Hanford City Council
December 16, 2025

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 37 of
104
SalamanderCentral California
DPS
(Ambystoma
californiense)
annual grasslands;
requires vernal pools
for breeding and
rodent burrows for
aestivation. Although
most CTS aestivate
within 0.4 mile of their
breeding pond,
outliers may aestivate
up to 1.3 miles away
(Orloff 2011).
situated in a matrix of urban
and intensive agricultural
lands within which this
species would not have been
able to persist. The nearest
block of contiguous grassland
is located more than 6 miles
east of the site along Cross
Creek. The closest CNDDB
occurrence is over 8 miles
northeast of the Project site; it
refers to an observation made
sometime prior to 1925, from a
population that is now
considered extirpated (CDFW
2024).

Western
Spadefoot
(Spea
hammondii)
FPT, CSC Occurs in grasslands
of San Joaquin Valley,
where it breeds in
vernal pools or other
seasonal wetlands
and aestivates in
underground refugia
such as rodent
burrows. Baumberger
et al. (2019) recorded a
maximum distance of
around 890 feet
between breeding and
aestivation sites.

Absent. The Project site is
situated in a matrix of urban
and intensive agricultural
lands within which this
species would not have been
able to persist. Although the
basins to the west and
northwest of the site may
theoretically be suitable for
spadefoot reproduction, they
were constructed between
2003 and 2010, after the
surrounding landscape was
converted to unsuitable uses.

The nearest block of
contiguous grassland is
located more than 6 miles east
of the site along Cross Creek;
that is also where the nearest
CNDDB occurrences of this
species are (CDFW 2024).

Northwestern
Pond Turtle
(Actinemys
marmorata)
FPT,
CSC
Found in ponds,
marshes, rivers,
streams, and irrigation
ditches with aquatic
vegetation. Requires
partially submerged
rocks or logs for
basking sites. Nesting
Unlikely. The Project site
consists entirely of intensive
agricultural lands that lack
aquatic features and offer
little to no upland habitat
value for this species; the
latter is limited to marginal
nesting opportunity in the

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 38 of
104
takes place in open
areas, on a variety of
soil types, and up to ¼
mile away from water.

Overwintering and
summertime
aestivation includes
use of upland habitat,
generally with leaf
litter or other loose
substrate for burying
themselves.
site’s disked field. Two aquatic
features within ¼ mile of the
site are potentially suitable for
pond turtles: the ponding
basin to the west and the East
Branch Peoples Ditch to the
northwest. Even if pond turtles
occupy these features,
however, they are unlikely to
travel to the site for nesting.

The ponding basin is
completely enclosed by a
chainlink fence, which would
prevent this species from
migrating to the Project site.

The East Branch Peoples Ditch
is located more than 0.3 mile
from the site’s disked field, the
one area of the site that could
theoretically support nesting
by this species. Furthermore,
there are no nearby iNaturalist
records (iNaturalist 2024) and
the closest CNDDB
occurrence is approximately

9.5 miles south of the Project
site (CDFW 2024). For these
reasons, northwestern pond
turtles are unlikely to be found
on the Project site.

Blunt-Nosed
Leopard Lizard
(Gambelia sila)

FE, CE,
FP
Occurs in semiarid
grasslands, alkali flats,
and washes. Avoids
densely vegetated
areas. Inhabits the San
Joaquin Valley and
adjacent valleys and
foothills north to
southern Merced
County.

Absent. Agricultural and
urban development has
eliminated any potential
habitat from the Project site
and surrounding area. There
are no CNDDB occurrences
within the vicinity of the
Project site (CDFW 2024).

Tricolored
Blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
CT, CSC Breeds colonially near
fresh water in dense
bulrush, cattails,
thickets of willows or
Possible. Tricolored
blackbirds are not commonly
documented in the Project
vicinity. There is one eBird

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 39 of
104
shrubs, and
increasingly in wheat
or triticale fields.

Forages in grassland
and cropland areas.
occurrence within 5 miles of
the site, documented
approximately 3.5 miles to the
northeast in 2002. The closest
CNDDB occurrence is
approximately 10 miles south
of the site, recorded in 2000.

Nevertheless, this species has
some potential to occur on
site. The site’s agricultural
field is suitable for foraging,
and may provide nesting
habitat for this species if it is
rotated to wheat or another
suitable grain crop
Burrowing Owl
(Athene
cunicularia)
CC, CSC Frequents open, dry
annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts,
and scrublands
characterized by
low growing
vegetation.

Dependent upon
burrowing mammals,
most notably the
California ground
squirrel, for nest
burrows.

Unlikely. The Project site does
not contain suitable habitat
for burrowing owls and is
situated
within a matrix of intensive
agricultural and urban uses
generally incompatible with
this
species’ ecology. There are
only two eBird sightings of
burrowing owl within 10 miles
of the
Project site, and the closest
known CNDDB occurrence is
located approximately 6.5
miles
northeast of the Project site in
the grasslands along Cross
Creek, documented in
2017 (CDFW 2024).

Swainson’s Hawk
(Buteo
swainsoni)
CT This breeding migrant
to California nests in
mature trees in
riparian areas and oak
savannah, and
occasionally in lone
trees at the margins of
agricultural fields.

Requires adjacent
suitable foraging areas
Possible. The Project site
contains foraging habitat in
the form of a disked field, but
does not contain nesting
habitat for the Swainson’s
hawk. Swainson’s hawks do
have the potential to nest in
the mature trees within the
immediate Project vicinity.

They are well-documented in

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 40 of
104
such as grasslands or
alfalfa fields
supporting rodent
populations
the area; there are 20 CNDDB
nesting occurrences within 10
miles of the site, with the
closest located just 1.5 mile to
the southeast (CDFW 2024),
and over 50 eBird sightings
within a 10-mile radius as well
(eBird 2024).

Tipton Kangaroo
Rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides
nitratoides)
FE, CE Inhabits valley
saltbrush scrub, valley
sink scrub, and
grassland habitats
located from the
Valley floor to 300 ft. in
elevation.

Absent. Suitable habitat is
absent from the Project site,
and the site is situated in a
matrix of intensive agricultural
and urban uses within which
this species would not have
been able to persist. There are
no CNDDB occurrences in the
vicinity (CDFW 2024).

San Joaquin Kit
Fox
(Vulpes macrotis
mutica)
FE, CT Desert alkali scrub,
annual grasslands of
California’s San
Joaquin Valley and
Tulare Basin,
extending west into
San Luis Obispo
County. This species
may forage in adjacent
agricultural fields.

Unlikely. This species was
historically known from the
Project vicinity. There are 13
CNDDB occurrences within 10
miles of the Project site,
including one occurrence just

0.75 mile from Project
boundaries; however, all but
two of these are from the
1970s, with the remaining
records from 2000 and 2006.

The Project site is situated in a
matrix of urban and intensive
agricultural land uses
generally incompatible with kit
fox ecology, and the site itself
consists of a highly-managed
orchard and agricultural field,
neither of which are likely to
attract individuals of this
species. These factors,
combined with the lack of
modern sightings, suggest a
very low probably of kit fox
occurrence on site.

Loggerhead CSC Found in a variety of Possible. This species is

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 41 of
104
Shrike
(Lanius
ludovicianus)
arid habitats Prefers
open country for
hunting, with perches
for scanning, and fairly
dense shrubs and
brush for nesting.
known from the vicinity. There
are five eBird sightings within 5
miles of the Project site; the
closest of these was recorded
just ½ mile north of Project
boundaries in 2021.

Loggerhead shrikes could
forage over the site’s
agricultural field and the
walnut orchard could
potentially be used for nesting
by this species.

Western Mastiff
Bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
CSC Frequents open, semiarid to arid habitats,
including conifer, and
deciduous woodlands,
coastal scrub,
grasslands, palm
oasis, chaparral and
urban. Is known to
forage over long
distances, flying up to
15 miles a night.

Roosts in cliff faces,
high buildings, and
tunnels.

Possible. The Project site
does not contain roosting
habitat for this species.

Though generally uncommon
within the Central Valley, this
species may occasionally
forage over the site.

OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATAUS CODES

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

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

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

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

Absent: Species not observed on the Site and precluded from occurring there because habitat requirements not met.

STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened CT California Threatened
FPT Federally Proposed Threatened CSC California Species of Special Concern
FC Federal Candidate CFP California Fully Protected
CC California Candidate for Listing

CRPR CODES

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 42 of
104
1A Plants Presumed Extinct in California 2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but
more common elsewhere
1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or
Endangered in California and
elsewhere
The site’s agricultural field could support nesting by ground-or vegetation nesting birds such as the mourning dove, western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), and (when planted to a suitable grain such as wheat or triticale), the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoenecius) and possibly even the California Threatened tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). The site’s orchard trees have the potential to be used for nesting by a variety of migratory birds, possibly including the loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), a California Species of Concern. Larger trees in the immediate Project vicinity have the potential to support nesting raptors, possibly including the Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), a California Threatened species. Nearly all birds are protected by state and federal law. If Project construction takes place during the nesting season, birds nesting on site could be injured or killed by construction activities, while birds nesting near the site could be disturbed such that they would abandon their nests. Construction-related mortality of nesting birds and disturbance leading to nest abandonment would violate state and federal laws and constitute a significant impact of the Project. Tricolored blackbirds, Swainson’s hawks, and loggerhead shrikes are not expected to be adversely affected by Project-related loss of habitat. The site does not offer unique habitat for any of these species, nor is it likely to represent an important part of any individual foraging range, given its disturbed nature and urban setting. Similar and higher quality habitats are abundant in the Project vicinity and elsewhere in the region. Project-related loss of habitat for these species is considered a less than significant impact under CEQA.

One special status animal species, the western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis ssp. californicus), has the potential to pass through or forage on the site from time to time but would not roost on or near enough to the site that they could be vulnerable to construction-related disturbance or reproductive failure. Individuals of this species are unlikely to be injured or killed by construction activities because they are highly mobile while foraging and would be expected to simply avoid active work areas.

The Project would not adversely affect this species through loss of foraging habitat. The site does not offer unique foraging habitat for the western mastiff bat, nor is it likely to represent an important part of any individual foraging range, given its disturbed nature and urban setting.

Similar and higher quality foraging habitats are abundant in the Project vicinity and elsewhere in the region.

Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential Project impacts to nesting birds and raptors, including the tricolored blackbird, loggerhead shrike, and Swainson’s hawk, to a less than significant level under CEQA and facilitate compliance with state and federal laws protecting these species.

Mitigation Measure BIO 1 (Construction Timing). If feasible, future construction activities will

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 43 of
104
take place entirely outside of the avian nesting season, defined as February 1 to August 31.

Mitigation Measure BIO 2 (Preconstruction Surveys). If construction must occur between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for active bird nests within 7 days prior to the start of work during this period. The survey area shall encompass the site and accessible surrounding lands within ¼ mile for nesting Swainson’s hawks, 500 feet for other nesting raptors, 300 feet for the tricolored blackbird, and 250 feet for other nesting birds.

Mitigation Measure BIO 3 (Avoidance of Active Nests). Should any active nests be discovered in or near proposed construction zones, the biologist shall identify a suitable construction-free buffer around the nest. This buffer shall be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing and shall be maintained until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged and are capable of foraging independently.

Therefore impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation. 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service? There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community on site or adjacent to the Project. Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
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? No water or other hydrologic features occur within the Project Site. The East Branch People Ditch does cross the expanded Annexation Area, however there are no changes to the physical environment within the expanded Annexation Area that would result in impacts to the ditch. As such, there are no impacts to state orfederally protected wetlands. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
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?
As stated in the BE, the Project Site did not contain wildlife movement corridors, sensitive natural communities, designated critical habitat, or state or federally protected waters or wetlands. The East Branch People Ditch does cross the expanded Annexation Area and has the potential to be used by wildlife. As stated in Item (c) above, there are no changes to the physical environment within the expanded Annexation Area that would result in impacts to the ditch. Therefore, the Project will have no impact.

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 44 of
104
Mitigation Measures: None Required
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a treepreservation policy or ordinance?
The City has a Tree Ordinance to protect heritage trees. A heritage tree is defined as “(1) any Oak Tree native to Central California, Valley Oak Tree (Quercus lobata), with a diameter greater than 10 inches; or (2) any tree or a group of trees specifically designated by the city council for protection because of its historical significance, special character or community benefit.” The Project Site and the expanded Annexation Area do not contain any Valley Oak Trees or trees that have been designated as protected by the City Council. The proposed Project will comply with City of Hanford policies and ordinances, therefore there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
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 proposed Project is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 45 of 104
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
   
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
   
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?    
Environmental Setting
Cultural Resources are defined as prehistoric or historical archaeological sites as well as historical objects, buildings, or structures. In accordance with 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §60.4, “historical” in this report applies to cultural resources which are at least 50 years old. The significance or importance of a cultural resource is dependent upon whether the resource qualifies for inclusion at the local level in a local register of historical resources, at the state level in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or at the federal level in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Cultural resources that are determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR are called “historical resources” (California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.5[a]). Under this statue the determination of eligibility is partially based on the consideration of the criteria of significance as defined in 14 CCR 15064.5(a)(3). Cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the NRHP are deemed “historic properties”.

A Cultural Resource Assessment was prepared by Taylored Archaeology for the proposed Project, see Appendix C. The assessment included a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) record search by Southern San Joaquin Information Center (SSJIC) for the Project Site on October 14, 2024. According to the search results, three prior cultural resources studies were conducted within the Project area; KI-00103 is adjacent to the southern Project boundary along Grangeville Boulevard. No prehistoric resources were encountered during its pedestrian survey. KI-00238 and KI-00269 are archaeological desktop reviews with no associated surveys. In addition, three previous cultural resources studies were conducted within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project Site. The results of the records search indicate that no cultural resources were previously recorded within the Project boundary and 13 cultural resources were recorded within the 0.5-mile search radius. The 13 cultural resources are all historic-era, and do not overlap the Project boundary.

In addition to the records search, Taylored Archaeology conducted an on-site pedestrian survey of the site on October 19, 2024. The results of the pedestrian survey indicate that the Project boundary consists of agricultural fields with no noted development. The Project Site consists of an orchard in the northern half and tilled field in the southern half. Ground surface visibility was generally excellent (95 to 100 percent), though small portions of the ground surface were obscured by grass and weeds. Rodent burrows and any related soil piles were closely examined for lithic scatters and for indications of buried deposits.

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 46 of 104
No prehistoric or historic archaeological resources were identified during the pedestrian survey. The natural topography of the area has been altered by historical and modern agricultural practices and much of the land on the Project Site has been graded and plowed, which has caused additional disturbance to the soil. While past agricultural activities may have potentially destroyed or obscured ground surface evidence of archaeological resources within the Project boundary, intact archaeological resources related to prior occupation of the area may potentially exist below the ground surface.

There is no physical development proposed in the Additional Annexation Area to the north, therefore the impact discussion below is limited to the Project Site. Future development of the Additional Annexation Area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan designations of Low Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial and be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.

Discussion
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resourcepursuant to Section 15064.5?
There are no known historical resources on or near the subject property that would be impacted by the proposed project, therefore there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeologicalresource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
There are no known archaeological resources located within the Project area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires that if any remains are discovered, construction shall stop and appropriate authorities be notified. Authorities include the County Coroner and archaeologist and, if remains are determined to be pre-historic, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be consulted. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL 1 will ensure that impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: In the event of discovery of unidentified archaeological remains during development or ground disturbing activities in the Project area, all work shall be halted in immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot radius) until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
There are no known human remains buried in the Project vicinity. If human remains are unearthed during development, there is a potential for a significant impact. The City and the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe have also agreed to a mitigation measure that requires the developer/owner to agree to a burial treatment plan prior to any ground disturbing activities. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 and CUL 3 will ensure that impacts remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 47 of 104
Mitigation Measure CUL 2: If human remains are uncovered during construction, work shall be halted, and the Kings County Coroner is to be notified to investigate the remains and arrange proper treatment and disposition. If the remains are identified on the basis of archaeological context, age, cultural associations, or biological traits to be those of a Native American, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code 5097.98 require that the coroner notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendent who will make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains.

Mitigation Measure CUL 3 A burial Treatment Plan shall be entered into by the Project applicant/property owner prior to any ground disturbing activities.

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 48 of 104
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
   
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?    
Environmental Setting
Energy conservation requires consideration of energy implications in project decisions, including a discussion of the potential energy impacts with emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy resources. A project would be considered inefficient wasteful and unnecessary if it violated existing energy standards, had a negative effect on local and regional energy supplies and requirement for additional capacity, or had a negative effect on peak and base period demands for electricity and other energy forms.

The California Energy Commission updates the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Parts 6 and 11) every three years as part of the California Code of Regulations. The standards were established in 1978 in effort to reduce the state’s energy consumption. The standards apply to new construction, and additions and alteration to residential and nonresidential buildings and related to various energy efficiencies including but not limited to ventilation, air conditioning, and lighting.

Pacific Gas and Electric provides gas and electrical service to the City of Hanford.

Regulations
The following list of regulations is not intended to be exhaustive of all regulations.

California Code of Regulations, Title 20: Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations establishes standards and requirements for appliance energy efficiency. The standards apply to a broad range of appliances sold in California.

California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations comprises the California Energy Code, a broad set of standards designed to address the energy efficiency of new and altered homes and commercial buildings.These standards regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. Title 24 requirements are enforced locally by the City of Hanford Building Department.

California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen):CalGreen is a mandatory green building code that sets minimum environmental standards for new construction statewide on January 17, 2008. The code was voluntary until 2010, when compliance became mandatory. The most recent update went into effect January 1, 2023. Cal Green is a set of regulations that mandates sustainable building practices to reduce environmental impacts and promote energy and water efficiency in both residential and non-residential construction. Key areas covered by Cal Green include energy efficiency, water

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 49 of 104
efficiency, indoor air quality and use of sustainable materials.

There is no physical development proposed in the Additional Annexation Area to the north, therefore the impact discussion below is limited to the Project Site. Future development of the Additional Annexation Area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan designations of Low Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial and be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.

Discussion
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
The Project proposes the construction of 650 residential units and 5.45 acres of neighborhood mixed use commercial that will result in additional energy consumption, as evaluated below.

Construction
During Project construction there would be an increase in energy consumption related to worker trips and operation of construction equipment. This energy consumption will be short-term and temporary. There are not unusual Projectcharacteristics or construction processes that would require use of equipment that will be more energy intensive than used for comparable activities. Construction will include site preparation, building construction, paving and architectural coatings. The primary source of energy for construction will be diesel and gasoline.

All equipment shall conform to current emission standards and related fuel efficiencies including applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations, California Code of Regulations (Title 13, Motor Vehicles) and Title 24 standards. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that short-term, temporary construction activities do not result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

Operations
Project operation involves the heating, cooling, use of equipment, and vehicle trips. Operation of the 650 residential homes would be required to comply with energy efficiency standards as dictated by State and federal regulations including Tite 24 energy efficiency requirements and adopted energy efficient standards by the California Energy Commission.

Therefore, the Project is expected to complywithallenergy efficiency standards and requirements and will have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? See discussion above. The proposed Project will not conflict with or obstruct any State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The Project will be designed to meet Title 24 and CAL Green requirements. Compliance with these standards will be enforced by the City of Hanford Building Division, therefore there is no impact.

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 50 of 104
Mitigation Measures: None Required.

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 51 of 104
VII.GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication

42.    
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?    
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?    
iv) Landslides?    
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?    
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor 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 and 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?
   
Environmental Setting
According to the 2024 Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan no major fault systems are known to exist in Kings County. Minor surface rupture could occur in areas of minor faulting, which occur primarily in the southwestern part of the county. Ground shaking is the most likely damaging effect of an earthquake for Hanford. Shaking was felt in Hanford during the Coalinga earthquake with a magnitude of 6.4 in 1983. The San Andreas fault is located less than four miles west of the Kings County line. Another large known fault, the White Wolf fault, is located to the south near Bakersfield and produced a 7.7 magnitude earthquake in 1952. There have not been any damaging earthquakes greater than magnitude 6.0 recorded in Kings County in over 200 years, though several have been very close.

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 52 of 104
Soils in Hanford do not have significant liquefaction potential. Hanford is located in a stable geologic formation, so the effects of ground shaking on soil stability should be minimal.

There are four seismic zones in the United States ranging from I to IV; the higher the number, the higher the earthquake danger. All of California lies within Seismic Zone III or IV. Stronger construction standards for buildings in Zones III and IV have been adopted in the International Building Code. Most of Kings County, including Hanford, is in Zone III.

There is no physical development proposed in the Additional Annexation Area to the north, therefore the impact discussion below is limited to the Project Site. Future development of the Additional Annexation Area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan designations of Low Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial and be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.

Discussion
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
As stated above, the site is not located in an earthquake fault zone and no active faults have been mapped within the Project boundaries. The Project Site would be engineered to meet the California Building Code for Seismic Zone III. In addition, the proposed Project Site is generally flat and there are no hill slopes in the area. As such, impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Development of the Project will require typical site preparation activities such as grading and trenching that will result in the potential for short-term soil disturbance or erosion impacts.

Construction would also involve the use of water for dust control that may cause further soil disturbance. Those discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process and will be addressed through compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which requires new development to implement measures to minimize soil erosion related to construction.

Construction-related impacts related to erosion will be temporary and subject to best management practices (BMPs) required by Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion from construction. Because impacts related to erosion would be temporary and limited to construction, and because required BMPs would prevent significant impacts related to erosion the impacts from the proposed Project will be less than

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 53 of 104
significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
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?
According to the United States Department of Agriculture National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey and soil descriptions soils associated with the Project Site, Kimberlina Fine Sandy Loam (saline alkali, sandy substratum), are considered stable and have a low capacity for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The Project does not involve a substantial grade change to the topography to the point that it would increase the risk of landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, therefore Impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
d) Would the project be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform BuildingCode (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? As stated in (c) above, the Project Site is located on Kimberlina Fine Sandy Loam, which is well draining with low runoff unless it contains a clay substratum, which the Project Site does not contain.

As such, this soil type is not an expansive soil, therefore impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The proposed Project will connect to the existing City wastewater infrastructure and would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, therefore there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or uniquegeologic feature?
The Project Site does not have any known paleontological resources or unique geologic features.

There is no evidence that cultural resources of any type (including historical, archaeological, paleontological, or unique geologic features) exist on the Project Site. Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a buried site may exist in the area and be obscured by vegetation, fill, or other historical activities. If archaeological resources, including paleontological resources, are discovered during construction, Mitigation Measures CUL 1 and CUL 2 shall be implemented, therefore reducing impacts to less than significant with mitigation.

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 54 of 104
Mitigation Measures: Refer to CUL 1 and CUL 2

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 55 of 104
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment.
   
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
   
Environmental Setting
The Hanford Air Quality Element identifies greenhouse gases as gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.

The effect is analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), and perfluorocarbons (PFC). Natural processes and human activities emit greenhouse gases. The presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat trapping effect of greenhouse gas, the earth’s surface would be about 34 degrees Centigrade cooler.

Greenhouse Gases (GHS) are gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and are different from the criteria pollutants discussed in Air Quality.

Statewide legislation, rules, and regulations have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions from significant sources. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) in the State of California and the United States respectively. CARB’s primary regulatory responsibility is within California for GHG emissions. California has adopted statewide legislation addressing various aspects of climate change and GHG emissions mitigation. The governor has also issued several executive orders related to climate change policies. Of particular importance is AB 32 and SB 32, which outline the state’s GHG reduction goals and required the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to regulate sources of GHGs to meet a state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

There is no physical development proposed in the Additional Annexation Area to the north, therefore the impact discussion below is generally limited to the Project Site. Future development of the Additional Annexation Area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan designations of Low Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial and be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.

Discussion
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Construction: Greenhouse gases would be generated during construction from activities including site demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, application of architectural coatings,and

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 56 of 104
paving. GHG emissions for the Project were estimated to be approximately 541 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2E/year) for residential construction and 149 MTCO2E/year per year for commercial construction (refer to Table 8.1 below). per year based on the Project description of 658 residential units, and 5.45 acres of commercial shopping center that will include two fast food restaurants, general retail and one mini-mart. The analysis was completed utilizing the CalEEMod Modeling Software and summarized in Table 8.-1 and 8-2 below. The analysis included a fueling station associated with the mini-mart, which has since been removed for the project. As a result the emissions will be lower than shown below, which were all below any threshold of significant, therefore were not changed as a result of the removal of the gas station portion of the mini-mart. The full analysis can be found in Appendix B
Table 8.1 Estimated Construction Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase Unit N2O CH4 CO2 MTCO2E/yr
Residential Year 1 Tons/yr 0.054 0.056 579 541
Residential Year 2 Tons/yr 0.054 0.056 579 541
Residential Year 3 Tons/yr 0.054 0.056 579 541
Residential Year 4 Tons/yr 0.054 0.056 579 541
Total Residential Tons 0.216 0.224 2,318 2,162
Commercial Year 1 Tons/yr 0.012 0.022 160 149
Commercial Year 2 Tons/yr 0.012 0.022 160 149
Commercial Year 3 Tons/yr 0.012 0.022 160 149
Total Commercial Tons 0.035 0.066 480 446
Notes: Total emissions numbers may not add up due to rounding.

Operation: Implementation of the proposed Project would result in long-term greenhouse gas emissions associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products, as well as mobile emissions. Total GHG operational phase plus amortized construction phase emissions for the Project were estimated using the CalEEMod model, which estimates emissions to be approximately 8,185 MTCO2E/year for the residential Project and 4,494 MTCO2E/year per year for the commercial Project (refer to Table

8.2 below). Mobile emissions were estimated to be the primary source of GHG emissions.

Table 8.2 Estimated Operational Greenhouse Gases
Phase Unit N2O CH4 CO2 MTCO2E/yr
Residential Operational Phase
withoutResident Vehicle*Emissions
Tons/yr 0.013 0.229 609 561
Residential Operational Customer
with Resident Emissions
Tons/yr 0.181 0.046 8,274 7,552
Total Operations Emissions Tons 0.194 0.276 8,882 8,113 Commercial Operations Phase
without Customer Vehicle* Emissions Tons/yr 0.0005 1.22 73.5 97.8

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 57 of 104
Commercial Operations Phase with
Customer Vehicle Emissions
Tons/yr 0.160 0.025 4,785 4,382
Total Operations Emissions Tons 0.161 1.25 4,859 4,479
Total Residential Operational Phase Plus Amortized Construction Phase Emissions MTCO2E/year*
8,185
Total Commercial Operational Phase Plus Amortized Construction Phase Emissions MTCO2E/year*
4,494
Notes: * - Construction GHG emissions were amortized over 30 years.

Total emissions numbers may not add up due to rounding.

The SJVAPCD does not have thresholds or guidance regarding the significance of GHG emissions.

However, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted an Interim GHG Significance Threshold. For these reasons, Project GHG emissions levels presented in Tables 8.1 and 8.2 are primarily for disclosure purposes because impact analysis for the Project follows the approach certified by SCAQMD. The SCAQMD guidance identifies a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2 eq./year for GHG for construction emissions amortized over a 30-year Project lifetime, plus annual operation emissions. Although the Project is under SJVAPCD jurisdiction, the SCAQMD GHG threshold provides some perspective on the GHG emissions generated by the Project. Tables 8.1 and 8.2 shows the yearly GHG emissions generated by the Project are less than 10,000 MTCO2 eq/year, therefore impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose ofreducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The City of Hanford adopted a Regional Climate Action Plan (CAP) in coordination with Kings County.

The CAP includes a GHG inventory, a benchmarking/goal setting project and identified a reduction target for 2020. Although the CAP does not include a target for reduction in 2030, the measures in the plan will continue to provide reductions and help demonstrate continued progress in achieving the SB32 target for 2030.

The Regional CAP included policies that support emission reductions from new development. The Project contains features that have been evaluated for consistency with policies in the CAP and found consistent as summarized below in Table 8-3.

Table 8-3 Consistency with the Regional Climate Action Plan Policies E-4.1 Encourage local homebuilders to participate in the New Solar Homes Partnership to install solar PV systems on qualifying new homes.

Consistent. The proposed Project will 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.

Consistent. The proposed Project will comply with the latest CALGreen solar readiness and installation requirements.

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 58 of 104
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
Consistent. The proposed Project will include sustainability features in the Project design in accordance with SJVAPCD requirements, CALGreen, and City of Hanford standards.

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.

Consistent. The Project site is located within 0.25 mile of a transit stop. The proposed Project will consist of mixed uses with a range of densities and 5.45 acres of neighborhood commercial uses.

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.

Consistent. The proposed Project will include a range of residential uses and neighborhood commercial uses that will allow employees of the Project’s commercial 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.

Consistent. The proposed Project would provide pedestrian infrastructure connecting to neighboring uses. The construction of 91/4 will include the right of way for the proposed class 3 bike lane on 9 ¼ Avenue.

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.

Consistent. The proposed Project will 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.

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 will comply with City design standards that provide a safe route to a nearby transit stop.

TL.5.2 Allow the joint use of parking facilities for both private businesses and public agencies.

Consistent. The proposed commercial development will provide parking that will serve multiple businesses located within the shopping center.

Source: King County Association of Governments Regional Climate Action Plan The proposed Project would incorporate features that would minimize GHG emissions, as summarized above. These feature are consistent with the Regional CAP. As such, the Project will not conflict with plans, policies and regulations pertaining to GHG’s, therefore impacts would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
The request to annex the additional area to the north and prezone the land is in conformance with the General Plan. Physical development of the additional annexation area will be required to comply with

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 59 of 104
the General Plan policy, which includes emission reductions that mitigate GHG emission generation to a less than significant level. The goals and policies of the General Plan are intended to assist in reducing operational emissions. In addition, the General Plan policy meet 10 of the 12 Smart Growth Principles cited in the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint.

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 60 of 104
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
   
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
   
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
   
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard or
excessive noise to the public or the environment?
   
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
   
f) 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 significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
   
Environmental Setting
The Project Site is located within two miles of the Hanford Municipal Airport, a public facility to the south.

The nearest school is located adjacent to the Project to the west, Hamilton Elementary. There are two gas stations located at the intersection of 10th Avenue and East Grangeville Boulevard.

TheDepartment of Toxic SubstancesControl’s (DTSC’s) Envirostor database was used to identify any sites known to be associated with releases of hazardous materials or wastes within the Project area, in accordance with Government Code Section 65962.5. No sites were identified in the DTSC research on the subject Project. A Phase 1 Site Assessment Report was prepared by Paul Humphreys EP, August 2024, Appendix D.

There is no physical development proposed in the Additional Annexation Area to the north, therefore the impact discussion below is generally limited to the Project Site. Future development of the Additional Annexation Area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan designations of Low Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial and be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 61 of 104
Discussion
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routinetransport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Project construction activities may involve the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials.

During construction, the contractor will use fuel trucks to refuel onsite equipment and may use paints and solvents to a limited degree. The storage, transport, and use of these materials will comply with Local, State, and Federal regulatory requirements. There is the potential for small leaks due to refueling of construction equipment, however standard construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) included in the SWPPP will reduce the potential for the release of construction related fuels and other hazardous materials by controlling runoff from the Site and requiring proper disposal or recycling of hazardous materials. The residential uses do not normally result in transportation of hazardous materials, with the exception of residential or commercial cleaners, paint, etc. Future uses within the commercial area are conceptual and will require further review and approval by the City. Any use will be required to comply with Local, State and Federal requirements for the storage, transport and use of hazardous materials. The impact is considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
The physical development of the additional annexation area to the north will be evaluated upon application for development, however, based on the General Plan designation for the area, LowDensity Residential and Neighborhood Commercial, routine use of these designations will not normally result in transportation of hazardous material. Any use proposed will be required to comply with Local, State and Federal requirements for the storage, transport and use 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?
A Phase 1 Assessment was prepared by Paul Humphrey, EP dated August 2024. The Phase 1 included a review of records, interviews and a site reconnaissance visit, full report can be found in Appendix D.

The result of the Phase 1 assessment is that there is no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property. The investigation has revealed the following Business Environmental Risk (BER)s associated with the Project Site or nearby properties:
• The Subject Property is currently and was historically used for agricultural purposes. There is a potential that agricultural related chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, may have been used onsite. Based on Paul Humphrey, EP’s experience, during previous site development activities, near surface soils (where residual agricultural chemical concentrations would have most likely been present, if at all) are likely generally mixed with fill material or disturbed during grading. Also, it is common that engineered fill material is placed over underlying soils as part of site development activities. These additional variables serve to further reduce the potential for exposure to residual agricultural chemicals (if any). Based on these reasons, Paul Humphrey, EP concludes that the possible use of agricultural chemicals is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern. If redevelopment activities for residential use are planned, it should be determined whether sampling relating to the former agricultural use is

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 62 of 104
required by the local planning department or other applicable oversight agency. • The Subject Property included one irrigation water well on the north northeast portion of the site along the north boundary. If the well is not to be used, the well should be properly destroyed in accordance with State and local guidelines.

A letter from DTSC was received in response to early consultation, found in Exhibit A. DTSC recommended two items be considered by the City and the City response:

1. When agricultural crops and/or land uses are proposed or rezoned for residential use, a number of contaminants of concern (COCs) can be present. The Lead Agency shall identify the amounts of Pesticides and Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) historically used on the property. If present, OCPs requiring further analysis are dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, toxaphene, and dieldrin.

Additionally, any level of arsenic present would require further analysis and sampling and must meet HHRA NOTE NUMBER 3, DTSC-SLs approved thresholds. If they are not, remedial action must take place to mitigate them below those thresholds. Additional COCs may be found in mixing/loading/storage areas, drainage ditches, farmhouses, or any other outbuildings and should be sampled and analyzed. If smudge pots had been routinely utilized, additional sampling for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and/or Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons may be required.

Response:

As stated in the Phase 1, Paul Humphrey EP did not recommend further testing. Mr. Humphrey states “Based on Paul Humphrey, EP’s experience, during previous site development activities, near surface soils (where residual agricultural chemical concentrations would have most likely been present, if at all) are likely generally mixed with fill material or disturbed during grading. Also, it is common that engineered fill material is placed over underlying soils as part of site development activities. These additional variables serve to further reduce the potential for exposure to residual agricultural chemicals (if any). Based on these reasons, Paul Humphrey, EP concludes that the possible use of agricultural chemicals is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern. If redevelopment activities for residential use are planned, it should be determined whether sampling relating to the former agricultural use is required by the local planning department or other applicable oversight agency.” In consultation with City of Hanford staff, the City is not requiring sampling on land formerly under agricultural production.

2. DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) Guidance Manual.

No fill is anticipated to used for construction on the Project Site.

There is no reasonably foreseeable condition or incident involving the residential portion of the Project that could result in release of hazardous materials into the environment, other than any potential accidental releases of standard fuels, solvents, or chemicals encountered during typical construction of a residential subdivision and commercial development. Future potential commercial uses within the commercial area will be reviewed by City staff for design and compliance with City, State and Federal standards for regulation of potential hazardous materials. Should an accidental hazardous release occur, existing regulations for handling hazardous materials require coordination with the

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 63 of 104
California Department of Toxic Substances Control for an appropriate plan of action, which can include studies or testing to determine the nature and extent of contamination, as well as handling and proper disposal. Therefore, potential impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
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? TheProjectis located within one-quarter mile of an existing school, Hamilton Elementary. The Project, including the additional annexation area to the north, which is comprised of typical residential uses,

5.45 acres of future commercial uses, and 6.35 acres of future Neighborhood Commercial development (within the additional annexation area to the north), is not anticipated to include a use that will involve the use or storage of hazardous substances other than small amounts of pesticides, fertilizers, and cleaning agents required for normal maintenance of residential and commercial structures and landscaping. The proposed commercial area is not located within a one-quarter mile of a school. The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or involve the handling of acutely hazardous materials or waste, therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
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?
The Project Site is not listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. In addition, the Phase 1 Assessment Report, Appendix D, revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property; therefore there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazardor excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The proposed Project is not located within an airport land use plan, although it is located within two miles of a public airport. The closest airport is the Hanford Public Airport approximately 1.5 miles south of the Project Site. The proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area, therefore there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The City’s site plan review procedures, building permit and improvement plan check processes ensure compliance with the Hanford Safety Element and the Kings County 2023 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Project will not interfere with any adopted emergency response and evacuation

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 64 of 104
plans, therefore there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
The land surrounding the Project Site is developed with urban uses and agricultural uses and are not considered to be wildlands or located within a fire hazard severity zone. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, therefore there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 65 of 104
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise sustainably
degrade surface or ground water quality?
   
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
   
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner, which
would:
   
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?    
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or 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 the
release of pollutants due to project inundation?     e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater movement plan?
   
Environmental Setting
The Project Site is anticipated to be within the City Limits upon annexation and as such, will be required to connect to water, wastewater and stormwater services. The Project is located within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared by The Wallace Group dated January 2025, Appendix D, and is the analysis used for the impact assessment below.

There is no physical development proposed in the Additional Annexation Area to the north, therefore the impact discussion below is generally limited to the Project Site. Future development of the Additional Annexation Area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan designations of Low Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial and be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.

Discussion
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 66 of 104
otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? During construction of the Project Site, potential impacts on water quality arising from erosion and sedimentation are expected to be temporary conditions during the construction of the new development. Because the Project is greater than one acre in size, the development must prepare and have approved a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater to keep all erosion products from moving off-site and into receiving waters during construction. In addition, prior to the commencement of construction activities, the development would be required to adhere to the requirements of the City of Hanford standards for grading and have an approved grading permit. The intention is to eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharge to storm sewer systems and other waters of the United States. The Project includes an on-site temporary storm water basin that will be designed and approved by the City of Hanford to control stormwater runoff and erosion. Project-specific drainage improvements would reduce the proposed Project's potential to violate water quality standards during construction to a less than-significant impact. The proposed Project will not discharge to any surface or groundwater source. As such, the Project will not violate any water quality standards and will not impact waste discharge requirements, therefore impacts are determined to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
The additional annexation area to the north does not contain a physical project, however, physical development of the additional annexation area will be required to adhere to the requirements below:

Construction: potential impacts on water quality arise from erosion and sedimentation are expected to be localized and temporary during construction of new development. All new development that disturb more than one acre are required to comply with the General Permit Order No. 2012-0006- DWQ during construction. Proponents of new development would have to develop and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that specifies best management practices (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater, with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off-site and into receiving waters; eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the United States; and inspect all BMPs.

Operation: The physical development of the project site will be required to implement appropriate minimum control measures (MCMs) and design standards in compliance with Phase II General Permit as outlined in the Stormwater Management Plan as well as the City’s grading plan and site development requirements. New development would have to incorporate best management practices and adhere to design standards to maximize the reduction of pollutant loadings in that runoff to the maximum extent practical. The City Building Division would review and approve grading plans and site development requirements for the new development, when a physical project is proposed.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwaterrecharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management ofthe basin?
The City of Hanford obtains its water supply solely from groundwater. According to the City of Hanford Urban Water Management Plan (2020) and the City’s website, the City sources its water supply from groundwater through a network of 15 wells, 3.5 million gallons of storage tanks and has a capacity

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 67 of 104

34.5 million gallons per day. The estimated water demand for the proposed Project is 176-179 acre feet per year.

The Project Site is located within the Tulare Lake Hydrolic Basin and the Tulare Lake Subbasin. The Tulare Lake Subbasin is considered by DWR to be a high priority basin according to SGMA and in critical overdraft condition. The subbasin is collectively managed by five GSAs consisting of the North Kings GSA, the Mid-Kings River GSA (MKRGSA), the El Rico GSA, the Tri-County Water Authority and the South Fork Kings GSA (GKGSA). The Project site is currently within the boundaries of the MKRGSA.

Each of the GSAs within the subbasin have developed a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) but collectively have determined a subbasin-wide sustainable yield of 660,000 acre-feet per year (AFY).

In accordance with Senate Bill 610, which supplements the California Water Code (CWC), a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared by The Wallace Group (January 2025), Appendix E. The projected water usage for the 356 single-family units and 302 multi-family units (Project scope has been reduced to 650, but the WSA used 658) was determined using two different methods to determined a range of water usage. The first method estimates indoor and outdoor water usage on a per dwelling unit basis (i.e., individual lot) with results of 161 acre feet per year. The assumptions were based on an occupancy of 2.96 persons per household, equal to the occupancy rate cited in the 2020 UWMP, and a demand of 50 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). California State Water Code Section 10608.20 uses a target indoor water demand factor of 55 gpcd as an option for agencies in complying with water conservation requirements which reduces to 42 gpcd by 2030; this analysis assumes 50 gpcd.

The second method used to estimate residential water demand, relies on a water duty demand factor from the 2017 Water System Master Plan (WSMP) based on land use type and acreage which provides an estimate of total water usage of 159 acre feet per year.

The 5.45 acre commercial is estimated to use 4.49 acre feet per year. Commercial water demands were estimated using the water duty demand factors from the Water System Master Plan (WSMP).

Retail buildings are assumed to be regional commercial land usage, and food and convenience/gas buildings as highway commercial.

The total estimated water demand for the Copper Ridge development is 176-179 acre feet per year, with system losses of 7.4% extrapolated from the reported losses in UWMP, using the total metered demand and system losses.

The UWMP outlines the current City limits and land use. The proposed Project is within the City’s 2035 growth boundary. The predominantly low-density residential housing with commercial space is shown in a planned low- and medium-density residential zone. This growth area and corresponding land use were used in the 2017 WSMP as the basis for estimating future water demands, therefore, the City is actively planning for development in the area of proposed development and other areas within the growth boundary. The Project would be served by the City public water service, which relies on groundwater from the Lake Tulare subbasin. Water supply sufficiency is addressed in the City’s 2020 UWMP which evaluates conditions under a single normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry years over a 20-year period. During the fifth year of a multiple dry year scenario, the Copper Ridge is expected to add up to 200 acre-feet of demand per year, which represents approximately 1.2% of the estimated 2045 water supply, indicating the Copper Ridge development will have a less than significant impact on the City’s overall water supply.

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 68 of 104
Mitigation Measures: None Required
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? The proposed Project includes the construction and operation of residential homes and 5.45 acres of commercial development on formerly agricultural land. During construction, and in compliance with the Project’s SWPPP, construction related erosion controls and BMPs would be implemented to reduce potential impact related to erosion and siltation. The same will be required for development of the annexation area to the north, as physical development is proposed. The BMPs would include, but are not limited to, covering and/or binding the soil surfaces to prevent soil from being detached and transported by water or wind and the use of barriers such as straw bales and sandbags to control sediment. The Project will increase impervious surface with the installation of paving of streets, concrete pads for homes and sidewalks. In order to adequately capture and discharge stormwater runoff, the Project streets, curb and gutter will be conditioned to be constructed to City standards. Improvement plans will be reviewed by City staff for approval prior to construction. This review and approval will result in impacts that are less than significant.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
The Project Site is relatively flat, and grading would be minimal and would not appreciably change because of grading activities. The Project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces that could significantly reduce the rate of percolation of stormwater at the site and would concentrate and accelerate surface runoff. However, as mentioned in Section (c)(i) above, the Project includes a storm drain basin of adequate size to facilitate all surface runoff generated by the Project’s impervious surface, and would not result in surrounding properties being impacted by the Project’s runoff. The Project will not result in the alteration to any stream or rivers. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Physical development of the additional annexation area to the north will be evaluated by the Engineering Division at the time of application to ensure surface runoff is adequately handled. 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? Please see response (a) through (c)(ii), above. The Project will increase demand on the City storm drain system. Such increases may have the potential for significant environmental impacts but can be mitigated to a less than significant level by the construction of an on-site storm basin sized to accommodate stormwater from the Project, as shown on the Copper Ridge Tentative Subdivision Map, Figure 7. and incorporating best management practices for storm runoff. The Project will be required to comply with all applicable State and City codes and regulations for stormwater drainage and runoff. No streams or rivers exist within the Project’s vicinity that would

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 69 of 104
result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite.

The Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or offsite, contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, nor provide additional sources of polluted runoff.

Upon compliance with the State and City standards for the construction of stormwater basins and best management practices to manage runoff impacts would be less than significant. iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
The proposed Project is not located within the 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Therefore, the proposed Project would not impede or redirect potential flood flows, and the proposed Project would have no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
d) Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk the release of pollutants due toproject inundation?
The proposed Project is not located in a flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zone. There are no rivers, reservoirs, ponds or lakes within the site. Since the Project is not located in an area that is susceptible to inundation, the Project would not risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation. As such, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan orsustainable groundwater management plan?
The Project will not conflict with any water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management Plan. Specifically it will be required to comply with the Mid Kings River Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MKRGSA) sustainability plan and City of Hanford policies in the Hanford Stormwater Drainage Plan. By conforming to all standards and policies as stated above, there will be no impact associated with the Project.

Mitigation Measures: None Required

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 70 of 104
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
   
Environmental Setting
The proposed Project Site is located adjacent to the City limits of Hanford along the northeastern edge.

The site is currently designated for low density and medium density residential by the City of Hanford General Plan. The Project application includes a request for annexation to the City, a general plan amendment to allow medium density residential and neighborhood mixed use and the corresponding zoning of RM and MX-N. The proposed Project includes a Planned Unit Development that will allow the proposed subdivision and meet the densities required in the General Plan.

There is no physical development proposed in the Additional Annexation Area to the north. Future development of the Additional Annexation Area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan designations of Low Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial and be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.

Discussion
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? The Project proposes the development of 650 residential units on approximately 78.16 acres and

5.45 acres of commercial land use, as well as the annexation of an additional 58.24 acres for future Low-Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial land use. The Project does not include a physical feature such as a highway or railroad, that would physically divide a community by eliminating access. As such, the Project would not act as a physical barrier within a community, therefore there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
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 Project’s current land use designation is a mix of Low Density and Medium Density Residential in the General Plan. The Project includes a change from the Low to Medium density to increase the Medium density area and add 5.45 acres of Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial with an application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow the variety of lot sizes, while still meeting the densities in the General Plan. The Project will create 650 units on 78.16 acres, which is a density

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 71 of 104
of 8.32 units per acre, which is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, as amended, and is also within the current allowed densities of Low Density 2 to 10 units per acre and Medium Density 7 to 20 units per acre. The general plan amendment to change from Low Density to Medium Density is also in conformance to the polices pertaining to the East Side Area in the General Plan that state higher densities are to be encouraged. The change to allow the Mixed-Use Neighborhood Commercial is also supported by the following policies in the General Plan pertaining to providing neighborhood type commercial close to neighborhoods as listed below:

3.6 Mixed Land Use
The intent of the mixed-use land use designations is to provide for a mixture of stores, services, restaurants, offices, and homes (dwelling units) in close proximity, thereby allowing residents to work and shop close to home and reduce the length and frequency of trips between home, work, shopping, and services. This contributes to opportunities to increase the use of public transit, reduce auto dependency, provide a wider range of housing choices, and promote activity during more hours of the day. Both vertical and horizontal mixed-use developments are encouraged in the mixed use designations. The Hanford Zoning Ordinance provides the enforcement mechanism to implement the identified policies.

Goal L15: More opportunities for mixed use projects.

Goal L16: A mix of land uses, vertical, horizontal or both, at appropriate locations in the city.

Goal L17: A mixture of commercial shopping and services with multi-family residential dwellings in a vibrant, walkable environment.

Goal L18: Opportunities to design land uses that meet people’s residential and shopping needs while reducing reliance on automobiles.

3.6.1 Neighborhood Mixed Use
Policy L60 Purpose of Neighborhood Mixed Use Land Use Designation Establish the Neighborhood Mixed Use land use designation to promote mixed-use commercial and multifamily residential areas that allow walking to and between the mix of uses. New development may be oriented towards an existing public street or a new street or civic space within the development site.

Policy L61 Typical Uses in Neighborhood Mixed Use Land Use Designation Define the uses allowed in the Neighborhood Mixed Use land use designation to include multi-family dwellings along with businesses providing day-to-day goods and services for the surrounding and nearby residential neighborhoods. Commercial uses that would primarily serve a citywide or regional market area shall not be allowed. Typical uses include duplexes, townhomes, apartments, markets, small retail shops, eating establishments, service stations, convenience stores, dry cleaning and laundry services, beauty salons, and other similar uses. Both vertical and horizontal mixed-use developments are encouraged.

Policy L62 Design of Neighborhood Mixed Use Land Use Designation Require that new development projects and major site reconfigurations in the Neighborhood Mixed Use land use designation provide site layouts, buildings, landscaping, walkways, and signage that are oriented

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 72 of 104
primarily to the pedestrian. Require pedestrian access between residential and commercial uses and prohibit parking areas, walls, and landscaping in locations on the site that block or hinder pedestrian access. The maximum residential density permitted in a horizontal mixed use development is fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre.

Policy L63 Location and Size of Neighborhood Mixed Use Land Use Designation Locate Neighborhood Mixed Use land use designations on eight (8) to twenty-five (25) acres at roughly onemile intervals on one corner of an intersection of an arterial street and an arterial or collector street.

This land designation takes the place of the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation on some corners.

Policy L155 Eastside Higher Density Residential Uses Support the development of higher density residential uses in close proximity to the Grangeville Boulevard corridor and the gradual transition to lower density, single-family residential uses as distance from the Arterial road increases.

Policy L156 Eastside Development along Grangeville Boulevard Discourage “strip" development along Grangeville Boulevard from an overall community development perspective. Develop design policies and regulations that identify a minimum percentage of street-facing building facades and minimize the exposure of parking and masonry walls along the street.

The proposed Project, including the proposed general plan amendment, does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 73 of 104
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
SignificantWith
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 lands use plan?
   
Environmental Setting
According to the Hanford 2035 General Plan Background Report, the only significant mineral commodities that have been found within the Hanford Planning Area are sand and gravel for road and building construction. At this time there are no known significant deposits, and no active mines.

Discussion
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 Project Site has no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, therefore the proposed Project would not result in the loss of regionally or locally important mineral resources. Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
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 lands use plan? There are no known mineral resources of importance to the region and the Project Site is not designated under the City’s General Plan as an important mineral resource recovery site, therefore there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 74 of 104
XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permeant 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 ground-borne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?    
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or, an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
   
Environmental Setting
Noise is often described as unwanted sound. It consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with human communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep. Noise has become an environmental pollutant that threatens quality of life. Extreme levels of noise can cause pain and hearing loss. In addition, continuous exposure to noise pollution is associated with hypertension, increased blood pressure, impaired reading comprehension and long term memory in children.

Vibration is seismic waves that radiate along the surface of the earth and downward into the earth.

The operation of heavy construction equipment, particularly pile driving and other impact devices such as pavement breakers create this vibration.

Principal noise sources in the City of Hanford include traffic on major roadways, including State Route 198, and railroad noise. In the Project area, the primary noise is from traffic noise and rail noise from the Union Pacific (UP) railroad to the south, although it is infrequently used. Other potential noise sources are related to the ag uses to the east, north and south.

The closest noise sensitive receptors are the school and the residents of the single-family residential properties to the west.

There is no physical development proposed in the Additional Annexation Area to the north, therefore the impact discussion below is limited to the Project Site. Future development of the Additional Annexation Area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan designations of Low Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial and be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 75 of 104
Discussion
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permeant increase in ambientnoise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general planor noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Project construction is anticipated to be in phases over the course of four to five years and will involve temporary noise sources. Typical construction noise will come from graders, tractors, trenchers and excavators.Construction noise from the home building will contribute to the noise environment of the homes and school to the west. The City Municipal Code does not contain specific noise standards for motor vehicles and other noise sources; however, the General Plan contains guidelines that limit exterior noise levels for residential and schools to 60 – 70 dBA CNEL. The Hanford Municipal Code (HMC) Section 9.10.060(A)(10) does limit construction noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The Project construction will be required to limit construction noise to these hours.

Operational noise from both the residential and commercial will primarily be from vehicles traveling along Grangeville Boulevard, 9 ¼ Avenue, Leland Way and 9th Avenue, as well as the internal circulation within the subdivision. Although the uses within the commercial development have not been determined, it is anticipated that new noise will be generated from vehicles, potential drive-throughs and loudspeakers. Noise will be required to comply with HMC Section 9.10 pertaining to Loud or Annoying Noise, including hours of operations for noise generating activities.

Because noise generated from construction would be temporary and operational noise from both the residential and the commercial site would be required to comply with HMC Section 9.10, impacts are determined to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or groundborne noiselevels?
Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building structural damage.

Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of perception. Building damage can take the form of cosmetic or structural. Table 13-1, below, shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment.

Table 13.1 Typical Vibration Levels Typical Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
(inches/second) at 25
feet
Approximate
Vibration Level (LV) at
25 feet
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Auger/Drill Rig 0.089 87
Jackhammer 0.0.35 79

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 76 of 104
Vibratory
Compactor/roller

0.210 94
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed Project would occur when grading of the site is conducted, and when infrastructure such as utilities, and foundations are constructed. Operating cycles for the types of construction equipment used during construction may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be due to random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). These estimations of noise levels take into account the distance to the receptor, attenuation from molecular absorption and anomalous excess attenuation.

While there is a school and residences to the west of the proposed Project, vibratory compactors/rollers would be used only on a limited and intermittent basis during compaction, and would be moving throughout the site, instead of stationary or operated long-term in the same location to the extent it would damage buildings due to longer-term extended use. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None 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 two miles of public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
According to the Kings County Airport Land Use Plan, the Project Site is not located in an airport land use plan. The Project Site is approximately one mile from the public airport, but is outside the anticipated noise contours as shown on the Airport Compatibility Zone Map in the General Plan Background Report, therefore there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 77 of 104
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (forexample, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
   
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
   
Environmental Setting
The United States 2020 Census determined the Hanford population to be 58,997 in 2020 and estimates the current population to be 59,938 based on most recent projections. The average household size, as determined in the census was 3.08 persons.

There is no physical development proposed in the Additional Annexation Area to the north. Future development of the Additional Annexation Area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan designations of Low Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial and be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.

Discussion
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example by new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The Project proposes to construct 650 new residential units in a mix of single family and multiple family units. The United States 2023Census estimate states that the City’s average household size is 3.08 persons. Based on this average household size, the anticipated population increase as a result of the proposed Project is 2,002 persons. This would be an increase of 3.3 percent beyond existing conditions.

Future development of the annexation area would also contribute to population growth. Using the expected density per gross acre for the Low-Density Residential designation, four units per gross acre, it is estimated there could be approximately 191 units, for a total of 590 persons.

The construction of housing at this location would not be unplanned, as the City’s General Plan designates the proposed Project Site for residential development and the potential population increase was evaluated in the associated General Plan EIR. Although the Project includes a General Plan Amendment to change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, the proposed density of 8.5 units per acre is within the density range of the Low Density Residential of 2-10 units per acre, within the range contemplated in the 2035 General Plan and associated EIR. The City 2024-2032 Housing Element identified the following goal and policies for housing in the City of Hanford:

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 78 of 104
GOAL 2. Facilitate and encourage the provision of a range of housing types and prices to meet the diverse needs of residents.

Policy 2.1. Provide adequate sites for housing through appropriate land use, zoning and development standards to accommodate the regional housing needs for the current planning period.

Policy 2.3. Ensure the adequate provision of water, sewer, roads, public facilities, and other infrastructure necessary to serve new housing.

Policy 2.4. Support the construction of high quality single and multi-family housing which is well designed and energy efficient.

The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth directly or indirectly, therefore impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed Project Site is undeveloped and does not involve the removal of housing or displacement of people, therefore there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 79 of 104
XV.PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 serve ratios, response times
of other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a. Fire protection?    
b. Police protection?    
c. Schools?    
d. Parks?    
e. Other public facilities?    
Environmental Setting
Fire: The Project Site will be served by the City of Hanford Fire Department.

Police: The City of Hanford Police Department will provide law enforcement services to the proposed Project Site.

Schools: The proposed Project Site is located within the Hanford Elementary School District and the Hanford Joint Union High School District. Students will attend Hamilton Elementary and Hanford High School. The closest school being Hamilton Elementary located across the street from the Project to the west. Funding for schools is outlined in Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. Seq., which governs the amount of fees that can be levied against new development. These fees are used to construct new or expanded school facilities. Payment of fees authorized by the statute is deemed “full and complete mitigation.” Parks: The closest park is located directly across the street to the west, Freedom Park. A new park, Heros Park, is in the planning stages and will be located within one mile to the southeast.

There is no physical development proposed in the Additional Annexation Area to the north, therefore the impact discussion below is generally limited to the Project Site. Future development of the Additional Annexation Area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan designations of Low Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial and be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. Development of the annexation area will be subject to impact fees, similar to the Project.

Discussion

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 80 of 104
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of newor 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 serve ratios, response times of other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a. Fire protection?
The City of Hanford Fire Department will provide fire protection services to the proposed development. The nearest Fire station is located at 350 W Grangeville Boulevard, approximately

1.3 miles west of the proposed Project. The addition of 650 residential units and 5.45 acres of commercial development will increase the demand for fire protection services. The need for new fire service facilities is assessed as the City continues to grow and develop within the growth boundary in the City’s General Plan. The development of 650 residential units and the commercial development alone will not require the alteration of existing or construction of new fire services facilities, but would contribute to the cumulative need for increased fire protection services. The increase in service demand will be compensated by the payment of a fire development impact fee. Payment of the impact fee is considered mitigation and payment of the Project’s fair share contribution towards cumulative increases in demand for fire protection services.

The timing of when new fire service facilities would be required or details about size and location cannot be known until such facilities are planned and proposed, and any attempt to analyze impacts to a potential future facility would be speculative. As new or expanded fire service facilities become necessary, construction or expansion Projects would be subject to their own separate CEQA review in order to identify and mitigate any potential environmental impacts.

Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
b. Police protection?
The Hanford Police Department will provide services to the proposed development. The Hanford Police Department is located at 425 N. Irwin in downtown Hanford. The addition of 650 residential units and 5.45 acres of commercial development will increase the demand for police protection services. The need for new police service facilities is assessed as the City continues to grow and develop within the growth boundary in the City’s General Plan. The development of 650 residential units and the commercial development alone will not require the alteration of existing or construction of new police services facilities, but would contribute to the cumulative need for increased police protection services. The increase in service demand will be compensated by the payment of a police development impact fee. Payment of the impact fee is considered mitigation and payment of the Project’s fair share contribution towards cumulative increases in demand for police protection services.

The timing of when new police service facilities would be required or details about size and location cannot be known until such facilities are planned and proposed, and any attempt to analyze impacts to a potential future facility would be speculative. As new or expanded police service facilities become necessary, construction or expansion Projects would be subject to their

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 81 of 104
own separate CEQA review in order to identify and mitigate any potential environmental impacts.

Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
c. Schools?
Since the proposed Project includes the addition of 650 residential units, the number of students in the school district will increase. The Project will pay school development impact fees to the school districts at the time of building permit issuance in compliance with Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. Seq.. These fees are used to construct new or expanded school facilities. Payment of fees authorized by the statute is deemed “full and complete mitigation” therefore impact will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
d. Parks?
The addition of 650 new residential units would result in more use at existing parks. The Project is located adjacent to Freedom Park, west of the Project and within one-half mile to the new Heros Park currently in the planning phase. The Project will also pay the park development impact fee of $3,192 for single family residential and $3,096 for multiple family dwelling units. Since the Project would contribute its fair share to parks facilities through payment of in-lieu fees, the impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
e. Other public facilities?
The Project is within the planning area anticipated in the Hanford General Plan and as such would not result in increased demand for, or impacts on, other public facilities that were not anticipated.

In addition, the Project will also pay development impact fees to support library, public health etc. to Kings County, therefore impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 82 of 104
XVI. PARKS AND RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
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?
   
Environmental Setting
The closest City park is Freedom Park, located directly west of the Project Site. The Project is also within one half mile of the future Heros Park currently in the planning phases. According to the City of Hanford 2019 Park and Recreation Master Plan, the City had 299.7 acres of developed park acreage, which was 5.06 acres per 1,000 residents. The City has added 8.9 acres since 2019 for a total of 308.6.

Based on the current population estimate of 59,938 persons, the City has 5.14 acres of park space per 1,000 persons. The General Plan identified a goal of 3.5 acres per 1,000. The City will be adding additional park space by expanding Hidden Valley Park and Heros Park.

There is no physical development proposed in the Additional Annexation Area to the north, therefore the impact discussion below is limited to the Project Site. Future development of the Additional Annexation Area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan designations of Low Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial and be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.

Discussion
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?
Implementation of the proposed Project would result in increased use of existing parks and other recreational facilities, however the Project would contribute its fair share to parks facilities through the payment of park development impact fees, which is intended to be used to provide additional community park acreage, such as Heros Park and Hidden Valley Park expansion in the City; therefore the impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
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?

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 83 of 104
The Project does not include any recreational facilities, therefore there will be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 84 of 104
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
SignificantWith
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance orpolicy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?    
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with the CEQA
guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (B)?    
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves ordangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
   
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?    
Environmental Setting
The proposed Project is located at the northeast corner of Grangeville Boulevard and 9 ¼ streets. A traffic study was prepared to review impacts to traffic intersections and segments as well as Vehicle Mile Traveled (VMT), Appendix H.

Vehicular Access: Vehicular access to the Project will be to 9 ¼ Avenue, Leland Way, future 9th Avenue and Grangeville Boulevard. The Project has been designed to provide connection to the surrounding arterial and collector streets.

Pedestrian and Cyclist Connectivity: The Project will install sidewalks along all arterial and collector streets as well internal local streets in accordance with City development standards. City staff has stated that future 9 1/4 Avenue will have a Class 3 Bike Lane.

There is no physical development proposed in the Additional Annexation Area to the north, therefore the impact discussion below is limited to the Project Site. Future development of the Additional Annexation Area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan designations of Low Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial and be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.

Discussion
a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulationsystem, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The Project consists of the construction of 650 single family and multiple family residential units as well as on-site circulation-related infrastructure improvements, including new local residential streets. A Traffic Study was prepared by C2 Consulting, December 2024, Appendix G. The City requested that the following intersections be studied as part of the traffic study. 1) Grangeville Blvd.at 10 Avenue

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 85 of 104
2) Grangeville Blvd.at 9 ¼ Avenue
3) Grangeville Blvd.at SR 43
4) 9 ¼ Avenue at Florinda Street
5) 9 ¼ Avenue at Leland Way
The TIS included a Level of Service (LOS) analysis for the following scenarios:
1) Existing
2) Existing plus the Copper River Project
3) Existing plus the Copper River Project (mitigated, if necessary) Level of Service Standard The City of Hanford’s Transportation Element Policy T29 set’s the maximum Level of Service at “E” on streets and intersections within the area bounded by Highway 198, 10th Avenue, 11th Avenue, and Florinda Avenue, inclusive of these streets. The City has set a peak hour Level of Service of “D” on all other streets and intersections with the Planned Growth Boundary.

New trips generated by the Copper Ridge Project were estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. This publication provides average rates of trip generation for different land uses and relates these to dwelling units (residential) and square footages (fast food and retail shops). It should be noted that for the proposed minimart, the trip generation was computed from an estimated 16 gas pumps as depicted on the site plan layout. Trip generation rates are provided for weekdays along with the proportion of trips that are inbound or outbound from the development. The resulting Project trip generation is 862 trips in the AM peak hour and 1,079 trips in the PM peak hour. The Copper Ridge Project is estimated to generate a total of 12,091 daily trips.

Utilizing the ITE trip manual, pass by trips were estimated, which resulted in the final Project trip generation of 549 in the AM and 717 in the PM. The LOS for all intersections was calculated for Existing plus Project as shown below in Table 17.1. As illustrated below, all intersections are calculated to operate above the City’s LOS minimum of “D” therefore no mitigations are required and impacts are considered less than significant.

Table 17.1 Existing Conditions PLUS Project
Level of Service
Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Vehicle
Delay
LOS Vehicle
Delay
LOS
Grangeville Blvd.at 10th Ave 25.0 C 23.0 C
Grangeville Blvd.at 9 ¼th Ave 25.9 C 24.5 C
Grangeville Blvd.at SR 43 10.9 B 13.6 B
9 ¼ Ave at Florinda St
Northbound approach 8.2 A 7.9 A
Eastbound approach 13.1 B 11.6 B

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 86 of 104
9 ¼ Ave at Leland Way
Westbound approach 7.8 A 7.5 A
Northbound approach 11.6 B 10,5 B
Mitigation Measures: None Required
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision(b)?
The City adopted the City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines (VMT Guidelines), dated November 2022. Based on the VMT Guidelines, an analysis was prepared by LSA Associates, January 2025, found in Appendix H of the Traffic Study. The analysis was based on the Project being a mixed use Project. Individual land use components were analyzed separately for purposes of the VMT analysis. The Project VMT analysis has been conducted based on the current Project description. The estimated 37,700 square feet of retail/commercial component of the Project could be screened out using the 55,000 square foot screening criteria for retail projects. However, the residential components of the Project don’t meet any of the screening criteria identified in the VMT Guidelines. The VMT Guidelines further recommend that for projects/components of a project that could not be screened out using the project screening criteria, a detailed VMT analysis should be conducted using the methodology and significant threshold criteria identified in it.

To calculate the project VMT, the first step was to update the TAZs in the model that include the project area. The project should be isolated in the travel model to estimate project VMT. The KCAG model includes ability to split or add new TAZ. Therefore, three separate TAZs were added to the model to incorporate the project’s single-family, multifamily, and retail land uses. Singlefamily and multifamily residential uses have been separated into two TAZs because they have different household characteristics such as household size and household income. Typically, single-family residential developments have a higher household size, higher auto ownership, and higher income compared to multifamily developments. Creating new TAZs for the project help isolate project VMT and determine project specific VMT impact KCAG model is a socioeconomic data-based model. Therefore, in addition to the number of households, the model requires other household characteristics such as household income and household size as inputs to the socioeconomic database. The household attributes such as size and income determine the number of trips and their trip lengths. For example, based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, (11th edition), a single-family dwelling unit will have 9.4 daily trips, whereas a multifamily unit will have 6.7 daily trips in average. Generally, higher household sizes contribute to higher number of trips and similarly higher income households have more and longer trips. The trip rates in the travel model are disaggregated by different household attributes which are based on regional household travel survey, and census data. These household variables for the project dwelling units were obtained from similar TAZs within the City. Appropriate socioeconomic data for each of the residential land uses were included in the model prior to conducting the VMT analysis model run.

It should be noted that though the retail component of the project was screened out, one separate TAZ was created in the model to include the retail land uses. Inclusion of retail uses

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 87 of 104
will appropriately reflect the internal capture within the project. This is because, presence of retail in proximity of residential uses will help reduce the overall VMT of the project. The retail land use was converted to model socioeconomic data. The land use to employee conversion factors were developed using ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th edition for project retail uses.

The ITE trip generation manual includes trip generation rates for different land use categories by different units such as square footage, number of units, and/or number of employees.

Employee/square footage rate was determined for these uses by dividing the daily trip rate per 1,000 sf by daily trip rate per employee. This ratio was used to estimate number of employees per square feet for the retail use which in turn was used to estimate total project retail employees. Model run was conducted for this updated model after incorporating the project land uses as described above. The outputs from this updated model run were utilized to estimate project specific VMT metrics. No project specific roadway network modifications were conducted for the model runs.

2.2 VMT ANALYSIS
Table 2-A shows the result of the VMT analysis for the residential component of the project. As shown in Table 2-A, VMT per capita for residential component of the project is lower than the regional threshold. As such, based on the VMT analysis, the residential component will not have any significant VMT impact. As such, since all the components of the project could be either screened out or would have a less than significant VMT impact, the entire project will have a less than significant VMT impact.

Consistent with the City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, utilizing the

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 88 of 104
Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) modeling for VMT, the threshold for VMT is 8.99 miles. The result of the model is that the Project will have a VMT of 8.98, lower than the threshold.

As the VMT per capita for residential component of the Project is lower than the regional threshold, based on the VMT analysis, the residential component will not have any significant VMT impact. Since all the components of the Project could be either screened out or would have a less than significant VMT impact, the entire Project will have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharpcurves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No geometric design feature associated with the Project would pose a hazard to the public and there would be no incompatible uses. The design of the City circulation system is required to comply with City standards and approved by the City Engineering Division, therefore there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The proposed Project will not result in inadequate emergency access. Emergency access to the site will be from all surrounding major roadways into the development. City staff has evaluated each phase of development and determined that each phase will have at least two access points to a collector or arterial and have adequate access. A minimum of two access points provide emergency access consistent with City standards, which have been reviewed by the City’s Fire Department. Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 89 of 104
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

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 definedin terms of the size and scope
of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to aCalifornia Native American tribe, and that is:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in alocal register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or
   
b) 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.
   
Environmental Setting
A Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) is defined under Public Resources Code Section 21074 as a site, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope, sacred place and object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included and that is listed or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources or in a local register of historical resources, or if the City of Hanford, acting as the Lead Agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses at its discretion to treat the resource as a TCR.

California Native American tribes traditional and culturally affiliated with the Project Site and area were notified in accordance with AB 52 and SB 18 on December 4, 2024. A list of Native American Tribes was obtained from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) which included the following tribes:
• Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians
• Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe
• Table Mountain Rancheria
• Tule River Indian Tribe
• Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
No responses have been received to date.

There is no physical development proposed in the Additional Annexation Area to the north, therefore the impact discussion below is limited to the Project Site. Future development of the Additional Annexation Area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan designations of Low Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial and be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.

Definitions
• Historical Resources: Historical resources are defined by CEQA as resources that are listed in or eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, resources that are listed in a local

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 90 of 104
historical resource register, or resources that are otherwise determined to be historical under California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 or California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5. Under these definitions Historical Resources can include archaeological resources, Tribal cultural resources, and Paleontological Resources. • Archaeological Resources: As stated above, archaeological resources may be considered historical resources. If they do not meet the qualifications under the California Public Resources Code 21084.1 or California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5, they are instead determined to be “unique” as defined by the CEQA Statute Section 21083.2. A unique archaeological resource isan artifact, object, or site that: (1) contains information (for which there is a demonstrable public interest) needed to answer important scientific research questions;(2)has aspecial andparticular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or (3) is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
• Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR): Tribal Cultural Resources can include site features, places, culturallandscapes, sacred places, or objects, which are of cultural value to a Tribe. It is either listed on or eligible for the CA Historic Register or a local historic register, or determined by the lead agency to be treated as TCR.
• Paleontological Resources: For the purposes of this section, “paleontological resources” refers to the fossilized plant and animal remains of prehistoric species. Paleontological Resources are a limited scientific and educational resource and are valued for the information they yield about thehistoryoftheearthandits ecology.Fossilizedremains, such asbones,teeth, shells, and leaves, are found in geologic deposits (i.e., rock formations). Paleontological resources generally includethe geologic formations and localities in which the fossils are collected.

Discussion
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a localregister of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
A Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared by Taylored Archaeology dated November 24, 2024, Appendix D. As stated in the assessment, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, nor is it listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources. As part of the assessment, a records search was completed by the Southern San Joaquin Valley information Center. Based on the results of the records search, no previously recorded tribal cultural resources are located within the Project Site. Although no historical resources were identified and the presence of remains are not anticipated, cultural resources

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 91 of 104
under the ground surface are possible. The Cultural Resources Assessment included a recommendation for two mitigations previously listed under Cultural Resources, CUL 1 and CUL 2. The City and the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe have also agreed to an additional mitigation measure that requires the developer/owner to agree to a burial treatment plan prior to any ground disturbing activities. Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2 and CUL 3 will ensure that impacts will be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures:

Implementation of CUL 1, CUL 2 and CUL 3
b) 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 setforth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource CodeSection 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

The lead agency has not determined there to be any known cultural resource on the Project Site that would meet the criteria in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 therefore there is no impact. If a resource is discovered, the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL 1, CUL 2 and CUP 3 previously listed under Cultural Resources will ensure that any impacts will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of CUL 1 , CUL 2 and CUL 3.

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 92 of 104
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
SignificantWith
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 relation 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?
   
Environmental Setting
The proposed Project will be required to connect to water, solid waste and wastewater services.

Water
The City of Hanford’s water supply system is a groundwater system. The city is located within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region is within the Tulare Lake Groundwater Subbasin which transmits, filters, and stores water from the main San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The system consists of 15 groundwater wells, three storage reservoirs, distribution mains, and fire hydrants. The system does not use surface water.

Solid Waste
Solid waste in the city is collected by a private contractor, Kings Waste Recycling Authority (KWRA).

Refuse is sorted at the KWRA facility to recover recyclable materials before being hauled to the landfills in Kettleman Hills. For single-family residential customers, the City has instituted a green waste collection mixed recycle collection program.

Wastewater
The City of Hanford wastewater system provides for the treatment, disposal, and reuse of effluent, which meets all of the state’s discharge requirements for the city. The wastewater system consists of a

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 93 of 104
treatment plant and 21 sanitary sewer lift stations located throughout the city. The treatment facility has a capacity of 8 million gallons per day and is located south of Houston Avenue and East of 11th Avenue.

The City’s wastewater system also pursues water conservation strategies to ensure the long-term reuse of treated disinfected wastewater to reduce the need for groundwater.

There is no physical development proposed in the Additional Annexation Area to the north, therefore the impact discussion below is limited to the Project Site. Future development of the Additional Annexation Area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan designations of Low Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial and be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.

Discussion
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 telecommunicationsfacilities, the construction or relation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The City provides water, wastewater and stormwater services to the community. The proposed Project would result in new water services connecting to an existing City water line located in 9¼ Avenue adjacent to the Project. Sewer service will be provided from an existing main trunk line located in 9
th Avenue, south of the Project. Storm drain services will be provided by a permanent storm basin that will be located on-site. The proposed Project does not include a change in land use designation that would result in a significant increase or change in water, wastewater and stormwater services than planned in the 2035 General Plan or the City infrastructure master plans.

Southern California Edison provides electric service to the City. Natural gas service is primarily provided by the Southern California Gas Company. There are three major companies that provide communications services: AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon. Comcast is the primary cable television and internet provider in Kings County. With the Project, new service for all utilities will be constructed into the proposed subdivision.

It is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed Project would result in increased demand for any utility services beyond the planned conditions. Impacts are therefore considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
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? See discussion in Section 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality. As stated in the Water Supply Assessment (see Appendix F), the City has sufficient water supply to service the Project, therefore impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
c) Would the projectresultin a determination by the wastewatertreatment provider which serves ormay serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 94 of 104
Wastewater generated by the Project would be collected and treated at the City’s domestic Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTF). Although the proposed Project will increase in wastewater generation due to the addition of 650 residential units and the commercial site, commercial and residential development at the Project Site has been planned and accounted for in the City’s infrastructure planning documents. City staff has determined that the wastewater produced would not exceed the City’s WWTF capacity, therefore, the impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of thecapacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impairthe attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Disposal services are provided within the City limits by the City of Hanford Refuse Division. The Project will result in the generation of additional solid waste typical of residential and commercial uses. It has been determined by City staff that the City has the capacity to serve the Project Site and the proposed uses. Because the City’s existing infrastructure has the capacity to accommodate the solid waste currently planned in the General Plan for expanded population, it can be inferred that the existing solid waste infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed Project. The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or Local Standards and there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes andregulations related to solid waste?
See d. above. This proposed Project conforms to all applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste disposal. The proposed Project will comply with the adopted policies related to solid waste, and will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations pertaining to disposal of solid waste, including recycling. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 95 of 104
XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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, postfire slope instability, or drainage changes?    
Environmental Setting
There is no physical development proposed in the Additional Annexation Area to the north, therefore the impact discussion below is limited to the Project Site. Future development of the Additional Annexation Area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan designations of Low Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial and be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.

Discussion
a), b), c), d): According to the Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City of Hanford is not at high risk for Wildfires and the City is not in a State responsibility area or classified as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as shown on the Kings County Federal, State, and Local Responsibility Severity Zones Map for Kings County. The Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project has been reviewed by the City of Hanford Fire Department to ensure the Project does not impair emergency response or emergency evacuation. As such there is no impact to wildfire risk from the Project.

Mitigation Measures: None Required

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 96 of 104
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential
substantially to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat ofa
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?
   
Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The initial study contains analysis of environmental issues that indicate that the proposed Project is not expected to have substantial impact on the environment or on any resources identified in the Initial Study. Mitigation measures have been incorporated to reduce potential impacts to sensitive biological species and to cultural resources. Implementing these mitigation measures will ensure impacts are less than significant with mitigation.
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)? CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a Project is significant and whether the effects of the Project are cumulatively

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 97 of 104
considerable. The significance of the cumulative effects of a Project must, therefore, be assessed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.

As described in the impact analyses in sections of this IS/MND, any potentially significant impacts of the Project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level following incorporation of the mitigation measures. A review of major projects found of the City of Hanford website show that all major projects are planned on the west and northwest areas of Hanford. It does not appear that there are any projects within the vicinity, with exception of the future Heros Park. Any future projects in the vicinity of the Project Site would be subject to review in separate environmental documents and required to conform to the General Plan and the Hanford Municipal Code.

As currently designed and with compliance with the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed Project would not be cumulative. Thus, the cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be less than cumulatively considerable. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The Initial Study analysis indicates that the Project is not expected to have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in the Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Cultural Tribal Resources to reduce potential impacts.

As such, implementation will not cause direct or indirect substantial adverse effects on human beings, impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure BIO 1 (Construction Timing). If feasible, future construction activities will take place entirely outside of the avian nesting season, defined as February 1 to August 31.

Mitigation Measure BIO 2 (Preconstruction Surveys). If construction must occur between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist will conduct surveys for active bird nests within 7 days prior to the start of work during this period. The survey area will encompass the site and accessible surrounding lands within ¼ mile for nesting Swainson’s hawks, 500 feet for other nesting raptors, 300 feet for the tricolored blackbird, and 250 feet for other nesting birds.

Mitigation Measure BIO 3 (Avoidance of Active Nests). Should any active nests be discovered in or near proposed construction zones, the biologist will identify a suitable construction-free buffer around the nest. This buffer will be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged and are capable of foraging independently.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: In the event of accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological remains during development or ground disturbing activities in the Project area, all work shall be halted in immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot radius) until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance.

Mitigation Measure CUL 2: If human remains are uncovered during construction, work shall be halted, and the Kings County Coroner is to be notified to investigate the remains and arrange proper

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 98 of 104
treatment and disposition. If the remains are identified on the basis of archaeological context, age, cultural associations, or biological traits to be those of a Native American, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code 5097.98 require that the coroner notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendent who will make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains.

Mitigation Measure CUL 3 A burial Treatment Plan shall be entered into by the Project applicant/property owner prior to any ground disturbing activities.

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 99 of 104

LIST OF PREPARERS
DR Mata Consulting
Padre and Associates (Air Quality)
Live Oak Associates (Biology)
Taylored Archaeology (Cultural)
Paul Humphry (Hazards)
C2 Consulting (Traffic)

LSA (VMT)
Wallace Group (Water)

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 100 of 104

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1), a Mitigation Monitoring and ReportingProgram (MMRP) has been prepared for the Project in order to monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures that have been adopted for the Project. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been created based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) fortheCopper RidgeSubdivisionproposed byQuest Equity LLCin the City of Hanford.

The first column of the table identifies the mitigation measure. The second column names the party responsible for carrying out the required action. The third column, “Timing of Mitigation Measure” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The fourth column, “Responsible Party forMonitoring,” names the party ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The last column will be used by the City of Hanford to ensure that the individual mitigation measures have been monitored.

Plan checking and verification of mitigation compliance shall be the responsibility of the City of Hanford.

MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE PARTY
FOR

IMPLEMENTATION

IMPLEMENTATIO

N TIMING

RESPONSIBL

E PARTY FOR

MONITORING

VERIFICATION
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO 1
(Construction Timing). If
feasible, future
construction activities will
take place entirely outside
of the avian nesting
season, defined as
February 1 to August 31.

Applicant
Developer
Builder
Ongoing City of
Hanford
Mitigation Measure BIO 2
(Preconstruction
Surveys). If construction
must occur between
February 1 and August 31,
a qualified biologist will
conduct surveys for active
bird nests within 7 days
prior to the start of work
during this period. The
survey area will
encompass the site and
accessible surrounding
lands within ¼ mile for
nesting Swainson’s
hawks, 500 feet for other
nesting raptors, 300 feet
Applicant
Developer
Builder
7 days prior to
construction
City of
Hanford

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 101 of 104
for the tricolored
blackbird, and 250 feet for
other nesting birds.

Mitigation Measure BIO 3
(Avoidance of Active
Nests). Should any active
nests be discovered in or
near proposed
construction zones, the
biologist will identify a
suitable construction-free
buffer around the nest.

This buffer will be
identified on the ground
with flagging or fencing
and will be maintained
until the biologist has
determined that the young
have fledged and are
capable of foraging
independently.

Applicant
Developer
Builder
Ongoing City of
Hanford
Cultural
Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL1: In the event of
accidental discovery of
unidentified
archaeological remains
during development or
ground disturbing
activities in the Project
area, all work shall be
halted in immediate
vicinity (within a 100-foot
radius) until a qualified
archaeologist can identify
the discovery and assess
its significance.

Applicant/
Construction
Contractor
Ongoing during
construction
City of
Hanford
Mitigation Measure CUL
2: If human remains are
uncovered during
construction, work shall
be halted, and the Kings
County Coroner is to be
notified to investigate the
remains and arrange
Applicant/
Construction
Contractor
Ongoing during
construction
City of
Hanford

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 102 of 104
proper treatment and
disposition. If the remains
are identified on the basis
of archaeological context,
age, cultural
associations, or biological
traits to be those of a
Native American,
California Health and
Safety Code 7050.5 and
California Public
Resources Code 5097.98
require that the coroner
notify the Native
American Heritage
Commission (NAHC)
within 24 hours of
discovery. The NAHC will
then identify the Most
Likely Descendent who
will make
recommendations
regarding the treatment
and disposition of the
remains.

Mitigation Measure CUL
3 A burial Treatment Plan
shall be entered into by
the Project
applicant/property owner
prior to any ground
disturbing activities.

Applicant
Construction
Contractor
Prior to ground
disturbing
activities
City of
Hanford

COPPER RIDGE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION Page 103 of
104
Supporting Information and Sources

1. City of Hanford General Plan Background Report. March 2014. Website 2035 General Plan Background Report (PDF).pdf

2. City of Hanford General Plan Policy Document. April 2017. WEbsite 2035 General Plan Policy Document (PDF).pdf

3. City of Hanford General Plan Environmental Impact Report 2014. April 2017. Available at Hanford City Hall (Hard Copy Only)

4. City of Hanford General Plan Air Quality Element. July 2010; Website Air Quality Element Draft - Section 1 (PDF).pdf

5. City of Hanford Zoning Ordinance. June 2017. Website City of Hanford, CA Table of Contents

6. City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines. November 2022. Website City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_11-10-2022.pdf

7. City of Hanford 2020 Urban Water Master Plan. December 2021. Website 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (PDF).pdf

8. 2023 Kings County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan, February 2024; available at Kings County_MJHMP_Final_Draft_2.26.24.pdf

9. Kings County Regional Climate Action Plan. May 2014. Available at Regional Climate Action Plan (PDF).pdf

10. Kings County Airport Land Use Plan. 1994. Website Kings County airport land use compatibility plan.pdf

11. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Website DLRP Important Farmland Finder

12. SJVAPCDRegulations and Guidelines

13. California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. 2005.

Website Land Use Handbook_0.pdf

14. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2009. Guidance for Land Use Agencies in Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts for New Projects Under CEQA. Website gamaqi.pdf

15. California Building Code (2022) Website City of Hanford, CA Buildings and Construction

16. California Energy Commission. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Website 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards

17. Department of Toxic Substance Control Envirostar. Website EnviroStor

18. California State Water Resources Control Board. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) Website Construction Stormwater Program | California State Water Resources Control Board

19. United States Census Bureau (2020). Website U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts:

Hanford city, California

20. United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey and Soils Descriptions.

Website Web Soil Survey

21. California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines. Website CEQA Guidelines - Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation

Agricultural Impact Evaluation
I. From the ISMND:
a) WouldtheprojectconvertPrimeFarmland,UniqueFarmland,or FarmlandofStatewideImportance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The Project Site is located on land that will be annexed into the City of Hanford with Project approval.

The proposed development of the Project Site will convert approximately 78.16 acres of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance. The north portion of the Annexation Area is not anticipated to change in use as a result of the Project as no development is proposed.

The Project Site and the Annexation Area are planned for urban development in the Hanford 2035 General Plan. The 2035 General Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2015041024) evaluated the impacts of agricultural land conversion and determined that approximately 2,706 acres of Prime, Farmland of Statewide Importance and Unique Farmland would be converted with full build out of the General Plan during the 2014-2035 planning period. The 2035 General Plan EIR analysis included the Project Site and the full Annexation Area.

The General Plan includes goals and policies that recognize the importance of farmland to the City, County and State. The General Plan policies were developed to prevent premature conversion of agricultural land and to preserve agricultural land through means other than mitigation. Those policies include the requirement for buffers, the establishment of several planning areas that promote increased densities to increase capacity within the 2035 Growth Boundary, a right to farm ordinance, and the creation of a farmland mitigation program. The establishment of the 2035 Growth Boundary itself is a limiting factor to growth and premature conversion of agricultural lands. The Goals and Policies area as follows:

Agricultural Resources Goal
Goal O1: Conservation and long term protection of agricultural resources and soils located outside of the Planned Area Boundary.

5.2.1 Agricultural Land Protection
Policy O1 Boundary between Urban and Agricultural Uses
Utilize the Planned Area Boundary as the long term boundary line between urban uses and agricultural uses and prohibit non-agricultural development outside the Planned Area Boundary.

Policy O2 Agricultural Buffer
Coordinate land use policies and designations with Kings County to provide for a buffer between the urban area of Hanford and the surrounding unincorporated communities.

Policy O3 Kings County Preservation Efforts
Support the Kings County efforts to preserve and protect farmlands outside the Planned Area Boundary.

Policy O4 Interim Agricultural Use
Retain existing agricultural areas as an interim use inside the Planned Area Boundary and support agricultural operations until such time that the areas are needed for logical urban expansion Policy O5 Farmland Mitigation Program

In collaboration with the County of Kings and other cities in Kings County, determine the feasibility and, if feasible, consider adoption of a countywide farmland mitigation program that is tailored to the needs and goals of the Kings County agricultural region to mitigate the urban conversion of agricultural lands that are outside adopted urban growth boundaries.

Policy E26 Protection of Agricultural Lands from Urban Encroachment Utilize the Planned Area Boundary to delineate a long term boundary between agricultural and urban land uses, and strongly support long term agricultural operations outside the Planned Area Boundary that can be free from the threat of urban land use encroachment.

3.14 New Growth Planning Areas
Four new growth areas have been established in areas that are predominantly undeveloped and currently used for agriculture. This section provides policies and actions to ensure balanced growth in these areas with adequate public facilities and services, and strategies for quality design.

This goal and its supporting policies encourage development within Hanford’s Planning Areas.

Development within Hanford’s Planning Areas will decrease dependency on the automobile and allow more people to walk, bike, or take transit for daily trips. Hanford’s Planning Areas are intended to accommodate and encourage new growth within compact, walkable neighborhoods that are located near schools, parks, shopping, and transit facilities.

3.14.1 Eastside Planning Area
The Eastside Planning Area is primarily located east of 9 ¼ Avenue, north of the Union Pacific Railroad, and west and south of State Route 43. Grangeville Boulevard is a major arterial that is an eastern gateway to Hanford from State Route 43. Much of the land is currently being farmed and portions of the Planning Area is subject to Williamson Act contract.

Policy L154 Eastside Growth Limitation
Approve new development project in the Eastside Planning Area only within the 2035 Development Boundary until such time as the boundary is expanded in accordance with General Plan policies.

Policy L155 Eastside Higher Density Residential Uses
Support the development of higher density residential uses in close proximity to the Grangeville Boulevard corridor and the gradual transition to lower density, single-family residential uses as distance from the Arterial road increases.

Policy L156 Eastside Development along Grangeville Boulevard Discourage “strip" development along Grangeville Boulevard from an overall community development perspective. Develop design policies and regulations that identify a minimum percentage of streetfacing building facades and minimize the exposure of parking and masonry walls along the street.

The Project is located within the Eastside Planning Area. The development of the Project Site is in conformance with the Eastside Planning area policies by providing increased residential density. The Project includes a request to increase general plan density from low density to medium density and transitions from higher densities close to Grangeville Boulevard to lower densities to the north.

In accordance with the General Plan, the Project would be required to adhere to the Hanford Municipal Code 16.40.110 Right to Farm Ordinance and proposed goals and policies of the general plan related to agriculture.

In the 2035 General Plan Update EIR (SCH No. 2015041024), it was determined that the loss of farmland was a significant and avoidable impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the significant and avoidable impacts resulting from the conversation of agricultural land.

With the implementation of the General Plan policies, the right to farm ordinance and the planned conversion of agricultural lands evaluated in the General Plan EIR, no new impacts resulting from the conversation of agricultural land are anticipated to occur, therefore impacts are considered to be less than significant.

II. Staff Response:

Staff’s review of the 2035 General Plan EIR concurs with the above and suggests MM 4.2-1 of the 2035 General Plan Update EIR is limited in its applicability, only applying to land outside of the primary sphere of influence, therefore mitigation is not required, as concluded by analysis above.

The 2035 General Plan EIR evaluated the effects of the updated General Plan boundary on agricultural resources with the existing conditions.

From 2035 General Plan Update Draft EIR

4.2.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
The potential impacts of the General Plan Update were evaluated qualitatively by comparing the anticipated effects on agricultural resources with the existing conditions.

PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 4.2-1: The Project Would Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as Shown on the Maps Prepared Pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to Non-Agricultural Use.

The 2035 Growth Boundary serves as the limits of the area to be developed with urban uses during the 2014 to 2035 planning period and is smaller than the Planned Area (see Figure 3-5). Therefore, following analysis presents a maximum-intensity scenario because complete build out of the Planned Area (an area larger than the 2035 Growth Boundary) is being analyzed against the existing condition. Existing FMMP-designated farmland is generally limited to the outskirts of the Planned Area. The new land use designations in these areas allow for additional development capacity beyond that utilized under existing conditions. Therefore, this analysis evaluates impacts to farmland designated by the FMMP if the Planned Area were to be completely built out.

As shown in Table 4.2-3, the total amount of FMMP-designated farmland within the Planned Area that would be affected by complete build out in the Planned Area would total approximately 2,706 acres. This total is further broken down for each of the FMPP Designations shown in the table below, and is displayed in Figure

4.2-3. As shown in the table, approximately 877 acres of Prime Farmland, 1,724 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 105 acres of Unique Farmland within the Planned Area could be affected as a result of the General Plan Update. The build out of the Planned Area as a result of the General Plan Update

would, over the 2014 to 2035 planning period, convert approximately 2,706 acres of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP, to non-agricultural use. Future development would have to adhere to the Hanford Municipal Code Chapter 16.40.110 (Right to Farm) and proposed goals and policies of the General Plan Update related to agriculture. However, the loss of this farmland as a result of the General Plan Update would be significant and unavoidable.

The Study Area is larger than the area that would ultimately be needed for growth over the life of the General Plan Update, but has been determined to give decision-makers the greatest flexibility in making determinations about where and how the City should grow. Future development in the Study Area (but outside the Planned Area) would first require approval of the Kings County Local Area Formation Commission because such development means that the City would be annexing land and the City’s SOIs would like need to be revised as well as future General Plan Update amendments, which would trigger the need for future CEQA review, including consideration of agriculture impacts. Future development in the Study Area would also have to comply with the Hanford Municipal Code Chapter 16.40.110 (Right to Farm), proposed goals and policies of the General Plan Update related to agriculture. Future development in the Study Area would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources.

Mitigation Measures
There is no reasonable and feasible mitigation to reduce this impact.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Following circulation of the 2035 General Plan Update draft EIR, comments were received regarding the agricultural land evaluation and included in the 2035 General Plan Update Final EIR Final EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENT B-2
The commenter states that although direct conversion of agricultural land is often an unavoidable impact, mitigation measures must be considered even if mitigation does not reduce impacts to less

than significant provided that they are feasible and lessen a project’s impact. The commenter also states that mitigation that is potentially feasible should be included and mitigation brought to the attention of the Lead Agency should not be left out. The Division recommends that the City consider the creation of an agricultural mitigation program “tailored to individual jurisdictional needs and goals” that effectively mitigates for the loss of important farmland.

In response to the Division’s comment, page 79 of the General Plan Update has been revised to include the following additional policy:

Policy O5 Farmland Mitigation Program
In collaboration with the County of Kings and other cities in Kings County, determine the feasibility and, if feasible, consider adoption of a countywide farmland mitigation program that is tailored to the needs and goals of the Kings County agricultural region to mitigate the urban conversion of agricultural lands that are outside adopted urban growth boundaries.

Existing policies O5 to O10 have been renumbered to include this new policy.

Because of this new policy, pages 4.2-13 and 4.2-14 of the draft EIR has been revised to include the following textual additions:

Policy O5 Farmland Mitigation Program
In collaboration with the County of Kings and other cities in Kings County, determine the feasibility and, if feasible, consider adoption of a countywide farmland mitigation program that is tailored to the needs and goals of the Kings County agricultural region to mitigate the urban conversion of agricultural lands that are outside adopted urban growth boundaries.

Williamson Act Policies
Policy O5 O6 Removal of Land from Williamson Act
Encourage use of Notices of Nonrenewal as the preferred method of removal of land within the Planned Area Boundary from Williamson Act Land Conservation Contract.

Policy O6 O7 Cancellation and Succession to Williamson Act Contracts Adopt and periodically update a set of policies that govern the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts, and define the circumstances that the City would be willing to succeed to an active contract.

Policy O7 O8 Annexation of Williamson Act Lands
Consider annexation of Williamson Act lands only if the land is within the 2035 Growth Boundary and only if such annexation is necessary to provide for logical urban development, job creation, or the provision of municipal services.

Policy O8 O9 New Williamson Act Contracts
Oppose new Williamson Act contracts on land within the Planned Area Boundary.

Deed-Restricted Agricultural Site Policies
Policy O9 O10 Existing Deed-Restricted Agricultural Sites

Designate sites with existing deed agreements that limit the land to agricultural use with the Open Space land use designation.

Policy O10 O11 New Deed-Restricted Agricultural Sites
Discourage new deed agreements that restrict land to agricultural use on land inside the Planned Area Boundary.

Also because of this new policy, page 4.2-16 of the draft EIR has been revised to include the following textual additions:

The build out of the Planned Area as a result of the General Plan Update would, over the 2014 to 2035 planning period, convert approximately 2,706 acres of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP, to non-agricultural use. Future development would have to adhere to the Hanford Municipal Code Chapter 16.40.110 (Right to Farm) and proposed goals and policies of the General Plan Update related to agriculture. In response to comments the Kings County Farm Bureau voiced during the General Plan Update Committee meetings, the City increased urban densities for the various land uses within the General Plan Update.

Additionally, the proposed City limits and SOI were designed to break along arterial roads in order to create a logical buffer between proposed urban uses and adjacent agricultural lands.

In addition, Policy O5 (Farmland Mitigation Program) has been included in the General Plan Update to foster collaboration with the County of Kings and other cities in Kings County to develop a countywide farmland conversion mitigation program outside adopted urban growth boundaries (i.e., the City’s Planned Area, also the Primary SOI). It is assumed that because expansion of the urban area proceeds in an orderly manner under the General Plan Update and is a logical result to accommodate anticipated future population growth, it is expected that the Planned Area would be converted to a nonagricultural land use as the natural progression of urban growth. The policy to work on developing a countywide farmland mitigation program for the urban conversion of agricultural lands that are outside adopted urban growth boundaries (in this case the Planned Area) is warranted due to the expectation that this conversion would occur as development continues in the City. It is also warranted that the City collaborate rather than unilaterally develop a farmland mitigation program because conversion of farmland is a regional issue that should be collectively developed by the County and all cities in Kings County. Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1 has been developed that mandates that the City work with the County and other cities to develop a countywide farmland mitigation program, and this mitigation includes performance criteria. However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1, the loss of this farmland as a result of the General Plan Update would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Study Area is larger than the area that would ultimately be needed for growth over the life of the General Plan Update, but has been determined to give decision-makers the greatest flexibility in making determinations about where and how the City should grow.

Future development in the Study Area (but outside the Planned Area) would first require approval of the Kings County Local Area Formation Commission because such development means that the City would be annexing land and the City’s SOIs would like need to be revised as well as future General Plan Update amendments, which would trigger the need for future CEQA review, including consideration of agriculture impacts. Future development in the Study Area would also have to comply

with the Hanford Municipal Code Chapter 16.40.110 (Right to Farm), proposed goals and policies of the General Plan Update related to agriculture, and specifically Policy O5. Future development in the Study Area, even with Policy O5 and implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1, would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources.

Mitigation Measures
There is no reasonable and feasible mitigation to reduce this impact.

MM 4.2-1: COLLABORATE ON DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTYWIDE

FARMLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM
The City shall work with the County of Kings and other cities in Kings County to consider adoption of a countywide farmland mitigation program that is tailored to the needs and goals of the Kings County agricultural region to mitigate the urban conversion of agricultural lands that are outside adopted urban growth boundaries. Specific performance criteria for the development of the countywide farmland mitigation program shall include:
• The City shall take the lead in forming a committee that consists of the County of Kings and other cities’ representatives to develop the program by January 2019. • The City shall develop and sign a Memorandum of Understanding or other applicable agreement with County of Kings and the other cities in Kings County to work collaboratively in developing the program by January 2020.
• The City shall develop and sign a Memorandum of Understanding with Department of Conservation in the development of the program by January 2020.
• By January 2022, if a program has been developed, the City shall implement the agreed upon program and codify the adopted program language into its Municipal Code. • If by January 2022, the program has not been developed, the City shall independently develop its own program and codify the adopted program language into its Municipal Code by 2023.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The City Attorney recommended Staff review the 2002 GP DEIR and FEIR to verify:
(i) The Copper Ridge project site falls within the 2002 GP’s Plan Area Staff Response: Confirmed; The project falls within the 2002 GP Plan Area; map below; and (ii) The 2002 GP EIR evaluated farmland conversion and does not require mitigation (specifically, does not identify ag. conservation easements as a form of mitigation) Staff Response: Confirmed - The 2002 GP EIR evaluated farmland conversion and required compliance with GP polices and programs (conservation easements were not included as a form of mitigation)

From 2002 General Plan EIR:

4.2.2.c(1) Loss of Prime and Farmland of Statewide Importance The vacant land analysis in the Land Use Section of this EIR estimated that there were 9,453 acres of vacant land (primarily agricultural land) in the unincorporated territory within the Planning Area that is anticipated to be converted to urban use at full build-out of the General Plan. Table 4.2-3 indicates that an estimated 2,709 (acres) would remain as an agricultural buffer or open space within the Planning Area and 6,551 (acres) would be converted to urban use. Of the amount converted to urban use, it is estimated that 3,260 acres will be prime farmland and 3,291(acres) will be farmland of statewide importance.

During the build-out of the General Plan (through the year 2025) approximately 5,518 acres is forecasted to be needed for urban use. Urban use includes residential, commercial, industrial, parks, and public facilities.

This amount also includes the 50% “market factor” of almost 1,346 acres that may remain in agriculture within the Planning Area. The remaining 4,172 acres is expected to be converted to urban use. The preponderance of prime farmland is located on the western side of the City with the next intensive amount south of Highway 198. The eastside of the City contains the least amount of prime farmland. It is expected that the westside of the Planning Area will continue to develop because there is adequate sewer collection either constructed or capacity available for extension. The eastside of the planning area is not adequately served by sewer to allow for additional development. It is expected that the westside of the Planning Area will almost completely build-out before land will become available in the eastside of the Planning Area.

Within the western and southern portions of the Planning Area there is an estimated 2,860 acres of prime farmland and 1,180 acres of farmland of statewide importance. The remainder of 400 acres of Prime farmland and 2,111 of Statewide importance farmland are located in the eastern portion of the City.

Approximately 3,545 acres of land within the Planning Area are in Williamson Act contracts. In the City limits, approximately 87 acres of land remain under contract. Between 1994 and the end of 2001, property owners representing 567 acres filed for non-renewal. These non-renewals have occurred on the westside of the City between 12th Avenue and 13th Avenue and between Highway 198 and Fargo Avenue. This land was identified in the 1994 General Plan as a logical growth area and can be served by the City sewer system.

The preponderance of land in the Planning Area under contract is located south of Highway 198. In the eastern portion of the Planning Area (north of Highway 198) an estimated 765 acres of land is in Williamson Act contracts. The western portion of the Planning Ara (north of Highway 198) has about 835 acres under contract. See Table 4.2-4.

Full implementation of the General Plan (beyond 2025) would result in the eventual conversion of as much as 6,551 acres of Prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance to urban uses. These acres would be developed in various land uses including, open space, residential, schools, parks and public facilities, commercial and industrial land. The overall conversion of 6,551 acres of agriculture land would be a significant impact. This determination is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In 1994 the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the unavoidable significant impacts on agricultural land. (emphasis added) Full implementation of the General Plan would result in the eventual conversion of as much as 6,551 acres of Prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance to urban uses. Total farmland consumed by 2025 is estimated at 5,518 acres (including a 50% residential market factor) and represents approximately 0.9% of cultivated land in Kings County and at full-build-out is estimated that 1.7% of cultivated land in Kings County will be converted to urban use. While the percentage is small compared to the total acreage, the cumulative impact of consuming this resource is considered irreversibly significant unavoidable environmental impact.

A total of 3,540 acres of Williamson Act lands would be converted to land uses other than agriculture and would result in a significant impact. The Williamson Act contracts would have to expire from non-renewal or be cancelled prior to development being approved by the City.

A secondary effect of developing the estimated 5,518 acres (2025 horizon) of urban land is the potential for land use conflicts. Encroachment of urban uses into an area that is under normal agricultural production can prevent farmers from carrying out many of their normal farming practices (e.g., pesticide application).

Farming practices that generate large amounts of dust, high levels of noise, or offensive odors may have to be reduced or curtailed due to complaints by adjacent residents. Further, state requirements restrict application of chemicals to fields when persons live in close proximity. In addition, family operations can also experience vandalism, theft and nuisance activities from neighboring residents. The City has recently adopted a “right to farm” Ordinance patterned after the Ordinance in effect in Kings County.

Urbanization of agricultural land can also have an economic impact on the local economy because land taken out of production reduces the amount of money that flows into the local economy from agriculture.

The report Risks, Challenges and Opportunities: Agriculture, Resources and Growth in a Changing Central Valley prepared by the American farmland Trust, indicated that for every one dollar of farm sales four dollars of farm-related activity occurred. For example, removal of 5,518 acres of field crops from production could lead to the loss of between four and five million dollars annually in the local agricultural economy. With a multiplier factor of four, these figures would increase to $16 to $20 million annually. This example is based

on the field crop being lint cotton, an average yield of 1,290 pounds per acre and an average price of $.62 per pound. The calculated annual yield is $2,400 per acre using the multiplier factor.

Off setting the loss in the agricultural segment of the local economy, is the diversification of the local economy with jobs and economic impacts in the retail sales, industrial, and public services sector in the City. Similar to the range of value per acre in agricultural crops, the large of value for commercial, industrial, public service sector, and residential varies. All things being equal, the measurement of economic productivity for urban areas is per capital sales tax. As population grows in an economically balance community, the per capita sales tax may remain relatively constant while the total amount of sales tax increases reflecting the community’s growth and productivity. Assuming the current per capita sales tax $127.80 remains constant the anticipated generation of additional annual revenue from the City’s growth ot the year 2025 is estimated at $73 million. In comparison to agricultural revenue of about $2,500 per acre, the urban venue production is about $94,255 per care. While conversion of the agricultural land reduces overall productivity of food and fiber, urbanization promotes economic diversity and increase overall revenue production on a per acre basis.

4.2.2.c(2) Land Use Conflicts
(see attachment for full analysis)

4.2.2.c(3) Regional Impacts
(see attachment for full analysis)
In 1994 the City’s General Plan defined a Planning Area that would accommodate growth of the City at a reasonable growth rate into the future. That Planning Area boundary remains the same (with the exception of the additional 125 acres) in this General Plan Update. The analysis in the Land Use Section of this EIR indicates that the capacity of the Planning Area exceeds the 2025 population projections. Because land normally has greater economic value in urban use than in farm use, land prices in urbanizing areas increase above their value for agricultural production. High land values encourage farmers to hold on to farmland for its development potential rather than as farmland. The preservation of remaining farmland resources adjacent to and surrounding the urbanizing area within the Planning Area becomes increasingly difficult. The City has attempted to stem speculation of farmland for urban purposes outside of the Planning Area by adopting and enforcing General Plan and development policies that limit the ability of public infrastructure to expand beyond the Planning Area boundaries. This policy construct is meant to maintain agriculture surrounding the Planning Area. Nevertheless, as first noted in the 1994 General Plan EIR, the conversion of agricultural land within the Planning Area would result in the loss of agricultural land in Kings County and the resultant decline in crop production and an increase in conflicts between urban/rural uses.

The City of Hanford has purchased 1,600 acres of agricultural land south of the Planning Area. This land will be maintained in perpetual agricultural production using treated wastewater as the source of irrigation supply. This acquisition is a substantial amount of land and should be considered as part of the mitigation for agricultural impacts within the Planning Area. (emphasis added) The conversion of agricultural land at the cumulative level is an unavoidable and significant impact. Policies and Action may lessen the degree of impact, but not reverse urban development trends and their effects on agricultural production.

4.2.2.d Mitigation Measures
The General Plan Land Use, Open Space/Conservation, and Recreation Element, and the Public Facilities Element contains Policies and Programs which help mitigate impacts on agricultural resources associated

with implementation of the General Plan, particularly growth management policies. Specifically: Policy LU

1.2, Policy LU 2.2, Policy 2.3, Policy LU 2.4, Programs LU 2.4 – A & B, Policy LU 8.1, Programs LU 8.1 – A, B & D, Policy LU 8.2, Program LU 8.2 – A & B, Objective LU 21, Policy LU 21.1, Policy LU 21.2, Program LU 21.2 -A, Policy LU 23.1: Objective OCR 1, Policy OCR 1.1, Programs OCR 1.1 – A & B, Policy OCR 1.2, Programs OCR 1.3 – A &B, Objective OCR 6, Policy OCR 6.1; Policy PF 1.3, Policy PF 1.4, Programs PF 1.4 – A &B.

Policy PF 4.2, Policy PF 4.3, Program PF 4.3 – A.
(above referenced Policies and Programs added below – I think the numbering changed which impacted the references.)
Policy LU 1.2: Development in Planning Area B is considered premature until the sewer master plan is implemented and traffic capacity issues have been addressed with the adoption of an implementation plan.

Policy LU 2.2: Very low density residential development shall be required near the Planning Area Boundary to provide a transition between agricultural or rural areas and urban development.

Policy LU 2.3: (no such policy)
Policy LU 2.4: (no such policy)
Programs LU 2.4 – A & B: (no such programs)
Policy LU 8.1: Appropriate buffers or other effective measures shall be included in development plans to ensure that conflicts such as noise, odor, light and glare, dust, or other potentially significant adverse environmental conditions are minimized.

Programs LU 8.1 – A, B & D:

Program LU 8.1-A (AQ)
Conservation/Open Space zoning shall be applied to undeveloped areas along railroad corridors, consistent with noise contours, to prevent encroachment of residential or other sensitive uses into that area.

The extent of the buffer area may be reduced by the installation of physical barriers that have been determined by the City to reduce potentially significant adverse environmental conditions such as noise exposure.

Program LU 8.1-B (AQ)
In order to protect industrial development from intrusion and negative impact of non-compatible uses, proponents of residential projects in proximity to heavy industrial uses or Land Use Designations shall be required to provide the City with a jull and complete discussion that addresses their impact on the viability of the existing or proposed industrial development. These discussions shall include noise, hazardous materials, emergency response and evacuation, air quality, odors, light and glare, traffic, and aesthetics. The City shall adopt a development plan that will allow the relocation of Peoples Ditch into the OS buffer adjacent to the B.N. & S.F. railroad right of-way between Flint Avenue and Grangeville Blvd.

Program LU 8.1-D (AQ)
At the time of development proposal, the City shall evaluate the desirability of requiring large lot development, in combination with open space amenities adjacent to 13th Avenue, between

Hanford-Armona Road and Houston Avenue. This evaluation should be focused on minimizing potential conflict with the Armona Wastewater Plant disposal ponds.

Policy LU 8.2: New residential development on the fringes of the City shall recognize the right of agriculture to exist and continue to operate in proximity to the development. Deed restrictions may be required which inform future residents of the right of agriculture to continue within the limits of the law without interference or protest from nearby property owners.

Program LU 8.2 – A & B
POLICY LU 8.2 (AQ)
Program LU 8.2-A (AQ)
Development proposals within 1/2 mile of the Planning Area Boundary shall be required to address the potential conflict with neighboring agricultural uses, and the City shall determine whether there is sufficient cause to require Deed restrictions to protect the right of agriculture to continue.

Program LU 8.2-B (AQ)
The City shall maintain a "right to farm" Ordinance.

Objective LU 21: Minimize conflicts between industry and other land uses by concentrating industrial activity within the Kings Industrial Park.

Policy LU 21.1: Performance and Development Standards for the Kings Industrial Park shall be continually updated and maintained to encourage and guide consistent development in the Industrial Area.

Policy LU 21.2: Retail Uses shall only be permitted in industrial areas as a secondary use to a permitted use, such as manufacturing. A retail and service use that meet the needs of employees in the area may also be permitted.

Program LU 21.2 -A (NO SUCH PROGRAM)
Policy LU 23.1: The City shall continue to develop and experiment with marketing approaches, including the use of the Enterprise Zone Designation and Targeted Industry and Business Study, to attract and keep industry in the City.

Objective OCR 1: Support preservation of existing agricultural lands at the periphery of the Hanford Planning Area.

Policy OCR 1.1: Create a greenbelt/open space buffer around the perimeter of the city that provides a clear sense of identity for the City of Hanford.

Programs OCR 1.1 – A & B
Program OCR 1.1-A (AQ)
Very low density residential and industrial land uses will be included in the land use plan to reduce density toward the edge of the Hanford Planning Area. The sizing of sewer lines will be reduced as they approach the edge of urban development in the Planning Area to limit growth influences beyond the Planning Area boundary.

Program OCR 1.1-B (AQ)

The City of Hanford will continue to coordinate land use planning efforts with Kings County to ensure that agricultural land use surrounds the Hanford Planning Area Policy OCR 1.2: The City will continue to coordinate land use policies and designations with Kings County to provide for a buffer between the urban area of Hanford and the unincorporated community of Armona.

POLICY OCR 1.3 (AQ) The City may consider annexing Williamson Act lands if such annexation is necessary to provide for logical urban development and the provision of municipal services.

Programs OCR 1.3 – A &B:

Program OCR 1.3-A (AQ)
The City has included, in the General Plan Land Use Element, an Agricultural designation and has provided definitions which allow for the continued use as agriculture. The Agricultural designation may also be used for preserving open space necessary for public safety around the Hanford Airport and other locations which may be effected by noise or other significant development constraints.

Program OCR 1.3-B
The City shall prepare and adopt a set of policies that govern the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts, and define the circumstances that the City would be willing to succeed to an active contract.

OBJECTIVE OCR 6 (AQ): Guide urban development toward vacant or under-used land within the urbanized area and direct new growth toward contiguous lands to protect agricultural lands and other open spaces used for the managed production of resources from premature urban development.

POLICY OCR 6.1 (AQ)
Existing agricultural areas shall be retained in agricultural use until the time that such areas are needed for logical urban expansion. Objective OCR 6
Policy PF 1.3: All new development shall be restricted to the interior boundaries of the Urban Limit Line.

Where the Urban Limit Line is a street or road right-of-way (existing or future), no development will be allowed to cross that street or road to the opposite side of the Urban Limit Line Policy PF 1.4: Infrastructure master plans shall limit system design near the urban limit line to provide only enough capacity for very low density development or compatible Public Facilities.

Programs PF 1.4 – A &B
Program PF 1.4-A (AQ)
Sewer and water infrastructure shall be limited in capacity to serve only very low density development in the areas approaching Flint Avenue and 13th Avenue.

Program PF 1.4-B (AQ)
Water and sewer systems shall not be oversized or stubbed out to extend east of Highway 43 except where a PHD designation has been approved by the City. The sizing of those extensions shall only provide for adequate services for the PHD project

Policy PF 4.2: The City shall work cooperatively with other water management agencies to prepare a groundwater management program as needed to ensure sufficient water supply for the build-out of the General Plan.

Policy PF 4.3: When necessary and practical, the City will cooperate with other water agencies to acquire water for the recharge, replenishment and/or banking of groundwater for future demand.

Program PF 4.3-A
The City shall continue to participate with other water agencies in groundwater recharge efforts, as practical, using multi-use storm water basins or other similar facilities. This participation may include the development of slough remnant areas as recharge facilities.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
A total of 3,260 acres of Prime Agriculture and 3,291 acres of Statewide Importance within the Planning Area would be converted to non-agriculture land use resulting in a significant impact. Approximately 3,545 acres of land within the Planning Ara are in Williamson Act contracts and are eventually expected to be converted to non-agriculture land uses resulting in a significant impact. The General Plan proposes policies and objectives, which help alleviate impacts associated with conversion of agriculture land. Although implementation of General Plan Goals, Policies and Objectives help mitigate impacts, the effects of the loss of agricultural land, such loss is conserved an cumulatively significant unavoidable impact.

Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Responsibly
Implementation: The City of Hanford Community Development Department through the Annexation, Subdivision Map, and project review processes shall be responsible for recommending findings of consistency with the General Plan. The Hanford Planning Commission and City Council are responsible for adopting such findings of consistency prior to project approval.

Monitoring: The various implementing departments of the City of Hanford are responsible for administering the City’s Site Plan Review and Subdivision Ordinance processes. An application for a Certificate of Occupancy is required prior to completing a project. The conditions of approval are checked prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy.

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-1 SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

4.2.1 Introduction
This section of the EIR describes the environmental and regulatory setting for agriculture and forestry resources and analyzes potential impacts of the project on possible conversions of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses, existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, potential loss or conversion of forest land, and other changes in the existing environment due to a resource location or nature. The existing conditions and impact analysis in this section are based on existing literature, available information, and professional judgment.

4.2.2 Environmental Setting

REGIONAL
State of California
In 2012, the State of California had 25.4 million acres of land that was dedicated to farm and ranch use, with 80,500 farms and ranches in operation at the time. This number represents 3.7% of the nation’s total farming and ranching operations (USDA 2013). However, these farms and ranches account for 11% of total national cash farm receipts. California was the top state in cash receipts in 2012 with a total value of $44.7 billion dollars. Over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts were produced in California that year. The average farm size in California was 316 acres in 2012.

Kings County
Agriculture in Kings County makes a significant contribution to the economy of the State and is one of the major economic engines in the County. Kings County was ranked eighth among California counties in agricultural production in 2012 (Kings County 2013). In 2012, Kings County had 515,182 acres of land designated Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland and 295,809 acres designated Grazing Land by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). In 2013, the total farmland (designated and non-designated) was estimated at 822,143 acres of which 820,458 were harvested for a total assessed value of approximately $2.27 billion, an increase of $52.2 million (2.4%) over the 2012 crop value. The major factors affecting this increase in total value over the 2012 crop year were higher nut prices and production, increases in milk prices, increased seed crops acreages, and higher honey prices.

The top five commodities for 2013 were milk, cotton, cattle and calves, almonds, and pistachios, which accounted for about 66% ($1.50 billion) of the total assessed value.

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-2 LOCAL
Farmland
The City’s climate, water availability and proximity to transcontinental transportation routes have made it a premier location for agricultural land development for over a century. Most of the land surrounding the urbanized area of Hanford was converted to agricultural use over a century ago, leaving very little undisturbed natural landscape. The FMMP designations within the Study Area are seen in Figure 4.2-1. As shown in this figure, a majority of Prime Farmland is located toward the northern and western portions of the Study Area. Farmland of Statewide Importance is located on portions of land toward the southern edge of the Study Area. The acreage total for Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland within the Study and Planned Areas is categorized below in Table 4.2-1.

Table 4.2-1
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
Area
Prime
Farmland
(Acres)
Farmland of
Statewide
Importance
(Acres)
Unique
Farmland
(Acres)
Total
(Acres)
Planned Area 877 1,724 105 2,705
Study Area (Excluding Planned Area) 10,280 7,495 380 18,157 Total (Study Area) 11,157 9,219 485 20,862
Table 4.2-2 and Figure 4.2-2 shows the allocation and location of Williamson Act land use contracts within the Study and Planned Areas.

Table 4.2-2
Land under Williamson Act Land Use Contracts
Area
Under Williamson
Act Land Use
Contract
(Acres)
Areas with Notice of
Nonrenewal
(Acres)
Planned Area 3,056 335
Study Area (Excluding Planned Area) 13,243 834
Total (Study Area) 16,299 1,169

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-3 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Map Figure

4.2-1

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-4 Williamson Act Lands Figure

4.2-2

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-5 As shown in Table 4.2-2, there are 3,056 and 16,299 acres of land currently subject to a Williamson Act contract within the Planned Area and Study Area, respectively. There are 335 acres currently under non-renewal and, 2014 to 2017, are scheduled to be removed from the provisions of the Williamson Act in the Planned Area (City of Hanford 2014). The first amount of land in the Planned Area, approximately 74 acres, that is scheduled to be removed from the Williamson Act is located in the northwest portion of the Planned Area on the southeast corner of Fargo Avenue and 13th Avenue (City of Hanford 2014). Within the Study Area, there are approximately 13,243 acres of land under Williamson Act contracts and, of that land, approximately 834 acres is scheduled to be removed from the Williamson Act through the non-renewal process between 2015 and 2023. Directly adjacent to the northwest limits of Planned Area, there are approximately 310 acres of land located between 13th and 12th Avenues to the west and east and by Flint and Fargo Avenues to the north and south, respectively, will be removed from the Williamson Act between 2015 and 2017.

Forests
There are no “forest lands” found within the Study Area as defined by Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 12220(g), which defines such areas as “land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” There is also no “timberland” found in the Study Area as defined by PRC Section 4526, which defines such areas as “land…which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.”

4.2.3 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Farmland Protection Policy Act
The purpose of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (7 United States Code Section 4201) is to minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. It also directs federal programs to be compatible with State and local policies for the protection of farmland. Under the FPPA, the term “Farmland” includes Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland that is subject to FPPA requirements does not have to be currently used as cropland. It can be forestland, pastureland, or other land but not urban and built-up land or water.

In 1981, Congress passed the Agriculture and Food Act (Public Law 97-98), which contained the FPPA, Subtitle I of Title XV, Sections 1539–1549. The final rules and regulations were published in the Federal Register on June 17, 1994. Federal agencies are required to develop and review their policies and procedures related to implementing the FPPA every 2 years.

The FPPA does not authorize the federal government to regulate the use of private or nonfederal land or in any way affect the rights of property owners. Projects are subject to FPPA requirements

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-6 if they irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to nonagricultural use and are completed by a federal agency or rely on assistance from a federal agency.

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
There are four major classifications of farmland adopted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). These classifications, as defined below, outline the fertility of soils:
x “Prime Farmland” (formerly Class I and Class II soils) is best suited for producing food and fiber. This category has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops, when managed according to modern farming methods;
x “Farmland of Statewide Importance” is land other than prime farmland with a combination of physical and chemical characteristics advantageous for producing food, feed, forage, and fiber;
x “Unique Farmland” is land other than prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance that has a special combination of soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of a specific crop; and x “Farmland of Local Importance” is defined as important to the local agricultural economy as determined by the county.

STATE
California Department of Conservation
The Department of Conservation (DOC) applies the NRCS soil classifications to identify agricultural lands. These agricultural designations are used to plan present and future uses for California’s agricultural land resources. DOC uses a minimum mapping unit area of 10 acres; parcels that are smaller than 10 acres are absorbed into surrounding classifications.

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP)
The DOC’s Division of Land Resource Protection’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) prepares current maps of the important farmland in agricultural counties of California and monitors permanent farmland conversion. The FMMP uses the NRCS’s system for the classification of farmland.

The list below encompasses all categories mapped by DOC. Collectively, lands classified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland are referred to as “Farmland.” x Prime Farmland—Land that has the ideal combination of physical and chemical features.

This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture content needed to sustain high yields and long-term agricultural production. The land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date. x Farmland of Statewide Importance—Land that is similar to Prime Farmland but has minor shortcomings, such as steeper slopes or a lower moisture content. The land must

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-7 have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.
x Unique Farmland—Land with lesser quality soils but still used for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include land that supports nonirrigated orchards or vineyards, as found in some climatic zones in California.

The land must have been used for crop production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.
x Farmland of Local Importance—Land that is important to the local agricultural economy, as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee.
x Grazing Land—Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to grazing livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen’s Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups with an interest in grazing. The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres. x Urban and Built-Up Land—Land that is developed with structures that have been built to a density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or about six structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land supports residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, and public administrative uses; railroad and other transportation yards; cemeteries; airports; golf courses; sanitary landfills; sewage treatment facilities; water control structures; and other developed uses. x Other Land—Land that is not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low-density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas that are not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; strip mines and borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural lands that are surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres are mapped as Other Land.

California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act (California Government Code Sections 51200–51297.4), is applicable to specific parcels within the State of California. The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses in return for reduced property tax assessments. Private land within locally designated agricultural preserve areas is also eligible for enrollment under a Williamson Act contract. The Williamson Act program is administered by DOC, in conjunction with local governments, which administer the individual contract arrangements with landowners.

Under the Williamson Act, a landowner commits a parcel to agricultural production for a 10-year period, during which time no conversion out of agricultural use is permitted. In return, the land is taxed at a rate that is based on actual use (i.e., agricultural production), as opposed to its unrestricted market value. Each year, the contract automatically renews unless a notice of nonrenewal or cancellation is filed. However, the application to cancel must be consistent with the criteria of the California Land Conservation Act as well as the criteria of the affected county or city. Nonrenewal or contract cancellation does not change a property’s zoning. Participation in the Williamson Act program, which is voluntary for landowners, is dependent on a county’s willingness to adopt and implement the program.

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-8 The Williamson Act states that a board or council will, by resolution, adopt rules governing the administration of agricultural preserves. The rules of each agricultural preserve specify the allowed uses. Generally, any commercial agricultural use will be permitted within any agricultural preserve. In addition, local governments may identify compatible uses that can be permitted under a use permit.

California Government Code Section 51238.1(a)(2) states that “[u]ses that significantly displace agricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or parcels may be deemed compatible if they relate directly to the production of commercial agricultural products on the subject contracted parcel or parcels or neighboring lands, including activities such as harvesting, processing, or shipping.”
If a use is not compatible with a Williamson Act land use contract, like urban development, a property owner with land currently under a Williamson Act land use contract can file for nonrenewal or cancellation. For non-renewal, a "notice of nonrenewal" starts the nine-year nonrenewal period. During the nonrenewal process, the annual tax assessment continually increases each year until it is equivalent to current tax rates at the end of the nonrenewal period. The contract is then terminated.

For the cancellation process a county or city must approve a tentative contract cancellation with specific findings that are supported by substantial evidence. The existence of an opportunity for another use of the property is not sufficient reason for cancellation. In addition, the uneconomic character of an existing agricultural use shall not, by itself, be a sufficient reason to cancel a contract. The landowner must also pay a cancellation fee.

Public Resources Code
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21060.1 uses the FMMP to define agricultural land for the purposes of assessing environmental impacts. The FMMP was established in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and analyze the conversion of such lands. The FMMP provides analysis pertaining to agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California.

California Land Evaluation Site Assessment Model (LESA) The California Land Evaluation Site Assessment Model (LESA) was developed by the NRCS to assist state and local officials with making sound decisions regarding land use. LESA was subsequently adapted by the DOC for use in California. LESA analyzes soil resource quality, project size, water resource availability, surrounding protected resource lands, and surrounding agricultural lands; the model output is a numerical rating. LESA includes a numeric threshold for determining significance under CEQA of impacts on conversion of mapped farmland to nonagricultural uses.

Farmland Security Zone
A Farmland Security Zone (FSZ) contract is a contract between a private landowner and a county that enforceably restricts land to agricultural or open space uses. The minimum initial term is 20

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-9 years. Like a Williamson Act contract, FSZ contracts renew annually unless either party files a “notice of nonrenewal.” There are no lands under FSZ contract within the Project site or vicinity.

LOCAL
Hanford Municipal Code
Chapter 16.40.110 (Right to Farm) of the Hanford Municipal Code states that the City has adopted:
[A] policy to (1) protect agricultural land, operations, and facilities from conflicting use due to the encroachment of incompatible, non-agricultural uses of the land in agricultural areas of the county, and (2) to advise developers, owners, and subsequent purchasers of property in the city of Hanford within one (1) mile of the city’s urban limit line of the inherent potential inconveniences and discomforts often associated with agricultural activities and operations, including, but not limited to, equipment and animal noise; farming activities conducted on a 24-hour a day, 7-days a week basis; odors from manure, fertilizers, pesticides, chemicals, or other sources; the aerial and ground application of chemicals and seeds; dust; flies and other insects; and smoke from agriculture operations.

The chapter goes on to state:

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

The chapter provides exceptions that state that:
[The provision that established and otherwise lawful agricultural activity shall not become a nuisance] shall not apply if the agricultural activity, operations, or facility, or appurtenances thereto, obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner; of any public park, street, or highway…. [and] shall not invalidate any provision of California State Law, if the agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof, constitutes a nuisance, public or private, as specifically defined or described in any such provision.

Finally, the chapter provides disclosure and recordation requirements that state:

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

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-10 to, in the Official Records of the Kings County Recorder, and recorded at the applicant’s own expense.

4.2.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
The potential impacts of the General Plan Update were evaluated qualitatively by comparing the anticipated effects on agricultural resources with the existing conditions. The evaluation is based on professional judgment, a review of existing literature, an analysis of the goals and policies of the General Plan Update regarding agricultural resources, and consideration of the significance criteria established by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project would have a significant impact on agriculture and forestry resources if it would:
x Thresholds of significance Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use; x Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; x Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g));
x Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or x Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

PERTINENT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS AND POLICIES
Economic Development Element

AGRICULTURE GOALS
Goal E5: A healthy and sustainable agricultural economic sector.

Agriculture Policies
Policy E23 Economic Development of Agriculture
Value and support agriculture as an industry and make it a key component of Hanford’s economic development strategy.

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-11 Policy E24 Recruit Agriculture-related Businesses
Recruit businesses that are agriculture-related, especially those that create value-added products.

Policy E25 Support Innovation in Agriculture
Support innovation in the production, processing, and distribution of agricultural products and services.

Policy E26 Protection of Agricultural Lands from Urban Encroachment Utilize the Planned Area Boundary to delineate a long term boundary between agricultural and urban land uses, and strongly support long term agricultural operations outside the Planned Area Boundary that can be free from the threat of urban land use encroachment.

Land Use and Community Design Element

GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Development Boundaries Policies
Policy L2 2035 Growth Boundary
Designate a 2035 Growth Boundary to serve as the limits of the area to be developed with urban uses during the 2015 to 2035 planning period. Locate the 2035 Growth Boundary along major roadways and other natural or manmade physical features that can serve as a physical boundary between urban and agricultural uses.

Policy L6 Agriculture and the Urban Fringe
Recognize and protect the right of agricultural uses within the growth boundary to exist and continue to operate in proximity to new development on the fringes of the City.

City Form Policies
Policy L13 Development Boundary at 13th Avenue
Locate the 2035 Growth Boundary at 13th Avenue to maintain a rural agricultural land use buffer between Hanford and the communities of Grangeville and Armona.

RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION
Residential Land Use Policies
Policy L29 Agriculture
Recognize the right of agriculture to exist and continue to operate in proximity to the new residential development on the fringes of the city. Deed restrictions may be required which inform

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-12 future residents of the right of agriculture to continue within the limits of the law without interference or protest from nearby property owners.

OPEN SPACE LAND USE DESIGNATION
Open Space Policies
Policy L95 Purpose of Open Space Land Use Designation
Establish the Open Space land use designation to protect and enhance existing parks, designated agricultural easement preserves, and drainage courses and identify sites for new parks.

Policy L96 Types of Uses in Open Space Land Use Designation Typical uses in the Open Space land use designation include parks, pathways, storm drainage basins and water recharge areas, reservations for future freeway interchanges, areas designated for noise attenuation, and major landscape corridors along entryways into the city. While the Open Space designation is intended primarily for public agency use, private land may be designated Open Space. These would include land with storm drainage or other open space “easements” or private environmental or agricultural preserves.

Policy L97 Open Space Conversion
Prohibit conversion of land designated as Open Space to developed urban uses unless an overriding public purpose requires such a conversion.

Transportation and Circulation Element

INTERCITY RAIL SERVICE
High Speed Rail Policies
Policy T82 Mitigation of High Speed Rail Impacts
If High Speed Rail becomes a reality in Kings County, ensure that financial, environmental, and agribusiness impacts of the project are mitigated for the citizens of Hanford.

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-13 Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE GOAL
Goal O1: Conservation and long term protection of agricultural resources and soils located outside of the Planned Area Boundary.

Agricultural Land Protection Policies
Policy O1 Boundary between Urban and Agricultural Uses
Utilize the Planned Area Boundary as the long term boundary line between urban uses and agricultural uses and prohibit non-agricultural development outside the Planned Area Boundary.

Policy O2 Agricultural Buffer
Coordinate land use policies and designations with Kings County to provide for a buffer between the urban area of Hanford and the surrounding unincorporated communities.

Policy O3 Kings County Preservation Efforts
Support the Kings County efforts to preserve and protect farmlands outside the Planned Area Boundary.

Policy O4 Interim Agricultural Use
Retain existing agricultural areas as an interim use inside the Planned Area Boundary and support agricultural operations until such time that the areas are needed for logical urban expansion.

Williamson Act Policies
Policy O5 Removal of Land from Williamson Act
Encourage use of Notices of Nonrenewal as the preferred method of removal of land within the Planned Area Boundary from Williamson Act Land Conservation Contract.

Policy O6 Cancellation and Succession to Williamson Act Contracts Adopt and periodically update a set of policies that govern the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts, and define the circumstances that the City would be willing to succeed to an active contract.

Policy O7 Annexation of Williamson Act Lands
Consider annexation of Williamson Act lands only if the land is within the 2035 Growth Boundary and only if such annexation is necessary to provide for logical urban development, job creation, or the provision of municipal services.

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-14 Policy O8 New Williamson Act Contracts
Oppose new Williamson Act contracts on land within the Planned Area Boundary.

Deed-Restricted Agricultural Site Policies
Policy O9 Existing Deed-Restricted Agricultural Sites
Designate sites with existing deed agreements that limit the land to agricultural use with the Open Space land use designation.

Policy O10 New Deed-Restricted Agricultural Sites
Discourage new deed agreements that restrict land to agricultural use on land inside the Planned Area Boundary.

PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 4.2-1: The Project Would Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as Shown on the Maps Prepared Pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to Non-Agricultural Use.

The 2035 Growth Boundary serves as the limits of the area to be developed with urban uses during the 2014 to 2035 planning period and is smaller than the Planned Area (see Figure 3-5). Therefore, following analysis presents a maximum-intensity scenario because complete build out of the Planned Area (an area larger than the 2035 Growth Boundary) is being analyzed against the existing condition. Existing FMMP-designated farmland is generally limited to the outskirts of the Planned Area. The new land use designations in these areas allow for additional development capacity beyond that utilized under existing conditions. Therefore, this analysis evaluates impacts to farmland designated by the FMMP if the Planned Area were to be completely built out.

As shown in Table 4.2-3, the total amount of FMMP-designated farmland within the Planned Area that would be affected by complete build out in the Planned Area would total approximately 2,706 acres. This total is further broken down for each of the FMPP Designations shown in the table below, and is displayed in Figure 4.2-3. As shown in the table, approximately

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-15 Affected Farmland in Planned Area Figure

4.2-3

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-16 877 acres of Prime Farmland, 1,724 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 105 acres of Unique Farmland within the Planned Area could be affected as a result of the General Plan Update.

Table 4.2-3
Affected Farmland within Planned Area
FMMP Designations
Prime
Farmland
Farmland of
Statewide
Importance
Unique
Farmland Total
Affected Land within Planned Area (Acres) 877 1,724 105 2,706 The build out of the Planned Area as a result of the General Plan Update would, over the 2014 to 2035 planning period, convert approximately 2,706 acres of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP, to non-agricultural use. Future development would have to adhere to the Hanford Municipal Code Chapter 16.40.110 (Right to Farm) and proposed goals and policies of the General Plan Update related to agriculture. However, the loss of this farmland as a result of the General Plan Update would be significant and unavoidable.

The Study Area is larger than the area that would ultimately be needed for growth over the life of the General Plan Update, but has been determined to give decision-makers the greatest flexibility in making determinations about where and how the City should grow. Future development in the Study Area (but outside the Planned Area) would first require approval of the Kings County Local Area Formation Commission because such development means that the City would be annexing land and the City’s SOIs would like need to be revised as well as future General Plan Update amendments, which would trigger the need for future CEQA review, including consideration of agriculture impacts. Future development in the Study Area would also have to comply with the Hanford Municipal Code Chapter 16.40.110 (Right to Farm), proposed goals and policies of the General Plan Update related to agriculture. Future development in the Study Area would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources.

Mitigation Measures
There is no reasonable and feasible mitigation to reduce this impact.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Impact 4.2-2: The Project Would Conflict With Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use, or a Williamson Act Contract.

The existing Williamson Act Contracts are limited to the outskirts of the Planned Area. More specifically, these areas are located toward the northwest and southeast portions of the Planned Area (see Figure 4.2-4). As shown in Table 4.2-4, build out of the Planned Area would affect 1,136 acres currently under a Williamson Act land use contract. Of those 1,136 acres, 276 acres are under

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-17 a notice of non-renewal and, 2014 to 2017, are scheduled to be removed from the provisions of the Williamson Act in the Planned Area (City of Hanford 2014).

Table 4.2-4
Affected Williamson Act Land within Planned Area
Area
Under Williamson
Act Land Use
Contract
(Acres)
Areas with Notice of
Nonrenewal
(Acres)
Affected Land within Planned Area
(Acres) 1,136 276
These areas would be affected by development of proposed land uses for these lands under the General Plan Update. This would ultimately result in the General Plan Update conflicting with existing land under Williamson Act land use contracts, which is a potentially significant impact.

Prior to future development, any land under a Williamson Act land use contract would have to file a notice of non-renewal or cancellation and go through either process. Even with going through these processes, future development could result in conflicts with Williamson Act land use contracts because proposed urban land uses are not compatible with such contracts and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

As shown in Figure 4.2-5, the General Plan Update would conflict with current agricultural zoning in the Planned Area. State law requires that zoning be consistent with its accompanying general plan. Modifications to the Municipal Code would occur as a public process after adoption of the General Plan Update. A primary goal when revising the Municipal Code would be to make it more understandable, even to people with limited or no experience with zoning, and to streamline the process of getting projects approved. In compliance with State law, once the zoning is consistent with the General Plan Update, the General Plan Update would not conflict with existing zooming for agricultural use and there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures
There is no reasonable and feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s impact.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Impact 4.2-3: The Project Would Not Conflict With Existing Zoning for, or Cause Rezoning of, Forest Land (As Defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), Timberland (As Defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or Timberland Zoned Timberland Production (As Defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)).

The General Plan Update would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, Forest Land, Timberland, or Timberland Zoned Timberland Production, as these designations do not exist within the Study Area. There would be no impact.

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-18 Affected Williamson Act Contracts in Planned Area Figure

4.2-4

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-19 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
There would be no impact.

Impact 4.2-4: The Project Would Not Result in the Loss of Forest Land or Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use.

There is no forest land within the Study Area. The General Plan Update would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, as these designations do not exist within the Study Area. There would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact 4.2-5: The Project Would Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment Which, due to Their Location or Nature, Could Result in Conversion of Farmland, to Non-Agricultural Use or Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use.

As discussed in Impacts 4.2-1 and 4.2-2, the General Plan Update would convert FMMPdesignated farmland to non-agricultural use and would conflict with Williamson Act land use contracts, which are both significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, the General Plan Update would involve other changes to the environment which, due to their location or nature, would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. It is important to note that, due to Chapter 16.40.110 (Right to Farm) of the Hanford Municipal Code, advises that adjacent uses to future development could result in “potential inconveniences and discomforts often associated with agricultural activities and operations, including, but not limited to, equipment and animal noise; farming activities conducted on a 24- hour a day, 7-days a week basis; odors from manure, fertilizers, pesticides, chemicals, or other sources; the aerial and ground application of chemicals and seeds; dust; flies and other insects; and smoke from agriculture operations.” Therefore, this acknowledgment establishes the right of adjacent landowners to continue to farm and therefore precludes to indirect conversion of adjacent farmland as a result of potentially incompatible land uses as a result of the General Plan Update.

As discussed in Impacts 4.2-3 and 4.2-4, the General Plan Update would not involve other changes that would convert forest land to non-forest land and there would be no impact.

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-20 Affected Agricultural Zones in Planned Area Figure

4.2-5

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update July 2016
Draft EIR—Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2-21 Mitigation Measures
There is no reasonable and feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s impact.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

CUMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative projects are those that would be developed within the Study Area along with buildout of the General Plan Update. Future development as a result of the General Plan Update would be required to adhere to applicable goals and policies of the General Plan as they relate to agriculture as well as the Hanford Municipal Code. Future development would also be subject to the plan check and development review process for all new development. Such technical studies could be required provide structural design, and would be reviewed and approved by the City Building Division on a case-by-case basis.

All future development in the vicinity of the Study Area would be subject to review in separate environmental documents, where a LESA Model may be required. This model would provide a numeric threshold for determining significance under CEQA of impacts on conversion of mapped farmland to non-agricultural uses.

As previously determined, build-out of the General Plan Update would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to farmland conversion and conflicts with land under Williamson Act land use contracts. Thus, future development as a result of the General Plan update would be cumulatively considerable in light of the cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The overall impact would be cumulative significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
There is no reasonable and feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s cumulative impact.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update March 2017
Final EIR—Chapter 2, Response to Comments 2-17
Comment Letter B. Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Meri Meraz, Conservation Program Support Supervisor (September 1, 2016)
RESPONSE TO COMMENT B-1
Thank you for your comments. The participation of the Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (Division) in the public review of the draft EIR is appreciated. The commenter states that the Division monitors farmland conversion and administers the Williamson Act and other land conservation programs. The commenter also briefly summarizes the General Plan Update and specifically calls out the fact that its build out would affect 2,706 acres of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland as well as 1,136 acres under a Williamson Act land use contract.

The comments have been noted for the record.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT B-2
The commenter states that although direct conversion of agricultural land is often an unavoidable impact, mitigation measures must be considered even if mitigation does not reduce impacts to less than significant provided that they are feasible and lessen a project’s impact. The commenter also states that mitigation that is potentially feasible should be included and mitigation brought to the attention of the Lead Agency should not be left out. The Division recommends that the City consider the creation of an agricultural mitigation program “tailored to individual jurisdictional needs and goals” that effectively mitigates for the loss of important farmland.

In response to the Division’s comment, page 79 of the General Plan Update has been revised to include the following additional policy:

Policy O5 Farmland Mitigation Program
In collaboration with the County of Kings and other cities in Kings County, determine the feasibility and, if feasible, consider adoption of a countywide farmland mitigation program that is tailored to the needs and goals of the Kings County agricultural region to mitigate the urban conversion of agricultural lands that are outside adopted urban growth boundaries.

Existing policies O5 to O10 have been renumbered to include this new policy.

Because of this new policy, pages 4.2-13 and 4.2-14 of the draft EIR has been revised to include the following textual additions:

Policy O5 Farmland Mitigation Program
In collaboration with the County of Kings and other cities in Kings County, determine the feasibility and, if feasible, consider adoption of a countywide farmland mitigation program that is tailored to the needs and goals of the Kings County agricultural region to mitigate the urban conversion of agricultural lands that are outside adopted urban growth boundaries.

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update March 2017
Final EIR—Chapter 2, Response to Comments 2-18
Williamson Act Policies
Policy O5 O6 Removal of Land from Williamson Act
Encourage use of Notices of Nonrenewal as the preferred method of removal of land within the Planned Area Boundary from Williamson Act Land Conservation Contract.

Policy O6 O7 Cancellation and Succession to Williamson Act Contracts Adopt and periodically update a set of policies that govern the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts, and define the circumstances that the City would be willing to succeed to an active contract.

Policy O7 O8 Annexation of Williamson Act Lands
Consider annexation of Williamson Act lands only if the land is within the 2035 Growth Boundary and only if such annexation is necessary to provide for logical urban development, job creation, or the provision of municipal services.

Policy O8 O9 New Williamson Act Contracts
Oppose new Williamson Act contracts on land within the Planned Area Boundary.

Deed-Restricted Agricultural Site Policies
Policy O9 O10 Existing Deed-Restricted Agricultural Sites Designate sites with existing deed agreements that limit the land to agricultural use with the Open Space land use designation.

Policy O10 O11 New Deed-Restricted Agricultural Sites
Discourage new deed agreements that restrict land to agricultural use on land inside the Planned Area Boundary.

Also because of this new policy, page 4.2-16 of the draft EIR has been revised to include the following textual additions:

The build out of the Planned Area as a result of the General Plan Update would, over the 2014 to 2035 planning period, convert approximately 2,706 acres of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP, to non-agricultural use. Future development would have to adhere to the Hanford Municipal Code Chapter 16.40.110 (Right to Farm) and proposed goals and policies of the General Plan Update related to agriculture. In response to comments the Kings County Farm Bureau voiced during the General Plan Update Committee meetings, the City increased urban densities for the various land uses within the General Plan Update.

Additionally, the proposed City limits and SOI were designed to break along arterial roads

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update March 2017
Final EIR—Chapter 2, Response to Comments 2-19
in order to create a logical buffer between proposed urban uses and adjacent agricultural lands.

In addition, Policy O5 (Farmland Mitigation Program) has been included in the General Plan Update to foster collaboration with the County of Kings and other cities in Kings County to develop a countywide farmland conversion mitigation program outside adopted urban growth boundaries (i.e., the City’s Planned Area, also the Primary SOI). It is assumed that because expansion of the urban area proceeds in an orderly manner under the General Plan Update and is a logical result to accommodate anticipated future population growth, it is expected that the Planned Area would be converted to a nonagricultural land use as the natural progression of urban growth. The policy to work on developing a countywide farmland mitigation program for the urban conversion of agricultural lands that are outside adopted urban growth boundaries (in this case the Planned Area) is warranted due to the expectation that this conversion would occur as development continues in the City. It is also warranted that the City collaborate rather than unilaterally develop a farmland mitigation program because conversion of farmland is a regional issue that should be collectively developed by the County and all cities in Kings County. Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1 has been developed that mandates that the City work with the County and other cities to develop a countywide farmland mitigation program, and this mitigation includes performance criteria. However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2- 1, the loss of this farmland as a result of the General Plan Update would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Study Area is larger than the area that would ultimately be needed for growth over the life of the General Plan Update, but has been determined to give decision-makers the greatest flexibility in making determinations about where and how the City should grow.

Future development in the Study Area (but outside the Planned Area) would first require approval of the Kings County Local Area Formation Commission because such development means that the City would be annexing land and the City’s SOIs would like need to be revised as well as future General Plan Update amendments, which would trigger the need for future CEQA review, including consideration of agriculture impacts. Future development in the Study Area would also have to comply with the Hanford Municipal Code Chapter 16.40.110 (Right to Farm), proposed goals and policies of the General Plan Update related to agriculture, and specifically Policy O5. Future development in the Study Area, even with Policy O5 and implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1, would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources.

Mitigation Measures
There is no reasonable and feasible mitigation to reduce this impact.

MM 4.2-1: COLLABORATE ON DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTYWIDE

FARMLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM
The City shall work with the County of Kings and other cities in Kings County to consider adoption of a countywide farmland mitigation program that is tailored to the needs and goals of the Kings County agricultural region to mitigate the urban conversion of

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update March 2017
Final EIR—Chapter 2, Response to Comments 2-20
agricultural lands that are outside adopted urban growth boundaries. Specific performance criteria for the development of the countywide farmland mitigation program shall include:
• The City shall take the lead in forming a committee that consists of the County of Kings and other cities’ representatives to develop the program by January 2019. • The City shall develop and sign a Memorandum of Understanding or other applicable agreement with County of Kings and the other cities in Kings County to work collaboratively in developing the program by January 2020. • The City shall develop and sign a Memorandum of Understanding with Department of Conservation in the development of the program by January 2020. • By January 2022, if a program has been developed, the City shall implement the agreed upon program and codify the adopted program language into its Municipal Code.
• If by January 2022, the program has not been developed, the City shall independently develop its own program and codify the adopted program language into its Municipal Code by 2023.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

In response to the Division’s comment, page 4.2-17 of the draft EIR has been revised to include the following textual additions:

These areas would be affected by development of proposed land uses for these lands under the General Plan Update. This would ultimately result in the General Plan Update conflicting with existing land under Williamson Act land use contracts, which is a potentially significant impact. Prior to future development, any land under a Williamson Act land use contract would have to file a notice of non-renewal or cancellation and go through either process. Even with going through these processes adhering to Policy O5, and implementing Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1, future development could result in conflicts with Williamson Act land use contracts because proposed urban land uses are not compatible with such contracts and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

As shown in Figure 4.2-5, the General Plan Update would conflict with current agricultural zoning in the Planned Area. State law requires that zoning be consistent with its accompanying general plan. Modifications to the Municipal Code would occur as a public process after adoption of the General Plan Update. A primary goal when revising the Municipal Code would be to make it more understandable, even to people with limited or no experience with zoning, and to streamline the process of getting projects approved. In compliance with State law, once the zoning is consistent with the General Plan Update, the General Plan Update would not conflict with existing zooming for agricultural use and there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures
There is no reasonable and feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s impact.

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update March 2017
Final EIR—Chapter 2, Response to Comments 2-21
In response to the Division’s comment, pages 4.2-19 and 4.2-21 of the draft EIR has been revised to include the following textual additions:

As discussed in Impacts 4.2-1 and 4.2-2, the General Plan Update would convert FMMPdesignated farmland to non-agricultural use and would conflict with Williamson Act land use contracts, which are both significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, the General Plan Update would involve other changes to the environment which, due to their location or nature, would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with adherence to Policy O5 and implementing Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1. It is important to note that, due to Chapter 16.40.110 (Right to Farm) of the Hanford Municipal Code, requires notification that adjacent uses to future development could result in “potential inconveniences and discomforts often associated with agricultural activities and operations, including, but not limited to, equipment and animal noise; farming activities conducted on a 24-hour a day, 7-days a week basis; odors from manure, fertilizers, pesticides, chemicals, or other sources; the aerial and ground application of chemicals and seeds; dust; flies and other insects; and smoke from agriculture operations.” Therefore, this acknowledgment establishes the right of adjacent landowners to continue to farm and therefore precludes to the indirect conversion of adjacent farmland as a result of potentially incompatible land uses as a result of the General Plan Update.

As discussed in Impacts 4.2-3 and 4.2-4, the General Plan Update would not involve other changes that would convert forest land to non-forest land and there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures
There is no reasonable and feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s impact.

Implement Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1.

In response to the Division’s comment, pages 4.2-19 and 4.2-21 of the draft EIR has been revised to include the following textual additions:

As previously determined, build-out of the General Plan Update would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to farmland conversion and conflicts with land under Williamson Act land use contracts. Thus, future development as a result of the General Plan update would be cumulatively considerable in light of the cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The overall impact would be cumulative significant and unavoidable even with adhering to Policy O5 and implementing Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1.

Mitigation Measures
There is no reasonable and feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s cumulative impact.

Implement Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1.

The revisions above do not change the significance determinations in the draft EIR.

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update March 2017
Final EIR—Chapter 2, Response to Comments 2-22
RESPONSE TO COMMENT B-3
The commenter states that agricultural easements and in-lieu fees are common mitigation tools, and the Division highlights easements because they follow an established rationale. The commenter briefly discusses why concurrent easement requirements or fees with project approval reduce possible conflicts over agricultural quality. The commenter also states that mitigation via easements can be implemented: 1) by outright purchase of easements or 2) the donation of fees to organizations or agencies whose purpose is to acquire and oversee easements.

As discussed in “Response to Comment 2-B,” the City will work with other municipalities to implement a countywide farmland mitigation program (Policy O5) and Mitigation Measure MM

4.2-1 includes performance criteria to ensure that such a program is implemented. This may include: 1) funding and/or purchasing agricultural conversion easements or similar instrument, 2) purchasing credits from an established farmland mitigation bank, and/or 3) contributing agricultural land or equivalent funding to an organization that provides for the preservation of farmland.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT B-4
The commenter states that the California Council of Lands Trust is a useful source for agricultural mitigation banks and provides insight into farmland mitigation policies, including a guidebook.

The commenter states that another source for conservation easements is the Division’s California Farmland Conservancy Program.

The City will use as a resource the California Council of Lands Trust in the development of the countywide farmland mitigation program (Policy O5 and Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1).

RESPONSE TO COMMENT B-5
The commenter thanks the City for the opportunity to comment on the draft EIR, requests noticing of future hearing dates regarding the EIR, and provides contact information.

As requested, the City will notice the Division of future hearing dates regarding the EIR.

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update March 2017
Final EIR—Chapter 2, Response to Comments 2-23

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update March 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impact Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring Agency Date Initials 4.2-1 MM 4.2-1: COLLABORATE ON DEVELOPMENT

OF COUNTYWIDE FARMLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM
The City shall work with the County of Kings and other cities in Kings County to consider adoption of a countywide farmland mitigation program that is tailored to the needs and goals of the Kings County agricultural region to mitigate the urban conversion of agricultural lands that are outside adopted urban growth boundaries. Specific performance criteria for the development of the countywide farmland mitigation program shall include: x The City shall take the lead in forming a committee that consists of the County of Kings and other cities’ representatives to develop the program by January 2019. x The City shall develop and sign a Memorandum
of Understanding or other applicable agreement
with County of Kings and the other cities in Kings County to work collaboratively in developing the program by January 2020. x The City shall develop and sign a Memorandum
of Understanding with Department of Conservation in the development of the program by January 2020.

Subsequent to the General Plan Update City of HanfordSteps to Compliance:
x The City shall form a committee by January 2019.
x The City shall development Memorandums of
Understanding by January 2020.
x The City shall develop a program with the County of
Kings and other cities in Kings County and codify the
adopted program language into its Municipal Code by
January 2022.
x If the program has not been developed with the County of Kings and other cities in Kings County, then the City shall independently develop and codify its own program and by 2023.

City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update March 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2
Impact Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring Agency Date Initials x By January 2022, if a program has been
developed, the City shall implement the agreed upon program and codify the adopted program language into its Municipal Code.
x If by January 2022, the program has not been
developed, the City shall independently develop
its own program and codify the adopted program language into its Municipal Code by 2023.

14.B.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 12/16/2025 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT:

Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution 25-73-R to approve the amendments of the Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2025-26 which includes proposed new fees, deletions of fees and increases/adjustments to existing fees.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: That the City Council conduct a public hearing, accept public testimony, and adopt Resolution 25-73-R for the amendments to the City of Hanford Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2025-26 which includes proposed new fees, deletion of fees, and increases/adjustments to existing fees.

Recommended Motion: I move to adopt Resolution 25-73-R for the amended City of Hanford Master Fee Schedule.

BACKGROUND:

The previous Master Fee Schedule update for Fiscal Year 2025–26 was accepted and approved by Resolution as of June 3, 2025. Annually, the City Council is brought an updated Master Fee Schedule for review. At today's public hearing, adoption of Resolution 25-73-R will take place for the amended Fiscal Year 2025-26 Master Fee Schedule. Fees would take effect December 16, 2025, or 60 days after adoption for impact fees, which would be February 14, 2026.

Summary of Changes:

Finance
• Adding administrative fee - charge assessed to pass-through funds • Rewording detail for Veteran Owned Business §5.04.170 Parks
• Increasing Main Hall reservation Fri-Sat from $500.00|$1,000.00 to $600.00|$1,100.00 • Increasing Main Hall reservation Sun-Thurs from $275.00|$900.00 to $375.00|$900.00 • Increasing Facility host fee 1-199 party size rates from $40.00 per hour to $50.00 per hour • Increasing Facility host fee 200-299 party size rates from $60.00 per hour to $70.00 per hour • Increasing Facility host fee 300–399 party size rates from $80.00 per hour to $90.00 per hour • Increasing Facility host fee 400 or larger party size rates from $100.00 per hour to $110.00 per

hour
• Rewording on Facility Deposit
• Rewording for Insurance and Security Notes
• Adding Alcohol Deposits to City Parks reservation(if permitted) • Removing Floating Island Rentals
• Changing Field Fees to a fixed rate of $130.00
• Increasing Staff fees for Softball Complex from $18/hour/employee to $22/hour/employee • Increasing the Field Preparation rate from $30/field/day to $58/field/day • Rewording to remove "adult" in the trash removal rate • Removing Electricity Use from Softball complex
• Adding Homerun Fence as a new fee
• Removing Groups of 8+ for Ice Skating
• Removing Hockey Lessons fee
• Removing Broomball fee
• Increasing State Aides rates from $6.00/aide to $7.00/aide • Decreasing North Pole Lounge rates from $375.00/rental to $200.00/rental • Removing Santa Experiences
• Splitting Private Rink Rentals into two separate groupings • Changing Zumba, Aerobics, and Yoga rates to Seniors and Adults • Removing Haunted House fee
• Increasing Food Vendor rates from 5%-20%/ Day to 15%-20%/Day • Increasing Activity Vendor rates from 5%-20%/ Day to 10%-20%/Day • Removing Retail Booth Vendor fee
Fire:
• Increasing Annual operational permit from $108.00 to $149.00 for increased staff time and cost
• Rewording Family Day Care pre-inspection fee
• Removing Licensed Family Day Care Re-Inspection fee
• Increasing Miscellaneous Fire Prevention Permit from $108.00 to $149.00 for increased staff time and cost
• Decreasing Illegal Burning fee from $401.00 to $250.00 • Adding CPR/AED Certification fee
Police
• Removing Enhanced CCW Card Fee
All fees have been reviewed and, as appropriate, had a minimum cost recovery adjustment, except for Impact Fees and Business Tax. City ordinances limit annual Impact Fee and Business Tax adjustments to specific California Consumer Price Indexes (CPI) or voter-approved changes. Annual inflationary adjustments help the City cover costs and lessen the burden on the General Fund so that the Fund will be available to cover critical operations, including public safety. Generally, most adjustments to rates and fees are based on established annual indexes, including the following:
• California Consumer Price Index (CCPI)

• Engineering News Record Construction Costs Index (ENRCCI) • U.S. Consumer Price Index - Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
In addition to these indexes, some rates and fees are also adjusted using other bases to determine fees.

For example, the following bases are also used in limited cases to adjust rates and fees:
• Cost of providing service
• Cost reimbursement
• Survey of fees from surrounding communities
• Special surcharges due to specific costs
• Subsidy by the General Fund
• Rounding
FISCAL IMPACT:

The proposed fee increases are set to fund projects and recover the costs of services provided by the City.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. FY2025-26 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

2. 25-26 Rates & Fees Summary of Change

3. Resolution 25-73-R

4. Public Hearing Notice 12.03.25

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26

TABLE OF CONTENTS
FINANCE DEPARTMENT ........................................................................................................... 3 HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT ...................................................................................... 6 PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ...................................................................................... 7 INDOOR FACILITY.................................................................................................................. 7 LONGFIELD CENTER GYM MEMBERSHIP ........................................................................... 7 OUTDOOR FACILITY .............................................................................................................. 8 CAROUSEL AND FIRE TRUCKS ............................................................................................ 8 WINTER WONDERLAND ........................................................................................................ 9 PROGRAMS AND EVENTS .................................................................................................... 9 FIRE DEPARTMENT ................................................................................................................ 10 POLICE DEPARTMENT ............................................................................................................ 13 CANNABIS DIVISION ............................................................................................................... 16 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ....................................................................... 17 PLANNING DIVISION ........................................................................................................... 17 BUILDING DIVISION ............................................................................................................. 19 CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION ........................................................................................... 26 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ............................................................................................... 27 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ............................................................................................. 32 REFUSE DIVISION ............................................................................................................... 33 WASTEWATER DIVISION ..................................................................................................... 33 AIRPORT .................................................................................................................................. 34

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
3 | P a g e

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT
Transient Occupancy Tax 8% of Room Rent
Returned Payment Fee - First Occurrence $25.00
Returned Payment Fee - Each Subsequent Occurrence $35.00 Submission to County Tax Roll - Each Item $10.00
Duplicate Invoice Request $1.50
Copies $0.10 per Page
Administrative Fee - Charge assessed to pass-through funds 2% Billing:

Building Rent- Late Fee 10%
All other Billing- Late Fee 1000%
Payroll Garnishments $1.50 per Pay Period per Garnishment New Water Service/Installation of Meter for New Water Service (each) $125 Admin and Inspection Fee plus applicable Development Impact Fees Residential Deposit $278 (Three times the determined average residential bill) Water Hydrant Deposit $1,000.00
Non-residential, Non-hydrant Deposit Calculated Based on Account (Two times the average bill amount) Fine/penalty for delinquent utility service charges $35.00 Reconnection fee for Discontinued Water Service- Business Hours $50.00 Reconnection fee for Discontinued Water Service- Non-Business Hours $150.00 Fee for Missed Reconnection Appointment $50.00
Fee for Appeal of Utility Service Bill $205 Plus Deposit of Entire Bill Amount Monthly Fee for Payment Plan Processing, Review, and Administration $13 per Month (Per month as long as payment agreement remains in effect) Unauthorized Reconnection of Water Service, Tampering, or Illegal Use of Water $200 per Occurrence Plus the Cost of Water Used Damaged Locks $15.00
Fee for Damage to the City Equipment and/or Improvements Actual Cost Incurred by the City to Repair and Replace Fee for Fire Flow Tests $470.00
Backflow Test and Repair if the Customer Fails to have its Device Tested and/or Repair in the Timeframe provided by the City Cost of Testing and Repairs plus $125 Admin and Inspection Fee

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT
Meter Charges:
5/8", 3/4", & 1" $21.64
1-1/2" & 2" $39.62
3" & 4" $118.73
6" $363.26
8" $579.02
Consumption Charges:

All Customers $2.44
Drought Consumption Charges:
10% Water Cutback $2.64
20% Water Cutback $2.89
35% Water Cutback $3.41
50% Water Cutback $4.24
Residential (Per Dwelling Unit):

Single Family $30.95
Multi-Family/Duplex $23.22
Non-Residential - Metered Water($/CCF):

Group A: Domestic $3.86
Group B: Low Strength $3.53
Group C: Medium Strength $4.95
Group D: High Strength $6.70
Schools (per Student ADA) $0.93
Septage (per 1,000 Gallions) $43.94
Industrial:

Flow (per mg) $3,132.45
BOD (per lb) $0.698
SS (per lb) $0.700
Storm Drainage System Flow Charge ($/CCF) $0.20
Water Rates
Wastewater Rates
Stormwater Rates

PAYROLL - WAGE ATTACHMENTS

UTILITIES

GENERAL

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
4 | P a g e

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT

BUSINESS LICENSE
Business License Processing $40.00
Business License Processing - Lapsed 6 months or more $15.00 (Current and past due amount to be paid in full) Administrative Fee- Applies to Renewals $10.00
Duplicate Business License $1.50
Late Filing Charge for License Renewal $100.00 (Reduced to $50.00 if paid within 5 business days) Invoice Late Fee (Net 30 Days) $10.00
Hand-Delivered Delinquency Notice (30+ days) $50.00
Failure to Display Current Business License $50.00 for each Occurrence Business License Types:

Advertising By Sound $5.00 per Day
Ambulatory Vehicles $20.00 per Vehicle per Year
Amusement Devices $5.00 per Day per Device
Animal Shows $15.00 per Day
Auctioneers $60.00 per Year
Auctioneers - Itinerant Vendor Temp Located in City $50.00 per Day Bankrupt Sales $100.00 per Month
Billboard & Sign Companies $60.00 per Year
Bingo (Must apply Yearly) $50.00 per Year
Bowling Lanes $10.00 per Lane per Year
Building and Loan Associations $100.00 per Year
Cable Television Fee based on franchise agreement
Card Rooms and Tables $525.00 Operator/$55.00 per Employee/$30.00 Transfer Fee Circuses and Carnivals $25.00 per Day
General Contractors $60.00 per Year
Plumbing, Electrical, Roofing, Painting, Heating & Refrigeration, Plastering, Specialty Contractor $40.00 per Year
Convalescent Vehicles $50.00 per Vehicle per Year
Creameries $200.00 per Year
Delivery and Freight Companies $30.00 per Truck per Year Finance Companies $100.00 per Year
Fire and Wreck Sales $100.00 per Month
Flea Market Vendor - 8967 Lacey Blvd $20.00 per Year
Fortunetelling $200.00 per Year
Going out of Business and Related Sales (Permit Valid for 60 Days) $25.00 Min plus $25.00 if inventory exceeds $5,000.00 Gross Receipts Based on calculation
Hay, Grain and Feed Brokers $60.00 per Year
House Moving $100.00 per Year
Laundry Trucks $30.00 per Truck per Year
Lectures $5.00 per Day
Newspaper Publishing $100.00 per Year
Newspaper Distributing $20.00 per each Type per Year
Non-profit Business (Required to register) No Charge
Packinghouses $150.00 per Year
Parades $25.00 per Day
Parade Vendors $50.00 per Cart per Day
Pawnbrokers $100.00 per Year
Poolrooms or Billiards $8.00 per Table per Year
Any business located in the City must have a Certificate of Occupancy or Home Permit. Annual notices will be sent to the registered account holder by January 1 and need to be completed in full by January 31 to avoid a late fee. For businesses located in the Improvement District, additional license fees are levied. Businesses commencing at any time during the second half of an annual licensing period (July 1- December 31) shall pay 50% of the minimum annual Business License Tax.

Contractors:

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
5 | P a g e

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT
Business License Types Continued:

Peddlers/Mobile Vendors:

On Foot: Goods, Wares or Merchandise $25.00 per Month
Vehicle: Fruits and Vegetables $60.00 per Year
Vehicle: Baked Goods and Dairy Products $30.00 per Year Vehicle: Wholesale $360.00 per Year
Professions: (Examples) Accountant, Appraiser, Architect, Attorney, Chemist, Chiropodist, Chiropractor, Dentist, Medical Lab, Engineer, Geologist, Optician, Optometrist, Osteopath, Physician, Surgeon, Tax Consultant or Radiologist $60.00 per Professional per Year plus $8.00 per year per assistant that exceeds the number of professionals
Shooting Galleries and Ranges $50.00 per Month
Skating Rinks $48.00 per Year
Soliciting (Limited to 1 month) $30.00 per Month
Taxicabs, Buses & Pedicabs $20.00 per Vehicle per Year
Title Companies $100.00 per Year
Transient Photographers $200.00 per Year
Theatrical and Entertainment Shows (Transient) $12.50 for 1st day, $5.00 each Day After Wholesale Business 50% deduction of Regular License Fee Veteran Owned Business:

Required to register and provide copy of DD214.

Subject to approval
No Charge
City Special Events:

Easter Egg Hunt Vendor (Mar) $25.00 per Event
Food Truck Takeover Vendor (Mar- May ) $40.00 per Event Halloween Bash Vendor (Oct) $25.00 per Event
Thursday Night Market Vendors (May-Oct) $40.00 per Event Winter Wonderland Vendor (Nov-Jan) $40.00 per Event

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
6 | P a g e

HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
Fee Name/Description Of Service Fee Amount
First-time Adult Passport Book $35.00
First-time Adult Passport Card $35.00
First-time Adult Passport Book & Card $35.00
Minor (Under 16) Passport Book $35.00
Minor (Under 16) Passport Card $35.00
Minor (Under 16) Passport Book & Card $35.00
Passport Photos $15.00
Employee Identification Card Replacement $10.00
Records Copy Per Page $0.10
Passport Services
* These are only the acceptance fee established by the U.S. Department of State - Bureau of Consular Affairs and does not include any application fees associated to processing passport application.

Note: Please make all Acceptance Fees Payable to the City of Hanford Other Services

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
7 | P a g e

PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

INDOOR FACILITY
Fri-Sat
Sun-Thurs
2 Host
3 Host
4 Host
5 Host
Full
Half
Full
ALCOHOL DEPOSIT $1,000.00

FACILITY RENTALS WITH ALCOHOL REQUIRE BOTH INSURANCE AND SECURITY

INSURANCE REQUIRED FOR ALL FACILITY RENTALS
$110.00 per Hour
Main Hall
Kitchen
Meeting Room
1-199 Party Size
CIVIC GROUNDS:
$70.00
$75.00
$150.00 $200.00
$1,250.00 per Day
$75.00 per Day
$50.00
300-399 Party Size
400 or Larger
$50.00 per Hour

ALCOHOL PERMIT
$50.00 per Hour
$30.00 per Hour
PROCESSING FEE $20 for all transactions
Pavillion
$250.00
$125.00
Kitchen
West Wing
Rental Fee
Restrooms
$100.00 $150.00
$50.00
Non-Resident

FACILITY DEPOSIT
$90.00 per Hour
200-299 Party Size
$150.00 per Hour
Resident
$150.00
$600.00 $1,100.00
$375.00 $900.00
CIVIC AUDITORIUM:

FACILITY
Main Hall
$100.00
VETERANS/SENIOR CENTER:

FACILITY HOST FEES:

LONGFIELD CENTER:
$70.00 per Hour
Basketball Court(s)

LONGFIELD CENTER GYM MEMBERSHIP
* Rate is per person. No Start-Up Fee. Financial Aid may be available. *Seniors(Ages 60+) Membership Fee Waived
Day Pass

MEMBERSHIP FEE AMOUNT
TYPE
Annual
Quarterly
Monthly
$100.00
$30.00
$12.00
$5.00

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
8 | P a g e

OUTDOOR FACILITY

FACILITY RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT
Picnic Arbors $45.00 $60.00
Alcohol Permit
Alcohol Deposit (if permitted)
Rental Fee $65 per Hour $80 per Hour
Lifeguard Fee
Weekend Party Rental Fee (Prices may vary depending on attendance) $400.00 per Event $475 per Event Senior/Military (with ID)
Punch Pass
Adults & Children
Swim Classes: Adults & Children
Dive In Movies: Adults & Children
Water Aerobics :Adults & Seniors $16.00 $20.00
Lap Swim: Adults & Seniors $16.00 $20.00
Picnic Shelter $30 per Day $35 per Day
Field Fee
Staff Fees
Field Preparation
Field Lights
Trash Removal:

Homerun Fence
Electricity Use
Miscellaneous:

Soccer Complex and Youth Athletic Complex Field Permit Fee *Unless stated otherwise in written agreement
Deposit for Facilities (excluding picnic arbors)
Processing Fee (Facility Rentals: Complexes, Plunge, Civic Grounds/Auditorium)
$30.00
$25 per Hour per Lifeguard
City Parks:

City Plunge:
*Freedom and Lacey Park are excluded due to proximity of schools $1,000.00
$2.50 per Hour per Field
$58 per Field per Day
Civic Grounds:
$250.00
$20 for All Transactions

FACILITY RENTALS WITH ALCOHOL REQUIRE BOTH INSURANCE AND SECURITY $75 per Day
$60 per Field per Day
Admission Fee:
$2 per Day
$10 per Pass for 8 Visits
$3 per Day
$65-$80 (Depending on Skill Level)
$22 per Hour per each Employee
$25 per Field per Hour
$175.00
$5 per person
Softball Complex:
$130.00

CAROUSEL AND FIRE TRUCKS

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE
1 Hour

1.5 Hours
2 Hours

2.5 Hours
1 Hour

1.5 Hours
2 Hours

2.5 Hours
1 Hour
2 Hours
Single Carousel Ride
Single Fire Truck Ride
$450.00
$3.00
$4.00
$175.00
$225.00
$275.00
$325.00
$300.00
Carousel Ride & Fire Truck Rental Combo:

Fire Truck Rental:
$170.00
$220.00
$270.00
$320.00
Carousel Ride Rental:

FEE AMOUNT

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
9 | P a g e

WINTER WONDERLAND

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT
Youth (Ages 4-17) $10.00 per Person
Adults $17.00 per Person
Military $16.00 per Person
Senior 55+ $16.00 per Person
Skate Lessons $20.00 per Lesson
Tour of Lights $165.00 per Rental
Enchanted Breakfast $40.00
Superhero Breakfast $40.00
Event Vendor Fee 15%-20% Revenue Spilt per Vendor
Skate Aides $7.00 per Aide
North Pole Lounge $200.00 per Rental
Socks $5.00 per Pair
Locker Rental $4.00 per Locker
Private Rink Rentals:
1-50 $400 per Hour
51-100 $650 per Hour
Adults and Children Ice Skating:

Activities:

Miscellaneous:

PROGRAMS AND EVENTS

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE
Seasonal Day Camps
Zumba, Aerobics, Yoga $16.00 Seniors $20.00 Adults
Easter Egg Hunt
Food Vendor
Activity Vendor
15%-20% per Day
10%-20% per Day
$100.00 per Child

FEE AMOUNT
$5.00 per Person

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
10 | P a g e

FIRE DEPARTMENT

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT
Annual Fire and Life Inspection without fire Sprinklers (A, B, M, L, S) *Assemblies great then 49 people shall be inspected quarterly per Occurrence $149.00 Fire and Life Safety Inspection With Fire Sprinklers per Issuance $223.00 Additional fee when greater then 30 minutes for fire sprinkler buildings >30 mins $149.00 Billing Fees: Invoice Late Fee (Net 30 Days) per Invoice $11.00 Annual Operational Permit per Issuance $149.00
Re-Inspection 2nd per Occurrence $164.00
Re-Inspection 3rd per Occurrence $187.00
Knox Box Key Install per Issuance $69.00
Special Inspection <5000 sqft per Occurrence $149.00
Special Inspection >5,000 sqft (C, F, H, I) per Occurrence $187.00 Additional Service Fee per Hour $149.00
Weed Abatement Admin Fee on Open Parcels $329.00
Weed Abatement Admin Fee on Residential Properties per Issuance $329.00 Emergency Abatement Fee for Imminent Fire Hazard
(Three attempts made in 21 Business Days ) per Issuance $570.00 Jails Less Than 5000 sqft per Occurrence $149.00
Jails Greater Than 5000 sqft per Occurrence $298.00
Tent/Membrane Inspection per Occurrence $149.00
Hotel/Motel 1-50 Units (R-1) per Occurrence $149.00
Hotel/Motel +50 Units (R-1) per Occurrence $298.00
Multi-Family Dwellings Inspection:
1-20 Units (R-2) per Occurrence $149.00
21-50 Units (R-2) per Occurrence $180.00
51-100 Units (R-2) per Occurrence $221.00
+100 Units (R-2) per Occurrence $277.00
Schools per Occurrence $149.00
Hood Suppression Inspection
*Commercial hood system shall be inspected semi annual per Occurrence $187.00 Hood Suppression Plan Check per Issuance $149.00
Refrigerant an Monitoring System per Occurrence $187.00 Fireworks Booth Admin and Inspection per Issuance $421.50 Tank Inspection per Occurrence $146.00
Tank Plan Review per Issuance $187.00
Spray booth Inspection per Occurrence $149.00
Spray Booth Plan Review per Issuance $187.00
Consultation Fee per Occurrence $146.00
Prospective License Pre-Inspection for all Child and Adult Day Care per Issuance $149.00 Residential Care Home 24 Hour Care R 3.1 (et al.) per Issuance $180.00 Residential Care Home 24 Hour Care Re-Inspection- R 3.1 (et al.) per Issuance $205.00 Mobile Food Vendor Annual Inspection per Issuance $149.00

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
11 | P a g e

FIRE DEPARTMENT

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT
Fire Alarm Plan Review:
1-15 Devices per Issuance $187.00
16-50 Devices per Issuance $271.00
51-100 Devices per Issuance $394.00
101-500 Devices per Issuance $567.00
+500 Devices per Issuance $1,134.00
Fire Alarm Inspection & Testing per Occurrence $189.00
Re-Inspection on Testing Devices per Occurrence $230.00 Fire Sprinkler Plan Review:
1-100 Heads per Issuance $271.00
101-300 Heads per Issuance $394.00
301-500 Heads per Issuance $567.00
+500 Heads per Issuance $1,134.00
Underground Fire Line Inspection per Occurrence $189.00 Underground Fire Line Plan Review per Issuance $230.00
Residential Field Inspection per Occurrence $189.00
Residential Plan Review Less Than 5000 sqft per Issuance $189.00 Residential Plan Review Greater Than 5000 sqft per Issuance $189.00 + $0.77 per sqft Fire Reports per Issuance $26.00
Fire Investigation Report per Issuance $230.00
Miscellaneous Fire Prevention Permit per Permit $149.00 False Alarm/ 3rd and Subsequent Events in Calendar Year per Occurrence $401.00 Standby for public utility response per Hour $401.00
DUI Response per Hour $401.00
Illegal Burning per Hour $250.00
Arson Investigator Response per Investigators
(Minimum of 2 Investigators) per Hour $72.00
Neglectful Fire Response per Hour $390.00
Dangerous Building or Structures per Issuance $570.00
Hazardous Materials Operational:

Permit H-1 per Issuance $674.00
Permit H-2 per Issuance $589.00
Permit H-3 per Issuance $546.00
Permit H-4 per Issuance $483.00
Permit H-5 per Issuance $420.00
Special Hazard Permit/Confined Space, Trench, Vault, High Angle <72' per Issuance $529.00 Special Hazard Incident /Confined Space, Trench, Vault, High Angle <72' per Hour $618.00 + Rescue Team Hazardous Materials Spill Fire Response per Hour $618.00 + Hazmat Team Hydrant Maintenance and Repair per Hydrant $72.00
Private Hydrant Maintain and Repair per Hydrant $103.00 Hydrant Flow Test per Occurrence $349.00
Special Event with Apparatus per Occurrence $271.00
Battalion Chief Special Event Coordination per Hour $191.00 Fire Prevention Event Coordination per Occurrence $149.00

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
12 | P a g e

FIRE DEPARTMENT

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT
Fire and Life Safety Citation:

First Offense $103.00
Second Offense $205.00
Third Offense $514.00
Red Tag on Building per Day $205.00
Firework Ordinance Citation $1,000.00
CPR/AED Certification
(Class size must be 10 participants, otherwise will be placed on a wait-list) per Person $100.00

VEHICLE RATE ESTABLISHED BY CURRENT FEMA SCHEDULE - CURRENT FEMA SCHEDULE OF EQUIPMENT RATES CAN BE LOCATED AT: https://www.fema.gov/schedule-equipment-rates

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
13 | P a g e

POLICE DEPARTMENT

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT
Business Alarm Permit Registration $30.00
Residential Alarm Permit Registration $20.00
Business Alarm Permit Renewal $15.00 per Year
Residential Alarm Permit Renewal $15.00 per Year
First 3 False Alarm Calls per Calendar Year* No Charge
Customer account must be current, otherwise fees for 4th-6th + false alarms apply
4th Occurring False Alarm per Calendar Year $50.00
5th Occurring False Alarm per Calendar Year $75.00
6th + Occurring False Alarm per Calendar Year $100.00
Replace Permit or Validation Sticker $100.00
Impound Vehicle Fee $120.00
Stored Vehicle under authority code 22651(p)VC $90.00
Repossession Fee $15.00
Animal Pick Up Euthanasia $150.00 per Pick Up
Deceased Animal Pick Up $50.00 per Pick Up plus Shelter Disposal Fee After Hours Animal Pickup $150.00 per Pick Up
Replacement Dog/Cat Tag $10.00 per Tag
Microchipping Charge $20.00 per Microchip
Home Quarantine Residence Check $50.00 per Check
Shelter Quarantine Delivery Shelter
Animal License Permit- 1 Year $20.00
Animal License Permit- 2 Year $30.00
Animal License Permit- 3 Year $40.00
Multi-Animal Permit- 1 Year $50.00
Multi-Animal Permit- 2 Year $75.00
Multi-Animal Permit- 3 Year $100.00
Breeder Permit $500.00
1st Violation by Person $50.00 per Violation
2nd Violation by Person $100.00 per Violation
3rd Violation by Person $150.00 per Violation
1st Violation by Owner $100.00 per Violation
2nd Violation by Owner $200.00 per Violation
3rd Violation by Owner $500.00 per Violation

SMOKING ORDINANCE

ANIMAL CONTROL
VEHICLE IMPOUND (Each Vehicle)

ALARM ORDINANCE

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
14 | P a g e

POLICE DEPARTMENT

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT
Application of provisions (10.16.010) $35.00 per Violation Parking in parkways (HMC 10.16.020) $35.00 per Violation Parking vehicles more than 72 hours (HMC 10.16.030) $35.00 per Violation Commercial vehicles-parking in residential (10.16.040) $35.00 per Violation Parking vehicles for sale or repair (HMC 10.16.050) $35.00 per Violation Parking not according to designated markings (HMC 10.16.060) $35.00 per Violation Parking in violation of posted sign (HMC 10.16.070) $35.00 per Violation Parking in violation of posted sign (HMC 10.16.080) $35.00 per Violation Parking between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. (HMC 10.16.090) $35.00 per Violation Parking on private property & City lots (HMC 10.16.100) $35.00 per Violation Parking in excess of time limits in City lots (HMC 10.16.110) $35.00 per Violation Parking in excess of time limits – green curbs (HMC 10.16.120) $35.00 per Violation Parking in posted no-parking area (HMC 10.16.130) $35.00 per Violation Sales while parked near school grounds (HMC 10.16.140) $35.00 per Violation Parking violations (HMC 10.16.150) $35.00 per Violation Authority to Establish Loading Zones (HMC 10.20.010) $35.00 per Violation Parking in violation of curb markings (HMC 10.20.020) $35.00 per Violation Improper use of passenger loading zone (HMC 10.20.030) $35.00 per Violation Improper use of loading zone (HMC 10.20.040) $35.00 per Violation Improper use of alley (HMC 10.20.050) $35.00 per Violation Improper use of bus zone (HMC 10.20.060) $35.00 per Violation Wrong Way Parking (HMC 10.36.010) $35.00 per Violation
Improper use of sidewalk or parkway (HMC 10.44.010) $35.00 per Violation Operating skates on street (HMC 10.64.030.A) $35.00 per Violation Dangerous operation of skates (HMC 10.64.030.C) $35.00 per Violation Operating skates near building entrance (HMC 10.64.030.D) $35.00 per Violation Skate ramps on public rights-of-way (HMC 10.64.030.E) $35.00 per Violation Towing skaters (HMC 10.64.030.F) $100.00 per Violation
Handicap Parking $300.00 per Violation
Night skating without reflectors (HMC 10.64.030.G) $35.00 per Violation PARKING ORDINANCE (Per Violation)