projects will be forwarded to the utility companies for review.

Thresholds of Significance
The project may result in significant impacts on utilities and service systems if it substantially and adversely alters the delivery of utilities or substantially increases the demand for utilities.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 216
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -66-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Checklist Discussion
a) Less than significant - the City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility is currently up -to-date with all wastewater treatment requirements set forth by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City’s WWTF would continue to comply with the requirements set forth by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, as required by law.
b) Less than Significant – Under the General Plan Update it was determined that planned improvements and expansion development through various goals and policies will assist in providing wastewater services to the study area, as development continues. The current capacity of the WWTF is designed to accommodate 8 mgd, which is expected to provide adequate services to population growth for the foreseeable future. c) Less than Significant – future development of the project area will be reviewed by the Public Works department to ensure stormwater drainage is adequately addressed through conditions of approval. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures - Future development of the project area as industrial could crease an increase in water usage. Water supply demand was addressed under the Urban Water Management Plan, which concluded that the Tulare Lake Groundwater subbasin would continue to reliably supply water to meet the City’s projected water demands through the year 204

5. This would be made possible through the
implementation of water conservation goals and policies established in the General Plan Update. e) No Impact. The project will not require a determination by a wastewater agency. f) Less than Significant – the City of Hanford will provide for solid waste collection and disposal for the proposed project site, when developed. The City has achieved a 50% diversion rate from the landfill and has incorporated a green waste program and recycling at the Materials Recycling Facility. g) Less than Significant impact with Mitigation Measures – that the future development of the project area be required to comply with all statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Mitigation Measure:

Mitigation Measure Utilities 1: That the future development would be required to implement water conservation measures.

Mitigation Measure Utilities 2: that the future project be required to comply with all statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Conclusion Less than Significant I mpact with Mitigation Incorporation - Impacts to utilities and services are considered less than significant with compliance with all statutes and regulations related to water usage and solid waste.

Source: 2017 General Plan and General Plan EIR, State of California Department of Water Resources, Cal Recycle 2015 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ani mal 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?
   
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    

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 217
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) -67-
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
current projects, and the e ffects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
   
a) Less than Significant - Based on the analysis provided in the initial study, the project does not 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 populat ion to drop below self -sustaining levels or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation- Based on the analysis provided, the project would not result in any significant cumulative impacts relative to other current projects, or the effects of probable future projects. c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation - Based on the analysis provided, the project will not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.

July 19, 2022
Gabrielle de Silva Myers Date
Senior Planner

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 218
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159)

-68-
This section addresses the project’s potential to contribute to cumulative impacts in the region, CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.

Cumulative Setting
The cumulative setting for the proposed project area includes the annexation of this project area and existing industrial development within the surrounding area.

Impact Analysis

Aesthetics
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation - All impacts to aesthetics are anticipated to be less than significant with mitigation measures for light sources from new projects including this project, and past projects. Several sections of the Hanford Municipal Code regulate physical development by controlling not only the appearance of new development, but also by controlling the placement of new development with consideration for surrounding uses. This project and former projects in the area will be held/have been held to the appropriate development standards of the Hanford Municipal Code to mitigate impacts to aesthetics – therefore, the impact to aesthetics would be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Agriculture and Forest Resources
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation - The General Plan EIR analyzed the impacts of the City’s urban growth on agricultural land and included mitigation measures to reduce those impacts, however, impacts to agricultural lands remain significant and unavoidable. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the impacts to agricultural lands.

Air Quality
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation – This project and the development of the previously approved projects in the area will not create or result in any significant air quality impacts, all projects are required to be developed consistent with the Air Quality Element.

Biological Resources
Less than Signif icant – the project area and surrounding project areas contains no natural and undisturbed areas that may be considered habitat.

Cultural Resources
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation – the Tachi Yokut Tribe was consulted for this project and surrounding projects, in accordance with AB 52. Through concerns were cited in previous entitled projects, conditions of approval for all projects are in place to mitigate the effect on cultural resources. As a general condition of approval, mitigation measures, that the applicant enter into a burial treatment plan with the Tribe and that if sensitive resources are discovered, construction halt and the proper officials be contacted, will mitigate cultural resources impacts to a less than significant level.

Geology and Soils
Less than Impact with Mitigation Measures - This project and the development of the previously approved projects in the area on geology and soils would be mitigated by compliance with the California building code, a geotechnical and soil studies (if required), and compliance with the Municipal Code Section

15.52. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures – the cumulative projects would contribute to GHG emissions, which is inherently a cumulative issue. The emissions during construction would be short -term as a result of fossil fuel burning construction equipment. Since the impacts are short -term and the

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 219
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159)

-69-
contribution to GHG emissions would be minor compared to the State’s GHG emission target of 427 MMTCO2 eq by 2020, the construction- related GHG emissions of the project would be considered less than significant. The operational emission from the projects would be indirect emissions from electricity usage. Compliance with current building code standards will assist in the reduction of energy use. The emissions are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Less than Significant – The projects are not expected to have a significant impact as a result of hazards or hazardous materials.

Hydrology/Water Quality
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation – the projects will be developed in accordance with City requirements specific to hydrology and water quality. Mitigations have been required on a project by project basis.

Land Use Planning and Population
Less than Significant - The projects are being developed consistent with the General Plan policy. This project and existing projects in the area have been developed consistent with the General Plan.

Mineral Resources
No Impact - there are no known mineral resources in the City.

Noise
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation- this project and future existing projects within the area are required to meet the decibel requirement prescribed by the General Plan for Noise. Construction- related noise would be mitigated through the limitation of hours construction is permitted (between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.). Full build out of the General Plan would possibly result in a maximum increase of 2 decibels when compared to existing conditions. According to the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplem ent, the average healthy ear can barely perceive noise level changes of 3 dBA. As a result, it is anticipated that full buildout of the General Plan, including development of this site, would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels exiting without the project.

Population and Housing
No Impact
Public Services
Less than Significant with Payment of Impact Fees to Mitigate Effect - The projects in the vicinity are subject to impact fees to mitigate the effect on public services.

Recreation
No impact

Transportation/Traffic
Less than Significant with Payment of I mpact Fees and Future Road Improvements to Mitigate Effect – The circulation pattern in the vicinity has been designed to accommodate future build out in the area in accordance with the Circulation Element. The projects will have a less than significant cum ulative impact on traffic and circulation conditions through appropriate project design and payment of traffic impact fees, as required.

Utilities and Service Systems
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation – Impacts to utilities and services are considered less than significant with compliance with existing State and local water conservation measures. This project and future projects in the area have been accounted for and can be served by the City’s utilities and service systems.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 220
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) 2090 NORTH WINERY AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93703(559) 292-4046 * FAX 251-9220 * EMAIL: [email protected] G. MELLENGINEERING & SURVEYING SERVICES& ASSOCIATES1" = 'SCALE:D MGNORTH200

D MGNORTH

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 221
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) Annexation 159 and Prezone No. 2021-09
Mitigation Measures
Mitigated Negative Declaration 2022-62

Mitigation Number Potential Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party

Developer

MM Air Quality 4: That future development project operation and City to Require

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 222
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) construction be quantified using CalEEMod to ensure that development does not expose nearby residential receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

MM Air Quality 5: That future development projects be evaluated to ensure that operation does not create objectional odors, consistent with the Hanford Municipal Code Section 17.50.050.

Recommendations of Future Development:

1. That future development proponents utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero (0.02 g/bhphr NOx) technologies for fleets associated with operation.

2. That future development proponents utilize zero-emissions technologies for all on-site service equipment (cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts, pallet jacks, etc.)

4. That future development project proponents incorporate solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for future development projects

5. That future development project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at future project sites, and at strategic locations.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 223
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) potentially disturb human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries?

That a geotechnical and soil studies be prepared as a required by the Building Official (if applicable) for future physical development of the project area.

Building Official to
require; developer
to conduct study

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 224
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) The project may 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?
MM Geology 3 That the project could
result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
That the physical development of the project area comply with the Hanford Municipal Code Section 15.52 Flood Damage Prevention Regulation and the California Building Code, along with the plan check and development review process.

City to require;
developer to
comply

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
MM Hydrology 1 &
2 The project could
potentially violate water
quality standards or
waste discharge
requirements.

City to require;
Developer to
provide

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) MM Hydrology 3 The project could
potentially substantially
alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area,
including through the
alteration of a stream or
river, or substantially
increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff
in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or
off-site?
New development must submit grading plans. Site development must comply with the requirements of the City Building Division and incorporate best management practices/design standards.

City to require;
Developer to
provide

Residents and
developer; Police
to enforce

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 226
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) agencies?
MM Noise 2 & 3 Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise
levels?
The project could cause a
substantial temporary or
periodic increase in
ambient noise levels
existing without the
project?
That future construction is limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Developer; Police to enforce

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 227
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) MM Utilities 1 Would the project have
sufficient water supplies
available to serve the
project from existing
entitlements and
resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements
needed?
That the future development would be required to implement water conservation measures.

City to require;
developer to
provide

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 228
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159)

July 14, 2022

Gabrielle Myers
City of Hanford
Planning Division
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA, 93230

Project: Annexation 159 and Prezone No. 2021-09

District CEQA Reference No: 20220843

Dear Ms. Myers:

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Annexation and Prezone from the City of Hanford (City). Per the project documentation, the project consists of the annexation of 12.64 acres into the City of Hanford and the pre-zoning of that property as I-H (Heavy Industrial), in accordance with the General Plan designation for the area (Project). The Project is located south of Iona Avenue and west of 10th Avenue, in Hanford, CA (APN 018-242-019).

The District offers the following comments regarding the Project:

Project Related Emissions

At the federal level under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the District is designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standards and serious nonattainment for the particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) standards. At the state level under California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the District is designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone, PM10, PM2.5 standards.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 229
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 12 District Reference No: 20220843
July 14, 2022

Recommended Model for Quantifying Air Emissions

For future development projects, project-related criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operational sources should be identified and quantified.

Emissions analysis should be performed using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which uses the most recent CARB-approved version of relevant emissions models and emission factors. CalEEMod is available to the public and can be downloaded from the CalEEMod website at:
www.caleemod.com.

Health Risk Screening/Assessment

The City should evaluate the risk associated with the Project for sensitive receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) in the area and mitigate any potentially significant risk to help limit exposure of sensitive receptors to emissions.

To determine potential health impacts on surrounding receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) a Prioritization and/or a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) should be performed for future development projects. These health risk determinations should quantify and characterize potential Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) identified by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment/California Air Resources Board (OEHHA/CARB) that pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

Health risk analyses should include all potential air emissions from the project, which include emissions from construction of the project, including multi-year construction, as well as ongoing operational activities of the project. Note, two common sources of TACs can be attributed to diesel exhaust emitted from heavy-duty off-road earth moving equipment during construction, and from ongoing operation of heavy-duty on-road trucks.

Prioritization (Screening Health Risk Assessment):

The District recommends that a more refined analysis, in the form of an HRA, be performed for any project resulting in a Prioritization score of 10 or greater. This is because the prioritization results are a conservative health risk representation, while the detailed HRA provides a more accurate health risk evaluation.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 230
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 12 District Reference No: 20220843
July 14, 2022

http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/emission_factors/Criteria/Toxics/Utilities/PRIORI TIZATION-CALCULATOR.xls

Health Risk Assessment:

A project with a significant health risk would trigger all feasible mitigation measures.

The District strongly recommends that development projects that result in a significant health risk not be approved by the land use agency.

The District is available to review HRA protocols and analyses. For HRA submittals please provide the following information electronically to the District for review:

 HRA (AERMOD) modeling files
 HARP2 files
 Summary of emissions source locations, emissions rates, and emission factor calculations and methodologies.

For assistance, please contact the District’s Technical Services Department by:

 E-Mailing inquiries to: [email protected]
 Calling (559) 230-5900

Recommended Measure: Development projects resulting in TAC emissions should be located an adequate distance from residential areas and other sensitive receptors in accordance to CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective located at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.

Ambient Air Quality Analysis

An Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emissions increases from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The District recommends an AAQA be performed for any future development projects with emissions that exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 231
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 12 District Reference No: 20220843
July 14, 2022

An acceptable analysis would include emissions from both project-specific permitted and non-permitted equipment and activities. The District recommends consultation with District staff to determine the appropriate model and input data to use in the analysis.

Specific information for assessing significance, including screening tools and modeling guidance, is available online at the District’s website:
www.valleyair.org/ceqa.

Allowed Uses Not Requiring Project-Specific Discretionary Approval

In some cases, for future development projects, the City may determine that a project be approved as an allowed use not requiring a project-specific discretionary approval from the City. The District recommends the Annexation and Prezone include language supported by policy requiring such projects to prepare a technical assessment in consultation with the District, and recommending that a VERA be considered for development projects determined to result in a significant impact on air quality. For example, this requirement would apply to large development projects (e.g., large residential project, large distribution center, large warehouse, etc.) that would have the potential to significantly impact air quality and is determined by the City to be allowed by use, not requiring a project specific discretionary approval from the City.

Truck Routing

Truck routing involves the assessment of which roads Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks take to and from their destination, and the emissions impact that the HHD trucks may have on residential communities and sensitive receptors. Since the Project will be zoned Heavy Industrial, there is potential for an increase in truck trips.

Cleanest Available Heavy-Duty Trucks

The San Joaquin Valley will not be able to attain stringent health-based federal air quality standards without significant reductions in emissions from HHD trucks, the single largest source of NOx emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. The District’s

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 232
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 12 District Reference No: 20220843
July 14, 2022

CARB-approved 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes significant new reductions from HHD trucks, including emissions reductions by 2023 through the implementation of CARB’s Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation, which requires truck fleets operating in California to meet the 2010 standard of 0.2 g-NOx/bhp-hr by 2023. Additionally, to meet federal air quality attainment standards, the District’s Plan relies on a significant and immediate transition of HHD fleets to zero or near-zero emissions technologies, including the near-zero truck standard of 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx established by CARB.

For future development projects, the District recommends that the following measures be considered by the City to reduce Project-related operational emissions:

 Recommended Measure: Fleets associated with operational activities utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero (0.02 g/bhp- hr NOx) technologies.

 Recommended Measure: All on-site service equipment (cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts, pallet jacks, etc.) utilize zero-emissions technologies.

Reduce Idling of Heavy-Duty Trucks

The goal of this strategy is to limit the potential for localized PM2.5 and toxic air contaminant impacts associated with the idling of Heavy-Duty trucks. The diesel exhaust from idling has the potential to impose significant adverse health and environmental impacts.

Electric On-Site Off-Road and On-Road Equipment

Vegetative Barriers and Urban Greening

For future development projects within the Project area, and at strategic locations throughout the Project area in general, the District suggests the City consider

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 233
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 12 District Reference No: 20220843
July 14, 2022

incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools, healthcare facilities).

Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community

Since the Project consists of industrial development, gas-powered lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOx and PM2.5 emissions.

Utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The District recommends the Project proponent consider the District’s Clean Green Yard Machines (CGYM) program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment. More information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at: http://www.valleyair.org/grants/cgym.htm
and http://valleyair.org/grants/cgym-commercial.htm.

On-Site Solar Deployment

It is the policy of the State of California that renewable energy resources and zero- carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045. While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, the production of solar energy is contributing to improving air quality and public health. The District suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for future development projects.

Electric Vehicle Chargers

To support and accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of required infrastructure, the District offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric charging infrastructure (Level 2 and 3 chargers). The purpose of the District’s Charge Up! Incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles. The District recommends that the City

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 234
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 7 of 12 District Reference No: 20220843
July 14, 2022

and project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at future project sites, and at strategic locations.

Please visit www.valleyair.org/grants/chargeup.htm for more information.

Nuisance Odors

While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often resulting in citizen complaints.

The City should consider all available pertinent information to determine if future development projects could have a significant impact related to nuisance odors.

District Rules and Regulations

The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 235
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 8 of 12 District Reference No: 20220843
July 14, 2022

District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources

Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

For further information or assistance, project proponents may contact the District’s SBA Office at (559) 230-5888.

District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)

Future development projects within the Annexation and Prezone may be subject to District Rule 9510 if upon full buildout, the project would equal or exceed any of the following applicability thresholds, depending on the type of development and public agency approval mechanism:

Table 1: ISR Applicability Thresholds
Development
Type
Discretionary
Approval Threshold
Ministerial Approval /
Allowed Use / By Right
Thresholds
Residential 50 dwelling units 250 dwelling units
Commercial 2,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
Light Industrial 25,000 square feet 125,000 square feet Heavy Industrial 100,000 square feet 500,000 square feet Medical Office 20,000 square feet 100,000 square feet
General Office 39,000 square feet 195,000 square feet
Educational Office 9,000 square feet 45,000 square feet

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 236
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 9 of 12 District Reference No: 20220843
July 14, 2022

Government 10,00 square feet 50,000 square feet
Recreational 20,000 square feet 100,000 square feet
Other 9,000 square feet 45,000 square feet

District Rule 9510 also applies to any transportation or transit development projects where construction exhaust emissions equal or exceed two tons of NOx or two tons of PM.

Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRHome.htm.

The AIA application form can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRFormsAndApplications.htm.

District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction)

Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) if the project would result in employment of 100 or more “eligible” employees. District Rule 9410 requires employers with 100 or more “eligible” employees at a worksite to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP) that encourages employees to reduce single- occupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing pollutant emissions associated with work commutes. Under an eTRIP plan, employers have the flexibility to select the

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 10 of 12 District Reference No: 20220843
July 14, 2022

options that work best for their worksites and their employees.

Information about District Rule 9410 can be found online at:
www.valleyair.org/tripreduction.htm.

For additional information, you can contact the District by phone at 559-230- 6000 or by e-mail at [email protected]

District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)

In the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed, future development projects may be subject to District Rule 4002.

This rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/asbestosbultn.htm.

District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)

Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 4601 since it may utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements or curbs. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings. In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4601.pdf

District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions)

The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 238
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 11 of 12 District Reference No: 20220843
July 14, 2022

Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.

The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at:
https://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/forms/DCP-Form.docx

Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/pm10/compliance_pm10.htm

Other District Rules and Regulations

Future development projects may also be subject to the following District rules:

Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

Future Projects / Land Use Agency Referral Documents

Future development projects may require an environmental review and air emissions mitigation. A project’s referral documents and environmental review documents provided to the District for review should include a project summary, the land use designation, project size, air emissions quantifications and impacts, and proximity to sensitive receptors and existing emission sources, and air emissions mitigation measures. For reference and guidance, more information can be found in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 12 of 12 District Reference No: 20220843
July 14, 2022

District Comment Letter

The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Matt Crow by e- mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5931.

Sincerely,

Brian Clements
Director of Permit Services

For: Mark Montelongo
Program Manager

13.A.h
Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: Attachment 5 - ISMND ANX 159 (CD: Annexation 159)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 12/20/2022

AGENDA SECTION: A

SUBJECT:

Public Works: Approve change orders and an appropriation transfer of $40,000 from the Accumulated Capital Outlay (ACO) Fund, to fully fund the completion of the Police Activities League Parking Lot project.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council by motion:

1. Approve an appropriation transfer of $40,000 from the ACO Fund to fully fund the completion of the construction project.

2. Approve associated change orders for the project

BACKGROUND:

This project was bid to furnish and install a 20’ wide electric gate, a masonry block wall trash enclosure with reinforced concrete slab in front of enclosure, aggregate base, asphalt concrete, and parking lot striping for the Police Activities League parking expansion.

Project construction began on October 03, 2023, and is scheduled to be completed on December 29, 2023. During this period, unforeseen conditions arose which were not contemplated by the plans or specifications, and the additional work became necessary. The unforeseen conditions required that direction be given to the contractor in a expeditious manner to avoid costly interruption and was necessary for management and control of the contracts.

All change orders were negotiated to the lowest cost, prepared, and captured all additional work outside the original scope of the project. Reductions and/or additional cost resulting in change of the scope were reviewed by city management and meet the public work standard specification for the City of Hanford.

To date, a total of seven (7) change orders have been authorized on this project that amounted to a net increase of $32,433.41. Council previously established a construction contingency of $25,736.60 for this project. Resolution No. 88-01-R sets forth the criteria for the approval of all

14.A
Packet Pg. 241
Change Orders for City projects. That resolution specifically states, No Contract Change Order shall be approved unless there are sufficient unencumbered funds appropriated to pay the cost of the additional work. Additionally, per the Resolution, Council's approval is required for any and all change orders that result in exceeding one-half of the contingency amount. An appropriation transfer of $40,000 from the ACO Fund will fully fund the completion of the construction project. A copy of the work order summary and back up documentations is attached for your review.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Community Development Block Grant and the ACO Fund currently provide $447,589.54 for this project including contingencies. An appropriation transfer of $40,000 from the ACO Fund Veterans Building Roof Replacement project (#823602) is required to fully fund the construction of this project. There is the potential for a federal grant for the Veterans Building Roof Replacement that will replace the current appropriation which currently is not enough to complete the project.

Hanford City CouncilDecember 20, 2022

Hanford City Council
December 20, 2022