City Council Meeting
Agenda
February 7, 2023
7:00 PM – Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.
Council Members will meet in-person in the Council
Chambers. The meeting will also be lived streamed on the City’s website: http://livestream.hanford.city/
5:00 PM CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION:
ROLL CALL BY THE CITY CLERK:
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Comments from the public are limited to items listed on the agenda (GC 54954.3a). A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.
STUDY SESSION:
A. Community Development: Sustainable Transportation Grant for HSR Station Transit-Oriented Development and Connectivity Plan and Cross Valley Corridor Rail Service B. Administration: Council review of 2022 Federal Advocacy efforts and Discussion regarding the 2023 Federal Legislative Platform
CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF THE FOLLOWING:
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (GC 54956.9 (d)(4))
1 Potential Case.
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (GC 54956.9 (d)(2))
1 Potential Case.
CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION:
ROLL CALL:
INVOCATION:
Pastor Bobby Guerra
FLAG SALUTE:
COUNCIL REPORTS/GENERAL REPORTS:
Brief information-only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expenses (AB1234).
PUBLIC COMMENT:
This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters within the jurisdiction of the Hanford City Council. This is also the public’s opportunity to request an item from the Consent Calendar be pulled for discussion purposes or to comment on any item on the agenda. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights (Gov. Code sec. 54954.2). A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made and then the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.
A. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: Waive reading in full of resolutions and ordinances and approval and adoption of same by reading title the only.
B. City Attorney: Adoption of Resolution 23-01-R declaring the City-owned property located on Kensington Way, between Richardson Way and Leland Way (APN 008-192-011) to be surplus property and adoption of Notice of Exemption 2021-95.
C. Administration: Introduction of Ordinance No. 23-04, Amending Chapters 2.32 and 2.28 of the Municipal Code to create Alternate seats on both the Parks & Recreation and Parking & Traffic Commissions.
D. Community Development: Adoption of Resolution No. 22-03-R, Authorizing the City Manager to Apply For, Accept, And Appropriate CalHome Grant Funds, From the California Department Of Housing And Community Development's 2023 Homeownership Super Notice Of Funding Availability, in An Amount Not To Exceed $5 million.
E. Public Works: Approval of the Notice of Completion for the Mussel Slough Pump Installation Project, and Authorization for the mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said Notice with the Kings County Recorder's Office.
F. Public Works: Approval of the Notice of Completion for the Emma Lee Lane Reconstruction Project, and Authorization for the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said notice with the Kings County Recorders Office.
G. Public Works: Approval of a reimbursement to Lennar Homes for construction to complete the east side of Mustang Drive to the ultimate street width providing storm drainage improvements from Grangeville Boulevard north and along the frontage of the existing city basin located at the southeast corner of Mustang Drive and Berkshire Lane.
H. Finance: Authorization to execute a sub lease agreement, with Enterprise Fleet Management, for 11 Dodge Durangos for the Police Department use at approximate costs of $891,000 at $81,000 each ($56,000 for acquisition plus $25,000 for upfitting costs) with monthly lease
payments for up to five years from vehicle replacement reserves.
I. Finance: Acceptance and authorization for staff to File the City of Hanford's Quarterly Investment Portfolio and Transactions Reports as of 12/31/2022 PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Community Development: Annexation No. 160, Part 4: A proposal to annex approximately
93.2 +/- acres into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction. Prezone No. 2021- 09: A proposal to prezone Annexation 160 Area 4 a combination of R-L-5 Low-Density Residential and MX-C Corridor Mixed Use, in accordance with the General Plan designation for the area – Low-Density Residential and Corridor Mixed Use. CEQA Determination: The project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Categorical Exemption Class 19 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15319(a). The project is generally located east of 10th Avenue, South of Florinda Street, North of Lacey Boulevard.
GENERAL BUSINESS:
A. Parks and Community Services: Council consideration of the Approval of the eighteen-month lease for of the Hanford Soccer Complex (Soc Com) and discussion on Youth Sports Organizations
COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS::
At this time, any Council Member may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on their activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (GOV. CODE SEC. 54954.2)
A. Council Future Agenda Items
B. Upcoming Events and Important Dates:
February 8: City/County Coordinating Meeting, Hosted by Kings County - Lake Bottom Brewery & Distillery 6:00 p.m.
February 11: Helping Hands Volunteer Program: Earl F Johnson Park 8:00 a.m - Noon: Sign up here
February 20:Holiday,city offices will be closed
February 21: Regular City Council Meeting
ADJOURNMENT:
Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available to public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, California 93230, during normal business hours. Such agendas are also available at the city’s website, www.cityofhanfordca.com subject to staff’s ability to post the agenda before the meeting.
If you need a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s office, 559-585-2515, 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, California 93230, at least 2 days prior to the meeting {28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II}
4.A.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 2/7/2023 AGENDA SECTION: STUDY SESSION
SUBJECT:
Sustainable Transportation Grant for HSR Station Transit-Oriented Development and Connectivity Plan and Cross Valley Corridor Rail Service
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation: Presentation Regarding a Joint Application for a Sustainable Transportation Grant for the HSR Station Transit-Oriented Development and Connectivity Plan and Cross Valley Corridor Rail Service
BACKGROUND:
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has released the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Application Guide and Call for Applications. A total of $84 million is available for transportation planning projects statewide. The grants will fund plans that encourage local and regional planning that supports state goals, implements Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS), and help achieve the State’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target of 40 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 2050, respectively.
This proposed project, led by the City of Hanford in partnership with San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA), the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG), Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG), Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG), Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA), and Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA), will build upon CHSRA’s planning for the Kings-Tulare HSR Station and Cross Valley Corridor (CVC) planning (between Porterville and Huron) to progress strategies and recommendations to connect multiple transit services.
The Project will advance a local station-area transit-oriented development (TOD) and connectivity plan for the Kings-Tulare HSR station. Goals for the plan include reducing potential sprawl, preserving agricultural land, and promoting TOD surrounding and associated with the Kings-Tulare HSR Station, as well as increasing connectivity to the Downtown Hanford Core and communities throughout Kings County, Tulare County, and portions of Fresno County. The Project will result in a planning document that enables the City of Hanford to promote TOD, economic development, encourage revitalization in areas surrounding the Kings-Tulare HSR Station. The Project will support enhancing connections to transit, equitable design, and the advancement of CVC Phase 1 bus service implementation. The project will involve stakeholder and the community to develop a vision that is comprehensive of local and regional mobility needs.
An important component to the Project is the advancement of the planning for the CVC Rail Project
between Porterville and Huron, a vital transit corridor connecting Tulare, Fresno, and Kings Counties to the Kings-Tulare HSR Station. The Project will include CVC Rail station siting analysis, high-level environmental constraints review, UPRR coordination, phasing strategy, and an implementation plan.
This effort will provide the planning needed to continue to move the implementation the future CVC Rail Project forward that is critical for providing economic opportunity, sustainable transportation, and TODs for the southern San Joaquin Valley.
FISCAL IMPACT:
A 11.47% minimum match (in cash or an inkind contribution) is required
ATTACHMENTS:
None
12.B.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 2/7/2023 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT:
Adoption of Resolution 23-01-R declaring the City-owned property located on Kensington Way, between Richardson Way and Leland Way (APN 008-192-011) to be surplus property and adoption of Notice of Exemption 2021-95.
Recommendation:
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council: (i) adopt Resolution 23-01-R declaring the City-owned property located on Kensington Way, between Richardson Way and Leland Way (APN 008-192-011) to be surplus property; and (ii) adopt Notice of Exemption 2021-95, which determines that sale of the property is exempt from environmental review.
Recommended Motion: 1. I move to approve Resolution 23-01-R.
2. I move to approve Notice of Exemption 2021-95.
Background:
The property is a 0.23-acre parcel located along Kensington Way, between Richardson Way and Leland Way. The property is zoned R-L-5 Low-Density Residential. The City purchased the property on February 17, 1958. A well was installed onsite in April of 1958 and was abandoned in September of 2011. The property is currently vacant.
See Figure 1, showing the project aerial.
Figure 1: Aerial The site is designated in the General Plan as Low-Density Residential (see Figure 2) and zoned R-L-5 Low-Density Residential (see Figure 3), in accordance with the General Plan. Figure 2: General Plan Designation (outlined in red)Low-Density Residential Figure 3: Zoning (outline in red) R-L-5 Low-Density Residential
Prior to the sale of property, the Council must declare the property surplus, and the City must satisfy surplus property requirements of the Surplus Property Act (SLA) (Government Code Section 54220, et seq.). One (1) mandate requires the City to provide a written notice of availability (NOA) to housing, park-open space, and school agencies and to “housing sponsors” informing them of an opportunity to purchase the property. The notified parties must be given sixty (60) days to respond to the NOA if they are interested in purchasing or leasing the property. Following the sixty (60) day
notice period, if no notified party expresses an interest in the property, the City may negotiate sales terms with a private party.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54230.5(b)(1), following the expiration of the sixty (60) notice period and prior to signing a Purchase & Sale Agreement for the property, the City must provide to the California Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD) a description of the NOA and negotiations conducted by the City. A copy of the Purchase & Sale Agreement negotiated with an interested party must be provided to HCD for review. The statute gives HCD thirty (30) days to review the information and material. The City may sell the property once HCD grants its approval or HCD fails to notify the City of a violation during the thirty (30) day review period.
Under Government Code Section 54230.5(a)(1), failure by the City to satisfy SLA requirements will result in a penalty of thirty percent (30%) of the final sales price for the first (1st) violation and a fifty percent (50%) penalty for each subsequent violation.
By adopting Resolution 23-01-R, the Council will declare the property surplus and will direct the City Manager to send the required NOA to housing, park-open space, and school agencies and to “housing sponsors.” The Resolution further directs the City Manager to negotiate sales terms with an agency or “housing sponsor” responding to the notice or, if no agency or “housing sponsor” responds, with a private party. The City Manager will submit the negotiated terms to the City Council for consideration and approval at a future meeting. The property will not be sold until the Council approves the sales terms.
General Plan Consistency
California Government Code Section 65402 requires that the declaration of properties as surplus and the disposition of real property that was originally acquired by the City be reviewed by the Planning Commission for determination as to whether the sale and declaration as surplus conforms to the City’s adopted General Plan.
The following goals and policies are excerpts from the 2035 General Plan, adopted April 24, 2017.
They are applicable with respect to the proposed property disposition and support the disposition of the property for development of single-family residential.
Land Use Goal L6: [Provide] a wide range of housing choices that insure opportunities for a variety of age groups, lifestyles, and income levels.
Land Use Goal L8: [Provide] a range of residential building types suitable for a variety of lifestyles, ages, affordability levels, and design options.
Policy L31 Purpose of the Low-Density Residential Land Use Designation: Establish the Low-Density Residential land use designation to provide mainly single-family development on lot sizes typically found in urban settings.
Policy L32 Typical Uses in the Low-Density Residential Land Use Designation: Define the uses allowed in the Low-Density Residential land use designation to include residential uses in a variety of single-family lot types. Duplexes, second dwelling units, and home occupations can also be allowed when made compatible with the residential nature of the neighborhood.
Analysis: The proposed declaration of the property as surplus and the proposed disposition is consistent with the above listed goals and policies, as the property would have to be developed for a use consistent with the Low-Density Residential designation and the R-L-5 Low-Density Residential zone district standards.
On October 26, 2021, the Hanford Planning Commission determined that the City’s sale of the property will be consistent with the General Plan.
ENVIORNMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to Section 15312 of the California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA), the sale of surplus government property is considered exempt from further environmental review. See Attachment 1.
Fiscal Impact:
This item does not have a fiscal impact.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Attachment 1 Notice of Exemption
2. Resolution 23-01-R for Surplus of Kensington Property
Notice of Exemption 2021-95
To: Office of Planning and Research
P.O. Box 3044, Room 212
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
County Clerk
County of Kings
Kings County Government Center
Hanford, CA 93230
From: City of Hanford
317 North Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Project Title: Declaration of Surplus/Disposition of Real Property Project Location – Kensington Way, between Richardson and Leland Ways (APN 008-192-011)
Project Location – City: HanfordProject Location – County: Kings County Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project: The declaration of surplus and disposition of real city property for future residential development, located on Kensington Way, between Richardson Way and Leland Way (APN 008-192-011).The property is designated by the General Plan as Low-Density Residential and zoned R-L-5 Low- Density Residential.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Hanford Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of Hanford Exempt Status: (check one)
Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 152698);
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269 (a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
Categorical Exemption: State type and section number: 15312 Surplus Government Property Sales Statutory Exemption. State code number:
Reasons why project is exempt:
The City of Hanford determined the project to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15312 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Class 12 consists of sales of surplus government properties, except for parcels of land located in an area of statewide, regional, or areawide concern, identified in Section 15206 (b)(4). The property is not located in an area of statewide, regional, or areawide concern.
Lead Agency
Contact Person: Gabrielle Myers Area Code/ Telephone: (559) 585-2578 Signature: Date: October 26, 2021 Title: Senior Planner Signed by Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR:
Signed by Applicant
1 RESOLUTION NO. 23-01-R
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD,
CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE PROPERTY ON KENSINGTON WAY,
BETWEEN RICHARDSON WAY AND LELAND WAY (APN 008-192-011)
TO BE SURPLUS PROPERTY
At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford, duly called and held on February 7, 2023, at 7:00 p.m., it was moved by Council Member _________________, and seconded by Council Member ____________________, and duly carried that the following resolutions be adopted:
WHEREAS, the City of Hanford (“City”) owns a 0.23 acre property located on Kensington Way, between Richardson Way and Leland Way (APN 008-192-011) (“Property”); and
WHEREAS, a City water well was previously located at the site; and WHEREAS, the water well was abandoned and the City no longer has a need for the Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Hanford hereby declares the Property to be surplus.
RESOLVED FURTHER, the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to send a Notice of Availability (NOA) to public agencies and housing sponsors in the manner required by Government Code Section 54222.
RESOLVED FURTHER, the City Manager shall, in accordance with surplus property provisions of the Government Code, negotiate the terms of sale or lease of the Property with any public agency or housing sponsor that responds to the NOA and expresses an interest in the Property.
RESOLVED FURTHER, if no agency or housing sponsor that receives the NOA desires to purchase or lease the Property or if the City is unable to successfully negotiate a sale or lease with an interested agency or housing sponsor, the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to negotiate the sale of the Property to a private party.
RESOLVED FURTHER, the City Manager is directed to provide the Council, for its review and approval, those terms that the City Manager negotiates in accordance with this Resolution.
RESOLVED FURTHER, the Property will not be sold or leased until applicable terms are approved by the City Council.
2 PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 7th day of February, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:________________________________________________________________________ NOES:________________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ____________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: _____________________________________________________________________ Approved _______________________________
TRAVIS PADEN
Mayor
Attest:
________________________
NATALIE CORRAL
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss
CITY OF HANFORD )
I, Natalie Corral, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the 7th day of February, 2023.
Date:
City Clerk
12.C.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 2/7/2023 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT:
Introduction of Ordinance No. 23-04, Amending Chapters 2.32 and 2.28 of the Municipal Code to create Alternate seats on both the Parks & Recreation and Parking & Traffic Commissions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation: That the City Council, by motion, Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 23-04, Amending Chapters 2.32 and 2.28 of the Municipal Code to create Alternate seats on both the Parks & Recreation and Parking & Traffic Commissions.
Recommended Motion:I move to Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 23-04, Amending Chapters 2.32 and 2.28 of the Municipal Code to create Alternate seats on both the Parks & Recreation and Parking & Traffic Commissions.
BACKGROUND:
At the January 17, 2023, Council meeting, Council directed staff to bring back modifications to the City's Municipal Code to create an alternate seat on both the Parks & Recreation and the Parking & Traffic Commissions.
The Commissions currently have five (5) seats each. Given the increased interest from the public in serving on the various commissions, as indicated by the 11 applications received by the Clerk's office, the Council would like to take advantage of that interest and fill the alternate positions as the same time as the current vacancies. Having an alternate will reduce the number of meetings where having a quorum may be an issue and will also provide for continuity in the commission when the need arises to fill a seat.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance No. 23-04
2. 2.28 Parking and Traffic Commission - Final
3. 2.28 Parking and Traffic Commission - Redline
4. 2.32 Parks and Recreation Commission - Final
5. 2.32 Parks and Recreation Commission - Redline
ORDINANCE NO. 23-04
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING HANFORD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 2.28 & 2.32 RELATING TO THE CREATON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
The City Council of the City of Hanford does ordain as follows:
Section 1: Hanford Municipal Code Chapters 2.28 & 2.32 contains regulations relating to the establishing of the City’s Parks & Recreation and Parking and Traffic Commissions.
Section 2: The regulations contained in Chapters 2.28 & 2.32 were amended in 2021 but the Council has determined that the chapters need updates for the effective operation and administration of the City’s Commissions.
Section 3: The City Council of the City of Hanford does ordain that Chapters 2.28 and 2.32 of the Hanford Municipal Code are hereby amended and restated as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Section 4: This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage and shall be published once in the Hanford Sentinel within fifteen (15) days after its passage or a summary of this ordinance shall be published in the Hanford Sentinel in a manner consistent with the requirements of the California Government Code.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on , 2023, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Travis Paden
MAYOR of the City of Hanford
NATALIE CORRAL
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss
CITY OF HANFORD )
I NATALIE CORRAL, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing ordinance was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford on the 7th day of February, 2023, and it was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the day ___ of_______________ , 2022.
NATALIE CORRAL
CITY CLERK
Exhibit
“A”
Chapter 2.28 PARKING AND TRAFFIC COMMISSION
2.28.010 Created.
A. There is created a parking and traffic commission, which shall consist of five (5) members and one (1) alternate, appointed in accordance with Section 2.20.030.
B. Notwithstanding subsection A, Present members of the parking and traffic commission shall hold office for the balance of their respective terms. Thereafter, appointments shall be for four (4) year terms; including the alternate.
C. If a vacancy shall occur other than by expiration of a term, a new commissioner shall be appointed in the manner as set forth in section 2.20.030.
D. The alternate may participate in deliberations, but shall not vote unless at least one (1) commissioner is absent or recuses himself or herself from a matter due to an actual or potential conflict of interest.
E. The city engineer or designee shall serve as secretary to the commission.
F. The parking and traffic commission shall have the following duties and responsibilities:
1. To make recommendations to the City Council regarding the most practical means for coordinating the activities of all officers and agencies of the city having authority with respect to the enforcement of the parking and traffic laws and ordinances;
2. To review traffic issues and recommend any needed changes related traffic safety matters and parking restrictions that may be the result of a citizen’s request or a staff recommendation;
3. To make recommendations to the city council for installation of traffic control and amendments to the municipal code for traffic related items that may ease traffic congestion and help facilitate transportation throughout the city.
4. Perform any other functions, which may be assigned by the city council. (Ord. 16-01, 2016; prior code § 2-8.08)
Chapter 2.32 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
2.32.010 Created.
A. There is created a parks and recreation commission which shall consist of five (5) members and one (1) alternate, appointed in accordance with Section 2.20.030.
B. Present members of the existing parks and recreation commission shall hold office for the balance of their respective terms. Thereafter, appointments shall be made for four (4) year terms, including the alternate.
C. The director of the Parks & Community Services department, or designee, shall serve as secretary to the commission.
D. The parks and recreation commission shall have the following duties and responsibilities:
1. Become informed and knowledgeable about the city parks and recreation programs, facilities, Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and recreational needs;
2. Interpret the city’s recreational programs to the general citizenry in order to promote understanding and public support;
3. Foster cooperation between the city and other governmental agencies and civic groups interested in the development of a community parks and recreation program;
4. Encourage a sound program of parks and recreation development and maintenance;
5. Advise the council on programs and projects that will enhance the city’s parks and recreation facilities or programs;
6. Recommend and encourage the adoption of a plan for future development of parks and recreation;
7. Receive and report on all matters referred to them by the council, as well as make recommendations to the City Council regarding studies and surveys for plans and reports;
8. Review the annual recreation department budget and make recommendations to the city council;
9. Consult with the Director on applications to remove street trees and applications to prune or remove heritage trees. The commission shall make recommendations to the director concerning heritage or street tree removal and heritage tree pruning after an inspection by a subcommittee of the commission and after deliberation by the commission pursuant to (Ord. 12.12.210 Pruning and removal of Heritage or street trees – permit required);and
9. Make recommendations to the city council regarding the planting, care and/or removal of trees and shrubbery on property owned by the city and upon city streets and alleys;
10. Perform any other functions which may be assigned by the city council. (Ord. 17-01 § 1, 2017; Ord. 15-13 § 2, 2015; prior code § 2-8.09)
2.28.010 Created.
A. There is created a parking and traffic commission, which shall consist of five (5) members and one (1) alternate, appointed in accordance with Section 2.20.030.
B. Notwithstanding subsection A, Present members of the parking and traffic commission shall hold office for the balance of their respective terms. Thereafter, appointments shall be for four (4) year terms, including the alternate.
C. If a vacancy shall occur other than by expiration of a term, a new commissioner shall be appointed in the manner as set forth in section 2.20.030.
D. The alternate may participate in deliberations, but shall not vote unless at least one (1) commissioner is absent or recuses himself or herself from a matter due to an actual or potential conflict of interest.
E. The city engineer or designee shall serve as secretary to the commission.
F. The parking and traffic commission shall have the following duties and responsibilities:
1. To make recommendations to the City Council regarding the most practical means for coordinating the activities of all officers and agencies of the city having authority with respect to the enforcement of the parking and traffic laws and ordinances;
2. To review traffic issues and recommend any needed changes related traffic safety matters and parking restrictions that may be the result of a citizen’s request or a staff recommendation;
3. To make recommendations to the city council for installation of traffic control and amendments to the municipal code for traffic related items that may ease traffic congestion and help facilitate transportation throughout the city.
4. Perform any other functions, which may be assigned by the city council. (Ord. 16-01, 2016; prior code § 2-8.08)
2.28.010 Created.
A. There is created a parking and traffic commission, which shall consist of five (5) members and one (1) alternate, appointed in accordance with Section 2.20.030.
B. Notwithstanding subsection A, Present members of the parking and traffic commission shall hold office for the balance of their respective terms. Thereafter, appointments shall be for four (4) year terms, including the alternate.
C. If a vacancy shall occur other than by expiration of a term, a new commissioner shall be appointed in the manner as set forth in section 2.20.030.
D. The alternate may participate in deliberations, but shall not vote unless at least one (1) commissioner is absent or recuses himself or herself from a matter due to an actual or potential conflict of interest.
E. The city engineer or designee shall serve as secretary to the commission.
FD. The parking and traffic commission shall have the following duties and responsibilities:
1. To make recommendations to the City Council regarding suggest the most practical means for coordinating the activities of all officers and agencies of the city having authority with respect to the enforcement of the parking and traffic laws and ordinances;
2. To stimulate and assist in the preparation of the publication of parking and traffic reports;
3. To review traffic issues and recommend any needed changes related traffic safety matters and parking restrictions that may be the result of a citizen’s request or a staff recommendationreceive comments and complaints from the public having to do with parking and traffic matters;
4. To make recommendations to the city council for installation of traffic control and amendments to the municipal code for traffic related items that may ease traffic congestion and help facilitate transportation throughout the city; andrecommend to the city council ways and means of improving parking and traffic conditions and the administration and enforcement of the parking and traffic laws and ordinances; and
5. Perform any other functions, which may be assigned by the city council. (Ord. 16-01, 2016; prior code § 2-8.08)
2.32.010 Created.
A. There is created a parks and recreation commission which shall consist of five (5) members and one (1) alternate, appointed in accordance with Section 2.20.030..
B. Present members of the existing parks and recreation commission shall hold office for the balance of their respective terms. Thereafter, appointments shall be made for four (4) year terms, including the alternate.
C. The director of the Parks & Community Services department, or designee, shall serve as secretary to the commission.
D. The parks and recreation commission shall have the following duties and responsibilities:
1. Become informed and knowledgeable about the city parks and recreation programs, facilities, Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and recreational needs;
2. Interpret the city’s recreational programs to the general citizenry in order to promote understanding and public support;
3. Foster cooperation between the city and other governmental agencies and civic groups interested in the development of a community parks and recreation program;
4. Encourage a sound program of parks and recreation development and maintenance;
5. Advise the council on programs and projects that will enhance the city’s parks and recreation facilities or programs;
6. Recommend and encourage the adoption of a plan for future development of parks and recreation;
7. Receive and report on all matters referred to them by the council, as well as make recommendations to the City Council regarding studies and surveys for plans and reports;
8. Review the annual recreation department budget and make recommendations to the city council;
9. Consult with the director on applications to remove street trees and applications to prune or remove heritage trees. The commission shall make recommendations to the director concerning heritage or street tree removal and heritage tree pruning after an inspection by a subcommittee of the commission and after deliberation by the commission pursuant to (Ord. 12.12.210 Pruning and removal of Heritage or street trees – permit required).
9. Make recommendations to the city council regarding the planting, care and/or removal of trees and shrubbery on property owned by the city and upon city streets and alleys;
10. Perform any other functions which may be assigned by the city council. (Ord. 17-01 § 1, 2017; Ord. 15-13 § 2, 2015; prior code § 2-8.09)
2.32.010 Created.
A. There is created a parks and recreation commission which shall consist of five (5) members and one (1) alternate, appointed in accordance with Section 2.20.030..
B. Present members of the existing parks and recreation commission shall hold office for the balance of their respective terms. Thereafter, appointments shall be made for four (4) year terms, including the alternate.
C. The director of the Parks & Community Services department, or designee, shall serve as secretary to the commission.
D. The parks and recreation commission shall have the following duties and responsibilities:
1. To bBecome informed and knowledgeable about the city parks and recreation programs, facilities, Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and recreational needs;
2. Interpret the city’s recreational programs to the general citizenry in order to promote understanding and public support;
3. Foster cooperation between the city and other governmental agencies and civic groups interested in the development of a community parks and recreation program;
4. Encourage a sound program of parks and recreation development and maintenance;
5. Advise the council on programs and projects that will enhance the city’s parks and recreation facilities or programs;
6. Recommend and encourage the adoption of a plan for future development of parks and recreation;
7. Receive and report on all matters referred to them by the council, as well as make recommendations to the City Council regardinginitiate studies and surveys for plans and reports for recommendations to the city council except that all expenditures of city funds shall be subject to prior approval by the city council;
8. Review the annual recreation department budget and make recommendations to the city council;
9. Consult with the director on applications to remove street trees and applications to prune or remove heritage trees. The commission shall make recommendations to the director concerning heritage or street tree removal and heritage tree pruning after an inspection by a subcommittee of the commission and after deliberation by the commission pursuant to (Ord. 12.12.210 Pruning and removal of Heritage or street trees – permit required).
9. Make recommendations to the city council regarding theTo recommend to the city the planting, care and/or removal of trees and shrubbery on property owned by the city and upon city streets and alleys;
10. Perform any other functions which may be assigned by the city council. (Ord. 17-01 § 1, 2017; Ord. 15-13 § 2, 2015; prior code § 2-8.09)
CITY OF HANFORD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 7, 2023
SUBJECT: Apply for CalHome 2023 Grant
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt R-22-3 Resolution Authorizing, The City Administrator To Apply For, Accept, And Appropriate CalHome Grant Funds From The California Department Of Housing And Community Development 2023 Homeownership Super Notice Of Funding Availability In An Amount Not To Exceed $5 million.
BACKGROUND
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) announced a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Homeownership Super Notice of Funding Availability (HOSN or Super NOFA) Program on January 6, 2023. This notice is approximately $135 million available statewide for affordable housing activities to be distributed to eligible applicants. The California Assembly Bill funds this NOFA No. (AB 434) (Chapter 192, Status of 2020).
The maximum application amount is $5 million, and HCD will provide funding to cover activity delivery fees (administrative costs) up to 10 percent of the total award amount.
Per the NOFA, HCD will announce awards in June 2023.
The eligible activities for the CalHome funding under the current NOFA are:
• First-Time Homebuyer Mortgage Assistance
• Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Assistance
• Technical Assistance for Self-Help Housing
• Technical Assistance for Share Housing Programs
• Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)/Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) Assistance • Homeownership Project Development Loans
To apply for an activity listed in the NOFA, the applicant must meet the experience requirement. In general, the experience requirement is a minimum of two years of program administration for the type of activity within the four years immediately preceding the application. The City has administered a First-Time Homebuyer Program since 1994 and Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Program since 1985.
Staff is recommending Council approve the submittal of the application for up to $1,500,000 for owner-occupied residential rehabilitation (OOR), first-time mortgage assistance, and allowable activity delivery costs. Staff proposes to allocate the grant as follows:
•$1,000,000 for the First Time Homebuyer Mortgage Assistance Program. The proposed allocation would assist eleven new first-time homebuyers with a maximum of 40 percent of the Borrower’s purchase price of the property. Based
on the current sales price limit of $271,000, the maximum assistance would be $108,400.
•$500,000 for the Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Program. The proposed allocation would assist five (5) homeowners with an average loan amount of $100,000.
FISCAL IMPACT
The budget to apply for funding is unaffected.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
Department of Housing and Community Development
10/2022
HOSN NOFA
RESOLUTION NO. R-22-03
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDING AND THE
EXECUTION OF A STANDARD AGREEMENT AND ANY AMENDMENTS
THERETO FROM THE 2022 HOMEOWNERSHIP SUPER NOFA (HOSN)
DATED JANUARY 6, 2023.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Hanford, as follows:
SECTION 1:
The City of Hanford has reviewed and hereby approves the submission to the State of California of one or more application(s) in the aggregate amount, not to exceed $_1,500,000 for the following HOSN activities pursuant to the 2022 HOSN Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA):
List activities and amounts
Examples:
CalHome-Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Program $ 500,000 CalHome- First Time Home Buyer Mortgage Assistance Program $1,000,000 SECTION 2:
The City of Hanford hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager, or designee, to execute and deliver all applications and act on the City of Hanford behalf in all matters pertaining to all such applications.
SECTION 3:
If an application is approved, the City Manager, or designee, is authorized to enter, execute and deliver the Standard Agreement and any and all subsequent amendments thereto with the State of California for the purposes of the grant. * Important Note: If the designee is signing any application, agreement, or any other document on behalf of the designated official, written proof of designee authority to sign on behalf of such designated official must be included with the Resolution, otherwise the Resolution will be deemed deficient and rejected.
Additionally, do not add limitations or conditions on the ability of the signatory or signatories to sign documents, or the Resolution may not be accepted. If more than one
Department of Housing and Community Development
10/2022
HOSN NOFA
party’s approval is required, list them as a signatory. The only exception is for county counsel or city attorney to approve as to form or legality or both, IF such approval is already part of the standard city/county signature block as evidenced by the signed Resolution itself. Inclusions of additional limitations or conditions on the authority of the signer will result in the Resolution being rejected and will require your entity to issue a corrected Resolution prior to the Department issuing a Standard Agreement.
SECTION 4:
If an application is approved, the City Manager, or designee, is authorized to sign and submit Funds Requests and all required reporting forms and other documentation as may be required by the State of California from time to time in connection with the grant.
SECTION 5:
The application in full is incorporated as part of the Standard Agreement. Any and all activities funded, the information provided, and timelines represented in the application are enforceable through the Standard Agreement. City of Hanford acknowledges and agrees that it may be required to execute any and all other instruments necessary or required by HCD for participation in the HOSN Program.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of Hanford, City Council, held on February 7, 2023.
The undersigned Mario Cifuentez, City Manager of the City of Hanford there before named, attests and certifies that the foregoing is a true and full copy of a resolution of the Governing Board adopted at a duly convened meeting on the date above-mentioned. _______________________________ _________________________ Name and Title of Authorized Officer Signature of Authorized Officer ______________________
Date
(Note: The attesting officer cannot be the person identified in the Resolution as the authorized signer.)
12.E.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 2/7/2023 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT:
Approval of the Notice of Completion for the Mussel Slough Pump Installation Project, and Authorization for the mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said Notice with the Kings County Recorder's Office.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the City Council, by motion, approve a Notice of Completion for the Mussel Slough Pump Installation Project, and authorize the mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said Notice with the Kings County Recorder's Office.
BACKGROUND:
On December 21, 2021, the Council requested authorization to advertise for bids for the FY 21/22 Mussel Slough: Laura Lane Pump Installation Project and Pre-Authorize the City Manager to award and execute the contract on behalf of the City to the lowest responsible bidder providing the project bid is within current budget appropriation.
On March 9, 2022, the Mussel Slough Lift Pump Installation Project was awarded to JT2 Inc. dba Todd Companies of Visalia, CA.
This project consisted of equipping the YMCA Basin with an electrical service, control panel, pump, diversion gates, and connection to existing piping for dewatering the basin to accommodate additional development and routine maintenance.
This basin serves as a terminus basin for other basins in the Storm Drain system. The storm drains, wet well, and piping exist for the pumping of this basin to People's Ditch. This project provided for dewatering of the basin and the installation of new diversion gates to provide routine maintenance, assist in mosquito abatement activities, and increase storage capacity.
This project was completed $32,000 under budget (17%) and with no contract change orders.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The FY 21/22 Storm Drainage Capital Fund (0358) and Storm Drainage Impact Fees Fund (0184) budget provided $187,500 for construction, including contingencies. Upon project completion, object code 820648 has a positive available budget balance of approximately $32,264. The remaining project balance will be released back to fund balance to be available for other projects. A copy of the final project construction and finance history report is attached for Council review.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Final Project Construction and Finance History Report
2. NOC - Recording Original WORD
3. NOC - Recording Original PDF
4. Budget Page
FINAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCE HISTORY
PROJECT: Mussel Slough Lift Pump Station Installation Project CONTRACTOR: JT2 Inc. dba Todd Companies
P.O. Box 6820
Visalia CA 93230
CONTRACT DATES: Council Award March 9, 2022
Bid Opening March 8, 2022
Contractor Started Work September 6, 2022
Contract Time of Completion October 5, 2022
Contractor Completed Work December 5, 2022 (2 months delay due to SCE material lead times and scheduling)
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS:
No change orders on this project
FINANCIAL HISTORY:
REVENUE OF PROJECT FUNDING
0358 Storm Drainage Capital
0184 Storm Drainage Impact Fees
TOTAL BUDGET FUNDING $187,500.00
ADJUSTMENTS
Overhead $7,500.00
Overhead Reversed -$7,500.00
Equipment Training – PO Voided -$2,072.94
ADJUSTED BUDGET TOTAL $185,427.06
PROJECT EXPENDITURE:
Hanford Sentinel - Project Advertisement $269.73
Building Permit Fee $266.00
JT2 Todd Companies Construction Contract $112,015.00 Southern California Edison – Line Extension $2,607.37 QK – Construction Staking $2,515.00
Bogie Pump – Pump Equipment $35,490.33
Engineering / Inspection $0.00
Contingency $0.00
Total Construction Cost $153,163.43
Balance (Credit) ($32,263.63)
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
CITY OF HANFORD
When recorded return to:
City Clerk
City of Hanford
315 North Douty Street
Hanford, California 93230-3951
G.C. 27361.3 - Fee NIL
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The work of Improvement is located: BNSF Tracks 600FT N. of Grangeville Blvd.
Hanford CA
2. The Improvement is particularly described as: Site Improvements / Upgrades
3. The date of completion of the work of Improvement: December 5, 2022
4. The Owner of the work of Improvement: City of Hanford.
5. The nature of the owner’s interest or estate: Fee Simple Title.
6. The name of the original contractor for the work of Improvement: JT2 Inc. dba Todd Companies
7. The surety for the work of Improvement: Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland
8. All work for this project has been completed.
9. Accepted by minute action of the City Council of the City of Hanford on: February 7, 2023
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this 7th day of February 2023
BY: ________________________________________
Travis Paden, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California
I, the undersigned, say:
I am the person who signed the foregoing notice. I have read the above notice and know its contents, and the facts stated therein are true of my own knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Hanford, California, this ____ day of ___________, 2023.
BY: ________________________________________
Travis Paden, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California
Authority: Section 1181 Civil Code
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
CITY OF HANFORD
When recorded return to:
City Clerk
City of Hanford
315 North Douty Street
Hanford, California 93230-3951
G.C. 27361.3 - Fee NIL
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The work of Improvement is located: BNSF Tracks 600FT N. of Grangeville Blvd.
Hanford CA
2. The Improvement is particularly described as: Site Improvements / Upgrades
3. The date of completion of the work of Improvement: December 5, 2022
4. The Owner of the work of Improvement: City of Hanford.
5. The nature of the owner’s interest or estate: Fee Simple Title.
6. The name of the original contractor for the work of Improvement: JT2 Inc. dba Todd Companies
7. The surety for the work of Improvement: Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland
8. All work for this project has been completed.
9. Accepted by minute action of the City Council of the City of Hanford on: February 7, 2023
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this 7th day of February 2023
BY: ________________________________________
Travis Paden, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California
I, the undersigned, say:
I am the person who signed the foregoing notice . I have read the above n otice and know its contents, and the facts stated therein are true of my own knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Hanford, California, this ____ day of ___________, 2023.
BY: ________________________________________
Travis Paden, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California
Authority: Section 1181 Civil Code
City of Hanford Capital Improvement Projects Fiscal Years 2020 to 2024 Project Background:
Existing Conditions:
Project Justification:
Fiscal Implications:
Project Budget Summary:
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Program or Project Construction
Engineering / Inspection 10,000
Construction 155,000
Contingency 15,000
Department Overhead 7,500
Total Expenditure $187,500 $0 $0 $0 $0
Funding
0358 Storm Drainage Capital 87,500
0184 Storm Drainage Impact Fees 100,000
Total Funding $187,500 $0 $0 $0 $0
This basin serves as a terminus basin for other basins in the Storm Drain system. The storm drain wet well and piping exist for the pumping of this basin to People's Ditch.
This project will provide for dewatering of the basin and the installation of new diversion gates to provide routine maintenance, assist in mosquito abatement activities, and increase storage capacity.
Funding for the project will be allocated from storm drainage capital and storm drainage impact fee reserves. 5-Year Funding Allocation
ExpenditureRevenue
Mussel Slough / Laura Ln. Pump Installation
This project consists of equipping the YMCA Basin with an electrical service, control panel, pump, diversion gates, and connection to existing piping for dewatering the basin to accommodate additional development and routine maintenance.
CIP2020048
232
12.F.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 2/7/2023 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT:
Approval of the Notice of Completion for the Emma Lee Lane Reconstruction Project, and Authorization for the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said notice with the Kings County Recorders Office.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the City Council, by motion, approve a Notice of Completion for the Emma Lee Lane Reconstruction Project, and authorize the mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said notice with the Kings County Recorders Office.
2. Approve a revenue budget adjustment to the Gas Tax Fund (0044) using the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act Fund (CRRSAA) contribution of $243,000 to recognize incoming grant funds.
BACKGROUND:
This project involved the reconstruction of Emma Lee Lane, from Grangeville Boulevard to Conquistador Street. Improvements included installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, ADA ramps, a storm drainage collection system and reconstruction of streets.
Emma Lee Lane is a residential street that lacked a proper drainage system and needed total reconstruction. This project will extend the useful life of the street by approximately 20-25 years.
A portion of this project is to be funded through the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA). This is not ARPA funding but instead, is a separate pot of money allocated to the City. Under the Act, these COVID Relief Funds may be used for a broad range of surface transportation purposes listed in Section 113(b) of Title 23 of the U.S. Code and are meant to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus". Specifically, the Act allows cities to cover revenue losses and allows COVID Relief Funds to be used on new or existing projects, and for preventive and routine maintenance.
There were (6) contract change orders on this project that amounted to a net decrease of the construction contract ($28,939.74). Overall, the project was 5.1% under budget.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The FY 21/22 Capital Improvement Budget provided $1,270,554.17 for this project. That amount was comprised of the following projects: Emma Lee Lane Crossing/Lift Station #37, Emma Lee Lane Reconstruction, Grangeville Boulevard to Conquistador Street and Water Main Replacement
Program. The remaining budget balance of $64,411.40 for object 819623 will be released to Gas Tax (0044) fund balance for other projects. Additionally, a revenue budget adjustment to the 0044 Gas Tax Fund using the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act Fund (CRRSAA) contribution of $243,000. A copy of the final project construction and finance history report is attached for Council review.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Final Project Construction and Financial History Report
2. NOC - Recording Original PDF
3. NOC - Recording Original WORD
4. Emma Lee Lane Reconstruction, Grangeville Blvd. to Conquisatador St. Budget
5. Water Main Replacement Budget
6. Emma Lee Lane Crossing & Lift Pump Budget
FINAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCE HISTORY
PROJECT: Emma Lee Lane Reconstruction Project
CONTRACTOR: MAC General Engineering
P.O. Box 178
Exeter CA 93221
CONTRACT DATES: Council Award May 3, 2022
Bid Opening February 15, 2022
Contractor Started Work August 15, 2022
Contract Time of Completion November 15, 2022
Contractor Completed Work December 16, 2022
FINANCIAL HISTORY:
REVENUE OF PROJECT FUNDING
• 0391 Water Capital (Water Main Replacement Program) $250,000.00 • 040 Gas Tax (Emma Lee Lane Reconstruction,
Grangeville Blvd. to Conquistador St.) $350,708.24 • 358 Storm Drainage Capital (Emma Lee
Lane Crossing / Lift Station #37) $669,845.93
TOTAL BUDGET FUNDING $1,270,554.17
PROJECT EXPENDITURE:
Hanford Sentinel - Project Advertisement
Chicago Title Company
Zumwalt Hansen, Inc – Legal Description
Simon & Hoover Inc - Appraisal Report
California State Water Board
MAC General Engineering Construction Contract
Kleinfelder Inc. - Materials and Compaction Testing
Quad Knopf – Construction Staking
Moore Twining – R- Value Testing
Bogie Pump – Pump Equipment
Overhead FY 22
Overhead FY 21
Total Construction Cost $1,119,428.78
Outstanding PO’s $86,713.99
Remaining Available Balance $64,411.40
OTHER
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA) $243,000.00
Request a revenue budget adjustment to the 0044 Gas Tax fund to help offset the current negative balance.
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
CITY OF HANFORD
When recorded return to:
City Clerk
City of Hanford
315 North Douty Street
Hanford, California 93230-3951
G.C. 27361.3 - Fee NIL
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The work of Improvement is located: Emma Lee Lane, Grangeville Blvd. To Jana Way Hanford Ca
2. The Improvement is particularly described as: Site Improvements / Upgrades
3. The date of completion of the work of Improvement: December 16, 2022
4. The Owner of the work of Improvement: City of Hanford.
5. The nature of the owner’s interest or estate: Fee Simple Title.
6. The name of the original contractor for the work of Improvement: MAC General Engineering Inc.
7. The surety for the work of Improvement: Merchants Bonding Company (Mutual)
8. All work for this project has been completed.
9. Accepted by minute action of the City Council of the City of Hanford on: February 7, 2023
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this 7th day of February 2023
BY: ________________________________________
Travis Paden, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California
I, the undersigned, say:
I am the person who signed the foregoing notice . I have read the above n otice and know its contents, and the facts stated therein are true of my own knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Hanford, California, this ____ day of ___________, 2023.
BY: ________________________________________
Travis Paden, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California
Authority: Section 1181 Civil Code
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
CITY OF HANFORD
When recorded return to:
City Clerk
City of Hanford
315 North Douty Street
Hanford, California 93230-3951
G.C. 27361.3 - Fee NIL
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The work of Improvement is located: Emma Lee Lane, Grangeville Blvd. To Jana Way Hanford Ca
2. The Improvement is particularly described as: Site Improvements / Upgrades
3. The date of completion of the work of Improvement: December 16, 2022
4. The Owner of the work of Improvement: City of Hanford.
5. The nature of the owner’s interest or estate: Fee Simple Title.
6. The name of the original contractor for the work of Improvement: MAC General Engineering Inc.
7. The surety for the work of Improvement: Merchants Bonding Company (Mutual)
8. All work for this project has been completed.
9. Accepted by minute action of the City Council of the City of Hanford on: February 7, 2023
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this 7th day of February 2023
BY: ________________________________________
Travis Paden, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California
I, the undersigned, say:
I am the person who signed the foregoing notice. I have read the above notice and know its contents, and the facts stated therein are true of my own knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Hanford, California, this ____ day of ___________, 2023.
BY: ________________________________________
Travis Paden, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California
Authority: Section 1181 Civil Code
195
City of Hanford Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Budget
822635
Project Background:
Existing Conditions:
Project Justification:
Fiscal Implications:
Project Budget Summary:
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Program or Project Construction Construction Construction Engineering / Inspection 38,000 38,000 38,000
Construction 600,000 600,000 600,000
Contingency 60,000 60,000 60,000
Department Overhead 36,740 2,000 2,000
Total Expenditure $734,740 $0 $700,000 $0 $700,000
Funding
0391 Water Capital 734,740 700,000 700,000
Total Funding $734,740 $0 $700,000 $0 $700,000
ExpenditureRevenue
Water Main Replacement Program
This project will replace existing small mains and older mains that do not meet City standards for fire protection or for delivery of water to consumers.
Funding for the Water Main Replacement Program will be allocated from Water Capital Reserves. 5-Year Funding Allocation
Projects will include replacement of steel and cast iron mains, undersized mains causing low pressure areas, and in- fill in areas where minor adjustments to the distribution system will enhance system performance.
12.G.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 2/7/2023 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT:
Approval of a reimbursement to Lennar Homes for construction to complete the east side of Mustang Drive to the ultimate street width providing storm drainage improvements from Grangeville Boulevard north and along the frontage of the existing city basin located at the southeast corner of Mustang Drive and Berkshire Lane.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council, by motion, authorize staff to reimburse Lennar Homes, the developer of Tract 927, in the amount of $80,570.25 from the Storm Drain Capital Fund for storm drainage improvements on Mustang Drive from Grangeville Boulevard north and along the frontage of the existing city basin east of Tract 927.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Hanford Planning Commission approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for Tract 927, a 133 lot residential subdivision located at the northeast corner of Grangeville Boulevard and Aquifer Drive, on December 10, 2019. The recorded final map is attached for Council review.
As part of the improvements for Tract 927, the developer was required, through an addendum, to complete the street and storm drainage improvements on the east side of Mustang Drive to its’ ultimate width to allow the capture of storm drainage runoff from the street where it will be transported to the existing city storm drainage basin along the east boundary of Tract 927. Attached for review is the location map and identified improvements location.
As shown, a portion of the improvements on Mustang Drive front the existing city owned storm drainage basin at the corner of Mustang Drive and Berkshire Lane. The improvements include an additional 2’ of pavement, installation 550 LF of curb, gutter, and sidewalk, storm drain catch basin and piping, and street lighting. All improvements have been constructed to City Standards and accepted complete.
Staff has reviewed the attached request for reimbursement and invoices submitted by the developer’s Engineer for the additional improvements and has concluded that the requested reimbursement amount is appropriate. Attached for Council review are the request and invoices noted.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Storm Drain Capital Fund for FY-2023 has a balance of $1,999,898, which provides funds for unscheduled storm drainage capital improvements.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 1-Recorded FM LSP 26-084a
2. 2-Location of Improvements and Addenda 2 acknowledged
3. 3-SUMMARY Tract 927-Mustang Dr. Contractor Bid
Mustang Drive
Complete C&G on east side of Mustang from Grangeville north to City park. 900 ft
N ➤ ➤
N
Tract 927 - complete C&G, sidewalk, and 2' pavement on east side opf Mustang Drive north of Grangeville Contractor Item Cost
BCI Catch Basin 1 total $6,325.00 Storm Impact fee
SCE Street Light 1 total $23,929.25
Davis & Roberts Curb and Gutter 550 lf at $27/lf $14,850.00 Davis & Roberts Sidewalk 2500 sf at $5/sf $12,500.00
Davis & Roberts Driveway Approach 20' residential driveway $2,200.00 Davis & Roberts OCIP Agreement (-2%) LS -$591.00
TriCounty Compact Sidewalk Subgrade2500 sf $2,668.00
TriCounty Subgrade, Base Rock, AC Paving2' wide x approx 600' $18,689.00 $80,570.25
Notes:
1 2 Engineering, surveying, inspection, testing, and project administration cost mark-up. 3 Quantities per improvement plans prepared by Zumwalt-Hansen & Associates dated April 19, 2022. 4 Cost per developer agreement with Lennar Homes.
City Municipal Code Section 15.48.050 provides developers with a credit for impact fees and/or refund for costs associated with oversizing of transportation system facilities over what is needed to serve their development.
MTPA# 2508967
Start Date:
Subcontractor:
Contact Name: Cynthia Cantu
Phone: 559.346.0660
Fax: 559.346.0626
W.O. Requestor:
Date:
Quantity Price Unit Amount
3540 15.10 Lf. 53,454.00
3480 6.25 Lf. 21,750.00
800 11.60 Lf. 9,280.00
2880 8.80 Lf. 25,344.00
920 15.50 Lf. 14,260.00
6360 7.70 Lf. 48,972.00
560 10.75 Lf. 6,020.00
-
-
-
-
-
179,080.00$
Date Date
ASAP
[email protected]:
2" Cable/ATT Sleeve
1/20/2022
3351
30 3351
3351
3351
Fax: (559) 447-3404
3351
SCOPE DESCRIPTION
JDE Number:
11/2" Edison
Work Order #
Days to Complete:
EXPLANATION
Browning Contractors Inc., has been requested to furnish labor, materials and equipment for utility crossings sleeves for Savannah at 13th Ave and Stage Coach Drive at Tract 927 in the city of Lemoore.
Ph: (559) 437-4200
Date Prepared:
2" Gas Sleeve
Tract Description:
Trench Crossing Only 3351
FRESNO, TULARE, KINGS &
MERCED COUNTY
Work Order Authorization
8080 North Palm Avenue Ste 110
Fresno, CA 93711
18839
4" Gas Sleeve
4" Cable/ATT Sleeve 3351
Accounting Use Only
BACKCHARGE INFO:
Amount To Back charge:
Work Order Accepted By
Back charge To:
Amount
179,080.00$
1122502
Savannah Tract 927
927
Browning Contractors, Inc
Tract Number:
3" Edison
Description Cost Code
Cost Code
1122502.1300.
Work Order Approved By
TOTAL:
Approved By / Date
DocuSign Envelope ID: 58F85905-B62C-47C6-8276-02CC1F1FED65 1/20/2022
Clif Williamson
1/21/2022
1/21/2022
BROWNING CONTRACTORS INC.
2914 N. Argyle Ave.
FRESNO, CA 93727
(559)346-0660 PH (559)346-0626 FAX
Date: 10/15/2021 Page 1
LENNAR PROPOSAL
Re: Tract No. 927 (13th Ave and Stage Coach Drive) Crossing Hanford, CA
In response to your invitation to bid on the installation of improvements to the project listed above, we are pleased to submit the following proposal. Bid good for Thirty Days.
We will furnish all labor, materials, equipment and insurance for the unit prices listed below.
Bid subject to change per approved plans.
Crossing
Item Description Bid Quant. Unit Price Total
1 Trench Crossing Only 3,540 L.F. $15.10 $53,454.00
2 1 1/2" Edison 3,480 L.F. $6.25 $21,750.00
3 3" Edison 800 L.F. $11.60 $9,280.00
4 2" Gas Sleeve 2,880 L.F. $8.80 $25,344.00
5 4" Gas Sleeve 920 L.F. $15.50 $14,260.00
6 2" Cable/ ATT Sleeve 6,360 L.F. $7.70 $48,972.00
7 4" Cable/ ATT Sleeve 560 L.F. $10.75 $6,020.00
Crossing Total $179,080.00
Total Bid Proposal $179,080.00
Continued on Page 2
BROWNING CONTRACTORS INC.
2914 N. Argyle Ave.
FRESNO, CA 93727
(559)346-0660 PH (559)346-0626 FAX
Conditions of Contract
1) The terms of this proposal shall become an integral part of the subcontract agreement and shall govern over any conflicting language.
2) Prices do not include any engineering, staking or compaction tests. 3) Prices do not include any permit or connection fees. 4) Prices do not include any removal of excess spoils from job site. 5) Quite often our company is called upon to repair miscellaneous (Utilities). These damages are caused by any number of different workers or subcontractors. Our billing on this type of extra work is to the owner for payment.
It is the owners responsibility to charge and collect from the subcontractor who caused the damages. 6) Bid does not include water pumping and ditch cleaning due to weather. 7) Bid does not include bores.
8) Bid does not include sewer and storm drain camera when boring for PGE gas. 9) Bid does not include conduit for crossings if needed. 10) Bid based on finish grade to be plus or minus .2 of finish grade. 11) Browning Contractors Inc. is not responsible for stolen material. If material is taken off of the job site without our permission the replacement cost will be billed to the developer. If materials were previously installed the replacement will include time and materials.
12) Bid does not include barrier posts.
13) Bid does not include curb & gutter demo or replacement. 14) Cost of completion or performance bond is not included. 15) If any hazardous waste material are encountered during construction (including asbestos material), all work will stop until a price is negotiated for the removal and disposal of all hazardous waste material following the rules and regulations set fourth by state, EPA, Cal OSHA or any other governmental agency. 16) All work to be done to (City of Hanford/PGE) standards. Any omissions or errors in the plans, or changes as a result of field engineering will require a bid adjustment. 17) Bid includes dust control for those areas directly affected by Browning Contractors, Inc. All other areas are the responsibility of the owner.
18) Bid does not include concrete or landscape repair if needed. 19) Browning Contractors, Inc. is not responsible for recertification of building pads that were certified prior to installation of underground facilities.
20) Bid does not include extra work needed for subsurface vaults in corrosive soil. 21) Bid does not include any site excavation fencing.
22) Bid does not include restroom facilities. To be provided by General Contractor to OSHA standards. 23) Bid does not include any site excavation protection, including but not limited to site excavation fencing, signs, cones, caution tape, etc., for any areas outside of tie-in points. 24) PG&E does not issue "Acceptance Letters." Energizing of a project is PG&E method of acceptance. Once the project is energized, Browning Contractors holds the right to bill retention. The following is taken from the Rule 15 tariff:
"SUBSTRUCTURES AND CONDUITS. Furnishing, installing, and upon acceptance by PG&E, conveying to PG&E ownership of all necessary installed Substructures and Conduits, including Feeder Conduits and related Substructures required to extend to and within subdivisions and developments.” 25) Bid does not include any pole handling that may incur during the installation of our facilities. 26) Bid is not based on any major traffic control unless specified in bid. 27) No tree removal or protection of existing.
28) Bid is based on non-prevailing wages.
29) Bid is based on using 3/4" bedding for all utility substructures. 30) Temporary patch paving is based on width and length needed to install facilities or other BCI work. 31) Bid does not include permanent patch pave and may incur additional costs dependent on city's recommendation. 32) Bid does not include working space pad for pedestals. 33) Bid does not include bell holes and purge points
34) Bid is based on a standard Pedestal 26-100 w/2 breakers Signature: Date:
Name:
Title:
83410 Lennar Corporation 4 FRESNO ****************S I T E**************** 01/20/22 FNLSITE2A Site Development Costs 08:16:03 G832CAL 3 FNLSITE2
As of January 31, 2022
Original Budget Revised Total Non Cntrct Total Open Billed to Commitment Description Budget Revisions Budget Contracts Billed Committed Contracts Date Over/Under ---------------------------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- 11225 Clementine@Aerie Pointe-927-HA
1122502 Clementine@Aerie Pointe-9
1300.2008 Land Planning/Design 12,000.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1300.2011 Other Consultants 141,700.00 .00 141,700.00 68,962.00 .00 68,962.00 910.00 68,052.00 <72,738.00> 1300.2021 Generic Civil Engineeri 295,020.00 .00 300,415.75 300,415.75 .00 300,415.75 39,748.75 260,667.00 .00 1300.2080 Legal/Advocacy 1,000.00 .00 1,000.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 <1,000.00> 1300.2131 Generic Soils & Geology 63,404.00 .00 63,404.00 43,478.00 .00 43,478.00 24,767.00 18,711.00 <19,926.00> 1300.2475 Tract Map Fees 526,374.00 .00 526,374.00 .00 238,135.37 238,135.37 .00 238,135.37 <288,238.63> 1300.2551 Generic Excav. & Gradin 361,005.00 .00 189,812.28 189,812.28 .00 189,812.28 .00 189,812.28 .00 1300.2560 Miscellaneous Demolitio 40,407.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1300.2835 Miscellaneous-Sewer 270,946.00 .00 397,271.05 397,271.05 .00 397,271.05 58,080.00 339,191.05 .00 1300.2851 Generic Water 447,828.00 .00 378,574.60 378,574.60 .00 378,574.60 49,504.00 329,070.60 .00 1300.2980 Miscellaneous-Water 230,579.00 .00 238,982.50 238,982.50 .00 238,982.50 21,776.00 217,206.50 .00 1300.3001 Generic Storm Drains 404,888.00 .00 482,527.00 482,527.00 .00 482,527.00 38,837.50 443,689.50 .00 1300.3203 Generic Curbs & Gutters 465,372.00 .00 462,364.00 462,364.00 .00 462,364.00 458,914.40 3,449.60 .00 1300.3259 Mail Box Pads 31,185.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1300.3279 Generic Asphalt Paving 1,278,929.00 .00 684,422.20 684,422.20 .00 684,422.20 611,376.46 73,045.74 .00 1300.3300 Street Signs .00 .00 1,945.70 1,945.70 .00 1,945.70 .00 1,945.70 .00 1300.3330 Miscellaneous-Street Im 46,325.00 .00 46,325.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 <46,325.00> 1300.3351 Generic Utilities 1,286,168.00 .00 1,286,168.00 .00 53,482.67 53,482.67 .00 53,482.67 <1,232,685.33> 1300.3475 Miscellaneous-Utilities <20,460.00> .00 <20,460.00> .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 20,460.00 1300.3505 Block Walls 330,400.00 .00 541,726.00 541,726.00 .00 541,726.00 541,726.00 .00 .00 1300.3552 Generic Landscaping 240,405.00 .00 250,347.00 250,347.00 .00 250,347.00 235,200.00 15,147.00 .00 1300.3601 Generic Erosion Control 80,000.00 .00 102,973.00 102,973.00 .00 102,973.00 45,912.92 57,060.08 .00 1300.3615 Misc. Equipment Rentals .00 .00 6,000.00 6,000.00 .00 6,000.00 2,446.99 3,553.01 .00 1300.3775 Other .00 .00 451,603.12 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 <451,603.12> 1300.3800 Contingency-Corporate 653,347.00 .00 653,347.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 <653,347.00> --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- 1122502 Clementine@Aerie Pointe-9 7,186,822.00 .00 7,186,822.20 4,149,801.08 291,618.04 4,441,419.12 2,129,200.02 2,312,219.10 <2,745,403.08> --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- 11225 Clementine@Aerie Pointe-927-HA 7,186,822.00 .00 7,186,822.20 4,149,801.08 291,618.04 4,441,419.12 2,129,200.02 2,312,219.10 <2,745,403.08>
DAVIS & ROBERTS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
2310 TOLLHOUSE ROAD
CLOVIS, CALIF. 93611
CONTRACTORS LICENSE # 749744
PHONE # 559-325-7051 FAX # 559-325-7053
PROPOSAL
DATE : 04/07/22
SUBMITTED TO :LENNAR FRESNO, INC.
ATTENTION : CLIFF / DAVE
PROJECT : TRACT# 927 / HANFORD
OWNER: LENNAR FRESNO, INC.
ENGINEER / ARCHITECT : ZUMWALT HANSEN
ADDENDUM NOTED : NONE
CONSTRUCTION LENDER : UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME
WE HEREBY PROPOSE TO FURNISH & INSTALL ALL LABOR AND MATERIALS TO COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PER PLANS AND SPECIFICATION:
CONCRETE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
EASTSIDE OF MUSTANG
1) 550 LF CURB & GUTTER 27.00 LF $ 14,850.00
2) 2500 SF SIDEWALK 5.00 SF $ 12,500.00
3) 1 EA DRIVE APPROACH 2,200.00 EA $ 2,200.00
4) 1 LS OCIP AGREEMENT (-2%) -591.00 LS $ -591.00
TOTAL $ 28,959.00
12.H.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 2/7/2023 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT:
Authorization to execute a sub lease agreement, with Enterprise Fleet Management, for 11 Dodge Durangos for the Police Department use at approximate costs of $891,000 at $81,000 each ($56,000 for acquisition plus $25,000 for upfitting costs) with monthly lease payments for up to five years from vehicle replacement reserves.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to execute a sub lease agreement for 11 police Dodge Durangos with Enterprise Fleet Management for approximate cost of $891,000 at $81,000 each ($56,000 for acquisition plus $25,000 for upfitting costs) with monthly lease payments for up to five years from vehicle replacement reserves.
Recommended Motion: I move to authorize the City Manager to execute a sub lease agreement for 11 police vehicles with Enterprise Fleet Management for approximate costs of $891,000 at $81,000 each ($56,000 for acquisition plus $25,000 for upfitting costs) with monthly lease payments for up to five years from vehicle replacement reserves.
BACKGROUND:
The City has a Master Lease Agreement in place with Enterprise Fleet Management (Enterprise). In August 2022, Council authorized a Master Lease Agreement with Enterprise to assist the City in the purchase and acquisition of vehicles. This sub lease agreement request is for 11 police vehicles (pursuit rated) that have been identified by the Fleet Division and Police Department as needing replacement as soon as possible. Enterprise has access to a vast network of dealers and manufacturers in order to procure vehicles for the City and will utilize their large size and resources on the City's behalf to assist in procurement, upfitting and subsequently leasing them to the City for use as soon as possible.
It is best practice in cities around the nation to diversify fleet acquisition methods. Especially in the current environment of economic uncertainty, using the best acquisition options for each class of vehicle will enable the City to pursue the most economical replacement strategy. With the addition of the proposed lease equity acquisition option with Enterprise Fleet Management makes sense for the City in certain acquisitions such as light-duty fleet or vehicles that need to be at the newer part of their end of life to maintain peak performance (such as public safety vehicles).
The City's Vehicle Replacement Policy and has software that assists in assessing which vehicles are in need of replacement. Age is not always a main determining factor, hours of use and physical condition assessments are also factored in. When the Master Agreement with Enterprise Fleet
Management was authorized by the Council, staff brought a small group of five Police vehicles for consideration. These are now in final preparation before being in use. Staff also noted that this agreement with Enterprise would not fully replace all procurement of vehicles, and at this time the City is utilizing the agreement for replacement of police vehicles and assistance with fleet analysis and needs. As possible, Enterprise has been instructed to consider acquisition of vehicles from local vendors when looking at availability.
Dodge Durangos were selected in 2022 for replacement of traditional Dodge Charger vehicles that are being phased out of production. The proposed action is for 11 Dodge Durangos to replace 11, 2013 Dodge Chargers police vehicles. Upon authorization, staff will work immediately with Enterprise for the replacement of 11 vehicles, obtaining final quotes and acquiring any existing vehicles on lots.
The City will look with first look at local dealers, otherwise these will be factory ordered.
FISCAL IMPACT:
These vehicles will be paid for from existing funds (Fund 0448) set aside for vehicle replacement that has been budgeted over several years for new vehicles. These vehicles currently have adequate reserves for up to a $25,000 down payment, and the remainder of the costs will be paid in a lease payment for up to 60 months. Enterprise will work alongside the City in monitoring the activity on these vehicles and recommend when replacements should be considered again, in order to maximize the resale value and maintain efficient and well functioning vehicles. With this item's approval, staff will take accounting measures for the issuance of a Purchase Order for acquisition and account for these leased assets, as well as update the City's vehicle reserve amount for these vehicles, to include the lease payments and replacement.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Police Vehicle Comparison
YMMS
2023 Ford
Police Interceptor Utility
Base All-Wheel Drive
K8A
2023 Dodge
Durango
Pursuit 4dr All-Wheel Drive
WDEE75
2023 Ford
F-150 Police Responder
XL 4x4 5.5 ft. box 145 in. WB
W1P
Vehicle Type SUV Full Size SUV 1/2 Ton Pickup
Engine 3.3L V6 Direct-Injection Hybrid System 5.7L V8 HEMI MDS VVT 3.5L V6 EcoBoost EPA MPG City 15 14 17
EPA MPG Highway 22 22 23
Lease Term 60 Months 60 Months 60 Months
Annual Mileage 15,000 15,000 15,000
Acquisition Cost $62,036 $55,334 $63,590
Total Fuel Cost $21,354 $20,723 $18,533
Total Maintenance Cost $6,278 $6,278 $6,278
Monthly Payment with Tax (estimated) $895.22 $739.73 $931.28 RBV at Term $370 $303 $386
Vehicle Comparison
12.I.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 2/7/2023 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT:
Acceptance and authorization for staff to File the City of Hanford's Quarterly Investment Portfolio and Transactions Reports as of 12/31/2022
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
That the City Council accept the City of Hanford's Quarterly Investment Portfolio and Transactions Report.
BACKGROUND:
Quarterly Investment Report. The City has approximately $109 million in investments and cash as of 12/31/2022.
Recent Activity. The City actively maintains its Wells Fargo cash accounts at a minimum of $2.5 million while in the current period investing excess cash in securities where interest rates have been higher as compared to the Local Government Investment Pools. The interest rates on the investment pools range from 1.7-1.9% whereas securities with 1-3 year maturities have yields of 4.5-5.1% interest. A third broker, Multi-Bank Securities, was added to assist with the portfolio with just under $3 million in securities purchased. On an ongoing basis, securities which mature are quickly reinvested to avoid idle cash making little to no interest.
Current Investment Environment. Interest rates continued to increase over this period, with highs of 5% interest. At the policy meeting this week, the Federal Reserve is widely expected to announce its eighth consecutive rate hike. Officials will approve a 0.25% point increase as inflation starts to ease, a more modest pace compared with earlier super-size moves in 2022 (CNBC). The 10 year Treasury Note interest is currently at 3.54% interest, which has doubled since the same time last year, but still in a volatile state as seen this quarter.
Proposed Actions. With the preparation of the FY 2024 & 2025 biennial budget due to be approved in June, the Finance Department will invest in securities at a slower pace while investing in more liquid investments such as the Local Government Investment Pools. Until budget needs are thoroughly analyzed, conservative action in the portfolio appears to be the City's best plan for action.
Summary. The primary purpose of the City’s cash is to provide residents of Hanford with services. In order to maximize the earnings potential on the City’s idle cash, the City utilizes registered securities dealers to purchase low-risk investments which will provide a higher return versus allowing the cash to be held in savings accounts earning little to no interest. Additionally, idle cash is also held with government pools including Tulare County Investment Pool and State of CA LAIF. It is the policy of
the City to invest public funds in a manner that will provide a high investment return with a high level of security while meeting the daily cash flow demands of the entity and conforming to all state and local statutes governing the investment of public funds.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This item is informational. By investing City cash there will be continual interest earnings on the investment portfolio.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Quarterly Treasurer's Report 12.31.22
2. Quarterly Investment Detail Report 12.31.22
3. Quarterly Transactions Report 10.01.22-12.31.22
CITY OF HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Treasurer's Report
December 31, 2022
Performance
Weighted Average Yield 1.761%
Diversification | Security Sector % of Portfolio YTM @Cost Days to Maturity
Face Amount /
Shares Cost Value Market Value
Cash 4.40% 0.00% 1 4,746,695 4,746,695 4,746,695
Money Market 3.71% 0.01% 1 4,000,812 4,000,812 4,000,812 Local Government Investment Pool 70.31% 1.99% 1 75,824,049 75,824,049 75,824,049 Certificate of Deposit | Negotiable 10.23% 1.96% 520 11,427,000 11,427,000 11,032,269 Corporate Bonds 5.55% 0.80% 442 6,200,000 6,442,142 5,986,148 US Agency Bonds 5.79% 2.05% 739 6,575,000 6,575,000 6,248,082
99.99% 1.761% 121 108,773,555 109,015,697 107,838,053
4.40% 3.71%
70.31%
10.23%
5.55% 5.79%
12/31/2022
Cash
Money Market
Local Government Investment Pool
Certificate of Deposit | Negotiable
Corporate Bonds
US Agency Bonds
Description CUSIP/Ticker Security Sector Settlement Date YTM @ Cost Face Amount/Shares Cost Value Market Value Maturity Date Days To Mat urity % of Portfolio Morgan Stanley UT 2.65 1/25/2023 61747MH46 Certificate Of Deposit 1/25/2018 2.650 64,000.00 64,000.00 63,935.36 1/25/2023 25 0.06 Northstar Bank MI 1.15 3/31/2023 66704MEQ0 Certificate Of Deposit 3/31/2020 1.150 250,000.00 250,000.00 248,147.50 3/31/2023 90 0.23 Pacific Western Bank CA 1.2 4/17/2023 69506YRJ0 Certificate Of Deposit 4/16/2020 1.200 250,000.00 250,000.00 247,832.50 4/17/2023 107 0.2 3 Centerstate Bank FL 1.2 4/17/2023 15201QDC8 Certificate Of Deposit 4/17/2020 1.200 250,000.00 250,000.00 247,820.00 4/17/2023 107 0.23 Flagstar Bank MI 1.15 4/17/2023 33847E2Z9 Certificate Of Deposit 4/17/2020 1.150 250,000.00 250,000.00 247,782.50 4/17/2023 107 0.23 Nicolet National Bank WI 1.2 4/17/2023 654062KJ6 Certificate Of Deposit 4/17/2020 1.200 250,000.00 250,000.00 247,817.50 4/17/2023 107 0. 23 Morgan Stanley UT 3 4/19/2023 61747MV32 Certificate Of Deposit 4/19/2018 3.000 186,000.00 186,000.00 185,347.14 4/19/2023 109 0.17 BMW Bank UT 3 4/20/2023 05580AMJ0 Certificate Of Deposit 4/20/2018 3.000 250,000.00 250,000.00 249,115.00 4/20/2023 110 0.23 West Michigan Bank MI 1 4/24/2023 954444BW4 Certificate Of Deposit 4/24/2020 1.000 250,000.00 250,000.00 247,507.50 4/24/2023 114 0.23 Sterling Bank MO 1.05 4/27/2023 85916VDR3 Certificate Of Deposit 4/27/2020 1.050 250,000.00 250,000.00 247,485.00 4/27/2023 117 0.23 Morthwest Bank ID 1 4/28/2023 66736ABS7 Certificate Of Deposit 4/30/2020 1.000 250,000.00 250,000.00 247,392.50 4/28/2023 118 0.23 Pinnacle Bank TN 0.7 5/8/2023 72345SKU4 Certificate Of Deposit 5/8/2020 0.700 250,000.00 250,000.00 246,930.00 5/8/2023 128 0.23 UBS Bank UT 3.15 5/30/2023 90348JCR9 Certificate Of Deposit 5/30/2018 3.150 249,000.00 249,000.00 247,899.42 5/30/2023 150 0.23 Nebraska State Bank NE 1 9/29/2023 63970BAK5 Certificate Of Deposit 3/30/2020 1.000 250,000.00 250,000.00 243,462.50 9/29/2023 272 0.23 Citbank National SD 3.55 11/24/2023 17312QW47 Certificate Of Deposit 11/23/2018 3.550 250,000.00 250,000.00 247,690.00 11/24/2023 328 0.2 3 Live Oak Bank 0.5 12/11/2023 538036TF1 Certificate Of Deposit 12/10/2021 0.500 250,000.00 250,000.00 240,447.50 12/11/2023 345 0.23 Greenstate Credit Union 0.5 7/30/2024 39573LBQ0 Certificate Of Deposit 7/30/2021 0.500 250,000.00 250,000.00 234,295.00 7/30/2024 577 0.2 3 Texas Exchange Bank TX 0.5 7/30/2024 88241TLS7 Certificate Of Deposit 7/30/2021 0.500 249,000.00 249,000.00 233,352.84 7/30/2024 577 0.23 Pentagon Federal Credit Union 0.55 9/30/2024 70962LAR3 Certificate Of Deposit 9/29/2021 0.550 250,000.00 250,000.00 232,945.00 9/30/202 4 639 0.23 Sallie Mae Bank UT 1.9 10/30/2024 7954504Z5 Certificate Of Deposit 10/30/2019 1.900 100,000.00 100,000.00 95,285.00 10/30/2024 669 0.09 Horizon Bk 4.75 11/8/2024 44042WCG0 Certificate Of Deposit 11/8/2022 4.750 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,642.50 11/8/2024 678 0.23 Capital Bank 4.65 11/8/2024 139805AX3 Certificate Of Deposit 11/9/2022 4.650 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,200.00 11/8/2024 678 0.23 Synchrony Bank 0.9 12/10/2024 87165HK41 Certificate Of Deposit 12/10/2021 0.900 250,000.00 250,000.00 232,925.00 12/10/2024 710 0.23 First National Bank TX 1.8 12/30/2024 32112UDJ7 Certificate Of Deposit 12/30/2019 1.800 250,000.00 250,000.00 236,632.50 12/30/2024 730 0 .23 Merrick Bank UT 1.85 12/31/2024 59013KEP7 Certificate Of Deposit 12/31/2019 1.850 250,000.00 250,000.00 236,870.00 12/31/2024 731 0.23 Citadel Federal PA 1.65 2/27/2025 17286TAG0 Certificate Of Deposit 2/27/2020 1.650 250,000.00 250,000.00 234,875.00 2/27/2025 789 0.23 BMO Harris Bank IL 0.5 3/28/2025-21 05600XAY6 Certificate Of Deposit 9/28/2020 0.500 249,000.00 249,000.00 227,379.33 3/28/2025 818 0.23 Insight4.6 5/2/2025 45791JAA4 Certificate Of Deposit 11/2/2022 4.600 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,047.50 5/2/2025 853 0.23 Jonesboro State Bank LA 0.8 5/29/2025-20 48040PGX7 Certificate Of Deposit 5/29/2020 0.800 249,000.00 249,000.00 227,454.03 5/29/2025 880 0.23 Continental Bank UT 0.55 6/26/2025 211163KK5 Certificate Of Deposit 6/26/2020 0.550 175,000.00 175,000.00 158,522.00 6/26/2025 908 0.16 State Bank of India GA 0.95 6/26/2025 856283N69 Certificate Of Deposit 6/26/2020 0.950 250,000.00 250,000.00 227,362.50 6/26/2025 908 0.2 3 Partners Bank AK 0.6 6/30/2025 70212VAB4 Certificate Of Deposit 6/30/2020 0.600 250,000.00 250,000.00 226,472.50 6/30/2025 912 0.23 Bank Baroda NY 0.65 7/22/2025 06063HMT7 Certificate Of Deposit 7/22/2020 0.650 198,000.00 198,000.00 179,348.40 7/22/2025 934 0.18 Luana Savings Bank IA 0.45 7/29/2025 549104RJ8 Certificate Of Deposit 7/29/2020 0.450 250,000.00 250,000.00 225,080.00 7/29/2025 941 0.23 Medallion Bank UT 0.55 7/30/2025 58404DHQ7 Certificate Of Deposit 7/30/2020 0.550 250,000.00 250,000.00 225,442.50 7/30/2025 942 0.23 Enerbank UT 0.5 8/29/2025 29278TRA0 Certificate Of Deposit 8/31/2020 0.500 245,000.00 245,000.00 219,931.60 8/29/2025 972 0.23 First Choice Bank CA 0.4 9/30/2025-21 319461DB2 Certificate Of Deposit 9/30/2020 0.400 249,000.00 249,000.00 222,117.96 9/30/2025 1,004 0 .23 Capital One 4.8 11/3/2025 14042RVH1 Certificate Of Deposit 11/2/2022 4.800 250,000.00 250,000.00 251,445.00 11/3/2025 1,038 0.23 Direct Federal CDT Union 4.7 11/3/2025 25460FDU7 Certificate Of Deposit 11/3/2022 4.700 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,805.00 11/3/2025 1,038 0.23 United Heritage 4.75 11/4/2025 91334AAE3 Certificate Of Deposit 11/4/2022 4.750 250,000.00 250,000.00 251,140.00 11/4/2025 1,039 0.23 Caterpillar Financial 3.75 12/24/2023 14912L5X5 Corporate 11/23/2020 0.466 1,000,000.00 1,100,500.00 989,940.00 12/24/2023 358 0.92 Toyota Motor Credit 0.45 1/11/2024 89236THU2 Corporate 9/20/2021 0.450 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 956,610.00 1/11/2024 376 0.92 Citibank NA 3.65 1/23/2024-23 17325FAS7 Corporate 5/22/2020 1.183 1,000,000.00 1,088,310.00 986,250.00 1/23/2024 388 0.92 John Deer Capital 2.6 3/7/2024 24422EUX5 Corporate 5/15/2020 1.160 700,000.00 737,464.00 681,877.00 3/7/2024 432 0.64 Bank of New York Mellon 1.6 4/24/2025-25 06406RAN7 Corporate 5/13/2020 1.216 1,000,000.00 1,018,368.00 929,190.00 4/24/2025 845 0.92 FHLB 0.5 9/24/2024-21 3130ALKN3 US Agency 3/24/2021 0.500 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,855,820.00 9/24/2024 633 1.84 FHLB 0.5 10/4/2024-22 3130AP4G7 US Agency 10/4/2021 0.500 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 926,940.00 10/4/2024 643 0.92 FHLB 0.57 10/15/2024-22 3130ALWW0 US Agency 4/15/2021 0.570 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 927,080.00 10/15/2024 654 0.92 FHLB Step 1/27/2025-22 3130AQML4 US Agency 1/27/2022 1.370 325,000.00 325,000.00 304,700.50 1/27/2025 758 0.30 Sub Total / Average Brokerage | Higgins Capital 1.254 18,488,000.00 18,732,642.00 17,645,590.58 563 17.00 Sunset Science Park FCU 5 12/14/2023 86777TAA4 Certificate Of Deposit 12/14/2022 5.000 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,885.00 12/14/2023 348 0. 23 Trustone Financial CU 5 12/14/2023 89841MAM9 Certificate Of Deposit 12/14/2022 5.000 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,885.00 12/14/2023 348 0.23 IC Federal Credit Union 5 6/10/2024 44931EAD3 Certificate Of Deposit 12/9/2022 5.000 240,000.00 240,000.00 241,274.40 6/10/2024 527 0.22 Liberty Fed Credit Union 4.9 12/9/2024 53052LAE9 Certificate Of Deposit 12/9/2022 4.900 250,000.00 250,000.00 251,382.50 12/9/2024 709 0. 23 FHLB 5 12/12/2024 3130ATXG7 US Agency 12/12/2022 5.000 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 999,580.00 12/12/2024 712 0.92 FFCB 4.92 1/12/2026 3133ENR77 US Agency 12/7/2022 4.920 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 996,730.00 1/12/2026 1,108 0.92 Sub Total / Average Brokerage | Multi-Bank Securities 4.965 2,990,000.00 2,990,000.00 2,990,736.90 768 2.75 Wells Fargo Securities MM WFMM5968 Money Market 11/3/2021 3.700 673.84 673.84 673.84 N/A 1 0.00 Cumberland Fed Bank 0.2 3/3/2023 23062KDQ2 Certificate Of Deposit 12/3/2021 0.200 250,000.00 250,000.00 248,295.69 3/3/2023 62 0.23 Israel Discount Bank 0.45 6/12/2023 465076SW8 Certificate Of Deposit 11/24/2021 0.450 250,000.00 250,000.00 245,769.10 6/12/2023 163 0.23 State Bank of India 0.55 11/29/2023 856285YX3 Certificate Of Deposit 11/29/2021 0.550 250,000.00 250,000.00 240,994.24 11/29/2023 333 0.2 3 Goldman Sachs 0.6 12/15/2023 38149MQ22 Certificate Of Deposit 12/15/2021 0.600 224,000.00 224,000.00 215,599.67 12/15/2023 349 0.21 IADB 0.25 11/15/2023 4581X0DP0 Corporate 11/24/2021 0.586 500,000.00 496,710.00 480,315.00 11/15/2023 319 0.46 IFC 0.61 11/24/2023 45950VQS8 Corporate 11/24/2021 0.570 1,000,000.00 1,000,790.00 961,965.70 11/24/2023 328 0.92 FHLB 2.3 3/28/2025-22 3130AREM9 US Agency 3/28/2022 2.300 250,000.00 250,000.00 237,231.36 3/28/2025 818 0.23 Sub Total / Average Brokerage | Wells Fargo Securities 0.688 2,724,673.84 2,722,173.84 2,630,844.60 334 2.50 Local Agency Investment Fund LGIP LAIF6352 Local Government Investment Pool 2/28/2009 2.173 22,739,666.23 22,739,666.23 22,739,666.23 N /A 1 20.91 Sub Total / Average LGIP | LAIF 2.173 22,739,666.23 22,739,666.23 22,739,666.23 1 20.91 City of Hanford
Quarterly Investment Detail Report
As of 12/31/2022
Brokerage | Higgins Capital
Brokerage | Multi-Bank Securities
Brokerage | Wells Fargo Securities
LGIP | LAIF
Tulare County Pool LGIP TULARE860 Local Government Investment Pool 5/5/2017 1.907 53,084,382.51 53,084,382.51 53,084,382.51 N/A 1 48.80 Sub Total / Average LGIP | Tulare County 1.907 53,084,382.51 53,084,382.51 53,084,382.51 1 48.80 Umpqua MM MM7248 Money Market 8/19/2022 0.010 4,000,137.96 4,000,137.96 4,000,137.96 N/A 1 3.68 Sub Total / Average Umpqua Bank 0.010 4,000,137.96 4,000,137.96 4,000,137.96 1 3.68 US Bank Cash USBANK Cash 10/31/2022 0.000 755,648.81 755,648.81 755,648.81 N/A 1 0.69 Sub Total / Average US Bank Custodian | Fixed Assets 0.000 755,648.81 755,648.81 755,648.81 1 0.69 Wells Fargo | General Account Cash WFGENERAL5186 Cash 10/31/2007 0.000 88,270.00 88,270.00 88,270.00 N/A 1 0.08 Wells Fargo | Self Insurance Cash WFSELFINS1892 Cash 6/30/2020 0.000 171,431.10 171,431.10 171,431.10 N/A 1 0.16 Wells Fargo | Sweep Cash WFSWEEP5186 Cash 6/30/2020 0.000 3,731,344.60 3,731,344.60 3,731,344.60 N/A 1 3.43 Sub Total / Average Wells Fargo | Operating Accounts 0.000 3,991,045.70 3,991,045.70 3,991,045.70 1 3.67 Total / Average 1.752 108,773,555.05 109,015,697.05 107,838,053.29 126 100 Umpqua Bank
US Bank Custodian | Fixed Assets
Wells Fargo | Operating Accounts
LGIP | Tulare Count
y
Description CUSIP/Ticker Settlement Date Face Amount/Shares Principal Interest/Dividends Total Portfolio Name Capital Bank 4.65 11/8/2024 139805AX3 11/9/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Higgins Capital Capital One 4.8 11/3/2025 14042RVH1 11/2/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Higgins Capital Direct Federal CDT Union 4.7 11/3/2025 25460FDU7 11/3/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Higgins Capital FFCB 4.92 1/12/2026 3133ENR77 12/7/2022 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 7,516.67 1,007,516.67 Brokerage | Multi-Bank Securities FHLB 5 12/12/2024 3130ATXG7 12/12/2022 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 Brokerage | Multi-Bank Securities Horizon Bk 4.75 11/8/2024 44042WCG0 11/8/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Higgins Capital IC Federal Credit Union 5 6/10/2024 44931EAD3 12/9/2022 240,000.00 240,000.00 0.00 240,000.00 Brokerage | Multi-Bank Securities Insight4.6 5/2/2025 45791JAA4 11/2/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Higgins Capital Liberty Fed Credit Union 4.9 12/9/2024 53052LAE9 12/9/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Multi-Bank Securities Sunset Science Park FCU 5 12/14/2023 86777TAA4 12/14/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Multi-Bank Securities Trustone Financial CU 5 12/14/2023 89841MAM9 12/14/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Multi-Bank Securities United Heritage 4.75 11/4/2025 91334AAE3 11/4/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Higgins Capital Bank of China/NY 0.2 11/29/2022 06428FUY1 11/29/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Wells Fargo Securities Bank of India NY 0.2 11/25/2022 06279KU38 11/25/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Wells Fargo Securities CD Bank of Ruston 2.3 12/29/2022 06427LCH6 12/29/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Higgins Capital Genoa Banking OH 2.25 12/29/2022 372348BY7 12/29/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Higgins Capital Goldman Sacs NY 2.3 10/11/2022 38148PRA7 10/11/2022 200,000.00 200,000.00 0.00 200,000.00 Brokerage | Higgins Capital IFC 2 10/24/2022-22 45950VLH7 10/24/2022 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 Brokerage | Wells Fargo Securities Safra Natl Bank 0.2 11/23/2022 78658RGA3 11/23/2022 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 Brokerage | Wells Fargo Securities Wells Fargo NV 1.85 12/30/2022 949495AF2 12/30/2022 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.00 245,000.00 Brokerage | Higgins Capital Local Agency Investment Fund LGIP LAIF6352 12/2/2022 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 LGIP | LAIF Local Agency Investment Fund LGIP LAIF6352 10/10/2022 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 LGIP | LAIF Buy
Matured
Withdraw
10/01/22-12/31/22
City of Hanford
Quarterly Transactions Report
CITY OF HANFORD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
Tuesday, February 7, 2023
PROJECT: Annexation No. 160, Part 4: A proposal to annex approximately 93.2 +/ - acres into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction.
Prezone No. 2021-09: A proposal to prezone Annexation 160 Area 4 a combination of R -L-5 Low-Density Residential and MX -C Corridor Mixed Use, in accordance with the General Plan designation for the area – Low- Density Residential and Corridor Mixed Use.
CEQA Determination: The project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Categorical Exemption C lass 19 (Annexation of areas containing existing public or private structures developed to the density allowed by the current prezoning) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15319(a), and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). A Notice of Exemption has been prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA
LOCATION: The project is generally located east of 10th Avenue, S outh of Florinda Street, North of Lacey Boulevard.
PLANNER: Gabrielle Myers, Senior Planner
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council
1. Adopt the Notice of Exemption, in accordance with CEQA.
2. Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance 23-02, approving Prezone No. 2021-09.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 23-02-R, initiating proceedings for Annexation 160 (Part 4) and direct staff to file the appropriate forms with the Kings County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).
RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move to:
1. Adopt the Notice of Exemption, in accordance with CEQA.
2. Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance 23-02, approving Prezone No. 2021-09.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 23-02-R, initiating proceedings for Annexation 160 (Part 4) and direct staff to file the appropriate forms with the Kings County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In 2021, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) of Kings County approved the annexation of seven separate county islands into the City of Hanford. One fully surrounded county island remains, known as Island #4.
Figure 1: County Islands (all 8)
Annexation No. 160, Part 4
Annexation No. 160, Part 4 is a proposal to annex approximately 93.2 +/- acres into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction.
Figure 2: Propose Annexation Area #4
A map of the proposed Annexation 160 area, Part 4 is attached – Attachment 1.
Prezone No. 2021-09
Prezone No. 2021-0 9 is a request to prezone Island #4 , as R-L-5 Low-Density Residential and MX-C Corridor Mixed Use, in accordance with the General Plan land use designation for the island, Low Density Residential and Corridor Mixed Use.
Figure 3: Proposed Prezone Area #4
General Plan Designation – Low Density Residential and Corridor Mixed Use Proposed Prezoning to Low Density Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. min. (R-L-5) and MX-C Corridor Mixed Use
Project Location #4 East Hanford
County island #4 includes 172 parcels located east of 10th Avenue, South of Florinda, North of Lacey Boulevard. The assessor’s parcel numbers (APNs) are:
014-184-003 through -009
014-185-020 through -035
014-185-400
014-186-002 through -030
014-186-035
014-186-037 through -039
014-191-002 through -019
014-192-002 through -006
014-192-008
014-192-012
014-192-013
014-192-015
014-192-016
014-193-001 through -016
014-201-003
014-201-007
014-201-009 through -011
014-202-001
014-202-004 through -006
014-203-002 through -006
014-204-001
014-204-002
014-204-004 through -006
014-204-008
014-205-001 through -005
014-206-004 through -007
014-211-002
014-211-016
014-211-020
014-211-021
014-211-025
014-212-001 through -004
014-212-006
014-212-013 through -022
014-213-001 through -005
014-213-009
014-221-007 through -009
014-221-012
014-221-015
014-221-017 through -019
014-221-021
014-221-022
014-221-026
014-221-033
014-221-036
014-221-037
014-221-040
014-221-0
Existing Land Use #4 East Hanford
The existing land uses are urban residential, rural residential, commercial, and vacant land within the County boundary. All 172 parcels are within City Urban Development and the Sphere of Influence. The City considers this area as Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Corridor Mixed Use per City of Hanford 2035 General Plan. There are a total of 172 lots with 125 developed residential structures and average parcel sizes are approximately 0.46 acres with a few large 14 acre lots.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
General Plan Land Use Designations
The General Plan designates Island #4 as Low-Density Residential and Corridor Mixed Use.
The following policies apply to the Low-Density Residential designation.
3.4.1 Low Density Residential
The expected density range for Low Density Residential is 2 to 10 units per gross acre with an expected average of 4 units per gross acre.
Policy L31 Purpose of the Low-Density Residential Land Use Designation
Establish the Low-Density Residential land use designation to provide mainly single-family development on lot sizes typically found in urban settings.
Policy L32 Typical Uses in the Low-Density Residential Land Use Designation
Define the uses allowed in the Low-Density Residential land use designation to include residential uses in a variety of single-family lot types. Duplexes, second dwelling units, and home occupations can also be allowed when made compatible with the residential nature of the neighborhood.
Policy L33 Size of Lots in the Low-Density Residential Land Use Designation
While it is recognized that existing lot sizes of 10,000 to 40,000 square feet are included in this designation, new individual lot sizes shall range from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet in size. Under Planned Unit Development provisions, smaller lot sizes at higher densities may be permitted when clustered around shared open space amenities or through density bonus policies.
The following policies apply to the Corridor Mixed Use designation.
3.6.2 Corridor Mixed Use
Policy L65 Purpose of Corridor Mixed Use Land Use Designation
Establish the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation to promote a mix of commercial, office, and multifamily residential uses along transportation corridors at a scale compatible with adjacent
ANX 160, Part 4
PRZ 2021-09
residential neighborhood, with the intent of creating a pedestrian -friendly environment that encourages walking between uses.
Policy L66 Typical Uses in Corridor Mixed Use Land Use Designation
Define the uses allowed in the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation to include small - and medium scale commercial providing primarily day -to-day goods and services, office, and multi - family dwellings along with horizontal and vertical mixed-use developments that include these uses. Typical uses include duplexes, townhomes, apartments, markets, small retail shops, eating establishments, offices, service stations, medical and dental offices, convenience stores, dry cleaning and laundry services, beauty salons, and other similar uses. Both vertical and horizontal mixed-use developments are encouraged.
Policy L67 Design of the Corridor Mixed Use Land Use Designation
Require that new development projects and major site reconfigurations in the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation provide site layouts, buildings, landscaping, and walkways that are designed to encourage pedestri an access on the site and between adjacent sites. Strongly encourage buildings to be located near the street corridor with parking to the side of or behind buildings.
Annexation Policies
The General Plan also has policies regarding annexation of land into the city limits. The Planning Commission is charged with reviewing proposed annexations and making a finding that the proposed annexation is consistent with the policies of the General Plan, and then forward that finding to the City Council. The Planning Commission found Annexation 160, Part 4 consistent with the Hanford General Plan Policies L15, L16, and L17 at their meeting on January 10, 2023.
Policy L15 Initiation of Annexations
Consider initiation of annexation of land into the City of Hanford only when the following criteria are met:
1. The land is within the Primary Sphere of Influence.
2. The capacity of the water, sewer, fire, school, and police services are adequate to service the area to be annexed or will be adequate at the time that development occurs.
3. Land for development within the City limits is insufficient to meet the current land use needs.
4. The territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing developed areas.
Policy L16 County Islands
Initiate annexation of County islands when it is found that urban services are needed and can be provided or made available in the near future.
Policy L17 Plan for Services
Prepare and make publicly available a written Plan for Services that describes how urban services will be provided prior to initiating an annexation.
ANX 160, Part 4
PRZ 2021-09
State Law
To facilitate the annexation of county islands to contiguous cities, the state legislature has adopted specific provisions in the Government Code that require LAFCo annexation approval and waiver of protest proceedings if LAFCo makes certain findings and determinations. Those determinations are found in Government Codes 56375(a)(4) and 56375.3.
Government Code Section 56375
(a)(4) A commission shall not disapprove an annexation to a city, initiated by resolution, of contiguous territory that the commission finds any of the following:
(A) Surrounded or substantially surrounded by the city to which the annexation is proposed or by that city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean if the territory to be annexed is substantially developed or developing, is not prime agricultural land as defined in Section 56064, is designated for urban growth by the general plan of the annexing city and is not within the sphere of influence of another city. (B) Located within an urban service area that has been delineated and adopted by a commission, which is not prime agricultural land, as defined by Section 56064, and is designated for urban growth by the general plan of the annexing city. (C) An annexation or reorganization of unincorporated islands meeting the requirements of Section 56375.3.
Government Code Section 56375.3
(a) In addition to those powers enumerated in Section 56375, a commission shall approve, after noti ce and hearing, the change of organization or reorganization of a city, and waive protest proceedings pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 57000) entirely, if all of the following are true:
(1) The change of organization or reorganization is initiated on or after January 1, 2000.
(2) The change of organization or reorganization is proposed by resolution adopted by the affected city.
(3) The commission finds that the territory contained in the change of organization or reorganization proposal meets all the requirements set forth in subdivision (b). (b) Subdivision (a) applies to territory that meets all the following requirements:
(1) It does not exceed 150 acres in area, and that area constitutes the entire island. (2) The territory constitutes an entire unincorporated island located within the limits of a city or constitutes a reorganization containing several individual unincorporated islands.
(3) It is surrounded in either of the following ways:
(A) Surrounded, or substantially surrounded, by the city to which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean. (B) Surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed and adjacent cities. (4) It is substantially developed or developing. The finding required by this paragraph shall be based upon one or more factors, including, but not limited to, any of the following factors:
ANX 160, Part 4
PRZ 2021-09
(A) The availability of public utility services.
(B) The presence of public improvements.
(C) The presence of physical improvements upon the parcel or parcels within the area.
(5) It is not prime agricultural land, as defined by Section 56064. (6) It will benefit from the change of organization or reorganization or is receiving benefits from the annexing city.
(7) This subdivision does not apply to any unincorporated island within a city that is a gated community where services are currently provided by a community services district.
While the final determination will be made by LAFCo, City staff believes that the proposed island annexation meets all the requirements in these two State codes. This means that, if initiated by the City Council, there is a high likelihood that Kings LAFCo will approve the annexations.
Planning Commission Hearing
The annexation and prezone requests were presented to the Planning Commission on January 10, 2023.
The Planning Commission voted 4,0 on all items to:
1. Recommend adoption of the Notice of Exemption, in accordance with CEQA, to the City Council.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-01, recommending approval of Prezone No. 2021-09 to the City Council.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-02, finding the proposed Annexation No. 160, Part 41 through 8, except part 7, is consistent with the Hanford General Plan Policies L15, L16, and L17 and forward Annexation No. 160, Parts 1 through 8, except part 7, to the City Council, with a recommendation that an application be made to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Kings County.
Public Comment(s) during the public comment portion included the following:
Favor:
Onan Champi –owner of 10 parcels within the annexation area. He was in favor of the annexation, but he was concerned that the prezone would be more restrictive than Kings County zoning. He was not in favor of that
Kurt Lavenson and Lesly Avedisian - Written comments received and distributed (Attachment 2)
Opposed:
None
ANX 160, Part 4
PRZ 2021-09
A copy of the minutes from the January 10, 2023 Planning Commission meeting are attached – Attachment 3.
PROJECT EVALUATION
Annexation No. 160, Part 4
The project is a request to annex the county island into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction. The premise and guidance for the proposal is given by State law, which finds that county islands should generally be annexed into a city so they may receive more efficient delivery of services, as a city is usually more equipped to provide urban level services than a county or other entity.
Annexation of land into Hanford allows previously undeveloped land to become available for development and allows the City of Hanford to provide the territory that is annexed with its full range of City services. However, in this case, the land within the county i sland is already developed and receives some of the City’s services.
The General Plan also has policies regarding annexation of land into the city limits. The Planning Commission found that Annexation 160, Part 4 is consistent with the Hanford General Plan Policies L15, L16, and L17 at their meeting on January 10, 2023.
Policy L15 Initiation of Annexations
Consider initiation of annexation of land into the City of Hanford only when the following criteria are met:
1. The land is within the Primary Sphere of Influence.
Analysis: The island is within the Primary Sphere of Influence.
2. The capacity of the water, sewer, fire, school, and police services are adequate to service the area to be annexed or will be adequate at the time that development occurs.
Analysis: A Municipal Services Review was conducted for the Sphere of Influence Expansion and 8-Island Annexations – attached as Attachment 4. Table 1 shows which services are currently being provided by the City or the County.
ANX 160, Part 4
PRZ 2021-09
Table 1
Current Island Annexation Service Providers
Municipal Service
Type
Island Annexation #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Law Enforcement County County County County County County County County Fire / Emergency Service County County County County County County County County Water Supply Private City City City City City City Private Water Distribution Private City City City City City City Private Wastewater Collection Private City City City City City City Private Wastewater Disposal Private City City City City City City Private Solid Waste Collection* County County County County County County County County Flood Control/Drainage County County County County County County County County Street Maintenance County County County County County County County County Street Lighting County County County County County County County County Parks and Recreation County County County County County County County County Source: 2017 Water System Master Plan, 2017 Sewer System Master Plan, 2017 Storm Drain Master Plan City of Hanford, and 2035 City of Hanford General Plan * Solid waste collection in the County islands is currently optional.
Water
The City currently supplies and distributes water to the county island proposed to be annexed.
Sewer
The City currently provides wastewater collection and disposal service to the county island proposed to be annexed.
Fire and Police
The County is currently responsible for police, emergency, and fire protection of the eight County islands proposed to be annexed. The population of these islands is 1,293.
The Police Department’s current staffing ratio is 1.09 officers per 1,000 residents. The General Plan Background Report suggests a ratio of 1.1 to 1.2 is appropriate for similar cities of the size of Hanford. A nnexation of the County islands will result in an increase in population of 1,293 persons who will need to be served by the City’s Police Department. This would increase the total population to 58,203. The ratio will then be 1.06 officers per 1,000 residents. The Police Department would need to hire 3 new officers to reach a ratio of 1.1 officers per 1,000 residents.
According to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Hanford and County of Kings established in 2019, The County Sheriff’s Office will provide police services to the County islands for a two-year period beginning on the date of annexation of the County islands, after which time, the City will be responsible for providing such services in perpetuity.
The City’s current ISO rating is 2 (ISO rating is on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being best). Due to the City’s ability to provide such services to its current population, there is no evidence indicating
ANX 160, Part 4
PRZ 2021-09
that the addition of 1,293 residents would be too great for the City to adequately serve. According to the Memorandum of Understanding, signed between the City of Hanford and the County of Kings in 2019, the mutual aid agreement between the fire services executed by the City and the County will not be amended. The City continues to be able to use the County’s fire services in times of need, therefore the overall fire service capacity will not be affected.
School
There would be no change to school districts because of the island annexation. Since no new development is proposed, the annexation will not affect school enrollment.
Utilities/Public Services
Natural gas, electricity, and communications public services would not change because of annexation of the county islands.
3. Land for development within the City limits is insufficient to meet the current land use needs.
Analysis: The proposed annexation of the county island is not to accommodate any specific proposed development project. Instead, the purpose of the proposed annexation is to further good local government and make available the full range of City services to both developed and undeveloped county island areas. Therefore, this requirement is not relevant to the proposal.
4. The territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing developed areas.
Analysis: The islands is completely surrounded by developed areas within the city limits of Hanford.
Policy L16 County Islands
Initiate annexation of County islands when it is found that urban services are needed and can be provided or made available in the near future.
Analysis: As shown in Table 1, urban service provision is shared between the City and County.
The City has the capacity to provide all of the services currently being provided by the County.
Because of their proximity inside the city limits, the provision of service within the county islands can be more efficiently provided by the City.
Policy L17 Plan for Services
Prepare and make publicly available a written Plan for Services that describes how urban services will be provided prior to initiating an annexation.
Analysis: The Plan for Services was described in the letter to property owners dated June 28, 2021 – attached as Attachment 5. Note: the pre-zoning has since been changed from a combination of R -L-5 Low -Density Residential, M X-C Corridor Mixed Use and R -M Medium- Density Residential to only R -L-5 Low -Density Residential and MX -C Corridor Mixed Use, in accordance with General Plan Amendment 2021-01. The letter describes the City’s intention to provide services to the eight county islands, when the property has the choice to add City services, and when additional City services will be required.
ANX 160, Part 4
PRZ 2021-09
Prezone No. 2021-09
Prezone No. 2021-0 9 is consistent with the land use designations shown on the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map, as amended under General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 C. This will ensure that zoning after annexation is consistent with the General Plan. The Low-Density Residential land use designation found in Annexation Area #4 , is consistent with the R-L-5 zone. The Corridor Mixed Use designation is consistent with the MX-C Corridor Mixed Use zone.
In accordance with the Hanford Municipal Code Section 17.86.030, before a zone change may be approved, all of the following findings shall be made by the reviewing authority:
1. That the amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and the Municipal Code.
Analysis: Prezone No. 2021-09 is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, specifically consistent with Land Use Policies L15, L16, and L17. There is not a plan for development at this time. Most of the parcels proposed for annexation are already developed at the densities consistent with the proposed prezoning.
2. That the amendment would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.
ANALYSIS: There is no evidence that annexation of the county islands into the city limits would negatively affect health, safety, or welfare. On the contrary, the coordination of services between the City and County will be improved by reducing inefficiencies through annexation.
3. That the amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City.
Analysis: The proposed prezoning is consistent with the land use designations established int the General Plan.
4. That the anticipated land uses on the subject site would be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses.
Analysis: Most of the sites are already developed, and those uses appear to be consistent with the proposed prezoning.
Favorable Factors for Annexation
Favorable and unfavorable factors for annexation have been adopted by LAFCO. The existence of favorable or unfavorable factors should not decide approval or denial; however, a substantial number of favorable or unfavorable factors may determine approval or denial of the proposal.
1. The proposed area is close to urban development and municipal -type services and would enhance its potential for full development.
Analysis: The island is fully developed and completely surrounded by urban development. City services are available to the island area.
ANX 160, Part 4
PRZ 2021-09
2. The proposed annexation conforms to the adopted General Plan.
Analysis: As discussed above, there is evidence to support a finding that annexation of the county island is consistent with Policies L15, L16, and L17 of the General Plan. The island area will be prezoned so that zoning after annexation is consistent with the 2035 General Plan Land Use Designation Map, as amended under General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 C.
3. The proposed area is consistent with the sphere of influence.
Analysis: On April 20, 2021, the City of Hanford City Council initiated a Sphere of Influence Expansion. The island is within the existing Sphere of Influence and the proposed new Sphere of Influence.
4. The proposed annexation comes with 100% consent of all landowners.
Analysis: The county island annexations do not come with 100% consent of the landowners.
However, as previously stated, State law encourages the annexation of county islands, and waives the protest hearings at LAFCo that determine landowner consent for island annexations like those being proposed here. The City staff held an open-forum community meeting on August 4, 2021, at the Civic Auditorium to address any questions posed by landowners.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
Based on the information and analysis above, City staff recommends that the following findings be made:
1. All county island is within the Primary Sphere of Influence.
2. Most of the annexation area already receives some services from the City of Hanford.
3. Inclusion of the island in the city limits will not negatively affect the Police or Fire Department’s ability to provide their services to the community. There is a memorandum of understanding between the City of Hanford and the County of Kings that allows for a two- year transition from County Sheriff to City Police service in the annexation areas.
4. There would be no change to school districts because of the island annexation.
5. The proposed annexation of the county island is not to accommodate any specific proposed development project. The purpose of the proposed annexation is to further good local government and make available the full range of City services to both developed and undeveloped county island areas.
6. The island is completely surrounded by developed areas within the city limits of Hanford.
7. Because of the proximity inside the city limits, the provision of service within the county island can be more efficiently provided by the City.
8. The prezoning is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and the Municipal Code.
ANX 160, Part 4
PRZ 2021-09
9. The prezoning would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.
10. The prezoning would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City.
Annexation would not change most land uses since the parcels are already developed.
11. The anticipated land uses on the subject site would be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses.
12. The county island is developed and completely surrounded by urban development. City services are available to the island area.
13. State law encourages the annexation of county islands to further the goal of effective and efficient provision of local government services.
14. Based on the above findings, Annexation No. 160, Par t 4 is consistent with the Hanford General Plan Policies L15, L16, and L17.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Annexation No. 160, Part 4 and Prezone No. 2021-09 were determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Categorical Exemption Class 19 (Annexation of areas containing existing public or private structures developed to the density allowed by the current prezoning) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15319(a), and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). A Notice of Exemption has been prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA – Attachment 6.
Noticing of the project was published in the newspaper on January 27, 2023. Notices were mailed to property owners within the annexation territory and to property owners within 3 00 feet of the annexation territory on January 26, 2023.
Comments were not received as of the date of preparation of this report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council
1. Adopt the Notice of Exemption, in accordance with CEQA.
2. Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance 23-02, approving Prezone No. 2021-09.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 23-02-R, initiating proceedings for Annexation 160 (Part 4) and direct staff to file the appropriate forms with the Kings County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).
CC Ordinance Prrezone 2021-09, Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE NO. 23-02
PREZONE NO. 2021-09
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD PREZONING ANNEXATION 160, PART 4 AS R-L-15 LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND MX-C
CORRIDOR MIXED USE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FOR THE PROJECT SITE, LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND CORRIDOR MIXED USE.
THE PROJECT IS GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF 10TH AVENUE, SOUTH OF FLORINDA DRIVE, NORTH OF LACEY BOULEVARD.
The City Council of the City of Hanford does ordain as follows:
Section 1: The following described territory situated in the C ity of Hanford is hereby prezoned under the terms of Chapter 17.86 of the Hanford Municipal Code:
Annexation 160, Part 1 filed by the City of Hanford
FROM: County zoning of R-1-8 Low-Density Residential, CN Neighborhood Commercial, and CS Service Commercial
TO: City zoning R-L-5 Low-Density Residential and MX-C Corridor Mixed Use On property described as follows:
Approximately 93.2 acres generally located on the east of 10th Avenue, south of Florinda Drive, north of Lacey Boulevard, as described in the legal description in attached Exhibit A, and as depicted in attached Exhibit B; and
Section 2: The Council does hereby find as a fact that this Ordinance has been recommended for passage by the Planning Commission of the City of Hanford after public hearing before the Planning Commission after notice required by Section 17.70.100 of the Hanford Municipal Code and Government Code Section 65854. The City Council that the Project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Categorical Exemption Class 19 (Annexation of areas containing existing public or private structures developed to the density allowed by the current prezoning) and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) . The City Council hereby finds that the prezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the zoning regulations as set forth in Section 17.06.010 of the Hanford Municipal Code, and that this Ordinance has been introduced by the City Council after public hearing held on the 7
th day of February, 2023 at 7:00 p.m. of said day after notice required under the provisions of Section 65856 of the Government Code.
Section 3: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage, and shall be published once in the Hanford Sentinel within fifteen (1 5) days after its passage, and the zoning will apply to such
CC Ordinance Prrezone 2021-09, Page 2 of 4
property in the event of subsequent annexation to the City under the provisions of Section 65859 of the Government Code.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on the ____ day of ________, by the following roll call vote:
ATTEST:
Natalie Corral
APPROVED
_________________________
MAYOR of the City of Hanford
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss
CITY OF HANFORD )
I, NATALIE CORRAL , City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing ordinance was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford on the 7th day of February, 2023 and it was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of t he City Council of the City of Hanford held on the _______ day of ______________, 2023.
Dated: _____________________ _____________________________ Natalie Corral
City Clerk
CC Ordinance Prrezone 2021-09, Page 3 of 4
Exhibit A
Legal Description
ANNEXATION NO. 160 PART 4
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF HANFORD
GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
A portion of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 18 South, Range 22 E, MDB&M, in the State of California, County of Kings, described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast Cor ner of said South west Quarter, also being a point on the existing city limits of the City of Hanford;
Thence along the existing boundary of the City of Hanford, being a description of an existing unincorporated island within said City of Hanford, the following courses:
1. West along the South line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1,133 feet to the Southerly prolongation of the east line, of Parcel 1, as shown on a Parcel Map recorded in Book 5, at Page 42, of Parcel Maps in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;
2. Thence North 0°14’00” East, along last said prolongation and last said East line of Parcel 1, a distance of 245.40 feet to an angle point in last said East line;
3. Thence North 0°29’50” West, along last said east line of Parcel 1, a distance of 66.93 feet to the Northeast Corner of said Parcel 1;
4. Thence South 89°28’28” West, along the North line of said Parcel 1, a distance of 93.20 feet to the Northwest corner thereof;
5. Thence South 0°14’00” West, along the West line of said Parcel 1, a distance of 26.47 feet to the most southerly, Southeast corner, of Parcel 2 of last said Parcel Map;
6. Thence West, along the South line of last said Parcel 2, a distance of 186.47 feet to the Southwest corner thereof;
7. Thence North 8°15’00” West, along the West line of last said Parcel 2, a distance of 109.64 feet to a corner in the westerly boundary of last said Parcel 2;
8. Thence North 88°51’10” West, along the boundary of last said Parcel 2, a distance of 58.26 feet to the most westerly, southwest corner of last said Parcel 2:
9. Thence South, along the Southerly Prolongation of the West line of said Parcel 2, a distance of 8.11 feet to a point on the North line of Parcel B as shown on a Parcel Map recorded in Book 12 at Page 28 of Parcel Maps in the office of the Kings County Recorder, said point being on the westerly line of Wilson Lane as depicted thereon;
10. Thence West along the North line of last said Parcel B and the North line of Parcel A as depicted on last said Parcel Map and the westerly prolongation thereof, a distance of 323.82 feet to the Centerline of Peoples Ditch as shown on said Parcel Map;
11. Thence North 0°55’10” West, a distance of 28 feet , to the Easterly prolongation , of the North line, of lot 6, of Benedict’s Subdivision, as said lot 6 is shown on a map recorded in Book 1, at Page 39, of Licensed Surveyors’ Plats;
12. Thence West along last said prolongation and said North line of lot 6, and the westerly prolongation thereof, a distance of 192 feet to the centerline of Jessie Street as shown on said Benedict’s Subdivision;
13. Thence South 0°55’50” West, along said centerline of Jessie Street, a distance of 75 feet to the Easterly prolongation, of the North line, of the South 75 feet, of lot 20, of last said Subdivision;
14. Thence West, along last said prolongation and North line, a distance of 177.28 feet, to the west line, of said lot 20, also being the East line of Block 2 of Orange Addition as shown on a map recorded in Book 1, at Page 8, of Licensed Surveyors’ plats in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;
15. Thence South, along the East line of last said Block 2, a distance of 54 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 9 of last said Block;
16. Thence West, along the North line of said lot 9, and its westerly prolongation, a distance of 162 feet, to the centerline of Miller Street as said street is shown on last said map;
17. Thence North, along said Centerline of Miller Street, a distance of 75 feet, to the Easterly prolongation, of the South line, of lot 20 of Block 1 of said Orange Addition;
18. Thence West, along last said prolongation, and said South lines of lots 20, and 43, and the westerly prolongation of said lot 43, a distance of 366 feet, to the West line of said Southwest Quarter;
19. Thence North, along last said West line, a distance of 200 feet, to the Westerly prolongation, of the South line, of Lot 35, as said lot is shown on said map of Orange Addition;
20. Thence East, along last said prolongation, the South line of said lot 35, and its easterly prolongation, a distance of 191 feet , to the Southwest corner of lot 28, of said Orange Addition;
21. Thence North, along the West lines of lots 28, 29, 30 and 31, and the northerly prolongation thereof, a distance of 120 feet, to the North line of the alley on the South side of Block A, of Bestmann’s Addition, as said Bestmann’s Addition, is shown on a map recorded in the Map Book, at Page 94, in the office of the Kings County Recorder;
22. Thence West, along said North line of the alley and its westerly prolongation, a distance of 191 feet to said West line of the Southwest Quarter;
23. Thence North, along last said West line, a distance of 380 feet to the intersection with the Westerly prolongation of the North line of the alley, on the North side of Block B, of said Bestmann’s Addition;
24. Thence East, along last said North line of the alley, a distance of 155 feet;
25. Thence North a distance of 50 feet;
26. Thence West, a distance of 155 feet, to said West line of the Southwest Quarter;
27. Thence North, along said west line of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 557.78 feet to the westerly prolongat ion of the South line of lot 14, in Block 2 of Homevilla Tract, as shown on a map recorded in Book 3, at page 79 of Licensed Surveyors’ Plats, in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;
28. Thence East, along last said prolongation and the South line of lot 14, a distance of 160 feet to the Southeast corner of said lot 14;
29. Thence North along the east line of said lot 14 and lot 15 and the Northerly projection of lot 15, a distance of 163 feet to the centerline of Myrtle Street as shown on said map of Homevilla Tract;
30. Thence West, along said Centerline, a d istance of 160 feet to said West line, of the Southwest Quarter;
31. Thence North, along last said We st line, a distance of 549.64 feet , to the W esterly prolongation, of the South line of lot 19 of Homevilla Tra ct No. 2, as shown on a map recorded in Volume 4, at Page 85, of Licensed Surveyors’ Plats, in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;
32. Thence South 89°35’00” East, along last said westerly prolongation and the South line of last said lot 19, a distance of 190.00 feet, to the Southeast corner of said lot 19;
33. Thence South, along the West line of lot 20 of last said Tract, a distance of 63.20 feet to the Southwest corner thereof;
34. Thence South 89°49’30” East, along the South line of last said Tract. a distance of 1,189.58 feet to a point on the Centerline of People’s Ditch, which is also 21 feet east of the Southeast corner of lot 37 of said Homevilla Tract No. 2;
35. Thence South 07°00’10” West, along said Centerline of People’s Ditch, also being along the Westerly boundary of an area annexed to the City of Hanford, by Ordinance 500, and depicted on a map recorded in Volume 5, at Page 5, of Licensed Surveyors’ Plats in the Office of the Kings County Recorder, a distance of 501.63 feet;
36. Thence continuing, South 15°02’00” West, a distance of 161.23 feet ; to the Easterly prolongation of the North line of the South 133 feet of lot 12 of Rawlins Tract recorded in the Map Book at Page 6 in the records of the Kings County Recorder;
37. Thence N 89°50’00” West, along last said prolongation, a distance of 77.54 feet to the Southeast corner of a deed recorded in Book 1185, at Page 783 of official Records in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;
38. Thence North, along the Ea st line of last said deed, and its northerly prolongation, a distance of 163 feet to a point 30 feet North of the Northeast corner of last said deed;
39. Thence North 89°50’00” West, a distance of 60 feet;
40. Thence South 00°10’00” We st, a distance of 30 feet, to the Northwest corner of last said deed;
41. Thence South 7°14’ 00” West, along the westerly boundary of said deed, a distance of 133.17 feet to the Southwest corner thereof;
42. Thence South 89°50’00” East, along the south line of said deed, a distance of 28.42 feet to the Northwest corner of a deed recorded in Book 1278, at Page 713 of Official Records in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;
43. Thence South, along the west line of last said deed, and its southerly prolongation, a distance of 158 feet to the centerline of Ivy Street;
44. Thence East, along last said centerline a distance of 81.82 feet to the centerline of People’s ditch, also being the area annexed to the City of Hanford by Ordinance 500 and depicted on a map recorded on Volume 5, at Page 5, of Licensed Surveyors’ Plats;
45. Thence South 12°43’50” West a distance of 185 feet to the Southwest corner of Richmond Heights Subdivision, as shown on a map recorded in Volume 5, at Page 6, in Licensed Surveyors’ Plats;
46. Thence South 89°37’30” East, along the South line of said Richmond Heights, a distance of 1,468.24 feet to the East line of said Southwest Quarter;
47. Thence South 0°01’40” West, along last said East line, a distance of 1,327.68 feet to the Point of Beginning;
Excepting therefrom, the following described Parcel which is currently within the city limits of the City of Hanford:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter; Thence West, along the South line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 973.80 feet; Thence North 0°16’11” West a distance of 266.90 feet to the True Point of Beginning;
48. Thence North 0°16’11” West a distance of 100.00 feet;
49. Thence East a distance of 100.00 feet;
50. Thence South 0°16’11” East, a distance of 100.00 feet;
51. Thence West a distance of 100 feet to the True point of Beginning
Also Excepting the following described Parcel which is also currently within the city limits of the City of Hanford:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of said Southwest Quarter of Section 30;
Thence South 89°37’42” East , along the North line, of last said Southwest Quarter, of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 264.00 feet;
52. Thence continuing along last said North line, South 89°37’42” East , a distance of 486.08 feet, to the intersection with the Northerly prolongation of the west line of Jessie Street, as said street is shown on said Map of Bestmann’s Addition;
53. Thence South 0°00’08” East, along last said prolongation, a distance of 264.90 feet to its intersection with the north line of the alley on the north side of Block C of said Bestmann’s Addition;
54. Thence North 89°37’42” West, along last said North line of the alley, a distance of 486.07 feet to a point 486.07 feet Easterly of the W est line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter;
55. Thence North 0°00’08” West, along a line parallel with and 264 feet easterly of last said West line, a distance of 268.99 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 93.2 Acres
CC Ordinance Prrezone 2021-09, Page 4 of 4
Exhibit B
Prezone No. 2021-09
General Plan Designation – Low Density Residential and Corridor Mixed Use Proposed Prezoning to Low Density Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. min. (R-L-5) and MX-C Corridor Mixed Use
RESOLUTION NO. 23-02-R
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF HANFORD REQUESTING THE
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION NO. 160 PART 4: A REQEST TO ANNEX APPROXIMATELY 93.2 ACRES INTO THE CITY OF HANFORD FROM THE KINGS COUNTY JURISDICTION. THE PROJECT IS GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF 10TH AVENUE, SOUTH OF FLORINDA
DRIVE, AND NORTH OF LACEY BOULEVARD
RE
SOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hanford, that, W
HEREAS, the City of Hanford desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese -Knox- Hertzberg Local Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3, commencing with Section 5600 of the California Government Code, an affected City, as defined therein, may by resolution adopted by its legislative body make a proposal for a change of organization and request initiation of proceedings thereon; and W
HEREAS, notice of intent to adopt this resolution of application has been given, and this Council has conducted a public hearing based upon this notification; and W
HEREAS, the principal reasons for the proposed annexation are as follows:
1. All county island is within the Primary Sphere of Influence.
2. Most of the annexation area already receives some services from the City of Hanford.
3. Inclusion of the island in the city limits will not negatively affect the Police or Fire Department’ s a
bility to provide their services to the community. There is a memorandum of understandi ng be
tween the City of Hanford and the County of Kings that allows for a two -year transition from County Sheriff to City Police service in the annexation areas.
4. There would be no change to school districts because of the island annexation.
5. The proposed annexation of the county island is not to accommodate any specific proposed development project. The purpose of the proposed annexation is to further good local government and make available the full range of City services to both developed and undeveloped county island ar
eas.
6. The island is completely surrounded by developed areas within the city limits of Hanford.
7. Because of the proximity inside the city limits, the provision of service within the county island can be more efficiently provided by the City.
8. The prezoning is internally consistent with the goals, obje ctives, and policies of the General Plan and the Municipal Code.
9. The prezoning would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.
10. The prezoning would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City. Annexation would not change most land uses since the parcels are already developed.
11. The anticipated land uses on the subject site would be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses.
12. The county island is developed and completely surrounded by urban development. City services are available to the island area.
13. State law encourages the annexation of county islands to further the goal of effective and efficient provision of local government services.
14. Based on the above findings, Annexation No. 160, Par t 4 is consistent with the Hanford General Plan Policies L15, L16, and L17.
WHEREAS, the following agency would be affected by the proposed jurisdictional changes:
Agency Nature of Change
City of Hanford Annexation
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is inhabited, and a map and description of the boundaries of the territory are attached hereto as:
Annexation 160, Part 4: Exhibit A (annexation map) and (legal description) and by this reference incorporated herein, and,
WHEREAS, the proposal is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Hanford; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to provide that the proposed annexation be subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. That the annexation areas be prezoned as follows:
a. Annexation 160, Part 4: R-L-5 Low-Density Residential and MX-C Corridor Mixed Use
WHEREAS, this proposal will be consistent with the spheres of influence for all agencies which would be affected by the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the Project was Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Categorical Exemption Class 19 (Annexation of areas containing existing public or private structures developed to the density allowed by the current prezoning)
and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of Hanford and the Local Agency For mation Commission of Kings County is hereby requested to take proceedings of the annexation of territory as authorized in the manner provided by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeti ng of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the 7
th day of February 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member ________________________ ________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
NOES: Council Member ________________________ ABSTAIN: Council Member ________________________ ABSENT: Council Member ________________________
__________________________________________
MAYOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF KINGS )
CITY OF HANFORD ) SS
I, Natalie Corral, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hanford at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of February 2023.
Dated: ______________________
__________________________________
City Clerk
Exhibit A: Annexation 160, Part 4
LINE TABLELINE #12345678910111213141516171819
LENGTH1133.00'245.40'66.93'93.20'26.47'186.47'109.64'58.26'8.11'323.82'28.00'192.00'75.00'177.28'54.00'162.00'75.00'366.00'200.00' DIRECTIONN90° 00' 00"WN00° 14' 00"EN00° 29' 50"WS89° 28' 28"WS00° 14' 00"WN90° 00' 00"WN08° 15' 00"WN88° 51' 10"WS00° 00' 00"EN90° 00' 00"WN00° 55' 10"WN90° 00' 00"WS00° 55' 50"WN90° 00' 00"WS00° 00' 00"EN90° 00' 00"WN00° 00' 00"EN90° 00' 00"WN00° 00' 00"E LINE TABLELINE #20212223242526272829303132333435363738
LENGTH191.00'120.00'191.00'380.00'155.00'50.00'155.00'557.78'160.00'163.00'160.00'549.64'190.00'63.20'1189.58'501.63'161.23'77.54'163.00' DIRECTIONN90° 00' 00"EN00° 00' 00"EN90° 00' 00"WN00° 00' 00"EN90° 00' 00"EN00° 00' 00"EN90° 00' 00"WN00° 00' 00"EN90° 00' 00"EN00° 00' 00"EN90° 00' 00"WN00° 00' 00"ES89° 35' 00"ES00° 00' 00"EN89° 49' 30"ES07° 00' 10"WS15° 02' 00"WN89° 50' 00"WN00° 00' 00"E LINE TABLELINE #3940414243444546474849505152535455
LENGTH60.00'30.00'133.17'28.42'158.00'81.82'185.00'1468.24'1327.68'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'486.08'264.90'486.07'268.99' DIRECTIONN89° 50' 00"WS00° 10' 00"WS07° 14' 00"WS89° 50' 00"ES00° 00' 00"EN90° 00' 00"ES12° 43' 50"WS89° 37' 30"ES00° 01' 40"WN00° 16' 11"WN90° 00' 00"ES00° 16' 11"EN90° 00' 00"WS89° 37' 42"ES00° 00' 08"EN89° 37' 42"WN00° 00' 08"WCONTAINING 93.2± ACRES 1 23456789101112131415161718192021222324252627
282930 31
3233 34
35 36373839404142434445 46
47 49505148
52 535455
N00° 16' 11"W266.90'973.80'
96.1± AC. GR.
S89° 37' 42"E264.00'
MAP OF TERRITORYANNEXED TO THECITY OF HANFORD
609 N. IRWIN ST.HANFORD, CA. 93230PH. (559) 582-1056FILE NO. 0783511ONE SHEET ONLY AND DETACHED FROM THE KINGS RIVER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND THEEXCELSIOR-KINGS RIVER RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, CITY OFHANFORD REORGANIZATION NO. XXX.THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME ON ,AND IS BASED UPON RECORD DATA AND LAFCO RESOLUTION NO. ,DATED .JOHN A. ZUMWALT, R.C.E. 21489 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETIONRECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. FEE DOCUMENT NO. RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATIONCOMMISSION OF KINGS COUNTY.AT MINUTES PAST O'CLOCK . M.,, 20 IN VOLUME OF LICENSEDSURVEYORS' PLATS, PAGE , KINGS COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.KRISTINE LEECOUNTY RECORDERBY: DEPUTY LEGENDEXISTING CITY LIMITSBOUNDARY OF PROPERTIES TO BE ANNEXEDCOURSE SEGMENT NUMBERASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER1 VICINITY MAPNot to Scale
LEGALA PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTEROF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE22 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE & MERIDIAN.CONTAINING 93.2 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
S 1/4 COR. SEC. 30-18/22AND THE POINT OF BEGINNINGLACEY BOULEVARD 10TH AVENUE
MILLER STREETJESSIE STREET
10TH AVE.
LACEY BLVD.SITE
VISALIA ST.E. 7TH ST.E 9TH ST.E 10TH ST.E 11TH ST.E IVY ST.E MYRTLE ST.E ELM ST.E FLORINDA ST.GLADYS WAYWHITNEY DR.SHASTA DR.
ACACIA ST.HAWTHORN ST.ALDER AVE.
S.J.V. RAILROAD
014-221-026
014-221-036
014-221-037014-221-007
014-221-041
014-221-008014-221-009
014-221-022
014-221-033
014-221-027
014-221-034014-221-039014-221-038
014-221-012
014-221-040
014-221-017
WHITNEY DRIVE014-221-021014-221-019014-221-018
014-221-020
014-223-082
014-680-052014-680-053014-680-054014-680-055014-680-056014-680-057014-680-058014-680-059014-680-061ACACIA STREETLASSEN DRIVEPOPLAR STREET014-476-011014-476-010014-476-009014-476-008014-476-007014-313-025014-313-015014-313-014014-313-013014-313-012014-313-011014-313-010014-313-009 014-313-006014-313-005014-313-004014-313-003014-313-002014-313-001 014-313-007014-311-007014-311-006014-311-005014-311-004014-311-003014-311-002014-311-001014-306-008014-306-007014-306-006014-306-005014-306-004014-306-003014-306-002014-306-001014-184-002
ELM STREET
FLORINDA STREET
MYRTLE STREET
IVY STREET
KRUGER AVENUE
WHITNEY DRIVE
014-185-017014-185-016014-185-015014-185-014014-185-013014-185-012014-185-037014-185-036014-185-008014-185-007014-185-006014-185-005014-185-004014-185-003014-185-002 014-185-011014-185-001
014-185-040014-185-020014-185-021014-185-022014-185-023014-185-024014-185-025014-185-026014-185-027014-185-028014-185-029014-185-030014-185-031014-185-032014-185-033014-185-035014-185-034 014-184-003014-184-004014-184-005014-184-006014-184-007014-184-008014-184-009014-186-017014-186-016014-186-015014-186-014014-186-013014-186-012014-186-011014-186-010014-186-009014-186-008014-186-007014-186-006014-186-005014-186-004014-186-003014-186-002014-186-037014-186-035014-186-030014-186-029014-186-028014-186-027014-186-026014-186-025014-186-024014-186-023014-186-022014-186-021014-186-020014-186-019 014-186-038014-186-039 APN NO.014-186-018
014-191-001014-191-002014-191-003014-191-004014-191-005014-191-006014-191-007014-191-008014-191-011014-191-012014-191-013014-191-014014-191-015014-191-016014-191-017014-191-018014-191-019014-191-009014-191-010 014-192-001014-192-002014-192-003014-192-004014-192-005 014-192-008014-192-007014-192-006014-192-016014-192-015014-192-012014-192-013014-192-010014-192-009014-193-014014-193-013014-193-012014-193-011014-193-010014-193-009014-193-008014-193-007014-193-006014-193-005014-193-004014-193-003014-193-002014-193-001 014-193-015014-193-016014-201-008
014-201-007014-201-011014-201-003
014-201-004014-202-001
014-202-004014-202-005014-202-006014-203-006014-203-005014-203-002014-203-003014-203-004 014-204-006014-204-001014-204-002014-204-005014-204-004014-204-008 014-201-009
014-205-005014-205-004014-205-003014-205-001014-206-004014-206-007014-206-006 THILDA AVENUE014-205-002014-211-021
014-211-002014-211-020014-211-030014-211-016014-211-025014-211-029 014-211-019014-212-001014-212-002014-212-003014-212-019014-212-018014-212-021 014-213-001014-213-002014-213-004014-212-015014-212-014014-212-013 014-185-035
014-221-015
014-313-008
014-221-042
014-213-003014-213-009014-212-004014-212-017014-212-016014-212-022014-212-006014-212-023014-212-011014-212-020 014-212-025014-212-024014-212-012014-213-012
014-213-008014-213-011014-213-010014-213-013
014-213-005
014-211-027014-211-025
010-202-023010-202-013
010-203-010010-203-019
010-206-026010-206-027
010-212-031010-212-028010-213-009010-283-016010-284-009010-284-004010-213-013010-213-014010-206-028010-206-029010-283-017 016-031-004016-031-005016-031-006016-031-007016-031-009016-031-010016-031-008S.J.V. RAILROAD016-031-013016-031-012 W 1/4 COR.SEC. 30-18/22
SW COR.SEC. 30-18/22 282.46
NE COR. OF THE SE 1/4 OFTHE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 30-18/22
JESSIE STREET
014-201-010
NW COR. OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 30-18/22
ANNEXATION NO. 160 PART 4
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF HANFORD
GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
A portion of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 18 South, Range 22 E, MDB&M, in the State of California, County of Kings, described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast Cor ner of said South west Quarter, also being a point on the existing city limits of the City of Hanford;
Thence along the existing boundary of the City of Hanford, being a description of an existing unincorporated island within said City of Hanford, the following courses:
1. West along the South line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1,133 feet to the Southerly prolongation of the east line, of Parcel 1, as shown on a Parcel Map recorded in Book 5, at Page 42, of Parcel Maps in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;
2. Thence North 0°14’00” East, along last said prolongation and last said East line of Parcel 1, a distance of 245.40 feet to an angle point in last said East line;
3. Thence North 0°29’50” West, along last said east line of Parcel 1, a distance of 66.93 feet to the Northeast Corner of said Parcel 1;
4. Thence South 89°28’28” West, along the North line of said Parcel 1, a distance of 93.20 feet to the Northwest corner thereof;
5. Thence South 0°14’00” West, along the West line of said Parcel 1, a distance of 26.47 feet to the most southerly, Southeast corner, of Parcel 2 of last said Parcel Map;
6. Thence West, along the South line of last said Parcel 2, a distance of 186.47 feet to the Southwest corner thereof;
7. Thence North 8°15’00” West, along the West line of last said Parcel 2, a distance of 109.64 feet to a corner in the westerly boundary of last said Parcel 2;
8. Thence North 88°51’10” West, along the boundary of last said Parcel 2, a distance of 58.26 feet to the most westerly, southwest corner of last said Parcel 2:
9. Thence South, along the Southerly Prolongation of the West line of said Parcel 2, a distance of 8.11 feet to a point on the North line of Parcel B as shown on a Parcel Map recorded in Book 12 at Page 28 of Parcel Maps in the office of the Kings County Recorder, said point being on the westerly line of Wilson Lane as depicted thereon;
10. Thence West along the North line of last said Parcel B and the North line of Parcel A as depicted on last said Parcel Map and the westerly prolongation thereof, a distance of 323.82 feet to the Centerline of Peoples Ditch as shown on said Parcel Map;
11. Thence North 0°55’10” West, a distance of 28 feet , to the Easterly prolongation , of the North line, of lot 6, of Benedict’s Subdivision, as said lot 6 is shown on a map recorded in Book 1, at Page 39, of Licensed Surveyors’ Plats;
12. Thence West along last said prolongation and said North line of lot 6, and the westerly prolongation thereof, a distance of 192 feet to the centerline of Jessie Street as shown on said Benedict’s Subdivision;
13. Thence South 0°55’50” West, along said centerline of Jessie Street, a distance of 75 feet to the Easterly prolongation, of the North line, of the South 75 feet, of lot 20, of last said Subdivision;
14. Thence West, along last said prolongation and North line, a distance of 177.28 feet, to the west line, of said lot 20, also being the East line of Block 2 of Orange Addition as shown on a map recorded in Book 1, at Page 8, of Licensed Surveyors’ plats in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;
15. Thence South, along the East line of last said Block 2, a distance of 54 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 9 of last said Block;
16. Thence West, along the North line of said lot 9, and its westerly prolongation, a distance of 162 feet, to the centerline of Miller Street as said street is shown on last said map;
17. Thence North, along said Centerline of Miller Street, a distance of 75 feet, to the Easterly prolongation, of the South line, of lot 20 of Block 1 of said Orange Addition;
18. Thence West, along last said prolongation, and said South lines of lots 20, and 43, and the westerly prolongation of said lot 43, a distance of 366 feet, to the West line of said Southwest Quarter;
19. Thence North, along last said West line, a distance of 200 feet, to the Westerly prolongation, of the South line, of Lot 35, as said lot is shown on said map of Orange Addition;
20. Thence East, along last said prolongation, the South line of said lot 35, and its easterly prolongation, a distance of 191 feet , to the Southwest corner of lot 28, of said Orange Addition;
21. Thence North, along the West lines of lots 28, 29, 30 and 31, and the northerly prolongation thereof, a distance of 120 feet, to the North line of the alley on the South side of Block A, of Bestmann’s Addition, as said Bestmann’s Addition, is shown on a map recorded in the Map Book, at Page 94, in the office of the Kings County Recorder;
22. Thence West, along said North line of the alley and its westerly prolongation, a distance of 191 feet to said West line of the Southwest Quarter;
23. Thence North, along last said West line, a distance of 380 feet to the intersection with the Westerly prolongation of the North line of the alley, on the North side of Block B, of said Bestmann’s Addition;
24. Thence East, along last said North line of the alley, a distance of 155 feet;
25. Thence North a distance of 50 feet;
26. Thence West, a distance of 155 feet, to said West line of the Southwest Quarter;
27. Thence North, along said west line of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 557.78 feet to the westerly prolongat ion of the South line of lot 14, in Block 2 of Homevilla Tract, as shown on a map recorded in Book 3, at page 79 of Licensed Surveyors’ Plats, in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;
28. Thence East, along last said prolongation and the South line of lot 14, a distance of 160 feet to the Southeast corner of said lot 14;
29. Thence North along the east line of said lot 14 and lot 15 and the Northerly projection of lot 15, a distance of 163 feet to the centerline of Myrtle Street as shown on said map of Homevilla Tract;
30. Thence West, along said Centerline, a d istance of 160 feet to said West line, of the Southwest Quarter;
31. Thence North, along last said We st line, a distance of 549.64 feet , to the W esterly prolongation, of the South line of lot 19 of Homevilla Tra ct No. 2, as shown on a map recorded in Volume 4, at Page 85, of Licensed Surveyors’ Plats, in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;
32. Thence South 89°35’00” East, along last said westerly prolongation and the South line of last said lot 19, a distance of 190.00 feet, to the Southeast corner of said lot 19;
33. Thence South, along the West line of lot 20 of last said Tract, a distance of 63.20 feet to the Southwest corner thereof;
34. Thence South 89°49’30” East, along the South line of last said Tract. a distance of 1,189.58 feet to a point on the Centerline of People’s Ditch, which is also 21 feet east of the Southeast corner of lot 37 of said Homevilla Tract No. 2;
35. Thence South 07°00’10” West, along said Centerline of People’s Ditch, also being along the Westerly boundary of an area annexed to the City of Hanford, by Ordinance 500, and depicted on a map recorded in Volume 5, at Page 5, of Licensed Surveyors’ Plats in the Office of the Kings County Recorder, a distance of 501.63 feet;
36. Thence continuing, South 15°02’00” West, a distance of 161.23 feet ; to the Easterly prolongation of the North line of the South 133 feet of lot 12 of Rawlins Tract recorded in the Map Book at Page 6 in the records of the Kings County Recorder;
37. Thence N 89°50’00” West, along last said prolongation, a distance of 77.54 feet to the Southeast corner of a deed recorded in Book 1185, at Page 783 of official Records in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;
38. Thence North, along the Ea st line of last said deed, and its northerly prolongation, a distance of 163 feet to a point 30 feet North of the Northeast corner of last said deed;
39. Thence North 89°50’00” West, a distance of 60 feet;
40. Thence South 00°10’00” We st, a distance of 30 feet, to the Northwest corner of last said deed;
41. Thence South 7°14’ 00” West, along the westerly boundary of said deed, a distance of 133.17 feet to the Southwest corner thereof;
42. Thence South 89°50’00” East, along the south line of said deed, a distance of 28.42 feet to the Northwest corner of a deed recorded in Book 1278, at Page 713 of Official Records in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;
43. Thence South, along the west line of last said deed, and its southerly prolongation, a distance of 158 feet to the centerline of Ivy Street;
44. Thence East, along last said centerline a distance of 81.82 feet to the centerline of People’s ditch, also being the area annexed to the City of Hanford by Ordinance 500 and depicted on a map recorded on Volume 5, at Page 5, of Licensed Surveyors’ Plats;
45. Thence South 12°43’50” West a distance of 185 feet to the Southwest corner of Richmond Heights Subdivision, as shown on a map recorded in Volume 5, at Page 6, in Licensed Surveyors’ Plats;
46. Thence South 89°37’30” East, along the South line of said Richmond Heights, a distance of 1,468.24 feet to the East line of said Southwest Quarter;
47. Thence South 0°01’40” West, along last said East line, a distance of 1,327.68 feet to the Point of Beginning;
Excepting therefrom, the following described Parcel which is currently within the city limits of the City of Hanford:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter; Thence West, along the South line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 973.80 feet; Thence North 0°16’11” West a distance of 266.90 feet to the True Point of Beginning;
48. Thence North 0°16’11” West a distance of 100.00 feet;
49. Thence East a distance of 100.00 feet;
50. Thence South 0°16’11” East, a distance of 100.00 feet;
51. Thence West a distance of 100 feet to the True point of Beginning
Also Excepting the following described Parcel which is also currently within the city limits of the City of Hanford:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of said Southwest Quarter of Section 30;
Thence South 89°37’42” East , along the North line, of last said Southwest Quarter, of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 264.00 feet;
52. Thence continuing along last said North line, South 89°37’42” East , a distance of 486.08 feet, to the intersection with the Northerly prolongation of the west line of Jessie Street, as said street is shown on said Map of Bestmann’s Addition;
53. Thence South 0°00’08” East, along last said prolongation, a distance of 264.90 feet to its intersection with the north line of the alley on the north side of Block C of said Bestmann’s Addition;
54. Thence North 89°37’42” West, along last said North line of the alley, a distance of 486.07 feet to a point 486.07 feet Easterly of the W est line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter;
55. Thence North 0°00’08” West, along a line parallel with and 264 feet easterly of last said West line, a distance of 268.99 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 93.2 Acres
LINE TABLELINE #12345678910111213141516171819
LENGTH1133.00'245.40'66.93'93.20'26.47'186.47'109.64'58.26'8.11'323.82'28.00'192.00'75.00'177.28'54.00'162.00'75.00'366.00'200.00' DIRECTIONN90° 00' 00"WN00° 14' 00"EN00° 29' 50"WS89° 28' 28"WS00° 14' 00"WN90° 00' 00"WN08° 15' 00"WN88° 51' 10"WS00° 00' 00"EN90° 00' 00"WN00° 55' 10"WN90° 00' 00"WS00° 55' 50"WN90° 00' 00"WS00° 00' 00"EN90° 00' 00"WN00° 00' 00"EN90° 00' 00"WN00° 00' 00"E LINE TABLELINE #20212223242526272829303132333435363738
LENGTH191.00'120.00'191.00'380.00'155.00'50.00'155.00'557.78'160.00'163.00'160.00'549.64'190.00'63.20'1189.58'501.63'161.23'77.54'163.00' DIRECTIONN90° 00' 00"EN00° 00' 00"EN90° 00' 00"WN00° 00' 00"EN90° 00' 00"EN00° 00' 00"EN90° 00' 00"WN00° 00' 00"EN90° 00' 00"EN00° 00' 00"EN90° 00' 00"WN00° 00' 00"ES89° 35' 00"ES00° 00' 00"EN89° 49' 30"ES07° 00' 10"WS15° 02' 00"WN89° 50' 00"WN00° 00' 00"E LINE TABLELINE #3940414243444546474849505152535455
LENGTH60.00'30.00'133.17'28.42'158.00'81.82'185.00'1468.24'1327.68'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'486.08'264.90'486.07'268.99' DIRECTIONN89° 50' 00"WS00° 10' 00"WS07° 14' 00"WS89° 50' 00"ES00° 00' 00"EN90° 00' 00"ES12° 43' 50"WS89° 37' 30"ES00° 01' 40"WN00° 16' 11"WN90° 00' 00"ES00° 16' 11"EN90° 00' 00"WS89° 37' 42"ES00° 00' 08"EN89° 37' 42"WN00° 00' 08"WCONTAINING 93.2± ACRES 1 23456789101112131415161718192021222324252627
282930 31
3233 34
35 36373839404142434445 46
47 49505148
52 535455
N00° 16' 11"W266.90'973.80'
96.1± AC. GR.
S89° 37' 42"E264.00'
MAP OF TERRITORYANNEXED TO THECITY OF HANFORD
609 N. IRWIN ST.HANFORD, CA. 93230PH. (559) 582-1056FILE NO. 0783511ONE SHEET ONLY AND DETACHED FROM THE KINGS RIVER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND THEEXCELSIOR-KINGS RIVER RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, CITY OFHANFORD REORGANIZATION NO. XXX.THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME ON ,AND IS BASED UPON RECORD DATA AND LAFCO RESOLUTION NO. ,DATED .JOHN A. ZUMWALT, R.C.E. 21489 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETIONRECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. FEE DOCUMENT NO. RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATIONCOMMISSION OF KINGS COUNTY.AT MINUTES PAST O'CLOCK . M.,, 20 IN VOLUME OF LICENSEDSURVEYORS' PLATS, PAGE , KINGS COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.KRISTINE LEECOUNTY RECORDERBY: DEPUTY LEGENDEXISTING CITY LIMITSBOUNDARY OF PROPERTIES TO BE ANNEXEDCOURSE SEGMENT NUMBERASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER1 VICINITY MAPNot to Scale
LEGALA PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTEROF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE22 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE & MERIDIAN.CONTAINING 93.2 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
S 1/4 COR. SEC. 30-18/22AND THE POINT OF BEGINNINGLACEY BOULEVARD 10TH AVENUE
MILLER STREETJESSIE STREET
10TH AVE.
LACEY BLVD.SITE
VISALIA ST.E. 7TH ST.E 9TH ST.E 10TH ST.E 11TH ST.E IVY ST.E MYRTLE ST.E ELM ST.E FLORINDA ST.GLADYS WAYWHITNEY DR.SHASTA DR.
ACACIA ST.HAWTHORN ST.ALDER AVE.
S.J.V. RAILROAD
014-221-026
014-221-036
014-221-037014-221-007
014-221-041
014-221-008014-221-009
014-221-022
014-221-033
014-221-027
014-221-034014-221-039014-221-038
014-221-012
014-221-040
014-221-017
WHITNEY DRIVE014-221-021014-221-019014-221-018
014-221-020
014-223-082
014-680-052014-680-053014-680-054014-680-055014-680-056014-680-057014-680-058014-680-059014-680-061ACACIA STREETLASSEN DRIVEPOPLAR STREET014-476-011014-476-010014-476-009014-476-008014-476-007014-313-025014-313-015014-313-014014-313-013014-313-012014-313-011014-313-010014-313-009 014-313-006014-313-005014-313-004014-313-003014-313-002014-313-001 014-313-007014-311-007014-311-006014-311-005014-311-004014-311-003014-311-002014-311-001014-306-008014-306-007014-306-006014-306-005014-306-004014-306-003014-306-002014-306-001014-184-002
ELM STREET
FLORINDA STREET
MYRTLE STREET
IVY STREET
KRUGER AVENUE
WHITNEY DRIVE
014-185-017014-185-016014-185-015014-185-014014-185-013014-185-012014-185-037014-185-036014-185-008014-185-007014-185-006014-185-005014-185-004014-185-003014-185-002 014-185-011014-185-001
014-185-040014-185-020014-185-021014-185-022014-185-023014-185-024014-185-025014-185-026014-185-027014-185-028014-185-029014-185-030014-185-031014-185-032014-185-033014-185-035014-185-034 014-184-003014-184-004014-184-005014-184-006014-184-007014-184-008014-184-009014-186-017014-186-016014-186-015014-186-014014-186-013014-186-012014-186-011014-186-010014-186-009014-186-008014-186-007014-186-006014-186-005014-186-004014-186-003014-186-002014-186-037014-186-035014-186-030014-186-029014-186-028014-186-027014-186-026014-186-025014-186-024014-186-023014-186-022014-186-021014-186-020014-186-019 014-186-038014-186-039 APN NO.014-186-018
014-191-001014-191-002014-191-003014-191-004014-191-005014-191-006014-191-007014-191-008014-191-011014-191-012014-191-013014-191-014014-191-015014-191-016014-191-017014-191-018014-191-019014-191-009014-191-010 014-192-001014-192-002014-192-003014-192-004014-192-005 014-192-008014-192-007014-192-006014-192-016014-192-015014-192-012014-192-013014-192-010014-192-009014-193-014014-193-013014-193-012014-193-011014-193-010014-193-009014-193-008014-193-007014-193-006014-193-005014-193-004014-193-003014-193-002014-193-001 014-193-015014-193-016014-201-008
014-201-007014-201-011014-201-003
014-201-004014-202-001
014-202-004014-202-005014-202-006014-203-006014-203-005014-203-002014-203-003014-203-004 014-204-006014-204-001014-204-002014-204-005014-204-004014-204-008 014-201-009
014-205-005014-205-004014-205-003014-205-001014-206-004014-206-007014-206-006 THILDA AVENUE014-205-002014-211-021
014-211-002014-211-020014-211-030014-211-016014-211-025014-211-029 014-211-019014-212-001014-212-002014-212-003014-212-019014-212-018014-212-021 014-213-001014-213-002014-213-004014-212-015014-212-014014-212-013 014-185-035
014-221-015
014-313-008
014-221-042
014-213-003014-213-009014-212-004014-212-017014-212-016014-212-022014-212-006014-212-023014-212-011014-212-020 014-212-025014-212-024014-212-012014-213-012
014-213-008014-213-011014-213-010014-213-013
014-213-005
014-211-027014-211-025
010-202-023010-202-013
010-203-010010-203-019
010-206-026010-206-027
010-212-031010-212-028010-213-009010-283-016010-284-009010-284-004010-213-013010-213-014010-206-028010-206-029010-283-017 016-031-004016-031-005016-031-006016-031-007016-031-009016-031-010016-031-008S.J.V. RAILROAD016-031-013016-031-012 W 1/4 COR.SEC. 30-18/22
SW COR.SEC. 30-18/22 282.46
NE COR. OF THE SE 1/4 OFTHE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 30-18/22
JESSIE STREET
014-201-010
NW COR. OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 30-18/22
Kurt Lavenson & Lesly Avedisian
1842 Leimert Boulevard
Oakland, CA 94602
510-530-0970
January 9, 2023
Gabrielle de Silva Myers
Senior Planner
City of Hanford
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
via email to: [email protected]
RE: Annexation of County Island #4 (East Hanford)
Specifically parcels:
014-221-020; 014-221-026; 014-221-009; 014-221-041
(note that some of these APN’s have been recently edited by the Assessor due to a land sale)
Dear Ms. de Silva Myers,
We are writing once again in response to a recent Notice of Public Hearing that we received from the Hanford Community Development Department, regarding Annexation of County Island #4, from Kings County into the City of Hanford. As we understand it, this annexation was scheduled to proceed in 2021 along with several other Islands, but #4 was held back pending a required change to the General Plan, which has now been approved by the City Council.
As discussed with you in prior conversations, we are in favor of annexation and we look forward to improved services while being productive members of the City and contributing to the resurgence of community development along E. Lacey Boulevard. We own 18 contiguous acres of mostly undeveloped land within the island, from E. Lacey Boulevard north to the rear yards of E. Ivy Street and east to Lassen Avenue. Our developed E. Lacey addresses range from #946 to #958 and our tenants of many years are well known local businesses: Joe’s Tire, Orozco Mechanic and Saldaña’s Muffler.
Please included this letter, and our voicing of support, in your Planning Department packet to be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. Thank you again for your time and attention on these matters. We appreciate all of your efforts.
Sincerely,
Kurt Lavenson Lesly Avedisian
Page of 11
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
of the
CITY OF HANFORD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
400 N. Douty St.
5:30 PM, Tuesday, January 10, 2023
Commissioners will meet in person in the Council
Chambers. The meeting will also be livestreamed on the
City’s website: http://livestream.hanford.city/
CALL TO ORDER
Chair SANCHEZ called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Dennis Ham Present 4:59 PM
Richard Douglas Present 4:57 PM
Martin Devine Present 4:57 PM
Jacob Sanchez Present 4:56 PM
Gunther Norris Present 4:59 PM
INVOCATION
The invocation was led by Richard Balderama.
FLAG SALUTE
PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters not on the agenda and that are within the jurisdiction of the Commission. This is also the public’s opportunity to request an item from the Consent Calendar be pulled for discussion purposes or to comment on any item on the agenda. Comments related to Public Hearing items will be heard at the time the item is discussed. A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion.
There will be no separate discus sion of these matters unless a request is made and then the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.
1. Approval of the Minutes of the October 12, 2021 Meeting Commissioner HAM requested that Item 1 be pulled from the Consent Calendar, for separate consideration.
Motion to approve Item 1 of the Consent Calendar.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Martin Devine
SECONDER: Richard Douglas
AYES: Douglas, Devine, Sanchez
ABSTAIN: Ham, Norris
2. Approval of the Minutes of the October 25, 2022
3. Approval of the Minutes of the December 13, 2022 Meeting Motion to approve the Consent Calendar, Items 2 and 3.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Richard Douglas
SECONDER: Martin Devine
AYES: Ham, Douglas, Devine, Sanchez, Norris
PUBLIC HEARING
4. Vesting Tentative Tract 937: A request by DR Horton to subdivide 21.12 acres i nto a 95-lot single -family subdivision including an approximately 30,000 square -foot stormwater retention basin in the R -L-5 Low -Density R esidential zone district.
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022 -101: A request to certify that the project will have a less than significant impact on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The Project is adjacent to and fro nts the south side of Hanford Armona Road and lies between 12th Avenue and 13th Avenue. APN: 011 -040-007.
Continuation to January 24, 2022 is requested
Chair SANCHEZ opened the public hearing and called for the staff report. Senior Planner Myers presented staff's request that the item be continued to the next meeting, due to an unresolved issue between the applicant and City Engineering.
Motion to continue the item until the next meeting.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Richard Douglas
SECONDER: Martin Devine
AYES: Ham, Douglas, Devine, Sanchez, Norris
5. Annexation No. 160, Part 4: A proposal to annex a pproximately 93.2 +/ - acres into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction. Prezone No. 2021 -09: A proposal to prezone Annexation 160 Area 4 a combination of R-L-5 Low-Density Residential and MX-C Corridor Mixed Use, in accordance with the G eneral Plan designation for the area – Low-Density Residential and Corridor Mixed Use. The project has been determined to be exempt from the Californi a Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Categorical Exemption Class 19. LOCATION: The project is genera lly located east of 10th Avenue, South of Florinda, North of Lacey Boulevard.
Chair SANCHEZ opened the public hearing and called for the staff report. S enior Planner Myers presented the staff report, recommended approval, and invited questions of staff.
Questions from Commissioner HAM:
• Will every existing use be grandfathered in, after the annexation? Ms. Myers replied that every use that was legally exi sting under the County's jurisdiction will be grandfathered in as legally existing in the City.
• Is Kings County Bowl a permitted use in the City? Ms. Myers noted that the business would be in an MX-C zone, and a bowling alley is a permitted use in that zone district. • Are the residential properties paying school taxes, or will they see that change on thei r bills after annexation? Director Waters replied that they would still be within those school district boundaries within the City.
Chair SANCHEZ opened Public Comment:
IN FAVOR
Onan Champi, owner of 10 parcels within the annexation area. He was in f avor of the annexation, but he was concerned that the prezone would be more restrictive than Kings County zoning. He was not in favor of that.
OPPOSED
None.
Chair SANCHEZ invited Commissioners' comments/questions.
Commissioner HAM asked if the resolu tion could be worded to accommodate Mr. Champi's concern, so that if he moved his business from one lot to another, leaving the first lot vacant temporarily, it would still be legal.
Staff replied that they would have to rely on what the municipal code all owed regarding pre -existing uses, reiterating Ms. Myers' earlier comment that if the use was legally existing in the County, it would be considered legally existing in the City.
Commissioner HAM then asked Mr. Champi to clarify his question. Mr. Champi ask ed that if he left a business vacant temporarily, would it still be grandfathered in. Staff replied that, if there is a current business license for a use t hat was per mitted in the County, the use would still be legal. Director Waters stated that, per the municipal code, if a business that was grandfathered is discontinued for six months, whatever the new use is would have to conform to the zoning. Mr. Champi then asked if he maintained a City business license, would the use still be permitted.
City Attorney Mizote stated that that would be a factor. He added that the business license would have to be tied to a particular property.
Motion to recommend adoption of the Notice of Exemption, in accordance with CEQA.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Richard Douglas
SECONDER: Dennis Ham
AYES: Ham, Douglas, Devine, Sanchez, Norris
Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2023-01, recommending approval of Prezone No. 2021-09 to the City Council.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Dennis Ham
SECONDER: Richard Douglas
AYES: Ham, Douglas, Devine, Sanchez, Norris
Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2023 -02, finding the proposed Annexation No. 160, Part 4, consistent with the Hanford General Plan Policies L15, L16, and L17 and forward Annexation No. 16 0, Part 4 to the City Council, with a recommendation that an application be made to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) of Kings County.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Richard Douglas
SECONDER: Dennis Ham
AYES: Ham, Douglas, Devine, Sanchez, Norris
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Community Development Director Waters announced the following upcoming Requests for Proposal [RFPs] for Planning:
• GIS services, to expand mapping capabilities;
• Assistance with a large Annexation/Prezone project.
COMMISSIONERS’ ITEMS OF INTEREST
At this time, any Commissioner may ask a question for clarification of matters within the Planning Commission’s jurisdiction, make an announcement, or report briefly on activities in their role as a Planning Commissioner. In addition, subject to the Planning Commissioner’s Handbook, Commissioners may request staff to report back to the Planning Commission at a subsequent meeting concerning any mater within Commissioner’s jurisdiction (GC 54954.2).
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair SANCHEZ adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diana Black, Recording Secretary
DRAFT
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF
KINGS COUNTY
HANFORD AREA
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AND
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE
MARCH 2021
DRAFT
HANFORD AREA
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AND
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE
Prepared for:
Local Agency Formation Commission of Kings County
1400 West Lacy Boulevard
Hanford, CA 93230
Contact Person: Greg Gatzka, Executive Officer
Phone: (559) 675-7821
Consultant:
901 East Main Street
Visalia, CA 93292
Contact: Steve Brandt, Project Manager
Phone: (559) 733-0440
March 2021
Cover Photo Credit: Main Street Hanford’s Website
© Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc.
Unauthorized use prohibited.
200047
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF KINGS COUNTY
Commissioners
Joe Neves, Chair, Kings County
Doug Verboon, Vice Chair, Kings County
Sid Palmerin, City of Corcoran
Francisco Ramirez, City of Hanford
Dan Chin, Public Member at Large
Richard Valle, County Alternate
vacant -Public Member Alternative
Alvaro Preciado - City Alternate
Staff
Greg Gatzka, Executive Officer
Chuck Kinney, Assistant Executive Officer
Legal Counsel
Diane Freeman, LAFCo Counsel
Draft
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 - Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 1-1
1.1 - Municipal Service Review Purpose ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 1-1
1.2 - MSR Preparation, Review and Adoption Process ................................ ................................ ....... 1-5
1.3 - Required Topic Areas of Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 1-5
1.4 - LAFCo Powers ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1-7
1.5 - Key Considerations and Goals ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1-7
1.6 - Services Provided ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 1-8 SECTION 2 - Growth and Population Projections ................................ ................................ .......... 2-11
2.1 - Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 2-11
2.2 - History of Hanford ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 2-11
2.3 - Planning and Growth Projections ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2-12
2.3.1 - County Islands ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 2-14
2.4 - Anticipated Service Needs ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 2-17
2.5 - Determinations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 2-18 SECTION 3 - Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ................................ ......................... 3-1
3.1 - Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 3-1
3.2 - Determinations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 3-3 SECTION 4 - City of Hanford Service Review................................ ................................ ..................... 4-1
4.1 - Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies ................................ ................................ .................... 4-1
4.1.1 - Capital Improvement Plan (Fiscal Years 2020 to 2024) ................................ ....... 4-1
4.1.2 - Water................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 4-3
4.1.3 - Wastewater................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-10
4.1.4 - Fire Protection ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 4-17
4.1.5 - Law Enforcement ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4-20
4.1.6 - Parks and Community Services ................................ ................................ .................... 4-24
4.1.7 - Road Maintenance ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4-30
4.1.8 - Flood Control/Drainage ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4-34
4.1.9 - Public Transportation ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-41
4.1.10 - Solid Waste Disposal ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-44
4.1.11 - Plans for Future Services ................................ ................................ .............................. 4-47
4.2 - Financial Ability to Provide Services ................................ ................................ ............................ 4-48
4.2.1 - City Budget ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 4-48
4.2.2 - Rates and Fees ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 4-49
4.2.3 - Proposition 218 ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 4-49
4.2.4 - Opportunities for Rate/Fee Restructuring ................................ ............................... 4-50
4.3 - Status of, and Opportunities for, Cost Avoidance and Shared Facilities ......................... 4-51
Draft
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page ii
4.3.1 - Determinations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 4-51
4.4 - Accountability for Community Service Needs, including Governmental Structure and Operation Efficiencies ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4-53
4.4.1 - Organizational Structure ................................ ................................ ................................ . 4-53
4.4.2 - Practices and Performance ................................ ................................ ............................. 4-56
4.4.3 - Determinations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 4-57 SECTION 5 - Sphere of Influence Review ................................ ................................ ............................ 5-1
5.1 - Sphere of Influence Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 5-1
5.1.1 - Present and Planned Land Uses ................................ ................................ ...................... 5-1
5.1.2 - Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services ............................ 5-7
5.1.3 - Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ................................ .......................... 5-7
5.1.4 - Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services ............ 5-7
5.1.5 - Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest ........................... 5-7
5.1.6 - Sphere of Influence Recommendations ................................ ................................ ........ 5-8 SECTION 6 - Bibliography ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 6-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Regional Location ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 1-2 Figure 1-2 2035 Growth Boundary and Island Annexations ................................ ........................... 1-3 Figure 2-1 General Plan Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 2-13 Figure 2-2 Zoning Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 2-16 Figure 3-1 Median Household Income (2018) ................................ ................................ ...................... 3-2 Figure 3-2 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Areas ................................ ....................... 3-4 Figure 4-1 Hanford Existing Water System ................................ ................................ ............................ 4-4 Figure 4-2 Hanford Proposed Buildout of Water System................................ ................................ .. 4-5 Figure 4-3 Hanford Existing Wastewater System ................................ ................................ ............. 4-12 Figure 4-4 Hanford Proposed Wastewater System ................................ ................................ .......... 4-13 Figure 4-5 Hanford Existing Storm Drainage System ................................ ................................ ...... 4-35 Figure 4-6 Hanford Proposed Storm Drainage System ................................ ................................ ... 4-36 Figure 5-1 Proposed Sphere of Influence City of Hanford ................................ ................................ 5-2 Figure 5-2 Williamson Act Lands ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 5-4 Figure 5-3 California High-Speed Rail Authority Kings/Tulare Station ................................ ...... 5-6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Current, Authorized and Latent Powers Matrix ................................ ............................... 1-9 Table 1-2 Island Annexation Service Providers ................................ ................................ ................. 1-10 Table 2-1 City of Hanford Growth Estimates ................................ ................................ ...................... 2-12 Table 4-1 Capital Improvement Plan Funding Breakdown by Category ................................ ..... 4-1 Table 4-2 Number of Crimes Known by Hanford Police Department ................................ ....... 4-21
Draft
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page iii
Table 4-3 Comparison of Crimes per 1,000 Residents (2018)................................ ..................... 4-22 Table 4-4 Parkland within Hanford by Type (City of Hanford, 2020) ................................ ...... 4-25
LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 4-1 Water Department Revenues and Expenditures
(Maintenance and Operations)................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 4-8 Chart 4-2 Sewer Department Revenues and Expenditures ................................ ........................... 4-15 Chart 4-3 Fire Department Revenues and Expenditures ................................ ............................... 4-18 Chart 4-4 Police Department Revenues and Expenditures ................................ ........................... 4-22 Chart 4-5 Parks and Recreation Department Revenues and Expenditures ............................ 4-28 Chart 4-6 Street Division Revenues and Expenditures ................................ ................................ ... 4-32 Chart 4-7 Storm Drainage Operations Revenues and Expenditures ................................ .......... 4-39 Chart 4-8 Refuse Operations Revenues and Expenditures ................................ ............................ 4-45
Draft Introduction
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-1
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 - Municipal Service Review Purpose
The Municipal Service Review (MSR) is a comprehensive assessment of the ability of existing local government agencies to effectively and efficiently provide municipal services to residents and users. The form and content of an MSR is specified by requirements in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act) and in the State of California’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) MSR Guidelines, published in August 2003.
The CKH Act requires all LAFCos, including the Local Agency Formation Commission of Kings County (Kings LAFCo), to prepare a n MSR for each of its incorporated cities and its special districts. The fundamental role of LAFCo is to implement the CKH Act, which was adopted into State law to encourage the logical, efficient, and most appropriate formation of local municipalities, service areas, and special districts. MSRs are to be completed every five years, and must be completed prior to, or in conjunction with, an update of a city or special district Sphere of Influence (SOI).
This MSR was initiated by Kings LAFCo in the beginning of 2020 and is intended to provide Kings LAFCo with the necessary and relevant information relate d to the operations and management of the municipal service providers within the City of Hanford’s (the City or Hanford) proposed SOI update. The City of Hanford is the County seat of Kings County located in the San Joaquin Valley of California (Figure 1-1).
Kings LAFCo desires to review the local governing landscape of Hanford for service delivery and make recommendations that promote orderly growth and development while preserving surrounding agricultural and open space lands. In addition, the report will review the City of Hanford’s request to amend its SOI and determine the feasibility of annexing eight County islands (Figure 1-2).
The City of Hanford last had a Municipal Service Review (MSR) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) Update conducted by Kings LAFCo in 2007. Since that time, the City has adopted a new General Plan. Given that there have been land use policy changes in its new General Plan, the City is requesting that Kings LAFCo adopt a new MSR and amend the SOI consistent with its new General Plan, specifically so that the SOI is coterminous with the City’s 2035 Growth Boundary (Figure 1-2).
The City is also looking to annex neighborhood communities located within the unincorporated County areas that are completely surrounded by the City. The premise and guidance given by State law and local rules are that county islands should generally be annexed into a city so they may receive more efficient delivery of services, as a city is usually more equipped to provide urban level services than the county or other entity.
Draft Introduction
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-2
Figure 1-1
Regional Location
Draft Introduction
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-3
Figure 1-2
2035 Growth Boundary and Island Annexations
Draft Introduction
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-4
To facilitate the annexation of county islands to contiguous cities, the State legislature has adopted specific provisions in the Government Code that require LAFCo annexation approval and waive r of protest proceedings if LAFCo makes certain findings and determinations.
Those determination are as follows:
Government Code Section 56375
(a)(4) A commission shall not disapprove an annexation to a city, initiated by resolution, of contiguous territory that the commission finds any of the following:
(A) Surrounded or substantially surrounded by the city to which the annexation is proposed or by that city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean if the territory to be annexed is substantially developed or developing, is not prime agricultural land as defined in Section 56064, is designated for urban growth by the general plan of the annexing city, and is not within the sphere of influence of another city. (B) Located within an urban service area that has been delineated and adopted by a commission, which is not prime agricultural land, as defined by Section 56064, and is designated for urban growth by the general plan of the annexing city. (C) An annexation or reorganization of unincorporated islands meeting the requirements of Section 56375.3.
Government Code Section 56375.3
(a) In addition to those powers enumerated in Section 56375, a commissi on shall approve, after notice and hearing, the change of organization or reorganization of a city, and waive protest proceedings pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 57000) entirely, if all of the following are true:
(1) The change of organization or reorganization is initiated on or after January 1, 2000.
(2) The change of organization or reorganization is proposed by resolution adopted by the affected city.
(3) The commission finds that the territory contained in the change of organization or reorganization proposal meets all the requirements set forth in subdivision (b). (b) Subdivision (a) applies to territory that meets all the following requirements:
(1) It does not exceed 150 acres in area, and that area constitutes the entire island. (2) The territory constitutes an entire unincorporated island located within the limits of a city, or constitutes a reorganization containing several individual unincorporated islands.
Draft Introduction
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-5
(3) It is surrounded in either of the following ways:
(A) Surrounded, or substantially surrounded, by the city to which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean. (B) Surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed and adjacent cities.
(4) It is substantially developed or developing. The finding required by this paragraph shall be based upon one or more factors, including, but not limited to, any of the following factors:
(A) The availability of public utility services.
(B) The presence of public improvements.
(C) The presence of physical improvements upon the parcel or parcels within the area.
(5) It is not prime agricultural land, as defined by Section 56064. (6) It will benefit from the change of organization or reorganization or is receiving benefits from the annexing city.
(7) This subdivision does not apply to any unincorporated island within a city that is a gated community where services are currently provided by a community services district.
1.2 - MSR Preparation, Review and Adoption Process
The process of developing the MSR began with the collection of planning documents, budgetary documents , and other records by QK, a consulting firm hired by the City of Hanford. QK also assisted the City in the preparation of its General Plan Update.
After review by the City, an administrative dr aft was presented to LAFCo staff for their review. Edits required by LAFCo staff and Counsel were made to LAFCo staff’s satisfaction prior to public release of the draft MSR.
A hearing was scheduled by Kings LAFCo on ______________, 2021, where comments from the public were heard and adoption of the MSR, including its Determinations and Recommendations, could be considered . After input and comment from the public, the Commission approved the MSR on ___________, 2021.
1.3 - Required Topic Areas of Analysis
This MSR contain s analysis and conclusions, referred to as Determinations, regarding six topic areas , as set forth in the CKH Act. These areas of analysis focus on the essential
Draft Introduction
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-6
operational and management aspects of the City of Hanford , and together constitute a complete review of Hanford’s ability of to meet the service demands of its residents and businesses. The six topic areas used for analysis in this MSR are:
1. Growth and Population Projections
2. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
3. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
4. Financial Ability to Provide Services
5. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities
6. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies
An explanation of the specific operational and management aspects considered in each of these topic areas is provided below.
1. Growth and Population Projections
Service efficiency is linked to a service provider’s ability to plan for the future need s of a city while also meeting existing service demands. This section reviews projected service demands and needs based upon existing and anticipated growth patterns and population projections. This is found in Section 2 – Growth and Population Projections.
2. The Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence
Unincorporated disadvantaged communities, as defined by Water Code Section 79505.5, may lack basic infrastructure, such as water, sewer, or fire protection, because they may have been overlooked due to their socioeconomic status. To promote equality and environmental justice in accordance with adopted local policy and Senate Bill 244, adopted in 2011, the proximity of any disadvantaged community to existing service providers is analyzed and discussed in order to determine if the community should be included in the SOI of the City. This is found in Section 3 – Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities.
3. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies
Infrastructure can be evaluated in terms of condition, capacity, availability, quality and relationship to operational, capital improvement , and finance planning. This section assesses the adequacy and quality of the service providers’ physical infrastructure and analyzes whether or not sufficient infrastructure and capital are in place (or planned for) to accommodate planned future growth and expansions. This is found in Section 4.
Draft Introduction
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-7
4. Financial Ability to Provide Services
This section analyzes the financial structure and health of the City with respect to the provision of services. Included in this analysis is the consideration of rates, service operations, and the like, as well as other factors affecting the City’s financial health and stability, including factors affecting the financing of needed infrastructure improvements and services. Compliance with existing State requirements relative to financial reporting and management is also discussed. This is found in Section 4.
5. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities
Practices and opportunities that may help to reduce or eliminate unnecessary costs are examined in this section. Occurrences of facility sharing are listed and assessed for efficiency, and potential sharing opportunities that would serve to better deliver services are discussed. This is found in Section 4.
6. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies
This section addresses the adequacy and appropriateness of the agency’s existing boundaries and sphere of influence and evaluates the ability of the City to meet their service demands under their existing gov ernment struct ure. Also included in this section is an evaluation of compliance by the agency with public meeting and records laws. This is found in Section 4.
1.4 - LAFCo Powers
LAFCo has the power to determine the SOI for the City of Hanford. An SOI is a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency . It is represented by a boundary line on a map. The boundary line shows the territory that is expected to eventually be within the agency’s boundary, as determined by LAFCo. It is by this meth od that LAFCo makes policy statements about its intent for the future probable boundaries of a city. If LAFCo chooses to not adopt a n SOI for a city or district, meaning that it chooses to adopt a "zero" sphere, then it is making the policy statement that its plan is for that agency to eventually be consolidated into the city or another district . The preparation of an MSR is required prior to the amendment of a city or district's SOI.
1.5 - Key Considerations and Goals
The MSR will use the following goals to evaluate the potential government structure options for the Hanford area:
1. Efficient provision of municipal services . The ultimate goal of the preferred governance structure should be an efficient operating structure and stable fiscal basis required to effectively provide municipal services to the City of Hanford.
Draft Introduction
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-8
2. Adequate revenue sources. The ability to provide municipal services at adequate levels hinges upon stable revenue streams linked to the services for which t he revenues are being collected.
3. Proactive approach to governance structure . Government agency reorganization proposals (e.g., municipal incorporations, major annexations, etc.) are necessarily complex procedures requiring substantial effort on the part o f proponents, LAFCo and the affected agencies. These reorganizations are often more complex when contemplated on a reactive basis rather than a proactive basis . An understanding of a long-range approach to reorganization will assist in evaluating specific proposals to determine if they will bring the community closer to the desired result.
4. Avoidance of intergovernmental conflicts, competition, or issues. Conflicts between local jurisdictions over control and other impacts across jurisdictions and competitio n for resources (e.g., fiscal revenue generators) often consume resources and weaken incentives to cooperate on important regional issues like transit service, water quantity and quality, air quality, and habitat conservation.
5. Local preference. There is often more than one feasible government structure that can potentially provide local municipal services . The residents and businesses of the community must have the opportunity to participate in choosing the method, especially since a governmental structure change will likely require some sort of election process for it to be implemented . Local preference also may include agreements made between local agencies regarding where and how growth and development may occur within a region. These agreements have been identified within CKH as important for consideration during the MSR and SOI update process. The Commission “shall give great weight to the agreement to the extent that it is consistent with [ LAFCO} commis sion policies… (emphasis added)” (Government Code §56425(b)).
1.6 - Services Provided
The City of Hanford is empowered as a general law city, governed by State law and local ordinances, to provide specific municipal services within its boundaries. The City of Hanford has several divisions, covering many municipal services, including Police, Fire, Emergency Response, Water, Wastewater, Flood Control/Drainage, Solid Waste, Street Maintenance, Street Lighting, and Parks and Recreation Maintenance. Some of the aforementioned services are provided to communities outside of the City’s jurisdiction.
There are three communities within a one -mile buffer of the City of Hanford’s Sphere of Influence. Armona Census Designated Place ( Armona) is located approximately 0.95 miles west of the City of Hanford ’s SOI and contains approximately 3,795 residents. The Armona Community Service District ( CSD) provides water, wastewater, solid waste collection, limited flood control services, limited street maintenanc e, and street lighting services.
Armona also receives law enforcement, fire, and emergency services from Kings County (Kings County) . Home Garden Census Designated Place (Home Garden) is located approximately 0.35 miles southeast of the City and contains approximately 1,643 residents.
Draft Introduction
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-9
Home Garden CSD only provides water supply and distribution services. Home Garden CSD also receives law enforcement, fire and emergency service, flood control, street maintenance, and street lighting from Kings County. In addition, wastewater collection and disposal services are provided by the City of Hanford (Kings County). According to the Kings County Planning Department, the Census Designated Place of Grangeville (Grangeville) does not have a community service district or a public utilities district to provide municipal services.
It is located approximately 0.85 miles west of the City and contains about 586 residents. The majority of services are pro vided by Kings County and water and wastewater services are provided by private wells and septic systems.
The 2018 American Community Survey estimated approximately 56,910 residents in the City of Hanford. The nearby communities’ population is approximately is Home Garden with 1,643 residents, Grangeville with 586 residents, and Armona with 3,795 residents. The total population of these unincorporated residential communities is approximately 5,438 residents (American Community Servey, 2018).
The matrix in Table 1-1 specifies the services that the City provides. The matrix also includes two nearby community service districts that also provide some of the same services.
Table 1-1
Current, Authorized and Latent Powers Matrix
Municipal Service Type City of
Hanford
Armona
Community
Service District
Home Garden
Community
Service District
Law Enforcement City County County
Fire and Emergency Service City County County
Water Supply City District District
Water Distribution City District District
Wastewater Collection City District City
Wastewater Disposal City District City
Solid Waste Collection City District District
Flood Control/Drainage City District (limited) County
Street Maintenance City District (limited) County
Street Lighting City District County
Parks and Recreation
Maintenance City District N/A
Source: City of Hanford 2035 General Plan, Armona 2035 Community Plan, Home Garden Community Plan
Draft Introduction
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-10
Table 1-2
Island Annexation Service Providers
Municipal Service Type Island Annexation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Law Enforcement County County County County County County County County Fire and Emergency
Service County County County County County County County County Water Supply Private City City City City City City Private Water Distribution Private City City City City City City Private Wastewater Collection Private City City City City City City Private Wastewater Disposal Private City City City City City City Private Solid Waste Collection* County County County County County County County County Flood
Control/Drainage County County County County County County County County Street Maintenance County County County County County County County County Street Lighting County County County County County County County County Parks and Recreation
Maintenance County County County County County County County County Source: 2017 Water System Master Plan, 2017 Sewer System Master Plan, 2017 Storm Drain Master Plan City of Hanford, and 2035 City of Hanford General Plan
* Solid waste collection in the County islands is currently optional.
Draft Growth and Population Projections
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 2-11
SECTION 2 - GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
2.1 - Introduction
The purpose of this section is to evaluate service demand based on existing and anticipated growth patterns and population projections. The MSR Guidelines call for LAFCo to determine historic and projected growth and absorption patterns in relationship to a service provider’s boundaries and SOI . In addition, LAFCo is tasked with evaluating the impact and compatibility of such growth on and with land use plans, services, local government structures and growth patterns.
2.2 - History of Hanford
The City of Hanford started as a Chinese sheepherder’s simple camp along the Southern Pacific Railway line from Goshen to Coalinga. The settlement was named for James Madison Hanford, auditor of the railroad, who also took lively interest in the sale of town lots. The sale of lots began on January 17, 1877. The settlement grew to a town and eventually the trading center of the area.
Through the early years, a series of devastating fires hampered the growth of the town. In 1887, the fire that destroyed most of the downtown spurred talk of incorporation, but the idea of additional taxes prevented any action. Then in June 1891, another fire destroyed the downtown business district once again. An election was held to determine whether the town should incorporate. The vote was 127 to 47, in fa vor of incorporation. On August 12, 1891, the City of Hanford was born. When Kings County was formed in 1893, Hanford became the County seat.
After the incorporation, Hanford continued to grow into a thriving town. For many years Hanford had the only opera house between the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas. In 1945, the first paid Fire Department was established, and the City Planning Commission was created. In 1950 the City Manager/City Council form of government was established.
Many of the historic buildings in the downtown area came to become underutilized. To combat that, the City Council established a Historic District. As a result of many acti vities in downtown Hanford, the restoration and rehabilitation program, and the cooperation between private citizens and City officials, in 1985 Hanford won the Helen Putnam Award for Excellence awarded by the League of California Cities. In 1986, American City and County Magazine chose Hanford as one of ten cities in the United States to receive its Award of Merit.
Most recently, Rohm and Haas Paint Quality Institute of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania named the City as one of the country’s “Prettiest Painted Places in America” (City of Hanford, 2009).
The last Municipal Services Review and Sphere of Influence Update for the City of Hanford was conducted in 2007. Per the Review, the Sphere of Influence was updated. The Sphere of Influence was reduced in three areas and expanded in one area. The current Sphere of Influence is shown in Figure 1-2 above.
Draft Growth and Population Projections
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 2-12
2.3 - Planning and Growth Projections
The City of Hanford General Plan was adopted in 2017 by the Hanford City Council to provide land use development decision -making guidance and to provide a planning framework for the development of more detail ed implementation plans and measures. A map depicting these planned land use patterns is shown in Figure 2-1.
After reviewing historical growth rates and projected growth trends available in 2014 , a Citizens Advisory Committee determined that the General Plan Update would assume Hanford’s average annual population growth rate would be 2.1 percent, which would result in an assumed population of 90,000 persons in the year 2035.
Despite the General Plan’s projected growth rate of 2.1 percent, the actual annual growth rates from 2010 to 201 9 have not been 2. 1 percent. This can be seen below in Table 2 -1. If the City starts to grow according to the General Plan, at a rate of 2.1 percent, starting in 2019, the estimated population of 2035 will be approximately 80,000.
The population estimates in the General Plan were generated utilizing historic growth rates and projected growth trends. There is currently available information that would allow fo r these estimates to be updated accordingly. In Table 2 -1, population estimates have been updated to account for the more recent population information available.
Based on these updated figures, it is apparent that the infrastructure planning for the City would be able to support population growth beyond the 2035 horizon if current trends remain constant. The infrastructure plans described in the City’s Master Plans accounted for a 2.1 percent population increase, per the General Plan . However, anomalies or unforeseen events may occur between now and 2035 that may spike growth in the City. To prepare for this, the population estimates utilized by the City in their Infrastructure Master Plans should be monitored to ensure that they are not being outpaced by the City’s population growth.
Table 2-1
City of Hanford Growth Estimates
Forecast
Year
Population
Estimate
% Annual
Growth
Forecast
Year
Population
Estimate
% Annual
Growth
2010 Census 53,967 2019 57,703 1.4%
2011 (ACS) 53,891 -.14% 2020 58,915 2.1%
2012 (ACS) 54,205 .58% 2021 60,152 2.1%
2013 (ACS) 54,461 .47% 2022 61,415 2.1%
2014(ACS) 54,523 .11% 2023 62,705 2.1%
2015 (ACS) 54,790 .49% 2024 64,022 2.1%
2016 (ACS) 54,912 .22% 2025 65,366 2.1%
2017 (ACS) 55,599 1.25% 2026 66,739 2.1%
2018 (ACS) 56,910 2.3% 2027 68,140 2.1%
2035 80,465 2.1%
Draft Growth and Population Projections
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 2-13
Figure 2-1
General Plan Map
Draft Growth and Population Projections
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 2-14
Based on the actual data currently available and supplemented using the 2.1 percent annual growth rate, the population in 2035 would be approximately 80,000 residents, which is about 10,000 less than the population forecast within the General Plan. For infrastructu re planning purposes, the estimates would be acceptable as the infrastructure would be able to accommodate growth beyond the planning horizon date of 2035.
2.3.1 - COUNTY ISLANDS
As shown in Figure 1-2, there are eight County islands within the bounds of city limits. It is in within the best interest of the City to consider annexation of these island to reduce inefficiencies and deficiencies of services provided. Population estimates were derived for each County island to estimate the demand for service. To calcula te the estimated population, an aerial interpretation of residential structures was conducted. Then the amount of residential structures was multiplied by the City of Hanford’s estimated person per household (3.04 persons) to produce an estimated population.
County Island #1
This island consists of 12 large residential properties. 11 out of 12 parcels are developed with residential structures. The existing land use for this island is rural residential, with parcels ranging in size from approximately 1.7 to 2.7 acres. The planned land use for these properties is Low Density Residential. The estimated population is 33 people.
County Island #2
The island consists of 48 parcels, one of which has a commercial use and one is vacant. There are 49 residential struc tures within this island area. The existing land uses are commercial and urban residential. The parcels sizes range from 0.07 to 0.87 acres, with an average size of 0.26 acres. The planned land use for these properties is Medium Density Residential. The estimated population is 149 people.
County Island #3
The island consists of 119 parcels. There are 102 residential structures within the island area. County island #3 is one of the larger annexation areas being proposed at over 100 acres.
Parcel size consists of parcels within the range 0.09 to 5.85 acres, with an average of 0.75 - acres. The existing land use is primarily urban residential and rural residential. In addition, there are some commercial uses and school facilities. The planned land uses are Low Density Residential, Mixed -Use Corridor, Open Space, and Educational Facilities. The estimated population is 310 people.
County Island #4
This island is one of the three larger islands totaling approximately 90 acres. This island consists of 172 parcels, 12 2 residential parcels, and 125 residential structures. The approximate average parcel size for this island is 0.46 acres. There are a few large parcels that are several acres large. The largest being 14 acres. The large parcels are primarily
Draft Growth and Population Projections
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 2-15
vacant. The ex isting land use is urban residential with rural residential, commercial, and vacant land. The island is mainly urban with dense development and towards the southeast the parcels are larger with more vacant land. The planned land uses are Low Density, Medium Density Residential, Open Space, and Mixed-Use Corridor. The estimated population is 380 people.
County Island #5
The island is unique for the fact that the City’s General Plan designated the entire island as Mixed-Use Corridor. The island consists of 45 parcels, 20 residential parcels, and 22 residential structures. The estimated average parcel size is 1.21 acres. The parcel size ranges from 0.09 to 16.85 acres. There are two vacant parcels that are larger than 10 acres. The existing land use is primarily urban residential, in addition to commercial and vacant parcels.
As mentioned previously the entire island is designated as Mixed Use. The estimated population is 69 people.
County Island #6
The island consists of 77 total parcels, 63 residential parcel s and 72 residential structures.
The estimated average parcel size 0.38 acres. The parcel sizes range from 0.11 to 5.12 acres.
The annexation area is split fairly evenly between Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential. The annexation area is primarily urban with a few parcels that are vacant. The estimated population is 219 people.
County Island #7
This County island is unique in the sense that it only incorporates a single neighborhood. The island is approximately 350 feet wide and 2,650 fe et long or roughly 21 acres. The island consists of 36 parcels that are all residential, which contain 36 residential structures. The average estimated parcel size is 0.45 acres; with ranges from 0.20 to 0.72 acres. The entire island has planned land use o f Low Density Residential. The estimated population is 109 people.
County Island #8
Similar to County island #7, this island only incorporates one neighborhood. This island consists of eight parcels that consist of eight residential parcels with eight residential structures. The average estimated parcel size is 2.36 acres and ranges from 1.77 to 2.74 acres. The entire island has a planned land use of Low Density Residential. The estimated population is 24 people.
The total population for all the island annexations is approximately 1,293 people.
Draft Growth and Population Projections
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 2-16
Figure 2-2
Zoning Map
Draft Growth and Population Projections
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 2-17
2.4 - Anticipated Service Needs
The Hanford area requires typical local municipal services, such as water service, sewer service, police and fire protection, storm drainage, street maintenance, parks and recreation, schools, communication infrastructure, and solid waste collection. The City has adopted an updated General Plan and corresponding Master Plans to accommodate future growth in an orderly manner until the year 2035.
This Municipal Service Review will review water service, wastewater service, fire protection, police protection, street maintenance, parks and recreation, public transportation, and solid waste. It will review the level of service in each area and analyze whether the City would have the ability to provide services to the County islands discussed in Section 1. The City conducts infrastructure master planning in the areas of water, sewer, and storm drainage .
The County islands were not taken into consideration in those Master Plans, as there does not appear to be discussion about providing service in addition to no planned infrastructure shown on any of the buildout maps of the correspond systems. This MSR will take the level of service needed in those County islands into consideration, along with the predicted growth projections of the City, to conclude ability for the City to annex the islands.
The Water, Sewer, and Storm Drainage Master Plans have evaluated the ability for the City to accommodate both current and future populations. The population projections in these Master Plans is the same as is described in the General Plan. Recommendations in the Master Plans include but are not limited to:
• Addressing drainage basin capacity deficiencies with either the construction of a new drainage basin or an expansion of an existing basin;
• Pipeline improvements within a series of trunk sewer service areas; • Replace existing pumps in two lift stations in the City; • Replace one force main that is currently 12 inches in diameter with one that is 18 inches in diameter;
• Development of three new water storage facilities (Northeast, Southeast, and Industrial Park Storage Expansion);
• Development of two new water pump stations and an upgrade of o ne existing pump station; or
• Monitoring of well efficiencies on a frequent basis to adequately manage the groundwater supply.
The City’s General Plan has three policies regarding annexations. Policy L15 describes the criteria that must be met when consider ing an initiation of an annexation. Policy L16 states that the City should “Initiate annexation of County islands when it is found that urban services are needed and can be provided or made available in the near future”. Policy L17 states that future propo sal must “Prepare and make publicly available a written Plan for Services that describes how urban services will be provided prior to initiating an annexation”.
Draft Growth and Population Projections
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 2-18
2.5 - Determinations
Determination 2-1 - U.S. Census data indicates that the City had a 2010 population of 53,967, a 2023 population (five-year increment from last Community Survey prediction) of 63,140, and a population projection of 87,429 by 2047, according to population projections from the General Plan.
Determination 2-2 - Based upon recent historical population trends from 2010 to 2015, the average annual growth rate was 0.3 percent for the City of Hanford. Therefore, the current population is trending below the projections of the General Plan.
Determination 2-3 - The City plans for future growth through the implementation of policies and standards set forth in its General Plan. The City’s General Plan was updated in 2017 and is a long -range guide for attaining the City’s goals within its ultimate service area and accommodating its populatio n growth . The City’s General Plan provides a policy base to guide future growth within the City.
Determination 2 -4 - The City contains policies in their General Plan that regulate future annexations.
Draft Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 3-1
SECTION 3 - DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
3.1 - Overview
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) are defined as inhabited territory (12 or more registered voters ) that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual median household income of or below $60,181 which is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income of $75,227 in 2018 (California Department of Finance, 2018). Communities meeting this financial threshold were specifically identified as an area of concern by Senate Bill 244 , adopted into State law in 2011. These communities may also lack essential municipal services such as water, wastewater, or stormwater drainage as they may have been developed prior to infrastructure being installed in proximity to them .
Furthermore, structural fire protection may be inconsistent in these areas du e to lack of agreements or memorandums of understanding that provide mutual aid from adjacent jurisdictions if there is a need. Kings LAFCo has not adopted a policy or more specific definition of DUCs, therefore, the criteria within State law will be utilized.
Pursuant to State law, LAFCo is required to identify any adjacent DUCs and determine if they should be included within any SOI amendment of an existing city or special district or potentially included during the consideration of any special district formation in the future (California Legislative Information, 2011).
The City of Hanford provides its own potable water service , wastewater, storm drain, and fire and emergency services within its jurisdiction. As it pertains to the previously mentioned services, the County islands primarily rely on the City for those services , with a few exceptions as detailed in Table 1 -2. All of the County islands receive services pertaining to water, wastewater, storm drain and fire and emergency services from either private source, the City, or the County.
Outside the city limits, fire protection and emergency service are provided by Kings County.
The City of Hanford provides water service to County islands 2 through 7 , provides wastewater collection to Islands 2 and 3 through 7. Hanford provides wastewater disposal services to County islands 1 through 6 and 8. Storm drain/Flood Control is provided by the County to all County islands. Furthermore, Home Garden is the only established community receives water and wastewater services from Hanford.
As shown in Figure 3-1, the majority of the area within the bounds of the city limits and SOI has a median household income that is less than 80 percent of the California’s median household income or near that threshold. Although these areas are below the median income level, the appropriate services are currently being provided. However, there are several areas outside of the city limits that are below the 80 percent threshold for median household income, including several County islands. All of the County islands are considered inhabited because they have more than 12 registered voters. As identified in Table 1-2, the County islands that do not receive services , shall be determined a disadvantaged unincorporated community. This is one of the reasons why the County islands are proposed for annexation.
Draft Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 3-2
Figure 3-1
Median Household Income (2018)
Draft Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 3-3
As shown in Figure 3 -2, Home Garden CSD is the only CSD within the City’s SOI . The CSD provides its own potable water services to its residents. Home Garden relies on the City of Hanford for wastewater services and Kings County for police and fire and emergency services.
Therefore, most of the land within the SOI, excluding Home Garden, can be considered as a DUC as their median income is below 80 percent of the statewide average. Furthermore, as some of these neighborhoods receive private water services or maintain their own private wastewater system, they are considered disadvantaged as they do not receive the benefit of having municipal level services. Lastly, fire protection is provided to these areas by the County currently, so they are not disadvantaged with respect to lacking structural fire protection. The Kings County Fire Departmen t serves the unincorporated areas of the County including the four communities of Armona, Home Garden, Kettleman City, and Stratford (Kings County General Plan, 2010).
In addition, there are several parcels outside the western extent of the city limits (within the City’s SOI) which may become a DUC as shown in Figure 3 -2. This area is near the level of income that can establish them as a DUC , outside of the water, wastewater, and fire and emergency service boundary of the City, and is not within a service provider’s boundary.
3.2 - Determinations
Determination 3-1 - There are Census Block Groups within the City of Hanford that have a median household income below $60,181(80 percent of the statewide median household income).
Determination 3-2 - There are areas currently within the City’s SOI that can be considered unincorporated disadvantaged communities due to median household income being below 80 percent of the statewide average.
Determination 3-3 – The community of Home Garden is within the City of Hanford’s SOI and currently provides potable water service. Wastewater service is provided by the City and fire and emergency protection services from Kings County . These areas would only be considered disadvantaged based on income, not from a service delivery standpoint.
Determination 3 -4 – There are areas within the SOI that currently receive water and/or sewer through private facilities, such as wells and septic tanks, while receiving fire and emergency protection services from Kings County and are below the 80 percent threshold of medium household income. These areas would be considered disadvantaged from a service delivery and an income standpoint and should be evaluated on a case by case basis when there is a nei ghborhood of 12 or more registered voters t hat could be included in a future annexation, per State law.
Determination 3 -5 – Areas designated as having potential to become a DUC should be monitored and reviewed during the next municipal service review for the City.
Draft Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 3-4
Figure 3-2
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Areas
Draft City of Hanford Service Review
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 4-1
SECTION 4 - CITY OF HANFORD SERVICE REVIEW
4.1 - Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies The purpose of this section is to evaluate the infrastructure needs and deficiencies of the City of Hanford in terms of availability of resources, capacity to deliver services, condition of facilities, planned improvements, service quality, and levels of service.
LAFCo is responsible for determining that an agency requesting an SOI amendment is reasonably capable of providing needed resources and basic infrastructure to serve areas within the City and its SOI. It is important that these findings of infrastructure and resource availability are made when revisions to the SOI and annexations occur. LAFCo accomplishes this by evaluating whether resources and services are being expanded in line with increasing demands.
4.1.1 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (FISCAL YEARS 2020 TO 2024) The City’s five -year Capital I mprovement Plan (CIP) involved collaboration by the Engineering and Community Development Departments to evaluate the City’s capital improvement needs to accommodate the community both now and in the future. The five - year CIP is reviewed annually and includes projects from nine categories: Airport, Industrial Park, Facilities and General Projects, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, Storm Drainage, Wastewater, Water, and Downtown Projects. The largest contribut ion of funds for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 goes to water projects (approximately $3.48 million or 34 percent of total CIP budget)(City of Hanford, 2020).
Table 4-1
Capital Improvement Plan Funding Breakdown by Category
Project Category Project Funding Overall Percentage
Facilities and General Projects $972,500 9%
Parks & Recreation Projects $662,000 6%
Transportation Projects $2,965,000 29%
Storm Drainage Projects $560,950 6%
Wastewater Projects $220,000 2%
Water Projects $3,480,000 34%
Downtown Projects $140,000 1%
Airport Projects $1,160,000 11%
Industrial Park Projects $175,000 2%
Total $10,335,450 100%
Source: City of Hanford - Capital Improvement Plan - Fiscal Years 2020 to 2024
Draft City of Hanford Service Review
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 4-2
Current and potential projects are listed by project title and funding source. In the event of budget shortfalls, there is not a guiding policy that indicates how priorities would be derived.
The development of clear policies and quantifiable goals for the CIP would aid in its development of clear, justified projects and allow for year to year evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the CIP for staff, elected official s, and the public . The City has adopted some policies for the general budgeting process as well as adopted some visioning principles in the General Plan. The establishment of benchmarks and/or performance indicators would allow for the City to hold itself accountable on its progress and implementation of the adopted CIP.
Determinations
Determination 4.1.1-1 – The City annually adopts a Capital Improvement Plan that identifies key capital projects that are needed to enhance services to residents.
Determination 4. 1.1-2 – The C apital Improvement Plan could include milestones, performance indicators and/or specific goals consistent with the visioning principles of the General Plan to benchmark its progress in achieving specific levels of service for its residents.
Draft City of Hanford Service Review
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 4-3
4.1.2 - WATER
Summary of Prior MSR Findings
The 2007 MSR identified that Hanford relies completely upon groundwater for its domestic use, and the City was operating 19 groundwater wells. The groundwater basin underlying the City is the Tulare Lake Basin, which is part of the Tulare Hydrologic Region within the San Joaquin Valley. The total storage capacity of the subbasin is 17,100,000 acre -feet to a depth of 300 feet and 82,500 acre-feet to the base of fresh groundwater.
At the time of the previous MSR, the City had just updated the Water Master Plan in February 2006. That Master Plan identified the 1995 Level Overdraft for the Tulare Lake Region at 820,000 acre -feet. According to the Master Plan, groundwater overdraft is expected to decline to 670,000 acre-feet during the 2020 average and drought years.
The Federal Arsenic Minimum Containment Level of 0.01 0 milligrams per liter w as established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and went into effect in January of 2006. At that time of the previous MSR, the City of Hanford had received a Notice of Violation from the California Department of Health Services informing the City that five of their wells do not comply with the new Federal Arsenic MCL. The non-compliance notice did not require termination of the use of the identified wells but did require the City to provide quarterly monitoring reports and public not ice of non -compliance. When the previous MSR was published, the City’s water system and water quality were in compliance with the new Federal Standards. The City implemented a plan for reducing arsenic in its groundwater supply system.
The City’s municipal water system pumping capacity was 24,455 gallons per minute or 35.2 million gallons a day according to the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. The total storage capacity was 2.8 million gallons (Kings County LAFCo, 2007).
Current Conditions
The City completed an updated Water System Master Plan in 2017 that updated much of the information identified in the prior 2007 MSR. Figure 4-1 shows the extent of the existing water system. Figure 4 -2 shows the planned system intended to serve the entire are a planned for growth in the General Plan.
The City’s municipal water system currently consists of 14 active groundwater wells, three storage reservoirs that have a cumulative capacity of 3.5 million gallons, 217 miles of distribution pipelines, and fire hydran ts (City of Hanford, 2017) . The City’s generally flat topography slopes from the northeast to the southwest from approximately 2 55 feet in the northeast to approximately 225 feet in th e southwest. With this generally flat topography, the City operates two pressure zones, with the primary pressure zone covering areas north of the Kings Industrial Park and the remaining pressure zone serving the Kings Industrial Park, located south of Iona Avenue.
Draft City of Hanford Service Review
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 4-4
Akel
Engineering
Group, Inc.
Figure 4-1
Hanford Existing Water System
City Administrative Draft City of Hanford Service Review
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review March 2021
Kings LAFCo Page 4-5
Akel
Engineering
Group, Inc.
Figure 4-2
Hanford Proposed Buildout of Water System
City Administrative Draft City of Hanford Service Review
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review March 2021
Kings LAFCo Page 4-6
The City continues to use groundwater as the sole source of water supply. The City’s current total rated supply is 34.9 million gallons per day (mgd ). Consistent with the system performance and design criteria the f irm capacity was calculated as the capacity with the largest well out of service and is equal to 32 mgd. Each tank is briefly discussed in the following:
• Tank 4 is a 0.5 MG ground level steel storage tank at the intersection of 11 th Avenue and Iona Avenue that serves the Industrial Park to satisfy normal domestic demands plus fire flows. The tank is filled from the Main Pressure Zone through an altitude valve connected to a 12 -inch pipeline on 11 th Avenue. Booster pumps supply the Industrial Park Pressure Zone from the tank, maintaining a downstream pressure of approximately 80 psi. The tank can be bypassed to serve the Industrial Park Pressure Zone in the event of an emergency or for normal tank maintenance. • Tank 5 is composed of two interconnected 1.0 MG ground level steel storage tanks at the intersection of Grangeville Boulevard and Centennial Drive that serve the Main Pressure Zone to satisfy normal domestic demands. The tanks are directly filled from Wells 40, 42, 43, which are controlled by SCADA to maintain set levels within the tanks. Booster pumps supply the Main Pressure Zone from the tanks and are controlled by SCADA to turn on and off based on specific downstream pressures. • Tank 6 is a 1 .0 MG ground level steel storage tank at the intersection Fargo Avenue and the BNSF railroad that serves the Main Pressure Zone to satisfy normal domestic demands. The tank is filled from wells 41 and 44, which are controlled by SCADA to maintain set levels within the tanks. Booster pumps supply the Main Pressure Zone from the tanks and are controlled by SCADA to turn on and off based on specified downstream pressures.
Future storage requirements were identified based on the City’s anticipated development through the horizon of the Master Plan. The Master Plan describes future domestic water demands and identifies operational fire storage requirements for each zone. The total required storage for future domestic water demand is 6.1 million gallons; the tota l capacity is currently 5.84 million gallons. The Water Master Plan describes three proposed storage reservoirs (Northeast Storage Facility, Southeast Storage Facility, and the Industrial Park Storage Expansion) that are planned to increase storage capacity to meet the future demand.
The 2013 maximum day and peak hour demands at 100 percent occupancy are calculated at
21.1 mgd and 30.2 mgd, respectively. The projected total maximum day demand and peak hour demand for the buildout of the Planned Area Boundar y at 100 percent occupancy are
38.5 mgd and 55.0 mgd, respectively. Water demands vary with time of day and by account type according to the land use designation. These fluctuations were accounted for in the modeling effort and evaluation of the water dist ribution system. Daytime demand patterns affect the water levels in storage reservoirs and amount of flow through distribution mains.
A daytime curve was used to model the demand patterns of existing customers. The peaks in the daytime pattern match the peaking factors recommended in the Master Plan.
City Administrative Draft City of Hanford Service Review
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review March 2021
Kings LAFCo Page 4-7
The costs identified within the Water Master Plan are described in the Capital Improvement Program. In total, the CIP includes approximately 70 miles of pipeline improvements, 11 new wells, five new storage reservoirs, and three new booster stations, with a project cost totaling over $95.2 million (City of Hanford, 2017).
As described in the last MSR, the City’s groundwater supply has one water quality constituent that has historica lly required mitigation measures to ensure the supply is not limited, which is arsenic. Arsenic is concentrated in the clay strata beneath the City, and hydrogen sulfide, which may cause discoloration, adverse taste, and a smell typically compared to rotte n eggs. The City has implemented a chlorination program for the water supply, and hydrogen sulfide is no longer considered a water constituent of concern.
Through the preparation of several studies, the City has determined the best methods for reducing th e levels of arsenic in their water supply. The City has considered different methods to reduce arsenic concentrations below the maximum contaminant level.
Considerations included:
• Abandon high arsenic wells and drill replacement wells with lower concentrations; • Blend water from wells with higher concentrations with wells of lower concentrations;
• Install well head treatment; and
• Rehabilitate wells that produce water with high arsenic concentrations to a block of strata with low concentrations, producing water low in arsenic.
A non-treatment-based approach was determined to be the most cost effective for the City and was comprised of the following three improvement projects:
• Abandon six shallow wells with low production and high arsenic concentration.
Replace the abandoned wells with two wells of a higher production capacity and lower arsenic concentration;
• Abandon and replace three wells that could not be rehabilitated with new wells with higher production capacities and acceptable arsenic conditions; and • Rehabilitate three deep wells to ensure they only extract groundwater from a zone with lower arsenic concentrations.
Upon the implementation of these arsenic improvement projects, The City’s water supply can reliably produce water below the maximum contaminant level for arsenic. Based on the current arsenic levels the long-term reliability of the City’s water supply is not affected.
WATER DEPARTMENT FUNDING
Within Public Works, t he Water Department revenues are comprised of enterprise funds collected through user fees. As an enterprise fund, this service typically does not impact the General Fund as it generates revenues that can only be used to provide the identified service, in this case water delivery and supply. Revenue budgeted for water utility related activities
City Administrative Draft City of Hanford Service Review
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review March 2021
Kings LAFCo Page 4-8
total $5.61 million in 2018-19, a decrease of approximately 1.3 percent under the prior year’s actual revenues.
As shown in Chart 4-1, the revenues of the department often outpace expenses in order to fund capital projects. Since the water utility operates as an enterprise fund, the department is not dependent on General Fund and special revenues (City of Hanford, 2020).
Chart 4-1
Water Department Revenues and Expenditures (Maintenance and Operations)1 SOURCE: CITY OF HANFORD 2020ABILITY TO SERVE ANNEXED POPULATION The City currently supplies and distributes water to six of the eight County islands proposed to be annexed. The population of the other two islands that currently use private wells is 57.
Were the City to annex the islands, it would need to strategize a way to provide water to 57 more residents.
The City’s Water System Maste r Plan sought to plan for the future population of Hanford, with an anticipated 2035 population of 90,000 (City of Hanford, 2017). The predicted 2018 population according to the Master Plan was 60,538, which is 3,628 more than the actual population according to the American Community Survey. Given the difference between planned and actual population, the addition of the 57 residents to the water system is more
1 The values illustrated in the chart are the gross values from the FY 2019-2020 Budget. These values represent an accurate portrayal of the departments solvency due to the municipality balancing the department’s budget, also known as a “zero sum budget”. All other charts in this document follow this same format. $5,344,093
$5,685,780
$3,631,650
$5,011,293 $5,057,412
$4,548,051
2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018
Revenues Expenses
City Administrative Draft City of Hanford Service Review
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review March 2021
Kings LAFCo Page 4-9
than feasible if the City achieves the proposed goals of the Water System Master Plan to account for its anticipated future population.
Determinations
Determination 4. 1.2-1 – The City operates a municipal water enterprise that services its residents.
Determination 4.1.2-2 – The City has completed and adopted a Water System Master Plan in September 2017 to better identify and improve operations of the water system and plan for future needs of the City in accordance with population projects.
Determination 4.1.2-3 – The City should monitor the well efficiencies on a frequent basis to adequately manage the groundwater supply.
Determination 4.1.2-4 – The City would be able to adequately serve the increased population of 57 residents, were the City to annex the County islands.
City Administrative Draft City of Hanford Service Review
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review March 2021
Kings LAFCo Page 4-10
4.1.3 - WASTEWATER
Summary of Prior MSR Findings
The 2007 MSR identified that the City has the ability to discharge up to eight million gallons per day of treated wastewater effluent. The Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) is a two-stage trickling filter and extended aeration facility that was originally constructed in 1948 (Kings County LAFCo, 2007). Five upgrades and expansions have occurred since then, the most recent of which was in 2004.
The City initiated a program to ensure long -term reuse for treated disinfected wastewater for agricultural purposes and recharge of groundwater supplies for agriculture. The City has obtained a “Master Reclamation Permit” from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for this purpose. Approximately 70 to 80 percent of the influent to the wastewater facility is reused for agricultural irrigation as allowed under the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Master Reclamation Permit. Effluent is used to irrigate crops on privately owned land.
Hanford’s system includes 8” to 30” pipes with 12” mains laid out on an approximate one - mile grid. Expansion will involve continued looping of lines and expansion of fire flow response facilities. The City has determined that there are few system constraints for future development.
Current Conditions
The City most recently updated their Sewer System Master Plan in 2017. The planning boundary and horizon for the Master Plan were developed in accordance with the Ci ty’s recently adopted General Plan. The Master Plan takes into consideration the population growth of the city, and documents growth assumptions and known future developments (City of Hanford, 2017).
The City’s wastewater treatment plant treats nearly 1.9 billion gallons of sewage each year.
The most recent expansion upgrade in 2004 increased the treatment capacity from 5.5 to 8.0 million gallons a day, allowing the plant to serve the equivalent of over 8,000 new single - family dw ellings. The expansion included a new influent pump station, head works, grit removal, oxidation ditch, and irrigation pump station, as well as several modifications to existing buildings and structures (City of Hanford, 2017).
The new irrigation pump station allows the City to discharge secondary treated disinfected effluent to Lakeside Ditch Company for crop irrigation of over 10,000 ac res through a reclamation permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. City staff is currently in the process of developing a new long-term reclamation project agreement with Lakeside Ditch Company.
In an effort to control the high cost of effluent sludge storage and disposal, the City has budgeted to purchase a solid dewatering system, otherwise known as a centrifuge unit. This
City Administrative Draft City of Hanford Service Review
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review March 2021
Kings LAFCo Page 4-11
facility will reduce the need for additional drying beds in the future. Drying time and processing the sludge will be reduced by removing liquid before final drying in the existing sludge beds. This process will allow the City to produce a Class A sludge for disposal at a licensed composting facility (City of Hanford, 2017).
The City completed an updated Sewer System Master Plan in 2017 that addressed many of the action items identified in the prior 2007 MSR. Figure 4-3 shows the extent of the existing system. Figure 4 -4 shows the planned expansion in the Master Plan and will service the growth anticipated in the General Plan.
The City’s sewer system services residential and non -residential lands within the service area. This service area includes:
• 6,059 acres of developed lands inside the city limits, • 2,765 acres of undeveloped lands inside the city limits, and • 265 acres of underutilized lands inside the city limits that are expected to redevelop.
The capacities of pump stations are evaluated and designed to meet the peak wet weather flows with one standby pump havin g a capacity equal to the largest operating unit. The standby pump provides a safety factor in case the duty pump malfunctions during operations and allows for maintenance.
Based on the City’s topography, the sewer system is divided into six separate dendritic sewer collection basins, each defining the boundaries of a sewer collection trunk system. The following are the six major wastewater collection basins:
• The 10th Avenue Collection Basin encompasses 3,023 acres in the northeast portion of the City. This basin collects flows along 10th Avenue, starting at Encore Drive, where a 10-inch trunk conveys flow south to Lift Station 52, at the Fargo Avenue. Flows are pumped through a 6 -inch force main to a 12 -inch trunk beginning at Birch Avenue, where flow continues south to Lakewood Drive, where it continues as a 15-inch south to Florinda Street. At Florinda Street, the 15-inch trunk increases in size to an 18-inch trunk and continues along 10 th Avenue to Fourth Street, where it turns west and continues on Fourth Street before joining the 30-inch trunk in Irwin Street. • The 10 ½ Avenue Collection Basin encompasses 2,954 acres in the east -central part of the City. This basin collects flows generally east of 10 ½ Avenue, between Highway 198 and Houston Avenue. The main trunk begins at the intersection of Fourth Street and Irwin Street, where a 30-inch trunk crossing Highway 198 conveys flow south to a 24-inch trunk at Third Street. The pipe continues south along 10 ½ Avenue until reaching Houston Avenue where it connects a 30-inch trunk. This 30-inch trunk then conveys flow west along Houston Avenue, increasing in size to 36 inches. The 36-inch trunk then increases to a 48 -inch diameter trunk at the WWTP property prior to discharge at the headworks.
City Administrative Draft City of Hanford Service Review
Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 4-12
Akel
Engineering
Group, Inc.
Figure 4-3
Hanford Existing Wastewater System
City Administrative Draft City of Hanford Service Review
Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 4-13
Akel
Engineering
Group, Inc.
Figure 4-4
Hanford Proposed Wastewater System
City Administrative Draft City of Hanford Service Review
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 4-14
• The 11 th Avenue Collection Basin encompasses 3,243 acres in central and north - central Hanford. This basin collects flow generally between 12 th Avenue and 10 th Avenue, starting at Flint Avenue and conveying flow south to Houston Avenue.
Starting at Flint Avenue, flow is collected along 11 th Avenue in 8 -inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch pipelines before entering a 15-inch at Pepper Drive. Flow continues south in a 15-inch pipeline before increasing in size to a 24 -inch trunk at Corner Street. Flow continues south along 11 th Avenue before increasing in size to a 30 -inch trunk at Lacey Boulevard, where it continues until joining a 39-inch trunk at Houston Avenue, where it continues to the WWTP.
• The 12th Avenue Collection Basin encompasses 4,218 acres in the western part of the City. This basin flows generally between 13 th Avenue and 12 th Avenue, starting at Fargo Ave and continuing south until the City WWTP. Starting at Fargo Avenue flow is collected along a 12 th Avenue in a 24 -inch trunk before increasing in size to a 27 - inch trunk at Grangeville Boulevard. Flow continues in a 27 -inch trunk south along 12th Avenue until increasing in size to a 30 -inch trunk at Lacey Boulevard, where it continues to Lift Station 52 at Glendale Avenue. Flows are pumped through a 14-inch force main to Hayden Avenue, where it transitions to gravity flow in a 30 -inch trunk and continues south to Hume Avenue. From Hume Avenue, flows continue south along 12th Avenue in a 33-inch trunk before turning west at Houston Avenue, where it continues to 11th Avenue. At 11th Avenue, the trunk diameter increases in size to a 39-inch, before continuing to the WWTP.
• The Irwin Collection Basin encompasses 670 acres in the central portion of th e City.
It is bound to the north by Terrace Drive and to the south by Third Street. The basin is generally bound to the east and west by the 10 th Avenue and 11 th Avenue, respectively. Starting at Terrace Drive flow is collected in a 12 -inch trunk before increasing in size to a 15 -inch trunk at Grangeville Boulevard. Flow continues south along Irwin Street in a 16 -inch trunk at Ivy Street, which continues south to Lacey Boulevard. At Lacey Boulevard, the trunk diameter increases to a 20 -inch for a short distance, before once again increasing in size to a 24-inch trunk north of Sixth Street.
Flows continue south and combine with the 10 ½ Avenue collection basin at Fourth Street.
• The Industrial Area Collection Basin encompasses 4,131 acres in the southern portion of the City. This basin is bound to the north by Houston Avenue and to the south by Jackson Avenue, respectively. 12th Avenue and 9 th Avenue serve as the western and eastern limits of this basin. Flows are generally conveyed by gravity along Idaho Avenue in 8 -inch, 10-inch, and 15 -inch gravity trunks before being conveyed to Lift Station 65, where they are pumped through a 10 -inch force main to Lift Station 41.
Additional flows are collected along Industry Avenue and BNSF railway and conveyed by gravity in 10 -inch, 12 -inch, and 15 -inch trunks to Lift Station 41. Flows from tributary to Lift Station 41 and pumped from Lift Station 65 are combined at Lift Station 41, where they are pumped through a 12-inch force main to the WWTP.
City Administrative Draft City of Hanford Service Review
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 4-15
The City currently maintai ns 21 lift stations in the sewer collection system. The oldest lift station was built in 1959, and the most recent station was built in 2004. The lift stations are operated to turn “on” or “off” based on the levels in their wet wells.
SEWER DEPARTMENT FUNDING
Within Public Works, the Sewer Department revenues are comprised of enterprise funds collected through user fees. As an enterprise fund, this service typically does not impact the General Fund as it generates revenues that can only be used to provide the identified service, in this case sewer service. Revenue budgeted for wastewater utility related activities total $4.41 million in 2018-19, an increase of approximately 41.9 percent over the prior year’s actual revenues.
Chart 4-2
Sewer Department Revenues and Expenditures
Source: City of Hanford 2020
As shown in Chart 4-2, the department revenues have outpaced expenses in the past . The department is aware of the decline in revenue, however, the department is expecting to have sufficient funds to meet their exp enditures going forward, which is supported by a solvent rate structure. Since the wastewater utility operates as an enterprise fund, the department is not dependent on General Fund and/or special revenues (City of Hanford, 2020). $5,040,208 $4,994,435
$4,341,119
$4,877,972
$4,642,867
$4,226,158
2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018
Revenues Expenses
City Administrative Draft City of Hanford Service Review
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 4-16
ABILITY TO SERVE ANNEXED POPULATION
The City currently provides wastewater collection service to five of the eight County islands proposed to be annexed and provides wastewater disposal to seven of the eight County islands proposed to be annexed. The population of the three islands that have private wastewater collection is 367, and the population of the one island with private wastewater disposal is 109. If the City were to annex the islands, it would need to strategize a way to provide wastewater collection and disposal for an additional 476 persons.
The City’s Sewer System Master Plan sought to plan for the future population of Hanford, with an anticipated 2035 population of 90,000 (City of Hanford, 2017). The predicted 2018 population according to the Plan was 60,538, which is 3,628 more than the predicted population per American Community Survey. Given the difference in estimated population, the addition of 476 residents for wast ewater collection and disposal is feasible if the City achieves the proposed goals of the Sewer System Master Plan.
Determinations
Determination 4. 1.3-1 – The City operates a municipal sewer enterprise that services its residents.
Determination 4.1.3-2 – The City has completed and adopted a Sewer System Master Plan in September 2017 to better identify and improve operations of the water system and plan for future needs of the City in accordance with population projects.
Determination 4.1.3-3 – The City would be able to adequately serve the increased population of 476 residents who do not already receive either wastewater collection or disposal services from the City were the City to annex the County islands. The level of service will be adequate if the City achieves its proposed goals of the Sewer System Master Plan.
City Administrative Draft City of Hanford Service Review
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 4-17
4.1.4 - FIRE PROTECTION
Summary of Prior MSR Findings
Fire suppression services were reviewed by LAFCo in 2007 as part of the comprehensive MSR. The City of Hanford provides fire protection services to all the incorporated area. Since the adoption of the last MSR , a new fire station was built in 2019. The previous MSR described future capital improvements to include the construction of two addition al fire stations (Stations 3 and 4 on the western portion of Hanford, and the addition of 18 fire personnel and equipment.
The previous MSR described some benefit in incorporating various departments under one “government center” to facilitate with admini strative tasks and coordination. The City coordinates very closely between law enforcement and fire protection.
Current Conditions
The Hanford Fire Department provides emergency and fire protection services for residents and buildings within the city limits. Emergency services provided by the Fire Department include technical rescue, hazardous materials response, emergency medical services, and emergency disaster management.
The mission statement of the Hanford Fire Department is “to protect residents and visitors of Hanford from conditions that would pose a threat of life, environment, and property by utilizing aggressive prevention techniques and, when needed, respond to all emergencies in a safe, swift, and efficient manner ” (City of Hanford, 2020) . The total call volume for 2018 was 6,378. This includes medical, fire, mutual aids, and other emergency responses. The Hanford Fire Department has a total of 33 personnel (Hanford, 2020).
The General Plan does not establish a goal for a minimum fire insurance services organization (ISO) rating. The Fire ISO rating appraises cities and counties on th eir fire protection services (ISO rating is on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being best). The level of fire protection according to Insurance Services Office Inc., is 2 (The Sentinel, 2016).
FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
The City has three fire stations. Station 1 is located at 350 W. Grangeville Boulevard, Station 2 at 10553 Houston Avenue, and Station 3 at 1070 South 12 th Street. Station 3 is the most recent one, built in 2019. Hanford owns an additional two sites designated for future fire stations. The first future station is planned at Centennial Drive and Berkshire Lane in the city’s northwest quadrant. An eastside fire station is also planned at 9 ¼ Avenue and Florinda street.
The current facilities were not identified as having any deficiencies during the last MSR cycle that reviewed the Fire Department infrastructure. In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 -24 Capital
City Administrative Draft City of Hanford Service Review
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 4-18
Improvement Plan (CIP) Budget, the CIP did not identify any major projects pertaining to the Fire Department facilities and its needs.
FIRE DEPARTMENT FUNDING
The Fire Department revenues are comprised of the General Fund, Grants, and F ire Department Service Fees , among other miscellaneous things. Ninety-seven percent of the budget of the Fire Department is for Fire Administration, and three percent is for Fire Prevention (City of Hanford, 2020) . Revenue budgeted for the Fire Department totals $530,500 in 2018-19, an increase of approximately 26.five percent over the prior year’s budget.
Chart 4-3
Fire Department Revenues and Expenditures
Source: City of Hanford 2020
As shown in Chart 4-3, the department is not a revenue generating department and is largely dependent on General Fund and special revenues. Of all expenditures citywide, the Fire Department comprises 7.4 percent of total expenditures (California State Controller's Office, 2018).
ABILITY TO SERVE ANNEXED POPULATION
The County is currently responsible for emergency and fire protection of the eight County islands proposed to be annexed. The population of these islands is 1,293. Were the City to $319,314 $158,846
$419,332
$4,873,663 $5,009,942 $5,070,414
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018
Revenues Expenses
City Administrative Draft City of Hanford Service Review
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 4-19
annex the islands, it would need to strategize a way to provide emergency and fire protection to the 1,293 new residents.
The City’s current ISO rating is 2 (ISO rating is on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being best). Due to the City’s ability to provide such services to its current population, there is no evidence indicating that the addition of 1,293 residents would be too great for the City to adequately serve. According to the Memorandum of Understanding, signed between the City of Hanford and the County of Kings in 2019, the mutual aid agreement between the fire services executed by the City and the County will not be amended. The City continues to be able t o use the County’s fire services in times of need, therefore the overall fire service capacity will not be affected.
Determinations
Determination 4. 1.4-1 – The Hanford Fire Department provides emergency and fire protection services for residents and buildings within the city limits. Emergency services provided by the Fire Department include technical rescue, hazardous materials response, emergency medical services, and emergency disaster management.
Determination 4. 1.4-2 – The City provides fire services through the use of General Fund, service fees, and other miscellaneous funds.
Determination 4.1.4-3 – The City did not have any facility upgrade projects listed in the most recently CIP.
Determination 4.1.4-4 – The City should continue to program repairs to existing facilities and continue plans for the construction of a fourth and fifth fire station in order to meet the needs of staff in order to provide a level of service acceptable to residents.
Determination 4.1.4-5 – The City should establish, maintain, and monitor a set of level -of- service criteria for fire protection services as a tool to assess the ability of the City to service growth.
Determination 4.1.4-6 – The City would be able to adequately serve the increased population of 1,293 residents, were the City to annex the County islands, due to the continued mutual aid agreement with the County.
City Administrative Draft City of Hanford Service Review
City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 4-20
4.1.5 - LAW ENFORCEMENT
Summary of Prior MSR Findings
Police and law enforcement services were reviewed by LAFCo in 200 7 as part of the comprehensive MSR . At the time of the last MSR, the City of Hanford Police Department consisted of 71 full time personnel including forty -nine uniformed officers, and 22 non- sworn personnel. Most crimes in the City are property -oriented (i.e. theft and vandalism).
The City standard for police per population is 1.5 officers per 1,000 populations. Indicator of service levels and the need for new personnel and facilities are provided by analysis of the number of service calls, response times, and population growth.
At the time of the last MSR the department pro vided police services to the City with 22 full time officers patrolling 29.5 square mile area 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In 2002, the department reorganized its command staff, and this change was considered to help facilitate supervision, customer service, and program accountability. At the time o f this MSR there were no plans for capital improvements for additional services. The City was planning for a new police station by 2010.
Current Conditions
According to the City’s General Plan Background Report, the Hanford Police Department’s actual average response times are 6:30 minutes for Priority 1 Incidents with an average of 32 Priority 1 Incidents per day and a response time of 17:19 minutes for all incidents with an average of 144 incidents per day. The department seeks to maintain a response time of less than 2:30 minutes. The Hanford Police Department dispatches both for police and fire services (City of Hanford, 2014).
The new police station that the last MSR described has not yet been built. The current 8,600- square foot police station on Irwin Street was built in 1976, with a projected 20 -year life span. It is now in its 44 th year. The Hanford Police Department has had to expand its operation into several vacant buildings that required renovations. Buildings added t o the City of Hanford ’s Police Department are the new Records Building, the Specialty Units Building, the Evidence Building, the two -story investigations building, and a new national guard armory that will house special police unit equipment. These expansi ons have all occurred in that last 10 years, according to the Police Department Chief Parker Sever (Sever, 2020). Considering these expansions, the Police Department does not forecast the acquisition and development of a new police station. Additionally, the department faces increased calls for service caused in part by AB -109 prison realignment and growing problems with gangs a nd drugs. Hanford’s population continues to g row, as does the calls for service. In 2013, despite the growing need, the number of sworn officers was reduced from 57 to 55 (City of Hanford, 2014).
In 2020, the number of sworn of ficers is 62 which makes for a ratio of 1.09 police officers per 1,000 residents (assuming a total population of 56,910 residents per the American Community Survey of the U.S. Census). According to the City’s General Plan, for cities with a