Hanford City Council
June 21, 2022

12.H.a
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Professional Services Agreement and SOW (IT: Approve Contract for Website Redesign & Agenda Management System)

3. The Total Investment - Year 1 will be invoiced at signing of this SOW. Client will pay all invoices within 30 days of the date of invoice.

4. Annual Recurring Services shall be invoiced on the start date of each Renewal Term. Annual Recurring Services, including but not limited to hosting, support and maintenance services, shall be subject to a 5% annual increase beginning in year 2 of service.

5. Client shall have sole control and responsibility over the determination of which data and information shall be included in the content that is to be transmitted and stored by CivicPlus. Client shall not provide to CivicPlus or allow to be provided to CivicPlus any content that (a) infringes or violates any 3rd party’s Intellectual Property rights, rights of publicity or rights of privacy, (b) contains any defamatory material, or (c) violates any federal, state, local, or foreign laws, regulations, or statutes.

6. The scope of the initial implementation services to be delivered by CivicPlus are as listed above. Client is responsible for providing all information required for the configuration of the services in accordance with the scope and project timeline.

7. Upon Go-Live, any unused implementation services (ie: board configuration) will expire. Any configuration of additional boards by CivicPlus after Go-Live may incur additional one-time charges based on the scope of the desired configuration, design, and training services.

8. Completion of implementation services will be determined by Go Live status. The parties agree to cooperate in a timely manner to complete all implementation tasks and deliverables in order to obtain Go-Live status of the services.

CivicPlus will make reasonable efforts to confirm Go Live status with the Client, but reserves the right to deem Client’s use of the services in the intended course of business as Go Live. “Go-Live” is defined as the Client’s use of the services implemented by CivicPlus under this SOW for the intended purpose and with the intended audience.

Signature Page to follow.

V. PD 06.01.2015-0048

12.H.a
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Professional Services Agreement and SOW (IT: Approve Contract for Website Redesign & Agenda Management System) Acceptance

By signing below, the parties are agreeing to be bound by the covenants and obligations specified in this SOW and the MSA terms and conditions found at: https://www.civicplus.com/master-services-agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this SOW to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the dates below.

Client

CivicPlus
By:
___________________________________
By:
___________________________________
Name:
___________________________________
Name:
___________________________________
Title:
___________________________________
Title:
___________________________________
Date:
___________________________________
Date:
___________________________________
V. PD 06.01.2015-0048

12.H.a
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Professional Services Agreement and SOW (IT: Approve Contract for Website Redesign & Agenda Management System) Contact Information

*all documents must be returned: Master Service Agreement, Statement of Work, and Contact Information Sheet.

Organization URL ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Street Address
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address 2
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City State Postal Code ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CivicPlus provides telephone support for all trained clients from 7am –7pm Central Time, Monday-Friday (excluding holidays).

Emergency Support is provided on a 24/7/365 basis for representatives named by the Client. Client is responsible for ensuring CivicPlus has current updates.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Emergency Contact & Mobile Phone
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Emergency Contact & Mobile Phone
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Emergency Contact & Mobile Phone
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Billing Contact E-Mail ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone Ext. Fax ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Billing Address
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address 2
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City State Postal Code ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Tax ID # Sales Tax Exempt # ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Billing Terms Account Rep ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Info Required on Invoice (PO or Job #)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Are you utilizing any external funding for your project (ex. FEMA, CARES): Y [ ] or N [ ]

Please list all external sources: _______________________________________________________________________________________________

Contract Contact Email ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone Ext. Fax ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Project Contact Email ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone Ext. Fax ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

V. PD 06.01.2015-0048

12.H.a
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Professional Services Agreement and SOW (IT: Approve Contract for Website Redesign & Agenda Management System)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 6/21/2022

AGENDA SECTION: I

SUBJECT:

Parks and Community Services: Adoption of Resolution 22-28-R authorizing the City Manager to execute the necessary documents to accept $256,143 in grant funding from the CalTrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program to create a Comprehensive Active Transportation Plan (ATP)

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council, by motion, adopt Resolution 22-28-R authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements with the California Department of Transportation for the City of Hanford Active Transportation Plan.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Hanford is requesting $256,143 from the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program to create a comprehensive Active Transportation Plan (ATP) that will provide the community with a clear road map to guide pedestrian and bikeway policies, programs, and facility improvements that will improve safety, comfort and convenience for those who choose non-motorized travel. This program is funded through the California Department of Transportation.

This plan will update the 2016 City of Hanford’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and the It will also closely align and strengthen the City’s 2014 General Pan, the 2019 Kings County Regional Active Transportation Plan, and the 2020 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, which identified walking and biking trails as the community’s number one need. This, coupled with the fact that Hanford is expected to grow from 60,000 to 80,000 residents within the next 10-15 years, provides clear context and need for an ATP that serves the community now and into the future.

12.I
Packet Pg. 144
The City will solicit Request for Proposals from transportation consulting organizations to select an agency with the experience, expertise, and ability to listen to the community through robust community outreach, including stakeholder groups, and community workshops convenient to busy families. The plan will closely coordinate with the City’s Planning and Parks and Recreation Commissions, the City Council, and the Kings County Association of Governments, which collectively serve the transportation needs of the area and the region.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The update to the Bike and Pedestrian plan is not a currently budgeted project. The acceptance of the grant will necessitate the creation of Capital Project to fund the ATP at the time of contract award but the cost of the Plan will be fully funded by the grant.

ATTACHMENTS:

Sustainable transportation grant Resolution 22-28-R

12.I
Packet Pg. 145

CITY OF HANFORD
RESOLUTION 22-28-R

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD AUTHORIZING

THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE

CITY OF HANFORD ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hanford is eligible to receive Federal and/or State funding for certain transportation planning related plans through the California Department of Transportation;

WHEREAS, a Restricted Grant Agreement is needed to be executed with the California Department of Transportation before such funds can be reimbursed through the Transportation Planning Grant Program;

WHEREAS, the City of Hanford wishes to delegate authorization to execute these agreements and any amendments thereto;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hanford, authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute all Restricted Grant Agreements and any amendments thereto with the California Department of Transportation.

Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on , 2022, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES: ______

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED

ATTEST:

Kalish Morrow
MAYOR of the City of Hanford

12.I.a
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Sustainable transportation grant Resolution 22-28-R (Parks: Resolution 22-28 R - Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant)

NATALIE CORRAL
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss

CITY OF HANFORD )

I, Natalie Corral, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the _____day of ______, 20___.

Date: ____________________

_________________________________
City Clerk

12.I.a
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Sustainable transportation grant Resolution 22-28-R (Parks: Resolution 22-28 R - Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 6/21/2022

AGENDA SECTION: J

SUBJECT:

Parks and Community Services: Adoption of Resolution No. 22-30-R, Approving the Annual Engineer’s Report and Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments as outlined, pursuant to Chapter 3 of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, and setting July 19, 2022 as the Public Hearing date to consider the increases in assessments as proposed.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council by motion adopt Resolution 22-30-R approving the Annual Engineer's Report and the intention to levy and collect assessments as outlined pursuant Chapter 3 of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, and set July 19, 2022 as the Public Hearing date to consider the increases in assessments as proposed to the following districts:

ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS

90-01 Pinecastle Addition, Unit No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 - (Located East of 10th Avenue and North of Fargo Avenue)
90-02 Park Monterey, Unit No. 1 and 2 - (Located West of Douty Street and North of Sherwood Drive)
90-03 Mansionette Estates, No. 7 and 8 - (Located West of Douty Street and North Encore Drive)
90-04 Hyde Park - (Located East of 12th Avenue and North of Hanford-Armona Road) 91-01 Sierra Vista (Tract 641)/New Dimensions (Tract 703/713), No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 - (Located West of 11th Avenue and South of Hanford-Armona Road) 92-01 Portofino, No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 - (Located East of Neill Way and South of Fargo Avenue) 92-02 Cielo En Tierra, No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 - (Located West of 11th Avenue and South of Fargo
Avenue)
93-01 Vintage Estates - (Located West of 12th Avenue and North of Grangeville Boulevard) 93-02 Walnut Forest, No. 1, 2 and 3 - (Located West of 11th Avenue and North of Hume

12.J
Packet Pg. 148
Avenue) 94-01 Gateway Estates - (Located West of 10th Avenue and North of Encore Drive)
94-02 Stonecrest, No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 - (Located West of 11th Avenue and North of Fargo Avenue)
94-03 Quail Run Estates, No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 - (Located East of 11th Avenue and North of Pepper Drive)
97-01 Rosewood Estates, No. 1 and 2 - (Located East of 12th Avenue and South of Grangeville Boulevard)
97-02 Summer Field Addition, No. 2 - (Located West 91/4 Avenue and South of Florinda Street) 97-03 Country Crossing, No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 - (Located West of Centennial Drive and North of
Lacey Boulevard)
98-01 Crystal Springs, No. 1, 2 and 3 - (Located West of 91/4 Avenue and North of Grangeville Boulevard)
98-02 Mountain View Estates, No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 - (Located West of 11th Avenue and North of Houston Avenue)
01-01 Pacific Grove (Tract 680/777)/N. Pointe (Tract 778), No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 - (Located East of 12th Avenue and North of Grangeville Boulevard) 01-02 Cambridge Homes (Tract 770), No. 1, 2 and 3 - (Located West of 11th Avenue and North of Pepper Drive)
01-03 Poppy Hills, No. 1 and 2 - (Located West of 11th Avenue and North of Pepper Drive) 01-04 Silver Oaks, No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 - (Located West of 12th Avenue and North of Grangeville Boulevard)
02-01 Ashton Park, No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 - (Located West of 12th Avenue and North of Lacey Boulevard)
03-01 La Parc, No. 1, 2 and 3 - (Located West of 11th Avenue and South of Fargo Avenue) 04-01 Sidonia Estates, No. 1 and 2 (Tract 810)/Sidonia Estates II (Tract 814) - (Located East of 12th Avenue and North of Hume Avenue) 04-02 Cambridge Homes (Tract 799)/Majesty II (Tract 830) - (Located East of 11th Avenue and South of Flint Avenue)
04-03 Cambridge Homes (Tract 795/826)/Vineyards (Tract 825), No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 - (Located East of 12th Avenue and South of Fargo Avenue) 04-04 Sierra Heights (Tract 802/803), No. 1 and 2 - (Located West of 9th Avenue and North of Fargo Avenue)
05-01 Mission Park - (Located West of Highway 43 and South of Flint Avenue) 05-02 Copper Valley - (Located West of 12th Avenue and South of Fargo Avenue)
06-01 Quail Park Subdivision - (Tract 794), No. 1 and 2, Located West of 11th Avenue and South of Flint Avenue)
07-02 South Gate Addition - (Tract 811)/Greenbrier Gardens (876)/ Live Oak North (902) - (Located West of 12th Avenue and South of Hanford-Armona Road) 09-01 Victory Estates - (Located West of University Avenue and North of Grangeville Boulevard) 09-02 Independence (Tract 843), No. 1 and 2 - (Located West of 12th

12.J
Packet Pg. 149
Avenue and North of
Greenfield Avenue)
14-01 Independence (Tract 843), No. 3 and 4 - (Located West of 12th Avenue and North of Merritt Street)
15-01 Silver Oaks Addition III (Tract 887/922), No. 1, 2, and 3 - (Located West of Centennial Drive and North of West Berkshire Lane)
15-02 The Greens II (Tract 823) - (Located West of 9 ¼ Avenue and North of Grangeville Boulevard)
16-01 Woodside Homes (Tract 917) - (Located West of Centennial Drive and South of Grangeville Blvd)
16-02 Myderup (Tract 914), No. 1 and 2 - (Located East of 12th Avenue and North of Hume Avenue)
18-01 Bella Vista (Tract 918/919), No. 1, 2, and 3 - (Located West of Centennial Drive and South of Fargo Avenue)
19-01 Pacific Grove Addition No. 2 (Tract 916) - (Located East of 12th Avenue and North of Bristol Lane)
19-02 Enclave (Track 915) - (Located South of Lacey Blvd. and West Centennial Ave.) 20-01 Woodside Homes (Track 928) - (Located North of Centennial Ave and South of 12th Ave.) 21-01 San Joaquin Valley Homes (Track 929) - (Located North of 13th Ave and West of Devon St.)

(collectively ²Districts²).

BACKGROUND
In accordance with Chapter 3 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (“Act”), an Annual Engineer’s Report addressing adjustments based on a review of the costs of maintenance of public improvements must be prepared and submitted to the City Council for action. The Streets and Highway Code, as referenced in the Act, requires the holding of a public hearing for Districts identified in the Annual Engineer’s Report as showing an increase, decrease or no change in the annual assessment amount. At the public hearing, to be scheduled for July 19, 2022, the City Council shall consider all public input prior to taking final action on confirming and levying the assessments proposed in the Annual Engineer’s Report.

Regarding the Districts identified in the Annual Engineer’s Report as showing an increase in the annual assessment amount, the City Council must consider all protests against the proposed increase in the assessment amount and tabulate any ballots delivered to the City prior to the close of the public hearing.

If the ballots submitted in opposition to the increased assessment amount exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the increased assessment amount, the assessment amount shall not be increased. If the increase in the assessment to maintain the current level of service for the existing landscape area is voted down, the current level of service may be reduced. In tabulating the ballots, the ballots shall be weighed according to the proportional financial obligation of each affected parcel of real property.

The Annual Engineer’s Report identifies an increase in the annual assessment from the previous

12.J
Packet Pg. 150
year and the reasons for the increase, including the imposition of 2.2% Standard Annual CPI Increase (December 2022) in accordan ce with California Government Code section 53739(b)(1) for the following Districts:

1 .
93-02 Walnut Forest, No. 1, 2 and 3
2 .
97-01 Rosewood Estates
3 .
01-02 Cambridge Homes (Tract 770), No. 1, 2 and 3
4 .
01-04 Silver Oaks, No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
5 .
02-01 Ashton Park, No. 1, 2, 3 and 4
6 .
04-02 Cambridge Homes (Tract 799)/Majesty II (Tract 830) 7 .
04-03 Cambridge Homes (T 795/826)/Vineyards (T 825),
8 .
04-04 Sierra Heights, No. 1 and 2
9 .
06-01 Quail Park Subdivision (Tract 794), No. 1 and 2
1 0
.
09-02 Independence (Tract 843), No. 1 and 2
1 1
.
15-01 Silver Oaks Addition III (Tract 887/922)
1 2
.
15-02 The Greens II (Tract 823)
1 3
.
16-01 Woodside Homes
1 4
.
16-02 Mynderup, No. 1 and 2 (Tract 914)
1 5
.
19-01 Pacific Grove Addition II (Tract 916)
1 6
.
19-02 Pacific Grove Addition II (Tract 916)
1 7
.
20-01 Enclave (Track 915)
1 8
20-02 Woodside Homes (Track 928)

12.J
Packet Pg. 151
.

The annual assessment amounts for each affected parcel identifies a decrease or no change in the annual assessments from the previous fiscal year for the following Districts:

1. 90-01 Pinecastle Addition, Unit 1, 2, 3 and 4

2. 90-02 Park Monterey, Unit No. 1 and 2

3. 90-03 Mansionette Estates, No. 7 and 8

4. 90-04 Hyde Park

5. 91-01 Sierra Vista

6. 92-01 Portofino Estates

7. 92-02 Cielo En Tierra, No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

8. 93-01 Vintage Estates

9. 94-01 Gateway Estates

10. 94-02 Stonecrest, No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9

11. 94-03 Quail Run

12. 97-02 Summer Field

13. 97-03 Country Crossing, No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

14. 98-01 Crystal Springs

15. 98-02 Mountain View Estates, No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6

16. 01-01 Pacific Grove/N. Pointe, No. 1, 2, 3 and 4

17. 01-03 Poppy Hills, No. 1 and 2

18. 03-01 Le Parc, No. 1, 2 and 3

19. 04-01 Sidonia Estates, (Tract 810), No. 1 and 2/ (Tract 814)

20. 05-01 Mission Park

21. 05-02 Copper Valley

22. 07-02 South Gate Addition (Tract 811), Greenbrier Gardens

23. 09-01 Victory Estates

24. 14-01 Independence (Tract 843), Unit No. 3

25. 18-01 Bella Vista, No. 1, 2 and 3 (Tract 918/919)

The Annual Engineer’s Report also provides the following information as required by Article XIII D, Section 4 of the California Constitution:

1. Identifies all parcels of real property which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and upon which the assessment will be imposed.

2. Determines the appropriate special benefit derived by each parcel of the real property in relationships to the entity of the cost of maintenance of the public improvements.

3. Identifies the special benefit conferred on each parcel of real property.

12.J
Packet Pg. 152

4. Establishes that the assessment imposed on each parcel of real property does not exceed the reasonable cost of proportionate special benefit conferred on that parcel of real property.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This year’s Engineer’s Report was prepared by Willdan Financial, previously approved by Council.

In accordance with Proposition 218 and over the entire general benefit. The City’s general benefit contribution is $29,869.

ATTACHMENTS:

RESOLUTION 22-30-R Intention to Levy
Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22)

12.J
Packet Pg. 153
- 1 -
RESOLUTION NO. 22 - 30 - R

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF HANFORD APPROVING
ANNUALENGINEER’S REPORT AND DECLARING

ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT

ASSESSMENTS

At a r e g u l a r meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on June 21, 2022, at 7 :00 p.m., it was moved by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and duly carried that the following resolution be adopted:

WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972 (Act), the City of Hanford has established the following landscape and lighting assessment districts within the City limits of the City of Hanford.

ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS

90-01 Pinecastle Addition, Unit No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 – (Located East of 10th Avenue and North of Fargo Avenue)
90-02 Park Monterey, Unit No. 1 and 2 – (Located West of Douty Street and North of Sherwood Drive)
90-03 Mansionette Estates, No. 7 and 8 – (Located West of Douty Street and North Encore Drive) 90-04 Hyde Park – (Located East of 12th Avenue and North of Hanford-Armona Road)
91-01 Sierra Vista (Tract 641)/New Dimensions (Tract 703/713), No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 – (Located West of 11th Avenue and South of Hanford-Armona Road)
92-01 Portofino, No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 – (Located East of Neill Way and South of Fargo Avenue) 92-02 Cielo En Tierra, No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 – (Located West of 11th Avenue and South of Fargo Avenue)
93-01 Vintage Estates – (Located West of 12th Avenue and North of Grangeville Boulevard) 93-02 Walnut Forest, No. 1, 2 and 3 – (Located West of 11th Avenue and North of Hume Avenue) 94-01 Gateway Estates – (Located West of 10th Avenue and North of Encore Drive) 94-02 Stonecrest, No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 – (Located West of 11th Avenue and North of Fargo Avenue)
94-03 Quail Run Estates, No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 – (Located East of 11th Avenue and North of Pepper Drive)
97-01 Rosewood Estates, No. 1 and 2 – (Located East of 12th Avenue and South of Grangeville Boulevard)
97-02 Summer Field Addition, No. 2 – (Located West 91/4 Avenue and South of Florinda Street) 97-03 Country Crossing, No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 – (Located West of Centennial Drive and North of Lacey Boulevard)
98-01 Crystal Springs, No. 1, 2 and 3 – (Located West of 91/4 Avenue and North of Grangeville Boulevard)

12.J.a
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: RESOLUTION 22-30-R Intention to Levy (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) - 2 -
98-02 Mountain View Estates, No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 – (Located West of 11th Avenue and North of Houston Avenue)
01-01 Pacific Grove (Tract 680/777)/N. Pointe (Tract 778), No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 – (Located East of 12th Avenue and North of Grangeville Boulevard)
01-02 Cambridge Homes (Tract 770), No. 1, 2 and 3 – (Located West of 11th Avenue and North of Pepper Drive)
01-03 Poppy Hills, No. 1 and 2 – (Located West of 11th Avenue and North of Pepper Drive) 01-04 Silver Oaks, No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 – (Located West of 12th Avenue and North of Grangeville Boulevard)
02-01 Ashton Park, No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 – (Located West of 12th Avenue and North of Lacey Boulevard)
03-01 La Parc, No. 1, 2 and 3 – (Located West of 11th Avenue and South of Fargo Avenue) 04-01 Sidonia Estates, No. 1 and 2 (Tract 810)/Sidonia Estates II (Tract 814) – (Located East of 12th Avenue and North of Hume Avenue)
04-02 Cambridge Homes (Tract 799)/Majesty II (Tract 830) – (Located East of 11th Avenue and South of Flint Avenue)
04-03 Cambridge Homes (Tract 795/826)/Vineyards (Tract 825), No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 – (Located East of 12th Avenue and South of Fargo Avenue)
04-04 Sierra Heights (Tract 802/803), No. 1 and 2 – (Located West of 9th Avenue and North of Fargo Avenue)
05-01 Mission Park – (Located West of Highway 43 and South of Flint Avenue) 05-02 Copper Valley – (Located West of 12th Avenue and South of Fargo Avenue) 06-01 Quail Park Subdivision – (Tract 794), No. 1 and 2, Located West of 11th Avenue and South of Flint Avenue)
07-02 South Gate Addition – (Tract 811)/Greenbrier Gardens (876)/ Live Oak North (902) - (Located West of 12th Avenue and South of Hanford-Armona Road)
09-01 Victory Estates – (Located West of University Avenue and North of Grangeville Boulevard) 09-02 Independence (Tract 843), No. 1 and 2 - (Located West of 12th Avenue and North of Greenfield Avenue)
14-01 Independence (Tract 843), No. 3 and 4 - (Located West of 12th Avenue and North of Merritt Street)
15-01 Silver Oaks Addition III (Tract 887/922), No. 1, 2, and 3 - (Located West of Centennial Drive and North of West Berkshire Lane)
15-02 The Greens II (Tract 823) - (Located West of 9 ¼ Avenue and North of Grangeville Boulevard)
16-01 Woodside Homes (Tract 917) – (Located West of Centennial Drive and South of Grangeville Blvd)
16-02 Myderup (Tract 914), No. 1 and 2 – (Located East of 12th Avenue and North of Hume Avenue)
18-01 Bella Vista (Tract 918/919), No. 1, 2, and 3 – (Located West of Centennial Drive and South of Fargo Avenue)
19-01 Pacific Grove Addition No. 2 (Tract 916) – (Located East of 12th Avenue and North of Bristol Lane)
19-02 Enclave (Track 915) – (Located South of Lacey Blvd. and West Centennial Ave.) 20-01 Woodside Homes (Track 928) – (Located North of Centennial Ave and South of 12th Ave.) 21-01 San Joaquin Valley Homes (Track 929) – (Located North of 13th Ave and West of Devon St.)

(collectively Districts).

12.J.a
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: RESOLUTION 22-30-R Intention to Levy (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) - 3 -
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, it is necessary that the City Council review an annual report prepared by the City Engineer for the City of Hanford ( Engineer’s Report), which sets forth a full and detailed description of the improvements and boundaries of each District and any zones therein and the proposed annual assessments to be levied upon assessable lots and parcels of land within each District; WHEREAS, the City Engineer for the City of Hanford has prepared and filed with the City Clerk, an Engineer’s Report which includes: (1) a full and detailed description of the improvements and boundaries of each District and any zones therein; (2) identifies the proposed annual assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within each District; (3) identifies all parcels of real property which will have a special benefit conferred upon th em and upon which the assessment will be imposed; (4) determines the proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel of real property in relationship to the entirety of the cost of maintenance of the public improvements; (5) identifies the special benefit conferred on each parcel of real property; and (6) establishes that the assessment imposed on each parcel of real property does not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportionate special benefit conferred on that parcel of real property.

WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report identifies an increase in the annual assessment from the previous year and the reasons for the increase, including the imposition of 5.5% Annual CPI Increase (December 2022) in accordance with California Government Code section 53739(b)(1) for the following Districts:

1. 93-02 Walnut Forest, No. 1, 2 and 3

2. 01-02 Cambridge Homes (Tract 770), No. 1, 2 and 3

3. 01-04 Silver Oaks, No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

4. 02-01 Ashton Park, No. 1, 2, 3 and 4

5. 04-02 Cambridge Homes (Tract 799)/Majesty II (Tract 830)

6. 04-03 Cambridge Homes (T 795/826)/Vineyards (T 825),

7. 06-01 Quail Park Subdivision (Tract 794), No. 1 and 2

8. 09-02 Independence (Tract 843), No. 1 and 2

9. 15-01 Silver Oaks Addition III (Tract 887/922)

10. 15-02 The Greens II (Tract 823)

11. 16-01 Woodside Homes

12. 16-02 Mynderup, No. 1 and 2 (Tract 914)

13. 18-01 Bella Vista, No. 1, 2 and 3 (Tract 918/919)

14. 19-01 Pacific Grove Addition II (Tract 916)

15. 19-02 Pacific Grove Addition II (Tract 916)

16. 20-01 Enclave (Track 915)

17. 20-02 Woodside Homes (Track 928)

12.J.a
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: RESOLUTION 22-30-R Intention to Levy (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) - 4 -
WHEREAS, the Report identifies a decrease or no change in the annual assessments from the previous fiscal year for the following Districts:

1. 90-01 Pinecastle Addition, Unit 1, 2, 3 and 4

2. 90-02 Park Monterey, Unit No. 1 and 2

3. 90-03 Mansionette Estates, No. 7 and 8

4. 90-04 Hyde Park

5. 91-01 Sierra Vista

6. 92-01 Portofino Estates

7. 92-02 Cielo En Tierra, No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

8. 93-01 Vintage Estates

9. 94-01 Gateway Estates

10. 94-02 Stonecrest, No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9

10. 94-03 Quail Run

11. 97-01 Rosewood Estates

12. 97-02 Summer Field

13. 97-03 Country Crossing, No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

14. 98-01 Crystal Springs

15. 98-02 Mountain View Estates, No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6

16. 01-01 Pacific Grove/N. Pointe, No. 1, 2, 3 and 4

17. 01-03 Poppy Hills, No. 1 and 2

18. 03-01 Le Parc, No. 1, 2 and 3

19. 04-01 Sidonia Estates, (Tract 810), No. 1 and 2/ (Tract 814)

20. 04-04 Sierra Heights, No. 1 and 2

21. 05-01 Mission Park

22. 05-02 Copper Valley

23. 07-02 South Gate Addition (Tract 811), Greenbrier Gardens

24. 09-01 Victory Estates

25. 14-01 Independence (Tract 843), Unit No. 3

WHEREAS, the existing improvements within each District include decorative block fencing, landscaping and irrigation systems;
WHEREAS, interested parties should refer to the Engineer’s Report, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk for the City of Hanford, for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district and any zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the district;
WHEREAS, there are no substantial changes proposed to the existing improvements in any District; and

12.J.a
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: RESOLUTION 22-30-R Intention to Levy (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) - 5 -
WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code Section 22624(e) requires the City Council of the City of Hanford to give notice of the time and place for hea ring by the City’s legislative body on the levy of the proposed assessments.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hanford approves the Engineer’s Report as submitted for each District;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the City Council of the City of Hanford declares its intention to levy and collect the assessments for each respective District and each lot thereof, as set forth in the Engineer’s Report for the fiscal year 2022-2023.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the City Council of the City of Hanford shall hold a public hearing on the levy of the proposed assessments set forth in the Engineer’s Report, which public hearing shall occur on July 19, 2022, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Civic Auditorium in Hanford, California. At such public hearing, affected property owners will be afforded an opportunity to give oral testimony and submit written comments regarding the proposed assessments.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Hanford at a special meeting thereof held on June 21, 2022, by the following vote:

COUNCIL MEMBERS: RAMIREZ, SHARP, MORROW, BRIENO, SULTRAY AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

KALISH MORROW
MAYOR of the City of Hanford

Attest:

___________________________

NATALIE CORRAL

CITY CLERK

12.J.a
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: RESOLUTION 22-30-R Intention to Levy (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R)

City of Hanford

Fiscal Year 2022/2023
Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment
Districts

Incorporating Forty-three District Numbers:
90-01, 90-02, 90-03, 90-04, 91-01, 92-01, 92-02, 93-01, 93-02, 94-01, 94-02, 94-03, 97-01, 97-02, 97-03, 98-01, 98-02, 01-01, 01-02, 01-03, 01-04, 02-01, 03-01, 04-01, 04-02, 04-03, 04-04, 05-01, 05-02, 06-01, 07-02, 09-01, 09-02, 14-01, 15-01, 15-02, 16-01, 16-02, 18-01, 19-01, 19-02, 20-01, and 21-01

Intent Meeting: June 21, 2022
Public Hearing: July 19, 2022

CITY OF HANFORD
400 N. DOUTY ST.

HANFORD, CA 93230

MAY 2022

PREPARED BY

WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES

27368 Via Industria
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
T 951.587.3500 | 800.755.6864
F 951.587.3510

www.willdan.com/financial

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R)

ENGINEER'S REPORT AFFIDAVIT

City of Hanford
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

City of Hanford,
Kings County, State of California

This Report and the enclosed descriptions, budgets and diagram outline the proposed improvements and assessments for the forty -three Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts in the City of Hanford for fiscal year 2022/2023, which includes each lot, parcel, and subdivision of land within District Nos. 90-01, 90-02, 90-03, 90-04, 91-01, 92-01, 92-02, 93-01, 93-02, 94-01, 94-02, 94-03, 97-01, 97-02, 97-03, 98-01, 98-02, 01-01, 01-02, 01-03, 01-04, 02-01, 03-01, 04-01, 04-02, 04-03, 04-04, 05-01, 05-02, 06-01, 07-02, 09-01, 09-02, 14-01, 15-01, 15-02, 16-01, 16-02, 18-01, 19-01, 19-02, 20-01, and 21-01, as the same existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution of Intention. Reference is hereb y made to the Kings County Assessor’s maps for a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of parcels within the Districts. The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Report as directed by the City Council.

Dated this ____________ day of ______________, 2022.

Willdan Financial Services
Assessment Engineer
On Behalf of the City of Hanford
By: ________________________________
Jim McGuire
Principal Consultant, Project Manager
By: ________________________________
Tyrone Peter
PE # C 81888

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R)

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 Report Content and Annual Proceedings ................................................................ 2 Part I - Plans and Specifications .............................................................. 5 Description of Improvements ................................................................................... 5 Specific District Improvements and Services ......................................................... 6 Part II - Method of Apportionment ......................................................... 15 Legislative Requirements for Assessments ......................................................... 15 Benefit Analysis ....................................................................................................... 16 Assessment Methodology ...................................................................................... 18 Part III - Estimate of Costs...................................................................... 20 Annual Inflationary Adjustment (Assessment Range Formula) .......................... 20 Annual District Budgets .......................................................................................... 21 Part IV - District Diagrams ...................................................................... 24 Part V - Assessment Rolls ...................................................................... 69

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

Introduction
The City of Hanford (“City”), under the provisions of the Landscap ing and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (“1972 Act”) and in compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements of the California State Constitution, Article XIII D (“California Constitution”) annually levies and collects special assessments for the City’s Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts designated and referred to as:

(hereafter referred to collectively as “LLMD” and individually as “Districts”) that fund in whole or in part the maintenance and operation of local landscaping or landscaping and lighting improvements that provide special benefits to properties within those individual Districts.

District No. Subdivision Name District No. Subdivision Name 90-01 Pinecastle Addition Units 1 - 4 90-02 Park Monterey Units 1 & 2 90-03 Mansionette Units 7 & 8 90-04 Hyde Park
91-01 Sierra Vista & New Dimensions Units 1 - 5 92-01 Portofino Unit Units 1 - 4 92-02 Cielo En Tierra Units 1 - 5 93-01 Vintage Estates 93-02 Walnut Forest Units 1 - 3 94-01 Gateway Estates
94-02 Stonecrest Units 1 - 9 94-03 Quail Run Estates Units 1 - 5 97-01 Rosewood Estates Units 1 & 2 97-02 Summer Field Addition #2 97-03 Country Crossing Units 1 - 5 98-01 Crystal Springs Units 1 - 3 98-02 Mountain View Estates Units 1 - 6 01-01 Pacific Grove Units 1 - 3 and N. Pointe Units 1 - 4
01-02 Cambridge Homes Units 1 - 3 01-03 Poppy Hills Units 1 & 2 01-04 Silver Oaks Units 1 - 5 02-01 Ashton Park Units 1 - 4 03-01 Le Parc Units 1 - 3 04-01 Sidonia Units 1 & 2 and Sidonia Estates II 04-02 Cambridge Homes/Majesty II, #2 04-03
Cambridge Homes -Majesty II - #2,
Cambridge Homes Units 1 - 6,
Cambridge Homes- Vineyards Units 1 - 4
04-04 Sierra Heights Units 1 & 2 05-01 Mission Park
05-02 Copper Valley 06-01 Quail Park Subdivision
07-02 South Gate Addition, Greenbrier Gardens, &
Live Oak North 09-01 Victory Estates
09-02 Independence Units 1 & 2 14-01 Independence Units 3 & 4 15-01 Silver Oaks Addition III Units 1 and 2, Lennar
Homes Units 1 and 2, and Lennar Homes 15-02 The Greens II 16-01 Woodside Homes 16-02 Mynderup Units 1 & 2
18-01 Bella Vista Units 1 - 4 19-01 Pacific Grove Addition II 19-02 The Enclave 20-01 Woodside Homes
21-01 San Joaquin Valley Homes

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

Report Content and Annual Proceedings
This Consolidated Engineer’s Report (the “ Report”) has been prepared pursuant to Chapter 1, Article 4 and Chapter 3 of the 1972 Act, and presented to the City Council for their consideration and approval of the proposed improvements and services to be provided within the Districts and the levy and collection of annual assessments related thereto for fiscal year 2022/2023. This Report generally describes the improvements, and proposed assessments to be levied in connection with the special benefits the properties will receive from the maintenance and servicing of the improvements within each of the designated Districts for fiscal year 2022/2023. The annual assessments to be levied on properties within these Districts provide a source of funding to fund in whole or in part, the continued operation and maintenance of the landscaping improvements or landscaping and lighting improvements and services to be provided by the City through the Districts that provide special benefits to the properties within each of those Districts and respective developments.

Each fiscal year, the City establishes the District’s assessments based on an estimate of the costs to maintain, operate and service the authorized District improvements and based upon available revenues including assessment revenues, fund balances, general benefit contributions and any additional City contributions from available sources . The costs of the improvements and the proposed annual assessments budgeted and assessed against properties within the District may include, but are not limited to the est imated expenditures for regular annual maintenance and repairs; incidental expenditures related to the operation and administration of the District; deficits or surpluses from prior years (fund balance); revenues from other sources; and the collection of funds for operational reserves and/or periodic repairs, replacements and rehabilitation projects as authorized by the 1972 Act. The net annual cost to provide the improvements for each District are allocated to the benefiting properties within each District respectively based on an established method of apportionment (refer to Assessment Methodology in Section II, Method of Apportionment) that calculates the proportional special benefit and assessment for each parcel within those Districts. Thus, each parcel is assessed proportionately for only those improvements, services, and expenses for which the parcel receives special benefit.

The word “parcel,” for the purposes of this Report, refers to an individual property assigned its own Assessor’s Parcel Number (“APN”) by the Kings County Assessor’s Office. The Kings County Auditor/Controller uses APNs and specific Fund Numbers to identify properties to be assessed on the tax roll for the District assessments.

At a noticed annual Public Hearing, the City Council will accept all public comments and written protests regarding the District s and the annual levy of assessments. Based on those public comments and written protests, the City Council may order amendments to the Report or confirm the Report as submi tted. Following final approval of the Report and confirmation of the assessments, the City Council will by Resolution, order the improvements to be made and confirm the levy and collection of assessments for fiscal year 2022/2023 pursuant to the 1972 Act. The assessment for each parcel as approved will be placed on the fiscal year 2022/2023 property tax roll by the Kings County Auditor/Controller and collected together and in the same manner as other property taxes for such parcels.

As required by the 1972 Act, this Engineer’s Report describes the improvements to be provided, maintained, and serviced by the District s, an estimated budget for the improvements for each District, and the proposed assessments to be levied upon each assessable lot or parcel within those Districts for fiscal year 2022/2023.

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

This Report consists of five (5) parts:

Part I
Plans and Specifications: This section contains a general description of the District s, and the improvements and services that provide special benefits to the parcels within those Districts. The improvements and appurtenant facilities that provide special benefits to the properties within the Districts and for which parcels are assessed may include, but not limited to local landscaping, neighborhood parks, basins, street lights, and related amenities as well as associated incidental expenses (City Administration expenses and County Fees), and fund balances authorized by the 1972 Act. The plans and specifications contained in this Report generally describe the nature and extent of the improvements . More detailed information regarding the specific plans and specifications associated with the improvements in each District may be on file in the Public Works Department and by reference are made part of this Report.

Part II
Method of Apportionment: This section includes a discussion of the general and special benefits associated with the improvements to be provided within the District s (Benefit Analysis), which includes a discussion of the proportional costs of the special benefits and a separation of costs considered to be of general benefit (and therefore not assessed). This section of the Report also outlines the basis upon which the estimated costs to provide such improvements are apportioned to each parcel of land within the Districts in proportion to the special benefits to be received. (the method of calculating each property’s proportional special benefit assessment ). This method of apportionment is consistent with the previously approved and adopted method of apportionment for each District.

Part III
Estimate of Costs : Identifies the estimated annual funding costs ( budgets) required for the maintenance and operation of the improvements in each of the Districts, including, but not limited to, annual maintenance and service expenses, utility costs, related incidental expenses, and fund balances authorized by the 1972 Act and deemed appropriate to support the improvements, even though not all costs identified in these budgets are necessarily supported fully by the current assessment revenues. Those improvements and/or costs determined to be of general benefit shall be funded by a City contribution. In addition to the general benefit costs, the City may provide additional funding to support the maintenance and operation of the improvements considered to be of special benefit. Ultimately, City staff shall make the determination of which improvements, and the extent of the services and activities that shall be provided based on available revenues.

This section also identifies and outlines an Assessment Range Formula (inflationary adjust) that has been previously approved and adopted for specified Districts (most but not all Districts), which provides for an annual adjustment to the maximum assessment rates, which establishes limits on future assessments, but also provides for reasonable cost adjustments due to inflation.

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

Part IV
District/ Diagrams: This section of the Report contains a diagram showing the general location and boundaries of the Districts for fiscal year 2022/2023 which incorporate the parcels determined to receive special benefits from the improvements in each District. The lines and dimensions of each lot, parcel, and subdivision of land contained in the diagram for each District is inclusive of the parcels listed in “Part V - Assessment Roll” of this Report and the corresponding County Assessor’s parcel maps for said parcels as they existed at the time this Report was prepared and shall incorporate all subsequent subdivisions, lot -line adjustments, or parcel changes therein.

Reference is hereby made to the Kings County Assessor’s maps for a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of each lot and parcel of land within the Districts.

Part V
Assessment Roll: The assessment amounts to be levied and collected in fiscal year 2022/2023 for each parcel is provided in the Assessment Roll , and these assessments are based on the parcel’s calculated proportional special benefit as outlined in Part II - Method of Apportionment and the annual assessment rates established by the estimated budgets (refer to Part III Estimate of Costs).

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, portion, zone, or subzone of this Engineer’s Report is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Engineer’s Report and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, portion, zone, or subzone thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, portions, zones, or subzone s might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

Part I - Plans and Specifications
The purpose of th e Districts (collectively the LLMD) is to provide in part through annual assessments, funding for the ongoing installation, maintenance, operation, and servicing of local landscaping, neighborhood parks, and related appurtenant facilities and services in specified areas of the City as well a s local street lighting within some Districts. The territory within each District consists of all lots or parcels of land that receive special benefits from the installation, maintenance, operation and servicing of the local public improvements and related amenities associated with the developments and Tracts within each of those Districts.

Description of Improvements
As authorized by the 1972 Act, the improvements provided by the District s and associated with each development incorporate various local improvements and/or street lighting and related amenities installed in connection with the development of those properties and are maintained and serviced for the benefit of real property within those developments. Improvements provided within the Districts may include but are not limited to:
➢ Landscaping and related facilities and amenities located within designated street medians, parkway and streetscape side -panels, and entryways within the public right of ways or easements adjacent to public right of ways; and within public places including greenbelt areas, open spaces, and neighborhood parks within each respective District. These improvements may include, but are not limited to:
• various landscape materials such as trees, turf, shrubs, vines, ground cover, annual or perineal plantings;
• irrigation and drainage systems including but not limited to pipes, fixtures, controllers, and water and electrical meters;
• specified amenities such as monuments, ornamental lighting, block walls, retaining walls, or other fencing;
• hardscape surfaces and areas including decomposed granite, mulch, asphalt, stamped concrete, pavers, and other trail and/or path surfaces; and • recreational amenities within the parks, parks/basins, trails, or greenbelts that may include benches, play structures, picnic or other recreational facilities, signage, and related appurtenances.

The maintenance of these improvements may include, but is not limited to the scheduled mowing, trimming, pruning, fertilization, pest control, weed and graffiti abatement; installation, replacement, and rehabilitation of the landscaping ; repair or replacem ent of irrigation or drainage systems; and repair or replacement of hardscape improvements and recreational amenities.
➢ Street lighting improvements located in the public right of ways within and on the perimeter of the developments associated with specific Districts and the parcels and developments therein.

Street lighting improvements include energy costs and maintenance of the lighting facilities including, but not limited to the removal, repair, replacement or relocation of light standards, poles, bulbs, fixtures, and related equipment and materials.

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

The work to be perf ormed within each respective District may include but is not limited to (as applicable), the personnel, materials, equipment, electricity, water, contract services, repair and rehabilitation of the improvements, and incidental expenses. The City Public Wor ks Department shall authorize and schedule such maintenance and servicing as need and based on available funding.

Specific District Improvements and Services
As previously noted, there are forty -three (43) designated Districts within the City for which assessments are proposed to be levied and collected to maintain, operate and service the proposed improvements for fiscal year 2022/2023. The boundaries of each District are established on the basis of the location, extent and types of improvements being maintained and the proximity and direct benefit those specific improvement provide to the immediately surrounding developments, planned developments, and parcels, as well as th e nexus and observation that the developments and/or planned development of the properties within the each District clearly required or otherwise facilitated the installation of the improvements to be maintained and that such improvements (both landscaping and lighting) would otherwise not be necessary if not for the development of those properties. Therefore, the benefit s to the immediately surrounding properties and developments for which the improvements were constructed and installed and/or were facilitated by the development or potential development of properties within each respective District are clearly particular and distinct (special benefits).

Landscape Service Levels
As part of the ongoing maintenance and servicing of the landscape improvements associated with each District, the City has established various maintenance frequency referred to as S ervice Levels. These Service Levels provide general guidelines for how often the landscape improvement areas are serviced based on over all maintenance needs and/or available assessment funding. For most Districts, the various landscape improvements or improvement areas within a District are maintained at the same level of service, but in some Districts two or more Service Levels may be applicable based on the nature and/or location of the improvements.

At present, the City has established five Service Levels summarized as follows:
➢ Service Level A – Landscape improvements are serviced every week; ➢ Service Level B – Landscape improvements are serviced e very week (March through October) and every two weeks (November through February); ➢ Service Level C – Landscape improvements are serviced every two weeks; ➢ Service Level D – Landscape improvements are serviced every two weeks (March through October) and every four weeks (November through February); and ➢ Service Level E – Landscape improvements are serviced once every month.

Currently all improvements in the District are maintained at Service Levels A, B, C or D.

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District Improvements
The following is a brief summary and description of the improvements to be maintained within each District for fiscal year 2022/2023.

District 90-01: Pinecastle Addition Units 1 through 4
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 352 lots) include, but are not limited to Tracts 606, 606-2, 606-3, and 606 -4. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 67,750 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A, including the 11,532 square feet associated with the park/basin area.

District 90-02: Park Monterey Units 1 and 2
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 53 lots) include but are not limited to Tracts 610 and 657. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 8,625 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level D.

District 90-03: Mansionette Units 7 and 8
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 84 lots) include but are not limited to Tracts 596 and 596-2. The properties within this District pr oportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 16,425 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level D.

District 90-04: Hyde Park
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 14 lots) include but are not limited to Tract 619. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 1,425 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level B.

District 91-01: Sierra Vista and New Dimensions Units 1 through 5 The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 285 lots) include, but are not limited t o Tracts 641, 703, 703-2, 713-3, 713-4, and 713-5. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 12,974 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level D.

District 92-01: Portofino Unit Units 1 through 4
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 78 lots) include, but are not limited to Tracts 607, 607-2, 607-3, and 607 -4. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 19,167 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level D.

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 92-02: Cielo En Tierra Units 1 through 5
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 98 lots) include, but are not limited to Tracts 652, 652-2, 652 -3, 652 -4, and 652 -5. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 11,735 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level D.

District 93-01: Vintage Estates
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 29 lots) include but are not limited to Tract 634. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 10,346 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A. The assessments for this District also fund in whole or in part the six (6) street lights identified within the District boundaries.

District 93-02: Walnut Forest Units 1 through 3
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 169 lots) include, but are not limited to Tracts 673, 673-2, and 673 -3. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and ope ration of an estimated 15,637 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A, including the 3,537 square feet associated with slough frontage.

District 94-01: Gateway Estates
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 114 lots) include but are not limited to Tract 712.

The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 8,185 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level D, including the 5,460 square feet associated with the basin area.

District 94-02: Stonecrest Units 1 through 9
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 654 lots) include, but are not limited to Tracts 708, 708-2, 727-3, 727-4, 727-5, 727-6, 727-7, 727-8, and 727 -9. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 173,903 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level D for the 51,578 square feet of railroad frontage, Service Level B for the 14,765 square feet of the landscape area, and Service Level A for the remaining 122,325 square feet of landscaping including the 54,450 square feet of basin area.

District 94-03: Quail Run Estates Units 1 through 5
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 272 lots) include, but are not limited to Tracts 696, 696-2, 696 -3, 696 -4, and 696 -5. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 111,188 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level B.

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 97-01: Rosewood Estates Units 1 and 2
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 44 lots) include but are not limited to Tracts 711 and 711-2. The properties within this District proportion ately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 6,300 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level D.

District 97-02: Summer Field Addition #2
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 30 lots) include but are not limited to Tract 742. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 4,650 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level D.

District 97-03: Country Crossing Units 1 through 5
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 251 lots) include, but are not limited to Tracts 743, 743-2, 743 -3, 772 -4, and 772 -5. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 46,415 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A.

District 98-01: Crystal Springs Units 1 through 3
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 126 lots) include, but are not limited to Tracts 747, 747-2, and 747 -3. The properties within this District propo rtionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 14,435 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A.

District 98-02: Mountain View Estates Units 1 through 6 The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 162 lots) include, but are not limited to Tracts 759, 759-2, 759-3, 759-4, 759-5, and 759-6. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 30,991 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A.

District 01-01: Pacific Grove Units 1 through 3 and N. Pointe Units 1 through 4 The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 148 lots) include, but are not limited to Tracts 680, 777-2, 778-3, and 778 -4. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 12,152 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A including the 3,530 square feet associated with the basin area.

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 01-02: Cambridge Homes Units 1 through 3
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 198 lots) include, but are not limited to Tracts 770, 770-2, and 770 -3. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 35,222 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level D for the 22,790 square feet of railroad frontage and Service Level A for the remaining 12,432 square feet of landscaping.

District 01-03: Poppy Hills Units 1 and 2
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 86 lots) include but are not limited to Tracts 771 and 796-2. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servic ing, and operation of an estimated 11,782 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A.

District 01-04: Silver Oaks Units 1 through 5
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 489 lots) include, but are not limited to Tracts 769, 769-2, 769 -3, 769 -4, and 769 -5. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 95,556 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A.

District 02-01: Ashton Park Units 1 through 4
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 182 lots) include, but are not limited to Tracts 776, 776-2, 776-3, and 776-4. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 63,922 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A.

District 03-01: Le Parc Units 1 through 3
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 128 lots) include, but are not limited to Tracts 788, 788-2, and 788 -3. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 30,628 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A including the 21,858 square feet associated with the railroad frontage.

District 04-01: Sidonia Units 1 and 2 and Sidonia Estates II The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 233 lots) include but are not limited to Tracts 810 and 810-2. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 21,533 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A.

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 04-02: Cambridge Homes and Cambridge Homes/Majesty II, #2 The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 75 lots) include but are not limited to Tracts 799 and 830. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 63 ,824 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A including the 8,440 square feet associated with the basin area. The assessments for this District also fund in whole or in part, the eleven (11) street lights identified within the District boundaries.

District 04-03: Cambridge Homes, Cambridge Homes - Majesty II - #2, Cambridge Homes Units 1 through 6, Cambridge Homes - Vineyards Units 1 through 4 The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 424 lots) include, but are not limited to Tracts 795, 795-2, 799, 825-3, 826-4, 826-5, and 830. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 167,767 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A including the 19,929 square feet associated with the railroad frontage and the 77,548 square feet associated with the park area. The assessments for this District also fund in whole or in part, the sixty-three (63) street lights identified within the District boundaries.

District 04-04: Sierra Heights Units 1 & 2
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 16 lots) include but are not limited to Tracts 802 and 803. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 15,237 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A.

District 05-01: Mission Park
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 40 lots) include but are not limited to Tract 812. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special be nefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 4,930 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A including the 2,537 square feet associated with the basin area.

District 05-02: Copper Valley
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 150 lots) include but are not limited to Tract 835.

The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 44,126 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A.

District 06-01: Quail Park Subdivision #2
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 144 lots) include but are not limited to Tract 794.

The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 148,501 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintain ed at Service Level B for the park area (95,551 square feet) and Service Level D for the 52,950 square feet of railroad frontage.

The assessments for this District also fund in whole or in part the twenty-four (24 )street lights identified within the District boundaries.

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 07-02: South Gate Addition, Greenbrier Gardens, and Live Oak North The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 129 lots) include, but are not limited to Tracts 811, 876, and 902. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 29,440 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A. The assessments for this District also fund in whole or in part, the thirteen (13) street lights identified within the District boundaries.

District 09-01: Victory Estates
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 14 lots) include but are not limited to Tract 877. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 7,077 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A. The assessments for this District also fund in whole or in part the two (2) street lights identified within the District boundaries.

District 09-02: Independence Units 1 and 2
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 121 lots) include but are not limited to Tract 843.

The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operat ion of an estimated 56,252 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level B including the 20,558 square feet of park area. The assessments for this District also fund in whole or in part the eighteen (18) street lights identified within the District boundaries.

District 14-01: Independence Units 3 and 4
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 175 lots) include but are not limited to Tract 843.

The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 76,555 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A. The assessments for this Dis trict also fund in whole or in part the twenty-nine ( 29) street lights identified within the District boundaries.

District 15-01: Silver Oaks Addition III Units 1 and 2, Lennar Homes Units 1 and 2, and Lennar Homes
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 468 lots) include, but are not limited to Tracts 887, 887-2, 922, and 927. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 412,396 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A. The assessments for this District also fund in whole or in part, the ninety-four (94) street lights identified within the District boundaries.

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 15-02: The Greens II
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 34 lots) include but are not limited to Tract 823. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimate d 16,416 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level B. The assessments for this District also fund in whole or in part the eight (8) street lights identified within the District boundaries.

District 16-01: Woodside Homes
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 60 lots) include but are not limited to Tract 917. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 25,206 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A. The assessments for this District also fund in whole or in part the nineteen (19) street lights identified within the District boundaries.

District 16-02: Mynderup Units 1 and 2
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 113 lots) include but are not limited to Tracts 914 and 914-2. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special bene fit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 31,363 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level C. The assessments for this District also fund in whole or in part, the sixteen (16) street lights identified within the District boundaries.

District 18-01: Bella Vista Units 1 through 4
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 267 lots) include but are not limited to Tracts 918 and 919. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 185,001 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A. The assessments for this District also fund in whole or in part, the fifty-four (54) street lights identified within the District boundaries.

District 19-01: Pacific Grove Addition II
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 22 lots) include but are not limited to Tract 916. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 13,128 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A. The assessments for this District also fund in whole or in part the eight (8) street lights identified within the District boundaries.

District 19-02: The Enclave
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 26 lots) include but are not limited to Tract 915. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 16,466 s quare feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A.

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 20-01: Woodside Homes
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 81 lots) include but are not limited to Tract 928. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 143,413 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvem ents are maintained at Service Level A. The assessments for this District also fund in whole or in part the twenty-four (24) street lights identified within the District boundaries.

District 21-01: San Joaquin Valley Homes
The parcels assessed in this District (totaling 52 lots) include but are not limited to Tract 929. The properties within this District proportionately share and receive special benefit from the maintenance, servicing, and operation of an estimated 134,540 square feet of designated landscape improvement area. These improvements are maintained at Service Level A. The assessments for this District also fund in whole or in part the twenty-three ( 23) street lights identified within the District boundaries.

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

Part II - Method of Apportionment
Legislative Requirements for Assessments
The estimated costs to provide the proposed improvements for fiscal year 2022/2023 have been identified and allocated to properties within the Districts based on special benefit, consistent with the requirements of the 1972 Act and the assessment provisions of Proposition 218 (being contained in Article XIII D of the California Constitution ). The improvements provided by th ese Districts and for which properties are assessed include local parks, basins, landscaping, and lighting improvements, as well as related amenities . The formula s used for calculating assessments within the designated Districts herein reflect the composition of parcel s and the improvements and services to be provided and fairly apportion the cost of providing those improvements based on a determination of the proportional special benefits to each parcel.

Provisions of the 1972 Act
The 1972 Act permits the establishment of assessment districts by agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements, including the acquisition, construction, installation and servicing of landscape improvements and related facilities. The 1972 Act requires that the cost of these improvements be levied according to benefit rather than assessed value:

Section 22573 defines the net amount to be assessed as follows:
“The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.”
Provisions of the California Constitution
In addition to the provisions of the 1972 Act, the Article XIII D of the California Constitution outlines specific requirements regarding assessments including the following:

Article XIII D Section 2d defines District as follows:
“District means an area determined by an agency to contain all parcels which will receive a special benefit from a proposed public improvement or property-related service”; Article XIII D Section 2i defines Special Benefit as follows:
“Special benefit” means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large. General enhancement of property value does not constitute “special benefit.” Article XIII D Section 4a defines proportional special benefit assessments as follows:
“An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed. The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel.”

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

Benefit Analysis
Special Benefits
Landscaping Special Benefit
The ongoing maintenance of landscaped areas within the various Districts addressed in this Report, provide aesthetic benefits to the properties and a more pleasant environment to walk, drive, live , and/or work. The primary function of these landscape improvements and related amenities is to serve as an aesthetically pleasing enhancement and green space for the benefit of the immediately surrounding properties and developments for which the improvements wer e constructed and installed and/or were facilitated by the development or potential development of properties within each respective District. These landscape improvements are an integral part of the physical environment associated with the parcels in each District and while some of the improvements may in part be visible to properties outside the District, collectively if the District improvements are not properly maintained, it is the parcels within the District that would be aesthetically burdened. Additionally, the many of the landscaped areas being maintained in these Districts serve as both a physical buffer as well as a sound reduction buffer between the roadways and/or railroad and the properties within the District and also serve as a pleasant aesth etic amenity that enhances the approach to the parcels. In some Districts, the landscaped areas may include green space areas (neighborhood parks, park/basins, greenbelts, open space and/or trails) that may provide a physical buffer between properties, ove rall open space within a development, and/or recreational areas that serve as an extension of the physical attributes of the parcels being assessed. Thus, the maintenance of these landscaped improvements and the related amenities provide particular and dis tinct benefit s to the properties and developments associated with those improvements within each District.

Street Lighting Special Benefit
The street lighting (localized street lighting) is primarily useful for illuminating the sidewalks and parking lanes on the streets used specifically to access the properties and/or is adjacent to those properties that comprise each particular District. This lighting is distinct from lights that may be installed that serve in large part to enhance traffic safety, such as traffic signals and intersection safety lights or the more sporadic lighting found on major thoroughfares outside the more concentrated development areas. These localized street lights tend to be more closely spaced and of a lower intensity than street lights installed primarily for traffic safety. These low -level, lower-intensity street lights within a designated District provide three main special benefits: (i) property security benefit, (ii) pedestrian safety benefit, and (iii) parkway/roadway egress benefit.

Because traffic to and from these parcels is largely limited to the residents and residents’ guests, it is reasonable to assume that essentially all pedestrians and parking vehicles in the lit areas will, after dark, be directly associated with the properties in th at District and that the vehicular traffic on those streets is primarily for accessing the properties within that area. Therefore, street lighting on such streets is entirely a special benefit to those properties.

In addition, the street lights for which properties within the District s may be assessed, are consistent with the City’s typical intensity and spacing standards for areas zoned for residential development and ea ch parcel to be assessed is served directly by the system of street lights providing appropriate lighting within these respective development areas. Furthermore, the cost of maintaining and operating each light is substantially the same, regardless of its location within the District. Consequently, we conclude that each parcel to be assessed for street lighting receives substantially similar benefit from the street light improvements and the only notable distinctions in proportional special benefit to each parcel is related to the specific quantity of lights associated with each District.

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

General Benefit
Landscaping General Benefit
In reviewing the location and extent of the specific landscaped areas and improvements to be funded by each District’s assessments and the proximity and relationship to properties to be assessed in each District, it is evident these improvements were primarily installed in connection with the development of properties therein or are improvements that would otherwise be shared by and required for development of properties in each respective District. It is also evident that the maintenance of these improvements and the level of maintenance provided has a direct and particular impact (special benefit) only on those properties in proximity to those improvements .

Furthermore, such maintenance beyond that which is required to ensure the safety and protection of the general public and property in general, has no quantifiable benefit to the public at large or properties outside each respective District.

In the absence of a special funding District, the City would typically provide only limited (as needed) tree management, weed abatement, rodent control, and erosion control services for the landscape areas currently maintained within each District. This baseline level of service would typically provide for periodic servicing of the improvement areas on an as -needed basis, but typically not more than twice annually. This baseline level of service provides for public safety and essential property protection to avoid negative impacts on adjacent roadways and vehicles traveling on those roadways and potential property damage resulting from erosion or fire hazards but results in a far less visually pleasing environment than is created with the enhanced levels of services associated with the regular landscape maintenance provided in the various Districts. For most agencies, the cost to provide this baseline level of ser vice for mostly flat or moderately- sloped street landscaped areas (landscaping within the street right-of way) is less than $560 per acre (approximately $0.01285 per square foot) including medians, parkway and streetscape side panels; less than $448 per ac re (approximately $0.01028 per square foot) for non -street public areas such as parks, park/basins, greenbelts, and trail areas; and less than $224 per acre (approximately $0.00514 per square foot) for natural open space areas or other limited access areas such as enclosed basin areas . This baseline servicing, unlike the enhanced aesthetic services funded through the District assessments, would provide benefits to the general public and to the properties both within and outside of the specific Districts. The cost of providing this baseline service along with a five percent (5%) cost factor for City overhead and administration is treated as the cost of general benefit from landscape maintenance services. Therefore, for mostly flat or moderately-sloped street landscaped areas a rate of $0.01349 per square foot ($0.01285 +5%) is applied to calculate the general benefit costs for the assessed improvements; for non - street public areas a rate of $0.01079 per square foot ($0.01028 +5%) is applied to calculate the general benefit costs for the assessed improvements; and for non -street public areas a rate of $0.00540 per square foot ($0.00514 +5%) is applied to calculate the general benefit costs for the assessed improvements. Collectively these baseline general benefit costs are funded by the City and excluded from the potential assessment funding and are shown in the District budgets (Part III of this Report) as “General Benefit.”

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

Street Lighting General Benefit
For fiscal year 2022/2023, not all Districts are assessed for street light improvements. While potentially, some street lights associated with a given District, may be located at the entryway or on the perimeter of the development(s) within the District and may arguably provide some illumination that extends beyond the boundaries of the developments and parcels being assessed, and may indirectly enhance the safety of members of the public unassociated with the assessed parcel s (illuminating traffic lanes and/or parking on those perimeter streets), such benefits are considered an indirect consequence of the special benefits to properties within the Districts. Furthermore, if the properties within the Districts were not developed , any street lights that may be located at the entryways or on the perimeter of the developments would not have been installed. Clearly these street lights exist solely because of the development of assessed parcels, and the primary purpose of these lights is to provide illumination to access the assessed parcels, Therefore we conclude that the cost of providing the street lights within the existing Districts are entirely a special benefit to the properties being assessed in each District and there is no quantifiable general benefit to properties outside the Districts or the public at large.

Assessment Methodology
To assess benefits equitably it is necessary to calculate each property’s proportionate special benefits conferred by the funded improvements and s ervice. The Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) method of assessment apportionment is commonly utilized for assessment districts formed under the 1972 Act, as the benefit to each parcel from the improvements may be apportioned as a function of comparable property characteristics which utilizes a basic unit (base value) of benefit and then calculates the benefit derived by each asses sed parcel either at that base unit or as a multiple (or a fraction) of that basic unit. In accordance with the provisions of the California Constitution and the 1972 Act, the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel within the vario us Districts shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost to maintain, operate and service the improvements within each District. Consistent with the method of apportionment established at the formation of each District, it has been dete rmined that the developments and/or planned development of the properties within each District required or facilitated the installation of the improvements to be funded in whole or in part by the District assessments and that such improvements (both landsc aping and lighting) would otherwise not be necessary and those improvements benefit each lot/parcel equally. Therefore, collectively the particular and distinct benefits to each lot/parcel within each respective District are equally shared and one hundred percent (100%) of the fiscal year 2022/2023 special benefit expenses is proportionately and equally allocated and shared by each development lot and each of these parcels/lots are assigned one (1.0) EBU, excluding parcels or lots that may be part of the improvement areas being maintained.

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

Calculation of Assessments
An assessment amount per Lot or Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) in each District is calculated by:

Taking the “Total Annual Expenses” (Total budgeted costs) and subtracting the “General Benefit” (Expenses Funded by the City), to establish the “Special Benefit Expenses”; Total Annual Expenses - General Benefit = Special Benefit Expenses To the resulting “Special Benefit Expenses”, various “Funding Adjustments” may be applied that may include, but are not limited to:
➢ “Reserve Fund Collection or (Transfer)”, represents an amount being collected and added to the Reserve Fund or available existing Reserve Funds being applied (“Transferred”) to pay a portion of the Special Benefit Expenses for the fiscal year. ➢ “City Loan and/or Service Reductions”, represents a further adjustment that addresses the funding gap between the amount budgeted to provide the improvements and services (“Special Benef it Expenses ”); and the amount that will be collected through the assessments. This funding gap may be addressed by an additional City contribution, reductions in service and service expenses, or a combination of the two. If the City provides an additional City Contribution to support the operation and maintenance for a given fiscal year, that contribution is carried forward as a deficit applied to the Beginning Fund Balance in the next fiscal year.

These adjustments to the Special Benefit Expenses result in the net special benefit amount to be assessed “Balance to Levy”;
Special Benefit Expenses +/- Funding Adjustments = Balance to Levy The amount identified as the “Balance to Levy” is divided by the total number of Lots or EBUs for the parcels that receive special benefit to establish the “Assessment Rate” for the fiscal year. This Rate is then applied back to each parcel’s individual EBU to calculate the parcel’s proportionate special benefit and assessment for the improvements.

Balance to Levy / Total Lots/EBUs = Assessment Rate (for the fiscal year) Assessment Rate x Parcel’s EBU = Parcel Assessment Amount

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

Part III - Estimate of Costs
Annual Inflationary Adjustment (Assessment Range Formula) Pursuant to Article XIII D of the California Constitution (Proposition 218), any “new or increased assessments” require certain noticing and balloting requirements. However, Government Code Section 54954.6(a) provides that a “new or increased assessment” does not include “ an assessment which does not exceed an assessment formula or range of assessments...previously adopted by the agency or approved by the voters in the area where the assessment is imposed.” This definition of a new or increased assessment is reaffirmed in the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act, Government Code Section 53753.5.

Currently, the maximum assessment rates identified in this Report for Districts 90 -01, 90 -02, 90-03, 90-04, 91-01, 92-01, 92-02, 93-01, 94-01, 94-02, 94-03, 97-01, 97-02, 97-03, 98-01, and 98-02 are fixed maximum assessment rates that do not include any inflationary adjustment.

However, either at the time of formation or in a subsequent proceeding the maximum assessments for Districts 93-02, 01-01, 01-02, 01-03, 01-04, 02-01, 03-01, 04-01, 04-02, 04-03, 04-04, 05 -01, 05 -02, 06 -01, 07-02, 09-01, 09 -02, 14 -01, 15 -01, 15 -02, 16 -01, 16-02, 18-01, 19-01, 19-02, 20-01, and 21-01 were balloted for a new or increased assessment s that include an inflationary adjustment (assessment range formula).

As previously adopted and approved by the City Council for the Districts with an inflationary adjustment, each fiscal year the maximum assessment rate established for the improvements in the previous fiscal year for each District may be adjusted by the percentage increase in the Local Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Consumer Price Index used for the inflationary adjustment shall be for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, San Francisco -Oakland-San Jose Area, as developed by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The CPI used shall be as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for a similar period of time.

January 1, of each calendar year (“Adjustment Date”), the City shall identify the percentage change in the CPI, using the difference over a 12-month period between the current year and of the previous year as of the Adjustment Date (typically December to December). This percentage difference shall then establish the range of increase to the maximum assessment rates allowed.

If the percentage change in the CPI is negative, the maximum assessment rates shall not be adjusted from the previous fiscal year (unchanged). Should the Bureau of Labor Statistics revise such index or discontinue the preparation of such index, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will be the sole judge of the comparability of successive indexes, but if the Bureau of Labor Statistics fail to supply indexes it deems comparable or if no succeeding index is published, the City shall determine an appropriate published price index as approved by the City Council for determining fluctuations in the cost of living.

The annual chan ge in CPI from December 20 20 to December 202 1 as reported by the U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics was 5.5 percent. Therefore, the maximum assessment rates for fiscal year 2021/2022 will be increased by 5.5 percent for fiscal year 2022/2023 in those Districts with a previously approved inflationary adjustment including, Districts 93-02, 01-01, 01-02, 01-03, 01- 04, 02-01, 03-01, 04-01, 04-02, 04-03, 04-04, 05-01, 05-02, 06-01, 07-02, 09-01, 09-02, 14-01, 15-01,15-02,16-01,16-02, 18-01, 19-01, 19-02, 20-01, and 21-01.

This assessment range formula or inflationary adjustment provides for the District maximum assessment rate applicable for the prior fiscal year to be increased each subsequent fiscal year

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

which is consistent with the California Constitution and the above-referenced Government Code sections.

The adoption of the maximum assessment rates and the Assessment Range Formula does not mean that the annual assessments will necessarily increase each fiscal year, nor does it absolutely restrict the assessments to the annually adjusted maximum assessment rate. Although the maximum assessment rate that may be levied shall be increased by this assessment range formula for each applicable District each fiscal year, the actual amount to be assessed will be based on the Balance to Levy for that fiscal year. If the calculated assessment rate is less than the adjusted maximum assessment rate, then the calculated assessment rate may be approved by the City Council for collection. If the calculated assessment rate (based o n the proposed budget) is greater than the adjusted maximum assessment rate for that fiscal year, then the assessment would be considered an increased assessment and would require property owner approval through a protest ballot proceeding before imposing such an increase. Otherwise, it would be necessary to reduce the budget or provide funding from other sources to the City to reduce the Balance to Levy to an amount that can be supported by an assessment rate less than or equal to the adjusted maximum assessment rate authorized for that fiscal year.

Annual District Budgets
The following budget pages outline the estimated costs to maintain and service the various landscaping and lighting improvements described in this Report for fiscal year 2022/2023.

The budgeted expenses outlined in the following pages for each District reflect the estimated annual expenses required to support and maintain the improvements to be provided for fiscal year 2022/2023. T he Total Annual Expenses , minus the gener al benefit expenses (expenses not assessed and identified as the City’s financial obligation to support the improvements) plus any Reserve Fund Collection result in the amount of funding the property owners should reasonably be assessed to fully fund their proportional special benefit from those improvements . Negative Funding Adjustments (Reserve Fund Transfers or City Loan and/or Service Reductions) represent additional funding that is required from either the existing Reserve Funds or from the City to fully support the improvement maintenance and services.

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

Budgets for Fund Numbers 0240 through 0261 (Districts 90-01 through 02-01)

Fund
No.

District
No.

Direct
Maintenance
Expenses
Incidental
Expenses
(Admin.)
Total Annual
Expenses
General
Benefit
Special
Benefit
Expenses
Reserve Fund
Collection or
(Transfer)
City Loan and/or
Service
Reductions
Balance to
Levy
Lots
(EBUs)
FY 22-23
Assessment
Rate
Maximum
Assessment
Rate
Beginning
Fund Balance
Fund Balance
Additions or
Deficits
Estimated
Ending Fund
Balance
0240 90-01 33,984$ 5,565$ 39,549$ (883)$ 38,666$ 10,437$ -$ 49,103$ 352 $139.50 $139.50 35,289$ 10,437$ 45,726$ 0241 90-02 2,819$ 794$ 3,612$ (116)$ 3,496$ 850$ -$ 4,346$ 53 $82.00 $82.00 2,975$ 850$ 3,825$ 0242 90-03 3,676$ 1,382$ 5,058$ (222)$ 4,836$ -$ (712)$ 4,124$ 84 $49.10 $49.10 (2,151)$ (712)$ (2,863)$ 0243 90-04 1,045$ 160$ 1,205$ (19)$ 1,186$ (297)$ (16)$ 872$ 14 $62.30 $62.30 (1,254)$ (313)$ (1,568)$ 0244 91-01 4,173$ 1,577$ 5,750$ (142)$ 5,608$ -$ (393)$ 5,215$ 285 $18.30 $18.30 (731)$ (393)$ (1,125)$ 0245 92-01 4,321$ 1,524$ 5,845$ (259)$ 5,586$ -$ (1,624)$ 3,962$ 78 $50.80 $50.80 (5,178)$ (1,624)$ (6,802)$ 0246 92-02 2,030$ 1,026$ 3,055$ (158)$ 2,897$ (84)$ -$ 2,813$ 98 $28.70 $28.70 141$ (84)$ 57$ 0247 93-01 3,309$ 817$ 4,126$ (140)$ 3,986$ 474$ -$ 4,460$ 29 $153.80 $153.80 3,879$ 474$ 4,353$ 0248 93-02 5,053$ 1,453$ 6,506$ (201)$ 6,305$ 1,303$ -$ 7,608$ 169 $45.02 $45.03 (6,920)$ 1,303$ (5,617)$ 0249 94-01 4,142$ 835$ 4,978$ (66)$ 4,911$ -$ (1,936)$ 2,976$ 114 $26.10 $26.10 (8,485)$ (1,936)$ (10,421)$ 0250 94-02 43,759$ 10,520$ 54,278$ (1,488)$ 52,790$ (6,806)$ -$ 45,984$ 541 $85.00 $85.00 (1,923)$ (6,806)$ (8,728)$ 0251 94-03 20,335$ 1,958$ 22,293$ (1,255)$ 21,037$ -$ (4,988)$ 16,049$ 272 $59.00 $59.00 (20,565)$ (4,988)$ (25,553)$ 0252 97-01 1,290$ 518$ 1,808$ (85)$ 1,723$ 535$ -$ 2,257$ 44 $51.30 $51.30 (1,686)$ 535$ (1,152)$ 0253 97-02 1,322$ 419$ 1,740$ (63)$ 1,678$ -$ (397)$ 1,281$ 30 $42.70 $42.70 (2,680)$ (397)$ (3,077)$ 0254 97-03 12,226$ 3,819$ 16,046$ (626)$ 15,419$ 255$ -$ 15,674$ 250 $62.70 $62.70 (10,905)$ 255$ (10,650)$ 0255 98-01 5,454$ 1,265$ 6,719$ (195)$ 6,524$ (500)$ (1,236)$ 4,787$ 126 $38.00 $38.00 (3,472)$ (1,736)$ (5,209)$ 0256 98-02 8,392$ 2,533$ 10,924$ (418)$ 10,506$ 3,912$ -$ 14,419$ 162 $89.00 $89.00 11,141$ 3,912$ 15,053$ 0257 01-01 4,221$ 834$ 5,055$ (135)$ 4,919$ -$ -$ 4,919$ 148 $33.24 $45.85 15,315$ -$ 15,315$ 0258 01-02 6,023$ 1,920$ 7,943$ (291)$ 7,652$ 1,379$ -$ 9,031$ 199 $45.38 $45.38 (307)$ 1,379$ 1,072$ 0259 01-03 3,237$ 687$ 3,924$ (159)$ 3,765$ -$ -$ 3,765$ 86 $43.78 $64.24 16,742$ -$ 16,742$ 0260 01-04 27,160$ 5,118$ 32,278$ (1,289)$ 30,989$ 4,034$ -$ 35,024$ 489 $71.62 $71.63 3,415$ 4,034$ 7,450$ 0261 02-01 16,753$ 3,147$ 19,900$ (862)$ 19,038$ 2,697$ -$ 21,735$ 182 $119.42 $119.43 (412)$ 2,697$ 2,285$

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

Budgets for Fund Numbers 0262 through 0282 (Districts 03-01 through 21-01)

Fund
No.

District
No.

Direct
Maintenance
Expenses
Incidental
Expenses
(Admin.)
Total Annual
Expenses
General
Benefit
Special
Benefit
Expenses
Reserve Fund
Collection or
(Transfer)
City Loan and/or
Service
Reductions
Balance to
Levy
Lots
(EBUs)
FY 22-23
Assessment
Rate
Maximum
Assessment
Rate
Beginning
Fund Balance
Fund Balance
Additions or
Deficits
Estimated
Ending Fund
Balance
0262 03-01 7,301$ 1,567$ 8,868$ (236)$ 8,632$ -$ -$ 8,632$ 128 $67.44 $77.63 29,150$ -$ 29,150$ 0263 04-01 7,183$ 1,330$ 8,513$ (290)$ 8,223$ 2$ -$ 8,225$ 233 $35.30 $44.29 49,786$ 2$ 49,788$ 0264 04-02 17,980$ 3,113$ 21,093$ (793)$ 20,301$ (1,492)$ -$ 18,809$ 75 $250.78 $250.79 35,365$ (1,492)$ 33,873$ 0265 04-03 45,880$ 8,266$ 54,146$ (1,893)$ 52,253$ 11,517$ -$ 63,770$ 445 $143.30 $143.31 11,729$ 11,517$ 23,245$ 0266 04-04 7,149$ 816$ 7,965$ (206)$ 7,760$ 1,749$ -$ 9,508$ 20 $475.42 $501.58 19,957$ 1,749$ 21,705$ 0267 05-01 2,638$ 372$ 3,010$ (46)$ 2,964$ (74)$ -$ 2,890$ 39 $74.10 $133.33 13,342$ (74)$ 13,268$ 0268 05-02 10,708$ 2,236$ 12,944$ (595)$ 12,348$ -$ -$ 12,348$ 150 $82.32 $113.44 25,535$ -$ 25,535$ 0269 06-01 27,792$ 2,614$ 30,406$ (1,317)$ 29,089$ 1,073$ -$ 30,162$ 144 $209.46 $209.47 (6,541)$ 1,073$ (5,469)$ 0272 07-02 6,269$ 1,558$ 7,827$ (397)$ 7,429$ -$ -$ 7,429$ 265 $28.04 $143.31 84,183$ -$ 84,183$ 0270 09-01 2,089$ 367$ 2,455$ (95)$ 2,360$ 0$ -$ 2,360$ 14 $168.58 $268.71 10,327$ 0$ 10,327$ 0271 09-02 19,940$ 2,768$ 22,707$ (703)$ 22,004$ 3,285$ -$ 25,289$ 121 $209.00 $209.00 26,922$ 3,285$ 30,208$ 0273 14-01 30,510$ 3,693$ 34,203$ (1,033)$ 33,171$ 2$ -$ 33,172$ 175 $189.56 $246.17 54,148$ 2$ 54,150$ 0274 15-01 152,558$ 15,294$ 167,852$ (5,563)$ 162,289$ 56,091$ -$ 218,380$ 467 $467.62 $467.62 120,156$ 56,091$ 176,248$ 0275 15-02 9,283$ 807$ 10,090$ (221)$ 9,869$ (1,859)$ -$ 8,010$ 34 $235.58 $235.59 5,575$ (1,859)$ 3,716$ 0276 16-01 12,475$ 915$ 13,390$ (340)$ 13,050$ (1,503)$ -$ 11,547$ 54 $213.84 $213.85 2,849$ (1,503)$ 1,347$ 0277 16-02 9,713$ 1,584$ 11,297$ (423)$ 10,874$ 7,360$ -$ 18,233$ 113 $161.36 $161.36 21,817$ 7,360$ 29,176$ 0278 18-01 72,920$ 8,586$ 81,506$ (2,496)$ 79,010$ 53,213$ -$ 132,223$ 267 $495.22 $495.22 94,577$ 53,213$ 147,790$ 0279 19-01 10,638$ 610$ 11,248$ (177)$ 11,070$ 829$ -$ 11,900$ 22 $540.90 $540.90 7,385$ 829$ 8,214$ 0280 19-02 7,396$ 609$ 8,004$ (222)$ 7,782$ 3,862$ -$ 11,644$ 26 $447.84 $447.85 (1,967)$ 3,862$ 1,895$ 0281 20-01 42,399$ 4,454$ 46,852$ (1,935)$ 44,918$ 7,786$ -$ 52,704$ 80 $658.80 $658.81 23,157$ 7,786$ 30,944$ 0282 21-01 47,574$ 4,160$ 51,734$ (1,815)$ 49,919$ 9,010$ -$ 58,929$ 56 $1,052.30 $1,052.31 49,788$ 9,010$ 58,798$

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

Part IV - District Diagrams
The following pages contain an Overview LLMD D iagram showing the general location of the Districts within the City of Hanford for fiscal year 2022/2023 described within this Report as well as individual District Diagrams for each of the individual Districts, which incorporates the parcels determined to receive special benefits from the various District improvements. All parcels that will receive a special benefit from the improvements provided within each District consist of all lots, parcels and subdivisions of land within the boun daries of those Districts as depicted by th ese diagrams and the lines and dimensions of those lots, parcels and subdivisions of land shall be those lines and dimensions shown on the current Kings County Assessor’s parcel maps and by reference the Kings County Assessor’s parcel maps are incorporated herein and made part of this Report. This diagram along with the Assessment Roll incorporated in this Report constitute the District Assessment Diagram for each District for fiscal year 2022/2023.

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

Overview LLMD Diagram

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 90-01 Pinecastle Addition Units 1 through 4

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 90-02 Park Monterey Units 1 & 2

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 90-03 Mansionette Estates Units 7 & 8

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 90-04 Hyde Park

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 91-01 Sierra Vista & New Dimensions Units 1 through 5

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 92-01 Portofino Units 1 through 4

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 92-02 Cielo En Tierra Units 1 through 5

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 93-01 Vintage Estates

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 93-02 Walnut Forest Units 1 through 3

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 94-01 Gateway Estates

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 94-02 Stonecrest Units 1 through 9

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 94-03 Quail Run Estates Units 1 through 5

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 97-01 Rosewood Estates Units 1 & 2

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 97-02 Summer Field Addition #2

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 97-03 Country Crossing Units 1 through 5

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 98-01 Crystal Springs Units 1 through 3

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 98-02 Mountain View Estates Units 1 through 6

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 203
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 01-01 Pacific Grove Units 1 through 3 and N. Pointe Units 1 through 4

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 204
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 01-02 Cambridge Homes Units 1 through 3

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 205
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 01-03 Poppy Hills Units 1 & 2

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 206
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 01-04 Silver Oaks Units 1 through 5

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 207
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 02-01 Ashton Park Units 1 through 4

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 208
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 03-01 Le Parc Units 1 through 3

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 209
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 04-01 Sidonia Units 1 & 2 and Sidonia Estates II

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 210
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 04-02 Cambridge Homes - Majesty Pinnacle & Majesty II

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 211
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 04-03 Cambridge Homes - Majesty II #2, Cambridge Homes Units 1 through 6, Vineyards Units 1 through 4

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 212
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 04-04 Sierra Heights Units 1 & 2

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 213
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 05-01 Mission Park

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 214
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 05-02 Copper Valley

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 215
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 06-01 Quail Park Units 1 & 2

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 216
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 07-02 South Gate Addition, Greenbrier Gardens, & Live Oak North

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 217
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 09-01 Victory Estates

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 218
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 09-02 Independence Units 1 & 2

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 219
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 14-01 Independence Units 3 & 4

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 220
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 15-01 Silver Oaks Addition III Units 1 through 3

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 221
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 15-02 The Greens II

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 222
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 16-01 Woodside Homes

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 223
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 16-02 Mynderup Units 1 & 2

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 224
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 18-01 Bella Vista Units 1 through 4

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 19-01 Pacific Grove Addition II

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 226
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 19-02 The Enclave

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 227
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 20-01 Woodside Homes

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 228
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 21-01 San Joaquin Valley Homes

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 229
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R) Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

Part V - Assessment Rolls
Due to the number of parcels in the Districts, the Assessment Roll for fiscal year 2022/2023 has been filed with the City Clerk in an electronic format and is, by reference, made part of this Report.

The Assessment Roll identifie s the parcels within each District that are assessed for special benefits and their corresponding assessment amount for fiscal year 2022/2023. Each parcel listed on the Assessment Roll is currently shown and illustrated on the County Assessor's Roll and the County Assessor’s Parcel Number Maps (APN maps). These records are, by reference, made part of this Report and shall govern for all details concerning the description of the lots or parcels.

All assessments presented on the assessment roll are subject to change as a result of parcel changes made by the County including parcel splits, parcel merges or development changes that occur prior to the County Assessor's Office securing the final roll and generating tax bills for fiscal year 2022/2023.

The proposed Assessment Roll shall be available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office during normal office hours.

12.J.b
Packet Pg. 230
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 6/21/2022

AGENDA SECTION: K

SUBJECT:

Community Development Department: Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) to prepare the “City of Hanford Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines” and authorize City Manager to execute Professional Services Agreement with LSA for $48,890.

RECOMMENDATION:

That City Council, by motion, authorize the City Manager to exec ute the city -standard Professional Services Agreement with LSA Associates, Inc. for the scope of work, estimated budget and estimated schedule, as proposed.

BACKGROUND:

Pursuant to SB 743, state guidelines implementing CEQA were revised replacing delay -based level of service (LOS) metrics with vehicle miles traveled metrics as the new way to determine impacts on the environment. The intent of SB 743 was to bring CEQA transportation analyses into closer alignment with other statewide policies aimed at red ucing greenhouse gases; in particular, from fossil fuels use, and primarily from gasoline fueled vehicles. SB 743 was intended to encourage local lead agencies to develop their own methodologies and guidelines representative of and specific to, their communities’ land use patterns and characteristics to make determinations regarding reduction of VMT and thereby reductions in GHG. The purpose of this engagement with LSA, therefore, is to assist the city, as a CEQA lead agency, in transitioning to the use of VMT as the metric for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA pursuant to SB 743.

A Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant of $150,000, was awarded to the city by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in 2021, for a VMT analys is project that would relate to housing planning and the streamlining and acceleration of housing production through creation of a city -specific streamlined environmental review process, which could relieve individual developers of conducting their own VMT analysis on a project -by-

12.K
Packet Pg. 231
project basis.

A prior agreement was entered into with VRPA Technologies in April 2021 for related VMT work. While VRPA’s work effort was underway, project applicants for several large tentative subdivision maps were hiring cons ultants to prepare project specific VMT impact analysis to comply with CEQA requirements. This work was being done in reliance on a regional (county - wide) model and thresholds prepared by KCAG pursuant to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research VMT Analysis Technical Advisory , that was required to be prepared by SB 743.

The OPR TA is in general use by many cities and counties around the State, but it has certain limitations and is regarded as not being as useful to lead agencies as adopting somethi ng more specific to their city/county locale.

While working with applicants and their traffic/VMT consultants staff became familiar with LSA’s abundant experience with VMT analyses and their broad skills and depth of knowledge in successfully assisting ot her valley communities, including the City of Fresno, develop local VMT thresholds and analysis guidelines for use by their development community. The City utilized VRPA’s work product in evaluating projects earlier this year, but staff determined that an engagement with LSA would better serve the needs of the City of Hanford.

This scope of work to be prepared by LSA will provide for the completion of the following essential tasks (see full proposal in Attachment 1):

· Definition of an appropriate “region” for VMT analysis purposes in the context of the city. · Recommendations for appropriate VMT thresholds for both land use and transportation projects, and plans tailored to the city.
· Standardized screening methods for VMT threshold compliance data for city to use. · Potential mitigation strategies applicable to the City’s land use and transportation projects and plans.
· An online VMT Screening tool that will serve in screening out projects from the need for further VMT analysis (if their est. VMT is below established thresholds, for instance). · Training and virtual workshops for revised CEQA Guideline compliance (i.e., VMT metrics, modeling and thresholds).

By having a Hanford-specific methodology, thresholds, and guidelines in place, it is anticipated that many areas of the city will be able to be “screened out” from further VMT analysis helping to streamline the processing of future development projects.

FISCAL IMPACT:

A Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant of $150,000, related to housing planni ng and the streamlining and acceleration of housing production, was awarded to the city by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in 2021, a portion of that grant was dedicated to this VMT project. LSA’s estimated budget to complete th e current proposed scope of work is $49,890 and will be covered by the grant. Charges not recoverable under the grant will be paid for from the Community Development Department Professional Services budget (FY 23, $91,282) Through the course of discussing LSA’s scope of work, it was determined that preparation of the thresholds and guidelines piece was the priority task for the time being. Upon

12.K
Packet Pg. 232
completion of that task, there will be a need for subsequent tasks of updating the General Plan policies related to VMT reductions and assessment of the impacts related to VMT resulting from land use and circulation elements of the General Plan and identifying specific mitigation measures that will be effective in the context of the City that can be applied to future projects and further streamline the CEQA process. This phase will require a separate scope of work, budget and schedule. Staff would return to Council for approval of expanded the scope of work by LSA or another suitable consultant.

SCHEDULE
Consultant LSA proposes to complete an administrative draft deliverable of the VMT Guidelines document for City staff review and comment by approximately mid-October, with a final draft ready to present to Planning Commission by mid-November, followed as soon thereafter as possible, with presentation and consideration for adoption by City Council.

ATTACHMENTS:
· Attachment 1 - LSA Proposal for City of Hanford Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines

· Attachment 2 - City-standard Consultant Services Agreement

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost of this contract will be covered by a LEAP grant, which the City has already received.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final Attachment 2 - LSA Professional Services Agreement signed

12.K
Packet Pg. 233
LSA is a business name of LSA Associates, Inc.

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE
LOS ANGELES
PALM SPRINGS
POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE
SAN LUIS OBISPO
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200, Riverside, California  92507     951.781.9310     www.lsa.net

June 11, 2022
Mary E. Beatie
Interim Community Development Deputy Director
City of Hanford
317 North Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Subject:  Proposal for the City of Hanford Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines (LSA Proposal No. HNF2201.P)
Dear Ms. Beatie:

LSA is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines for the City of Hanford (City). The City is planning to adopt a set of VMT thresholds to address the changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) transportation analysis included in Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) and shift from a delay‐based Level of Service (LOS) analysis to VMT. Following is a detailed understanding of the scope of work of this project:

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
LSA understands the City of Hanford is seeking professional services to prepare the VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines specific to the jurisdiction. The purpose of this project is to assist the City in implementing SB 743 and transitioning to the use of VMT as the primary metric for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA, and that the project would include identifying and establishing the methodology for estimating project‐specific VMT, regional/local thresholds, and mitigation strategies.

Because of LSA’s long history with SB 743 and specific involvement with multiple agencies throughout Central Valley in developing their VMT thresholds, LSA is keenly aware of each agency’s objectives and the potential issues that may arise as those objectives are fulfilled. A primary objective of the City in this effort, and most efforts the agency undertakes, is to be a consensus‐ building facilitator of good policymaking.

As a result of the final rulemaking surrounding SB 743 and the implementation deadline of July 1, 2020, the City is making the shift from delay‐based LOS CEQA traffic analyses to VMT CEQA traffic analyses. Therefore, the City is seeking a qualified consultant team to prepare a set of deliverables to ease the transition away from LOS to VMT assessments. These deliverables include:
 Definition of an appropriate “region” for VMT analysis purposes in the context of the City;  Standardized screening methods for VMT threshold compliance data for cities to use;  Recommendations for appropriate VMT thresholds for cities and the region for both land use and transportation projects, and plans tailored to the City;  Feasible mitigation strategies applicable to the City’s land use and transportation projects and plans;

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 234
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
2  A VMT Screening tool (This is not specifically requested by the City but LSA proposes to include this as an efficient tool that will serve in screening out projects from VMT analysis.); and  Training  and  virtual  workshops  for  revised  CEQA  Guideline  compliance  (i.e.,  VMT  metrics, modeling and thresholds).

A primary concern for the successful completion of the Implementation Guidelines is that SB 743 has yet to be fully vetted. Although a library of resources has been created since the law’s adoption in 2013 and multiple agencies have implemented VMT practices, no full CEQA process has yet been challenged to define and refine the law’s application (with exception of two lawsuits, one in San Diego County and the second one in City of Sacramento). Some agencies have completely adopted the approach outlined in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory (TA), dated December 2018. Others believe they have established “substantial evidence” to depart from OPR’s direction. It remains to be seen where the courts will rule on the application of VMT as a CEQA threshold. Therefore, the City has little direction from the State and other agencies as to the sanctioned methods to calculate VMT or, more importantly, the thresholds to use in legally defensible analyses. LSA believes this represents an opportunity more than a constraint.

LSA has been a part of the SB 743 conversation since the bill circulated in 2013. LSA Principal and Project Advisor Anthony Petros has met with Christopher Calfee, OPR Chief Counsel (and now Deputy Secretary and General Counsel at the California Natural Resources Agency), in his office on numerous occasions in Sacramento. Mr. Petros has participated in each and every meeting, conference, and webinar hosted by the OPR, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), and other State and regional agencies.

He sits on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) SB 743 Task Force and has contributed to opinion pieces and technical materials for the group. LSA Project Manager Ambarish Mukherjee has made SB 743 presentations to the American Planning Association, the Association of Environmental Planners, numerous attorneys and planning firms, and government agencies up and down California.

He has been the project manager for multiple VMT guidelines projects including the SB 743 Implementation Projects with the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG), the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG), and the City of Visalia. LSA has monitored and been directly involved in each phase of the rule‐making process with key OPR and Natural Resources staff.

Another concern is the direction that SB 743 threshold development is taking appears to favor dense, infill urban development. As a result, these possible thresholds could affect the viability of traditional land use development in emerging and agricultural areas of the State, including the City of Hanford which is primarily is a City surrounded by agriculture land uses. The data and tools created in this effort could result in a clarification and a confirmation that developments in the City would have deleterious effects on VMT production (depending on the methods used); would require the preparation of detailed, time‐consuming and costly Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs); and, at worst, would require Statements of Overriding Consideration for approval. LSA believes this eventuality may be offset by adoption of alternative thresholds and metrics, based on substantial evidence.

The lack of consistent, replicable, and reliable data regarding VMT production in the region is another fundamental concern. Many of the standard tools in use today, such as the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), are based on gross assumptions of trip length over an entire air quality management basin. Other VMT‐estimating tools will render different and disparate

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 235
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
3 results given the same input data. LSA has conducted numerous case studies as part of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) SB 743 Task Force and found that for six land use scenarios analyzed with six VMT tools, the results were all different, with inconsistent deviation and correlation.

LSA has the Kings County Association of Governments’ (KCAG’s) Travel Demand Model (TDM) in‐ house and is using it to prepare VMT analysis for multiple starting or ongoing projects in the City.

Therefore, LSA is extremely familiar with the model structure and its operations. LSA will use the KCAG TDM to develop the City’s VMT thresholds and guidelines.

Feasible mitigation measures are a concern with SB 743 implementation. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Green Book is the general reference for VMT‐based offsets.

The OPR identifies the Green Book as a primary resource for SB 743 mitigation measures, yet evidence is lacking regarding the efficacy and feasibility of many of the CAPCOA strategies. Specific and measurable reductions in VMT due to strategies such as mode shift and selective land use have not yet been demonstrated.

Many of these strategies assume individual behavioral shifts that rely on intangible or nonexistent evidence. Many decision‐makers are uneasy accepting noncapital traffic mitigation measures and project opponents will sue over indefensible and infeasible mitigation strategies. In a recent joint SCAG/SACOG meeting, the agencies’ consultants and the OPR’s primary transportation planning consultant publicly acknowledged that most VMT impacts in emerging and rural State areas will not be mitigated. Possible project‐specific mitigation to completely offset the impacts may not exist.

LSA has a profound appreciation for these and other concerns and issues with SB 743. We have spoken to agencies throughout the State, as we have spoken before the VMT Technical Advisory Committee of various jurisdictions, about the limitations of SB 743. LSA has worked with the data and has used the California Statewide TDM to extract socioeconomic and VMT data for project use.

In addition, LSA has conducted numerous VMT analyses throughout California.

In order to create a successful pathway, the City requires a consultant familiar with the SB 743 legislation and process, with VMT calculations, experience in travel demand modeling, with the City’s travel efficiency relative to its region, and with CEQA practice. LSA is familiar with all of these.

Unlike other firms in the industry, LSA marries the knowledge of transportation planning with 45 years of experience with CEQA.

LSA’s Technical Approach follows, demonstrating the discrete tasks proposed to satisfy City’s needs for a successful, tailored Implementation Guidelines.

RELEVANT VMT EXPERIENCE
The following selection of projects provides a brief description of LSA’s SB 743 and VMT analysis preparation expertise and experience. This section provides a list of example projects that illustrates our qualifications preparing VMT analysis guidelines in various jurisdictions across the state. LSA is a recognized leader on SB 743 knowledge and has participated in several presentations on SB 743 throughout California. We are familiar with the OPR TA and the draft specifications for thresholds, methodology, safety, and mitigation recommendations for implementing SB 743. LSA has worked or is working closely with several jurisdictions statewide on the implementation of SB 743, including

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 236
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
4 MCAG, Fresno COG, the Cities of Visalia, Banning, Big Bear Lake, Fresno, Long Beach, Newport Beach, and the County of Orange.

MCAG SB 743 (VMT) Implementation Plan (Merced County, California) LSA is currently assisting MCAG in preparing VMT thresholds for subsequent CEQA documentation for the 7 member jurisdictions. LSA will be using MCAG TDM to identify and establish project VMT screening criteria, methodologies for estimating project specific VMT, regional/local thresholds, and mitigation strategies. These data, models, tools, and strategies will be documented in the form of a regional guide that will provide local agencies with substantial evidence for future CEQA analyses.

Additionally, LSA will be preparing a web‐based VMT Screening Tool for the MCAG jurisdictions.

LSA Key Personnel: Arthur Black, Principal in Charge; Ambarish Mukherjee, Project Manager; Kyle Simpson, CEQA Advisor; Ravi Palakurthy, Modeling Lead; Deepnath Majumder, Senior Transportation Planner
Fresno COG SB 743 VMT Implementation and Regional Guidelines (Fresno, California) LSA recently assisted Fresno COG in establishing VMT thresholds for subsequent CEQA documentation for the 16 member jurisdictions, including the City of Fresno. LSA used the Fresno COG Activity‐Based Model (ABM) to develop location‐based screening maps for all the jurisdictions in the County. LSA also prepared the VMT analysis guidelines for the Fresno COG member jurisdictions, wherein it addressed several policy‐related issues that have been raised in the OPR TA related to SB 743 legislation. These issues include definition of the region, criteria from the baseline condition to consider for each jurisdiction, streamlining of small projects, high‐quality transit corridors and transit‐oriented development zones, and VMT mitigation measures. Additionally, LSA also prepared a web‐based VMT Screening Tool and a VMT Calculator Tool for the COG jurisdictions.

Furthermore, LSA provided Fresno COG with training, support, and a user guide for the VMT calculation tool.

LSA Key Personnel: Anthony Petros, Principal in Charge; Ambarish Mukherjee, Project Manager; Kyle Simpson, CEQA Advisor; Ravi Palakurthy, Modeling Lead; Debmalya Sinha, Transportation Planner; Deepnath Majumder, Transportation Planner

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
5 City of Fresno General Plan Program EIR Traffic Impact Analysis and VMT Thresholds (Fresno, California)
LSA recently completed the TIA for the City of
Fresno’s General Plan EIR Update. As part of the
analysis, LSA updated the Fresno COG ABM to a
base year of 2019 (existing conditions) to reflect
the base conditions for new CEQA conformity.

Since LSA was also working with the Fresno COG
on SB 743 legislation and threshold
determination, LSA prepared additional case
studies within the City to address several policy‐
related issues specific to the City’s
requirements. These include screening criteria
specific to the City for streamlining, identifying
high‐quality transit corridors and transit‐oriented development zones, and more. LSA prepared the VMT analysis guidelines for the City, which addressed all these tasks.

LSA Key Personnel: Anthony Petros, Principal in Charge; Ambarish Mukherjee, Project Manager; Ravi Palakurthy, Modeling Lead; Debmalya Sinha, Transportation Planner; Deepnath Majumder, Transportation Planner
City of Visalia VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines (Visalia, California) LSA recently assisted City of Visalia in establishing VMT thresholds for subsequent CEQA documentation. LSA prepared the City’s VMT analysis guidelines, wherein it addressed several policy‐related issues that have been raised by the OPR TA related to SB 743 legislation. These issues include definition of the region to evaluate, criteria from the baseline condition to consider for each jurisdiction, streamlining small projects, high quality transit corridors and transit‐oriented development zones, and VMT mitigation measures. The policy document also evaluated how adoption of these new thresholds and guidelines will help facilitate the City’s General Plan policies.

LSA also created an online VMT Screening Tool for the City. The City’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines were also updated to incorporate VMT analysis methodology, screening criteria, and significant impact criteria.

LSA Key Personnel: Anthony Petros, Principal in Charge; Ambarish Mukherjee, Project Manager; Ravi Palakurthy, Modeling Lead; Debmalya Sinha, Transportation Planner; Deepnath Majumder, Transportation Planner
City of Banning SB 743 Climate Planning Implementation (Banning, California) LSA recently assisted the City of Banning to develop localized guidelines, VMT thresholds, and VMT mitigation options to comply with SB 743. The City of Banning faces significant challenges related to the implementation of SB 743 requirements. The overarching issue is that all Western Riverside County Organization of Governments subregion cities previously used Level of Service (LOS)‐based thresholds in their traffic study guidelines and in their General Plans, and thereby lacked VMT‐based thresholds and other related technical resources needed for use in an SB 743 analysis. In addition, few projects have performed any kind of rigorous VMT‐based analysis and there is limited VMT information available outside of data at the jurisdictional level. The types of projects SB 743 aims to

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 238
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
6 promote cannot be approved based on their current transportation impact methodology. Finally, there have been no specific studies on the effectiveness of potential VMT mitigation strategies in Western Riverside County.

Apart from developing the VMT thresholds for the City, LSA also prepared the City’s new TIA Guidelines and created an online VMT Screening Tool.

LSA Key Personnel: Anthony Petros, Principal in Charge; Ambarish Mukherjee, Project Manager; Ravi Palakurthy, Modeling Lead; Debmalya Sinha, Transportation Planner; Deepnath Majumder, Transportation Planner
City of Big Bear Lake VMT CEQA Thresholds (Big Bear Lake, California) Lead agencies under CEQA are now required to analyze project‐related VMT to determine whether transportation impacts from a given development would constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA. The City of Big Bear Lake cannot achieve a 15 percent VMT reduction and must identify alternative methods to implement SB 743. In order to evaluate impacts properly, it will be necessary to establish methodologies and quantified thresholds from which to determine levels of significance. LSA recently assisted the City to arrive at a baseline standard from which to determine significance thresholds for future land use and transportation projects. This helped in establishing methodology, thresholds, and technical tools and procedures for CEQA analysis of transportation impacts of land use and transportation projects and plans for the City. As part of this project, LSA also prepared the City’s new TIA Guidelines and an online VMT Screening Tool.

LSA Key Personnel: Arthur Black, Principal in Charge; Ambarish Mukherjee, Project Manager; Ravi Palakurthy, Modeling Lead; Debmalya Sinha, Transportation Planner; Deepnath Majumder, Transportation Planner
City of Long Beach VMT Guidelines (Long Beach, California) Following successful completion of a TIA, including VMT analysis, of the proposed Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element, the City of Long Beach selected LSA for guidance through implementation of SB 743. LSA was tasked with developing VMT thresholds and screening criteria,

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
7 defining “region” for the purposes of project comparison, identifying high‐quality transit corridors, identifying screening criteria appropriate for the City, and preparing a list of possible VMT mitigation measures. LSA recently completed the draft VMT analysis guidelines for the City, which addressed all these tasks.

LSA Key Personnel: Anthony Petros, Principal in Charge/Project Manager; Arthur Black, Senior Transportation Planner; Ambarish Mukherjee, Senior Transportation Planner; Ravi Palakurthy, Modeling Lead; Debmalya Sinha, Transportation Planner
City of Orange VMT Thresholds (Orange County, California) LSA recently prepared the VMT analysis guidelines for the County of Orange. LSA was tasked with developing VMT thresholds and screening criteria for various projects, defining “region” for the purposes of project comparison (given that the project area included unincorporated areas throughout the County), identifying high‐quality transit corridors, creating a web‐based VMT Screening Tool, and preparing a list of possible VMT mitigation measures. LSA also accommodated the County’s desire for more applicable screening criteria and developed an evidence‐based approach to achieve that goal.

LSA Key Personnel: Anthony Petros, Principal in Charge/Project Manager; Arthur Black, Senior Transportation Planner; Ambarish Mukherjee, Senior Transportation Planner City of Newport Beach SB 743 (Newport Beach, California) LSA helped the City of Newport Beach to create a policy document for integration of SB 743 changes to CEQA. The policy document addressed determination of the regional boundaries, calculation of regional average rates, and establishment of project screening criteria that incorporated a local traffic ordinance, establishment of an analysis methodology and thresholds, and potential mitigation strategies. As part of this effort, LSA created land use project screening maps showing transit priority areas within Newport Beach.

LSA Key Personnel: Anthony Petros, Principal in Charge/Project Manager; Arthur Black, Senior Transportation Planner; Ambarish Mukherjee, Senior Transportation Planner Relevant Modeling Experience
In addition to more than four years of traveling across the State presenting on SB 743, the LSA Team has also gained an excellent reputation for its modeling experience. LSA has worked on projects related to traffic forecasting and modeling for decades. LSA’s traffic/planning experts have significant experience in all aspects of travel modeling, from study applications to multimodal enhancements and comprehensive model development. LSA supports the Cube/Voyager software and other popular modeling programs. LSA staff has detailed working knowledge of TransCAD, TranPlan, MinUTP, Emme/2, QRSII, TP+/Viper, VISUM, and others. In its model development projects, LSA regularly converts travel models from older software packages to the more modern software environments like VISUM, Cube, and TransCAD. LSA’s travel demand model experience listed below will contribute to developing the proper VMT Thresholds and Implementation for the City of Hanford.
 San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model   Fresno COG ABM

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
8  2008 and 2012 SCAG Screenline Count Database   Springfield Travel Model, Illinois  2016 SCAG RTP Travel Demand Model   Missoula Travel Demand Model, Montana
 Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model/Riverside
County Transportation Analysis Model
 Contra Costa Transportation
Authority Countywide Travel
Demand Model
 Orange County Traffic Analysis Model   Corona Citywide Travel Model  Kern Council of Governments Travel Demand
Model
 Sacramento Activity Based Travel
Simulation Model
 Kings County Association of Governments Travel
Demand Model
 Tulare County Association of
Governments Travel Demand Model
 Irvine Transportation Analysis Model   El Dorado County Travel Demand Model
 Madera County Transportation Commission Travel
Demand Model

LSA TEAM
LSA has assembled a team of technical experts experienced in SB 743 and VMT Implementation Planning. Our team has worked together on several projects, many of them similar to the proposed project. Below is a brief introduction of the team.

Introduction to the Project Team
Ambarish Mukherjee, PE, AICP | Project Manager
Mr. Mukherjee has 16 years
of experience working on and
managing both transportation
planning and traffic modeling
projects. He has extensive
knowledge of VMT analysis
methodologies and has
conducted VMT analysis for
several projects, including the
VMT Update for City of Visalia, KPC Coachella Specific
Plan, Globemaster Specific Plan, Laguna Niguel Town
Center, and Paradise Valley Specific Plan. He has also
managed multiple General Plan projects including for the Cities of Fresno, Banning, Jurupa Valley, and Loma Linda.

The Team
LSA has put together a team of professionals with combined experience of over 150 years. The team not only includes professionals with expertise in VMT, travel demand modeling, and mobility but also includes experts with knowledge in preparing CEQA documents, CEQA legal knowledge, and experience in preparing GHG reduction studies and Climate Action Planning studies.

Project Manager’s Role
Mr. Mukherjee has been actively
involved with multiple jurisdictions
throughout the state assisting them
with developing their VMT and LOS
guidelines. With his background in
transportation planning, traffic
engineering and travel demand
modeling, he is able to provide a
comprehensive and context sensitive
solution to local jurisdictions.

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 241
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
9 Mr. Mukherjee is the project manager for the MCAG SB 743 (VMT) Implementation Plan, the Fresno COG VMT analysis, City of Visalia VMT Guidelines, and City of Big Bear Lake VMT Guidelines and the lead technical analyst for the City of Fresno VMT thresholds projects. He was also the technical task lead for the City of Long Beach, City of Newport Beach, and County of Orange VMT analysis and SB 743 implementation projects. Additionally, Mr. Mukherjee is the project manager of City of Banning VMT thresholds and guidelines and has assisted the City in developing their guidelines in conjunction with SCAG.

Arthur Black | Principal in Charge
As a Principal in the Transportation Group at LSA, Mr. Black’s primary responsibilities include the production of technical reports for the transportation function of LSA in Irvine, California. This role involves the preparation of traffic and parking studies, operational analysis, and transportation planning research. Mr. Black has been an integral part of LSA for 15 years and will serve as the Principal in Charge for the proposed project. He will provide project oversight and quality assurance and will help guide the City in advancing transportation improvements. Mr. Black will also manage the preparation and review of comprehensive traffic and parking studies, operational and engineering analyses, complete streets and modal analyses, and long‐range and strategic planning efforts. Mr. Black has an extensive project management background, is client‐focused, responsive, knowledgeable, and solution‐oriented, and consistently meets demanding schedules while maintaining project budget. Mr. Black believes it is crucial to engage with all stakeholders, including traffic generators, residents, employees, visitors, transportation providers, and adjacent jurisdictions.

Anthony Petros | Project Advisor
Mr. Petros brings 35 years of experience in transportation planning and mobility to this project. He is a member of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) SB 743 Task Force and has visited with key OPR staff in Sacramento on numerous occasions. Mr. Petros has participated in virtually every meeting, conference, and webinar hosted by the OPR, SCAG, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, and other State and regional agencies. He sits on the Caltrans Implementation Technical Roundtable, has presented throughout the State on SB 743 initiatives, and spoke and wrote on the potential benefits and impacts of the SB 375 protocols. As an instructor in the Master’s Program in Public Policy at UC Irvine, Mr. Petros has used SB 743 as a sample policy initiative for study. Mr. Petros is the principal in charge for LSA’s VMT thresholds, SB 743 implementation, and VMT analysis projects including the City of Visalia VMT Update, Fresno COG VMT analysis, City of Fresno, City of Long Beach, City of Newport Beach, and County of Orange VMT analysis and SB 743 implementation projects. He is also the project advisor for the MCAG SB 743 (VMT) Implementation Plan and the City of Fresno General Plan Program EIR TIA. He will serve as the Project Advisor.

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 242
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
10 Ravi Palakurthy | Modeling Lead
Ravi Palakurthy has more than 19 years transportation planning experience and will serve as a Senior Transportation Engineer and the Lead Modeler for this project. He has served as Modeling Task Lead for the VMT thresholds and SB 743 implementation for Fresno COG as well as the Cities of Banning, Big Bear Lake, Fresno, Long Beach, Newport Beach, Visalia, County of Orange, and Fresno COG.

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 243
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
11 TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
12 SCOPE OF WORK
The following details LSA’s proposed scope of work for this project.

Task 1.0 Project Coordination and Administration
It has been LSA’s experience that successful strategic planning projects start with disciplined project management. The foundation for this type of project management is frequent communication with project partners using effective tools and practices. LSA has delivered strategic planning and transportation plans to other cities, counties, and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)/ Regional Transportation Planning Agencies based on this principle, and LSA will continue this practice with the City as LSA assists in its pursuit of SB 743 compliance.

The objective of this task is to facilitate the project kickoff and, most important, set a foundation for good project management and accounting. This includes establishing the work plan, schedule, and general budget parameters for subsequent monitoring; coordinating, and tracking project schedules, reports, and milestones; providing a method for progress evaluation and communication; and managing critical‐path activities. The fundamental element that leads to successful project management is a dedicated, engaged management team.

LSA Team Management Approach
While LSA prides itself on its technical document
preparation, the LSA Team believes that the most
important aspect of its overall services is its project management skills. LSA’s successful record of quality
products, its proven ability to meet demanding
schedules, and its reputation with past and current
clients provide the best guarantee of success in meeting the City’s needs for the implementation of SB 743.

The following list demonstrates LSA’s methods and procedures for managing schedules and budgets and the LSA tactics employed to ensure quality control.  Communication: Effective project management extends beyond the use of sophisticated tools.

LSA‘s  experience  is  that  the  single  most  critical  element  for  the  successful  completion  of  the project is the early development of clear channels for communication between the LSA Project Manager and the client. At a minimum, LSA’s Project Managers prepare monthly status reports.

These reports include narrative descriptions of all major activities performed during the month; however,  contact  with  the  client  typically  takes  place  much  more  frequently.  Ongoing  and frequent  communication  between  LSA’s  Project  Manager  and  the  City’s  Project  Manager  will serve  as  the  primary  vehicle  for  identifying  emerging  project  issues  and  solutions  early  on  to minimize schedule impacts.
 Understanding the Issues/Project Schedule: Most of LSA’s staff members have five or more years of professional experience with LSA. The Principal in Charge and the Project Manager selected for this  assignment  have  more  than  30  combined  years  of  experience  in  transportation  planning, modeling, and legislation. LSA has developed the ability to identify key issues and solutions early Keys to Project Management
 Budgeting Time and Resources
 Coordinating and Tracking Schedules
 Managing Critical‐Path Activities
 Evaluating Progress
 Continuously Communicating with
the City of Hanford

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 245
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
13 in the environmental process, which assists in foreseeing problems and avoiding potential cost overruns or schedule delays. These skills are used to advise clients of impending issues and to assist in resolving those issues. Additionally, LSA’s significant technical and regulatory experience results in a “big picture” understanding of project delivery. LSA can easily identify strategies to respond  to  project  delays  and  to  provide  options  for  getting  projects  back  on  track  while maintaining the legal defensibility of the documents being prepared.  Product Review: To ensure that LSA’s product meets the best technical and professional quality sought  by  the  highest  industry  standards,  LSA  has  developed  an  internal  document  review program  for  each  document  before  it  leaves  the  office.  Once  a  document  is  prepared,  it  is reviewed and corrected by a professional editor and then receives Principal review prior to its submission to the client.
 Budget Control: Project billing is tracked by internal accounting software that enables LSA Project Managers to track project budget status on a weekly basis to assist in maintaining tight control over project budgets.
 Commitment  of  Senior  Personnel:  LSA  uses  upper‐level,  experienced  personnel  not  just  as supervisors but also as the primary investigators and authors of technical reports, Environmental Impact Reports, and planning documents. This use of upper‐level staff eliminates the need for multiple internal reviews. LSA has found that in some situations, it is most efficient to use senior staff members qualified in their areas of expertise.
 Commitment to Scheduling Needs: LSA’s commitment to meeting scheduling needs and project demands  extends  to  doing  whatever  it  takes  to  complete  the  job.  LSA’s  work  in  the  past  has required staff time at nights and on weekends in order to meet critical client deadlines. LSA has also reduced handling time by using 24‐hour reprographic houses capable of compiling electronic documents,  as  well  as  printing,  packaging,  and  mailing  completed  hard  copy  documents  in  a single, efficient operation.
 Quality Management: LSA manages quality throughout the life of the project, not merely at the end  of  the  project.  LSA’s  overall  goal  is  to  improve  quality  on  each  subsequent  project.  This requires implementation of strategies to improve quality at the very beginning of each project and carrying those strategies throughout the project and beyond.

Quality Control
LSA’s Principals recently reviewed and updated the corporate Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan, and will be provided within two weeks from the project kick‐off meeting. The LSA Team is committed to active QA/QC procedures and identifies senior‐level Principal staff members as the QA/QC officers on all its projects.

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 246
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
14 Task 2.0 Definition of Region
The OPR TA suggests comparison of project VMT
metrics with VMT thresholds established for the
“Region” to determine if the project demonstrates
a significant impact or not. Therefore, the
selection of a region is a vital part of the VMT
calculation and development of VMT metrics. The
region should be large enough to accommodate
the range of trip lengths that occur for a land use
type. “Region” will be a term to be discussed with
the City. Potential regions may include the City or
the entire County. It is noted that basing regions
on political boundaries may truncate trip lengths;
however, complete and specific data are pertinent
to calculating accurate VMT.

LSA will develop estimates of the OPR suggested
efficiency metrics (VMT per capita and VMT per
employee) for the “Region” using the
methodologies and data sources identified in the
above tasks. LSA will also review VMT by model
trip purposes or by the aggregated service
population (per capita and per employee) that can
be used in the development of any additional VMT metrics, if needed.

Establishment of the region and VMT metrics for the City will help develop the thresholds for those metrics. LSA will also start to identify locations within the City by low, moderate, and high VMT profiles for each of the metric.

Task 3.0 Development of Project/Location Screening Methods and Criteria Based on the OPR TA, a project may be eligible to
be screened out from a VMT analysis if it meets
certain screening criteria as applicable to the
project. The different criteria as identified in the
OPR TA for screening projects from VMT analysis,
include proximity to transit areas and high‐quality
transit corridors, local‐serving retail (less than
50,000 square feet), low‐trip‐generating uses, and
consistency with Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) (i.e.,
a floor‐to‐area ratio of less than 0.75 with limited parking). Many of these criteria may be applicable to the City. LSA will review the applicability of each of these criteria in the context of the City and provide recommendations accordingly.

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 247
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
15 The OPR TA also provides additional guidance on projects that can be exempt from VMT analysis.

For example, projects that produce fewer than 110 daily trips can be exempt from the VMT analysis given the low number of trips. Also, projects in areas that are currently below threshold VMT (usually densely developed areas) can be screened out from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis because new development in such locations would likely result in a similar level of VMT.

LSA will research the applicable screening criteria from several sources as outlined below and seek inputs from the City. All these criteria should be considered under the envelope of SB 743’s intent:
reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, promotion of infill development, more robust multimodal transportation options, and mixed‐use development. The table below provides a sample of few representative projects. LSA will discuss with City staff regarding additional projects including but not limited to hotel and medical offices.

Sample VMT Screening Thresholds for Different Land Uses Land Use  Size of Projects (Requiring a GPA)  Size of Projects (Not Requiring a GPA) Single‐Family Residential  78 DU  156 DU
Low‐Rise Multifamily Residential  107 DU  214 DU
Mid‐Rise Multifamily Residential  134 DU  269 DU
Office  70 TSF  141 TSF
Light Industrial  93 TSF  186 TSF
Notes: GPA = General Plan Amendment; DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet Project sizes have been determined based on trip generation rates obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition).

LSA will review and research sources such as the State’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (California Air Resources Board (CARB), November 2017), Air quality district measures, development trends, demographic trends, and other transportation and air quality documents. The LSA Team will create technical foundations for each of the desired screening criteria where possible. Metrics will be converted from trips to units or area square footage, as applicable, with substantial evidence for such conversion factors. These foundations will be discussed and evaluated with the City to gain consensus on the screening criteria.

For example, OPR has suggested use of 110 daily trips as the criteria to screen out land development projects from VMT analysis. However, LSA developed a correlation between land use quantities (number of dwelling units or square footage) and GHG emissions that was used as substantial evidence to deviate from OPR suggested 110 daily trips. LSA used GHG emissions from the CalEEMod to establish the increased screening thresholds for different land use categories. LSA has successfully used this approach in the Fresno County, City of Visalia in Tulare County, City of Banning in Riverside County (a SCAG project), and City of Big Bear Lake in San Bernardino County with similar methodology. LSA can adopt this approach for the City to increase OPR’s default daily trip threshold screening criteria. This will help streamline the development process for small to medium‐sized projects. The sample table, above, demonstrates the screening thresholds for several key land uses with application of this methodology.

In addition to land use projects, LSA will review the screening criteria recommended for transportation projects in the OPR TA and make recommendations based on their applicability in the context of the City.

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 248
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
16 Task 4.0 Development of Online VMT Screening Tool
Several jurisdictions have developed tailored VMT tools for their use. The City of San Jose and City of Los Angeles have developed their own tools to estimate project VMT. LSA has recently developed online VMT screening tools for the City of Visalia, County of Orange, City of Banning, City of Big Bear Lake, and Fresno COG and its member jurisdictions. While this tool was not requested by the City, LSA proposes to prepare this online screening tool that will assist in screening projects throughout the City if they qualify under this screening criteria. The cost for preparation of this tool is included as part of this scope. Additionally, preparation of this tool will not affect the project schedule.

The online screening tool will be developed using ArcGIS online with an easy‐to‐use interface. This tool will be hosted in LSA’s GIS server and will be available to all. The tool will indicate low VMT areas and transit priority areas within the City. Users could easily identify whether a project will be eligible for screening based on project location.

LSA has significant experience in the development of easy‐to‐use and user‐intuitive interfaces for travel demand models and other transportation analysis tools. LSA will bring that experience and knowledge to the development of user interface for the VMT tool. As stated before, LSA has already this tool for multiple agencies throughout California.

Task 5.0 Development of City‐specific Thresholds of Significance OPR and the
California Natural
Resources Agency
(CNRA) have offered
guidance on
thresholds for VMT
production in the
Technical Advisory.

Note that the TA is a
supporting
document that does
not have the weight
of legal fact. It can be
used or departed
from with substantial
evidence.

Additionally, several
jurisdictions have adopted different VMT thresholds with substantial evidence. As stated before, LSA is currently assisting several jurisdictions to establish VMT thresholds for CEQA analysis and often has proposed to adopt thresholds different from the OPR technical advisory guidance and backed up with substantial evidence.

As an example, the aggregate GHG emission reduction sought after by CARB in the 2017 Scoping Plan is 15 percent statewide. This is one reason OPR believes the 15 percent reduction in VMT is appropriate. The aggregate 15 percent GHG emission reduction applies across all land use and transportation activities and would indicate that the State and its individual Metropolitan Planning 0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
2020
2035
SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Change Target for California MPOs

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 249
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
17 Organizations (MPOs) are compliant with the Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) goals, the overall State climate change strategy, and Scoping Plan objectives. The CARB establishes GHG targets for each of the 18 MPOs in the State, reviews the SCSs and makes a determination whether the SCSs would achieve GHG reduction targets if implemented. In the spring of 2018, the CARB adopted new GHG targets for all the 18 MPOs in the State based on the 2017 Scoping Plan and other new data. Therefore, each MPO or its member jurisdictions could establish a threshold for land use developments, specifically residential and office, based upon their GHG emission reduction target percentages. San Bernardino County, Los Angeles County, Fresno COG member jurisdictions, and several other agencies have deviated from OPR recommendation and adopted thresholds based on their individual GHG emission reduction goals or other established targets.

LSA will review the proposed thresholds included in the OPR TA. LSA will also review the KCAG RTP/SCS, South Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District materials, and other relevant sources to determine whether support is clear for thresholds that depart from the OPR guidance. If these documents have identified feasible plans to reduce GHGs in the basin, the LSA Team can evaluate whether equivalencies exist between the GHG reduction and VMT production. Thresholds and equivalencies will be identified for the entire City.

Task 6.0 VMT Calculation Methodologies
VMT is simply the product of the number of trips and those trips’ length of travel. Although this is a simple calculation, there are multiple approaches to quantify the trips and trip lengths. Methods vary from application to application. GHG emissions, air quality assessments and other technical studies calculate VMT in manners appropriate for that specific use. The OPR TA provides guidance on VMT estimation methodology for residential, office, and retail land uses; however, the City includes a diversity of other land uses. Therefore, LSA will identify and propose VMT estimation methodologies for those land uses.

For projects that are not screened out as per the recommended screening methods, LSA will identify tools and appropriate methodologies to estimate project VMT. LSA will develop a framework to estimate VMT taking into consideration projects of varying size and scale.

Use of a particular tool or methodology may depend on the project type, its land use, size, and evaluation time horizon. LSA will consider and list multiple decision points to determine the appropriate methodology for project and cumulative conditions. For example, if travel model is identified as an appropriate tool to evaluate a project, the role and use of project land use in the

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 250
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
18 VMT calculation may be
different. In the existing
scenario, the project may be
added to the regional
socioeconomic data whereas
in the cumulative scenario, it
might be a simple isolation of
project land use versus adding
project land use to the
cumulative socioeconomic
data for the region.

As noted before, LSA is
currently assisting multiple
jurisdictions in the
development of their SB 743
guidelines. LSA is providing
guidance in evaluating VMT
impacts for transportation
projects as part of those
guidelines. LSA will identify
appropriate tools and
methodologies to evaluate
transportation projects in the
context of City of Hanford.

Regional travel models are
the usual go‐to tools to
evaluate the impacts of major
transportation projects;
however, even travel models
are often limited in their
ability to capture induced
demand appropriately.

Similar to the land use
projects, LSA will identify and recommend appropriate evaluation tools for transportation projects based on the project type and size. LSA had the opportunity to evaluate the Caltrans “Induced Travel Calculator,” which provides an estimate of VMT impacts for a transportation project. LSA compared results from this tool with regional models and found that the results vary substantially between the two. As such, a significant drawback of the Caltrans “Induced Travel Calculator” is to take into account the regional location of the facility that potentially affects induced demand. Interaction between land use model and travel model in a feedback of some sort may be necessary to properly evaluate the VMT impacts due to large transportation projects. As such, as part of our Fresno COG project, LSA and COG staff developed a hybrid approach of calculating VMT as a result of induced

Fresno COG VMT Analysis Process for Land Use Projects

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 251
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
19 demand that looks at both the land use and the socioeconomic data within the travel demand model. The following graphic provides a conceptual outline of the proposed approach:

Conceptual Methodology for Calculating Induced Demand Using Fresno COG Activity‐Based Model LSA will work with the City and identify screening threshold and substantial evidence to support their exclusion from further analysis. The advisory also provides guidance on the trips’ purposes to include for the land use types. In the case of residential projects, all household tours are considered in VMT estimation, whereas, for office uses, all employee tours are used for regional comparison.

In its Technical Advisory, the OPR suggests three methods of calculating VMT: trip‐based, tour‐ based, and change in total VMT. Trip‐based VMT focuses on the trips and trip lengths directly to and from a project. Tour‐based VMT provides a holistic view of a project’s daily VMT, in which trips beyond a resident’s home or an employee’s workplace are taken into account. The last method is to calculate the change in overall VMT, in which a project’s effect on travel behavior (beyond simply adding a trip to and from the project) is taken into account. For example, the addition of a grocery store in a neighborhood with fresh produce will reduce household VMT by redirecting existing paths to fresh produce to the new grocery store.

As part of this task, LSA will review the potential VMT calculation methodologies adopted by other jurisdictions. LSA will identify potential methodologies those are most appropriate for the City and use them for the subsequent tasks. In addition to documenting recommended methodologies, LSA will also create an easy‐to‐understand VMT process flow chart identifying the different steps involved in a project VMT analysis. The intent is to create a concise, evidence‐based, and easy‐to‐ understand VMT calculation approach for the City and stakeholders to use for their projects.

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 252
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
20 Task 7.0 Development of Mitigation Strategies and/or Menu of Mitigation Measures LSA will ground the mitigation analysis in the best available literature on the impact to VMT from various development projects, transportation projects, and planning projects. LSA will begin by canvassing strategies sorted by, for example whether they apple to household, commercial/ office, or hospitality development.

LSA will review the available literature and strategies on VMT mitigation measures to determine their applicability in the City’s context. These strategies include the CAPCOA report Quantifying Green Gas Mitigation, several CARB sources, the OPR TA, the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) CEQA Statute & Guidelines, and VMT analysis guidelines for several jurisdictions across California. LSA recently canvassed all the aforementioned resources to develop the most comprehensive dataset of potential mitigation strategies for our clients with a database of more than 100 possible VMT mitigation strategies for local agencies to consider.

Not all mitigation measures in the LSA master list may be appliable in the City’s context. LSA will identify key mitigation strategies applicable to most common projects in the City, considering a range of project types, sizes, and locations. VMT mitigations can be diverse and can be classified under several categories, such as land use/location, non‐motorized infrastructure improvements, transit improvements, commute trip reduction strategies, and parking pricing/policy. For example, residential development could mitigate VMT via car‐sharing or bicycle‐sharing programs, either on site (as part of the development) or targeted to off‐site locations. Office projects could implement Travel Demand Management (TDM) strategies, such as carpool or vanpool programs. Parking supply and pricing is a possible mitigation for employment‐generating land uses. Land use strategies are often discussed and carefully examined, but LSA will incorporate the context of the VMT areas of the City. LSA will also consulting City staff for information regarding any local programs/TDM measures that can be used as mitigation measures with substantial evidence.

The OPR TA provides minimal guidance regarding VMT mitigations for transportation projects. LSA will evaluate the mitigation strategies proposed for transportation projects in the OPR TA and other sources and determine their applicability in the context of the City.

Task 8.0 Preparation of VMT Guidelines Document
LSA will prepare a draft guidance document for the City, stakeholders and CEQA consultants to use for projects in the City of Hanford. The guidance document will summarize the recommended VMT thresholds for different land use projects. If the thresholds are different from that in the OPR TA, the guidance document will include sources and text to provide reasonable justification. It will include different screening criteria applicable to the projects within the City as well as VMT calculation and impact analysis methodologies for different land use, transportation, and planning projects.

Additionally, this guidance document will also summarize the recommended mitigations applicable to the City as stated above.

Task 9.0 Meetings
LSA will schedule and host a project kick‐off meeting upon receiving the Notice to Proceed. LSA already has profound knowledge of all the SB 743 foundational documents as members of the ITE SB

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 253
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
21 743 Working Group and the Caltrans Implementation Technical Roundtable. We are knowledgeable on most of the reference documents and will bring that knowledge and a review of any other related documents to the kick‐off meeting. The purpose of this meeting will be to review and confirm the work plan and schedule; review the various tasks; confirm the chain of communication and reporting; and establish the next steps within the first quarter of project activity. LSA will circulate a proposed agenda for this meeting.

The LSA Team has deep experience in conducting successful bi‐weekly team conference call/meetings over a long‐term planning effort. The schedule for these calls/meetings will be determined at the outset of the project, and all participants will receive Outlook invitations with advanced notifications attached. As part of the VMT guidelines development process, it has been our experience that the bi‐weekly meetings allow for an interactive and integrated approach to project management and communications. LSA will make contacts using telephone, email, and any other acceptable communication medium on a biweekly basis. The objective is to have a seamless process linked by regular communication that advances toward an expected conclusion.

Finally, LSA staff will attend up to two public hearings, including a Planning Commission meeting and a City Council meeting via virtual platforms. This has been included in the scope and budget for this project.

SCHEDULE
Based on the tasks listed above, LSA has prepared a tentative schedule for the project that is included in Appendix A.

BUDGET
Based on the tasks listed above, LSA has prepared a tentative budget for the project that is included in Appendix B. LSA proposes to accomplish the proposed scope of work on an hourly not to exceed basis.

REFERENCES
We encourage you to contact our references regarding the quality of our work, management of budget and schedule, and attentiveness to project needs.

Contact  Email/Phone  Project of References
Leslie Blair, PE
Senior Civil Engineer
City of Visalia
707 W. Acequia Avenue,
Visalia, California 92614
[email protected]
(559) 713‐4633
 Project: City of Visalia VMT Thresholds and
Implementation Guidelines
 Project Dates: 10/2020 – 4/2021
 Status: Completed and within budget
 Cost: $89,935
 Key Personnel: Ambarish Mukherjee, Ravi
Palakurthy, Tony Petros, Debmalya Sinha

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
22 Kristine Cai, Deputy
Director Fresno Council of
Governments
2035 Tulare Street, Suite
201
Fresno, California 93721
[email protected]
(559) 233‐4148, ext. 215
 Project: Fresno COG SB 743 VMT Analysis
Project Dates: 7/2019 – 12/2020
Status: Completed within budget
Cost: $269,200
Key Personnel: Ambarish Mukherjee, Ravi
Palakurthy
Susan O'Strander, AICP,
Director of Community
Development
City of Big Bear Lake
39707 Big Bear Boulevard,
PO Box 10000
Big Bear Lake, California
92315
[email protected]
(909) 866‐5831, ext. 130
 Project: City of Big Bear Lake VMT CEQA
Thresholds
Project Dates: 7/2021 – 3/2022
Status: Completed within budget
Cost: $49,900
Key Personnel: Arthur Black, Ambarish
Mukherjee, Ravi Palakurthy, Debmalya
Sinha, Deepnath Majumder
Sophia Pagoulatos,
Planning Manager
City of Fresno,
Planning and Development
Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721
[email protected]
(559) 621‐8062
 Project: City of Fresno General Plan
Program EIR Traffic Impact Analysis and
VMT Thresholds
Project Dates: 12/2019 – 11/2020
Status: Completed and within budget
Cost: $78,500
Key Personnel: Anthony Petros, Ambarish
Mukherjee, Ravi Palakurthy, Debmalya
Sinha, Deepnath Majumder

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (951) 781‐9310. We look forward to working with you and to the successful completion of this project.

Sincerely,
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Ambarish Mukherjee, PE, AICP
Principal

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 255
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
23 APPENDIX A

SCHEDULE

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 256
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval) Year
Month
Week 123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9
TASK 1.0: PROJECT COORDINATION AND ADMINISTRATION
TASK 2.0: DEFINITION OF REGION
TASK 3.0: DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT/LOCATION SCREENING METHODS AND CRITERIA TASK 4.0: DEVELOPMENT OF ONLINE VMT SCREENING TOOL
TASK 5.0: DEVELOPMENT OF CITY‐SPECIFIC THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE TASK 6.0: VMT CALCULATION METHODOLOGIES
TASK 7.0: DEVELOPMENT OF MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND/OR MENU OF MITIGATION MEASURES TASK 8.0: PREPARATION OF VMT GUIDELINES DOCUMENT
TASK 9.0: MEETINGS
Kick‐Off Meeting
Biweekly Project Meetings
Planning Commission/City Council Meetings
Draft/Final Deliverable
* This schedule has been prepared based on the assumption that the project kick‐off meeting will occur the week of July 11th November
2022
PROJECT SCHEDULE
OctoberAugustJuly* September
Tasks
M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\Schedule.xlsx\Schedule (6/11/2022)

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 257
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

6/11/22 (M:\PROPOSAL\TRAFFIC\Northern California\Kings County\City of Hanford\Hanford VMT Guidelines\City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal.docx)
24 APPENDIX B
BUDGET PROPOSAL

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 258
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval) Hours
Arthur Ambarish Tony Ravi Justin   Kyle Amy   Ron
Black Mukherjee Petros Palakurthy Roos Simpson Fischer Brugger Principal In
Charge
Project
Manager/
Principal
Project Advisor Lead  Modeler
Senior
Project
Analyst
Project Analyst GIS  Specialist CEQA  Advisor AQ/GHG
Advisor
AQ/GHG
Advisor
Document
Management Total Total
Tasks                                     | Hourly Rate ‐‐> $210   $235  $285  $185  $140  $110  $210  $190  $240  $165  $115  Hours Cost TASK 1.0: PROJECT COORDINATION AND ADMINISTRATION 8 16 2 16 2 44 $9,350 TASK 2.0: DEFINITION OF REGION 1 4 4 4 8 21 $3,330
TASK 3.0: DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT/LOCATION SCREENING METHODS AND CRITERIA 2 8 1 8 8 16 2 8 53 $8,745 TASK 4.0: DEVELOPMENT OF ONLINE VMT SCREENING TOOL 1 2 4 12 19 $3,685 TASK 5.0: DEVELOPMENT OF CITY‐SPECIFIC THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE 1 2 1 2 8 8 22 $3,335 TASK 6.0:VMT CALCULATION METHODOLOGIES 1 4 1 4 8 12 30 $4,615 TASK 7.0: DEVELOPMENT OF MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND/OR MENU OF MITIGATION MEASURES  1 4 1 4 8 16 34 $5,055 TASK 8.0: PREPARATION OF VMT GUIDELINES DOCUMENT  2 8 1 4 16 32 2 4 69 $9,925 TASK 9.0: MEETINGS 6 4 10 $1,850
TOTAL HOURS 16 53 7 44 56 96 12 4 2 8 4 302
TOTAL COST $3,360  $12,455  $1,995  $8,140  $7,840  $10,560  $2,520  $760  $480  $1,320  $460  $49,890  $49,890 TOTAL LABOR $49,890
REIMBURSABLE $0
TOTAL BUDGET ESTIMATE $49,890
LSA
BUDGET PROPOSAL

12.K.a
Packet Pg. 259
Attachment: Attachment 1 - VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Proposal_Final (CD: LSA Contract Approval) Initial: City______ Consultant______
1 AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
This Agreement for Professional Services (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this 21st day of June, 2022, by and between the City of Hanford, a municipal corporation (“City”), and LSA Associates, Inc. (“Consultant”).

RECITALS
A. Consultant represents to City that they are specially trained, experienced, licensed and competent to perform the services which will be required by this Agreement; and B. Consultant represents to City that it possesses the s kill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein.

C. City desires to retain Consultant to render the services as set forth in this Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein for such other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Retention of Consultant. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, City retains Consultant to perform the services identified in this Agreement, as an independent contractor, and Consultant hereby accepts this independent contractor appointment.

2. Scope of Services and City Responsibilities.
a. Consultant shall perform the services (“Services”) and the City shall have the responsibilities described on the attached Exhibit “A,” which is incorporated herein by reference. To the maximum extent possible, the terms of the body of this Agreement and Exhibit “A” shall be interpreted so they are consistent; however, if there is a direct and irreconcilable conflict between the text of this Agreement and Exhibit “A”, the former shall control.
b. Consultant shall correct any and all errors and/or omissions, which arise out of Consultant’s negligence or intentional misconduct, in the performance of the Services and any documents resulting there from even though City has accepted said Services or documents. Consultant shall make such corrections upon City’s request and at no cost or expense to City.

3. Time of Performance. Services shall be completed by the dates identified in the attached Exhibit “A.”

4. Compensation. Compensation to be paid to Consultant shall be in accordance with the attached Exhibit “A”; provided however, the total compensation payable to Consultant shall not exceed FORTY-NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY DOLLARS ($49,890.00).

12.K.b
Packet Pg. 260
Attachment: Attachment 2 - LSA Professional Services Agreement signed (CD: LSA Contract Approval) Initial: City______ Consultant______
2 Payment by City under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of errors, even if such errors were known to the City at the time of payment.

5. Method of Payment. Consultant shall submit monthly billings to City describing the work performed during the preceding month. Consultant’s bills shall include a brief description of the Services performed and the date the Services were performed the number of hours spent and by whom, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than sixty (60) calendar days after the date of submittal of an invoice for completed tasks and approval of the invoice by City staff.

6. Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, “Extra Work” means any work which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Services, but which are not included in Exhibit “A.” Extra work will be performed on terms agreed upon by the parties. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for Extra Work without written authorization from City.

7. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by the City immediately and without notice for cause or by City without cause upon ten (10) days’ written notice of termination to Consultant. Upon termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for Services performed up to the effective date of termination, unless this Agreement is terminated for cause, in which case, City may withhold compensation due Consultant in order to reimburse City for any losses, damages or expenses caused by Consultant’s default under this Agreement.

8. Ownership of Documents. All plans, studies, documents and other writings and electronic disks containing drawings prepared by and for Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors in the course of implementing this Agreement, except working notes and internal documents, shall become the property of the City, and the City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or to any other party.

Consultant shall, at Consultant’s expense, provide such reports, plans, studies, documents and other writings to City upon written request.

However, the City’s use of completed documents for other projects and/or the use of uncompleted documents without the written authorization of Consultant will be at the City’s sole risk.

The City shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify and hold harmless the Consultant from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from any unauthorized reuse of, or chang es to the Project Documents not performed by the Consultant.

9. Licensing of Intellectual Property. This Agreement creates a non -exclusive and perpetual license for City to use, modify, reuse or sublicense any and all copyrights, designs, and other intellectual property embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data electronic or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement (“Documents & Data”).

Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that City is granted non-exclusive and perpetual license for a ny Documents & Data the subcontractor prepared under this Agreement.

Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to license any and all

12.K.b
Packet Pg. 261
Attachment: Attachment 2 - LSA Professional Services Agreement signed (CD: LSA Contract Approval) Initial: City______ Consultant______
3 Documents & Data. City shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purpose intended by this Agreement shall be at City’s sole risk. The City shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify and hold harmless the Consultant from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from any unauthorized reuse of or changes to the Project Documents not performed by the Consultant.

10. Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents & Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materi als shall not, without the prior written consent of City, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services under this Agreement, nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performan ce of the Services under this Agreement. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use City’s name, insignia, photographs, or the project for which Consultant’s Services are rendered, or any publicity pertaining to the Consultant’s Services under this Agreement in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium with out the prior written consent by City.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City acknowledges that the Consultant may want/need to include projects performed under this Agreement on proposals for similar work in the future. The City hereby grants permission to list any projects performed under this agreement for marketing purposes ; provided however, Consultant will not make any representations regarding City’s satisfaction with Consultant’s work product unless Consultant receives a written statement or evaluation from City.

11. Equal Opportunity Employment . Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age. Such non - discrimination shall include, b ut not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.

Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of City’s programs or guidelines currently in effect as identified and provided to Consultant by City.

12. Insurance Requirements.

a. Consultant, at Consultant’s own cost and expense, shall procure and maintain, for the duration of this Agreement, the following insurance policies.

i. Workers Compensation Coverage. As required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with a limit of no less than ONE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease.

ii. Commercial General Liability (CGL) Coverage. Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 0001, including products and completed operations, with a limit of no less than TWO MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, and a general aggregate limit of no less than FOUR MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($4,000,000).

12.K.b
Packet Pg. 262
Attachment: Attachment 2 - LSA Professional Services Agreement signed (CD: LSA Contract Approval) Initial: City______ Consultant______
4 iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. If Consultant will use an automobile in its provision of services hereunder, Consultant will maintain automobile liability coverage issued under ISO Form Number CA 0001 covering any auto (Code 1), or if Consultant has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (non-owned),with a limit no less than ONE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. iv. Professional Liability Coverage. Consultant will maintain Professional Liability coverage with limits no less than TWO MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,000,000) per occurrence or claim, and TWO MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,000,000) policy aggregate.

If Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by Consultant.

Consultant’s insurance policies shall be “occurrence” policies and not “claims -made” coverage except for Professional Liability Coverage. “ Claims-made” policies must satisfy the following requirements: (i) the retroactive date of coverage must be shown and must precede the effective date of the contract; (ii) coverage shall be maintained and evidence of coverage must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract work; and (iii) if coverage is canceled or non-renewed and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date preceding the contract effective date, Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work.

Consultant may maintain an Umbrella policy in conjunction with the insurance policies referenced above. In such case, Consultant shall be deemed to have satisfied the insurance requirements of this contract as long as: (i) the coverage limits of the Umbrella policy and of the underlying liability policy(ies), when combined, satisfy each of the per occurrence and aggregate requirements identified in this section; and (ii) coverage under the Umbrella policy is as broad as and includes all incidents and events covered by the underlying insurance that it supplements. b. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may require Consultant to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. Alternatively, the City may require Consultant to provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. c. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
i. The City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL and automobile liability policies with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of Consultant including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations; products used by Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Consultant. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to Consultant’s insurance at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or if not available, through the addition of both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33 or CG

12.K.b
Packet Pg. 263
Attachment: Attachment 2 - LSA Professional Services Agreement signed (CD: LSA Contract Approval) Initial: City______ Consultant______
5 20 38 and CG 20 37 if a later edition is used. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City and its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.

ii. For any claims related to this contract, Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City and/or its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be in excess of Consultant’s insurance and shall be non-contributory.

iii. Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.

Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII.

Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

d. Consultant hereby grants to the City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of Consultant may acquire against the City and/or its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Consultant agrees to obtain endorsements necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

13. Indemnification. To the fullest extent allowable by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, e mployees, agents and volunteers from and against all claims, demands, actions, injuries, liabilities, losses, costs or damages, direct or indirect, and any and all attorneys’ fees and other expenses which City or its officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers may sustain or incur as a consequence of or are in any way related to Consultant’s or its owners, directors, officers, managers, employees, agents and subcontractor’s willful or negligent acts or omissions in the performance of the services a nd Consultants responsibilities and obligations to be performed under this agreement or its failure to perform or comply with any of its obligations or responsibilities contained in this agreement ; excluding, however, such liability, claims, losses, damages or expenses arising from City’s sole or active negligence or willful acts. This duty to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless shall survive the termination of this agreement.

14. Independent Contractor Status. It is understood and agreed that Consultant, in the performance of the Services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and shall not act as an agent or employee of City. Consultant shall obtain no retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City’s employees and Consultant hereby expressly waives any claim it may have to any such rights. Nothing in this Agreement shall create or

12.K.b
Packet Pg. 264
Attachment: Attachment 2 - LSA Professional Services Agreement signed (CD: LSA Contract Approval) Initial: City______ Consultant______
6 be construed as creating a partnership, joint venture or any othe r relationship between City and Consultant.

15. Consultant’s Books and Records.
a. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services, or expenditures and disbursements charged to City for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement.
b. Consultant shall maintain all documents and records that demonstrate performance under this Agreement for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of termination or completion of this Agreement. c. Any records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available for inspection or audit, at any time during regular business hours, upon written request by the City. Copies of such documents shall be provided to the City for inspection at the City offices.
d. Where City has reason to believe that such records or documents may be lost or discarded due to dissolution, disbandment or termination of Consultant’s business, City may, by written request, require that custody of the records be given to the City and that the records and documents be maintained in the City offices. Access to such records and documents shall be granted to any party authorized by Consultant, Consultant’s representatives, or Consultant’s successor-in- interest.

16. Interest of Consultant. Consultant and its shareholders covenants and represents that they do not now have any investment or interest in real property and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, in the area covered by this Agreement or any other source of income, interest in real property or investment which would be affected in any manner or degree by the pe rformance of Consultant’s Services hereunder. Consultant further covenants and represents that in the performance of the Services hereunder, to the best of its knowledge no person having any such interest shall perform any Services under this Agreement.

Consultant is not a designated employee within the meaning of the Political Reform Act because Consultant:
a. will conduct research and arrive at conclusions with respect to rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel independent of the control and direction of the City or of any City official, other than normal agreement monitoring; and b. possesses no authority with respect to any City decision beyond rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel. FPPC Reg. Sec. 18700, et seq.

17. Professional Ability of Consultant. City has relied upon Consultant’s representations regarding its training and professional ability to perform the Services hereunder as a

12.K.b
Packet Pg. 265
Attachment: Attachment 2 - LSA Professional Services Agreement signed (CD: LSA Contract Approval) Initial: City______ Consultant______
7 material inducement to enter into this Agreement. Consultant shall therefore provide properly skilled personnel to perform all Services under this Agreement. The primary provider of the Services called for by this Agreement shall be Ambarish Mukherjee who shall not be replaced without the written consent of the City. All work performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall be in accordance with the applicable professional standard of care and shall meet the local professional standard of quality ordinarily to be expected of competent persons in Consultant’s field of expertise working in Kings County.

18. Compliance with Laws . Consultant shall use the proper standard of care in performing the Services and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time the agreement is executed. In addition, if the request for proposal to provide professional services which are the subject of this Agreement cited any federal or state financial assistance involved in the project for which the Services are provided, the Consultant shall perform all services in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws, rates and regulations in effect at the time the agreement is executed.

19. Licenses. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, and insurance which are legally required of Consultant to lawfully and competently perform the Services. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any licenses, permits, and insurance which are legally required of Consultant to lawfully and competently perform the Services.

20. Assignment and Subcontracting . The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the reputation, experience and competence of Consultant. Assignments of any or all rights, duties or obligations of the Consultant under this Agreement will be permitted only with the express written consent of the City, which will not be unreasonably withheld. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the Services to be performed under this Agreement without the express written consent of the City, which will not be unreasonably withheld. If City consents to such subcontract, Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts or omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall: (i) create any contractual relationship between City and subcontractor; (ii) create any obligation on the part of the City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such subcontractor; (iii) or relieve Consultant of any of its obligations and responsibilities under this Agreement.

21. Attorneys’ Fees. If an action at law or in equity is necessary to enforce or interpret the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and necessary disbursements in addition to any other reasonable relief to which he may be entitled.

With respect to any suit, action or proceeding arising out of or related to this Agreement, or the documentation related hereto, the parties hereby submit to the jurisdiction and venue of the Superior Court for the County of Kings, State of California for any proceeding arising hereunder.

22. Sole and Only Agreement . This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties hereto with respect to the matters set forth herein and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the parties regarding said matters.

Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or in writing, have been made by any party or anyone acting on behalf of any party

12.K.b
Packet Pg. 266
Attachment: Attachment 2 - LSA Professional Services Agreement signed (CD: LSA Contract Approval) Initial: City______ Consultant______
8 which are not embodied in this Agreement and no other agreement, statement or promise shall be valid or binding.

23. Invalidity. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect without being impaired or invalidated in any way.

24. Amendment. No change, amendment or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless the same be in writing and signed by the parties hereto.

25. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and governed pursuant to the laws of the State of California.

26. Waiver. Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision under this Agreement.

27. Mediation. The parties agree to make a good faith attempt to resolve any disputes arising out of this Agreement through mediation prior to commencing litigation. The parties shall mutually agree upon the mediator and shall divide the costs of mediation equally. If the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator, the dispute shall be submitted to JAMS/ENDISPUTE (“JAMS”) or its successor in interest. JAMS shall provide the parties with the names of five qualified mediators.

Each party shall have the option to strike two of the five mediators selected by JAMS and thereafter the mediator remaining shall hear the dispute. If the dispute remains unresolved after mediation, either party may commence litigation.

28. Prohibited Interests. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or result from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.

29. Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver and perform the Agreement. Each party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and to bind each respective party.

30. Notice. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, any notice, consent, authorization or other communication to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly given and received when delivered personally, when transmitted by facsimile or e-mail if receipt is acknowledged by the addressee, one business day after being deposited for next-day delivery with a nationally recognized overnight delivery service, or three business days after being mailed by first class mail, charges and postage prepaid, property addressed to the party to receive such notice at the

12.K.b
Packet Pg. 267
Attachment: Attachment 2 - LSA Professional Services Agreement signed (CD: LSA Contract Approval) Initial: City______ Consultant______
9 last address furnished for such purpose by the party to whom notice is directed and addressed as follows:

Mario A. Cifuentez, II Tony Petros
City of Hanford LSA Associates, Inc.
319 N. Douty 20 Executive Park, Ste. 200
Hanford, CA 93230 Irvine, CA 92614
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective on the day and in the year first set forth above.

CITY

CITY OF HANFORD,
a Municipal Corporation
By:__________________________________
MARIO A. CIFUENTEZ, II
City Manager

CONSULTANT
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

By:___________________________________
____________________ [name]
____________________ [title]
Anthony Petros
President

12.K.b
Packet Pg. 268
Attachment: Attachment 2 - LSA Professional Services Agreement signed (CD: LSA Contract Approval) Initial: City______ Consultant______
10 EXHIBIT “A”

Consultant Proposal

12.K.b
Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: Attachment 2 - LSA Professional Services Agreement signed (CD: LSA Contract Approval)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 6/21/2022

AGENDA SECTION: L

SUBJECT:

Community Development: Adoption of Resolution NO. 22-25-R; Revising the Funding amount from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Block Grant Program Corona Virus Response (CDBG-CV2) that was previously approved by Council through the adoption of Resolution No. 21-19-R

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council, by motion, Adopt Resolution No. 22-25-R.

BACKGROUND:

In May 2021, the City applied for $1,100,000 to support local affordable housing, and Council approved the submittal of Resolution 21-19-R. The funding was made available from the 2020 Community Development Block Grant Program - Corona Virus Response (CDBG-CV2) and the 2020/21 funding year of the State's CDBG Program.

In May 2022, the State Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) directed the city to update the funding amount from $1,100,000 to 1,150,000 and submit a new resolution with the change. The only update on the new resolution is the award amount of $1,150,000 and the update to the activity description.

Attached for reference are the approved 20-19-R Resolution and Staff Report dated May 18, 2021.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

CDBG-CV2 Resolution 22-25-R 6.21.22
21-19-R-Sunrise Apartments Approved and Signed

12.L
Packet Pg. 270
STAFF REPORT 5.18.21 CDBG-CV2

12.L
Packet Pg. 271
1 Department of Housing and Community Development
Revised 04/12/2021 2020 CDBG/CDBG-CV

RESOLUTION NO.22-25-R

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDING AND THE

EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT AND ANY AMENDMENTS
THERETO FROM THE 2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM – CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE (CDBG-CV) AND/OR
THE 2020-2021 FUNDING YEAR OF THE STATE CDBG PROGRAM
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Hanford as follows:

SECTION 1:

The City has reviewed and hereby approves the submission to the State of California of one or more application(s) in the aggregate amount of, not to exceed, $1,150,000 for (i) the following CDBG-CV activities, pursuant to the CDBG Method of Distribution as described in the State of California 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan August 2020 Second Substantial Amendment, and/or (ii) the following CDBG activities, pursuant to the CDBG Method of Distribution as described in the State of California 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan January 2021 Substantial Amendment:

List activities and amounts

The rehabilitation of the Sunrise Apartments (formerly Stardust Motel) on Lacey Boulevard, is a stand-alone project to convert this property from temporary to permanent housing for persons experiencing homelessness. The rehabilitation will include the full conversion of the 22 apartments into permanent housing.

The scope of work includes the modification of up to twelve efficiency units to meet HUD Housing Quality Standards. In all units, modifications will include new paint, new window blinds and furniture, flooring repair and replacement, bathroom sink and shower replacement, full kitchens added, walk -in closet added, and some electrical, mechanical, and plumbing upgrades. In addition to the residential spaces, the management office and residence will be converted into a 1-bedroom apartment for staff along with a property manager’s office, a service office, and shared bathroom facilities. The parking lot will be stripped and adjusted to allow for additional parking and new bike racks. In accordance with the Site Plan Review conducted by the County of Kings, the project scope also includes adding a new parking lot. The laundry facilities will be redesigned to accommodate ADA upgrades. Life -safety updates will include prefabricated

12.L.a
Packet Pg. 272
Attachment: CDBG-CV2 Resolution 22-25-R 6.21.22 (CD: Community Development Block Grant CDBG-CV2) 2 Department of Housing and Community Development
Revised 04/12/2021 2020 CDBG/CDBG-CV

staircases replaced on the exterior of the building, as well as exterior railings updated to meet code requirements. Units will be converted from interim to permanent housing one by one as the timing of project funds allows.

Amount: $ 1,150,000
SECTION 2:

The City hereby approves the use of Program Income in an amount not to exceed $ 1,150,000 for the CDBG-CV activities and/or CDBG activities described in Section 1.

SECTION 3:

The City acknowledges compliance with all state and federal public participation requirements in the development of its application(s).

SECTION 4:

The City hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager, or designee*, to execute and deliver all applications and act on the City’s behalf in all matters pertaining to all such applications.

SECTION 5:

If an application is approved, the City Manager or designee*is authorized to enter into, execute and deliver the grant agreement (i.e., Standard Agreement) and any and all subsequent amendments thereto with the State of California for the purposes of the grant.

SECTION 6:

If an application is approved, the City Manager or designee*is authorized to sign and submit Funds Requests and all required reporting forms and other documentation, without limitation, including any covenant or regulatory agreement as may be required by the State of California from time to time in connection with the grant.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on June 21, 2022, by the following vote:

Instruction: Fill in all four vote-count fields below. If none, indicate “0” for that field.

12.L.a
Packet Pg. 273
Attachment: CDBG-CV2 Resolution 22-25-R 6.21.22 (CD: Community Development Block Grant CDBG-CV2) 3 Department of Housing and Community Development
Revised 04/12/2021 2020 CDBG/CDBG-CV

AYES: Enter # of votes
NOES: Enter # of votes
ABSENT : Enter # of absences
ABSTAIN: Enter # of abstentions

Kalish Marrow, Mayor
City of Hanford

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
City of Hanford of Kings County

I, Natalie Corral , City Clerk of the City of Hanford of Kings County, State of California, hereby certify the above and foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by said City Council on this 21 day of June 2022.

Natalie Corral, Clerk of the City of Hanford

By:

Enter Name of City/County Clerk, Title.

Note: The attesting officer cannot be the person identified in the Resolution as the authorized signer.

12.L.a
Packet Pg. 274
Attachment: CDBG-CV2 Resolution 22-25-R 6.21.22 (CD: Community Development Block Grant CDBG-CV2)

12.L.b
Packet Pg. 275
Attachment: 21-19-R-Sunrise Apartments Approved and Signed (CD: Community Development Block Grant CDBG-CV2)

12.L.b
Packet Pg. 276
Attachment: 21-19-R-Sunrise Apartments Approved and Signed (CD: Community Development Block Grant CDBG-CV2)

12.L.b
Packet Pg. 277
Attachment: 21-19-R-Sunrise Apartments Approved and Signed (CD: Community Development Block Grant CDBG-CV2)

CITY OF HANFORD CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: Tuesday, May 18th, 2021

SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant Corona Virus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security funds application (CDBG-CV2)

Adopt Resolution 21-19-R ( Attachment 1) approving the submittal of an application to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), authorizing the City Manager to apply for and accept funds from the State of California’s 2020 Community Development Block Grant program Corona Virus Response (CDBG-CV) and/or the 2020- 2021 funding year of the state CDBG program.

On March 27, 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in response to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) published a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for Community Development Block Grant Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CDBG-CV 2&3) funds. HCD has set aside approximately $50 million of its CDBG-CV2 funds to support Homekey projects, regardless of whether they are located in non-entitlement or entitlement jurisdictions. These funds are now being made available over-the-counter to those applicants who applied under the Homekey NOFA and have a CDBG-CV2 eligible project. Eligible uses include acquisition, rehabilitation, and off-site infrastructure construction necessary for projects to become habitable and fully operational. Applicants do not need to have been awarded Homekey funds to be eligible for an award, but they must have submitted an application under the Homekey NOFA.

Awarded funds must be used to provide housing for individuals and families experiencing homelessness or at risk of experiencing homelessness and who are impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. An Eligible Applicant may choose to target Project Roomkey properties, or other, non-Project Roomkey properties.

• Eligible Uses include the following:
• Acquisition or rehabilitation of motels, hotels, or hostels • Conversion of units from nonresidential to residential in a structure with a certificate of occupancy as a motel, hotel, or hostel.
• The purchase of affordability covenants and restrictions for units. • Relocation costs for individuals who are being displaced as a result of rehabilitation of existing units.
• Acquisition of other sites and assets, including purchase of apartments or homes, adult residential facilities, residential care facilities for the elderly, manufactured housing, and other buildings with existing residential uses that could be converted to permanent or interim housing.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

HISTORY
CBDG-CV2 PLAN

12.L.c
Packet Pg. 278
Attachment: STAFF REPORT 5.18.21 CDBG-CV2 (CD: Community Development Block Grant CDBG-CV2)

The proposed plan must describe the manner in which the allocated funds will be used for eligible activities. Describe the way the Local government will prioritize investments that increase the supply of housing for individuals and families experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness and who are impacting by the COVID-19 pandemic. Describe how the Plan is consistent with programs set forth in the City’s Housing Element. Be authorized and approved by resolution, and ensuring the public had adequate opportunity to review and comment on the contents of the Plan.

The City of Hanford’s proposed plan activities include:

1) The City of Hanford anticipates submitting an application under this NOFA. The City’s allocation is $1,100,000 and a potential activity would be the rehabilitation of the Sunrise Apartments (formerly Stardust Motel) on Lacey Boulevard, as a stand-alone project to convert this property from temporary to permanent housing for persons experiencing homelessness. The rehabilitation will include the full conversion of half (11) of the 22 apartments into permanent housing. Additional dollars will be secured to convert the remaining 11 apartments into permanent housing.

The application is due by 5:00 PM on August 31, 2021. Applications will be reviewed and awarded in the order that complete, eligible applications are received.

There would be no fiscal impact to the City of Hanford.

BUDGET IMPACT

12.L.c
Packet Pg. 279
Attachment: STAFF REPORT 5.18.21 CDBG-CV2 (CD: Community Development Block Grant CDBG-CV2)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 6/21/2022

AGENDA SECTION: M

SUBJECT:

Community Development: Review and approval of the proposed amendment No. 1 to the Community Development Block Grant Documents: 2021 Annual Action Plan to provide for additional funding for parking lot improvements to the Police Activities League (PAL) facility

RECOMMENDATION:

See Staff Report Attached.

BACKGROUND:

FISCAL IMPACT:

I

ATTACHMENTS:

STAFF REPORT Amendment No.1 CDBG AP21

12.M
Packet Pg. 280

CITY OF HANFORD CITY

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: Tuesday, June 21, 2022

SUBJECT: SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT NO.1: a request to review and approve the proposed amendment to the 2021-2022 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Annual Action Plan (AP).

Review and approve the proposed amendment to the Community Development Block Grant Documents: 2021 Annual Action Plan

The City’s 2019-2023 Consolidated Plan is the five-year planning and application requirement for the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), a program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Consolidated Plan includes yearly Action Plans that describe how CDBG fu nds will be used to help the City meet the community development needs.

The 2021-2022 Action Plan was submitted to the Community Planning and Development Department of HUD in May 2021.

For Program Year 2021 -22, the city is proposing to amend its submit ted plan substantially.

This substantial amendment aims to allocate $39,000 of CDBG’s unexpected program income to the existing Hanford Police League (PAL) parking lot improvements project for additional cost.

The City of Hanford (City) is an Entitlement City in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The city received a CDBG Entitlement allocation for $558,523 for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 -2022.

Through its AAP process for FY 2021 -2022, the City committed $200,000 of CDBG funds towards the Hanford Police Activity League (PAL) parking lot improvements.

Public Improvement Youth Complex Site Improvements-Police Activities Building

The city acquired the property for the Police Activities League building located at 902 N. 11th Avenue, Hanford, on the southwest comer of 11th Avenue and Rodgers Road. The existing site was formerly used as the California National Guard Armory and was sol d as surplus in 2016. A small paved parking area accommodates up to three (3) vehicles, and the parking area has no designated ADA parking stalls. The proposed project will improve the parking area by providing one van-accessible ADA parking stall with a s triped accessibility route, 11 public parking spaces, and five emergency vehicle parking stalls. Additionally, the project will give paved access for the Central Valley Regional SWAT vehicle to be safely parked in the gated and fenced area behind the existing building on a new concrete pad. Site improvements

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

BACKGROUND
2021 ACTION PLAN AMENDMENT

12.M.a
Packet Pg. 281
Attachment: STAFF REPORT Amendment No.1 CDBG AP21 (CD: 2021-22 CDBG Action Plan Substantial Amendment NO.1) include a chain link privacy fence between the facility and the adjacent residential units to the northwest of the property and a masonry trash enclosure structure for the facility to allow trash collection with dumpsters.

Original Allocation: $200,000
Proposed Increase: $39,000

CDBG funds will cover the additional cost due to the increase in materials. The project will receive $239,000 in CDBG Funds from the 2021 Action Plan.

The proposed changes are considered a Substantial Amendment to the 20 20-21 Annual Action Plan and require specific citizen participation actions before the City may approve the changes Council and submitted to HUD. To allow interested residents to review and comment on the proposed changes, the city published a public notice in the Hanford Sentinel on May 13, 2022, informing residents of the availability of the Substantial Amendment document for public review and comment for 30 days. To date, no comments have been received.

Approval of the action plans will result in the City meeting its expenditure milestones and funding being recaptured.

BUDGET IMPACT

PUBLIC COMMENT

12.M.a
Packet Pg. 282
Attachment: STAFF REPORT Amendment No.1 CDBG AP21 (CD: 2021-22 CDBG Action Plan Substantial Amendment NO.1)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 6/21/2022

AGENDA SECTION: N

SUBJECT:

Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1 and authorization for the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said Notice with the Kings County Recorder’s Office.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council, by motion, approve a Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928, Unit No. 1 and authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said Notice with the Kings County Recorder’s Office.

BACKGROUND:

On May 4, 2021 the Council approved the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement (attached for reference) and the final map for Tract No. 928 Unit 1, a 56 lots residential subdivision, located as shown on the attached map. The developer of the subdivision is San Joaquin Valley Homes, Presidio JJR Bella Vista, LLC. The developer has completed all public improvements for the subdivision and posted a 10 percent warranty security, which shall remain in effect for a minimum of one year after the attached Notice of Completion is recorded.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The public improvements have been constructed by the developer as required by the subdivision conditions of approval, and no fiscal impact to the budget will result from approval of the Notice of Completion.

ATTACHMENTS:
928-1 Vicinity Map
Tract 928 Unit 1 - Notice of Completion - Recording (pdf) Tract 928 Unit 1 - Notice of Completion - Recording (.doc) Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt.

12.N
Packet Pg. 283
S89° 56' 31"W 372.68'
N00° 04' 24"E 346.04'N89° 56' 31"E 362.52'N00° 04' 24"E 695.14' N00° 04' 24"E 325.00'263.31'S89° 56' 31"W
L=27.66', R=20.00'=79°14'06"
N89° 56' 31"E130.00'S66° 35' 05"E65.35'
S89° 59' 33"E60.00'
NE COR. OF SEC. 22-18/21FD. 2" BRASS CAP IN CONCRETE,DOWN 1" STAMPED L.S. 4375,PER K.C.C.R. #3207N-1/4 COR. OF SEC. 22-18/21FD. 2-1/2" BRASS CAP, FLUSHIN CONCRETE FLUSH IN PAVEMENT,STAMPED L.S. 4375, PER K.C.C.R. #1724 CENTER OF SEC. 22-18/21FD A COTTON PICKER SPINDLE FLUSH, WITH BRASS TAG STAMPED RCE 21489 PER PM 19-65 K.C.R.

BASIS OF BEARINGS(N89° 50' 39"E 2671.87') {S89° 50' 51"W 2671.93} [S89° 50' 51"W 2672.01']N89° 50' 39"E 2671.75' ((S0° 04' 28"W 2645.26'))[S0° 04' 40"W 2645.11'](N00° 04' 25"E 2645.14')N00° 04' 24"E 2645.19' S89° 56' 21"W 2675.17'(S89° 56' 30"W 2675.31') [N89° 56' 39"E 2675.47'] FD. 5/8" REBAR FLUSH, NO I.D.25.11'S OF SECTION LINE, 0.02W OF MY LOCATION.BY P.M. 8-17 K.C.R.EAST LINE OF WEST 16.73 CHAINSOF NE 1/4 OF SECTION 22-18/21 1428.31'
758.18'346.00' 1570.99'
[N0° 0' 09"E 2649.61'](S00° 00' 04"E 2649.70')S00° 00' 03"E 2649.62' E-1/4 COR. OF SEC. 22-18/21FD. 2" BRASS CAP INCONCRETE, FLUSH, STAMPEDL.S. 4375, PER K.C.C.R. #1723 S00° 04' 24"W 1339.77'
L=31.44', R=20.00'=90°03'26"<42.00'N89° 55' 36"W><L=31.46', R=20.00'=90°07'53"><S89° 56' 31"W 646.00'><L=31.37', R=20.00'=89°52'07"><449.55'S00° 04' 24"W> 1104.18'
UNIT 212.41 ACRES
609 N. IRWIN ST.HANFORD, CA. 93230PH. (559) 582-1056FILE NO. 0606353SHEET THREE OF FIVE SHEETS LEGAL DESCRIPTIONTHE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF HANFORD, COUNTY OF KINGS,STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:REMAINDER PARCEL OF COUNTY TRACT NO. 928, UNIT I, IN THE CITY OF HANFORD, COUNTY OF KINGS,STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED JUNE 8, 2021, IN BOOK 26 PAGE 88OF LICENSED SURVEYORS' PLATS, KINGS COUNTY RECORDS.

COUNTY TRACT No. 928CITY OF HANFORD, COUNTY OF KINGS,STATE OF CALIFORNIAUNIT II MUSCAT PL.CORTNER ST.W. SANGIOVESE ST.

CENTENNIAL DRIVEW. DALI WY.

FARGO AVENUE
12TH AVENUE
DEVON ST.W. CHIANTI WY.NAPA DRIVE
W. VINEYARD CT.

SURVEYOR'S NOTEALL CURVES ARE TANGENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDMONUMENT NOTE:THE REAR CORNERS OF LOTS 71-76 ADJACENT TO SANGIOVESE ST. ARE MONUMENTED WITH ½”REBAR, 30” LONG, WITH YELLOW PLASTIC TAG MARKED RCE 21489, SET 6” DEEP ON THE SIDELOT LINE A DISTANCE OF 9.00 FEET (PERPENDICULAR) FROM THE REAR CORNER. THE REARCORNERS OF LOTS 57-70 ARE OF THE SAME CHARACTER BUT 4.00 FEET (PERPENDICULAR) FROMTHE REAR CORNER.SPECIAL MONUMENT NOTE:ALL FRONT CORNERS ADJACENT TO STREETS ARE MONUMENTED AS WITNESS CORNERS, SET ONTHE P.U.E. LINE AND ARE MARKED BY 1/2" REBAR, 30" LONG WITH RED PLASTIC TAG STAMPED"CONT. PT., R.C.E. 21489", AND SET 6"± DEEP, EXCEPT AS SHOWN OTHERWISE.

BASIS OF BEARINGSTHE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, T. 18 S., R. 21 E., M.D.B. & M.,BEARS S 89° 50' 39" W PER L.S.P. 21-53, K.C.R.

MUSCAT PL.LEGENDFOUND AND ACCEPTED MONUMENT AS NOTEDFD. 2" GALV. I.P. WITH BRASS CAP STAMPED R.C.E. 21489 IN A MONUMENT WELL, FLUSH IN PAVEMENTSET STEEL SPIKE WITH BRASS TAG, R.C.E. 21489, FLUSH IN PAVEMENTSET 2"X24" GALV. I.P. WITH BRASS CAP STAMPED R.C.E. 21489 INMONUMENT WELL, MONUMENT WELL SET FLUSH IN PAVEMENTLOT CORNERS ARE MARKED WITH 1/2" REBAR, 30" LONG, TAGGED R.C.E.21489, SET 6" DEEP, SEE SPECIAL MONUMENTATION NOTEINDICATES 6' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT, EXCEPT AS NOTEDNOW OFFERED FOR DEDICATION AS PUBLIC STREETS()RECORD DATA PER L.S.P. 21-53, K.C.R.{ }RECORD DATA PER P.M. 17-5, K.C.R.{{}}RECORD DATA PER DEED BK. 1149, PG 495, O.R.[]RECORD DATA PER P.M. 8-17, K.C.R. (OR CALCULATED THEREFROM)[[]]RECORD DATA PER L.S.P. 16-6, K.C.R.(())RECORD DATA PER L.S.P. 26-19, K.C.R.< >RECORD DATA PER L.S.P. 26-88, K.C.R.(1234)INDICATES STREET ADDRESSESACCESS DENIED TO W. SANGIOVESE ST.DISTINCTIVE BORDER2' PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENTALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF2'

12.N.a
Packet Pg. 284
Attachment: 928-1 Vicinity Map (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1) RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

CITY OF HANFORD

When recorded return to:

City Clerk
City of Hanford
315 North Douty Street
Hanford, California 93230-3951

G.C. 27361.3 - Fee NIL

NOTICE OF COMPLETION

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

1. The work of Improvement is located at: Tract No. 928 Unit 1

2. The Improvement is particularly described as: Subdivision Infrastructure Improvements

3. The date of completion of the work of Improvement: 06/13/2022

4. The Owner of the work of Improvement: City of Hanford

5. The nature of the owner’s interest or estate: Fee Simple

6. The name of the original contractor for the work of Improvement: San Joaquin Valley Homes

7. The surety for the work of Improvement: SureTec Insurance Company

8. Accepted by minute action of the City Council of the City of Hanford on: __________________, 2022.

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated this ____________ day of ________________, 2022.

BY: ________________________________________
Kalish Morrow, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California

12.N.b
Packet Pg. 285
Attachment: Tract 928 Unit 1 - Notice of Completion - Recording (pdf) (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

I, the undersigned, say:

I am the person who signed the foregoing notice. I have read the above notice and know its contents, and the facts stated therein are true of my own knowledge.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed at Hanford, California, this day of 2022.

BY: ________________________________________
Kalish Morrow, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California

Authority: Section 1181 Civil Code

12.N.b
Packet Pg. 286
Attachment: Tract 928 Unit 1 - Notice of Completion - Recording (pdf) (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1) RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

CITY OF HANFORD

When recorded return to:

City Clerk
City of Hanford
315 North Douty Street
Hanford, California 93230-3951

G.C. 27361.3 - Fee NIL

NOTICE OF COMPLETION

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

1. The work of Improvement is located at: Tract No. 928 Unit 1

2. The Improvement is particularly described as: Subdivision Infrastructure Improvements

3. The date of completion of the work of Improvement: 06/13/2022

4. The Owner of the work of Improvement: City of Hanford

5. The nature of the owner’s interest or estate: Fee Simple

6. The name of the original contractor for the work of Improvement: San Joaquin Valley Homes

7. The surety for the work of Improvement: SureTec Insurance Company

8. Accepted by minute action of the City Council of the City of Hanford on: __________________, 2022.

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated this ____________ day of ________________, 2022.

BY: ________________________________________
Kalish Morrow, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California

12.N.c
Packet Pg. 287
Attachment: Tract 928 Unit 1 - Notice of Completion - Recording (.doc) (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

I, the undersigned, say:

I am the person who signed the foregoing notice. I have read the above notice and know its contents, and the facts stated therein are true of my own knowledge.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed at Hanford, California, this day of 2022.

BY: ________________________________________
Kalish Morrow, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California

Authority: Section 1181 Civil Code

12.N.c
Packet Pg. 288
Attachment: Tract 928 Unit 1 - Notice of Completion - Recording (.doc) (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

12.N.d
Packet Pg. 289
Attachment: Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt. (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

12.N.d
Packet Pg. 290
Attachment: Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt. (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

12.N.d
Packet Pg. 291
Attachment: Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt. (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

12.N.d
Packet Pg. 292
Attachment: Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt. (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

12.N.d
Packet Pg. 293
Attachment: Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt. (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

12.N.d
Packet Pg. 294
Attachment: Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt. (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

12.N.d
Packet Pg. 295
Attachment: Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt. (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

12.N.d
Packet Pg. 296
Attachment: Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt. (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

12.N.d
Packet Pg. 297
Attachment: Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt. (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

12.N.d
Packet Pg. 298
Attachment: Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt. (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

12.N.d
Packet Pg. 299
Attachment: Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt. (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

12.N.d
Packet Pg. 300
Attachment: Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt. (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

12.N.d
Packet Pg. 301
Attachment: Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt. (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

12.N.d
Packet Pg. 302
Attachment: Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt. (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

12.N.d
Packet Pg. 303
Attachment: Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt. (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

12.N.d
Packet Pg. 304
Attachment: Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt. (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

12.N.d
Packet Pg. 305
Attachment: Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt. (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

12.N.d
Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: Tract 928-1 Subd. Agrmnt. (PW: Approval of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 928 Unit No. 1)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 6/21/2022

AGENDA SECTION: O

SUBJECT:

Public Works: Authorization to Award a contract to MAC General Engineering of Exeter CA, in the amount of $715,720.97, establish a construction contingency of $71,600 and approve an additional appropriations of $287,300 from the TDA Transportation Fund in order to fully fund the Campus Drive Resurfacing project from Lacey Boulevard to Greenfield Avenue.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council, by motion,

1. Award a contract MAC General Engineering, Of Exeter CA in the amount of $715,720.97

2. Establish a construction contingency of $71,600.00

3. Appropriate an additional $287,300 from the TDA Transportation Fund to fully fund this project.

BACKGROUND:

This project will involve the resurfacing of street pavement within Campus Drive, from Lacey Boulevard to Greenfield Avenue. Improvements to include recycling of existing pavement, adjusting manhole and gate valve covers, installation of accessibility ramps, asphalt concrete paving and restriping of the roadway.

Campus Drive is a two lane collector street that provides access to a high school, the County Government Center and the Youth Athletic Complex. Current average daily traffic volume is approximately 5,000 vehicles per day. The existing roadway surface is deteriorating due to traffic loads and weather impacts and is in need of resurfacing.

This project will extend the useful life of the street by approximately 12-15 years.

In accordance with Council Action, bids were solicited and opened on June 14th, 2022 for Campus Drive Resurfacing Project. A total of three (3) bids were received, ranging from a low bid of $715,720.97 from MAC General Engineering, to a high bid of $895,99.00. A copy of the

12.O
Packet Pg. 307
Bid Tabulation is attached for Council Review. If approved this project is anticipated to begin at the end of July.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The FY 21/22 Gas Tax Fund provides $500,000.00 for this project including contingencies. An additional appropriation of $287,300 from the TDA Transportation Fund is required to fully fund this project. There are sufficient TDA reserves to fund the additional appropriation request without effect to any current planned projects. A copy of the budget pages is attached for Council Review.

ATTACHMENTS:

Budget Page
Bid Tabulation 06.14.2022

12.O
Packet Pg. 308
Project Background:

Existing Conditions:

Project Justification:

Fiscal Implications:

Project Budget Summary:
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Program or Project Construction
Engineering / Inspection 25,000
Construction 455,000
Contingency 45,000
Department Overhead 47,299
Total Expenditure $572,299 $0 $0 $0 $0
Funding
044 Gas Tax (2103) 572,299
Total Funding $572,299 $0 $0 $0 $0
ExpenditureRevenue
Campus Drive Resurfacing, Lacey Boulevard to Greenfield Avenue This project will involve the resurfacing of street pavement within Campus Drive, from Lacey Boulevard to Greenfield Avenue. Improvements to include recycling of existing pavement, adjusting manhole and gate valve covers, installation of accessibility ramps, asphalt concrete paving and restriping of the roadway.

Campus Drive is a two lane collector street that provides access to a high school, the County Government Center and the Youth Athletic Complex. Current average daily traffic volume is approximately 5,000 vehicles per day. The existing roadway surface is deteriorating due to traffic loads and weather impacts and is in need of resurfacing.

This project will extend the useful life of the street by approximately 12-15 years.

Funding for this project will be allocated from gas tax reserves. 5-Year Funding Allocation

12.O.a
Packet Pg. 309
Attachment: Budget Page (PW: Authorization to Award Campus Drive Resurfacing (Lacey Blvd. to Greenfield Ave.) Project) Campus Drive Reconstruction, Lacey Blvd. to Greenfield Dr.

Account Number: 26650000-821621
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT Unit Cost Subtotal Unit Cost Subtotal Unit Cost Subtotal 1 Site Preperation, Mobilization, and Demolition &
Misc. Facilities 1 LS $55,698.47 $55,698.47 $125,000.000 $125,000.000 $217,673.450 217673.45 2 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
Preperation and Implementation 1 LS $5,754.60 $5,754.60 $5,000.000 $5,000.000 $11,445.000 11445 3 Sawcut Pavement 348 LF $4.99 $1,736.52 $1.000 $348.000 $5.500 1914 4 Roadway Excavation 2,275 CY $31.75 $72,231.25 $90.00 $204,750.000 $47.00 $106,925.00 5 Class 2 Aggregate Base 1,260 CY $71.19 $89,699.40 $63.00 $79,380.000 $77.85 $98,091.00 6 Wedge Grind 0" - 3", 6ft width 2,140 SY $6.59 $14,102.60 $5.70 $12,198.000 $5.20 $11,128.00 7 Transition Grind 0"-3", 30ft width 288 SY $5.18 $1,491.84 $5.70 $1,641.600 $12.00 $3,456.00 8 Asphalt Concrete, (Type B, 3/4" Max., Medium
Grade
PG 64-10) 2,740 TON $123.37 $338,033.80 $114.00 $312,360.000 $115.35 $316,059.00 9 Construct curb return with ADA Ramp and
Landing (CO-21) 1 EA $7,950.47 $7,950.47 $5,000.00 $5,000.000 $7,640.00 $7,640.00 10 30" Curb and Gutter (CO-11) 33 LF $47.36 $1,562.88 $42.00 $1,386.000 $285.00 $9,405.00 11 Construct Median Island Curb (CO-17) 767 LF $15.81 $12,126.27 $32.00 $24,544.000 $26.65 $20,440.55 12 Construct Stamped Concrete in Median 1,781 SF $11.87 $21,140.47 $14.00 $24,934.000 $11.00 $19,591.00 13 Construct Concrete Sidewalk 275 SF $10.43 $2,868.25 $6.00 $1,650.000 $19.00 $5,225.00 14 Construct 30' Driveway Approach 2 EA $8,540.30 $17,080.60 $15,000.00 $30,000.000 $5,940.00 $11,880.00 15 Construct 28' Driveway Approch 1 EA $8,540.30 $8,540.30 $17,000.00 $17,000.000 $8,160.00 $8,160.00 16 Asphalt Concrete to Repave Driveway 320 SF $26.89 $8,604.80 $15.00 $4,800.000 $14.30 $4,576.00 17 Construct Sidewalk Underdrain 1 EA $1,475.36 $1,475.36 $2,000.00 $2,000.000 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 18 Adjust manhole to Finish Grade 8 EA $2,554.53 $20,436.24 $1,500.00 $12,000.000 $1,330.00 $10,640.00 19 Adjust Valve Cover to Finish Grade 7 LS $1,349.73 $9,448.11 $1,000.00 $7,000.000 $1,060.00 $7,420.00 20 Construct Street Intersection Survey Monument
and Well Per City Standard GE-14 2 EA $2,554.53 $5,109.06 $500.00 $1,000.000 $900.00 $1,800.00 21 Thermoplastic, signing, and Pavement Markings 1 LS $20,629.68 $20,629.68 $22,500.00 $22,500.000 $19,000.00 $19,000.00 $715,720.97 $894,491.600 $895,999.00
Total written in Bid if discrepancy exists
American Paving
MAC General
Engineering

LOWEST BIDDER
Papich Construction

12.O.b
Packet Pg. 310
Attachment: Bid Tabulation 06.14.2022 (PW: Authorization to Award Campus Drive Resurfacing (Lacey

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 6/21/2022

AGENDA SECTION: P

SUBJECT:

Public Works: Adoption of Resolution No. 22-26-R, thereby approving the Vacation of Excess Right of Way of Trewhitt Street between Sixth Street and Seventh Street, and Approval of Final Parcel Map No. 2021-01

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council , by motion,

1. Approve Resolution 22-26-R to Summarily Vacate the unimproved Trewhitt Street between Sixth Street and Seventh Street under Streets & Highway Code Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 4, and;

2. Approve Final Parcel Map No. 2021-01

BACKGROUND:

Trewhitt Street is an unconstructed street located west of 11th Avenue between Sixth Street and Seventh Street, see attached Exhibits for reference. Trewhitt Street was created per the attached “Supplemental Plat to S.E. Biddle’s Subdivision”, recorded March 11, 1898 as Licensed Survey Plat No. 01-083, and the street was never constructed.

The City Council, under Streets & Highway Code Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 4, is permitted to Summarily Vacate excess right of way that is not required for street purposes by adopting a Resolution of Vacation. Attached is proposed Resolution 22-26-R for Council review.

Staff has determined that Trewhitt Street is not necessary for traffic purposes, and recommends to vacate and abandon Trewhitt Street between Sixth Street and Seventh Street to the adjacent property owners as shown on the attached map.

With the abandonment of Trewhitt Street, the applicant requests for Council approval of the final Parcel Map for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2021-01. The attached final Parcel Map (TPM 2021- 01), located as shown on the attached map, has been checked and approved by Public Works Engineering staff. The 0.44 acre parcel (APN 012-271-003) is being divided into two parcels.

12.P
Packet Pg. 311

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Vacation of Right of Way for the unconstructed road, Trewhitt Street, is no cost to the City.

The property will revert to the adjacent property owners. There is no impact to the Municipal budget from the approval of the final Parcel Map.

ATTACHMENTS:

Supplemental to SE Biddle Subd lsp1-083a
California Laws
APN Map 12-27
Resolution 22-26-R
Resolution 22-26-R (.doc)
PM 2021-1

12.P
Packet Pg. 312

12.P.a
Packet Pg. 313
Attachment: Supplemental to SE Biddle Subd lsp1-083a (PW: Approval of Vacation of Right of Way for Trewitt St; and Approval of Parcel Map 2021-01) California Laws - Streets and Highways Code
DIVISION 9. CHANGE OF GRADE AND VACATION
PART 3. PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS, AND SERVICE EASEMENTS VACATION LAW

CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY VACATION (6213)
Article 1. Authority (8330-8334.5) (6214)
8330. (a) The legislative body of a local agency may summarily vacate a street or highway that has been superseded by relocation. (6215)
(b) A street or highway shall not be summarily vacated pursuant to this section if vacation would do either of the following: (6216)
(1) Cut off all access to a person's property which, prior to relocation, adjoined the street or highway. (6217) (2) Terminate a public service easement, unless the easement satisfies the requirements of Section 8333. (6218) 8330.5. (a) Subject to subdivisions (b) and (c), the commission may retain, relinquish to a local agency pursuant to Section 73, or summarily vacate a state highway that has been superseded by relocation. (6219) (b) The commission shall not vacate a state highway unless the commission has first given a notice of relinquishment pursuant to Section 73 and the legislative body of the local agency has protested within the prescribed 90-day period that the highway is not needed for public use and should be vacated by the commission. (6220)
(c) If vacation of a state highway would cut off all access to the property of any person which, prior to relocation, adjoined the highway, the commission shall either retain the highway or relinquish it pursuant to Section 73. (6221)
8331. The legislative body of a local agency may summarily vacate a street or highway if both of the following conditions exist: (6222)
(a) For a period of five consecutive years, the street or highway has been impassable for vehicular travel. (6223) (b) No public money was expended for maintenance on the street or highway during such period. (6224) 8332. The legislative body of a local agency may summarily vacate a street or highway pursuant to an agreement entered into with the department pursuant to Section 100.2 to close the street or highway at or near the point of its interception with a state freeway. (6225) 8333. The legislative body of a local agency may summarily vacate a public service easement in any of the following cases: (6226)
(a) The easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation. (6227) (b) The date of dedication or acquisition is less than five years, and more than one year, immediately preceding the proposed vacation, and the easement was not used continuously since that date. (6228) (c) The easement has been superseded by relocation, or determined to be excess by the easement holder, and there are no other public facilities located within the easement. (6229) 8334. The legislative body of a local agency may summarily vacate any of the following: (6230) (a) An excess right-of-way of a street or highway not required for street or highway purposes. (6231)

12.P.b
Packet Pg. 314
Attachment: California Laws (PW: Approval of Vacation of Right of Way for Trewitt St; and Approval of Parcel Map 2021-01) (b) A portion of a street or highway that lies within property under one ownership and that does not continue through such ownership or end touching property of another. (6232) 8334.5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, a street, highway, or public service easement may not be summarily vacated if there are in-place public utility facilities that are in use and would be affected by the vacation. (6233)

Article 2. Procedure (8335-8336) (6234)(1-click HTML)
8335. (a) The legislative body may vacate a street, highway, or public service easement pursuant to the authority provided in this chapter by adopting a resolution of vacation. (6235) (b) The resolution of vacation shall state all of the following: (6236) (1) That the vacation is made under this chapter. (6237) (2) The name or other designation of the street, highway, or public service easement and a precise description of the portion vacated. The description of the portion vacated may be by a precise map which is recorded or to which reference is made in the resolution and which is permanently maintained by the public entity. (6238) (3) The facts under which the summary vacation is made. If the vacation is made pursuant to Section 8332, the statement shall include the date of the agreement. The resolution is prima facie evidence of the facts stated. (6239)
(4) That from and after the date the resolution is recorded, the street, highway, or public service easement vacated no longer constitutes a street, highway, or public service easement. (6240) 8336. (a) The clerk shall cause a certified copy of the resolution of vacation, attested by the clerk under seal, to be recorded without acknowledgment, certificate of acknowledgment, or further proof in the office of the recorder of the county in which the property is located. No fee shall be charged for recordation. (6241) (b) Upon such recordation, the vacation is complete. (6242)

12.P.b
Packet Pg. 315
Attachment: California Laws (PW: Approval of Vacation of Right of Way for Trewitt St; and Approval of Parcel Map 2021-01)

12.P.c
Packet Pg. 316
Attachment: APN Map 12-27 (PW: Approval of Vacation of Right of Way for Trewitt St; and Approval of Parcel Map 2021-01) Recording Requested By:

City of Hanford
When Recorded Return To:

City of Hanford
Attn: City Clerk
319 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230

No Fee Per GC 6103

RESOLUTION 22-26-R

O

RDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD
VACATING AND ABANDONING APPROXIMATELY 16,673

SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- W

AY ON TREWHITT
STREET, WEST OF 11TH AVENUE BETWEEN SIXTH STREET

AND SEVENTH STREET

WHEREAS, the City Council of Hanford did on June 21, 2022, at a regular meeting of said Council , motion to declare the intention of the City Council to Summarily V acate approximately 16,673 square feet of public right -of-way on TREWHITT STREET, west of 11th Avenue between Sixth Street and Seventh Street in the City of Hanfor d pursuant to Section 8334 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California.

WHEREAS, on the 21 st day of June 2022, the City Council of the City of H anford, received evidence on the proposed vacation and abandonment, and the said City Council of the city of Hanford having found from all the evidence submitted that, under the Streets & Highway Code Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 4, the portion of the public street described is an excess of right- of-way of the street and is not required for street purposes, and should be Summarily Vacated and abandoned, and that from and after the date of said Resolution recording, the street shall be vacated and shall no longer constitute a street..

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hanford does hereby determine that the portion of said street identified in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and made a part hereof and hereinafter described should be summarily vacated and abandoned, and the City Council of the City of Hanford does hereby order the vacation and abandonment of said public street in the City of Hanford, more particularly described as follows:

12.P.d
Packet Pg. 317
Attachment: Resolution 22-26-R [Revision 1] (PW: Approval of Vacation of Right of Way for Trewitt St; and Approval of Parcel Map 2021-01)

EXHIBIT “A”

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

FOR TREWHITT STREET ABANDONMENT

TREWHITT STREET AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP OF S.E. BIDDLE’S SUBDIVISION, RECORDED MARCH 13, 1905, IN VOLUME 1 OF LICENSED SURVEYORS’ PLATS, AT PAGE 83, KINGS COUNTY RECORDS, LYING IN THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE 21 EAST, MOUNT

DIABLO BASE & MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF HANFORD, COUNTY OF KINGS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

ALL OF TREWHITT STREET LYING SOUTH OF THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY ALIGNMENT OF WEST 7TH STREET, NORTH OF THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY ALIGNMENT OF WEST 6TH STREET, WEST OF LOTS 28 AND 29, AND EAST OF LOTS 30 AND 31, ALL AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP.

Area: 14,568 Square Feet, 0.33 Acres

12.P.d
Packet Pg. 318
Attachment: Resolution 22-26-R [Revision 1] (PW: Approval of Vacation of Right of Way for Trewitt St; and Approval of Parcel Map 2021-01) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this Order, attested by the City Clerk, under seal of the City, to be duly recorded in the County Recorder's Office of the County of Kings, State of California.

PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this ____day of ______________, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: ____________________________________________________________________ NOES: ____________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: __________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________________

__________________________
Kalish Morrow,
MAYOR, of the City of Hanford

Attest:

________________________________
Natalie Corral
CITY CLERK, of the City of Hanford

STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss CITY OF HANFORD )

I, Natalie Corral, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the ___________ day of ___________________, 2022.

Date: _________________ By: _________________________________ Natalie Corral, City Clerk

12.P.d
Packet Pg. 319
Attachment: Resolution 22-26-R [Revision 1] (PW: Approval of Vacation of Right of Way for Trewitt St; and Approval of Parcel Map 2021-01)

12.P.d
Packet Pg. 320
Attachment: Resolution 22-26-R [Revision 1] (PW: Approval of Vacation of Right of Way for Trewitt St; and Approval of Parcel Map 2021-01)

12.P.d
Packet Pg. 321
Attachment: Resolution 22-26-R [Revision 1] (PW: Approval of Vacation of Right of Way for Trewitt St; and Approval of Parcel Map 2021-01) Recording Requested By:

City of Hanford
When Recorded Return To:

City of Hanford
Attn: City Clerk
319 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230

No Fee Per GC 6103

RESOLUTION 22-26-R

ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD
VACATING AND ABANDONING APPROXIMATELY 16,673
SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF­ WAY ON TREWHITT
STREET, WEST OF 11TH AVENUE BETWEEN SIXTH STREET

AND SEVENTH STREET

WHEREAS, the City Council of Hanford did on June 21, 2022 , at a regular meeting of said Council , motion to declare the intention of the City Council to Summarily V acate approximately 16,673 square feet of public right -of-way on TREWHITT STREET, west of 11th Avenue between Sixth Street and Seventh Street in the City of Hanford pursuant to Section 8334 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California.

WHEREAS, on the 21st day of June 2022 , the City Council of the City of Hanford, received evidence on the proposed vacation and abandonment, and the said City Council of the city of Hanford having found from all the evidence submitted that, under the Streets & Highway Code Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 4, the portion of the public street described is an excess of right- of-way of the street and is not required for street purposes, and should be Summarily Vacated and abandoned, and that from and after the date of said Resolution recording, the street shall be vacated and shall no longer constitute a street..

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hanford does hereby determine that the portion of said street identified in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and made a part hereof and hereinafter described should be summarily vacated and abandoned, and the City Council of the City of Hanford does hereby order the vacation and abandonment of said public street in the City of Hanford, more particularly described as follows:

12.P.e
Packet Pg. 322
Attachment: Resolution 22-26-R (.doc) (PW: Approval of Vacation of Right of Way for Trewitt St; and Approval of Parcel Map 2021-01)

EXHIBIT “A”

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

FOR TREWHITT STREET ABANDONMENT

TREWHITT STREET AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP OF S.E. BIDDLE’S SUBDIVISION, RECORDED MARCH 13, 1905, IN VOLUME 1 OF LICENSED SURVEYORS’ PLATS, AT PAGE 83, KINGS COUNTY RECORDS, LYING IN THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE 21 EAST, MOUNT

DIABLO BASE & MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF HANFORD, COUNTY OF KINGS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

ALL OF TREWHITT STREET LYING SOUTH OF THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY ALIGNMENT OF WEST 7TH STREET, NORTH OF THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY ALIGNMENT OF WEST 6TH STREET, WEST OF LOTS 28 AND 29, AND EAST OF LOTS 30 AND 31, ALL AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP.

Area: 14,568 Square Feet, 0.33 Acres

12.P.e
Packet Pg. 323
Attachment: Resolution 22-26-R (.doc) (PW: Approval of Vacation of Right of Way for Trewitt St; and Approval of Parcel Map 2021-01) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this Order, attested by the City Clerk, under seal of the City, to be duly recorded in the County Recorder's Office of the County of Kings, State of California.

PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this ____day of ______________, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: ____________________________________________________________________ NOES: ____________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: __________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________________

__________________________
Kalish Morrow,
MAYOR, of the City of Hanford

Attest:

________________________________
Natalie Corral
CITY CLERK, of the City of Hanford

STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss CITY OF HANFORD )

I, Natalie Corral, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the ___________ day of ___________________, 2022.

Date: _________________ By: _________________________________ Natalie Corral, City Clerk

12.P.e
Packet Pg. 324
Attachment: Resolution 22-26-R (.doc) (PW: Approval of Vacation of Right of Way for Trewitt St; and Approval of Parcel Map 2021-01)

EXHIBIT "A"

SUMMARILY VACATE/ABANDON STREET
(TREWHITT STREET West of 11th Avenue between Sixth
Street and Seventh Street)

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

To be provided…………………..

Area: 46,389 Square Feet, 1.06 Acres

12.P.e
Packet Pg. 325
Attachment: Resolution 22-26-R (.doc) (PW: Approval of Vacation of Right of Way for Trewitt St; and Approval of Parcel Map 2021-01) EXHIBIT "B"

STREET ABANDONMENT – TREWHITT STREET

To be provided…………….

12.P.e
Packet Pg. 326
Attachment: Resolution 22-26-R (.doc) (PW: Approval of Vacation of Right of Way for Trewitt St; and Approval of Parcel Map 2021-01)

12.P.f
Packet Pg. 327
Attachment: PM 2021-1 (PW: Approval of Vacation of Right of Way for Trewitt St; and Approval of Parcel Map 2021-01)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 6/21/2022

AGENDA SECTION: A

SUBJECT:

Finance: Approval of an additional Appropriation of $3,361,645 in the GF and $8,016,639 across all Other Funds for the 2022-23 Fiscal Year Budget and the addition of three (3) allocated positions to the position control budget, one (1) to the salary schedule.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends City Council adopt amendments to the 2022-23 Fiscal Year Budget to appropriate an additional $3,361,645 in the General Fund and $8,016,639 across all Other Funds for the execution of City business. Additionally, add three (3) positions as shown in this report to the position control budget and one (1) to the salary schedule.

INTRODUCTION:

A biennial budget was adopted by City Council June 2021. This item was initially reviewed with City Council on June 7, 2022, but due to an error in the distribution of the full staff report, Council asked for the item to be brought back at the next meeting for final consideration and approval.

The proposed adjustments, with consideration of anticipated revenues, will achieve a more accurate budget for the current fiscal year and result in greater budget transparency. Staff has identified these proposed amendments as adhering to Council’s direction to present a balanced budget as adopted by Resolution 20-29-R and 22-20-R. The proposed budget amendments would maintain the required balanced budget for the City. With contributions of a potential $750,000 to the General Fund Reserve, the City currently sits at 27% of its 35% goal (based on this proposed budget).

A Mid-Cycle Review (after the first year) allows for Council to make amendments to the budget based on review of the most recent actual activity of the current fiscal year and additional Department requests based on anticipated activity. Consideration of the current economic climate as well as alignment with Council’s goals and objectives are important aspects of the review process. This update continues the principles that were established for the original budget adoption. Increasing personnel or operating costs were not recommended unless offset by new

13.A
Packet Pg. 328
revenues or expense reductions; therefore the additional positions are being recommended at this time and are offset by the additional revenue. The updated budget includes all allocated positions and assumes no vacancies.

Staff recommends City Council consider the proposed amendments to the General Fund (GF) in which its primary purpose is to support core administrative, public safety, recreational and essential services of the City as well as amendments to the Other Funds or provide alternative direction to staff in support of other Council funding priorities that are consistent with Council adopted Goals.

BACKGROUND:

The following General Fund Summary (Table 1) highlights the proposed changes in revenues (in parentheses) and expenses, which results in a balanced budget as required by Council-adopted Resolution. Table 2 was added at the request of Council to show additional expenses in the FY 22/23 budget that have previously been approved by Council during the previous budget year and need to be carried over to the next. The final table of Other Funds (Table 3) show the net impacts of the proposed budget amendments to each fund.

13.A
Packet Pg. 329
Table 1: General Fund - Summary of Changes

GENERAL FUND-SUMMARY

OF CHANGES NET CHANGE COMMENT
GENERAL FUND (2,989,922) Increase in revenues. Largest contributors are Sales Tax and Cannabis Tax CITY COUNCIL 53,000 Adjustments based on actual/historical. No longer contributing to Chamber of Commerce CITY MANAGER - CITY CLERK 135,464 Community Relations Manager position, increased costs for lobbying HUMAN RESOURCES 53,727 Payroll related, update to Wellness Program FINANCE - ACCOUNTING 341,001 Reduction of interest income, Purchasing Agent position COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 740,180 Deputy City Manager, Supervising Code Enforcement Off., Development Services Technician positions, continuation plan review services, digitization of records POLICE 892,379 Payroll related, adjustments based on actual/historical FIRE 402,937 Payroll related, adjustments based on actual/historical, continuation of Fresno County Dispatch services
PARKS 188,012 Payroll related, continuation of Soccom maintenance, Soccom development, operational costs increased for CPI
PUBLIC WORKS 183,222 Payroll related, increased cost of maintenance & materials TOTAL NET (BALANCED)/DEFICIT (0)

Table 2: General Fund - Summary of Expenses by Type

GENERAL FUND-SUMMARY OF

EXPENSES BY TYPE EXPENSE COMMENT

CONTINUATION OF POSITION OR SERVICE AS APPROVED
BY COUNCIL:

BUILDING INSPECTION 205,000 Use of outside plan reviewer FIRE 212,839 Continuation of Fresno County Dispatch services FIRE 4,000 Continuation of Annual OSHA physicals from Pinnacle Training Systems PARKS 219,205 Continuation of Winter Wonterland, increased expenses and revenue PARKS 122,225 Continuation of Soccom expenses: contracted mowing, annual lease, repairs and maintenance, pesticides, water utilities
763,269
BUDGET CLEAN UP/REVIEW OF ACTUALS & HISTORICAL: 2,275,537 Appropriations for increased costs & services necessary for continuation of services, salary updates based on total FTE per organization at step 5 BRAND NEW REQUESTS: 322,839 Purchasing Agent, Supervising Code Enforcement Off., Development Services Technician position, Building-Inspection digitization of records 3,361,645

13.A
Packet Pg. 330
Table 3: Other Funds - Summary of Changes

OTHER FUNDS-

SUMMARY OF CHANGES NET CHANGE COMMENT
ACCUM CAPITAL OUTLAY 17,500 Interest income transfer & increase, increase in revenue for Bldg Abatement Assessment
SPECIAL AVIATION (10,000) Yearly state grant funding ARPA
(6,538,870)
Expected $6.5 additional ARPA funding (Council to allocate expenditures in future meeting)
CITY HOUSING REUSE UNEMCUMB (40,000) Corrected from expense to rev for principal payment received DO NOT USE- SEE 01602160 58,460 Deletion of fund and transfer of appropriation 9TH AVE SEWER BENEFIT AD (52,020) Annual property tax DO NOT USE- SEE 01612161 (103,911) Deletion of fund and transfer of appropriation 12TH AVE SEWER BENEFIT AD 103,911 Deletion of fund and transfer of appropriation AIRPORT OPERATIONS 447,305
Depreciation exp of 418k (non-cash), net increase of rev, increased fuel costs, REFUSE OPERATIONS 724,899 Depreciation exp of 627k (non-cash), interest income transfer & increase, payroll related
REFUSE STREET CLEANING 4,092 Payroll related INTERMODAL FACILITY OPER 26,000 Depreciation exp of 26k (non-cash) COURTHOUSE SQUARE FACIL (5,000) Carnegie bldg reimbursement of utilities WASTEWATER OPERATIONS 185,202 Interest income transfer & increase, payroll related, increase exp for operational supplies, tax payments expense
SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION 12,690 Payroll related, increase exp for operations WATER OPERATIONS 2,639,303 Depreciation exp of $2.3 million (non-cash), interest income transfer & increase, no rev from flat rate to meter conversion, bad debt expense WATER CAPITAL & RESERVE (2,500,000) Accounting Item - to recognize transfer in of fund balance from water operations fund
FINANCE-UTILITY BILLING 93,174 Payroll related MEDICAL FUND 750,000 Interest income transfer & increase, net medical costs that were not previously appropriated
LIABILITY INSURANCE 645,000 Liability insurance costs WORKERS' COMPENSATION 1,461,000 Workers comp insurance costs I T S INFORMATIONAL TECH SERV 308,359 Payroll related, increased costs for 2nd of 3 year term for Windows remote desktop license in which will be allocated
BUILDING MAINTENANCE 112,546 Payroll related, increased costs based on historical/actual and increase in costs for maintenance and service
BLDG (CITY) RESERVES (3,700) Removal of special departmental expense, projects are now booked to CIP asset accounts
FLEET MAINTENANCE OPER 155,748 114k increase to fuel and lube maint due to nationwide increases, overall increase in costs for maint and services, payroll related TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND (14,000) Increase due to administration fee income of County wide parking fines contract
OTHER FUNDS (711,699) Interest income transfer to funds & increase projection of interest earnings (2,234,011)
*Interest income transfer & increase is a result of two reasons. #1 Interest income appropriations were incorrectly appropriated to the division, where practice has been to appropriate to the fund. Appropriations were corrected. #2 Actuals of interest income are approximately $690,000 more than what was originally appropriated

13.A
Packet Pg. 331
In line with City Council's goals for improving customer service, staff is submitting appropriation requests for three new positions requested to be added to the City’s position control budget and one to the salary schedule (Chart 1).

Position Control Budget Amendment
A. (1) Purchasing Agent (Finance). To streamline and manage the procurement process and procurement administration for the City, assist with the oversight of the City’s inventory systems, updates develop and enforces policies and procedures for procurement, bidding and inventory control, etc. This position is anticipated to bring about purchasing efficiencies and savings across the City and assist all departments with procurement. Allocation of costs to enterprise funds and increased savings on City procurements are anticipated to offset this positions costs and keep the impact to the General Fund at a minimum.

B. (1) Supervising Code Enforcement Officer (Community Development). As discussed in previous meetings with Council, will allow officers to be more proactive versus reactive. The goal would be to produce citation revenue to more than cover this position. Currently the City has two Code Enforcement Officers. Increased enforcement revenues are anticipated with this position leading to partially offsetting costs to the General Fund. In addition, Council may consider paying for some (approximately $30k) code enforcement activity with CDBG funds to be considered in future Action Plans.
*Final salary to be considered further by Human Resources and the City Manager and brought to Council at a future date if further adjustment to salary schedule is needed. This proposed action will place a position with 15% higher salary than a Code Enforcement Officer into the salary schedule and allow to hire after July 1, 2022.

C. (1) Development Services Technician (Community Development). The Department continues to experience increased activity related to applications, permits and administrative work in support of land use activities including building, engineering and planning. Currently the department has two technicians. This additional position is offset by revenues the department brings in with development fees to the Building Division and will provide customer service to keep up with increased demand from development.

Labor Negotiations
Labor negotiations are ongoing. Assuming changes in the next few weeks or months additional amendments to budget may be necessary and could be addressed at mid-year budget review.

Current salary costs are budgeted at full step five (including new and proposed positions) which

13.A
Packet Pg. 332
may cover the finalized increase to the Departments budget based on negotiations. Increases not covered in the budget would impact the projected amount available to the City's reserve.

Cost Allocation
Cost Allocation budget amounts have not been updated to reflect the change to the Departments amended net budget. An analysis and review will be made prior to FY23 first quarter in order to accurately reflect costs and confirm accurate cost allocations to funds. Actual costs incurred by Internal Service Funds are allocated to departments (cost centers) at year end.

Depreciation Expense
Included in the $8,016,639 additional appropriations across all Other Funds is $3,338,590 for depreciation expense which is a non-cash transaction and therefore will have no effect on actual cash flow. This is included in budget numbers for accounting purposes and final numbers will be reflected in the City’s Audited Financial Statements.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the $3,361,645 additional appropriation in the GF which will be offset by projected revenues (and still present a balanced budget) and $8,016,639 of additional appropriation across all Other Funds which will be paid for by a combination of projected increases in budgeted revenues, allocation of costs, non-cash transactions and available fund balances (See Chart 2).

13.A
Packet Pg. 333

For further summary and detail line items of proposed amendments see Attachment “A”.

FISCAL IMPACT:

A total of $11,378,284 in additional appropriation to the FY23 budget which includes $3,361,645 in the GF which will be offset by increases to GF revenues including Sales Tax. $8,016,639 to be appropriated across all Other Funds which will be paid for by a combination of projected increases in budgeted revenues, allocation of costs to Other Funds and available fund balances. FY23 Total Appropriation for General Fund would be $41,824,513 with this amendment, and Other Funds $55,640,821 (Grand Total of $97,465,334).

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A

13.A
Packet Pg. 334
ATTACHMENT "A"

GENERAL FUND-SUMMARY OF CHANGES
2023 ORIGINAL
BUDGET
2023 REVISED

BUDGET NET CHANGE
0001-GENERAL FUND (29,400,962) (32,390,884) (2,989,922) 0001-11000000 CITY COUNCIL 174,498 227,498 53,000 0001-11100000 CITY MANAGER - CITY CLERK 451,905 587,369 135,464 0001-11110000 HUMAN RESOURCES 440,155 493,882 53,727 0001-12010000 FINANCE - ACCOUNTING (69,076) 271,925 341,001 0001-13000000 CITY ATTORNEY 493,750 493,750 - 0001-14110000 PLANNING OPERATIONS 663,588 858,575 194,987 0001-14120000 BUILDING INSPECTION (339,889) 205,304 545,193 0001-15110000 POLICE - SUPPORT SERVICE 3,702,312 3,833,230 130,918 0001-15121000 POLICE - RECORDS 431,457 491,214 59,757 0001-15122000 POLICE - COMMUNICATIONS 816,318 1,082,335 266,017 0001-15130000 POLICE - OPERATIONS 5,205,606 5,516,069 310,463 0001-15140000 POLICE - TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 475,831 478,785 2,954 0001-15150000 POLICE - MULT-AGCY TASK 285,760 286,765 1,005 0001-15160000 POLICE - SCHOOL OFFICER PROGRAM 469,232 464,288 (4,944) 0001-15170000 POLICE - POP PROGRAM 606,093 610,141 4,048 0001-15180000 POLICE - ANIMAL CONTROL 498,964 503,911 4,947 0001-15190000 POLICE - HART 305,896 395,895 89,999 0001-15200000 POLICE - CANINE 610,847 638,062 27,215 0001-16100000 FIRE - ADMIN/SUPPRESSION 6,673,744 7,071,180 397,436 0001-16110000 FIRE - FIRE PREVENTION (9,050) (3,549) 5,501 0001-17100000 PARKS & COMM SERV - ADMIN 926,664 962,653 35,989 0001-17110000 PARKS & COMM SERV - SPORTS 106,340 114,340 8,000 0001-17130000 PARKS & COMM SERV - LONGFIELD CENTER 190,837 190,837 - 0001-17140000 PARKS & COMM SERV - AQUATIC/SKATE 137,324 139,324 2,000 0001-17160000 PARKS & COMM SERV - FACILITIES 417,911 405,411 (12,500) 0001-17190000 PARKS & COMM SERV - YOUTH SERVICES 136,430 91,430 (45,000) 0001-17200000 PARKS & COMM SERV - ADULT/SPC SERV 112,187 105,187 (7,000) 0001-17210000 PARKS & COMM SERV - COM PROM/EVENTS 95,367 59,025 (36,342) 0001-17220000 PARKS & COMM SERV - PARKS 1,797,880 2,040,745 242,865 0001-20100000 PW - ADMINISTRATION & ENGR 535,632 638,388 102,756 0001-20110000 PW - STREET MAINTENANCE 2,303,145 2,383,611 80,466 TOTAL NET (BALANCED)/DEFICIT (753,304) (753,304) 0