Hanford City Council
March 18, 2025

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 3 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
consideration including rezones, General Plan Amendments, and annexation would require approval by the County. Consistency with the City’s applicable General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance (and any other applicable planning documents) would ensure compliance and orderly development of the proposed Project and other related cumulative projects. Additionally, all cumulative projects are subject to environmental review and compliance with all federal, State, and local policies and plans. As such, the proposed Project’s incremental contribution to the less than significant cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable Cumulative impacts related to land use and planning would result in a less than significant impact on the environment.

E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project that Would Have a Significant Impact on the Environment.

The Project would not have any cumulative effects on land use and planning that would have a significant impact.

Findings
The proposed Project would not have any potentially cumulative significant environmental effects related to land use and planning. No mitigation would be required and impacts are less than significant.

Level of Significance
Impacts would be cumulatively less than significant.

Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts. However, cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

The Project could conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities (Impact 4.2-1).

The Hanford General Plan has policies related to traffic systems. The General Plan has established LOS E as the acceptable level on streets and intersections within the area bounded by State Route (SR) 198, 10th Avenue, 11th Avenue, and Florinda Avenue, and a peak hour LOS D on all other streets and intersections within the Planned Growth Boundary. The County of Kings has established LOS D as the acceptable level of traffic congestion on County roads. Since the study facilities for this Project lie outside of the SR 198, 10th Avenue, 11th Avenue, and Florinda Avenue boundary, the LOS D threshold was utilized to evaluate the potential significance of LOS impacts to the City of Hanford roadway facilities and the County of Kings facilities.

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 4 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
As noted in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the Project, signal warrant criteria was met for the 13th Avenue and Hanford Armona Road intersection, which is included in the City’s traffic impact fee program. However, 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. Pursuant to General Plan Policy T36, the Project proponent will be required to pay traffic development impact fees. The provision of an intersection signalization would be determined by the City of Hanford. Improvement costs for signalization are within the purview of traffic development impact fees as required in Policy T36, therefore eventual signalization of the intersection by the City would address the LOS deficiency caused by General Plan buildout (2044) and Project development (2044+Project).

For the 12th Avenue and Hanford Armona Road intersection, the TIS recommends improvements be made to the eastbound roadway to include changing the existing eastbound right turn lane (EBR) to an eastbound through and right turn lane (EBTR). The Project proponent would be required to pay their fair share cost for the needed improvement to ensure that the intersection by the year 2044, operates at an acceptable LOS (Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers, 2024). The inclusion of fair share cost payment as determined in the TIS is recommended as a Mitigation Measure and is included as MM 4.2-1. Implementation of MM

4.2-1 would allow the intersection studied to operate at an acceptable LOS under City LOS standards and reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
MM 4.2-1: The Project proponent or developer shall be required to pay their fair share of costs for the improvements needed. This includes changing the 12th Avenue and Hanford Armona Road intersection eastbound right turn lane to an eastbound through lane and a right turn lane.

The fair share cost for the improvement is calculated at 18.94% and shall be collected by the City of Hanford at the appropriate time
Level of Significance
Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.

Finding
The proposed Project would not have any potentially significant environmental effects related to LOS and the impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding roadway network. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Brief Explanation of the Rational for Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts related to General Plan policies related to LOS. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1 as described above, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

C. Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant.

Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b) (Impact 4.2-2)

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 5 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
Land use developments meeting one or more of the screening criteria contained in the VMT Guidelines are presumed to create a less than significant transportation impact and no further VMT analysis is required.

These criteria relate to project type, size, location, proximity to transit, and trip-making potential. The Project does not meet any of the screening criteria. Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis was prepared for the Project (Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers, 2024).

An analysis of Project VMT was conducted in accordance with the VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, City of Hanford, dated November 2022 (VMT Guidelines). The analysis involved comparing an estimate of VMT attributable to the project to a threshold VMT and assessing whether project VMT would result in a significant transportation impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

For projects that are not screened out, a quantitative analysis of VMT impacts must be prepared and compared against the adopted VMT thresholds of significance. According to the VMT Guidelines, residential developments that generate more than 8.99 daily VMT for residential VMT per capita would be considered to have a significant transportation impact.

Based on the VMT analysis included in the TIS, the Project would result in 9.61 VMT per capita and exceeds the 8.99 VMT per capita threshold. As a result, it is recommended that the Project implement VMT mitigation measures for the residential component to reduce VMT per capita. In order to reduce VMTs, a project must decrease the number of vehicle miles travels to and from the Project site. For land development projects, VMT mitigation focuses on measures that reduce the number and/or length of single-occupant vehicle trips generated by the project.

The VMT Guidelines cite the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, December 2021 (CAPCOA Handbook) as a source for mitigation measures with quantitative methods for estimating VMT reduction.

Below are quantitative measures contained in the CAPCOA Handbook for residential projects in suburban areas. Measure identifiers are shown within parentheses, and italicized text addresses the applicability of each measure to the Project.
• Increase residential density to a level higher than the national average (T-1) Applicable, but not feasible: The residential density for the project is 6.5 dwelling units/acre (326 single-family homes/50 acres of developable land). As stated in the CAPCOA Handbook, the national average is 9.1 dwelling units/acre and includes apartments, townhomes and condominiums in addition to detached single-family housing.

Below is the VMT reduction formula in the CAPCOA Handbook for this measure (-0.22 = VMT elasticity factor).

VMT reduction = [ (project du/acre – 9.1 du/acre) / 9.1 du/acre] x (-0.22) Assuming no change in the amount of developable land, the project would need at least 455 dwelling units to reach the national average and be credited for any reduction in project VMT. Moreover, the project would require a total of 590 dwelling units to mitigate the impact of project VMT to a less than significant level. Such an increase in project residential density (approximately 80 percent) would not be feasible.

Per the General Plan and the allowable density in the zone district, an increase in density is not feasible without a zone change and General Plan Amendment to increase residential density beyond what is allowed.

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 6 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
• Provide easy access to high-quality public transit (T-3) Not applicable: Because the project does not meet implementation requirements. Project must be located within 0.5 miles of a high frequency transit station (either rail or bus rapid transit with headways of less than 15 minutes).
• Integrate affordable and below market rate housing (T-4) Not applicable: Because the project does not meet implementation requirements. Project must be a multifamily residential development permanently dedicated as affordable housing for lower income families. This project is not a low income housing project, therefore it is not applicable and the VTM analysis applies
• Provide electric vehicle charging infrastructure (T-14) Not applicable to single-family residential projects: Mitigation potential available only to developments with buildings that have designated parking areas (e.g., commercial, educational, retail and multifamily housing).
• Limit residential parking supply (T-15)
Not applicable: The measure is ineffective in locations where unrestricted street parking or other off-street parking is available and has adequate capacity to accommodate projectrelated vehicle parking demand. • Unbundle residential parking costs from property costs (T-16) Not applicable: There are no residential parking costs associated with the project.

As noted, the measures listed above are found to be infeasible (Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers, 2024). There are no applicable and feasible mitigation measures available to reduce VMT below the adopted City and County thresholds. Other valley cities have adopted VTM thresholds and applicable mitigation measures. Kings County and the City have not adopted mitigation measures or other measures to implement or guidance to create feasible mitigation. Therefore, the Project is expected to result in a significant transportation impact under CEQA Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures
Level of Significance
Impacts would be significant and unavoidable
Finding
As noted above, there are no feasible and applicable mitigation measures that would be able to reduce VMT for the Project under City adopted thresholds. Therefore, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.

Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the Project to reduce impacts.

However, no mitigation measures were identified that are feasible and applicable to the Project that would reduce VMT under the City adopted thresholds.

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 7 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project that Would Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.

There are no cumulative impacts related to transportation and traffic would result in a less than significant impact on the environment.

E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project that Would Have a Significant Impact on the Environment.

Significant Effect
The Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3, Subdivision (b). In combination with other approved or reasonably foreseeable projects, cumulative impacts to VMT would also be significant and unavoidable.

Description of Significant Impact
The Project’s VMT would exceed the City’s adopted VMT per capita thresholds.

Finding
There are no feasible and applicable mitigation measures that would be able to reduce VMT for the Project under City adopted thresholds. Other valley cities have adopted VTM thresholds and applicable mitigation measures. Kings County and the City have not adopted mitigation measures or other measures to implement or guidance to create feasible mitigation. Measures such as purchasing bicycles for home buyers, adding bike lanes and new bus routes have either not been accepted by the City, or are shown to be an effective way to reduce VTM. Therefore, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. This impact is overridden by Project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. There are no other feasible mitigation measures or changes to the Project that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the Project to reduce impacts.

However, no mitigation measures were identified that are feasible and applicable to the Project that would reduce VMT under the City adopted thresholds.

SECTION III. FINDINGS REGARDING CONSIDERATIONS, WHICH MAKE CERTAIN

ALTERNATIVES, ANALYZED IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT INFEASIBLE.

The following findings and brief explanation of the rationale for the findings regarding Project alternatives identified in the EIR are set forth to comply with the requirements of Section 15091(s)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

The consideration of alternatives is an integral component of the CEQA process. The selection and evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives provides the public and decision-makers with information on ways to avoid or lessen environmental impacts created by a Project. When selecting alternatives for

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 8 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
evaluation, CEQA requires alternatives that meet most of the basic objectives of the Project, while avoiding or substantially lessening the Project’s significant effects. Thus, the objective of the Project was considered by this board in evaluating the alternatives. This objective is to build and operate an economically viable and competitive development with a mix of commercial and residential uses in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, optimally utilizing the available land resource, and while minimizing any environmental impacts to the extent feasible. Thus, objectives for the Project were considered in evaluating the alternatives.

The Project has the following objectives:
• Provide a variety of housing opportunities with a range of styles, sizes, and values that will be designed to satisfy existing and future demand for quality housing in the area. • Provide a sense of community and walkability within the development through the use of street patterns, parks/open space areas, landscaping, and other Project amenities. • Create a successful and financially feasible Project by meeting the housing needs of the area. • Provide a residential development that assists the City in meeting its housing goals and objectives.

The alternatives considered in this EIR include two land use alternatives, a reduced construction alternative, and the No-Project Alternative. CEQA requires that alternatives that have been considered but rejected by the lead agency be addressed in the EIR. This portion of the EIR is also to determine which alternative is considered to be environmentally superior. This evaluation is to be based on which alternatives have the fewest unmitigated impacts and this comparison is to be made even for alternatives that may not completely fulfill all of the Project objectives. For the purpose of this evaluation, the following impacts were determined to be unmitigable after implementation of the mitigations recommended in the EIR.

Significant Impacts Listed
 Transportation and Traffic – The project and the project in conjunction with cumulative projects would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3, Subdivision (b).

All other impacts can be mitigated to a relative level of insignificance through the implementation of the mitigation measures. Mitigation measures that reduced these impacts to a level below the Thresholds of Significance are detailed in the EIR.

Alternative A- No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Project area would remain unchanged and there would be no residential units or parks constructed. Under the No Project Alternative, the Project area would remain unchanged and there would be no residential units or parks constructed. The No Project Alternative would keep the site as agriculture and remain under the jurisdiction of Kings County. As no change would occur, the Project site would continue to be consistent with the Kings County General Plan land use designation and zoning of Limited Agriculture, 10 acres (AL10). The No Project Alternative would not: (a) address the City’s current and projected housing needs by providing a range of single-family residences; (b) meet any of the General Plan policies or objectives related to meeting the housing needs of all citizens, or provide; (c) provide residential housing opportunities for a wide range of housing choices that insure opportunities for a variety of age groups, lifestyles, and income levels that are visually attractive and accommodate the future housing demand in Hanford; (d) establish a mixture of housing types, sizes and densities that collectively provide for local and regional housing demand; (e) provide infrastructure that meets the City standards and is integrated with existing and planned facilities and connections; and (f) develop a project that meets City standards by implementing a logical phasing plan for development of public infrastructure improvements.

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 9 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
With regard to transportation impacts, the No Project Alternative would result in no new trips generated.

The No Project Alternative would reduce the significant and unavoidable impact relating to VMT; however, none of the General Plan goals and objectives for new housing in the City would be met.

Alternative B- Reduced Project Alternative
This alternative would decrease the number of single-family residential houses from 326 to 242. As described in this draft EIR, the proposal to approve the tentative tract map, annex the site into the City, and prezoning the site to R-L-5 would remain the same. A similar outcome to the proposed Project would occur with regard to County and City General Plan consistency. The annexation would meet County and LAFCo objectives in addition to providing planned City expansion within their SOI. This alternative will meet all Project objectives but would have a reduced positive effect of assisting the City in meeting the City’s housing needs. Under this Alternative, overall VMT for the Project would decrease; however, per capita VMT impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

With regard to City LOS thresholds, overall trip generation would be reduced, resulting in lessened impacts on studied intersections. However, this reduction is still likely to exceed LOS thresholds cumulatively, and require mitigation as indicated in this draft EIR to improve the impacted intersection of 12th Avenue and Hanford Armona Road. Impacts regarding LOS would continue to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Alternative C- Multi-Family Alternative
This alternative would replace the proposed single-family residential with multi-family apartments at a density of at least 14.5 dwelling units per gross acre (1,088 units). The Project site is currently designated by the General Plan for low-density residential and prezoned R-L-5. The proposed Project request would be modified to include a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change to Medium Density Residential (RM) to allow multi-family apartments. With regard to the addition of a General Plan Amendment, consistency findings with General Plan goals and policies would be necessary to determine if the proposed Medium Density Residential land use would comply. Although it is not guaranteed that the multifamily housing would be rented at rates to meet the criteria as very low or low incoming housing, if such units were constructed and rented at those rates, they would help the City meet the housing requirements for new very low or low income housing in the City under the Housing Element of the City General Plan.

Under Alternative C, the overall density increase could result in higher trips generated, which in turn, may cause impacts to LOS and VMT. It has been theorized that residents who live in very low or low income housing tend to utilize mass transit. Although it is unknown, if the multifamily housing met the criteria for very low or low income housing, LOS might not increase with the use in mass transit. However, if the multifamily units were considered as moderate or above moderate income units, the Project could generate a rise in vehicle trips due to an increased number of residents originating from the Project site, and would result in higher utilization of intersections in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, depending on the income category of the multifamily housing units, Alternative C could decrease LOS impacts or could negatively impact LOS for the studied intersections and would potentially require additional mitigation/improvements to intersections to meet LOS standards.

In regard to VMT, the City of Hanford has adopted VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, which was utilized for the proposed Project to determine impacts, as noted in the TIS prepared for the Project (Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers, 2024). With regard to the adopted screening criteria and VMT thresholds, Alternative C does not meet the screening criteria and could generate more than 1,000 average daily trips, is not located within 0.5 miles of a transit priority area and is not located within an area where existing VMT per capita is low. The City’s VMT Guidelines cite the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 10 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, December 2021 (CAPCOA Handbook) as a source for measures with quantitative methods for estimating VMT reduction.

It was found in CAPCOA Handbook that an increase in density over the national average (9.1 dwelling units per acre) can result in a VMT reduction. Assuming no change in the amount of developable land, the Project would need at least 455 dwelling units to reach the national average and be credited for any reduction in project VMT. Moreover, the project would require a total of 590 dwelling units to mitigate the impact of project VMT to a less-than-significant level. (Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers, 2024). As Alternative C proposes a density larger than the national average, it can be seen that a reduction in Project VMT would occur. Therefore, VMT under Alternative C would result in a less than significant impact.

Alterative D- Different Site Alternative
This alternative would relocate the Project to a different site in order to be located nearer to corridor mixed use where a mix of commercial and office uses would be available in addition to be located closer to major transit corridors. This alternative would place the Project on the east side of the City, bounded by Lacey Boulevard to the south, 9 1/4 Avenue to the west, SR 43 to the west, and Grangeville Boulevard to the north. This alternative will meet all Project objectives and would assist the City in meeting its housing needs.

Additionally, Alternative D would result in similar conditions as the proposed Project, consistency findings with Kings County and LAFCo for annexation, and General Plan conformity with the City can be made.

With regard to LOS standards, the alternative site would require an analysis of intersections in the vicinity of the site and the comparisons of future conditions at the chosen intersections. It can be assumed that under Alternative D, impacts to LOS at intersections could occur similar to the proposed Project. Dependent on the LOS grade found as a result of Project implementation, mitigation measures for intersection improvements and the use of transportation impact fees per General Plan policy would be applicable to Alternative D and therefore result in similar impacts as the proposed Project.

Under Alternative D, overall VMT per capita for the Project would still exceed City VMT thresholds as the majority of the site is located within a high VMT area and cannot be screened out using the City’s screening thresholds, the VMT Guidelines cite the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, December 2021 (CAPCOA Handbook) as a source for mitigation measures with quantitative methods for estimating VMT reduction (Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers, 2024), in addition to no changes made to the Project lot count. Therefore, per capita, VMT would remain similar to the proposed Project as there are no other factors including proximity to high-quality transit corridors that could provide VMT reductions.

Impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable. In addition, the applicant does not currently own either of these properties and it is not known if the current owners are willing to sell these properties. As noted, available land for new development within the Low-Density Residential land use designation is limited in the southwest planning area of the City. The majority of the properties designated for LowDensity Residential development have been developed or entitled, as shown in Figure 4.1-1, below. The proposed Project is considered implementation of the General Plan..

Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 11 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
environmentally superior alternative be designated, and states, “[I]f the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” In Chapter 6-Alternatives, Table 6‐1 displays the environmental impacts of alternatives to the Project in terms of the impact areas that were analyzed in this Draft EIR in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis. As shown, No Project is environmentally superior, but does not meet any of the objectives of the Project or the City. The Multi-Family Alternative could be considered the environmentally superior alternative if the criteria for very low or low income units was met, LOS impacts would not increase with the increased density of units. while fulfilling most of the objectives of the proposed Project.

Selection of an environmentally superior alternative is based on an evaluation of the extent to which the alternatives reduce or eliminate the significant impacts associated with the Project on a comparison of the remaining environmental impacts of each alternative. In conducting this comparative evaluation, it can be difficult to make a determination of relative significance because some categories are relatively more or less important and cannot be simply summed. In some cases, these categories do not create a picture of the nuances of the alternatives.

Finding: The Planning Commission finds that the No Project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, but that the No Project Alternative would be less desirable than the Project because it would not achieve any of the City General Plan policies or goals for new housing or any Project objectives.

Facts Supporting the Finding: The EIR contains facts and analyses supporting the Finding, some of which are set forth here. The No Project Alternative would not help the City to meet General Plan goals and policies for new housing in the City. The Alternative would not fulfill the objectives of the Project. Demand for residential development would be met by other projects that may have greater impacts than the proposed Project. Moreover, employment opportunities would not be generated for construction workers in Handford or Kings County. In short, the No Project Alternative does not meet overall Project objectives.

Environmentally Superior” Build Alternative”
Where, as here, the environmentally superior alternative is the” No Project Alternative”, the State CEQA Guidelines require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative from among the remaining alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2).) Finding: The Planning Commission evaluated the Project and Alternatives A, B, C and D to the Project, and finds that Alternative C is the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative C – Multi-Family would reduce significant and unavoidable environmental impacts relating to VMT while fulfilling most of the objectives of the proposed Project. However, as discussed in the Section 6.4- Alternatives Considered and Evaluated of the EIR, while Alternative C could incrementally reduce LOS and VMT impacts of the Project, it possibly would not reduce significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project to below a level of significance. Moreover, it may not be economically feasible to implement, thereby impeding the ability to meet the Project objectives set forth by the applicant.

Exhibit C
Statement of Overriding Considerations

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Planning Commission Section 15093 1 February 25, 2025

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093
for
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Final Environmental Impact Report
(SCH# 2024060956)
Lead Agency: City of Hanford
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed Project against its significant unavoidable adverse impacts in determining whether to approve the Project. Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines states:

CEQA requires the decision making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the Project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
As discussed in more detail in the final EIR and CEQA Findings of Fact (Section 15091), the Project will result in environmental impacts related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which cannot be feasibly mitigated by the implementation of mitigation measures, will remain significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. These significant unavoidable impacts are summarized below and constitute those impacts for which this Statement of Overriding Considerations is made. These impacts are summarized below and constitute those impacts for which this statement of overriding considerations is made.

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts

1. Transportation and Traffic The Project’s Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and Cumulative VMT would exceed the City’s VMT thresholds and is considered significant and unavoidable.

CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the Project to reduce impacts.

However, no mitigation measures were identified that are feasible and applicable to the Project that would reduce VMT under the City adopted thresholds. The Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3, Subdivision (b). In addition, in combination with other approved or reasonably foreseeable projects, cumulative impacts to VMT would also be significant and unavoidable.

Findings
The City Planning Commission (Commission) finds and determines in recommending approval of the development of the Project that it has considered the identified means of lessening or avoiding the Project’s significant effects. The Commission further finds and determines that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits of the project, as discussed below, outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. Therefore, this Commission

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Planning Commission Section 15093 2 February 25, 2025
finds and determines in recommending approval that such benefits override, outweigh, and make “acceptable” any such remaining environmental impacts of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 (a) and (b)).

The following benefits and considerations outweigh such significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. All of these benefits and considerations are based on the facts set forth in the findings, the final focused EIR, and the record of proceedings for the project. Each of these benefits and considerations constitutes a separate and independent basis that justifies approval of the project, so that if a court were to set aside the determination that any particular benefit or consideration justifies project approval, the Commission would stand by its determination that the remaining benefits or considerations are sufficient to justify and substantiate project approval.

Facts in Support of Statement of Overriding Considerations The objective of the Project is to build and operate an economically viable and competitive development with residential uses in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, optimally utilizing the available land resource, and while minimizing any environmental impacts to the extent feasible.

Each benefit set forth below constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the project, independent of the other benefits, and the City Council determines that the adverse environmental impacts of the project are “acceptable” if any of these benefits would be realized. The project would provide benefits as follows:

1. Accommodates the Need for Housing. At buildout, the Project proposes to construct approximately 326 dwelling units. As discussed in EIR Section 4.1 Land Use and Planning Table 4,1-2 the Project is consistent with the applicable City General Plan Goals and Policies. As noted in Section 6.4- Alternatives Considered and Evaluated -, the Project would help the City achieve its need to accommodate residential growth. It would also (a) address the City’s current and projected housing needs by providing a range of single-family residences; (b) meet any of the General Plan policies or objectives related to meeting the housing needs of all citizens, or provide; (c) provide residential housing opportunities for a wide range of housing choices that insure opportunities for a variety of age groups, lifestyles, and income levels that are visually attractive and accommodate the future housing demand in Hanford; (d) establish a mixture of housing types, sizes and densities that collectively provide for local and regional housing demand; (e) provide infrastructure that meets the City standards and is integrated with existing and planned facilities and connections; and (f) develop a project that meets City standards by implementing a logical phasing plan for development of public infrastructure improvements.

The Project aligns with the City's General Plan, specifically with the policies within the Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element, such as Goal L1, to promote a well-planned community that grows in an organized fashion, Goal L3, limiting urban sprawl, Goal L4 Adequate land available to meet housing needs for all citizens through the year 2035, Goal L6 , which encourages the City to support development with a wide range of housing choices that insure opportunities for a variety of age groups, lifestyles, and income levels, L7 that promotes the City’s SOI to be coterminous to the Planned Area Boundary, L18 that new development is compatible with existing and surrounding neighborhoods, L27 that encourages mixing of residential densities and lot sizes within neighborhoods . As noted, the Project would help fulfill the goals and housing objectives of the City and implement the projected population growth of the City and surrounding area .

2. Provides Orderly Expansion and Consistent with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Project provides new development in an orderly manner and is coordinated with the

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Planning Commission Section 15093 3 February 25, 2025
General Plan Policy L15 regarding the criteria needed to initiate annexation of land into the City boundary, Policy L24 that ensures new residential developments have the sufficient urban infrastructure and public facilities needed, and Goal L32, to improve Hanford’s quality of life through use of practical design principles and standards. The Project proposes to eliminate several dead end roads by the development of new through streets, and will connect the dead-end roads along the eastern boundary so that residents have another access to Hanford Armona Road, which allows for a more efficient traffic flow in that area of the City. In addition, the proposed Project provides a safe and efficient street system that links all Project areas and allows for the movement of both vehicle and non-vehicle traffic. The Project will be required to use and expand upon the existing local road system and contribute to certain transportation improvements that will help to develop the orderly development of the roadway system in the area.

Further, per the 2016 Island Study prepared by LAFCO the Project would fill in an undeveloped island of county land surrounded by development and will build the infrastructure to connect to the City’s existing infrastructure of roads, water, sewage and drainage. As analyzed in the EIR, the City concurs that it can support the proposed residential development without significant impacts to public services or facilities.

3. Provides More Efficient Use of Land and Existing Resources. The property was previously farmed with animal feed and fodder such as wheat, milo and corn. The last two years only had enough water for a portion of the property and the crops grown, corn and milo, which are considered low-income crops generating a small net income. Permanent crops such as almonds, pistachios, vineyard and olives were no longer viable due to reduced water availability. The property owner states that surface water supplied by the local water district can no longer reach the property due to adjacent developments. This left only underground water available for agriculture, which the property owner stated was too expensive.

The General Plan identifies the Project parcel as within the Planned Area Boundary and is designated Low Density Residential. The parcels to the north are designated as Medium Density Residential and all other abutting properties as Low Density Residential. The designations indicate that the City anticipates future non-agricultural development in this area. Chapter 5.2 of the City of Hanford General Plan contains several goals and policies for agricultural resources. Goal 1 strives for the conservation and long-term protection of agricultural resources and soils located outside of the Planned Area Boundary. Policy 4 under Goal 1 states “retain existing agricultural areas as an interim use inside the Planned Area Boundary and support agricultural operations until such time that the areas are needed for logical urban expansion.”

4. Will Provide Additional Economic Benefits. Farming the site required less than two workers for the entire year, as noted by the property owner. The economic benefit and revenue were marginal to the City and County.

The Project will result in creating affordable housing at lower market rates, in addition to providing good paying construction jobs. According to available data, the median home price in the City is approximately $217,260. The typical annual property tax rate is 1.08%, and tax bills run at approximately $2,159 annually, which is below the national median of $2,690.1 To be conservative, using a median home cost of $217,260 and a tax rate of 1.08% the tax revenue per home is anticipated to be $2,346/year or $760,236 of tax revenue paid annually at full buildout of the Project.
1 Ownwell- Hanford California Property Taxes: https://www.ownwell.com/trends/california/kings-county/hanford

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Planning Commission Section 15093 4 February 25, 2025
Conclusion
As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed action, the City has reviewed the project description for the Project and the FEIR and fully understands the Project proposed by the applicant. Based on the entire record before the Commission, and having considered the unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project, the Commission hereby determines that all feasible mitigation has been adopted to reduce the potentially significant impacts identified in the FEIR, and that no additional feasible mitigation is available to further reduce significant impacts.

The Commission finds that economic, social, technological, and other considerations of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts described above. Further the Commission finds that each of the separate benefits of the Project is hereby determined to be, in itself and independent of the other Project benefits, a basis for overriding all unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the FEIR and in the CEQA Findings. In making this finding, the Commission has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those risks

CC Ordinance Prezone 0005-23, Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE NO. 25-02
PREZONE NO. 0005-23

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD PREZONING

CERTAIN PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF HANFORD FROM COUNTY ZONING AL-10 LIMITED AGRICULTURE TO R-L-5 LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED SOUTH OF HANFORD ARMONA ROAD, BETWEEN 12TH AND 13TH AVENUES (APNS 011-040-008, - 010, AND -027).

The City Council of the City of Hanford does ordain as follows:

Section 1: The following described territory situated in the City of Hanford is hereby prezoned under the terms of Chapter 17.86 of the Hanford Municipal Code:

Annexation 161 filed by Silicon Valley Ranch, LLC
FROM: County zoning of AL-10 Limited Agriculture
TO: City zoning R-L-5 Low-Density Residential
On property described as follows:

Portions of the Northeast and Northwest Quarters of Section 3, Township 19 South, Range 21 East, MDB&M, in the State of California, County of Kings described as follows:

Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter being a point on the existing city limits of the City of Hanford;
Thence along the existing city limits the following courses:

1. South 89° 23'35" East along the North line of last said Qua11er, a distance of l,057.40 feet to the Northwest corner of County Tract 876 as depicted on a map recorded in Book 24 at Page 88 of Licensed Surveyors' Plats in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;

2. South 00°33'03" West, along the West line of last said Tract, a distance of 2,866.68 feet to a point on the South line of said Northeast Quarter;

3. North 89°32'03" West along said South line of said Northeast Quarter, a distance of I 051.03 feet to the Center Quarter Corner of said Section 3;

CC Ordinance Prezone 0005-23, Page 2 of 4

4. North 89° 32'22" West along the South line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of 26l.40 feet to an angle point in the city limits of the City of Hanford per LAFCO Resolution No. 05-1 7 as depicted on a map recorded in Book 21, at page 66 of Licensed Surveyors' Plats in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;
Thence leaving the existing city limits of the City of Hanford the following courses:

5. Continuing along said South line of the Northwest Quarter, North 89° 32'22" West a distance of 397.32 feet to the southwest corner of Parcel 2 as shown on a map recorded in Book 5 at Page 72 of Parcel Maps of Licensed Surveyors' Plats in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;

6. No1th 00° 44' 57" East, along the west line of last said Parcel 2 a distance of 646. 9 I feet to and angle point in said west line of said Parcel 2;

7. Continuing along the West line of said Parcel 2, North 02 °14'30" East, a distance of 656.86 feet to the Northwest corner of said Parcel 2, also being a point on the existing city limits of the City of Hanford;
Thence along the existing city limits the following courses:

8. South 89° 38'44" East along the North line of said Parcel 2 a distance of 634.20 feet to the Northeast corner of said Parcel 2, also being a point on the west line of said Northeast Quarter;

9. Thence North 00°25 '25" East, along last said West line, a distance of 1,564.66 feet to the Point of Beginning
Containing 88.89 Acres more or less, as depicted in attached Exhibit A; and Section 2: The Council does hereby find as a fact that this Ordinance has been recommended for passage by the Planning Commission of the City of Hanford after public hearing before the Planning Commission after notice required by Section 17.70.100 of the Hanford Municipal Code and Government Code Section 65854. The City Council finds that the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2024060956) is approved, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council hereby finds that the prezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the zoning regulations as set forth in Section 17.06.010 of the Hanford Municipal Code, and that this Ordinance has been introduced by the City Council after public hearing held on the 18th day of March, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. of said day after notice required under the provisions of Section 65856 of the Government Code.

CC Ordinance Prezone 0005-23, Page 3 of 4
Section 3: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage and shall be published once in the Hanford Sentinel within fifteen (15) days after its passage, and the zoning will apply to such property in the event of subsequent annexation to the City under the provisions of Section 65859 of the Government Code.

Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on the ____ day of ________, by the following roll call vote:

ATTEST:

Natalie Corral

APPROVED
_________________________
MAYOR of the City of Hanford

CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss

CITY OF HANFORD )
I, NATALIE CORRAL, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing ordinance was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford on the 18th day of March 2025 and it was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the _______ day of ______________, 2025.

Dated: _____________________ _____________________________ Natalie Corral
City Clerk

CC Ordinance Prezone 0005-23, Page 4 of 4
Exhibit A
Prezone No. 0005-23
Prezone 0005-23
Proposed: R-L-5 Low-Density Residential (property outlined in bold)

RESOLUTION NO. 25-08-R

A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF HANFORD REQUESTING THE

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION NO. 161, A REQUEST TO ANNEX APPROXIMATELY 88.89 ACRES OF

UNINCORPORATED KINGS COUNTY LAND INTO THE CITY OF HANFORD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF HANFORD ARMONA ROAD, BETWEEN 12TH AND 13TH AVENUES (APNS 011-040-008, -010, AND 027)
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hanford on March 18, 2025, that WHEREAS, the City of Hanford desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-KnoxHertzberg Local Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3, commencing with Section 5600 of the California Government Code, an affected City, as defined therein, may by resolution adopted by its legislative body make a proposal for a change of organization and request initiation of proceedings thereon; and WHEREAS, notice of intent to adopt this resolution of application has been given, and this Council has conducted a public hearing based upon this notification; and WHEREAS, the principal reasons for the proposed annexation are as follows:

1. The land will be within the Primary Sphere of Influence.

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

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

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

WHEREAS, the following agency would be affected by the proposed jurisdictional changes:

Agency Nature of Change
City of Hanford Annexation
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited, and a map and description of the boundaries of the territory are attached hereto as Exhibits A (annexation map) and B (legal description) and by this reference incorporated herein, and,
WHEREAS, the proposal is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Hanford; and WHEREAS, it is desired to provide that the proposed annexation be subject to the following terms and conditions:

1. That the annexation area be prezoned R-L-5 Low-Density Residential, in accordance with the General Plan.

WHEREAS, this proposal will be consistent with the spheres of influence for all agencies which would be affected by the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report and all notices related thereto were prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City of Hanford Municipal Code and Policies; and
WHEREAS, on the basis of the application, the documentation and information provided in the staff report and the evidence and testimony submitted at the public hearing, and the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Project, the City Council of the City of Hanford hereby makes findings in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and as specifically articulated in an appendix to the Final EIR and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report also identified unavoidable significant adverse impacts regarding, Transportation and Traffic; and WHEREAS, Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the City to balance the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report, which included findings and a statement of overriding considerations for the unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified by the Final Environmental Impact Report; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Hanford finds the project to be consistent with the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH 2024060956) associated with the Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Project, and for which said FEIR was certified precedent to its consideration of the annexation, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Hanford Municipal Code and Policies.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of Hanford and the Local Agency Formation Commission of

Kings County is hereby requested to take proceedings of the annexation of territory as authorized in the manner provided by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the 18th day of March 2025 by the following vote:

AYES: Council Member ________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
NOES: Council Member ________________________
ABSTAIN: Council Member ________________________
ABSENT: Council Member ________________________
__________________________________________
MAYOR

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)

COUNTY OF KINGS )

CITY OF HANFORD ) SS
I, Natalie Corral, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hanford at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of March, 2025.

Dated: ______________________
__________________________________
City Clerk

Exhibit A
Annexation Map

MAP OF TERRITORY

ANNEXED TO THE

CITY OF HANFORD
609 N. IRWIN ST. HANFORD, CA. 93230 PH. (559) 582-1056 FILE NO. 220056 ONE SHEET ONLY

AND DETACHED FROM THE KINGS RIVER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND THE EXCELSIOR-KINGS RIVER RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, CITY OF HANFORD REORGANIZATION NO. . THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME ON , AND IS BASED UPON RECORD DATA AND LAFCO RESOLUTION NO. ,DATED . JOHN A. ZUMWALT, R.C.E. 21489

CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION
RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO.

FEE
DOCUMENT NO.

RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION OF KINGS COUNTY.

AT MINUTES PAST O'CLOCK . M.,
, 20 IN VOLUME OF LICENSED
SURVEYORS' PLATS, PAGE , KINGS COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

KRISTINE LEE

COUNTY RECORDER
BY:

DEPUTY
LEGEND

CITY LIMITS

BOUNDARY OF PROPERTIES TO BE ANNEXED
1 COURSE SEGMENT NUMBER

VICINITY MAP
Not to Scale

ZUMWALT
HANSENINC.

A Company

POINT OF BEGINNING
L:\Projects\2022\220056\ACAD\Final Map\220056 ANNEX.dwg, 8/8/2022 9:53:03 AM, Plotted by MBO

Exhibit B
Legal Description

ANNEXATION NO. 161

ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF HANFORD

GEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION
Portions of the Northeast and Northwest Quarters of Section 3, Township 19 South, Range 21 East, MDB&M, in the State of California, County of Kings described as follows:

Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter being a point on the existing city limits of the City of Hanford;
Thence along the existing city limits the following courses:

I. South 89°23'35" East along the North line of last said Qua11er, a distance of l,057.40 feet to the Northwest corner of County Tract 876 as depicted on a map recorded in Book 24 at Page 88 of Licensed Surveyors' Plats in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;

2. South 00°
33'03" West, along the West line of last said Tract, a distance of 2,866.68 feet to a point on the South line of said Northeast Quarter;

3. North 89°
32'03" West along said South line of said Northeast Quarter, a distance of I 051.03 feet to the Center Quarter Corner of said Section 3;

4. North 89°
32'22" West along the South line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of 26l.40 feet to an angle point in the city limits of the City of Hanford per LAFCO Resolution No. 05-17 as depicted on a map recorded in Book 21, at page 66 of Licensed Surveyors' Plats in the Off ice
of the Kings County Recorder;
Thence leaving the existing city limits of the City of Hanford the following courses:

5. Continuing along said South line of the Northwest Quarter, North 89° 32'22" West a distance
of 397.32 feet to the southwest corner of Parcel 2 as shown on a map recorded in Book 5 at

Recorder;

6. No1th 00°
44' 57" East, along the west line of last said Parcel 2 a distance of 646. 9 I feet to and angle point in said west line of said Parcel 2;

7. Continuing along the West line of said Parcel 2, North 02°14'30" East, a distance of 656.86 feet to the Northwest corner of said Parcel 2, also being a point on the existing city limits of the City of Hanford;
Thence along the existing city limits the following courses:

8. South 89°
38'44" East along the North line of said Parcel 2 a distance of 634.20 feet to the Northeast corner of said Parcel 2, also being a point on the west line of said Northeast Quarter;

9. Thence North 00°
25 '25" East, along last said West line, a distance of 1,564.66 feet to the Point of Beginning
Containing 88.89 Acres more or less.

DRAFT

RESOLUTION 25-09-R

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 943, A REQUEST, BY SILICON VALLEY RANCH, LLC, TO SUBDIVIDE 75.02 ACRES PROPOSED TO BE PREZONED R-L-5 LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL INTO 326 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, A 3.58-ACRE PARK, AND THREE-ACRE STORM BASIN. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED SOUTH OF HANFORD ARMONA ROAD, BETWEEN 12TH AND 13TH AVENUES (APN 011-040-008, -010, AND -027).

At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on March 18, 2025 by motion of Councilmember , and seconded by Councilmember , and duly carried, the following resolution was adopted:

WHEREAS, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943, filed by Marc Freiler on behalf of Silicon Valley Ranch, LLC, a request to subdivide 75.02 acres, proposed to be prezoned R-L-5 Low-Density Residential into 326 single-family residential lots, a 3.58-acre park, and three-acre storm basin, as shown in Exhibit A, has been reviewed by the City Council of the City of Hanford, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 16 of the Hanford Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered recommendations and testimony presented at the public hearing of March 18, 2025, and
WHEREAS, all affected public utility companies, various governmental department agencies, staff, and the City Council, have given careful consideration to this tentative subdivision map and have made recommendations thereon; and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report and all notices related thereto were prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City of Hanford Municipal Code and Policies; and
WHEREAS, on the basis of the application, the documentation and information provided in the staff report and the evidence and testimony submitted at the public hearing, and the

Vesting Tentative Tract 943

Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Project, the City Council of the City of Hanford hereby makes findings in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and as specifically articulated in an appendix to the Final EIR and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the Project’s effect on Transportation and Traffic remains significant and unavoidable with mitigation incorporation, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached – Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the City to balance the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report, which included findings and a statement of overriding considerations for the unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified by the Final Environmental Impact Report; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings, pursuant to Section

16.04.010 of the Hanford Subdivision Ordinance, Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act and Hanford’s Zoning Ordinance:

1. Consistency Finding:

ANALYSIS: That a consistency finding can be made, because the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act, General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance. The subdivision is consistent with the General Plan Designation for the property, Low-Density Residential. All requirements of the R-L-5 Low-Density Residential zone district are met for lot size, frontage, width, and depth.

Compliance with the regulations set forth in the Hanford Municipal Code for the R-L-5 Low-Density Residential zone district will be a condition of approval for the subdivision.

Vesting Tentative Tract 943

2. Design Finding:

ANALYSIS: That the design and improvement of the subdivision is consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act, General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance.

The subdivision is consistent with the General Plan Designation for the property, LowDensity Residential. All requirements of the R-L-5 Low-Density Residential zone district are met for lot size, frontage, width, and depth. Compliance with the regulations set forth in the Hanford Municipal Code for the R-L-5 Low-Density Residential zone district will be a condition of approval for the subdivision.

3. Type of Development Finding:

ANALYSIS: That the site is physically suitable for the single-family residential development proposed under Tentative Tract 943. The lots proposed meet the minimum lot size of the R-L-5 Low-Density Residential Zone District. All parcels have adequate street frontage on a public street and meet the minimum depth and width required for the district.

4. Density Finding:

ANALYSIS: That a density finding can be made, because the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The General Plan prescribes a density range between two and 10 units per acre, with an expected average of four units per gross acre. The project has a density of 4.35 dwelling units per gross acre.

5. Environmental Finding:

ANALYSIS: That a focused environmental impact report was prepared for the project. On the basis of the Focused EIR, the City of Hanford, as the Lead Agency, has determined the project described above would have a significant effect on the environment based relating

Vesting Tentative Tract 943

to the project’s transportation/traffic impacts and recommended a Statement of Overriding Considerations be adopted for the project’s significant impact.

6. Public Health Finding:

ANALYSIS: That the design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems. The City of Hanford Building Division is responsible for ensuring that future construction of the site follows adopted building codes, thus reducing exposures to accidents to the general public. Consultation was sent for Tentative Tract 943 to interested agencies, including the County Health Department, Public Works Department, Fire Department, and Building Division. Any improvements or mitigations required for public health and safety were applied to the proposal and required in the conditions of approval and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

7. Improvements and Access Findings:

ANALYSIS: That the design of the subdivision and type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. All easements will be designated on the final subdivision map, as required by the utility companies and where needed for providing service to streetlights and landscape improvements, as designated by the City Public Utilities and Engineering Division. Additional easements are required, as follows:
a) A 20-foot easement established south of the centerline of Hume Avenue is required to be dedicated to the city for the purposes of street right-of-way. b) An easement for storm drainage purposes is required to be dedicated to the City, where necessary, to facilitate installation of storm drainage facilities connecting the portion of the development located on the west side of Aquifer Drive to the proposed storm drainage basin located on the east side of Aquifer Drive.

Vesting Tentative Tract 943

c) All easements for irrigation ditches and/or irrigation pipelines will be legally abandoned or relocated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements.
d) An easement for sanitary sewer along the south side of Hume Avenue for gravity sewer pipeline, sewer lift station and force main is required to be dedicated to the city. This dedication requirement is contingent on whether Tract 943 develops before Live Oak West Tract 909.
e) All proposed landscape/public utility easements, as shown on the tentative map, are required to be dedicated to the City and be included on the subdivision final map.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Hanford finds the project to be consistent with the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH 2024060956) associated with the Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Project, and for which said FEIR was certified precedent to its consideration of the annexation, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Hanford Municipal Code and Policies.

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hanford hereby approves Vesting Tentative Tract 943, subject to the conditions of approval, attached as Exhibit C, and the following:

That this tentative subdivision map becomes null and void after 24 months has elapsed from the date of approval, if the above conditions have not been satisfied or bonded for, and a final map recorded. A time extension may be granted by the approving body upon written request by the applicant. The time extension, if approved, will be subject to the improvement standards and fees in effect at the time the time the extension for the tentative subdivision map is granted.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the 18th day of March 2025 by the following vote:

AYES: Council Member
________________________
________________________
________________________

Vesting Tentative Tract 943

________________________
________________________
NOES: Council Member
________________________
ABSTAIN: Council Member
________________________
ABSENT: Council Member
________________________

__________________________________________
MAYOR

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)

COUNTY OF KINGS )

CITY OF HANFORD ) SS
I, Natalie Corral, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hanford at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of March, 2025.

Dated: ______________________
__________________________________
City Clerk

Vesting Tentative Tract 94
3

Exhibit A:

Vesting Tentative Tract 943

289
290 291 292
288
287
286
285
284
283
282
281
280
279
278
277
276
275
274
273
272
271
270
269 268 267 266 265 264 263
262
261
260
259
258
257
256
255
254
253
252
251
250
249
248
247
246
245
243 244
293 294 295 296
326
325
324
323
322
321
320
319
318
317
316
315
314
313 312 311 310
309
308
307
306
305
304
303
302
301
300
299
298
297 12345 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 PARK
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153
154
155
156
157
158 159 160 161 162 163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
65 64
63 62
61 60
59 58
73 72
71 70
69 68
67 66
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
202 201
203
204
205
206
214 213 212 211 210 209 208 207 215
216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223
224 225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
80 79
78 77
76 75
74 119 118 117 116 115 114 113 112
111 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
103 102 101 100 99 98 97 96
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
83 82 81 87 86 84
242 241 240 239 238 237 236
STORM
BASIN
85 LOT A
LOT B
LOT C
LOT D
LOT E
LOT F
LOT G
LOT H

LOT I N N

ZUMWALT
HANSENINC. A Company

42 43 44 45 36 39 40
35 37 38 41
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
127
120
122
121
123
124
125
126
128
58 59
60 62
63 61
8 1
9 2
10 3
4 5
6 7
54 53
52 51
50 57
49 56
48 55
47 PARK
32 26 25 24
34 33 31 30 29 28 23 22 21
46 27
72 71
70 69
76 75
74 73
77 116
107
119
104
118
105
117
106
113
109
115
108 111
114 112
110

NOT-A-PART
LOT A
LOT B
N

PHASE I

162
127
124
125
126
132
129
128
134
133
130
131
65 59
60 62
63 61
176
178
179
180
181
182
64 177
168
161
163
165
167
166
164
174
172
171
170
169
173
175
303
296
298
297
293 294 295
325
326
321
315
318 305
301
320
319 304
324 299
323 300
322
302
308
313 310
316 307
317 306
314 309
312 311
280
250
292 291
290
289
288
286
285
284
287
283
282
281
273
279
278
277
276
275
274
269
272
271
270
267
268
257
254
255
256
253
252
247
251
249
245
248
246
243 244
200

STORM BASIN
142
150
158
135
143
151
159
136
144
152
160
137
145
153
138
146
154
139
147
155
140
148
156
141
149
157
261
260
259
266
258
265
264 263
262
228
72 192
208
229
71 193
209
230
70 194
210
231
69 195
211
224
232
76 68
188
196
204
212
220
225
233
75 67
189
197
205
213
221
226
234
74 66
190
198
206
214
222
227
235
73 183
191
199
207
215
223
80 184
200
216
79 185
201
217
78 186
202
218
77 187
203
219
116
107
91 99
92 101 100
93 102
94 103
95 88
96 89
97 90
98 87
242
81 241
82 240
83 239
84 238
85 237
86 236
119
104
118
105
117
106
113
109
115
108 111
114 112
110
LOT D
LOT C
LOT E
LOT H
LOT I
LOT G
LOT F

LOT B N PHASE I PHASE II

PHASE III

Vesting Tentative Tract 943

Exhibit B:

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program March 2025 Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Ranch 943) Project Page 1 of 2 Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible Monitoring
Agency Date Initials
Aesthetics
No Mitigation required.

Agriculture and Forest Resources
No Mitigation required.

Air Quality
No Mitigation required.

Biological Resources
No Mitigation required.

Cultural Resources
No Mitigation required.

Energy
No Mitigation required.

Geology and Soils
No Mitigation required.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
No Mitigation required.

Hazardous Materials
No Mitigation required.

Hydrology and Water Quality
No Mitigation required.

Land Use and Planning
No Mitigation required.

Mineral Resources
No Mitigation required.

Noise
No Mitigation required.

Population and Housing

Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program March 2025 Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Ranch 943) Project Page 2 of 2 Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible Monitoring
Agency Date Initials
No Mitigation required.

Public Services
No Mitigation required.

Recreation
No Mitigation required.

Traffic and Transportation
#1 MM 4.17-1: The Project proponent or developer shall be required to pay their fair share costs for the needed improvements. This includes changing the 12th Avenue and Hanford Armona Road intersection eastbound right turn lane to an eastbound through lane and a right turn lane.

The fair share cost for the improvement is calculated at 18.94% and shall be collected by the City of Hanford at the appropriate time.

Prior to issuance of
building permit
Project Proponent/Lead
Agency
A. The Lead Agency shall determine total improvement cost of intersections and provide it to the Project proponent.

B. The Project Proponent shall pay their equitable share of the cost for intersection improvements as indicated in the Mitigation Measure and the Traffic Study prior to the issuance of building permits.

Tribal Cultural Resources
No Mitigation required.

Utilities and Service Systems
No Mitigation required.

Wildfire
No Mitigation required.

Vesting Tentative Tract 94
3

Exhibit C:

Conditions of Approval

PLANNING DIVISION

SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 943
CONTACT: Gabrielle Myers, Senior Planner: (559) 585-2578 General Plan Designation: Low-Density Residential
Zoning: R-L-5 Low-Density Residential
Other Special Districts: N/A
Entitlements Required:

1. Annexation – the property is currently in the Kings County Jurisdiction

2. Prezone – the property is designated as Low-Density Residential in the General Plan, prezone proposed R-L-5 Low-Density Residential
Planning Division Recommendation Revise and Proceed Resubmit General Requirements:

That the applicant hereby agrees to hold the City of Hanford and all of its departments, officers, agents, and employees free and harmless of and from all claims of any kind or nature arising out of or by reason of the approval of this project.

That approval of this project does not exempt compliance with all applicable sections of the Uniform Fire and Building Codes, Zoning Ordinance, Public Works Improvement Standards, and other City Ordinances.

That the final map be submitted to the City Engineer and Community Development Department for compliance with the Tentative Subdivision Map approval prior to recording the final map.

That all conditions of approval listed in this resolution by the City of Hanford be contained in the line drawing submitted for building permits.

That in accordance with Title 16 of the Hanford Municipal Code, all conditions of this subdivision listed herein, and contained in subsequent improvement agreements, excluding the landscape district, must be completed and accepted for maintenance by the City Council prior to the final building inspection and occupancy permits being issued for the first house in the subdivision.

That Vesting Tentative Tract 943 be developed consistent with the approved tentative tract map, attached as Exhibit A.

That the tentative tract is subject to the mitigations cited in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit B.

Right-to-Farm:

Notwithstanding any other provision in this Chapter, agricultural operations are the principal and favored use of land in the areas of Kings County designated “Agricultural” in the Kings County General Plan and included in the agricultural zone districts of the Kings County zoning ordinance. In order to implement Policy LU 8.2 and Program LU 8.2-A of the city of Hanford General Plan, there is hereby adopted in the city of Hanford a policy to (1) protect agricultural land, operations, and facilities from conflicting use due to the encroachment of incompatible, non-agricultural uses of the land in agricultural areas of the county, and (2) to advise developers, owners, and subsequent purchasers of property in the city of Hanford within one (1) mile of the city’s urban limit line of the inherent potential inconveniences and discomforts often associated with agricultural activities and operations, including, but not limited to, equipment and animal noise; farming activities conducted on a 24-hour a day, 7-days a week basis; odors from manure, fertilizers, pesticides, chemicals, or other sources; the aerial and ground application of chemicals and seeds; dust; flies and other insects; and smoke from agriculture operations.

That no lawfully established and otherwise lawful agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereto, conducted or maintained for commercial agricultural purposes in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards as established and followed by similar agricultural operations in the same locality, shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, due to any changed condition in or about the locality, including, but not limited to, the encroachment of non-agricultural uses such as residences.

In order to carry out the goals and policies of the city of Hanford General Plan, and the provisions of this chapter, the following notices and disclosures shall be required:

All approvals for improvement or development of property including without limitation application for rezonings, land divisions, zoning permits, and residential building permits, on property in the city of Hanford within one (1) mile of the city’s urban limit line, shall include a condition that notice and disclosure of this agricultural land use policy be given by the applicant, or the owner if different from the applicant. The applicant, or owner if different from the applicant, shall also acknowledge the contents of the notice and disclosure, which includes a description of the property the notice and disclosure pertains to, in the Official Records of the Kings County Recorder, and recorded at the applicant’s own expense.

Zoning:

That all requirements of the R-L-5 Low-Density Residential district shall apply.

Dwelling Units per Lot (Section 17.10.050)
That not more than one dwelling unit shall be allowed on each lot, unless approved as an accessory use to an allowed or approved conditional use, or approved as an accessory dwelling unit, in accordance with Section 17.60.030 of the Hanford Municipal Code.

Coverage (Section 17.10.060)

That the maximum overage shall be determined by the combined building setback requirements, accessory structure limitations, and off-street parking requirements.

Building Setback Area (Section 17.10.070)
That no structure shall be placed within a building setback area.

The front building setback area shall be 15 feet from the front lot line for livable space and 20 feet for garages, carports, and other non-livable building space.

That the rear building setback shall be 15 feet from the rear lot line, except where there is a landscape easement with a wall or fence on the rear of the lot, then the rear building setback shall be 20 feet.

The rear building setback area shall be increased by 10 feet for buildings over one-story high.

That where there is a landscape easement with a wall or fence on the street side of the lot the side yard setback area shall be measured from the easement area instead of the side lot line.

Distance between Structures (Section 17.10.080)
The minimum distance between structures shall be 10 feet, except as provided by the building code.

Height of Structures (Section 17.10.090)
The maximum structure height shall be 35 feet.

Driveways (Section 17.10.110)
That the width of a driveway and any paved area shall not cumulatively exceed 40% of the width of the lot’s street frontage on which the driveway and any paved area faces. In the case of “L” or “U” shaped driveways or other configurations besides perpendicular driveways, the paved area of these driveways shall not exceed 50% of the front building setback area.

That on corner lots, the driveway shall be located on the side of the lot adjacent to the interior lot line.

That on key lots, the driveway shall be located on the side of the lot, which is not adjacent to the rear lot line of the adjacent reverse corner lot.

Usable Open Space (Section 17.10.150)
That each lot shall provide for a usable open space area of a minimum 400 square feet that is a minimum 15 feet wide.

Landscaping (Section 17.10.160)
That landscaping be provided in accordance with Section 17.52 Landscape Standards of the Hanford Municipal Code.

That except for driveways and approved parking areas all yard areas and setback areas visible from the street shall be landscaped with live plant materials and ornamentation common to the Hanford area or up to 100% of the yard and setback area may be landscaped with artificial turf and other permeable surfaces.

That two street trees, a minimum 15 gallon size, shall be planted on all lots 6,000 square feet or greater. One of the two shall be planted 12 feet (no greater or no less) from the face of the font lot line street curb.

That one street tree, a minimum 15 gallon size, shall be planted on all lots less than 6,000 square feet. The tree shall be planted in the parkway. If there is no parkway, the tree shall be planted four feet behind the sidewalk.

That there shall be two additional street trees, a minimum 15 gallon size, planted on all corner lots in the parkway adjacent to the street side lot line.

That all species of trees shall be selected from a list approved by the City Parks and Recreation Commission.

That each lot owner within Tentative Tract 943 shall care for and maintain the trees and lawn area located in the parkway in front of their lot(s).

For corner lots, the lot owner shall care for and maintain the parkway trees and land area along the street-side of their lot. The parkway is defined as that land area located between the street curb and the public sidewalk.

Noise:

That construction equipment is muffled and construction activities be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless the construction is within the enclosed structure or approved by the Community Development Department.

That noise from fixed mechanical equipment, when measured at the property line, meets the standard of the Hanford Noise Element.

Rooftop Equipment HMC Section 17.50.100
That all elevator housing and mechanical equipment located on the roof of any building shall be screened from adjacent views and contained within a completely enclosed penthouse or portion of the same building having walls and roofs with construction and appearance similar to the building.

Outdoor Lighting Standards HMC Section 17.50.140

That all lights and light fixtures, except public street lights, shall be located, aimed or shielded so as to minimize light trespassing across property boundaries or skyward.

That no lights or light fixtures shall flash, revolve, blink or otherwise resemble a traffic control signal or operate in such a fashion to create a hazard for passing traffic.

That building mounted lighting fixtures shall be attached only to the walls of the building. The top of a light fixture attached to a building wall shall not be higher than the top of the building parapet or the top of the roof eave, whichever is lower.

That canopy ceiling light fixtures shall be recessed or the sides of the lens area shall be shielded in order to eliminate emission of horizontal light.

That mercury vapor lamps shall be a fully shielded fixture with all light directed on-site.

That freestanding light fixtures shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height measured from the top of a light fixture to the adjacent grade at the base of the support for that light fixture.

Tents, Tarps, and Other Coverings (Section 17.50.130)
That no front or side building setback area shall be covered by tents, tarps, cloth, fabric, or a wood or metal covering or structure except for the following:

Standard window and door awnings
Ornamental covers, such as a sidewalk or entry awning trellis, or other similar improvement intended as an improved passageway or for aesthetic purposes providing architectural integrity with the building to which it is attached. Supports shall be ninety (90) percent open and shall not be enclosed.

Dust Control:

That the appropriate dust-control practices of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District shall be implemented.

That the any necessary permits be obtained through the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

BUILDING DIVISION
TT 943
Contact Building Official: Tom Webb (559) 585-2584
Concerning questions that you may have on the conditions listed below:

Soils:

1. That a preliminary soils report, prepared by a qualified soil’s engineer, be provided to the Engineering and Building Departments prior to approval of Subdivision Improvement Plans.

2. That a final soils report, prepared by a qualified soils engineer, be provided to the Engineering Department and Building Division prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the City or issuance of building permits or whichever comes first.

3. That the developer retains the design engineer to inspect and verify that grading within the subdivision was constructed as per the approved design, and a copy of the report be provided to the Building Division prior to building permit issuance.

Street Names and Addresses:

1. That street addresses for each lot, as provided by the Building Division, be included on the subdivision final map.

2. That street names, as shown on the tentative subdivision map, be included on the subdivision final maps.

3. That all single family dwellings within the subdivision have illuminated address numbers 2-¼ inches high or be within an illuminated area with 3-½ inch high address numbers installed on the front most part of the building leading to the entrance. In either case the address numbers shall be of contrasting colors with the background.

4. That all landscaping requires permits and must meet requirements at time of installation.

5. That a map must be provided to show existing streets names of surrounding subdivisions that have City maintained streets.

City Of Hanford Fire Department Plan Review
Approval of all projects does not exempt compliance with all applicable sections of the adopted Fire Codes and local city ordinances. All fire protection systems must be installed and operational prior to occupying the building. All permits shall be issued and paid for prior to scheduling any inspections with the fire department. Please contact the building department for the submittal process. To schedule an inspection please contact the building department at 559-585-2580
The scope of work shall be clearly stated on all the plans submitted for the permit. All deferred submittals shall be listed on the building plan page.

All deferred submittals are required to be submitted within 30 days of building permit issuance.

Plan review number: TSM0009-23
Address: 12405 Hanford Armona Road, Hanford, CA 93230
Plan Reviewer: Nikkie Chamberland
Date: 9-30-2024
The following are comments that are applicable and pertain to the plans submitted: This project must comply with the latest California Fire Code. • Project shall meet the minimum fire flow requirements per Appendix B & C of the CFC 2022; Provide the fire flows within one year
• New and existing residences that have an automatic sprinkler system, proposed accessory dwelling units shall have an automatic sprinkler system. A separate fire department permit will be required.
• Fire Riser Room:

1. a separate room that contains the Fire Riser shall contain one man door, the room shall be a 2-hour rated room with adequate spacing to perform

City of Hanford Fire Department
Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Division
Fire Marshal
Nikkie Chamberland

maintenance, riser room shall be properly labeled with 4” lettering with contrasting background and a knox box shall be installed to contain the riser room key, fire sprinkler coverage required, emergency lighting and illuminated lighting required. The riser shall be interconnected with the fire alarm
• When a sprinkler system is required with more than 21 heads, the system shall be monitored by a central monitoring station. Fire alarm and fire detection systems required by Chapter 9 of CFC, CBC, shall be installed per NFPA 72. • Knox FDC Locking Caps are required on all Fire Department Connections.

A fire department access road is required for facilities that are protected by fire sprinklers and are more than 400 feet away; on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the AHJ. Provide a letter of certification from a licensed soil engineer on non-paved all-weather roads that provide fire access, which shall support a 40,000-lb fire apparatus at a minimum. • All dead-end access roads of more than 150 must provide an approved turnaround or hammerhead and comply with city standards.
• All access roads shall not be less than 20 ft wide and 13 ft 6 inches • Access road turning radius for fire apparatus/

1. Inside turn: 20ft 10 inch

2. Curb to Curb: 37 ft 3 inches

3. Wall to Wal: 42 ft
• Temporary or permanent fire department access roads shall be constructed in accordance with City Standards ST-36. All weather access roads shall be in place prior to any combustible construction being brought onto the premises unless approved by the fire department.
• Additional Hydrants may be required, all hydrants shall be installed and accepted prior to combustibles being dropped on site. All hydrants shall be protected by bollards Hydrant spacing shall be as follows CFC 2022 Appendix C;

1. Residential area- 500ft

2. Commercial area-300ft

3. A hydrant will be required within 50’ of the Fire Department connection.

4. Provide a turning template on Plan Review
• No traffic calming devices shall be installed without the Fire Department’s approval • Areas identified as “Fire lanes” must be identified as such per requirements set forth in the California Vehicle Code Section 22500.1.

1. Access roads 20-26 feet in width: Fire lanes shall be on both sides of the fire apparatus access roads.

2. Access roads 26 to less than 32 feet in width: Fire lanes shall be on one side of the fire apparatus access roads.

3. Access roads 32 feet in width or more: No fire lanes required.

4. Markings shall include “No Parking- Fire Lane”
• Locked gates installed across fire department access roads:

1. Manual gates with a chain lock require a Knox Padlock to be installed on them, or a Knox Box shall be installed on the exterior of the gate and a key to the lock on the gate must be placed in the Knox Box. (See www.knoxbox.com for current models)

2. Electric Gates shall be equipped with an electric Knox Key Switch, at the gate location.

3. In case of a loss of power, electrically operated gates shall have a means of backup power or shall default in the open position for immediate fire department access.

4. At no time shall the width of the fire department access road be reduced below 20 feet wide through or at any gates along the fire department’s emergency access roads due to protruding objects from gate supports, frames, signs, access booths, curbs, etc.

5. Provide a Knox Box for all structures and gates. In accordance with the 2019 CFC 506.1. Hanford Fire Department shall approve the location.

6. Ordering Knox Box products can be done directly at
www.knoxbox.com. Click to choose your local fire department agency, enter “Hanford Fire Dept”, and a list of products will populate for you to order.
• All address numbers shall be installed onto the building and shall be visible from the frontage street. The color of the address numbers shall be in a contrasting color to the building.

Size of Address Numbers:

1. Downtown area (existing buildings): 4 inch numbers

2. Buildings 20 ft. or less from the street: 6-inch numbers

3. Buildings 21- to 40-ft. from the street: 8-inch numbers

4. Buildings more than 40 ft. from the street: 12-inch numbers • Operational Fire Permit is Required
• Fire permits are required for all underground fire lines, overhead sprinklers, and fire alarms. These are all separate permits and will be charged accordingly. All deferred submittals shall be submitted, stamped, and approved prior to combustible on site.
• Refer to the 2022 California Fire Code in governing codes

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Contact Assistant Engineers: Steve Coodey or Robert Buchanan Concerning questions that you may have on the conditions listed below:

Tentative Tract 943- Silicon Valley Ranch
Maps and Plans:

1. That the developer submit to the City Engineer a set of construction plans on 24” x 36” sheets for all required improvements. Plans shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer, and shall include a drainage and utility plan identifying sizes and location of sanitary sewer, storm drainage and water mains, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, masonry wall, street improvements and other infrastructure required for development. All plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and all other involved agencies before the release of the building permits.

2. That the developer shall submit to the City Engineer a set of construction plans on 24” X 36” size sheets for all required improvements. The plans shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer and shall include a site plan showing all on-site and off-site improvements, including but not limited to, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and water system infrastructure, refuse enclosure locations, public street & parking lot improvements, landscape & irrigation systems and all other improvements as required by the project conditions of approval and the City of Hanford Standards and Specifications. Improvement plans shall include all City of Hanford Construction Standard Detail’s pertinent to the project. Plans must be approved by the City of Hanford and any other affected agencies before issuance of building or encroachment permits.

Easements:

1. That easements be designated on the recorded final map as required by the utility companies and where needed for providing service to streetlights as designated by the City of Hanford Engineering Department.

2. That a 20 foot easement established south of the centerline of Hume Avenue shall be dedicated to the city for the purposes of street right of way.

3. That an easement for storm drainage purposes be dedicated to the City where necessary to facilitate installation of storm drainage facilities connecting the portion of the development located on the west side of Aquifer Drive to the proposed storm drainage basin located on the east side of Aquifer Drive.

4. That all easements for irrigation ditches and/or irrigation pipelines be legally abandoned or relocated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements.

5. That an easement for sanitary sewer along the south side of Hume Avenue for gravity sewer pipeline, sewer lift station and force main shall be dedicated to the city.

This dedication requirement is contingent on whether Tract 943 develops before Live Oak West Tract 909.

6. That all proposed landscape/public utility easements as shown on the tentative map be dedicated to the City and be included on the subdivision final map.

Dedications:

1. That all proposed streets and street extensions as shown on the tentative map be dedicated to the City, as public right-of-way, and any alterations of existing utilities be the responsibility of the developer.

2. That developer dedicate to the City, additional street right of way along the east side of Aquifer Drive, between Hanford Armona Road and the southerly ultimate alignment of W. Spring Crest Drive property frontage to facilitate an overall street right of way width of 84 feet in conformance with City Standard Detail ST-23 (“Major Collector Street”).

3. That the developer dedicate to the City, full right of way between the southerly ultimate alignment of W. Spring Crest Drive and Hume Avenue, a width of 84 feet to establish the extension of Aquifer Drive in conformance with City Standard Detail ST23 (“Major Collector Street”). Aquifer shall include offset as shown on the tentative map to align with the approved tentative map for Live Oak West Tract 909.

4. That the developer dedicate to the City, additional street right of way along the south alignment of W. Spring Crest Drive property frontage to facilitate an overall street right of way width of 68 feet in conformance with City Standard Detail ST-26 (“Minor Collector Street”).

5. That the developer dedicate to the City, street right of way along the Hume Avenue property frontage to facilitate an overall street right of way width of 88 feet in conformance with City Standard Detail ST-23 modified for additional parkway strip equaling 12 feet for a total street right of way of 88 feet.

6. That developer dedicate to the City, the proposed onsite drainage basin for Tract 943 drainage purposes.

7. That the developer shall dedicate the park land to the City.

Park Improvements:

1. The applicant proposes a 3.58-acre park which shall be fully developed with Phase I of the subdivision.

2. That all park facility improvements shall conform to PUD master plan requirements and City Standards and Specifications. Developer shall retain the services of a landscape architect to design all park facility improvements. Improvements shall include, but not be limited to, installation of concrete walking path, covered picnic areas, decorative security lighting, drinking fountains, park benches and trash receptacles, landscaping and irrigation systems, play feature picnic table(s). Park improvements shall be constructed concurrent with the first phase of the development.

3. Park improvement reimbursement will not exceed Park Impact Fees for all phases combined.

Street Improvements:

1. That the improvements consisting of sanitary sewers, storm sewers, water mains, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, street subgrading and surfacing, signage and striping and all other improvements be installed in accordance with Chapter 16.24 “Improvements” of the Hanford Municipal Code, and this resolution pertaining to subdivision improvements in effect at the time of filing the tentative map.

2. That all streets within the subdivision shall be developed to residential street standards (City standard ST-33 cul-de-sacs and ST-32 residential through streets), except the following:
a) Aquifer Drive shall be developed as a Major Collector street with an 84 foot right of way width in conformance with City Std. ST-17 and ST-23 and a traffic index of 8. Developer shall be required to construct the remaining width of right of way on the east side of Aquifer Drive from Spring Crest to Hanford Armona Road. North of the project boundary, curb and gutter as well as the curb return at the southeast corner of Hanford Armona Road and Aquifer Drive shall be installed. Sidewalk can be deferred until such time as the Not A Part parcel is developed. b) Develop Aquifer Drive full width right of way (84 feet) street improvements in conformance with City Standard ST-17 and ST-23 along both east and west boundary of property being developed south of Spring Crest Drive to Hume Avenue. With a traffic index of 8.
c) Spring Crest Drive shall be developed as a Minor Collector street with a 68 foot width in conformance with City Standard Detail ST-17 and ST-26 with a traffic index of 6. Developer shall be required to construct the remaining width of right of way on the south side of Spring Crest Drive from the west boundary of the development to Aquifer Drive. d) Hume Avenue shall be developed as a Major Collector street with an 88 foot right of way width in conformance with City Standard Detail ST-17 and ST-23, modified to allow for additional park strip behind curb with a traffic index of 8. Developer will only be required to construct two-thirds (2/3) road width along project frontage. The eastbound lane shall include

a 12 foot travel lane with a 4 foot paved shoulder and a 4 foot unpaved shoulder containing a swale. If Tract 943 develops prior to Live Oak West Tract 909, the striping for Hume Avenue shall consist of matching the centerline striping as installed with Live Oak North Tract 902. If Live Oak West Tract 909 develops Hume Avenue prior to Tract 943, then striping shall be removed and a 14 foot continuous left turn lane shall be installed from Aquifer Drive to 12th Avenue.

3. That streetlights be installed throughout subdivision in conformance with City standard GE-56. Streetlights shall be located as designated by City Engineer.

4. That the development is subject to a transportation mitigation impact fee as required by City Ordinance No. 90-09 and any revisions thereof. Developer shall be entitled to a credit against subject development fee for improvements constructed by developer within Hume Avenue and Aquifer Drive, consisting of 22 feet of asphalt pavement section as measured from centerline of road. Reimbursement are paid according to the City of Hanford Development Impact Fee Study dated September 2019.

Backup Parkway Improvements:

1. That the developer shall design and construct the following improvements along Hume Avenue, Spring Crest Drive and Aquifer Drive frontages of proposed subdivision.
a. A six (6) ft. minimum high ornamental, masonry block fence with continuous footing. Wall shall be treated with an anti-graffiti repellent.

b. A 4 ½ ft. wide sidewalk per City Standard Detail CO-14.

c. Soil preparation, automatic irrigation and landscaping. d. Landscape plans for right-of-way and 12 ft. wide landscape easement area along Hume Avenue property frontage from the back of curb to the block wall.

2. The species of tree and plants are to be selected from a list approved by the City Street Tree Commission.

3. That the design location of the masonry wall and landscape plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department and City Engineering Department prior to recording a subdivision final map. And the approval of block wall and landscape improvements shall be submitted with initial submittal of project improvement plans.

4. All above ground pedestals and other utility boxes shall be located between back of sidewalk and masonry wall/fence.

Existing Wells:

1. That all existing wells on the property be abandoned in accordance with State of California standards.

Restricted Access:

1. That a one-foot reservation strip be established at the end or sides of the roads abutting unsubdivided property and indicated on the subdivision final map.

2. That all access be restricted from the Hume Avenue, Aquifer Drive and Spring Crest Drive right-of-way for lots backing or siding onto said rights-of-way. A restricted access designation shall be depicted on all recorded final maps.

3. That the developer construct a barricade to City standards at the end of each future through streets.

Sewer Improvements:

1. That the developer’s engineer provide a sanitary sewer master plan complete with calculations for the entire subdivision that coincides with the Live Oak West Sanitary Sewer Master Plans for City review and approval prior to recording a subdivision final map for the first phase of development. Consideration shall be given for future areas of development located adjacent to proposed subdivision per the City Sanitary Sewer Master Plan.

2. That a minimum 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer main be installed within Aquifer Drive between Spring Crest Drive and Hume Avenue.

3. That in the event that the subdivision is constructed prior to the Live Oak West Tract 909 subdivision, developer shall install a sanitary sewer lift station per the Live Oak West Tract 909 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, located at the southwest corner of Hume Avenue and Aquifer Drive.

4. That developer shall install a 12 inch sewer main in Hume Avenue from the west development boundary to Aquifer Drive. Applicant shall be entitled to a reimbursement for over sizing in accordance with City Municipal Code Section 13.08, or any revisions thereof.

5. That a 6-inch diameter sanitary sewer force main be installed within Hume Avenue from the sanitary sewer lift station west of Aquifer Drive along development frontage and connecting to an existing gravity manhole located near the east project boundary.

6. That developer is entitled to a reimbursement for the completion of the sanitary sewer lift station in accordance with City Municipal Code section 13.08 and in conformance with the City of Hanford Development Impact Fee Study dated September of 2019. The development will be eligible for reimbursement for lift station

costs beyond the proportional need of the development. Developer to provide calculations to the City for their portion of reimbursement.

7. That developer is entitled to a reimbursement agreement in accordance with City Municipal Code section 13.08 for sanitary sewer main improvements constructed within Hume Avenue, which also provides a benefit to others. Costs for sanitary sewer main improvements installed within Hume Avenue, if applicable, shall be per the City of Hanford Development Impact Fee Study document dated September of 2019. Reimbursement cost shall be per the Fee Study at time of acceptance.

Storm Drainage Improvements:

1. That the developer’s engineer provide a storm drainage master plan complete with calculations for the entire subdivision for City review and approval prior to recording a subdivision final map for the first phase of development.

2. That the developer is required to complete construction of the storm drain basin with the first phase of the subdivision. The basin shall be designed in conformance with the City of Hanford’s Storm Drainage Design Criteria specifications and shall include a six (6) ft. minimum high ornamental, masonry block fence with continuous footing along the Aquifer Drive and Hume Avenue frontages, a 24’ wide drive approach per City Standard Detail CO-41 and access gates per City Standard Detail GE-26. A chain-link fence with continuous footing per City Standard Detail GE-23 shall be constructed along non street fronting basin boundaries.

3. That developer is required to comply with the State of California Water Resources Control Board requirements specifically related to the National Pollution Elimination System Permit process.

Water System:

1. That the developer’s engineer provide a Water System Master Plan complete with calculations for the entire subdivision for City review and approval prior to recording a subdivision final map for the first phase of development. Consideration shall be given for future areas of development located adjacent to proposed subdivision, as shown on the city Water Master Plan.

2. That a minimum 18 inch diameter water main and appurtenances, be extended along property frontage within Aquifer Drive. Applicant shall be entitled to a refund for water main oversizing in accordance with City Municipal Code Section 13.04.

3. That a minimum 12 inch diameter water main and appurtenances, be extended along property frontage within Hume Avenue. Applicant shall be entitled to a refund for water main oversizing in accordance with City Municipal Code Section 13.04.

4. That all existing water wells be abandoned in conformance with State of California Department of Health Standards.

Assessment District:

1. That the developer enters into an agreement for the formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) for the maintenance of landscaping, decorative block wall/ fencing, roadways, streetlights, curb and gutter, sidewalk, signage, storm drain system and basin and emergency services.

2. That prior to funds of the tax assessment district being obtained, the developer will be responsible for the maintenance of all items listed above.

Special Requirements:

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

2. That each lot owner within Tract No. 943 shall care for and maintain the trees and lawn area located in the parkway in front of their lot(s). For corner lots, the lot owner shall also care for and maintain the parkway trees and lawn area along the street side of their lot. All species of trees shall be selected from a list approved by the City Street Tree Commission. The parkway is defined as that land area located between the street curb and the public sidewalk.

3. That the tree(s) and lawn area are to be properly pruned, mowed, sprayed, watered and fertilized on a regular on-going basis in order to preserve the health and life of the tree(s) and lawn area.

4. That should the tree(s) and lawn area become damaged, severely pruned, neglected, removed or die, the lot owner shall replace said tree(s) and lawn area within thirty (30) days after the date of written notice from the City of Hanford. The tree(s) shall be replaced with a 15 gal. size tree of the same species that was originally planted. The lawn area shall be replaced with lawn. Rocks, bark, ground cover, plants or paving are not allowed in the parkway

5. That the "NOTICE, DISCLOSURE, ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT OF

CONTINUED CARE AND MAINTENANCE BY LOT OWNER OF THE TREES AND LAWN AREA PLANTED IN THE PARKWAY" be recorded concurrent with the recording of the subdivision final map to insure that future residents of homes in the subdivision are aware of the obligation to maintain the landscaping within the park strip. Each lot owner is to be provided a copy of said Notice, Disclosure, Acknowledgement, and Agreement, attached as in Exhibit B.

Impact Fees:

1. That development is subject to a Police Development Impact Fee as required by City Ordinance No. 98-14, and any revisions thereof. Fee payable with each building permit.

2. That development is subject to a Fire Development Impact Fee as required by City Ordinance No. 98-14, and any revisions thereof. Fee payable with each building permit.

3. That development is subject to a Park Development Impact Fee as required by City Ordinance No. 90-10 and any revisions thereof. Fee payable with each building permit.

4. That development is subject to a Transportation mitigation impact fee as required by City Ordinance No. 90-09 and any revisions thereof. Fee payable with each building permit.

5. That the development is subject to a Wastewater System Development Impact fee as required by City Ordinance No. 98-14, and any revisions thereof. Fee payable with each building permit.

6. That development is NOT subject to a Storm Drainage Development Impact fee, as required by City Ordinance No. 98-14, and any revisions thereof. The development will be constructing a storm basin.

7. That development is subject to a Water System Development Impact Fee as required by City Ordinance No. 98-14 or any revisions thereof. Fee payable with each building permit.

8. That development is subject to a Sanitary Sewer area of benefit assessment fee in accordance with City Ordinance No. 92-03 and any revisions thereof. Subject fee shall be paid prior to recording a subdivision final map.

MAP OF TERRITORY

ANNEXED TO THE

CITY OF HANFORD
609 N. IRWIN ST. HANFORD, CA. 93230 PH. (559) 582-1056 FILE NO. 220056 ONE SHEET ONLY

AND DETACHED FROM THE KINGS RIVER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND THE EXCELSIOR-KINGS RIVER RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, CITY OF HANFORD REORGANIZATION NO. . THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME ON , AND IS BASED UPON RECORD DATA AND LAFCO RESOLUTION NO. ,DATED . JOHN A. ZUMWALT, R.C.E. 21489

CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION
RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO.

FEE
DOCUMENT NO.

RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION OF KINGS COUNTY.

AT MINUTES PAST O'CLOCK . M.,
, 20 IN VOLUME OF LICENSED
SURVEYORS' PLATS, PAGE , KINGS COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

KRISTINE LEE

COUNTY RECORDER
BY:

DEPUTY
LEGEND

CITY LIMITS

BOUNDARY OF PROPERTIES TO BE ANNEXED
1 COURSE SEGMENT NUMBER

VICINITY MAP
Not to Scale

ZUMWALT
HANSENINC.

A Company

POINT OF BEGINNING
L:\Projects\2022\220056\ACAD\Final Map\220056 ANNEX.dwg, 8/8/2022 9:53:03 AM, Plotted by MBO

ANNEXATION NO. 161

ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF HANFORD

GEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION
Portions of the Northeast and Northwest Quarters of Section 3, Township 19 South, Range 21 East, MDB&M, in the State of California, County of Kings described as follows:

Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter being a point on the existing city limits of the City of Hanford;
Thence along the existing city limits the following courses:

I. South 89°23'35" East along the North line of last said Qua11er, a distance of l,057.40 feet to the Northwest corner of County Tract 876 as depicted on a map recorded in Book 24 at Page 88 of Licensed Surveyors' Plats in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;

2. South 00°
33'03" West, along the West line of last said Tract, a distance of 2,866.68 feet to a point on the South line of said Northeast Quarter;

3. North 89°
32'03" West along said South line of said Northeast Quarter, a distance of I 051.03 feet to the Center Quarter Corner of said Section 3;

4. North 89°
32'22" West along the South line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of 26l.40 feet to an angle point in the city limits of the City of Hanford per LAFCO Resolution No. 05-17 as depicted on a map recorded in Book 21, at page 66 of Licensed Surveyors' Plats in the Off ice
of the Kings County Recorder;
Thence leaving the existing city limits of the City of Hanford the following courses:

5. Continuing along said South line of the Northwest Quarter, North 89° 32'22" West a distance
of 397.32 feet to the southwest corner of Parcel 2 as shown on a map recorded in Book 5 at

Recorder;

6. No1th 00°
44' 57" East, along the west line of last said Parcel 2 a distance of 646. 9 I feet to and angle point in said west line of said Parcel 2;

7. Continuing along the West line of said Parcel 2, North 02°14'30" East, a distance of 656.86 feet to the Northwest corner of said Parcel 2, also being a point on the existing city limits of the City of Hanford;
Thence along the existing city limits the following courses:

8. South 89°
38'44" East along the North line of said Parcel 2 a distance of 634.20 feet to the Northeast corner of said Parcel 2, also being a point on the west line of said Northeast Quarter;

9. Thence North 00°
25 '25" East, along last said West line, a distance of 1,564.66 feet to the Point of Beginning
Containing 88.89 Acres more or less.

DRAFT

289
290 291 292
288
287
286
285
284
283
282
281
280
279
278
277
276
275
274
273
272
271
270
269 268 267 266 265 264 263
262
261
260
259
258
257
256
255
254
253
252
251
250
249
248
247
246
245
243 244
293 294 295 296
326
325
324
323
322
321
320
319
318
317
316
315
314
313 312 311 310
309
308
307
306
305
304
303
302
301
300
299
298
297 12345 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 PARK
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153
154
155
156
157
158 159 160 161 162 163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
65 64
63 62
61 60
59 58
73 72
71 70
69 68
67 66
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
202 201
203
204
205
206
214 213 212 211 210 209 208 207 215
216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223
224 225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
80 79
78 77
76 75
74 119 118 117 116 115 114 113 112
111 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
103 102 101 100 99 98 97 96
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
83 82 81 87 86 84
242 241 240 239 238 237 236
STORM
BASIN
85 LOT A
LOT B
LOT C
LOT D
LOT E
LOT F
LOT G
LOT H

LOT I N N

ZUMWALT
HANSENINC. A Company

42 43 44 45 36 39 40
35 37 38 41
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
127
120
122
121
123
124
125
126
128
58 59
60 62
63 61
8 1
9 2
10 3
4 5
6 7
54 53
52 51
50 57
49 56
48 55
47 PARK
32 26 25 24
34 33 31 30 29 28 23 22 21
46 27
72 71
70 69
76 75
74 73
77 116
107
119
104
118
105
117
106
113
109
115
108 111
114 112
110

NOT-A-PART
LOT A
LOT B
N

PHASE I

162
127
124
125
126
132
129
128
134
133
130
131
65 59
60 62
63 61
176
178
179
180
181
182
64 177
168
161
163
165
167
166
164
174
172
171
170
169
173
175
303
296
298
297
293 294 295
325
326
321
315
318 305
301
320
319 304
324 299
323 300
322
302
308
313 310
316 307
317 306
314 309
312 311
280
250
292 291
290
289
288
286
285
284
287
283
282
281
273
279
278
277
276
275
274
269
272
271
270
267
268
257
254
255
256
253
252
247
251
249
245
248
246
243 244
200

STORM BASIN
142
150
158
135
143
151
159
136
144
152
160
137
145
153
138
146
154
139
147
155
140
148
156
141
149
157
261
260
259
266
258
265
264 263
262
228
72 192
208
229
71 193
209
230
70 194
210
231
69 195
211
224
232
76 68
188
196
204
212
220
225
233
75 67
189
197
205
213
221
226
234
74 66
190
198
206
214
222
227
235
73 183
191
199
207
215
223
80 184
200
216
79 185
201
217
78 186
202
218
77 187
203
219
116
107
91 99
92 101 100
93 102
94 103
95 88
96 89
97 90
98 87
242
81 241
82 240
83 239
84 238
85 237
86 236
119
104
118
105
117
106
113
109
115
108 111
114 112
110
LOT D
LOT C
LOT E
LOT H
LOT I
LOT G
LOT F

LOT B N PHASE I PHASE II

PHASE III

Plan for Services of the Proposed Annexation Area - 161 Sewer Improvements
The developer’s engineer will provide a sanitary sewer master plan with calculations for the entire subdivision that coincides with the Live Oak West Sanitary Sewer Master Plans prior to recording a subdivision final map for the development. Consideration shall be given for future areas of development located adjacent to proposed subdivision per the City Sanitary Sewer Master Plan.

A minimum 15-inch diameter sanitary sewer main is required to be installed within Aquifer Drive between Spring Crest Drive and Hume Avenue, subject to reimbursement for oversizing, in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 13.08.

The developer is required to install a sanitary sewer lift station, per the Live Oak West Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, to be located at the southwest corner of Hume Avenue and Aquifer Drive.

A 6-inch diameter sanitary sewer force main is required to be installed within Hume Avenue from the sanitary sewer lift station west of Aquifer Drive along development frontage and connecting to an existing gravity manhole at the east project boundary, subject to reimbursement for oversizing, in accordance with the Municipal Code Section

13.08. Storm Drainage Improvements
The developer’s engineer will provide a storm drainage master plan, complete with calculations for the entire subdivision prior to recording a subdivision final map for the development. The developer will complete construction of the storm drain basin within the first phase of the subdivision. The basin is required to be designed in conformance with the City of Hanford’s Storm Drainage Design Criteria specifications and is required to include a six (6) ft. minimum high ornamental, masonry block fence with continuous footing along the Aquifer Drive and Hume Avenue frontages, a 24’ wide drive approach per City Standard Detail CO-41 and access gates per City Standard Detail GE-26. A chain-link fence with continuous footing per City Standard Detail GE-23 shall be constructed along non street basin boundaries. The developer is required to comply with the State of California Water Resources Control Board requirements specifically related to the National Pollution Elimination System Permit process.

Water System
The developer’s engineer is required to provide a Water System Master Plan complete with calculations for the entire subdivision for City review and approval prior to recording a subdivision final map for the first phase of development. Consideration shall be given for future areas of development located adjacent to proposed subdivision, as shown on the city Water Master Plan. A minimum 18-inch diameter water main and appurtenances, will be extended along property frontage within Aquifer Avenue. The applicant shall be entitled to a refund for water main oversizing in accordance with City Municipal Code Section 13.04. A minimum 12-inch diameter water main and appurtenances will be extended along the property frontage within Hume Avenue. Applicant shall be entitled to a refund for water main oversizing in accordance with City Municipal Code Section 13.04.

All existing water wells will be abandoned, in conformance with State of California Department of Health Standards.

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

School
Educational services needed for the development of the Project will be provided by the Hanford Elementary School District (HESD) and Hanford Joint Union High School District (HJUHSD). Payment of fees to a school district is considered mitigation for project impacts on school facilities (Government Code Section 65996(a)). Therefore, the project applicant would be required to pay the statutory fees to accommodate the impact of projectgenerated student.

Notice of the proposed project was sent to the interested agencies for pre-consultation and normal consultation. A response was received by the Hanford Joint Union High School District stating, “This area is within our most impacted school boundary.” The City’s role in development and managing school sites and programs is limited. The various school districts truly govern where a new school site would be located and when it would be necessary to construct or expand facilities, in order to adequately accommodate population growth. Elected governing school boards are responsible for budgeting and decision-making and the State Department of Education establishes school site and construction standards. The General Plan provides policy which focuses on collaboration with school districts in determining new school locations and utilizing school facilities for general public needs. School districts would be able to utilize the General Plan, along with other plans, standards, and codes, to establish new school sites and to make decisions on school amenities and cohesiveness with the surrounding area.

DRAFT NOTICE OF PREPARATION/INITIAL STUDY FOR

A FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

CITY OF HANFORD

SILICON VALLEY RANCH RESIDENTIAL

SUBDIVISION PROJECT
JUNE 2024

DRAFT NOTICE OF PREPARATION/INITIAL STUDY FOR

A FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

SILICON VALLEY RANCH RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION

PROJECT
Prepared for:

City of Hanford - Community Development Department
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Contact Person: Gabrielle de Silva Myers
Phone: (559) 585-2500
Consultant:
5080 California Avenue, Suite 220
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Contact: Jaymie L. Brauer
Phone: (661) 616-2600
April 2024
220056.01

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page i
Table of Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 - Overview........................................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 - California Environmental Quality Act ...............................................................................................1-1

1.3 - Impact Terminology..................................................................................................................................1-2

1.4 - Document Organization and Contents..............................................................................................1-2

1.5 - Incorporated by Reference ....................................................................................................................1-3 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 - Introduction..................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 - Project Location..........................................................................................................................................2-1

2.3 - Surrounding Land Uses ...........................................................................................................................2-1

2.4 - Proposed Project........................................................................................................................................2-1 Project Description ...............................................................................................................................2-1 Initial Study ............................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 - Environmental Checklist.........................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 - Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ..................................................................................3-6

3.3 - Determination..............................................................................................................................................3-7

3.4 - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts...............................................................................................3-8

3.4.1 - Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................3-10

3.4.2 - Agriculture and Forestry Resources.............................................................................3-13

3.4.3 - Air Quality ................................................................................................................................3-17

3.4.4 - Biological Resources............................................................................................................3-26

3.4.5 - Cultural Resources ...............................................................................................................3-36

3.4.6 - Energy........................................................................................................................................3-39

3.4.7 - Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................................3-42

3.4.8 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................3-48

3.4.9 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................................3-52

3.4.10 - Hydrology and Water Quality.......................................................................................3-58

3.4.11 - Land Use and Planning.....................................................................................................3-66

3.4.12 - Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................3-67

3.4.13 - Noise ........................................................................................................................................3-68

3.4.14 - Population and Housing..................................................................................................3-73

3.4.15 - Public Services.....................................................................................................................3-75

3.4.16 - Recreation .............................................................................................................................3-79

3.4.17 - Transportation and Traffic.............................................................................................3-81

3.4.18 - Tribal Cultural Resources...............................................................................................3-83

3.4.19 - Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................3-86

3.4.20 - Wildfire...................................................................................................................................3-92

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page ii

3.4.21 - Mandatory Findings of Significance...........................................................................3-94 List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................... 4-1 Lead Agency............................................................................................................................................................4-1 QK................................................................................................................................................................................4-1 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 5-1 Appendices
Appendix A – Air Quality Impact Assessment
Appendix B – Biological Resources Evaluation
Appendix C – Cultural Resources Technical Memo
Appendix D – Energy Consumption Technical Memo
Appendix E – Water Supply Assessment
List of Figures
Figure 3-1 Regional Map ...................................................................................................................................3-4 Figure 3-2 Project Site Area.............................................................................................................................3-5 List of Tables
Table 3.4.3-1 Federal and California Air Quality Standards ...........................................................3-18 Table 3.4.3-2 Short-Term Project Emissions.........................................................................................3-21 Table 3.4.3-3 Project Operational Emissions ........................................................................................3-22 Table 3.4.4-1 Special-Status Plant Species Occurring in the Region of the BSA.....................3-28 Table 3.4.4-2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Occurring in the Region of the BSA...............3-29 Table 3.4.6-1 Project Operational Natural Gas and Electricity Usage ........................................3-40 Table 3.4.8-1 Estimated Annual GHG Emissions .................................................................................3-49 Table 3.4.10-1 Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison.....................................................3-61 Table 3.4.10-2 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison...............................................3-61 Table 3.4.10-3 Five Consecutive Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison.........................3-61 Table 3.4.13-1 Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration ............................................................3-70 Table 3.4.13-2 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment.......................................3-71 Table 3.4.14-1 Regional Housing Needs 2014-2024 (Hanford) ...................................................3-73 Table 3.4.19-1 Water Usage..........................................................................................................................3-87

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for a Focused Environmental Impact Report

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 1

NOTICE OF PREPARATION/INITIAL STUDY FOR A FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT
Notice is hereby given that the City of Hanford will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Subdivision Project (Project). An Initial Study has been prepared along with this Notice of Preparation (NOP), which scopes out environmental topics for further review. The focused EIR will address the potential physical environmental effects of the proposed projects that have not been scoped out, as outlined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City is requesting comments on the scope and content of this focused EIR.

A scoping session will be held on July 8, 2024 at City Hall, in the Training Room, 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA 93230. The scoping session, which is part of the focused EIR process, is the time when the City solicits input from the public and agencies on specific topics they believe should be addressed in the environmental analysis. The scoping process is designed to enable the City to determine the scope and content of the focused EIR, identify the range of actions, and identify potentially significant environmental effects, alternatives, and mitigation measures to be analyzed in the focused EIR.

Project Location
The Project is located within the Sphere of Influence for the City of Hanford and is anticipated for annexation. The Project is adjacent to Hanford Armona Road to the north, between Greenbrier Drive to the east and 13th Avenue to the west, and encompasses approximately

88.9 acres (APN 011-040-008, 010, and 027). The Project site is located within the Hanford USGS Quad, Section 3, Township 19S, Range 21E, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M).

Project Description
The Project proposes to construct a 326-lot residential subdivision within the City of Hanford Sphere of Influence. The Project will be annexed into the City under separate application. An approximately 12.5-acre portion of the site at the northeast corner of the property is intended to be removed via a lot-line adjustment.

The Project will be developed with a 326-unit single-family subdivision, a 3.58-acre park, and a three-acre retention basin. Lots will range between 5,000 to 6,000 square feet and would be developed with single-family residential units. Associated utility and right-of-way infrastructure would also be developed in accordance with City of Hanford standards and regulations.

Approvals include:
• Approval of Tentative Tract Map #943

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for a Focused Environmental Impact Report

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 2
• Prezoning – Because the project site does not currently have a City of Hanford zoning designation, prezoning of the site is required. The project site would be prezoned to the R-L-5 zone.
• Site Plan Review – The Project will require approval of an SPR • Annexation into the city limits by Kings County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)
Construction:

Development of the Project is anticipated to occur over a 12-month period. Construction equipment will vary over the course of development and would include the following:
• Excavators/earth-moving equipment
• Depending on foundation system, auger rig, or pile-driving rig • All-terrain forklifts
• A man/material hoist
• Truck cranes and potentially a tower crane (pending permit approval) • Concrete trucks
• Dump trucks
• Street sweepers/water trucks for dust control
• Construction delivery trucks (typically box trucks of flat beds) • Small tools (generators, light plants, compactors, air compressors) As mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the public review period for this document was 30 days (CEQA Section 15073[b]). The public review period began on June 21, 2024 and ended on July 22, 2024. For further information, please contact Gabrielle de Silva Myers, 317 N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA 93230, (559) 585-2500.

Mailing Address and Phone Number of Contact Person
Gabrielle de Silva Myers, Senior Planner
City Hall
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
(559) 585-2500
Findings
As Lead Agency, the City of Hanford finds that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Checklist (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G) or Initial Study (IS) (see Section 3 - Environmental Checklist) has identified one or more potentially significant effects on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 115064 (a)(1), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the proposed Project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that might avoid or reduce project impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for a Focused Environmental Impact Report

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3
The City of Hanford has determined that preparation of a focused Environmental Impact Report for the Project is necessary.

Introduction

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 1-1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Overview
Silicon Valley Ranch, LLC. (the Applicant) proposes to develop approximately 88.9 acres to create residential lots and appurtenant infrastructure consistent with the City of Hanford General Plan Designation Low Density Residential and prezone District R-L-5.

1.2 - California Environmental Quality Act
The City of Hanford is the Lead Agency for this Project pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code Section 15000 et seq.). The Environmental Checklist (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G) or Initial Study (IS) (see Section 3 – Initial Study) provides an analysis that examines the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Project. Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency to prepare an IS to determine whether a discretionary project will have a significant effect on the environment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is appropriate when an IS has been prepared, and a determination can be made that no significant environmental effects will occur because revisions to the Project have been made or mitigation measures will be implemented that reduce all potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Section 15064 (a)(1) states that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the proposed Project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that might avoid or reduce project impacts to less-than-significant levels. A Negative Declaration (ND) may be prepared instead if the Lead Agency finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. An ND is a written statement describing the reasons why the proposed Project, not otherwise exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, an ND or MND shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
• The IS shows there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the agency that the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment; or • The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:
o Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the Applicant before the proposed MND and IS are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and
o There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the agency that the proposed Project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

Introduction

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 1-2
Based on the IS, the Lead Agency has determined that the environmental review for the proposed application can potentially result in a significant impact and requires that a focused EIR be prepared.

1.3 - Impact Terminology
The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of impacts. • A finding of “no impact” is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the Project would not affect a topic area in any way.
• An impact is considered “less than significant” if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation. • An impact is considered “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of environmental commitments that have been agreed to by the Applicant.
• An impact is considered “potentially significant” if the analysis concludes that it could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment.

1.4 - Document Organization and Contents
The content and format of this IS/MND is designed to meet the requirements of CEQA. The report contains the following sections:
• Section 1 – Introduction: This section provides an overview of CEQA requirements, intended uses of the IS/MND, document organization, and a list of regulations that have been incorporated by reference.
• Section 2 – Project Description: This section describes the Project and provides data on the site’s location.
• Section 3 – Environmental Checklist: This section contains the evaluation of 21 different environmental resource factors contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Each environmental resource factor is analyzed to determine whether the proposed Project would have an impact. One of four findings is made: no impact, less-than-significant impact, less than significant with mitigation, or significant and unavoidable. If the evaluation results in a finding of significant and unavoidable for any of the 21 environmental resource factors, then an Environmental Impact Report will be required.
• Section 4 – List of Preparers: This section identifies the individuals who prepared the IS.
• Section 5 – Bibliography: This section contains a full list of references that were used in the preparation of this IS.

Introduction

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 1-3

1.5 - Incorporated by Reference
The following documents and/or regulations are incorporated into this IS/MND by reference:
• City of Hanford 2035 General Plan (2017)
• City of Hanford 2016-2024 Adopted Housing Element
• City of Hanford Urban Water Management Plan
• City of Hanford Water Information (2021)
• City of Hanford Recycling & Green Waste
• Cal Recycle (2022)
• Hanford Emergency Management Plan
• Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
• Hanford Municipal Code
• California Building Code Title 24
• Kings County Safety Element

Project Description

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 2-1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 - Introduction
Silicon Valley Ranch, LLC (the Applicant) proposes to develop approximately 88.9 acres to create a 326-lot residential subdivision and the associated appurtenant infrastructure consistent with the City of Hanford General Plan Designation Low Density Residential and prezone District R-L-5.

2.2 - Project Location
The Project is located in the Hanford city limits in the City’s southwestern portion. south of Hanford Armona Road, in the sphere of influence of the City of Hanford. The project encompasses approximately 88.9 acres (APN 011-040-008, 010, and 027) and is bordered by undeveloped and rural residential lands on the west and south; a church and undeveloped land to the north; and residential uses to the east. Township 19 South, Section 3, Range 21 East MDB&M (see Figure 3-1 and 3-2).

2.3 - Surrounding Land Uses
The Project is bordered by undeveloped and rural residential lands on the west and south; a church and undeveloped land to the north; and residential uses to the east.

2.4 - Proposed Project

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project proposes to develop a 326-unit residential subdivision within the City of Hanford. An approximately 8-acre portion of the site at the northeast corner of the property is intended to be removed via a lot-line adjustment. The Project is within the City of Hanford’s Sphere of Influence but will be annexed into the City.

The Project will be developed with a 326-unit single-family subdivision, a 3.58-acre park, and a 3-acre retention basin. Lots will range between 5,000 to 7,000 square feet and would be developed with single-family residential units. Associated utility and right-of-way infrastructure would also be developed in accordance with City of Hanford standards and regulations.

Approvals include:
• Approval of Tentative Tract Map 943
• Prezoning – Because the project site does not currently have a City of Hanford zoning designation, prezoning of the site is required. The project site would be prezoned to the R-L-5 zone.
• Site Plan Review – The Project will require approval of an SPR

Project Description

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 2-2
• Annexation into the city limits by Kings County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)
Development of the Project is anticipated to occur over a 12-month period. Construction equipment will vary over the course of development and would include the following:
• Excavators/earth-moving equipment
• Depending on foundation system, auger rig, or pile-driving rig • All-terrain forklifts
• A man/material hoist
• Truck cranes and potentially a tower crane (pending permit approval) • Concrete trucks
• Dump trucks
• Street sweepers/water trucks for dust control
• Construction delivery trucks (typically box trucks of flat beds) • Small tools (generators, light plants, compactors, air compressors) As mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the public review period for this document was 30 days (CEQA Section 15073[b]). The public review period began on June 21, 2024 and ended on July 22, 2024. For further information, please Gabrielle de Silva Myers, 317 N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA 93230, (559) 585-2500. .

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-1

INITIAL STUDY

3.1 - Environmental Checklist

1. Project Title:

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Hanford
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Gabrielle de Silva Myers – (559) 585-2578

4. Project Location:

The Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development Project is located south of Hanford Armona Road, in the sphere of influence of the City of Hanford. The project encompasses approximately 88.9 acres (APN 011-040-008, 010, and 027 and is bordered by undeveloped and rural residential lands on the west and south; a church and undeveloped land to the north; and residential uses to the east. Township 19 South, Section 3, Range 21 East MDB&M.

5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:

Marc Frelier
Silicon Valley Ranch, LLC
20900 Boyce Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070

6. General Plan Designation:

Existing: City of Hanford – Low Density Residential

7. Zoning:

Existing: City of Hanford – Residential Low Density (R-L-5, 5,000 square feet)

8. Description of Project:

The Project proposes to develop a 326-unit residential subdivision within the City of Hanford. An approximately 8-acre portion of the site at the northeast corner of the property

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-2
is intended to be removed via a lot-line adjustment. The Project is within the City of Hanford’s Sphere of Influence, but will be annexed into the City.

The Project will be developed with a 326-unit single-family subdivision, a 3.58-acre park, and a 3-acre retention basin. Lots will range between 5,000 to 7,000 square feet and would be developed with single-family residential units. Associated utility and right-of-way infrastructure would also be developed in accordance with City of Hanford standards and regulations.

Development of the Project is anticipated to occur over a 12-month period. Construction equipment will vary over the course of development and would include the following:
• Excavators / earth moving equipment
• Depending on foundation system, auger rig, or pile-driving rig • All-terrain forklifts
• A man/material hoist
• Truck cranes and potentially a tower crane (pending permit approval) • Concrete trucks
• Dump trucks
• Street sweepers/water trucks for dust control
• Construction delivery trucks (typically box trucks of flat beds) • Small tools (generators, light plants, compactors, air compressors)

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The Project is bordered by undeveloped and rural residential lands on the west and south; a church and undeveloped land to the north; and residential uses to the east.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
• Kings County LAFCo

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the Lead Agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-3
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed Project.

Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or the Lead Agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)). According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Indian tribes. Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or rancherias. Kings County has a number of tribal groups in the area.

Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See PRC Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and Project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-4

Figure 3-1
Regional Map

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-5

Figure 3-2
Project Site Area

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-6

3.2 - Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

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

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-7

3.3 - Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (a) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Printed Name For

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-8

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 off-site as well as on-site, 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

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-9

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

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-10
Discussion
Impact #3.4.1a – Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? A scenic vista is an area identified or known for high scenic quality. Scenic vistas may be designated by a federal, State, or local agency and may also include an area that is designated, signed, and accessible to the public for the express purposes of viewing and sightseeing. The City of Hanford does not designate any scenic vistas within its jurisdiction. There are very few scenic vistas within the Central Valley. The Coastal Range Mountains and the Sierra Nevada 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. 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. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted
.

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

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-11
Impact #3.4.1b - Would the Project 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 eligible scenic highway is a portion of SR 198 that runs from SR 99 east through Visalia (California Department of Transportation, 2022). This portion of SR 198 is approximately 15 miles east of the Project site. 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, 2017).

Three buildings are listed on the National Registry of Historic Places and the State Register of Historic Places. The Kings County Courthouse, the Carnegie Library, and the Taoist Temple are located more than two miles to the northeast. Therefore, the Project would not have an impact on any of these historic buildings. There will be no impact, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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 Project is within an area that is becoming more urbanized with the spread of residential development as the City grows. The surrounding area consists of agricultural land and rural residential homes, and an existing subdivision easterly adjacent to the Project site.

Additionally, a recently approved 97-lot residential subdivision will be located westerly adjacent to the Project site. The General Plan identifies the parcels to the north of the Project site as Medium Density Residential and all other abutting properties as Low Density Residential. The designations indicate that the City intends future development in this area.

The westward expansion of residential homes from 12th Avenue provides a template for the future of the area to be completely urbanized.

Several sections of the Hanford Municipal Code regulate physical development by controlling the appearance of new development and the placement of new development with consideration for surrounding uses. The Project development will comply with the General Plan, as the Project area is proposed to be prezoned R-L-5- Low Density Residential.

There are no scenic vistas within the surrounding area and existing urban areas near the Project site; therefore, the proposed Project will not substantially degrade the existing characteristics of the area. Therefore, impacts from the Project are considered to be less than significant, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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?

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-12
Construction of the proposed Project would generally occur during daytime hours, typically from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. All lighting, if needed, would be directed downward and shielded to focus illumination on the desired work areas and prevent light spillage onto adjacent properties. As required by GP 9.10.060 A.10, the lighting used to illuminate work areas would be shielded, focused downward, and turned off by 8:00 p.m.; therefore, the potential for lighting to affect any residents adversely is minimal. 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 proposed Project’s construction would not create a new source of substantial glare that would affect daytime views in the area.

Operational impacts would be limited to residential lighting, including homes and streetlights.

The Project's exterior streetlights and residential lighting will be designed to minimize reflective glare and light scatter. 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, 2022). Additionally, the California Building Code Title 24 contains standards for outdoor lighting that are intended to reduce light pollution and glare by regulating light power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls. These requirements would substantially reduce potential nuisances from light or glare. Therefore, impacts resulting from the Project are considered to be less than significant, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.
.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-13

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?

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

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-14
CEQA uses the California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection’s Farmland Mapping Project (FMMP) categories of “Prime Farmland,” “Farmland of Statewide Importance,” and “Unique Farmland” to define “agricultural land” for the purposes of assessing environmental impacts (PRC Section 21060.1(a)) related to the conversion of these farmlands to non-agricultural uses. According to the California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Finder, the Project site is designated as being Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance (California Department of Conservation, 2023).

Prime Farmland is irrigated land with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term production of agricultural crops. Farmland of Statewide Importance is irrigated land similar to Prime Farmland that has a good combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of agricultural crops with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Historical aerial images of the Project site indicate that the site has been utilized for agricultural operations.

Although the FMMP designates the Project property as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, the General Plan identifies the Project parcel as within the Planned Area Boundary, is designated Low Density Residential. The parcels to the north are designated as Medium Density Residential and all other abutting properties as Low Density Residential. The designations indicate that the City anticipates future non-agricultural development in this area. Chapter 5.2 of the City of Hanford General Plan contains several goals and policies for agricultural resources. Goal 1 strives for the conservation and longterm protection of agricultural resources and soils located outside of the Planned Area Boundary. Policy 4 under Goal 1 states “retain existing agricultural areas as an interim use inside the Planned Area Boundary and support agricultural operations until such time that the areas are needed for logical urban expansion.

Although the Project proposes to convert Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, the subject parcels and surrounding area have been planned for development with General Plan goals and policies for the City of Hanford supporting logical development within its adopted Planned Area Boundary. A Statement of Overriding Consideration was made for the significant impact of General Plan Buildout on Agricultural Resources.

Therefore, although development of the Project site would result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use, this conversion would result in a less than significant impact, as it is consistent with the General Plan. Pursuant to Section 16.40.110 of the City of Hanford Municipal Code, the applicant will be required to record an acknowledgement of the Right-to-Farm notice. Therefore, in consideration of the Project’s small conversion of agricultural land to a non-agricultural use and the current land use designation of residential development, impacts resulting from this conversion would be less than significant, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

Impact #3.4.2b – Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-15
The Project area is zoned Low Density Residential by the City of Hanford Zoning Ordinance and is anticipated to have a non-agricultural land use. Additionally, the Project site is not subject to a Williamson Act Land Use contract. Therefore, there is no impact, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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))?
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 4526, “Timberland” means 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, including Christmas trees. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 51104, Timberland zoned Timberland Production means privately owned land or land acquired for State Forest purposes, which is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, and which is capable of growing an average annual volume of wood fiber of at least 15 cubic feet per acre. The Project site does not have any forest land or timberland resources, nor is it zoned for timber production. Therefore, the Project will have no impact, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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. There will be no impact on forest land, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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?
The General Plan designates the Project site as Low Density Residential and prezoning for the R-L-5 Zone District is consistent with the designation. The parcels to the north are designated as Medium Density Residential and all other abutting properties as Low Density Residential. The designations indicate that the City anticipates future non-agricultural development in this area. Chapter 5.2 of the City of Hanford General Plan contains several goals and policies for agricultural resources. Goal 1 strives for the conservation and longterm protection of agricultural resources and soils located outside of the Planned Area Boundary. Policy 4 under Goal 1 states “retain existing agricultural areas as an interim use inside the Planned Area Boundary and support agricultural operations until such time that the areas are needed for logical urban expansion. The eventual conversion and development of the Project and surrounding parcels would occur as they are located within the Planned Area Boundary of the City of Hanford. Although the Project would not directly convert surrounding Farmland to non-agricultural uses, as discussed, the Project site and surrounding area are designated for non-agricultural development at some point in time.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-16
Therefore, the Project’s conversion of Farmland is considered less than significant with consideration of the City General Plan’s goals and policies for agricultural land within the Planned Area Boundary. As such, no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-17
This section is based on an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) prepared for the Project (Trinity Consultants, 2023). The AQIA analysis of the Project was calculated using a higher residential lot count than what is currently proposed. Therefore, it can be presumed that air quality estimates resulting from the Project would be less than those estimates in the AQIA and discussed in this NOP. The study is included as Appendix A of this document.

Discussion
The Project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) in Kings County and is included among the eight counties that comprise the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or District). 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 plan area. 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 establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. California has also adopted ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for criteria pollutants. CAAQA are more stringent than the corresponding NAAQS.

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 non-attainment under
an applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-18
Table 3.4.3-1 provides the NAAQS and CAAQS criteria pollutant thresholds of significance.

The Project would include compliance with the SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants), Rule 4102 (Nuisance), and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations), and other applicable regulations.

Table 3.4.3-1
Federal and California Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time NAAQS CAAQS
Concentration
03 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
PB¬d
Rolling Three-Month
Average 0.15 μg/m3 -
30 Day Average - 1.5 μg/m3
H2S 1-hour - 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)
Vinal Chloride
(chloroethene)
24-hour - 0.010 ppm (26 μg/m3)
Visibility Reducing
particles
8-hour (1000 to 1800
PST)
- b
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.

Source: (Trinity Consultants, 2023)
Impact #3.4.3a – Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-19
The Project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), which is under the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or Air District). The SJVAB is designated non-attainment of State and federal health-based air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The SJVAB is designated attainment for federal particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) standards and non-attainment of the State PM10 threshold. To meet federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, the SJVAPCD has multiple air quality attainment plan (AQAP) documents, including:
• 2008 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (EOADP) for attainment of the 1- hour ozone standard.
• 2007 Ozone Plan for attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. • 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. • 2008 PM2.5 Plan.

Because of the region’s federal non-attainment status for ozone and PM2.5, and State nonattainment status for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, if the Project-generated emissions of either the ozone precursor pollutants (reactive organic gases [ROG] or oxides of nitrogen [NOx]), PM10, or PM2.5 were to exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds, then the Project uses would be considered to conflict with the attainment plans. In addition, if the Project uses were to result in a change in land use, and corresponding increases in vehicle miles traveled, they may result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled that is unaccounted for in regional emissions inventories contained in regional air quality control plans.

The Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) states that the SJVAPCD’s established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions require offsets for stationary sources. “Emission reductions achieved through implementation of District offset requirements are a major component of the District’s air quality plans. Thus, projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to ‘Not conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan’ (SJVAPCD, 2015).

As discussed in Impact #3.4.3b, below, predicted construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. As a result, the Project would not conflict with emissions inventories contained in regional AQAPs. It would not result in a significant contribution to the region’s air quality nonattainment status.

The SJVAB is designated non-attainment of State and federal health-based air quality standards for ozone and PM2.5. The SJVAB is designated non-attainment of State PM10. To meet Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, the SJVAPCD has multiple air quality attainment plan (AQAP) documents, including:
• 2016 Ozone Plan.
• 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. • 2016 PM2.5 Plan.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-20
Air quality impacts from proposed projects within Kings County are controlled through policies and provisions of the SJVAPCD and the 2035 City of Hanford General Plan (City of Hanford, 2017). To demonstrate that a proposed project would not cause further air quality degradation in either of the SJVAPCD’s plans to improve air quality within the air basin or federal requirements to meet certain air quality compliance goals, each project should also demonstrate consistency with the SJVAPCD’s adopted Air Quality Attainment Plans (AQAP) for O3 and PM10. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires air pollution control districts with severe or extreme air quality problems to provide for a five percent reduction in nonattainment emissions per year.

The Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) Air Quality Conformity Analysis demonstrates that the 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (2019 FTIP) and 2022 Regional Transportation Plan (2022 RTP) in Kings County would not hinder the efforts set out in the CARB’s SIP for each area’s non-attainment pollutants (CO, O3, PM10, and PM2.5).

The CCAA and AQAP identify transportation control measures as methods to further reduce emissions from mobile sources. Strategies identified to reduce vehicular emissions, such as reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, and traffic congestion, to reduce vehicular emissions, can be implemented as control measures under the CCAA as well. The proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed SJVAPCD thresholds for criteria pollutants during construction or operations, and impacts are considered less than significant.

No employment or population growth is anticipated as a result of the Project that would conflict with the provisions of the AQAP; conclusions may be drawn from the following criteria:

The findings of the analysis show that the Project’s lack of permanent employee increases does not contribute to any unplanned growth in the area. By definition, the proposed emissions from the Project are below the SJVAPCD’s established emissions impact thresholds.

Based on the above analysis presented, the Project is anticipated to be consistent with the AQAP, RTP, and KCAG Air Quality Conformity Analysis. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

The Project will not conflict with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Air Quality Plan. Compliance with Air Districts Air Quality Plan is a requirement of development within the City. Additionally, the developer will be required to obtain any necessary permits through the SJVAPCD. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the growth assumptions used in the applicable AQPs. As a result, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any air quality plans. Therefore, no mitigation is needed. The impacts of the Project would be less than significant, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-21
Impact #3.4.3b – Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
The SJVAPCD GAMAQI adopted in 2015 contains thresholds for CO, NOx, ROG, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Reduction of these pollutants during any future development construction activities as a result of the approved Project will be required.

Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles from the source of emissions through reactions of ROG and NOx emissions in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ROG and NOx are termed, ozone precursors. The Air Basin often exceeds the State and national ozone standards. Therefore, if the Project emits a substantial quantity of ozone precursors, the Project may contribute to an exceedance of the ozone standard. The Air Basin also exceeds air quality standards for PM10 and PM2.5; therefore, substantial Project emissions may contribute to an exceedance of these pollutants. The District’s annual emission significance thresholds used for the Project define the substantial contribution of both operational and construction emissions and are depicted in Tables 3.4.3-2 and 3.4.3-3, below.

Short-Term Impacts
As a result of the Project, short-term emissions would result from the construction phase of the proposed Project. Construction is anticipated to have an approximate 12-month total construction window. The main source of short-term emissions would be the exhaust from construction vehicles and equipment; however, these emissions would be temporary and are not expected to result in the exceedance of any applicable thresholds or regulations.

SJVAPCD’s required measures for all projects were applied and include watering exposed areas three times per day and reducing vehicle speeds to less than 15 miles per hour. As shown in Table 3.4.3-2, the Project’s emissions during temporary construction activities would not exceed thresholds. Therefore, construction emissions were found to be less than significant.

Table 3.4.3-2
Short-Term Project Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
(tons/year)
Unmitigated
2023 Construction Emissions 0.18 1.51 1.66 0.00 0.59 0.19 2024 Construction Emissions 2.02 0.73 0.97 0.00 0.10 0.05 Mitigated
2023 Construction Emissions 0.18 1.51 1.66 0.00 0.33 0.13 2024 Construction Emissions 2.02 0.73 0.97 0.00 0.10 0.05 Significance Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded after Mitigation? No No No No No No Source: (Trinity Consultants, 2023)

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-22
Long-Term Impacts
Long-term operational emissions are generally caused by operational mobile, area, and energy sources. Operation of the Project would also create additional criteria pollutants, particularly as a result of increased mobile emissions in the Project area. However, these emissions would not exceed thresholds, as shown in Table 3.4.3-3.

Table 3.4.3-3
Project Operational Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
(tons/year)
Unmitigated Operational Emissions
Area Emissions 3.07 0.16 2.59 0.00 0.02 0.02
Energy Emissions 0.04 0.38 0.16 0.00 0.03 0.03
Mobile Emissions 0.94 1.79 11.37 0.03 3.44 0.93
Total 4.06 2.33 14.12 0.04 3.50 0.99
Mitigated Operational Emissions
Mobile Emissions 3.06 0.03 2.52 0.00 0.01 0.01
Area Emissions 0.04 0.38 0.16 0.00 0.03 0.03
Energy Emissions 0.93 1.66 10.53 0.03 3.10 0.84
Total 4.03 2.07 13.21 0.03 3.14 0.88
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? No No No No No No Source: (Trinity Consultants, 2023)
Operation of the site at full build-out is not expected to present a substantial source of fugitive dust (PM10). The Project will comply with SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII and establishes required controls to reduce and minimize fugitive dust emissions as required under Policy AQ 4.7. Additionally, under the City of Hanford Air Quality Element, the following SJVPACD Rules and Regulations applies to all projects and includes the proposed Project as recommended in the City of Hanford Air Quality including, but not limited to Policy AQ 4.1,

4.5 4.6, and 4.7 and Program AQ 4.4:
• Rule 4102 – Nuisance – prohibits a facility from posing as a nuisance to surrounding receptors and can impose penalties for nuisance issues such as dust, smoke, excess emissions, etc. Compliance with this rule ensures that the area around the Project site will not be adversely impacted by such issues.
• Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions – A series of regulations to reduce and/or eliminate generation of particulate matter (PM) that can adversely impact visibility as well as the health and safety of people on-site or in the vicinity of the Project.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-23
o Rule 8011 – General Requirements – This rule is to reduce ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter by requiring actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate anthropogenic (human-caused) fugitive dust emissions. o Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities – Restricts generation of airborne dust and visibility impacts from these activities. Places limits on opacity and equipment operation under certain adverse weather conditions.
o Rule 8041 – Carryout and Trackout – Require that equipment and vehicles leaving the construction site control the amount of dirt, soil or mud that is tracked offsite and onto public roadways. This helps eliminate or minimize dust generation and opacity degradation.
o Rule 8051 – Open Areas – Limits fugitive dust from open areas, i.e., areas on a construction site that are not actively being constructed upon but may generate wind-blown dust.

In addition to SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations, regulatory compliance with Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code for energy consumption would reduce criteria pollutant generation.

The long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed Project would be less than SJVAPCD significance threshold levels and would, therefore, not significantly impact criteria air pollutants.

The Project-specific long-term emissions of criteria pollutants are not expected to exceed the following District significance thresholds. Therefore, it is concluded that the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on air quality.

Impact #3.4.3c – Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Sensitive receptors are defined as areas where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly, or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside. The following locations are where several sensitive receptors are likely to reside and be affected by substantial pollutant concentrations: schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers.

There are 16 known non-residential sensitive receptors within two miles of the Project site (Trinity Consultants, 2023). The closest schools are Future Hope Preschool approximately

0.1 miles north, and Martin Luther King Elementary School, approximately 1.3 miles to the east. The closest daycare facility is the Manitas de Amor Daycare and Childcare Center, approximately 0.98 miles east of the Project site. The closest healthcare facility is Chester Care Home approximately 0.16 miles to the east.

As noted in Tables 3.4.3-2 and 3.4.3-3 above, the results of the analysis show that emissions generated from temporary construction and long-term operational activities, are well below the SJVAPCD emission thresholds and are not expected to affect sensitive receptors. It is not expected to have any adverse impacts on any known sensitive receptors.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-24
Because of its residential nature, once constructed the proposed Project, is not expected to result in the generation of odors or other hazardous air pollutants. During the construction of the Project, activities and equipment may generate emissions from construction equipment exhaust. However, construction will be completed over a period of 12 months and will not create substantial pollutant concentrations. These impacts are localized and temporary and therefore are considered less than significant. As discussed below, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of localized PM10, CO, diesel particulate matter, hazardous air pollutants, or naturally occurring asbestos.

Hazardous Pollutants or Odors
The GAMAQI guidelines introduce two types of projects that should be assessed when considering hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that includes: (1) placing a toxic land use in an area where it may have an adverse health impact on existing sensitive land use and (2) placing a sensitive land use in an area where an adverse health impact may occur from existing toxic land use. Some examples of projects that may include HAPs are:
• Agricultural products processing.
• Bulk material handling.
• Chemical blending, mixing, manufacturing, storage, etc. • Combustion equipment (boilers, engines, heaters, incinerators, etc.). • Metals etching, melting, plating, refining, etc.
• Plastics & fiberglass forming and manufacturing.
• Petroleum production, manufacturing, storage, and distribution. • Rock & mineral mining and processing.

The proposed Project is located on a site that is currently undeveloped land. The proposed Project consists of constructing 326 single-family homes. Some odors could result from vehicles and equipment using diesel fuels during the construction period. However, vehicles and equipment using diesel fuels at the proposed Project would comply with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) guidelines, limiting idling time to five minutes with the Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) (California Code of Regulations Title 13, Section 2485). All construction would be temporary.

The SJVAPC has set the level of significance for carcinogenic risk at 20 in one million, which is understood as the possibility of causing twenty 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 1.0. Modeling of the potential health risks associated with HAPs were determined to be at 4.18E-06 (0.00000418) for maximum predicted cancer risk and 4.70E-03 (0.00470) for the maximum chronic non-cancer hazard index (Trinity Consultants, 2023). As concluded in the AQIA, the Project would not have any adverse effect on the surrounding community.

Residential neighborhoods are not known to be a source of substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the Project is not expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction impacts will be temporary and will not produce substantial pollutant concentrations. Once development has been completed,

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-25
everyday residential emissions are foreseen to have less-than-significant pollutant concentrations. Based on the analysis presented, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant with implementation of the Project. However, further analysis is not warranted in the EIR.

Impact #3.4.3d – Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
As discussed in Impact #3.4.3c above, the residential nature of this Project is not expected to result in the generation of odors or hazardous air pollutants that would affect a substantial number of people. The emissions associated with the construction of the Project would be temporary and are not anticipated to result in the generation of a substantial amount of hazardous air pollutants. Therefore, the Project will have a less-than-significant impact.

Long-term potential odors in the area would be limited to vehicular and lawn equipment emissions once the Project site is operational. Therefore, the Project will have a less-thansignificant impact, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-26

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?
The impact analysis in this section is based on a Biological Resource Evaluation (BRE) prepared for the Project (QK, 2023a), included in Appendix B.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-27
Discussion
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? A reconnaissance survey of the Project site and a 50-foot buffer (also called the Biological Survey Area, or BSA) was conducted on January 17, 2023. The survey consisted of walking meandering pedestrian transects spaced 50 to 100 feet apart on the Project site and BSA, where feasible. Areas with suitable habitat that could not be accessed were surveyed using high-power binoculars.

Tasks completed during the survey included determining and documenting current land use, developing an inventory of plant species, wildlife species, and wildlife sign (e.g., scat, burrows, nests, feathers, tracks, etc.), characterizing vegetation associations and habitat conditions within the BSA, assessing the potential for federally, State-listed and other special-status plant and wildlife species that may occur on and near the Project site based on existing conditions, and assessing the potential for migratory birds and raptors to nest on and near the Project site. In addition, all historical wetland and water features documented by NWI and NHD were field verified. All spatial data were recorded using Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) Collector for ArcGIS software installed on an iPad. Site conditions were documented with representative photographs.

No natural plant communities occur within the BSA. The Project site is actively used for agricultural purposes and the surrounding BSA is utilized as either pastureland, residential, or agriculture. Patches of ruderal vegetation occur along the edges of the wheat field and include non-native species such as fiddleneck (Amsinckia sp.), crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and cheeseweed mallow (Malva parviflora). The surrounding private residences and associated softscape support a variety of ornamental plants including crimson bottlebrush (Callistemon citrinus) and deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens).

During the survey, one inactive passerine nest was identified within an ornamental tree located in the northeast corner of the BSA, approximately 15 feet from the Project boundary.

The nest was likely constructed recently given recent rain events in the area and may become active in the near future. A female, white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) was observed perched in the adjacent tree. No additional nests were observed within the BSA, but the ornamental trees located on nearby residential properties could support nesting birds during nesting season (February 1 to September 15). Additionally, a small grove of eucalyptus trees along the southern terminus of the BSA has the potential to support larger nests including raptor nests, though there were none observed during the survey. Common migratory bird species observed during the survey included white-crowned sparrow, common raven (Corvus corax), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos).

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-28
Small mammal burrows were observed within the northwestern corner of the BSA. These burrows were determined to be occupied by California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) based on their size, configuration, and the presence of ground squirrel scat near the entrances. Evidence of past pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) activity, including clusters of weathered vertical entranced burrows, was observed along the southwestern corner of the BSA between the wheat field and adjacent pasture. These burrows were weathered, and most were collapsed with a visible terminus.

A retention basin was observed adjacent to the southeastern boundary of the BSA, approximately 15 feet from the BSA and 75 feet from the Project site boundary. The basin contained shallow standing water at the time of the survey, likely due to recent rain events.

The banks of the basin supported predominantly upland species including non-native grasses. The bed of the basin contained dead and matted hydrophytic vegetation such as cattails (Typha sp.), as well as several young cottonwood trees (Populus sp.).

Special-Status Plants
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 nine-quadrangle queries centered on the Project site (Table 3.4.4-1). There are no historical records from the CNDDB of specialstatus plant species within the BSA.

Table 3.4.4-4
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 peppergrass 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):
1A Presumed Extinct in California
1B Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2A Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common 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) .3 Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened).

Source: (QK, 2023a)

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-29
No special-status plant species were observed within the BSA. The surveys did not coincide with the optimal blooming periods, however, none of the species identified in the database queries are expected to occur on-site due to the lack of suitable habitat conditions (active agriculture) and/or because the BSA is located outside of the species’ known range. The Project site is degraded from historical land use, mainly for agricultural operations, and the adjacent lands have been equally disturbed by agricultural and residential uses.

Special-Status Wildlife
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 nine-quadrangle search area centered on the Project site (Table 3.4.4-2).

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 angulata western ridged mussel - , -
Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp FE, -
Linderiella occidentalis California linderiella - , -
Fish
Hypomesus transpacificus Delta smelt FT, SE
Amphibians
Ambystoma californiense pop
1 California tiger salamander
central California DPS 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, SE/SFP
Birds
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird - , ST/SSC
Athene cunicularia 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, -
Dipodomys nitratoides
nitratoides Tipton kangaroo rat FE, SE

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-30
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat - ,
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.

Source: (QK, 2023a)
There is no roosting habitat for monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) present within the BSA, although it may travel through the BSA as a transient. Additionally, no milkweed (Asclepias sp.) was observed within the BSA, which is a required food source for larval monarch butterflies. There are no elderberry shrubs within the BSA to support the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus). The BSA lacks suitable sandy open habitat for the remaining insect species, San Joaquin tiger beetle (Cicindela tranquebarica joaquinensis).

There are no pooled water features within the BSA capable of supporting crustaceans such as vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), or California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis).

There are no creeks, streams, ponds, or wetland features within the BSA capable of supporting several species, including western ridged mussel (Gonidea angulate), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata). There are also no water features present capable of supporting fish species such as the delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus).

There are no grasslands or native shrub habitats within the BSA that would support California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis) or blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila). Except for a few active California ground squirrel burrows located within the northwestern corner of the BSA, there were no small mammal burrows observed that would be capable of providing shelter for California glossy snake or blunt-nosed leopard lizard.

No wetland or riparian habitat exists within the BSA to support nesting or foraging tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), or yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus).

Similarly, the BSA lacks sandy beach or shoreline habitat that would support nesting and foraging western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus).

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) inhabit grassland, open bare ground, and utilize existing small mammal burrows, typically created by California ground squirrel, for breeding and shelter. While a few burrows were observed within the BSA, they displayed clear sign of use by California ground squirrel and no diagnostic sign (e.g., whitewash, tracks, prey

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-31
remains) of burrowing owl was observed. The BSA is continually subjected to disturbance through agricultural activities, and it is unlikely to support nesting burrowing owl as they typically prefer isolation from people and loud noises. Burrowing owl may be present as transient foragers, though this is unlikely given the scarcity of a prey base at the site. There are no CNDDB occurrences of the species within ten miles of the BSA.

There are no rocky outcroppings, mines or caves, cliff faces, tree hollows, or bridges within the BSA that would support the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus). Due to the historic and ongoing disturbance and absence of suitable small mammal burrows, the BSA does not support the Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis) or Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides).

The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) is unlikely to habituate within the BSA. The nearest San Joaquin kit fox CNDDB occurrence (EONDX 66435) is from 2000 and located approximately one mile southeast of the BSA. This occurrence included one adult observed in a walnut (Juglans sp.) orchard adjacent to a sand slough. The site is presumed to provide some natural cover and prey base for the individual. The Project site lacks suitable habitat for the species due to the past and current level of disturbance and the surrounding BSA has been similarly degraded. Furthermore, the BSA is situated among intensive agricultural and residential development with no connectivity to natural habitat for the species. No San Joaquin kit fox or diagnostic sign of the species (e.g., tracks, dens, scat, prey remains) were observed during the field survey, and the limited number of small mammal burrows observed indicates the site does not support an adequate prey base. Surrounding land use and habitat conditions make it unlikely that the San Joaquin kit fox would be present, other than as a transient forager.

The large eucalyptus trees in the southwest corner of the BSA could potentially support nesting Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), though no inactive nests were observed within the trees and no Swainson’s hawk individuals were observed during the site survey. There is also potential for nesting on nearby powerline structures, and to a lesser extent, surrounding ornamental trees. The nearest CNDDB occurrence (EONDX 91345) for nesting Swainson’s hawk is approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the BSA, where nesting was observed within a large roadside eucalyptus tree in 2012 and 2016. Depending on the time of year, the surrounding crop fields could provide foraging habitat for the species, though this is unlikely due to limited small mammal burrows observed on site indicating a scarcity of an adequate prey base.

Although the Project is anticipated to have no impacts to special-status plants and wildlife species, there is still a potential for Project activities to result in impacts to some of the special-status wildlife species listed above. While the potential for impacts to San Joaquin kit fox, burrowing owl, and Swainson’s hawk is low, to avoid these species and other wildlife species, the BRE recommends that measures be implemented as best management practices (BMP) during Project activities. These avoidance and minimization measures would be implemented in and would be included on all engineering plans and specifications (plans and specs). The Project plans and specs would outline the necessary steps to be taken prior

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-32
to the start of construction to further reduce impacts on special-status species to a less than significant level and includes conducting a pre-construction clearance survey, construction worker environmental awareness training prior to construction activities, and other avoidance measures should a den or burrow be found during the pre-activity survey.

The City requires, at a minimum, the performance of preconstruction surveys for new development in order to determine if direct mortality to special status species would occur with implementation of construction activities. If, after all avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures have been exhausted or are determined to not be feasible, then new development would have to consult with the applicable wildlife agencies in order to determine how to compensate for direct impacts to special-status species, including, but not necessarily limited to, the possibility of acquiring incidental take permits, developing conservation plans, agree upon phasing of new development to avoid certain sensitive breeding seasons, and/or compensating for the loss of habitat at an agreed upon ratio with the applicable wildlife agency. Additionally, consultation with wildlife agencies and the City is implied by Policy O39, and through consultation with wildlife agencies, direct impacts to special-status species can be avoided, reduced, and/or compensated. With implementation of measures, direct impacts to special-status species would be reduced to the greatest extent feasible.

Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors
A single inactive nest was observed within the BSA, presumably that of a white-crowned sparrow. No other active or inactive migratory bird or raptor nests were observed during the survey, though the survey was conducted outside of the breeding season (February 1 through September 15). There are a variety of man-made structures, transmission towers, and trees within the BSA and in the vicinity of the Project which could support a variety of nesting bird species, including larger species such as raptors and common raven. Due to the active agricultural production and seasonal disking of the site, it is unlikely that groundnesting species would nest on the Project.

To protect nesting migratory birds and raptors specific avoidance and minimization measures are recommended to be included on all Project plans and specs. Implementation of these measures would reduce potential impact to a less than significant level. The recommended measure includes the use of preconstruction clearance surveys, construction worker environmental awareness training prior to construction activities, and avoidance buffers should a nest be identified. If evidence of special-status species is observed, the qualified biologist would determine the appropriate actions to be taken, including monitoring during construction or additional protocol-level surveys, to reduce impacts to the species. Measures also include actions to be taken such as limiting on-site speeds to 20 miles per hour, covering trenches, capping pipes, removing trash on a daily basis, prohibiting pets on site, etc., and these measures will be placed on all plans and specs.

Compliance with City Policies and Goals which includes the use of preconstruction surveys and avoidance measures as necessary, impacts are considered to be less than significant, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-33
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?
The results of available literature and databases identified two sensitive natural vegetation communities, Valley Sacaton Grassland and Valley Sink Scrub, within the nine-quadrangle search area that includes the Project site. Both Valley Sacaton Grassland and Valley Sink Scrub communities were not observed within the BSA during the survey. Additionally, the BSA does not provide suitable habitat that would support these communities (QK, 2023a).

A retention basin was observed near the southeastern boundary and aerial imagery indicates that the basin is seasonally dry. No riparian habitat was identified on the Project site. Therefore, the Project’s impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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 were no wetland or water features observed on the Project site, which is further supported by a review of the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and National Wetland Inventory (NWI) figures (QK, 2023a). The site survey identified a retention basin located outside of the BSA near the southeastern boundary, but no riparian habitat was noted. As noted, the Project would not impact that off-site basin, and it does not contain a wetland or water feature. Therefore, the Project’s impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-34
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 [Canis latrans] and mule deer [Odocoileus hemionus californicus]). They can also be small-scale movement corridors, such as riparian zones, which provide connectivity and cover to support the movement at a local scale.

There are no known wildlife movement corridors or habitat linkages that intersect the BSA.

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, there is no substantial movement of wildlife onto or off of the BSA (QK, 2023a).

No designated critical habitat occurs within the BSA. The nearest USFWS designated critical habitat is for vernal pool fairy shrimp, California tiger salamander, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp located approximately ten miles northeast of the BSA and for Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) located approximately nine miles southwest of the BSA (QK, 2023a) Therefore, the Project’s impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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 Project is within the area covered by the City of Hanford General Plan and the Kings County General Plan, which contain policies aimed at preserving biological resources and promoting coordination with federal and State resource agencies. The General Plans include Resource Conservation Goals and policies intended to provide for long-term preservation, enhancement, and enjoyment of plant, wildlife, and aquatic habitat.

The proposed Project does not include and is not adjacent to significant habitat areas or natural areas of high ecological value, nor is it a flood control or drainage Project. As such, habitat mitigation would not be required, and the proposed Project would not conflict with the City of Hanford General Plan or Kings County General Plan objective for the protection of special-status species. The Project would have no impact, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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 HCPs or NCCPs within the Project area. The Project would have no impact, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-35

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-36

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 C (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? The City of Hanford has three buildings listed on the National Registry of Histoir Places, the Hanford Carnegie Library, the Kings County Courthouse, and the Taoist Temple. These buildings are also listed on the California Register of Historic Resources. There are also a number of resources within the City that contribute to its unique culture, yet are not officially listed as historic resources, including its civic and commercial buildings, and residential homes that have Craftsman, Victorian, and Tudor architectural features. The Project site is not located near the listed historic resources and no architecturally significant building was identified on the site.

A cultural resources records search (RS #23-053) 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 the subject property had never been surveyed for cultural resources and it is not known if any exist on it. Ten cultural resource studies have been conducted within a half mile of the project.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-37
Three historic period cultural resources have been recorded within one-half mile of the project. These are segments of the San Joaquin Valley Railroad (primary no. P-16-000122), and two irrigation features, the Last Chance Ditch (P-16-000128), and People’s Ditch (P-16- 000246). The project is not located in proximity and would not impact the identified historic resources. A Sacred Lands File request was also submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission. A response dated February 22, 2023, indicates negative results.

Based on the results of cultural records search findings and the lack of historical or archaeological resources previously identified within a half-mile radius of the proposed Project, the potential to encounter subsurface cultural resources is minimal. Additionally, the Project construction would be conducted within the partially developed and previously disturbed parcel. The potential to uncover subsurface historical or archaeological deposits would be considered unlikely.

However, there is still a possibility that historical or archaeological materials may be exposed during construction. Grading and trenching, as well as 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. Disturbance of any deposits that have the potential to provide significant cultural data would be considered a significant impact. To reduce the potential impacts of the Project on cultural resources, the City of Hanford General Plan adopted General Plan Goal O5, O6 and Policy O46 (Archaeological Site Consultation), O47 (Archaeological Site Study), O48 (Cultural Site Consultation) and O49 (Cultural Site Discovery) to protect cultural resources. The following measures are recommended to be included as a note on all plans and specs to protect cultural resources and comply with the General Plan for protection of cultural resources.

In the unlikely event construction of the Project inadvertently uncovers previously unknown cultural resources, construction shall be halted, and 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 to halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. In addition, 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 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.

With the Project’s compliance with General Plan goals and policies, impacts are considered to be less than significant, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-38
Based on the results of cultural records search findings and the lack of historical or archaeological resources previously identified within a half-mile radius of the proposed Project, the potential to encounter subsurface cultural resources is minimal. However, there is still a possibility that historical or archaeological materials may be exposed 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 or archaeological resources. As noted above, avoidance and minimization measures required for compliance with General Plan goals and policies will be included as notes added to all engineered plans and specs that would outline the required steps to be taken to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources. No further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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. However, considered unlikely, subsurface construction activities could cause a potentially significant impact to previously undiscovered human burial sites. 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.

Avoidance and minimization measures as required for compliance with General Plan Goals and Policies, will be added to all engineered plans and specs that would outline necessary steps to be taken in the unlikely event construction of the Project inadvertently uncovers previously unknown human remains. This measure will be 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), Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987and Section 7050.5(c), in the event of the discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner. With the implementation of this condition of approval, impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-39

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 discussion below is based on the Energy Consumption Technical Memo completed for the Project, attached as Appendix D (QK, 2023c), as well as the AQIA (Trinity Consultants, 2023) and other publicly available 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.

Construction

ON-ROAD VEHICLES (CONSTRUCTION)
Due to the nature of the Project, construction of the Project would be limited to the Project site and would only generate on-site (off-road) construction trips and would not contribute to on-road vehicle trips during Project construction (from construction workers and vendors).

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

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-40
conversion factor (provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), the proposed Project would use a total of approximately 1,076 gallons of diesel fuel for off-road construction vehicles for the entirety of the Project’s construction. 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. 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. 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.

Operations
CalEEMod uses the California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS) database to develop energy intensity values for non-residential buildings. The energy use from residential land uses is calculated based on the Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS). Similar to CEUS, this is a comprehensive energy use assessment that includes the end-use for various climate zones in California. As shown in Table 3.4.6-1, the Project would use up to approximately 8,220,840 kBTU of natural gas per year and approximately 2,727,090 kWh of electricity per year.

Table 3.4.6-1
Project Operational Natural Gas and Electricity Usage
Emissions(a) Natural Gas (kBTU/year) Electricity
(kWh/year)
Single-Family Housing 8,220,840 2,727,090
Source: Appendix D
The long-term operation of the proposed includes electricity and natural gas service to power internal and exterior building lighting and heating and cooling systems.

ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS
Electricity and natural gas used by the proposed Project would be used primarily to power residential homes. Total annual electricity (kWh) and natural gas (kBTU) usage associated with the operation of the proposed Project are shown in Table 3.4.6-1. Further, among the 2020 Kings County population, the energy demand per capita was found to be 0.0028 gigawatts per hour (GWh) and 101,7421 therms. The energy consumption for the Project

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-41
per capita would be 0.0026 GWh and 77.6298 therms, which are below the per capita demand for Kings County.

The Project would be required to comply with California’s Title 24 energy efficiency requirements and other applicable City development standards. That would include the installation of solar panels on each home’s rooftop, which would provide energy from a renewable power source to offset energy generated by fossil fuel-run. The Project will be required to comply with all applicable standards and building codes included in the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code regarding the use of energy-efficient appliances and lighting, low-flow toilets and faucets, drip irrigation, etc. Therefore, the Project will have a less-than-significant impact, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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 solar-ready roofs, electric vehicle charging, and water conservation. Energy would also be indirectly conserved through waterefficient landscaping requirements consistent with the Kings County Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. Stringent solid waste recycling requirements applicable to both 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 will further reduce energy demands. 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.

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, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-42

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 off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
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

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-43
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. 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. Within these zones, cities, and counties must regulate certain development, which includes withholding permits until geologic investigations demonstrate that development sites are not threatened by future surface displacement. There are no designated Alquist-Priolo zones in the City of Hanford according to the General Plan (City of Hanford, 2017).

All of Kings County and the Central Valley are considered seismically active. However, the immediate Hanford area has extremely low seismic activity levels, although shaking may be felt from earthquakes whose epicenters lie to the east, west, and south. Known major faults are over 50 miles distant and include the San Andreas Fault, Coalinga area blind thrust fault(s), and the Long Valley, Owens Valley, and White Wolf/Tehachapi fault systems (Kings County, 2010). The proposed construction and use of the proposed Project would increase the potential exposure of persons working and living in the Project site to possible seismic events, including the risk of loss, injury, and death related to earthquakes and related hazards.

The State classifies Hanford as a moderate seismic risk zone, Category “C” or “D,” depending on the soils under the specific location being categorized and that location’s proximity to the nearest known fault lines. All new structures are required to conform to current seismic protection standards in the California Building Code. By adhering to the 2019 California Building Code and City development standards, the Project will have a less-than-significant impact of endangering people and structures associated with earthquakes. No further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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.

Ground movement during an earthquake can vary depending on the overall moment magnitude, distance to the fault, focus of earthquake energy, and type of geologic material.

As a rule, the greater the earthquake magnitude and the closer the fault rupture to the site,

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-44
the greater the intensity of ground shaking. However, different geologic materials respond differently to earthquake waves. The composition of underlying soils, even those relatively distant from faults, can intensify ground shaking.

According to the Kings County Safety Element, Hanford and the Project site is located in Zone V1, the least expected seismic shaking area, and has relatively low seismic activity (Kings County, 2010). The proposed Project does not include any activities or components that could cause strong seismic ground shaking, either directly or indirectly. The most recent building code takes into account requirements to mitigate seismic impacts. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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. Liquefaction occurs more often in areas under young alluvium where the groundwater table is above 50 feet below the ground surface. In the City, the range is generally between 120 feet to 160 feet below ground surface; therefore, the potential for liquefaction at the proposed Project site is unlikely.

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. 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, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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), and the development will have a less-than-significant impact (Kings County, 2009). As impacts are anticipated to be less than significant, no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-45
Impact #3.4.7b – Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Construction activities associated with the proposed Project will disturb surface vegetation and 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 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (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. The approval of an SWPPP to comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit is required for any project disturbing one acre or more ground. Therefore, 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 BMPs required under the approved SWPPP and NPDES General Construction Permit.

Once constructed, the Project will have both impermeable surfaces as well as permeable surfaces. Impermeable surfaces would include existing roadways, driveways, and structures.

Permeable surfaces would include open areas of the site and any 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. Therefore, with implementation of required SWPPP and NPDES General Construction Permit design standards and BMPs, the project is expected to result in a less-than-significant impact, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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 off-site 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 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

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-46
seismically induced landslide hazard zones in Hanford (City of Hanford, 2017). Therefore, complying with the existing regulatory framework would be adequate to reduce any potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. No further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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.

Expansive soils are fine-grained soils that can undergo a significant increase in volume with an increase in water content, as well as a significant decrease in volume with a decrease in water content. The City and surrounding area’s soils contain percentages of clay that generally range between 7-27 percent. When soil has 35 percent or more clay content, it is considered clayey soil. Since the soil types in the City generally do not contain 35 percent clay content, the potential for expansive soils within the City of Hanford and its surroundings is low (City of Hanford, 2017).

Additionally, the Project would comply with all applicable California Code of Regulations and the most recent California Building Standards Code, which provides criteria for the appropriate design of buildings. The proposed Project would not be located on any identified expansive soils, as defined in the California Building Code. No further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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 any other alternative wastewater disposal systems. The dwelling units will be required to tie into the existing City sewer services. The development of sewer infrastructure will comply with City development standards. Therefore, there would be no impact related to the use of septic systems.

Therefore, there would be no impact related to the use of septic systems, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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. There is no evidence that cultural resources of any type (including historical, archaeological, paleontological, or unique geologic features) exist on the Project site.

Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a buried site may exist in the area and be obscured by vegetation, fill, or other historical activities, leaving no surface evidence.

The City’s 2035 General Plan Goal 06 requires the protection of paleontological resources.

With the Project’s required compliance with the General Plan and State requirements for

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-47
addressing paleontological resources, the protection of potential paleontological resources will occur. Therefore, the Project will have a less-than-significant impact, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-48

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 & Greenhouse Impact Assessment (Trinity Consultants, 2023), which is attached as Appendix A. The AQIA analysis of the Project used a higher residential lot count than what is currently proposed. Therefore, it can be presumed that greenhouse gas emission estimates resulting from the Project would be less than the estimates provided in the analysis and discussed in this NOP.

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? There have been legislative and regulatory activities that directly and indirectly affect climate change and GHGs in California. The primary climate change legislation in California is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California. GHGs, as defined under AB 32, include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride. AB 32 requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The California Air Resources Board is the State agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of GHGs that cause global warming in order to reduce emissions of GHGs. SB 32 was signed by the Governor in 2016, which would require the State Board to ensure that Statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030.

The Project is under SJVAPCD jurisdiction, which has not adopted a significance threshold for GHG. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) approach to the assessment of GHG impacts from a project is through the recognition that consumers of electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by requiring providers and importers of electricity and fuel to participate in the GHG Cap-and-Trade Program and other Programs (e.g., low carbon fuel standard, renewable portfolio standard, etc.). Each such sector-wide program exists within the framework of AB 32 and its descendant laws the

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-49
purpose of which is to achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan. In summary, the Project would generate GHGs from electricity use and combustion of gasoline/diesel fuels, each of which is regulated near the top of the supply chain. As such, electricity and fuel purchased are produced in a way that is acceptable to the California market. Thus, Project GHG emissions will be consistent with the relevant plan. Table 3.4.8-1 shows the yearly GHG emissions generated by the Project as determined by the CalEEMod model.

Table 3.4.8-1
Estimated Annual GHG Emissions
Source CO2 (MT/yr) CH4 (MT/yr) N2O (MT/yr) CO2e (MT/yr) Mitigated
Construction
Total 532.55 0.09 0.02 540.10
Mitigated Operational
Emissions
Area Emissions 4.11 0.00 0.00 4.21
Energy Emissions 482.17 0.02 0.01 485.21
Mobile Emissions 2,676.37 0.18 0.13 2,720.91
Water Emissions 71.50 4.23 0.00 177.15
Waste Emissions 23.55 0.72 0.02 46.97
Total Project
Operational Emissions
2,257.70 5.16 0.16 3,434.45
Annualized
Construction
Emissions

17.75 0.00 0.00 18.00
Project Emissions 3,275.46 5.16 0.16 3,452.45
Source: Appendix A
There would be no increase in the severity to the greenhouse gas impacts, and implementation of the Project will not result in Project-specific or site-specific significant adverse impacts from greenhouse gas emissions within the Project study area. Therefore, no mitigation is required, impacts are less than significant, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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? 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

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-50
reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region in 2020 and 2035.

There is no proposed long-term use of large pieces of stationary source equipment or use of diesel-powered vehicles that generate GHG emissions. Once site preparation has been completed, there will be minimal use of any large construction equipment. Because the proposed Project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential, it can be concluded that the proposed Project would not conflict with the approved General Plan. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the growth assumptions used in the applicable AQPs. As a result, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality plans. Therefore, no mitigation is needed.

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 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. • 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 development. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct this reduction measure.

The SJVAPCD does not have thresholds or guidance regarding the significance of construction-related emissions. Overall, the impacts during the construction phase would be

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-51
short-term and temporary. Since there are no current significance thresholds and because construction-related impacts are considered temporary, they are generally considered less than significant. In addition, the construction 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 generate significant long-term emissions over the life of the Project. 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, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-52

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?
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?

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-53
A material is considered hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, State, or local agency or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. The California Code of Regulation (CCR) defines a hazardous material as a substance that, because of physical or chemical properties, quantity, concentration, or other characteristics, may either (1) cause an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness, or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed (CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 10, Article 2, Section 66260.10). Hazardous materials have been and are commonly used in commercial, agricultural, and industrial applications and, to a limited extent, in residential areas.

Hazardous wastes are defined in the same manner.

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.

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. U.S. Department of Transportation and Caltrans regulate the transportation of hazardous materials. 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 off-site landfill or other such facilities. In addition, sanitary waste generated during construction would be managed through portable toilets located at reasonably accessible on-site locations.

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. Residential construction generally uses fewer hazardous chemicals or chemicals in relatively small quantities and concentrations compared to commercial or industrial uses. No significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste during construction or operation of the new residential development would occur.

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. The Project will not generate or use hazardous materials outside health department requirements. Operation activities will

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-54
comply with the California Building Code, local building codes, and applicable safety measures.

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, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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?
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. 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 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.

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 on-site 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 that are required as regulatory compliance under SJVAPCD Regulation VIII. 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.

A review of the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor database 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

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-55
or adjacent properties. Additionally, no Federal Superfund – National Priorities List (NPL) sites were determined to be located within a one-mile radius of the subject site (Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2022).

Review of the State of California Department of Conservation, Geological Energy Management Division (CalGEM) Online Mapping System indicated that no plugged and abandoned or producing oil wells are located on or adjacent to the subject site (CalGEM, 2022).

As noted in Impact #3.4.9a above, if there is a use of hazardous materials during the Project's construction phase, the safe handling and storage of hazardous materials consistent with applicable local and State regulations will be required.

The proposed Project is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; as mentioned previously in Impact #3.4.9a above, the residential Project would not routinely transport, use, dispose of, or discharge hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. No further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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?
There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the Project site. The closest schools are Martin Luther King Elementary School, approximately 1.15 miles to the east, and Hanford West High School, approximately 1.7 miles to the northeast. Once constructed, residential development is not expected to result in hazardous emissions; therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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 Project 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 itself will not generate or use hazardous materials outside health department requirements.

The Project site was used for agricultural purposes, and it is not anticipated that there are any known underground storage tanks or pipelines located onsite that contain hazardous materials. The disturbance of such items during construction is unlikely. However, in the event any underground storage tanks or pipelines are found, they will be removed in accordance with the removal standards of the Kings County Department of Public Health.

Therefore, a less-than-significant impact is seen, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-56
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 not located within two miles of a public airport/airstrip; therefore, it has no impact. The Project site is located approximately 2.7 miles west of Hanford Municipal Airport. The Project site is not located within a Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUPC) safety zone or noise contour for Hanford Municipal Airport (Kings County, 1994). The construction and operation of the Project would not result in the generation of noise levels beyond those that exist in the surrounding area. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels, and there would be no impact. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

Impact #3.4.9f – Would the Project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The 2015 Kings County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) establishes emergency procedures and policies and identifies responsible parties for emergency response in the County, including the incorporated City of Hanford (Kings County, 2015). The EOP includes policies that would prevent new development from interfering with the emergency response of evacuation plans.

Development of the proposed Project has the potential to strain the emergency response and recovery capabilities of federal, State, and local government. Compliance with the General Plan policies to ensure adequate emergency response and maintain current plans reduces the impact of the development. The proposed Project is consistent with the policy of the General Plan. Additionally, the proposed Project would not inhibit the ability of local roadways to continue to accommodate emergency response and evacuation activities. The proposed Project would not interfere with the City’s adopted emergency response plan, and there would be no impact.

The Project site and surrounding area are relatively flat, with little to no topography that might obscure visibility to motorists. Additionally, roadway improvements have been proposed to maintain traffic safety with the anticipated increase in vehicle trips. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted.

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 City of Hanford is located within a zone considered by CAL FIRE to have low to no potential for wildland fires.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-57
Kings County Fire Station 3 is the closest to the Project site, approximately 0.2 miles east.

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, and further analysis in the EIR is not warranted.

Initial Study

Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-58

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 off-site;
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?