Hanford City Council
October 3, 2023

20'-0"x20'-O" CLEAR SPACE2 BAYGARAGECONC.
30SC6816'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOORTEMP. GL.2040SH 26SC682668 UP15R
ENTRYCLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYL
POWDERCLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYLCLG. BREAK LINE
PORCH10'-7"19'-5"
6'-0"
2668F.M.T.DN15RFX2040SERV.CLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYL
2868266826682868F.M.T.
2668W.I.C.CLG. HGT. 8'-1"CARPET
BI-PASS5068 BI-PASS5068BATH 2CLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYL
BDRM. 3CLG. HGT. 8'-1"CARPETBDRM. 2CLG. HGT. 8'-1"CARPET

OPEN TOBELOW
3050SH FX30503050SH
19'-4"10'-8"
2'-0"
20'-0"x20'-O" CLEAR SPACE2 BAYGARAGECONC.
30SC6816'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOORTEMP. GL.2040SH 26SC682668 UP15R
ENTRYCLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYL
POWDERCLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYLCLG. BREAK LINE
PORCH10'-7"19'-5"
6'-0"
2668F.M.T.DN15RFX2040SERV.CLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYL
2868266826682868F.M.T.
2668W.I.C.CLG. HGT. 8'-1"CARPET
BI-PASS5068 BI-PASS5068BATH 2CLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYL
BDRM. 3CLG. HGT. 8'-1"CARPETBDRM. 2CLG. HGT. 8'-1"CARPET

OPEN TOBELOW
3050SH FX30503050SH
10'-8"10'-8"
1'-0"1'-0"8'-8"
| 2022XXX | 05-09-22C 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. 0248 DESIGN DEVELOPMENTCALIFORNIA-LIBRARY SERIESPLAN 2.15831,583 SF3 Bdrm | 2.5 Bath | Loft2 Bay Garage8' | 8' Plates2.0 2B | Farmhouse2C | Craftsman

4:124:12
4:124:124:12

RIDGERIDGEVALLEYVALLEY

RIDGERIDGE
4:12
6:126:12VALLEYVALLEY
4:12
4:12
RIDGE4:124:124:124:12RIDGE
R4:12
| 2022XXX | 05-09-22C 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. DESIGN DEVELOPMENTCALIFORNIA-LIBRARY SERIESPLAN 2.1583Roof Plans2A | AmericanaEave 12" / Rake 12"Eave 12" / Rake 12"Eave 12" / Rake 12"2C | Craftsman2B | Farmhouse2.204816 Composition RoofComposition RoofComposition Roof

| 2022XXX | 05-09-22C 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. 0248 DESIGN DEVELOPMENTCALIFORNIA-LIBRARY SERIES2C | Craftsman 2A | Americana
PLAN 2.1583Front Elevations2B | Farmhouse2.3
STUCCO FINISH2x6 WOOD FASCIA
FOAM OUTLOOKERSTUCCO FINISH2x6 WOOD FASCIA STUCCO FINISH

STUCCO OVER FOAM CORBEL

WOOD POST

ADDRESS LIGHT

ADDRESS LIGHT STUCCO FINISHSTUCCO OVER SHAPEDSTUCCO OVER FOAM

METAL SECTIONALGARAGE DOOR METAL SECTIONALGARAGE DOOR

COMPOSITION ROOF

COMPOSITION ROOF

METAL SECTIONALGARAGE DOOR

FIBER CEMENT BOARD AND BATTENS

STUCCO OVER FOAMSTONE VENEER OVERSTUCCO COLUMN

STUCCO OVER FOAM
COMPOSITION ROOF 2X6 WOOD FASCIAFIBER CEMENT BOARDAND BATTENS

ADDRESS LIGHTFOAM TRIM

STUCCO WAINSCOT

±25'-112"
TOP OF TILE8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"
6'-9"7'-0"8"TYP.
3'-0"8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"6'-8"
6'-0"FENCE
8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"7'-6"
7'-0"
8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"
7'-6"
6'-8"
7'-0"
| 2022XXX | 05-09-22C 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. 0248 DESIGN DEVELOPMENTCALIFORNIA-LIBRARY SERIESBuilding Elevations2.4RearRight FrontLeft
PLAN 2A | AMERICANA

8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"
±25'-0"
TOP OF TILE7'-0"
7'-0"
6'-9"
9"
8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"6'-8"
6'-0"FENCE
8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"
7'-0"
8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"
6'-8"
7'-0"
7'-0"
2'-0"
| 2022XXX | 05-09-22C 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. 0248 DESIGN DEVELOPMENTCALIFORNIA-LIBRARY SERIESPLAN 2B | FARMHOUSEBuilding Elevations2.5RearRight FrontLeft

8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"
±24'-212"
TOP OF TILE6'-9"7'-0"7'-0"
9"
8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"6'-8"
6'-0"FENCE
8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"2'-10"4'-2"
7'-0"
8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"
6'-8"
7'-0"
4'-2"2'-10"7'-0"
| 2022XXX | 05-09-22C 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. 0248 DESIGN DEVELOPMENTCALIFORNIA-LIBRARY SERIESPLAN 2C | CRAFTSMANBuilding Elevations2.6RearRight FrontLeft

UP
PORCH8'-1" STUCCO CLG.CONC.PWDR9'-1" CLG.VINYL
20'-0"x20'-O" CLEAR SPACE
GREATROOMCLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYLDININGCLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYL ENTRYCLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYL15R
KITCHENCLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYL
PANTRYCLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYL
2 BAYGARAGECONC.
2668TEMP. GL. SLIDER6068
26SC68
2668 2668
30SC68
16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
3030SH
F.M.T.
3050SH
38'-6"4'-6"
30'-0"
20'-9"17'-9"
30'-0"11'-0"19'-0"
38'-6"4'-6"
DN15R
BI-PASS5068BI-PASS5068
BATH 2CLG. HGT. 9'-1"H.S.

BDRM. 1CLG. HGT. 8'-1"CARPET
BDRM. 2CLG. HGT. 8'-1"CARPET
W.I.C.CLG. HGT. 8'-1"CARPET
BDRM. 3CLG. HGT. 8'-1"CARPETBDRM. 4CLG. HGT. 8'-1"CARPET SERVICECLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYLLOFTCLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYL
BATH 1CLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYL
F.M.T.

F.M.T.

F.M.T.F.M.T.
266826682668BI-PASS5068
2868266826682668
2868
2668
TEMP. GL.2040SH
3050SH
3050SH3050SH
FX2040 FXTEMP. GL.2040
30'-0"5'-312"13'-8"
43'-0"38'-6"3'-6"
43'-0"3'-6" 32'-8"
30'-0"
5'-10"11'-012"
1'-0"3050SH3050SH
1'-0"
| 2022XXX | 05-09-22C 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. 0248 DESIGN DEVELOPMENTCALIFORNIA-LIBRARY SERIESLower Floor - 713 SFUpper Floor - 1,062 SFPLAN 3.17751775 SF4 Bdrm|2.5 Bath Loft2 Bay Garage8' | 8' Plates3.03A | Americana

UP
PORCH8'-1" STUCCO CLG.CONC.PWDR9'-1" CLG.VINYL
20'-0"x20'-O" CLEAR SPACE
ENTRYCLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYL15R
2 BAYGARAGECONC.
26SC68
2668 2668
30SC68
16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
F.M.T.
4'-6" 11'-0"19'-0"
DN15R
BI-PASS5068BI-PASS5068
BATH 2CLG. HGT. 9'-1"H.S.

BDRM. 2CLG. HGT. 8'-1"CARPET
BDRM. 3CLG. HGT. 8'-1"CARPETBDRM. 4CLG. HGT. 8'-1"CARPET SERVICECLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYLLOFTCLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYLF.M.T.

F.M.T.266826682668BI-PASS5068
28 2668
2868
2668
3050SH
FX2040 FXTEMP. GL.2040
13'-8"11'-012" 1'-0"
3'-6"6'-10"5'-312"
3'-6"3050SH 3050SH
UP
PORCH8'-1" STUCCO CLG.CONC.PWDR9'-1" CLG.VINYL
20'-0"x20'-O" CLEAR SPACE
ENTRYCLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYL15R
2 BAYGARAGECONC.
26SC68
2668 2668
30SC68
16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
F.M.T.
4'-6" 11'-0"19'-0"
DN15R
BI-PASS5068BI-PASS5068
BATH 2CLG. HGT. 9'-1"H.S.

BDRM. 2CLG. HGT. 8'-1"CARPET
BDRM. 3CLG. HGT. 8'-1"CARPETBDRM. 4CLG. HGT. 8'-1"CARPET SERVICECLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYLLOFTCLG. HGT. 8'-1"VINYLF.M.T.

F.M.T.266826682668BI-PASS5068
28 2668
2868
2668
3050SH
FX2040 FXTEMP. GL.2040
11'-412"13'-4"
3'-6"
3'-6"5'-10"1'-0"5'-312"3050SH3050SH
1'-0"
| 2022XXX | 05-09-22C 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. 0248 DESIGN DEVELOPMENTCALIFORNIA-LIBRARY SERIESPLAN 3.17751775 SF4 Bdrm|2.5 Bath Loft2 Bay Garage8' | 8' Plates3.1 3B | Farmhouse3C | Craftsman

VALLEYRIDGERIDGEVALLEYRR
4:124:124:124:124:124:124:126"4'-0"4'-0"

VALLEYRIDGERIDGEVALLEY
RIDGE
6:126:125:125:126:126:126:12
6"
VALLEYRIDGERIDGEVALLEYR4:123:12
4:124:124:124:12
| 2022XXX | 05-09-22C 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. DESIGN DEVELOPMENTCALIFORNIA-LIBRARY SERIESPLAN 3.1775Roof Plans Composition RoofEave 12" / Rake 12"Eave 12" / Rake 12"Eave 12" / Rake 12"

3.204816
3A | Americana3C | Craftsman3B | FarmhouseComposition RoofComposition Roof

2x6 WOOD FASCIA
2x6 WOOD FASCIA 2x6 WOOD FASCIASTUCCO FINISH

STUCCO OVER FOAM

WOOD POST

STUCCO OVER FOAM

ADDRESS LIGHT

ADDRESS LIGHT ADDRESS LIGHT STUCCO FINISHWOOD TRIM STUCCO OVER FOAMSTUCCO OVER FOAM | 2022XXX | 05-09-22C 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. 0248 DESIGN DEVELOPMENTCALIFORNIA-LIBRARY SERIESPLAN 3.1775Front Elevations

FOAM OUTLOOKER W/ KNEE BRACE

3.3 METAL SECTIONALGARAGE DOOR METAL SECTIONALGARAGE DOOR

METAL SECTIONALGARAGE DOORSTUCCO OVER FOAM

FIBER CEMENT BOARD AND BATTENS

STONE VENEER OVERSTUCCO COLUMN

WAINSCOT OVERSTUCCO COLUMN
3C | Craftsman
3A | Americana
3B | Farmhouse

COMPOSITION ROOFSTUCCO FINISH

FIBER CEMENT BOARD AND BATTENS COMPOSITION ROOFCOMPOSITION ROOF

1'-0"+STD. HEEL8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"
TOP OF TILE±24'-7"
N.G.
8"TYP.
7'-0"
2'-6"
7'-6"6'-8"8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"6'-8"
8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"1'-0"+STD. HEEL
LINE OF POWDER FLOOR9'1" PLATE ATPOWDER ONLY7'-1014"1'-234" 7'-0"
8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"
7'-0"
7'-0"
| 2022XXX | 05-09-22C 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. 0248 DESIGN DEVELOPMENTCALIFORNIA-LIBRARY SERIESBuilding Elevations3.4RearRight FrontLeft
PLAN 3A | AMERICANA

1'-0"+STD. HEEL8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"
TOP OF TILE±24'-7"
N.G.7'-0"7'-6"6'-8"
9"5'-0"
8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"6'-8"
8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"
LINE OF POWDER FLOOR9'1" PLATE ATPOWDER ONLY7'-1014"1'-234" 7'-0"
1'-0"+STD. HEEL
8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"
7'-0"
7'-0"
| 2022XXX | 05-09-22C 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. 0248 DESIGN DEVELOPMENTCALIFORNIA-LIBRARY SERIESBuilding Elevations3.5RearRight FrontLeft
PLAN 3B | FARMHOUSE

8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"
TOP OF TILE±24'-7"
N.G.7'-0"4'-2"2'-10"4'-2"2'-10"7'-0"8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"6'-8"
8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"
LINE OF POWDER FLOOR9'1" PLATE ATPOWDER ONLY1'-234" 7'-1034" 2'-10"4'-2"
7'-0"
8'-1"8'-1"
8'-1"8'-1"
7'-0"
2'-10"
7'-0"
7'-0"4'-2"
| 2022XXX | 05-09-22C 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. 0248 DESIGN DEVELOPMENTCALIFORNIA-LIBRARY SERIESBuilding Elevations3.6RearRight FrontLeft
PLAN 3C | CRAFTSMAN

STONEHAVEN SUBDIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

MAY 2023

PREPARED FOR:

City of Hanford
Community Development Department
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230

PREPARED BY:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group

Table of Contents
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Regulatory Information ....................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Document Format ............................................................................................................................... 1-1 Chapter 2 Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................................. 2-1 Project Title ................................................................................................................ 2-1 Lead Agency Name and Address ................................................................................ 2-1 Contact Person and Phone Number .......................................................................... 2-1 Project Location ......................................................................................................... 2-1 General Plan Designation and Zoning ........................................................................ 2-1 Description of Project ................................................................................................ 2-2 Prezone....................................................................................................................... 2-2 Annexation ................................................................................................................. 2-2 Williamson Act Contract Termination ....................................................................... 2-2 Subdivision ................................................................................................................. 2-2 Public Facilities and Infrastructure ............................................................................ 2-3 Residential Construction ............................................................................................ 2-3 Construction Phasing ................................................................................................. 2-3 Operation and Maintenance ...................................................................................... 2-3 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required ....................................... 2-3 Consultation with California Native American Tribes ................................................ 2-3 Chapter 3 Determination .............................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Potential Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Determination ..................................................................................................................................... 3-2 Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 4-3

4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................ 4-3 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................... 4-3 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................... 4-4 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................... 4-4

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................................... 4-6 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................... 4-6 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................... 4-6 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................... 4-9

Table of Contents
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 ii
Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 4-10

4.3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 4-12 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-12 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-13 Thresholds ................................................................................................................ 4-17 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 4-18 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4-19

4.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................................... 4-25 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-25 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-32 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4-36 Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 4-38

4.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................ 4-39 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-39 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-40 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4-43 Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 4-44

4.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................................... 4-45 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-45 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-45 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4-49

4.7 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................................. 4-51 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-51 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-52 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4-54 Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 4-56

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................... 4-57 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-57 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-57 Thresholds ................................................................................................................ 4-62 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 4-62 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4-62

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................... 4-69 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-69 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-70

Table of Contents
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 iii
Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4-72

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 4-74 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-74 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-75 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4-78

4.11 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................................... 4-81 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-81 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-81 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4-82

4.12 Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................................... 4-83 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-83 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-83 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4-84

4.13 Noise ............................................................................................................................................... 4-85 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-85 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-85 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4-86

4.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................................. 4-88 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-88 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4-88

4.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................................. 4-90 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-90 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-91 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4-91

4.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................... 4-93 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-93 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-93 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4-95

4.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................................ 4-96 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-96 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-96 Thresholds ................................................................................................................ 4-97 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4-97

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 4-98 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-98

Table of Contents
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 iv
Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-100 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 4-101 Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 4-102

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................................ 4-103 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 4-103 Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-104 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................... 4-107

4.20 Wildfire .......................................................................................................................................... 4-108 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 4-108 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................... 4-108

4.21 CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................... 4-110 Statement of Findings ............................................................................................ 4-110 Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program ......................................................................... 5-1 Chapter 6 References .................................................................................................................................... 6-1

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Air Quality Report ..................................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B: Biological Evaluation ................................................................................................................. B-1 Appendix C: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey ........................................................................................... C-1 Appendix D: Design Plans .............................................................................................................................. D-1 Appendix E: VMT Memo ............................................................................................................................... E-1

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map ............................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-2: Aerial Map................................................................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-3: Topo Quad Map .......................................................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map ................................................................................... 2-8 Figure 2-5: Zone District Map ....................................................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 4-1: Farmland Map .......................................................................................................................... 4-11 Figure 4-2: FEMA Map ................................................................................................................................ 4-80

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................................................................ 2-2 Table 4-1: Aesthetics Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 4-3 Table 4-2: Agriculture and Forest Impacts ................................................................................................... 4-6

Table of Contents
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 v
Table 4-3: Air Quality Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 4-12 Table 4-4: Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Air Pollutants ................................................................ 4-17 Table 4-5: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources ............................................................................ 4-17 Table 4-6: Thresholds of Significance for Toxic Air Contaminants ............................................................. 4-17 Table 4-7: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation ............................... 4-18 Table 4-8: Construction Emission Summary, Criteria Air Pollutants .......................................................... 4-20 Table 4-9: Operational Emissions Summary, Criteria Air Pollutants .......................................................... 4-21 Table 4-10: Maximum Daily Construction and Operational Emissions, Criteria Air Pollutants ................. 4-22 Table 4-11: Biological Resources Impacts................................................................................................... 4-25 Table 4-12. List of Soils Located Onsite and Their Basic Properties ........................................................... 4-26 Table 4-13: List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur in the APE and/or Vicinity. ................ 4-28 Table 4-14: List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity. ............... 4-30 Table 4-15: Cultural Resources Impacts ..................................................................................................... 4-39 Table 4-16: Energy Impacts......................................................................................................................... 4-45 Table 4-17: Geology and Soils Impacts ....................................................................................................... 4-51 Table 4-18: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-57 Table 4-19: Construction Emissions, Greenhouse Gases ........................................................................... 4-63 Table 4-20: Operational Emissions, Greenhouse Gases ............................................................................. 4-63 Table 4-21: AB 32 Consistency Table .......................................................................................................... 4-64 Table 4-22: SB 32 Consistency Table .......................................................................................................... 4-66 Table 4-23: AB 1279 Consistency Table ...................................................................................................... 4-68 Table 4-24: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts ............................................................................. 4-69 Table 4-25: Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts .................................................................................... 4-74 Table 4-26: Land Use and Planning Impacts ............................................................................................... 4-81 Table 4-27: Mineral Resources Impacts ..................................................................................................... 4-83 Table 4-28: Noise Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 4-85 Table 4-29: Population and Housing Impacts ............................................................................................. 4-88 Table 4-30: Public Services .......................................................................................................................... 4-90 Table 4-31: Recreation Impacts .................................................................................................................. 4-93 Table 4-32: Transportation Impacts ........................................................................................................... 4-96 Table 4-33: Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-98 Table 4-34: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts ................................................................................... 4-103 Table 4-35: Wildfire Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 4-108 Table 4-36: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................ 4-110 Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program ........................................................................ 5-2

Table of Contents
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 i

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB .............................................................................................................................................. Assembly Bill APCD ..................................................................................................................... air pollution control districts APE ............................................................................................................................. Area of Potential Effect AQMDs ........................................................................................................... air quality management districts ASM ............................................................................................................................................. ASM Affiliates BMP ...................................................................................................................... Best Management Practices CAA .............................................................................................................................................. Clean Air Act CAAQS............................................................................................... California Ambient Air Quality Standards CalEEMod ........................................................................ California Emissions Estimator Modeling (software) CARB .................................................................................................................. California Air Resources Board CCAA .............................................................................................................................. California Clean Air Act CDFW ....................................................................................................................... California Fish and Wildlife CEQA ........................................................................................................ California Environmental Quality Act CGP ..................................................................................................................... Construction General Permit CGS ...................................................................................................................... California Geological Survey CH4 .................................................................................................................................................... Methane CHRIS ................................................................................ California Historical Resources Information System City ...........................................................................................................................................City of Hanford CHRIS ...................................................................................................... California Natural Diversity Database CNPS .................................................................................................................. California Native Plant Society CO .................................................................................................................................... Carbone Monoxide CO2 ........................................................................................................................................... Carbon dioxide County ........................................................................................................................................... Kings County CRHR ............................................................................................... California Register of Historical Resources CWA ......................................................................................................................................... Clean Water Act dBA .................................................................................................................................. A-weighted decibels DOC ..................................................................................................................... Department of Conservation DPM ........................................................................................................................... Diesel Particulate Matter DTSC ................................................................................................. Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR ................................................................................................................... Environmental Impact Report EPA .............................................................................................................Environmental Protection Agency

Table of Contents
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 ii
ESA ................................................................................................................ Environmental Site Assessment FEMA ............................................................................................... Federal Emergency Management Agency FMMP ......................................................................................... Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FPPA ................................................................................................................. Farmland Protection Policy Act GAMAQI .............................................................. Guidelines for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GC ..................................................................................................................................... Government Code GHG ........................................................................................................................................ Greenhouse Gas GIS ............................................................................................................... Geographic Information System GSP ............................................................................................................... Groundwater Sustainability Plan HUC ................................................................................................................................. Hydrologic Unit Code IDDE ................................................................................................ illicit discharge detection and elimination IPaC ................................ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation system IS ................................................................................................................................................ Initial Study IS/MND ........................................................................................ Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration km .................................................................................................................................................. kilometers KWRA .............................................................................................................. Kings Waste Recycling Authority MBTA .................................................................................................................................... Migratory Bird Act MGD ............................................................................................................................... million gallons per day MMRP ...................................................................................... Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MND ................................................................................................................ Mitigated Negative Declaration MRZ ............................................................................................................................ Mineral Resource Zones MS4 ........................................................................................................... Municipal Separate Storm Systems NAAQS ................................................................................................ National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAGPRA .................................................................. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAHC ................................................................................................... Native American Heritage Commission ND ................................................................................................................................. Negative Declaration NEPA ............................................................................................................ National Environmental Policy Act NO2 ........................................................................................................................................ Nitrogen Dioxide NOx ......................................................................................................................................... Nitrogen Oxides NPDES ................................................................................... National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NRCS .................................................................................................. Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP ......................................................................................................... National Register of Historic Places O3 ......................................................................................................................................................... Ozone

Table of Contents
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 iii
Pb ............................................................................................................................................................ Lead PM10 ....................................................................................................... particulate matter 10 microns in size PM2.5 ..................................................................................................... particulate matter 2.5 microns in size ppb .......................................................................................................................................... parts per billion ppm ......................................................................................................................................... parts per million PRC ................................................................................................................................ Public Resource Code Project ............................................................................................................. Stonehaven Subdivision Project Reclamation ........................................................................................... United States Bureau of Reclamation ROG ............................................................................................................................. Reactive Organic Gases RWQCB .................................................................................................. Regional Water Quality Control Board SB .................................................................................................................................................. Senate Bill SGMA ............................................................................................Sustainable Groundwater Management Act SIP ........................................................................................................................ State Implementation Plan SJVAB ..................................................................................................................... San Joaquin Valley Air Basin SJVAPCD ................................................................................. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SLF ....................................................................................................................................... Sacred Lands File SO2 ............................................................................................................................................. Sulfur Dioxide SSJVIC ................................................................................... Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center SR ................................................................................................................................................ State Route SRA ........................................................................................................................... State Responsibility Area SWPPP ................................................................................................. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB ................................................................................................... State Water Resources Control Board USACE .................................................................................................. United States Army Corps of Engineers USC .................................................................................................................................... United States Code USDA ................................................................................................. United States Department of Agriculture USFWS .................................................................................................. United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS ............................................................................................................... United States Geological Survey μg/m3 ................................................................................................................... micrograms per cubic meter VMT ................................................................................................................................ vehicle miles traveled WDR ................................................................................................................ Waste Discharge Requirements WWTP .................................................................................................................. Wastewater Treatment Plant

Chapter 1: Introduction
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 1-1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Provost & Pritchard) has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/ MND) on behalf of DR Horton to address the environm ental effects of the Stonehaven Subdivision (Project). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. The City of Hanford is the CEQA lead agency for this Project.

The site and the Project are described in detail in Chapter 2 Project Description.

1.1 REGULATORY INFORMATION
An Initial Study (IS) is a document prepared by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accord ance with California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq. )-- also known as the CEQA Guidelines --Section 15064 (a)(1) states that an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of t he whole record that the Project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that might avoid or reduce project impacts to less than significant level s. A negative declaration (ND) may be prepared instead if the lead agency finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. An ND is a written statement describing th e reasons why a proposed Project, not otherwise exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a ND or mitigated ND shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a. The IS shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b. The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:

1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed MND and IS is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and

2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

1.2 DOCUMENT FORMAT
This IS/MND contains six chapters. Chapter 1 Introduction, provides an overview of the Project and the CEQA process. Chapter 2 Project Description , provides a detailed description of proposed Project components and objectives. Chapter 3 Determination, the Lead Agency’s determination based upon this initial evaluation. Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analysis for all impact areas, mandatory findings of significance, and feasible mitigation measures. If the Project does not have the potential to significantly impact a given issue area, the relevant section provides a brief discussion of the reasons why no impacts are expected. If the Project could have a potentially significant impact on a resource, the issue area discussion provides a description of potential impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures and/or permit requirements that would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP), provides the

Chapter 1: Introduction
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 1-2
proposed mitigation measures, implementation timelines, and the entity/agency responsible for ensuring implementation. Chapter 6 References details the documents and reports this document relies upon to provide its analysis.

The Air Quality Report, Biological Evaluation, Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Design Plans, and Vehicle Miles Travelled Memo are provided as technical Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, Appendix D, and Appendix E, respectively, at the end of this document.

Chapter 2: Project Description
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 2-1
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Project Title
Stonehaven Subdivision
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Hanford
Community Development Department, Planning Division
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 9230
Contact Person and Phone Number
Lead Agency Contact
Gabrielle de Silva Myers, Senior Planner
(559)585-2578
[email protected]
CEQA Consultant
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Jarred Olsen, Environmental Project Manager
(559) 636-1166
Project Location
The Project is located outside the City of Hanford, California, approximately 185 miles southeast of Sacramento and 75 miles northwest of Bakersfield, south of the sout h side of Hanford -Armona Road between 12th and 13th Avenues (see Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2). The proposed site of the Project is located on Assessor’s Parcel Number 011-040-030-000. The Project is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence and is located adjacent to City limits.

As shown on Figure 2-3, the Project site comprises approximately 12.17 acres situated in the south west area of the City and is generally bounded agricultural and rural residential, with residential subdivisions constructed to the west.

General Plan Designation and Zoning
The Project site is in a rural residential area marked by other rural residences and agricultural plots ranging from approximately 9 to 20 acres in area. The San Joaquin Valley, like most of California, experiences a Mediterranean climate with warm, dry summers and cool, moist winters. Table 2-1 below summarizes the surrounding land uses of the Project site.

Chapter 2: Project Description
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 2-2
Table 2-1: Surrounding Land Uses
Direction Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Rural Residential Corridor Mixed Use MX-C (Corridor Mixed Use) South Rural Residential Medium Density
Residential1
AL-10 (County: AL-10 Limited Agricultural-10
District)
East Farmland Low Density
Residential1
R-L-5 (Low Density Residential—Five thousand
(5,000) square foot minimum site area)
West Farmland Medium Density
Residential1
R-M (Medium Density Residential)
AL-10 (County)
1These areas also carry a “floating” designation of Education facilities.

Description of Project
The Project proposes to subdivide the site to allow for construction of 82 single-family dwellings and ancillary public facilities and infrastructure on an approximately 12.17-acre parcel. The Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE) identified for biological surveys is approximately 16 acres, which includes the approximately 12.17-acre Project site and a 50 -foot buffer surrounding the Project site. The APE contains a residential house and a ruderal agricultural field that is currently a grass cover crop which will be removed.

The Project includes a 5.4-acre, on-site basin that can hold up to 51.23 acre-feet of stormwater. The primary components of the Project are described in more detail below.

Prezone
The Project will amend the Off icial Zoning Map of the City of Hanford to change the subject property to R-L-5 Zone District. Figure 2-5 depicts the existing zone districts.

Annexation
The Property would be annexed into the City of Hanford. The City would either initiate annexation by resolution of application or the Project p roponent would initiate directly with the Kings County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) by landowner petition.

Williamson Act Contract Termination
The Project site is subject to a Williamson Act Contract (Ag Preserve No. 670-1741, previously known as No. 670-76). This contract was protested by the City and confirmed by LAFCo on January 27, 1977. This contract would be terminated at time of annexation as permitted by Government Code Section 51243.5 subdivision (h).

Subdivision
The Project will subdi vide the 12.17-acre property into a 82-lot conventional single -family residential development at a density of approximately 6. 73 dwelling units per gross acre. This density is consistent with the applicable General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential, which allows for densities

Chapter 2: Project Description
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 2-3
between 2 and 10 dwelling units per acre. Outlots will be dedicated to the City for major street landscaping purposes. The subdivision would comply with applicable subdivision and improvement standards of the City Subdivision Ordinance. Appendix D depicts the Tentative Subdivision Map.

Public Facilities and Infrastructure
The Project will construct public facilitie s and infrastructure in accordance with the standards, specifications, and policies of the City. Facilities include roadways, water delivery, stormwater, and wastewater conveyance infrastructure, water and sewer mains, curb, gutter, sidewalks, signs, fire hydrants, and street lighting internally within the subdivision. Utilities would connect to the utility mains located along the Project site’s W. Spring Crest Drive frontage to the Billingsley Ranch subdivision. The Project includes two points of access to the Billingsley Ranch subdivision by way of W. Spring Crest Drive and “A” Street. Stormwater runoff would be directed to the stormwater retention basin located in the approved Billingsley Ranch subdivision which is adequately sized to accommodate the Stonehaven Project’s runoff.

Residential Construction
82 detached single -family dwelling units would be constructed in accordance with the applicable development standards of the R-L-5 Zone District. A Planned Unit Development permit would be obtained to allow for garages to exceed 50% of the building width.

Construction Phasing
Project construction will occur in one phase over approximately 16 months. Construction hours would be limited to 7:00 am to 8:00 pm pursuant to Hanford Municipal Code (HMC) Section 9.10.060 subdivision (A)(10).

Operation and Maintenance
In order to provide for maintenance of rights-of-way and open space, City Council may need to take action to annex the Project site into the City’s Community Facilities District or other maintenance finance mechanism. Maintenance of public infrastructure will occur as needed through collection of property taxes, property assessments, or services fees. Solid waste vehicles are expected to service the Project’s solid waste, recycling, and green waste needs weekly.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required
• County of Kings
• Kings County LAFCO
Consultation with California Native American Tribes
Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (codification of AB 52, 2013 -14)) requires that a lead agency, within 14 days of determining that it will undertake a project, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about projects in that geographic area. The not ice must briefly describe the project and inquire whether the Tribe wishes to initiate request formal consultation. Tribes have 30 days from receipt of notification to request formal consultation. The lead agency then has 30 days

Chapter 2: Project Description
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 2-4
to initiate the consultati on, which then continues until the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement will be made.

The City of Hanford has received written correspondence from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 requesting notification of the Project.

Chapter 2: Project Description
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 2-5

Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map

Chapter 2: Project Description
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 2-6

Figure 2-2: Aerial Map

Chapter 2: Project Description
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 2-7

Figure 2-3: Topo Quad Map

Chapter 2: Project Description
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 2-8

Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map

Chapter 2: Project Description
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 2-9

Figure 2-5: Zone District Map

Chapter 3: Determination
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 3-1
CHAPTER 3 DETERMINATION

3.1 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
As indicated by the discussions of existing and baseline conditions, and impact analyses that follow in this Chapter, environmental factors not checked below would have no impacts or less than significant impacts resulting from the project. Environmental factors that are. checked below would have potentially significant impacts resulting from the project. Mitigation measures are recommended for each of the potentially significant impacts that would reduce the impact to less than significant.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

The analyses of environmental impacts in Chapter 4 Impact Analysis result in an impact statement, which shall have the following meanings.

Potentially Significant Impact. This category is applicable if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant, and no feasible mitigation measures can be identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. This category applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce an effect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure(s), and briefly explain how they would reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced).

Less than Significant Impact. This category is identified when the proposed Project would result in impacts below the threshold of significance, and no mitigation measures are required.

No Impact. This category applies when a project would not create an impact in the specific environmental issue area. “No Impact” answers do not require a detailed explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency, which show that the impact does not apply to the specific project (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).

Chapter 3: Determination
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 3-2

3.2 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation (to be completed by the Lead Agency):

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and 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 that 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 le ast 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.

_______________________________________ _____________________________ Signature Date

_______________________________________
Printed Name/Position

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-3
CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ANALYSIS

4.1 AESTHETICS
Table 4-1: Aesthetics Impacts
Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have 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) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?

Baseline Conditions
The city of Hanford is located within Kings County in the San Joaquin Valley in central California in an area that can be characterized as urban agricultural. The city topography is predominantly flat with minimal natural watercourses; no scenic vistas are identified by the Hanford General Plan. The Project site is situated to the south of Hanford -Armona Road between 12 th and 13th Avenues approximately 0.35 miles south of SR-198. According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are no adopted or eligible state scenic highways within the city of Hanford. The nearest eligible state scenic highway is a portion of State Route (SR) 198, which is approximately 15.5-miles northeast of the Project site.1 The Project site is adjacent to the Hanford city limits and will be annexed into the City as part of the Project.

1 (California Department of Transportation 2023)

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-4
Applicable Regulations
Federal
There are no federal regulations pertaining to aesthetics that are relevant to the Project.

State
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA establishes that it is the policy of the State to take all action necessary to provide the people of the state “with…enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities.” [California Public Resources Code Section 21001(b)].

California Scenic Highways Program
Recognizing the value of scenic areas and the value of views from roads in such areas, the State Legislature established the California Scenic Highway Program in 1963. Under this p rogram, State highway segments are designated as eligible for inclusion as scenic routes. Once the local jurisdictions through which a roadway passes have established a corridor protection program, the State may officially designate a roadway as a scenic route. Projects must then be evaluated for their impact on the scenic qualities of the corridor. Each designated corridor is monitored by the State and its designation may be revoked if a local government fails to enforce the provisions of the corridor protection program.

Local
City of Hanford General Plan
• Policy T41: Strive to improve the visual character of roadway corridors by improving streetscapes with amenities such as street trees, pedestrian -scaled lighting, underground utilities, water - efficient landscaping, and streetscape furniture.
• Policy P47: Facilitate public safety through the placement of outdoor lighting, while respecting the privacy of surrounding properties.

City of Hanford Municipal Code
Section 17.50.140.D(1) – General Lighting Standards: All lights and light fixtures, except public streetlights, shall be located, aimed or shielded so as to minimize light trespassing across property boundaries or skyward.

Impact Analysis
a) Have substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. The Hanford General Plan does not identify or designate any scenic vistas within the City or Sphere of Influence. In addition, the Project site does not contain any visual features or historic resources as identified in the General Plan. As a result, the P roject would not adversely affect scenic vistas and no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. There are no scenic resources onsite. The Project would not impact a State Scenic Highway as one does not exist in the vicinity of the Project site. There would be no impact.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-5
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact . The existing visual character of the Project site is farmed agricultural land surrounded by urban development. A subdivision exists to the east of the Project site. To the west, the Project is surrounded by vacant agricultural land. Agricultural lands and rural residential development exist to the north and south. Furthermore, the subdivision development will offer attractive landscaping and architectural design to reduce any visual effect to the surrounding properties and conform with the existing character of the neighboring community. As the Project is located in an urbanized area, the Project will be required to comply with the development standards of the applicable zone distr ict. Any impacts would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. Development of the Project would create new sources of light typical of urban development found near the Project site. Nighttime lighting levels would increase over current levels, as sources of new and nighttime lighting and illumination would include, but are not necessarily limited to, lighting from the new resid ential use, lights associated with vehicular travel (i.e., car headlights), and street lighting. Increased nighttime lighting and illumination could result in adverse effects to adjacent land uses through the “spilling over” of light into these areas and “ sky glow” conditions. However, all future development under the Project would have to comply with Section

17.50.140 of the Hanford Municipal Code, which ensures that exterior lighting shall be directed away from abutting properties to not cause annoying gl are. This would assist in reducing potential impacts associated with daytime glare and nighttime light. As such, any potential light and glare impacts would be reduced to a less than significant impact.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-6

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Table 4-2: Agriculture and Forest Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(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?

Baseline Conditions
An important facet of Hanford’s economy is agriculture. A wide variety of vegetables, stone fruits and nuts thrive in the area’s fertile soil and are packed, stored and shipped to areas throughout the country. The City’s climate, water availab ility and proximity to transcontinental transportation routes have made it a premier location for agricultural land for over a century. As such, preserving the productivity of agricultural lands is integral to maintaining the City’s cultural and economic v iability. The Project site is designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance under the Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program (FMMP) but is not currently under agricultural use.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) oversees the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (7 U.S. Code Section 4201, et seq.; see also 7 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 658). The FPPA (a subtitle of the 1981 Farm Bill) is national legislation designed to protect farmland. The FPPA states its purpose is to “minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-7
nonagricultural uses.” The FPPA applies to projects and programs that are sponsored or fi nanced in whole or in part by the federal government. The FPPA does not apply to private construction projects subject to federal permitting and licensing, projects planned and completed without assistance from a federal agency, federal projects related to national defense during a national emergency, or projects proposed on land already committed to urban development. The FPPA spells out requirements to ensure federal programs to the extent practical are compatible with State, local, and private programs a nd policies to protect farmland and calls for the use of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment system to aid in analysis. Because the City may ultimately seek some federal funding for transportation or other capital improvements related to this Project, this document addresses the FPPA as an applicable regulation.

State
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection As part of the FMMP, the California Department of Conservation (DOC) applies the NRCS soil classifications to identify agricultural lands, and these agricultural designations are used in planning for the present and future of California’s agricultural land resources. These designated agricultural lands are included in the Important Farmland Maps. The FMMP was established in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and the conversion of these lands. The FMMP provides analysis of agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California. The DOC has a minimum mapping unit of 10 acres, with parcels that are smaller than 10 acres being absorbed into the surrounding classifications.

The list below provides a comprehensive description of all the categories mapped by the DOC. • Prime Farmland. Farmland that has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long ‐term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must hav e been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. • Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
• Unique Farmland. Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
• Farmland of Local Importance. Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. • Grazing Land. Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen Associati on, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities.

The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres.
• Urban and Built-up Land. Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to

1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10‐acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, public administrative purposes, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.
• Other Land. Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian ar eas not suitable for livestock

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-8
grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines and borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

As shown in Figure 4-1, the Project site is designated Farmland of Statewide Importance.

California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, is promulgated in California Government Code (GC) Sections 51200 -51297.4. The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses in return for reduced property tax assessments. Private land within locally designated agricultural preserve areas are eligible fo r enrollment under Williamson Act contracts. However, an agricultural preserve must consist of no less than 100 acres. In order to meet this requirement two or more parcels may be combined if they are contiguous or if they are in common ownership.

The Wil liamson Act program is administered by the DOC in conjunction with local governments, which administer the individual contract arrangements with landowners. The landowner commits the parcel to a 10‐year period, or a 20-year period for property restricted by a Farmland Security Zone Contract, wherein no conversion to a non-agricultural use is permitted. Each year the contract automatically renews unless a notice of non‐renewal is filed. In return, the land is taxed at a rate based on the actual use of the la nd for agricultural purposes as opposed to its unrestricted market value. A landowner may also submit an application for immediate cancellation, provided that the cancellation is consistent with the criteria stated in the California Land Conservation Act a nd those adopted by the affected county or city. Non ‐renewal or immediate cancellation does not change the zoning of the property. Participation in the Williamson Act program is dependent on city or county adoption and implementation of the program and is voluntary for landowners.2
The Project site is subject to a Williamson Act contract.

Local
City of Hanford General Plan
The Open Space, Conservation & Recreation Element of the City’s General Plan includes the following agricultural resource goals and policies that are potentially applicable to the Project:
• Goal O1. Conservation and long-term protection of agricultural resources and soils located outside of the Planned Area Boundary
• Policy O1. Boundary between Urban and Agricultural Uses. Utilize the Planned Area Boundary line between urban uses and agricultural uses and prohibit non -agricultural development outside of the Planned Area Boundary.
• Policy O2. Kings County Preservation Efforts. Support the Kings County efforts to preserve and protect farmlands outside of the Planned Area Boundary.
• Policy O8. Annexation of Williamson Act Lands. Consider annexation of Williamson Act lands only if the land is within the 2035 Growth Boundary and only if such annexation is necessary to provide for logical urban development, job creation, or the provision of municipal services.

2 (California Department of Conservation 2022)

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023
4-9
Impact Analysis
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?
a) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located on County land that has been historically used for agriculture, which would be annexed into the City of Hanford as a part of this Project.

The Project site is designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance by the DO C’s FMMP. The Project would convert approximately 12.17 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance to residential uses. The conversion of this Project would be minimal in comparison to the total amount of agricultural land in the county. Additionally, the Project is within the City’s sphere of influence, and is planned for residential uses. Therefore, the City has already anticipated the conversion of the Project site to a non -agricultural use, which was previously analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Rep ort. 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.

AGR-1: That a right-to farm provision be recorded with the recording of the final subdivision map to ensure that fu ture residents of the homes in the project area are aware of the adjacent agricultural uses and their right to continue to operate.

This will mitigate potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project would result in the conversion of farmland currently under a Williamson Act Contract into a residential subdivision.

The Project would result in the cancellation of the existing Williamson Act Contract, creating a significant impact. The City of Hanford, within its 2035 General Plan EIR, recognizes that future development, such as that under the current proposal, would result in future conflicts with land participating in Williamson Act contracts. In consideration of the importance of preserving agricultural land, while also needing to provide housing and growth potential for the City, the City determined that providing land for future development outweighs the need to conserve farmland under existing Williamson Act contracts. The City made a statement of overriding considerations indicating that no feasible mitigation measures exist which would diminish potential impacts to land being converted and which are under Williamson Act contracts, affirming this at the time of adoption of the City of Hanford 2035 General Plan and certification of its associated EIR. As a result, the Project falls in line with the analysis provided within the City’s General Plan EIR and no mitigation would be necessary resulting from a conflict with an existing Williamson Act Conflict. Alternatively, and pursuant to State law, the City may exercise its right to not succeed to the Williamson Act Contract, terminating the contract in the event the annexation associated with the Project is completed. In the event that the Project does result in a cancellation of the contract, and in order to mitigate impacts resulting from the cancellation of the existing Williamson Act Contract, the applicant will implement mitigation measure AGR-2. This will mitigate potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The Project would result in the annexation of the Project site from Kings County into the City of Hanford, prezoning the site for residential use. The Hanford General Plan has not designated the Project site or surrounding areas as Forest Land, Timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. The Project site has historically been utilized for agricultural use. Therefore, there would be no impact.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-10
No Impact. The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use. The Project would result in the construction of a new subdivision on land that would be annexed into the City of Hanford, which has historically been utilized for agriculture. This would not require the loss or conversion of a forest to a non-forest use. Therefore, there would be no impact. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the conversion of approximately 12.17 acres of predominantly vacant land designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance into a new residential subdivision. While the Project would convert farmland into another use, the Project site is surrounded by urban uses. Under this Project, the site would be subject to a General Plan Amendment and rezoning that would be consistent with residential use and the construction of a new subdivision. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation
AGR-1 That a right -to farm provision be recorded with the recording of the final subdivision map to ensure that future residents of the homes in the project area are aware of the adjacent agricultural uses and their right to continue to operate.

AGR-2 Prior to development, the Williamson Act Contract shall be cancelled, and applicable cancellation fees shall be paid to the County Treasure in accordance with Government Code Section 51283(b). In the event that the City exercises the option of not succeeding to the Contract pursuant to Government Code Section 51243.5(d), and such action i s approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission, the Contract will be terminated, no cancellation is required, and no cancellation fees are required to be paid.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-11

Figure 4-1: Farmland Map

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-12

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Table 4-3: Air Quality Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?

Baseline Conditions
Air quality impacts are both local and regional. Regional and local air quality is impacted by topography, dominant airflows, atmospheric inversions, location, and season. The Project is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), which experiences some of the most challenging environmental conditions for air quality in the nation. The following section describes these conditions as they pertain to the Air Basin. The information in this section is primarily from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) Guidelines for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI).3 Climate Meteorology, Topography
The SJVAB, in which the City of Hanford is situated, has an inland Mediterranean climate characterized by warm, dry summers and cooler winters. Summer temperatures often exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and can vary as much as 30°F. Winters are for the most part mild and humid, with average high in the 50s, while the average daily low temperature is approximately 45°F.

The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the Valley is limited by the presence of persistent temperature inversions. Air temperature usually decreases as altitude increases. A reversal of this atmospheric state, where the air temperature increases with height, is termed an inversion. Air above and below an inversion does not mix because of differences in air density thereby restricting air pollutant dispersal.

Wind speed and direction play an important role in the dispersion and transport of air pollutants. During summer periods, winds typically originate from the northern San Joaquin Valley and flow in a south - southeasterly direction through the Valley, down through the Tehachapi Pass and into the neighboring Southeast Desert Air Basin. During winter months , winds occasionally originate in the opposite direction, from the south end of the Valley and flow in a north -northwesterly direction. Also, during winter months, the Valley experiences light, variable winds, less than 10 miles per hour. Low wind speeds, combined with

3 (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2015)

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-13
low inversion layers in the winter, create a climate conducive to high concentrations of certain air pollutants.

The SJVAB is basically a flat area bordered on the east by the Sierra Nevada Mountains; on the west by the Coast Ranges; and to the south by the Tehachapi Mountains. Airflow in the SJVAB is primarily influenced by marine air that enters through the Carquinez Straits where the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta empties into the San Francisco Bay. The region’s topographic features restrict air movement through and out of the basin. As a result, the SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollutant accumulation over time. Frequent transport of pollutants into the SJVAB from upwind sources also contributes to poor air quality.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
At the federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. The EPA's air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The federal CAA was first signed into law in 1963. Congress substantially amended the federal CAA in 1970, 1977, and 1990.

The EPA deals with global, international, national, and interstate air pollution issues. Their primary role at the state level is one of oversight of state air quality programs. The EPA sets federal standards for vehicle and stationary sources and provides research and guidance in air pollution programs.

The federal CAA required the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for several problem air pollutants on the basis of human health and welfare criteria. Two types of NAAQS have been established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect public welfare (e.g., crops, forests, materials, visi bility, etc.). Primary NAAQS have been established for the following criteria air pollutants:
• Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Ozone (O3)
• Respirable particulate matter (PM10)
• Fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
• Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
• Lead (Pb)

All of the above, except CO, also have some form of secondary standard. The primary NAAQS standards are intended to protect, within an adequate margin of safety, those persons most susceptible to respiratory distress, such as people suffering from asthma or ot her illness, the elderly, very young children, or others engaged in strenuous work or exercise.

The EPA designates areas with air quality not meeting federal standards as “nonattainment.” The federal CAA further classifies nonattainment areas based on the severity of the nonattainment problem, with marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme nonattainment classifications for ozone. Nonattainment classifications for PM range from marginal to serious.

The federal CAA requires areas with air quality viola ting the NAAQS to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP contains the strategies and control measures that states such as California will use to attain the NAAQS. The federal CAA amendments of 1990 r equire states containing areas that violate the NAAQS to revise their SIP to incorporate additional control

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-14
measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is a living document that is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning d ocuments, rules, and regulations of Air Basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The EPA reviews SIPs to determine if they conform to the mandates of the federal CAA amendments and will achieve air quality goals when implemented. If the EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, it may prepare a Federal Implementation Plan for the nonattainment area and impose additional control measures.

In addition to setting health-based standards for air pollutants, the EPA also oversees state and local actions to improve air quality. The following list provides a brief explanation of important regulations set forth by EPA:

Federal Clean Air Act (CAA)
• Requires air quality plans to include measures necessary to achieve NAAQS. • Requires all plans, programs, and projects that require federal approval, including transportation plans, to conform to air quality plans.
• Requires sanctions if all feasible measures are not expeditiously adopted.

State
States are required to develop and implement air pollution control plans designed to achieve and maintain the NAAQS established by the EPA. States may also establish their own standards, provided the state standards are at least as stringent as the NAAQS. California has established California Ambient Air Qualit y Standards (CAAQS) pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 39606(b) and its predecessor statutes.

The California Legislature established the Air Resources Board (CARB) in 1967. The CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988. The CCAA provides a planning framework for attainment of the CAAQS for O 3, CO, SO 2, and NO2. The CCAA classifies ozone nonattainment ar eas as moderate, serious, severe, and extreme based on severity of violation of state ambient air quality standards. For each class, the CCAA specifies air quality management strategies that must be adopted. For all nonattainment categories, attainment pla ns are required to demonstrate a five percent -per-year reduction in nonattainment air pollutants or their precursors, averaged every consecutive three -year period, unless an approved alternative measure of progress is developed. Air districts responsible f or air basins with air quality that is in violation of CAAQS for O 3, CO, SO2, and NO2 are required to prepare an air quality attainment plan that lays out a program to attain the CCAA mandates.

Other CARB duties include monitoring air quality in conjunctio n with air monitoring networks maintained by air pollution control districts (APCDs) and air quality management districts (AQMDs), establishing CAAQS (which are more stringent than the NAAQS in many cases), setting emissions standards for new motor vehicles, and reviewing district input for the SIP required by the federal CAA amendments. The SIP consists of the emissions standards for vehicular sources set by the CARB as well as attainment plans adopted by the APCD or AQMD and approved by the CARB.

The State of California, through the CARB and Bureau of Automotive Repair, develops programs to reduce pollution from vehicles and consumer products. The following list provides a brief explanation of important regulations set forth by the State of California:

California Clean Air Act (CCAA)
• Requires all feasible control measures, including transportation control measures, to reduce emissions.
• Provides for indirect source programs in attainment plans.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-15
• Contains targets for emission reductions, vehicle miles traveled, and average vehicle ridership.

AB (Assembly Bill) 170
• Requires cities and counties in the Valley to incorporate strategies to improve air quality in their general planning efforts.

SB (Senate Bill) 709
• Gave the Air District more responsibility in terms o f permitting, fee implementation, and agricultural assistance, but also gives the Air District the authority to require the use of best available control technology (BACT) for existing sources, promote cleaner-burning alternative fuels, and encourage and facilitate ridesharing.
• Allows the Air District to adopt a surcharge on motor vehicle registration fees in counties within the Air District.

California Government Code Section 65089
• Requires trip reduction and travel demand management in Congestion Management Programs.

Regional
Air pollution does not respect political boundaries. Therefore, many air quality problems are best managed on a regional basis. In 1991 the State Legislature determined that management of an air basin by a single agency would be more effective than management through each county within that basin. Air basins are geographic areas sharing a common "air-shed." Most major metropolitan areas in California now fall under the authority of multi-county APCDs or AQMDs.

Air districts have the primary responsibility for control of air pollution from all sources other than direct motor vehicle emissions, which are the responsibility of the CARB and EPA. Air districts adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve state and federal ambient air quality standards and enforce applicable state and federal law.

The SJVAPCD, formed in 1991, has jurisdiction over air quality matters in the SJVAB, spanning the counties of Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare, and the western portion of Kern.

Until the passage of the CCAA, the primary role of county APCDs was controlling stationary sources of pollution, such as industrial processes and equipment. With the passage of the CCAA and federal CAA amendments, air districts were require d to implement transportation control measures and were encouraged to adopt indirect source control programs to reduce mobile source emissions. These mandates created the necessity for air districts to work closely with cities, counties, and regional trans portation planning agencies to develop new programs.

The Air District entered into a memorandum of understanding with the eight San Joaquin Valley County transportation planning agencies in 1992. This memorandum of understanding ensures a coordinated approach in the development and implementation of transportation plans throughout the Valley. This action has helped the Regional Transportation Planning Agencies comply with pertinent provisions of the federal and state Clean Air Acts as well as related transportation legislation (such as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act).

The Air District develops plans and implements control measures in an effort to advance Valley attainment of CAAQS and NAAQS. The Air District has developed plans to attai n state and federal standards for ozone and particulate matter. The Air District’s air quality plans include emissions inventories to measure the sources of air pollutants, to evaluate how well different control methods have worked, and to show how

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-16
air pollution will be reduced. The plans also use computer modeling to estimate future levels of pollution and make sure that the Valley will meet air quality goals on time.

Control measures applicable to this Project are as follows:

Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions
Regulation VIII is a control measure that is one main strategies from the 2006 PM 10 Plan for reducing the PM10 emissions that are part of fugitive dust. Projects over 10 acres are required to file a Dust Control Plan (DCP) containing dust control practices sufficient to comply with Regulation VIII. The Project is required to prepare a DCP to comply with Regulation VIII.

Rule 4002—National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants The purpose of the rule is to incorporate the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Part 61, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories from Part 63, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Title 4 0, Code of Federal Regulations to protect the health and safety of the public from hazardous air pollutants, such as asbestos.

Rule 4102—Nuisance
The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and safety of the public and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials. Agricultural activities are exempt from the nuisance rule.

Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review
The purpose of this rule is to ensure that land use development projects reduce their construction/operational NOX and PM10 emissions by 20%/40% and 33.3%/50%, respectively. Operational emissions are required to be reduced over a period of 10 years. Emission reductions can be obtained either by implementing on -site improvements, such as using more efficie nt construction equipment, improved land use design, electrical vehicle chargers, photovoltaic panels, or by simply paying an in-lieu fee that goes towards emission-reducing projects elsewhere in the Air District’s region. This project is required to submit an Air Impact Assessment and address its emissions prior to commencement of both construction and operation.

Other Measures
Other control measures that apply to the Project are Rule 4641 —Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operation that requires reductions in volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions during paving and Rule 4601 —Architectural Coatings that limits the VOC content of all types of paints and coatings sold in the San Joaquin Valley. These measures apply at the point of sale of the asphalt and coatings, so Project compliance is ensured.

Local
The City of Hanford adopted its General Plan Update in April 2017. 4 The applicable air quality goals and policies from the Transportation and Circulation Element are listed below.

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

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

4 (City of Hanford, 2017)

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-17
Thresholds
The District’s annual emission significance thresholds used for the Project define the substantial contribution for both operational and construction emissions as follows:

Table 4-4: Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Air Pollutants Criteria
Pollutant
Emissions (in tons per year)
Construction Operations
ROG 10 10
CO 100 100
NOX 10 10
SOX 27 27
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15

Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, day ‐care centers, schools, etc. warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilit ies, worksites, and commercial areas. The District has determined the common land use types that are known to produce odors in the Air Basin. These types are shown in Table 4-5.

Table 4-5: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources
Odor Generator Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment
Facilities
2 miles
Sanitary Landfills 1 mile
Transfer Stations 1 mile
Composting Facilities 1 mile
Petroleum Refineries 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plants 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturers 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturers 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations 1 mile
Food Processors 1 mile
Feed Lots and Dairies 1 mile
Rendering Plants 1 mile

The District’s current thresholds of significance for toxic air contaminant emissions from the operations of both permitted and non-permitted sources are combined and presented in Table 4-6 below.

Table 4-6: Thresholds of Significance for Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic Air Contaminant Type Threshold
Carcinogens Maximally Exposed Individual risk
equals or exceeds 20 in one million
Non-Carcinogen, Acute Effects
Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1
for the Maximally Exposed
Individual
Non-Carcinogen, Chronic Effects
Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1
for the Maximally Exposed
Individual

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-18
Table 4-7: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards* National Standards*
Concentration* Attainment
Status Primary Attainment
Status
Ozone
(O3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm Nonattainment/
Severe
– No Federal
Standard
8-hour 0.070 ppm Nonattainment 0.075 ppm Nonattainment
(Extreme)**
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
AAM 20 μg/m3 Nonattainment – Attainment
24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
AAM 12 μg/m3 Nonattainment 12 μg/m3 Nonattainment
24-hour No Standard 35 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1-hour 20 ppm Attainment/
Unclassified
35 ppm Attainment/
Unclassified 8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm
8-hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm –
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
AAM 0.030 ppm Attainment 53 ppb Attainment/
Unclassified 1-hour 0.18 ppm 100 ppb
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
AAM – Attainment -- Attainment/
Unclassified 24-hour 0.04 ppm --
3-hour – 0.5 ppm
1-hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb
Lead (Pb) 30-day Average 1.5 μg/m3 Attainment – No
Designation/
Classification
Calendar Quarter – --
Rolling 3 -Month
Average
– 0.15 μg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) 24-hour 25 μg/m3 Attainment No Federal Standards Hydrogen
Sulfide (H2S)
1-hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride
(C2H3Cl)
24-hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Attainment
Visibility-
Reducing
Particle Matter
8-hour Extinction coefficient:

0.23/km-visibility of
10 miles or more due
to particles when the
relative humidity is
less than 70%.

Unclassified
* For more information on standards visit: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf ** No Federal 1-hour standard. Reclassified extreme nonattainment for the Federal 8-hour standard 4/13/23. ***Secondary Standard
Source: CARB 2015; SJVAPCD 2015
Methodology
The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine if a project would have a significant impact on air quality, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the project must be evalu ated. A significant impact would occur if the Project would:

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-19
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard; c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

While the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the Lead Agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the District recommends that its quantitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the si gnificance of project emissions. If the Lead Agency finds that the Project has the potential to exceed these air pollution thresholds, the Project should be considered to have significant air quality impacts. The applicable District thresholds and methodol ogies are contained under each impact statement below.

Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions
Short-term construction emissions associated with the Project were calculated with the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEmod), Version 2022.1. These output files can be found in Appendix A. The sections below detail the methodology of the air quality emissions analysis and its conclusions.

The em issions modeling includes emissions generated by off -road equipment, haul trucks, and worker commute trips. Emissions were quantified based on CalEEMod default assumptions.

Long-Term Operational Emissions
Operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the Project and are from three main sources: area sources, energy usage, and motor vehicles usage known as mobile sources. Area source emissions include emissions from natural gas, landscape, and painting. Operations are expected to commence in March 2025. Modeling assumptions and output files are included in Appendix A. The unmitigated long-term operational emissions for the Project are listed in Table 4-9.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact . The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The GAMAQI indicates that projects that do not exceed SJVAPCD regional criteria pollutant e missions quantitative thresholds would not conflict with or obstruct the applicable air quality plan (AQP).

As discussed in Impact b below, emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 associated with the construction and operation of the Project would not excee d the District’s significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to air quality violations.

The Project’s emissions would be less than significant for all criteria pollutants and would not result in inconsistency with the AQP for this criterion. The Project complies with all applicable control measures from the AQP therefore, the Project is consistent with the AQP, and the impact would be less than significant.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-20
b) Would the project 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? Less than Significant Impact. Project-generated emissions are below the SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds and th e Project is consistent with current air quality attainment plans including control measures and regulations, as depicted below in Table 4-8 and Table 4-9.

With respect to cumulative health impacts, the air basin is in non -attainment for O 3, PM 2.5, and PM 10 (state only), which means that the backgro und levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards. The air quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive individuals (such as children, the elderly, and persons with pre -existing respiratory or cardiovascular illnesses (the infirm)). Therefore, when the concentration of those pollutants exceeds the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population would experience adverse health effects. Since the air bas in is already in non -attainment, it is considered to have an existing significant cumulative health impact without the Project. The issue is whether the Project’s contribution to the existing violation of air quality standards is cumulatively considerable.

The SJVAPCD through its GAMAQI has determined that projects that exceed regional thresholds would have a cumulatively considerable health impact. As demonstrated in Table 4-8 and Table 4-9 the Project would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds and its cumulatively considerable impacts would be less than significant.

Construction Emissions
The results of the modeling are presented in Table 4-8. The emissions that would occur during construction activities were compared with the significance threshold for each pollutant. For assumptions in estimating the emissions, please refer to Appendix AError! Reference source not found. . As shown in Table 4-8, the emissions are below the significance thresholds. Therefore, the emissions would be less than significant on a Project basis.

Table 4-8: Construction Emission Summary, Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions (in tons per year)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Annual Emissions 0.42 1.51 1.90 <0.005 0.30 0.16 Significance Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: Appendix A

Operational Emissions
Operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the Project and are from two main sources: area sources and motor vehicles, or mobile sources. Operations are expected to commence in March 2025. The SJVAPCD considers construction and operational emissions separately when making significance determinations.

As shown in Table 4-9, the emissions are below the SJVAPCD significance thresholds prior to application of mitigation measures or taking credit for Project design features that would reduce Proje ct emissions and, therefore, would result in a less than significant impact.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-21
Table 4-9: Operational Emissions Summary, Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions (in tons per year)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Annual Emissions 1.18 0.73 4.38 0.01 0.38 0.17
Significance Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: Appendix A

c) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact.

Sensitive Receptors
Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with pre‐existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. The District considers a sensitive receptor a location that houses or attracts children, the elderly, people with i llnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include hospitals, residences, convalescent facilities, and schools. The closest off‐site sensitive receptors are existing residences north and south of the Project site, in addition to a residential subdivision approximately 0.32 miles east of the Project site. For criteria pollutants, impacts to receptors are based on emissions during the highest daily emissions during construction and operat ions. As shown in Table 4-10, emissions generated from construction and operation of the Project are less than SJVAPCD screening criteria. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Localized Pollutant Screening Analysis
Emissions occurring at or near the Project have the potential to create a localized impact, also referred to as an air pollutant hotspot. Localized emissions are considered significant if, when combined with background emissions, they would result in exceedance of any health‐based air quality standard. The impact from localized pollutants is based on the impact to the nearest sensitive receptor.

The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI includes screening thresholds for identifying projects that need detailed analysis for localized impacts. Projects with on‐site emission increases from construction activities or operational activities that exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level of any crite ria pollutant after compliance with applicable rules and regulations and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures would require preparation of an ambient air quality analysis. The criteria pollutants of concern for localized impact in the Air Basin are PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and CO.

The highest daily emissions occur during Project grading activities except for reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions, which are highest during application of architectural coatings. The results of the construction screening analysis are presented in Table 4-10.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-22
Table 4-10: Maximum Daily Construction and Operational Emissions, Criteria Air Pollutants Source Daily Emissions (in Pounds)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction – Summer 4.04 39.8 36.5 0.06 21.6 11.8
Construction – Winter 40.7 37.4 32.3 0.06 10.9 5.16
Operations - Summer 8.71 4.64 43.7 0.12 4.19 2.95
Operations – Winter 7.88 4.99 37 0.11 4.19 2.94
SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds 100 100 100 100 100 100 Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No No

Maximum Daily Operational Emissions
An analysis of maximum daily emissions during operation was conducted to determine if emissions would exceed 100 pounds per day for any pollutant of concern. Operational emissions include emissions generated on‐site by area sources such as natural gas comb ustion and landscape maintenance, an emergency generator, and off‐site by motor vehicles accessing the Project. Most motor vehicle emissions would occur distant from the site and would not contribute to a violation of ambient air quality standards; therefore, operational emissions reflect a conservative assumption. The results of the screening analysis are presented in Table 4-10.

The Project would not exceed SJVAPCD screening thresholds for localized operational criteria pollutant impacts; therefore, the Project’s localized criteria pollutant impacts would be less than significant.

Valley Fever
Valley fever, or coccidioidomycosis, is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of the fungus, Coccidioides immitis (C. immitis) . The spores live in soil and can live for an extended time in harsh environmental conditions. Activities or conditions that increase the amount of fugitive dust contribute to greater exposure, and they include dust storms, grading, and recreational off‐road activities.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that 752 of the 8,657 persons (8.7 percent) hospitalized in California between 2000 and 2007 for Valley fe ver died.5 California experienced a record number of Valley Fever cases in 2017 with 7,466 new cases. The San Joaquin Valley is considered an endemic area for Valley fever. Within the region, Kings County reported an infection risk of greater than 10 per 100,000.6
The distribution of C. immitis within endemic areas is not uniform and growth sites are commonly small (a few tens of meters) and widely scattered. Known sites appear to have some ecological factors in common suggesting that certain physical, ch emical, and biological conditions are more favorable for C. immitis growth. Avoidance, when possible, of sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis is a prudent risk management strategy. Listed below are ecologic factors and sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis:
1) Rodent burrows (often a favorable site for C. immitis, perhaps because temperatures are more moderate and humidity higher than on the ground surface) 2) Old (prehistoric) Indian campsites near fire pits

5 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevenetion, 2009)
6 (Kings County Department of Public Health, 2014)

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-23
3) Areas with sparse vegetation and alkaline soils
4) Areas with high salinity soils
5) Areas adjacent to arroyos (where residual moisture may be available) 6) Packrat middens
7) Upper 30 centimeters of the soil horizon, especially in virgin undisturbed soils 8) Sandy, well‐aerated soil with relatively high water‐holding capacitie Sites within endemic areas less favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis include:
1) Cultivated fields
2) Heavily vegetated areas (e.g. grassy lawns)
3) Higher elevations (above 7,000 feet)
4) Areas where commercial fertilizers (e.g. ammonium sulfate) have been applied 5) Areas that are continually wet
6) Paved (asphalt or concrete) or oiled areas
7) Soils containing abundant microorganisms
8) Heavily urbanized areas where there is little undisturbed virgin soil (USGS 2000) The Project site is situated in an urban infill area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would have a low probability of the site having C. immitis growth sites and exposure to the spores from disturbed soil, however exposure to blowing dust should be minimized.

Construction activities would generate fugitive dust that could contain C. immitis spores. The size of the Project would require the preparation and compliance with a Dust Control Plan, which would minimize the generation of fugitive dust during construction activities. Therefore, due to Proje ct size, combined with the relatively low probability of the presence of C. immitis spores, would reduce Valley fever impacts to less than significant.

During operations, dust emissions are anticipated to be negligible, because most of the Project area would be occupied by buildings, pavement, and landscaped areas. This condition would preclude the possibility of the Project from providing habitat suitable for C. immitis spores and for generating fugitive dust that may contribute to Valley fever exposure. Impacts would be less than significant.

Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)
DPM can be of particular concern as Project construction occurs as it is emitted from the combustion of diesel fuel. Because construction equipment is often used for lengths of time wit hin close proximity to existing sensitive receptors, there is a concern that the increase in DPM emissions could cause a localized health risk.

A construction Health Risk Assessment was prepared using Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Assessment Tool version 21081 was prepared for the Project, using the emissions found in Appendix A. Receptors were placed at existin g homes and the subdivision found to the east. The maximum impact was found to be 9.46 in a million. Impacts would therefore be less than significant.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-24
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Project would require the use of diesel -powered off- road construction equipment, however these emissions would not occur continuously and would cease after construction concludes. The Project would not engage in any of the activities l isted in Table 4-5.

Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment p lants, wastewater pump stations, composting facilities, feed lots, coffee roaster, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants, among other uses. The Project does not include any of these activities or land uses. The Project would therefore have a less than significant impact with respect to generation of emissions leading to odors or other adverse or objectionable emissions.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-25

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4-11: Biological Resources Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife 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 Wildlife or
U.S. 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?

Baseline Conditions
The proposed Project is currently loc ated in unincorporated Kings County, within the San Joaquin Valley, but would be annexed into the City of Hanford, which is adjacent to the Project site. The Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE) is approximately 16 acres, which includes the Project sit e and a 50 -foot buffer surrounding the Project site (see Figure 4-2). The Biological Evaluation prepared for the Project is presented in Appendix B. The topography is relatively flat with elevations at approximately 243 feet above mean sea level. The APE contains a residential house and a ruderal agricultural field that is currently a grass cover crop.

Like most of California, the APE experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. Summer temperatures often reach above 90 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and the humidity

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-26
is generally low. Winter temperatures are often below 60 °F during the day and rarely exceed 70 °F. On average, the City of Hanford receives approximately 12 inches of precipitation in the form of rainfall yearly, most of which occurs be tween October and March 7 and the APE would be expected to receive similar amounts of precipitation.

Hydrology
The nearest surface waters are the Last Chance Ditch, which is 0.14 miles to the west of the APE. The canal receives water from the Kings River, which is approximately 8 miles north of the APE. A watershed is the topographic region of water that drains into a stream, river, or lake and can consist of many smaller subwatersheds. The APE lies within the within the Jacobs Slough -Frontal Tulare Lakebed watershed; Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 1803001220 and a single subwatershed: Jacobs Slough subwatershed; HUC:
180300122004.

The Jacobs Slough-Frontal Tulare Lakebed watershed is fed by stormwater runoff and snowmelt collected in upland areas which flow down into the Middle Fork Kings River and the South Fork Kings River, which combine to become the Kings River. The Kings River then flows into an unnamed canal which flows into multiple unnamed canals before it reaches the Last Chance Ditch. The Last Chance Ditch flows into other unnamed canals, which connects with the Tule River. The Tule River eventually terminates in the historic Tulare Lakebed8. The APE is isolated from these waterways and Last Chance Ditch would not be impacted by Project activities.

Soil
Two soil mapping units representing two soil types were identified within the APE and are listed in Table 4-12 (see Appendix B for the complete Web Soil Survey report). The soils are displayed with their core properties in the table below9. Both soils are primarily used for cultivation and watershed areas.

Table 4-12: List of Soils Located Onsite and Their Basic Properties Soil Soil Map Unit Percent
of APE
Hydric
Unit
Hydric
Minor
Units
Drainage Permeability Runoff
Cajon sandy
loam
0 to 1 percent
slopes 57.7% No Yes
Somewhat
excessively
drained
Rapid
permeability
Very low
runoff
Nord complex 0 to 2 percent
slopes 42.3% No Yes Well drained Moderate
permeability Low runoff

While none of the major soil mapping units were identified as hydric, some of the minor soil mapping units were identified as hydric, which means the soils of the APE are predominantly nonhydric. Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions such that under sufficiently wet conditions, hydrophytic vegetation can be supported.

7 (Weaherspark 2023)
8 (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2023)
9 (United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation 2022)

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-27
Biotic Habitats
Residential
The APE contained a residence that had ornamental vegetation. Vegetation observed consisted of oleander (Nerium oleander ), red pine ( Pinus resinosa ), olive trees ( Olea europaea ), an avocado tree ( Persea americana), orange trees ( Citrus × sinensis ), silver dollar gum eucalyptus ( Eucalyptus globulus), and blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus polyanthemos).

A dom estic cat ( Felis catus) was observed near the house/garage. Signs of species observed within the residential habitat included California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) tracks.

The residential habitat within the APE was highly disturbed by anthropogenic activities but provided habitat for foraging birds, including raptors, during the day, as well as potentially bats, coyotes, and other nocturnal animals at night. The residential habitat contained suitable habitat for tree and ground nesting avia n species.

Ruderal/Agricultural
The APE contained a ruderal/agricultural field that was a grass cover crop with sparse herbaceous vegetation at the time of the field survey. Vegetation observed consisted of mustard (Brassica spp.), cheese weed mallow ( Malva parviflora ), wild radish, ( Raphanus raphanistrum), common fiddleneck ( Amsinckia intermedia), common pea (Pisum sativum), and big sheath mushroom (Volvopluteus gloiocephalus).

The survey of the agricultural/ruderal habitat resulted in the identification of bird species including Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus ), White -crowned Sparrow ( Zonotrichia leucophrys ), and Common Raven ( Corvus corax). Signs of species observed within the APE included Botta’s pocket gopher burrows ( Thomomys bottae), and other small mammal burrows. A nest box was located to the south of the APE near a residence.

The ruderal habitat within the APE was highly disturbed by agricultural activities but provided habitat for foraging birds, including raptors, during the day, as well as pot entially bats, coyotes, and other nocturnal animals at night. The ruderal habitat contained suitable habitat ground nesting avian species.

Wildlife and Plant Species
A query of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Natural Diver sity Database (CNDDB), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), was conducted for the Hanford 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle that contains the APE in its entirety, and for the eight surrounding USGS quadrangles: Burris Park, Guernsey, Laton, Lemoore, Remnoy, Riverdale, Stratford, and Waukena, These species, and their potential to occur within the APE, are listed in Table 4-13 and Table 4-14 on the following pages. Other species that have the potential to occur within the APE that did not show up in the CNDDB query are also included in Table 4-13.

Species lists obtained from CNDDB and IPaC are presented in Appendix B. All relevant sources of information, as well as field observations, were used to determine if any special status species may occur within the APE.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-28
Table 4-13: List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur in the APE and/or Vicinity.

Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within APE
Blunt-nosed leopard
lizard
(Gambelia sila)

FE, CE,
CFP
Inhabits semi-arid grasslands, alkali flats,
low foothills, canyon floors, large washes,
and arroyos, usually on sandy, gravelly, or
loamy substrate, sometimes on hardpan.

Often found where there are abundant
rodent burrows in dense vegetation or tall
grass. Cannot survive on lands under
cultivation. Known to bask on kangaroo
rat mounds and often seeks shelter at the
base of shrubs, in small mammal burrows,
or in rock piles. Adults may excavate
shallow burrows but rely on deeper pre-
existing rodent burrows for hibernation
and reproduction.

Absent. Suitable habitat for this species
was absent within the APE and
surrounding lands. The APE and
surrounding areas are frequently
cultivated agricultural lands that are
unsuitable for this species. The only
recorded observation of this species
within the vicinity was approximately 7
miles south of the APE, in 1990.

Burrowing Owl
(Athene cunicularia) CSC
Resides in open, dry annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts, and scrublands with
low growing vegetation. Nests
underground in existing burrows created
by mammals, most often ground squirrels.

Unlikely. While California ground squirrel
burrows were observed in the APE, the
APE and surrounding areas are frequently
cultivated agricultural lands that are
generally unsuitable for this species. No
sign of this species was observed during
the field survey. The nearest recorded
observation of this species was
approximately 11 miles northeast of the
APE in 2017.

California glossy
snake
(Arizona elegans
occidentalis)
CSC
Inhabits arid scrub, rocky washes,
grasslands, and chaparral. Prefers open
areas with loose soil for easy burrowing.

Unlikely. The APE and surrounding areas
are frequently cultivated agricultural lands
that are unsuitable for this species. No
sign of this species was observed during
the field survey. The only recorded
observation of this species within the
vicinity was approximately 14 miles
northwest of the APE in 1939.

California tiger
salamander
(Ambystoma
californiense)

FT, CT,
CWL
Requires vernal pools or seasonal ponds
for breeding and small mammal burrows
for aestivation. Generally found in
grassland and oak savannah plant
communities in central California from sea
level to 1500 feet in elevation. Has been
known to migrate up to 1.3 miles to
breed.

Absent. Vernal pools and seasonal pools
appear to be absent within the APE and
up to 1.3 miles from the APE. Surrounding
land consists of agricultural fields and
orchards which are unsuitable for this
species. The nearest recorded
observation of this species was
approximately 11 miles northeast of the
APE in 1999.

Delta smelt
(Hypomesus
transpacificus)
FT, CE
This pelagic and euryhaline species is
Endemic to the Sacramento-San Joaquin
River Delta, upstream through Contra
Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and
Solano Counties.

Absent. The APE is outside the known
range for this species and aquatic habitat
required by this species is absent from the
APE.

Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides exilis)
FE, CE
An inhabitant of alkali sinks open
grassland environments in western Fresno
County. Prefers bare, alkaline, clay-based
soils subject to seasonal inundation with
more friable soil mounds around shrubs
and grasses. The most recent recorded
observation of this species in California
was in 1992 in Fresno County.

Absent. Suitable habitats required by this
species are absent from the APE. There
are no recorded observations of this
species on CNDDB within the regional
vicinity of the Project.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-29
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within APE
Monarch Butterfly
(Danaus plexippus) FC
Roosts located in wind-protected tree
groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine,
cypress), with nectar and water sources
nearby. Larval host plants consist of
milkweeds (Asclepias sp.). Winter roost
sites extend along the coast from
northern Mendocino to Baja California,
Mexico.

Absent. Foraging and roosting habitat was
absent within the APE. The APE contained
minimal vegetation with no nectar,
milkweeds or groves of trees observed
during the biological survey. The most
recent recorded observation of this
species was approximately 7 miles south
of the APE in 2022.

Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus) CSC
Found in grasslands, chaparral, and
woodlands, where it feeds on ground- and
vegetation-dwelling arthropods, and
occasionally takes insects in flight. Prefers
to roost in rock crevices, but may also use
tree cavities, caves, bridges, and other
man-made structures.

Possible. While marginal, foraging, and
roosting habitat was present within the
APE. The APE contains buildings where
this species could roost. There are no
recorded observations of this species on
CNDDB within the vicinity of the Project.

San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis
mutica)
FE, CT
Underground dens with multiple
entrances in alkali sink, valley grassland,
and woodland in valleys and adjacent
foothills.

Unlikely. There were no suitable dens,
tracks, or scat observed during the
biological survey. It is unlikely this species
would reside within the APE due to
agricultural disturbance. The nearest
recorded observation of this species was
approximately 1.5 mile southeast of the
APE in 2000.

Swainson’s Hawk
(Buteo swainsoni) CT
Nests in large trees in open areas adjacent
to grasslands, grain or alfalfa fields, or
livestock pastures suitable for supporting
rodent populations.

Possible. There were eucalyptus trees
large enough to support nesting raptors
within the APE and surrounding area, and
this species could forage over the
agricultural habitat of the APE. The
nearest recorded observation of this
species was approximately 5 miles east of
the APE in 2016.

Tipton kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides
nitratoides)
FE, CE
Burrows in soil. Often found in grassland
and shrubland. Historical range was in
Tulare and Kern Counties, generally east
of where the California aqueduct occurs
today.

Absent. The APE is outside of the
historical range of this species.

Tricolored Blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor) CT, CSC
Nests colonially near fresh water in dense
cattails or tules, or in thickets of riparian
shrubs. Forages in grassland and cropland.

Large colonies are often found on dairy
farm forage fields.

Unlikely. No riparian vegetation or nesting
habitat was observed during the biological
survey. This species could potentially fly
through or forage in the APE. The only
recorded observation of this species
within the vicinity was approximately 10.4
miles southeast of the APE in 2014.

Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
(Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus)
FT
Lives in mature elderberry shrubs of the
Central Valley and foothills. Adults are
active from March to June.

Absent. No elderberry shrubs were found
within the APE or surrounding areas. The
only recorded observation of this species
within the vicinity was approximately 7
miles northwest of the APE in 1991.

Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
FT
Occupies vernal pools, clear to tea-
colored water, in grass or mud-bottomed
swales, and basalt depression pools.

Absent. Vernal pool habitat was absent
from the APE and surrounding lands. The
nearest recorded observation of this
species was approximately 11 miles
northeast of the APE in 2017.

Vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi)
FE
Occurs in vernal pools, clear to tea-
colored water, in grass or mud-bottomed
swales, and basalt depression pools.

Absent. Vernal pool habitat was absent
from the APE and surrounding lands. The
nearest recorded observation of this
species was approximately 11 miles
northeast of the APE in 2017.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-30
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within APE
Western pond turtle
(Emys marmorata) CSC
An aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, slow-
moving rivers, streams, and irrigation
ditches with riparian vegetation. Requires
adequate basking sites and sandy banks
or grassy open fields to deposit eggs.

Unlikely. Aquatic habitat was absent
within the APE. This species is often found
in agricultural ditches and canals. Last
Chance Ditch is 0.14 miles west of the APE
but the APE and surrounding areas are
frequently cultivated agricultural lands
that are unsuitable for this species. The
nearest recorded observation of this
species was approximately 6 miles
southwest of the APE in 1998. The most
recent recorded observation of this
species was in the Kings River,
approximately 6.5 miles north of the APE
in 2022.

Western Snowy
Plover
(Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus)

FT, CSC
Typically found on sandy beaches, salt
pond levees, and shores of large alkali
lakes.

Absent. The APE and surrounding areas
are frequently cultivated agricultural lands
that are unsuitable for this species. The
only recorded observation of this species
within the vicinity was approximately 9
miles southwest of the APE in 1987.

Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii) CSC
The majority of the time this species is
terrestrial and occurs in small mammal
burrows and soil cracks, sometimes in the
bottom of dried pools. Prefers open areas
with sandy or gravelly soils, in a variety of
habitats including mixed woodlands,
grasslands, coastal sage scrub, chaparral,
sandy washes, lowlands, river floodplains,
alluvial fans, playas, alkali flats, foothills,
and mountains. Vernal pools or
temporary wetlands, lasting a minimum of
three weeks, which do not contain
bullfrogs, fish, or crayfish are necessary
for breeding.

Unlikely. Breeding habitat was absent
from the APE and surrounding areas. The
only recorded observation of this species
within the vicinity was approximately 11
miles northeast of the APE in 2017.

Yellow-headed
Blackbird
(Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus)
CSC
Nests in freshwater emergent wetlands
with dense vegetation and deep water.

Often along borders of lakes or ponds.

Absent. Suitable habitats required by this
species were absent from the APE. The
only recorded observation of this species
within the vicinity was approximately 12.5
miles southwest of the APE in 2016.

Table 4-14: List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence within APE
Alkali-sink goldfields
(Lasthenia
chrysantha)
CNPS 1B
Found in vernal pool and wet saline flat
habitats. Occurrences documented in the
San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys at
elevations below 656 feet. Blooms
February - April.

Absent. Aquatic habitat was absent within
the APE and surrounding area. The
nearest recorded observation of this
species was approximately 6.5 miles east
of the APE in 1958.

Brittlescale
(Atriplex depressa) CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
Sacramento Valley in alkaline or clay soils,
typically in meadows or annual grassland
in at elevations below 1050 feet.

Sometimes associated with vernal pools.

Blooms June–October.

Absent. Vernal pool habitat was absent
from within the APE and surrounding
areas. The only recorded observation of
this species within the vicinity was
approximately 7.5 miles north of the APE
in an unknown year.

California alkali grass
(Puccinellia simplex) CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and other
parts of California in saline flats and
mineral springs within valley grassland
and wetland-riparian communities at
elevations below 3000 feet. Blooms
March–May.

Absent. Suitable habitat was absent from
the APE and surrounding areas. The
nearest recorded observation of this
species was approximately 3 miles south
of the APE in 1942.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-31
Species Status Habitat Occurrence within APE
Earlimart orache
(Atriplex cordulata
var. erecticaulis)
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley in saline
or alkaline soils, typically within valley and
foothill grassland at elevations below 375
feet. Blooms August–September.

Absent. Suitable habitat was absent from
the APE and surrounding areas. The
nearest recorded observation of this
species was approximately 9.5 miles
southeast of the APE in 2002.

Lesser saltscale
(Atriplex minuscula) CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley in sandy,
alkaline soils in alkali scrub, valley and
foothill grassland, and alkali sink
communities at elevations below 750
feet. Blooms April–October.

Absent. Required habitat and alkaline soils
were absent within the APE and
surrounding lands. The nearest recorded
observation of this species was
approximately 11 miles northeast of the
APE in 2016.

Mud nama
(Nama stenocarpa)
CNPS
2B.2
Found in marshes, swamps, wetlands,
sometimes along lake shores, riverbanks,
and intermittently wet areas. 15-815 m.

Absent. Aquatic habitat was absent from
the APE and surrounding lands. The only
recorded observation of this species
within the vicinity was approximately 7
miles south of the APE in 1999.

Panoche pepper-grass
(Lepidium jaredii ssp.
album)
CNPS 1B
Found on steep slopes, washes, alluvial-
fans, and clay, sometimes alkaline, within
Valley and Foothill Grassland communities
in western Fresno County at elevations
between 600–2400 feet. Blooms
February–June.

Absent. Required habitat and clay soils
were absent within the APE and
surrounding lands. The only recorded
observation of this species within the
vicinity was approximately 12.5 miles
northwest of the APE in 1893 and is listed
as possibly extirpated.

Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium
recurvatum)
CNPS 1B
Occurs in poorly drained, fine, alkaline
soils in grassland and alkali scrub
communities at elevations between 100
feet and 2600 feet. Blooms March–June.

Absent. Suitable habitat was absent from
the APE and surrounding areas. The only
recorded observation of this species
within the vicinity was approximately 6
miles south of the APE in 1914.

Sanford’s arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii) CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and other
parts of California in freshwater-marsh,
primarily ponds and ditches, at elevations
below 1000 feet. Blooms May–October.

Absent. Required aquatic habitats were
absent within the APE and surrounding
lands. The only recorded observation of
this species within the vicinity was
approximately 6 miles southeast of the
APE in 1980.

Subtle orache
(Atriplex subtilis) CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley in saline
depressions in alkaline soils within valley
and foothill grassland communities at
elevations below 330 feet. Blooms June–
October.

Absent. Suitable habitat was absent from
the APE and surrounding areas. The most
recent recorded observation of this
species was approximately 13 miles
southeast of the APE in 2011.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-32
*EXPLANATION OF OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS CODES

Present: Species observed on the APE at time of field surveys or during recent past.

Likely: Species not observed on the APE, but it may reasonably be expected to occur there on a regular basis.

Possible: Species not observed on the APE, but it could occur there from time to time.

Unlikely: Species not observed on the APE, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.

Absent: Species not observed on the APE and precluded from occurring there due to absence of suitable habitat.

STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened CT California Threatened
FC Federal Candidate CFP California Fully Protected
CSC California Species of Concern
CWL California Watch List

CNPS LISTING
1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in 2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere. California, but more common elsewhere.

Applicable Regulations
Threatened and Endangered Species
Permits may be required from the USFWS and/or CDFW if activities associated with a project have the potential to result in the “take” of a species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal and/or state Endangered Species Acts. Take is defined by the State of California as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). Take is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include “harm” (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). CDFW and USFWS are responsible agencies under CEQA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), respectively. Both agencies review CEQA and NEPA documents, respectively, in order to determine the adequacy of their treatment of endangered species issues and to make project-specific recommendations for their conservation.

Designated Critical Habitat
When species are listed as threatened or endangered, the USFWS often designates areas of “Critical Habitat” as defined by section 3(5)(A) of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Critical Habitat is a term defined in the ESA as a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special manag ement and protection. Critical Habitat is a tool that supports the continued conservation of imperiled species by guiding cooperation with the federal government. Designations only affect federal agency actions or federally funded or permitted activities. Critical Habitat does not prevent activities that occur within the designated area. Only activities that involve a federal permit, license, or funding and are likely to destroy or adversely modify Critical Habitat will be affected.

Migratory Birds
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 16 USC 703 -712) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in any bird species covered in one of four international conventions to which the United States is a party, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by t he Secretary of the Interior. The name of the act is misleading, as it actually covers almost all bird’s native to the United States, even those that are non - migratory. The MBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Additionally , the California Fish and Game Code has made it unlawful to take or possess any non-game birds covered by the MBTA (Section 3513), as well as any other native non-game birds (Section 3800).

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-33
Birds of Prey
Birds of prey are protected under provisions of Cali fornia Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5), which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls), as well as their nests and eggs. The bald eagle and golden eagle are a fforded additional protection under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668), which makes it unlawful to kill birds or their eggs.

Nesting Birds
In California, protection is afforded to the nests and eggs of all birds. California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503) states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Breeding -season disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a form of “take” by the CDFW.

Wetlands and other “Jurisdictional Waters”
Natural drainage channels and adjacent wetlands may be considered “waters of the United States” or “jurisdictional waters” subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE. The extent of jurisdiction has been defined in the Code of Federal Regulations but has also been subject to interpretation of the federal courts.

Jurisdictional waters generally include:
• All waters which are cur rently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
• All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
• All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce; • All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; • Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) (i.e., the bulleted items above).

As determined by the United States Supreme Court in its 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) decision, channels and wetlands isolated from other jurisdictional waters cannot be considered jurisdictional on the basis of their use, hypothetical or observed, by migratory birds. Similarly, in its 2006 consolidated Carabell/Rapanos decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a significant nexus between a wetland and other navigable waters must exist for the wetland itself to be considered a navigable and therefo re jurisdictional water. Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the USACE will not assert jurisdiction over ditches excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a r elatively permanent flow of water.

The USACE regulates the filling or grading of waters of the United States under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The extent of jurisdiction within drainage channels is defined by “ordinary high-water marks” on opposing channel banks. All activities that involve the discharge of dredge or fill material into Waters of the United States are subject to the permit requirements of the USACE. Such permits are typically issued on the condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation that results in no net loss of wetland functions or values. No permit can be issued until the RWQCB issues a Section 401

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-34
Water Quality Certification (or waiver of such certification) verifying that the proposed activit y will meet State water quality standards.

Under the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969, the SWRCB has regulatory authority to protect the water quality of all surface water and groundwater in the State of California (“Waters of the State”). Nine RWQCBs oversee water quality at the local and regional level. The RWQCB for a given region regulates discharges of fill or pollutants into Waters of the State through the issuance of various permits and orders. Discharges into Waters of the State that are also Waters of the United States require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB as a prerequisite to obtaining certain federal permits, such as a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit. Discharges into all Waters of the State, even thos e that are not also Waters of the United States, require Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), or waivers of WDRs, from the RWQCB. The RWQCB also administers the Construction Storm Water Program and the federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Projects that disturb one acre or more of soil must obtain a Construction General Permit under the Construction Storm Water Program. A prerequisite for this permit is the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. Projects that discharge wastewater, storm water, or other pollutants into a Water of the United States may require an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

CDFW has jurisdiction over the bed and bank of natural drainages and lakes according to provisions of Sections 1601 and 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Activities that may substantially modify such waters through the diversion or obstruction of their natural flow, change or use of any material from their bed or bank, or the deposition of debris require a notification of a Lake or Streambed Alteration. If CDFW determines that the activity may adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement wi ll be prepared. Such an agreement typically stipulates that certain measures will be implemented to protect the habitat values of the lake or drainage in question.

Kings County General Plan
The Kings County General Plan (County of K ings 2010) contains the following goals and resource conservation policies (RC), related to the Project:

Water Resources
RC GOAL A1: Beneficially use, efficiently manage, and protect water resources while developing strategies to capture additional wa ter sources that may become available to ensure long term sustainable water supplies for the region.

RC Policy A1.1.6: Support expansion of joint management of surface water and groundwater supplies that contributes to the protection, reliability, and sustainability of local and regional water supplies.

RC Policy A1.5.1: Cooperate with local agencies in the preservation and purchase of natural sloughs for use as water recharge and drainage basins.

Natural Plant and Animal Habitats
RC GOAL D1: Preserve land that contains important natural plant and animal habitats.

RC Policy D1.1.1: Evaluate all discretionary land use applications in accordance with the screening procedures contained in the Biological Resources Survey. If the results of the project screening indicates the potential for important biological resources to exist on the site a biological evaluation shall be performed by a qualified biologist. If the evaluation indicates

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-35
that the Project could have a significant adverse impact, mitigation shall be r equired, or the Project will be redesigned to avoid such impacts. Mitigation shall be provided consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and applicable state and federal guidelines as appropriate. Mitigation may include habitat impro vement or protection, acquisition of other habitat, or payment to an appropriate agency to purchase, improve, or protect such habitat.

RC Policy D1.1.2: Require project applicants to consult with the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and to obtain appropriate authority for any such take pursuant to Endangered Species Act requirements if new development or other actions are likely to result in incidental take of any threatened or endangered species.

RC Pol icy D2.1.1: Follow state and federal guidelines for the protection of natural wetlands. Require developers to obtain authorization from the appropriate local, state, or federal agency prior to commencement of any wetland fill activities.

RC GOAL E1: Balance the protection of the County's diverse plant and animal communities with the County's economic needs.

RC Policy E1.1.2: Require as a primary objective in the review of development projects the preservation of healthy native oaks and other healthy native trees.

RC Policy E1.1.3: Maintain to the maximum extent practical the natural plant communities utilized as habitat by threatened and endangered species.

City of Hanford General Plan
The City of Hanford General Plan (City of Hanford 2017) contains the following goals and conservation policies, related to the Project:

Water Resources
GOAL 03: A reduced per capita use of water used by residential and non -residential uses through water conservation measures.

Policy 029: Water Conservation Measures for New Development. Encourage new development projects to include water conservation measures, including use of graywater, reclaimed, or recycled water for landscaping, water -conserving plumb ing fixtures and appliances, and water - efficient landscapes.

Biological Resources
GOAL 04: Protection of natural habitat and other biological resources.

Policy 035: Impacts from Development. Ensure that potential impacts to biological resources and sensitive habitat are carefully evaluated when considering development projects.

Policy 037: Mature Trees. Promote the preservation of existing mature trees and encourage the planting of appropriate shade trees in new developments.

Policy 038: Native Tree Species and Drought Tolerant Vegetation. Encourage the planting of native tree species and drought-tolerant vegetation.

Policy 039: Endangered Wildlife and Habitat. Establish programs in connection with environmental review processes to protect endangered wildlife and their habitats.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-36
Policy 040: Sensitive Wildlife. Work with state, federal, and local agencies on the preservation of sensitive wildlife species in the City.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . Of the 19 regionally occurring special status animal species, 17 are considered absent from or unlikely to occur within the APE due to past or ongoing disturbance and/or the absence of suitable habitat . As explained in Table 4-13, these species include:
blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Burrowing Owl, California glossy snake, California tiger salamander, Delta smelt, Fresno kangaroo rat, monarch butterfly, San Joaquin kit fo x, Tipton kangaroo rat, Tricolored Blackbird, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, western pond turtle, Western Snowy Plover, western spadefoot, and Yellow-headed Blackbird. Since it is unlikely these species would occur onsite, implementation of the Project would have no impact on these special status species through construction mortality, disturbance, or loss of habitat. Mitigation measures are not warranted.

Species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by CDFW or USFWS that have the potential to be impacted by the Project are ground and tree nesting avian species including the Swainson’s hawk and pallid bat. Discussion and co rresponding mitigation measures are provided below.

Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance of Nesting Raptors, Migratory Birds, and Special Status Birds
The APE contains suitable nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of bird species. It is anticipated that during the nesting bird season, birds could nest on the ground or in shrubs, trees, and forage within the APE. Swainson’s hawks could nest in the eucalyptus trees within the APE and forage over the agricultural field. Swainson’s hawks cou ld also nest in trees within the vicinity of the APE. Migratory birds nesting within the APE during construction have the potential to be injured or killed by Project-related activities.

In addition to the direct “take” of migratory nesting birds, nesting birds within the APE or adjacent areas could be disturbed by Project -related activities resulting in nest abandonment. Projects that adversely affect the nesting success of raptors and migratory birds or result in the mortality of individual birds would be considered a violation of state and federal laws and considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA. In addition, projects that adversely affect the nesting success of Swainson’s hawk or result in the mortality of this species would violate the California Endangered Species Act.

While foraging habitat for migratory birds and raptors, including Swainson’s hawk, is present on the site, suitable foraging habitat is located adjacent to the APE and within the vicinity of the APE and loss of the foraging habitat from implementation of the Project is not considered a significant impact.

Mitigation measures are warranted and are identified in Section 0 below. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-4 will reduce potential impacts to nesting migratory birds and raptors, including Swainson’s Hawk, to a less than significant level under CEQA and will ensure compliance with state and federal laws protecting these avian species.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-37
Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance of Roosting Bats, Including the Pallid Bat Pallid bats and other roosting bats have the potential to occur within the APE. Buildings and trees within the APE could be used for roosting sites and since they will be removed during Project activities these bats could be impacted. Roosting habitat becomes especially sensitive to bat populations during the maternity season (approximately March 1 to August 31) wh ile pups are maturing and when bats are overwintering (approximately December 1 to March 1). Impacts to roosting bats, including the pallid bat, would be considered a significant impact under CEQA.

Mitigation measures are warranted and are identified in Section 0 below. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-5, BIO-6, and BIO-7 will reduce potential impacts to roosting bats, including the pallid bat, to a less than significant impact under CEQA, and will ensure compliance with state and federal laws protecting these species.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The USFWS often designates areas of “Critical Habitat” when it lists species as threatened or endangered. Critical Habitat is a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species, which may require special management and protection. According to the CNDDB and IPaC, designated critical h abitat is absent from the APE and vicinity.

Riparian habitat is absent from the APE and adjacent lands. There are no CNDDB -designated “natural communities of special concern” recorded within the APE 10. In addition, no natural communities of special concern were observed within the APE during the biological survey. There are two natural communities of species concern in the region: Valley Sacaton Grassland and Valley Sink Scrub. None of these communities would be impacted as they are outside of the reach of the Project. Therefore, there would be no impact and mitigation measures are not warranted. c) Would the project 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? No Impact. The APE does not contain natural aquatic features or potential waters of the United States such as; riparian habitat, typi cal wetlands, vernal pools, lakes, or streams, or other sensitive natural community (Error! Reference source not found.). The nearest surface waters are the Last Chance Ditch, w hich is 0.14 miles to the west of the APE. The canal receives water from the Kings River, which is approximately eight miles north of the APE. Implementation of the Project would have no impact on jurisdictional waters, wetlands, navigable waters, wild and scenic rivers, riparian habitat or other water features. Therefore, the Project would not require jurisdictional permits from regulatory compliance agencies. Therefore, there would be no impact and mitigation measures are not warranted.

10 (California Natural Diversity Database 2023)

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-38
Mitigation
Nesting Migratory Raptors and Birds, Including the Swainson’s Hawk:
(Avoidance): The Project’s construction activities will occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31 (outside of the nesting bird season) to avoid impacts to nesting birds.
(Pre-construction Survey ): If activities must occur within the nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), a qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction survey for Swainson’s Hawk nests onsite and within a 0.5 -mile radius. The pre -construction survey would also provide a presence/absence survey for all other nesting birds wi thin the APE, no more than seven (7) days prior to the start of construction. All raptor nests would be considered “active” upon the nest-building stage. (Establish Buffers): On discovery of any active nests near work areas, the biologist will determine appropriate construction setback distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines and/or the biology of the species in question. If necessary, construction buffers wi ll be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged.
(Consultation with CDFW): In the event an active Swainson’s Hawk nest, or other nest is detected during surveys and could be impacted by the Project, consultation with CDFW will be warranted to discuss how to implement the Project and avoid impacts to the nest.

Roosting Bats, Including the Pallid Bat:
(Pre-Construction Survey): A pre-construction survey will be performed within five days of building and tree removal. A qualified biologist will inspect the buildings and trees for active roosts. If the building or trees are determined to be clear of bats, they will be removed within five days.
(Establish Buffers ): On discovery of any roosts in the APE, a qualified biologist will determine appropriate construction setback distances. Buffer s will be removed once a qualified biologist had determined the bat roosts are no longer occupied. (Passive Relocation): On discovery of any bat roosts outside of the maternity roosting season or overwintering season (September 1 to November 30), bats may be passively relocated from the roosts by a qualified biologist in accordance with a bat relocation plan prepared for the Project site by a qualified biologist. The bat relocation plan shall include the methods to be used to safely exclude bats from the roost and prevent reentry.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-39

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-15: Cultural Resources Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to in § 15064.5?

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

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

Baseline Conditions
In 1877, what is now Kings County received its first Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) stop in what would become the town of Hanford. This was named after James Mad ison Hanford, a rail executive, at what was originally a sheep camp. The rail -stop, with the SPRR tracks running east -west, quickly developed into a small community. A post office opened in 1887. That same year also marked the opening of Hanford’s and Kings County’s oldest business, the Lacey Milling Company. This was established by Horatio G. Lacey at the corner of West Fifth and Redington Streets, across the street from the original SPRR sidings, and thus at an important local trans-shipment point.

Due to a series of fires and the resulting need for fire protection, Hanford was incorporated in 1891. That same year H.G. Lacey built the first electrical generating plant in Hanford, providing electrical lights for the growing town. It was made the county seat when Kings County was separated from Tulare County in 1893.

The town’s regional significance was emphasized a few years later, in 1897, when the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe rail company (now Burlington Northern and the Santa Fe) routed a second rail li ne north-south through Hanford.

Armona developed as a small agricultural community and rail stop at about this same time. John Yoakum laid out the town along the rail tracks for the Pacific Improvement Company in 1877, where a rail switch called “Armona” was located. Within a decade a small town had developed and was officially named Armona when the post office opened in 1887. MacGregor’s Hotel and Samuel Young’s Blacksmith Shop were two of the early prominent commercial concerns.

The San Joaquin Valley i n general was dominated by agricultural pursuits until the oil boom of the early 1900s, which saw a shift in the region, as some reclaimed lands previously used for farming were leased to oil companies. Nonetheless, the shift of the San Joaquin Valley towa rds oil production did not halt the continued growth of agriculture. The Great Depression of the 1930s brought with it the arrival of great number of migrants from the drought -affected Dust Bowl region, looking for agricultural labor. These migrants established temporary camps in the valley, staying on long past the end of the drought and the Great Depression, eventually settling in local towns where their descendants live today. Hanford developed during the twentieth century as a governmental, market and s ervices town closely tied to the agricultural development of the San Joaquin Valley. (See Appendix C).

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-40
Records Search
A records search from the Southe rn San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), located at California State University, Bakersfield was conducted in February 2023. The SSJVIC records search includes a review of all reco rded archaeological and built-environment resources as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and the California State Built Environment Resources Directory listings were reviewed for the above referenced APE and an additional ½-mile radius. Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources, archaeo logical site locations are not released. The search results indicated the study area had not been previously surveyed and no cultural resources had been previously documented within it. The search also indicated that eight previous studies had been conduct ed within the 0.5 -mi records search radius and that two cultural resources had been documented within that search radius: an isolated prehistoric artifact (P -16-000310) and the Last Chance Ditch (P-16-000128), a historic water conveyance structure.

Additional sources included the State Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources. (See Appendix C)
Class III Inventory/Phase I Survey
A Phase I Survey of the Project APE was conducted by ASM Associates in February 2023. The field methods employed included intensive pedestrian examination of the ground surface for evidence of archaeological sites in the form of artifacts, surface features (such as bedrock mortars, historical mining equipment), and archaeological indicators (e.g., organically enriched midden soil, burnt animal bone); the identification and location of any discovered sites, should they be present; tabulation and recording of surface diagnostic artifacts; site sketch mapping; preliminary evaluation of site in tegrity; and site recording, following the California Office of Historic Preservation Instructions for Recording Historic Resources and the BLM 8100 Manual, using DPR 523 forms.

The survey fieldwork conducted in June 2022, used parallel transects spaced at 15-meter intervals walked across the Project APE . No cultural resources of any kind were identified within the study area. (See Appendix C)
Native American Outreach
A Sacred Lands File Search (SLF) was requested from Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento in February 2023. The NAHC was provided with a brief description of the Project and a map showing its location with a request that the NAHC perform a search of the Sacred Lands File to determine if any Native American resources have been recorded in the immediate APE. The NAHC identifies, catalogs, and protects Native American cultural resources -- ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private and public lands in California. The NAHC is also charged with ensuring California Native American tribes’ accessibility to ancient Native American cultural resources on public lands, overseeing the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains and burial items, and administering the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, among many other powers and duties.

NAHC provide a current list of Native American Tribal contacts to notify of the Project. ASM sent outreach letters to the tribes provided on the NAHC contact list. (See Appendix C) Applicable Regulations

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-41
Federal
National Register of Historic Places
The NHPA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a NRHP, an inventory of districts, sites, buildings, struct ures, and objects significant on a national, state, or local level in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register is maintained by the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and grants- in-aid programs.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) strives to ensure that all Indian human remains, and cultural items are treated with dignity and respect. It encourages voluntary disclosure and return of remains and cultural items by publicly funded agencies and museums. It also states the intent for states to provide mechanisms for aiding Indian tribes, including non-federally recognized tribes, in filing repatriation claims and getting responses to those claims.

State
Office of Historic Preservation
The mission of the O ffice of Historic Preservation and the State Historical Resources Commission is to preserve and enhance California's irreplaceable historic heritage as a matter of public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, recreational, aesthetic, economic, social, and environmental benefits will be maintained and enriched for present and future generations. Public Resource Code (PRC) Section 5024 requires consultation with SHPO when a project may impact historical resources located on State - owned land.

California Register of Historic Resources
The SHPO maintains the C alifornia Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) . Historic properties listed, or formally designated for eligibility to be listed, on the National Register are automatically listed on the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1). State Landmarks and Points of Interest are also automatically listed. The California Register can also include properties designated under local preservation ordinances or identified through local historic resource surveys.

For a historic resource to be eligible for listing on the California Register, it must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:
• It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local and regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; • It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; • It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or • It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation (California Public Resources Code).

California Environmental Quality Act
PRC Section 21083.2 Archaeological Resources: CEQA directs the lead agency to include in its environmental assessment for the project a determination of the project effects on unique archeological resources; defines unique archeological resource; enables a lead agency to require an applicant to make a reasonable effort to preserve or mitigate impacts to any affected unique archeological resource; sets requirements for the applicant to provide payment to cover costs of mitigation; and restricts excavation as a mitigation measure.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-42
PRC Section 21084.1 Historic Resources: CEQA establishes that adverse effects on a historic resource qualifies as a significant effect on the environment; and defines historical resource.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5: This section defines three ways that a property can qualify as a significant historical resource for the purposes of CEQA review:

If the resource is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources;
If the resource is in cluded in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or is identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g) unless a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant; or
If the lead agency determines the resource to be significant as supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5)
In addition to determining the significance under CEQA and eligibility of any identified historical resource for the California Register, historic properties must be evaluated under the criteria for the National Register should federal funding or permitting become involved in any undertaking subject to this document.

CEQA Guidelines on Mitigation of Cultural Resources Impacts CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 states that “public agencies should, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical resources of an archeological nature.” The Guidelines further state that preservation-in-place is the preferred approach to mitigate impacts on archaeological resources. However, according to Section 15126.4, if data recovery through excavation is “the only feasible mitigation,” then a “data recovery plan, which makes pro vision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resources, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken.” Data recovery is not required for a resource of an archaeologica l nature if “the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the archaeological or historical resource.” The section further states that its provisions apply to those archaeological resources that also qualify as historic resources.

Native American Heritage Act
Also relevant to the evaluation and mitigation of impacts to cultural resources is the Native American Heritage Act of 1976 which established t he NAHC and protects Native American religious values on state property (see PRC Section 5097.9).

Public Notice to California Native American Indian Tribes Government Code (GC) Section 65092 includes California Native American tribes that are on the contac t list maintained by the NAHC in the definition of “person” to whom notice of public hearings shall be sent by local governments.

Disposition of Human Remains (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5) When an initial study identifies the existence, or the pr obable likelihood, of Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native American groups or individuals as identified by the NAHC as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any items associated with Native American burials. Furthermore, HSC Section 7050.5 requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the county coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-43
California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 2001 Health and Safety Code Sections 8010 -8011 establish a State repatriation policy intent that is consistent with and facilitates implementation of NAGPRA. The Act strives to ensure that all California Indian human remains, and cultural items are treated with dignity and respect. It encourages voluntary disclosure and return of remains and cultural items by publicly funded agencies and museums in California. It also states the intent for the state to provide mechanisms for aiding California Indian tribes, incl uding non-federally recognized tribes, in filing repatriation claims and getting responses to those claims.

Local
City of Hanford General Plan
The 2035 General Plan contains the following goals and policies regarding Cultural Resources:

Goal O5: Protect and enhance historical and cultural resources that preserve Hanford’s unique sense of place and promote an understanding of Hanford’s history.

Policy O46. Archeological Site Consultation : Consult with appropriate Native American associations about potential archaeological sites in the beginning stages of the development review process.

Policy O47. Archeological Site Study: Require archaeological studies by a certified archeologist in areas of archeological potential significance prior to approval of development projects.

Policy O48. Cultural Site Consultation : Consult with the California Archaeological Inventory Southern San Joaquin Valley at California State University, Bakersfield about potential cultural sites on projects that could have an impact on cultural resources.

Policy O49. Cultural Site Discovery: Halt construction at a development site if cultural resources are encountered unexpectedly during construction.

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 t o 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:

CUL-1: That a Burial Treatment Plan be ent ered 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).

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
a and b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As described above, there are no recorded cultural resources on the subject property. It is unlikely that the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts or adverse effects to any known unknown cultural or historical resources, such as archaeological remains, artifacts or historic properties or structures. However, in the improbable

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-44
event that cultural resources are encountered during Project grading and construction, implementation of mitigation measure CUL-2 outlined below, would reduce impact s to any historical or archaeological resource to less than significant.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There is no evidence in the record searches that indicates the Project has the potential to be an unknown burial site or the site of buried human remains. In the unlikely event of such a discovery, mitigation shall be implemented. With incorporation of mitigation measure CUL-3 outlined below, impacts resulting from the discovery of remains interred on the Project site would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation
CUL-1 That a Burial Treatment Plan be ent ered 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).

CUL-2 Should archaeological remains or artifacts be unearthed during any stage of project activities, work in the area of discovery shall cease until the area is evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. If mitigation is warranted, the project proponent shall abide by recommendations of the archaeologist.

CUL-3 In the event that any human remains are discovered on the Project site, the Tulare County Coroner must be notified of the discovery (California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5) and all activities in the immediate area of the find or in any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains must cease until appropriate and lawful measures have been implemented. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not recent, but rather of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours to permit the NAHC to determine the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-45

4.6 ENERGY
Table 4-16: Energy Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?

Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located to the west of the existing City of Hanford city limits and would be annexed into the City as a part of the Project. The Project would be located on land that has historically been used for agricultural use and currently contains one single family residential home. Southern California Edison is the energy provider within the City and Hanford and would be the energy provider for the Project.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act, enacted by Congress in 2007, is designed to improve vehicle fuel economy and help reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign oil. It expands the production of renewable fuels, reducin g dependence on oil and confronting climate change. Specifically, it does the following:
• Increases the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard that requires fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. • Reduces United States demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, an increase in fuel economy standards of 40 percent as compared to 2007 levels.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 20 07 also set energy efficiency standards for lighting (specifically light bulbs) and appliances. Development would also be required to install photosensors and energy-efficient lighting fixtures consistent with the requirements of 42 United States Code Section 17001 et seq.

Energy Policy and Conservation Act
Enacted in 1975, this legislation established fuel economy standards for new light-duty vehicles sold in the United States. The law placed responsibility on the National Highway Traffic and Safety Admi nistration for establishing and regularly updating vehicle standards. The United States EPA administers the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, which determines vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with existing fuel economy standards. Since the inception of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, the average fuel economy for new light-duty vehicles steadily increased from 13.1 miles per gallon for the 1975 model year

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-46
to 30.7 miles per gallon for the 2014 model year and is proposed to increase to 54.5 by 2025. Light-duty vehicles include autos, pickups, vans, and sport-utility vehicles.

Energy Star Program
Energy Star is a voluntary labeling program introduced by EPA to identify and promote energy -efficient products to reduce GHG emissions. The progra m applies to major household appliances, lighting, computers, and building components such as windows, doors, roofs, and heating and cooling systems.

Under this program, appliances that meet specifications for maximum energy use established under the program are certified to display the Energy Star label. In 1996, the EPA joined with the Energy Department to expand the program, which now also includes certifying commercial and industrial buildings as well as homes.

Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard
The EPA sets emission standards for construction equipment. The current iteration of emissions standards for construction equipment are the Tier 4 efficiency requirements contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068. Emissi ons requirements for new off -road Tier 4 vehicles were completely phased in by the end of 2015.

State
California Energy Action Plan
The California Energy Commission (CEC) is responsible for preparing the California Energy Action Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The 2008 California Energy Action Plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to impr ove air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies several strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators i n implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles and addressing their infrastructure needs, as well as encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

Assembly Bill 2076: Reducing Dependence on Petroleum
Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 2076 (Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000), the CEC and California Air Resources Board (CARB) prepared and adopted a joint -agency report, Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence, in 2003. Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent of on-road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030, significantly increase the efficiency of motor vehicles, and reduce per capita VMT. One of the per formance-based goals of AB 2076 is to reduce petroleum demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand. In response to the CEC’s 2003 and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Reports, the Governor directed the CEC to take the lead in developing a long -term plan to increase alternative fuel use.

Integrated Energy Policy Report
SB 1389 requires the CEC to conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. The CEC uses these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state’s economy, and protect public health and safety. The most recent assessment, the 2018 Integrated Energy Po licy Report, contains two volumes. Volume I highlights the implementation of California’s innovative policies and the role they have played in establishing a clean energy economy.

Volume II provides more detail on several key energy policies, including decarbonizing buildings, increasing energy efficiency savings, and integrating more renewable energy into the electricity system.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-47
Senate Bill (SB) 350
The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) requires a doubling of the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas for retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation by December 31, 2030.

California Renewable Portfolio Standard and Senate Bill 100 Approved by former Governor Brown on September 10, 2018, SB 100 accelerates the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

Assembly Bill 1493: Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions AB 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars prog ram (referred to as “Pavley”), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost -effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” Implementation of new regulations prescribed by AB 1493 required that the state of California apply for a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act. Although the EPA initially denied the waiver in 2008, EPA approved a waiver in June 2009, and in September 2009, CARB approved amendments to its initially adopted regulations to apply the Pavley standards that reduce GHG emissions to new passenger vehicles in model years 2009 through 2016. According to CARB, implementation of the Pavley regulations is expected to reduce fuel consumption while also reducing GHG emissions.

On September 19, 2019, the EPA withdrew California’s Clean Air Act preemption waiver and issued the One National Program Rule, which prohibits states from establishing their own separate fuel economy standards or passing laws that substantially affect fuel economy standar ds. As a result, California may no longer promulgate and enforce its tailpipe GHG emission standard and zero emission vehicle mandate.

Energy Action Plan
In 2003, the CEC and California Public Utilities Commission set forth their energy policy vision in the Energy Action Plan (EAP). The CEC adopted an update to the EAP in February 2008 (EAP II) that supplements the earlier EAP and examines the state’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change. The nine major action areas in the EAP include e nergy efficiency, demand response, renewable energy, electricity adequacy/reliability/infrastructure, electricity market structure, natural gas supply/demand/infrastructure, transportation fuels supply/demand/infrastructure, research/development/demonstrat ion, and climate change.

Assembly Bill 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plan
AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required the CEC to prepare a plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. The CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other federal, state, and local agencies. The State Alternative Fuels Plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of alternative non -petroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-state production. The State Alternative Fuels Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.

Bioenergy Action Plan (EO S-06-06)
EO S -06-06 establishes targets for the use and pr oduction of biofuels and biopower and directs state agencies to work together to advance biomass programs in California while providing environmental protection and mitigation. The EO establishes the following in -state production targets to increase the production and use of bioenergy, including ethanol and biodiesel fuels made from renewable resources:

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-48
• Produce 20 percent of biofuels used in California by 2010; • Produce 40 percent of biofuels used in California by 2020; and, • Produce 75 percent of biofuels used in California by 2050.

EO S-06-06 also calls for the state to meet a target for use of biomass electricity. The 2011 Bioenergy Action Plan identifies potential barriers and recommends actions to address them so the state can meet its clean energy, waste reduction, and climate protection goals. The 2012 Bioenergy Action Plan updates the 2011 Plan and provides a more detailed action plan to achieve the following goals:
• Increase environmentally and economically sustainable energy production from organic waste • Encourage development of diverse bioenergy technologies that increase local electricity generation, combined heat and power facilities, renewable natural gas, and renewable liquid fuels for transportation and fuel cell applications
• Create jobs and stimulate economic development, especially in rural regions of the state • Reduce fire danger, improve air and water quality, and reduce waste.

Title 24, California Code of Regulations
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, is California’s Energy E fficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential Buildings. The CEC established Title 24 in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. The standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new efficient technologies and methods. In 2019, the CEC updated Title 24 standards with more stringent requirements effective January 1, 2020. All buildings for which an application for a building permit is submitted on or after January 1, 2020, must follow the 2019 standards. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increas ed energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions.

California Green Building Standards Code (2019), California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11
California’s Green Building Code, referred to as CalGreen, was developed to provide a consistent approach to green building in the State. Having taken effect in January 2020, the most recent version of CalGreen lays out the minimum requirements for newly constructed residential and nonresidential buildings to reduce GHG emissions through improved energy efficiency and process improvements. It also includes voluntary tiers to further encourage building practices that improve public health, safety, and general welfare by promoting a more sustainable design.
2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan
On December 14, 2017, the CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provi des a framework for achieving the State’s 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap- and-Trade Program, and imple mentation of recently adopted policies and legislation. The 2017 Scoping Plan includes a wide variety of goals related to energy efficiency and renewable energy that are intended to help meet the State’s 2030 target, including goals specifically targeted at the water sector.

Local
The City of Hanford General Plan contains the following policies related to energy.11

11 (City of Hanford 2017)

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-49
Policy O13 : Solar Power Generation. Support and encourage solar generation facilities that support residential, commercial, and industrial uses.

Policy O14: Alternative Fuels and Renewable Energy. Promote and encourage the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy.

Policy O15: Energy Efficient Design Features. Require that new development incorporate energy efficient design fe atures for HVAC, lighting systems, and insulation that meet or exceed California Code of Regulations Title 24.

Policy O16: Vegetation to Conserve Energy. Encourage the use of native and drought tolerant shade trees and vines on southern and western exposure building walls as an energy conservation technique.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the approximately 16-month course of construction of the Project. For heavy - duty construction equipment, horsepower and load fa ctor were assumed using default data from the CalEEMod model. Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the construction of the Project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul trucks trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the Project site was based on (1) the projected number of trips the construction associated with the Project would generate (CalEEMod default values), (2 ) default average trip distance by land use in CalEEMod, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the ARB 2017 Emissions Factors model (EMFAC2017) mobile source emission model.

Construction of the Project is estimated to consume a total of 55,329.58 gallons of diesel fuel and 3,928.40 gallons of gasoline fuel. 12 California Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(2), Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel because of unproductive idling of construction equipment. In addition, the energy consumption for construction activities would not be ongoing as they would be limited to the duration of construction associated with the Project.

The Pr oject’s anticipated annual energy consumption is approximately 728,690 kilowatt -hours and

29.939.02 therms of natural gas. 13 The Project would be required to comply with the California Energy Code regulating energy efficiency of homes. Therefore, the Proje ct would have a less than significant impact.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact. State and local authorities regulate energy use and consumption. These regulations at the State level intended to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These include, among others, Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 – Light-Duty Vehicle Standards; California Code of

12 Emissions for the Project were quantified using CalEEMod Output Files Version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix A for modeling results and assumptions.
13 Ibid.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-50
Regulations Title 24, Part 6 – Energy Efficiency Stand ards; and California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 – California Energy Code and Green Building Standards. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-51

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Table 4-17: Geology and Soils Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
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 expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994) creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?

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 wastewater?

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?

Baseline Conditions
Geology and Soils
Surface soils exhibit various characteristics dependent on location, slope, parent rock, climate, and drainage. The Project site contains Nord complex and Cajon sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slope. 14 The properties of the soil are described briefly below:
• Nord Complex : The Nord series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in mixed alluvium dominantly from granitic and sedimentary rocks. Nord soils occur on alluvial fans and flood

14 (United States Department of Agriculture 2022)

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-52
plains. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. They are well drained, have negligible to low runoff, moderate permeability but have moderately slow permeability in saline-sodic phases.

• Cajon Sandy Loam: The Cajon series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in sandy alluvium from dominantly granitic rocks. Cajon soils are on alluvial fans, fan aprons, fan skirts, inset fans and river terraces. Slopes are 0 to 15 percent. Somewhat excessively drained; negligible to low runoff; rapid permeabi lity. Cajon soils with sandy loam surface textures have moderately rapid permeability. Flooding is rare.

Faults and Seismicity
Neither the City of Hanford nor Kings County have any known major faults systems within their boundaries.

There are small faults in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, approximately 30 south, though none of them are know to be active. The nearest major fault is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 50 miles southwest of the Project site. 15 The San Andreas fault is the dominant active tectonic feature of the Coast Ranges and represents the boundary of the North American and Pacific plates.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby unconsolidated and/or near saturated soils lose cohes ion and are converted to a fluid state as a result of severe vibratory motion. The relatively rapid loss of soil shear strength during strong earthquake shaking results in temporary, fluid -like behavior of the soil, which can result in landslides and later al spreading. Soil liquefaction causes ground failure that can damage roads, pipelines, underground cables, and buildings with shallow foundations. Liquefaction hazards may exist in and around wetland areas and creeks, though soil types in Hanford are gene rally too coarse or too high in clay content. The Hanford General Plan states that there is minimal liquification potential due to a stable geological formation. Further, the Seismic Safety Map from the 2035 Kings County General Plan states that liquification is rare in the County due to the nature of the underlying soils, relatively deep-water table, and a history of low ground shaking potential.

Soil Subsidence
Subsidence refers to the vertical sinking of land when a large land settles due to over -saturation or extensive withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. These areas are typically composed of open - textured soils, high in silt or clay content, that become saturated. Although some areas in Kings County have experienced subsidence due to groundwater overdraft, the City of Hanford’s elevation has remained relatively unchanged. According to the Kings County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, land subsidence in the region rarely occurs and its impacts are not significant.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
There are no federal regulations pertaining to geology and soils that are applicable to the Project.

State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972)
The Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (formerly the Alquist -Priolo Special Studies Zone Act) requires the delineation of zones along active faults in California. The purpose of the Alquist -Priolo Act is

15 (California Department of Conservation 2021)

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-53
to regulate development on or near active fault traces to reduce the hazard of fault rupture; however, surface fault rupture is not necessarily restricted to the area within the Alquist -Priolo Zone. The Alquist - Priolo Act prohibits the location of most structures for human occupancy across active fault traces. Within these zones, cities and counties must regulate certain developme nt, which includes withholding permits until geologic investigations demonstrate that development sites are not threatened by future surface displacement. There are no designated Alquist -Priolo zones in the Project area. The risk of surface fault rupture is not necessarily restricted to the area within a Fault Rupture Hazard Zone, as designated under the Alquist-Priolo Act.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act was developed to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure, and from other hazards caused by earthquakes.

This act requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones and requires cities, counties, and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain development projects within these zones. Before a development permit is granted for a site within a Seismic Hazard Zone, a geotechnical investigation of the site must be conducted, and appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into the proje ct design.

Geotechnical investigations conducted within Seismic Hazard Zones must incorporate standards specified by CGS Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards.16 The purpose of the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act is t o identify where special provisions, beyond those contained in the California Building Code (CBC), are necessary to ensure public safety. This need has not been recognized for the hazard of ground shaking.

Design provisions contained in the CBC are believe d to be representative of current knowledge and capability in earthquake -resistant design. 17 No portion of County has been mapped under the Seismic Hazards Zoning Program.

California Building Standards Code
The CBC, codified in Title 24 Part 2 of the Calif ornia Code of Regulations (CCR), is administered by the California Building Standards Commission which by law is responsible for coordinating all building standards. The purpose of the CBC is to establish minimum standards to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, and general stability by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all building and structures within its jurisdiction. The current version took effect January 1, 2020, and contains necessary California amendments based on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Minimum Design Standards 7 -05. ASCE 7 -05 provides requirements for general str uctural design and includes means for determining earthquake loads as well as other loads (flood, snow, wind, etc.) for inclusion into building codes. The provisions apply to the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures throughout California.

The earthquake design requirements take into account the occupancy category of the structure, site class, soil classifications, and various seismic coefficients which are used to determine a Seismic Design Category (SDC) for a project. The SDC is a classification system that combines the occupancy categories with the level of expected ground motions at the site and ranges from SDC A (very small seismic vulnerability) to SDC E/F (very high seismic vulnerability and near a major fault). Design specifications are then determined according to the SDC.

16 (California Department of Conservation 2008)
17 (International Code Council ICC 2019).

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-54
California Department of Transportation
Caltrans jurisdiction includes State and interstate routes within California. Any work within the right-of-way of a federal or State transportation corridor is subject to Caltrans regulations governing allowable actions and modifications to the right-of-way. Caltrans standards incorporate the CBC and contain numerous rules and regulations to protect the public from seismic hazards such as surface fault rupture and ground shaking.

In addition, Caltrans standards require that projects be constructed to minimize potential hazards associated with cut and fill operati ons, grading, slope instability, and expansive or corrosive soils, as described in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.

Local
City of Hanford General Plan
• Objective H15. Building Codes and Standards for Earthquakes: Maintain and enforce current building codes and standards to reduce the potential for structural failure caused by ground shaking and other geologic hazards.
• Policy H17. Geologic and Soils Studies: Require geologic and soils studies to identify potential hazards as part of the approval process for all new development prior to grading activities where questionable conditions exist.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? i-ii) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in an area traditionally characterized by relatively low seismic activity. The s ite is not located in an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as established by the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act (Section 2622 of Chapter 7.5, Division 2 of the California Public Resources Code). The nearest major fault is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 50 miles southwest of the Project site. Construction of the proposed residential structures will comply with the most recent seismic standards as set forth in the California Building Standards Code. Compliance with these standards would ensure potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-55
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose, water -saturated sediments lose strength and fail during strong ground shaking. Although no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified in Kings County and the City of Hanford, this potential is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley where unconsolidated sediments and a high -water table coincide. Using the United States Department of Agriculture NRCS soil survey, an analysis of the soils onsite was performed. Soils in the area consists of Nord Complex and Cajon Sandy Loam, which are well-drained and coarse -textured, representing a l ow risk for liquefaction or seismic-related ground failure. In addition, using California Department of Water Resources Live Groundwater Levels map, the groundwater levels measured at a location approximately two miles to the north of the Project site was approximately 134 feet below ground surface as of October 11, 2022; this further reduces potential for liquefaction. Furthermore, as mentioned above in Impact Assessments -a-i and a -ii, strong seismic ground shaking is unlikely to occur. Any impacts relate d to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant. iv. Landslides?
No Impact . Landslides usually occur in locations with steep slopes and unstable soils. The Project is located on the Valley floor where no major geolo gic landforms exist, and the topography is essentially flat and level. Therefore, the Project site has minimal -to-no landslide susceptibility, and there will be no impact.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less th an Significant Impact. Because the Project site is relatively flat, the potential for erosion is low.

However, construction-related activities and increased impermeable surfaces can increase the probability for erosion to occur. Construction-related impacts related to erosion will be temporary and subject to best management practices (BMPs) required by SWPPP, which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion from construction. Because impacts related to erosion would be temporary and lim ited to construction, and because required best management practices would prevent significant impacts related to erosion, the impact will remain less than significant.

c) Would the project 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?
No Impact. The soils associated with the Project site are considered stable and have a low capacity for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Because the Project site is stable, and this Project would not result in a substantial grade change to the topography to the point that it would increase the risk of landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, there is no impact. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Impact. The Project site is not in an area with expansive soils. Because the soils associated with the Project do not exhibit shrink swell behavior, implementation of the Project will pose no risk to life or property caused by expansive soils and there is no impact.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-56
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact . Septic installation o r alternative wastewater disposal systems are not necessary for the Project. The Project would be required to connect to the City of Hanford’s wastewater system. There would be no impact.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontolo gical resource or site or unique geological feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation . There are no unique geologic features and no known paleontological resources located within the Project site. However, there is always the possibility that paleontological resources may exist below the ground surface. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 will ensure that any impacts resulting from project implementation remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation
GEO-1 Should paleon tological resources be encountered on the Project site, all ground disturbing activities in the area shall stop. A qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the discovery. Mitigation may include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, and a final report. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. Upon completion of the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Hanford for review, and (if paleontological materials are recovered) a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-57

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 4-18: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?

Baseline Conditions
Climate change is a change in the average weather of the earth that is measured by alterations in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. These changes are assessed using historical records of temperature c hanges occurring in the past, such as during previous ice ages. Many of the concerns regarding climate change use this data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance, specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Indust rial Age) that differ from previous climate changes in rate and magnitude.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impa cts. In its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC predicted that the global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2100, given six scenarios, could range from 1.1 degrees Celsius (°C) to 6.4°C. Regardless of analytical methodology, global average temperatures a nd sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios. 18 The report also concluded that “[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal,” and that “[m]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid ‐20th century is very likely du e to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
An individual project cannot generate enough GHG emissions to cause a discernible change in global climate. However, the Project participates in the potential for global climate ch ange by its incremental contribution of GHGs —and when combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs — constitute potential influences on global climate change.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
The EPA is the federal agency responsible for executing the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments.

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide (CO 2) is an air pollutant, as defined under the CAA, and thus the EPA has the authority to regulate GHG emissions. The ruling resulted in the EPA taking

18 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007)

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-58
steps to regulate GHG emissions and lend support for State and local agency in their efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

Federal Regulations for Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards
The EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 2012 issued final rules to reduce GHG emissions and improve the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for light-duty vehicles of model years 2017 and beyond. These CAFE standards have been enacted since 19 78 under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. This program requires automobile manufacturers to build a single nation light- duty fleet that meets both the requirements under federal programs and those of California and other states. This program would i mprove fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon -equivalent limiting vehicle emissions to 153 grams of CO2 per mile for the fleet of cars and light-duty trucks by model year 2025, which represents five percent annual increases in fuel economy.

The EPA and NHTS A jointly published in 2018 a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks” (SAFE Rule), which proposed:
(1) new and amended CO2 and CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks; (2) to withdraw the waiver EPA had previously provided to California for that State’s GHG and zero emission vehicle (ZEV) programs under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act, and; (3) regulatory text to implement NHTSA’s statuto ry authority to set nationally applicable fuel economy standards to explicitly preempt California’s GHG and ZEV programs.

In 2019, Part One of the SAFE Rule (One National Program) became effective, which withdrew California’s waiver from EPA and finalized NHTSA’s regulatory text related to preemption of State regulations. In 2020, EPA and NHTSA announced Part Two of the SAFE Rule, which would establish amended fuel economy and CO2 standards for passenger cars and light trucks of model years 2021-2026. These revised standards would increase in stringency by 1.5 percent per year from model year 2020 over model years 2021-2026.

State
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05
In 2005, Governor Schwa rzenegger issued EO S -3-05, proclaiming that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The EO declares that increasing temperatures could reduce the Sierra Nevada snowpack, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To address those concerns, the EO established GHG emission targets for the State and identified responsibilities for State agencies in meeting the targets. Specifically, statewide emissions are to be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

AB 32
In 2006, AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was signed into law. AB 32 establishes regulations, reporting requirements, and market mechanisms to achiev e quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 also requires that:
“(a) the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit shall remain in effe ct unless otherwise amended or repealed.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit continue in existence and be used to maintain and continue reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases beyond 2020.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-59
(c) The [ CARB] shall make recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature on how to continue reductions of greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020.” [California Health and Safety Code, Division 25.5, Part 3, Section 38551]
EO B-30-15
In 2015, Governor Brown issued EO B-30-15 which established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 set the next interim step in the State’s continuing efforts to pursue the long -term target previously established under EO S-3-05 to reach the goal of reducing emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

This is consistent with scientifically established levels needed in the U.S. to limit global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, th e threshold at which major climate disruptions are projected, such as super droughts and rising sea levels.

SB 32
In 2016, SB 32 was signed into law and serve to extend California’s GHG reduction programs beyond 2020.

SB 32 amended existing regulations to authorize CARB to achieve a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030, codifying the 2030 target established by EO B-30-15.

AB (AB) 1493 (Pavley)
AB 1493, enacted in 2002, requires the redu ction of GHGs from automobiles and light‐duty trucks to the maximum extent feasible and cost-effective. In 2004, CARB approved the “Pavley I” regulations that applied to new passenger vehicles beginning with model year 2009 through 2016. Pavley I was antic ipated to reduce GHG emissions from regulated vehicles by 30 percent from 2002 levels by 2016. Pavley II was incorporated into Amendments to the Low‐Emission Vehicle Program referred to as LEV III. The amendments, which took effect in 2012, apply to vehicl es for model years 2017 through 2025. The regulation will reduce GHGs from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025.

Advanced Clean Cars Program
Also in 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program which sought to combine the control of GHG emissions and criteria air pollutants, as well as requirements for greater numbers of zero -emission vehicles, into a single package of regulatory standards for vehicle model years 2017 through 2025. These regulations strengthen the GHG standard for 2017 mod els and beyond and would be achieved through existing and more efficient technologies. The program’s ZEV regulation would require battery, fuel cell, and/or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to comprise up to 15 percent of California’s new vehicle sales by 2025. The program also included a clean fuels outlet regulation designed to support the development of zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by requiring increased numbers of hydrogen fueling stations throughout the state. By 2025, when it was assumed, the rules would be fully implemented, the statewide fleet of new cars and light trucks would emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog -forming emissions than the statewide fleet in 2016.

SB 100
In 2018, SB 100 increased California’s Renewable E nergy Portfolio targets for utility companies to 52 percent renewables by 2027 and 60 percent renewables by 2030. It also established a new zero -carbon electricity mandate by 2040.

California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 6, is California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings. Title 24 Part 6 was established by California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1978 in response to a legislative ma ndate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy -efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-60
These standards are updated triennially and have resulted in substantial gains in energy efficiency in new construction with each code update cycle.

The 2022 Title 24 Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were adopted by CEC in 2021 and took effect in 2023. The standards are designed to move the State closer to its zero net energy goals for new residential development. It does so by requiring all new residences to install enough renewable energy to offset all the site electricity needs of each residential unit. CEC estimates that the 2022 Energy Code would provide $1.5 billion in consumer benefits and reduce 10 million metric tons of GHGs.19 The Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are enforced through the local plan check and building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce additional energy standards for new buildings as reasonably necessary in response to local climatologic, geologic, or topographic conditions, provided that these standards are demonstrated to be cost effective and exceed the energy performance required by Title 24 Part 6.

California Green Building Standards (Title 24, Part 11) In 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted Part 11 of CCR Title 24, titled the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) which became effective in 2009 as a voluntary code. The 2010 CALGreen Code was the first mandatory edition and took effect in 2011 and is now a part of the triennial code update cycle. The CALGreen Code establishes mandatory measures for residential and non‐ residential building construction and encourages sustaina ble construction practices in the following five categories: (1) planning and design, (2) energy efficiency, (3) water efficiency and conservation, (4) material conservation and resource efficiency, and (5) indoor environmental quality. Although the CALGre en Code was adopted as part of the State’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions, the CALGreen Code standards have co‐benefits of reducing energy consumption from residential and non‐residential buildings subject to the standard.

SB 97
SB 97, enacted in 2007, amended the CEQA statute to clearly establish that GHG emissions and the effects of GHG emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. The legislation directed the California Office of Planning and Research to develop draft CEQA Guidelines “for the mi tigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions” and directed the California Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt the State CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of GHG Emissions, was add ed as part of the CEQA Guideline amendments that became effective in 2010 and describes the criteria needed in a GHG reduction plan that would allow for the tiering and streamlining of CEQA analysis for development projects.

SB X7-7
SB X7‐7 requires water suppliers to reduce urban per capita water consumption 20 percent from a baseline level by 2020. The production and treatment of water, as well as the treatment of wastewater, requires substantial amount of electricity, and thus there this a direct relatio nship between water and greenhouse gases.

California Integrated Waste Management Act
To minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of in landfills, the State Legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), effective January 1990. According to AB 939, all cities and counties were required to divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill facilities by 1995, and 50 percent by 2000. Through other statutes and regulations, this 50 percent diversion rate also

19 (California Energy Commission, 2021)

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-61
applies to State agencies. In order of priority, waste reduction efforts must promote source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal.

In 2011, AB 341 modified the California Integrated Waste Managemen t Act and directed the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to develop and adopt regulations for mandatory commercial recycling. The resulting Mandatory Commercial Recycling Regulation (2012) requires that after 2012, certain businesses that generate four cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week shall arrange recycling services. To comply with this requirement, businesses may either separate recyclables and self-haul them or subscribe to a recycling service that includes m ixed waste processing. AB 341 also established a statewide recycling goal of 75 percent; the 50 percent disposal reduction mandate still applies for cities and counties under AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act.

Climate Change Scoping Plan
In 2022, the CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the State’s 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels and substantially advance toward our 2045 climate goal to reduce GHG emissions by 85 percent b elow 1990 levels. The 2022 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap -and-Trade Program, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation. The 2022 Scoping Plan includes a wide variety of goals related to energy efficiency and renewable energy that are intended to help meet the State’s targets.20
Cap-and-Trade Program
The Cap -and-Trade program was developed to reduce GHG emissions from major emissions sources (covered entities) by setting a firm cap on statewide GHG emissions that is gradually reduced over time while employing market mechanisms to cost -effectively achieve the State’s emission -reduction goals. It sets a statewide limit on sources responsible for 85 percent of Cal ifornia’s GHG emissions, including electricity generators, large industrial facilities emitting a specified amount of annual emissions, and distributors of transportation, natural gas, and other fuels, and establishes a price signal needed to drive long-term investment in cleaner fuels and more efficient use of energy. The program is designed to provide the approximately 450 entities covered by the program with the flexibility to seek out and implement the lowest cost options to reduce emissions. All covered entities are required to demonstrate compliance with the cap-and-trade program by implementing GHG reduction activities on -site or through use of free or purchased allowances, or purchase of offsets.

Local
The City of Hanford adopted its Air Quality Elem ent of its General Plan in April 2017 and its portion of the Regional Climate Action Plan in May of 2014.21, 22 The applicable greenhouse gas goals and policies are listed below.

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

Policy AQ 10.1 : As recommended in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (December 2009), the City establishes an initial goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from development projects within its authority by 29 percent below year 2020 business as usual emissions. The City will also work with

20 (California Air Resources Board, 2017)
21 (City of Hanford, 2017)
22 (City of Hanford, 2014)

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-62
Kings County Association of Governments to ensure that it achieves its proportionate fair share reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as may be identified under the provisions of SB 375 (2008 C hapter 728) for any projects or activities requiring approval of Kings County Association of Governments.

Policy AQ 10.4 : The City will participate in the Sustainable Communities Strategy/Regional Blueprint Planning effort and will ensure that local plans are consistent with the Regional Plan.

Thresholds
The City of Hanford has not adopted its own GHG thresholds or prepared a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan that can be used as a basis for determining project significance. In accordance with SJVAPCD’s CEQA Greenhouse Gas Guidance for Valley Land -use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects,23 proposed projects complying with Best Performance Standards (BPS) would be determined to have a less-than-significant impact. The SJVAPCD does not have an adopted threshold for GHGs; however, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has set a threshold of 10,000 MTCO 2e.24 This threshold has been applied to this Project. Compliance with BPS and projects generating less than 10,000 MTCO2e per year would result in less than significant imp acts. In addition, project -generated emissions complying with an approved plan or mitigation program would also be determined to have a less -than- significant impact.

Methodology
Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions
Short-term construction emissions associated with the Project were calculated CalEEmod, Version 2022.1.

These output files can be found in Appendix A. The sections below detail the methodology of the air quality emissions analysis and its conclusions. The emissions modeling includes emissions generated by off -road equipment, haul trucks, and worker commute trips.

Long-Term Operational Emissions
Operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the Project and are from three main sources: area sources, energy usage, and motor vehicles usage known as mobile sources. Area source emissions include emissions from natural gas, landscape, and painting. First occupancy of the Project is expected as early as March 2025 and was used as the Project buildout modeling year for the subdivision as a conservative assumption.

Modeling assumptions and output files are included in Appendix A.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact.

Construction
Total GHG emissions generated during all phases of construction were combined and are presented in Table 4-19. The SJVAPCD does not recommend assessing the significance of construction ‐related emissions. However, other jurisdictions, such as the SCAQMD, have concluded that construction

23 (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2009) 24 (South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008)

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-63
emissions should be included since they may remain in the atmosphere for years after construction is complete. In order to account for the construction emissions, amortization of the total emissions generated during construction were based on the life of the development (residential—30 years) and added to the operational emissions.

Table 4-19: Construction Emissions, Greenhouse Gases
MTCO2e
Total Construction Emissions 327
Amortized over 30 years 10.9
Notes:

Calculation totals use unrounded numbers from CalEEMod output.

Source: Appendix A

Operations
Total GHG emissions generated during operations are presented in Table 4-20. The amortized construction emissions have been added to the operational em issions generated by the Project. The Project would result in approximately 1,168 MTCO2e resulting from operational activities. This falls below the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e, resulting in a less than significant impact.

Table 4-20: Operational Emissions, Greenhouse Gases
MTCO2e
Operational Emissions 1,184
Amortized Construction Emissions 10.9
Total Operational Emissions plus Amortized Construction Emissions 1,194.9 Notes:

Calculation totals use unrounded numbers from CalEEMod output.

Source: Appendix A
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Hanford has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. In addition, the City has not completed the GHG inventory, benchmarking, or goal‐ setting process required to identify a reduction target and take advantage of the streamlining provisions contained in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted for SB 97 and clarifications provided in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted on December 28, 2018.

The SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Action Plan, but it does not contain measures that are applicable to development projects. Therefore, the SJVAPCD Climate Action Plan cannot be applied to the project.

Since no other local or regional Climate Action Plan is in place, the project is assessed for its consistency with ARB’s adopted Scoping Plans. This would be achieve d with an assessment of the project’s compliance with Scoping Plan measures contained in the 2008 Scoping Plan and the 2017 Scoping Plan Update.

AB 32 Scoping Plan
The Scoping Plan contains a variety of strategies to reduce the State’s emissions. As shown in Table 4-21, the project is consistent with most of the strategies, while others are not applicable to the project. As discussed earlier, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update strategies primarily rely on increasing the stringency of

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-64
existing regulations with which the project would continue to comply, support through the project’s design, and implementation of the General Plan goals and policies.

Table 4-21: AB 32 Consistency Table
Scoping Plan Strategy Consistency Finding
Regulation for the California Cap
on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Market‐ Based Compliance
Mechanism October 20, 2015
(CCR 95800)
Consistent. The Cap‐and‐Trade Program applies to large industrial sources such as power plants, refineries, and cement
manufacturers. However, the regulation indirectly affects people who use the products and services produced by these industrial sources when increased cost of products or services (such as electricity and fuel) are transferred to the consumers. The Cap‐and‐ Trade Program covers the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumed in California, whether generated in ‐state or imported.

Accordingly, GHG e missions associated with CEQA projects’ electricity usage are covered by the Cap ‐and‐Trade Program. The Cap‐and‐Trade Program also covers fuel suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel providers and transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from su ch fuels and from combustion of other fossil fuels not directly covered at large sources in the Program’s first compliance period.

Pavley I 2005 Regulations to
Control GHG Emissions from
Motor Vehicles

2012 LEV III Amendments to the
California Greenhouse Gas and
Criteria Pollutant Exhaust and
Evaporative Emission Standards
Consistent. This measure applies to all new vehicles starting with model year 2012. The Project would not conflict with its implementation as it would apply to all new passeng er vehicles purchased in California. Passenger vehicles, model year 2012 and later, associated with construction and operation of the Project would be required to comply with the Pavley emissions standards. 2009 readopted in 2015.

Regulations to Achieve
Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reductions Subarticle 7. Low
Carbon Fuel Standard CCR 95480
Consistent. This measure applies to transportation fuels utilized by vehicles in California. The Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure. Motor vehicles associated with construction and operation of the project would utilize low carbon transportation fuels as required under this measure.

Regional Transportation ‐Related
Greenhouse Gas Targets of SB 375
Consistent. The Project will provide a public service facility in the region that is consistent with the land uses assessed in the 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The Project is not within an SCS priority area and so is not subject to requirements applicable to those areas.

Goods Movement Action Plan of
January 2007
Not applicable. The Project does not propose any changes to maritime, rail, or intermodal facilities or forms of transportation. 2010 Amendments to the Truck
and Bus Regulation, the Drayage
Truck Regulation and the Tractor ‐
Trailer Greenhouse Gas
Regulation
Consistent. This measure applies to medium ‐ and heavy ‐ duty vehicles that operate in the State. The Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure. Medium ‐ and heavy ‐duty vehicles associated with construction of the project would be required to comply with the requirements of this regulation.

High Speed Rail Not applicable. This is statewide measure cannot be implemented by a project applicant or lead agency.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-65
Scoping Plan Strategy Consistency Finding
Title 20 Appliance Efficiency
Regulation

Title 24 Part 6 Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential
Buildings

Title 24 Part 11 California Green
Building Code Standards
Consistent. The Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure. The Project will comply with the latest energy efficiency standards and incorporate applicable energy efficiency features designed to reduce project energy consumption. 2010 Regulation to Implement the
Renewable Electricity Standard
(33% 2020)

SB 350 Clean Energy and Pollution
Reduction Act of 2015 (50% 2030)
Consistent. Pacific Gas & Electric obtained 33 percent of its power supply from renewable sources such as solar and geothermal in 2017, and about 70 percent of the electricity it delivers is carbon ‐ free, including nuclear and large hydroelectric facilities. The owner of the Project would purchase power that consists of a greater percentage of renewable sources and could install renewable solar power systems that will assist the utility in achieving exceeding the renewable mandate.

Million Solar Roofs Program Consistent. This measure is intended to increase solar throughout California by means of a variety of electricity providers and existing solar programs. Projects within the plan area will be able to take advantage of incentives that are in place at the time of construction.

The Project design does not preclude the future installation of solar panels.

Title 24 Part 11 California Green
Building Code Standards

SBX 7‐7—The Water Conservation
Act of 2009

Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance
Consistent. The Project will comply with the California Green Building Standards Code, which requires a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use. The Project will also comply with the MWELO as required by the City’s development code and water ordinance.

Title 24 Part 11 California Green
Building Code Standards
Consistent. The State will increase the use of green building practices. The Project would implement required green building strategies through existing regulations that requires the project to comply with various CALGreen requirements. The Project includes sustainability design features that support the Green Building Strategy.
2010 ARB Mandatory Reporting of
Industrial Emissions Regulation
Not applicable. The Project is not an industrial land use.

Title 24 Part 11 California Green
Building Code Standards

AB 341 Statewide 75 Percent
Diversion Goal
Consistent. The Project would not conflict with implementation of these measures. The Project is required to achieve the recycling mandates via compliance with the CALGreen code. The Project would utilize City of Hanford recycling services.

Cap‐and‐Trade Offset Projects for
Sustainable Forests
Not applicable. The Project site is in an area designated for urban uses. No forested lands exist on‐site.

ARB Refrigerant Management
Program CCR 95380
Not applicable. The regulations are applicable to refrigerants used by large air conditioning systems and large commercial and

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-66
Scoping Plan Strategy Consistency Finding
industrial refrigerators and cold storage system. The Project is not expected to use large systems subject to the refrigerant management regulations adopted by ARB.

Cap‐and‐Trade Offset Projects for
Livestock and Rice Cultivation
Not applicable. The Project site is proposed for urban development.

No grazing, feedlot, or other agricultural activities that generate manure occur currently exist on ‐site or are proposed to be implemented by the project.

SB 32 Scoping Plan
The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan) includes the strategy that the State intends to pursue to achieve the 2030 targets of Executive Order S‐3‐05 and SB 32. The 2017 Scoping Plan includes the following summary of its overall strategy for reaching the 2030 target:
• SB 350, which seeks to achieve a 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard by 2030, as well as doubling of energy efficiency savings by 2030.
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which proposed increased stringency (reducing carbon intensity 18 percent by 2030, up from 10 percent in 2020).
• Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario), which sought to maintain existing GHG standards for light‐ and heavy‐duty vehicles, as well as put 4.2 million ZEVs on the roads. • Sustainable Freight Action Plan ‐ Improve freight system efficiency. ‐ Maximize use of near ‐zero emission vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy. ‐ Deploy over 100,000 zero‐ emission trucks and equipment by 2030.
• Short‐Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy sought to r educe emissions of methane and hydrofluorocarbons, as well as black carbon, by 40 percent and 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030, respectively.

Table 4-22 provides an analysis of the project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures.

Table 4-22: SB 32 Consistency Table
Scoping Plan Strategy Consistency Finding
SB 350 50% Renewable Mandate
Utilities subject to the legislation will be required to increase their renewable energy mix from 33% in
2020 to 50% in 2030.

Consistent. The Project will purchase electricity
from a utility subject to the SB 350 Renewable
Mandate.

SB 350 Double Building Energy Efficiency by 2030
This is equivalent to a 20 percent reduction from
2014 building energy usage compared to current
projected 2030 levels
Not Applicable. This measure applies to existing
buildings. New structures are required to comply
with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards that are
expected to increase in stringency until
nonresidential buildings achieve zero net
energy.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard
This measure requires fuel providers to meet an 18
percent reduction in carbon content by 2030.

Consistent. Vehicles accessing the Project site
will use fuel containing lower carbon content as
the fuel standard is implemented. Mobile Source
Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels
Scenario) Vehicle manufacturers will be required
to meet existing regulations mandated by the
LEV III program. The strategy includes a goal of

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-67
Scoping Plan Strategy Consistency Finding
having 4.2 million ZEVs on the road by 2030.

Project residents can be expected to purchase
increasing numbers of more fuel efficient and
zero emission cars and trucks each year. T he
2019 CALGreen Code requires electrical service
in residential projects to be EV charger‐ ready.

Sustainable Freight Action Plan
The plan’s target is to improve freight system
efficiency 25 percent by increasing the value of
goods and services produced from the freight sector,
relative to the amount of carbon that it produces by
2030. This would be achieved by deploying over
100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of
zero emission operation and maximize near ‐zero
emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by
renewable energy by 2030.

Not Applicable. The measure applies to owners
and operators of trucks and freight operations.

However, trucks accessing the Project site are
expected to be made by increasing number of
ZEV delivery trucks.

SLCP Reduction Strategy
The strategy requires the reduction of SLCPs by 40
percent from 2013 levels by 2030 and the reduction
of black carbon by 50 percent from 2013 levels by
2030.

Consistent. The Project will be accessed by
vehicles meeting increasingly stringent
particulate matter standards that reduce black
carbon compared to older trucks.

SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies
Requires Regional Transportation Plans to include a
sustainable communities strategy for reduction of
per capita vehicle miles traveled.

Consistent. The Project will be located in a low
VMT area as depicted in the City’s VMT
Guidelines.

Post‐2020 Cap‐and‐Trade Program
The Post 2020 Cap‐and‐Trade Program continues the
existing program for another 10 years. The Cap‐and‐
Trade Program applies to large industrial sources
such as power plants, refineries, and cement
manufacturers.

Consistent. The post ‐2020 Cap ‐and‐Trade
Program indirectly affects people who use the
products and services produced by the regulated
industrial sources when increased cost of
products or services (such as electricity and fuel)
are transferred to the consumers. The Cap ‐and‐
Trade Program covers the GHG emissions
associated with electricity consum ed in
California, whether generated in ‐state or
imported. Accordingly, GHG emissions
associated with CEQA projects’ electricity usage
are covered by the Cap‐ and‐Trade Program. The
Cap‐and‐Trade Program also covers fuel
suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel providers
and transportation fuel providers) to address
emissions from such fuels and from combustion
of other fossil fuels not directly covered at large
sources in the program’s first compliance period.

Natural and Working Lands Action Plan
ARB is working in coordination with several other
agencies at the federal, state, and local levels,
stakeholders, and with the public, to develop
measures as outlined in the Scoping Plan Update and
Not Applicable. The Project is a residential
development and will not be considered natural
or working lands.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-68
Scoping Plan Strategy Consistency Finding
the governor’s Executive Order B ‐30‐15 to reduce
GHG emissions an d to cultivate net carbon
sequestration potential for California’s natural and
working land.

Accordingly, taking into account the proposed Proj ect’s emissions, Project design features, and the progress being made by the State towards reducing emissions in key sectors such as transportation, industry, and electricity, the project would be consistent with State GHG Plans and would further the State’s goals of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and does not obstruct their attainment. Impacts would be less than significant.

AB 1279 Scoping Plan
The Climate Crisis Act (2022), or AB 1279, seeks to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by no later than 2045 and achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions after 2045. The bill seeks to ensure that statewide anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions ar e reduced to at least 85% below 1990 levels.

Table 4-23 provides an analysis of the project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan Update measures.

Table 4-23: AB 1279 Consistency Table
Scoping Plan Strategy Consistency Finding
Reduction in per capita vehicle miles traveled of 30
percent by 2045
Consistent. The Project is located in a Low VMT
zone in the City’s adopted VMT Guidelines.
100% adoption of light-duty ZEVs by 2034 Consistent. The Project is not of such intensity or magnitude such that approval could prevent the
State achieving this goal.

Carbon sequestration on majority of petroleum
refineries by 2030
Consistent. The Project would not precl ude
attainment of this goal as it does not propose to
modify a petroleum refinery.
100% sales of electric HVAC and water heaters for
existing buildings
Consistent. The Project would comply with all
applicable building codes. Appliances would be
replaced at end-of-life with regulations in -place
at that time.

Reduction in dairy emissions Consistent. The Project would not preclude attainment of this goal because it does not
propose to construct or modify dairies.

Carbon Dioxide Removal Consistent. The Project does not preclude the construction of carbon removal systems.

In summary, the Project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals identified in AB 32, SB 32, AB 1279, and would be consistent with applicable plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the Project w ould not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The impact would be less than significant.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-69

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Table 4-24: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?

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 or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?

f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?

g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?

Baseline Conditions
Hazardous Materials
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code (GC) Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. DTSC's EnviroStor database provides DTSC's component of Cortese List data (DTSC, 2010). In addition to the EnviroStor database, the State Water Resources Control Board

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-70
(SWRCB) GeoTracker database provides information on regulated hazardous waste facilities in California, including underground storage tank (UST) cases and non -UST cleanup programs, including Spills -Leaks- Investigations-Cleanups sites, Department of Defense sites, and Land Disposal program. A search of the DTSC EnviroStor 25 database and the SWRCB GeoTracker 26 performed on April 11, 2023 determined that there are no known active hazardous waste generators or hazardous material spill sites within the Project site or immediate surrounding vicinity.

Airports
The Project site is located approximately 3.2 miles east of the Hanford Municipal Airport. The Project would not be located within an Airport Influence Area as per the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).27
Emergency Response Plan
Kings County has an Emergency Operations Plan that was adopted in 2015.28 The plan lays out the planned procedures that the City would follow in the event of an emergency.

Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive Receptors are groups that would be more affected by air, noise, and light pollution, pesticides, and other toxic chemicals than others. This includes infants, children under 16, elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. High concentrations of these groups would include daycares, residential areas, hospitals, elder care facilities, schools and parks. The nearest sensitive receptors consist of rural residences surrounding the Project site. Also, Future Hope Preschool is located approximately .2 miles northeast of the Project site.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
Occupational Health and Safety Administration
The Occupational Health and Safety Administration published standard 1910.120, addressing dangers that hazardous materials pose in the workplace. The standard requires that employers evaluate the potential health hazard that hazardous materials pose in the workplace and communicate information concerning hazards and appropriate protective measures to employees.

State
Department of Toxic Substances Control
The EPA has delegated much of its regulatory authority to th e individual states. The DTSC of CalEPA enforces hazardous materials and waste regulations in California in conjunction with the EPA. The DTSC is responsible for regulating the management of hazardous substances, including remediation of sites contaminated by hazardous substances. California hazardous materials laws incorporate federal standards but are often more strict than federal laws.

25 (California Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor 2022) 26 (State of California Water Resources Control Board 2022) 27 (County of Kings 1994)
28 (Kings County Office of Emergency Services 2015)

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-71
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The RWQCB is authorized by the SWRCB to enforce provisions of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969. This act gives the RWQCB authority to require groundwater investigations when the quality of groundwater or surface waters of the state are threatened and to remediate the site, if necessary.

State Underground Storage Tank Program
State laws also regulate Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) containing hazardous substances. These laws are primarily found in the Health and Safety Code, and, combined with CCR Title 23, establish the requ irements of the State UST program. The laws contain requirements for UST permitting, construction, installation, leak detection monitoring, repairs and corrective actions and closures. In accordance with State laws, the County Department of Health Services Environmental Health Division implements UST and AST regulations in County.

Hazardous Materials Worker Safety Requirements
The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (C al/OSHA) are the agencies responsible for assuring worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. The federal regulations pertaining to worker safety are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29 (29 CFR) as authorized in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. They provide standards for safe workplaces and work practices, including standards relating to hazardous materials handling. In California, Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations; Cal/OSHA standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations.

The State regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials in the workplace are included in Title 8 of the CCR, and contain requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. Cal/OSHA also enforces hazard communication program regulations, whic h contain worker safety training and hazard information requirements, such as procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, communicating hazard information relating to hazardous substances and their handling, and preparation of health and safety plans to protect workers and employees at hazardous waste sites.

Local
City of Hanford General Plan
The 2035 General Plan includes policies related to hazards and hazardous materials that correlate to the Project:
• Policy H30. Industrial Hazardous Materials: Require industrial uses that rely extensively on the use of hazardous materials to adopt an acceptable use, storage, disposal, and emergency response program that has been approved by appropriate agencies.

• Policy H31 . Adequate Separation from Sen sitive Uses : Require adequate separation between industrial areas where hazardous materials are present and sensitive uses such as schools, residential areas, parks, and public facilities.
• Policy H32 . Project Review Evaluation : Evaluate the risks involving the disposal, transport, manufacture, storage, and handling of hazardous material in Hanford in the project review process. • Policy H34 . Sensitive Receptors : Avoid sitting uses with new sensitive receptors near existing industrial facilities that use or produce hazardous material or may emit toxic air contaminants.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-72
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact . Project construction activities may involve the use, storage, and transpor t of hazardous materials. During construction, the contractor will use fuel trucks to refuel onsite equipment and may use paints and solvents to a limited degree. The storage, transport, and use of these materials will comply with Local, State, and Federal regulatory requirements. There is the potential for small leaks due to refueling of construction equipment, however standard construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) included in the SWPPP will reduce the potential for the release of construction rela ted fuels and other hazardous materials by controlling runoff from the site and requiring proper disposal or recycling of hazardous materials. In operation, the Project will consist of residential uses. The type of hazardous materials that would be associa ted with the Project are those typical of residential developments:
household cleaners, landscape maintenance, soaps, pesticides for pest control, etc. Because of the use, it is not expected that the Project would routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials other than those typical of residential uses and such materials would not be of the type or quantity that would pose a significant hazard to the public. The impact is less than significant. b) Would the project 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?
Less than Significant Impact. There is no reasonably foreseeable condition or incident involving the project that could result in release of hazardous materials into the environment, other than any potential accidental releases of standard fuels, solvents, or chemicals encountered during typical construction of a residential subdivision. Should an ac cidental hazardous release occur or should the Project encounter hazardous soils, existing regulations for handling hazardous materials require coordination with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control for an appropriate plan of action, which can include studies or testing to determine the nature and extent of contamination, as well as handling and proper disposal. Therefore, potential impacts are less than significant. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact. At its nearest point t he Project site is located approximately 0.2 miles southwest from Future Hope Preschool . The Project does not involve the use or storage of hazardous substances other than small amounts of pesticides, fertilizers, and cleaning agents required for normal maintenance of structures and landscaping. The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or involve the handling of acutely hazardous materials or waste. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact.
d) Would the project 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?
No Impact . The Project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and is not included on a list compiled by the D epartment of Toxic Substances Control.

There would be no impact.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-73
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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Project is located approximately 3.2 miles west of the nearest public airport (Hanford Municipal Airport) and is not located within an Airport Land Use Plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would comply with the City’s design and environmental review procedures which ensure compliance with emergency response and evacuation plans. In addition, the site plan will be reviewed by the Fire Department per standard City procedure to ensure consistency with emergency response and evacuation needs. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant on emergency evacuation.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The land surrounding the Project site is developed with urban uses and farmlands which are not considered to be wildlands. As discussed more thoroughly in Section 4.20, the Project site is not located in an area that has been designated as being a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or as being a very high fire hazard severity zone. The Project site would be anne xed to the City of Hanford as a part of the Project and is surrounded by urban uses. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-74

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Table 4-25: Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?

b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:

i. result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii. substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;

iii. create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or

iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?

Baseline Conditions
Surface Water: Hanford is in the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Study Area (TLHSA). Most surface water in the TLHSA originates from the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. There are no significan t surface water features in Hanford outside of natural and manmade drainage ways and canals. The Kings River is located approximately four miles North of Hanford. No surface water is used in Hanford’s Water System.

Groundwater: Hanford is located in the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region and is within the Tulare Lake Groundwater Subbasin which transmits, filters, and stores water from the main San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. Groundwater is recharged by rain and snowfall in addition to percolation from s torm water basins, local waterways, and agricultural irrigation. The City of Hanford also recharges the