Hanford City Council
August 6, 2024

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-9

3.4 - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a projectspecific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-Than-Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-thansignificant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sitespecific conditions for the project.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-10

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-11
Discussion
Impact #3.4.1a – Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The City of Hanford General Plan (General Plan) does not designate any scenic vistas within its jurisdiction (City of Hanford, 2017a). There are very few scenic vistas within the Central Valley. The Coastal Range Mountains and the Sierra Nevada mountain range can be considered scenic vistas. The proposed Project is located approximately 40 miles from the Coastal Range and approximately 45 miles from the Sierra Nevada. Since there are no scenic vistas in the immediate proximity of the proposed Project site, there would be no impacts related to a scenic vista.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.4.1 - AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c. 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 that would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-12
Impact #3.4.1b - Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The proposed Project is not in the vicinity of a scenic highway as identified by the City of Hanford or Caltrans. The closest designated scenic highway is a portion of State Route (SR) 198 that runs from SR 99 east through Visalia (California Department of Transportation, 2023). This portion of SR 198 is more than 15 miles east of the Project site and would not be impacted by the Project. The site is flat, with little topography and no trees or rock outcroppings. There would be no impacts related to these types of scenic resources.

Downtown Hanford is identified as the historic center of the City (City of Hanford, 2017a).

Three buildings are listed on the National Registry of Historic Places and the State Register of Historic Places. The closest historic buildings are the Kings County Courthouse, which is approximately 2.2 miles to the southeast, the Carnegie Museum and the Taoist Temple, both approximately 2.5 miles to the southeast. The Project will not be visible at these distances and, therefore, would not have an impact on any of these historic buildings.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.1c - Would the Project 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?
The area surrounding the Project site consists of urban development.

The proposed Project land uses are not consistent with the site’s current land use designation and zone district and require approval of a GPA and Zone Change to Neighborhood Mixed-Use. With the approval of the GPA and Zone Change, the Project will conform to all Neighborhood Mixed-Use zone standards except when modified through the variance request. The Hanford Municipal Code regulates the appearance and the placement of new development related to the surrounding uses. The Project development will comply with the General Plan, zoning requirements, and the pertinent development standards established in the Hanford Municipal Code for the MX-N zone However, Variance No 0009- 23requests removal of the masonry/block wall requirement between the proposed MX-N zone and the adjacent R-H zoned land to the north, providing a fence between the basin (zoned PF) located west, and allowing parking within the 25-foot rear yard setback. The proposed modifications to the development standards under the variance request would not

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-13
create a substantial degradation of the visual character of the site or surrounding properties, and would not degrade scenic quality.

The Project will be visibly similar to development in the surrounding area and consistent with the existing urban areas near the site; therefore, the proposed Project will not substantially degrade the existing characteristics of the area, and there would be no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.1d - Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Pursuant to City of Hanford Ordinance Code Section 9.10.060, construction activities can occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Construction of the proposed Project would generally occur during daytime hours, typically from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. All outdoor lighting would be directed downward and shielded to focus illumination on the desired work areas and prevent light spillage onto adjacent properties. Because lighting used to illuminate work areas would be shielded, focused downward, and turned off by 6:00 p.m., the potential for lighting to affect any residents adversely is minimal. Proposed construction activities would be conducted within the Noise Ordinance adopted construction periods and are not anticipated to result in significant impact. Increased truck traffic and the transport of construction materials to the Project site would temporarily increase glare conditions during construction. However, this increase in glare would be minimal. Construction activity would focus on specific areas on the sites, and any sources of glare would not be stationary for a prolonged period. Therefore, the construction of the proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial glare that would affect daytime views in the area.

Operational impacts of the residential component would be limited to typical exterior residential lighting, light emanating from vehicular headlights, and streetlights. The Project's exterior streetlights and residential lighting will be designed to minimize reflective glare and light scatter. The commercial component of the Project would introduce new lighting sources to the Project vicinity, including lighting from signs, parking lot lighting, and headlights from vehicles.

The Project will comply with the applicable provisions of the Hanford Municipal Code Development Standards, such as Section 17.50.140 – Outdoor Lighting Standards (City of Hanford, 2023a). Additionally, the California Building Code Title 24 contains standards for outdoor lighting that are intended to reduce light pollution and glare by regulating light

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-14
power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls. These requirements would substantially reduce potential nuisances from light or glare.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-15

Discussion
Impact #3.4.2a – Would the Project 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 nonagricultural use? CEQA uses the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Division of Land Resource Protection’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) categories of Prime

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.2 - AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220[g]),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104[g])?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-16
Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland to define agricultural land for the purposes of assessing environmental impacts (PRC Section 21060.1[a]).

According to the DOC Important Farmland Finder, the Project site is designated as Grazing Land (California Department of Conservation, 2023). The proposed Project is located on land currently zoned and designated for commercial uses.

The Project site is not designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance and, therefore, would not convert agricultural land as designated under the FMMP. Therefore, the Project would not result in a conversion of Farmland pursuant to the FMMP and would result in no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.2b – Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
As noted above, the Project is zoned and designated for Neighborhood Commercial by the Zoning Ordinance and is anticipated to have a non-agricultural land use. Additionally, the Project site is not under cultivation and not subject to a Williamson Act Land Use contract.

Therefore, there is no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.2c – Would the Project 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))?
PRC Section 12220(g) defines forest land as land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for the management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. PRC Section 4526 defines timberland as land other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for and capable of growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-17
Government Code Section 51104 defines timberland zoned Timberland Production as an area that has been zoned pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses.

The Project site is currently undeveloped and does not contain any trees, so it is not considered forest land or timberland. The proposed Project will not conflict with any forest land or timberland production or result in any loss of forest land. Therefore, the Project will have no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.2d – Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
See Impacts #3.4.2a-c, above. There will be no impact on forest land.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.2e – Would the Project 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?
See Impacts #3.4.2a-c. The Project site is zoned C-N and thus has been anticipated for urban development by the City. Furthermore, the area surrounding the Project site is developed with existing urban uses and is designated as Public Facilities, High-Density Residential, and Low-Density Residential. The Project site is not designated as Farmland and is not under agricultural cultivation. There would be no impacts related to the conversion of land from agricultural or forest land use.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-18

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact .

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-19

Discussion
The impact analyses in this section are based on an Air Quality Impact Analysis (Trinity Consultants, 2024) prepared for the Project, which is included in Appendix B.

Impact #3.4.3a – Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The proposed Project lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Kings County is located in a nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone standard, PM2.5, and PM10.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. NAAQS have been established for ozone(O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), and lead (Pb).

California has also adopted the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for the above criteria air pollutants with more stringent standards and the addition of hydrogen sulfide (H2S). Table 3.4.3-1 provides the NAAQS and CAAQS criteria pollutant thresholds. If the air basin exceeds the threshold, then a designation of nonattainment is given. Table 3.4.3- 2 provides the designation/classification for Kings County.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.4.3 - AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the Project region is nonattainment 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?

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-20
Table 3.4.3-1
NAAQS and CAAQS Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time NAAQS CAAQS
Concentration
O3 8-hour 0.070 ppm (137
μg/m3)

0.070 ppm (137
μg/m3)
1-hour - 0.09 ppm (180
μg/m3)
CO 8-hour 9 ppm (10 μg/m3) 9 ppm (10 μg/m3)
1-hour 35 ppm (40 μg/m3) 20 ppm (23 μg/m3)
NO2 Annual Average 53 ppb (100 μg/m3) 0.030 ppm (57
μg/m3)
1-hour 100 ppb (188.68
μg/m3)

0.18 ppm (339
μg/m3)
SO2 3-hour 0.5 ppm (1,300
μg/m3)
-
24-hour 0.14 ppm (365
μg/m3)

0.04 ppm (105
μg/m3)
1-hour 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) 0.25 ppm (655
μg/m3)
PM10 Annual Arithmetic
Mean
- 20 μg/m3
24-hour 150 μg/m3 50 μg/m3
PM2.5 Annual Arithmetic
Mean
12 μg/m3 12 μg/m3
24-hour 35 μg/m3 -
Sulfates 24-hour - 25 μg/m3
Pb Rolling Three-Month
Average

0.15 μg/m3 -
30 Day Average - 1.5 μg/m3
H2S 1-hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)
Vinyl Chloride 24-hour 0.010 ppm (26
μg/m3)
Visibility Reducing
particles
8-hour (1000 to
1800 PST)
In 1989, CARB
converted both the
general statewide 10-
mile visibility
standards and the
Lake Tahoe 30-mile
visibility standard to
instrumental
equivalents
Source: Appendix B
Notes: ppm = parts per million ppb = parts per billion mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-21
Table 3.4.3-2
SJVAB Attainment Status
Pollutant NAAQS CAAQS
O3 1-hour No Federal Standard Nonattainment/Severe
O3 8-hour Nonattainment/Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Attainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified
NO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
SO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Pb No
Designation/Classification
Attainment
H2S No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing
Particulates
No Federal Standard Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
Source: Appendix B
In order to maintain consistency with CEQA, the SJVAPCD adopted guidelines to assist applicants in complying with the various requirements. The SJVAPCD, as part of their guidelines, established specific CEQA air quality thresholds, as presented in Table 3.4.3-3.

Table 3.4.3-3
SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance
Criteria Pollutant Significance Threshold
Construction Operational
CO 100 tons/yr 100 tons/yr
NOx 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
ROG 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
SOx 27 tons/yr 27 tons/yr
PM10 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
PM2.5 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
Source: Appendix B
Therefore, if a project were to generate criteria pollutants below significance thresholds adopted by the SJVAPCD, the project would be considered to result in a less-than-significant impact and in compliance with adopted SJVAPCD rules and regulations.

The SJVAPCD has prepared the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). The GAMAQI is an advisory document that provides lead agencies, consultants, and project applicants with analysis guidance and uniform procedures for addressing air quality impacts in environmental documents. Local jurisdictions are not required to utilize the methodology outlined therein. This document describes the criteria that SJVAPCD uses

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-22
when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of environmental documents. It recommends thresholds for determining whether or not projects would have significant adverse environmental impacts, identifies methodologies for predicting project emissions and impacts, and identifies measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts.

California State Law requires every city and county to adopt a comprehensive General Plan to guide its future development. The General Plan essentially serves as a “constitution for development”— the document that serves as the foundation for all land use decisions. The General Plan includes various elements, including air quality and greenhouse gases, that address local concerns and provide goals and policies to achieve its development goals.

The proposed Project land uses are not consistent with the site’s current land use designation and zone district and require approval of a GPA and Zone Change to Neighborhood Mixed-Use. With the approval of the GPA and Zone Change, the Project will conform to all Neighborhood Mixed-Use zone standards. In addition, as described in Impact #3.4.11, the proposed uses are generally consistent with General Plan goals and policies.

Further SJVAPCD rules and regulations would be applicable to the Project and would include:
• Regulation VIII – PM10 reduction measures.
• GAMAQI measures to reduce equipment exhaust.
• Rule 4601 – Architectural Coatings.
• Rule 4641 – Construction and Pavement of Roads and Parking Areas within the Project area.

Furthermore, as noted below, the Project’s short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) emissions are below SJVAPCD thresholds. As a result, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality plans, and no mitigation is needed.

The impact of the Project would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.3b – Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
The SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for determining environmental significance, which are provided in Table 3.4.3-3. Project-specific emissions that exceed the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the County is in nonattainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards. It should be

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-23
noted that a project is not characterized as cumulatively insignificant when project emissions fall below thresholds of significance.

Short-Term (Construction) Impacts
As shown in Table 3.4.3-4, the estimated short-term construction-related emissions for criteria pollutants are anticipated to be minimal and would not exceed adopted SJVAPCD significance threshold levels during any given construction year. Short-term construction activities related to the Project were estimated in CalEEMod utilizing default CalEEMod construction equipment lists for the proposed Project’s land use type.. These measures, along with other applicable rules and regulations set forth by the SJVAPCD are recommended to be included as mitigation measure MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 to reduce construction related emissions for the Project. These MM AQ-1 measures include the application of water on disturbed ground and stockpiled soils, minimizing grading, reducing on site vehicles to 15mph to reduce fugitive dust emissions. MM AQ-2 measures include minimizing equipment and vehicular idling times, the use of electric equipment to the extent possible, and using vehicles that meet Tier 3 engine requirements to minimize criteria pollutant emissions.

Table 3.4.3-4
Project Construction Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated
2024 Construction Emissions 0.06 0.50 0.57 0.00 0.11 0.06 2025 Construction Emissions 0.77 1.45 1.91 0.00 0.12 0.08 2026 Construction Emissions 0.15 0.88 1.07 0.00 0.04 0.03 Mitigated
2024 Construction Emissions 0.06 0.50 0.57 0.00 0.06 0.04 2025 Construction Emissions 0.77 1.45 1.91 0.00 0.11 0.07 2026 Construction Emissions 0.15 0.88 1.07 0.00 0.04 0.03 Significance Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation No No No No No No Source: Appendix B
Long-Term (Operational) Impacts
Emissions from long-term operations generally represent a project’s most substantial air quality impact. Long-term emissions from the Project are generated primarily by mobile source (vehicle) emissions from the Project site and area sources such as landscaping maintenance equipment. Table 3.4.3-5 below summarizes the Project’s operational impacts by criteria pollutants.

Table 3.4.3-5 below depicts the calculated post-Project operational emissions as calculated in CalEEMod. Measures implemented with CalEEMod include the use of clean and well maintained landscape equipment and are recommended to be included as mitigation

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-24
measure MM AQ-3.. Therefore, operational emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant. Results of the analysis show that emissions generated from the construction and operation of the Project will be less than the applicable SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, the Project will have a less-thansignificant impact.

Table 3.4.3-5
Project Operational Emissions (tons/year)
Emissions Sources Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Operational Emissions
Area Emissions 0.35 0.03 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Emissions 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01
Mobile Emissions 1.08 1.10 7.62 0.02 1.67 0.45
Total 1.44 1.20 8.15 0.02 1.68 0.46
Mitigated Operational Emissions
Area Emissions 0.35 0.03 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Emissions 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01
Mobile Emissions 1.00 0.64 4.99 0.01 0.39 0.11
Total 1.36 0.75 5.52 0.01 0.40 0.12
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded after Mitigation? No No No No No No Source: Appendix B

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
MM AQ-1: The project shall continuously comply with the following: Construction and operation of the project shall be conducted in compliance with applicable rules and regulations set forth by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Dust control measures outlines below shall be implemented where they are applicable and feasible. The list shall not be considered all inclusive, and any other measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions not listed shall be encouraged.
a. Land Preparation Excavation and/or Demolition. The following dust control measures shall be implemented.

1. All soil excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive dust. Watering shall occur as needed with complete coverage of disturbed soil areas. Watering shall take place a minimum of twice daily on unpaved/untreated roads and on disturbed soil areas with active operations.

2. All fine material transported off site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive dust.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-25

3. Areas disturbed by clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be minimized at all times.

4. Stockpiles of dirt or other fine loose material shall be stabilized by watering or other appropriate method to prevent wind-blown fugitive dust. b. Site Construction: After clearing, grading, earth moving and/or excavation is completed within any portion of the project sites, the following dust control practices shall be implemented.

1. All active disturbed soil areas shall be sufficiently watered at least twice daily or have dust palliatives applied to prevent excessive dust. c. Vehicular Activities: During all phases of construction, the following vehicular control measures shall be implemented.

1. Onsite vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

2. All areas with vehicle traffic shall be paved, treated with dust palliatives or watered a minimum of twice daily.

3. Streets adjacent to the project sites shall be kept clean, and project-related accumulated silt shall be removed.

4. Access to the project sites shall be by means of an apron into the project sites from adjoining surfaced roadways. The aprons shall be surfaced or treated with dust palliatives. If operating on soils that cling to the wheels of vehicles, a grizzly, wheel washer, or other such device shall be used on the road exiting the project sites, immediately prior to the pavement, in order to remove most of the soil material from vehicle tires.

MM AQ-2: The project shall continuously comply with the following: The project proponent and/or its contractors shall implement the following measures during construction of the project.
a. All equipment shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.
b. Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment shall be turned off when not in use for extended periods of time.
c. Construction equipment shall operate no longer than eight cumulative hours per day. d. Electric equipment shall be used whenever possible in lieu of diesel- or gasoline powered equipment.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-26
e. All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emission control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce NOx emissions. f. On-road and off-road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters (or the equivalent) if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines. g. Tier 3 engines shall be used on all equipment when available.

MM AQ-3: The project proponent shall continuously comply with the following measures during operation of the project to control emissions from the on-site dedicated equipment (equipment that would remain on-site each day):
a. All onsite off-road equipment and on-road vehicles for operation/maintenance shall be new equipment that meets the recent California Air Resources Board engine emission standards or alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, or electric, as appropriate. b. All equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Engine idling of all equipment shall be minimized.
c. All equipment engines shall be maintained in good operating condition and in tune per manufacturers’ specification.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.3c – Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Sensitive receptors refer to those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality (i.e., children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality). Land uses that have the greatest potential to attract these types of sensitive receptors include schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities. Non-residential sensitive receptors are listed in Table 3.4.3-6 below.

Residential sensitive receptors are also located north of the property, east of the Project site, across Centennial Drive, and to the south, across Grangeville Boulevard.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-27
Table 3.4.3-6
Sensitive Receptors Located Within Two Miles of the Project Site Receptor Type of facility Distance from
Project (miles)
Frontier Elementary School 0.34
Pioneer Union Elementary School 0.36
Sierra Pacific High School School 0.67
College of the Sequoias School 0.77
Simas Elementary School 0.81
New Testament Baptist School School 1.20
Community Day School School 1.66
Jefferson Academy School 1.66
Hanford Adult School School 1.25
Pioneer Union Elementary School 1.55
Adventist Health Hanford Hospital 1.58
Women’s Health Adventist Hospital 1.25
United Health Centers Hospital 1.56
Hanford Post Acute Nursing Home 1.65
Advancement Care Nursing Home 2.0
Vail Family Daycare Daycare 0.58
Maria’s Daycare Daycare 1.05
Our Little Blessings Daycare 1.19
Source: Trinity Consultants, 2024.

GAMAQI recommends that lead agencies consider situations wherein a new or modified source of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) is proposed for a location near an existing residential area or other sensitive receptors when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs. Typical sources of HAPs include diesel trucks or permitted sources such as engines, boilers, or storage tanks. To predict potential health risks to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project, ambient air concentrations were predicted with dispersion modeling to arrive at an estimate of individual carcinogenic risk that might occur as a result of continuous exposure over a 70-year lifetime. Similarly, predicted concentrations were used to calculate non-cancer chronic and acute hazard indices, which are the ratios of expected exposure to acceptable exposures. SJVAPCD has set the level of significance for carcinogenic risk at 20 in one million, which is understood as the possibility of causing 20 additional cancer cases in a population of one million people. The level of significance for chronic and acute non-cancer risk is a hazard index of one. Table 3.4.3-7 depicts the potential maximum impacts predicted to result from the Project.

As shown in Table 3.4.3-7 below, the maximum predicted cancer risk for the proposed Project is 1.79E-05, the maximum chronic non-cancer hazard index is 2.43E-02, and the maximum acute hazard index is 5.04E-02. The potential risk attributable to the proposed Project is below the significance threshold established by SJVAPCD and, therefore, is determined to result in a less-than-significant impact.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-28
Table 3.4.3-7
Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP2
Value
Excess Cancer Risk – Total 1.79E-05
Construction 1.35E-05
Operations 4.42E-06
Chronic Hazard Index – Max 2.43E-02
Construction 1.52E-02
Operations 9.05E-03
Acute Hazard Index – Max 5.04E-02
Operations 5.04E-02
Source: Appendix B

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.3d – Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
See discussion in Impact #3.4.3c above.

SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI identifies common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2015). The types of facilities that are known to produce odors are shown in Table 3.4.3-8, along with a reasonable distance from the source within which the degree of odors could possibly be significant. These can be used as a screening tool to qualitatively assess a project’s potential to adversely affect area receptors. None of the facilities shown in Table

3.4.3-8 are located within the vicinity of the Project. Convenience stores, gas stations, fastfood restaurants, and residential uses are not identified in the GAMAQI as facilities that typically produce objectionable odors. As such, the Project is not expected to be a source of objectional odors, nor will future residents and employees of the Project be subject to objectionable odors, and no mitigation is needed.

The SJVAPCD GAMAQI states that analysis for generators and receivers should be conducted to assess odor impacts.
• Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-29
• Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built to attract people locating near existing odor sources.

Table 3.4.3-8
Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources
Type of Facility Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facility 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shops) 1 mile Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile
The Project is not a source that would create objectionable odors and is not anticipated to be a source of objectionable odors. Therefore, the Project is determined to result in a less-thansignificant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-30

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special-status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish 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 state or
federally protected wetlands (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?

Discussion
The impact analysis in this section is based on a Biological Resource Evaluation that was prepared for the Project (QK, 2023a) and is included in Appendix C.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-31
Impact #3.4.4a – Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus 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? Project activities have the potential to affect biological resources. A reconnaissance survey of the Project and a 250-foot buffer (Biological Survey Area, or BSA), where feasible, was conducted on October 30, 2023. The purpose of the survey was to determine the locations and extent of sensitive plant communities and habitats, determine the potential for the occurrence of special-status plant and wildlife species, and identify other sensitive biological resources within the BSA. Meandering pedestrian transects were walked through the BSA to achieve 100 percent visual coverage with the aid of binoculars in areas that were inaccessible. Protocol surveys for specific special-status plant or wildlife species were not conducted because it was determined by the biologists that no such surveys were warranted due to the lack of suitable habitat and the disturbed condition of the Project site. Locations of any observed sensitive biological resources were documented using the ArcGIS Collector application installed on an iPad. Photographs were taken to document the existing landscape and sensitive biological resources. Detailed notes of plant and wildlife species and site conditions observed were taken while conducting the survey.

QK conducted a review of the literature and agency databases to obtain information on the occurrences of natural communities and special-status species known from the vicinity of the Project site. The California Natural Diversity Database, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Database, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Threatened and Endangered Species List were reviewed. To satisfy other standard search criteria, CNDDB records within a 10-mile radius of the Project site were queried separately from the broader database search (QK, 2023a).

Site Conditions
It is situated on a five-acre vacant lot that has been recently disked and is primarily devoid of vegetation. No natural plant communities occur within the BSA. The Project site consists of a maintained vacant lot that has minimal growth of ruderal species, mainly Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) and prostrate pigweed (Amaranthus blitoides), along field margins. The urban development surrounding the Project site contains various ornamental shrubs and trees, including pines (Pinus sp.), sycamore (Platanus sp.), and olive (Olea sp.) located outside of the Project site but within the BSA.

There are several large trees that could support nesting birds and/or raptors, but there were no nests present within the BSA. Smaller ornamental trees associated with the private residences surrounding the Project site could support nesting passerine bird species.

Common migratory bird species observed during the survey included mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and common raven (Corvus corax). A red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) was observed soaring over Grangeville Boulevard briefly before flying out of sight.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-32
No small mammal burrows or dens suitable for special-status species were present within the BSA. There was sign (weathered soil mounding) created by pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) present within the margins of the Project site. Sign (scat, tracks, etc.) of domestic dog (Canis familiaris) was observed along portions of the Project site.

Special-Status Plant Species
There were 11 special-status plant species identified in the literature and database review that are known or have the potential to occur within the surrounding nine quadrangles centered on the Project site (Table 3.4.4-1). None of the special-status plant species have historical records occurring on or overlapping the BSA (QK, 2023a).

Table 3.4.4-9
Special-Status Plant Species Occurring in the Region of the BSA Scientific Name Common Name Status
Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata heartscale 1B.2
Atriplex cordulata var. erecticaulis Earlimart orache 1B.2 Atriplex depressa brittlescale 1B.2
Atriplex minuscula lesser saltscale 1B.1
Atriplex subtilis subtle orache 1B.2
Delphinium recurvatum recurved larkspur 1B.2
Lasthenia chrysantha alkali-sink goldfields 1B.1
Lepidium jaredii ssp. album Panoche pepper grass 1B.2
Nama stenocarpa mud nama 2B.2
Puccinellia simplex California alkali grass 1B.2
Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford's arrowhead 1B.2
CRPR (California Rare Plant Rank):
1B Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere. 2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

CRPR Threat Code Extension:
.1 Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) No special-status plant species were present within the BSA. The survey coincided with some, but not all, of the plant species’ optimal blooming periods, but none of the species identified in the CNDDB or Ipac database queries are expected to occur onsite due to the lack of suitable habitat conditions and/or because the BSA is located outside of the species’ known range. The Project site is degraded from historical land use, mainly from historical agricultural purposes, and the adjacent lands have been equally disturbed for residential and transportation corridors.

Special-Status Wildlife Species
There were 22 special-status wildlife species identified in the literature and database review that are known or have the potential to occur within the surrounding nine-quad search area

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-33
centered on the Project (Table 3.4.4-2). There are no historical records from the CNDDB or Ipac of any special-status wildlife species within the BSA.

Table 3.4.4-2
Special-Status Wildlife Species Occurring in the Region of the BSA Scientific Name Common Name Status
Invertebrates
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp FT, -
Cicindela tranquebarica joaquinensis San Joaquin tiger beetle -, - Danaus plexippus monarch butterfly FC, -
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus valley elderberry longhorn beetle FT, - Gonidea angulate western ridged mussel -, -
Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp FE, -
Linderiella occidentalis California linderiella -, -
Amphibians
Ambystoma californiense pop 1 California tiger salamander

FT, ST
Spea hammondii western spadefoot -, SSC
Reptiles
Arizona elegans occidentalis California glossy snake -, SSC Emys marmorata western pond turtle -, SSC
Gambelia sila blunt-nosed leopard lizard FE, -
Birds
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird -, ST/SSC
Athene cunicularia western burrowing owl -, SSC
Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk -, ST
Charadrius nivosus nivosus western snowy plover FT, SSC Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus yellow-headed blackbird -, SSC Mammals
Dipodomys nitratoides exilis Fresno kangaroo rat FE, SE Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides Tipton kangaroo rat FE, SE Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat -, -
Sorex ornatus relictus Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew FE, SSC Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox FE, ST
Abbreviations:

FC Federal Candidate
FE Federal Endangered Species
FT Federal Threatened Species
SFP Fully Protected Animal, CDFW
SE California Endangered Species
ST California Threatened Species
SSC California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-34
One special-status wildlife species, Swainson’s hawk, was determined to have limited potential to occur within the BSA as a transient (QK, 2023a).

Swainson’s Hawk
The Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) has the potential to occur within the BSA. The nearest Swainson’s hawk CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.7 miles southeast of the BSA, where an active nest was observed in one of the eucalyptus trees along Lacey Boulevard in 2012, and an adult was observed sitting on the same nest in 2016. There is suitable nesting habitat within the BSA in the nearby large trees that could be used by a Swainson’s hawk.

The Project site provides a limited prey base due to the periodic disking of the Project site and the absence of active small mammal burrows, but a few inactive gopher burrows were present, indicating the potential for prey in the area.

Available habitat within the BSA, fulfilling the foraging and nesting requirements of this species, is limited. Therefore, the presence of the species within the BSA is unlikely. There are a few large trees located within the southern boundary of the BSA that could potentially support nesting raptors, including Swainson’s hawk; however, the shortage of prey and lack of local foraging habitat makes the presence of the Swainson’s hawk very unlikely.

Impacts to nesting Swainson’s hawks could occur during construction due to noise, vibration, and the presence of construction workers, which may alter normal behaviors and possibly lead to nest failure. Implementation of Mitigation Measures (MM) BIO-1 through MM BIO-7 would reduce any impacts to the species to below significant levels.

Nesting Birds
There were no nests (active or inactive) present within the BSA during the survey. Habitat within the Project site with the potential to support nesting birds is limited to ornamental trees located within the surrounding urban development, which may support passerine nests or larger raptor nests. Due to the periodic disking, it is unlikely that ground-nesting species would nest within the Project site. Additionally, there are a variety of man-made structures (utility poles, transmission towers, agricultural residences, etc.) and trees within the BSA and in the vicinity of the Project, which could support a variety of nesting bird species. If there are active nests present during Project activities, nests could be destroyed, and Project activities could interfere with normal breeding behaviors, which could discourage breeding or lead to nest abandonment or failure. Implementation of MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2, and MM BIO-4 through MM BIO-7 would reduce impacts to these species to below significant levels.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
MM BIO-1: A pre-construction clearance survey of the Project footprint shall be conducted for special-status wildlife species and nesting migratory birds and raptors. The survey shall occur no less than 14-30 days prior to the start of construction activities. If construction is delayed beyond 30 days from the time of the survey, then another survey must be conducted.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-35
The survey shall be conducted by a biologist with adequate training and prior experience conducting surveys for special-status wildlife species. If no special-status species are observed, no further action is warranted. If dens or burrows that could support specialstatus species and/or nesting birds are discovered during the pre-construction survey, appropriate avoidance buffers should be established. A report outlining the results of the clearance survey shall be provided to the Lead Agency as evidence of compliance.

MM BIO-2: If construction is planned during the nesting season for migratory birds (February 15 to August 31) and nesting birds are identified during the survey, active Swainson’s hawk nest shall be avoided by 0.5 miles, other raptor nests shall be avoided by 500 feet and all other migratory bird nests shall be avoided by 250 feet. Avoidance buffers may be reduced if a qualified biological monitor determines that encroachment into the buffer area is not affecting nest building, the rearing of young, or otherwise affecting the breeding behaviors of the resident birds. Because nesting birds can establish new nests or produce a second or even third clutch at any time during the nesting season, nesting bird surveys shall be repeated every 30 days as construction activities are occurring throughout the nesting season.

MM BIO-3: If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is discovered at any time within 0.5 miles of active construction, a qualified biologist shall complete an assessment of the potential for current construction activities to impact the nest. The assessment would consider the type of construction activities, the location of construction relative to the nest, the visibility of construction activities from the nest location, and other existing disturbances in the area that are not related to the construction activities of this Project. Based on this assessment, the biologist will determine if construction activities can proceed and the level of nest monitoring required. Construction activities shall not occur within 500 feet of an active nest, but depending on conditions at the site, this distance may be reduced. Full-time monitoring to evaluate the effects of construction activities on nesting Swainson’s hawks may be required. The qualified biologist shall have the authority to stop work if it is determined that Project construction is disturbing the nest. These buffers may need to increase depending on the sensitivity of the nesting Swainson’s hawk to disturbances and at the discretion of the qualified biologist.

MM BIO-4: Prior to the initiation of construction activities, all personnel shall attend a Worker Environmental Awareness Training program developed by a qualified biologist. The program shall include information on the life histories of special-status species with the potential to occur on the Project, their legal status, the course of action shall these species be encountered onsite, and avoidance and minimization measures to protect these species.

MM BIO-5: Project-related vehicles should observe a 20-mph speed limit in all Project areas, except on county roads and state and federal highways. Off-road traffic outside of designated Project areas should be prohibited.

MM BIO-6: All trash and food items should be discarded into closed containers and properly disposed of at the end of each workday.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-36
MM BIO-7: To prevent harassment or mortality of listed species, no pets should be permitted on the Project site during Project construction.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.4b – 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?
Sensitive natural communities are designated by various resource agencies, including the CDFW, USFWS, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, or are designated by local agencies through policies, ordinances, and regulations.

There is no riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities within the Project boundaries, and no protected species were observed during the survey. Therefore, there would be no impacts.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.4c – Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has regulatory authority over the Clean Water Act (CWA), as provided for by the EPA. The USACE has established specific criteria for the determination of wetlands based on the presence of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophilic vegetation. There are no federally protected wetlands or vernal pools that occur within the Project.

Wetlands, streams, reservoirs, sloughs, and ponds typically meet the criteria for federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA and State jurisdiction under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Streams and ponds typically meet the criteria for State jurisdiction under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. There are no identified water features, federal waters, or wetlands located on or near the Project, and there would be no impacts (QK, 2023a).

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-37

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.4d – Would the Project 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? Wildlife movement corridors, also referred to as dispersal corridors or landscape linkages, are generally defined as linear features along which animals can travel from one habitat or resource area to another. Wildlife movement corridors can be large tracts of land that connect regionally important habitats that support wildlife in general, such as stop-over habitat that supports migrating birds or large contiguous natural habitats that support animals with very large home ranges (e.g., coyotes, mule deer). They can also be small-scale movement corridors, such as riparian zones, that provide connectivity and cover to support the movement at a local scale.

The BSA is not within any designated wildlife linkage or movement corridors. The nearest wildlife movement corridor is located approximately 7.5 miles east of the BSA, and the nearest wildlife linkage area is approximately 22.3 miles to the southeast. The Project is situated within an area developed for urban and agricultural use and does not provide a linkage between suitable natural habitats for most wildlife species. Due to the disturbed condition of the Project and surrounding area, there is no substantial movement of wildlife onto or off the BSA, and there would be no impacts (QK, 2023a).

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.4e – Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The General Plan contains policies aimed at the preservation of biological resources and promotes coordination with federal and State resource agencies. The General Plan outlines a work plan with implementation measures to uphold these policies, including biological resource review for proposed projects and development of mitigation measures for these projects.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-38
As noted previously, there are no trees on the Project site. The Project is consistent with the General Plan and Title 12.12 of the Hanford Municipal Code regarding biological resources.

Therefore, there are no impacts with respect to local policies and ordinances, and no measures are warranted.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.4f – Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
The Project is located within an area covered by the PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). That HCP only applies to the maintenance and operations of PG&E facilities and does not apply to this Project. There are no other pertinent HCP or NCCP within the Project area. The Project would have no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-39

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The discussion below is based on the Cultural Resources Technical Memo completed for the Project, attached as Appendix D (QK, 2023b).

Discussion
Impact #3.4.5a – Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? As noted in Impact #3.4.1b, Hanford has three buildings listed on the National Registry of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources. They are the Hanford Carnegie Library, the Kings County Courthouse, and the Taoist Temple. None of these are located in close proximity to the Project, and therefore, there would be no impact.

A cultural resources records search (RS #23-475) was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, CSU Bakersfield, to determine whether the proposed Project would impact cultural resources. The records search covered an area within one-half mile of the Project and included a review of the National Register of Historic Places, California Points of Historical Interest, California Registry of Historic Resources, California Historical Landmarks, California State Historic Resources Inventory, and a review of cultural resource reports on file.

The records search indicated that an approximately 200-foot wide strip along the southern boundary of the subject property adjacent to Grangeville Boulevard had been previously surveyed for cultural resources as part of a larger project with negative results. The remainder of the property has never been surveyed for cultural resources, and it is not known if any exists on it. Four additional cultural resource studies have been conducted within a half mile of the Project.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-40
Seven cultural resources, six historical and one prehistoric, have been recorded within a half mile of the Project. The historic resources include a segment of the Last Chance Ditch (primary no. P-16-000128) and five residential buildings dating between the 1940s and 1960 (P-16-000234, -000235, -000236, -000237, -000238). The prehistoric site (P-16- 000004) is a habitation mound with burials that has been extensively damaged by past agricultural and construction activities over the past century. The Project would not impact any of these cultural resources. No further resources, either historical or prehistoric, have been identified or recorded within one-half mile of the proposed Project.

A Sacred Lands File request was also submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission. A response dated December 5, 2023, indicates negative results.

Although there is no obvious evidence of historical or archaeological resources on the Project site, there is potential for the discovery of cultural resources during construction. Grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing actions can damage or destroy these previously unidentified and potentially significant cultural resources within the Project area, including historical resources.

The General Plan EIR determined that new development as a result of the General Plan Update could affect known and previously unknown archaeological resources as well as paleontological resources. The General Plan Update also included policies that specifically address sensitive archaeological resources and their protection, which include:
• Policy O45—Consult with appropriate Native American associations about potential archaeological sites in the beginning stages of the development review process. • Policy O46—Require archaeological studies by a certified archeologist in areas of archeological potential significance prior to approval of development projects. • Policy O47—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 O48—Halt construction at a development site if cultural resources are encountered.

An inventory was conducted for the General Plan Update, and this site was not listed as having a potential cultural resource.

On January 10, 2017, the City of Hanford met with the Tachi Yokut Tribe on a different project in order to establish conditions that would apply to all projects in the City of Hanford, which required an Initial Study. In order to address the concerns of the Tachi Yokut Tribe, the City is requiring the following as mitigation measures:
• That a Burial Treatment Plan be entered into 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.)

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-41
In the unlikely event construction of the Project inadvertently uncovers previously unknown cultural resources, avoidance and minimization measures will be added to all engineered plans and specs that would outline necessary steps to be taken prior to the start of construction. These measures require all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery of cultural resources find to halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. In addition, prior to any ground disturbance, if the City receives a request from a Native American tribal group, a surface inspection of the site will be conducted by a tribal monitor, and the tribe will have the opportunity to provide a Native American Monitor during ground-disturbing activities, dependent upon the availability and interest of the tribe.

In addition, the following measures have been required by the City to ensure impacts to cultural resources are less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
MM CUL-1: If prehistoric or historic-era cultural materials are encountered during construction activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation. Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, fire-affected rock, and historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants.

Implementation of the mitigation measure below would ensure that the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

MM CUL-2: Prior to any ground disturbance, if the City of Hanford receives a request from a Native American tribal group, a surface inspection of the site shall be conducted by a tribal monitor. The tribal staff shall provide pre-Project-related activities briefings to supervisory personnel and any excavation contractor, including information on potential cultural material, finds, and any excavation contractor, which will include information on potential cultural material finds, and the procedures be enacted if resources are found. The tribal cultural staff shall monitor the site during grading activities.

Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall offer the tribe the opportunity to provide a Native American Monitor during ground-disturbing activities. Tribal participation would be dependent upon the availability and interest of the tribe.

MM CUL-3: That a Burial Treatment Plan be entered into by the applicant/developer prior to any earth-disturbing activities.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-42
Impact #3.4.5b – Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? See Impact #3.4.5a above. Based on the results of cultural records search findings and the historical or archaeological resources previously identified within a half-mile radius of the proposed Project, there is a possibility that historical or archaeological materials may be exposed during construction. Grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing actions have the potential to damage or destroy these previously unidentified and potentially significant cultural resources within the Project area, including historical or archaeological resources.

To reduce the Project’s potential impacts on cultural resources, implementation of MM CUL1 through MM CUL-3 would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-3.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.5c – Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
There are no known cemeteries or burials on or near the Project. Although unlikely, subsurface construction activities, such as trenching and grading, associated with the proposed Project could potentially disturb previously undiscovered human burial sites.

Accordingly, this is a potentially significant impact. The cultural resources and Sacred Lands File records searches did not indicate the presence of human remains, burials, or cemeteries within or in the vicinity of the Project site. No human remains have been discovered at the Project site, and no burials or cemeteries are known to occur within the area of the site.

However, construction would involve earth-disturbing activities, and it is still possible that human remains may be discovered, possibly in association with archaeological sites.

Implementation of the mitigation measure below would ensure that the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly destroy previously unknown human remains. It is unlikely that the proposed Project would disturb any known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. However, with the implementation of MM CUL-4, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
MM CUL-4: If human remains are discovered during construction or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-43
of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement, in the event of the discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-44

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.4.6 - ENERGY
Would the Project:
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?
Discussion
The following analysis is based on Project data provided by the applicant, the AQIA (Trinity Consultants, 2024), and available energy resource consumption data.

Impact #3.4.6a – Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during Project construction or operation?
CEQA Guidelines require consideration of the potentially significant energy implications of a project. CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary” energy usage (Public Resources Code Section 21100, subdivision [b][3]). The means to conserve energy include decreasing overall energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.

The proposed Project would involve the use of energy during construction and operation.

Energy use during the construction phase would be in the form of fuel consumption (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel) to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, and machinery.

The long-term operation of the proposed includes electricity and natural gas service to power internal and exterior building lighting, as well as heating and cooling systems. In addition, the increase in vehicle trips associated with the Project would increase fuel consumption within the City.

Electricity service for the proposed Project would be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). The SCE and State of California 2022 power mix is detailed in Table 3.4.6-1. Energy usage by sector is outlined in Table 3.4.6-2.

Table 3.4.6-3 below presents natural gas consumption by sector for SCE in 2022.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-45
Table 3.4.6-1
SCE and the State of California 2022 Power Mix
Energy Resource SCE Power Mix California-Wide Power Mix Eligible Renewable 33.2% 35.8%
Biomass & Biowaste 0.1% 2.1%
Geothermal 5.7% 4.7%
Small Hydroelectric 0.5% 1.1%
Solar 17% 17%
Wind 9.8% 10.8%
Coal 0% 2.1%
Large Hydroelectric 3.4% 9.2%
Natural Gas 24.7% 36.4%
Nuclear 8.3% 9.2%
Other 0.1% 0.1%
Unspecified 1 30.3% 7.1%
Total 100% 100%
Source: (SCE, 2022) 1 Electricity from transactions that are not traceable to the specific generation source Table 3.4.6-2
Electricity Consumption in SCE Service Area (2022)
Agricultural
and Water
Pump
Commercial
Building
Commercial
Other
Industry Mining and
Construction
Residential Total
Streetlight
Usage
3,149.6 30,496.1 5,321.2 12,876.6 1,776.1 31,603.7 646.6 95,870 Source: (California Energy Commission, 2022)
Note: All usage is expressed in millions of kWh (GWh).

Table 3.4.6-3
Natural Gas Consumption in PG&E Service Territory (2022) Agricultural
and Water
Pump
Commercial
Building
Commercial
Other
Industry Mining and
Construction
Residential Total
Usage

76.8 867.5 98.8 1,605.8 147.4 2,230.2 5,026.5
Source: (California Energy Commission, 2022)
Note: All usage expressed in Millions of Therms
The proposed Project’s estimated energy usage was calculated using CalEEMod and shown in the CalEEMod output files in Appendix B. It is summarized and compared to statewide usage in Table 3.4.6-4. As shown in 3.4.6-4, the proposed Project would make a minimal contribution to statewide energy consumption in these categories.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-46
Table 3.4.6-4
Estimated Project-Related Energy Usage
Land Use Energy Type Energy Usage Annual
Statewide
Energy Use
Project % of
Statewide
Energy
Convenience
Market with
Gas Pumps
Natural Gas
(kBTU/yr)
17,974.4 - -
Electricity
(kWh/yr)
13,417.3 - -
Fast-Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Natural Gas
(kBTU/yr)
735,210 - -
Electricity
(kWh/yr)
98,945 - -
Apartments
Low Rise
Natural Gas
(kBTU/yr)
873,409 - -
Electricity
(kWh/yr)
264,386 - -
Total Energy
Usage
Natural Gas
(kBTU/yr)
1,626,593.4 189,082,861,453
(California
Energy
Commission,
2022)

0.00086%
Electricity
(kWh/yr)
376,748.3 280,738,000,000
(California
Energy
Commission,
2022)

0.00013%
Source: Appendix B
Construction

ON-ROAD VEHICLES (CONSTRUCTION)
Energy demand during the construction phase would be the result of transportation of materials, construction equipment, and construction worker vehicle trips. Compliance with local and regional regulations during construction would minimize fuel consumption.

Furthermore, construction is temporary in nature and is anticipated to occur over a 24- month period.

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES (CONSTRUCTION)
Off-road construction vehicles would use diesel fuel during the proposed Project's construction phase. Based on the total amount of CO2 emissions expected to be generated by the proposed Project (as provided by the CalEEMod output) and a CO2 to diesel fuel conversion factor (provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), the proposed

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-47
Project would use a total of approximately 54,229 gallons of diesel fuel for off-road construction vehicles for the entirety of the Project’s construction (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2023). A non-exhaustive list of constructive off-road vehicles expected to be used during the proposed Project's construction phase includes cranes, forklifts, generator sets, tractors, excavators, and dozers.

Short-term energy use during the construction phase would be in the form of fuel consumption (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel) to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, and machinery. Compliance with local and regional regulations during construction would minimize fuel consumption. Energy-saving strategies will be implemented where possible to further reduce the Project’s energy consumption during the construction phase. Strategies being implemented include those recommended by the CARB that may reduce the Project’s energy consumption, including diesel anti-idling measures, light-duty vehicle technology, alternative fuels such as biodiesel blends and ethanol, and heavy-duty vehicle design measures to reduce energy consumption. Measures to reduce idling and use of efficient and up-to-date technology are recommended for inclusion as mitigation measures AQ-1 and 2 under Section 3.4.3b would reduce inefficient use of energy resources. As such, impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures.

Operations

ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS
Electricity and natural gas used by the proposed Project would be used to power residential units, a convenience store, a gas station, and a fast-food restaurant. The Project would be required to comply with California’s Title 24 CalGreen Code requirements for new construction that may include rooftop solar, double-pane windows, electric vehicle charging, LED lights, low-flow toilets, faucets drip irrigation, and the use of drought-tolerant landscaping to increase water conservation. Compliance with CalGreen Code will be included as mitigation measure MM ENG-1 and would reduce operational impacts on energy resources. As such, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implementation of MM AQ 1 and AQ 2
MM ENG-1: The Project proponent and its contractors shall comply with applicable California Title 24 CalGreen Code which can include but not be limited to inclusion of solar ready rooftops, double pane windows, electric vehicle charging, use of LED lights, the use of low flow appliances, drip irrigation, and drought tolerant landscaping. .

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-48
Impact #3.4.6b – Would the Project Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
See Impact #3.4.6a above. The construction and operation of the Project would comply with State and local plans and regulations. The proposed Project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. The Project will comply with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and CalGreen Code requirements for solarready roofs, electric vehicle charging, and water conservation as recommended in MM ENG1. Energy would also be indirectly conserved through water-efficient landscaping requirements consistent with the City Landscaping Ordinance.

Stringent solid waste recycling requirements applicable to Project construction and operation would reduce energy consumed in solid waste disposal. In summary, the Project will implement all mandatory federal, State, and local conservation measures, Project design features, and voluntary energy conservation measures to reduce energy demands further.

Therefore, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Project-related impacts are less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implementation of MM ENG-1.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-49

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the Project:
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 AlquistPriolo 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 offsite 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
wastewater disposal systems in areas where
sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-50
Discussion
Impact #3.4.7a(i) – Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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?
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. Within these zones, cities and counties must regulate certain development, including withholding permits until geologic investigations demonstrate that development sites are not threatened by future surface displacement. The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Act is 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.

There are no designated Alquist-Priolo zones in the City of Hanford, according to the General Plan (City of Hanford, 2017a).

All new structures are required to conform to current seismic protection standards in the California Building Code and are incorporated as Mitigation Measure MM GEO-1. By adhering to the 2022 California Building Code and City development standards, the Project will have a less-than-significant impact of endangering people and structures associated with earthquakes.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
GEO-1: The project proponent and its contractors shall construct the project in compliance with applicable development standards under the California Building Code..

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated.

Impact #3.4.7a(ii) – Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic groundshaking?
See discussion of Impact #3.4.7a(i) above.

The greatest potential for seismic activity in the City is posed by the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 55 miles southwest of the proposed Project. The White Wolf Fault, located near Arvin and Bakersfield to the southwest of Kern County, has the potential to cause seismic hazards for the County to a much lesser degree than the San Andreas Fault.

Kings County does not have any major fault system within its boundaries.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-51
The Uniform Building Code has four seismic zones in the US, ranging from I to IV; the higher the number, the higher the earthquake danger. All of California lies within Zone III or IV, and Kings County is within Zone III, which equates to the potential to experience 0.3 meters/second squared ground acceleration, which would result in very strong to severe perceived shaking and a moderate to heavy potential.

Secondary hazards from earthquakes include ground shaking/ruptures. Since there are no known faults within the immediate area, ground shaking/ruptures from surface faulting, seiches, and landslides would not be hazards in the area. While such seismic shaking would be less severe than an earthquake that originates at a greater distance from the Project site, the side effects could potentially be damaging to residential buildings and supporting infrastructure. The Project is required to design residential buildings and associated infrastructure to withstand substantial ground shaking in accordance with all applicable State laws and applicable codes included in the California Building Code (CBC) Title 24 for earthquake construction standards and building standards code, including those relating to soil characteristics (California Building Standards Commission, 2022). The Project will be required to adhere to all applicable local and State regulations as noted in MM GEO-1 to reduce any potentially significant impacts to structures resulting from strong seismic ground shaking at the Project site. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implementation of GEO-1.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated Impact #3.4.7a(iii) – Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Liquefaction occurs when saturated, loose materials are weakened and transformed from a solid to a near-liquid state as a result of increased pore water pressure. For liquefaction to occur, surface and near-surface soil must be saturated and relatively loose.

According to the Kings County Safety Element, the risk of liquefaction within the County is considered minimal. Because the Project site is within an area of low seismic activity, and the soils associated with the Project are not suitable for liquefaction, impacts will be less than significant. The area’s low potential for seismic activity would further reduce the likelihood of liquefaction occurrence. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-52

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.7a(iv) – Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Landslides include rockfalls, deep slope failure, and shallow slope failure. Factors such as geological conditions, drainage, slope, vegetation, and others directly affect the potential for landslides.

Kings County is listed to have “Low” to “Moderate” risk landslide areas located in the remote uninhabited sections of southwest Kings County. The Project site is within the Landslide Incidence Low (less than 1.5 percent of the area involved), so the development will have a less-than-significant impact (Kings County, 2009).

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.7b – Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The Project site is underlain by a single soil type, Nord complex (QK, 2023a). Construction activities associated with the proposed Project will disturb soils during construction and expose these disturbed areas to erosion by wind and water. To reduce the potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil during construction, the Project would comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit from the State of California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) during construction. Under the NPDES, the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) are required for construction activities that would disturb an area of one acre or more. An SWPPP must identify potential sources of erosion or sedimentation and identify and implement best management practices (BMPs) that ensure reduced erosion. If an SWPPP was not required, the Project would implement the standard BMPs. Typical BMPs intended to control erosion include sandbags, silt fencing, street sweeping, etc. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-2 requires the approval of an SWPPP to comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit, if appropriate. Compliance with local grading and erosion control ordinances would also help minimize adverse effects associated with erosion and sedimentation. Any stockpiled soils would be watered and/or covered to prevent loss due to wind erosion as part of the SWPPP during construction.

The Project will comply with all the City's grading requirements outlined in Title 24 and Appendix J of the California Building Code. The Project is not expected to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil with the incorporation of MM GEO-1.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-53
Once constructed, the Project will have both impermeable and permeable surfaces.

Impermeable surfaces would include existing roadways, driveways, and structures.

Permeable surfaces would include open areas of the site and landscaped areas. Overall, the development of the Project would not result in conditions where substantial surface soils would be exposed to wind and water erosion.

Mitigation Measure(s)
MM GEO-2: Prior to issuing of grading or building permits, if required, (a) the Project applicant shall submit to the Lead Agency (1) the approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and (2) the Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The requirements of the SWPPP and NPDES shall be incorporated into design specifications and construction contracts. Recommended best management practices for the construction phase may include the following:
• Stockpiling and disposing of demolition debris, concrete, and soil properly. • Protecting existing storm drain inlets and stabilizing disturbed areas. • Implementing erosion controls.
• Properly managing construction materials.
• Managing waste, aggressively controlling litter, and implementing sediment controls. • Evidence of the approved SWPPP shall be submitted to the Lead Agency.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.7c – 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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? See discussion in Impact #3.4.7a(iii) and 3.4.7a(iv) above.

There are no slopes on or near the property, and the Project would not expose the people or structures to significant risks from landslides. The site is not located near any areas with a sufficient slope that could result in offsite landslides. Moreover, the Project will be designed by an engineer to resist potential side effects of spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

The proposed Project will comply with all City and State regulations pertaining to construction, including the Hanford Municipal Code. In addition, the California Geologic Society, in implementing the CA Seismic Hazards Mapping Program, has not identified any seismically induced landslide hazard zones in Hanford (City of Hanford, 2017a). Therefore, complying with the existing regulatory framework including compliance with the California Building Code as required under MM GEO-1. would be adequate to reduce any potential impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-54

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implementation of MM GEO-1.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated.

Impact #3.4.7d – 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?
See Impact #3.4.7a(iii), 3.4.7a(iv) and Impact #3.4.7c above.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.7e – Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The proposed Project would not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The development will be required to connect to the existing City sewer system.

Therefore, there would be no impact related to the use of septic systems.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.7f – Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The Project site does not have any known paleontological resources or unique geologic features. The General Plan Goal 06 requires the protection of paleontological resources.

Implementation of MM GEO-3 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level related to paleontological resources.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-55

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
MM GEO-3: If any paleontological resources are encountered during ground-disturbance activities, all work within 25 feet of the find shall halt until a qualified paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (2010), can evaluate the find and make recommendations regarding treatment. Paleontological resource materials may include resources such as fossils, plant impressions, or animal tracks preserved in rock. The qualified paleontologist shall contact the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or another appropriate facility regarding any discoveries of paleontological resources.

If the qualified paleontologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations and fossil recovery may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontological resources shall be evaluated for their significance. If the resources are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are significant, they shall be avoided to ensure no adverse effects, or such effects must be mitigated. Construction in that area shall not resume until the resource-appropriate measures are recommended or the materials are determined to be less than significant. If the resource is significant and fossil recovery is the identified form of treatment, then the fossil shall be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution. Copies of all correspondence and reports shall be submitted to the Lead Agency.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-56

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.4.8 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the Project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The impact analyses in this section are based on an Air Quality Impact Analysis (Trinity Consultants, 2024), which is attached as Appendix B.

Discussion
Impact #3.4.8a – Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The SJVAPCD acknowledges the current absence of numerical thresholds and recommends a tiered approach to establish the significance of the GHG impacts on the environment. a. If a project complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program that avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located, then the project would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. ii. If a project does not comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or mitigation program, it would be required to implement Best Performance Standards (BPS). iii. If a project is not implementing BPS, it should demonstrate that its GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent compared to Business as Usual (BAU).

The Project would generate GHGs from electricity use and the combustion of gasoline/diesel fuels, each of which is regulated near the top of the supply chain. As such, each citizen of California (including the operator of the Project) will have no choice but to purchase electricity and fuel produced in a way that is acceptable to the California market. Thus, Project GHG emissions will be consistent with the relevant plan (i.e., AB 32 Scoping Plan).

The Project would meet its fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative impact of global climate change because SHP is purchasing energy from the California market. Thus, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on applicable GHG reduction plans.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-57
Several new laws and executive orders were adopted that require additional reductions in years after 2020. For instance, Senate Bill 32 requires that GHG emissions be 40 percent less than 1990 levels by 2030. More drastic still, Senate Bill 100, which was signed by the Governor recently, requires 100 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2045. On the day SB 100 was signed into law, the Governor also signed Executive Order B-55-18, which commits California to total, economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045 (Trinity Consultants, 2024).

The SJVAPCD does not have thresholds or guidance regarding the significance of GHG emissions. However, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted an Interim GHG Significance Threshold. For these reasons, Project GHG emissions levels presented in Table 3.4.8-1 are primarily for disclosure purposes because impact analysis for the Project follows the approach certified by SCAQMD. The SCAQMD guidance identifies a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2eq./year for GHG for construction emissions amortized over a 30- year project lifetime, plus annual operation emissions.

Although the Project is under SJVAPCD jurisdiction, the SCAQMD GHG threshold provides some perspective on the GHG emissions generated by the Project. Table 3.4.8-1 shows the yearly GHG emissions generated by the Project as determined by the CalEEMod model within the Air Quality Impact Analysis, which is less than the threshold identified by the SCAQMD.

Table 3.4.8-1
Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MT/Year)
CO2 Emissions CH4 Emissions N2O Emissions CO2e Emissions Construction Emissions
Total 550.22 0.11 0.00 553.95
Operational Emissions
Area Emissions 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.79
Energy Emissions 121.66 0.01 0.00 122.52
Mobile Emissions 421.43 0.09 0.05 439.82
Water Emissions 14.16 0.84 0.00 35.08
Waste Emissions 5.28 0.18 0.00 10.91
Total Project
Operational Emissions
563.30 1.11 0.06 609.12
Annualized Construction
Emissions

18.34 0.00 0.00 18.46
Project Emissions 563.30 1.11 0.06 609.12
Source: Appendix B
Because climate change is a global issue, a development project like the proposed Project, on an individual basis, does not have a reasonable potential to result in a measurable, significant impact on global warming or climate change. However, the Project would contribute to cumulative GHG emissions that cumulatively result in environmental and health effects associated with climate change across California, the country, and the world. The Project’s emissions would only be a very small fraction of the statewide GHG emissions. Regardless,

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-58
given the position of the legislature in AB 32 that states that global warming poses serious detrimental effects and the requirements of CEQA for the Lead Agency to determine if a project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution, the effect of the Project’s CO2 contribution may be considered cumulatively considerable. The strategies currently being implemented by CARB can help in reducing the project’s GHG emissions and are summarized below:
• Vehicle Climate Change Standards – AB 1493 (Pavley required the State to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of climate change emissions emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks.

Regulations were adopted by CARB in September 2004.
• Diesel Anti-Idling – In July 2004, CARB adopted a measure to limit diesel-fueled retail motor vehicle idling to five minutes or less.
• Other Light-Duty Vehicle Technology – New standards would be adopted to phase in beginning in the 2017 model year.
• Alternative Fuels: Biodiesel Blends – CARB would develop regulations to require the use of one percent to four percent biodiesel displacement of California diesel fuel. • Alternative Fuels: Ethanol – Increased use of ethanol fuel. • Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission Reduction Measures – Increased efficiency in the design of heavy-duty vehicles and an educational program for the heavy-duty vehicle sector.

Any further feasible emissions reductions would be accomplished through CARB regulations adopted pursuant to AB 32. Overall, the impacts to occur during the construction would be short-term and temporary in nature. As there are no current significance thresholds to quantify construction emissions and because construction-related impacts are considered temporary, they are, therefore, generally considered less than significant. In addition, the construction and operation of the proposed Project would still have to comply with the SJVAPCD’s regulations and requirements, as discussed in the air quality section.

The Project will not result in the emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), or sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), the other gases identified as GHG in AB 32. The proposed Project will be subject to any regulations developed under AB 32 as determined by CARB.

Therefore, it is anticipated that the Project will not generate significant long-term GHG emissions over its lifetime, and impacts would be less than significant for GHG emission impacts.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-59
Impact #3.4.8b – Would the Project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? See Impact #3.4.8a.

On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its initial Scoping Plan, which functions as a roadmap of CARB’s plans to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations. CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan builds on the efforts and plans encompassed in the initial Scoping Plan.

Senate Bill (SB) 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. CARB has provided each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks by 2020 and 2035.

The proposed Project requires approval of a GPA and Zone Change to Neighborhood MixedUse. The Project would be consistent with the General Plan and will conform to all Neighborhood Mixed-Use zone standards. In addition, as described in Impact #3.4.11, the proposed use is generally consistent with General Plan goals and policies. Furthermore, the Project’s emissions are below SJVAPCD thresholds.

CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan builds on the efforts and plans encompassed in the initial Scoping Plan. The current plan has identified new policies and actions to accomplish the State’s 2030 GHG limit. Below is a list of applicable strategies in the Scoping Plan and the Project’s consistency with those strategies. • California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards – Implement adopted standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero-emission vehicles, alternative and renewable fuel, and vehicle technology programs for long-term climate change goals.  The Project is consistent with this reduction measure. This measure cannot be implemented by a particular project or Lead Agency since it is a statewide measure. When this measure is implemented, standards would be applicable to light-duty vehicles that would access the residential and commercial development. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct this reduction measure.
• Energy Efficiency – Pursuit of a comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards.
 The Project is consistent with this reduction measure. Though this measure applies to the State to increase its energy standards, the Project would comply with this measure through existing regulations. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct this reduction measure.
• Low Carbon Fuel – Development and adoption of the low carbon fuel standard.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-60
• The Project is consistent with this reduction measure. This measure cannot be implemented by a particular project or Lead Agency since it is a statewide measure. When this measure is implemented, standards would be applicable to the fuel used by vehicles that would access the residential and commercial development. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct this reduction measure.

The analysis above takes into account the cumulative nature of the energy industry and recognizes that consumers of electricity and diesel fuel are, in effect, regulated by higherlevel emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. The proposed Project is not expected to result in significant GHG emissions and would not conflict with State GHG emission reduction goals.

Based on the assessment above, the Project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-61

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the Project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or involve
handling hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site that 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?
The impact analyses in this section are based on a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (SEI, 2023), which is attached as Appendix E.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-62
Discussion
Impact #3.4.9a – Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Project Construction
Project construction-related activities may involve the use and transport of hazardous materials. These materials may include fuels, oils, mechanical fluids, and other chemicals used during construction-related activities. These materials could expose human health or the environment to undue risks associated with their use, and no significant impacts will occur during construction activities. Residential construction generally uses fewer hazardous chemicals or chemicals in relatively small quantities and concentrations compared to commercial or industrial uses.

Transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities will be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations. These efforts can include regulatory compliance with State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) NPDES and SWPPP requirements for pollution prevention during construction activities and the use of designated hazardous material transportation routes regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation and Caltrans. Additionally, the City’s routes that have been designated for hazardous materials transport would be used. Any hazardous waste or debris that is generated during the construction of the proposed Project would be collected and transported away from the site and disposed of at an approved offsite landfill or other such facilities. In addition, sanitary waste generated during construction would be managed through portable toilets located at reasonably accessible onsite locations.

Compliance with the NPDES and SWPPP requirements will be necessary under MM GEO-2.

Regulatory compliance regarding the use of designated hazardous material transportation routes will be required under mitigation measure MM HAZ-1.

Hazardous materials such as paint, bleach, water treatment chemicals, gasoline, oil, etc., may be used during construction. These materials are stored in appropriate storage locations and containers in the manner specified by the manufacturer and disposed of in accordance with local, federal, and State regulations. No significant hazard to the public or the environment would occur through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste during the construction or operation of the new residential development.

The commercial component of the Project is anticipated to include the development of a gas station and fast-food restaurants. Development of the gas station would include the installation of underground storage tanks (UST), which would be regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Kings County Department of Public Health, which is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The installation and operation of UST will be in compliance with local and State regulations related to UST installation and hazardous materials use and handling. This requirement will be included as mitigation measure MM HAZ-2. Therefore, the construction of the gas station would not create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-63
materials. The development of uses associated with the fast-food restaurant portion of the Project site would be subject to the same regulations and permitting standards as noted above.

Project Operation
Once constructed, the use of such materials as paint, bleach, etc., is considered common for residential developments. It would be unlikely for such materials to be stored or used in such quantities that would be considered a significant hazard. No significant hazard to the public or the environment would occur through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste during the construction or operation of the new residential development.

The General Plan includes objectives and policies relevant to hazards and hazardous materials in its Health, Safety, and Noise Element. Policies H29 through H35 relate to educating the public on the use of hazardous materials, requires coordination with the appropriate agencies if a proposed use relies extensively on the use of hazardous materials, and encourages siting new residential development in close proximity to existing industrial uses. The Project will not generate or use hazardous materials outside health department requirements. Such uses would not result in operations that routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials. Operation activities will comply with the California Building Code, local building codes, and applicable safety measures.

The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) oversees the statewide implementation of the Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP), which aims to prevent or minimize harm to public health and safety and the environment from the release or threatened release of hazardous material. As applicable to the commercial component of the Project, the minimum reporting quantities for hazardous materials are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids, or 200 cubic feet for compressed gas. If a business handles hazardous materials at or in excess of the minimum thresholds, an HMBP is required to be prepared and approved by the State and local jurisdictions. The Project developer/operator will be required to submit information regarding the use and storage of hazardous materials to the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS), Kings County Department of Public Health, and the City of Hanford. The potential gas station would be subject to HMBP requirements if hazardous materials in excess of minimum reporting quantities are included in the operations. The preparation of an HMBP should any aspect of the Project exceed the established reporting thresholds, will be required as mitigation under MM HAZ-3.

Based on the analysis above, Project construction and operation are not anticipated to result in significant impacts due to the transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implementation of MM GEO-2

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-64
MM HAZ-1: The Project proponent/operators and its contractors shall utilize the U.S.

Department of Transportation and Caltrans designated hazardous materials routes for the transportation of hazardous and potentially hazardous materials during Project construction and operation.

MM HAZ-2: The project proponent/operator shall receive approval from the State Water Resources Control Board and Kings County Department of Public Health (Certified Unified Program Agency) for the installation and operation of all proposed underground storage tanks.

MM HAZ-3: Prior to operation of the Project, the Project proponent/operator shall identify potential hazardous materials for Project operations. If the operation exceeds the established HMBP reporting thresholds, the Project proponent/operator must prepare and maintain a Hazardous Materials Business Plan pursuant to California Environmental Protection Agency and California Environmental Reporting System requirements and submit the plan to the Kings County Public Health Department for review and approval.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated.

Impact #3.4.9b – 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?
A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was conducted on the Project site to determine if any known environmental concerns were observed or were known (SEI, 2023). The main environmental concerns observed at this site include:
• The review of Kings County Environmental Health Services and the State GeoTracker records indicate that no off-site properties within a one-mile radius of the site boundaries are of environmental concern and are not currently a threat to the subject property.
• Agricultural activities occurred at this site from at least 1934 to at least 1994. No indications of mixing areas, or storage areas were observed in the historical aerial photos available for review. Based on this information the former agricultural use on this site is considered a de-minimis condition and not a REC. • No Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical RECs, nor Controlled RECs were identified at this site.

Hazardous materials handling on the Project site over the long-term construction of the Project may result in soil and groundwater contamination from accidental spills.

Construction of the Project would require preparing and implementing an SWPPP, as noted in Impact #3.4.7b and required under MM GEO-2. An SWPPP is a State requirement under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for construction sites over one acre. The SWPPP identifies potential sources of pollution from the Project that may affect the stormwater discharge quality and requires that best

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-65
management practices (BMPs) be implemented to prevent contamination at the source.

Implementing BMPs during construction would contain accidental spills of hazardous materials, and soil and groundwater contamination would be minimized or prevented. Due to the size of the Project, each construction phase would be required to prepare and implement an SWPPP as required per MM GEO-2.

Valley fever or coccidioidomycosis is prevalent in the central San Joaquin Valley of California.

This disease, which affects both humans and animals, is caused by the inhalation of arthroconidia (spores) of the fungus Coccidioides immitis (CI). CI spores are found in the top few inches of soil, and the fungus's existence in most soil areas is temporary. The proposed Project can generate fugitive dust and suspend valley fever spores with the dust that could then reach nearby sensitive receptors. It is possible that onsite workers could be exposed to valley fever as fugitive dust is generated during construction. Implementation of dust control measures throughout the construction period would reduce fugitive dust emissions.

Therefore, the exposure to valley fever would be minimized by implementing these dust control measures as required by the Air District (Trinity Consultants, 2024). Dust from the construction of the proposed Project would not add significantly to the existing exposure level of people to this fungus, including construction workers, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

All Project plans would comply with State and local codes and regulations. Construction and operational activities will also be required to comply with the California fire code to reduce the risk of potential fire hazards. The City’s Fire Department will be responsible for enforcing provisions of the fire code.

As noted above, a review of the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor database available via the DTSC’s Internet Website indicated that no sites, including State response sites, voluntary cleanup sites, school cleanup sites, or military or school evaluation sites are listed for the subject site or adjacent properties (Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2023). Additionally, no Federal Superfund – National Priorities List (NPL) sites were determined to be located within a one-mile radius of the subject site A review of the State of California Department of Conservation, Geological Energy Management Division (CalGEM) database indicated that no plugged and abandoned or producing oil wells are located on or adjacent to the subject site (CalGEM, 2023).

As noted in Impact #3.4.9a above, if hazardous materials are used during the construction phase of the Project, the safe handling and storage of hazardous materials consistent with applicable local and State regulations will be required. Additionally, the development of a gas station would require the approval of an HMBP for the handling of large quantities of hazardous materials.

The proposed Project is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; as mentioned previously in subsection a) above, the residential Project would not routinely transport, use, dispose of, or discharge hazardous materials into the environment. The commercial development will be subject to all applicable local, State, and

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-66
federal regulations, including the preparation of an HMBP. Through compliance with the aforementioned regulations, Project impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implementation of MM GEO-2.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.

Impact #3.4.9c – Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The nearest schools to the Project site are the Frontier Elementary School and the Pioneer Union Elementary School. Construction activities for the development could result in the temporary use of hazardous materials and/or substances, such as lubricants and diesel fuel, during construction. Exhaust from construction and related activities are expected to be minimal and not significant. All future construction-related activities resulting from the proposed Project would be subject to local, State, and federal laws related to hazardous materials and substances emissions. Furthermore, the SWPPP requires substantiation to be provided to demonstrate that construction impacts would not affect nearby schools.

Nonetheless, construction of the Project would require the use of minimal hazardous materials and the implementation of BMPs when handling any hazardous materials, substances, or waste. As noted in Impact #3.4.3a, emissions from construction and related activities are expected to be minimal and not significant. Once constructed, residential development is not expected to result in hazardous emissions.

Because the commercial component of the Project may include a gas station, the development of the Project may involve the handling of hazardous materials, such as gasoline and diesel fuels. However, as discussed under Impacts #3.4.9a-b, the Project would be subject to all California Health and Safety Codes, as well as local regulations regarding the handling of hazardous materials including the implementation of mitigation measures MM HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3. Through compliance with the applicable regulations, the Project would not result in the release or mishandling of hazardous materials that may result in impacts to the nearby school. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implementation of HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3..

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-67
Impact #3.4.9d – Would the Project be located on a site that 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? As noted in Impact #3.4.9b, there are no known existing hazardous material conditions on the property. The property is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The Project will not generate or use hazardous materials outside the health department requirements.

Therefore, because the Project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, it can be seen there is a less-than-significant impact of hazards to the public or environment.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.9e – Would the Project 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?
The Project site is located approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the Hanford Municipal Airport, which is included in the adopted Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (KCALUCP). The Project site is not located within the Airport Overlay District (City of Hanford, 2017b). According to the KCALUCP, residential developments are not permitted within the Aviation Land Use Compatibility Overlay Zone if the noise contour is 70 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or higher. The Project is not within the Airport’s Noise Contour zones and the highest noise level from the airport is 65 CNEL (City of Hanford, 2010). Therefore, there would not be excessive noise or create a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the Project area.

Construction activities are temporary in nature and will comply with Chapter 9.10 of the Hanford Municipal Code and will occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

Operation of the Project would not result in the generation of noise levels beyond those that exist in the surrounding area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-68

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.9f – Would the Project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan establishes emergency procedures and policies and identifies parties responsible for emergency response in the City (Kings County, 2012). The local hazard mitigation plan includes policies that would prevent new developments from interfering with the emergency response of evacuation plans. The Project will comply with all local regulations related to new development construction that are consistent with the EMP. Project compliance with applicable provisions of the EMP will be incorporated as MM HAZ-4. In addition, the Project would also comply with the appropriate local and State requirements regarding emergency response plans and access.

The Traffic Study prepared for the proposed Project did not identify any traffic hazards that impede emergency response or evacuation plans (Ruettgers & Schuler, 2023). The Project site and surrounding area are relatively flat, with little to no topography that might obscure visibility to motorists. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
MM HAZ-4: The Project shall comply with applicable procedures and policies for emergency response as set forth in the Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.

Impact #3.4.9g – Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or residences are intermixed with wildlands. The General Plan states the probability of wildfires is unlikely and lists wildfires to be of low significance (City of Hanford, 2017a).

Kings County Fire Department Headquarters is the closest to the Project site, approximately

1.5 miles southeast. Given that the Project is not surrounded by wildland areas and is in proximity to existing fire services, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. There would be no impact related to wildfires.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-69

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-70

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the Project:
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 offsite;
ii. Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
that would result in flooding on or
offsite;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water that
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?

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-71
The impact analyses in this section are based on a Water Supply Assessment (QK, 2023c), which is attached as Appendix F.

Discussion
Impact #3.4.10a – Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? During construction, potential impacts on water quality arising from erosion and sedimentation are expected to be temporary conditions during the construction of the new development. The new development must develop and comply with an SWPPP that specifies BMPs to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater to keep all erosion products from moving offsite and into receiving waters. The intention is to eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharge to storm sewer systems and other waters of the United States.

To reduce potential impacts to water quality during construction activities, MM GEO-1 requires the Project proponent to prepare an SWPPP. The Project SWPPP would include BMPs to minimize and control the construction and post-construction runoff and erosion to the maximum extent practicable.

The SWPPP is required to be approved by the RWQCB prior to construction. Furthermore, the proposed Project has been designed to control stormwater runoff and erosion, both during and after construction. Project-specific drainage improvements would reduce the potential of the Project to violate water quality standards during construction to a less-thansignificant impact with mitigation incorporated.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implementation of MM GEO-1.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.10b – Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The Project site is located within the San Joaquin Valley – Tulare Lake Subbasin, which is identified as being critically over-drafted and subject to Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requirements. SGMA consists of three legislative bills, and the legislation provides a framework for long-term sustainable groundwater management across California. The current efforts of the City and Kings County Water District, coupled with the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act through the Groundwater Sustainability Plan process, ensure that future development would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-72
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) will then be responsible for achieving groundwater sustainability. The City of Hanford participates with the Mid-Kings River GSA.

Construction
Water needed for construction and potable use by the construction crews will be obtained from the City of Hanford. The City obtains groundwater from the Tulare Lake Basin. The current water distribution system is adjacent to the Project site. The construction process is estimated to take approximately 24 months. According to the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the Project, construction water demands are estimated to be approximately 11.2 acre-feet, which is equivalent to approximately 3,650,000 gallons (~5,000 gpd). Construction is temporary in nature and, as such, represents a one-time use of water. The estimated 3,650,000 gallons would be used over the course of the construction period (QK, 2023c).

Initial construction water usage will be in support of site preparation and grading activities.

During earthwork for grading of internal road foundations, building foundations, and Project components, the principal use of water would be for compaction and dust control. Smaller quantities would be required for the preparation of the concrete required for foundations and other minor uses. After the earthwork activities, water usage will be used for dust suppression and normal construction water requirements that are associated with the construction of the buildings, internal access roads, and revegetation.

Project construction would not substantially prevent or inhibit incidental groundwater recharge onsite during precipitation events. As the Project is constructed, portions of the site would remain pervious and would allow infiltration that presently occurs during precipitation events to continue to occur. Therefore, Project construction would not substantially deplete area groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The WSA estimated the long-term average day operational water demand for the Project to be 6.94 million gallons per year or 24.77 acre-feet per year for the total build-out of the Project. This is based on using an average day water demand of 19,000 gallons per day. The average day demand was calculated based on 16 one-bedroom units, 36 two-bedroom units, and 12 three-bedroom units (64 total units) for a total of 124 bedrooms. Using the Department of Water Resources (DWR) indoor water use efficiency standard of 55 gallons per capita per day, the residential units would average 6,820 gallons per day. For the 1.25 acres of commercial development, an average water demand of 220 gallons per day/1,000 square feet were used for a total of 12,000 gallons per day. The total between the residential and commercial development is rounded to 19,000 gallons per day (QK, 2023c).

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-73
Under normal year conditions, the City has 2,160 acre-feet of excess water supply, and under five consecutive dry years, the City has 538 acre-feet of excess water supply. Therefore, the City would be able to serve the Project’s water demand of 24.77 acre-feet per year under normal and drought conditions (City of Hanford, 2020a).

The Project will follow requirements as applicable in the Tulare Lake Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) (Mid-Kings River Groundwater Sustainability Agency, 2020). The GSP outlines criteria to evaluate groundwater conditions and projects to reach sustainability within the Basin by 2040. As demonstrated above, the Project’s construction and operations would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or conflict with any future adopted groundwater management plan.

As discussed above, the Project would not result in a substantial increase in water usage, and the City currently has enough water supply to support the development. The Project’s groundwater usage would not substantially change the baseline condition of groundwater water supplies in the Basin so as to cause a significant impact. Therefore, the Project’s construction and operations would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere significantly with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.10c(i) – Would the Project 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 that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite?
As discussed previously, the site has been previously graded. The site does not contain any blue-line water features, including streams or rivers. The Project has a proposed stormwater system that will collect stormwater runoff on the site. The Project would develop areas of impervious surfaces that would reduce the rate of percolation at the site, but areas of open space would allow for the percolation of stormwater to recharge the aquifer, or the water would be directed into the City’s existing stormwater sewer system. The Project would comply with applicable City development standards and codes. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on drainage patterns or cause substantial erosion or siltation on or off the site.

As discussed in Impact #3.4.10a above, potential impacts on water quality from erosion and sedimentation are expected to be localized and temporary during construction.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-74
Construction-related erosion and sedimentation impacts due to soil disturbance would be less than significant after implementing an SWPPP (see MM GEO-1) and BMPs required by the NPDES. No drainages or other water bodies are present on the Project site, and therefore, the proposed Project would not change the course of any such drainages.

The existing drainage pattern of the site and area would be affected by Project development because of the increase in impervious surfaces at the site. The Project design includes natural features such as landscaping and vegetation that would allow for the percolation of stormwater. However, there will be an addition in impervious surfaces that could increase the potential for stormwater runoff and soil erosion. The Project would connect to existing City stormwater sewer infrastructure. The Project will comply with all applicable local building codes and regulations to minimize impacts during construction and postconstruction. With the implementation of MM GEO-1, impacts that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite are less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implementation of MM GEO-1.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.10c(ii) – Would the Project 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 that would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite? No drainages or other water bodies are present on the Project site. Therefore, the development of the site would not change the course of any such drainages that may potentially result in on or offsite flooding. Water would be used during the temporary construction phase of the Project (e.g., for dust suppression). However, any water used for dust control would be mechanically and precisely applied and would generally infiltrate or evaporate prior to running off.

The Project site is flat, and the proposed grading would not substantially alter the overall topography of the Project site. Although the amount of surface runoff on the Project site would not substantially increase with the construction of the Project, runoff patterns and concentrations could be altered by grading activities associated with the Project. Improper design of the internal roadways or building pads could alter drainage patterns that would cause flooding on or offsite. The potential for the construction of the proposed Project to alter existing drainage patterns would be minimized through compliance with the preparation of an SWPPP (MM GEO-1). With the implementation of such measures, the Project would not substantially increase the amount of runoff to result in flooding on or offsite. Impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-75
Additionally, with the approval of grading plans and site development requirements by the City Building Division that incorporates BMPs and design standards, the new development operations would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or offsite. Impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of MM GEO-1.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implementation of MM GEO-1.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.10c(iii) – Would the Project 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 that would 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? Water would be used during the temporary construction phase of the proposed Project (e.g., for dust suppression). However, any water used for dust control would be mechanically and precisely applied and would generally infiltrate or evaporate prior to running off.

The Project would comply with all applicable State and City codes and regulations. The Project will connect to existing City stormwater infrastructure, and engineering calculations will support the storm drainage plan to ensure that the Project does not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, the Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.10c(iv) – Would the Project 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 impede or redirect flood flows?

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-76
Please see response #3.4.10(a through c(iii)) above. The Project would comply with all applicable State and City development codes and regulations for site drainage. The Project will construct stormwater drains onsite to capture stormwater and connect to the existing City stormwater infrastructure. Engineering calculations will support the storm drainage plan to ensure that the Project does not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, the Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

The Project site is within an area of minimal flood hazard. There are no development restrictions associated since these are areas determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain. Impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.10d – Would the Project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation?
The Project site is not located by the ocean or lake large enough to produce tsunamis or seiches. Therefore, there is no risk that the new development would be inundated by tsunamis or seiches. The Project area is flat and does not contain slopes steep enough to cause a mudflow, avalanche, or significant ground-related risks. The Project site is not located within the 100-year floodplain, and there do not appear to be any significant levees that could potentially affect people or structures if they were to fail. There is no potential for the inundation of the Project site by seiche.

Dam failure may also result in flooding, often creating a flash flood. The nearest dams to the site are the Terminus Dam, located 38 miles east of the site, and the Pine Flat Dam, located 39 miles northeast. The Kings County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) determined that the City of Hanford is located within the inundation zone for the Pine Flat Dam, should dam failure occur (Kings County, 2012). However, the LHMP determined that dam failure is unlikely to occur. Furthermore, the risk assessment of the Pine Flat Dam is classified as low (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2023).

Therefore, the Project would not contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, mudflow, or dam failure. There would be no impact from the Project.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-77

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.10e – Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? See response #3.4.10b above. Future development projects are required to comply with the adopted plan (Mid-Kings Groundwater) to meet the 2040 sustainability deadline for the Basin. The water demand from this Project would not result in a significant impact due to depleted groundwater resources or interference with groundwater recharge. Per the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City’s existing system has a total supply capacity of 34.5 million gallons per day (mgd), and the supply and demand comparisons for normal, dry, and consecutive dry years would not result in a deficit (City of Hanford, 2020a). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-78

Discussion
Impact #3.4.11a – Would the Project physically divide an established community? The Project is surrounded by multi-family housing to the north, single-family residential to the east and south, and undeveloped land and a water storage facility to the west.

The Project would promote orderly development by developing the residential component adjacent to the existing multi-family housing complex north of the Project site. Future development would not be built in a pre-existing community area and would not create any physical barrier between an established community.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.11b – Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The Project site is currently designated as Neighborhood Commercial by the Hanford General Plan and is zoned as C-N. The proposed Project consists of a mixed-use development including a multi-family housing complex and a commercial component including a gas station and fast-food restaurants. Multi-family residential uses are not permitted within the Neighborhood Commercial designation or the C-N zone. As such, a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are required for the development of the proposed Project.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the Project:
a. Physically divide an established
community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-79
If approved, the proposed General Plan Amendment would designate the site as Neighborhood Mixed-Use, and the Zone Change would classify the site as MX-N. Following approval of the proposed entitlements, the proposed uses would be consistent with the site’s designation and zoning.

The purpose of the Neighborhood Mixed-Use designation is to promote mixed-use commercial and multi-family residential areas that allow walking to and between the mix of uses. The Neighborhood Mixed-Use General Plan policies and a discussion of the proposed Project’s compliance with the policies is provided below. • Policy L61 - The uses allowed in the N-MX land use designation include multi-family dwellings along with businesses providing day-to-day goods and services for the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
 The proposed uses include apartments, a gas station, and a fast-food restaurant.

Therefore, the proposed uses are consistent with the intent of the N-MX designation and General Plan Policy L61.
• Policy L62 – Project design should be oriented primarily to the pedestrian, and pedestrian access between residential and commercial uses should be provided. The maximum residential density permitted in a horizontal mixed-use development is 15 dwelling units per acre.
 The Project includes multiple walkways and crosswalks to promote connectivity throughout the housing complex and will also include a driveway and sidewalk connecting to the commercial component. Development of the Project would result in a density of 12.8 units per acre (64 units / 5 acres = 12.8 units per acre).

Therefore, the Project meets the intent of General Plan Policy L62. • Policy L63 – N-MX land should be located on eight to 25 acres on one corner of an intersection of an arterial street and an arterial or collector street. This land designation takes the place of the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation on some corners.
 The Project site is five acres and thus does not meet the intended parcel size.

However, the Project site is located on the corner of an intersection of an arterial street (Grangeville Boulevard) and a collector street (Centennial Drive).

Additionally, the Project site is currently designated Neighborhood Commercial, and the proposed Project would take the place of the existing designation.

Furthermore, the Project meets General Plan policies for the N-MX designation and MX-N zoning standards. Therefore, the Project generally meets the intent of Policy L63.

The Project site is currently zoned as C-N and would require a Zone Change to MX-N. The MX-N zone allows for commercial uses that engage in food service, convenience stores, fueling stations, and offices, and for residential uses such as single-family residential and

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-80
multi-family residential. The minimum site area must be 5,000 square feet unless a smaller site is approved with a conditional use permit in accordance with Chapter 17.24. No structure shall be placed within a building setback area, as identified in Section 17.24.060 of the Municipal Code. The minimum distance between any residential structures shall be 10 feet, except as provided by the building code.

The MX-N zone requires lots with five or more dwelling units to provide a usable open space area equal to five percent of the lot area. Landscaping also must be provided in accordance with Section 17.52 of the Municipal Code. In addition, driveways, parking, signage, mechanical equipment, lighting, and coverings must be designed to be consistent with City standards. The Project also proposes a variance to the development standards of the MX-N including removing the masonry/block wall requirement between the future MX-N zone and R-H zone to the north, providing only a fence between the PF zoned basin to the west, and the development of parking spaces within the setback area. The City of Hanford Municipal Code allows a deviation from the development standards subject to approval of a Variance.

The approval of the Variance is subject to a discretionary action with a decision being made by the City of Hanford Planning Commission. Should the Variance be approved, the proposed Project as shown on the site plan (see Figure 3-3), complies with the MX-N zoning and development standards.

Based on the above, the proposed Project would be consistent with the proposed General Plan designation and MX-N zoning standards and the applicable General Plan objectives and policies. The Project site is suitable for the proposed use, and impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-81

Discussion
Impact #3.4.12a – Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? The California Department of Conservation, Geological Survey classifies lands into Aggregate and Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) based on guidelines adopted by the California State Mining and Geology Board, as mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1974.

These MRZs identify whether known or inferred significant mineral resources are present in areas. Lead agencies are required to incorporate identified MRZs resource areas delineated by the State into their General Plans. Neither the Project site nor the surrounding area is designated as a Mineral Resources Zone in the City of Hanford General Plan or Zoning Ordinance, nor is it currently being utilized for mineral extraction. The Project site is also not within a California Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM) identified oilfield or gas field.

The Project design does not include mineral extraction. The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State and would, therefore, have no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less–thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.12 - MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:

a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-82
Impact #3.4.12b – Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
See Impact #3.4.12a above. No portion of the City or nearby vicinity is designated or zoned for mineral resources (City of Hanford, 2017a). Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resources recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or any other land use, and there would be no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-83

Discussion
Impact #3.4.13a – Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Land uses deemed sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals, rest homes, and long-term care and mental care facilities, which are considered to be more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others. The nearest sensitive land uses include the multi-family residential complex to the north and the single-family residences to the east and south.

Stationary noise sources can also influence the population, and unlike mobile, transportation-related noise sources, these sources generally have a more permanent and consistent impact on people. These stationary noise sources involve a wide spectrum of uses and activities, including various industrial uses, commercial operations, agricultural production, school playgrounds, high school football games, HVAC units, generators, lawn maintenance equipment, and swimming pool pumps.

The General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code outline policies and regulations to mitigate the health effects of noise in the community and prevent exposure to excessive noise levels. In particular, policies in the General Plan regarding new development include Policies

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.13 - NOISE
Would the Project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the Project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a Project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to
excessive noise levels?

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-84
H41 through H43, which identify the adopted interior noise thresholds for residential development and require mitigation to reduce noise that exceeds internal and external noise thresholds as outlined in Title 24 code. Policies H48 and H50 relate to mitigating construction noise that exceeds thresholds and requires the use of sound walls where development is in proximity to transportation corridors.

The Project site is within an area of the City that is predominately characterized by commercial and residential development. Because the surrounding area is largely developed, there are existing ambient noise sources typical of commercial and residential uses. During the Project's construction phase, noise-generating activities will be present; however, it will be temporary, and any machinery used as a part of the construction of the Project will be muffled. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours. Construction is anticipated to take up to 24 months to complete.

Operation of the housing complex would not generate noise levels significantly higher than the existing levels in the Project area. This generated noise is not anticipated to exceed thresholds consistent with the City’s General Plan Noise Element or Municipal Code. Shortterm noise-related impacts would be temporary and require compliance with applicable regulations and policies of the General Plan to ensure further that construction-related impacts would be handled to the greatest extent feasible.

There are no specific construction noise thresholds established by the City other than the noise-generating construction activities that are only allowed to occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. However, the proposed Project's construction would be temporary and would occur between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., five days a week for up to 24 months.

Once constructed, the Project would not significantly increase traffic on local roadways (Ruettgers & Schuler, 2023). However, new residential activities could increase ambient noise levels in the immediate Project vicinity. Activities that could be expected to generate noise include cars entering and exiting the development and mechanical systems related to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems located in residential buildings. However, this noise would be similar to that generated by the nearby existing residential development and would not be of a level that exceeds any established thresholds. Development of the commercial component would introduce noise sources such as cars, mechanical systems, delivery trucks, and intercom systems. However, the commercial uses allowed under the MXN zone are generally consistent with allowed uses under the site’s existing zoning designation of C-N. Thus, noise impacts associated with commercial development on the Project site have been previously analyzed and anticipated by the City. Thus, the Project would not introduce a new significant source of noise that is not already occurring in the Project area. Further, future projects would be subject to compliance with the General Plan policies and Chapter 9.10 Loud or Annoying Noises of the Municipal Code requirements.

The proposed variance would remove the requirement for a masonry/block wall to separate the MX-N zone district and the R-H zoned land to the north. Standard building construction required by the California Building Code (stucco siding, STC-27 windows, door weather

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-85
stripping, exterior wall insulation, composition plywood roof), typically results in an exterior to interior noise reduction of approximately25 dB with windows closed and approximately 15 dB with windows opens. This level of noise reduction would be adequate to reduce future noise generated from the mixed-use development on residential uses to the north.

Compliance with applicable policies and regulations would ensure that the Project would have a less-than-significant impact regarding noise.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.13b – Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
The proposed Project is expected to create temporary ground-borne vibration as a result of the construction activities. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, vibration is sound radiated through the ground. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration is called groundborne noise. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle velocity in inches per second and is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB). The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 VdB. A list of typical vibration-generating equipment is shown in Table 3.4.13-1. However, the Project does not propose to use this specific equipment. The table is meant to illustrate typical vibration levels for various pieces of equipment.

Table 3.4.13-1
Different Levels of Ground-borne Vibration
Vibration Velocity Level Equipment Type
94 VdB Vibratory roller
87 VdB Large bulldozer
87 VdB Caisson drilling
86 VdB Loaded trucks
58 VdB Small bulldozer
Source: (Federal Transit Administration, 2006)
Note: 25 feet from the corresponding equipment.

The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations (Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-86
Department of Transportation, 2017). In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 inch/second) appears to be conservative even for sustained pile driving. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between the vibration source and receiver.

In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. The typical vibration produced by construction equipment is illustrated in Table

3.4.13-2.

With regard to the proposed Project, groundborne vibration would be generated during construction activities. As indicated in Table 3.4.13-2, based on the FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment that could be used during construction range from 0.076 to 0.210 inch-per-second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the source of activity. As demonstrated in Table 3.4.13-2, vibration levels at 100 feet would range from 0.004 to 0.02 PPV. Therefore, the anticipated vibration levels would not exceed the 0.2 inch-per-second PPV significance threshold during construction operations at the nearest receptors, approximately 100 feet to the north, east, and south.

Table 3.4.13-2
Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Reference peak particle
velocity at 25 feet
(inches/second)1
Approximate peak particle
velocity at 100 feet
(inches/second)2
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.011
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.010
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.000
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.009
Vibratory
Compactor/roller 0.210 0.026
Notes:
1 – Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006. Table 12-2. 2 – Calculated using the following formula: PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level in/sec from Table 12-2 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment and traffic on rough roads. For example, if a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible.

Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by construction activity attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Therefore, vibration issues are generally confined to distances of less than 500 feet (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2005). Potential

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-87
sources of temporary vibration during the construction of the proposed Project would be minimal and would include the transportation of equipment to the site.

Construction activities would include various site preparation, fabrication, and site cleanup work. Construction would not involve the use of equipment that would cause high groundborne vibration levels, such as pile-driving or blasting. Once constructed, the proposed Project would not have any components that would generate high vibration levels. Thus, the construction and operation of the proposed Project would not result in any vibration, and impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.13c – Would the Project result in for a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? The Project site is approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the Hanford Municipal Airport. The site is not located within any Compatibility Zone boundary identified for the Airport in the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Kings County, 1994). The noise levels associated with the airport operations do not contribute significantly to the overall noise environment at the Project site as the Project is not within the noise contour impact map (City of Hanford, 2010). Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels, and there would be no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-88

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less- than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.14 - POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the Project:
a. Induce substantial population unplanned
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

Discussion
Impact #3.4.14a – Would the Project induce substantial population unplanned growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population in Hanford is 57,990 people (United States Census Bureau, 2020). The City is expected to increase its population by 32,010 residents by 2035 (City of Hanford, 2016a). The General Plan goals include encouraging residential developments to meet the future population growth needs. The Project proposed 64 new housing units, and the average number of persons per household is 3.09. Therefore, the Project will house approximately 198 people and would be within the range of projected growth within the City. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) from the California Department of Housing and Community Development specifies the number of units, by affordability level, that need to be accommodated.

Table 3.4.14-1
Regional Housing Needs 2016-2024 (Hanford)
Housing Type Federal Standards
Extremely Low 549
Very Low 548
Low 821
Low Moderate 865
Above Moderate 2,049
Total 4,832
Source: (City of Hanford, 2016a)

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-89
The Project site is an infill site within an area of the City that is predominately characterized by commercial and residential development. Surrounding land uses consist of multi-family housing to the north, single-family residential developments to the east and south, and a water storage facility and a retention basin to the west. Implementation of the Project would thereby introduce uses that would be generally consistent with the existing and planned land uses within the Project area. In addition, future development that results from Project implementation would not represent a significant change in the surrounding area as the site would be developed with compatible uses and connected to existing roadways such as Grangeville Boulevard, Centennial Drive, 13th Avenue, and 12th Avenue, and existing utility infrastructure.

Although the Project changes a portion of the site from a non-residential to residential land use, the population of the City is expected to grow by more than 50 percent over the next 20 years, furthering the need for additional dwelling units. The RHNA states that the City will need to provide an additional 15,695 dwelling units by 2035. The proposed Project will provide an additional 64 multi-family units and, therefore, will help the City attain sufficient housing supply for its residents and meet State housing mandates. Impacts will be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.14b – Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? See Impact#3.4.14a above.

The Project site is undeveloped and will not displace existing people or housing, necessitating the replacement of housing elsewhere. Construction of the Project is anticipated to last up to 24 months, would likely be completed by construction workers residing in the City or the surrounding area, and would not require new housing. Therefore, the Project would have no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-90

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.15 - PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the Project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or to other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?

Discussion
Impact #3.4.15a(i) – Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services - Fire Protection? The nearest City Fire Department facility is located approximately 1.7 miles east of the Project site.

To address impacts to fire protection services, the City has implemented the Fire Protection Development Impact Fee pursuant to Chapter 15.45 of the Municipal Code, which requires developers to pay the “fair share” of capital improvements related to fire protection services and facilities. A portion of those funds will be specifically earmarked for the use of the Fire Department to maintain an adequate level of service within its service boundary. The entire Project, whether submitted in phases or not, will be subject to review by the City Engineering, Public Works, and Fire Department in order to determine whether the Project’s

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-91
infrastructure design is in compliance with City policies for development. The Project’s water system will be reviewed to verify that the system can supply the required fire flow for fire protection purposes. The establishment of gallons-per-minute requirements for fire flow shall be based on the review of the City of Hanford Fire Department.

Development of the Project will increase the need for fire protection services and expand the service area and response times of the local City Fire Department. As previously mentioned, the Project will be required to adhere to any conditions/policies pertaining to the construction of infrastructure needed for the Hanford Fire Department to provide an adequate level of fire protection service.

According to the General Plan and the standard review procedures for development projects within the City, the Project’s plans and permits will be reviewed for input from the Fire Department. The Project’s proposed construction would be located adjacent to existing residential areas, which the City Fire Department already serves. As noted, the developer will be required to pay development impact fees to offset growth in population in the area that would impact fire protection. Impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.15a(ii) – Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services – Police Protection? The Hanford Police Department (HPD) provides police protection in the City of Hanford and collaborates with other law enforcement agencies and the District Attorney’s office on crime prevention. The Project site is located approximately two miles northwest of the nearest City of HPD Station.

To address impacts to police protection services, the City has implemented the Police Protection Development Impact Fee pursuant to Chapter 15.46 of the Municipal Code, which requires developers to pay the “fair share” of capital improvements related to police protection services and facilities. A Police Protection Development Impact Fee is assessed for projects based on size. The Project proposes additional residential and commercial development in a previously undeveloped location, which will increase the need for police services. As such, the developer will pay appropriate development fees based on the adopted fee calculations and is responsible for constructing any infrastructure needed to serve the Project. Impacts would be less than significant.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-92

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.15a(iii) – Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services – Schools? The Project site is in the jurisdiction of the Hanford Elementary School District, Hanford Joint Union High School District, and the Pioneer Union Elementary School District. The school nearest to the site is Frontier Elementary School, approximately 0.35 miles west of the Project site. The increased population generated by the proposed Project would increase the number of students attending local schools and could significantly impact these facilities by requiring new facilities. The proposed Project would require the payment of developer fees for each new residential construction to offset the District’s student classroom capacity. The developer will pay appropriate impact fees at the time of building permits. Funding for schools and school facilities' impacts are outlined in Education Code Section 17620, and Government Code Section 65996, and development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed “full and complete school facilities mitigation.” School districts would utilize the General Plan and codes to establish new school sites and make decisions on school amenities and facility size. A School Impact Fee is assessed for projects based on the developer fee rates in place at the time payment is due to mitigate any increased impacts on school facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.15a(iv) – Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services – Parks? The Project is within the boundaries of the Hanford Parks and Recreation District, and the City presently owns and maintains 24 parks. The closest public park is Silver Oaks Park, approximately 0.10 miles and within walking distance of the Project. Rotary Park is

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-93
approximately one mile to the southeast. The proposed Project includes uses that would increase the use of park and recreation facilities in the area. It should be noted that the Project includes the construction of a pool and recreation area for the residents to use.

A parks facilities development impact fee is established on the issuance of all residential building permits for development in the Hanford area to pay for parks and recreational facilities improvements. Each developer will pay this development fee prior to the issuance of a building permit or dedicated parkland as a part of their proposed Project. The Project will include a pool and open space recreational areas with amenities; however, these areas do not count towards dedicated parkland.

Similar to other public services, the City had established the Park Facilities Impact Fee pursuant to Chapter 15.44 of the Municipal Code, which requires developers to pay for parks and recreational facilities improvements. As such, the developer will be required to pay the appropriate development fee to mitigate the increased demand for City park facilities. The development fees collected by the City fund new or upgraded park facilities throughout the City. Through the payment of the development fee, the Project would result in a less-thansignificant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.15a(v) – Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services – Other Public Facilities?
The City provides a wide range of public services besides those previously mentioned above.

The City also provides animal control services, refuse pick-up, library facilities, and drainage management. These services are generally funded through the general fund, usage fees, fines, penalties, or impact fee collection.

In the City, all jurisdictions collect planning and building fees and impact fees for new development, as necessary. Since the demand for other public facilities is driven by population, the proposed Project would be required to pay fees to offset the demand for that service.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-94

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-95

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less–thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.16 - RECREATION
Would the Project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?

Discussion
Impact #3.4.16a – Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
See Impact #3.4.15a(ii) above.

The City’s inventory of parks and recreation facilities ranges from a rose garden to softball and baseball fields to community centers. Park facilities are classified into nine categories:
private recreational space, mini-park or pocket park, neighborhood parks, community parks, special use parks, dual-purpose stormwater basin park, indoor recreational facilities, school parks, and regional parks. Recreational facilities span from picnic shelters to sports fields.

Hanford offers 299.70 acres of parkland to its residents, which equates to a total level of service (LOS) of 5.06 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents based on the City’s 2018 population (City of Hanford, 2020b). Given the close proximity to Silver Oaks Park and the Hanford Sports Complex, the Project is not expected to require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities. However, the City of Hanford requires that the Project developer pay Park Impact Fees pursuant to Chapter 15.44 of the Municipal Code for parkland, community centers, recreational facilities, park amenities, vehicle equipment, and impact fee studies to offset any potential impacts from new development.

Although the proposed Project includes uses that would increase the use of park and recreation facilities in the area, through the payment of Park Impact Fees, the Project will not result in the physical deterioration of existing parks or recreational facilities. There would be a less-than-significant impact with the payment of the impact fees.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-96

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.16b – Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
See the discussion in Impact #3.4.16a.

The Project does not propose the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities. The Project would be required to pay Park Impact Fees to account for the increased demand on the City’s recreational facilities. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-97

Discussion
This discussion is based on the Traffic Study prepared for the Project (Ruettgers & Schuler, 2023), which is attached as Appendix G.

The Project is located within the northwestern portion of the City, generally located on the north side of Grangeville Boulevard and east of Centennial Drive, between North 13th Avenue and North 12th Avenue. North 12th Avenue and Grangeville Boulevard are the nearest arterials identified by the General Plan Circulation Element.

Impact #3.4.17a – Would the Project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Transit Services
Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) is the transit operator in the City of Hanford. The closest KART bus stop is located along Grangeville Boulevard, approximately 1,000 feet east of the Project site. The bus stop is a part of the Red Line Route, which runs along Grangeville Boulevard, Centennial Drive, West Lacey Boulevard, and 11th Avenue. KART operates several fixed routes that serve City residents, with some routes serving the outlying cities and communities. KART operates fixed route service six days a week with operational hours

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.17 - TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Would the Project:
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision
(b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-98
Monday through Friday between 6:00 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. and between 9:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays (Kings Area Regional Transit, 2023).

The Project is not expected to disrupt or impede existing transit facilities and, therefore, has a less-than-significant impact.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Hanford’s flat topography and dry, moderate climate make choosing to walk or bicycle an attractive transportation option during much of the year. The City of Hanford is in the process of developing an Active Transportation Plan (ATP) (City of Hanford, 2023b). The ATP will include citywide network recommendations for infrastructure while also highlighting policies and programs that can support active and sustainable mobility.

Within the Project vicinity, there is an existing Class III bike lane to the east, along Grangeville Boulevard, and an existing regional bikeway to the west, along Grangeville Boulevard (City of Hanford, 2016b). According to the Hanford Pedestrian and Bicycle Mast Plan, Class II bike lanes are planned along the segments of Centennial Drive and Grangeville Boulevard adjacent to the Project site. The Project is not expected to disrupt or impede existing or planned bicycle facilities. Therefore, the Project will have a less-than-significant impact.

Pedestrian
Currently, walkways do not exist on the segments of Centennial Drive and Grangeville Boulevard along the Project’s eastern and southern boundaries. As a part of the Project, Centennial Drive and Grangeville Boulevard will be developed in order to provide pedestrian connectivity. Landscape easements and sidewalks will border the Project and feed into the interior of the Project site. The Project proponent will be responsible for implementing all applicable requirements for updating sidewalks and other related infrastructure as directed by the City. The Project will not generate any impacts.

Roadways
Vehicular access to the commercial component would be provided by a new driveway along Grangeville Boulevard, and access to the multi-family residential component would be provided from two new driveways from Centennial Drive. The private gated driveways for the residential component will require access from Centennial Drive and need to have sufficient storage space to minimize the queuing of vehicles that would extend into the roadway system.

The list below is a collection of intersections and segments that may be impacted by the Project and were analyzed.
• Centennial Drive/Grangeville Boulevard
• Centennial Drive/Fargo Avenue
• Centennial Drive/Lacey Boulevard
• Grangeville Boulevard/13th Avenue

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-99
• Grangeville Boulevard/12th Avenue
• Grangeville Boulevard/11th Avenue
• 12th Avenue/Fargo Avenue
• 12th Avenue/Lacey Boulevard
• 11th Avenue/Lacey Boulevard
The Project trip generation and design hour volumes shown in Table 3.4.17-1 were estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (Ruettgers & Schuler, 2023).

Table 3.4.17-1
Project Estimated Trips
Land Use Quantity
Daily Trip Ends
(ADT) Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
Rate Volume Rate Volume Rate Volume
In Out Total In Out Total
Multi-Family
Residential (220)
64 Dwelling
Units
eq 486 eq 10 33 43 Eq 30 18 48
Fast-Food
Restaurant with
Drive-Through
(934)

3.5 1,000 sq.
ft. GFA
467.48 1,636 44.61 80 76 156 33.03 60 56 116
Gasoline/Service
Station with
Convenience
Market (945)
12 Vehicle
Fueling
Positions
eq 2,750 16.06 96 97 193 18.42 111 110 221
Total Trip Generation 4,872 186 206 392 201 184 385
Source: Ruettgers & Schuler, 2023. Trip ends are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving. The numbers in parenthesis are ITE land use codes.

The City adopted a threshold of level of service (LOS) C or better for street segments and intersections in the Project vicinity (City of Hanford, 2017a).

Table 3.4.17-2 illustrates the intersections within the scope of the study and indicates the anticipated LOS prior to and with the addition of Project traffic, and Table 3.4.17-3 illustrates the roadway segments within the Project vicinity and LOS prior to and with the addition of Project traffic.

Table 3.4.17-2
Intersection Operations
Intersection Target
LOS
Peak
Hour
Opening
Year
Without
Project
Opening
Year Plus
Project
10-Year Horizon
Without Project
10-Year Horizon
Plus Project

LOS LOS LOS LOS

1. Centennial Drive/
Fargo Avenue C AM B B C CPM B B C C

2. 12th Avenue/
Fargo Avenue C AM B B C CPM C B C C

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-100
Intersection Target
LOS
Peak
Hour
Opening
Year
Without
Project
Opening
Year Plus
Project
10-Year Horizon
Without Project
10-Year Horizon
Plus Project

LOS LOS LOS LOS

3. 13th Avenue/
Grangeville Boulevard C AM B B C CPM C C C C

4. Centennial Drive/
Grangeville Boulevard C AM C C C CPM C C C C

5. 12th Avenue/
Grangeville Boulevard C AM B B B BPM C C C C

6. 10th Avenue/
Grangeville Boulevard C AM C C C CPM C C C C

7. Centennial Drive/
Lacey Boulevard C AM B C B CPM B B C C

8. 12th Avenue/
Lacey Boulevard C AM B B B BPM C C C C

9. 10th Avenue/
Lacey Boulevard C AM C C C CPM C C C C
Source: Ruettgers & Schuler, 2023
Table 3.4.17-3
Roadway Operations
Roadway
Segment
Target
LOS
Peak
Hour
Opening Year
Without Project
Opening Year
Plus Project
10-Year
Horizon
Without
Project
10-Year
Horizon Plus
Project
Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS

1. Fargo Ave:

Centennial Dr
- 12th Ave
C
AM 638 C 638 C 1,122 C 1,122 C
PM 490 C 490 C 717 C 717 C

2. Grangeville
Blvd: 13th
Ave -
Centennial Dr
C
AM 735 C 792 C 972 C 1,108 C
PM 812 C 946 C 1,070 C 1,204 C

3. Grangeville
Blvd:

Centennial Dr
- 12th Ave
C
AM 792 C 991 C 939 C 1,138 C
PM 966 C 1,160 C 1,139 C 1,333 C

4. Grangeville
Blvd: 12th
Ave - 11th
Ave
C
AM 991 C 1,073 C 1,205 C 1,287 C
PM 1,247 C 1,327 C 1,519 C 1,599 C

5. Lacey Blvd:

Centennial Dr
- 12th Ave
C
AM 587 C 623 C 814 C 850 C
PM 1,409 C 1,444 C 1,828 C 1,863 C

6. Lacey Blvd:
12th Ave -
11th Ave
C
AM 929 C 968 C 1,125 C 1,164 C
PM 1,428 C 1,466 C 1,666 C 1,704 C

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-101
Roadway
Segment
Target
LOS
Peak
Hour
Opening Year
Without Project
Opening Year
Plus Project
10-Year
Horizon
Without
Project
10-Year
Horizon Plus
Project
Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS

7. 12th Ave:

Fargo Ave -
Grangeville
Blvd
C
AM 993 C 1,044 C 1,016 C 1,067 C
PM 1,188 C 1,238 C 1,497 C 1,547 C

8. 12th Ave:

Grangeville
Blvd - Lacey
Blvd
C
AM 1,188 C 1,244 C 1,244 C 1,300 C
PM 1,573 C 1,628 C 1,995 C 2,050 C

9. 11th Ave:

Grangeville
Blvd - Lacey
Blvd
C
AM 1,195 C 1,224 C 1,496 C 1,525 C
PM 1,733 C 1,762 C 2,180 C 2,209 C
Source: Ruettgers & Schuler, 2023.

As shown above, none of the study intersections or roadway segments were found to exceed the City LOS threshold at the opening year or the 10-year horizon. As such, the traffic associated with the Project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, and the impacts would be less than significant.

Peak hour signal warrants were evaluated for the unsignalized intersection within the study based on the 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Ruettgers & Schuler, 2023). Peak hour signal warrants assess delay to traffic on minor street approaches when entering or crossing a major street. Signal warrant analysis results are shown in Table

3.4.17-4 and Table 3.4.17-5.

Table 3.4.17-4
Traffic Signal Warrants Weekday PM Peak Hour
2023 2023+Project 2043 2043+Project
Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor
Street Street Street Street Street Street Street Street Total High Total High Total High Total High
Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant # Intersection Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met 1Centennial Dr
at Fargo Ave
316 197 NO 316 210 NO 577 292 YES 577 305 YES
Table 3.4.17-5
Traffic Signal Warrants Weekday AM Peak Hour
2023 2023+Project 2043 2043+Project
Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor
Street Street Street Street Street Street Street Street Total High Total High Total High Total High
Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant # Intersection Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met 1Centennial Dr
at Fargo Ave
459 227 NO 459 242 NO 756 431 YES 756 446 YES

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-102
It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which signalization of an intersection might be warranted. Meeting this threshold does not suggest traffic signals are required, but rather that other traffic factors and conditions be considered to determine whether signals are truly justified. It is also noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with the level of service. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above an acceptable level of service or operate below an acceptable level of service and not meet signal warrant criteria (Ruettgers & Schuler, 2023).

All intersections and roadway segments operate at an acceptable level of service and are anticipated to do so with the addition of Project traffic through the year 2043. Based on the results of the Traffic Study for the Project, signalization or other roadway improvements are not recommended. Impacts of the Project related to traffic flow and circulation are considered less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.17b – Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)?
Under SB 743, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a key measure used for gauging the environmental impacts of projects under CEQA.

The VMT analysis compared the Project’s expected VMT/capita to regional averages. The City of Hanford has adopted the VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, dated November 2022, which contain recommendations regarding VMT assessment, significance thresholds, and mitigation measures. Due to being a multi-use project, the two uses were analyzed individually.

The guidelines provide “screening thresholds” for identifying whether a land use project should be expected to result in a less than significant transportation impact under CEQA.

Projects meeting one or more of these criteria are not required to undergo a detailed VMT analysis. One of the screening thresholds included in the guidelines pertains to average daily traffic. Projects consistent with the City’s General Plan can be successfully screened out if they generate fewer than 1,000 average daily trips. Projects not consistent with the City’s General Plan can be screened out if they generate fewer than 500 average daily trips. The Project will require a General Plan Amendment; therefore, the screening threshold is 500 daily trips. As shown in Table 3.4.17-1, the proposed residential (multi-family) portion of the Project is expected to generate 486 average daily trips. With the anticipated daily traffic being less than 500, the multi-family portion of the Project will screen out of further VMT analysis and is presumed to have a less-than-significant traffic impact.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-103
The guidelines contain a screening threshold, which pertains to locally-serving retail. Retail is considered “locally-serving” if it totals a combined square footage of less than 55,000 square feet. The total square footage of the Project will be less than 55,000 square feet; therefore, the retail portion of the Project will screen out of further VMT analysis and is presumed to have a less-than-significant traffic impact.

Therefore, the Project’s VMT impacts are less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.17c – Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The Project will be designed to meet current standards and safety regulations. Vehicles exiting the Project site will be provided with a clear view of the roadway without obstructions. Landscaping associated with the entry driveways could impede such views if improperly installed. Specific circulation patterns and roadway designs will incorporate all applicable safety measures to ensure that hazardous design features or inadequate emergency access to the site or other areas surrounding the Project area would not occur.

Therefore, the Project will have a less-than-significant impact with the incorporated design features and all applicable rules and regulations.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.17d – Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? See the discussion in Impact #3.4.9f.

State and City fire codes establish standards by which emergency access may be determined.

The proposed Project would have to provide adequate unobstructed space for fire trucks to turn around. The proposed Project site would have adequate internal circulation capacity, including entrance and exit routes to provide adequate unobstructed space for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles to gain access and turn around. The proposed Project would

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-104
not inhibit the ability of local roadways to continue to accommodate emergency response and evacuation activities. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact associated with emergency access.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-105

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less–thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.18 - TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:
a. Would the Project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code Section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the
LeadAagency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the Lead
Agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

Discussion
Impact #3.4.18a(i) – Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
See also Section 3.4.5, Cultural Resources.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-106
Native American Tribal Consultation was completed for the Project in compliance with AB 52 and SB 18, CEQA, and the Public Resources Code.

A Sacred Land Files search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to identify previously recorded sacred sites or cultural resources of special importance to tribes and provide contact information for local Native American representatives who may have information about the Project area. A response was received on December 5, 2023, indicating negative results that did not indicate the presence of any cultural places within the Project site and within a half-mile buffer around the Project site.

The City, as Lead Agency, sent consultation request letters pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52 to the tribal groups on the NAHC list.

The Lead Agency has not received information from a local tribal group indicating that the Project would impact tribal cultural resources. However, based on previous consultation with the Santa Rosa Tachi Yokut Tribe, MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4 will be imposed on the proposed Project. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4, ground disturbance generated during the construction of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historic resources.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.18a(ii) – Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the Lead Agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the Lead Agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? See discussion in Section 3.4.5, Cultural Resources and Impact #3.14.18(i) above.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is a resource determined by the Lead Agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-107

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-108

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.19 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the Project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve
the Project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the Project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion
Impact #3.4.19a – Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which would cause significant environmental effects?
The Project proposes to construct new wet and dry utility infrastructure to connect to the existing City and private service provider infrastructure. Services that will be installed during the construction of the Project include water, wastewater, storm drain drainage connections, natural gas, electric power, and telecommunications facilities. The proper

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-109
sizing and placement of the utilities will be designed per the City and other utility development design standards.

See Section 3.4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a discussion of wastewater disposal.

The Project will not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. Water usage for dust control during construction-related activities will be minimal due to the small footprint and short duration of construction-related activities of the proposed Project. In compliance with Chapters 15.47, 15.49, and 15.50, the developer would be required to pay development fees for the wastewater system, water system, and stormwater system. The fees collected under the development fees system fund any capital improvements needed in order to serve new and existing development in Hanford.

The proposed Project would be subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees and extension of services in a manner that is compliant with the City’s development standards, specifications, and policies. All applicable local, State, and federal requirements and best management practices will be incorporated into the construction and operation of the Project. Therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.19b – Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
See Impact #3.4.10b.

Water usage for construction and development is minimal compared to that required for occupancy of constructed land uses. Even on a short-term basis, such usage does not require the water volumes required for human occupancy of residences and other structures, waste disposal, and year-round landscaping. Water usage for construction dust control, trench and roadway soils compaction, landscaping, and related activities and usage is sporadic rather than long-term. Its quantification for analysis is difficult, but it clearly does not approximate or approach long-term water demand. The construction process is estimated to take approximately 24 months. Construction water demands are estimated to be approximately

11.2 acre-feet, which is equivalent to approximately 3,650,000 gallons (~5,000 gpd).

The operation of the proposed Project would result in an estimated water demand of approximately 6.94 million gallons per year or 24.77 acre-feet per year.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-110
As noted previously, the City would have sufficient water supplies to serve the Project under normal, single dry-year, and multiple dry-year conditions, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.19c – Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Under the General Plan Update, it was determined that planned improvements and expansion development through various goals and policies would assist in providing wastewater services to the study area as development continues (City of Hanford, 2017a).

The current capacity of the WWTF is designed to accommodate 8.0 mgd, and current flows average 4.5 mgd (City of Hanford, 2023c).

Hanford's existing wastewater system includes a treatment facility south of Houston Avenue and east of 11th Avenue and 22 sanitary sewer lift stations at various locations throughout the City (City of Hanford, 2023d). The City has plans for pump replacements or upgrades at each of its locations within the next several years. The City’s wastewater treatment facility provides for treatment, disposal, and reuse of effluent, which meets all of the State’s discharge requirements for Hanford. The City’s plant treats nearly 1.75 billion gallons of sewage each year. The facility is a major part of the City’s effort to keep the environment clean and to provide a water resource for agricultural irrigation and reuse.

The latest treatment plant expansion was completed in 2004, increasing the City’s treatment capacity from 5.5 to 8.0 mgd, equivalent to an additional service for 8,000 new single-family dwellings. The expansion included a new influent pump station, head works, grit removal, oxidation ditch, irrigation pump station, and several modifications to existing buildings and structures. As discussed above, current flows average 4.5 mgd. An increase of 64 residential units and 1.25 acres of commercial development would not cause a significant impact to the existing wastewater treatment plant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-111
Impact #3.4.19d – Would the Project Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Kings Waste and Recycling Authority (KWRA) will remove solid waste produced from construction and operation. The KWRA is a key element that helps the City of Hanford meet the State's recycling goals. Refuse from both municipal and commercial haulers is sorted at the KWRA facility to recover recyclable materials, including wood/green waste processed for compost, ferrous/metallic items, plastic and glass, newspaper, scrap paper, junk mail, magazines, paperboard, and cardboard. The KWRA does not operate an active landfill. Waste is hauled by transfer trucks from the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) to the State permitted 320-acre Chemical Waste Management Landfill site in Kettleman Hills, approximately 45 miles west of the MRF. A combined MRF and Transfer Station (TS) was constructed near the old landfill southeast of Hanford. The MRF and TS facility includes a small but complete Household Hazardous Waste collection station. Waste Management Kettleman Hills Landfill is permitted to receive a maximum of 2,000 tons of municipal solid waste per day but typically receives an average of only about 1,350 tons per day (Waste Management, 2024).

Construction
Non-hazardous construction refuse and solid waste would be collected and recycled or disposed of at a KWRA facility (City of Hanford, 2017a). Any hazardous waste generated during construction would be disposed of at an approved location.

Non-hazardous waste produced at the Project site would be transferred to the Unit B17/Unit B-19 landfills operated by Waste Management. The landfill takes in non-hazardous waste from Kings, Tulare, and Fresno Counties. The facility is permitted to receive a maximum of 2,000 tons of municipal solid waste per day (TPD) but typically receives an average of about 1,350 TPD (Kettleman Hills Landfill, 2023). The Kettleman Hills B-17 Landfill has a maximum permit capacity of 18.4 million cubic yards (mcy) and a remaining capacity of 17.5 mcy and is expected to remain operational until 2030 (Cal Recycle, 2023).

The solid waste generated by construction activities is not expected to exceed the capacity of the landfill. Additionally, the construction period for the Project is expected to be up to 24 months, and the landfill that would serve the Project would be in operation during the construction period.

Operation
The Project would produce waste that would be collected and disposed of at the local landfill by a licensed waste hauler. Workers would generate small amounts of typical household refuse during maintenance visits. Some refuse will be sent for recycling as a part of the City’s recycling efforts.

In compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, the Project would dispose of all waste generated onsite at an approved solid waste facility.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-112
The Project does not conflict with federal, State, or local regulations related to solid waste.

The proposed Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs in compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the Project would have a lessthan-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.19e – Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
See Impact #3.4.19d.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-113

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.20 - WILDFIRE
Would the Project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose Project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Discussion
Impact #3.4.20a – Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
See Impact #3.4.9f regarding emergency response.

Access to the site for emergency vehicles to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period. Once operational, the development would provide sufficient access and egress for first responders and for residents to evacuate if required. The proposed Project consists of a residential and mixed-use development on an infill site within the City. In addition, the proposed Project’s site plan would be subject to review and approval by the City Fire Department to ensure it includes adequate emergency access. As a result, Project implementation would not physically interfere with evacuation plans or the City Fire Department access to and from the Project site. The Project would not result in a substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. Impacts related to fire hazards and emergency response plans would be less than significant.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-114

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.20b – Would the Project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? The risk of wildfire is related to a variety of parameters, including fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds, temperatures, humidity levels, and fuel moisture contents), and topography (degree of slope). Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point. Steep slopes contribute to fire hazards by intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult.

Wildland fires occur in geographic areas that contain the types and conditions of vegetation, topography, weather, and structure density susceptible to risks associated with uncontrolled fires that can be started by lightning, improperly managed campfires, cigarettes, sparks from automobiles, and other ignition sources. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) Map for Kings County, the Project site is not located within a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CalFire, 2022). Moreover, since the Project site is not located in or near a VHFHSZ, nor is it located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA), potential impacts associated with emergency access described above would not pertain to wildfire and would more likely be associated with an urban fire or other emergency situations.

The Project site and surrounding area are relatively flat and without steep slopes. The site is located in a predominately urban area with some ongoing agricultural activities, which is not considered at significant risk of wildlife. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.20c – Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-115
See discussion in Impact #3.4.20a-b.

The Project would include the development of infrastructure (water, sewer, electrical power lines, and storm drainage) required to support the proposed uses. The Project would require installing or maintaining additional electrical distribution lines and natural gas lines to connect the residential development to the existing utility grid. However, the Project would be constructed in accordance with all local, State, and federal regulations regarding power lines and other related infrastructure, as well as fire suppression requirements. The design of all proposed utilities will be subject to the review and approval of the City. This will ensure the viability of the utility infrastructure's ability for fire protection and suppression activities. Therefore, impacts for the Project would be considered as less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.20d – Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Thus, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

The Project site is within the X Flood Hazard Zone (500-year flood zone) as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and is further surrounded by properties that are identified as an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard. As previously discussed in Impact #3.4.7a, Hanford is located in a stable geologic formation, so the effects of ground shaking on soil stability should be minimal. In addition, the Project site is generally level and would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with landslides. Therefore, impacts of the proposed Project related to flooding, landslides, water runoff, and post-fire slope instability would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-116

Discussion
Impact #3.4.21a – Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
As evaluated in this IS/MND, the Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory including paleontological resources. Mitigation measures have been

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.21 - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF

SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the Project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the Project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
Project are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past Projects,
the effects of other current Projects, and the
effects of probable future Projects.)
c. Does the Project have environmental effects
that would cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-117
included to reduce the significance of potential impacts. Similar mitigation measures would be expected of other projects in the surrounding area, most of which share similar cultural, paleontological, and biological resources. Consequently, after mitigation, the incremental effects of the proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulative adverse impact on these resources. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-7, CUL-1 through CUL-4.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.21b - Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a Project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.)? As described in the impact analyses in sections of this IS/MND, any potentially significant impacts of the Project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level following incorporation of the mitigation measures listed in Appendix A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. All planned projects in the vicinity of the Project would be subject to review in separate environmental documents and required to conform to the General Plan and the Hanford Municipal Code. The Project would also be required to mitigate Projectspecific impacts and provide appropriate engineering to ensure the Project meets all applicable federal, State, and local regulations and codes. As currently designed and with compliance with the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed Project would not be cumulative. Thus, the cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be less than cumulatively considerable.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, BIO-1 through BIO-7, ENG-1, CUL-1 through CUL-4, GEO-1 through GEO-3, and HAZ-1 through HAZ-4.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.21c - Does the Project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The ways in which people can be subject to substantial adverse effects from projects include potential exposure to significant levels of local air pollutants, potential exposure to seismic and flooding hazards, potential exposure to hazardous materials, potential exposure to

Initial Study

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-118
contamination from hazardous materials, potential exposure to traffic hazards, and potential exposure to excessive noise levels. The risks from these potential hazards would be avoided or reduced to less-than-significant levels through compliance with existing laws, regulations, or requirements. All of the Project’s impacts, both direct and indirect, that are attributable to the Project were identified and mitigated to a less-than-significant level. As shown in Appendix A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Project proponent has agreed to implement mitigation substantially reducing or eliminating impacts of the Project.

Therefore, the Project would not either directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings because all potentially adverse direct impacts of the proposed Project are identified as having no impact, less-than-significant impact, or less-thansignificant impact with mitigation incorporated.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, BIO-1 through BIO-7, ENG-1, CUL-1 through CUL-4, GEO-1 through GEO-3, and HAZ-1 through HAZ-4.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

List of Preparers

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 4-1
SECTION 4 - LIST OF PREPARERS
Lead Agency
• Gabrielle Myers de Silva – Senior Planner
QK
• Jaymie Brauer – Principal Planner
• Natalie Greenleaf – Assistant Planner

Bibliography

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 5-1
SECTION 5 - BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cal Recycle. (2023, October). Chemical Watse Management, Inc Unit B-17 (16-AA-0027).

Retrieved from SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/5930?siteID=456 3 CalFire. (2022, May 2022). Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map. Retrieved from Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map- Fresno County: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/fire-hazard-severityzones-maps-2022/ CalGEM. (2023). State of California Department of Conservation, Geological Energy Management Division. Retrieved from Well Finder:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal California Building Standards Commission. (2022). California Code of Regulations.

California Department of Conservation. (2023, October). Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Retrieved from Important Farmland Finder:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
California Department of Transportation. (2023, October). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Retrieved from State Scenic Highway System ARC GIS On Line.:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d80 7c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa
California Energy Commission. (2022). California Energy Commission. Retrieved from Gas Consumption by Entity: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx California Energy Commission. (2022). Electricity Consumption by Entity. Retrieved from http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx
City of Hanford. (2010). Hanford Municipal Airport Master Plan.

City of Hanford. (2016a). Housing Element (2016 - 2024).

City of Hanford. (2016b). Hanford Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan.

City of Hanford. (2017a). 2035 General Plan Update.

City of Hanford. (2017b). Planning Division. Retrieved from Zoning Map:
https://cms6.revize.com/revize/hanfordca/document_center/Planning/Plans/Fina l%20Zoning%20Map%20Effective%2006-01-2017.pdf
City of Hanford. (2020a). 2020 Urban Water Mangement Plan.

City of Hanford. (2020b). Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

Bibliography

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 5-2
City of Hanford. (2023a, October). Hanford Municipal Code. Retrieved from Title 17 Zoning, Chapt 17.50 Development Standards: http://qcode.us/codes/hanford/ City of Hanford. (2023b, October). Active Transportation Plan. Retrieved from City of Hanford: https://www.ci.hanford.ca.us/1490/Active-TransportationPlan#:~:text=The%20ATP%20will%20include%20citywide,for%20Hanford's%20t raditionally%20disadvantaged%20communities.

City of Hanford. (2023c, October). Wastewater Treatment. Retrieved from Utility Division:
https://www.cityofhanfordca.com/1261/Wastewater-Treatment City of Hanford. (2023d, October). Sanitary Sewer Information. Retrieved from Utility Division: https://www.cityofhanfordca.com/1262/Sanitary-Sewer-Information Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2023, October). Envirostor. Retrieved from Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=COR TESE&site_type=CSITES,FUDS&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+ WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation. (2017).

Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/.

Federal Transit Administration. (2006). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

Kettleman Hills Landfill. (2023, October). Facility Overview. Retrieved from Kettleman Hills:
https://kettlemanhillslandfill.wm.com/fact-sheets/2011/facility-overview.jsp Kings Area Regional Transit. (2023, October). Routes. Retrieved from KartBus:
https://www.kartbus.org/
Kings County. (1994). Kings County Airport Compatibility Plan.

Kings County. (2009). 2035 General Plan.

Kings County. (2012). 2012 Kings County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Kings County. (2012). Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Mid-Kings River Groundwater Sustainability Agency. (2020). Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

PG&E. (2021). PG&E. Retrieved from Company Profile: https://www.pge.com/en_US/aboutpge/company-information/profile/profile.page QK. (2023a). Biological Resource Evaluation - Grangeville Multi-Use Project.

Bibliography

Grangeville Multi-Use Project May 2024
City of Hanford Page 5-3
QK. (2023b). Cultural Resources Technical Memo - Grangeville Multi-Use Project.

QK. (2023c). Water Supply Assessment - Multi-Use Development at Grangeville Blvd. and Centennial Dr.

Ruettgers & Schuler. (2023). Traffic Study - Hanford Multi-Use Development Grangeville Boulevard and Centennial Drive.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2015). Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

SCE. (2022). SCE. Retrieved from 2022 Power Content Label Southern California Edison :
https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/6072
SEI. (2023). PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT- Grangeville Mixed Use Project.

Trinity Consultants. (2024). Air Quality Impact Analysis: Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project.

U.S. Department of Transportation, F. R. (2005). High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

United States Census Bureau. (2020). Quick Facts. Retrieved from Hanford city, California:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/hanfordcitycalifornia/PST045222 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). Energy and the Environment.

Retrieved from Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator:
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator#results US Army Corps of Engineers. (2023, October). Pine Flat Dam. Retrieved from National Inventory of Dams:
https://nid.sec.usace.army.mil/#/dams/system/CA10112/summary Waste Management. (2024, January). Facility Overview. . Retrieved from https://kettlemanhillslandfill.wm.com/fact-sheets/2011/facility-overview.jsp

APPENDIX A

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial

MM AQ-1: The project shall continuously comply with the following: Construction and operation of the project shall be conducted in compliance with applicable rules and regulations set forth by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

Dust control measures outlines below shall be implemented where they are applicable and feasible. The list shall not be considered all inclusive, and any other measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions not listed shall be encouraged. a. Land Preparation Excavation and/or Demolition. The
following dust control measures shall be implemented.

1. All soil excavated or graded shall be sufficiently
watered to prevent excessive dust. Watering shall
occur as needed with complete coverage of disturbed
soil areas. Watering shall take place a minimum of
twice daily on unpaved/untreated roads and on
disturbed soil areas with active operations.

2. All fine material transported off site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent
excessive dust.

3. Areas disturbed by clearing, earth moving, or
excavation activities shall be minimized at all times.

4. Stockpiles of dirt or other fine loose material shall be stabilized by watering or other appropriate method to
prevent wind-blown fugitive dust.
b. Site Construction: After clearing, grading, earth moving and/or excavation is completed within any portion of the During
Construction
Lead Agency

project sites, the following dust control practices shall be implemented.

1. All active disturbed soil areas shall be sufficiently watered at least twice daily or have dust palliatives
applied to prevent excessive dust.
c. Vehicular Activities: During all phases of construction, the following vehicular control measures shall be
implemented.

1. Onsite vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

2. All areas with vehicle traffic shall be paved, treated with dust palliatives or watered a minimum of twice
daily.

3. Streets adjacent to the project sites shall be kept
clean, and project-related accumulated silt shall be
removed.

4. Access to the project sites shall be by means of an
apron into the project sites from adjoining surfaced
roadways. The aprons shall be surfaced or treated
with dust palliatives. If operating on soils that cling to the wheels of vehicles, a grizzly, wheel washer, or
other such device shall be used on the road exiting the project sites, immediately prior to the pavement, in
order to remove most of the soil material from vehicle
tires.

MM AQ-2: The project shall continuously comply with the following: The project proponent and/or its contractors shall implement the following measures during construction of the project.
a. All equipment shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.
b. Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment shall be turned off when not in use for extended periods of
time.
c. Construction equipment shall operate no longer than
eight cumulative hours per day.
d. Electric equipment shall be used whenever possible in lieu of diesel- or gasoline powered equipment.
e. All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emission control equipment and kept in good and proper
running order to substantially reduce NOx emissions.
f. On-road and off-road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters (or the equivalent) if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines.
g. Tier 3 engines shall be used on all equipment when
available.

Ongoing Lead Agency

MM AQ-3: The project proponent shall continuously comply with the following measures during operation of the project to control emissions from the on-site dedicated equipment
(equipment that would remain on-site each day):
a. a. All onsite off-road equipment and on-road vehicles for operation/maintenance shall be new equipment that
meets the recent California Air Resources Board engine
emission standards or alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas, liquefied
natural gas, or electric, as appropriate.
b. All equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Engine idling of all equipment shall be minimized.
c. All equipment engines shall be maintained in good
operating condition and in tune per manufacturers’
specification.

During Operation Lead Agency
MM BIO-1: A pre-construction clearance survey of the Project footprint shall be conducted for special-status wildlife species and nesting migratory birds and raptors. The survey shall occur no less than 14-30 days prior to the start of construction activities. If construction is delayed beyond 30 days from the time of the survey, then another survey must be conducted. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist with adequate training and prior experience conducting surveys for special-status wildlife species.

If no special-status species are observed, no further action is warranted. If dens or burrows that could support special-status species and/or nesting birds are discovered during the preconstruction survey, appropriate avoidance buffers should be established. A report outlining the results of the clearance survey shall be provided to the Lead Agency as evidence of compliance.

Prior to
construction
Lead Agency
MM BIO-2: If construction is planned during the nesting season for migratory birds (February 15 to August 31) and nesting birds are identified during the survey, active Swainson’s hawk nest During
construction
Lead Agency

shall be avoided by 0.5 miles, other raptor nests shall be avoided by 500 feet and all other migratory bird nests shall be avoided by 250 feet. Avoidance buffers may be reduced if a qualified biological monitor determines that encroachment into the buffer area is not affecting nest building, the rearing of young, or otherwise affecting the breeding behaviors of the resident birds.

Because nesting birds can establish new nests or produce a second or even third clutch at any time during the nesting season, nesting bird surveys shall be repeated every 30 days as construction activities are occurring throughout the nesting season.

MM BIO-3: If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is discovered at any time within 0.5 miles of active construction, a qualified biologist shall complete an assessment of the potential for current construction activities to impact the nest. The assessment would consider the type of construction activities, the location of construction relative to the nest, the visibility of construction activities from the nest location, and other existing disturbances in the area that are not related to the construction activities of this Project. Based on this assessment, the biologist will determine if construction activities can proceed and the level of nest monitoring required. Construction activities shall not occur within 500 feet of an active nest, but depending on conditions at the site, this distance may be reduced. Full-time monitoring to evaluate the effects of construction activities on nesting Swainson’s hawks may be required. The qualified biologist shall have the authority to stop work if it is determined that Project construction is disturbing the nest. These buffers may need to increase depending on the sensitivity of the nesting Swainson’s hawk to disturbances and at the discretion of the qualified biologist.

During
construction
Lead Agency

MM BIO-4: Prior to the initiation of construction activities, all personnel shall attend a Worker Environmental Awareness Training program developed by a qualified biologist. The program shall include information on the life histories of specialstatus species with the potential to occur on the Project, their legal status, the course of action shall these species be encountered onsite, and avoidance and minimization measures to protect these species.

Prior to
construction
Lead Agency
MM BIO-5: Project-related vehicles should observe a 20-mph speed limit in all Project areas, except on county roads and state and federal highways. Off-road traffic outside of designated Project areas should be prohibited.

During
construction
Lead Agency
MM BIO-6: All trash and food items should be discarded into closed containers and properly disposed of at the end of each workday.

During
construction
Lead Agency
MM BIO-7: To prevent harassment or mortality of listed species, no pets should be permitted on the Project site during Project construction.

During
construction
Lead Agency
MM CUL-1: If prehistoric or historic-era cultural materials are encountered during construction activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations.

If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation.

Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources During
construction
Lead Agency

such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, fire-affected rock, and historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants. Implementation of the mitigation measure below would ensure that the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

MM CUL-2: Prior to any ground disturbance, if the City of Hanford receives a request from a Native American tribal group, a surface inspection of the site shall be conducted by a tribal monitor. The tribal staff shall provide pre-Project-related activities briefings to supervisory personnel and any excavation contractor, including information on potential cultural material, finds, and any excavation contractor, which will include information on potential cultural material finds, and the procedures be enacted if resources are found. The tribal cultural staff shall monitor the site during grading activities.

Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall offer the tribe the opportunity to provide a Native American Monitor during ground-disturbing activities. Tribal participation would be dependent upon the availability and interest of the tribe.

Prior to
construction
Lead Agency
MM CUL-3: That a Burial Treatment Plan be entered into by the applicant/developer prior to any earth-disturbing activities.

Prior to
construction
Lead Agency
MM CUL-4: If human remains are discovered during construction or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage
Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code During
construction
Lead Agency

(Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement, in the event of the discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner.

MM ENG-1: The Project proponent and its contractors shall comply with applicable California Title 24 CalGreen Code which can include but not be limited to inclusion of solar ready rooftops, double pane windows, electric vehicle charging, use of LED lights, the use of low flow appliances, drip irrigation, and drought tolerant landscaping.

Prior to and
during
construction
Lead Agency
MM GEO-1: The Project proponent and its contractors shall construct the project in compliance with applicable development standards under the California Building Code.

Prior to
construction
Lead Agency
MM GEO-2: Prior to issuing of grading or building permits, if required, (a) the Project applicant shall submit to the Lead Agency (1) the approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and (2) the Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The requirements of the SWPPP and NPDES shall be incorporated into design specifications and construction contracts. Recommended best management practices for the construction phase may include the following:
• Stockpiling and disposing of demolition debris, concrete, and soil properly.
• Protecting existing storm drain inlets and stabilizing disturbed areas.
• Implementing erosion controls.

Prior to
construction
Lead Agency

• Properly managing construction materials.
• Managing waste, aggressively controlling litter, and
implementing sediment controls.
• Evidence of the approved SWPPP shall be submitted to the Lead Agency.

MM GEO-3: If any paleontological resources are encountered during ground-disturbance activities, all work within 25 feet of the find shall halt until a qualified paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to
Paleontological Resources (2010), can evaluate the find and make recommendations regarding treatment. Paleontological resource materials may include resources such as fossils, plant
impressions, or animal tracks preserved in rock. The qualified paleontologist shall contact the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or another appropriate facility regarding any discoveries of paleontological resources.

If the qualified paleontologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations and fossil recovery may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontological resources shall be evaluated for their significance. If the resources are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are significant, they shall be avoided to ensure no adverse effects, or such effects must be mitigated. Construction in that area shall not resume until the resource-appropriate measures are
recommended or the materials are determined to be less than significant. If the resource is significant and fossil recovery is the identified form of treatment, then the fossil shall be deposited in Prior to
construction
Lead Agency

an accredited and permanent scientific institution. Copies of all correspondence and reports shall be submitted to the Lead Agency.

MM HAZ-1: The Project proponent/operators and its contractors shall utilize the U.S. Department of Transportation and Caltrans designated hazardous materials routes for the transportation of hazardous and potentially hazardous materials during Project construction and operation.

During
construction and
operation
Lead Agency
MM HAZ-2: The project proponent/operator shall receive
approval from the State Water Resources Control Board and Kings County Department of Public Health (Certified Unified Program Agency) for the installation and operation of all proposed underground storage tanks.

Prior to
construction
Lead Agency, State Water
Resources Control Board,
Kings County Department
of Public Health
MM HAZ-3: Prior to operation of the Project, the Project proponent/operator shall identify potential hazardous materials for Project operations. If the operation exceeds the established HMBP reporting thresholds, the Project proponent/operator must prepare and maintain a Hazardous Materials Business Plan pursuant to California Environmental Protection Agency and California Environmental Reporting System requirements, and submit the plan to the Kings County Public Health Department for review and approval.

Prior to operation Lead Agency, Kings County
Department of Public
Health
MM HAZ-4: The Project shall comply with applicable procedures and policies for emergency response as set forth in the Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Ongoing Lead Agency

APPENDIX B

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project
Hanford, CA
Prepared For:

QK, Inc.
5080 California Avenue, Suite 220
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Prepared By:

TRINITY CONSULTANTS
4900 California Avenue, Suite 420A
Bakersfield, CA 93309
661-282-2200
January 2024
Project 230505.0240

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1

2. INTRODUCTION 2-1

2.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 General Project Description ........................................................................................ 2-1

3. SETTING 3-1

3.1 Air Quality Standards .................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Existing Air Quality ..................................................................................................... 3-5

3.2.1 Ozone (O3) ............................................................................................................... 3-6

3.2.2 Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) ........................................................... 3-6

3.2.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) .............................................................................................. 3-6

3.2.4 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Hydrocarbons .................................................................. 3-7

3.2.5 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) .................................................................................................. 3-7

3.2.6 Lead (Pb) and Suspended Sulfate .............................................................................. 3-8

3.3 Climate ........................................................................................................................ 3-8

3.4 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases ...................................................................... 3-9

3.4.1 Global Climate Change .............................................................................................. 3-9

3.4.2 Effects of Global Climate Change ............................................................................. 3-11

3.4.3 Global Climate Change Regulatory Issues ................................................................. 3-12

4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT 4-1

4.1 Significance Criteria .................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Air Quality Impacts under CEQA .................... 4-1

4.1.2 Thresholds for Ambient Air Quality Impacts ................................................................ 4-2

4.1.3 Thresholds for Hazardous Air Pollutants ...................................................................... 4-2

4.1.4 Global Climate Change Thresholds of Significance ....................................................... 4-2

4.2 Project Related Emissions ........................................................................................... 4-3

4.2.1 Short-Term Emissions ............................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.2 Long-Term Operations Emissions ............................................................................... 4-4

4.3 Potential Impact on Sensitive Receptors .................................................................... 4-6

4.4 Potential Impacts to Visibility to Nearby Areas .......................................................... 4-7

4.5 Potential Impacts from Carbon Monoxide .................................................................. 4-7

4.6 Predicted Health Risk Impacts ................................................................................... 4-7

4.7 Potential Impacts from Valley Fever ........................................................................... 4-9

4.8 Potential Impacts from Asbestos .............................................................................. 4-10

4.9 Odor Impacts and Mitigation .................................................................................... 4-10

4.10 Impacts to Ambient Air Quality ................................................................................ 4-10

4.11 Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change ................................................. 4-11

5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5-1

5.1 Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts ................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Cumulative Local Air Quality Impacts ......................................................................... 5-3

5.3 Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutants ......................................................................... 5-3

5.4 Cumulative Carbon Monoxide (CO) – Mobile Sources ................................................. 5-3

6. CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT PLAN 6-1

6.1 Required Evaluation Guidelines .................................................................................. 6-1

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants ii

6.2 Consistency with the Kings County Council of Government’s Regional Conformity Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 6-2

7. MITIGATION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED MEASURES 7-1

7.1 SJVAPCD Required PM10 Reduction Measures ............................................................ 7-1

7.2 Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust ........................................... 7-1

7.3 Other Measures to Reduce Project Impacts ............................................................... 7-2

8. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 8-1

9. REFERENCES 9-1
APPENDIX A. EXISTING AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA A-1
APPENDIX B. PROJECT EMISSION CALCULATIONS B-1
APPENDIX C. CARB 2020 AND 2025 ESTIMATED EMISSION INVENTORIES C-1 APPENDIX D. HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT MODELING FILES D-1

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Regional Location 2-1
Figure 2-2. Project Location 2-2
Figure 2-3. Project Site Topography 2-3
Figure 3-1. SJVAPCD Monitoring Network 3-4
Figure 6-1. City of Lemoore Zoning 6-3

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Federal & California Air Quality Standards 3-2 Table 3-2. SJVAB Attainment Status 3-3
Table 3-3. Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area 3-5 Table 3-4. Hanford 1 S Weather Data 3-9
Table 4-1. SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance 4-1
Table 4-2. Measures of Significance - Toxic Air Contaminants 4-2 Table 4-3. Short-Term Project Emissions 4-4
Table 4-4. Post-Project (Operational) Emissions 4-6
Table 4-5. Sensitive Receptors Located < 2 miles from Project 4-6 Table 4-6. Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP2 4-9 Table 4-7. Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year) 4-12 Table 4-8. Select CARB GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 5-1. Comparative Analysis Based on SJV Air Basin 2020 Inventory - Tons per Year 5-2 Table 5-2. Emission Inventory SJVAB 2025 Projection - Tons per Year 5-2 Table 5-3. Emission Inventory SJVAB - Kings County Portion 2025 Projection - Tons per Year 5-2 Table 5-4. 2025 Emissions Projections - Proposed Project, Kings County, and SJVAB 5-3

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 1-1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Trinity Consultants has completed an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) for a mixed-use development consisting of resident apartments and general retail. The Project site is located at the northwest corner of Grangeville Boulevard and Centennial Drive of Grangeville, California along Highway 99.

The proposed Project’s construction would include the following criteria pollutant emissions: reactive organic gases (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Project operations would generate air pollutant emissions from mobile sources (vehicle activity from delivery trucks, consumers, and employees), energy sources (natural gas and electricity usage), and area sources (incidental activities related to architectural coating, consumer products, and landscape maintenance). Project construction and operational activities would also generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Criteria and GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2020.4.0 (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2021), which is the most current version of the model approved for use by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

Table 4-3 presents the Project’s construction emissions and provides substantial evidence to support a less than significant air quality impact on the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Table 4-4 presents the Project’s operations emissions and provides substantial evidence to support a less than significant air quality impact on the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Based on the foregoing conclusions, the Project is considered to have less than significant air quality impacts on the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.

SJVAPCD uses a single threshold for determination of significance for both project specific and cumulative impacts. As such, a qualitative evaluation of the cumulative projects supports a finding that the Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because the proposed Project’s incremental emissions would be less than significant.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 2-1

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Purpose
This AQIA was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD 2015) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines (CEQA 2023).

2.2 General Project Description
The Project is the construction of a multi-use development project consisting of a residential complex, gas station, and fast-food restaurant. The Project would be located in Hanford, California and consists of 8 residential buildings consisting of 64 dwellings units, a gas station with 12 pumps, and a fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru.

Figure 2-1 depicts the regional location and Figure 2-2 depicts an aerial view of the Project location.

Construction is estimated to begin in the fourth quarter of 2024 and is expected to take less than 24 months to complete.

Figure 2-1. Regional Location

Project
Location

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 2-2
Figure 2-2. Project Location

Figure 2-3 depicts the Project site’s topography based on Kings County GIS (2023). The Project site is located at an elevation of approximately 222 feet above mean sea level.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 2-3
Figure 2-3. Project Site Topography
Project
Location

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-1

3. SETTING
Protection of the public health is maintained through the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards for various atmospheric compounds and the enforcement of emissions limits for individual stationary sources. The Federal Clean Air Act requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

NAAQS have been established for ozone (O3), CO, NO2, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5, and lead (Pb). California has also adopted ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for these "criteria" air pollutants. CAAQS are more stringent than the corresponding NAAQS and include standards for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride (chloroethene), and visibility reducing particles. The U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required each state to identify areas that were in non-attainment of the NAAQS and to develop State Implementation Plans (SIP's) containing strategies to bring these non-attainment areas into compliance. NAAQS and CAAQS designation/classification for Kings County are presented in Section 3.1 below.

Responsibility for regulation of air quality in California lies with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the 35 local air districts with oversight responsibility held by the EPA. CARB is responsible for regulating mobile source emissions, establishing CAAQS, conducting research, managing regulation development, and providing oversight and coordination of the activities of the 35 air districts. The air districts are primarily responsible for regulating stationary source emissions and monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations. CARB also determines whether air basins, or portions thereof, are “unclassified,” in “attainment” or in “non-attainment” for the NAAQS and CAAQS relying on statewide air quality monitoring data.

3.1 Air Quality Standards
The Project area is located within Kings County’s portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB or Basin).

Kings County is included among the eight counties that comprise the SJVAPCD. The SJVAPCD acts as the regulatory agency for air pollution control in the Basin and is the local agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions for the Project area. Table 3-1 provides the NAAQS and CAAQS.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-2
Table 3-1. Federal & California Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time NAAQS CAAQS
Concentration
O3
8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)a

0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3)
CO 8-hour 9 ppm (10 µg/m3) 9 ppm (10 µg/m3)
1-hour 35 ppm (40 µg/m3) 20 ppm (23 µg/m3)
NO2
Annual Average 53 ppb (100 µg/m3) 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3)
1-Hour 100 ppb (188.68 µg/m3) 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3)
SO2
3-Hour 0.5 ppm (1,300 µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3) 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3)
1-Hour 75 ppb (196 µg/m3) 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3)
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 20 µg/m3
24-Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
24-Hour 35 µg/m3
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 µg/m3
Pbd
Rolling Three-Month
Average 0.15 µg/m3
30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3
H2S 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3)
Vinyl Chloride
(chloroethene) 24-Hour 0.010 ppm (26 µg/m3)
Visibility Reducing
particles
8 Hour (1000 to 1800
PST)
b
ppm = parts per million
ppb = parts per billion
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic
meter
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic
meter
Source: CARB 2016
a. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm
b. In 1989, CARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standards and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-3
Under the provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act, the Kings County portion of the SJVAB has been classified as nonattainment/extreme, nonattainment/severe, nonattainment, attainment/unclassified, attainment, or unclassified under the established NAAQS and CAAQS for various criteria pollutants. Table 3-2 provides the SJVAB’s designation and classification based on the various criteria pollutants under both NAAQS and CAAQS.

Table 3-2. SJVAB Attainment Status
Pollutant NAAQSa CAAQSb
O3, 1-hour No Federal Standardf Nonattainment/Severe
O3, 8-hour Nonattainment/Extremee Nonattainment
PM10 Attainmentc Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainmentd Nonattainment
CO Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified
NO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
SO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Pb (Particulate) No Designation/Classification Attainment H2S No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particulates No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
Source: SJVAPCD 2021a
Note:
a. See 40 CFR Part 81
b. See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210
c. On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan. d. The Valley is designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA designated the Valley as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (effective December 14, 2009). e. Though the Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour O3 standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010). f. Effective June 15, 2005, the EPA revoked the federal 1-hour O3 standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA had previously classified the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for this standard. EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8, 2010 (effective April 7, 2010). Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour O3 nonattainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-4
The SJVAPCD, along with CARB, operates an air quality monitoring network that provides information on average concentrations of those pollutants for which Federal or State agencies have established NAAQS and CAAQS, respectively. The monitoring stations in the San Joaquin Valley are depicted in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1. SJVAPCD Monitoring Network
Source: SJVAPCD 2021b

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-5

3.2 Existing Air Quality
For the purposes of background data and this air quality analysis, this analysis relied on data collected in the last three years for the CARB monitoring stations that are located in the closest proximity to the project site.

Table 3-3 provides the background concentrations for O3, particulate matter of 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), CO, NO2, SO2, and Pb. Information is provided for the Hanford – S Irwin Street, Santa Rosa Rancheria – 17225 Jersey, Corcoran – Patterson Avenue, and Fresno – Garland monitoring stations for 2020 through 2022. No data is available for H2S, Vinyl Chloride or other toxic air contaminants in Kings County.

Table 3-3. Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area Maximum Concentration Days Exceeding Standard
Pollutant and
Monitoring Station Location 2020 2021 2022 2020 2021 2022 O3 – 1-hour CAAQS (0.09 ppm)
Hanford – S Irwin Street 0.103 0.102 0.091 6 2 0
Santa Rosa Rancheria – 17225 Jersey 0.074 0.095 0.091 0 1 0 O3 – 8-hour CAAQS (0.07 ppm)
Hanford – S Irwin Street 0.088 0.096 0.081 27 18 12
Santa Rosa Rancheria – 17225 Jersey 0.065 0.085 0.081 0 4 14 O3 – 8-hour NAAQS (0.070 ppm)
Hanford – S Irwin Street 0.088 0.095 0.082 26 16 13
Santa Rosa Rancheria – 17225 Jersey 0.066 0.086 0.081 0 4 17 PM10 – 24-hour CAAQS (50 µg/m3)
Hanford – S Irwin Street 180.9 192.7 251.6 22 146 141
Corcoran – Patterson Avenue * 227.2 * * 160
PM10 – 24-hour NAAQS (150 µg/m3)
Hanford – S Irwin Street 180.4 175.0 250.8 3 2 1
Corcoran – Patterson Avenue * 254.9 * * 10 *
PM2.5 - 24-hour NAAQS (35 µg/m3)
Hanford – S Irwin Street 147.0 81.0 62.9 52 31 27
Corcoran – Patterson Avenue 144.3 70.3 * 43 30 *
CO - 8-Hour CAAQS & NAAQS (9.0 ppm)
No data collected * * * * * *
NO2 - 1-Hour CAAQS (0.18 ppm)
Hanford – S Irwin Street 0.051 0.051 45.8 0 0 0
NO2 - 1-Hour NAAQS (0.10 ppm)
Hanford – S Irwin Street 0.052 0.052 45 0 0 0
SO2 – 24-hour Concentration - CAAQS (0.04 ppm) & NAAQS (0.14 ppm) No data collected * * * * * *
Pb - Maximum 30-Day Concentration CAAQS (1500 ng/m3)
Fresno – Garland 6.1 6.8 * * *
Source: CARB 2023a
Notes: ppm= parts per million
* There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.

The following is a description of criteria air pollutants, typical sources and health effects and the recently documented pollutant levels in the project vicinity.