Hanford begins REAP‑funded planning work on environmental‑justice element and single‑family objective standards

The City of Hanford on May 20 opened a joint study session of the City Council and Planning Commission to review a package of planning projects funded by a Rural Economic Action Plan (REAP) grant, including a state‑required environmental‑justice (EJ) element and proposed single‑family objective design standards.

Minteer Harnish planners Brent Gibbons and Michael Gibbons said the work has been divided into phases and stressed that staff and consultant work will rely on community engagement. "This project is only as good as the feedback in the community engagement that we get," Brent Gibbons said, listing a kickoff, plan and document reviews, public workshops and a spring 2026 target for final adoption.

The state requirement and what it means

Consultant Michael Gibbons summarized the new statutory requirement enacted by Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000), which directs cities and counties in California to add an environmental‑justice element or related policies when updating general plans. The element, the consultant said, must identify areas within city limits that are both lower income and carry higher pollution burdens and then set community‑wide goals, policies and programs to address those inequities. Michael Gibbons said the consultants will use publicly available datasets (he said the analysis considers roughly 170 metrics) and will pair the data review with targeted outreach, and that final maps would be prepared at the census‑tract level.

The consultants described a multi‑part outreach plan: two farmers‑market pop‑up booths (tentatively June 5 and June 26), a community workshop (tentatively July 2), commission and council study sessions, and materials translated into English and Spanish. Michael Gibbons said the EJ element will consolidate cross‑cutting topics — for example healthy food access, pollution exposure, and civic engagement — into a single element and produce a list of programs for implementation.

Objective design standards for single‑family

Brent Gibbons then described objective design standards, which are measurable, non‑discretionary rules for building design and site placement. He said state policy promoting objective standards aims to streamline approval for qualifying housing projects (citing implementation under SB 35) by removing subjective design review as a barrier to approval. Gibbons explained that Hanford already treats multifamily housing as a by‑right use and that the consultants and staff are therefore focusing on single‑family subdivisions and new tract maps.

Two implementation routes were presented for single‑family standards: apply objective standards to all single‑family development (including tear‑downs and infill), or apply standards only to new subdivisions of a specified size (for example, five or more lots). The consultants noted tradeoffs: ministerial review of projects that meet objective standards increases certainty and speed but reduces discretionary review and public noticing for streamlined projects.

Discussion and next steps

Council members and commissioners asked about the scope of environmental‑justice metrics (air, water, pesticide exposure, health outcomes) and about whether objective standards would prevent unique or quality designs. Michael Gibbons said projects that do not meet the objective standards could still seek discretionary approval but would not receive the streamlined route.

Consultants and staff emphasized the timeline and public outreach schedule; the consultants said they expect public review and adoption in spring 2026. The consultants also said the team will prepare an audit of existing general plan goals and policies and "fill the gaps" based on community input.

What’s next: the consultants requested feedback on draft outreach and draft standards; staff said the project will return to planning commission and council for review of draft language and for environmental review under CEQA.

Ending

City staff and consultants said they will return with draft language and outreach materials and noted that the project is grant‑funded. The team asked both bodies and the public to participate in the scheduled pop‑ups and workshops so the final EJ element and objective standards reflect local concerns and technical data.