Hanford City Council
July 19, 2022

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.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual 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.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual 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.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual 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.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual 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.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual 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.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual 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.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual 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.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual 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.”

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual 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.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual 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.”

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual 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.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual 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

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 203
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual 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

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 204
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual 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.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 205
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual 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$

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 206
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 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$

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 207
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 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.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 208
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

Overview LLMD Diagram

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 209
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 90-01 Pinecastle Addition Units 1 through 4

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 210
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 90-02 Park Monterey Units 1 & 2

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 211
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 90-03 Mansionette Estates Units 7 & 8

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 212
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 90-04 Hyde Park

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 213
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 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

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 214
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 92-01 Portofino Units 1 through 4

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 215
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 92-02 Cielo En Tierra Units 1 through 5

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 216
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 93-01 Vintage Estates

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 217
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 93-02 Walnut Forest Units 1 through 3

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 218
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 94-01 Gateway Estates

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 219
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 94-02 Stonecrest Units 1 through 9

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 220
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 94-03 Quail Run Estates Units 1 through 5

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 221
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 97-01 Rosewood Estates Units 1 & 2

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 222
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 97-02 Summer Field Addition #2

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 223
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 97-03 Country Crossing Units 1 through 5

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 224
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 98-01 Crystal Springs Units 1 through 3

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 98-02 Mountain View Estates Units 1 through 6

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 226
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 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

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 227
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 01-02 Cambridge Homes Units 1 through 3

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 228
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 01-03 Poppy Hills Units 1 & 2

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 229
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 01-04 Silver Oaks Units 1 through 5

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 230
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 02-01 Ashton Park Units 1 through 4

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 231
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 03-01 Le Parc Units 1 through 3

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 232
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 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

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 233
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

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

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 234
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 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

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 235
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 04-04 Sierra Heights Units 1 & 2

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 236
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 05-01 Mission Park

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 05-02 Copper Valley

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 238
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 06-01 Quail Park Units 1 & 2

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 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

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 09-01 Victory Estates

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 241
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 09-02 Independence Units 1 & 2

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 242
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 14-01 Independence Units 3 & 4

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 243
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 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

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 15-02 The Greens II

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 245
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 16-01 Woodside Homes

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 246
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 16-02 Mynderup Units 1 & 2

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 247
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 18-01 Bella Vista Units 1 through 4

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 248
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 19-01 Pacific Grove Addition II

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 249
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 19-02 The Enclave

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 250
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 20-01 Woodside Homes

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 251
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution Hanford Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

District 21-01 San Joaquin Valley Homes

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 252
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 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.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 253
Attachment: Hanford FY22-23 LLMD Consolidated ER (Final Draft 06.16.22 Signed Ver) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual - 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 July 19, 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)

14.A.b
Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: RESOLUTION 22-30-R Intention to Levi (final) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual Engineer's Report for LAD - 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).

14.A.b
Packet Pg. 255
Attachment: RESOLUTION 22-30-R Intention to Levi (final) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual Engineer's Report for LAD - 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 secti on 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)

14.A.b
Packet Pg. 256
Attachment: RESOLUTION 22-30-R Intention to Levi (final) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual Engineer's Report for LAD - 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

14.A.b
Packet Pg. 257
Attachment: RESOLUTION 22-30-R Intention to Levi (final) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual Engineer's Report for LAD - 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 meeting thereof held on July 19, 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

14.A.b
Packet Pg. 258
Attachment: RESOLUTION 22-30-R Intention to Levi (final) (Parks: Resolution 22-30-R Approving the Annual Engineer's Report for LAD

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 7/19/2022

AGENDA SECTION: A

SUBJECT:

Public Works: Approval of the addition of the Grangeville Blvd. Grade Separation Project to the FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project list and Appropriation of $50,000 from Accumulated Capital Outlay Reserves to fund the project.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council by motion:

1. Approve the addition of the Grangeville Grade Separation Preliminary Engineering and Grant Application to the FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Program.

2. Appropriate $50,000 for from the Accumulated Capital Outlay Reserves to fund the project.

BACKGROUND:

In 2019, the City commissioned a Feasibility Study for the Grangeville Boulevard at Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad crossing. The city also applied to be on the Annual State Grade Separation listing and achieved number 14 on the state list. This project ranking list must be re-applied for each year.

At their April 21, 2020 meeting, the City Council was presented the final feasibility study.

Council reviewed the costs and aesthetics. The council directed staff to get proposals for both over and underpass options.

To keep the project moving, and to pursue additional grant opportunities, the city will utilize consultants to:

1. Update the existing cost estimates for both the overpass and underpass options.

2. Prepare a grant application for railroad grade separation.

An initial project budget of $50,000 is needed to initiate these services.

15.A
Packet Pg. 259
FISCAL IMPACT:

An initial $50,000 from the Accumulated Capital Outlay fund would be needed to fund the preliminary engineering phase and grant application service. The additional request would not encumber any existing programmed projects.

ATTACHMENTS:

Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019

15.A
Packet Pg. 260

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 0

Feasibility Report

November 2019
Grangeville Boulevard at
BNSF Grade Separation

Prepared For:

City of Hanford
900 South 10th Avenue
Hanford, California 93230

Prepared By:

TRC
575 E Locust Avenue, Suite 105
Fresno, California 93720

Prepared by: Mark Imbriani, Vice President
TRC Engineers, Inc.

Approved by: Lou Camara, Public Works Director
City of Hanford

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 261
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1

2. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND ..............................................................................3

3. PURPOSE & NEED ........................................................................................................4

4. PROJECT SCOPE ..........................................................................................................6

5. EXISTING CONDITION ................................................................................................. 10

6. UNDERPASS STUDY ................................................................................................... 11 Roadway ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Right of Way ................................................................................................................................... 11 Traffic Control/Stage Construction ................................................................................................. 12 Bridge and Retaining Wall Construction ........................................................................................ 13 Drainage ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................... 14 Environmental Clearance ............................................................................................................... 14 Railroad Construction and Coordination ........................................................................................ 14 Utilities .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Funding/Estimate ........................................................................................................................... 16

7. OVERPASS STUDY ..................................................................................................... 17 Roadway ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Right of Way ................................................................................................................................... 17 Traffic Control/Stage Construction ................................................................................................. 17 Bridge and Retaining Wall Construction ........................................................................................ 18 Drainage ......................................................................................................................................... 19 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Environmental Clearance ............................................................................................................... 20 Railroad Construction and Coordination ........................................................................................ 20 Utilities .......................................................................................................................................... 20 Funding/Estimate ........................................................................................................................... 21

8. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 21

9. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 22

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 262
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report ii

FIGURES

Figure 1: BNSF tracks crossing through Hanford .......................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: City of Hanford 2035 General Plan ................................................................................................ 5 Figure 3: Underpass Structure; with retaining walls (above), with cut slope (below) ................................. 7 Figure 4: Overpass Structure; with retaining walls (above), with embankment fill (below) ........................ 8 Figure 5: Project Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 6: Secant Pile Wall Plan View ........................................................................................................... 13 Figure 7: Example Secant Pile Wall without Fascia ..................................................................................... 13 Figure 8: MSE Wall Cross Section ................................................................................................................ 19

APPENDICES

Appendix A Grade Separation Layouts
Appendix B Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix C Overpass Structure Type Selection Memorandum Appendix D Overpass Visual Impact Exhibit
Appendix E Traffic Study

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 263
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 1

1. Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to pr esent the results of a feasibility study conducted for the grade separation of Grangeville Boulevard and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Company tracks. Underpass and overpass alignment alternatives were developed in consultation with the City of Hanford Public Works Department and BNSF. The preliminary designs adhere to the Union Pacific Railroad - BNSF Railway Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects, as well as AASHTO’s Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 Green Book. A detailed description of the alternatives considered, as well as their impacts and estimated costs are provided herein. A summary of some of the imp ortant design elements of each alternative are provided below.

Underpass Alternative:

• Design Speed = 45 mph
• Approach grades = 4%
• Pedestrian profile grade follows roadway profile grade. • Minimum vertical clearance underneath structure = 17’-9” • Roadway cross section consists of a 28 ft. wide traveled way each direction with a 14 ft. wide raised center median. The traveled way consists of 12 ft. wide inside lanes and 11 ft. wide outside lanes with 5 ft. wide outside shoulders/bike lanes (includes 2 ft. wide gutter pan). There are 5 ft. wide sidewalks on each side. There is no barrier separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
• Two-span bridge, 99’ -10” long and 66’-0” wide (accommodates two existing tracks and future 3
rd track).
• Tall, Secant-type abutments and retaining walls along the length of the project. • Profile conforms to existing grade approximately 500 ft. east of University Avenue and 150 ft. east of Rodgers Road.
• Project length = 1,800 ft.
• New access to businesses at northwest corner of Grangeville/BNSF intersection via Claridge Lane extension.
• New 12 ft. wide railroad access roads parallel to Grangeville Blvd. west of the tracks. • Mildred Street access closed to Grangeville Blvd.
• New access to Tara Mobile Estates via Malone Street.
• Minor lowering of Rodgers Road intersection.
• Requires significant railroad work (i.e. shoofly, relocation of control point, shoring) • Construction duration = 18 months
• Construction Cost = $35 M current year cost, $39 M escalated cost. • Total Project Cost = $41 M current year cost, $45 M escalated cost.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 264
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 2
Overpass Alternative:

• Design Speed = 40 mph
• Approach grades = 8% and 7.75%
• Pedestrian traffic is separated from roadway traffic by a vehicular barrier. Vehicular barrier retains grade difference between pedestrian profile and roadway profile. • Pedestrian profile includes level landings at every 2.5 ft. max rise in profile grade. • Minimum vertical clearance over railroad right-of-way = 23’-6” • Roadway cross section consists of a 28 ft. wide traveled way each direction with a 12 ft. wide raised center median. The traveled way consists of 12 ft. wide inside lanes and 11 ft. wide outside lanes with 5 ft. wide outside shoulders/bike lanes. There are 5 ft. wide sidewalks on each side, separated from the roadway by a Caltrans standard vehicular barrier.
• Single-span bridge, 149’-6” long and 83’-6” wide.
• Bridge spans railroad right-of-way. No railroad track work. • Tall, MSE-type abutments and retaining walls along the length of the project. • Profile conforms to existing grade 50 ft. east of University Avenue and 150 ft. east of Rodgers Road.
• Project length = 2,100 ft.
• New access to businesses at northwest corner of Grangeville/BNSF intersection via Claridge Lane extension.
• New 12 ft. wide railroad access roads parallel to Grangeville Blvd. west of the tracks. • Mildred Street access closed to Grangeville Blvd.
• New access to Tara Mobile Estates via Malone Street.
• Minor raising of Rodgers Road intersection.
• Construction duration = 12 months
• Construction Cost = $24 M current year cost, $28 M escalated cost. • Total Project Cost = $28 M current year cost, $32 M escalated cost.

The above alternatives were developed using existing documentation, as-built plans, information obtained through field surveys, and the results of coordination meetings held w ith City staff and BNSF personnel. Right-of-way and utility impacts as well as project costs were considered in the development of the geometric drawings and bridge planning studies.

Underpass and overpass alignment alternatives are both feasible. Advantages of the underpass alternative include less visual impact and shallower approach grades which may be more comfortable for drivers and pedestrians using the facility. Advantages to the overpass alternative include a significantly lower cost and quicker design and construction schedule. TRC has prepared this feasibility report so that the City may weigh the pros and cons of each alternative and decide which alternative to carry forward into design.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 265
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 3

2. Introduction & Background

The City of Hanford (City) approved the preparation of a feasibility study for the preliminary layout of the future grade separated railroad crossing at Grangeville Boulevard and the BNSF tracks .

The results of the feasibility study are presented in this report, the purpose of which is to provide the City with information to make a decision as to which type of grade crossing would best suit their needs, either underpass or overpass, and to assist them in securing funding in the future.

The City of Hanford is bifurcated by the BNSF Railway Company tracks, as illustrated in Figure 1, below. In fact, there are 15 existing at-grade crossings that are blocked by the approximately 42 freight and passenger (Amtrak) trains that pass through the center of the City on a daily basis.

There are no grade separated crossings of BNSF tracks within the City limits other than the State Highway 198 grade separation. This results in frequent delays to traffic and prevents cross-City access.

Figure 1: BNSF tracks crossing through Hanford

Most of the current City residential, commercial, and industrial areas are located east of the railroad tracks, along SR43 and SR198. Normal development pressure is occurring in the City, and much of that growth will, by necessity, be located west of the railroad tracks with an increase in traffic volumes, notably on Grangeville Boulevard as it is a principal arterial. The resultant traffic will require access across the track to SR43. Thus , the existing at-grade railroad crossings will experience much gr eater traffic volumes in upcoming years; significantly increasing total delay times in the near future.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 266
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 4
Several locations were considered for the grade separated crossing including Flint Avenue, Fargo Avenue, Grangeville Boulevard, 11th Avenue, and Lacey Boulevard. Grangeville Boulevard was selected due to its central location and proximity to emergency services. Although its construction will cause more traffic disruptions than a more remote location like Flint Avenue, this location is still preferred d ue to the future benefits of the grade separated crossing being at a more centralized, highly trafficked area.

3. Purpose & Need

This grade separation project is needed because the cross-town traffic on east-west roadways in the City is significantly delayed at grade crossings with the BNSF tracks. In fact, with the exception of State Highway 198, there are 18 miles between grade separations in the City and Kings County.

This problem will be exacerbated by the significant future projected growth. The significant delays due to at grade crossings have a detrimental impact on public safety and economic development in the community.

With the current distribution of residents and the planned growth, it will be important to maintain emergency access to the City’s hospital which is located south of Grangeville B oulevard, along Mall Drive. The Grangeville Boulevard grade separated crossing will accomplish this important civic need, saving lives in the process. Additionally, response time by police and fire vehicles across the BNSF track will be improved, saving lives and property. Perhaps most importantly, automobiles have been struck by trains at the crossing. With the projected increase in traffic, safety can be expected to be further jeopardized at this crossing without a grade separation.

The primary purpose of the project is to provide a grade separated east-west arterial roadway in the City, eliminating delay and providing safer crossing of the BNSF track and access to State Highways 43 and 198. This project will greatly improve mobility in the central part of the City of Hanford. Without this project, significant traffic delays and congestion are anticipated on all east- west arterial streets in the City. This grade separation will relieve congestion, improve emergency response times, and increase safety on other arterial streets due to the expected shift in traffic to Grangeville Blvd. because of the grade separation.

Construction of the project will also facilitate development of property located west of the railroad tracks. This land has been identified by the City in their adopted General Plan as a future growth area to provide residential, commercial, and economic development in the north and west portions of the City (see Figure 2).

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 267
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 5
Figure 2: City of Hanford 2035 General Plan

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 268
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 6

4. Project Scope

To alleviate the above concerns, the City has decided to plan for the Grangeville Boulevard grade separation. The goals for this grade separation are:

1. Reduce accident potential and liability at this at-grade crossing

2. Improve emergency response times by providing this grade separation near the City center

3. Reduce traffic delays on this major east-west route through the City

4. Provide for efficient cross-town traffic

5. Provide infrastructure for the planned growth in traffic volumes

6. Eliminate traffic delays caused by train operations

7. Improved air quality by eliminating vehicle idling at train crossings

Although not a primary reason for constructing the grade separation, a great benefit it provides to residents and businesses nearby is a reduction in train noise. Because the train will no longer pass at-grade, the engineer will not need to sound the horn through the crossing. The elimination of the train horn noise will presumably have a positive impact on quality of life and property values in the area.

The grade separation will include the following features, as illustrated on the attached preliminary plan and profile sheets and bridge planning studies (see Appendix A):

1. Grade separation of BNSF track

2. Conveyance of rail traffic through the construction zone

3. Elimination of a grade crossing

4. Elimination of the T-intersection at Mildred Street

5. Extension of Claridge Lane to provide access to businesses

6. New access to Tara Bella Estates via Malone Street.

7. Addition of railroad access roads parallel to Grangeville Blvd. west of the tracks

8. Safer vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle lanes

9. Raised median along the length of the project

10. ADA compliant sidewalks

11. Profile touchdown to existing grade between University Avenue and Rodgers Road.

Two alignment alternatives were evaluated for the crossing. The alternatives studied were an underpass and overpass structure to separate the roadway grade from the railroad tracks. An overpass structure carries vehicular traffic over the railroad; whereas an underpass structure allows vehicular traffic to go under the railroad as the train uses the structure. Due to the proximity of residences and business to Grangeville Boulevard, retaining walls will be required along the length of the project for both alternatives in order to retain the excavation or fill . See Figures 3 and 4 for examples of underpass and overpass structures.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 7

Figure 3: Underpass Structure; with retaining walls (above), with cut slope (below)

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 270
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 8

Figure 4: Overpass Structure; with retaining walls (above), with embankment fill (below)

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 271
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 9
In order to study the feasibility of each alternative, the preparation of plan and profile views of both an underpass and overpass were prepared. The City wished to study both an underpass and overpass alternative to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each and establish costs for future funding acquisition. The underpass alternative is significantly more expensive than the overpass alternative; however, it may be the more favorable option should sufficient funding become available.

Listed below are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the underpass and overpass alternatives.

Underpass Alternative:

Advantages Disadvantages
• Shorter project length
• Flatter approach grades
• No level landings required to make
sidewalks ADA compliant
• Design speed of 45 mph
• Less visual impact
• More expensive
• Requires significant railroad track work,
including shoofly of two tracks and
relocation of control point
• Requires pump station for drainage
• Complex construction including shoring
of the railroad shoofly
• Potential to expose hazardous materials
• More expensive utility relocation

Overpass Alternative:

Advantages Disadvantages
• Significantly less expensive
• No railroad track work
• Easier railroad approval
• Easier railroad access (bridge spans over

RR ROW)
• No pump station required
• Quicker design and construction schedule

• Longer project length (approx. 300 ft.)
• Steep approach grades
• Steep sidewalk grades, requires separate
profile with introduction of level landings
to meet ADA requirements
• Design speed of 40 mph compared to
Underpass Alt. design speed of 45 mph
• Greater impact to Rodgers Road
intersection.
• Large walls behind homes and in front of
businesses (visual impact) – bridge
elevated 30 ft. above ground

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 272
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 10

5. Existing Condition

Grangeville Boulevard is currently a 4-lane arterial with a center two-way left turn lane within the project limits (see Figure 5 for Project Vicinity Map). The BNSF track intersects Grangeville Blvd. at an approximate 26 degree skew. Major intersections to Grangeville Blvd. occur at University Ave and Rodgers Road approximately 1,300 ft. west and 650 ft. east of the crossing, respectively.

Mildred Street intersects Grangeville Blvd. only from the south approximately 500 ft. west of the crossing, and an entrance to Tara Mobile Estates intersects Grangeville Blvd. only from the south just west of Mildred Street.

The 2035 General Plan Land Use for property surrounding the crossing is as follows: Northwest corner to be service commercial, northeast corner to be offices, southeast corner to be medium density residential and southwest corner to be low density residential. The four corner s at University Avenue are to be residential, and three of the four corners at Rodgers Road are to be residential, with the northwest corner being offices. The property south of Grangeville Blvd within the project limits has already been developed and is all residential. Immediately adjacent to the crossing, between Rodgers Road and Mildred Street, the homes back up to Grangeville Blvd.

Some of the property north of Grangeville Blvd. within the project limits has been developed.

There is a large self-storage facility with private offices in front facing Grangeville Blvd. located northwest of the crossing. There is a vacant lot between the storage facility and the tracks. East of the tracks on the north side is a former YMCA facility that was recently purchased.

Figure 5: Project Vicinity Map

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 273
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 11

6. Underpass Study

Roadway

The proposed underpass roadway will maintain the existing horizontal alignment. The proposed vertical profile incorporates vertical curves and grades that meet AASHTO Greenbook standards for a 45 mph design speed. The vertical profile was set using 4% grades on the east and west approaches. The minimum vertical clearance criteria of 17’ -6” at the railroad right-of-way to the bottom of the structure was used to create the vertical profile. The sidewalk will follow the roadway profile and will satisfy ADA requirements. The roadway design features four travel lanes, a 14 ft. wide raised median, 5 ft. wide outside shoulders/bike lanes (includes 2 ft. wide gutter pan), and 5 ft. wide sidewalks. For the underpass roadway layout, see Appendix A, Sheet L-1.

Mildred Street, which currently intersects Grangeville Blvd. only from the south, will be terminated with a cul -de-sac just south of Grangeville Blvd. An entrance to Tara Mobile Estates currently intersects Grangeville Blvd. only from the south, just west of Mildred Street. This access will be reconstructed to a right in, right out only driveway, with alternative access being created on Malone Street, located parallel to and south of Grangeville Blvd. This realignment will improve the traffic flow in this area by eliminating two T -intersections. Rodgers Road, which currently intersects Grangeville Blvd. east of the tracks will remain as is but be slightly lowered in elevation to accommodate the profile grade. See Appendix A, Sheet L-2 for existing and proposed grades at Rodgers Road and proposed driveway conforms. Finally, a new access road will be provided to parcels in the northwest quadrant of the project, including the Santa Fe Mini Storage facility, by extending and paving Claridge Lane from University Ave, thus eliminating the existing driveway access point near the grade crossing.

Right of Way

To reduce right of way impacts to nearby properties, retaining walls will be constructed parallel to the roadway along the length of the project. These walls will be constructed in a top-down fashion so that large temp orary excavations to place retaining wall footings are not required. Utility easements will be required behind the retaining walls parallel to Grangeville Blvd. for railroad access roads and reconstructed utilities. Where possible, utilities running in Grangeville Blvd. will be relocated behind the retaining walls for ease of access , and to maintain gravity flow as is applicable. A pump station will be required to accommodate storm drainage. The proposed location for the pump station is in the vacant lot at the northwest corner of the crossing (APN 008- 410-001-000). The City should consider taking steps to purchase this property now before commercial development of the lot occurs.

Temporary construction easements will be required at the northeast and southeast corners of the crossing to construct the railroad shoofly. Both tracks will need to be temporarily shifted about 50 ft. to the east so that train traffic can be maintained while the new underpass structure is being constructed. The limits of the temporary proposed right of way are shown on the underpass roadway layout sheet.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 274
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 12
Traffic Control/Stage Construction

Railroad operations and local traffic can be significantly impacted by the construction of an underpass. Two general options are technically possible for handling traffic during construction.

By far the quickest, most cost effective and safest way to construct the project is to close the road and build the entire project in one stage. Detours via Fargo Avenue to the north or Lacey Boulevard to the south are 4.0 miles in length. A detour via Elm Street is 2.2 miles in length.

Peters Engineering performed a traffic study to determine the effects of closing the road during construction (see Appendix E for Traffic Study). The analysis assumed that 50 percent of the existing trips on Grangeville Blvd. will redistribute to Fargo Avenue, 25 percent will use Elm Street, and 25 percent will use Lacey Blvd. The traffic study determined that the nearest available detour routes are likely to experience severe congestion and delays during construction and recommended a public information campaign to alert motorists of the project, the alternate routes, and the potential for congestion. Alternate routes further from the project site, such as State Route 198 and Flint Avenue should be suggested.

The alternative option is to maintain two l anes of traffic through the construction site using complex traffic handling and stage construction plans. To do this, the following sequence, or some variant, would be required, assuming the railroad would approve it:

1. Construct temporary railroad shoofly tracks, grade crossing , shoring, and temporary railroad trestle.

The road will need to be closed to traffic during this time. Construct a temporary grade crossing in the westbound lanes at the shoofly track location. Construct a sheet pile shoring wall parallel to and just north of the Grangeville Blvd. centerline. Construct a temporary railroad trestle across the eastbound lanes at the shoofly track location.

Construct shoofly trackage for two mainlines. Install a temporary crossing protection system for the two-lane detour at the shoofly.

2. Construct temporary two-lane detour.

Construct temporary two-lane traffic detour on the westbound lanes of Grangeville Blvd.

Divert traffic to the temporary lanes.

3. Divert trains to the shoofly.

4. Construct the southwest quadrant of the underpass structure.

5. Construct southern retaining walls and excavate and pave eastbound lanes.

6. Switch traffic to the eastbound lanes.

Divert traffic to the eastbound lanes. Vehicles will be down in the excavation, passing underneath the newly constructed southwest quadrant of the underpass structure and the temporary railroad trestle.

7. Construct the northwest quadrant of the underpass structure.

8. Swing mainline railroad traffic to new underpass structure.

Construct mainline track segment on underpass. Swing mainline tracks back to original alignment. Remove shoofly trackage and temporary railroad trestle.

9. Construct northern retaining walls, excavate westbound lanes and remove shoring.

10. Construct remaining portion of underpass structure.

Widen the bridge to the east to accommodate a future third track.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 275
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 13

Underpass Structure and Retaining Wall Construction

We have chosen to show a precast, prestressed concrete wide flange girder superstructure on the underpass planning study sheet as we believe it to be the best choice for this situation (see Appendix A, Sheet B-1 Underpass Planning Study). This structure type has a lower depth -to- span ratio than other precast concrete structure types, meaning it has a shallower superstructure and requires less excavation to meet vertical clearance requirements . A concrete structure is recommended rather than steel construction due to reduced construction costs, better aesthetics, and reduced long-term maintenance costs. A cast-in-place superstructure was not considered because the railroad rarely allows cast-in-place concrete superstructures for underpass structures. In addition, cast-in-place construction has a longer duration than precast construction, and the shortest construction schedule is desired to minimize the disruption to traffic.

Secant pile abutments and retaining walls are proposed for this project. This type of wall can be constructed with minimal disruption to nearby properties since large temporary excavations are not required to place foundations. A secant wall consists of cast -in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles overlapping each other in a single line. A line of concrete piles known as secant piles are constructed first by drilling holes and filling them with lean concrete. Then structural CIDH piles with rebar cages and structural concrete are constructed between the secant piles. See Figure 6 below for a plan view. After the piles are constructed, the contractor can then excavate down in front of the wall and place a cast-in-place concrete fascia for appearance (see Figure 7).

Figure 6: Secant Pile Wall Plan View

Figure 7: Example Secant Pile Wall without Fascia

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 276
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 14

Drainage

The underpass structure will require surface water drainage (and sometimes groundwater) to be pumped from the roadway sag up to the local storm water conveyance system. The estimated cost for this alternative includes the cost of providing a typical pump station within the project limits to store and facilitate the passage of stormwater to the local system. The proposed location for the pump station is in the vacant lot at the northwest corner of the crossing. Important information to obtain to size, price, and design the pump station includes: area draining to the low point, rainfall intensity, return period of the design storm, and limits (if any) of outflow rate into the local drainage system. The drainage may be pumped into the storm drain line located west of the crossing (at about station 19+00) which leads north to a storm drain basin.

Aesthetics

This underpass structure will be a landmark in the community and must be designed to be compatible with the surroundings. The underpass alternative will have minimal visual impact to the adjacent properties; however, approximately 15,000 travelers on Grangeville Blvd will pass through daily. Decorative form liners may be selected for the faces of retaining walls and center pier. Decorative steel railing may be placed on top of the retaining walls and across the underpass structure. See Figure 3 above for an example of these types of aesthetic treatments.

Environmental Clearance

The grade separation itself has a statutory exemption under CEQA, but additional environmental research may be required depending upon the other associated work and the level of controversy.

The City may consider preparing an environmental document to address the concerns of the community. This report would review the effects on surrounding properties, businesses in particular, to facilitate discussions with property owners. Its purpose would be to reveal community concerns and mitigate them to the property owner(s) and community’s satisfaction. Thi s would maintain the CEQA exemption. If resolution cannot be reached, then a more extensive environmental process and document would be required. The most significant issues are expected to be visibility of and access to businesses, traffic detours due to road closure, and potential subsurface discoveries. Although noise will be greater during construction, the grade separation will eliminate use of the train horn at the crossing, which is a significant benefit to the surrounding community.

Railroad Construction and Coordination

BNSF will require that the railroad remain in service during construction of the underpass structure. This will require the construction of a shoofly to route the railroad traffic around the construction area. The shoofly for both tracks will have to be constructed prior to any excavation for the underpass. There is a railroad control point located approximatly 150 ft. south of the crossing which the railroad uses to switch trains between tracks. This control point is 1,200 ft. in length and will fall within the shoofly track limits. It will need to be temporarily relocated with the shoofly, and then placed back in its current position. According to BNSF, relocation of the control point could cost more than $5 million. Construction of the shoofly and relocation of the control point will require extensive coordination with BNSF. Appropriate approvals will need to be obtained from the railroad and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The total estimated cost of

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 277
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 15
railroad work for the underpass alternative is $8 million. This poses a significant challenge for this alternative.

Utilities

The construction of an underpass structure will require the relocation of underground and overhead utilities. The underground utilities tha t will have to be relocated or deepened to pass underneath the roadway are:

1. Southern California Gas Company gas line

2. City Sewer, Water and Storm Drain

Portions of the overhead utilities running on the south side of the project may need to be relocated prior to construction. These utilities are:

1. Southern California Edison electric lines

2. Comcast Cable TV

3. AT&T telephone lines

The utilities within the BNSF right of way are unknown at this time , although grade crossing alteration plans from 2001 indicate a buried communication line running parallel to the tracks. All of the utilities located within the limits of construction for this project will require review and approval by the relevant agencies prior to construction of the underpass. Where possible, utility relocation should be implemented prior to construction of t he underpass. Utility and railroad relocation construction would require significant coordination to ensure that the underpass excavation is not delayed due to waiting for utility relocation. During construction of the underpass it will be required to have representatives of all utilities present during any construction located close to their respective facilities.

The City sewer is proposed to be relocated on the north side of Grangeville Blvd, behind the retaining wall. The SoCal gas line is proposed to be relocated on the sout h side of Grangeville Blvd, behind the retaining wall. Parallel gas facilities may be required on the north and south side to make lateral connections. The storm drain will be lowered with the roadway, and a storm drain pump station will be constructed. See discussion under “Drainage” above. There may not be sufficient room behind the retaining wall at the southeast quadrant to relocate the City water due to the proximity of homes to Grangeville Blvd, therefore the City water m ay need to be lowered with the roadway and placed in the outside travel lane. The best option for each utility facility will have to be studied during the design phase of the project.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 278
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 16
Funding/Estimate

The City submitted an application for nomination to the Grade Separation Fund Priority List maintained by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in 2017 and ranked 13th on the state-wide list. It is necessary to reapply every two years to remain on this list, and the City recently reapplied in October 2019. Being on this list means that the project could receive $5 to $15 million dollars in funding towards construction of the underpass. The estimated escalated cost for this project built in one stage is:

Right of Way $2,640,000
Engineering/Administration $5,840,000
Total Construction $36,470,000
Total Probable Estimated Cost* $44,950,000
*See Appendix B for the Total Probable Estimated Cost Breakdown. Values shown here have been rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

The funding for this project will likely come from three sources; City, BNSF, and CPUC Grade Separation Fund administered by Caltrans. The proposed contribution breakdown is as follows:

City of Hanford $35,455,000
Railroad Contribution (10%) $4,475,000
Grade Separation Fund $5,000,000

The City may wish to implement a regional transportation sales tax in order to reserve funds for this project.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 279
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 17

7. Overpass Study

Roadway

The proposed overpass roadway will maintain the existing horizontal alignment. The proposed vertical profile incorporates vertical curves and grades that meet AASHTO Greenbook standards for a 40 mph design speed. A somewhat reduced design speed of 40 mph is required as opposed to 45 mph in order to reduce impacts to the Rodgers Road intersection. The vertical profile was set using a 7.75% grade on the east approach and an 8% grade on the west approach. The minimum vertical clearance criteria of 23’ -6” a t the railroad right -of-way to the bottom of the structure was used to create the vertical profile. For the overpass roadway layout, see Appendix A, Sheet L-3. A separate sidewalk profile was developed for the project to satisfy ADA requirements (see Appendix A, Sheet L-4 to L -6). The sidewalk incorporates 5 ft. wide level landings at every 2.5 ft. max rise in profile grade. The difference in grade between the roadway and sidewalk is retained by a vehicle barrier at the edge of traveled way. The roadway design features four travel lanes, a 12 ft. wide raised median, 5 ft. wide outside shoulders/bike lanes, and 5 ft. wide sidewalks. A vehicle barrier separates pedestrians from traffic and a pedestrian handrailing is included at each edge of deck of the overpass structure.

Mildred Street, which currently intersects Grangeville Blvd. only from the south, will be terminated.

A gate and access will be provided at the Mildred St. terminus. An entrance to Tara Mobile Estates currently intersects Grangeville Blvd. only from the south, just west of Mildred Street. This access will be reconstructed to a right in, right out only driveway, with alternative access being created on Malone Street, located parallel to and south of Grangeville Blvd. This realignment will improve the traffic flow in this area by eliminating two T- intersections. Rodgers Road, which currently intersects Grangeville Blvd. east of the tracks wi ll remain as is but be slightly raised in elevation to accommodate the profile grade. See Appendix A, Sheet L-7 for existing and proposed grades at Rodgers Road and proposed driveway conforms. Finally, a new access road will be provided to parcels in the northwest quadrant of the project, including the Santa Fe Mini Storage facility, by extending and paving Claridge Lane from University Ave, thus eliminating the existing driveway access point near the grade crossing.

Right of Way

To reduce right of way impacts to nearby properties, retaining walls will be constructed parallel to the roadway along the length of the project. Mechanically stabilized embankment (MSE) walls will be utilized so that large temporary excavations or expensive shoring is not required to place cantilever-type retaining wall footings. Utility easements will be required in front of the retaining walls parallel to Grangeville Blvd. for railroad access roads and reconstructed utilities. Where possible, utilities running in Grangeville Blvd. will be relocated in front of the retaining walls for ease of access, and to maintain gravity flow as is applicable.

Traffic Control/Stage Construction

For an overpass structure, railroad operations remain largely unaffected, but vehicular traffic is impacted. Two general options are technically possible for handling traffic during construction.

By far the quickest, most cost effective and safest way to construct the project is to close the road and build the entire project in one stage. For detour routes and impacts to traffic as a result of

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 280
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 18
closing Grangeville Boulevard during construction, s ee discussion under “Underpass Study” above.

The alternative option is to maintain two lanes of traffic through the construction site using complex traffic handling and stage construction plans. To do this, the follow ing sequence would be required, assuming the railroad would approve it:

1. Construct temporary two-lane detour.

Construct temporary two-lane traffic detour on the westbound lanes of Grangeville Blvd.

Divert traffic to the temporary lanes.

2. Construct temporary shoring wall adjacent to two-lane detour.

Construct sheet pile or soldier pile shoring wall parallel to and just north of the Grangeville Blvd. centerline.

3. Construct southern portion of overpass.

Construct southern retaining walls, southern half of embankment, southern half of structure, and southern roadway approaches.

4. Switch traffic to the eastbound lanes and construct remaining portion of overpass.

Divert traffic to the eastbound lanes and newly constructed southern half of the overpass structure. Construct remaining portion of structure. Place northern retaining walls and embankment for northern half of structure, remove shoring wall, and construct remaining portion of roadway approaches.

Overpass Structure and Retaining Wall Construction

We have chosen to show a precast, prestressed concrete wide flange girder superstructure on the overpass planning study sheet as we believe it to be the best choice for this situation (see Appendix A, Sheet B-2 Overpass Planning Study). This structure type can span long distances and has a relatively low depth- to-span ratio. A concrete structure is recommended rather than steel construction due to reduced construction costs, better aesthetics, and reduced long- term maintenance costs. TRC prepared a Structure Type Selection Memorandum for the overpass alternative which evaluated cast-in-place and precast superstructure types and configurations, as well as abutment and retaining wall types (see Appendix C ). P recast was selected as the preferred structure type because it has a shorter construction duration than cast -in-place and does not require the use of falsework within the railroad right -of-way. A shorter , single-span bridge with tall abutments placed close to the railroad right of way is preferred over a longer, multi- span bridge with short abutments for cost reasons, and to limit the amount of vacant space underneath the structure that may allow homeless people to congregate.

The overpass structure will be approximately 149 ft. long and will accommodate the roadway cross section on Grangeville Boulevard consisting of four travel lanes, a 12 ft. median, 5 ft. outside shoulders, and 5 ft. sidewalks. A vehicle barrier will be placed between the travel way and the sidewalk to provide protection for pedestrians and to retain the grade difference between the sidewalk and roadway off the bridge. A n 8 ft-3 in tall p rotective fence meeting railroad requirements will be placed at each edge of deck. Off the bridge, a decorative pedestrian railing is proposed.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 281
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 19
MSE abutments and retaining walls are proposed for this project. MSE walls must be set back a minimum of 50 ft. from the railroad track centerline per the BNSF guidelines , or one must get approval to place them closer and incorporate abutment protections . This type of wall can be constructed with minimal disruption to nearby properties since only a small leveling pad is required and not a large foundation requiring large temporary excavations to construct. A n MSE wall consists of precast concrete panels with soil reinforcing strips extending back into the embankment at even intervals along the length and height of the wall. See Figure 8 below for a cross section of the wall. A reinforced concrete barrier slab sits on top of the wall and allows for attachment of the vehicle barrier and pedestrian railing.

Figure 8: MSE Wall Cross Section

Drainage

An overpass alternative has little effect on the current drainage of the site compared to an underpass alternative where the road is placed in a cut section. Rain falling on the bridge deck will flow along the barrier curbs and be collected in a series of deck drains discharging into a storm drain system along Grangeville Boulevard.

Aesthetics

This overpass structure will be a landmark in the community and must be designed to be compatible with the surroundings. The overpass alternative will have a significant visual impact to the adjacent properties since it will be elevated approximately 30 f t. above existing ground at the highest point. See Appendix D for exhibit showing visual impact to properties at the southeast quadrant of the crossing, on Water Street. These homes back up to the overpass. Additionally, approximately 15,000 travelers on Grangeville Blvd will pass over the bridge daily. Architectural textured surfaces and/or vegetation may be selected for the faces of retaining walls. Decorative steel railing may be placed on top of the retaining walls and across the overpass structure.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 282
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 20
Environmental Clearance

The grade separation itself has a statutory exemption under CEQA, but additional environmental research may be required depending upon the other associated work and the level of controversy.

The City may consider preparing an env ironmental document to address the concerns of the community. This report would review the effects on surrounding properties, businesses in particular, to facilitate discussions with property owners. Its purpose would be to reveal community concerns and mi tigate them to the property owner(s) and community’s satisfaction. This would maintain the CEQA exemption. If resolution cannot be reached, then a more extensive environmental process and document would be required. The most significant issues are expected to be visibility of and access to businesses, visual impact, and traffic detours due to road closure. Although noise will be greater during construction, the grade separation will eliminate use of the train horn at the crossing, which is a significant be nefit to the surrounding community.

Railroad Construction and Coordination

Construction of an overpass will not require significant modification of railroad facilities or impact rail operations. The bridge abutments will be constructed outside of the railroad right-of-way, and the bridge superstructure will span over the right-of-way. The existing crossing protection system will be removed prior to construction of the overpass but not until after the closure of the road and through traffic along Grangeville Boulevard is diverted to another route(s). Appropriate approvals will need to be obtained from the railroad and PUC.

Utilities

The construction of an overpass structure will require the relocation of underground and overhead utilities. The underground utilities that will have to be relocated or raised to facilitate access are:

3. Southern California Gas Company gas line

4. City Sewer, Water and Storm Drain

Portions of the overhead utilities running on the south side of the project and service poles on the north side of the project will need to be relocated prior to construction. These utilities are:

4. Southern California Edison electric lines

5. Comcast Cable TV

6. AT&T telephone lines

Utilities running within BNSF right of way will not be a ffected by the overpass construction; however, undergrounding of utilities crossing the railroad could affect the railroad utilities. It is recommended to pothole all the utilities in the design phase so that all conflicts can be resolved prior to construction. All of the utilities located within the limits of construction for this project will require review and approval by the relevant agencies prior to construction of the overpass. Where possible, utility relocation should be implemented prior to construction of the overpass.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 283
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 21
The City sewer and storm drain are proposed to be relocated on the north side of Grangeville Blvd, in front of the retaining wall. The City water and SoCal gas line are proposed to be relocated on the south side of Grangeville Blvd, in front of the retaining wall. Parallel gas facilities may be required on the north and south side to make lateral connections . There may not be sufficient room in front of the retaining wall at the southeast quadrant to relocate the City water due to the proximity of homes to Grangeville Blvd, therefore the City water line may need to be raised with the roadway and carried over the bridge. Utilities that are to be raised within the roadway will have to be reconstructed near the center of the roadway so that they are not in conflict with the MSE wall soil reinforcing. The best option for each utility facility will have to be studied during the design phase of the project.

Funding/Estimate

The City submitted an application for nomination to the Grade Separ ation Fund Priority List maintained by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in 2017 and ranked 13th on the state-wide list. It is necessary to reapply every two years to remain on this list, and the City recently reapplied in October 2019. Being on this list means that the project could receive $5 to $15 million dollars in funding towards construction of the overpass. The estimated escalated cost for this project built in one stage is:

Right of Way $1,400,000
Engineering/Administration $4,020,000
Total Construction $26,180,000
Total Probable Estimated Cost* $31,600,000
*See Appendix B for the Total Probable Estimated Cost Breakdown. Values shown here have been rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

The funding for this project will li kely come from three sources; City, BNSF, and CPUC Grade Separation Fund administered by Caltrans. The proposed contribution breakdown is as follows:

City of Hanford $23,440,000
Railroad Contribution (10%) $3,160,000
Grade Separation Fund $5,000,000

The City may wish to implement a regional transportation sales tax in order to reserve funds for this project.

8. Conclusions

A railroad grade separation is needed in the City of Hanford to improve public safety, alleviate traffic congestion due to train blockages, and spur economic growth. Grangeville Boulevard is the ideal location for this grade separation due to its central location and proximity to emergency services. Underpass and overpass alignment alternatives were studied and are both feasible.

Advantages of the underpass alternative include less visual impact and shallower approach grades which may be more comfortable for drivers and pedestrians using the facility.

Advantages to the overpass alternative include a significantly lower cost and quicker design and construction schedule. TRC has prepared this feasibility report so that the City may weigh the pros and cons of each alternative and decide which alternative to carry forward into design.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 284
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report 22

9. References

Union Pacific Railroad – BNSF Railway. 2016. Guideline for Railroad Grade Separation Projects.

AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 285
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report

Appendix A: Grade Separation Layouts

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 286
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade N

GRANGEVILLE BLVD
BNSF

RODGERS RD

MILDREDST

UNIVERSITY AVE

MALONE ST

RODGERS RDW WATER ST

W WATER ST

CORTNER ST

CLARIDGE LN

KINGS RD

WILLIAMS CT
"GB" LINE PROFILENE QUADRANTRR ACCESS ALTERNATIVE

SE QUADRANTRR ACCESS
GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD TYPICALSTA. 13+75 TO 23+00

PROPOSEDPUMPSTATION
LEGEND
APN:008-410-044
APN:008-410-011
GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD TYPICALSTA. 23+00 TO 29+00
UNDERPASS ROADWAY LAYOUT11/13/191" = 150'SHEETL-1 JLCNAHDR. BY:CH. BY:DATE:SCALE:TRC PROJ NO.:251911-1 GRANGEVILLE GRADE SEPARATIONCITY PROJECT NO.:EXHIBIT NO.:

FOR INC. 1891CLAIRNIAYCTIOFOFNAHD APN:008-410-057
APN:008-460-018
APN:008-410-055APN:010-450-004APN:010-450-005
APN:010-450-003APN:010-450-002APN:010-450-001
APN:010-460-001
APN:010-450-037APN:010-450-038 N GLACIER WAY
APN:008-410-056APN:008-410-058
APN:008-410-012

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 287
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade DR. BY:CH. BY:DATE:SCALE: TRC PROJ NO.:251911-1GRANGEVILLE GRADE SEPARATIONCITY PROJECT NO.:EXHIBIT NO.:FORINC. 1891CLAIRNIAYCTIOFOFNAHD UNDERPASS DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT11/13/20191" = 20' SHEETL-2JLCDSL

RODGERS RD

GRANGEVILLE BLVDGRANGEVILLE BLVD

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 288
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 289
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade OVERPASS ROADWAY LAYOUT11/13/191" = 160'SHEETL-3 JLCNAHDR. BY:CH. BY:DATE:SCALE:TRC PROJ NO.:251911-1 GRANGEVILLE GRADE SEPARATIONCITY PROJECT NO.:EXHIBIT NO.:

FOR INC. 1891CLAIRNIAYCTIOFOFNAHD GRANGEVILLE BLVD TYPICALSTA. 22+23.84 TO 23+60.13
GRANGEVILLE BLVD TYPICAL*STA.23+60.13 TO 28+91.88
N
"GB" LINE PROFILE

GRANGEVILLE BLVD
BNSF

RODGERSRD

MILDREDST

UNIVERSITYAVE

THORTON ST

KINGS RD
APN:010-450-004APN:010-450-005
APN:010-450-003APN:010-450-002APN:010-450-001
APN:010-450-037APN:010-450-038
APN:008-460-018
APN:008-410-055
APN:010-460-001
APN:008-410-044
APN:008-410-057
APN:008-410-056APN:008-410-058
APN:008-410-011APN:008-410-012

CLARIDGE LN
APN:008-410-014
GRANGEVILLE BLVD TYPICAL*STA. 10+46.33 TO 22+23.84

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 290
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade DR. BY:CH. BY:DATE:SCALE:TRC PROJ NO.:251911-1GRANGEVILLE GRADE SEPARATIONCITY PROJECT NO.:EXHIBIT NO.:

FORINC. 1891CLAIRNIAYCTIOFOFNAHDOVERPASS PEDESTRIAN PROFILE11/13/191" = 20'SHEETL-4 JLCNAH1 of 3

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 291
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade DR. BY:CH. BY:DATE:SCALE:TRC PROJ NO.:251911-1GRANGEVILLE GRADE SEPARATIONCITY PROJECT NO.:EXHIBIT NO.:

FORINC. 1891CLAIRNIAYCTIOFOFNAHD11/13/191" = 20'JLCNAHOVERPASS PEDESTRIAN PROFILESHEETL-52 of 3

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 292
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade 11/13/191" = 20'JLCNAHDR. BY:CH. BY:DATE:SCALE:TRC PROJ NO.:251911-1GRANGEVILLE GRADE SEPARATIONCITY PROJECT NO.:EXHIBIT NO.:

FORINC. 1891CLAIRNIAYCTIOFOFNAHDOVERPASS PEDESTRIAN PROFILESHEETL-63 of 3

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 293
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade DR. BY:CH. BY:DATE:SCALE: TRC PROJ NO.:251911-1GRANGEVILLE GRADE SEPARATIONCITY PROJECT NO.:EXHIBIT NO.:FORINC. 1891CLAIRNIAYCTIOFOFNAHD OVERPASS DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT11/13/20191" = 20' SHEETL-7JLCDSL

RODGERS RD

GRANGEVILLE BLVDGRANGEVILLE BLVD

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 294
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

PLANNING STUDY
FOR INC. 1891CLAIRNIAYCTIOFOFNAHDGRANGEVILLE GRADE SEPARATIONPLAN

ELEVATION

TYPICAL SECTIONS

AT ABUTMENTS

AT APPROACH ROAD
OVERPASSB-2

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 295
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report

Appendix B: Opinion of Probable Cost

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 296
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - UNDERPASS ALTERNATIVE District-County-Route: 06-KIN-0-HAN
RR PM: 969.10

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost
8,300,900$ 9,496,485 $
15,972,805$ 18,273,381 $
8,448,015$ 8,693,007 $
32,721,720$ 36,462,874 $
2,639,333$ 2,639,333 $
35,362,000$ 39,103,000 $
3,182,580$ 3,182,580 $
2,652,150$ 2,652,150 $
5,834,730$ 5,834,730 $
41,200,000$ 44,950,000 $
Allocated Share from State Fund: 5,000,000$
Contributions
35,455,000$
-$
4,495,000$
-$
Month / Year
Date of Estimate (Month/Year) 11 / 2019
Estimated Construction Start (Month/Year) 1 / 2025
Number of Working Days = 375
Estimated Mid-Point of Construction (Month/Year) 10 / 2025 Estimated Construction End (Month/Year) 6 / 2026
Number of Plant Establishment Days 261
TRC Project No. 251911-1

PLANNING COST ESTIMATE
City
County
Railroad
Project Description:

TOTAL RAILROAD WORK COST

TOTAL ENGINEERING COST

TOTAL PROJECT COST

TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
Other (specify)

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

TOTAL STRUCTURES COST

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
Advance Planning Estimate
Grangeville Boulevard between University Avenue and Rodgers Road Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation at BNSF Railway
UnderpassAlternative :

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST

TOTAL ROADWAY COST
Type of Estimate :

Project Limits :
11/25/2019
1 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 297
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - UNDERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
I. ROADWAY ITEMS SUMMARY
Cost
Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation at BNSF Railway
1 1,316,400$
2 1,175,800$
3 1,299,600$
4 274,900$
5 95,600$
6 900,000$
7 50,000$
8 511,300$
9 562,400$
10 231,000$
11 225,000$
12 606,300$
13 1,052,600$
8,300,900$
Daniel Lockett 11/7/2019
Name and Title Date
Justina Conklin 11/12/2019
Name and Title Date
State Furnished
Section
Earthwork
Pavement Structural Section
Drainage
Specialty Items
Supplemental Work
Estimate Reviewed By :

Time-Related Overhead
Roadway Contingency
Environmental
Traffic Items
Detours
Minor Items
Roadway Mobilization

TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
Estimate Prepared By :
11/25/2019
2 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 298
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - UNDERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
SECTION 1: EARTHWORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
190101 Roadway Excavation CY 62,068 x 20.00 = 1,241,360 $ 19010X Roadway Excavation (Type X) ADL CY x = - $
194001 Ditch Excavation CY x = - $
198010 Imported Borrow Grade Separation at BN x=- $
16010X Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 x 25,000.00 = 25,000 $
170101 Develop Water Supply LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000 $ 210130 Duff ACRE x = - $
XXXXXX Some Item Unit
1,316,400$
SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
401050 Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement CY x = -$
400050 Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement CY x = -$ 404092 Seal Pavement Joint LF x = -$
404093 Seal Isolation Joint LF x = -$
413117 Seal Concrete Pavement Joint (Silicone) LF x = -$ 413118 Seal Pavement Joint (Asphalt Rubber) LF x = -$
280010 Rapid Strength Concrete Base CY x = -$
410095 Dowel Bar (Drill and Bond) EA x = -$
XXXXXX Hot Mix Asphalt (Type B) TON 6,127 x 100.00 = 612,700$ 390137 Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (Gap Graded) TON x = -$ 39300X Geosynthetic Pavement Interlayer (Type X) SQYD x = -$ 260203 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 7,038 x 80.00 = 563,040$ 290201 Asphalt Treated Permeable Base CY x = -$
250401 Class 4 Aggregate Subbase CY x = -$
374002 Asphaltic Emulsion (Fog Seal Coat) TON x = -$
397005 Tack Coat TON x = -$
377501 Slurry Seal TON x = -$
3750XX Screenings (Type XX) TON x = -$
374492 Asphaltic Emulsion (Polymer Modified) TON x = -$ 370001 Sand Cover (Seal) TON x = -$
731530 Minor Concrete (Textured Paving) CY x = -$
731502 Minor Concrete (Miscellaneous Construction) CY x = -$ 39407X Place Hot Mix Asphalt Dike (Type X) LF x = -$
150771 Remove Asphalt Concrete Dike LF x = -$
420201 Grind Existing Concrete Pavement SQYD x = -$
150860 Remove Base and Surfacing CY x = -$
390095 Replace Asphalt Concrete Surfacing CY x = -$
15312X Remove Concrete LF/CY/LS x = -$
394090 Place Hot Mix Asphalt (Miscellaneous Area) SQYD x = -$ 153103 Cold Plane Asphalt Concrete Pavement SQYD x = -$ 39405X Shoulder Rumble Strip (HMA, X-In Indentations) STA x = -$ 413113 Repair Spalled Joints, Polyester Grout SQYD x = -$ 420102 Groove Existing Concrete Pavement SQYD x = -$
390136 Minor Hot Mix Asphalt TON x = -$
394095 Roadside Paving (Miscellaneous Areas) SQYD x = -$ XXXXXX Some Item Unit x = -$
1,175,800$

TOTAL EARTHWORK SECTION ITEMS

TOTAL PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION ITEMS
11/25/2019
3 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 299
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - UNDERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
SECTION 3: DRAINAGE
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
15080X Remove Culvert EA/LF x = -$
150820 Modify Inlet EA x = -$
155232 Sand Backfill CY x = -$
15020X Abandon Culvert Grade Separation at BN x=- $
152430 Adjust Inlet LF x = - $
155003 Cap Inlet EA x = - $
731510 Minor Concrete (Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk and Drive w CY 598 x 600.00 = 358,800$ 731623 Minor Concrete (Curb Ramp) EA 4 x 3,000.00 = 12,000$ 731511 Minor Concrete (Island Paving) CY 228 x 600.00 = 136,800$ 620XXX XX" Alternative Pipe Culvert (Type X) LF x = -$ 6411XX XX" Plastic Pipe LF x = -$
65XXXX XX" Reinforced Concrete Pipe (Type X) LF x = -$ 6650XX XX" Corrugated Steel Pipe (0.XXX" Thick) LF x = -$ 68XXXX XX" Plastic Pipe (Edge Drain) LF x = -$
69011X XX" Corrugated Steel Pipe Downdrain (0.XXX" T h LF x = -$ 70321X XX" Corrugated Steel Pipe Inlet (0.XXX" Thick) LF x = -$ 70XXXX XX" Corrugated Steel Pipe Riser (0.XXX" Thick) LF x = -$ 7050XX XX" Steel Flared End Section EA x = -$
703233 Grated Line Drain LF x = -$
72XXXX Rock Slope Protection (Type and Method) CY/TON x = -$ 72901X Rock Slope Protection Fabric (Class X) SQYD x = -$ 721420 Concrete (Ditch Lining) CY x = -$
721430 Concrete (Channel Lining) CY x = -$
XXXXXX Storm Drain Pump Plant & Appurtenances LS 1 x 642,000.00 = 642,000$ XXXXXX Additional Drainage LS 1 x 150,000.00 = 150,000$ 1,299,600$
SECTION 4: SPECIALTY ITEMS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
080050 Progress Schedule (Critical Path Method) LS 1 x 10,000.00 = 10,000$ 582001 Sound Wall (Masonry Block) SQFT x = $ - 510530 Retaining Walls LS x = -$
15325X Remove Sound Wall LF/LS x = -$
070030 Lead Compliance Plan LS 1 x 5,000.00 = 5,000$
141120 Treated Wood Waste LB x = -$
153221 Remove Concrete Barrier LF x = -$
150662 Remove Metal Beam Guard Railing LF x = -$
150668 Remove Flared End Section EA x = -$
8000XX Chain Link Fence (Type XX) LF x = -$
80XXXX 12' Chain Link Gate (Type CL-6) EA 3 x 2,500.00 = 7,500$ 832001 Metal Beam Guard Railing LF x = -$
839301 Sin gle Thrie Beam Barrier LF x =- $
xxxxxx Modify Traffic Signal LF 1 x 250,000.00 = 250,000 $ 839521 Cable Railing LF x = - $
730070 Detectable Warning Surface SQFT 48 x 50.00 = 2,400 $ 839585 Alternative Flared Terminal System EA x = - $
839584 Alternative In-line Terminal System EA x = - $
4906XX CIDH Concrete Piling (Insert Diameter) LF x = - $ 839591 Crash Cushion, Sand Filled EA x = - $
520103 Bar Reinforced Steel (Retaining Wall) LB x = - $ 510060 Structural Concrete, Retaining Wall CY x = - $
513553 Retaining Wall (Masonry Wall) SQFT x = - $
XXXXXX Some Item Unit x = - $
274,900$

TOTAL DRAINAGE ITEMS

TOTAL SPECIALTY ITEMS
11/25/2019
4 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 300
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - UNDERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
SECTION 5: ENVIRONMENTAL
5A - ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Biological Mitigation LS x = -$
130670 Temporary Reinforced Silt Fence LF x = -$
141000 Temporary Fence (Type ESA) Grade Separation at BNS x=- $ Subtotal Environmental Mitigation - $
5B - LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
20XXXX Highway Planting LS 1 x 20,000.00 = 20,000$
20XXXX Irrigation System LS x = -$
204099 Plant Establishment Work LS x = -$
204101 Extend Plant Establishment Work LS x = -$
20XXXX Follow-up Landscape Project LS x = -$
150685 Remove Irrigation Facility LS x = -$
20XXXX Maintain Existing (Irrigation or Planted Areas) LS x = -$ 206400 Check and Test Existing Irrigation Facilities LS x = -$ 21011X Imported Topsoil (X) CY/TON x = -$
20XXXX Rock Blanket, Rock Mulch, DG, Gravel Mulch SQFT/SQYD x = -$ 200122 Weed Germination SQYD x = -$
208304 Water Meter EA x = -$
2087XX XX" Conduit (Use for Irrigation x-overs) LF x = -$ 20890X Extend X" Conduit (Use for Extension of Irrigation x-overs) LF x = -$
Subtotal Landscape and Irrigation 20,000$
5C - EROSION CONTROL
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
210010 Move In/Move Out (Erosion Control) EA x = -$
210350 Fiber Rolls LF x = -$
210360 Compost Sock LF x = -$
2102XX Rolled Erosion Control Product (X) SQFT x = -$
21025X Bonded Fiber Matrix SQFT/ACRE x = -$
210300 Hydromulch SQFT x = -$
210420 Straw SQFT x = -$
210430 Hydroseed SQFT x = -$
210600 Compost SQFT x = -$
210630 Incorporate Materials SQFT x = -$
Subtotal Erosion Control - $
5D - NPDES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
130300 Prepare SWPPP LS 1 x 10,000.00 = 10,000$
130200 Prepare WPCP LS x = -$
130100 Job Site Management LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000$
130330 Storm Water Annual Report EA 1 x 2,000.00 = 2,000$ 130310 Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) EA x = -$
130320 Storm Water Sampling and Analysis Day EA x = -$
130520 Temporary Hydraulic Mulch SQYD x = -$
130550 Temporary Hydroseed SQYD x = -$
130505 Move-In/Move-Out (Temporary Erosion Control) EA x = -$ 130640 Temporary Fiber Roll LF x = -$
130900 Temporary Concrete Washout LS 2 x 3,000.00 = 6,000$ 130710 Temporary Construction Entrance EA 2 x 2,500.00 = 5,000$ 130610 Temporary Check Dam LF x = -$
130620 Temporary Drainage Inlet Protection EA 4 x 650.00 = 2,600$ 130730 Street Sweeping LS x = -$
Subtotal NPDES 75,600$
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL 95,600$
Supplemental Work for NPDES
066595 Water Pollution Control Maintenance Sharing* LS 1 x 2,000.00 = 2,000$ 066596 Additional Water Pollution Control** LS 1 x 2,000.00 = 2,000$ 066597 Storm Water Sampling and Analysis*** LS 1 x 2,000.00 = 2,000$ XXXXXX Some Item LS x = -$
Subtotal Supplemental Work for NDPS 6,000$
*** Applies only to project with SWPPPs.

*Applies to all SWPPPs and those WPCPs with sediment control or soil stabilization BMPs. **Applies to both SWPPPs and WPCP projects.
11/25/2019
5 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 301
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - UNDERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS
6A - Traffic Electrical
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
860460 Lighting and Sign Illumination LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000$ 860201 Signal and Lighting LS 1 x 300,000.00 = 300,000$ 860990 Closed Circuit Television System Grade Separation at BN x = -$ 86110X Ramp Metering System (Location X) LS x = -$
86070X Interconnection Conduit and Cable LF/LS x = -$
5602XX Furnish Sign Structure (Type X) LB x = -$
5602XX Install Sign Structure (Type X) LB x = -$
498040 XX" CIDHC Pile (Sign Foundation) LF x = -$
86080X Inductive Loop Detectors EA/LS x = -$
8609XX Traffic Monitoring Station (Type X) LS x = -$
15075X Remove Sign Structure EA/LS x = -$
151581 Reconstruct Sign Structure EA x = -$
152641 Modify Sign Structure EA x = -$
860090 Maintain Existing Traffic Management System
Elements During Construction LS x = - $
86XXXX Fiber Optic Conduit System LS x = - $
XXXXX Some Item LS x = - $
Subtotal Traffic Electrical 350,000$
6B - Traffic Signing and Striping
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
566011 Roadside Sign - One Post EA x = -$
566012 Roadside Sign - Two Post EA x = -$
5602XX Furnish Sign SQFT x = -$
568016 Install Sign Panel on Existing Frame SQFT x = -$ 150711 Remove Painted Traffic Stripe LF x = -$
141101 Remove Yellow Painted Traffic Stripe (Hazardous
Waste
) LF x = -$
150712 Remove Painted Pavement Marking SQFT x = -$
150742 Remove Roadside Sign EA x = -$
152320 Reset Roadside Sign EA x = -$
152390 Relocate Roadside Sign EA x = -$
84XXXX Signing and Striping LS 1 x 10,000.00 = 10,000$
840502 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (Enhanced Wet Night Visibilit
y) LF x = - $
846012 Thermoplastic Crosswalk and Pavement Marking
(Enhanced Wet Night Visibility) SQFT x = - $
120090 Construction Area Signs LS 1 x 40,000.00 = 40,000 $ 84XXXX Permanent Pavement Delineation LS x = - $
Subtotal Traffic Signing and Striping 50,000$
6C - Traffic Management Plan
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
12865X Portable Changeable Message Signs EA/LS x = -$
Subtotal Traffic Management Plan -$
6C - Stage Construction and Traffic Handling
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
120199 Traffic Plastic Drum EA x = -$
12016X Channelizer (Type X) EA x = -$
120120 Type III Barricade EA x = -$
129100 Temporary Crash Cushion Module EA x = -$
120100 Traffic Control System LS 1 x 500,000.00 = 500,000$ 129110 Temporary Crash Cushion EA x = -$
129000 Temporary Railing (Type K) LF x = -$
120149 Temporary Pavement Marking (Paint) SQFT x = -$
82010X Delineator (Class X) EA x = -$
XXXXXX Stage Construction LS x = -$
Subtotal Stage Construction and Traffic Handling 500,000$ 900,000$ TOTAL TRAFFIC ITEMS
11/25/2019
6 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 302
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - UNDERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
SECTION 7: DETOURS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
190101 Roadway Excavation CY x = -$
19801X Imported Borrow CY/TON x = -$
390132 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) Grade Separation at BNSF Ra x=- $ 26020X Class 2 Aggregate Base TON/CY x = - $
250401 Class 4 Aggregate Subbase CY x = - $
130620 Temporary Drainage Inlet Protection EA x = - $
129000 Temporary Railing (Type K) LF x = - $
128601 Temporary Signal System LS x = - $
120149 Temporary Pavement Marking (Paint) SQFT x = - $
80010X Temporary Fence (Type X) LF x = - $
XXXXXX Road Repair (Detour) LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000 $ 50,000$
SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1 through 7 5,112,300$
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS
8A - Americans with Disabilities Act Items
ADA Items 1.0% 51,123 $
8B - Bike Path Items
Bike Path Items 1.0% 51,123 $
8C - Other Minor Items
Other Minor Items 8.0% 408,984 $
Total of Section 1-7 5,112,300 $ x 10.0% = 511,230 $ 511,300$
SECTIONS 9: MOBILIZATION
Item code
999990 Total Section 1-8 5,623,600$ x 10% = 562,360$ 562,400$
SECTION 10: SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
066670 Payment Adjustments For Price Index
Fluctuations LS x = -$
066094 Value Analysis LS x = -$
066070 Maintain Traffic LS x = -$
066919 Dispute Resolution Board LS x = -$
066921 Dispute Resolution Advisor LS x = -$
066015 Federal Trainee Program LS x = -$
066610 Partnering LS x = -$
066204 Remove Rock and Debris LS x = -$
066222 Locate Existing Crossover LS x = -$
XXXXXX Some Item Unit x = - $
Cost of NPDES Supplemental Work specified in Section 5D = 6,000$ Total Section 1-8 5,623,600 $ 4% = 224,944 $
TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK 231,000$
Includes constructing, maintaining, and removal

TOTAL DETOURS

TOTAL MINOR ITEMS

TOTAL MOBILIZATION
11/25/2019
7 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 303
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - UNDERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
SECTION 11: STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS AND EXPENSES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
066105 Resident Engineers Office LS x = $0
066063 Traffic Management Plan - Public Information Grade Separation at BNSF Ra x= $ 0 066901 Water Expenses LS x = $0
8609XX Traffic Monitoring Station (X) LS x = $0
066841 Traffic Controller Assembly LS x = $0
066840 Traffic Signal Controller Assembly LS x = $0
066062 COZEEP Contract LS x = $0
066838 Reflective Numbers and Edge Sealer LS x = $0
066065 Tow Truck Service Patrol LS x = $0
066916 Annual Construction General Permit Fee LS x = $0 XXXXXX Some Item Unit x = $0
Total Section 1-8 5,623,600$ 4% = 224,944$
$225,000
SECTION 12: TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD
Total of Roadway and Structures Contract Items excluding Mobilization $20,207,465 (used to calculate TRO) Total Construction Cost (excluding TRO and Contingency) $22,614,805 (used to check if project is greater than $5 million excluding contingency) Estimated Time-Releated Overhead (TRO) Percentage (0% to 10%) = 3% Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
070018 Time-Related Overhead WD 375 X $1,617 = $606,300 TOTAL TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD $606,300
Note: If the building portion of the project is greater than 50% of the total project cost, then TRO is not included.

SECTION 13: ROADWAY CONTINGENCY
Recommended Contingency: (Pre-PSR 30%-50%, PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%, after PR approval 10%, Final PS&E 5%) Total Section 1-11 $ 7,017,300 x 15% = $1,052,595
TOTAL CONTINGENCY $1,052,600

TOTAL STATE FURNISHED
11/25/2019
8 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 304
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - UNDERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation at BNSF Railway

66.00 LF 0 LF 0 LF

99.83 LF 0 LF 0 LF
6,589 SQFT 30,552 SQFT 0 SQFT

4.92 LF 0 LF 0 LF
0L F 0L F 0L F
0L F 0L F 0L F
0 SQFT 0 SQFT 0 SQFT
0L F 0L F 0L F
Note: See  attached itemized structure costs
Structures Mobilization Percentage 10%
Recommended Contingency: (Pre-PSR 30%-50%, PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%, after PR approval 10%, Final PS&E 5%) Structures Contingency Percentage 15%

TOTAL COST OF STRUCTURES
Estimate Prepared By: Robin Yates
Date
$15,972,805
11/13/2019
Cost Per Square Foot $100 $0 $0
COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST OF BRIDGES $5,423,256
TOTAL COST OF RETAINING WALLS $7,077,200
$2,083,409
$1,388,940
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Structure Type xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Width (Feet) [out to out]
Total Length (Feet)
Total Area (Square Feet)
Structure Depth (Feet)
Footing Type (pile or spread) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bridge Number 45C-XXX 45C-XXX 45C-XXX
DATE OF ESTIMATE 00/00/00 00/00/00 00/00/00
Cost Per Square Foot $823 $232 $0
COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $5,423,256 $7,077,200 $0
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Structure Type
Precast/Prestressed Wide
Flange Girder
Secant and Type 1 Retaining
Walls xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Width (Feet) [out to out]
Total Bridge Length (Feet)
Total Area (Square Feet)
Structure Depth (Feet)
Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile/Spread
Bridge Name Underpass Structure xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bridge Number 45C-XXX 45C-XXX 45C-XXX
Bridge Retaining Walls
DATE OF ESTIMATE 11/13/19 11/13/19 00/00/00
11/25/2019
9 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 305
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - UNDERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
III. RAILROAD ITEMS
Item code Unit Quantity Cost
XXXXXX Removal of Existing Crossing LS 1 x 14,200.00 = 14,200$ XXXXXX Subballast - Class 2 Agg Base* CY 3,444 x 38.00 = 130,872$ XXXXXX Ballast** CY 5,167 x 43.00 = 222,181$
XXXXXX Shoofly Tracks Work Grade Sepa 9,000 x 65.00 = 585,000$ XXXXXX Shoofly Tracks Cutover LS 1x 375,000.00 = 375,000$ XXXXXX Remove/Reconstruct Track Work LF 250 x 75.00 = 18,750$ XXXXXX Relocate Control Point LS 1x 6,000,000.00 = 6,000,000$ 7,346,100$
Railroad Work Contingency Percentage 15% $1,101,915

TOTAL RAILROAD ITEMS
TOTAL COST OF RAILROAD WORK $8,448,015
Unit Price ($)
11/25/2019
10 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - UNDERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
IV. RIGHT OF WAY
Fill in all of the available information from the Right of Way data sheet.

A) A1) Acquisition, including Excess Land Purchases, Damages & Goodwill, Fees $ 585,000 A2) SB-1210 $0
B) Acquisition Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation at BNSF Railway $0 C) C1) Utility Relocation (State Share) $ 0
C2) Potholing (Design Phase) 0
D) Railroad Acquisition $0
E) Clearance / Demolition $0

F) Relocation Assistance (RAP and/or Last Resort Housing Costs) $ 0 G) $ 91,000
H) Environmental Review $0
I) 0% $ 0
J) Design Appreciation Factor 0% $ 0
K) Utility Relocation (Construction Cost) $ 1,963,333
L) $2,639,333
Title and Escrow
Condemnation Settlements

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ESTIMATE
11/25/2019
11 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 307
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

BRIDGE ESTIMATE - UNDERPASS ALT
Advance Planning Estimate
x General Plan Estimate Est. By RY 11/25/2019
Marginal Estimate Chk. By

3.0% Forecasted Annual Cost Inflation Rate Date for mid-point of construction period BRIDGE: Grangeville Ave Grade Separation CALTRANS BR NO.: DISTRICT: 06 ROUTE: Grangeville Ave TYPE: Precast, Prestressed Wide Flange Girder COUNTY BR NO.: COUNTY: KIN PM:

CU: DEPTH: LENGTH: WIDTH: AREA:

EA: 4.92 ft 99.83 ft 66.00 ft = 6,589 sq ft

CONTRACT ITEMS UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ADJ PRICE AMOUNT 1 19XXXX Temporary Shoring LS 1 $750,000.00 1.00 $750,000.00 $750,000 2 192003 Structure Excavation (Bridge) CY 790 $85.00 1.25 $106.25 $83,938 3 193003 Structure Backfill (Bridge) CY 265 $175.00 1.25 $218.75 $57,969 4 490603 24" Cast-In-Drilled-Hole Concrete Piling LF 1,500 $225.00 1.25 $281.25 $421,875 5 490609 60" Cast-In-Drilled-Hole Concrete Piling LF 1,800 $750.00 1.25 $937.50 $1,687,500 6 49XXXX 18" Lean Concrete Secant Pile LF 400 $170.00 1.25 $212.50 $85,000 7 510051 Structural Concrete, Bridge Footing CY 220 $650.00 1.25 $812.50 $178,750 8 510053 Structural Concrete, Bridge CY 560 $1,500.00 1.25 $1,875.00 $1,050,000 9 510080 Structural Concrete, Approach Slab CY 20 $850.00 1.25 $1,062.50 $21,250 10 512203 Furnish PC/PS Concrete Girder (40'-50') EA 22 $26,800.00 1.00 $26,800.00 $589,600 11 512221 Furnish PC/PS Concrete Box Girder (40'-50') EA 4 $32,100.00 1.00 $32,100.00 $128,400 12 512500 Erect PC/PS Concrete Girder EA 22 $3,750.00 1.25 $4,687.50 $103,125 13 512502 Erect PC/PS Concrete Box Girder EA 4 $6,420.00 1.25 $8,025.00 $32,100 14 520102 Bar Reinforcing Steel (Bridge) LB 100,000 $1.70 1.25 $2.13 $212,500 15 833032 Chain Link Railing (Type 7) LF 200 $85.00 1.25 $106.25 $21,250 SUBTOTAL $5,423,256
NOTES: MOBILIZATION (@ 10%) $602,584

1. SUBTOTAL BRIDGE ITEMS $6,025,840
CONTINGENCIES (@ 15%) $903,876
TOTAL BRIDGE COST $6,929,716
COST PER SQ. FT. (w/o contingencies) $915
PROJECT NO.
251911-1
ITEM NO.

Some unit costs have been increased by 25% to account for staged construction.

FOR PRESENT DAY COST - USE 11/25/2019 $6,930,000
575 East Locust Avenue, Suite 105
Fresno, CA 93720
Phone (559) 439-2576
Folder 520\251911-1 Underpass Structure Costs_rev2, Bridge Estimate 11/25/2019 12 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 308
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

RETAINING WALL ESTIMATE - UNDERPASS ALT
Advance Planning Estimate
x General Plan Estimate Est. By RY 11/25/2019
Marginal Estimate Chk. By

3.0% Forecasted Annual Cost Inflation Rate Date for mid-point of construction period BRIDGE: Grangeville Ave Grade Separation CALTRANS BR NO.: DISTRICT: 06 ROUTE: Grangeville Ave TYPE: Secant & Type 1 Retaining Walls COUNTY BR NO.: COUNTY: KIN PM:

CU: AVG HT: LENGTH: AREA:

EA: 12.00 ft 2546.00 ft = 30,552 sq ft

CONTRACT ITEMS UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ADJ PRICE AMOUNT 1 490607 48" Cast-In- Drilled-Hole Concrete Piling LF 15,700 $580.00 0.50 $290.00 $4,553,000 2 49XXXX 18" Lean Concrete S ecant Pile LF 4,100 $170.00 0.50 $85.00 $348,500 3 510060 Structural Concrete, Retaining Wall CY 1,900 $660.00 1.00 $660.00 $1,254,000 4 520103 Bar Reinforcing Steel (Retaining Wall) LB 203,000 $1.30 1.00 $1.30 $263,900 5 839727A Concrete Barrier (Type 836) LF 2,530 $175.00 1.00 $175.00 $442,750 6 833032 Chain Link Railing (Type 7) LF 2,530 $85.00 1.00 $85.00 $215,050 SUBTOTAL $7,077,200
NOTES: MOBILIZATION (@ 10%) $786,356
SUBTOTAL RW ITEMS $7,863,556
CONTINGENCIES (@ 15%) $1,179,533
TOTAL RW COST $9,043,089
COST PER SQ. FT. (w/o contingencies) $257
PROJECT NO.
251911-1
ITEM NO.

FOR PRESENT DAY COST - USE 11/25/2019 $9,050,000
575 East Locust Avenue, Suite 105
Fresno, CA 93720
Phone (559) 439-2576
Folder 520\251911-1 Underpass Structure Costs_rev2, Retaining Wall Estimate 11/25/2019 13 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 309
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE District-County-Route: 06-KIN-0-HAN
RR PM: 969.10

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost
9,341,700$ 10,687,193 $
13,510,226$ 15,456,114 $
16,330$ 18,682 $
22,868,256$ 26,161,989 $
1,388,333$ 1,388,333 $
24,257,000$ 27,551,000 $
2,183,130$ 2,183,130 $
1,819,275$ 1,819,275 $
4,002,405$ 4,002,405 $
28,300,000$ 31,600,000 $
Allocated Share from State Fund: 5,000,000$
Contributions
23,440,000$
-$
3,160,000$
-$
Month / Year
Date of Estimate (Month/Year) 11 / 2019
Estimated Construction Start (Month/Year) 1 / 2025
Number of Working Days = 250
Estimated Mid-Point of Construction (Month/Year) 7 / 2025 Estimated Construction End (Month/Year) 1 / 2026
Number of Plant Establishment Days 261
Railroad
Other (specify)
Project Limits :

Project Description:

TOTAL ENGINEERING COST

TOTAL PROJECT COST

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS

TOTAL STRUCTURES COST
City
County

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

TOTAL RAILROAD WORK COST

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

TOTAL ROADWAY COST
Type of Estimate :

PLANNING COST ESTIMATE
TRC Project No. 251911-1
Advance Planning Estimate
Grangeville Boulevard between University Avenue and Rodgers Road Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation at BNSF Railway
OverpassAlternative :
11/25/2019
1 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 310
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
I. ROADWAY ITEMS SUMMARY
Cost
1 2,519,800$
2 1,322,700$

3 742,200$

4 286,900$

5 95,600$

6 900,000$

7 50,000$

8 591,800$

9 650,900$

10 266,400$

11 260,400$

12 471,200$

13 1,183,800$

9,341,700$
Nestor Hernandez 9/11/2019
Name and Title Date
Justina Conklin 9/11/2019
Name and Title Date
Supplemental Work
Estimate Reviewed By :

Time-Related Overhead
Roadway Contingency
Environmental
Traffic Items
Detours
Minor Items
Roadway Mobilization
Section
Earthwork
Pavement Structural Section
Drainage
Specialty Items

TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
Estimate Prepared By :

State Furnished
11/25/2019
2 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 311
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
SECTION 1: EARTHWORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
190101 Roadway Excavation CY 2,874 x 100.00 = 287,400$
19010X Roadway Excavation (Type X) ADL CY x = -$
194001 Ditch Excavation CY x = -$
198010 Imported Borrow CY 107,870 x 20.00 = 2,157,400 $ 192037 Structure Excavation (Retaining Wall) CY x = -$
193013 Structure Backfill (Retaining Wall) CY x = -$
193031 Pervious Backfill Material (Retaining Wall) CY x = -$ 16010X Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 x 25,000.00 = 25,000$
170101 Develop Water Supply LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000$
210130 Duff ACRE x = -$
XXXXXX Some Item Unit
2,519,800$
SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
401050 Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement CY x = -$
400050 Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement CY x = -$ 404092 Seal Pavement Joint LF x = -$
404093 Seal Isolation Joint LF x = -$
413117 Seal Concrete Pavement Joint (Silicone) LF x = -$ 413118 Seal Pavement Joint (Asphalt Rubber) LF x = -$
280010 Rapid Strength Concrete Base CY x = -$
410095 Dowel Bar (Drill and Bond) EA x = -$
XXXXXX Hot Mix Asphalt (Type B) TON 6,464 x 100.00 = 646,400$ 390137 Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (Gap Graded) TON x = -$ 39300X Geosynthetic Pavement Interlayer (Type X) SQYD x = -$ 260203 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 8,453 x 80.00 = 676,240$ 290201 Asphalt Treated Permeable Base CY x = -$
250401 Class 4 Aggregate Subbase CY x = -$
374002 Asphaltic Emulsion (Fog Seal Coat) TON x = -$
397005 Tack Coat TON x = -$
377501 Slurry Seal TON x = -$
3750XX Screenings (Type XX) TON x = -$
374492 Asphaltic Emulsion (Polymer Modified) TON x = -$ 370001 Sand Cover (Seal) TON x = -$
731530 Minor Concrete (Textured Paving) CY x = -$
731502 Minor Concrete (Miscellaneous Construction) CY x = -$ 39407X Place Hot Mix Asphalt Dike (Type X) LF x = -$
150771 Remove Asphalt Concrete Dike LF x = -$
420201 Grind Existing Concrete Pavement SQYD x = -$
150860 Remove Base and Surfacing CY x = -$
390095 Replace Asphalt Concrete Surfacing CY x = -$
15312X Remove Concrete LF/CY/LS x = -$
394090 Place Hot Mix Asphalt (Miscellaneous Area) SQYD x = -$ 153103 Cold Plane Asphalt Concrete Pavement SQYD x = -$ 39405X Shoulder Rumble Strip (HMA, X-In Indentations) STA x = -$ 413113 Repair Spalled Joints, Polyester Grout SQYD x = -$ 420102 Groove Existing Concrete Pavement SQYD x = -$
390136 Minor Hot Mix Asphalt TON x = -$
394095 Roadside Paving (Miscellaneous Areas) SQYD x = -$ XXXXXX Some Item Unit x = -$
1,322,700$

TOTAL EARTHWORK SECTION ITEMS

TOTAL PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION ITEMS
11/25/2019
3 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 312
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
SECTION 3: DRAINAGE
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
15080X Remove Culvert EA/LF x = -$
150820 Modify Inlet EA x = -$
155232 Sand Backfill CY x = -$
15020X Abandon Culvert EA/LF x = -$
152430 Adjust Inlet LF x = -$
155003 Cap Inlet EA x = -$
731510 Minor Concrete (Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk and Driveway) CY 505 x 600.00 = 303,000$ 731623 Minor Concrete (Curb Ramp) EA 4 x 3,000.00 = 12,000$ 731511 Minor Concrete (Island Paving) CY 212 x 600.00 = 127,200$ 620XXX XX" Alternative Pipe Culvert (Type X) LF x = -$ 6411XX XX" Plastic Pipe LF x = -$
65XXXX XX" Reinforced Concrete Pipe (Type X) LF x = -$ 6650XX XX" Corrugated Steel Pipe (0.XXX" Thick) LF x = -$ 68XXXX XX" Plastic Pipe (Edge Drain) LF x = -$
69011X XX" Corrugated Steel Pipe Downdrain (0.XXX" Thick) LF x = -$ 70321X XX" Corrugated Steel Pipe Inlet (0.XXX" Thick) LF x = -$ 70XXXX XX" Corrugated Steel Pipe Riser (0.XXX" Thick) LF x = -$ 7050XX XX" Steel Flared End Section EA x = -$
703233 Grated Line Drain LF x = -$
72XXXX Rock Slope Protection (Type and Method) CY/TON x = -$ 72901X Rock Slope Protection Fabric (Class X) SQYD x = -$ 721420 Concrete (Ditch Lining) CY x = -$
721430 Concrete (Channel Lining) CY x = -$
750001 Miscellaneous Iron and Steel LB x = -$
XXXXXX Additional Drainage LS 1 x 300,000.00 = 300,000$ 742,200$
SECTION 4: SPECIALTY ITEMS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
080050 Progress Schedule (Critical Path Method) LS 1 x 10,000.00 = 10,000$ 582001 Sound Wall (Masonry Block) SQFT x = $ - 510530 Minor Concrete (Wall) CY x = -$
15325X Remove Sound Wall LF/LS x = -$
070030 Lead Compliance Plan LS 1 x 5,000.00 = 5,000$
141120 Treated Wood Waste LB x = -$
153221 Remove Concrete Barrier LF x = -$
150662 Remove Metal Beam Guard Railing LF x = -$
150668 Remove Flared End Section EA x = -$
8000XX Chain Link Fence (Type XX) LF x = -$
80XXXX 12' Chain Link Gate (Type CL-6) EA 3 x 2,500.00 = 7,500$ 832001 Metal Beam Guard Railing LF x = -$
839301 Single Thrie Beam Barrier LF x = -$
839310 Double Thrie Beam Barrier LF x = -$
xxxxxx Modify Traffic Signal LF 1 x 250,000.00 = 250,000$ 730070 Detectable Warning Surface SQFT 48 x 50.00 = 2,400$ 839521 Cable Railing LF x = -$
8395XX Terminal System (Type CAT) EA x = -$
839585 Alternative Flared Terminal System EA x = -$
839584 Alternative In-line Terminal System EA x = -$
4906XX CIDH Concrete Piling (Insert Diameter) LF x = -$ 839591 Crash Cushion, Sand Filled EA 2 x 6,000.00 = 12,000$ 83XXXX Concrete Barrier (Insert Type) LF x = -$
520103 Bar Reinforced Steel (Retaining Wall) LB x = -$
510060 Structural Concrete, Retaining Wall CY x = -$
513553 Retaining Wall (Masonry Wall) SQFT x = -$
511035 Architectural Treatment SQFT x = -$
598001 Anti-Graffiti Coating SQFT x = -$
203070 Rock Stain SQFT x = -$
5136XX Reinforced Concrete Crib Wall (Type X) SQFT x = -$ 83954X Transition Railing (Type X) EA x = -$
597601 Prepare and Stain Concrete SQFT x = -$
839561 Rail Tensioning Assembly EA x = -$
83958X End Anchor Assembly (Type X) EA x = -$
XXXXXX Some Item Unit x = -$
286,900$

TOTAL DRAINAGE ITEMS

TOTAL SPECIALTY ITEMS
11/25/2019
4 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 313
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
SECTION 5: ENVIRONMENTAL
5A - ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Biological Mitigation LS x = -$
130670 Temporary Reinforced Silt Fence LF x = -$
141000 Temporary Fence (Type ESA) LF x = -$
Subtotal Environmental Mitigation -$
5B - LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
20XXXX Highway Planting LS 1 x 20,000.00 = 20,000$
20XXXX Irrigation System LS x = -$
204099 Plant Establishment Work LS x = -$
204101 Extend Plant Establishment Work LS x = -$
20XXXX Follow-up Landscape Project LS x = -$
150685 Remove Irrigation Facility LS x = -$
20XXXX Maintain Existing (Irrigation or Planted Areas) LS x = -$ 206400 Check and Test Existing Irrigation Facilities LS x = -$ 21011X Imported Topsoil (X) CY/TON x = -$
20XXXX Rock Blanket, Rock Mulch, DG, Gravel Mulch SQFT/SQYD x = -$ 200122 Weed Germination SQYD x = -$
208304 Water Meter EA x = -$
2087XX XX" Conduit (Use for Irrigation x-overs) LF x = -$ 20890X Extend X" Conduit (Use for Extension of Irrigation x-overs) LF x = -$
Subtotal Landscape and Irrigation 20,000$
5C - EROSION CONTROL
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
210010 Move In/Move Out (Erosion Control) EA x = -$
210350 Fiber Rolls LF x = -$
210360 Compost Sock LF x = -$
2102XX Rolled Erosion Control Product (X) SQFT x = -$
21025X Bonded Fiber Matrix SQFT/ACRE x = -$
210300 Hydromulch SQFT x = -$
210420 Straw SQFT x = -$
210430 Hydroseed SQFT x = -$
210600 Compost SQFT x = -$
210630 Incorporate Materials SQFT x = -$
Subtotal Erosion Control - $
5D - NPDES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
130300 Prepare SWPPP LS 1 x 10,000.00 = 10,000$
130200 Prepare WPCP LS x = -$
130100 Job Site Management LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000$
130330 Storm Water Annual Report EA 1 x 2,000.00 = 2,000$ 130310 Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) EA x = -$
130320 Storm Water Sampling and Analysis Day EA x = -$
130520 Temporary Hydraulic Mulch SQYD x = -$
130550 Temporary Hydroseed SQYD x = -$
130505 Move-In/Move-Out (Temporary Erosion Control) EA x = -$ 130640 Temporary Fiber Roll LF x = -$
130900 Temporary Concrete Washout LS 2 x 3,000.00 = 6,000$ 130710 Temporary Construction Entrance EA 2 x 2,500.00 = 5,000$ 130610 Temporary Check Dam LF x = -$
130620 Temporary Drainage Inlet Protection EA 4 x 650.00 = 2,600$ 130730 Street Sweeping LS x = -$
Subtotal NPDES 75,600$
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL 95,600$
Supplemental Work for NPDES
066595 Water Pollution Control Maintenance Sharing* LS 1 x 2,000.00 = 2,000$ 066596 Additional Water Pollution Control** LS 1 x 2,000.00 = 2,000$ 066597 Storm Water Sampling and Analysis*** LS 1 x 2,000.00 = 2,000$ XXXXXX Some Item LS x = -$
Subtotal Supplemental Work for NDPS 6,000$
*** Applies only to project with SWPPPs.

*Applies to all SWPPPs and those WPCPs with sediment control or soil stabilization BMPs. **Applies to both SWPPPs and WPCP projects.
11/25/2019
5 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 314
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS
6A - Traffic Electrical
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
860460 Lighting and Sign Illumination LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000$ 860201 Signal and Lighting LS 1 x 300,000.00 = 300,000$ 860990 Closed Circuit Television System LS x = -$
86110X Ramp Metering System (Location X) LS x = -$
86070X Interconnection Conduit and Cable LF/LS x = -$
5602XX Furnish Sign Structure (Type X) LB x = -$
5602XX Install Sign Structure (Type X) LB x = -$
498040 XX" CIDHC Pile (Sign Foundation) LF x = -$
86080X Inductive Loop Detectors EA/LS x = -$
8609XX Traffic Monitoring Station (Type X) LS x = -$
15075X Remove Sign Structure EA/LS x = -$
151581 Reconstruct Sign Structure EA x = -$
152641 Modify Sign Structure EA x = -$
860090 Maintain Existing Traffic Management System
Elements During Construction LS x = - $
86XXXX Fiber Optic Conduit System LS x = -$
XXXXX Some Item LS x = -$
Subtotal Traffic Electrical 350,000$
6B - Traffic Signing and Striping
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
566011 Roadside Sign - One Post EA x = -$
566012 Roadside Sign - Two Post EA x = -$
5602XX Furnish Sign SQFT x = -$
568016 Install Sign Panel on Existing Frame SQFT x = -$ 150711 Remove Painted Traffic Stripe LF x = -$
141101 Remove Yellow Painted Traffic Stripe (Hazardous
Waste
) LF x = -$
150712 Remove Painted Pavement Marking SQFT x = -$
150742 Remove Roadside Sign EA x = -$
152320 Reset Roadside Sign EA x = -$
152390 Relocate Roadside Sign EA x = -$
84XXXX Signing and Striping LS 1 x 10,000.00 = 10,000$
840502 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (Enhanced Wet Night Visibilit
y) LF x = - $
846012 Thermoplastic Crosswalk and Pavement Marking
(Enhanced Wet Night Visibility) SQFT x = - $
120090 Construction Area Signs LS 1 x 40,000.00 = 40,000$ 84XXXX Permanent Pavement Delineation LS x = -$
Subtotal Traffic Signing and Striping 50,000$
6C - Traffic Management Plan
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
12865X Portable Changeable Message Signs EA/LS x = -$
Subtotal Traffic Management Plan -$
6C - Stage Construction and Traffic Handling
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
120199 Traffic Plastic Drum EA x = -$
12016X Channelizer (Type X) EA x = -$
120120 Type III Barricade EA x = -$
129100 Temporary Crash Cushion Module EA x = -$
120100 Traffic Control System LS 1 x 500,000.00 = 500,000$ 129110 Temporary Crash Cushion EA x = -$
129000 Temporary Railing (Type K) LF x = -$
120149 Temporary Pavement Marking (Paint) SQFT x = -$
82010X Delineator (Class X) EA x = -$
XXXXXX Stage Construction LS x = -$
Subtotal Stage Construction and Traffic Handling 500,000$ 900,000$ TOTAL TRAFFIC ITEMS
11/25/2019
6 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 315
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
SECTION 7: DETOURS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
190101 Roadway Excavation CY x = -$
19801X Imported Borrow CY/TON x = -$
390132 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON x = -$
26020X Class 2 Aggregate Base TON/CY x = -$
250401 Class 4 Aggregate Subbase CY x = -$
130620 Temporary Drainage Inlet Protection EA x = -$
129000 Temporary Railing (Type K) LF x = -$
128601 Temporary Signal System LS x = -$
120149 Temporary Pavement Marking (Paint) SQFT x = -$
80010X Temporary Fence (Type X) LF x = -$
XXXXXX Road Repair (Detour) LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000$
50,000$
SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1 through 7 5,917,200$
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS
8A - Americans with Disabilities Act Items
ADA Items 1.0% 59,172 $
8B - Bike Path Items
Bike Path Items 1.0% 59,172 $
8C - Other Minor Items
Other Minor Items 8.0% 473,376 $
Total of Section 1-7 5,917,200 $ x 10.0% = 591,720 $ 591,800$
SECTIONS 9: MOBILIZATION
Item code
999990 Total Section 1-8 6,509,000$ x 10% = 650,900$ 650,900$
SECTION 10: SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
066670 Payment Adjustments For Price Index
Fluctuations LS x = -$
066094 Value Analysis LS x = -$
066070 Maintain Traffic LS x = -$
066919 Dispute Resolution Board LS x = -$
066921 Dispute Resolution Advisor LS x = -$
066015 Federal Trainee Program LS x = -$
066610 Partnering LS x = -$
066204 Remove Rock and Debris LS x = -$
066222 Locate Existing Crossover LS x = -$
XXXXXX Some Item Unit x = - $
Cost of NPDES Supplemental Work specified in Section 5D = 6,000$ Total Section 1-8 6,509,000 $ 4% = 260,360 $
TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK 266,400$
Includes constructing, maintaining, and removal

TOTAL DETOURS

TOTAL MINOR ITEMS

TOTAL MOBILIZATION
11/25/2019
7 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 316
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
SECTION 11: STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS AND EXPENSES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
066105 Resident Engineers Office LS x = $0
066063 Traffic Management Plan - Public Information LS x = $0 066901 Water Expenses LS x = $0
8609XX Traffic Monitoring Station (X) LS x = $0
066841 Traffic Controller Assembly LS x = $0
066840 Traffic Signal Controller Assembly LS x = $0
066062 COZEEP Contract LS x = $0
066838 Reflective Numbers and Edge Sealer LS x = $0
066065 Tow Truck Service Patrol LS x = $0
066916 Annual Construction General Permit Fee LS x = $0 XXXXXX Some Item Unit x = $0
Total Section 1-8 6,509,000$ 4% = 260,360$
$260,400
SECTION 12: TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD
Total of Roadway and Structures Contract Items excluding Mobilization $18,844,423 (used to calculate TRO) Total Construction Cost (excluding TRO and Contingency) $21,196,926 (used to check if project is greater than $5 million excluding contingency) Estiamted Time-Releated Overhead (TRO) Percentage (0% to 10%) = 3% Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
070018 Time-Related Overhead WD 250 X $1,885 = $471,200 TOTAL TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD $471,200
Note: If the building portion of the project is greater than 50% of the total project cost, then TRO is not included.

SECTION 13: ROADWAY CONTINGENCY
Recommended Contingency: (Pre-PSR 30%-50%, PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%, after PR approval 10%, Final PS&E 5%) Total Section 1-11 $ 7,891,500 x 15% = $1,183,725
TOTAL CONTINGENCY $1,183,800

TOTAL STATE FURNISHED
11/25/2019
8 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 317
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS

83.50 LF 0 LF 83.50 LF
149.50 LF 0 LF 149.50 LF
12483 SQFT 82100 SQFT 12483 SQFT

6.58 LF 0 LF 6.58 LF
0L F 0L F 0L F
0L F 0L F 0L F
0 SQFT 0 SQFT 0 SQFT
0L F 0L F 0L F
For Estimate ‐ See 251911‐Structure Costs Overpass
Structures Mobilization Percentage 10%
Recommended Contingency: (Pre-PSR 30%-50%, PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%, after PR approval 10%, Final PS&E 5%) Structures Contingency Percentage 15%
Bridge Retaining Wall Bridge (Alt 2)
DATE OF ESTIMATE 11/13/19 11/13/19 11/13/19
Bridge Name Overpass Structure xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Overpass Structure (Alt 2) Bridge Number 45C-XXX 45C-XXX 45C-XXX
Pile
Structure Type
Precast/Prestressed Wide
Flange Girder MSE Retaining Walls CIP Box Girder
Width (Feet) [out to out]
Total Bridge Length (Feet)
Total Area (Square Feet)
Structure Depth (Feet)
Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cost Per Square Foot $254 $90 $241
COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $3,165,360 $7,407,860 $0
$3,012,820
DATE OF ESTIMATE 00/00/00 00/00/00 00/00/00
Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bridge Number 45C-XXX 45C-XXX 45C-XXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Structure Type xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Width (Feet) [out to out]
Total Length (Feet)
Total Area (Square Feet)
Structure Depth (Feet)
Footing Type (pile or spread) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx TOTAL COST OF BRIDGES $3,165,360
TOTAL COST OF BUILDINGS $7,407,860
$1,762,203
$1,174,802
Cost Per Square Foot $100 $0 $0
COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $0 $0 $0

TOTAL COST OF STRUCTURES
Estimate Prepared By: Kiana Negoro
Date
$13,510,226
11/13/2019
11/25/2019
9 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 318
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
III. RAILROAD ITEMS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
XXXXXX Removal of Existing Crossing LS 1 x 14,200.00 = 14,200$ 14,200$
Railroad Work Contingency Percentage 15% $2,130

TOTAL RAILROAD ITEMS
TOTAL COST OF RAILROAD WORK $16,330
11/25/2019
10 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 319
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

GRANGEVILLE BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION - OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE TRC Project No. 251911-1
IV. RIGHT OF WAY
Fill in all of the available information from the Right of Way data sheet.

A) A1) Acquisition, including Excess Land Purchases, Damages & Goodwill, Fees $ 404,000 A2) SB-1210 $0
B) Acquisition of Offsite Mitigation $ 0
C) C1) Utility Relocation (State Share) $ 0
C2) Potholing (Design Phase) $ 0
D) Railroad Acquisition $0
E) Clearance / Demolition $0

F) Relocation Assistance (RAP and/or Last Resort Housing Costs) $ 0 G) $ 91,000
H) Environmental Review $0
I) 0% $ 0
J) Design Appreciation Factor 0% $ 0
K) Utility Relocation (Construction Cost) $ 893,333
L) $1,388,333
Title and Escrow
Condemnation Settlements

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ESTIMATE
11/25/2019
11 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 320
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

PRECAST BRIDGE ESTIMATE - OVERPASS ALT
Advance Planning Estimate
x General Plan Estimate Est. By KN 11/25/2019
Marginal Estimate Chk. By

3.0% Forecasted Annual Cost Inflation Rate Date for mid-point of construction period BRIDGE: Grangeville Ave Grade Separation CALTRANS BR NO.: DISTRICT: 06 ROUTE: Grangeville Ave TYPE: Precast, Prestressed Wide Flange Girder COUNTY BR NO.: COUNTY: KIN PM:

CU: DEPTH: LENGTH: WIDTH: AREA:

EA: 6.58 ft 149.50 ft 83.50 ft = 12,483 sq ft

CONTRACT ITEMS UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ADJ PRICE AMOUNT 1 477020 Mechanically Stabilized Embankment SQFT 6,700 $90.00 1.00 $90.00 $603,000 2 490782 Furnish Piling (Class 200) (Alternative W) LF 1,170 $61.00 1.00 $61.00 $71,370 3 490783 Drive Pile (Class 200) (Alternative W) EA 24 $3,000.00 1.00 $3,000.00 $72,000 4 510053 Structural Concrete, Bridge CY 570 $1,500.00 1.00 $1,500.00 $855,000 5 510086 Structural Concrete, Approach Slab (Type N) CY 240 $850.00 1.00 $850.00 $204,000 6 512200A Furnish Precast Prestressed Concrete Girder (140'-150') EA 10 $70,000.00 1.00 $70,000.00 $700,000 7 512500 Erect PC/PS Concrete Girder EA 10 $20,000.00 1.00 $20,000.00 $200,000 8 519100 Joint Seal (MR 2") LF 190 $120.00 1.00 $120.00 $22,800 9 520102 Bar Reinforcing Steel (Bridge) LB 111,700 $1.70 1.00 $1.70 $189,890 10 665023 24" Corrugated Steel Pipe (.079" Thick) LF 560 $140.00 1.00 $140.00 $78,400 11 833033 Chain Link Railing (Type 7 Modified) LF 120 $85.00 1.00 $85.00 $10,200 12 833023A Chain Link Railing (Type 3) LF 300 $130.00 1.00 $130.00 $39,000 13 833088 Tubular Handrailing LF 420 $110.00 1.00 $110.00 $46,200 14 839727A Concrete Barrier (Type 836 Modified) LF 420 $175.00 1.00 $175.00 $73,500 SUBTOTAL $3,165,360
NOTES: MOBILIZATION (@ 10%) $351,707
SUBTOTAL BRIDGE ITEMS $3,517,067
CONTINGENCIES (@ 15%) $527,560
TOTAL BRIDGE COST $4,044,627
COST PER SQ. FT. (w/o contingencies) $282
PROJECT NO.
251911-1
ITEM NO.

FOR PRESENT DAY COST - USE 11/25/2019 $4,050,000
Folder 520\251911-1 Overpass Structure Costs_rev2, Bridge Estimate 11/25/2019 12 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 321
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

RETAINING WALL ESTIMATE - OVERPASS ALT
Advance Planning Estimate
x General Plan Estimate Est. By KN 11/25/2019
Marginal Estimate Chk. By

3.0% Forecasted Annual Cost Inflation Rate Date for mid-point of construction period BRIDGE: Grangeville Ave Grade Separation CALTRANS BR NO.: DISTRICT: 06 ROUTE: Grangeville Ave TYPE: MSE Retaining Walls COUNTY BR NO.: COUNTY: KIN PM:

CU: DEPTH: LENGTH: WIDTH: AREA:

EA: = 82,100 sq ft

CONTRACT ITEMS UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ADJ PRICE AMOUNT 1 477020 Mechanically Stabilized Embankment SQFT 82,100 $90.00 0.50 $45.00 $3,694,500 2 510053 Structural Concrete, Bridge CY 2,970 $1,200.00 0.50 $600.00 $1,782,000 3 520102 Bar Reinforcing Steel (Bridge) LB 425,800 $1.70 1.00 $1.70 $723,860 4 833033 Chain Link Railing (Type 7 Modified) LF 7,000 $85.00 1.00 $85.00 $595,000 5 839727A Concrete Barrier (Type 836 Modified) LF 3,500 $175.00 1.00 $175.00 $612,500 SUBTOTAL $7,407,860
NOTES: MOBILIZATION (@ 10%) $823,096
SUBTOTAL RW ITEMS $8,230,956
CONTINGENCIES (@ 15%) $1,234,643
TOTAL RW COST $9,465,599
COST PER SQ. FT. (w/o contingencies) $100
PROJECT NO.
251911-1
ITEM NO.

FOR PRESENT DAY COST - USE 11/25/2019 $9,470,000
Folder 520\251911-1 Overpass Structure Costs_rev2, Retaining Wall Estimate 11/25/2019 13 of 13

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 322
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report

Appendix C: Overpass Structure Type Selection Memorandum

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 323
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

STRUCTURE TYPE SELECTION

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation

LATITUDE

36.3426

LONGITUDE
-119.6617

DATE
11/25/2019

DIST
06 CO
Kings

RTE
Grangeville Blvd

PM
-

CD
-

EA
-

DESIGN GROUP
TRC

STRUCTURE NAME(S)
Grangeville Boulevard Overpass

PRESENT DAY CONSTRUCTION COST
Bridge $4,050,000
Wall $9,470,000
Total $13,520,000

TYPES CONSIDERED:
 Alternative 1: Precast Prestressed Wide Flange Girder Bridge  Alternative 2: Cast-in-Place Prestressed Box Girder Bridge

BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Grangeville Boulevard will be grade separated from the BN SF railroad tracks to reduce accident potential and liability, improve emergency response times, reduce traffic delays, provide for efficient cross-town traffic, provide infrastructure for the planned growth in traffic volumes, and improve air quality by eliminating vehicle idling at the train crossing. This document compares two alternatives for over pass superstructure types to span over the existing railroad tracks. Due to the proximity of residences and businesses to the roadway, retaining walls will be required at each corner of the bridge, running parallel with Grangeville Blvd along the length of the project to retain the embankment fill. Further discussion is included under “Span Configurations”. The bridge span and depth and retaining wall lengths are the same for both alternatives.

Span Configurations
Due to the large raise in profile to meet railroad clearances, two span configurations were considered: a single span bridge with tall abutments (39 ft. tall) or a 10-span bridge with shorter abutments (14 ft. tall). Although the longer bridge will provide less visual obstruction than the shorter bridge, it is more expensive to construct a longer bridge than it is to construct retaining walls and embankment fill. Additionally, the longer bridge pr ovides a large vacan t space underneath it th at will act as a sheltered area for homeless people to congregate. The abutment types are discussed further below.

Alternative 1: Precast Prestressed Wide Flange Girder Bridge A precast prestressed wide flange girder superstructure has many advantages including falsework not being required over the railroad, quicker construction, shorter traffic impact, and less ri sk to contractor and public safety due to shorter project duration. Disadvantages for this superstructure type include somewhat higher costs.

Alternative 2: Cast-in-Place Prestressed Box Girder Bridge A cast-in-place prestressed box girder superstructure has a somewhat lower construction cost; however, it requires the construction of falsework over the railroad tracks and has a l onger construction time with increased impact to traffic and more risk to contractor and public safety due to a longer project duration. Cast-in-place construction typically requires a higher roadway profile in order to meet falsework clearances over the tracks, and therefore could result in longer roadway approaches. The BNSF guidelines discourages the use of cast-in-place superstructures; however, they are not prohibited.

Falsework
For the cast-in-place option, falsework will be required to construct the superstructu re over the railroad. According to the UPRR BNSF Grade Separation Guidelines, th e minimum construction clearance envelope is 15 feet horizontally from the centerline of each track and 21.5 feet above the top of rail. To satisfy the construction clearance envelope for this project, the falsework will need to span a minimum of 44 feet, requiring a falsework depth of 3.25 feet per Caltrans Bridge Design Aids Table 10-2. The minimum clearance at the edge of the construction clearance envelope is 25.45 feet, which will accommodate the 21.5 feet minimum clearance with the 3.25 feet of falsework. Thus, the same vertical profile can be used for both the cast- in-place and precast options. The vertical profile for the project was set to meet the permanent vertical clearance criteria of

23.5 ft. over the entire railroad right of way. However, the guidelines state that the extent of the permanent vertical clearance shall be a minimum of 9 ft. to the field side of the outer most existing or future tracks. Depending on BNSF’s future track needs, the proposed profile may be able to be lowered for the precast alternative.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 324
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade Abutment Types
The maximum retained soil height behind the abutment for the single span option is approximately 39 ft., which is very tall.

Two abutment types were considered for the single span option: MSE abutments and tall cantilever abutments. Tall cantilever abutments consist of a cast-in-place reinforced concrete stem wa ll with a seat at the top to support the bridge and a large footing with four or more rows of piles. Due to the large retained height, soil nail anchors may be required near the top of the stem wall to help prevent overturning. MSE abutments are pr eferred over tall can tilever abutments for cost reasons. MSE abutments are like MSE walls, consisting of precast concrete panels with soil reinforcing extending back into the embankment. A short, pile-supported seat-type abutment is constructed directly behind the MSE abutment. The piles allow the vertical loads from the bridge to transfer down below the wall so that there is no surcharge on the wall. The BNSF guidelines say that if MSE walls are used to retain abutme nt fill the abutment must be supported by deep foundations.

Additionally, the MSE walls must be at least 50 ft. from the centerline of existing or future tracks. MSE walls placed within 50 ft. must be approved by the railroad and abutment protection consisting of a thickened wall for a minimum of 12 ft. above the top of rail must be incorporated. We have set the abutments so that they are 50 ft. from the centerline of existing track. If a future track is needed, railroad approval and abutment protection will be required to use this abutment type.

Retaining Wall Types
Similar to the abutment types considered, the two retaining wall types considered were MSE walls and tall cantilever walls.

MSE retaining walls were chosen because they are expected to be less expensive than tall cantilever walls, and they do not require large excavations or expensive temporary shoring to construct the foundations. MSE walls are constructed on a small concrete leveling pad, which is ideal for constructing close to residences and businesses.

Approximate Construction Costs
Advance planning bridge estimates were created for both superstructure alternatives, and a separate estimate was created for the retaining walls. Both bridge alternatives utilize the MSE abutment type. Approximate costs provided herein will be in present day dollars and include 15% contingencies. Alternative 1: Precast Prestressed Wide Flange Girder Bridge will cost approximately $4,050,000. Alternative 2: Cast-in-Place Prestressed Box Girder Bridge will cost approximately $3,850,000.

The retaining walls will cost approximately $9,470,000.

Recommendation
Based on the above information, we recommend Alternative 1: Precast Prestresse d Wide Flange Girder Bridge with MSE abutments and MSE retaining walls.

(1) DESIGN ENGR

(2) BR DES SUPV

(3) SR BR ARCHIT

(4) CHIEF STR DES

(5) PROJECT ENGR

__________________

__________________

__________________

__________________

__________________

PROJECT MANAGER
Mark A. Imbriani, P.E.

PROJECT ENGINEER
Robin Yates, P.E.

PROJECT AESTHETICS CONSULTANT

Copy to File
Attachments: Advanced Planning Estimates

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 325
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

PRECAST BRIDGE ESTIMATE - OVERPASS ALT
Advance Planning Estimate
x General Plan Estimate Est. By KN 11/25/2019
Marginal Estimate Chk. By

3.0% Forecasted Annual Cost Inflation Rate Date for mid-point of construction period BRIDGE: Grangeville Ave Grade Separation CALTRANS BR NO.: DISTRICT: 06 ROUTE: Grangeville Ave TYPE: Precast, Prestressed Wide Flange Girder COUNTY BR NO.: COUNTY: KIN PM:

CU: DEPTH: LENGTH: WIDTH: AREA:

EA: 6.58 ft 149.50 ft 83.50 ft = 12,483 sq ft

CONTRACT ITEMS UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ADJ PRICE AMOUNT 1 477020 Mechanically Stabilized Embankment SQFT 6,700 $90.00 1.00 $90.00 $603,000 2 490782 Furnish Piling (Class 200) (Alternative W) LF 1,170 $61.00 1.00 $61.00 $71,370 3 490783 Drive Pile (Class 200) (Alternative W) EA 24 $3,000.00 1.00 $3,000.00 $72,000 4 510053 Structural Concrete, Bridge CY 570 $1,500.00 1.00 $1,500.00 $855,000 5 510086 Structural Concrete, Approach Slab (Type N) CY 240 $850.00 1.00 $850.00 $204,000 6 512200A Furnish Precast Prestressed Concrete Girder (140'-150') EA 10 $70,000.00 1.00 $70,000.00 $700,000 7 512500 Erect PC/PS Concrete Girder EA 10 $20,000.00 1.00 $20,000.00 $200,000 8 519100 Joint Seal (MR 2") LF 190 $120.00 1.00 $120.00 $22,800 9 520102 Bar Reinforcing Steel (Bridge) LB 111,700 $1.70 1.00 $1.70 $189,890 10 665023 24" Corrugated Steel Pipe (.079" Thick) LF 560 $140.00 1.00 $140.00 $78,400 11 833033 Chain Link Railing (Type 7 Modified) LF 120 $85.00 1.00 $85.00 $10,200 12 833023A Chain Link Railing (Type 3) LF 300 $130.00 1.00 $130.00 $39,000 13 833088 Tubular Handrailing LF 420 $110.00 1.00 $110.00 $46,200 14 839727A Concrete Barrier (Type 836 Modified) LF 420 $175.00 1.00 $175.00 $73,500 SUBTOTAL $3,165,360
NOTES:

MOBILIZATION (@ 10%) $351,707
SUBTOTAL BRIDGE ITEMS $3,517,067
CONTINGENCIES (@ 15%) $527,560
TOTAL BRIDGE COST $4,044,627
COST PER SQ. FT. (w/o contingencies) $282
PROJECT NO.
251911-1
ITEM NO.

FOR PRESENT DAY COST - USE 11/25/2019 $4,050,000
Folder 520\251911-1 Overpass Structure Costs_rev2, Bridge Estimate 11/25/2019

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 326
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

RETAINING WALL ESTIMATE - OVERPASS ALT
Advance Planning Estimate
x General Plan Estimate Est. By KN 11/25/2019
Marginal Estimate Chk. By

3.0% Forecasted Annual Cost Inflation Rate Date for mid-point of construction period BRIDGE: Grangeville Ave Grade Separation CALTRANS BR NO.: DISTRICT: 06 ROUTE: Grangeville Ave TYPE: MSE Retaining Walls COUNTY BR NO.: COUNTY: KIN PM:

CU: DEPTH: LENGTH: WIDTH: AREA:

EA: = 82,100 sq ft

CONTRACT ITEMS UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ADJ PRICE AMOUNT 1 477020 Mechanically Stabilized Embankment SQFT 82,100 $90.00 0.50 $45.00 $3,694,500 2 510053 Structural Concrete, Bridge CY 2,970 $1,200.00 0.50 $600.00 $1,782,000 3 520102 Bar Reinforcing Steel (Bridge) LB 425,800 $1.70 1.00 $1.70 $723,860 4 833033 Chain Link Railing (Type 7 Modified) LF 7,000 $85.00 1.00 $85.00 $595,000 5 839727A Concrete Barrier (Type 836 Modified) LF 3,500 $175.00 1.00 $175.00 $612,500 SUBTOTAL $7,407,860
NOTES:

MOBILIZATION (@ 10%) $823,096
SUBTOTAL RW ITEMS $8,230,956
CONTINGENCIES (@ 15%) $1,234,643
TOTAL RW COST $9,465,599
COST PER SQ. FT. (w/o contingencies) $100
PROJECT NO.
251911-1
ITEM NO.

FOR PRESENT DAY COST - USE 11/25/2019 $9,470,000
Folder 520\251911-1 Overpass Structure Costs_rev2, Retaining Wall Estimate 11/25/2019

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 327
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

CIP BRIDGE ESTIMATE - OVERPASS ALT
Advance Planning Estimate
x General Plan Estimate Est. By KN 11/25/2019
Marginal Estimate Chk. By

3.0% Forecasted Annual Cost Inflation Rate Date for mid-point of construction period BRIDGE: Grangeville Ave Grade Separation CALTRANS BR NO.: DISTRICT: 06 ROUTE: Grangeville Ave TYPE: Cast-in-Place Prestressed Box Girder COUNTY BR NO.: COUNTY: KIN PM:

CU: DEPTH: LENGTH: WIDTH: AREA:

EA: 6.58 ft 149.50 ft 83.50 ft = 12,483 sq ft

CONTRACT ITEMS UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ADJ PRICE AMOUNT 1 477020 Mechanically Stabilized Embankment SQFT 6,700 $90.00 1.00 $90.00 $603,000 2 490782 Furnish Piling (Class 200) (Alternative W) LF 1,170 $61.00 1.00 $61.00 $71,370 3 490783 Drive Pile (Class 200) (Alternative W) EA 24 $3,000.00 1.00 $3,000.00 $72,000 4 500001 Prestressing Cast-In-Place Concrete LS 1 $140,000.00 1.00 $140,000.00 $140,000 5 510053 Structural Concrete, Bridge CY 1,100 $1,500.00 0.80 $1,200.00 $1,320,000 6 510086 Structural Concrete, Approach Slab (Type N) CY 240 $850.00 1.00 $850.00 $204,000 7 519100 Joint Seal (MR 2") LF 190 $120.00 1.00 $120.00 $22,800 8 520102 Bar Reinforcing Steel (Bridge) LB 195,500 $1.70 1.00 $1.70 $332,350 9 665023 24" Corrugated Steel Pipe (.079" Thick) LF 560 $140.00 1.00 $140.00 $78,400 10 833033 Chain Link Railing (Type 7 Modified) LF 120 $85.00 1.00 $85.00 $10,200 11 833023A Chain Link Railing (Type 3) LF 300 $130.00 1.00 $130.00 $39,000 12 833088 Tubular Handrailing LF 420 $110.00 1.00 $110.00 $46,200 13 839727A Concrete Barrier (Type 836 Modified) LF 420 $175.00 1.00 $175.00 $73,500 SUBTOTAL $3,012,820
NOTES:

MOBILIZATION (@ 10%) $334,758
SUBTOTAL BRIDGE ITEMS $3,347,578
CONTINGENCIES (@ 15%) $502,137
TOTAL BRIDGE COST $3,849,714
COST PER SQ. FT. (w/o contingencies) $268
PROJECT NO.
251911-1
ITEM NO.

FOR PRESENT DAY COST - USE 11/25/2019 $3,850,000
Folder 520\251911-1 Overpass Structure Costs_rev2, CIP Bridge Estimate 11/25/2019

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 328
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report

Appendix D: Overpass Visual Impact Exhibit

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 329
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade VIEW OF OVERPASSFROM THORTON STREET11/13/191" = 100'SHEETL-8 JLCNAHDR. BY:CH. BY:DATE:SCALE:TRC PROJ NO.:251911-1 GRANGEVILLE GRADE SEPARATIONCITY PROJECT NO.:EXHIBIT NO.:

FOR INC. 1891CLAIRNIAYCTIOFOFNAHD "GB" LINE40 MPH PROFILE
APN:010-450-004
APN:010-450-005
APN:010-450-003
APN:010-450-002
APN:010-450-001
APN:010-450-038

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 330
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Grangeville Boulevard Grade Separation November 2019
Feasibility Report

Appendix E: Traffic Study

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 331
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

Traffic Analysis

Proposed Grangeville Avenue / BNSF Railroad
Grade Separation

Hanford, California

Prepared For:

TRC Companies, Inc.
10680 White Rock Road, Suite 100
Rancho Cordova, California 95670

Date:

April 30, 2019

Job No.:
18-066.01

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 332
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

952 Pollasky Avenue ♦ Clovis, California 93612 ♦ (559) 299-1544 ♦ www.peters-engineering.com

Mr. Mark Imbriani April 30, 2019
TRC Companies, Inc.
10680 White Rock Road, Suite 100
Rancho Cordova, California 95670

Subject: Traffic Analysis
Proposed Grangeville Avenue / BNSF Railroad Grade Separation Hanford, California

Dear Mr. Imbriani:

INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of traffic counts and analyses related to construction of the Grangeville Avenue / BNSF Railroad grade separation in Hanford, California. This limited analysis focuses on the traffic volumes that will be diverted by the project and the anticipated conditions after completion of the project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Grangeville Avenue / BNSF Railroad Grade Separat ion will be an underpass below the railroad tracks that will likely a ffect at least 850 feet in each direction along Grangeville Avenue.

Grangeville Boulevard is an arterial street that will be closed during construction, likely between University Avenue and Rodgers Road. I t is a nticipated that the intersection of Rodgers Road and Grangeville Boulevard will require full closure during at least a portion of the construction schedule. The following locations will be closed during construction and the connections will likely be permanently eliminated:
• Mildred Street at Grangeville Boulevard;
• Santa Fe Mini Storage Driveway;
• Tara Mobile Estates Driveway.

The project may include improvements on Claridge Lane to provide access to the existing mini storage facility and a new driveway on Malone Street to provide access to the mobile estates.

A vicinity map is presented in the attached Figure 1, Site Vicinity Map.

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Intersection turning movement traffic counts were p erformed on a weekday between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. at the following intersections:
• University Avenue / Grangeville Avenue

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 333
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade Traffic Impact Study – Proposed Grangeville Avenue / BNSF Railroad Grade Separation April 30, 2019 Hanford, California Page 2

• Tara Mobile Homes / Grangeville Avenue
• Mildred Street / Santa Fe Central & Mini Storage / Grangeville Avenue • Rodgers Road / Grangeville Avenue
The intersection counts included bicycles, pedestrians, and heavy vehicles. The traffic count data sheets are attached and include the dates the counts were performed. The existing peak- hour turning movement volumes are presented in Figure 2, Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.

A 24-hour vehicle classification count was performed on Grangeville Avenue near the BNSF crossing on Tuesday, December 18, 2018. The count revealed a total 24-hour traffic volume (eastbound and westbound combined) of 14,166 vehicles with a peak -hour volume of 1,336 vehicles between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m . Approxima tely five percent of the vehicles are trucks (heavy vehicles) of two or more axles.

LANE CONFIGURATIONS AND INTERSECTION CONTROL
The existing lane configurations and intersection control at the study intersection s are illustrated in Figure 3, Existing Lane Configurations.

TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT ALTERNATE CROSSINGS
The nearest alternate locations to cross the BNSF railroad exist on Fargo Avenue to the north and Elm Street to the south. 11 th Avenue also provides an alternative north-south crossing south of Elm Street, and Lacey Boulevard is the next major east-west street to the south. It is assumed that the detour established for the closure will includ e 12th Avenue, Fargo Avenue, and 11th Avenue. Traffic is also likely to redistribute to Greenfield Avenue and Elm Street to cross the tracks, or to 11 th Avenue south of Elm Street. The following is a description of the alternate crossings:

Fargo A venue at the BNSF Ra ilroad is a two -lane at -grade crossing (one lane in each direction) with active tra ffic control devices, post-mounted and cantilevered flashing lights, signage, pavement markin gs, raised medians, and two automatic gates on each appr oach.

The crossing is approximately one mile north of Grangeville A venue. Fargo A venue is designated as an arterial street in the City of Hanford G eneral Plan with a current traffic volume on the order of 10,500 vehicles per day (both directions combined) based on traffic count data provided by the City of Hanford.

Elm Street at the BNSF Railroad is a four-lane at-grade crossing (two lanes in each direction) with active traffic control devices, post-mounted and cantilevered flashing li ghts, signage, pavement markings, and one automatic gate on each approach. There are no raised medians at the cross ing. The crossing is approximately 0.7 mile south of Grangeville A venue. Elm Street is a local road w ith an exis ting traffic volume on the order of 6,800 vehicles per day (both directions combined) based on traffic count data provided by the City of Hanford. The stop-controlled intersection of Elm Street and Greenfield Avenue is located approximately 350 feet west of the at -grade crossing. The signalized intersection of Elm Street and 11th Avenue is located less than 300 feet east of the at-grade crossing.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 334
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade Traffic Impact Study – Proposed Grangeville Avenue / BNSF Railroad Grade Separation April 30, 2019 Hanford, California Page 3

Lacey Boulevard at the BNSF Railroad is a four-lane at-grade crossing (two lanes in each direction) with active traffic control devices, post-mounted flashing lights, signage, pavement markings, raised medians, and two automatic gates on each appr oach. The cro ssing is approximately one mile south and half a mile east of the Grangeville A venue crossing.

Lacey Boulevard is designated as a collector street east of 11th Avenue in the City of Hanford General Plan with a current traffic volume on the order of 11,400 vehicles per day (both directions combined) based on traffic count data provided by the City of Hanford.

ROAD SEGMENT ANALYSES
The Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual, 2000, (HCM) defines level of service (LOS) as a qualitative measure d escribing operational characteristics within a traffic stream, based on service measures such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, and convenience. Level-of-service characteristics for road segments are presented in Table 1.

Table 1
Level of Service Characteristics for Roadways
Level of Service Description
A Primarily free flow operations
B Reasonably unimpeded operations, ability to maneuver only slightly restricted C Stable operations, ability to maneuver and select operating speed affected D Unstable flow, speeds and ability to maneuver restricted E Significant delays, flow quite unstable
F Extremely slow speeds
Reference: 1998 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board

For general planning purposes, r oad segment levels of service were determined based on procedures outlined in the HCM2010 utilizing the 2012 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Quality/Leve l of Service Handbook Tables (Florida tables). The Florida tables present generalized correlations between traffic volumes and LOS based on the nationally-utilized and accepted HCM2010; the Florida tables are frequently utilized throughout California for road segment analyses. The Florida tables present LOS criteria based on the typ e of roadway being analyzed and the regional setting (i.e., urban areas or transitioning areas). The applicable Florida table is attached.

It should be noted that the actual operations of the roadways will likely be gov erned by the operations at interse ctions near the crossings . The analyses presen ted herein should be utilized only for the discussion of the order of magnit ude of the effects of the Grangeville Avenue closure.

Table 2 presents the specific volume thresholds used in the analyses. It shoul d be noted that reference to “signalized” roadways in the Florida tables includes stop -controlled intersections.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 335
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade Traffic Impact Study – Proposed Grangeville Avenue / BNSF Railroad Grade Separation April 30, 2019 Hanford, California Page 4

Table 2
Volume Thresholds for Non-State Signalized Roadway Levels of Service Lanes Configuration A B C D E/F
2 Divided, ≥40 MPH
(Fargo Avenue) * * ≤15,876 15,877 – 16,726 >16,726
4 Undivided, ≤35 MPH
(Elm Street) * * ≤9,787 9,788 – 21,870 >21,870
4 Divided, ≤35 MPH
(Lacey Boulevard) * * ≤13,050 13,050 – 30,420 >30,420
Reference: Florida Department of Transportation Table 1, Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida’s Urbanized Areas (utilizing Non-State Signalized Roadway Adjustments) dated December 18, 2012

Table 3 presents the results of the road segment analyses. The analyses are based on an assumption that 50 percent of the existing trips on Grangeville A venue will redistribute to Fargo Avenue, 25 percent will use Elm Street, and 25 percent will use Lacey Boulevard.

Table 3
Summary of Estimated LOS
Road Segment Existing Volume Existing LOS Detour Volume Detour LOS Fargo Avenue 10,500 C or better 17,583 E/F
Elm Street 6,800 C or better 10,342 D
Lacey Boulevard 11,400 C or better 14,942 D

DISCUSSION OF ANALYSES
The results of the road segment analyses suggest that congestion and delays are likely on Fargo Avenue and on Elm Stree t during construction . The conditions on Elm Street are expected to be worse than suggested by the road segment analyses because of the short length of the road segment and the proximity o f intersection s to the crossing. Congested conditions at intersections along the detour route should be anticipated.

A public information campaign is recommended to alert motorists of the project, the alternate routes, and the potential for congestion. It is recommended that alternate route s farther from the project site, such as State Route 198 and Flint Avenue, be suggested as alternate routes.

CONCLUSIONS
Standard traffic en gineering principles and methods were employed to study the existing conditions and to estimate conditions that may occur during construction.

The conclusion of th is study is that the nearest potential detour routes available during construction of the Grangeville A venue / BNSF grade separation a re likely to experience severe congestion and delays during construction.

A public information campaign is recommended to alert motorists of the project, the alternate routes, and the potential for congestion. It is recommended that alternate route s farther from the project site, such as State Route 198 and Flint Avenue, be suggested as alternate routes.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 336
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade Traffic Impact Study – Proposed Grangeville Avenue / BNSF Railroad Grade Separation April 30, 2019 Hanford, California Page 5

Thank you for the opportunity to perform this traffic analysis. Please feel free to call our office if you have any questions.

PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP

John Rowland, PE, TE

Attachments: Figures 1 through 3
Traffic Count Data Sheets
Florida Table

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 337
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

FIGURES

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 338
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 339
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 340
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 341
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

TRAFFIC COUNT DATA SHEETS

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 342
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Peters Engineering Group
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 952 Pollasky Avenue
www.metrotrafficdata.com Clovis, CA 93612

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 7 3 1 10 12 0 1 1 34 2 0 4 50 6 4
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 3 11 9 0 25 6 0 1 4 59 4 0 10 63 11 4 7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 7 26 14 0 38 13 2 1 11 100 5 0 12 88 27 0 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 3 32 10 1 42 11 1 0 10 113 7 1 18 110 48 0 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 4 7 9 0 21 16 0 0 1 80 4 1 15 116 10 4 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 1 2 6 1 13 14 2 0 1 78 5 0 3 57 11 2
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 2 3 3 0 7 17 1 0 0 67 3 1 11 55 7 1
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 3 5 3 0 9 11 0 0 0 64 2 2 10 73 6 4
TOTAL 23 93 57 3 165 100 6 3 28 595 32 5 83 612 126 19
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 3 12 8 0 12 13 2 0 1 105 1 0 11 110 5 2 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 3 6 6 0 18 10 1 0 0 125 7 1 8 104 12 1 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 2 13 22 0 13 17 1 0 1 119 4 2 14 103 9 0 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 2 11 12 0 14 12 2 0 3 105 8 0 18 93 15 1 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 1 16 19 0 12 17 1 0 0 148 7 0 27 114 22 0 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 3 14 9 0 14 24 1 0 0 152 5 0 17 127 17 2 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 1 17 10 0 7 8 2 0 2 107 5 0 12 110 12 0 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 1 11 8 0 14 7 1 0 0 111 3 0 4 84 17 0 TOTAL 16 100 94 0 104 108 11 0 7 972 40 3 111 845 109 6 PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 17 76 42 1 126 46 3 2 26 352 20 2 55 377 96 8 4:30 PM - 5:30 PM 8 54 62 0 53 70 5 0 4 524 24 2 76 437 63 3 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.763 1.1%
PM 5 70 53 0.821
PM 0.898 0.4%
AM 3 46 126 0.81
PHF 0.879 0.765
AM PM
4 26 96 63
524 352 377 437
24 20 55 76
PM AM
PHF

0.75 0.883 PHF

0.718 17 76 42 AM

0.838 8 54 62 PM
Turning Movement Report
Southbound
Grangeville Blvd @ University Ave
Kings
Tuesday, December 18, 2018 AM Fog / PM Clear
Eastbound

36.3426
-119.6661

Kings Rd
Grangeville BlvdGrangeville Blvd
Northbound Westbound
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Westbound
Eastbound WestboundNorthbound

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 343
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade Separation) Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Peters Engineering Group
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 952 Pollasky Avenue
www.metrotrafficdata.com Clovis, CA 93612

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 2 0 56 0 3
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 1 0 88 0 4
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 2 1 0 121 0 0
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 3 2 1 192 0 2
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 0 1 1 124 0 2
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 1 1 69 0 2
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 2 1 0 77 0 1
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 1 0 83 0 4
TOTAL 13 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 808 7 10 3 810 0 18
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 1 0 3 125 0 2
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 147 1 1 1 124 0 1
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 2 0 2 126 0 1
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 129 1 0 1 126 0 2
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 183 0 0 2 164 0 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 174 1 0 2 162 0 1
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 0 0 6 131 0 0
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 2 0 1 103 0 1
TOTAL 4 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 1164 8 1 18 1061 0 8
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 519 5 5 2 525 0 8
4:30 PM - 5:30 PM 2 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 643 4 0 7 578 0 4
PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.740 1.2%
PM 0 0 0 #####
PM 0.881 0.4%
AM 0 0 0 #####
PHF 0.884 0.804
AM PM
0 0 0 0
643 519 525 578
4 5 2 7
PM AM
PHF

0.683 0.881 PHF

0.75 4 0 5 AM

0.667 2 0 6 PM
Turning Movement Report
Southbound
Grangeville Blvd @ Tara Mobile Estates Driveway
Kings
Tuesday, December 18, 2018 AM Fog / PM Clear
Eastbound

36.3426
-119.6649

Grangeville BlvdGrangeville Blvd
Northbound Westbound
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Westbound
Eastbound WestboundNorthbound

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 344
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade Separation) Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Peters Engineering Group
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 952 Pollasky Avenue
www.metrotrafficdata.com Clovis, CA 93612

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 2 0 10 1 0 0 1 0 0 48 1 2 3 56 3 4
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 2 0 17 1 0 0 1 0 0 95 0 1 11 83 1 4
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 1 0 24 1 0 0 1 0 0 148 3 1 41 131 1 0 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 4 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 3 2 36 197 1 3 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 1 0 4 0 2 0 1 1 1 118 2 1 18 112 3 1
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 2 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 94 1 1 9 68 1 3
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 1 78 1 1 5 76 0 1
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 2 1 3 85 3 4
TOTAL 14 0 90 3 4 0 4 1 2 814 13 10 126 808 13 20
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 2 0 12 0 2 0 1 0 0 120 3 0 12 124 3 2 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 2 0 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 144 2 0 10 122 0 1 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 2 0 16 0 1 0 1 0 0 150 1 0 16 127 1 1 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 2 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 3 0 13 136 1 1 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 2 0 18 0 3 0 1 0 0 180 2 0 12 156 0 1 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 2 0 15 0 0 0 1 0 0 166 6 0 17 166 0 0 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 2 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 1 0 13 137 0 0 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 1 0 11 0 1 0 0 0 2 132 2 0 10 104 0 1 TOTAL 15 0 106 0 8 0 4 0 2 1139 20 0 103 1072 5 7
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 8 0 62 2 2 0 3 1 1 523 8 5 106 523 6 8 4:30 PM - 5:30 PM 8 0 62 0 4 0 3 0 0 620 12 0 58 585 2 3 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.739 1.3%
PM 3 0 4 0.438
PM 0.905 0.2%
AM 3 0 2 0.417
PHF 0.868 0.806
AM PM
0 1 6 2
620 523 523 585
12 8 106 58
PM AM
PHF

0.678 0.881 PHF

0.7 8 0 62 AM

0.875 8 0 62 PM
Turning Movement Report
Southbound
Grangeville Blvd @ Mildred St
Kings
Tuesday, December 18, 2018 AM Fog / PM Clear
Eastbound

36.3426
-119.6636

Mini Storage Driveway
Grangeville BlvdGrangeville Blvd
Northbound Westbound
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Westbound
Eastbound WestboundNorthbound

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 345
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade Separation) Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Peters Engineering Group
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 952 Pollasky Avenue
www.metrotrafficdata.com Clovis, CA 93612

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 3 0 4 1 6 8 7 1 2 48 5 2 3 49 3 3
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 8 2 4 0 7 7 16 0 1 97 13 1 2 72 4 4
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 15 5 4 0 13 14 17 0 5 135 28 2 3 130 2 0 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 23 3 11 2 7 8 11 0 4 142 37 2 6 196 5 3 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 12 7 3 0 8 6 13 0 8 82 22 0 5 106 5 1 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 9 1 3 0 6 3 6 0 5 90 12 1 0 58 5 3
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 8 1 2 0 4 8 3 0 4 73 7 1 1 70 2 1
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 8 5 2 0 4 9 7 0 5 65 6 2 1 76 2 4
TOTAL 86 24 33 3 55 63 80 1 34 732 130 11 21 757 28 19
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 9 9 5 0 5 9 8 0 8 116 13 0 2 126 9 2
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 11 6 6 0 5 8 5 1 10 128 14 1 5 118 4 1 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 13 7 4 1 11 16 14 1 10 132 16 1 4 120 10 0 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 11 13 0 0 5 7 12 0 20 119 12 1 5 124 8 1 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 27 12 11 0 12 11 13 0 19 176 12 0 10 129 12 2 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 19 10 6 0 11 5 18 0 12 151 15 0 4 142 13 0 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 17 9 5 0 4 6 7 0 17 107 5 0 5 120 12 0 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 17 10 4 0 7 8 9 0 12 118 8 0 5 90 5 0 TOTAL 124 76 41 1 60 70 86 2 108 1047 95 3 40 969 73 6
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 58 17 22 2 35 35 57 0 18 456 100 5 16 504 16 8 4:30 PM - 5:30 PM 70 42 21 1 39 39 57 1 61 578 55 2 23 515 43 3 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.736 1.1%
PM 57 39 39 0.823
PM 0.869 0.5%
AM 57 35 35 0.722
PHF 0.838 0.784
AM PM
61 18 16 43
578 456 504 515
55 100 16 23
PM AM
PHF

0.647 0.914 PHF

0.655 58 17 22 AM

0.665 70 42 21 PM
Turning Movement Report
Southbound
Grangeville Blvd @ Rodgers Rd
Kings
Tuesday, December 18, 2018 AM Fog / PM Clear
Eastbound

36.3427
-119.6596

Rodgers Rd
Grangeville BlvdGrangeville Blvd
Northbound Westbound
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Westbound
Eastbound WestboundNorthbound

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 346
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade Separation) Description Class 1 - Motorcycles, 2 axles
Class 2 - Passenger cars, 2 axles
Survey Date Class 3 - Pickup trucks, vans, 2 axles
Class 4 - Busses
Latitude Class 5 - Single unit, 2 axle, 6 tires
Class 6 - Single unit truck, 3 axles
Longitude Class 7 - Single unit, 4 axles
Class 8 - Double unit, < 5 axles
Number of Lanes Class 9 - Double unit, 5 axles
Class 10 - Double unit, > 5 axles
Total Volume Class 11 - Multi unit, 5 axles
Class 12 - Multi unit, 6 axles
HV Percentage Class 13 - Multi unit, > 6 axles
Class 14 - Unclassifiable
AM Peak Period
Prepared For: 1st First 15 minute interval
AM Peak Volume 2nd Second 15 minute interval
Metro Traffic Data Inc. Peters Engineering Group 3rd Third 15 minute interval 310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20 952 Pollasky Avenue AM PHF 4th Fourth 15 minute interval Hanford, CA 93230 Clovis, CA 93612 T Hourly Total
PM Peak Period
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax
www.metrotraffic data.com PM Peak Volume
PM PHF
Total
1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4t h T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 12:00 AM - 1:00 AM 0001 1 11 10 6 6 33 1122 6 0000 0 0100 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 04 1 1:00 AM - 2:00 AM 0000 0 64 1 0 4 24 1000 1 0000 0 0100 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 02 6 2:00 AM-3:00 AM 0000 0 4504 13 1100 2 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 01 5 3:00 AM - 4:00 AM 0000 0 2041 7
1001 2 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 09 4:00 AM - 5:00 AM 0000 0 5 4 11 10 30 2011 4 1000 1 0001 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 03 6 5:00 AM - 6:00 AM 0000 0 8 1 31 31 9 53 2127 12 0000 0 0030 3 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 06 8 6:00 AM - 7:00 AM 0000 0 17 19 28 34 98 58 1 1 7 31 0100 1 2016 9 0001 1 0000 0 0010 1 0001 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 142 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 3002 5 47 86 142 138 413 4 1 92 32 7 73 1110 3 1525 13 0015 6 1000 1 0000 0 0002 2 0000 0 0100 1 0010 1 0001 1 0000 0 519 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 3104 8 93 78 65 51 287 18 18 15 14 65 0001 1 3435 15 1310 5 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 381 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM 0220 4 49 59 61 66 235 12 18 10 17 57 0000 0 1622 11 0022 4 0010 1 0001 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0010 1 0000 0 314 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM 0000 0 68 65 67 70 270 9 1 92 12 1 70 0000 0 2466 18 3003 6 0100 1 0000 0 1000 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 366 11:00 AM - 12:00 PM 0200 2 75 72 96 103 346 19 19 10 26 74 0000 0 8553 21 0401 5 0000 0 0000 0 0100 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 449 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM 5000 5 96 78 85 92 351 24 23 13 20 80 0000 0 5434 16 1020 3 0100 1 0000 0 1000 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 457 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM 1001 2 76 106 93 84 359 12 13 22 16 63 0001 1 4635 18 2221 7 1000 1 0000 0 0010 1 0000 0 0000 0 0100 1 0000 0 0000 0 453 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM 0232 7 77 113 128 120 438 17 21 36 26 100 0000 0 5877 27 2214 9 0001 1 0100 1 0100 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0100 1 0000 0 585 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 2002 4 126 122 116 124 488 34 34 23 26 117 1100 2 6844 22 4332 12 0001 1 0001 1 0010 1 0100 1 0001 1 0001 1 0110 2 0000 0 653 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 4314 12 104 116 130 108 458 22 23 30 23 98 0100 1 3537 18 1411 7 0100 1 0101 2 1000 1 0001 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 599 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 2412 9 163 146 109 111 529 29 21 16 20 86 0002 2 8413 16 2410 7 0001 1 0011 2 0000 0 0010 1 0000 0 0101 2 0001 1 0000 0 656 6:00 PM - 7:00 PM 1302 6 94 86 91 104 375 15 23 17 18 73 0000 0 5624 17 2003 5 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0010 1 0000 0 0000 0 477 7:00 PM - 8:00 PM 0001 1 83 71 66 76 296 11 12 13 12 48 0000 0 4241 11 0200 2 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 358 8:00 PM - 9:00 PM 0000 0 49 50 48 56 203 1 5 879 39 0000 0 1002 3 0001 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 246 9:00 PM - 10:00 PM 0000 0 42 36 41 24 143 1 1 847 30 0000 0 0100 1 1000 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 175 10:00 PM - 11:00 PM 0000 0 25 22 24 24 95 4232 11 0000 0 0000 0 0001 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 107 11:00 PM - 12:00 AM 0000 0 16 25 11 7 59 3103 7 0000 0 1101 3 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0001 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 07 0 Total 7202
Percentage 100.0%
7:15am-8:15am AM PK 580 AM PHF 0.81 4:30pm-5:30pm PM PK 694 PM PHF 0.85 H V Percent Total
1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4t h T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 1st 2nd 3rd 4th T 12:00 AM - 1:00 AM 0000 0 7573 22 2000 2 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 02 4 1:00 AM - 2:00 AM 0000 0 7254 18 0001 1 0000 0 0010 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0100 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 02 1 2:00 AM-3:00 AM 0000 0 4602 12 0010 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 01 3 3:00 AM - 4:00 AM 0000 0 3124 10 1001 2 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0100 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 01 3 4:00 AM - 5:00 AM 0000 0 2 6 10 12 30 0200 2 0000 0 0002 2 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0010 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 03 5 5:00 AM - 6:00 AM 0000 0 14 16 28 28 86 2035 10 0001 1 1023 6 0010 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 104 6:00 AM - 7:00 AM 0110 2 27 33 50 54 164 5889 30 2000 2 1113 6 0000 0 0010 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 205 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 0004 4 48 82 144 196 470 7 6 18 23 54 0201 3 6354 18 1114 7 0000 0 0100 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 557 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 2000 2 105 61 67 75 308 1 771 1 1 0 45 0000 0 5242 13 1401 6 1000 1 0100 1 0001 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0001 1 0000 0 378 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM 1020 3 61 57 76 68 262 1 3 894 34 1000 1 3326 14 0220 4 0000 0 0010 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 319 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM 0030 3 54 67 74 82 277 9 1 51 21 1 47 0000 0 2545 16 0201 3 0000 0 0010 1 0012 3 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 350 11:00 AM - 12:00 PM 0100 1 78 86 75 98 337 18 15 10 21 64 1001 2 5423 14 0300 3 0010 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 422 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM 0022 4 129 96 82 88 395 13 18 18 14 63 0100 1 5522 14 2101 4 1000 1 0000 0 0100 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 483 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM 2100 3 85 94 75 91 345 61 291 7 44 0000 0 3325 13 1222 7 0000 0 2000 2 0010 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 415 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM 0010 1 92 111 95 120 418 13 18 16 10 57 1011 3 5672 20 1101 3 0001 1 0002 2 0100 1 1000 1 0010 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 508 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 0001 1 147 125 98 99 469 14 13 19 9 55 0100 1 61 14 5 26 1212 6 0100 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 1000 1 0000 0 560 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 2212 7 117 115 122 121 475 14 12 16 14 56 0000 0 6243 15 1223 8 0002 2 0002 2 0001 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 566 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 0110 2 145 157 117 102 521 13 13 21 9 56 0000 0 9652 22 1222 7 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0010 1 1000 1 0100 1 0000 0 0000 0 611 6:00 PM - 7:00 PM 0010 1 117 83 79 80 359 16 14 13 10 53 0000 0 4233 12 1111 4 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 429 7:00 PM - 8:00 PM 0000 0 79 94 77 72 322 1 131 53 32 0000 0 6423 15 0003 3 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 372 8:00 PM - 9:00 PM 0000 0 54 47 62 59 222 8763 24 0000 0 3311 8 0111 3 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 257 9:00 PM - 10:00 PM 0000 0 41 42 29 36 148 9221 14 0000 0 2200 4 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 166 10:00 PM - 11:00 PM 0000 0 25 26 12 21 84 2200 4 0100 1 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 08 9 11:00 PM - 12:00 AM 0000 0 20 15 17 8 60 1222 7 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 06 7 Total 6964
Percentage 100.0%
7:15am-8:15am AM PK 626 AM PHF 0.67 4:45pm-5:45pm PM PK 644 PM PHF 0.89 H V Percent 5.2%

0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
20 0.5% 83.5% 10.9% 0.2% 3.4% 1.0% 0.1% 0.1%
81 0 1 12 2 1
Class 11 Class 12 Class 13 Class 14
34 5814 757 15 239 69
Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10

0.1% 0.1% 0.0%

5.3%
Westbound
Hour Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4

1.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
32660

0.9% 77.8% 16.0% 0.2% 3.4%
Class 14
66 5603 1149 12 245 82 9 8 11
Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
Eastbound
Hour Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 1206

0.73 4:30pm-5:30pm
1336

0.90 Grangeville Blvd @ BNSF Railroad
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
4 14166

5.2%
7:15am-8:15am

36.342575
-119.6609998
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
# of Vehicles
Time Period
Eastbound
Westbound

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 347
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade Traffic Counts
****************

CITY OF HANFORD
(update counts every 3 years)
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Street Location Station Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Douty St. south of Lang 109 2,766 2,828
Elm St. west of 11th 65 6,831
Fargo Ave. west of 12th 155 3,381 3,587 3,708
east of 12th 35 7,868 8,977 9,249
west of Fountain Plaza 12 9,459 10,502 10,451
east of Aspen 13 9,314 9,961
east of Kensington 14 8,216 8,187 8,651
west of Encore 15 4,732 4,661 4,972
west of 9 1/4 16 2,743 3,068
Fifth St. east of Brown 104 765 977
Fitzgerald Ln south of Castoro 163 2,334 1,980
south of Bristol 30 3,713 3,204
Flint Ave west of 11th 28 1,968 3,138
west of Douty 3 3,770 4,568
west of Hwy 43 11 3,889 5,020 5,165
Florinda St. west of Kaweah 61 4,922 5,282
east of Brown 62 4,768 5,115
west of Gladys 63 3,199 4,684
Volume Summary 2018 updated 12/18/17 Page 4 Public Works - Engineering

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 348
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade Traffic Counts
****************

CITY OF HANFORD
(update counts every 3 years)
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Street Location Station Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Hume Ave. west of Dawn 131 2,651 3,083
east of Santa Rosa 147 2,270 1,072
Idaho Ave. east of 11th 143 512 658
Iona Ave. east of 11th 139 723 1,041
Irwin St. north of Katherine 52 2,038 1,865 1,994
north of Myrtle 75 3,789 3,249 3,274
north of Seventh 93 2,886 2,885
south of Han/Arm 129 1,402 949
Ivy St. west of Kaweah 67 2,333 2,605 NEED
east of Brown 68 1,843 1,853 NEED
Kings Co. Dr south of Forum 82 3,370 3,373
Lacey Blvd. west of 13th 98 7,221 7,634
east of Magna Carta 77 12,246 11,535
west of 12th 78 13,105 11,772
east of Mall 79 15,829 15,648
west of Greenfield 80 16,211 17,448
west of Phillips 81 9,075 11,391
west of 9 1/2 84 4,753 7,003 6,982
Volume Summary 2018 updated 12/18/17 Page 7 Public Works - Engineering

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 349
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

FLORIDA TABLE

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 350
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade 2012 FDOT QUALITY/LEVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK TABLES
TABLE 1
Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida’s
Urbanized Areas
12/18/12

INTERRUPTED FLOW FACILITIES UNINTERRUPTED FLOW FACILITIES

Non-State Signalized Roadway Adjustments
(Alter corresponding state volumes
by the indicated percent.)
Non-State Signalized Roadways - 10%

STATE SIGNALIZED ARTERIALS
Class I (40 mph or higher posted speed limit)
Lanes Median B C D E
2 Undivided * 16,800 17,700 **
4 Divided * 37,900 39,800 **
6 Divided * 58,400 59,900 **
8 Divided * 78,800 80,100 **
Class II (35 mph or slower posted speed limit)
Lanes Median B C D E
2 Undivided * 7,300 14,800 15,600
4 Divided * 14,500 32,400 33,800
6 Divided * 23,300 50,000 50,900
8 Divided * 32,000 67,300 68,100

Freeway Adjustments
Auxiliary Lanes
Present in Both Directions
Ramp
Metering
+ 20,000 + 5%

FREEWAYS
Core Urbanized
Lanes B C D E
4 47,400 64,000 77,900 84,600
6 69,900 95,200 116,600 130,600
8 92,500 126,400 154,300 176,600
10 115,100 159,700 194,500 222,700
12 162,400 216,700 256,600 268,900
Urbanized
Lanes B C D E
4 45,800 61,500 74,400 79,900
6 68,100 93,000 111,800 123,300
8 91,500 123,500 148,700 166,800
10 114,800 156,000 187,100 210,300

Median & Turn Lane Adjustments
Lanes Median
Exclusive
Left Lanes
Exclusive
Right Lanes
Adjustment
Factors
2 Divided Yes No +5%
2 Undivided No No -20%
Multi Undivided Yes No -5%
Multi Undivided No No -25%
– – – Yes + 5%

One-Way Facility Adjustment
Multiply the corresponding two-directional
volumes in this table by 0.6

UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS
Lanes Median B C D E
2 Undivided 8,600 17,000 24,200 33,300
4 Divided 36,700 51,800 65,600 72,600
6 Divided 55,000 77,700 98,300 108,800

Uninterrupted Flow Highway Adjustments
Lanes Median Exclusive left lanes Adjustment factors
2 Divided Yes +5%
Multi Undivided Yes -5%
Multi Undivided No -25%

BICYCLE MODE2
(Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two -way maximum service volumes.)

Paved
Shoulder/Bicycle
Lane Coverage B C D E
0-49% * 2,900 7,600 19,700
50-84% 2,100 6,700 19,700 >19,700
85-100% 9,300 19,700 >19,700 **
PEDESTRIAN MODE2
(Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two -way maximum service volumes.)

Sidewalk Coverage B C D E
0-49% * * 2,800 9,500
50-84% * 1,600 8,700 15,800
85-100% 3,800 10,700 17,400 >19,700
BUS MODE (Scheduled Fixed Route)3
(Buses in peak hour in peak direction)

Sidewalk Coverage B C D E
0-84% > 5 ≥ 4 ≥ 3 ≥ 2
85-100% > 4 ≥ 3 ≥ 2 ≥ 1

1Values shown are presented as two -way annual average daily volumes for levels of service and are for the automobile/truck modes unless specifically stated. This table does not constitute a standard and should be used only for general planning applications. The computer models from which this table is d erived should be used for more specific planning applications. The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where more refined techniques exist.

Calculations are based on planning applications of the Highwa y Capacity Manual and the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual.

2 Level of service for the bicycle and pedestrian modes in this table is based on number of motorized vehicles, not number of bicyclists or pedestrians using the facility.

3 Buses per hour shown are only for the peak hour in the single direction of the higher traffic flow.

* Cannot be achieved using table input value defaults.

** Not applicable for that level of service letter grade. For the automobile mode, volumes greater than level of service D become F because intersection capacities have been reached. For the bicycle mode, the level of service letter grade (including F) is not achievable because there is no maximum vehicle volume threshold using table input value defaults.

Source:

Florida Department of Transportation
Systems Planning Office
www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/default.shtm

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 351
Attachment: Hanford Grangeville Feasibility Study_Combined November 2019 (PW: FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Project - Grangevill Grade

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 7/19/2022

AGENDA SECTION: B

SUBJECT:

Public Works: Authorization of a Sole-Source Purchase of four (4) 2022 Dodge Durango Pursuit vehicles from Wondries Fleet Group, of Watsonville, Ca., in the amount of $179,096.38, Approve the contract with Cooks communications for vehicle upfitting for $93,143.84; authorize an additional appropriation of $123,630.22 from the Accumulated Capital Outlay Reserve Funds; and declare four patrol units as surplus.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council, by motion:

1. Approve the purchase of four (4) 2022 Dodge Durango Pursuit vehicles from Wondries Fleet Group, of Watsonville, California, in the amount of $179,096.38 (Tax and delivery costs included);

2. Approve a contract for upfitting of the vehicles with Cooks Communications for a total cost of $93,143.84;

3. Authorize an additional appropriation of $123,630.22 from the Accumulated Capital Outlay Reserve Funds; and

4. Declare four (4) existing patrol units as surplus and authorize the sale of the units.

BACKGROUND:

The Hanford Police Department is requesting the replacement of four existing police Dodge Charger patrol units with new 2022 Dodge Durango Pursuit vehicles. The Police Department has a total of 48 Dodge Chargers in its fleet. Dodge has stated that they will cease production of the Charger pursuit vehicles by 2024 but that the Dodge Durango will continue production beyond 2025.

The City budgeted for the replacement of these units this fiscal year but the vehicle replacement allocation was charged to the department based on the original acquisition and upfitting cost for the Dodge Charger, which was approximately $30,000 per unit less than the replacement cost.

Assuming that the City moves forward with the purchase of Durangos for future Police Units, the

15.B
Packet Pg. 352
change to the fleet will result in an additional $205,000 per year in vehicle allocations to the general fund.

The City has received a quote through Sourcewell cooperative purchasing, which allows participating municipal agencies to purchase equipment for a lower overall purchase price due to larger overall quantity and contract pricing (Contract code No. 091521-NAF). The City of Hanford is a member of Sourcewell (#85061).

In addition to the vehicle purchase cost, funding is requested to up-fit the vehicle with lighting, console equipment, rear seating and dividers and communication equipment from Cook's Communications of Fresno in addition to graphics from Sign Works of Hanford.

Summary:

Dodge Durango Pursuit vehicles $179,096.38
Cooks Communications upfitting $93,143.84
Sign Works Graphics $4,155.60

FISCAL IMPACT:

The FY 22/23 Fleet Replacement Reserve Budget provided an estimate of $148,610.00 for the purchase of four police patrol vehicles. That amount has been collected through the City's fleet replacement program. The total purchase price for the new Dodge Durango units is $296,795.82, including tax, delivery and upfitting. An additional appropriation of $148,185.82 from ACO Reserve Fund is needed to complete the purchase of this equipment. The Wondries Fleet Group, Sign Works and Cooks Communications quotes have been attached for Council review. 07/19/22 415-1315-816009 · Computer Maintenance - MDT Replacements $20,400.00

ATTACHMENTS:
2_YEAR_REPAIR_COST_SUMMARY_13-28-35-42
COOK'S_EST#12118
SIGN_WORKS_EST#32681
WONDRIES_2022_DODGE_DURANGO_QUOTES

15.B
Packet Pg. 353

15.B.a
Packet Pg. 354
Attachment: 2_YEAR_REPAIR_COST_SUMMARY_13-28-35-42 (PW: Purchase of Four 2022 Replacement Dodge Durango Pursuit units)

15.B.a
Packet Pg. 355
Attachment: 2_YEAR_REPAIR_COST_SUMMARY_13-28-35-42 (PW: Purchase of Four 2022 Replacement Dodge Durango Pursuit units)

15.B.a
Packet Pg. 356
Attachment: 2_YEAR_REPAIR_COST_SUMMARY_13-28-35-42 (PW: Purchase of Four 2022 Replacement Dodge Durango Pursuit units)

15.B.a
Packet Pg. 357
Attachment: 2_YEAR_REPAIR_COST_SUMMARY_13-28-35-42 (PW: Purchase of Four 2022 Replacement Dodge Durango Pursuit units)

15.B.b
Packet Pg. 358
Attachment: COOK'S_EST#12118 (PW: Purchase of Four 2022 Replacement Dodge Durango Pursuit units)

15.B.b
Packet Pg. 359
Attachment: COOK'S_EST#12118 (PW: Purchase of Four 2022 Replacement Dodge Durango Pursuit units)

15.B.b
Packet Pg. 360
Attachment: COOK'S_EST#12118 (PW: Purchase of Four 2022 Replacement Dodge Durango Pursuit units)

15.B.b
Packet Pg. 361
Attachment: COOK'S_EST#12118 (PW: Purchase of Four 2022 Replacement Dodge Durango Pursuit units)

15.B.b
Packet Pg. 362
Attachment: COOK'S_EST#12118 (PW: Purchase of Four 2022 Replacement Dodge Durango Pursuit units)

15.B.c
Packet Pg. 363
Attachment: SIGN_WORKS_EST#32681 (PW: Purchase of Four 2022 Replacement Dodge Durango Pursuit units)

15.B.c
Packet Pg. 364
Attachment: SIGN_WORKS_EST#32681 (PW: Purchase of Four 2022 Replacement Dodge Durango

15.B.d
Packet Pg. 365
Attachment: WONDRIES_2022_DODGE_DURANGO_QUOTES (PW: Purchase of Four 2022 Replacement Dodge Durango Pursuit units)

15.B.d
Packet Pg. 366
Attachment: WONDRIES_2022_DODGE_DURANGO_QUOTES (PW: Purchase of Four 2022 Replacement Dodge Durango Pursuit units)

15.B.d
Packet Pg. 367
Attachment: WONDRIES_2022_DODGE_DURANGO_QUOTES (PW: Purchase of Four 2022 Replacement Dodge Durango Pursuit units)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 7/19/2022

AGENDA SECTION: C

SUBJECT:

Public Works: Authorization to Award a contract to Nick Champi Enterprises of Hanford Ca, in the amount of $424,531.00 (This includes the add alternate), establish construction contingency of $25,736.60 and approve an additional appropriation of $211,267.70 from the Accumulated Capital Outlay Fund in order to fully fund The Police Activities League Parking Lot Project

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council by motion:

1. Award a contract to Nick Champi Enterprises, Inc. Of Hanford Ca in the amount of $424,531.00

2. Establish a construction contingency of $25,736.60 &

3. Appropriate an additional $211,267.70 from the accumulated Capital Outlay Fund in order to fully fund project.

BACKGROUND:

In accordance with Council Action, bids were solicited and opened on June 21, 2022 for the Police Activities League Parking Lot Project. This project was bid to furnish and install a 20’ wide electric rolling gate, a masonry block wall trash enclosure with reinforced concrete slab in front of enclosure, aggregate base, asphalt concrete, and parking lot striping for the Police Activities League parking expansion.

The bid documents also provided an Additive Alternate bid item to include a 335 LF block wall along the north property line adjacent to the multi-family housing that is required by the Zoning Ordinance.

A total of (2) bids were received ranging from the low bid of $424,531.00 from Nick Champi Enterprises to a high bid of $432,214.00. Staff has examined the bids, validated the lowest bidder's contractor's license status, and verified the contractor is in good standing. Staff is requesting to award and execute the contract. If approved this project is anticipated to begin August 2022.

15.C
Packet Pg. 368

FISCAL IMPACT:

The FY 20/21 (PAL) Police Activities League Parking Lot Project is proposed to be funded out of the 2021 Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG). The proposed funding through CDBG is $239,000.00. An additional appropriation of $211,267.60 from the Accumulated Capital Outlay Reserves is required to fully fund this project.

ATTACHMENTS:

Bid tabulation 06.14.2022

15.C
Packet Pg. 369
PAL Parking Lot Improvements
Project Funding Number: 14500200-821647
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT Unit Cost Subtotal Unit Cost Subtotal 1 p , ,
Facilities 1 LS $41,000.00 $41,000.00 $85,000.00 $85,000.00 2 Saw cut Existing Pavement 106 LF $4.00 $424.00 $10.00 $1,060.00 3 Remove Trees 2 EA $1,250.00 $2,500.00 $3,628.00 $7,256.00 4 5" Class 2 Aggregate Base (13,706 sf) 642 CY $66.00 $42,372.00 $36.50 $23,433.00 5 3" AC, Type B, 1/2" Max, Medium grade ( assume 156lb/cf 13,706 sf) 271 TONS $145.00 $39,295.00 $141.00 $38,211.00 6 Install Concrete Wheel Stops 17 EA $40.00 $680.00 $90.00 $1,530.00 7 Construct 24' Driveway Approach Per City Standard
CO-41 with Sidewalk Panels to Transition 1 LS $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $11,179.00 $11,179.00 8 Construct 6" Landscape Curb Per City Standard CO-17 18 LF $125.00 $2,250.00 $88.00 $1,584.00 9 Construct City Standard Block Wall Trash Enclosure (GE- 35) with Reinf. Conc. Pad (#4 @18"oc) 1 LS $17,860.00 $17,860.00 $31,495.00 $31,495.00 10 Construct 6' Chain Link Fence with Privacy Vinyl Slats and Conc. Mow strip 335 LF $99.00 $33,165.00 $113.00 $37,855.00 11 Construct 6' Chain Link Fence and Conc. Mow strip 40 LF $88.00 $3,520.00 $236.50 $9,460.00 12 Install 20' Electric Sliding Gate and appurtenances with electrical connection 1 EA $44,950.00 $44,950.00 $49,592.00 $49,592.00 13 Construct 5" thick reinforced concrete pad (#4 bars
@ 18" o.c.). 1 LS $14,250.00 $14,250.00 $15,672.00 $15,672.00 14 Striping, Signing, and Pavement Markers 1 LS $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $3,647.00 $3,647.00 $257,366.00 $316,974.00

ADD ALTERNATE BID ITEM
1 Construct 7' tall Masonary Block Wall (If the City Chooses to
award the additive alternare bid item, bid item #10 of the base bid will be eliminated)
1 EA $167,165.00 $424,531.00 $115,240.00 $432,214.00
Nick Champi Enterprise, Inc
LOWEST BIDDER Bush Engineering

15.C.a
Packet Pg. 370
Attachment: Bid tabulation 06.14.2022 (PW: Award the Police Activities League Parking Lot Project)

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 7/19/2022

AGENDA SECTION:

SUBJECT:

Council Future Agenda Items

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

Council Future Agenda Items
Packet Pg. 371

Council Future Agenda Items
Originated
Date Item Originator Staff Lead Date Estimate
4/7/20 Discussion of Pay for Parking Options
in the Downtown Area
Council
Consensus John Doyel After presentation of
Downtown Plan

12/21/21
Review of City Ordinance related to
property line setbacks for Patio
structures and Driveway Awnings
Council
Consensus

Tom Webb

8/16/2022

1/18/22
Discussion of options for New
Business Incentives in the Downtown
District
Council
Consensus

Mario
Cifuentez

9/20/2022
3/29/22 Discussion of Future Facility Space
Needs and Funding Mechanisms
Council
Consensus
Various Staff 8/2/2022
3/29/22 Discussion of the future use of
Roundabouts and cost savings
Council
Consensus
John Doyel 8/2/2022
3/29/2022 Discussion of the implementation of
City Geographic Information System
Council
Consensus
Various Staff 9/20/2022
6/7/2022 Presentation and Review of the City’s
First-time homebuyers program
Council
Consensus
Sandra Lerma 8/2/2022
6/7/2022 Presentation on the proposed
improvements to the Civic Auditorium
Council
Consensus
Randy Shaw 8/16/2022

16.a
Packet Pg. 372
Attachment: Council Future Agenda Items (Council: Future Agenda Items)