Hanford City Council
September 16, 2025

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -10 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles are delayed.

These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.

Construction emissions were estimated for the project using the California Emissions Estimator Model, version 2022.1 (CalEEMod) as recommended by the SJVAPCD. The project was assumed to begin construction March 2024 and last approximately 3 years. The proposed project would require between 50,000 to 90,000 cubic yards of soil moved throughout the site and may require recompaction in place and over excavation. Over excavation would be between 30,000 and 60,000 cubic yards of soil; as such, this analysis assumes that 60,000 cubic yards of soil would be off-hauled.

This analysis also assumes the use of Tier 2 construction equipment. Other construction details are not yet known; therefore, default assumptions (e.g., construction fleet activities and worker and vendor trips) from CalEEMod were used.

Construction-related emissions for each year of construction are presented in Table 4.B. CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix A.

Table 4.B: Project Construction Emissions
Year Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction 2024 0.2 3.7 3.3 0.5 0.2
Construction 2025 0.2 2.8 3.3 0.4 0.2
Construction 2026 0.3 2.5 2.8 0.3 0.1
Construction 2027 1.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total Construction Emissions 1.9 9.0 9.4 1.2 0.5
Highest Annual Construction
Emissions

1.2 3.7 3.3 0.5 0.2
Significance Thresholds 10.00 10.00 100.00 15.00 15.00
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No
Source: LSA (March 2023).

As shown in Table 4.B construction emissions associated with the project would not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM10 or any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards and impacts would be less than significant.

Long-Term (Operational) Emissions. Long-term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated with mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., electricity and natural gas), and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment) related to the proposed project.

PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM10 occurs when

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-11 vehicle tires pulverize small rocks and pavement, and the vehicle wakes generate airborne dust. The contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other PM emission processes.

Gasoline-powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with dieselpowered vehicles.

Energy source emissions result from activities in buildings for which electricity and natural gas are used. The quantity of emissions is the product of usage intensity (i.e., the amount of electricity or natural gas) and the emission factor of the fuel source. Major sources of energy demand include building mechanical systems, such as heating and air conditioning, lighting, and plug-in electronics, such as refrigerators or computers. Greater building or appliance efficiency reduces the amount of energy for a given activity and thus lowers the resultant emissions. The emission factor is determined by the fuel source, with cleaner energy sources, like renewable energy, producing fewer emissions than conventional sources.

Typically, area source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions located at the project site, including architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment. Area source emissions associated with the project would include emissions from the use of landscaping equipment and the use of consumer products.

Emission estimates for operation of the project were calculated using CalEEMod. Model results are shown in Table 4.C. Trip generation rates for the project were based on the project’s trip generation estimates, as identified in Section 4.17, Transportation. However, as discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation, approximately 41,500 square feet of commercial/office uses is proposed. These uses would generate fewer trips than the 114,000 square feet of commercial/office uses that is analyzed in the proposed project trip generation estimate. The trip generation in CalEEMod was adjusted to reflect 41,500 square feet of commercial/office uses. As such, CalEEMod assumes a total of approximately 5,239 average daily trips (ADT), including 1,393 ADT for the Ambulatory Surgery Center, Specialty Clinic, Medical Office Building, and Psychiatric Health Facility, 682 ADT for the Hotel and Conference Center, 638 ADT for the Nursing College, 662 ADT for the Skilled Nursing Facility, Memory Care, Assisted Living Facility, 576 ADT for the Multi-Family Apartments, and 1,287 ADT for the Medical/Commercial uses based on the project's trip generation and taking into account a 10 percent reduction for internal trips. In addition, this analysis assumes the proposed project would be built to current Title 24 building standards. Where project-specific data were not available, default assumptions from CalEEMod were used to estimate project emissions.

The primary emissions associated with the project are regional in nature, meaning that air pollutants are rapidly dispersed on release or, in the case of vehicle emissions associated with the project; emissions are released in other areas of the Air Basin. The annual emissions associated with project operation are identified in Table 4.C for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -12 Table 4.C: Project Operation Emissions
Source Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Source Emissions 2.9 2.5 14.5 1.1 0.2
Area Source Emissions 2.4 0.1 4.3 0.3 0.3
Energy Source Emissions <0.1 0.6 0.4 <0.1 <0.1
Total Operation Emissions 5.4 3.2 19.2 1.5 0.6
Significance Thresholds 10.00 10.00 100.00 15.00 15.00
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No
Source: LSA (March 2023).

The results shown in Table 4.C indicate the project would not exceed the significance criteria for annual ROG, NOx, CO, PM10 or PM2.5 emissions. In addition, the application of SJVAPCD Rule 9510, and implementation of the General Plan air quality-related policies would reduce impacts to the extent feasible. The project fulfills other General Plan objectives by increasing development densities and providing infill development in an area surrounded by existing development. As such, operation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM10 or any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards and impacts would be less than significant.

Project Health Impacts. In the 5th District Court of Appeal case Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch, L.P.), the Court found the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) deficient because it did not identify specific health-related effects resulting from the estimated amount of pollutants generated by the project. The ruling stated that the EIR should give a “sense of the nature and magnitude of the ‘health and safety problems’ caused by a project’s air pollution. The EIR should translate the emission numbers into adverse impacts or to understand why such translation is not possible at this time (and what limited translation is, in fact, possible).” The pollutants of concern in the Friant Ranch ruling were regional criteria pollutants ozone and PM10. It is important to note that the potential for localized impacts can be addressed through dispersion modeling. The SJVAPCD includes screening criteria that if exceeded would require dispersion modeling to determine if project emissions would result in a significant health impact. For this project, no significant localized health impacts would occur. Regional pollutants require more complex modeling as described below.

Ozone concentrations are estimated using regional photochemical models because ozone formation is subject to temperature, inversion strength, sunlight, emissions transport over long distances, dispersion, and the regional nature of the precursor emissions. The emissions from individual projects are too small to produce a measurable change in ozone concentrations – it is the cumulative contribution of emissions from existing and new development that is accounted for in the photochemical model. Ozone concentrations vary widely throughout the day and year even with the same amount of daily emissions. The SJVAPCD indicated in an Amicus Brief on Friant Ranch that running the photochemical model with just Friant Ranch emissions (109.5 tons/year NOx) is not likely to yield valid information given the relative scale involved. The NOx inventory for the San Joaquin Valley is 224 tons per day in 2019 or 81,760 tons per year. Friant Ranch would result in 0.13

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-13 percent increase in NOx emissions. A project emitting at the SJVAPCD CEQA threshold of 10 tons per year would result in a 0.01 percent increase in NOx emissions. Most project emissions are generated by motor vehicle travel distributed on regional roadways miles from the project site, and these emissions are not conducive to project‐level modeling.

Emissions throughout the San Joaquin Valley are projected to decline in the coming decade. The SJVAPCD 2022 Ozone Plan predicts NOx emissions will decline 72 percent between 2018 and 2037, contributing to the Valley’s progress toward attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone standard levels through implementation of control measures included in the plan. This means that ozone health impacts to residents of the San Joaquin Valley will be lower than currently experienced, and most areas of the San Joaquin Valley will have attained ozone air quality standards. The plan accounts for growth in population at rates projected by the State for the San Joaquin Valley, so only cumulative projects that would exceed regional growth projections would potentially delay attainment and prolong the time and the number of people would experience health impacts. It is unlikely that anyone would experience greater impacts from regional emissions than currently occur. The federal transportation conformity regulation provides a means of ensuring growth in emissions does not exceed emission budgets for each County. Regional Transportation Plans and Regional Transportation Improvement Plans must provide a conformity analysis based on the latest planning assumptions that demonstrates that budgets will not be exceeded. If budgets are exceeded, the San Joaquin Valley may be subject to Clean Air Act sanctions until the deficiency is addressed.

Particulate emission impacts can be localized and regional. Particulates can be directly emitted and can be formed in the atmosphere with chemical reactions. Small directly emitted particles such as diesel emissions and other combustion emissions can remain in the atmosphere for a long time and can be transported over long distances. Large particles such as fugitive dust tend to be deposited a short distance from where emitted but can also travel long distances during periods of high winds.

Particulates can be washed out of the atmosphere by rain and deposited on surfaces. Secondary particulates formed in the atmosphere such as ammonium nitrate require NOx and ammonia and require low inversion levels, and certain ranges of temperature and humidity to result in substantial concentrations. These complications, make modeling project particulate emissions to determine concentration only feasible for directly emitted particles at receptor locations close to the project site. Regional particulate concentrations are modeled using a gridded inventory (emissions in tons/day are placed a four‐kilometer three‐dimensional grid to spatially allocate the emissions geographically) and an atmospheric chemistry component to simulate the chemical reactions. The model uses relative reduction factors to determine the amount of reductions of each PM component will be needed to attain the air quality standards on the days with the conditions most favorable to high particulate concentrations. A small project would not produce sufficient emissions to determine a project’s individual contribution to the particulate concentration and health impact.

Since the Basin is nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, it is considered to have an existing significant cumulative health impact without the project. When this occurs, the analysis considers whether the project’s contribution to the existing violation of air quality standards is cumulatively considerable. The SJVAPCD regional thresholds for NOx, VOC, PM10, or PM2.5 are applied as cumulative contribution thresholds. Projects that exceed the regional thresholds would have a cumulatively considerable health impact. As shown in Table 4.B and Table 4.B, the construction and

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -14 operational emissions analysis indicates that the project would not exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds.

In addition, the SJVAPCD Air Quality Attainment Plans predict that nonattainment pollutant emissions will continue to decline each year as regulations adopted to reduce these emissions are implemented, accounting for growth projected for the region. Therefore, the cumulative health impact will also decline even with the project’s emission contribution. As such, impacts would be considered less than significant.
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive receptors are defined as people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants, including children, the elderly, and persons with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. The SJVAPCD considers a sensitive receptor a location that houses or attracts children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include hospitals, residences, convalescent facilities, and schools. The proposed project includes residences, assisted living, and a skilled nursing facility that would house sensitive receptors.

Off-Site Sensitive Receptors. Construction activities associated with the proposed project may expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following the Regulation VIII, Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. Project construction emissions would be below SJVAPCD significance thresholds. In addition, once the proposed project is constructed, the project would not be a significant source of long-term operational emissions.

Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and potential impacts to off-site sensitive receptors would be considered less than significant.

On-Site Sensitive Receptors. The proposed project would not be a significant source of TAC emissions. Construction activities produce short term emissions that would not contribute substantially to cancer risk, which is estimated based on a 70‐year exposure period. In the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 62 Cal.4th 369 (2015) (Case No. S213478) the California Supreme Court held that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents.” Although the Court ruled that impacts from the existing environment on projects are not required to be addressed under CEQA, land uses such as gasoline stations, dry cleaners, distribution centers, and auto body shops can expose residents or other sensitive receptors to high levels of TAC emissions if they are in proximity of the project site. Information regarding the location of existing TAC sources is provided for disclosure purposes only and not as a measure of the project’s significance under CEQA. Consistency with these recommendations is assessed as follows:
• Heavily traveled roads. The California Air Resource Board (CARB) recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-15 rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. Epidemiological studies indicate that the distance from the roadway and truck traffic densities were key factors in the correlation of health effects, particularly in children. The project is located north of SR-198. The traffic volume on SR-198 was 35,500 trips per day in 2017. Therefore, no roads serving the project would exceed this criterion. • Distribution centers. CARB also recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center. The project is not located within 1,000 feet of a distribution center.
• Fueling stations. CARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large fueling station (a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). CARB recommends a 50‐foot separation from typical gas dispensing facilities. The nearest gas station is approximately 0.18 mile southeast of the project site at the corner of 11th Avenue and West 3rd Street.
• Dry cleaning operations. CARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry‐cleaning operation that uses perchloroethylene. For operations with two or more machines, CARB recommends a buffer of 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, CARB recommends consultation with the local air district. The nearest dry‐cleaning operation is approximately 0.76 mile east of the project site at 119 N. Douty Street. • Auto body shops. Auto body shops have the potential to emit TACs related to painting. The nearest auto body shop is approximately 0.47 mile east of the project site at 329 W. 5th Street, which is beyond the distance that would result in a measurable impact.

As such, impacts to future on-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

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

The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI includes screening thresholds for identifying projects that need detailed analysis for localized impacts. Projects with on‐site emission increases from construction activities or operational activities that exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level of any criteria pollutant after compliance with Rule 9510 and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures would require preparation of an ambient air quality analysis. The criteria pollutants of concern for localized impact in the SJVAB are PM10, PM2.5, NOx, and CO. There is no localized emission standard for ROG and most types of ROG are not toxic and have no health‐based standard; however, ROG was included for informational purposes only.

The results of the construction screening analysis are presented in Table 4.D.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -16 Table 4.D: Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions during Construction Year Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Highest Emissions in Any Year 53.6 59.4 38.8 8.9 4.0
Screening Thresholds 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Exceed Threshold – Significant Impact? No No No No No
Source: LSA (March 2023).

In addition, an analysis of maximum daily emissions during operation was conducted to determine if emissions would exceed 100 pounds per day for any pollutant of concern. Operational emissions include emissions generated on‐site by area sources such as natural gas combustion and landscape maintenance, and off‐site by motor vehicles accessing the project. By design, the localized impacts analysis only includes on-site sources; however, the CalEEMod outputs do not separate on-site and off-site emissions for mobile sources. Most motor vehicle emissions would occur distant from the site and would not contribute to a violation of ambient air quality standards; therefore, operational emissions only reflect the emissions within one half mile of the project site. As such, considering the total trip length included in CalEEMod, this analysis conservatively assumes that 5 percent of the project-related mobile source would occur on site. The results of the screening analysis are presented in Table 4.E.

Table 4.E: Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions during Operations Source Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Total 20.0 3.5 80.6 7.9 7.3
Screening Threshold 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No
Source: LSA (March 2023).

As shown in Tables 4.D and 4.E, construction and operation of the proposed project would not exceed SJVAPCD screening thresholds for localized pollutant impacts; therefore, the project’s localized criteria impacts would be less than significant.

Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Analysis. Localized high levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow‐moving vehicles. The SJVAPCD provides screening criteria to determine when to quantify local CO concentrations based on impacts to the level of service (LOS) of intersections in the project vicinity.

The construction of the project would result in minor increases in traffic for the surrounding road network during the duration of construction. Once operational, motor vehicles accessing the site would result in approximately 742 peak hourly trips and 7,493 average daily trips and would not substantially reduce the LOS with expected roadway improvements. As discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation, the 12th Avenue at Glendale Avenue intersection currently exceeds the City of Hanford’s minimum LOS criteria during the PM peak hour. In addition, results of the analysis show

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-17 that the proposed project contributes to an unacceptable LOS at five of the study intersections when comparing the Cumulative Year 2042 scenarios. Section 4.17, Transportation, identifies potential intersection improvements; however, the intersection of 12th Avenue at Glendale Avenue would be above the City’s standard of LOS D standard. The City acknowledges in General Plan Objective CI 2 and Policy CI 2.2, that there may be instances where design considerations or other public health, safety, or welfare factors determine otherwise. Therefore, since additional improvements are not recommended due design considerations, impacts to intersection LOS are considered to be less than significant. Therefore, the project would not significantly contribute to an exceedance of state or federal CO standards.

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

The San Joaquin Valley is considered an endemic area for Valley fever. However, within endemic areas less favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis include: cultivated fields; heavily vegetated areas (e.g. grassy lawns); higher elevations (above 7,000 feet); areas where commercial fertilizers (e.g. ammonium sulfate) have been applied; areas that are continually wet; paved (asphalt or concrete) or oiled areas; soils containing abundant microorganisms; and heavily urbanized areas where there is little undisturbed virgin soil.6
The project site is situated in an infill area. The project includes urbanization of a site that was formerly graded. Therefore, implementation of the project would have a low probability of the site having C. immitis growth sites and exposure to the spores from disturbed soil.

Construction activities would generate fugitive dust that could contain C. immitis spores. The proposed project would minimize the generation of fugitive dust during construction activities by complying with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII. Therefore, this regulation, combined with the relatively low probability of the presence of C. immitis spores, would reduce Valley fever impacts to less than significant. During operations, dust emissions are anticipated to be negligible, because most of the project area would be occupied by buildings, pavement, and landscaped areas. This condition would preclude the possibility of the project from providing habitat suitable for C. immitis spores and for generating fugitive dust that may contribute to Valley fever exposure. Impacts would be less than significant.
6 U. S. Geological Survey. 2000. Operational Guidelines (version 1.0) for Geological Fieldwork in Areas Endemic for Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever). Website: pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr00348 (accessed March 2023).

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -18 Naturally Occurring Asbestos. According to a map of areas where naturally occurring asbestos in California are likely to occur,
7 there are no such areas in the project area. Therefore, development of the project is not anticipated to expose receptors to naturally occurring asbestos. Impacts would be less than significant.
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, composting facilities, feed lots, coffee roasters, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants. The project would not engage in any of these activities. Therefore, the project would not be considered a generator of objectionable odors during operations.

During construction, the various diesel‐powered vehicles and equipment in use on‐site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project’s site boundaries. The potential for diesel odor impacts would therefore be less than significant.

As a residential and medical office development, the project has the potential to place sensitive receptors near existing odor sources. The City’s wastewater treatment plant is located approximately 1.75 miles south southeast of the project site. The prevailing wind direction in Hanford is northwesterly; therefore, the site location would not be exposed to substantial odors.

There are no other major odor‐generating sources near the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and potential impacts would be considered less than significant. 7 U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. Van Gosen, B.S., and Clinkenbeard, J.P. California Geological Survey Map Sheet 59. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California. Open‐File Report 2011‐1188. Website: http://pubs.usgs.gov /of/2011/1188/ (accessed March 2023).

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-19

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 following discussion is based on the findings of the Biological Resources Assessment8 prepared for the proposed project. The Biological Resources Assessment is included as Appendix B.

Methods. LSA Biologist Kelly McDonald conducted a literature review and records search on March 31, 2020, to identify the existence and potential for occurrence of sensitive or special status9 plant and animal species in the vicinity of the project site. Federal and State lists of sensitive species were also examined. Current electronic database records reviewed included the following:
8 LSA. 2020. Biological Resources Assessments Hanford Place Project Kings County, California. May. 9 For the purposed of this report, the term “special-status species” refers to those species that are listed or proposed for listing under the CESA and/or FESA, California Fully Protected Species, California Species of Special Concern, and California Special Animals. It should be noted that “Species of Special Concern” and “California Special Animal” are administrative designations made by the CDFW and carry no formal legal protection status. However, Section 15380 of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that these species should be included in an analysis of project impacts if they can be shown to meet the criteria of sensitivity outlined therein.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -20 • California Natural Diversity Data Base information (CNDDB – RareFind 5), which is administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), formerly known as the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). This database covers sensitive plant and animal species as well as sensitive natural communities that occur in California. Records from nine USGS quadrangles surrounding the project site (Riverdale, Laton, Burris Park, Lemoore, Hanford, Remnoy, Stratford, Guernsey, and Waukena) were obtained from this database to inform the field survey.
• California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants, which utilizes four specific categories or “lists” of sensitive plant species to assist with the conservation of rare or endangered botanical resources. All of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B are intended to meet the status definitions of “threatened” or “endangered” in CESA and the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are considered by CNPS to be eligible for State listing. At the discretion of the CEQA Lead Agency, impacts to these species may be analyzed as such, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15125(c) and 15380. Plants in Rank 3 (limited information; review list), Rank 4 (limited distribution; watch list), or that are considered Locally Unusual and Significant may be analyzed under CEQA if there is sufficient information to assess potential significant impacts.

Records from the nine USGS quadrangles surrounding the project site were obtained from this database to inform the field survey.
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Online System, which lists all proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species managed by the Endangered Species Program of the USFWS that have the potential to occur on or near a particular site. This database also lists all known critical habitats, national wildlife refuges, and migratory birds that could potentially be impacted by activities from a proposed project. An IPaC Trust Resource Report was generated for the project area. • Designated and Proposed USFWS Critical Habitat Polygons were reviewed to determine whether critical habitat has been designated or proposed within or in the vicinity of the project site.
• The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory was reviewed to determine whether any wetlands or surface waters of the United States have been previously-identified in the survey area. • eBird: eBird is a real-time, online checklist program launched in 2002 by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and National Audubon Society. It provides rich data sources for basic information on bird abundance and distribution at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. eBird occurrence records for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) from a 5-mile radius around the project site were reviewed in May 2020.

In addition to the databases listed above, historic and current aerial imagery, existing environmental reports for developments in the project vicinity, and local land use policies related to biological resources were reviewed.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-21 A general biological survey of the project site was conducted by LSA Biologist Kelly McDonald on April 27, 2020. The project site was surveyed on foot, and all biological resources observed were noted and mapped. Suitable habitat for any species of interest or concern was duly noted, and general site conditions were photographed. The field survey took place on a clear sunny morning with weather conditions conducive to the detection of plant and animal species. a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The Hanford region supports various special-status natural communities, plants, and animals. The Biological Resources Assessment provides tables that identify those special-status plant and animal species known to occur or that potentially occur in the vicinity of the project site (based on the literature review and experience in the region) and includes detailed information about each species’ habitat and distribution, State and federal status designations, and probability of occurrence within the project site. As stated in the methodology section above, the background research included occurrence records from nine United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangles surrounding the survey area. A nine USGS quadrangle search covers a large, variable geographic and topographic area containing numerous habitat types not found within or around the project site.

Special-Status Natural Communities. No special-status natural communities or conservation areas exist within the project site or in adjacent parcels. The project site is completely isolated and distant from all special-status natural communities that occur in the region. Therefore, as the project site does not contain any special-status natural communities, such habitats would not be impacted by the proposed project.

Special-Status Species. No special-status plant species are expected to occur within the project site or to be adversely affected by the proposed project.

While no special-status animal species (or signs of such species) were observed on site during the April 2020 survey, several small mammal burrows were observed within the project site that are considered suitable habitat for burrowing owl, a California Species of Special Concern, and/or San Joaquin kit fox, a federally listed as endangered and state-listed as threatened species. None of the small mammal burrows observed in the project site exhibited features typical of occupied kit fox or burrowing owl burrows at the time of the survey, although there is some potential for use by these species in the future. Potentially significant direct and indirect impacts, including mortality, harassment, or other forms of incidental take, could occur if construction-related ground disturbance occurs in or around an occupied den or burrow.

No other special-status species were determined to have a moderate or high probability of occurrence on the project site (refer to Appendix D of the Biological Resources Assessment). The removal of the disturbed annual grassland habitat documented on the project site is not anticipated to substantially impact the population sizes of any special-status animal species given the context and setting of the project site and additional habitats for such species in the project vicinity.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -22 While suitable habitat for shrub and tree nesting birds is very limited on the project site (only one tree occurs within the site boundaries), the project site does contain suitable nesting habitat for a variety of ground-nesting birds and for other birds that could nest in the annual herbaceous vegetation. Nesting birds are protected under the California Fish and Game Code. Construction activities that occur during the nesting bird season (typically February 15 through September 15) have potential to result in the direct or indirect take of nesting birds.

If unmitigated or unavoided, these potential direct and indirect impacts on special-status wildlife species and nesting birds could be considered potentially significant. However, conducting preconstruction surveys and complying with applicable regulatory requirements would prevent or compensate for impacts on special-status specifies. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, as summarized below, which would require pre-construction surveys and compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, would effectively mitigate any impacts on special-status wildlife species to less-than-significant levels.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1 Conduct Preconstruction Clearance Surveys for San Joaquin Kit Fox and Burrowing Owl. A preconstruction clearance survey is required for San Joaquin kit fox and burrowing owl no more than 30 calendar days prior to initiation of project activities. All survey results must be delivered to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the City. If the survey results find an active burrow of one or both of these species on the project site, the applicant must coordinate with the applicable resource agencies (CDFW for burrowing owl, CDFW and USFWS for kit fox) to obtain applicable agency approval(s)/permit(s) prior to any ground disturbance activities on the site.

Specific avoidance, den excavation, passive relocation, and compensatory mitigation activities shall be performed as required by the applicable agency. Appropriate provisions of the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox shall be adhered to.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2 Worker Environmental Awareness Training. Prior to initial groundbreaking, Worker Environmental Awareness Training shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to educate all construction personnel on the relevant federal, state, and local laws related to potentially occurring special-status species at the site. The tailgate session shall include training on identification of species that may be found on the project site, the status of those species, and any legal protection afforded to those species. Personnel will be advised to report any special-status species encountered promptly. A fact sheet conveying this information will be prepared for display or for distribution to anyone who may enter the project site.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-23 Mitigation Measure BIO-3 Construction Site Housekeeping and Operational Requirements.

Habitat subject to permanent and temporary construction disturbances and other types of ongoing project-related disturbance activities shall be minimized by adhering to the following USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox:
a. To minimize temporary disturbances, all project-related vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads, construction areas, and other designated areas. These areas shall also be included in preconstruction surveys and, to the extent possible, shall be established in locations disturbed by previous activities to prevent further impacts.
b. Project-related vehicles shall observe a daytime speed limit of 20-mph throughout the site in all project sites, except on county roads and state and federal highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. Night-time construction shall be minimized to the extent possible.

However, if it does occur, then the speed limit shall be reduced to 10-mph. Off-road traffic outside of designated project sites shall be prohibited.
c. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of a project, all excavated, steepwalled holes or trenches more than 2-feet deep shall be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the USFWS and the CDFW shall be contacted.
d. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods shall be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until the USFWS and CDFW have been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of a qualified biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped. In the case of

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -24 trapped animals, escape ramps or structures shall be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the USFWS and CDFW should be contacted for further guidance.
e. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from a construction or project site.
f. Pets, such as dogs or cats, shall not be permitted on the project site to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens.
g. Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project sites shall be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other state and federal legislation. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of a proven lower risk to kit fox.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4 Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. If vegetation removal, construction, or grading activities are planned to occur within the active nesting bird season (February 15 through September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no more than 5 days prior to the start of such activities. The nesting bird survey shall include the project site and areas immediately adjacent to the site that could potentially be affected by project-related activities such as noise, vibration, increased human activity, and dust, etc. For any active nest(s) identified, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone around the active nest(s). The appropriate buffer shall be determined by the qualified biologist based on species, location, and the nature of the proposed activities. Project activities shall be avoided within the buffer zone until the nest is deemed no longer active by the qualified biologist.

Critical Habitat. The project would not result in any impacts to critical habitat, and no additional mitigation is required.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-25 b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are present at the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. As a result, no impact would occur. c. 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 project proposes to convert an open trapezoidal segment of Peoples Ditch (an excavated irrigation canal) to a 66-inch-diameter below-ground pipe culvert which would terminate approximately 20 feet short of the existing pipe culvert that runs under SR-198. Approximately

0.50 acre of the irrigation canal would be undergrounded as part of the project.

Peoples Ditch does not meet the definition of a jurisdictional water of the United States pursuant to the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, effective June 22, 2020. Furthermore, Peoples Ditch does not meet the wetland criteria outlined in the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State, which excludes agricultural ditches with ephemeral flow that are not a relocated water of the state or excavated in a water of the state. Nevertheless, Peoples Ditch may fall within the jurisdiction of CDFW under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under the California Water Code (e.g., the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act). Furthermore, given the recent substantial changes in operable definitions that have occurred and may continue to occur, and considering the regulatory revisions and potential court actions, it is not possible to definitively predict the regulations that will be in place at the time of a particular jurisdictional determination or permit action by the USACE. Under currently effective Clean Water Act regulations and guidance, the USACE reserves the right to regulate certain resources on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would be required.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5 Agency Coordination for Peoples Ditch. Prior to any modifications to Peoples Ditch, it is recommended to consult with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CDFW, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to verify the feature’s jurisdictional status and obtain applicable permit(s) and/or authorization(s). A notification of streambed alteration should be submitted to the CDFW in accordance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Unless categorically excluded under effective definitions or existing documentation confirms that no permit is needed, the Central Valley RWQCB and Sacramento District of the USACE should be consulted regarding potential permitting needs under the California Water Code and federal Clean Water Act, respectively, associated with the proposed Peoples Ditch modifications.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -26 Implementing applicable permit measures would prevent or compensate for impacts on jurisdictional aquatic resources. Considering the status of Peoples Ditch as a constructed and maintained irrigation canal and the lack of natural drainages, riparian areas, and wetlands on the project site, the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or by other means. The impact would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. d. 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?
The wildlife species that occur in the project vicinity are adapted to the urban-wildland interface, and the project would not introduce new affects to the area. The noise, vibration, light, dust, or human disturbance within construction areas would only temporarily deter wildlife from using areas in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. These indirect effects could temporarily alter migration behaviors, territories, or foraging habitats in select areas. However, because these are temporary effects, it is likely that wildlife already living and moving in close proximity to urban development would alter their normal functions for the duration of the project construction and then re-establish these functions once all temporary construction effects have been removed. The proposed project would not place any permanent barriers within any known wildlife movement corridors or interfere with habitat connectivity. The impact would be considered less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required.
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The City of Hanford and Kings County currently do not have a regional Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan. The 2035 General Plan for the City outlines local relevant policies related to biological resources. Below is the list of applicable policies and consistency analysis:
• 5.5.1 Natural Habitat: Goal 04: Protection of natural habitat and other biological resources. ○ Policy 031 Provision of Open Space Areas: Preserve and enhance open space area.

Consistency Analysis: The project site is currently designated as a Highway Commercial land use and is isolated from open space areas; therefore, the project is considered consistent with this policy.
○ Policy 032 Wetland and Riparian Corridor: Where appropriate and feasible, establish permanent mechanisms to protect wetlands and riparian corridors.

Consistency Analysis: The project is not located within wetlands or riparian corridors; therefore, the project is considered consistent with this policy.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-27 ○ Policy 033 Vernal Pools: Identify and protect vernal pools that be located in Planning Area.

Consistency Analysis: Vernal pools are not located within the project site; therefore, the project is considered consistent with this policy.
○ Policy 035 Impacts from Development: Ensure that potential impacts to biological resources and sensitive habitat are carefully evaluated when considering development projects.

Consistency Analysis: No sensitive or special-status natural communities occur on the project site. An appropriately timed field survey and biological resources assessment were conducted on the project site to determine the likelihood and suitability of sensitive habitat and species; the project is not likely to result in significant impacts on sensitive resources with the implementation of recommended measures. Therefore, the project is considered consistent with this policy.
○ Policy 037 Mature Trees: Promote the preservation of existing mature trees and encourage the planting of appropriate shade trees in new developments.

Consistency Analysis: The development plan includes the removal of one nonnative tree.

The project will include the planting of trees as part of the landscaping plan, resulting in an overall increase in shade trees within the project area. Therefore, the project is considered consistent with this policy.
○ Policy 038 Native Tree Species and Drought Tolerant Vegetation: Encourage the planting of native tree species and drought-tolerant vegetation.

Consistency Analysis: The landscaping plan will be provided in accordance with Section

17.52 Landscape Standards of the Hanford Municipal Code; all species of trees shall be selected from a list approved by the City’s Parks Division. Therefore, the project is considered consistent with this policy.
• 5.5.2 Wildlife and Sensitive Species
○ Policy 039 Endangered Wildlife and Habitat: Establish programs in connection with environmental review processes to protect endangered wildlife and their habitats.

Consistency Analysis: An appropriately-timed field survey and literature reviews were conducted for the project in support of the CEQA review process. Based on the analysis and with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures contained herein, it is unlikely that any endangered species would be adversely affected by the project. Therefore, the project is considered consistent with this policy.
○ Policy 040 Sensitive Wildlife: Work with State, federal, and local agencies on the preservation of sensitive wildlife species in the City.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -28 Consistency Analysis: Implementation of recommended Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, as described above, would ensure consistency with applicable resource agency policies with regard to sensitive wildlife species determined to have potential of occurring on the project site. Therefore, the project is considered consistent with this policy.

With implementation of the Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 listed above, the proposed project would not conflict with any regional habitat conservation plan or local policies related to the protection and conservation of biological resources. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
f. 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 site is not within the boundaries of a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. This condition precludes the possibility that implementation of the proposed project would conflict with the provisions of such a plan, and no impact would occur.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-29

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
A Cultural Resource Inventory10 was prepared for the proposed project, which included: (1) a records search at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) to identify prior cultural resource studies and previously recorded cultural resources in the project area and surrounding 0.5-mile area; (2) desktop archival research to better understand land use and property ownership within the project area; (3) a search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File and outreach with local tribal representatives; (4) a pedestrian survey of the project area to identify potential historical resources within the project area and preliminary recordation of identified resources on the appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation record form(s); (5) a buried site sensitivity assessment; and (6) recommendations for further work to assess whether the proposed project would cause adverse impacts to historical resources—i.e., cultural resources eligible for listing on the California Register. The analysis in this Cultural Resources section is based on the results of the Cultural Resource Inventory. The Cultural Resource Inventory is included as Appendix C.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Records Search Results. A records search of the project site and a 0.5-mile radius was conducted on May 5, 2020, by staff at the SSJVIC. The SSJVIC reported nine previous cultural studies encompassing portions of the project area that occurred between 1982 and 2015, and five additional studies in the surrounding 0.5-mile area. Of the nine studies within the project area, seven had negative results.

The Peoples Ditch is the only previously recorded resource within the project area. In addition, the Southern Pacific Railroad/San Joaquin Valley Railroad is just outside the project area’s northern boundary. Two additional built environment resources were identified within a 0.5-mile radius of the project area and one additional resource is also within 0.5 mile of the project area.

Buried Site Sensitivity Assessment. Geologic and soil data derived from the National Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey identify only one soil type within the project area, consisting of Nord coarse to fine sandy loam. Based on this soil type, the entire project area is encompassed by 10 Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 2020. Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project in the City of Hanford, Kings County, California. August.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -30 a soil type and landform that have high or very high potential for containing anthropogenic paleosols with intact cultural deposits. Adding to this sensitivity is the presence of Dry Creek within the project area during prehistory, which would have provided rich habitat and other resources for Native American groups. Dry Creek was a naturally occurring intermittent stream that was modified during Hanford’s early settlement period. However, it is likely that portions of the project area have been disturbed by past infill of Dry Creek and the construction of Peoples Ditch in addition to impacts related to historic-era agricultural and domestic activities in the eastern portion of the project area. In these areas of disturbance, the sensitivity for intact and well-preserved buried sites is moderate, low, or none.

This evidence of modern disturbance notwithstanding, due to the very high sensitivity of the soil type in the project area, and because over excavation and recompacting of soil is recommended to mitigate the effects of potential hydrocompaction to at least 7 feet below the existing grade and to a distance of at least 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the planned buildings and surrounding improvements, limited subsurface archaeological testing to confirm the presence/absence of anthropogenic paleosols or intact cultural resource deposits is recommended. Based on the findings of subsurface archaeological testing, archaeological data recovery to assess prehistoric cultural deposits and cultural resource monitoring during ground disturbing construction activities may be needed. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would be required.

Field Survey Results. During the field survey, one historic-era refuse scatter (AE-4167-01) and one historic-era isolate (AE-4167-ISO-01) were observed. The artifacts date to the first half of the twentieth century, suggesting the deposit may be associated with the nonextant historical structure.

In addition, the project site appears to have been impacted by previous agricultural activity that would have displaced artifacts within a few feet of their original placement. The condition of the subsurface deposit is unknown as it was not visible during the pedestrian survey. No prehistoric artifact concentrations, isolated artifacts, features, or evidence of human skeletal material were observed during the survey.

Built Environment Resources Results. A modern segment of Peoples Ditch and the remnants of its older, now abandoned, route were observed during survey. As such, the existing California Department of Parks and Recreation cultural resource record for the Peoples Ditch was updated to record its remnant historical alignment within the project area. The new segment is less than 50 years old. The only remaining evidence of the original alignment of the ditch is its scar on the landscape and the remains of a concrete containment well at the northern end of the abandoned segment.

Summary. To determine whether the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significant quantities of a historical resource, additional mapping and subsurface testing would be required. Conducting additional mapping and subsurface testing would prevent potential impacts to historic and archaeological resources that could be uncovered during construction activities.

Therefore, Mitigation Measures CULT-1 and CULT-2 would be required to reduce the project’s potential impacts to previous unidentified historical resources that may be encountered during construction. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-31 Mitigation Measure CULT-1 Because of the very high sensitivity of the soil type in the project area, the possibility exists that buried archaeological deposits within the project site. Therefore, archaeological monitoring must be conducted during ground-disturbing construction activities in native soil, including clearing and grubbing. Monitoring should occur on a full-time basis during all excavation activities until the Project Archaeologist, based on the archaeological monitor’s observations, is satisfied that there is little likelihood of encountering intact archaeological deposits. The Project Archaeologist may also determine it is appropriate to reduce monitoring to spot-checking or on a part-time basis.

Upon completion of the monitoring and, if necessary, mitigation, the archaeologist should prepare a report to document the methods and results of the monitoring. The final report should be submitted to the SSJVIC.

Mitigation Measure CULT-2 Additional mapping and subsurface testing of AE-4167-01 shall be conducted to evaluate its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources, pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) 5024.1. Additional focused subsurface testing in areas not previously disturbed by historic-era activities must be conducted to confirm presence/absence of high-sensitivity paleosols that may include intact prehistoric cultural deposits. If intact prehistoric cultural deposits are encountered during subsurface presence/absence testing, further investigation must be conducted to determine if the deposit retains integrity and is eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources. The methods and findings of the additional studies would be presented as an addendum to the Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project and would include cultural resource management
recommendations to guide mitigation of potential adverse effects to any identified historical resources within the project area. b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Mitigation Measures CULT-1 and CULT-2, as presented in Response 4.5.a above, would ensure that potential impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by conducting additional mapping and subsurface testing to prevent potential impacts to historic and archaeological resources that could be uncovered during construction activities. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -32 c. Would the project disturb any humans remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Although no such remains have been identified within the project site, there is a possibility of encountering such remains, either in isolation or with prehistoric archaeological deposits. Such remains could be uncovered during project ground-disturbing activities. The project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-3 would reduce potential impacts to human remains to a less than significant level by ensuring compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 in the event that any human remains are encountered during project-related grounddisturbing activities.

In addition, on January 10, 2017, the City of Hanford met with the Tachi Yokut Tribe, on a different project in order to establish conditions, which would apply to all projects in the City of Hanford, which required an initial study. In order to address the concerns of the Tachi Yokut Tribe, the City is requiring the implementation of a Burial Treatment Plan as a mitigation measure. Therefore, implementation Mitigation Measure CULT-4 would ensure implementation of a Burial Treatment Plan and would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure CULT-3 Any human remains encountered during project-related grounddisturbing activities shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The project sponsor shall inform all contractor(s) performing excavation of the sensitivity of the project site for human remains and include the following directive in the appropriate contract documents:

If human remains are uncovered, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be halted and the Kings County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, the on-site monitoring
archaeologist shall assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the California State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of this identification. The NAHC will formally identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD)—if one is not already on-site—to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Such recommendations shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the NAHC prior to work resuming within 50 feet of the discovered remains.

Mitigation Measure CULT-4 A Burial Treatment Plan shall be entered into by the project applicant/property owner prior to any ground disturbing activities.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-33

4.6 ENERGY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation?
The proposed project would increase the demand for electricity, natural gas, and gasoline. The discussion and analysis provided below is based on the CalEEMod output included as Appendix A.

Construction-Period Energy Use. The anticipated construction schedule assumes that the proposed project would be built over approximately 3 years. The proposed project would require grading, site preparation, and building activities during construction.

Construction of the proposed project would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of construction materials, preparation of the site for demolition and grading activities, and construction of the residences. Petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) would be the primary sources of energy for these activities. Construction activities are not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs on the project. Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources. Therefore, construction energy impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Energy Use. Energy use consumed by the proposed project would be associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips associated with the project.

Energy and natural gas consumption was estimated for the project using default energy intensities by building type in CalEEMod.

CalEEMod divides building electricity and natural gas use into uses that are subject to Title 24 standards and those that are not. For electricity, Title 24 uses include the major building envelope systems covered by Part 6 (California Energy Code) of Title 24 (e.g., space heating, space cooling, water heating, and ventilation). Non-Title 24 uses include all other end uses (e.g., appliances, electronics, and other miscellaneous plug-in uses). Because some lighting is not considered as part of the building envelope energy budget, CalEEMod considers lighting as a separate electricity use category. For natural gas, uses are likewise categorized as Title 24 or Non-Title 24, with Title 24 uses

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -34 including building heating and hot water end uses. Non-Title 24 natural gas uses include cooking and appliances (including pool/spa heaters).

Table 4.F, below, shows the estimated potential increased electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel demand associated with the proposed project. The electricity and natural gas rates are from the CalEEMod analysis, while the gasoline and diesel rates are based on the traffic analysis in conjunction with United States Department of Transportation (DOT) fuel efficiency data.

Table 4.F: Estimated Annual Energy Use of Proposed Project Land Use Electricity Use
(kWh per year)
Natural Gas
Use
(therms per
year)
Gasoline
(gallons per
year)
Diesel (gallons
per year)
Ambulatory Surgery Center, Specialty Clinic,
Medical Office Building, and Psychiatric
Health Facility
1,395,423 26,572 67,277 55,850
Hotel and Conference Center 1,403,506 30,168 32,955 27,358 Nursing College 365,853 15,649 30,809 25,576
Skilled Nursing Facility, Memory Care,
Assisted Living Facility
701,757 24,991 37,905 31,467
Multi-Family Apartments 454,375 16,181 32,930 27,337
Medical/Commercial 427,442 2,508 62,119 51,569
Parking Lot 596,800 0 0 0
Total 5,345,159 116,068 263,994 219,156
Source: LSA (March 2023).

As shown in Table 4.F, the estimated potential increased electricity demand associated with the proposed project is 5,345,159 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. In 2021, California consumed approximately 280,738 gigawatt-hours (GWh) or 280,738,376,720 kWh.11 Of this total, Kings County consumed 1,980 GWh or 1,980,705,673 kWh.12 Therefore, electricity demand associated with the proposed project would only be approximately 0.27 percent of Kings County’s total electricity demand.

The estimated potential increased natural gas demand associated with the proposed project is 116,068 therms per year, as shown in Table 4.F. In 2021, California consumed approximately 11,923 million therms or 11,923,705,642 therms, while Kings County consumed approximately 64 million therms or approximately 64,004,283 therms.13 Therefore, natural gas demand associated with the proposed project would only be approximately 0.18 percent of Kings County’s total natural gas demand.
11 California Energy Commission. 2022b. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Electricity Consumption by County and Entity. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed March 2023). 12 Ibid. 13 California Energy Commission. 2022c. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Gas Consumption by County and Entity. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed March 2023).

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-35 In addition, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel to fuel project-related trips. The average fuel economy for light‐duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and SUVs) in the United States has steadily increased from about 14.9 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1980 to

22.9 mpg in 2020.14 The average fuel economy for heavy-duty trucks in the United States has also steadily increased, from 5.7 mpg in 2013 to a projected 8.0 mpg in 2021.15 Using the average USEPA gasoline fuel economy estimates for 2020, the California diesel fuel economy estimates for 2021, and the traffic data from the project traffic analysis, the proposed project would result in the annual consumption of approximately 263,994 gallons of gasoline and 219,156 gallons of diesel. In 2019, vehicles in California consumed approximately 15.6 billion gallons of gasoline and 3.8 billion gallons of diesel fuel.16 Therefore, gasoline and diesel demand generated by vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would be a minimal fraction of gasoline and diesel fuel consumption in California and Kings County.

In addition, vehicles associated with trips to and from the project site would be subject to fuel economy and efficiency standards, which are applicable throughout the State. As such, the fuel efficiency of vehicles associated with project operations would increase throughout the life of the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in transportation-related energy uses.

The proposed project would be constructed to CALGreen standards, which would help to reduce energy and natural gas consumption. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy and would incorporate renewable energy or energy efficiency measures into building design, equipment use, and transportation. Construction and operation period impacts related to consumption of energy resources would be less than significant.
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? In 2002, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1389, which required the California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop an integrated energy plan every two years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels, for the California Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero emission (ZE) vehicles and their 14 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). “Table 4‐23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles.” Website: https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles (accessed March 2023). 15 Ibid. 16 CEC. n.d. California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics. Website: www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california-gasoline-data-facts-and-statistics (accessed March 2023).

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -36 infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

The most recently adopted report includes the 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report17 and the 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update.
18 The Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the State is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining energy reliability and controlling costs. The Integrated Energy Policy Report covers a broad range of topics, including implementation of Senate Bill 350, integrated resource planning, distributed energy resources, transportation electrification, solutions to increase resiliency in the electricity sector, energy efficiency, transportation electrification, barriers faced by disadvantaged communities, demand response, transmission and landscape-scale planning, the California Energy Demand Preliminary Forecast, the preliminary transportation energy demand forecast, renewable gas (in response to Senate Bill 1383), updates on California electricity reliability, natural gas outlook, and climate adaptation and resiliency.

As indicated above, energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources and energy impacts would be negligible at the regional level. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the project’s total impact to regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC’s Integrated Energy Policy Report. Thus, as shown above, the project would avoid or reduce the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy and not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of energy. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation and this impact would be less than significant. 17 CEC. 2021. 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission. Docket Number: 21-IEPR01. 18 CEC. 2022a. 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. California Energy Commission. Docket Number:
22-IEPR-01.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-37

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
This section is based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic and Seismic Hazards Evaluation Report.
19 The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic and Seismic Hazards Evaluation Report is included as Appendix D.
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone. In addition, no known active or potentially active faults or fault traces are located in the project vicinity and no major fault systems are known to exist in Kings County.20 The project site is 19 Kleinfelder. 2020. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic and Seismic Hazards Evaluation Report Proposed Hanford Place, Medical and Mixed-Use Property Hanford, California. June 9. 20 Hanford, City of. 2017, op. cit.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -38 located approximately 58 miles east of the San Andreas fault and approximately 42 miles east of the Great Valley fault. A major seismic event on these fault segments may cause significant ground shaking at the site.21 However, as no known active, or potentially active faults cross or project toward the project site, the potential for fault-related surface rupture at the site is considered very low.22 In addition, the proposed project would be built to current building codes and standards to reduce the potential for structural failure caused by ground shaking and other geologic hazards. Therefore, no people or structures would be exposed to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death from the rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, and impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
As identified above, no known active or potentially active faults or fault traces are located in the project vicinity and no major fault systems are known to exist in Kings County. Ground shaking is the most likely damaging effect of an earthquake in Hanford. However, as no known active, or potentially active faults cross or project toward the project site, the potential for fault-related surface rupture at the site is considered very low.23 In addition, the proposed project would be built to current building codes and standards to reduce the potential for structural failure caused by ground shaking and other geologic hazards. Therefore, impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Secondary impacts of earthquakes can include landslides, seiches, liquefaction, and dam failure.24 Liquefaction describes a condition in which a saturated, cohesionless soil loses shear strength during earthquake shocks. Ground motion from an earthquake may induce cyclic reversals of shearing strains of large amplitude. Lateral and vertical movements of the soil mass, combined with loss of bearing strength, usually result from this phenomenon. Historically, liquefaction of soils has caused severe damage to structures, berms, levees and roads.

Liquefaction potential depends on soil type, void ratio, depth to groundwater, duration of shaking and confining pressures over the potentially liquefiable soil mass. Fine, well-sorted, loose sand, shallow groundwater, severe seismic ground motion and particularly long durations of ground shaking are conditions conducive for liquefaction. Soils in Hanford do not have significant liquefaction potential.25 Hanford is located in a stable geologic formation, so the effects of ground shaking on soil stability should be minimal. As such, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial effects associated with seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. 21 Kleinfelder. 2020, op. cit. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Hanford, City of. 2014. General Plan Background Report - Hanford, California. March. Website:
cms6.revize.com/revize/hanfordca/document_center/Planning/General%20Plan/2034%20General%20Pla n%20Background%20Report.pdf (accessed March 2023). 25 Ibid.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-39 iv. Landslides?
As discussed above, secondary impacts of earthquakes can include landslides, seiches, liquefaction, and dam failure. However, Hanford is located in a stable geologic formation, so the effects of ground shaking on soil stability should be minimal. In addition, because the project site is generally level, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with landslides. Therefore, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant.
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Soil erosion is a process whereby soil materials are worn away and transported to another area, either by wind or water. Rates of erosion can vary depending on the soil material and structure, placement, and human activity. Soil containing high amounts of silt can be easily eroded, while sandy soils are less susceptible. Excessive soil erosion can eventually damage building foundations and roadways. Erosion is most likely to occur on sloped areas with exposed soil, especially where unnatural slopes are created by cut-and-fill activities. Soil erosion rates can be higher during the construction phase. Typically, the soil erosion potential is reduced once the soil is graded and covered with concrete, structures, or asphalt.

Implementation of the proposed project would include grading activities that could result in shortterm soil erosion during the construction period. Exposed soils are considered erodible when subjected to concentrated surface flow or wind. Mitigation Measure GEO-1, described below, would reduce the potential for soil erosion.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1 To reduce the potential for soil erosion during construction of the proposed project, an Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared for the project in conformance with the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction Activity, prior to the start of grading.

In addition, soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be minimized through implementation of SJVAPCD Regulation VIII fugitive dust control measures and compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and compliance with NPDES permit requirements, construction of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
See Responses 4.7.a.iii and 4.7.a.iv above. The proposed project would not require a substantial grade change or change in topography. The project would not result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, or liquefaction or collapse. However, some of the alluvial soils in the San Joaquin Valley are subject to hydrocompaction. Hydrocompactive soil has a relatively loose

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -40 skeletal structure, which is weakly cemented by soluble salts or a slight clay mineral content.

Moisture increase breaks down the inter-particle cementation causing a collapse of the skeletal structure. The significant loss in soil volume can result in settlement of overlying structures. The project geotechnical exploration and associated laboratory testing identified the in-place relative density of the subsurface soil was relatively low and compression characteristics were moderate.

Based on laboratory testing, post saturation of four soil obtained from the project site had compression characteristics that were low to moderate, indicating a possibility of collapse potential.

However, with implementation of the earthwork and design recommendations included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic and Seismic Hazards Evaluation Report, impacts would be less than significant.
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Expansive soils possess a “shrink-swell” characteristic. Shrink-swell is the cyclic change in volume (expansion and contraction) that occurs in fine-grained clay sediments from the process of wetting and drying. Structural damage may occur over a long period of time, usually the result of inadequate soil and foundation engineering, or the placement of structures directly on expansive soils. Based on the borings conducted for the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic and Seismic Hazards Evaluation Report, expansive soils were not encountered. Furthermore, based on review of soil survey, expansive soil was not identified within the project area. Expansive soils are not anticipated within the influence of foundation systems or zone of cyclic moisture changes, and therefore, would not dictate the need for special grading or special footing and concrete slab-ongrade design.26 Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to substantial risks to life or property due to expansive soils. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
The proposed project would not require the use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Paleontological resources are the mineralized (fossilized) remains of prehistoric plant and animal life exclusive of human remains or artifacts. Fossil remains such as bones, teeth, shells, and leaves are found in geologic deposits (rock formations) where they were originally buried. Fossil remains are considered to be important as they provide indicators of the earth’s chronology and history. These resources are afforded protection under CEQA and are considered to be limited and nonrenewable, and they provide invaluable scientific and educational data. Due to the sensitive nature of these paleontological resources, they are not mapped.
26 Kleinfelder. 2020, op. cit.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-41 Implementation of the proposed project would require ground disturbing construction activities that may inadvertently encounter and damage paleontological resources. Should this occur, project construction at both well sites may result in the destruction of a unique paleontological site, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would reduce this impact to less than significant by redirecting ground-disturbing activities, consulting with agencies as appropriate, and making recommendations for the treatment of the discovery in the event that any human remains are encountered during project-related ground-disturbing activities.

The following mitigation measure would reduce the paleontological resource impacts associated with the proposed project to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure GEO-2 The project applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for paleontological resources. Should paleontological resources be encountered during project subsurface construction activities, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If found to be significant, and project activities cannot avoid the paleontological resources, adverse effects to paleontological resources shall be mitigated. Mitigation may include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a final report, and accessioning the fossil material and technical report to a paleontological repository. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate.

Upon completion of the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review, and (if paleontological materials are recovered) a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). The City shall verify that the above directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -42

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) are present in the atmosphere naturally, and are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. However, over the last 200 years, human activities have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global climate change.

The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2)
• Methane (CH4)
• Nitrous oxide (N2O)
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
• Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.

These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”).

The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG; the definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-43 This section discusses the proposed project’s potential impacts related to the release of GHG emissions for both construction and project operation. Section 15064.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that: “A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.” In performing that analysis, the lead agency has discretion to determine whether to use a model or methodology to quantify GHG emissions, or to rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. In making a determination as to the significance of potential impacts, the lead agency then considers the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting, whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project, and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

Neither the City of Hanford, nor the SJVAPCD has developed or adopted numeric GHG significance thresholds. Therefore, this analysis evaluates the GHG emissions based on the project’s consistency with State GHG reduction goals.

Construction Activities. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.

Total GHG emissions generated during all phases of construction were combined and are presented in Table 4.G. The SJVAPCD does not recommend assessing the significance of construction‐related emissions. However, other jurisdictions, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), have concluded that construction emissions should be included since they may remain in the atmosphere for years after construction is complete. In order to account for the construction emissions, amortization of the total emissions generated during construction were based on the life of the development (nonresidential— 30 years) and added to the operational emissions.

Table 4.G: Project Construction GHG Emissions
Year Metric Tons of CO2e per Year
2024 815.0
2025 623.0
2026 525.0
2027 11.0
Total 1,973.0
Amortized over 30 years 65.8
Source: LSA (March 2023).

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -44 As shown in Table 4.G, it is estimated that construction of the proposed project would generate approximately 1,973.0 metric tons of CO2e. When considered over the 30-year life of the project, the total amortized construction emissions for the proposed project would be 65.8 metric tons of CO2e per year.

Operational Emissions. Long-term GHG emissions are typically generated from mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks, and buses), area sources (e.g., maintenance activities and landscaping), indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption, waste sources (land filling and waste disposal), and water sources (water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution). Mobilesource GHG emissions would include project-generated vehicle trips to and from the project. Areasource emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance on the project site. Energy source emissions would be generated at off-site utility providers as a result of increased electricity demand generated by the project. Waste source emissions generated by the proposed project include energy generated by land filling and other methods of disposal related to transporting and managing project generated waste. In addition, water source emissions associated with the proposed project are generated by water supply and conveyance, water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment.

Emissions estimates for operation of the proposed project were calculated using CalEEMod. Model results are shown in Table 4.H. Trip generation rates for the project were based on the project’s trip generation estimates, as identified in Section 4.17, Transportation. However, as discussed in Section 4.17, approximately 41,500 square feet of commercial/office uses is proposed. These uses would generate fewer trips than the 114,000 square feet of commercial/office uses that is analyzed in the proposed project trip generation estimate. The trip generation in CalEEMod was adjusted to reflect 41,500 square feet of commercial/office uses. As such, CalEEMod assumes a total of approximately 5,239 ADT, including 1,393 ADT for the Ambulatory Surgery Center, Specialty Clinic, Medical Office Building, and Psychiatric Health Facility, 682 ADT for the Hotel and Conference Center, 638 ADT for the Nursing College, 662 ADT for the Skilled Nursing Facility, Memory Care, Assisted Living Facility, 576 ADT for the Multi-Family Apartments, and 1,287 ADT for the Medical/Commercial uses based on the project's trip generation and taking into account a 10 percent reduction for internal trips. In addition, this analysis assumes the proposed project would be built to current Title 24 building standards. Where project-specific data were not available, default assumptions from CalEEMod were used to estimate project emissions.

Table 4.H: Operational GHG Emissions
Emissions Category
Operational Emissions (Metric Tons per Year)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Percent of Total
Mobile Source 3,166.0 0.2 0.2 3,236.0 56
Area Source 142.0 0.2 <0.1 148.0 3
Energy Source 1,906.0 0.1 <0.1 1,912.0 33
Water Source 33.9 0.8 <0.1 60.6 1
Waste Source 124.0 12.4 0.0 433.0 7
Total Operational 5,789.6 100.0
Source: Compiled by LSA (February 2023).

Note = Some values may not appear to add up correctly due to rounding.

CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
N2O = nitrous oxide

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-45 As shown in Table 4.H, the proposed project would generate approximately 5,789.6 metric tons of CO2e annually.

The Kings County Association of Government Final Regional Climate Action Plan (Regional CAP) meets the requirements for a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy and is designed to streamline environmental review of future development projects in the County consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). However, the Regional CAP identifies emission reduction goals to reduce GHG emissions in the region by 15 percent below the 2005 emissions levels by 2020, consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 32. The proposed project would not be operational until post2020; therefore, because the Regional CAP was prepared based on the 2020 GHG targets, which are now superseded by the 2030 GHG targets established in Senate Bill (SB) 32, the Regional CAP would not be applicable for CEQA streamlining.

In addition, the SJVAPCD has not established a numeric threshold for GHG emissions. As discussed, the significance of GHG emissions may be evaluated based on locally adopted quantitative thresholds or consistency with a regional GHG reduction plan (such as a Climate Action Plan).

Neither the City of Hanford, nor the SJVAPCD has developed or adopted numeric GHG significance thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project was analyzed for consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan.

The 2022 Scoping Plan includes key project attributes that reduce operational GHG emissions in Appendix D, Local Actions27, of the 2022 Scoping Plan. As discussed in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan, absent consistency with an adequate, geographically specific GHG reduction plan such as a CEQA-qualified CAP, the first approach the State recommends for determining whether a proposed residential or mixed-use residential development would align with the State’s climate goals is to examine whether the project includes key project attributes that reduce operational GHG emissions while simultaneously advancing fair housing. The following project attributes result in reduced GHG emissions from residential and mixed-use development. Residential and mixed-use projects that have all of the key project attributes in Table 4.I would accommodate growth in a manner consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals. 27 CARB, 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D Local Actions. November. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf (accessed March 2023).

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -46 Table 4.I: Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan Key Residential and Mixed-Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs
Priority Areas Key Project Attribute Project Consistency Transportation
Electrification
Provides EV charging infrastructure that,
at minimum, meets the most ambitious
voluntary standard in the California
Green Building Standards Code at the
time of project approval.

Consistent with Mitigation Measure GHG-1.

CALGreen requires provision of infrastructure to
accommodate EV chargers. It is not yet known
whether the proposed project would include electric
vehicle charging; therefore, implementation of
Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would be required to
ensure the proposed project would provide electric
vehicle charging. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure GHG-1, the proposed project would be
consistent with this key project attribute.

VMT Reduction Is located on infill sites that are
surrounded by existing urban uses and
reuses or redevelops previously
undeveloped or underutilized land that is
presently served by existing utilities and
essential public services (e.g., transit,
streets, water, sewer).

Consistent. The project site is located in an area with a mix of land uses, including residential, commercial,
and medical uses that are presently served by existing
utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer). In addition, as discussed in
Section 4.17, the proposed project would result in a
less-than-significant VMT impact. Therefore, the
proposed project would be consistent with this key
project attribute.

Does not result in the loss or conversion
of natural and working lands.

Consistent. The project site is classified as Grazing
Land and is not zoned for agricultural uses or enrolled in a Williamson Act Contract. The State Department of
Conservation classifies the project site as Non-Enrolled Land. The project site is not located on land that is
designated as Prime Farmland or Farmland of State
Importance. In addition, the project site is currently
vacant and is not zoned for agricultural uses. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with this
key project attribute.

Consists of transit-supportive densities
(minimum of 20 residential dwelling
units per acre) or Is in proximity to
existing transit stops (within a half mile),
or satisfies more detailed and stringent
criteria specified in the region’s SCS.

Consistent. The proposed project would not include
20 residential dwelling units per acre; however, the
project site is located within 0.25 mile of a transit
stop. In addition, the proposed project would develop
a medical and mixed-use development and would
construct 15 buildings consisting of medical outpatient clinic services, a hotel and conference center,
specialized education, retail, medical office, skilled
nursing and assisted living, and multi-family residential uses, as well as a bio infiltration basin, associated
open space, circulation and parking, and infrastructure improvements. In addition, the proposed project
would include apartments that allow employees of the
project medical office and service facilities to live
within walking distance. The proposed project would
also provide pedestrian infrastructure connecting to
neighboring uses. The roads serving the project are
designed for low speed and would be conducive to
bicycle use. As such, the project would promote
initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and VMT and would
increase the use of alternate means of transportation.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-47 Table 4.I: Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan Key Residential and Mixed-Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs
Priority Areas Key Project Attribute Project Consistency As such, the proposed project would be consistent
with this key project attribute.

Reduces parking requirements by:
eliminating parking requirements or
including maximum allowable parking
ratios (i.e., the ratio of parking spaces to
residential units or square feet); or
providing residential parking supply at a
ratio of less than one parking space per
dwelling unit; or for multifamily
residential development, requiring
parking costs to be unbundled from costs
to rent or own a residential unit.

Consistent. The proposed project would consist of 15
buildings consisting of medical outpatient clinic
services, a hotel and conference center, specialized
education, retail, medical office, skilled nursing and
assisted living, and multi-family residential uses. The proposed project would provide 1,466 parking spaces
throughout the project site. Based on the proposed
uses when compared to the number of parking spaces,
the proposed project would be consistent with this
key project attribute.

At least 20 percent of units included are
affordable to lower-income residents.

Consistent. The proposed project would not include
affordable residential units. However, the proposed
project would include apartments that allow
employees of the project medical office and service
facilities to live within walking distance. In addition, the proposed project would include Skilled Nursing
Facility, Memory Care, Assisted Living Facility uses.

Although the proposed project would not include
affordable housing, the proposed project would
provide needed multi-family and senior housing.

Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent
with this key project attribute.

Results in no net loss of existing
affordable units.

Consistent. The proposed project would not result in
the removal of any existing residential units. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with this
key project attribute.

Building
Decarbonization
Uses all-electric appliances without any
natural gas connections and does not
use propane or other fossil fuels for
space heating, water heating, or indoor
cooking.

Consistent The proposed project would be consistent
with State building code requirements as Title 24
advances to implement the building decarbonization
goals from the 2022 Scoping Plan, As such, the
proposed project would be consistent with this key
project attribute.

Source: Compiled by LSA (February 2023).

With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan key residential and mixed-use project attributes related to EV charging requirements and building electrification. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed project would be consistent with all project attributes in the 2022 Scoping Plan GHG emission thresholds.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1 In order to meet the 2022 Scoping Plan greenhouse gas (GHG) requirements, consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals, the proposed project shall provide electric vehicle charging capabilities that meet the most ambitious

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -48 voluntary standard in the California Green Building Standards Code at the time of project approval as part of the final project design.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that the proposed project would be consistent with all project attributes in the 2022 Scoping Plan GHG emission thresholds. As such, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The following analysis evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with adopted plans to reduce GHG emissions. The City of Hanford adopted the Regional CAP in 2014. The CAP includes a GHG inventory, a benchmarking/goal‐setting process, and identifies a reduction target for 2020. This allowed the City to take advantage of the streamlining provisions contained in the State CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted for SB 97 and clarifications provided in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted on December 28, 2018. Although the CAP does not include a target for 2030, the measures in the plan will continue to provide reductions after the milestone year and help demonstrate continued progress toward achieving the SB 32 2030 target.

Regional CAP. The CAP includes a number of policies that support emission reductions from new development. The applicable policies and a discussion of the project’s consistency with the policies are provided in Table 4.J. The project is consistent with all applicable policies.

In summary, the proposed project would incorporate a number of features that would minimize GHG emissions. These features are consistent with project‐level strategies identified by the Regional CAP and CARB’s Scoping Plan. As demonstrated in the impact analysis above, the proposed project would not significantly hinder or delay the State’s ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32 or SB 32 or conflict with implementation of the Scoping Plan. The proposed project would promote the goals of the Scoping Plan through implementation of design measures that reduce energy consumption, water consumption, and reduction in VMT. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any plans to reduce GHG emissions. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.

Table 4.J: Consistency with the Regional Climate Action Plan Climate Action Plan Policy Project Consistency
E‐4.1 Encourage local homebuilders to participate in the New Solar Homes Partnership to install solar PV systems on qualifying new homes. (Community)
Consistent. The proposed project would comply with the
latest CALGreen solar readiness and installation
requirements.

E‐4.2 Work with the building industry to incorporate
designs improving solar readiness into building plans
through voluntary green building guidelines. (Community) Consistent. The proposed project would comply with the
latest CALGreen solar readiness and installation
requirements.

E‐5.2 Provide project applicants with green building
resources, including the SJVAPCD’s Best Performance
Standards list for GHG reductions, and promote workshops offered by community organizations. (Community)
Consistent.. The proposed project would include
sustainability features in the project design in
accordance with SJVAPCD requirements, CALGreen, and
City of Hanford standards.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-49 Table 4.J: Consistency with the Regional Climate Action Plan Climate Action Plan Policy Project Consistency
TL‐1.1 Support and encourage mixed‐use and medium‐ and
high‐density land use categories located within ¼ mile of a transit stop, park and ride facility, or existing developed areas, by allowing flexible zoning and/or density bonuses for applicable projects. (Community)
Consistent. The project site is located within 0.25 mile of a transit stop. The proposed project would consist of
mixed uses with high-density residential, hotel, and
medical office uses.

TL‐1.2 Prioritize infill development by publicly providing the location and zoning of infill sites on the local jurisdiction’s website and working with developers to expedite
applications. (Community)
Consistent. The project site is an infill location.

TL‐1.3 Allow live/work developments that permit residents to live at their place of work and thereby reduce VMT and associated GHG emissions. (Community)
Consistent. The proposed project would include
apartments that allow employees of the project medical
office and service facilities to live within walking
distance.

TL‐2.3 Establish minimum design criteria for bicycle and pedestrian circulation and implement through the design review process. (Community)
Consistent. The proposed project would provide
pedestrian infrastructure connecting to neighboring
uses. The roads serving the project are designed for low speed and would be conducive to bicycle use.

TL‐2.4 Encourage the installation of adequate and secure bicycle parking at all multi‐family residential, commercial, governmental, and recreational locations throughout the region. (Community)
Consistent. The proposed project would comply with
CALGreen Code requirements for bicycle parking.

TL‐2.5 Support land use planning that will promote
pedestrian and bicyclist access to and from new
development by encouraging land use and subdivision
designs that provide safe bicycle and pedestrian circulation, including bicycle parking facilities and internal bicycle and pedestrian routes, where feasible. (Community)
Consistent. The proposed project would comply with all
applicable City design standards related to safe bicycle and pedestrian circulation.

TL‐3.4 Support and encourage new development that
provides safe routes to adjacent transit stops, where
applicable. (Community)
Consistent. The proposed project would comply with
City design standards that provide a safe route to a
nearby transit stop.

TL‐4.2 Work with employers and developers to provide
affordable transportation alternatives and telecommuting options to serve both new and existing land uses.
(Community)
Consistent. The proposed project’s tenants would be
able to participate in commute services offered by the
Kings County Association of Governments and the City.

TL‐4.3 Support compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 9410 by
providing guidance and resources to employers required to comply with the eTRIP Rule. The eTRIP Rule requires
employers with over 100 eligible employees to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP) to
encourage employees to reduce single‐occupancy vehicle
trips by providing end of trip facilities such as preferential parking for vanpools and rideshare, bicycle parking, and other facilities suitable for the type of business.
(Community)
Consistent. Tenants with over 100 eligible employees
would be required to prepare an eTrip Plan that provides programs and measures that encourage ridesharing and
use of alternative modes of transportation.

TL.5.2 Allow the joint use of parking facilities for both private businesses and public agencies. (Community)
Consistent. The parking lots would serve multiple
businesses located throughout the complex.

Source: Kings County Association of Governments (2014) and LSA (March 2023).

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -50

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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?
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The proposed project would develop a medical and mixed-use development and would construct 15 buildings consisting of medical outpatient clinic services, hotel and conference center, specialized education, retail, medical office, skilled nursing and assisted living, and multi-family residential uses, as well as a bio infiltration basin, associated open space, circulation and parking, and infrastructure improvements.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of limited amounts of potentially hazardous materials, including but not limited to, solvents, paints, fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. However, all materials used during construction would be contained, stored, and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations established by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). No manufacturing, industrial, or other uses utilizing large amounts of hazardous materials would occur within the project site.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-51 Project operation would involve the use of common materials associated with residential, commercial, office, and medical uses (i.e., cleaning products, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc.) that could be potentially hazardous if handled improperly or ingested. However, these products are not considered acutely hazardous and are not generally considered unsafe. All storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials during project construction and operation would comply with applicable standards and regulations. The proposed residential uses would not generate significant amounts of any hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-thansignificant impact associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
See Response 4.9.a, above. The proposed project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident condition related to the release of hazardous materials. This impact would be less than significant. c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The closest existing school is Roosevelt Elementary School, located approximately 0.1 mile south of the project site. As previously stated, the proposed project would not result in the use or emission of substantial quantities of hazardous materials that would pose a human or environmental health risk. In addition, all materials would be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable standards and regulations. Therefore, because the proposed project does not involve activities that would result in the emission of hazardous materials or acutely hazardous substances, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact in the use or emission of hazardous materials that would adversely affect an existing school. d. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
According to the DTSC EnviroStor database,28 the project site is not located on a federal superfund site, State response site, voluntary cleanup site, school cleanup site, evaluation site, school investigation site, military evaluation site, tiered permit site, or corrective action site. The project site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. 29 As a result, no impacts related to this issue are anticipated. 28 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2019. EnviroStor. Website: www.envirostor.dtsc. ca.gov/public (accessed March 2023). 29 California Environmental Protection Agency. 2019. Government Code Section 65962.5(a). Website:
calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/ (accessed March 2023).

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -52 e. Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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 Hanford Municipal Airport is the closest airport and is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the project site. Although the project is located within 2 miles of the airport, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. In addition, the project site is not within noise contours of the airport. As such, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project site is not located along an emergency evacuation route. Vehicular access to the site would be provided by Glendale Avenue, 5th Street, and Campus Drive. The extension of these roadways would be constructed to City standards and would be dedicated as public right of way.

The proposed project would also construct a roundabout, which would also be dedicated as public right of way and would be constructed to Caltrans or City-approved standards. As part of the project, Glendale Avenue would be realigned at the northwest corner of the Hanford Veterinary Hospital development. The existing knuckle would be removed, and Glendale Avenue would be realigned using speed-specific design curves. Any new portions of Glendale Avenue would be dedicated as public right of way and any portion of existing right of way not used would be abandoned. 5th Street would be extended starting at the existing alignment before realigning to the roundabout. Therefore, project implementation would not physically interfere with emergency evacuation or the City Fire Department access to and from the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant as a result of project implementation and no mitigation is required. g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Wildland fires occur in geographic areas that contain the types and conditions of vegetation, topography, weather, and structure density susceptible to risks associated with uncontrolled fires that can be started by lightning, improperly managed campfires, cigarettes, sparks from automobiles, and other ignition sources. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) Map for Kings County, the project site is not located within a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.30 Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people to significant risk of loss, injury, or death due to wildland fires and this impact would be less than significant. 30 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zone in Local Resource Area (LRA). September 20. Website: osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6689/fhszl06_1_map16.pdf (accessed March 2023).

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-53

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? The proposed project is located in the City of Hanford and Kings County, which is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB.

Pollutants of concern during construction include eroded sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and other construction-related chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions. In addition, there is a potential for chemicals, petroleum products, other liquids (such as paints and solvents), and concrete-related waste to be spilled or leaked and transported via storm runoff into a stormwater drainage basin.

The project site is approximately 39.23-acres. Because construction of the proposed project would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). To prevent significant water quality impacts during

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -54 ground-disturbance activities, the proposed project would need to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes construction BMPs that comply with the requirements of the CGP. These requirements are included in Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1.

Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 To minimize any potential short-term water quality effects from project-related construction activities, the project contractor shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) in conformance with the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction Activity. In addition, the proposed project shall be in compliance with existing regulatory requirements, including the Water Pollution Control Preparation (WPCP) Manual. In addition, implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to regulate water quality associated with construction activities.

During operation of the proposed project, expected pollutants of concern include chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and waste that may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via runoff during periods of heavy precipitation. The proposed project would increase impervious surface area, which would increase the volume of runoff during a storm and more effectively transport pollutants to receiving waters. In addition, an increase in impervious surface area would increase the total amount of pollutants in the storm water runoff, which would increase the amount of pollutants discharged to downstream receiving waters. In order to avoid impacts to water quality during project operation, the proposed project would need to prepare and implement a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to reduce the discharge of pollutants of concern to the maximum extent practicable.

Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 To reduce the potential for degradation of surface water quality during project operation, a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be prepared for the proposed project. The SWMP shall describe specific programs to minimize storm water pollution resulting from the proposed project. Specifically, the SWMP shall identify and describe source control measures, treatment controls, and BMP maintenance requirements to ensure that the project complies with post-construction storm water management
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 and Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, the project’s impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-55 b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Groundwater was not encountered up to a depth of 45 feet below ground surface (bgs) during geotechnical borings on the project site.
31 Therefore, due to the depth to the groundwater table and the depth of excavation, dewatering of the groundwater table would not be required. Although excavation would occur well above existing groundwater levels, perched groundwater could be present beneath the project site. As such, groundwater dewatering of perched groundwater may be required during construction. Groundwater dewatering would not substantially affect groundwater supplies or recharge because groundwater dewatering would be temporary, would cease after project construction, and would only affect perched groundwater. Therefore, construction impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Currently, the project site is vacant and undeveloped. Development of the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces on the project site, which would decrease on-site infiltration. However, due to the depth to groundwater, it is unlikely that groundwater recharge from stormwater infiltration currently occurs on the project site. Regardless, any decrease in infiltration would be minimal in comparison to the size of the watershed and the amount of existing impervious surface area in the vicinity of the project area. Furthermore, project operation would not include groundwater extraction. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin, and impacts would be less than significant.
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; During construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. As discussed above in Response 4.10.a, Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 requires compliance with applicable permits and preparation of a SWPPP to identify construction BMPs to be implemented as part of the proposed project to reduce impacts to water quality during construction, including those impacts associated with soil erosion and siltation. Compliance with applicable permit requirements and implementation of the construction BMPs would ensure that construction impacts related to on- or off-site erosion or siltation would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
31 Kleinfelder. 2020, op. cit.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -56 Once operational, implementation of the proposed project would result in new internal access roads and surface parking lots, increasing impervious surface area which is not prone to erosion or siltation. The project would also include landscaping that would minimize erosion and siltation. The project site would be designed for storm water to be captured by the storm drain system, which would be collected by an underground conveyance system and delivered to the onsite bio infiltration basin. The basin would be privately held by the owners and would collect both the proposed project and the City right of way. All storm drain facilities would be designed to City standards. The proposed project would also convert the Peoples Ditch to a 66-inchdiameter below-ground pipeline where the ditch currently exists. The depth of the belowground pipeline would be between two and six feet. Therefore, on-site flooding, erosion, and siltation would not occur. This impact would be less than significant. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
During construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities, and there would be an increased potential for flooding compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, flooding could occur at an accelerated rate. As discussed above in Response 4.10.a, Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 requires compliance with applicable permits and preparation of a SWPPP to identify construction BMPs to be implemented as part of the proposed project to manage and convey storm water during construction. Proper management of storm water during construction would reduce impacts associated with flooding. Therefore, impacts related to on- or off-site flooding would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Once operational, the proposed project would increase impervious surface area on the site and could potentially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite. However, as discussed previously, the project site would be designed for storm water to be captured by the storm drain system, which would be collected by an underground conveyance system and delivered to the onsite bio infiltration basin. The basin would be privately held by the owners and would collect both the proposed project and the City right of way. All storm drain facilities would be designed to City standards. The proposed project would also convert the Peoples Ditch to a 66-inch-diameter below-ground pipeline where the ditch currently exists. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site. As such, operational impacts related to on-site or off-site flooding would be less than significant. iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
As discussed above in Response 4.10.a, there is a potential for sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals to be spilled or leaked and transported via storm runoff into stormwater basins. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. Drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities, and construction-related pollutants could be spilled, leaked, or transported via storm runoff into

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-57 adjacent drainages and stormwater basins. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 requires compliance with applicable permits and preparation of a SWPPP to identify construction BMPs to be implemented as part of the proposed project to manage and convey storm water during construction. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

In addition, as discussed above in Response 4.10.a, expected pollutants of concern during operation of the proposed project include chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and waste that may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via runoff during periods of heavy precipitation. The proposed project would increase impervious area, which would increase the volume of runoff during a storm and more effectively transport pollutants to receiving waters. In addition, an increase in impervious surface would increase the total amount of pollutants in the storm water runoff, which would increase the amount of pollutants discharged to downstream receiving waters.

As discussed previously, the project site would be designed for storm water to be captured by the storm drain system, which would be collected by an underground conveyance system and delivered to the onsite bio infiltration basin. The basin would be privately held by the owners and would collect both the proposed project and the City right of way. All storm drain facilities would be designed to City standards. The proposed project would also convert the Peoples Ditch to a 66-inch-diameter below-ground pipeline where the ditch currently exists. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Refer to Response 4.10.a.ii above. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1, implementation of the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Tsunamis are sea waves of unusual size that occur from significant earthquakes either under the ocean floor or adjacent to shorelines and can travel great distances to impact low-lying communities and developments. Considering that the Coast Range protects the site from the sea, the potential to be affected by a tsunami is nil. A seiche is a free or standing wave oscillation that occurs in a confined body of water, such as a reservoir or lake. Earthquake-generated ground waves, which have a period that matches the natural period of the lake or reservoir, may cause the water to oscillate, which can cause damage to shoreline improvements. The Kings County General Plan

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -58 indicates that earthquake-induced seiches are not considered a risk within the vicinity of the project site.32
According to the Kings County General Plan, two major dams could cause substantial flooding in Kings County in the event of a failure: Pine Flat and Terminus Dams. The project site is located within an area of potential flooding due to dam failure of Pine Flat Dam. However, the Kings County General Plan does not state the potential inundation depth in the event of failure of Pine Flat Dam.

The project site is not located within potential flooding of the Terminus Dam.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the majority of the project site lies within a Zone X flood designation (Map Number 06031C0185C, dated June 16, 2009). Areas within Flood Zone X are outside of the 500-year floodplain. According to FEMA, “the areas of minimal flood hazard, which are the areas outside the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and higher than the elevation of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood, are labeled Zone C or Zone X (unshaded)”. Therefore, the project site lies outside of the 100-year floodplain and the designated SFHA. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not place housing within a flood hazard area, and a less-than-significant impact would result related to flood hazards. e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
As discussed above in Response 4.10.a, during construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed with an increased potential to expose soils to wind and water erosion, which could result in temporary minimal increases in sediment load in nearby water bodies. Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals and have the potential to be transported via stormwater runoff into receiving waters. However, Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 would ensure implementation of BMPs and would require implementation of a SWPPP to control stormwater runoff and discharge of pollutants.

In addition, as discussed above in Response 4.10.a, operation of the proposed project could result in surface water pollution associated with chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and waste that may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via runoff during periods of heavy precipitation. As required by Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2, the proposed project would implement a SWMP, which shall identify and describe source control measures, treatment controls, and BMP maintenance requirements to ensure that the project complies with post-construction storm water management requirements of the RWQCB.

For the reasons discussed above, with implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 and HYDRO-2, the proposed project would not result in water quality impacts that would conflict with the RWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Therefore, impacts related to conflict with a water quality control plan would be less than significant. 32 Kleinfelder. 2020, op. cit.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-59

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The project site is located in an area with a mix of land uses, including residential, commercial, and medical uses. Adjacent parcels consist mostly of low-density residential and commercial uses, with several undeveloped lots located north of the project site. The project site is generally bound to the north by the San Joaquin Valley Railroad and existing mixed-use structures, including commercial, medical, retail, and some residential uses, to the east by commercial land uses, to the south by SR198, and to the west by commercial land uses.

The proposed project is located within a generally urbanized area of the City. The project site is currently undeveloped; however, as identified above, it is bordered by low-density residential and commercial uses. The proposed project would develop the project site with a new mixed-use development on an infill site. Although other land uses are located within the vicinity of the project site, none of these uses would be encroached upon or divided by project development. In addition, the project would not disturb or alter access to any existing adjacent uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. This impact would be less than significant.
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The main documents regulating land use on the project site include the City’s General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The General Plan designation for the project site is currently Highway Commercial and the current zoning designation is C-H. The proposed project would develop a medical and mixed-use development and would construct 15 buildings consisting of medical outpatient clinic services, hotel and conference center, specialized education, retail, medical office, skilled nursing and assisted living, and multi-family residential uses. Medical uses, education uses, and multi-family are not consistent with the land uses allowed in the Highway Commercial designation. Therefore, a change in the General Plan and zoning designations are required.

The project would amend the General Plan to Service Commercial and High-Density Residential. In addition, the project would require a rezone to C-S and R-H with a PUD overlay that would allow uses allowed on the entire project site. This zoning designation and PUD would allow uses from both zones to be constructed anywhere on the project site.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -60 General Plan. The City’s General Plan is the fundamental policy document of the City of Hanford.

Within the General Plan, the Land Use and Community Design Element is the principal document guiding land use and development within the City. It serves as a blueprint for development throughout the community and is the vehicle through which the community needs, desires, and aspirations are balanced.

As identified above, without a General Plan amendment, the proposed project is inconsistent with the policies of the General Plan as they pertain to the existing Highway Commercial designation. The proposed project would amend the General Plan to Service Commercial and High-Density Residential.

Service Commercial. The Service Commercial designation provides a broad range of commercial activities such as businesses which have both retail and service components along SR-198.

The proposed project would be consistent with applicable Land Use and Community Design Element policies:
• Policy L51 Purpose of Service Commercial Land Use Designation: Establish the Service Commercial land use designation to provide for establishments that engage in servicing equipment, materials, products and related sales and travel conveniences, but which do not require the manufacturing, assembly, packaging or processing of articles or merchandise for distribution.
• Policy L52 Typical Uses in Service Commercial Land Use Designation: Define the uses allowed in the Service Commercial land use designation to include a broad range of commercial activities such as businesses which have both retail and service components.

Among these are uses such as vehicle sales and service; auto rental and equipment rental; motels; restaurants (including fast food); service stations; car washes; building material supply; warehousing; wholesale trade; contractors, suppliers, small equipment yards; and other similar uses.
• Policy L53 Existing Service Commercial Designations: Encourage existing service commercial centers to expand or adapt to market changes through reuse, rehabilitation, and infill development.
• Policy L54 Design of the Service Commercial Land Use Designation: Require that new development projects and major site reconfigurations in the Service Commercial land use designation provide site layouts, landscaping, and screening so that the site appears aesthetically pleasing from the public street.
• Policy L55 Location and Size of Service Commercial Land Use Designation: Locate Service Commercial land use designations along Highway 198 and where they can serve as a buffer land use, such as between residential areas and railroad corridors. Require new development projects to be a minimum of one acre.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-61 The proposed medical outpatient clinic services, hotel and conference center, specialized education, retail, and medical office, land uses would be consistent with the allowable uses within the Service Commercial designation. The project site is located along SR-198, consistent with Policy L55.

High-Density Residential. The High-Density Residential designation allows a density range of 14 to 29 units per gross acre with an expected typical density of 16 units per gross acre.

The proposed project would be consistent with applicable Land Use and Community Design Element policies:
• Policy L38 Purpose of the High Density Residential Land Use Designation: Establish the High-Density Residential land use designation primarily for multi-family apartment and condominium development in proximity to arterial streets, commercial and recreation facilities, and employment centers.
• Policy L39 Typical Uses in the High-Density Residential Land Use Designation: Define the uses allowed in the High-Density Residential land use designation to include multi-family residential dwellings in apartment buildings complexes. • Policy L40 Design of the High-Density Residential Land Use Designation: Develop and enforce design policies and/or ordinances for High-Density Residential developments that ensure high-quality constructions design, open space amenities, safety and security, overall compatibility with the rest of the neighborhood.
• Policy L41 Location and Size of the High Density Residential Land Use Designation: Locate High-Density Residential land use designations in close proximity to Arterial streets, commercial centers, recreational facilities, and employment centers.

The proposed multi-family residential, skilled nursing, and assisted living land uses would be consistent with the allowable uses within the High-Density Residential designation. In addition, project site is located in proximity to arterial streets (11th Avenue), commercial (planned on site), and employment centers (planned on site), consistent with Policy L41.

Zoning Ordinance. The current zoning designation for the project site is C-H; however, the project would require a rezone to C-S and R-H with a PUD overlay that would allow uses allowed on the entire project site. This zoning designation and PUD would allow uses from both zones to be constructed anywhere on the project site.

Service Commercial (C-S). The C-S zone allows for commercial uses that engage in servicing equipment, materials, products and related sales and travel conveniences, but which do not require the manufacturing, assembly, packaging or processing of articles or merchandise for distribution. The minimum site area must be 5,000 square feet, unless a smaller site is approved with a conditional use permit in accordance with Chapter 17.80. No structure shall be placed within a building setback area, as identified in Section 17.20.060 of the Municipal Code. The

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -62 minimum distance between any residential structures shall be 10 feet, except as provided by the building code.

The C-S zone does not require usable open space. Landscaping also must be provided in accordance with Section 17.52 of the Municipal Code. In addition, driveways, parking, signage, mechanical equipment, lighting, and coverings must be designed consistent with City standards.

The proposed project would be required to comply with these standards.

High-Density Residential (R-H). The R-H zone allows for a density range of 14 to 29 units per gross acre with a minimum site area per dwelling unit of 1,500 square feet. The minimum site area per dwelling unit shall be 1,500 square feet. The maximum coverage of a lot shall be determined by the combined building setback area requirements, accessory structure limitations, open space requirements, and off-street parking. In addition, no structure shall be placed within a building setback area, as identified in Section 17.14.070 of the Municipal Code.

The minimum distance between structures shall be 10 feet, except as provided by the building code, and the maximum structure height shall be 35 feet.

Lots with five or more dwelling units shall provide for a usable open space area equal to five percent of the lot area. Where multiple lots that together make up a single development site, the required open space may be combined into common open space areas that are accessible to all residents of the site. Landscaping also must be provided in accordance with Section 17.52 of the Municipal Code. In addition, driveways, parking, signage, mechanical equipment, lighting, and coverings must be designed consistent with City standards. The proposed project would be required to comply with these standards.

Summary. Although the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change, the proposed uses would be consistent with the proposed General Plan designations and zones. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with proposed General Plan and zoning designations and would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This impact would be less than significant.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-63

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) regulates surface mining in California. SMARA was adopted in 1975 to protect the State’s need for a continuing supply of mineral resources and to protect the public and environmental health. SMARA requires that all cities incorporate mapped mineral resource designations approved by the State Mining and Geology Board into their General Plans.

The City’s General Plan indicates that at this time there are no known significant deposits of minerals, and no active mines.33 The only mineral commodities that have been found within the City are sand and gravel that could be used for road and building construction. The Monterey Shale lies beneath Kings County and contains both oil and natural gas deposits. However, the City’s General Plan states there have been no efforts to date to attempt extraction of these resources within or near the City. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to result in the loss of known mineral resources or recovery sites. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The project site is not located within an area known to contain locally important mineral resources.

No impacts related to the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan would occur as a result of project implementation.
33 Hanford, City of. 2017, op. cit.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -64

4.13 NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
This section is based on the Acoustical Analysis prepared for the proposed project.34 The Acoustical Analysis is included as Appendix E.

Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound.

Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness; and similarly, each 10 dB decrease in sound level is perceived as half as loud. Sound intensity is normally measured through the A-weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A-weighted sound level is the basis for 24-hour sound measurements that better represent human sensitivity to sound at night.

As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise sensitive receptor of concern.

There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. Equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State are the Leq, the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and the day-night average level (Ldn) based on A-weighted decibels (dBA).

CNEL is the time varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the 34 WJV Acoustics, Inc. 2021. Acoustical Analysis Hanford Place Hanford, California WJVA Report No. 20-016.

May 12.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-65 hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours).

Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale, but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn are within one dBA of each other and are normally exchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to the noise events occurring during the more sensitive hours.

A project would have a significant noise effect if it would substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of applicable regulatory agencies, including, as appropriate, the City of Hanford.

The City of Hanford Noise Element of the 2017 General Plan provides generalized Noise Goals and Policies for various noise sources and land uses, related to development within the City. However, the 2017 General Plan does not provide specific noise standards applicable to development projects.

Therefore, City staff provided the noise level standards from the City’s 2002 General Plan. The standards provided in the 2002 General Plan are the same as those provided in the Kings County General Plan and will be considered the applicable standards for this project.

The 2002 General Plan provided noise level compatibility standards for transportation and nontransportation (stationary) noise sources. Table 4.K provides the City of Hanford 2002 General Plan noise standards for transportation noise sources and Table 4.L provides the City of Hanford 2002 General Plan noise standards for non‐transportation (stationary) noise sources.

Table 4.K: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure Transportation Noise Sources Land Use Outdoor Activity Areas1
Ldn/CNEL, dB
Interior Spaces
Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq, dB2
Residential 603 45 -
Transient Lodging 603 45 -
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 603 45 -
Theaters, Auditoriums,
Music Halls
- - 35
Churches, Meeting Halls 603 - 40
Office Buildings - - 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums - - 45
Playgrounds,
Neighborhoods Parks
70 - -
Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc. (2021).

Notes:
1 Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown, the exterior noise‐level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use.
2 As determined for a typical worst case hour during periods of use. 3 Where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dB Ldn/CNEL or less using a practical application of the best‐ available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dB Ldn/CNEL may be allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with this table.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -66 Table 4.L: Noise-Level Performance Standards for New Projects Affected by or Including Non-Transportation (Stationary) Noise Sources Category Noise-Level
Descriptor
Exterior Noise Level Standard
(Applicable at Property Line) Interior Noise Level Standard Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
Residential Leq 50 45 40 35
Lmax 70 65 60 35
Transient Lodging
Hospitals,
Nursing Homes
Leq - - 40 35
Lmax - - 60 55
Theaters,
Auditoriums,
Music Halls
Leq - - 35 35
Churches,
Meeting Halls
Leq - - 40 40
Office Buildings Leq - - 45 -
Schools, Libraries,
Museums
Leq - - 45 -
Playgrounds,
Neighborhood
Parks
Leq 65 - - -
Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc. (2021).

Notes:

Each of the noise levels specified above shall be lowered by 5 dB for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or recurring impulsive noises. These noise level standards do not apply to residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses (e.g., caretaker dwellings).

Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Examples of these land uses include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, and senior housing. The project site generally bound by SR-198 to the south, San Joaquin Valley Railroad to the north, an existing retail shopping center to the east, and a mini‐storage facility and former amusement/water park located west of the project site. The closest sensitive receptors to the proposed project include the residential land uses located north of the project site (across the San Joaquin Valley Railroad line) and south of the project site (across SR-198).

To assess existing noise levels, noise monitoring was conducted to establish the existing ambient noise environment at the project site. Eight short-term (15-minute) and two long-term (24-hour) noise measurements were conducted at the project site on May 5, 2021, and May 6, 2021. Noise measurement data collected during the noise monitoring area summarized in Table 4.M. As shown in Table 4.M, the short-term noise measurements indicate that ambient noise in the project site vicinity ranges from approximately 51.8 dBA to 62.6 dBA Leq. The measured Ldn value at site LT‐1 for May 5th and May 6th was 68.8 dB Ldn and 68.9 dB Ldn, respectively. The measured Ldn value at site LT‐2 for May 5th and May 6th was 67.6 dB Ldn and 64.9 dB Ldn, respectively. Vehicle traffic, aircraft, agricultural activities, voices, birds, barking dogs, and a rooster were reported as the primary noise sources.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-67 Table 4.M: Ambient Noise Monitoring Results (dBA)
Location
Number Location Description Time Leq1 Lmax1
LT-1
Located within the central portion of the project site, approximately 300 feet from the centerline of SR198.

Daytime Average
(7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.)

64.5/

65.03 81.0/

79.13 Night Average
(10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.)

60.3/

60.53 76.2/

77.53 LT-2
Located near the northern portion of the project site,
adjacent to the existing residential land uses, and
approximately 50 feet from the San Joaquin Valley
Railroad line.

Daytime Average
(7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.)

59.9/

58.03 80.8/

79.23 Night Average
(10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.)

54.4/

51.73 70.8/

68.23 ST-1
Located near the northeast portion of the project
site, in the vicinity of existing retail/commercial land uses adjacent to the project site.
7:35 a.m. 51.8 56.0
4:25 p.m. 53.7 62.1
ST-2 Located near the project site access point along
Campus Drive.
8:05 a.m. 62.6 76.3
4:45 p.m. 56.7 62.3
ST-3 Located near the northwestern portion of the project site, in the parking lot of Adventist Health Hospital.
8:30 a.m. 51.9 70.1
5:10 p.m. 52.1 66.6
ST-4 Located at the intersection of Campus Drive and 7th Street, north of the project site.
8:50 a.m. 60.3 77.0
5:30 p.m. 61.4 74.2
Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc. (2021)
Notes:
1 Leq represents the average of the sound energy occurring over the measurement time period for the short-term noise measurements. 2 Lmax is the highest sound level measured during the measurement time period. 3 May 5, 2021 data/May 6, 2021 data a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The following section describes how the short-term construction and long-term operational noise impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation.

Traffic Noise Impacts to Off-Site Noise-Sensitive Land Uses. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model was used to quantify expected project‐related increases in traffic noise exposure along roadways in the project vicinity based on ADT.

Project‐related significant impacts would occur if an increase in traffic noise associated with the project would result in noise levels exceeding the City’s applicable noise level standards at the location(s) of sensitive receptors. For the purpose of this analysis a significant impact was also assumed to occur if traffic noise levels were to increase by 3 dB at sensitive receptor locations where noise levels already exceed the City’s applicable noise level standards (without the project), as 3 dB generally represents the threshold of perception in change for the human ear.

The City’s exterior noise level standard for residential land uses is 60 dB Ldn (an exterior noise exposure of up to 65 dB Ldn is allowed in instances where it is not possible to reduce noise exposure in outdoor activity areas to 60 Ldn or less using a practical application of available noise reduction measures.). Traffic noise was modeled at seven receptor locations. The seven modeled receptors are

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -68 located at roadway setback distances representative of the sensitive receptors (residences) along each analyzed roadway segment. The receptor locations are described below:
• R‐1: Residential land use located approximately 90 feet from the centerline of Lacey Boulevard. • R‐2: Residential land use located approximately 60 feet from the centerline of 7th Street. • R‐3: Residential land use located approximately 95 feet from the centerline of 7th Street. • R‐4: Residential land use located approximately 60 feet from the centerline of 6th Street. • R‐5: Residential land use located approximately 100 feet from the centerline of Campus Drive. • R‐6: Residential land use located approximately 95 feet from the centerline of 7th Street. • R‐7: Residential land use located approximately 90 feet from the centerline of 6th Street.

Traffic volumes for Existing and Cumulative Year 2042 Conditions without and with project traffic noise levels at these receptor locations are shown in Table 4.N. These noise levels represent the worst-case scenario, which assumes that no shielding is provided between traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn.

Table 4.N: Project Contribution to Traffic Noise (dB Ldn) Modeled
Receptor
Existing Conditions Cumulative Conditions
Without
Project Plus Project Project Contribution
Without
Project Plus Project Project Contribution
R-1 63 63 0 64 64 0
R-2 62 62 0 64 64 0
R-3 58 59 +1 60 60 0
R-4 55 58 +3 56 59 +3
R-5 51 51 0 53 53 0
R-6 59 59 0 61 61 0
R-7 52 52 0 54 54 0
Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc. (2020).

Note: As discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation, approximately 41,500 square feet of commercial/office uses is proposed. These uses would generate fewer trips than the 114,000 square feet of commercial/office uses that is analyzed in the TIS/proposed project trip generation estimate. Thus, the traffic noise analysis evaluates a project with higher trip generation potential. Therefore, this analysis can be considered conservative.

As shown in Table 4.N, project‐related traffic would not result in noise levels at any sensitive receptors to exceed the City’s noise level standard, nor result in an increase of more than 3 dB in any sensitive receptor locations where noise levels already exceed the City’s noise level standard without the implementation of the project. In addition, the project’s contribution to Cumulative 2042 traffic noise exposure levels at the modeled representative receptor locations would not result in noise levels to exceed the City’s noise level standard, nor result in an increase of more than 3 dB in any sensitive receptor locations where noise levels already exceed the City’s noise level standard without the implementation of the project. Therefore, project-related traffic noise impacts to offsite noise-sensitive land uses would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Stationary Source Noise Impacts. The proposed project would include a variety of medical buildings, hotel and conference center, medical instruction facilities, retail/drive-thru buildings, commercial buildings and a multi‐family apartment building. A wide variety of noise sources can be associated

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-69 with these land use designations. The noise levels produced by such sources can also be highly variable and could potentially impact existing off‐site and proposed on‐site sensitive receptors.

Typical examples of stationary noise sources associated with such land uses include: heating ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and mechanical equipment; truck deliveries; parking lot activities; and drive-thru operations. These noise sources are evaluated below.

Mechanical Equipment. It is assumed that the project would include roof‐mounted HVAC units on the proposed buildings. The HVAC requirements for the buildings would likely require the use of multiple packaged roof‐top units. For the purpose of noise and aesthetics, roof‐mounted HVAC units are typically shielded by means of a roof parapet. Based on reference noise level measurements at numerous commercial and retail buildings with roof-mounted HVAC units, associated noise levels typically range between approximately 45‐50 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the building façade.

For this project, the closest residential property lines to any potential roof‐mounted HVAC equipment would be located at a minimum setback distance of 200 feet. Taking into account the standard rate of noise attenuation with increased distance from a point source (a reduction of 6 dB per doubling of distance), noise levels associated with the operation of roof‐mounted HVAC units would be approximately 33‐38 dBA Lmax at the closest sensitive receptor property line.

These noise levels would not exceed any City of Hanford noise level standard or exceed existing (without project) ambient noise levels. Therefore, potential impacts related to mechanical equipment noise would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Truck Movements. At the time of this analysis, a specific truck access route (or routes) had not been designated. However, trucks would access the project site by one of three access points, Glendale Avenue from the west, Campus Drive from the north or 5th Street from the east. It is assumed that truck deliveries would occur at various times and locations throughout the overall project area. Precise details on truck deliveries were not known at the time of this analysis.

Based on reference measurements of the noise levels produced by slowly moving trucks, truck movements would be expected to produce noise levels in the range of 65 to 71 dBA Lmax at a distance of 100 feet. The range in measured truck noise levels is due to differences in the size of trucks, their speed of movement and whether they have refrigeration units in operation during the pass‐by.

If truck movements were to access the project site via the 5th Street access point, truck movements could occur as close as approximately 130 feet from the closest residential property lines to the north. At this distance, noise levels associated with truck movements would produce maximum noise levels in the range of approximately 63 to 69 dBA Lmax, which would not exceed the City’s daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) noise level standard of 70 dBA Lmax, but would have the potential to exceed the City’s nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise level standard of 65 dBA Lmax. Based on the existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the future 5th Street access point (noise monitoring site LT‐2), the City’s nighttime 65 dBA Lmax standard was exceeded during twelve of the 18 nighttime hours measured over the two‐day monitoring period. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce potential impacts

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -70 related to truck movement noise by requiring truck movements to use the Glendale access point only during nighttime hours.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1 Truck Movements. All truck movements occurring during nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shall be required to use the Glendale Avenue access point only.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, impacts associated with truck movement noise would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Parking Lot Activities. Noise due to traffic in parking lots is typically limited by low speeds and is not usually considered to be significant. Human activity in parking lots that can produce noise includes voices, stereo systems and the opening and closing of car doors and trunk lids. Such activities can occur at any time. The noise levels associated with these activities cannot be precisely defined due to variables such as the number of parking movements, time of day and other factors. It is typical for a passing car in a parking lot to produce a maximum noise level of 60 to 65 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, which is comparable to the level of a raised voice.

For this project, parking would be dispersed throughout the overall project area. The closest proposed parking areas would be located at least 150 feet from the closest existing residential property lines to the north. At this distance, maximum parking lot vehicle movements would be expected to be approximately 51 to 56 dBA Lmax, which would not exceed any of the City’s applicable noise levels standards or exceed existing ambient noise levels at the closest residential land uses.

Due to existing elevated ambient noise levels at the closest sensitive receptor locations (residential land uses north of the project site), noise levels associated with parking lot activities would generally not be audible over existing (without project) noise levels. Therefore, potential impacts related to parking lot activity noise would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Drive-Thru Retail. The proposed project would include two retail areas that would likely include drive-thru operations. While the exact tenants and type of retail store was not known at this time, it is assumed that amplified speech would be incorporated into drive-thru operations.

In order to assess potential project noise levels associated with drive‐thru operations, reference noise levels were used from previous noise measurements at a drive‐thru restaurant. Based on the previous noise measurements, the microphone used by customers to order food and the loudspeaker used by employees to confirm orders are both integrated into a menu board that is located a few feet from the drive-thru lane at the approximate height of a typical car window.

Vehicles would enter the drive-thru lane from the west and then turn to the north along the east side of the restaurant.

Reference noise measurements were obtained at a distance of approximately 40 feet from the menu board containing the microphone/loudspeaker system at an angle of about 45° toward the rear of the vehicle being served. This provided a worst‐case exposure to sound from the loudspeaker system since the vehicle was not located directly between the loudspeaker and measurement location. Cars were lined up in the access lane during the noise measurement period indicating that the drive‐through lane was operating at or near a peak level of activity.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-71 Each ordering cycle was observed to take approximately 60 seconds including vehicle movements. A typical ordering cycle included 5‐10 seconds of loudspeaker use with typical maximum noise levels in the range of 60‐62 dBA Lmax at the 40 foot‐reference location. Vehicles moving through the drive‐ thru lane produced noise levels in the range of 55‐60 dBA Lmax at the same distance. Vehicles parked at the ordering position (between the menu board and measurement site) were observed to provide significant acoustic shielding during the ordering sequence. The effects of such shielding are reflected by the noise measurement data. Noise levels were measured to approximately 60 dB Leq at the measurement site, and included noise from all sources, including the loudspeaker, vehicle movements and HVAC equipment.

The closest noise‐sensitive receptors (residential land uses) to the proposed retail drive-thru operations are located approximately 190 feet to the north. At this setback distance, noise levels associated with drive-thru retail operations would be expected to produce noise levels of approximately 47‐49 dB Lmax and approximately 46 dB Leq. Potential project‐related noise exposure at the locations of the closest residential land uses was calculated based upon the above‐described reference noise measurement data, the existing sound walls, and the normal rate of sound attenuation over distance for a “point” noise source (6 dB/doubling of distance).

It is unknown if nighttime operations would occur at the drive-thru retail locations. The noise level of 46 dB Leq at the closest residential property line assumes the drive-thru would be in constant operation and should therefore be considered a worst‐case assessment of drive-thru noise levels.

While drive-thru operational noise levels (46 dB Leq) slightly exceed the City’s nighttime noise level standard of 45 dB Leq, such levels are below existing (without project) nighttime ambient noise levels at the residential property lines and would therefore not be considered a significant impact.

Therefore, potential impacts related to drive-thru noise would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Construction Noise Impacts. Construction noise would occur at various locations within the project site through the buildout period and at locations where off‐site infrastructure improvements may be required. Existing sensitive receptors could be located as close as 150 feet from construction activities. Table 4.O provides typical construction‐related noise levels at distances of 100 feet, 200 feet, and 300 feet.

Construction noise is not considered to be a significant impact if construction is limited to the allowed hours and construction equipment is adequately maintained and muffled. The City of Hanford limits hours of construction to occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Construction noise impacts could result in annoyance or sleep disruption for nearby residents if nighttime operations were to occur or if equipment is not properly muffled or maintained.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -72 Table 4.O: Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels (dBA) Type of Equipment 100 Feet 200 Feet 300 Feet
Concrete Saw 84 78 74
Crane 75 69 65
Excavator 75 69 65
Front End Loader 73 67 63
Jackhammer 83 77 73
Paver 71 65 61
Pneumatic Tools 79 73 69
Dozer 76 70 66
Rollers 74 68 64
Trucks 82 72 70
Pumps 74 68 64
Scrapers 81 75 71
Portable Generators 74 68 64
Backhoe 80 74 70
Grader 80 74 70
Source: Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, Bolt, Beranek & Newman (1987).

Noise levels associated with construction activities would be reduced by incorporating noise mitigation measures and appropriate best management practices. The following mitigation measures and best management practices should be applied during periods of project construction.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2 The project contractor shall implement the following measures during construction of the project:
• Per the City of Hanford Municipal Code, construction activities should not occur outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. • All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and muffled as to minimize noise generation at the source.
• Noise‐producing equipment shall not be operating, running, or idling while not in immediate use by a construction contractor. • All noise‐producing construction equipment shall be located and operated, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distance from any noise‐sensitive land uses.
• Locate construction staging areas, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distances from any noise‐sensitive land uses. • Signs shall be posted at the construction site and near adjacent sensitive receptors displaying hours of construction activities and providing the contact phone number of a designated noise disturbance coordinator.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-73 Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would limit construction hours and require the construction contractor to implement noise reducing measures during construction, which would reduce short-term construction noise impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Noise Impacts to Proposed On-Site Sensitive Receptors. The proposed project would include sensitive receptors (residential land uses, transient lodging, nursing homes, offices, etc.) that could be impacted by exterior and interior noise exposure associated with existing transportation noise sources (SR-198 and San Joaquin Valley Railroad line). The applicable exterior and interior noise level standards for such land uses are provided above as Table 4.K.

Exterior Noise Exposure. Exterior noise exposure within the project site is dominated by vehicle traffic associated with SR-198 to the south and railroad operations associated with the San Joaquin Valley Railroad line to the north. Noise levels measured at ambient noise monitoring sites LT‐1 and LT‐2 indicate that overall project site noise exposure is approximately 65‐70 dB Ldn.

The exterior noise level standard applicable to the above‐described sensitive receptors is 60 dB Ldn. The General Plan also states that where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dB Ldn/CNEL or less using a practical application of the best‐available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dB Ldn/CNEL may be allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance.

Exterior noise level compatibility standards for transportation noise sources are applied at the outdoor activity areas of sensitive receptors. Outdoor activity areas typically include backyards of single‐family residential uses and outdoor common use areas (pools, BBQ/picnic areas, playgrounds, etc.) as well as individual patios, balconies and decks of multi‐family residential uses and transient lodging land uses. The exact locations of such outdoor activity areas were not known at the time of this analysis; however, the project site plan (Figure 3) provides preliminary locations of pool areas for both the apartment development and the hotel development. Other proposed sensitive receptors (memory care facility, assisted living facility, skilled nursing facility, etc.) may also include outdoor activity areas, at which this exterior noise level standard would apply.

Based upon project site noise exposure (approximately 65‐70 dB Ldn) and the preliminary locations of the apartment and hotel pool areas (outdoor activity areas), mitigating exterior noise levels at these locations to at or below 60 dB Ldn would likely not be feasible. However, a preliminary analysis using a sound wall insertion loss model indicates that a sound wall constructed to a minimum height of 6.5 feet above ground level constructed around the two pool areas (apartment and hotel land uses) would mitigate exterior noise levels to below 65 dB Ldn within these outdoor activity areas.

Other proposed sensitive receptors (memory care facility, assisted living facility, skilled nursing facility, etc.) may also include outdoor activity areas, at which this exterior noise level standard would apply. The potential locations of outdoor activity areas associated with these land uses was not known at the time of this analysis. However, a similarly constructed sound wall around

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -74 such uses would reduce noise levels to below 65 dB Ldn. Such noise levels are allowed by the City.

Therefore, since transportation noise exposure levels are expected to exceed the City’s 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard at outdoor activity areas associated with the multi‐family apartment land use and the hotel land use, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3 would be required.

Mitigation Measure NOI-3 Exterior Noise Levels. The final design shall include a minimum 6.5- foot above-ground level sound wall around outdoor activity areas associated with the proposed hotel and apartment land uses to mitigate exterior noise levels to below 65 dB Ldn within these outdoor activity areas.

Interior Noise Exposure. As described above, exterior project site noise exposure throughout the overall project area is approximately 65‐70 dB Ldn, as a result of varying levels of proximity to both SR-198 and the San Joaquin Valley Railroad line. Additionally, peak hour exterior noise levels would be approximately 70 dB Leq at the exterior of the office land uses to the north and the nursing college to the south. Interior noise level standards applicable to the project site vary, based upon proposed land uses. These interior noise level standards applicable to the project are:
• 45 dB Ldn: Multi‐family apartment, hotel, skilled nursing facility, memory care facility, assisted living facility, and any additional facility where people are residing and sleep disturbance is considered.
• 45 db Leq: Office buildings, nursing college (as determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use).
• Based upon the above‐described exterior noise exposure levels and applicable interior noise level standards, the proposed construction measures must be capable of providing approximately 25 dB of outdoor‐to‐indoor noise level reduction (NLR) (70‐45=25).

Generally speaking, construction measures complying with current building code standards would typically be expected to provide approximately 20‐25 dB of outdoor‐to‐indoor NLR, provided windows and doors can remain closed for sound insulation purposes. However, additional sound attenuation measures may be required in conditions where the exterior façade consists of large portions of window or storefront glazing assemblies. Once construction plans are developed, an acoustical consultant should review to determine if additional interior noise level mitigation measures may be required.

Mitigation Measure NOI-4 Interior Noise Levels. Once building‐specific construction plans become available, interior noise levels should be reviewed and calculated by a qualified acoustical consultant to determine if additional noise attenuation mitigation measures are required to comply with interior noise level standards.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-75 Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-3 and NOI-4 would reduce exterior and interior noise levels at future sensitive receptors and would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
The dominant sources of man‐made vibration are sonic booms, blasting, pile driving, pavement breaking, demolition, diesel locomotives, and rail‐car coupling. None of these activities are anticipated to occur with construction or operation of the proposed project. Vibration from construction activities could be detected at the closest sensitive land uses, especially during movements by heavy equipment or loaded trucks and during some paving activities (if they were to occur).

Construction of the proposed project could result in the generation of groundborne vibration. This construction vibration impact analysis assesses the potential for building damages using vibration levels in peak particle velocity (PPV) (in/sec). Typical vibration levels at distances of 100 feet and 300 feet are summarized by Table 4.P. The closest existing sensitive receptors are located approximately 150 feet from construction activity. At this distance, vibration levels would not be expected to exceed any significant threshold levels for annoyance or damage. Therefore, construction-related vibration impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Table 4.P: Typical Vibration Levels During Construction Equipment PPV (in/sec)
100 feet 300 feet
Bulldozer (large) 0.0110 0.00600
Bulldozer (small) 0.0004 0.00019
Loaded Truck 0.0100 0.00500
Jackhammer 0.0050 0.00200
Vibratory Roller 0.0300 0.01300
Caisson Drilling 0.0100 0.00600
Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc. (2021).

Once operational, it is not expected that ongoing operational activities would result in any vibration impacts at nearby sensitive uses. Activities involved in trash bin collection could result in minor on‐ site vibrations as the bin is placed back onto the ground. Such vibrations would not be expected to be felt at the closest off‐site sensitive uses. As such, operational vibration impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The closest airport to the project site is the Hanford Municipal Airport, located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the project site. Aircraft noise is occasionally audible at the project site; however,

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -76 no portion of the project site lies within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of any public airport.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-77

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The proposed project would include medical outpatient clinic services, a hotel and conference center, specialized education, retail, medical office, memory care, skilled nursing, and assisted living uses, and multi-family residential uses. The project site does not currently contain any permanent residents in the existing condition. As such, implementation of the proposed project would potentially result in an increase in residents of the City. The proposed project would result in the development of 90 multi-family residential apartment units, which would result in approximately 280 additional residents based on the estimated 3.11 persons per household35 in Hanford. The skilled nursing, and assisted living uses are not a typical residential use and would likely attract existing residents that already live in the City and surrounding areas rather than inducing new population growth from outside the area. Nevertheless, this analysis assumes the facility would house one resident per unit. Therefore, these facilities would house 139 residents. Therefore, the proposed project would add up to 419 new residents on the project site. The addition of 419 new residents represents 0.7 percent of Hanford’s 2021 population of 58,496. 36 During project operation, the proposed project would also generate new employment. According to the most recently data published by the U.S. Census Bureau, the City of Hanford had approximately

58.8 percent of the population within the civilian labor force (approximately 34,396 individuals employed).37 Therefore, because the region’s existing labor force already includes a large number of people employed, it is reasonable to assume that the proposed project’s employees would most likely be comprised of individuals who already live in the general area. As such, it is unlikely that these employment opportunities would cause employees to relocate their residences to be close to 35 Kings County and Cities of Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford and Lemoore. 2016. 2016-2024 Housing Element.

January. Website: https://cms6.revize.com/revize/hanfordca/document_center/Planning/Plans/ Housing%20Element%20approved%20by%20HCD_2016-03-31%20final.pdf (accessed March 2023). 36 U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. QuickFacts Hanford City, California. Website: census.gov/quickfacts/ hanfordcitycalifornia (accessed March 2023). 37 Ibid.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -78 the project site, thereby inducing growth within the City. Population growth in the area as a result of on-site employment opportunities would be negligible.

All utilities infrastructure, including sewer and water facilities and storm drains, exists in the immediate vicinity of the project site and would be extended to the project site. These existing utility and service systems have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project (refer to Section

4.19, below). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant population growth as a result of project implementation. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No housing is currently present on the project site, and therefore, there are no people living on the project site that would be displaced by the proposed project. Conversely, the project would result in the development of medical outpatient clinic services, a hotel and conference center, specialized education, retail, medical office, skilled and nursing and assisted living uses, and multi-family residential uses. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the displacement of substantial numbers of people or housing units, and no mitigation is required.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-79

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
Fire suppression, emergency medical and rescue services, and other life safety services are provided to the project area and the site by the Fire Department. There are three fire stations within the City, with the closest to the project site being Fire Station 3 at 1070 S. 12th Street, Hanford, approximately 1.5 miles south of the project site.

As noted above, the proposed project would result in an incremental increase in the population of the City and therefore incrementally increase the demand for emergency fire services and emergency medical services. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable codes for fire safety and emergency access. In addition, the Fire Department would also review the site plans and fire access plan for the proposed project to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided prior to issuance of a building permit.

The Fire Department would provide services to the project site and would not require additional firefighters to serve the proposed project. The construction of a new or expanded fire station would also not be required. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the physical environment due to the incremental increase in demand for fire protection and life safety services, and the potential increase in demand for service is not expected to adversely affect existing response times to the site or within the City. In addition, the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees for fire facilities, which are charged to all new development to support the needs for fire protection. Therefore, with payment of

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -80 development impact fees, construction and operation of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on fire protection and safety services and facilities. ii. Police protection?
The City of Hanford Police Department (Police Department) provides police protection to the project area and project site. The Police Department is located at 425 N. Irwin Street, approximately 1.4 miles northeast of the project site. Development of the proposed project would increase the population on the project site and incrementally increase demand for emergency police services to the project site. However, the Police Department would continue to provide service to the project site and would not require additional officers to serve the project site. The construction of new or expanded police facilities would not be required. In addition, the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees for police facilities, which are charged to all new development to support the needs for police protection.

Therefore, with payment of development impact fees, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision of additional police facilities or services, and impacts to police services represent a less-than-significant impact. iii. Schools?
There are six elementary school districts and one high school district within Hanford, including Hanford Joint Union High School District, Hanford Elementary School District, Pioneer Union Elementary School District, Kings River-Hardwick Union Elementary School District, Kit Carson Union Elementary School District, Lakeside Union Elementary School District, and Armona Union Elementary School District. There are also private schools that provide educational services.

The estimated number of students the proposed project would generate is derived by multiplying the number of students per dwelling unit (the student yield factor) by the number of dwelling units in the proposed project (90 new units). The California State Allocation Board Office of Public-School Instruction reports that the Statewide student yield factor of 0.7 student per dwelling unit is applicable for unified school districts. Applying the Statewide average student yield factor, the proposed project would generate 63 students.

Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), which revised the existing limitation on developer fees for school facilities, was enacted as urgency legislation which became effective on November 4, 1998, as a result of the California voters approving a bond measure (Proposition 1A). SB 50 established a 1998 base amount of allowable developer fees (Level One fee) for residential construction (subject to adjustment) and prohibits school districts, cities, and counties from imposing school impact mitigation fees or other requirements in excess or in addition to those provided in the statute.

The project sponsor would be required to pay Hanford Joint Union High School District school impact fees prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Hanford Joint Union High School District is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code. These fees would be directed towards maintaining adequate service levels, which would ensure that any impact to schools that could result from the proposed

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-81 project would be offset by development fees, and in effect, reduce potential impacts to a lessthan-significant level. iv. Parks?
Development of the proposed project could increase the use of parks within the vicinity of the project site. However, this increase in use is not expected to adversely affect the physical conditions of local and regional open space areas or recreational facilities or require the provision of new parks or facilities. Specifically, the proposed project is anticipated to increase the City population by less than one percent. The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in demand for park or recreation services in the vicinity, such that new facilities would be required to serve the project. In addition, the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees for parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, with payment of development impact fees, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to the provision of park and recreational facilities. v. Other public facilities?
Development of the proposed project could also increase demand for other public services, including libraries, community centers, and public health care facilities. However, due to the minimal increase in population, the proposed project would not result in a substantially increase the use of these facilities, such that new facilities would be needed to maintain service standards, as these facilities are not currently overused and have capacity to serve new demand.

In addition, the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees, which would ensure that impacts to other public facilities would be less than significant.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -82

4.16 RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
As discussed in Section 4.15, Public Services, residents of the proposed project would be expected to use local parks and community facilities within the City as well as regional recreational facilities.

Although the proposed project would incrementally increase use of these facilities, this minor increase in use is not expected to result in substantial physical deterioration of local parks, trails, and community centers and this impact would be less than significant. Specifically, the proposed project is anticipated to increase the City’s population by less than one percent and these facilities are anticipated to have capacity to serve this minimal increase in demand. In addition, the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees for parks and recreation facilities.

Therefore, with payment of development impact fees, the proposed project would have a less-thansignificant impact on existing parks or other recreational facilities. b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project would involve development of the project site with residential uses. The proposed project does not include or require the construction or expansion of existing public recreational facilities. Therefore, development of the proposed project and associated recreational opportunities for use by project residents would not result in additional environmental effects beyond those described in this document, and no impact would occur.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-83

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
a. Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? This section is based on the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the proposed project.38 The TIS is included as Appendix F.

When preparing a TIS, guidelines set by affected agencies are followed. In analyzing street and intersection capacities the LOS methodologies are applied. LOS standards are applied by transportation agencies to quantitatively assess a street and highway system’s performance. In addition, safety concerns are analyzed to determine the need for appropriate mitigation resulting from increased traffic near sensitive uses, the need for dedicated ingress and egress access lanes to the project, and other evaluations such as the need for signalized intersections or other improvements.

Guidelines incorporated in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition, published in 2016 were also used in the development of this TIS. The study area for the TIS included the following study intersections and roadway segments.

Intersections

1. 12th Avenue/Glendale Avenue

2. 12th Avenue/SR-198 westbound (WB) Ramps

3. 12th Avenue/SR-198 eastbound (EB) Ramps

4. Campus Drive/Lacey Boulevard

5. Campus Drive/7th Street

6. Campus Drive/6th Street

7. 11th Avenue/Lacey Boulevard

8. 11th Avenue /7th Street

9. 11th Avenue/6th Street

10. 11th Avenue/5th Street

11. 11th Avenue/4th Street-SR-198 WB On Ramp

12. 11th Avenue/3rd Street-SR-198 EB Off Ramp
38 VRPA Technologies, Inc. 2020. Draft Hanford Place Development Traffic Impact Study. December.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -84 Segments

1. Lacey Boulevard
○ 12th Avenue to Campus Drive
○ Campus Drive to 11th Avenue
○ 7th Street
○ Campus Drive to 11th Avenue

2. 6th Street
○ Campus Drive to 11th Avenue

3. Glendale Avenue
○ East of 12th Avenue

4. 5th Avenue
○ West of 11th Avenue

5. Campus Drive
○ Lacey Boulevard to Glendale Avenue
The TIS includes the LOS analysis for the following traffic scenarios:
• Existing Conditions
• Existing Plus Project
• Near-Term Plus Project
• Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project
• Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project
Existing Traffic Counts and Roadway Geometrics. The first step toward assessing project traffic impacts is to assess existing traffic conditions. Existing traffic counts were estimated considering the Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) travel model and historic traffic counts in the study area given the COVID-19 pandemic. The methodology used for the development of existing traffic counts included the following:
• A comparison of the KCAG base year and future year travel model showed that the growth in the study area is approximately 2 percent per year. The 2 percent per year growth rate was applied to historical average daily trip (ADT) counts collected in the study area to estimate Year 2020 pre-COVID conditions.
• The estimated pre-COVID year 2020 ADT values (obtained using the 2 percent per year growth rate) were compared to October 2020 ADT values. Results of the comparison indicated that traffic counts taken in October 2020 ADT (i.e., during COVID) should be increased by a factor of

1.30 to estimate 2020 pre-COVID levels.
• Where intersection turning movement counts in years prior to 2020 are available, a 2 percent per year growth rate was applied to estimate year 2020 conditions. • Where intersection turning movement counts are not available in years prior to 2020, a factor of

1.3 was applied to the October 2020 turning movement counts collected in the study area.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-85 City of Hanford Level of Service Policies. The City of Hanford adopts minimum levels of service to control congestion that may result as new development occurs.

The City of Hanford General Plan Circulation Element states: “The City of Hanford has adopted an overall LOS standard of C with peak hour LOS standard of D acceptable in some instances. Due to the nature of the roadway system, improvements to existing developed areas are extremely difficult. As a result, there may be instances where a lower LOS is acceptable.” The City of Hanford General Plan Objective CI 2 states: “Provide timely and effective means of programming and constructing street and highway improvements to maintain an overall Level of Service of “C”, with a peak hour Level of Service of “D” as defined in the HCM (published by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council) or better unless the City’s design considerations or other public health, safety, or welfare factors determine otherwise.” The City of Hanford General Plan Policy CI 2.2 states: “Street improvements shall be prioritized with emphasis on current and forecasted service levels. Roadways experiencing or forecasted to experience conditions less than Level-of-Service “D” shall require improvements, unless the City’s design considerations or other public health, safety or welfare factors determine otherwise.” Caltrans Level of Service Policies. With the changes brought about by SB 743 (described further in

4.17.1.b below), Caltrans no longer uses LOS to determine the need for transportation improvements. Instead, the focus is on providing adequate facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit as well as safety considerations for all transportation modes. Guidance is provided in the Transportation Impact Study Guide dated May 20, 2020, and the Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance dated July 2020. This guidance was used in determining the need for roadway improvements on Caltrans facilities.

Project Trip Generation. To assess potential impacts that the project may have on the surrounding roadway network, the first step was to determine project trip generation. Project trip generation is identified in Table 4.Q based on trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) and the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition).

As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, 41,500 square feet of medical/commercial uses is currently proposed. However, the TIS evaluated 114,000 square feet of medical/commercial uses. As such, the proposed project would generate fewer trips than analyzed in the TIS/proposed project trip generation estimate. Thus, this analysis evaluates a project with higher trip generation potential. Therefore, this analysis can be considered conservative.

Intersection Capacity Analysis. Intersection LOS analysis was conducted using the Synchro software program. Synchro supports HCM methodologies and is deemed an acceptable program by City of Hanford staff for assessment of traffic impacts. LOS can be determined for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 4.R indicates the ranges in the amounts of average delay for a vehicle at signalized and unsignalized intersections for the various levels of service ranging from LOS “A” to “F”.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -86 Table 4.Q: Project Trip Generation
Land Use Average Daily Trips Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total
Ambulatory Surgery Center 148 46 13 59 9 21 30
Specialty Clinic 475 36 10 46 13 31 44
Medical Office Building 869 51 14 65 24 62 86
Psychiatric Health Facility 56 12 10 22 10 12 22
Hotel & Conference Center 758 28 19 47 27 26 53
Nursing College 709 55 17 72 32 33 65
Skilled Nursing Facility 363 23 7 30 13 19 32
Memory Care 229 15 4 19 9 12 21
Assisted Living Facility 144 10 3 13 5 12 17
Multi-Family Apartment 640 10 33 43 34 20 54
Medical/ Commercial 3,934 234 66 300 112 288 400
Subtotal Trip Generation 8,325 520 196 716 288 536 824
Internal Vehicle Trips(10 percent) 833 52 20 72 29 54 82 Total External Trip Generation 7,493 468 176 644 259 482 742 Source: VRPA Technologies, Inc. (2020).

Table 4.R: Relationship of Delay to Level of Service
Level of Service Signalized Intersections Average Total Delay (seconds/vehicle)
Unsignalized Intersections Average
Total Delay (seconds/vehicle)
A ≤10.0 0.0-10.0
B >10.0-20.0 >10.0-15.0
C >20.0-35.0 >15.0-25.0
D >35.0-55.0 >25.0-35.0
E >55.0-80.0 >35.0-50.0
F >80.0 >50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board 2016).

When an unsignalized intersection does not meet acceptable LOS standards, the investigation of the need for a traffic signal shall be evaluated. The latest edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (California MUTCD) introduces standards for determining the need for traffic signals. The California MUTCD indicates that the satisfaction of one or more traffic signal warrants does not in itself require the installation of a traffic signal. In addition to the warrant analysis, an engineering study of the current or expected traffic conditions should be conducted to determine whether the installation of a traffic signal is justified. The California MUTCD Peak Hour Warrant (Warrant 3) was used to determine if a traffic signal is warranted at unsignalized intersections that fall below current LOS standards.

Table 4.S shows the intersection LOS for the existing conditions. Results of the analysis show that the 12th Avenue at Glendale Avenue intersection currently exceeds the City of Hanford’s minimum LOS criteria during the PM peak hour. Table 4.S also provides the intersection LOS analysis for the study intersections for Existing Plus Project Scenario, Near-Term Traffic Conditions, and Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project Traffic Conditions.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-87 Table 4.S: Intersection Operations
Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing
Without
Project
Existing Plus
Project
Near-Term
Plus Project
Cumulative
Year 2042
Without
Project
Cumulative
Year 2042
Plus Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

1. 12th Avenue /
Glendale Avenue1
AM 22.7 C 30.2 D 37.2 E 74.4 F 154.4 F +
PM 100.4 F+ 184.6 F + 269.9 F + ++ F ++ F +

2. 12th Avenue / SR198 WB Ramps2 AM 13.8 B 13.7 B 14.5 B 18.8 B 19.9 B PM 17.8 B 19.4 B 23.0 C 64.5 E 75.1 E

3. 12th Avenue / SR198 EB Ramps2AM 11.9 B 12.5 B 12.7 B 13.2 B 13.7 B PM 13.0 B 13.6 B 14.3 B 19.0 B 20.1 C

4. Campus Drive /
Lacey Boulevard2
AM 25.0 C 25.2 C 25.4 C 25.7 C 25.5 C
PM 28.0 C 29.2 C 31.4 C 52.2 D 52.9 D

5. Campus Drive / 7th
Street3
AM 9.9 A 11.9 B 12.6 B 12.1 B 15.0 B
PM 15.6 C 23.7 C 31.8 D 92.9 F 146.9 F

6. Campus Drive / 6th
Street1
AM 10.4 B 13.3 B 13.6 B 10.7 B 13.1 B
PM 10.6 B 13.9 B 14.3 B 11.5 B 14.7 B

7. 11th Avenue / Lacey
Boulevard2
AM 20.4 C 20.3 C 21.0 C 25.3 C 25.9 C
PM 27.5 C 28.5 C 31.6 C 49.9 D 52.7 D

8. 11th Avenue / 7th
Street
2 AM 18.9 C 18.9 B 19.7 B 24.2 C 24.4 C
PM 28.8 C 29.0 C 31.8 C 55.6 E 57.6 E

9. 11th Avenue / 6th
Street
1 AM 12.6 B 12.7 B 13.3 B 17.1 C 17.3 C
PM 17.4 C 18.1 C 20.6 C 74.3 F 83.6 F

10. 11th Avenue / 5th
Street2
AM 4.9 A 9.6 A 9.7 A 6.5 A 10.7 B
PM 121 B 18.1 B 19.5 B 23.8 C 42.3 D

11. 11th Avenue / 4th
Street-SR-98 WB On
Ramp2
AM 10.0 B 15.3 B 15.9 B 16.4 B 20.8 C
PM 12.7 B 14.6 B 15.6 B 21.0 C 28.4 C

12. 11th Avenue / 3rd
Street-SR 198-EB Off
Ramp2
AM 18.6 B 21.0 C 22.9 C 27.0 C 30.2 C
PM 25.1 C 30.6 C 35.4 D 76.3 E 97.4 F
Source: VRPA Technologies, Inc. (2020).

Notes:

Bold denotes LOS standard has been exceeded.
+ Meets peak hour signal warrants.
++ Delay Exceeds 300 seconds. 1 Two-way stop sign
2 Signalized
3 All-way stop sign
Results of the analysis show that the proposed project contribute to an unacceptable LOS at five of the study intersections when comparing the Cumulative Year 2042 scenarios. Potential intersection improvements are discussed below.
12th Avenue at Glendale Avenue. Installation of a traffic signal would alleviate LOS deficiencies at the intersection for all study scenarios. However, providing a traffic signal at this location is not practical given the close spacing of adjacent intersections. In lieu of the traffic signal, dual right turn lanes for the eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection should be considered to alleviate queuing at the eastbound and westbound approaches.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -88 Campus Drive at 7th Street. Installation of a traffic signal at Campus Drive at 7th Street would improve the intersection to meet the City of Hanford’s acceptable LOS standard of ‘D’ for the Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project scenario.
11th Avenue at 7th Street. Providing additional turning movement lanes along 11th Avenue and 7th Street is not possible due to design constraints or infeasible/impractical due to the presence of commercial development that currently exists along the north and south side of 7th Street. 11th Avenue at 6th Street. This intersection is forecasted to operate at unacceptable LOS ‘F’ during the PM peak hour under Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project conditions; however, this intersection does not meet the peak hour traffic signal warrant because the minor approaches do not carry enough traffic to justify signalization.

Therefore, no improvements are recommended for the project’s contribution of traffic at the intersection for the Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project condition. 12th Avenue at SR-198 WB Ramps. Providing additional turning movement lanes at the 12th Avenue and SR -98 WB Ramps intersection is not possible due to design constraints or infeasible/impractical due to the presence of development that currently exists along the north side of the SR-198 WB Ramps. As noted above, Caltrans no longer uses LOS to determine the need for transportation improvements. Instead, focus is on providing adequate facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit as well as safety considerations for all transportation modes.

Campus Drive at 7th Street. Providing additional turning movement lanes at the 11th Avenue and 3rd Street-SR-198 EB Off Ramp intersection is not possible due to design constraints or infeasible/impractical due to the presence of development that currently exists along the south side of 3rd Street and the SR-198 EB Off Ramp. As above, Caltrans no longer uses LOS to determine the need for transportation improvements. Instead, focus is on providing adequate facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit as well as safety considerations for all transportation modes.

Intersection operations with these potential improvements is shown in Table 4.T below. As shown in Table 4.T, the intersection of 12th Avenue at Glendale Avenue would be above the City’s standard of LOS D standard; however, the City acknowledges in General Plan Objective CI 2 and Policy CI 2.2, that there may be instances where design considerations or other public health, safety, or welfare factors determine otherwise. Therefore, since additional improvements are not recommended due design considerations, impacts to intersection LOS would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Roadway Segment Analysis. According to the HCM, LOS is categorized by two parameters of traffic:
uninterrupted and interrupted flow. Uninterrupted flow facilities do not have fixed elements such as traffic signals that cause interruptions in traffic flow. Interrupted flow facilities do have fixed elements that cause an interruption in the flow of traffic, such as stop signs and signalized intersections along arterial roads. A roadway segment is defined as a stretch of roadway generally located between signalized or controlled intersections.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-89 Table 4.T: Intersection Operations with Improvements
Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing Plus Project Near-Term Plus
Project
Cumulative Year
2042 Plus Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

1. 12th Avenue / Glendale Avenue AM 30.2 D 37.2 E1 154.4 F1 PM 184.6 F1 269.9 F1 ++ F1

2. 12th Avenue / SR-198 WB
Ramps
AM - - - - 19.9 B
PM - - - - 75.1 E2

5. Campus Drive / 7th Street AM - - - - 12.8 B
PM - - - - 20.4 C

8. 11th Avenue / 7th Street AM - - - - 24.4 C
PM - - - - 57.6 E2

9. 11th Avenue / 6th Street AM - - - - 17.3 C
PM - - - - 83.6 F3

12. 11th Avenue / 3rd Street-SR
198 EB Off Ramp
AM - - - - 30.2 C
PM - - - - 97.4 F2
Source: Source: VRPA Technologies, Inc. (2020).

Notes:

Bold denotes LOS standard has been exceeded. 1 Installation of a traffic signal would alleviate LOS deficiencies at the intersection. A traffic signal is not recommended given the close spacing of adjacent intersections.
2 Improvements to the intersection aren't recommended given the presence of abutting commercial development at the intersection. 3 Intersection does not meet the peak hour traffic signal warrant. ++ Delay exceeds 300 seconds.

Segment LOS is important in order to understand whether the capacity of a roadway can accommodate future traffic volumes. The performance criteria used for evaluating volumes and capacities on the road and highway system for this study were estimated using the Modified HCMBased LOS Tables which are widely accepted throughout the central valley, including Kings County.

The tables consider the capacity of individual road and highway segments based on numerous roadway variables (design speed, passing opportunities, signalized intersections per mile, number of lanes, saturation flow, etc.). These variables were identified and applied to reflect segment LOS conditions. Street segment capacity was determined using information shown in Table 4.U, which comes from the Modified Arterial Level of Service Tables included in Appendix A of the TIS.

Table 4.U: Peak Hour Two-Way Volumes
Level of Service
Lanes Division B C D E
2 Undivided N/A 324 1,125 1,521
2 Divided N/A 340 1,181 1,597
4 Undivided 77 2,083 2,763 2,890
4 Divided 81 2,205 2,925 3,060
6 Divided 135 3,339 4,401 4,617
Source: VRPA Technologies, Inc. (2020).

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -90 Results of the segment analysis along the existing street and highway system are reflected in Table 4.V. Table 4.V also shows the results of the analysis.

Table 4.V: Segment Operations
Street Segment Peak
Hour
Existing Existing Plus
Project
Near-Term
Plus Project
Cumulative
Year 2042
Without
Project
Cumulative
Year 2042 Plus
Project
Volu
me LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS
Lacey Boulevard
12th Avenue to Campus
Drive
AM 855 C 919 C 990 C 1,322 C 1,386 C
PM 1,693 C 1,767 C 1,907 C 2,617 D 2,691 D
Campus Drive to 11th
Avenue
AM 963 C 1,027 C 1,107 C 1,489 C 1,553 C
PM 1,873 C 1,947 C 2,101 C 2,896 D 2,970 E
7th Street
Campus Drive to 11th
Avenue
AM 346 D 378 D 407 D 535 D 567 D
PM 743 D 780 D 841 D 1,149 E 1,186 E
6th Street
Campus Drive to 11th
Avenue
AM 127 C 127 C 137 C 196 C 196 C
PM 142 C 142 C 154 C 220 C 220 C
Glendale Avenue
East of 12th Avenue AM 130 C 323 C 334 D 201 C 394 D
PM 163 C 385 D 399 D 252 C 474 D
5th Avenue
West of 11th Avenue AM 101 C 359 D 367 D 156 C 414 D
PM 464 D 760 D 799 D 717 D 1,014 D
Campus Drive
Lacey Boulevard to
Glendale Avenue
AM 251 C AM 380 D 400 D 388 D 517
PM 393 D PM 541 D 574 D 608 D 756
Source: VRPA Technologies, Inc. (2020).

Notes:

Bold denotes LOS standard has been exceeded.

As indicated in Table 4.V, two study roadway segments would exceed LOS standards in the Cumulative year 2042 scenarios. Potential roadway segments improvements are discussed below.

Lacey Boulevard between Campus Drive and 11th Avenue. Providing additional travel lanes along Lacey Boulevard is not possible due to design constraints or infeasible/impractical due to the presence of retail development that currently exists along the north and south side of Lacey Boulevard. In addition, accommodating additional travel lanes along Lacey Boulevard could result in the elimination of parking along Lacey Boulevard. 7th Street between Campus Drive and 11th Avenue. Restriping 7th Street between Campus Drive and 11th Avenue to provide two-way left turn lane with removal of parking as necessary would improve capacity on 7th Street Campus Drive and 11th. However, providing additional travel lanes along 7th Street is not possible due to right-of-way constraints.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-91 Roadway operations with these potential improvements is shown in Table 4.W below. As shown in Table 4.W, Lacey Boulevard between Campus Drive and 11th Avenue and 7th Street between Campus Drive and 11th Avenue would be above the City’s standard of LOS D standard; however, the City acknowledges in General Plan Objective CI 2 and Policy CI 2.2, that there may be instances where design considerations or other public health, safety, or welfare factors determine otherwise.

Therefore, since additional improvements are not recommended due design considerations, impacts to roadway segment LOS would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Table 4.W: Segment Operations with Improvements
Street Segment Peak Hour Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project Volume LOS
Lacey Boulevard
Campus Drive to 11th
Avenue
AM 1,553 C
PM 2,970 E1
7th Street
Campus Drive to 11th
Avenue
AM 567 C
PM 1,186 E1
Source: VRPA Technologies, Inc. (2020).

Notes:

Bold denotes LOS standard has been exceeded. 1 Capacity increasing improvements to the roadway segment aren’t recommended given the presence of abutting commercial development.
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)? On December 28, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law cleared the revised State CEQA Guidelines for use. Among the changes to the guidelines was removal of vehicle delay and level of service from consideration under CEQA. With the adopted guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project generated VMT.

The City has recently adopted its SB 743 guidelines – City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines (guidelines), November 2022. Therefore, the project VMT analysis was conducted using the methodology and significant threshold criteria identified in the guidelines. As previously mentioned, the project includes residential, multiple medical uses, and commercial land uses. As per the guidelines, mixed-use projects should be evaluated separately for each component of the project using the applicable VMT metric. The VMT analysis is based on the Hanford Place Medical Mixed-use Development Project VMT Analysis Memorandum, 39 which is included as
Appendix G.

The guidelines also provide screening criteria to screen out land use projects from a detailed VMT analysis. As per the guidelines, mixed-use projects should be evaluated separately for each component of the project using applicable VMT metrics. Based on the screening criteria, only the medical/commercial uses component of the project can be screened out of detailed VMT analysis 39 LSA. 2023. Hanford Place Medical Mixed-use Development Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Memorandum. March.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -92 since the project would include less than 55,000 square feet of retail uses. However, the medical/ commercial uses component was included in the project model run to appropriately account for the internal capture that will occur due to the mixed-use nature of the project. Given that the project land uses other than medical/commercial uses cannot be screened out, a detailed VMT analysis was conducted for these land uses.

For projects that require a detailed VMT analysis, the guidelines recommend use of KCAG travel demand model to conduct the VMT analysis. Therefore, the KCAG model was used for the VMT evaluation of the project. Numerical values for the regional thresholds (VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and VMT per service population) were obtained from the guidelines document – Table E:

Significance Thresholds for VMT Analysis.

Table 4.X shows the result of the VMT analysis. As shown in Table 4.X, the project VMT per capita for residential component of the project is 39.9 percent lower than the regional threshold. Similarly, the project VMT per employee for the memory care, assisted living, and skilled nursing facility uses is

62.7 percent lower than the corresponding regional threshold. Also, the VMT per service population for rest of non-residential uses (except medical/commercial uses) is 43.6 percent lower than the regional threshold. As such, based on the project’s VMT analysis, the project would not have a significant VMT impact.

Table 4.X: Project VMT Metrics and Regional Threshold Comparison Project City of Hanford
Threshold Difference Percent Difference
VMT Per Capita 5.40 8.99 -3.59 -39.9%
VMT per Employee 6.32 16.95 -10.63 -62.7%
VMT per Service Population 12.32 21.84 -9.52 -43.6%
Source: Source: LSA (March 2023).

Note: The City of Hanford Threshold was obtained from the City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, Table E:

Significance Thresholds for VMT Analysis (November 2022).

In summary, as described above the proposed project would not exceed the VMT regional average standards. As such the proposed project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b).
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Vehicular access to the site would be provided by Glendale Avenue, 5th Street, and Campus Drive.

The extension of these roadways would be constructed to City standards and would be dedicated as public right of way. The proposed project would also construct a roundabout, which would also be dedicated as public right of way and would be constructed to Caltrans or City-approved standards.

As part of the project, Glendale Avenue would be realigned at the northwest corner of the Hanford Veterinary Hospital development. The existing knuckle would be removed, and Glendale Avenue would be realigned using speed-specific design curves. Any new portions of Glendale Avenue would be dedicated as public right of way and any portion of existing right of way not used would be

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-93 abandoned. 5th Street would be extended starting at the existing alignment before realigning to the roundabout.

The proposed project would not include any sharp curves or other roadway design elements that would create dangerous conditions. In addition, the project design features would be required to comply with standards set by the City’s General Plan and City Engineer. In addition, the proposed project would also be required to submit plans to the City Fire Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure there are no substantial hazards associated with the project design. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to hazards associated with a design feature, and no mitigation is required. d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Emergency access would be provided to the project site by Glendale Avenue, 5th Street, and Campus Drive. Further, the proposed project’s site plan would be subject to review and approval by the City Fire Department to ensure the project includes adequate emergency access. In addition, as discussed in Response 4.9.f, project implementation would not physically interfere with emergency evacuation or the City Fire Department access to and from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to emergency access, and no mitigation is required.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -94

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k)? Or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

AB 52, which became law on January 1, 2015, provides for consultation with California Native American tribes during the CEQA environmental review process, and equates significant impacts to “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts.

Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21074 states that “tribal cultural resources” are:

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-95 Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and are one of the following:
• Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources;
• Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of PRC Section 5020.1; or
• A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

A “historical resource” (PRC Section 21084.1), a “unique archaeological resource” (PRC Section 21083.2(g)), or a “nonunique archaeological resource” (PRC Section 21083.2 (h)) may also be a tribal cultural resource if it is included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register.

The consultation provisions of the law require that a public agency consult with local Native American tribes that have requested placement on that agency’s notification list for CEQA projects.

Within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency must notify tribes of the opportunity to consult on the project, should a tribe have previously requested to be on the agency’s notification list.

California Native American tribes must be recognized by the NAHC as traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site and must have previously requested that the lead agency notify them of projects. Tribes have 30 days following notification of a project to request consultation with the lead agency.

The purpose of consultation is to inform the lead agency in its identification and determination of the significance of tribal cultural resources. If a project is determined to result in a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource, the consultation process must occur and conclude prior to adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, or certification of an Environmental Impact Report (PRC Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3).

California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site and area were notified of the proposed project on August 5, 2020. Follow-up contact by email and telephone was completed on August 13, 2020. No responses have been received to date.

The proposed excavation of the project sites could potentially result in adverse effects of unanticipated tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measures CULT-1 through CULT-3 would address unknown archaeological materials and unknown human remains. In addition, in order to address the concerns of the Tachi Yokut Tribe, the City is requiring the implementation of a Burial Treatment Plan as a mitigation measure on all projects. Mitigation Measure CULT-4 would ensure implementation of a Burial Treatment Plan and would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT-1 through CULT-4, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on tribal cultural resources.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -96

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
As identified in Section 2.0, Project Description, utilities required to serve the proposed project would include water, sanitary sewer, storm water drainage, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure. Water service, sewage disposal, and refuse collection would be provided by the City of Hanford. In addition, all City utilities (i.e., water, sewer, and storm drain) would be constructed within the proposed right of way. Storm drainage would be collected by an underground conveyance system and delivered to the onsite bio infiltration basin. The basin would be privately held by the owners and would collect both the proposed project and the City right of way. All storm drain facilities would be designed to City standards.

Water. The City of Hanford provides water service to the project site. Based on the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City currently uses local groundwater as the sole source of water supply and does not purchase or import water from any other water suppliers or entities. At the time of preparation of the 2020 UWMP, the City had recorded metered water deliveries to 17,965 accounts. The total amount of metered water delivered in 2020 was 11,714

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-97 acre-feet per year (afy). Based on the 2020 UWMP, the total project water demand for customers served by the City of Hanford will be 12,172 afy in 2030. 40 Short term demand for water may occur during excavation, grading, and construction activities on site. Construction activities would require water primarily for dust mitigation purposes. Water from the existing potable water lines in the vicinity of the project site would be used. Overall, short-term construction activities would require minimal water and are not expected to have any adverse impacts on the existing water system or available water supplies. The proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded water conveyance, treatment, or collection facilities with respect to construction activities. Therefore, the impacts on water facilities during construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

According to water demand factors included in CalEEMod, the proposed project is estimated to demand approximately 77,272 gallons per day (gpd) or 86.6 afy of water. Therefore, the estimated increase in water demand associated with the project would represent approximately 0.7 percent of the City’s projected potable water demand of 12,172 afy in 2030. The project-generated increase in water demand would be minimal and would fall within the City’s existing capacity and available supply. As such, the proposed project would not necessitate new or expanded water entitlements, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water.

Wastewater. The City collects wastewater from residential, commercial, and industrial customers within the City limits and some unincorporated areas. The collected flows are conveyed through a trunk system to a Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) in the south of the City. The City’s large industrial area near the southern boundary of the City limits collect flows at a series of lift stations before being pumped north to the WWTF. Based on available data received from City staff, the WWTF treated an average annual wastewater flow of approximately 4,944 afy in 2020. 41 No significant increase in wastewater flows is anticipated as a result of construction activities on the project site. Sanitary services during construction would be provided by portable toilet facilities, which transport waste off-site for treatment and disposal. Therefore, during construction, potential impacts to wastewater treatment and wastewater conveyance infrastructure would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

As discussed above, according to water demand factors included in CalEEMod, the proposed project is estimated to demand approximately 77,272 gpd or 86.6 afy of water. Wastewater generation associated with the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the WWTF wastewater treatment requirements or exceed the available capacity to accommodate the increased wastewater flows from the proposed project. The project would be adequately served by the capacity and the existing wastewater conveyance system. As such, the proposed project would not necessitate new or 40 Hanford, City of. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. October. Website: http://cms6.revize.com/ revize/hanfordca/document_center/Public%20Works/Water%20Management/2020%20UWMP,%20Final. pdf (accessed March 2023). 41 Ibid,

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -98 expanded water entitlements, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water.

Stormwater and Drainage Facilities. During construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. As discussed above in Response 4.10.a, Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 requires compliance with applicable permits and preparation of a SWPPP to identify construction BMPs to be implemented as part of the proposed project to reduce impacts to water quality during construction, including those impacts associated with soil erosion and siltation. Compliance with applicable permit requirements and implementation of the construction BMPs would ensure that the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, and the impact would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1.

Once operational, implementation of the proposed project would result in new internal access roads and surface parking lots, increasing impervious surface area which is not prone to erosion or siltation. The project would also include landscaping that would minimize erosion and siltation. The project site would be designed for storm water to be captured by the storm drain system, which would be collected by an underground conveyance system and delivered to the onsite bio infiltration basin. The basin would be privately held by the owners and would collect both the proposed project and the City right of way. All storm drain facilities would be designed to City standards. The proposed project would also convert the Peoples Ditch to a 66-inch-diameter belowground pipeline where the ditch currently exists. The depth of the below-ground pipeline would be between two and six feet. Storm drainage facilities would be constructed to City standards, which would ensure that sufficient capacity in the downstream drain systems is available to accommodate any increase in storm runoff from the project site so that on- and off-site flooding does not occur.

With the adherence to Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the construction or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities. No additional mitigation is required.

Electricity. Electrical power would be supplied to the proposed project site by SCE. SCE provides services through a grid of transmission lines and related facilities. SCE provides electricity to more than 15 million people in a 50,000 sq mi area of Central, Coastal, and Southern California.42 According to the CEC, total electricity consumption in the SCE service area in 2021 was 103,045 GWh.43 Total electricity consumption in Kings County was 1,980 GWh or 1,980,705,673 kWh.44 42 Southern California Edison (SCE). 2020. About Us. Website: https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are (accessed March 2023). 43 California Energy Commission. 2022b. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Electricity Consumption by County and Entity. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed March 2023). 44 Ibid.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-99 Short-term construction activities would be limited to providing power to the staging area and portable construction equipment and would not substantially increase demand for electricity. The heavy equipment used for construction is primarily powered by diesel fuel. Temporary electric power would be provided via existing utility boxes and lines on the project site. Given the limited nature of potential demand for electricity during construction and the availability of existing power lines on the site, there would not be a need to construct new or alter existing electric transmission facilities. Impacts to local regional supplies of electricity would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

The proposed project includes connections to the surrounding electrical system on site. Operation of the proposed project would increase on-site electricity demand. As discussed in Response 4.6.a, the estimated potential increased electricity demand associated with the proposed project is 5,345,159 kWh per year. Therefore, electricity demand associated with the proposed project would only be approximately 0.27 percent of Kings County’s total electricity demand. Because the proposed project would only represent a small fraction of electricity demand in Kings County, the project would meet Title 24 requirements and incorporate additional energy conservation measures, and there would be sufficient electricity supplies available, energy demand for the proposed project would be less than significant. Therefore, although the proposed project would require the construction of new improvements related to the provision of electricity service, the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts and the proposed project’s impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Natural Gas. The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) is the natural gas service provider for the project site. SoCalGas provides natural gas to approximately 21.8 million people in a 24,000- square-mile service area throughout Central and Southern California, from Visalia to the Mexican border.45 According to the CEC, total natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area in 2021 was 6,755 million therms (2,308 million therms for the residential sector). Kings County consumed approximately 64 million therms or approximately 64,004,283 therms.46 Operation of the proposed project would increase on-site natural gas demand. As discussed in Response 4.6.a, the estimated potential increased natural gas demand associated with the proposed project is 116,068 therms per year. Therefore, natural gas demand associated with the proposed project would only be approximately 0.18 percent of Kings County’s total natural gas demand.

Because the proposed project would only represent a small fraction of electricity demand in Kings County, the project would meet Title 24 requirements and incorporate additional energy conservation measures, and there would be sufficient natural gas supplies available, energy demand for the proposed project would be less than significant. Therefore, although the proposed project would require the construction of new improvements related to the provision of natural gas service, the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts and the proposed project’s impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. 45 Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2020. About SoCalGas. Website: https://www3.socalgas. com/about-us/company-profile (accessed March 2023). 46 California Energy Commission. 2022c. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Gas Consumption by County and Entity. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed March 2023).

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -100 Telecommunication Facilities. Existing telephone, cable, and internet service lines in the vicinity would serve the project site. Internal to the project site, the project Applicant/Developer would be responsible for constructing adequate telecommunication facility extensions for the proposed project. The reconfiguration of these facilities would occur on site during the site preparation and earthwork phase and are not expected to impact any telephone, cable, or internet services offsite that serve the surrounding areas. Additionally, telecommunication facilities are generally installed concurrently with utility expansions and impacts associated with the expansion of telecommunications facilities are already considered in the air quality, noise, and construction traffic analysis.

Therefore, the project impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Summary. The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities for water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 included in Section

4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would not substantially increase demand upon these facilities. Therefore, impacts to these utility facilities would be less than significant. b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Refer to discussion a) of Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. As discussed above, sufficient water supply would be available to serve the project site. As a result, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to water supply.
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
The proposed project is not expected to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Solid waste and recycling pickup and disposal in the City of Hanford is provided by the Kings Waste Management Authority (KWMA). The KWRA does not operate an active landfill. Waste is hauled by transfer trucks from the Material Recover Facility (MRF) to the State permitted 320-acre Chemical Waste Management Landfill site in Kettleman Hills, approximately 45 miles west of the MRF. A combined MRF and Transfer Station (TS) was constructed near the old landfill southeast of Hanford.

The MRF and TS facility includes a small but complete Household Hazardous Waste collection station.47 Waste Management Kettleman Hills Landfill is permitted to receive a maximum of 2,000 tons of municipal solid waste per day, but typically receives an average of only about 1,350 tons per 47 Hanford, City of. 2017, op. cit.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-101 day.
48 In addition, Waste Management Kettleman Hills Landfill is currently proposing a facility expansion to extend its hazardous waste operations and increase the capacity at the existing landfill.49
Based on the CalEEMod output, operation of the proposed project would generate approximately 5,896 pounds of solid waste per day or about 3 tons of solid waste per day. Given the available capacity at the landfill, the additional solid waste generated by the proposed project is not anticipated to cause the facility to exceed its daily permitted capacity. As such, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the project’s waste disposal needs, and impacts associated with the disposition of solid waste would be less than significant. e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The proposed project would comply with all federal, State, and local solid waste statutes and/or regulations related to solid waste. Also refer to Response 4.19.d. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to solid waste regulations. 48 Waste Management, 2021. Facility Overview. Website: https://kettlemanhillslandfill.wm.com/factsheets/2011/facility-overview.jsp (accessed March 2023). 49 Waste Management, 2019. Facility Expansion. Website: kettlemanhillslandfill.wm.com/facility-expansion/ index.jsp (accessed March 2023).

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -102

4.20 WILDFIRE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? a. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Wildland fires occur in geographic areas that contain the types and conditions of vegetation, topography, weather, and structure density susceptible to risks associated with uncontrolled fires that can be started by lightning, improperly managed campfires, cigarettes, sparks from automobiles, and other ignition sources. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) Map for Kings County, the project site is not located within a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

The proposed project consists of a mixed-use development on an infill site within the City. As a result, project implementation would not physically interfere with evacuation plans or the City Fire Department access to and from the project site. In addition, the proposed project’s site plan would be subject to review and approval by the City Fire Department to ensure the project includes adequate emergency access. Moreover, since the project site is not located in or near a VHFHSZ nor is it located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA), potential impacts associated with emergency access described above would not pertain to wildfire and would more likely be associated with an urban fire or other emergency situations. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. This impact would be less and significant and no mitigation would be required.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-103 b. Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
As stated previously, the project site is not located in or near a VHFHSZ nor is it located in or near a SRA. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope and prevailing winds, thereby exposing project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. This impact would be less and significant, and no mitigation would be required.
c. Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Utility and infrastructure improvements included as part of the project are described in Section 2.0, Project Description. These improvements would include the installation of water, sanitary sewer, storm water drainage, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure. The project would also include new internal roads and would realign Glendale Avenue at the northwest corner of the Hanford Veterinary Hospital development.

The project site is not located in or near a VHFHSZ nor is it located in or near a SRA. Utility installations and internal roads would not exacerbate fire risk due to the location of the project site in an urban area outside of a designated fire hazard zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that would exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. This impact would be less and significant, and no mitigation would be required.
d. Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Landslides and other forms of mass wasting, including mud flows, debris flows, and soil slips, occur as soil moves downslope under the influence of gravity. Landslides are frequently triggered by intense rainfall or seismic shaking but can also occur as a result of erosion and downslope runoff caused by rain following a fire. As previously discussed in Response 4.7.a, Hanford is located in a stable geologic formation, so the effects of ground shaking on soil stability should be minimal. In addition, the project site is generally level and would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with landslides. Further, as stated previously, the project site is not located in or near a VHFHSZ nor is it located in or near a SRA. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -104

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT-1, CULT-2, CULT-3, CULT-4, and GEO-2 would ensure that potential impacts to historic, archaeological, tribal and paleontological resources that could be uncovered during construction activities would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 would ensure that potential impacts to special-status species and modifications to Peoples Ditch would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, development of the proposed project would not: (1) degrade the quality of the environment; (2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; (3) cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below selfsustaining levels; (4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; (5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or (6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
The proposed project’s impacts would be individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. The potentially significant impacts that can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation