Hanford City Council
March 19, 2024

City Council Meeting
Agenda
March 19, 2024
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/

4:00 PM CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION:

ROLL CALL BY THE CITY CLERK:

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Study Sessions are considered Special Meetings under the Brown Act. Accordingly, comments from the public are limited to items listed on the agenda (GC 54954.3a). Public Comment will be accepted during each agenda item. 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. Discussion and Council direction regarding City Commissions pertaining to the formation of the commissions, the duties of the commissions and the number of commissioners.

B. Review of the FY 2023-24 Mid-Year Budget and Council Approval of an additional Appropriation of $850,400 in the GF and $226,570 across all other funds for the 2023-24 Fiscal Year Budget

CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF THE FOLLOWING:

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (54956.9 (d)(2)) 1 Case.

CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION:

ROLL CALL:

INVOCATION:

Pastor Lori Niles
FLAG SALUTE:

CLOSED SESSION ACTION REPORT:

RECOGNITION:

A. Recognition of Former Mayor Marcie Buford in Honor of National Women's History Month

B. Badge Pinning Ceremony and Oath of Office for Officers Maritza Juarez, Kevin Wheat, and Priscilla Valdovinos.

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 Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the March 5, 2023 Meeting C. Utilities and Engineering: Adoption of Resolution No. 24-07-R regarding the unmet public transit needs within the City of Hanford and authorization for the City Manager to sign and submit claims for LTF funds and any subsequent amended claims required.

D. Finance: Approval of sole source award and professional services agreement with Fairbank, Maslin, Maulin, Metz & Associates (FM3) for polling services for a potential revenue measure for $32,250, appropriate the funding out of the General Fund and partner with Trust for Public Land for a 50% financial contribution GENERAL BUSINESS:

A. PUBLIC COMMENT - SPECIFIC TO THE DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN

IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

B. Community Development: Presentation regarding the final design elements and direction from Council on the intersections, mid-block crossings, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting and street furniture within the scope of the Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian

Improvements Project
C. Council: Review and discuss the committees that will have a vacancy due to the resignation of Diane Sharp and make new Appointments as appropriate.

D. Administration: Council discussion regarding the possible Censure of Council Member Lou Martinez.

ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS:

At this time, any Council Member may ask a question for clarification or may request a matter, which is not otherwise scheduled on a City Council agenda, to be placed on a future agenda. The Council Member referring the item shall provide sufficient information as to the nature of the item. The City Council, by concurrence of a majority, may direct the City Manager to put the item on a future agenda. (GOV. CODE SEC. 54954.2) A. Council Future Agenda Items
B. Upcoming Events and Important Dates:

March 29: Egg Hunt in Civic Hunt in Civic Park 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Online registration required
April 2: Food Truck Takeover in Civic Park 11:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.

April 2: Regular City Council Meeting
April 6: Free Fitness Court Class at Hidden Valley Park 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.

April 16: 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: 3/19/2024 AGENDA SECTION: STUDY SESSION

SUBJECT:

Discussion and Council direction regarding City Commissions pertaining to the formation of the commissions, the duties of the commissions and the number of commissioners.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: That the City Council review the roles of the City Commissions; discuss the current make-up, duties, and size of the respective commissions; and provide direction to staff regarding possible modifications.

BACKGROUND
At the January 16, 2024, City Council meeting, the Council discussed the existing vacancies on City Commissions and voted to appoint one (1) Council member, to serve along with the Mayor and the staff liaison to each commission, as the interview panel to fill the vacancies for each respective City Commissions. Interviews were conducted for applicants to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Parking and Traffic Commission. After the interviews for the Parking and Traffic Commission, the Mayor was notified that a member of the Parking and Traffic commission intended to resign. In discussing that specific commission with staff, staff recommended that Council take up an item to consider dissolving the Parking and Traffic commission.

The Hanford Municipal Code contains the following ordinance related to the establishment and conduct of the 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 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 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 to 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. 23-04 § 3, 2023; Ord. 21-05 § 3, 2021; Ord. 16-01, 2016; prior code § 2-8.08)

The Parking and Traffic Commission was established in 1952 and, at that time, their role was to investigate ways and means of improving parking and traffic conditions throughout the city. Over the past 70 years, the role of the Commission has changed, along with how local government is run. The duties of the commission have been modified to reflect the advisory role that it is today. Currently, the Commission is charged with reviewing the following matters:
• Traffic studies performed showing warrants being met for YIELD, STOP, SIGNAL, etc intersection control
• Proposed No Parking signs, Red curb, limited parking studies and requests. • Crosswalk studies.
• Annual Suggested Routes to School Program
• City's Speed Study – every 5 years
• Abandonment of alleys or streets
• new Bus Stop locations
• Signal Priority List
• Any other items, presented to the Commission, which are related to vehicle and pedestrian traffic.

Many of the items listed above are mandated to be completed by the State and required to be completed by the City Engineer, which leaves little to no leeway for a Commission to provide input.

As indicated in the graph above, 33 of 48 (69%) of the meetings have been canceled over the past 4- year span. With barely 30% of the meetings being held over that time period, it is apparent that there aren’t many critical matters that the committee is tasked with providing input on. Accordingly, staff is recommending that the Parking and Traffic commission be eliminated and any critical duties of that commission be transferred to the Planning Commission.

As part of the discussion regarding the possible elimination of the Parking and Traffic commission, it was determined that any remaining members of the Parking and Traffic commission could be offered one of the current vacant seats on the Planning or Parks & Rec commissions. Additionally, Council asked staff to include an option for Council to increase the size of the remaining commissions under the premise that commissions could provide more community input.

Staff reviewed previous Council actions related to the size of City Commissions and found that the size of the commissions has been modified several times over the past decade, based on the Council preference at the time.

October 20, 2015 - Council voted to reduce the number of seats to five for each commission and to eliminate the Tree Commission and merge the remaining members with the Parks & Recreation Commission.

December 20, 2016 - Council voted to amend the ordinance and increase the number of seats back to 7.

January 7, 2020 - Council voted to reduce the number of seats on the Planning and Parks & Rec commissions from 7 to 5 members, consistent with the size of the Parking & Traffic commission, and changed the start time for the Planning Commission from 7pm to 5:30pm.

From a staff perspective, the commission size has had no effect on the amount of involvement by the community. For example, with respect to the Planning commission, the fundamental role of commissioners is to apply the underlying facts of a matter to applicable legal authority (e.g., state law and the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance) to determine whether required findings can be made for project approval; an application is legally entitled to approval if the required findings can be made. In other words, Planning commissioners exercise their authority within a structure mandated by state and local laws, and commissioners do not have free-flowing discussions that involve the sharing of ideas and opinions, which could be affected by the number of participants. The number of Planning commissioners participating in a discussion involving an application should not affect the Commission's decision as the underlying facts either support or do not support the findings required for approval.

Additionally, a challenge faced by the City has been identifying capable candidates to fill commission vacancies. Despite the training the commissioners receive as part of their orientation and onboarding, they are often confused about their role as commissioners and working through that with a larger commission is difficult and unproductive. A commission of five capable commissioners will benefit the City's residents in comparison to expanding commissions merely for the sake of expansion.

Historically, another argument for larger commissions has been that it's easier to get a quorum. The truth of that matter is that it has been much easier to maintain a quorum of City Commissions since their size was reduced to 5.

The Planning and Parks & Rec commission currently each have an alternate seat vacant. There are currently a total of two (2) vacancies on the Parking and Traffic Commission, with a third pending. Mr.

Bert Parolini submitted a letter of resignation to the Mayor on February 1, 2024. The Clerk's office was not properly notified, so the vacancy has not been noticed. The remaining members are Jim Nelson (Exp 2027), Scott Goddard (Exp 2026), and Orie Rubalcava (Exp 2026).

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

None

4.B.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 3/19/2024 AGENDA SECTION: STUDY SESSION

SUBJECT:

Review of the FY 2023-24 Mid-Year Budget and Council Approval of an additional Appropriation of $850,400 in the GF and $226,570 across all other funds for the 2023-24 Fiscal Year Budget

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends, by motion, the City Council adopt mid-year amendments to the 2023-24 Fiscal Year Budget to appropriate an additional $850,400 in the General Fund and $226,570 across all Other Funds for the execution of City operations.

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

I move to adopt mid-year amendments to the 2023-24 Fiscal Year Budget to appropriate an additional $850,400 in the General Fund and $226,570 across all Other Funds for the execution of City operations.

BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION:

Council adoption of the City’s biennial balanced budgets for FY24 & 25 occurred on June 20th 2023.

Customarily, a Mid-Year Review occurs during March of the following year to right-size the budget to more accurately approximate the budget necessary to carry out operations to the end of the fiscal year.

New requests for services or positions in the General Fund are generally not recommended by staff during this time unless offset by increased revenues. New requests for services or positions in Non- General Fund are reviewed on a fund-by-fund basis to ensure fund balance availability and/or request is offset by an increase in projected revenues or expenditure savings.

The efforts to adopt a balanced General Fund budget in FY 24 & 25 were challenging due to a depleted reserve, anticipated slowing down of tax revenue, inflation costs, and scheduled settlement payments. Beginning FY 25 there will no longer be any federal provided one-time monies (ARPA) to support General Fund public safety efforts as a result of the Covid pandemic. Additionally, present economic uncertainties include ongoing but moderating inflation and changes to interest rates affecting the costs of financing. The City shall restrict as much discretionary spending (over the necessary spending to keep ongoing operations) while attempting to build up the General Fund Reserve. The proposed amendments to the General Fund were limited to core needs that support administrative, public safety and essential services to the City.

REVIEW OF GENERAL FUND REVENUE:

The highest contributors of revenue for the GF are property and sales tax. Property tax is typically stable in general as there are imposed restrictions on increases of property assessed values limited to 2% (tax is approximately 1% of assessed value). The County Tax Collector distributes approximately 6.19% of all property tax to the cities within the County. Large increases in property tax revenues received typically occur in years following major development within the city.

Sales tax for the City of Hanford is currently 7.25%. Only 0.95% of that rate is distributed to the City.

Sales tax is forecasted to remain stable unlike the significant increases we have seen in the past several years. Current forecasts from our tax consultant show sales tax estimates going down from previous forecasts that were available during budget adoption. Sales tax received is expected to be more than last year, but limited to the amount budgeted for FY24.

Chart 1: History of property tax and sales tax received from FY19- current, including budgeted revenue for FY24 & 25

-Sales tax received for FY23 was $16.2 million
-Property tax received for FY23 was $13.9 million

Chart 2: Revenues and expenditures from FY19-current, budgeted revenues and expenditures for FY24 &25, forecasted amounts for FY26-35

In the latter years, you will see expenditures outgrow revenues by significant amounts. As directed by Council, staff is looking at a potential sales tax revenue measure, taking a look at departmental needs for now and the future with the established Revenue Measure Committee (a committee of Hanford residents and stakeholders). With predicted limited revenue growth to cover expenditures, decreases to services to residents will inevitably need to occur to maintain a fiscally sustainable budget and operations.

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES:

There is one area of significant change within the City Attorney Division for liability risk management for an increased appropriation of $795,000. This line item is for miscellaneous litigation costs. Most recently the City announced on January 16th the settlement agreement between Darlene Mata (previous City employee) and Art Brieno (previous City council member) in the amount of $700,000.

Also discussed was a reimbursement from the City’s insurance company that will cover related litigation expenses over $100,000. That amount is recognized to offset the related current year's litigation costs.

Table 1: General Fund - Summary of Changes

Table 2: Other Funds - Summary of Changes

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends $850,400 additional appropriation in the GF and $226,570 of additional appropriation across all Other Funds which will be paid for by a combination of a large insurance reimbursement and fund balances available.

Chart 3: Summary of FY24 General Fund

*Additional appropriations mostly consists of capital improvement projects that were not completed in prior year. These projects "roll forward" to the current year. In addition, throughout the year, departments may bring to Council additional requests for approval. Some larger requests that occurred this fiscal year thus far were $1,000,000 for Fire Engine Pumper (offset by grant revenue), $113,000 to fully fund Civic Auditorium Improvements, $106,000 for purchase of ice rink (offset by ice rink revenues), $55,000 for Police portable radios (offset by grant revenue), etc.

For detailed line items of proposed amendments and total budget change by department, see Attachment “A”.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. ATTACHMENT A

ATTACHMENT A
AC
CT
TY
PE ORG OBJECT ACCT DESCRIPTION
2024 CURRENT
BUDGET
2024 REVISED
BUDGET NET CHANGE
0001‐11000000 CITY COUNCIL
E 11000000 749500 PROF  AND SPEC SERVICES         222,000  231,500  9,500 T 11000000‐TOTAL 222,000  231,500  9,500
0001‐11100000 CITY MANAGER ‐ CITY CLERK
E 11100000 745000 PUBLICATIONS  AND DUES          5,500  39,100  33,600 T 11100000‐TOTAL 5,500  39,100  33,600
0001‐13000000 CITY ATTORNEY
R 13000000 540300 MISCELLANEOUS  REVENUE          ‐   (886,000)  (886,000) E 13000000 751900 LIABILITY  RISK MANAGEMENT      155,000  950,000  795,000 T 13000000‐TOTAL 155,000  64,000  (91,000)
0001‐15130000 POLICE ‐ OPERATIONS
E 15130000 760000 SPECIAL  DEPARTMENTAL EXP       88,334  100,634  12,300 T 15130000‐TOTAL 88,334  100,634  12,300
(35,600)
GENERAL FUND‐DETAIL OF CHANGES

ATTACHMENT A
ACC
T  ORG OBJECT ACCT  DESCRIPTION
2024 CURRENT
BUDGET
2024 REVISED
BUDGET NET  CHANGE
0020‐21200000 PARKING
E 0020 21200000 823653 DOWNTOWN  STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP ‐                               45,000                    45,000 T 21200000‐TOTAL ‐                               45,000                    45,000 0310‐14130000 CITY HFD PUBLIC HSG AUTH
E 0310 14130000 749500 PROF  AND SPEC SERVICES 26,000                     46,000                    20,000 T 14130000‐TOTAL 26,000                     46,000                    20,000 0340‐03401340 BUILDING SAFETY
E 0340 03401340 749500 PROF  AND SPEC SERVICES         240,000                 331,570                 91,570 T 03401340‐TOTAL 240,000                  331,570                 91,570 0452‐17140100 AQUATICS CAP/EQ REPL RES
E 0452 17140100 800199 MISC‐ NON CATAGORIZED EQUIP 10,000                     ‐                                (10,000) E 0452 17140100 8***** PLUNGE  POOL REMODEL ‐                               80,000                    80,000 T 17140100‐TOTAL 10,000                     80,000                    70,000 226,570
OTHER FUNDS‐DETAIL OF CHANGES

14.A.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 3/19/2024 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR

SUBJECT:

Waive reading in full of resolutions and ordinances and approval and adoption of same by reading title the only.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation:

Recommended Motion:

BACKGROUND:

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

None

14.B.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 3/19/2024 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR

SUBJECT:

Approval of the Minutes of the March 5, 2023 Meeting

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the March 5, 2024, meeting.

BACKGROUND:

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Minutes 3.5.2024

City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes
March 5, 2024 7:00 PM
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.

5:00 PM CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION:

Mayor Paden called the study session to order at 5:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL BY THE CITY CLERK:

Present: Absent:

Council Member Travis Paden
Council Member Lou Martinez
Council Member Mark Kairis
Council Member Kalish Morrow
Council Member Diane Sharp

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Study Sessions are considered Special Meetings under the Brown Act. Accordingly, comments from the public are limited to items listed on the agenda (GC 54954.3a). Public Comment will be accepted during each agenda item. A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

Dennis Ham commented on the Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Study. He questioned the budget and parking spaces.

Rusty Brookshier commented on the speed limit. He suggested spending the city's money on infrastructure. Mr.

Brookshier spoke in opposition to the roundabout.

Bob Ramos provided his opinion of the project. He also questioned the feedback from the business owners. Mayor Paden responded to his comment regarding the meeting with the downtown business owners.

Rob Bently commented on the proposed roundabout. He also commented on an interview about the KART facility and the Irwin Street drainage problem.

Kimber Regan commented on the recent meeting the city had with the downtown business owners. She spoke in opposition to the roundabout. Vice Mayor Kairis responded to her comments.

Brian Fagundes commented on the downtown parking He stated the city needs to prioritize non vehiclure passengers.

Angel Rodriguez commented on the meeting that city had with the downtown business owners. She stated it was clear that the business owners did not want a roundabout downtown. She also shared her concerns about the condition of the sidewalks and the parking in the downtown area.

Main Street Hanford's Executive Director, Michelle Brown commented on the presented photos and expressed her concerns regarding other issues in the downtown area. She also commented on the need for more parking.

Kirsten Bookout commented on the downtown business owner meeting. She also shared her concerns regarding the parking downtown. She spoke in support of a four was stop on Seveth Street and Douty Street intersection.

STUDY SESSION:

A. Council review of the preliminary design and project report for the Downtown Improvement Project

Deputy City Manager Jason Waters discussed the background of the project. Interwest Consulting Group, Gianno Feoli, Alex Camacho, and Bill Evans discussed the project design and project status, and answered questions from the Council.

They also discussed the feedback they received from the downtown business owners. The Council discussed the intersection performance measures, and the expressed concerns from the downtown business owners. Staff answered questions from the Council. The presentation was for informational purposes only. The project will be presented to the Council for their review direction at the March 19th regular city council meeting. The Council also directed staff to add a second public comment section during the discussion of the project during General Business.

Mayor Paden adjourned the study session at 6:44 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION:

Mayor Paden called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Present: Absent:

Council Member Travis Paden
Council Member Lou Martinez
Council Member Mark Kairis
Council Member Kalish Morrow
Council Member Diane Sharp

INVOCATION:

The invocation was led by Rev. Bobby Guerra.

FLAG SALUTE:

The flag salute was led by Hanford High School Schoool ASB President Isiaih Torres.

RECOGNITION:

A. Badge Pinning Ceremony and Oath of Office for the promotion of Justin Vallin and Jason Gustin to Police Lieutenant.

Police Chief Huddleston introduced and congratulated Lieutenants Justin Vallin and Jason Gustin. City Clerk Natalie Corral administered the oath of office.

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).

The Council discussed the events and meetings they attended.

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.

Ian Eck commented on Bottoms Up Espresso. He requested their business license be revoked.

Tony Guerrero complained about the curb being painted red in front of his upholstery shop. The City Manager responded to his comment.

Santiago Rodriguez commented on Bottoms Up Espresso, and he prayed about the situation.

Garry Rocha commented on Bottoms Up Espresso. He stated the business is violating the municipal code as an adult entertainment business.

Bob Ramos commented on the downtown project meeting held at city hall.

Michael Quinn thanked the city and congratulated the Finance Department for receiving the Government Finance Officers Association "Distinguished Budget Presentation Award". He also commented on the downtown project.

Anna Brookshier questioned the notice sent to the downtown businesses regarding the meeting at city hall.

John Lanspa commented on an abandon house on South Street and the homeless people who are living there.

Stella Ramirez commented on the homeless issue at a home on South Street. She asked for help from the city. The Council responded to her comments.

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.

Item D was requested to be pulled during public comment.

Motion to approve the consent calendar except for the items are pulled for separate discussion.

RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

AYES:

Passed (UNANIMOUS)
Council Member Diane Sharp
Council Member Mark Kairis
Diane Sharp, Mark Kairis, Kalish Morrow, Travis Paden, Lou Martinez

A. Procedural Waiver: Waive reading in full of resolutions and ordinances and approval and adoption of same by reading title the only.

B. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the February 6, 2024, Meeting C. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the February 20, 2024, Meeting D. Public Works: Confirmation of pre-approval of an emergency purchase of a submersible stand-by pump for use at the Wastewater Treatment Plant from Rockwell Engineering & Equipment Company

in the amount of $78,259.13 and appropriation of $79,000 from the Wastewater Fund (2073).

E. Public Works: Authorization to Award a contract to Pacific Polymers, d.b.a. American Foam Experts of Galt, CA for the Hanford Airport Fixed Base Operations (FBO) Building Roof Restoration project in the amount of $55,400.

PULLED CONSENT ITEMS:

A. Administration: Introduction of Ordinance No. 24-03 amending Section 12.24 to Title 12 of the Municipal Code, thereby amending sections related to City Properties and the acceptable use of these properties by the public.
[Item D]

Pulled during public comment. City Manager Cifuentez provided a brief overview of Ordinance 24-03 for the Council's review and approval.

Motion to Approve.

RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

AYES:

Passed (UNANIMOUS)
Council Member Mark Kairis
Council Member Lou Martinez
Diane Sharp, Mark Kairis, Kalish Morrow, Travis Paden, Lou Martinez ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS:

At this time, any Council Member may ask a question for clarification or may request a matter, which is not otherwise scheduled on a City Council agenda, to be placed on a future agenda. The Council Member referring the item shall provide sufficient information as to the nature of the item. The City Council, by concurrence of a majority, may direct the City Manager to put the item on a future agenda. (GOV. CODE SEC. 54954.2)

A. Council Future Agenda Items
It was a council consensus to direct staff to bring back the review and discussion of the Council committees and board assignments, the potential censure for Mr. Martinez, and the city commission.

B. Upcoming Events and Important Dates:

March 6: Revenue Measure Committee Meeting in the City Hall Training Room 6:00 p.m.

March 19: Regular City Council Meeting
April 2: 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} Mayor Paden adjourned the meeting at 8:06 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Natalie Corral
City Clerk

14.C.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 3/19/2024 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR

SUBJECT:

Adoption of Resolution No. 24-07-R regarding the unmet public transit needs within the City of Hanford and authorization for the City Manager to sign and submit claims for LTF funds and any subsequent amended claims required.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation:

That the City Council, by motion:

1. Adopt the attached resolution no. 24-07-R regarding the unmet public transit needs within the City of Hanford;

2. Authorize the City Manager to sign and submit claim for LTF funds and any subsequent amended claims required.

Recommended Motion:

I make a motion to adopt Resolution 24-07-R regarding public transit needs and authorization for the City Manager to file a claim for Local Transportation Fund distributions.

BACKGROUND:

Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) administers the Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds that are allocated to the county and cities each year based on population and revenues collected from public transit. The TDA fund is composed of two separate funds: Local Transportation Funds (LTF), and State Transit Assistance (STA). The STA funds are distributed to public transit providers (KART and Corcoran Transit) for operations and for the agencies to attempt to provide any identified unmet transit needs. The LTF funds are distributed to the County and cities and must be used for road maintenance purposes.

Attached are estimates of TDA funding for Fiscal Year 2024/25 prepared by the Kings County Auditor pursuant to Section 6620 of the California Administrative Code. The FY 2024/25 TDA shares for Hanford streets and roads (LTF funding - Article 8) are estimated to be $1,299,533.

The STA portion of this fund is used for supporting any “identified Unmet Transit Needs” in the city.

To determine if there are any “identified unmet transit needs”, Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA) holds public hearings on behalf of the cities. The first public hearing was held in

February 2024, and a second public hearing will be held in March 2024.

For the city to claim the LTF funding, the city must file required documents to KCAG by April 1st of each year. The city must (1) adopt a Resolution stating the findings on Unmet Transit Needs and (2) submit environmental CEQA documents before the funds can be allocated.

The attached Resolution 24-07-R states the public transportation needs are met, as determined by the KCAPTA public hearings. If transit needs are identified in these public hearings, the estimated LTF distribution amounts will be adjusted.

Listed below is a summary distribution of TDA funds received for the past few years:

Description: 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25
(estimated)
KCAG Transportation Planning
Costs
$ 48,365 $ 47,169 $ 46,016 $ 77,994
Kart Bus System Costs $ 952,136 $ 986,683 $1,160,804 $1,118,300 Local Streets and Roads - Claim
Amt.
$1,280,099 $1,190,378 $1,170,803 $1,299,533
Hanford's TDA Fund Total $2,280,600 $2,224,230 $2,377,626 $2,495,827

These funds must be used for local roadway maintenance. In previous years, the city has assigned the funds to various qualified capital improvement projects, including sidewalk repairs, street division maintenance, pavement resurfacing, as shown on the attached Five Year Capital Plan for Transportation Projects.

The attached Resolution 24-07-R additionally authorizes the City Manager to sign and submit this claim as well as any amended claims, as may be required. Attached is the Claim Form for TDA Funds, Article 8. With Council approval, this claim will be signed and submitted to KCAG. The final amount of the funds available will be determined in June 2024, and distributed in July 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The funds of $1,299,533 will be deposited into the Gas Tax Transportation Capital Improvement Fund for use on the street maintenance projects of the capital improvement program.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. ESTIMATED TDA FY 24-25

2. Resolution 24-07-R

3. Resolution 24-07-R (Word)

4. Attachment C - CIP FY22-26

5. TDA Claim Form - Article 8

ESTIMATED FY 2024-25

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT SHARES
FY 2024-25 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND SHARES AMOUNT CLAIMED AMOUNT REMAINING

1. Estimate of LTF for Fiscal Year 2024-25 by Kings $6,400,000 County Auditor pursuant to Section 6620 of the
California Administrative Code:

2. Article 3, Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities: $128,000 $6,400,000 (amount available)
AMOUNT
Claimed to date $0

3. Shares of remaining LTF based on the Department of $6,400,000 Finance population estimate as of May 1, 2023:

AGENCY POPULATION* PERCENTAGE SHARE Avenal 13,374 8.8559% $566,778
Corcoran 21,442 14.1983% $908,691
Hanford 58,893 38.9973% $2,495,827
Lemoore 26,609 17.6198% $1,127,667
Kings Co. 30,700 20.3287% $1,301,037
TOTAL 151,018 100.0000% $6,400,000

4. LTF Administration and Article 8 Transportation $200,000 $6,200,000 Planning cost for KCAG:

AGENCY PERCENTAGE SHARE
Avenal 8.8559% $17,712
Corcoran 14.1983% $28,397
Hanford 38.9973% $77,994
Lemoore 17.6198% $35,240
Kings Co. 20.3287% $40,657
TOTAL 100.0000% $200,000

5. Article 4, Public Transit, KART (Not Shared by Corcoran): $2,000,000 $4,200,000

AGENCY PERCENTAGE SHARE
(Based on Pop. & Hrs. of Service)
Avenal 5.8559% $117,118
Corcoran 0.0000% $0
Hanford 55.9150% $1,118,300
Lemoore 23.0099% $460,198
Kings Co. 15.2192% $304,384
TOTAL 100.0000% $2,000,000

6. Article 4, Public Transit, Corcoran Dial-A-Ride: $785,294 $3,414,706 (From Corcoran's Share)

AGENCY SHARE
Corcoran $785,294

7. Article 8, Transportation Services: $95,000 $3,319,706 (From Corcoran's Share)

AGENCY SHARE
Corcoran KART tickets $0
Corcoran Amtrak tickets $95,000

8. Remaining Article 8 shares for streets and roads.
(By population % shown in item #3 above): $3,319,706 $0

AGENCY SHARE
Avenal $431,948
Corcoran $0
Hanford $1,299,533
Lemoore $632,229
Kings Co. $955,996
TOTAL $3,319,706
Estimated FY 2024-25 LTF: $6,400,000
* Based on 2023 Department of Finance estimates released on May 1, 2023 2/28/2024 TDA FY 24-25.xlsx

ATTACHMENT "B"
RESOLUTION NO. 24-07-R

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD

REGARDING THE PUBLIC TRANSIT NEEDS WITHIN THE CITY OF HANFORD

AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A CLAIM FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS

At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford, duly called and held on March 19th, 2024 it was moved by Council Member ___________________, and seconded by Council Member __________________________, and carried that the following resolution be adopted:

WHEREAS the Transportation Development Act provides for Local Transportation Funds (LTF) for meeting transportation needs that can be reasonably met; and WHEREAS, once public transportation needs are met, the balance of the LTF may be claimed for local streets and roads; and
WHEREAS, the City of Hanford has participated with the Kings County Area Public Transit Agency to provide public transportation for the City of Hanford; and WHEREAS, the Kings County Area Public Transportation Authority Board, a joint powers authority, will conduct a Public Hearing on behalf of the City Council to determine if there are unmet transportation needs that are reasonable to meet; and
WHEREAS the aforementioned service is currently meeting all transit needs that are reasonable to be met.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hanford does hereby find that, based on current evidence, there are no areas within the City of Hanford with unmet public transit needs which could reasonably be met by expansion of existing transportation systems or by establishing new systems.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hanford claim the unused balance of the Local Transportation Funds not used for public transportation and transportation planning, be used for maintenance of local streets and roads, and that maintenance of streets and

roads is categorically e xempt from environmental review, and that the City Manager is authorized to sign and submit the claim for funds and any subsequent amended claims required.

Passed and Adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on the 19 th day of March 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: _____________________________________________________________________ NOES: __________________________________________________________________________

ABSTAIN: ______________________
ABSENT: ______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________
Travis Paden, Mayor
ATTEST: _______________________________
City Clerk
Natalie Corral

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 by the City Council of the City of Hanford at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of March 2024.

Dated: March 19, 2024

__________________________________
Natalie Corral, City Clerk

ATTACHMENT "B"
RESOLUTION NO. 24-07-R

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD

REGARDING THE PUBLIC TRANSIT NEEDS WITHIN THE CITY OF HANFORD

AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A CLAIM FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford, duly called and held on March 19th, 2024 it was moved by Council Member ___________________, and seconded by Council Member __________________________, and carried that the following resolution be adopted:

WHEREAS the Transportation Development Act provides for Local Transportation Funds (LTF) for meeting transportation needs that can be reasonably met; and WHEREAS, once public transportation needs are met, the balance of the LTF may be claimed for local streets and roads; and
WHEREAS, the City of Hanford has participated with the Kings County Area Public Transit Agency to provide public transportation for the City of Hanford; and WHEREAS, the Kings County Area Public Transportation Authority Board, a joint powers authority, will conduct a Public Hearing on behalf of the City Council to determine if there are unmet transportation needs that are reasonable to meet; and WHEREAS the aforementioned service is currently meeting all transit needs that are reasonable to be met.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hanford does hereby find that, based on current evidence, there are no areas within the City of Hanford with unmet public transit needs which could reasonably be met by expansion of existing transportation systems or by establishing new systems.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hanford claim the unused balance of the Local Transportation Funds not used for public transportation and transportation planning, be used for maintenance of local streets and roads, and that maintenance of streets and

roads is categorically exempt from environmental review, and that the City Manager is authorized to sign and submit the claim for funds and any subsequent amended claims required.

Passed and Adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on the 19th day of March 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: _____________________________________________________________________ NOES: __________________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ______________________
ABSENT: ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________
Travis Paden, Mayor
ATTEST: _______________________________
City Clerk
Natalie Corral

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 by the City Council of the City of Hanford at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of March 2024.

Dated: March 19, 2024
__________________________________
Natalie Corral, City Clerk

PROJECT TITLE 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Sidewalk and Miscellaneous Concrete Repairs 42,140 41,030 43,000 43,000 43,000 New Sidewalk and ADA Improvements 52,100 51,410 54,000 54,000 54,000 Street Division Maintenance 315,798 311,645 327,000 327,000 327,000 Unscheduled Arterial Upgrades & Traffic Signal Installation 210,530 207,750 218,000 218,000 218,000 Survey Monumentation / Benchmark Update 15,780 15,580 15,000 15,000 15,000 Pavement Resurfacing Treatment 996,850 983,690 950,000 950,000 950,000 East Lacey Boulevard Widening / Reconstruction, 10th Avenue to Sierra Drive 4,679,020 4,617,240 0 0 0 Reclamite Seal Treatment 181,580 0 187,500 0 187,500
Grangeville Blvd. Widening, Centennial Dr. to 13th Ave. 0 0 500,000 3,920,000 0 0 0 0 625,000 5,130,000
TOTAL $6,493,798 $6,228,345 $2,294,500 $6,152,000 $6,924,500

FUNDING SOURCES
0040 Gas Tax 864,638 674,057 864,500 677,000 864,500
0045 Gas Tax (RMRA) 994,423 981,293 0 0 0
0050 Gas Tax (TDA Transportation) 959,351 946,129 697,000 1,697,000 1,697,000 0052 Gas Tax (RSTP Exchange Funds) 00000
0055 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) 463,715 457,592 0 0 0 0181 Transportation Impact Fees 1,780,671 1,757,159 718,000 2,313,000 2,948,000 0359 Storm Drainage Capital 523,380 524,260 7,500 507,500 507,500 0362 Wastewater Capital 271,674 268,091 7,500 457,500 407,500 0391 Water Capital 635,946 619,764 0 500,000 500,000
TOTAL $6,493,798 $6,228,345 $2,294,500 $6,152,000 $6,924,500

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS - FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PLAN
Lacey Blvd. Widening / Reconstruction, from Magna Carta to 13th Ave. and 13th Ave. from Lacey Blvd. to 1300 feet north.

$1,607,000

H:\RTPA\LTF\FY2024-25\Article 8 Form.docx
REV 01_2024

CLAIM FOR TDA FUND

OTHER CLAIMS
ARTICLE 8

1. Claimant: City of Hanford

900 S. 10th Ave.

Hanford, CA 93230

2. Claim for FY 2024-25

3. Amount of Apportionment (estimate): 38.9973% $ 2,495,827

4. Purpose for which claimed funds will be used:

Article 8, Section 99400(a), Local Street and Roads and projects which are provided for use by pedestrians and bicycles. $ 1,299,533

Article 8, Section 99400(b), Passenger Rail Service Operations and Capital Improvements (including Article 3, Section 99234.9, Rail Passenger Service Projects). $ 0

Article 8, Section 99400(c), Contracted Transportation Services. $ 0

Article 8, Section 99400(d), Contracted Transportation Services Administrative and Planning. $ 0

Article 8, Section 99402, Transportation Planning Process (including Article 3, Section 99233.1, RTPA Administration). $ 77,994

5. NOTE: KCAPTA will Claim $ 1,118,300 through Article 4.

6. Has your governing body conducted a public hearing for the purpose of soliciting comments on the unmet transit needs that may exist within your jurisdiction?

NO YES

7. Has your governing body passed a resolution in which the finding was made that there are no areas within your jurisdiction with unmet public transit needs which could reasonably be met by expansion of existing transportation systems or by establishing a new system?

NO YES

Include a copy of that resolution and documentation of the finding, including evidence and information that provides the basis for the finding, and designate it as "Attachment B".

x
x

H:\RTPA\LTF\FY2024-25\Article 8 Form.docx
REV 01_2024

8. Has your governing body passed a resolution authoring the person whose signature appears below to submit this claim?

NO YES

9. Proposed road maintenance and construction budget for the fiscal year of this claim:

$

Include a list of road maintenance and construction projects for which the funds are requested and designate it as "Attachment C".

10. Has your governing body certified environmental documents for projects to be funded by this claim?

NO YES

11. Signature and Title Date

Payment for projects approved by KCAG will be made to Claimant as money is available for distribution in Claimant's account.

x
1,607,000
x
Mario Cifuentez, City Manager

14.D.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 3/19/2024 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR

SUBJECT:

Approval of sole source award and professional services agreement with Fairbank, Maslin, Maulin, Metz & Associates (FM3) for polling services for a potential revenue measure for $32,250, appropriate the funding out of the General Fund and partner with Trust for Public Land for a 50% financial contribution

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: That the City Council, by motion, approve of a sole source award and professional services agreement with Fairbank, Maslin, Maulin, Metz & Associates (FM3) for polling services for a potential revenue measure for $32,250, appropriate the funding out of the General Fund and partner with Trust for Public Land for a 50% financial contribution.

Recommended Motion: I move to approve a sole source award and professional services agreement with FM3 for polling services for a potential revenue measure for $32,250, appropriate the funding out of the General Fund and partner with Trust for Public Land for a 50% financial contribution.

BACKGROUND:

Polling is recommended as part of the ongoing effort to provide City Council with information as requested for a potential revenue measure. The data will provide a roadmap for the City to inform the community in communication and outreach efforts. At a cost of $32,250, FM3 includes a 15 minute survey to a sample size of 400 voters likely to participate in the November 2024 election and spanish translation. This includes obtaining interviews via phone, text message and email invitations (sampling error at a 95% confidence level). Due to time involved to get this information compiled, staff is recommending Council approve an agreement now with FM3 by sole source due to expertise, timing, co-sponsorship opportunity and availability so information can be presented as early as possible before a formal decision is required by City Council.

FM3, with offices in Los Angeles and Oakland, is an industry expert since 1981 in polling for agencies throughout the State, including many in surrounding cities in the Central Valley. The objective evaluation that their work can provide to the City will be valuable in considering if a revenue measure is presented to voters in November 2024 for consideration. The firm would also be able to provide other consultation on ballot language and messaging. They are ready to start now should the City Council approve to proceed.

The firm's work would be supported by the Trust for Public Land a national nonprofit who would be willing to contribute 50 percent ($16,125) of the costs for the polling. The Trust works to create parks and protect land for people, ensuring healthy, livable communities for generations to come. The

polling would include areas of key interest to the City, such as parks, public safety, streets and quality of life.

The needs of the City's General Fund, and the operations that it supports are currently being assessed by the City Council appointed Revenue Measure Committee (RMC). The RMC will be providing a recommendation to City Council on May 7, 2024 regarding putting a measure on the November 2024 ballot. In addition to the RMC recommendation, City Council will be able to look at results from The National Community Survey (a 3rd party statistically valid survey) to see how the community sees the City.

In response to ongoing projections of a tight General Fund budget and continued deferral of operational and capital needs, City Council requested staff to look into options for additional revenue.

On November 7, 2023, City Council was presented with options for potential revenue measures out of concern for the City's financial health. Council directed staff to continue looking into the needs of the City in order to further develop a path for identifying the best options for a potential revenue measure.

On December 5, 2023, staff presented the City Council with a planning level look across all departments in the General Fund. In addition, staff requested that the City Council provide direction to staff in the development of a Proposed Revenue Measure Advisory Committee.

On January 24, 2024, at a Special Meeting, the City Council appointed fifteen (15) community members to the City of Hanford Revenue Measure Committee and Adopted Resolution 24-01-R establishing the committee for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council for a 2024 Ballot Measure.

Should this polling be authorized, the City should see results in May 2024 and be able to utilize for further discussion and development of a potential revenue measure. FM3 would be available to present results formally to City Council. Submission of ballot language would need to be turned into the County by August 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT:

An appropriation of $32,250 would be required to authorize this expenditure, which would be paid for from the General Fund (fund balance) and a contribution of 50 percent ($16,125) from the Trust for Public Land. In the end, the City contribution would be a General Fund contribution of $16,125 for this project.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 220-7027 Hanford Ballot Measure Survey Scope of Work - Updated 3-24

12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 350 | Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (310) 828-1183 | Fax: (310) 453-6562
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020 | Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 451-9521 | Fax: (510) 451-0384
TO Brad Albert, Mario Cifuentez, Brian Johnson, Christopher Tavarez and Brian Johnson City of Hanford
David Weinstein
Trust for Public Land
FROM Miranda Everitt
FM3 Research
RE: Scope of Work for Opinion Polling on Potential Revenue Measures for the City of Hanford DATE March 11, 2024
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) is pleased to submit this brief proposal to conduct opinion research assessing potential revenue measures in the City of Hanford, including voters' priorities regarding parks, recreation, public safety and transportation. The balance of this memo contains a brief description of our firm, some of our relevant experience, and proposed research approach and costs.

Firm Background & Relevant Experience
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3 Research or FM3) has been conducting public policy-oriented opinion research since 1981 on issues of major economic and social concern. As a California-based company, we are a medium-sized research firm with 22 full-time employees working out of our Oakland and Los Angeles offices.

The research FM3 conducts goes far beyond simply documenting the knowledge, views, and behaviors of various populations. Rather, our work produces actionable data that provides a strategic roadmap for policy makers and to inform community outreach and communication efforts.

Our areas of expertise include environmental protection, natural resource conservation and development, energy development, education, healthcare, transportation, constituent satisfaction with public services and support for policy proposals, budgetary issues and taxation, growth and property development, communications technology, organizational branding, and more. Our research team staff members have advanced degrees in public policy, research methods, and/or extensive experience working in state and local government.

While our firm is not so big that you will wonder whom to call with your questions, we are big enough to have our own in-house data analysis/processing team and graphic design resources. This means we can provide our clients with a level of personal attention and service from firm partners and other senior staff more often associated with much smaller organizations, while also providing rapid project turnaround and more sophisticated data analysis and presentations tailored to client needs that one might expect from larger firms.

FM3 utilizes a variety of research tools designed to address each client’s unique circumstances. Some of these tools are quantitative, such as surveys; some are qualitative, such as focus groups; and others fall somewhere in between. In any given year, FM3 conducts more than 300 surveys and 160 focus groups, in addition to providing ongoing consulting for key clients.

FM3 is a recognized leader in conducting research that helps California cities, counties, and special districts objectively evaluate the viability of passing local ballot measures to secure additional revenue. Our research identifies the feasibility of a potential ballot measure; the most appropriate tax rate and revenue mechanism (in your case, most likely a special tax levy or traditional parcel tax); how voters would prefer additional revenue to be used; how to phrase the ballot label language; and which legally permissible messages might resonate most among that agency’s constituents when engaging in community outreach and education. The efficacy of this approach is demonstrated by our firm’s success rate of over 95 percent since 1981 – with over 550 local finance measures approved for California agencies in every region of the state, more than any other research.

Miranda Everitt, Senior Vice President
Miranda Everitt joined FM3 in 2015 and has since focused on her research on a wide range of issues including conservation and parks; housing and homelessness; climate change; and transportation. Her work has contributed to the passage of state and local ballot measures in states throughout the country. Miranda also has experience in municipal finance research for scores of cities, counties, and school and special districts throughout the country.

Miranda has made conservation a focus of her research, helping communities across the country invest in preserving their priceless public lands and waters. She has studied voter attitudes about parks and open space funding measures communities as varied as Minneapolis, Minnesota; Dallas, Texas; Chaffee County, Colorado; Marin County in California; and Smithfield Township, Pennsylvania.

Prior to joining FM3, Miranda gained experience in communications and policy research at California Budget and Policy Center, SEIU Healthcare MN, Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute for Law and Social Policy, Justice in Aging, and the Alameda County Community Food Bank. Prior to her policy career, she worked for the Oakland Tribune, San Jose Mercury News, and Toledo Free Press. Miranda holds a Master of Public Policy (MPP) degree from the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley and a journalism degree from Bowling Green State University in Ohio.

Proposed Approach and Costs
We recommend utilizing three different contact methods (telephone calls, emails, and text messages) to provide an array of ways for potential respondents to participate in the survey. Providing multiple forms of contact also helps us engage historically disadvantaged communities that may not have adequate broadband access and/or access to computers or smart phones. Additionally, different demographic groups often have varying communication preferences—some may be more likely to answer a phone call than open an email or text message, and vice versa.

Our proposed research approach is as follows:

Methodology Dual-mode survey obtaining interviews via cell phone, landline, text message, and email invitations
Sample 400 voters likely to participate in the November 2024 election Margin of
Sampling Error
±4.9% for a sample of 400 interviews at the 95% confidence level (i.e., in 95 out of 100 cases)
Questionnaire 15 to 20 minutes
Language 38% of likely voters are Latino, although just 3% specifically request Spanish language ballots. Therefore, Spanish translation is provided as an option below.

Deliverables Following the completion of the survey, we will provide:
•A questionnaire with the topline results of the survey for easy reference •A complete set of crosstabs in an easy-to-read, comprehensive format •Verbatim responses to any open-ended questions
•A complete analysis of survey results in PowerPoint
•A presentation of the survey results
FM3 will also be available for ongoing consultation and any further analysis of the research.

Cost The prices below are comprehensive and include all costs for questionnaire design; sample acquisition and preparation; programming; email and text invitations; survey hosting; telephone interviewing; data entry and analysis; and reporting.

Spanish translation would add $2,500 to any cost listed below.

Survey Length 400 Voters
15 minutes $29,750
20 minutes $33,250

Timeline
The timeline below begins starting from potential Council authorization of the work beginning on May 7.

Week Tasks
Week of May 6
Kick-off call to discuss survey details and research approach Order sample records
Week of May 13 First draft of survey available with call to review Week of May 20
Second draft of draft circulated
Finalize survey draft and send to translation if desired Proofread and program survey for fielding
Week of May 27 After Memorial Day, begin interviewing
Week of June 3
Complete survey interviewing
Call to discuss results
Week of June 10
PowerPoint analysis available
Zoom meeting with stakeholders to discuss results
Ongoing Availability for stakeholder presentations and further analysis Contact
We would welcome the opportunity to work with you on this research, and if there is any further information we can provide, please do not hesitate to contact us. You may reach me as follows:

Miranda Everitt, Senior Vice President
(419) 944-9616 (Cell)
[email protected]

15.A.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 3/19/2024 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS

SUBJECT:

PUBLIC COMMENT - SPECIFIC TO THE DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN

IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation:

Recommended Motion:

BACKGROUND:

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

None

15.B.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 3/19/2024 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS

SUBJECT:

Presentation regarding the final design elements and direction from Council on the intersections, mid- block crossings, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting and street furniture within the scope of the Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements Project

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: That the City Council, by motion, provide City Staff with direction on the intersections, mid-block crossings, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting and street furniture within the scope of the Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements Project.

BACKGROUND:

I. Project History and Outreach

On May 5, 2015, staff presented an item to City Council for the removal of five mid-block crosswalks in Hanford Downtown. These crosswalk locations were determined as non-compliant with current ADA requirements and need excessive improvements required to bring them into compliance. At that time, the Council heard comments and voted to remove two (2) of the five (5) crosswalks, and to evaluate the others for upgrades to meet ADA compliance.

In September 2018, as directed by the City Council, a Downtown Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety Committee was formed. The purpose of forming that committee was to meet with staff and consultants to discuss the potential for converting some downtown streets to one-way streets, traffic calming at intersections, safety lighting, and traffic controls in the downtown area, with the intention of then meeting with the City Council and providing recommendations for a final report and plan for downtown improvements that would provide added benefit to pedestrian and vehicular safety in the downtown area. The committee consisted of local downtown business owners and representatives.

At the February 16, 2021 City Council meeting, staff along with the City’s consultant, Peters Engineering, presented the Council with the results of the Downtown Committee’s recommendations for the Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Study. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to move forward with the recommendations of the committee. The recommendations included roundabouts along Douty Street at Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Street, the removal of five mid-block crosswalks on Irwin, Douty, and Sixth Street, and construction of pedestrian curb extensions at twenty eight (28) intersections in the downtown study area.

At the September 7, 2021 City Council Study Session, staff discussed the Downtown traffic circulation and related improvements to improve Safety and Walkability and potential funding

opportunities of the Clean California Local Grant Program administered by the California Department of Transportation. Staff presented the committee project recommendations for the Council's review and direction. The Council further discussed the mid-block crosswalks and the project budget. It was the Council consensus to direct staff to move forward with the recommendations. Additional appropriations would be presented to the Council at a future meeting for review and approval.

At the June 21, 2022 Council meeting Study Session, staff presented the ARPA funding information to Council and requested approval for allocations. Council approved the recommendation to allocate $4.4 million for Downtown Street Economic Development of Sixth Street, Seventh Street and Eighth Street improvements. Should additional funding become available, or if existing funding is redirected, additional downtown intersections could be improved with curb extensions as identified in the Study.

At the December 6, 2022, City Council meeting, Council requested that staff present the potential development scenarios for the downtown, including the implications of including a roundabout at 7th and Douty, three roundabouts on Douty, and four-way stops on Douty.

At the December 20, 2022, City Council meeting, as requested by Council, Peters Engineering Group, along with City staff, presented the development scenarios and the implications to traffic, parking, future planning and budget for each scenario. Council directed staff to circulate a Request for Proposals for the design of pedestrian improvements and a single roundabout at 7th and Douty.

At the April 2, 2023, City Council meeting, Council awarded the Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements Project design services contract to Interwest Consulting Group. Interwest was tasked with preparing an engineering analysis of the project area before beginning the final design process.

On February 27, 2024, Staff and Interwest held a stakeholder meeting with the impacted downtown businesses to provide information and seek input on project design.

At the March 5, 2024 City Council meeting, Council was presented with the engineering report for the Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements Project. The report identified the traffic, safety and financial impacts of various intersection designs at 7th and Douty. The report also provided design recommendations for several intersections and mid-block crossing in the downtown.

II. Engineering Considerations and Findings

A summary of the findings from the engineering study (Attachment 1) conducted for the project are listed below:

A. Safety

The study found that a roundabout at 7th and Douty would be safer than a 4-Way stop. The Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) for a roundabout is 50%, whereas the reduction factor for a 4-way is 24%. In other words, a 4-Way stop is projected to have twice as many collisions in comparison to a roundabout. CRFs are based on empirical data for the percent reduction in number of traffic collisions due to converting from one type of intersection traffic control to another.

B. Traffic

The study found that a roundabout is more likely to reduce traffic at 7th and Douty than a 4-Way stop.

The expected delay during peak midday traffic for a roundabout is 5.8 seconds, for a 4-Way stop it is

12.1 seconds. The expected delay during peak afternoon/evening traffic for a roundabout is 4.5

seconds, for a 4-Way stop it is 9.3 seconds.

C. Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)

The BCR is the benefit over the life of the alternative’s improvements divided by the total cost of the improvements over the life of the alternative. In this case, the expected life of all the improvements within the project area is 20 years. The total costs are the sum of the initial capital costs with the annual operations & maintenance costs over 20 years.

The benefits for the life of the improvements are the estimated annual collision savings applied over 20 years.

For the intersection of 7th and Douty the BCR for the roundabout is 30.9 (Cost: $931,625 Benefit:
$28,780,000) and 15.5 for a 4-Way stop (Cost: $893,650, Benefit: $13,818,000).

Collision costs over 20 years are projected to be nearly $15,000,000 more for a 4-Way stop in comparison to a roundabout.

D. Turning Radius

Preliminary engineering conducted by Interwest and Peters Engineering indicates that the geometry of a single lane roundabout at 7th Street and Douty Street will be able to accommodate a WB-40 (medium-sized trailer truck), a KART bus, and a fire engine based on truck turning templates.

III. Additional Findings and Considerations

A. Parking Considerations

A Parking Inventory Study was conducted in the downtown area in 2017 to determine the amount of available parking in downtown parking lots from 10AM-2PM (Attachment 2). On average, from 10AM- 2PM, downtown parking lots were at "61% total usage".

Staff and the consultant have provided an estimate of parking stalls in the project area based on different project designs. The calculations below include street parking stalls on Douty from 6th to 8th and on 7th from Irwin to Douty. The numbers provided below are preliminary estimates and the final number of parking stalls will not be known until plans are completed.

Current Parking Available
Stalls - ~75
ADA Stalls – 0

Roundabout
Stalls - ~100
ADA Stalls - ~5

Four-way
Stalls - ~124
ADA Stalls – ~6

B. Business Stakeholder Findings

Photographs of the boards after the business stakeholder meeting had concluded are provided as Attachment 3. The images and descriptions from the presentation boards were also provided to Council at the March 5th meeting.

IV. Possible Design Elements and Request for Direction

Several design elements have been considered and discussed with Council, the public, and businesses. Staff is seeking Council's direction on items that should be included in the final design documents.

A. Intersection at 7th and Douty

The impacts of a 4-Way stop and roundabout at Douty and 7th were analyzed by Interwest. The engineering report is provided in Attachment 1 and summarized above. According to the engineering report, a roundabout at 7th and Douty results in a better Level of Service, increased safety, and a better Benefit Cost Ratio than a 4-Way stop. Both intersection types would result in additional parking in the downtown.

Request for direction: What intersection design will be utilized at 7th and Douty?

B.Bulb-outs

Bulb-outs are potential design elements for the intersections of Douty and 6th, Douty and 7th (if a 4- Way stop,) Douty and 8th, and 7th and Irwin.

The bulb-outs will reduce the crossing distances for pedestrians and increase pedestrian visibility.

Request for direction: Will intersection design include bulb-outs at intersections in the project area?

C. Midblock Crossings

The engineering study indicates that, within the project area, the midblock crossing on Douty St between 7th St & 8th St and Douty St between 6th St & 7th St should only be kept if made ADA compliant and if bulb-outs are added.

Request for direction: Should the midblock crossings on Douty between 7th St & 8 and between 6th St & 7th St be kept by adding ADA compliant ramps and bulb-outs?

D. Sidewalk Type

Two different sidewalk types were analyzed as part of the project: Traditional sidewalks and curbless sidewalks. A traditional sidewalk design has a raised curb that results in a several inch drop from the sidewalk to the road. A curbless sidewalk design results in the sidewalk being at the same grade as the street. Curbless designs tend to improve pedestrian mobility but require changing how stormwater is collected.

Due to engineering and cost constraints, a curbless option is only feasible at the intersection of 7th and Douty with a roundabout design. A 4-way stop at 7th and Douty would likely not facilitate a curbless design due to existing drainage constraints, and additional constraints that may be caused as a result of eliminating the existing curb and gutter section. Elimination of the curb and gutter for the entire project area would also require extending the project scope well beyond the current project

limits in order to transition the street section to and from a curbless design, and potential upgrades to the existing storm drainage system to support the change – both of which would require additional funding.

Request for direction: Should the project be designed with a curbless design where feasible or should the entire project have traditional sidewalk design?

E. Landscaping

There are several different species of trees in the project areas and landscaping areas exist at intersections and some crossings. Many of the trees in the downtown have lifted nearby sidewalks and businesses owners have expressed concerns about the maintenance requirements and the size of the trees.

The project scope includes the removal and replacement of trees and landscaping in the downtown.

The City will work with a landscape architect to determine which tree species results in reduced maintenance, reduced damage to sidewalks, but still provides a manageable canopy.

The placement and type of the trees will be determined during the design process; however, the preferred planter type can be identified at this time.

Request for direction: Should the trees be planted in-ground or in raised planters/boxes? If the trees are in planter boxes, should they be movable? If in- ground, do we keep the planter area the same size?

F. Lighting

Council has requested that the existing design of the downtown streetlights be maintained. Additional lighting in the downtown, for safety purposes, was requested during stakeholder meetings.

Lighted bollards at intersections, and possibly other areas, can improve visibilty of pedestrians crossing the street and also improve the general safety of the downtown.

Request for Direction: Should lighted bollards be included in the project area?

G. Street Furniture

Staff has received several comments regarding street furniture. Some businesses and residents indicated that the use of public benches, seating, etc. for other activities in the downtown was detrimental to downtown businesses and several benches were removed from the downtown; however, during the business stakeholder meeting several streetscapes with street furniture were selected as desirable.

Several outdoor seating options exist that allow for seating while also discouraging vandalism and other activities.

Request for direction: Should seating be included in the project area? If so, which type of seating is preferable?

H. Project Scope

Changes in project scale and scope could occur if construction bids exceed the budget. Staff, Interwest, and the selected contractor will work together to meet the Council's goals if a modification of the scope or scale of the project is needed to meet project budget.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Project design and construction is being funded via ARPA funds.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Downtown Pedestrian Safety Project Report

2. 2017 Downtown Parking Study

3. Downtown Stakeholders Outcomes

/gid00049/gid00081/gid00068/gid00079/gid00064/gid00081/gid00068/gid00067/gid00001/gid00065/gid00088/gid00027 City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic
Circulation Project Update
December 4, 2023
/gid00052/gid00084/gid00065/gid00076/gid00072/gid00083/gid00083/gid00068/gid00067/gid00001/gid00083/gid00078/gid00027 /gid00036/gid00042/gid00053/gid00058/gid00001/gid00048/gid00039

HANFORD
/gid00036/gid00034/gid00045/gid00042/gid00039/gid00048/gid00051/gid00047/gid00042/gid00034

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 CIRCULATION ANALYSIS 3

3.0 TRAFFIC SIGNALS vs ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLS 13

ANALYSIS

4.0 INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION (ICE) 17

5.0 MIDBLOCK CROSSWALK ANALYSIS 26

6.0 INTERSECTION PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS 33

7.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 34

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE
1 Summary of Delay & Level of Service for Study Options Peak Hour 6 Analysis – Existing 2023 Conditions
2 Summary of Delay & Level of Service for Study Options Peak Hour 7 Analysis – Future 2040 Conditions
3 Douty Street Road Diet, Summary of Delay & Level of Service (LOS) 10 for Study Options Peak Hour Analysis
4 7th Street Road Diet, Summary of Delay & Level of Service (LOS) for 12 Study Options Peak Hour Analysis, Intersection of 7th Street & Redington Street
5 Traffic Collision Summary (7th Street) 14
6 Summary of Delay & Level of Service (LOS), Traffic Signals vs 16 All-Way Stop Controls Analysis
7 Intersection Performance Measures 22
8 Midblock Crosswalk Warrant Summary 30

LIST OF EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT PAGE
1 Study Area 1
2 Existing Daily & Peak Hour Traffic Volumes – Weekday 4 3 Existing Daily & Peak Hour Traffic Volumes – Saturday 5 4 Proposed Road Diet Locations 9
5 ICE Location Map (7th Street & Douty Street) 17
6 Existing Traffic Signal Layout 18

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update TABLE OF CONTENTS

ii
LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued)

EXHIBIT PAGE
7 Upgraded Traffic Signal Layout 19
8 All-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Layout 20
9 Roundabout Intersection Layout 21
10 Existing Midblock Peak Hour Traffic Volumes – Weekday 27 11 Existing Midblock Peak Hour Traffic Volumes – Saturday 28

APPENDICES
A Traffic Count Data
B Level of Service (LOS) Worksheets
C Traffic Collision Data
D Traffic Signal Warrants, All-Way Stop Warrants
E Caltrans Crash Costs and Crash Reduction Factors (CRF) F Estimated Construction Costs of ICE Alternatives
G Midblock Crosswalk Sight Distance Layouts
H Proposed Intersection Pedestrian Treatments (Peters Engineering, 2021)

1171 W. Shaw Avenue | Suite 102 |
Fresno, CA 93711
626.224.2055
City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Project Update I N T R O D U C T I O N

Page | 1

SECTION 1.0

INTRODUCTION
In 2021, the Downtown Pedestrian Safety and Traffic Circulation Project report was prepared by Peters Engineering Group (2021 Peters Engi neering study) to summarize the project analysis and findings. The project included “identifying intersections in the Central Parking and Business District that could potentially benef it from pedestrian safety and accessibility improvements.” The analysis included “consideration of traffic calming (bulb-outs), evaluation of one-way streets downtown for traffic flow and parking/pedestrian safety, evaluation of conversion of Douty Street and Seventh Street to one lane with traffic calming, and design of intersection improvement for pedestrian safety/ADA compliance.”

The study area is illustrated below, including the study intersections and midblock crosswalks.

Exhibit 1 - Study Area

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Project Update I N T R O D U C T I O N

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 2
The purpose of this study is to update the 2021 Pe ters Engineering study with current traffic data and expand the study with the addition of Saturday analyses. In particular, the study includes the following:
 A circulation analysis to evaluate the following proposed circulation modifications in the downtown area:
o Conversion of Seventh Street and Sixth Street to a one-way couplet to potentially create additional on-street parking.
o Conversion of Douty Street and Seventh Street to one lane in each direction, with angled parking.
 A traffic signal warrant analysis and all-wa y stop warrant analysis to determine if the four signalized intersections on 7th Street at Redington Street, Irwin Street, Douty Street and Harris Street currently warrant traffic signals or if they would operate satisfactorily as stop-controlled intersections.
 An analysis considering the construction of roundabouts on Douty Street at Sixth Street, Seventh Street and Eighth Street. Since public hearings following the 2021 Peters Engineering study made it clear that roundabouts at Sixth Street and Eighth Street are not popular with the public, only the intersec tion of Douty Street and Seventh Street was evaluated for a roundabout. The City requested that an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) be performed to determine the best traffic control for the intersection.  Evaluation of twelve midblock crosswalks in the downtown area to assess the safety and effectiveness of the facilities.
 Consideration of the design of intersection improvements for pedestrian safety and ADA compliance.

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Project Update CIRCULATION ANALYSIS

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 3

SECTION 2.0

CIRCULATION ANALYSIS
The circulation analysis considers several options to improve traffic circulation and pedestrian safety in the downtown area. One option woul d convert 7th Street and 6th Street between Redington Street and Harris Street to a one-way couplet to provide room for additional on- street parking. Another option would reduce sections of Douty Street and of 7th Street to one lane of traffic in each direction to provide angled parking. T he option to remove the existing traffic signals on 7th Street at Redington Street, Irwin Street, D outy Street and Harris Street, and replace them with All-Way Stop Controls (AWSC) was also considered. Since the one- way couplet options also include replacing the existing traffic signals with all-way stop control, this option was evaluated first. To assess the potential feasibility of each option, Level of Service (LOS) peak hour analyses were prepared for the following eight intersections (shown on Exhibit 1):
 7th Street & Redington Street
 7th Street & Irwin Street
 7th Street & Douty Street
 7th Street & Harris Street
 6th Street & Redington Street
 6th Street & Irwin Street
 6th Street & Douty Street
 6th Street & Harris Street

Peak hour intersection turning movement traffic count data was collected on Tuesday, August 29, 2023, Wednesday, August 30, 2023, Thursday, August 31, 2023 and Saturday, August 26, 2023. The traffic count data is illustrated on Exhibit 2 for weekdays and on Exhibit 3 for Saturdays, and is provided in Appendix A.

Each intersection was evaluated for the weekday peak hour, for both existing conditions and future 2040 conditions. To estimate 2040 conditions, a growth factor of 1.25, which was used in the 2021 Peters Engineering study, was applied to the existing traffi c volumes. Although Saturday peak hour counts were collected, the Saturday counts were not evaluated since they were lower than the weekday counts and would not have provided worse-case results. The results of the analyses are shown in Tables 1 and 2. The LOS wor ksheets are provided in Appendix B.

Existing Lanes and Traffic Controls
As shown in Table 1, all four intersections wi th 7th Street currently operate at LOS A and all four intersections with 6th Street currently operat e at LOS B. As shown in Table 2, all four intersections with 7th Street are anticipated to operate at LO S A or B in 2040. All four

LEGEND:
13/30/20 = AM/MD/PM Peak Hour Volumes, Weekday
6,636 = Daily Traffic Volume (Total both ways, in 24 hours) AM = Morning peak hour
MD = Midday peak hour
PM = Afternoon/ Evening peak hour
= Intersection numbers correspond to the numbers in the intersection boxes W
S
N
E
EXHIBIT 2
Existing Daily & Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes - Weekday
13/30/20
107/211/171
18/41/28
15/23/23
139/112/129
41/33/28
41/49/35
146/230/186
13/23/21
11/28/24
107/111/143
36/42/36

1. W. 7th St. & Redington St.
36/82/59
98/171/153
9/15/15
10/25/24
20/35/36
11/12/13
22/31/56
161/236/184
5/13/20
22/34/31
24/45/35
24/34/30

2. W. 7th St. & N. Irwin St.
13/26/23
72/176/147
15/35/41
9/26/8
272/166/188
11/24/36
8/28/19
158/192/187
5/19/16
14/29/14
152/131/181
20/56/40

3. W. 7th St. & N. Douty St.
9/14/9
105/193/177
1/10/6
3/8/6
31/25/34
3/2/0
20/40/27
163/223/198
2/6/2
19/45/41
37/41/48
11/16/14

4. W. 7th St. & N. Harris St.
11/21/14
90/108/121
23/34/18
5/12/11
133/95/104
18/22/23
43/43/44
59/108/93
12/33/39
23/55/39
102/137/134
14/21/14

5. W. 6th St. & Redington St.
20/28/15
110/158/156
20/34/34
94/154/121
16/30/23
14/39/35

6. W. 6th St. & N. Irwin St.
13/23/17
46/97/100
41/73/58
97/83/89
260/224/205
44/61/48
5/17/16
73/96/85
81/94/98
3/11/11
150/147/160
11/30/29

7. W. 6th St. & N. Douty St.
52/35/48
95/169/153
19/12/5
120/144/140
9/6/12
40/48/54

8. W. 6th St. & N. Harris St.
1 16,636 6,284
4,487 4,755
25,873 5,997
1,526 2,647
35,996 5,398
5,609 5,786
45,278 5,710
1,295 2,085
5 6
7 8
Page | 4

10/7
185/113
2/5
6/2
17/18
0/0
20/10
264/169
10/4
41/19
30/23
16/13
14/5
103/56
11/12
13/9
70/49
19/9
42/15
73/38
22/34
48/32
66/53
14/8
19/8
159/99
41/12
102/69
28/22
25/25
16/9
125/60
49/44
80/58
160/107
31/19
22/16
88/46
84/59
11/8
105/96
28/12
20/16
188/107
4/5
151/94
6/4
37/25
EXHIBIT 3
Existing Daily & Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes - Saturday
LEGEND:
17/7 = MD/PM Peak Hour Volumes, Saturday
6,636 = Daily Traffic Volume (Total both ways, in 24 hours) AM = Morning peak hour
MD = Midday peak hour
PM = Afternoon/ Evening peak hour
= Intersection numbers correspond to the numbers in the intersection boxes 1 1. W. 7th St. & Redington St. 2. W. 7th St. & N. Irwin St. 3. W. 7th St. & N. Douty St. 4. W. 7th St. & N. Harris St.

6. W. 6th St. & N. Irwin St. 7. W. 6th St. & N. Douty St. 8. W. 6th St. & N. Harris St. 17/7
192/129
27/21
29/13
71/39
71/18
55/16
247/45
17/15
28/18
82/155
33/17
71/65
165/125
18/8
16/7
35/26
9/6
46/37
255/138
9/13
33/31
38/24
48/15
19/20
180/105
29/20
23/12
142/92
34/24
29/17
221/152
14/19
13/16
107/81
38/17
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 5,758 5,810
2,950 3,098
5,425 5,724
1,288 2,315
5,712 5,269
4,003 4,023
5,192 5,533
811 1,494
8 W
S
N
E

5. W. 6th St. & Redington St.

Page | 5

MD PM MD PM MD PM MD PM
7th St 7.7 A 8.6 A 7.9 A 10.0 A 7.8 A 8.8 A 7.5 A 9.8 A 6th St 11.1 B 11.4 B 13.5 B 10.6 B 13.5 B 13.5 B 11.5 B 12.7 B

MD PM MD PM MD PM MD PM
7th St 13.2 B 12.1 B 10.7 B 10.8 B 13.0 B 10.6 B 10.5 B 9.8 A

MD PM MD PM MD PM MD PM
7th St 50.4 F 22.0 C 25.6 D 21.2 C 35.4 E 13.5 B 25.2 D 22.4 C 6th St 52.3 F 129.8 F 16.2 C 15.3 C 54.5 F 76.3 F 14.8 B 17.7 C

MD PM MD PM MD PM MD PM
7th St 18.9 C 15.3 C 13.4 B 12.2 B 14.4 B 11.0 B 12.5 B 11.4 B 6th St 15.6 C 15.0 B 13.5 B 11.9 B 17.6 C 19.0 C 12.6 B 14.1 B 2This scenario does not involve 6th Street, so it was not included.

Service (LOS)
1MD = Weekday Midday Peak Hour, PM = Weekday PM Peak Hour; 13.2 B = Delay, in seconds, and Level of Summary of Delay & Level of Service (LOS) for Study Options Peak Hour Analysis Existing 2023 Conditions
Street
Street
Street
Street
One-Way, Two Lanes (Existing Traffic Signals Removed)
Existing Traffic Signals Removed (All-Way Stop Controlled)2 Existing Lanes & Traffic Controls
One-Way, One Lane (Existing Traffic Signals Removed)
Redington St Irwin St Douty St Harris St
Redington St Irwin St Douty St Harris St
Redington St Irwin St Douty St Harris St
Table 1
Redington St Irwin St Douty St Harris St
Page | 6

MD PM MD PM MD PM MD PM
7th St 8.1 A 9.7 A 13.6 B 12.3 B 8.4 A 9.1 A 7.8 A 11.6 B 6th St 13.4 B 14.4 B 15.5 C 11.5 B 18.9 C 19.2 C 12.3 B 14.3 B

MD PM MD PM MD PM MD PM
7th St 19.8 C 15.8 C 13.6 B 13.9 B 18.3 C 12.4 B 12.5 B 11.6 B

MD PM MD PM MD PM MD PM
7th St 117.7 F 52.7 F 78.5 F 64.4 F 80.7 F 22.3 C 72.2 F 63.5 F 6th St 138.7 F 131.2 F 21.3 C 20.7 C 120.7 F 158.6 F 18.5 C 26.5 D

MD PM MD PM MD PM MD PM
7th St 40.3 E 24.6 C 19.1 C 16.3 C 21.6 C 13.2 B 16.2 C 14.0 B 6th St 25.3 D 23.2 C 15.7 C 13.8 B 31.2 D 36.6 E 14.3 B 17.2 C 1MD = Weekday Midday Peak Hour, PM = Weekday PM Peak Hour; 13.2 B = Delay, in seconds, and Level of Service (LOS)
Existing Lanes & Traffic Controls
Future 2040 Conditions
Table 2
2This scenario does not involve 6th Street, so it was not included.

Street
Street
Street
One-Way, Two Lanes (Existing Traffic Signals Removed)
One-Way, One Lane (Existing Traffic Signals Removed)
Existing Traffic Signals Removed (All-Way Stop Controlled)2 Douty St Harris StStreet
Douty St Harris St
Redington St Irwin St
Douty St Harris St
Redington St Irwin St
Douty St Harris St
Redington St Irwin St
Summary of Delay & Level of Service (LOS) for Study Options Peak Hour Analysis Redington St Irwin St
Page | 7

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Project Update CIRCULATION ANALYSIS

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 8
intersections with 6th Street are anticipated to operate at LOS B or C in 2040. The intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service and are expected to continue to do so through 2040.

Existing Traffic Signals Removed (All-Way Stop Controlled) With this option, the existing four traffic signals at the intersections of 7th Street and Redington Street, 7th Street and Irwin Street, 7th Street at Douty Street and 7th Street at Harris Street, would be removed and replaced with all-way stop controls. As shown in Table 1, the intersections on 7th Street would operate at LOS A or B with existing traffic volumes. As shown in Table 2, in 2040, the intersections on 7th St reet would be anticipated to operate at LOS B or C. Exercising this option would not signific antly change traffic operations now or in 2040.

It should be noted that this option would also depend on meeting traffic signal and all-way stop warrants, which are included in Section 3.

One-Way, One-Lane Couplet (7th and 6th Streets)
With this option, the existing four traffic signals at the intersections of 7th Street and Redington Street, 7th Street and Irwin Street, 7th Street at Douty Street and 7th Street at Harris Street, would be removed and replaced with all-way stop controls. 7th Street and 6th Street would be reduced to one lane, going eastbound on 7th Street and westbound on 6th Street. As shown in Table 1, with existing traffic volumes, the option to convert 7th Street and 6th Street between Redington Street and Harris Street to a one-lane couplet, would result in LOS F at 7th Street and Redington Street, at 6th Street and Redington St, and at 6th Street and Douty Street. 7th Street and Douty Street would operate at LOS E. Irwin Street at 7th Street and at 6th Street, as well as Harris Street at 7th Street and 6th Street would operate at LOS D or better.

As shown in Table 2, with 2040 conditions, this option would be expected to result in LOS F at all intersections with 7th Stree t. 6th Street and Redington St reet and 6th Street and Douty Street would have LOS F, whereas 6th Street and Irwin Street, and 6th Street and Harris Street would operate at LOS D or better.

One-Way, Two-Lane Couplet (7th and 6th Streets)
Since the one-way, one-lane coupl et operation would result in LOS F at most of the intersections, the analysis was repeated with tw o one-way lanes to determine if it would improve the level of service. As shown in Table 1, with existing traffic volumes, two one-way lanes would result in LOS C or better at all of the 7th Street and 6th Street intersections.

As shown in Table 2, with 2040 conditions, the two-lane one-way couplet is projected to result in an unacceptable LOS E at 7th Street and Redington Street with the other three intersections operating at LOS B or C. 6th Street and Douty Street is projected to operate at LOS E, whereas the other three intersections on 6th Street would operate at LOS D or better.

Should the City find LOS E acceptable in this ca se, a preliminary review indicates that both 7th Street and 6th Str eet between Redington Street and Harris Street are wide enough to accommodate two lanes of traffic and angled parking on both sides of the streets.

Although one-way couplets have their benefits, such as fewer traffic points of conflict and safer crossings for pedestrians, they also have their drawbacks. Additional signage is required to

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Project Update CIRCULATION ANALYSIS

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 9
discourage wrong-way driving and the one-way pattern, particularl y for a short distance, is confusing for visitors from out of the area.

Although feasible, this option is not recommended due to the unacceptable LOS E and increased signage.

Road Diets for Douty Street and for 7th Street
Another option that was considered would be to reduce Douty Street and 7th Street from two lanes to one lane in each direction in order to provide angled parking. The road diet on Douty Street would be from 6th Str eet to 8th Street and the road diet on 7th Street would be one- block long, from Phillips Street to Redington Street (see Exhibit 4). Since this study is focused on 6th and 7th Streets between Redington Street and Harris St reet, the analysis was limited to the following intersections:
 Douty Street & 7th Street
 Douty Street & 6th Street
 7th Street & R edington Street

Based on engineering layouts, there is sufficient roadway width on both streets to accommodate angled parking on both sides of the streets with one lane of traffic in each direction.

Exhibit 4 - Proposed Road Diet Locations

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Project Update CIRCULATION ANALYSIS

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 10

Douty Street Road Diet
Douty Street is currently two lanes in each direction with parallel parking on both sides of the street between 8th Street and 3r d Street. The City of Hanfor d is planning to convert the segment between 8th Street and 6th Street to one lane in each direction with angled parking on both sides. The project is currently being designed.

A level of service (LOS) analysis was performed to determine the impact the road diet would have on the intersections of Douty Street & 7t h Street and Douty Street & 6th Street. The results of the analysis are shown below in Tabl e 3. For comparison purposes, the table also provides the intersection LOS for the other proposed options discussed in the previous section.

Table 3
Douty Street Road Diet
Summary of Delay & Level of Service for Study Options Peak Hour Analysis

Table 3 indicates that for the intersection of Douty Street & 7th Street, for 2023, the Midday peak hour delay would be worse with the road di et for all options except AWSC, where the delay would be slightly better. For the two One-Way Couplet options, the LOS would also be worse during the Midday peak hour. For 2040, with the road diet, the Midday peak hour delay would be worse for all options, with the LOS al so worse for the One-Way, Two Lanes option.

For both 2023 and 2040, all delays would be better with the road diet, and for the AWSC option in 2023, the LOS would also improve.

For the intersection of Douty Street & 6th Street, Table 3 indicates that for both 2023 and 2040, the Midday peak hour delay and LOS would be worse with the road diet. For One-Way, One

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Project Update CIRCULATION ANALYSIS

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 11
Lane conditions, the LOS would not change, however, at LOS F, it couldn’t get any worse.

During the PM peak hour for 2023, the delay would be worse with the road diet for Existing and One-Way, Two-Lane Couplet conditions, however, the LOS would remain the same. For One-Way, One-Lane Couplet condi tions, the delay would improve with the road diet, but remain at LOS F. During the PM peak hour for 2040, both the delay and LOS would be worse for both the Existing and One-Way, Two-Lane Couplet conditions. As with 2023, for One-Way, One-Lane Couplet conditions, the delay would improve with the road diet, but would remain at LOS F.

In summary, the Douty Street Road Diet should not be implemented with the One-Way, One- Lane Couplet option on 7th Street. For the Existing and the One-Way, Two-Lane Couplet options, however, the LOS would be acceptable in 2023 with the road diet. By 2040, though, the road diet would result in unacceptable LOS for both Mi dday and PM peak hours at the intersection of Douty Street and 6th Street. If the road diet is implemented and traffic increases as assumed, the Douty Street Road Diet would likely need to be reversed prior to 2040.

7th Street Road Diet
7th Street is currently two lanes east bound and one lane westbound betw een Phillips Street and Redington Street, with angled parking on the north side for westbound traffic and parallel parking and landscaping on the south side for eas tbound traffic. At Redington Street, the eastbound curb lane becomes a right turn lane. West of Phillips Street, 7th Street is two lanes in each direction, with parallel parking on both sides.

The road diet would drop the second eastbound lane at Phillip s Street to provide one eastbound lane between Phillips Street and Remington Street. Angled parking would replace the existing parallel parking to provide additi onal parking spaces on t he south side of 7th Street. There are currently seven parallel parking spaces on th e south side, that could be replaced with 12 angled parking spaces, for a net gain of 5 parking spaces.

A level of service (LOS) analysis was performed to determine the impact the road diet would have on the intersection of 7th St reet and Redington Street. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 4. For comparison purposes, the table also provides the intersection LOS for the other proposed options discussed in the previous section.

As can be seen in Table 4, the LOS would be the same with or without the road diet and the LOS would be at acceptable levels for both options, and for both 2023 and 2040. The delay would be slightly greater with the road diet during the Midday peak hour for both study options and during the PM peak hour with the AWSC conditions, however, the delay would be slightly less during the PM peak hour for existing conditions.

In summary, the analysis supports converting 7th Street to one lane in each direction for the one block between Phillips Street and Redington Street, to provide an additional five on-street parking spaces. Further study would be needed, however, to consider narrowing 7th Street to one lane in each direction west of Phillips Street.

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Project Update CIRCULATION ANALYSIS

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 12

Table 4
7th Street Road Diet
Summary of Delay & Level of Service for Study Options Peak Hour Analysis

MD PM MD PM MD PM MD PM
Existing Lanes & Traffic Controls 8.0 A 7.7 A 7.7 A 8.6 A 8.5 A 8.2 A 8.1 A 9.7 A Existing Traffic Signals Removed (AWSC)2

14.4 B 12.3 B 13.2 B 12.1 B 24.2 C 16.6 C 19.8 C 15.8 C 1 The One-Way Couplet options are not applicable for the 7th St Road Diet and were not included 20232 20402
With Road Diet Without Road Diet
Intersection of 7th Street & Redington Street
Study Option1
2 MD = Weekday Midday Peak Hour, PM = Weekday PM Peak Hour; 13.2 B = Delay, in seconds, and Level of Service (LOS), AWSC = All-Way Stop Controlled, Bolded = Delay is worse with Road Diet, with Italics = LOS is also worse with Road Diet With Road Diet Without Road Diet

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update TRAFFIC SIGNAL vs ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 13

SECTION 3.0
TRAFFIC SIGNALS vs ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLS ANALYSIS
This study also considers the feasibility of removing the existing traffic signals at the following intersections and replacing them with all-way stop controls:
 7th Street & Redington Street
 7th Street & Irwin Street
 7th Street & Douty Street
 7th Street & Harris Street

The feasibility study included four analyses. Traffic signal warrants from the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) were used to determine if the intersections currently qualify for traffic signal control. The study also prepared CA MUTCD all-way stop warrants to determine if the intersections would qualify for an all-way stop control if the traffic signal was removed. A traffic collision an alysis and a Level of Service (LOS) operational analysis were also performed.

Traffic signal warrants and all-way stop warrants are based on traffic volumes, traffic collisions and other intersection characteristics. Two-way 24-hour traffic count data was collected for each leg of each intersection on Tuesday, August 29, 2023 and Saturday, August 26, 2023.

The traffic count data is illustrated on Exhibit 2 for weekday and Exhibit 3 for Saturday. The traffic count data is provided in Appendix A. Traffic collision data for the four intersections was collected for the most recently available five years of records, from August 1, 2018 – July 31, 2023, from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The traffic signal and all-way stop warrants, however, are based on 12 months of collision data. An collision analysis based on the five years of collision data was also prepared. The traffic collision records and a detailed list of collisions at each intersection are provided in Appendix C.

It should be noted that as of the preparation of this report, the intersection of 7th Street & Irwin Street was in the process of being converted to an all-way stop control. The signal heads have been removed and stop signs installed. The signal poles have yet to be removed. Since the traffic counts had already been collected, the warrant analyses were performed to confirm the removal.

Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
The following warrants are applicable to this situation:
 Warrant 1, Eight H our Vehicular Volume
 Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
 Warrant 7, Crash Experience

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update TRAFFIC SIGNAL vs ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 14
Each intersection was analyzed for both weekdays and Saturdays. The analysis found that none of the four intersections currently meets any of the three CA MUTCD signal warrants, for weekdays or Saturdays, due to insufficient tra ffic volumes and too few traffic collisions that could be addressed with a traffic signal. The traffic signal warrant worksheets are provided in Appendix D.

All-Way Stop Control (AWSC) Warrant Analysis
To determine if it would be appropriate to repl ace the signals with AWSCs, the intersections were analyzed with the CA MUTCD AWSC warrant. Each intersection was analyzed for both weekdays and Saturdays. The analysis found that all four intersections meet warrants for an all-way stop control, for both weekdays and Satur days. The all-way stop warrant sheets are provided in Appendix D.

Traffic Collision Analysis
As previously noted, the traffic signal warrant and the all-way stop warrant only consider the previous 12 months of traffic collision data. With five years of data, however, collision patterns are more likely to emerge. The traffic collision ra te for each intersection was also calculated.

The collision rate is based on the number of collisions and the number of vehicles passing through the intersection in one day and provides a useful basis for comparing the relative safety of intersections.

The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 5. They show that the intersection of 7th Street and Redington Str eet has the highest collision rate, followed by 7th Street and Douty Street, then 7th Street and Irwin Street, and 7th Street and Harris Street.

Table 5
Traffic Collision Summary (7th Street)

The collision rates were also compared to the statewide average rates, published by Caltrans, most recently for 2021 data. If a collision rate is significantly great er than the statewide average for a similar intersection, it indicates that the intersection is less safe than typical Broadside Sideswipe Rear End Head-On Other
7th St & Redington St 19 5 2 0 0 26 11,081 1.29
7th St & Irwin St 3 3 2 0 1 9 8,022 0.61
7th St & Douty St 10 2 5 0 0 17 11,395 0.82
7th St & Harris St 2 0 1 2 0 5 7,184 0.38
NOTE:

ADT = Average Daily Traffic, in vehicles per day
C/MV = Collisions per million vehicles
Most Broadside collisions were due to red-light running.

No collisions involved pedestrians. 1 collision at 7th St & Redington St involved a bicycle.

Type of Collision Total
Collisions
(5 years)
Intersection ADT
(veh/day)
Collision
Rate
(C/MV)

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update TRAFFIC SIGNAL vs ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 15
intersections and should be modified to reduce the number of collis ions. The statewide average collision rate for signalized intersections in a suburban area is 0.55 collisions per million vehicles (C/MV). Compar ing the collision rates for the study intersections, only one, 7th Street & Harris Street has a collision rate lower than the statewide average. The collision rate for 7th Street & Irwin St reet is only slightly greater than the stat ewide average. The collision rate for 7th Street & Redington Street, however, is more than twice the statewide average. The collision rate for 7th Street & Douty Street is 1.5 times the statewide average.

Based on the collision rates, the intersections of 7th Street & Redington Street and 7th Street & Douty Street should be modified to improve their traffic safety. The collision data was further reviewed to determine if there were any pattern s pointing to appropriate improvements. The analysis found that a majority of the traffic collisions (62%) at 7th Street and Redington Street were due to running red lights and a majority of those (50%) were in the westbound direction.

At 7th Street and Douty Street, running red lights was also the greatest single cause of collisions, at 41%.

A field review indicated that the existing pedesta l traffic signals have reduced visibility due to foliage behind them and the signal heads blending into the background. A similar situation exists at 7th Street and D outy Street, but the signal heads appear to stand out from the background better there. R eplacing the existing backplates with enhanced backplates that have reflective yellow borders would make the signal heads more visible to motorists and would be relatively inexpensive and easy-to-install. A field review also noted that the signal heads for westbound Redington Street at 7th Street were partially/fully blocked by trees on the northeast and southeast corners. The trees on the corners of the intersections should be kept trimmed to ensure the traffic si gnal heads are fully visible from a point 150’ from the back of the crosswalk, which would provide adequate stopping sight distance.

The relative safety of a traffic signal versus all-way stop control was also considered in this analysis. Section 4 of the report is an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) for the intersection of 7th Street and Douty Street, comparing different traffic co ntrol alternatives, including converting it to an all-way stop control from the existing traffic signal. The ICE analysis indicates that upgrading the intersection to an AWSC, with a 15.5 benefit cost ratio (BCR), would be safer than upgrading the traffic signal, which has a 7.9 BCR. When converting from an unwarranted signalized intersection to a warrant ed AWSC intersection, cities have found an approximate 24% improvement in traffic safety. The improvement is partly due to motorists knowing they will be required to stop and the resulting slower spe eds. Also, when the traffic volumes on the intersection streets are similar, like these intersections, motorists are less likely to “run” the Stop signs. In this case, the Stop signs may also be more visible than the existing traffic signals, resulting in greater compliance. When an area is converted from traffic signals to AWSC, walkability in the area has also improved.

The collision/safety analysis indicates that c onverting the intersection to an AWSC would be safer than maintaining the existing signalized intersection.

Level of Service (LOS) Analysis
To assess the operation of the four signalized intersections and compare it with the proposed all-way stop traffic controls, an intersection level of service (LOS) analysis was performed for

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update TRAFFIC SIGNAL vs ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 16
the four intersections, for existing conditions and future 2040 traffic conditions, with the traffic signals. Another LOS analysis was performed wit h the signals replaced with all-way stops.

The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 6 and indicate that all of the intersections currently operate at LOS A durin g both the midday and PM peak hour s. If the intersections were to be converted to AWSC, they would all operate at LOS B with existing traffic volumes, except for the intersection of 7th Street and Harris Street, which would operate at LOS A during the PM peak hour. In 2040, the intersections are anticipated to operat e at LOS A or LOS B with the existing lanes and traffic controls, but operate at LOS B or C with AWSC.

Table 6
Summary of Delay & Level of Service (LOS)1
Traffic Signals vs All-Way Stop Controls Analysis

1 Data is from Tables 1 and 2.

Conclusions

The analysis found that none of t he four study intersections m eet Caltrans warrants for the installation of traffic signals. It also found that all four intersections do meet Caltrans warrants for the installation of AWSC. The traffic collision analysis found that two of the intersections, 7th Street at Redington Street and at Douty Street have tra ffic collision rates that exceed the statewide average to an extent that measures should be taken to improve intersection safety.

The intersection control evaluation (ICE) analysis in Section 4.0 found that AWSC can be safer than traffic signals. The LOS analysis found that the intersections would not operate as well if AWSC compared to the existing conditions, however, the LOS were still acceptable at LOS B and LOS C. The analysis indicates that the existing traffic signalized intersections should be converted to AWSC.

In the interim, the traffic signal head backplates at the intersections of 7th Street at Redington Street and at Douty Street should be modified or replaced to have the retroref lective yellow borders to make them more visible. Also, corner trees should also be trimmed to maintain adequate views of the traffic signal heads.

MD PM MD PM MD PM MD PM
7th St 7.7 A 8.6 A 7.9 A 10.0 A 7.8 A 8.8 A 7.5 A 9.8 A 7th St 13.2 B 12.1 B 10.7 B 10.8 B 13.0 B 10.6 B 10.5 B 9.8 A 7th St 8.1 A 9.7 A 13.6 B 12.3 B 8.4 A 9.1 A 7.8 A 11.6 B 7th St 19.8 C 15.8 C 13.6 B 13.9 B 18.3 C 12.4 B 12.5 B 11.6 B Existing Lanes & Traffic Controls
Existing Traffic Signals Removed (All-Way Stop Controlled)2 Existing Traffic Signals Removed (All-Way Stop Controlled)2 Existing Lanes & Traffic Controls
Existing 2023 Conditions
Future 2040 Conditions
Street Redington St Irwin St Douty St Harris St

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION (ICE)

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 17

SECTION 4.0

INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION
Several traffic control options were consider ed for the intersection of 7th Street and Douty Street (see Exhibit 5), includ ing replacing the tra ffic signal with an all-way stop control or replacing the traffic signal with a roundabout. The City requested a more formal analysis, called an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE ), commonly used/required by Caltrans to evaluate various intersection traffic control options. The purpose of an ICE analysis is to assist in determining the most cost-effective method of intersection control, based on intersection LOS, safety and cost.

Exhibit 5 - ICE Location Map (7th Street & Douty Street)

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION (ICE)

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 18
As noted in the Circulation Analysis section, the City of Hanford is planning a road diet to convert the segment of Douty Street between 8th Street and 6th Street from two lanes to one lane in each direction. The project is curre ntly being designed. The ICE analysis assumed the implementation of the Douty Street Road Diet in the LOS analyses for each traffic control alternative.

The ICE analysis is based on Caltrans ICE Process Informational Guide , and compares intersection level of service (LOS ), traffic collision data, the co sts of traffic collisions and the costs to construct, operate and maintain the intersection traffic control alternatives, to arrive at a safety benefit cost ratio (BCR) for each alter native. The ICE analysis considered the traffic control alternatives, listed below, at the intersection of 7th Street and Douty Street. The traffic control alternatives are illustrated on Exhibits 6 – 8.  Existing Traffic Signal – Maintains the existing conditions  Upgraded Traffic Signal – Upgrades the pedesta l signals to new signal poles with mast arms and includes other related improvements
 All-Way Stop Control – Replaces the existing traffic signal with an all-way stop control  Roundabout – Replaces the existing traffic signal with a one-lane roundabout

Exhibit 6 - Existing Traffic Signal Layout

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION (ICE)

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 19
Exhibit 7 - Upgraded Traffic Signal Layout

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION (ICE)

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 20
Exhibit 8 - All-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Layout

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION (ICE)

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 21
Exhibit 9 - Roundabout Intersection Layout

The Intersection Performance Measures that are included in the ICE analysis are summarized in Table 6 and discussed in the paragraphs below.

Delay/LOS Measure of Performanc e. As shown in Table 7, for both existing and all of the traffic control alternatives, the intersection would operate at acceptable LOS A or LOS B, based on existing traffic volumes. However, the sm allest delay would occur with the Roundabout and the greatest delay would occur with the All-Way Stop Control (AWSC). Compared to the existing traffic signal, the roundabout would have the same LOS A, however, the delays would be much lower.

Intersection Data
Geometry: 4-Legged Intersection
Existing Control: Traffic Signal
Proposed Control #1: Upgraded Traffic Signal
Proposed Control #2: All-Way Stop Control
Proposed Control #3: Roundabout
Major Roadway Data Minor Roadway Data
Street: 7th Street Street:

Direction: East/West Direction:

Existing Upgraded Signal All-Way Stop Roundabout
Existing Upgraded Signal All-Way Stop Roundabout

MD LOS AABA
MD Average Delay (secs/veh) 7.8 8.2 12.1 5.8

PM LOS AAAA
PM Average Delay (secs/veh) 8.8 7.5 9.3 4.5
Existing Upgraded Signal All-Way Stop Roundabout
350$ 850 $ 350 $ 1,300$ 850$ 850 $ - $ - $ 6,150$ 6,150 $ - $ - $ 7,350$ 7,850 $ 350 $ 1,300$ Existing Upgraded Signal All-Way Stop Roundabout

0.30 0.24 0.50
546,800$ 690,900 $ 1,439,000$ Benefit for Life of Project 10,936,000$ 13,818,000 $ 28,780,000 $ Upgraded Signal All-Way Stop Roundabout
1,231,650$ 886,650$ 905,625$
- $ -$ -$ 1,231,650$ 886,650$ 905,625$
Upgraded Signal All-Way Stop Roundabout
Capital Cost 1,231,650$ 886,650$ 905,625$ Operations & Maintenance (Life) 157,000$ 7,000$ 26,000$ Total 1,388,650$ 893,650$ 931,625$ Collision Cost Savings (Life) 10,936,000$ 13,818,000$ 28,780,000$ Total 10,936,000$ 13,818,000$ 28,780,000$

7.9 15.5 30.9
1 Based on a form developed by DKS that follows Caltrans' ICE Process Informational Guide . The expected life of the proposed alternatives is 20 years. larger roundabouts, a CRF of 50 was used.
4 Benefit/Cost Ratio is the Collision Cost Savings (benefit) divided by the cost to install & maintain the proposed change, each over a 20-year life.

Table 7
Measures of Performance: Capital Outlay
Electrical Consumption - Traffic Signal Equipment
Expected Annual Benefit (Annual Collision Savings)3
Crash Reduction Factor2
Signal Retiming & Maintenance
Total
900
Measures of Performance: Safety
Base Collisions (5 year period)
MD Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Luminaires - Annual Electrical Consumption & Maintenance Operations
Measures of Performance: Operations & Maintenance
Measures of Performance: Delay/Level of Service (LOS)
Douty Street
North/South
Intersection Performace Measures1
Intersection: 7TH STREET & DOUTY STREET
MD Entering Volume
PM Entering Volume
908
17 total collisions: 5 Injury & 12 property damage only; no fatalities 3 Expected Annual Benefit (collision cost savings) is based on the equation in Caltrans Local Road Safety Manual, Appendix D.

Initial Construction Cost
Right-of-Way Cost
Total Capital Cost
Benefit/Cost Ratio
5 2 Crash Reduction Factor (CRF), from FHWA. FHWA has a range of values for roundabouts, from 35-67. Since the proposed one-lane roundabout is safer than Benefit/Cost Ratio Calculation
Cost (Life)
Benefit (Life)

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION (ICE)

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 23
Operations & Maintenance Measure of Performance. This prov ides the estimated cost to operate and maintain each traffic control alternat ive over the life of t he alternative (20 years for each alternative). These values were used in the BCR calculations. As shown in Table 7, the AWSC and roundabout would hav e the smallest annual cost, whereas the existing and upgraded traffic signals would have the greatest annual costs.

Safety Measure of Performance. The safety performance measure calculates the collision cost savings over the life of an alternative, based on the number of collisions that are expected to be prevented by the alternative traffic cont rol. This annual benefit is determined using the following equation, which is from Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual, v. 1.5, dated April 2020, which is the most recently available version:

Annual Benefit Equation

The Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) for each countermeasure is applied to each alternative. In this case, there was only one countermeasure fo r each alternative. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides the CRFs for different countermeasures, which are also provided in Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual. CRFs are based on empirical data for

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION (ICE)

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 24
the percent reduction in number of traffic co llisions due to converting from one type of intersection traffic control to another. The CRF for each alternative is as follows:
 Updated Signal: 15% (CRF No. S08 – conv ert to mast arm from pedestal-mounted)  All-Way Stop Control: 24% (R emove unwarranted traffic signal)  Roundabout: 50% (CRF No. S16 – conver t intersection to roundabout from signal)

A CRF for removing an unwarranted traffic signal and replacing it with an AWSC is not included in Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual, however, the FHWA’s website lists several studies where the CRF is 24%. Several cities have also implemented programs to replace a group of traffic signals with AWSC. The most well-known, which also provided data, was done by the City of Philadelphia in 1978, removing 462 traffic signals and replacing most with AWSCs. The action resulted in an overall 24% reduction in traffic collisions. The streets in the Philadelphia study were all one-way streets, however, it is expected that the result s would be similar for two-way streets and other studies support this assumption. Based on this data, a CRF of 24% was used.

For converting a signalized intersection to a roundabout, the CRF “varies”, ranging from 35% to 67%. The CRF is based on all types of roundabouts, ranging from single-lane to multi-lane and from mini-roundabouts to la rge roundabouts. Single-lane roundabouts tend to be safer since there are fewer collision opportunities. An approximate mid-point of 50% was used in this case.

The resulting expected annual cost benefits are shown in Table 7. Each was multiplied by the 20-year life to arrive at the benefit over the life of eac h alternative. The Benefit for Life of Project value for an updated traffic signal w ould be $10,936,000, for an AWSC would be $13,818,000 and for a roundabout would be $28,780,000. Therefore, the updated traffic signal would have the lowest safety cost benefit and the roundabout would have the greatest safety cost benefit.

Capital Outlay Measures of Perf ormance. The capital outlay for each alternative consists of the initial construction cost and the right-of-way costs. The capital costs are used in the BCR calculation. For all three alternatives, ther e would be no right-of-way costs, and the capital outlay would be the same as the initial construc tion cost. The initial construction costs were estimated for each alternative. The estimates can be found in Appendix F.

Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) Calculation. The BCR is the benefit over the life of the alternative’s improvements divided by the total cost of the improvements over the life of the alternative. In this case, the expected life of all of the improvements is 20 years. The total costs are the sum of the initial capital costs with the annual operations & maintenance costs over 20 years. The benefits for the life of the improvements are the estimat ed annual collision savings applied over 20 years. As shown in Table 7, the BCRs for the alternatives are as follows:
 Upgraded Signal: 7.9
 All-Way Stop Control: 15.5
 One-Lane Roundabout: 30.9

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION (ICE)

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 25
The upgraded signal, which would convert the existing pedestal poles to signal poles with mast arms, would provide the smallest BCR, with the BCR for converting the existing traffic signal to an AWSC nearly twice as great. Replaci ng the existing traffic signal with a roundabout would provide the greatest BCR, nearly twice that of an AWSC and nearly four times that of an upgraded traffic signal.

Intersection Control Evaluation Summary. The Intersection Control Evaluation (Table 7) shows that a roundabout would result in the least delay and best LOS. The construction costs for a roundabout would be less than those for an upgr aded traffic signal, but slightly greater than converting to an AWSC. The annual collision cost savings benefit for a roundabout is significantly greater than the other alternatives, resulting in the greatest BCR.

The Intersection Control Evaluation clearly show s that the best intersection traffic control alternative, based on both intersection operation (LOS) and savings due to a reduction in traffic collisions, would be to replace the existing traffic signal with a one-lane roundabout.

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update MIDBLOCK CROSSWALK ANALYSIS

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 26

SECTION 5.0

MIDBLOCK CROSSWALK ANALYSIS
The project includes the evaluation of 12 midblock crosswalk locations for their safety and effectiveness, to determine if they should be removed or retained. The locations are as follows (see Exhibit 1):
 Lacey Blvd between Redington St & Irwin St
 8th St between Phillips St & Redington St
 8th St between Redington St & Irwin St
 Irwin St between 7th St & 8th St
 Douty St between 7th St & 8th St
 7th St between Phillips St & Redington St
 7th St between Douty St & Harris St
 Irwin St between 6th St & 7th St
 Douty St between 6th St & 7th St
 6th St between Redington St & Irwin St
 6th St between Irwin St & Douty St
 6th St between Douty St & Harris St

Pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle traffic count data was collected for each crosswalk on Thursday, August 31, 2023 and on Saturday, August 26, 2023. The count data is illustrated on Exhibit 10, for weekdays, and on Exhibit 11, for Saturdays. The traffic count data is provided in Appendix A.

This process is unusual since existing crosswalks are being considered for removal rather than installation. The situation is also unusual since the midblock crosswalks were installed over 20 years ago and are an expected part of the downtown landscape. It is also anticipated that the revitalization of the downtown area will bring more patrons to the area and create a greater use of the crosswalks.

The pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle traf fic count data was collected using video cameras. The videos were also reviewed to assess the behavior of pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. In general, the mo torists were respectful of pedestrians and bicyclists, usually yielding to them and stopping well in advance of the crosswalk. T he primary purpose of a midblock crosswalk is to channelize pedestrians to cross at one location, thereby increasing their safety. In most cases, the midblock crosswalks serve that purpose, but at some locations, pedestrians crossed outside of the crosswalk. This primarily occurred at crosswalks adjacent to alleys and where access to the crosswalk from the sidewalk was obstructed by utilities. The low traffic volumes also allow pedestrians to take a more direct route from their vehicles to their destinations.

Xref ..\X Ref\X-TP.dwgXref ..\X Ref\X-BDRY.dwgXref .\SethDWG.dwg EXHIBIT 10
Existing Midblock Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes - Weekday
LEGEND:

Ped = Total number of pedestrians & bicyclists using the crosswalk, in both directions, in one hour Cross Traffic = Total number of vehicles going across the cross walk, in both directions, in the same hour.

Cross Traffic = 363
Ped = 6
Cross Traffic = 382
Ped = 2
Ped = 6
Cross Traffic = 335
Ped = 2
Cross Traffic = 352
Ped = 21
Cross Traffic = 597
Ped =16
Cross Traffic = 476
Ped = 18
Cross Traffic = 221
Ped = 11
Cross Traffic = 220
Ped = 23
Cross Traffic = 147
Ped = 21
Cross Traffic = 280
Ped = 15
Cross Traffic = 412
Ped = 17
Cross Traffic = 463
NOTE: Peak hour traffic volumes shown are for the AM, MD & PM weekday peak hour with the greatest pedestrian volume.

W
S N
E
Page | 27

Xref ..\X Ref\X-TP.dwgXref ..\X Ref\X-BDRY.dwgXref .\SethDWG.dwg Cross Traffic = 330
Ped=8
Cross Traffic = 296
Ped = 0
Ped = 3
Cross Traffic = 333
Ped = 3
Cross Traffic = 407
Ped = 16
Cross Traffic = 654
Ped = 17
Cross Traffic = 315
Ped = 21
Cross Traffic = 124
Ped = 2
Cross Traffic = 58
Ped = 3
Cross Traffic = 126
Ped = 15
Cross Traffic = 239
Ped = 23
Cross Traffic = 336
Ped = 7
Cross Traffic = 354
EXHIBIT 11
Existing Midblock Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes - Saturday
LEGEND:

Ped = Total number of pedestrians & bicyclists using the crosswalk, in both directions, in one hour Cross Traffic = Total number of vehicles going across the cross walk, in both directions, in the same hour.

NOTE: Peak hour traffic volumes shown are for the MD & PM Saturday peak hour with the greatest pedestrian volume.

W
S N
E
Page | 28

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update MIDBLOCK CROSSWALK ANALYSIS

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 29
A review of the crosswalks showed that many ar e not ADA-compliant. If they are to remain, they will need to be improved to meet ADA require ments. In some cases, it would mean removing obstructions like utility poles and fire hydrants.

There are no standard warrants fo r the installation of midbl ock crosswalks or marked uncontrolled crosswalks at intersections, just a few basic guidelines. The criteria used in the 2021 Peters Engineering study was reviewed for reasonableness. Some of the criteria, such as the speed limit and nearest crosswalks, ar e commonly used for major highways with long distances between intersections, and are not applicable to a downtown area, where the blocks are approximately 400 feet long. On the other hand, most of the midblock crosswalks are less than 200 feet from another crosswalk controlled by a traffic signal or stop sign, which would be safer. The collision analysis only found two pedestrian collisions over the last five years for all 12 crosswalks, and one involved a pedestrian under the influence. The collision data indicates that there is not a safety issue to be considered.

The minimum pedestrian volume would typically be greater than the 10 pedestrians per hour previously used, more like 40 pedestrians per hour, since studi es have shown that as the number of pedestrians in an uncontrolled crosswalk increases, the fewer collisions and near- misses. In this study area, though, the greatest pedestrian volume was 23 per hour. It appears that the midblock crosswalks were primarily installed for convenience and they generally serve that purpose. Due to the low volume and slow pace of vehicular traffic, the courtesy of the motorists, the small number of pedestrian collisions, there does not appear to be a need for more stringent criteria.

The following criteria were used to evaluate the midblock crosswalks:
 Pedestrian volume: Greater than 20/hour, however if greater than 10/hour, give further consideration
 Speed limit: 35 mph or less
 If above criteria are met, further evaluation is necessary:
o Number of pedestrians
o Effectiveness of crosswalk (visibility, channelization, etc.) o Available gaps in traffic
o ADA compliance

The results of the midblock crosswalk analysis are summarized in Table 8. Any crosswalk with less than 10 pedestrians per hour, is recommended for removal. Almost every midblock crosswalk location has inadequate sight distance due to parked vehicles blocking the view of the pedestrians and motorists (see sight distance layouts in Appendix G) . It is generally recommended that bulbouts be provided for crosswalks that are retained. These may initially consist of a painted bulbout, however, raised concrete bulbouts are preferred since they make the pedestrian more visible vertically. Four of the crosswalks that are recommended to be retained are not ADA-compliant. If these cro sswalks are retained, they must be brought into compliance, not only for safety reasons, but also for liability reasons. Also, all crosswalks that are retained should have appropriate warning signs installed per the CA MUTCD.

Time of
Week
Peak
Hour1
Pedestrians
& Bicyclists
Conflicting
Vehicles2
Lacey Blvd Redington/Irwin Saturday MD 8 330 0 Yes No Yes Remove crosswalk Eighth St Philips/Redington Weekday MD 18 221 0 Yes No Yes Retain crosswalk, add bulbouts Eighth St Redington/Irwin Weekday PM 11 220 0 Yes No No Retain crosswalk if upgrade ramps, remove obstructions, add bulbouts Irwin St 7th/8th Weekday PM 21 280 0 Yes No No Retain crosswalk, if add ramps, add bulbouts Douty St 7th/8th Weekday MD 17 463 2 V Yes No No Retain crosswalk if add ramps, remove obstructions, add bulbouts Seventh St Philips/Redington Weekday MD 21 597 2 V Yes Yes & No Yes Retain crosswalk, add bulbout to south side Seventh St Douty/Harris Saturday PM 17 315 1 P (UI) Yes No Yes Retain crosswalk, add bulbouts Irwin St 6th/7th Weekday PM 23 33 0 Yes No No Retain crosswalk if add ramps, remove obstructions, add bulbouts Douty St 6th/7th Saturday MD 23 336 1 P, 2 V Yes No No Retain crosswalk if add ramps, remove obstructions, add bulbouts Sixth St Redington/Irwin Weekday MD 2 382 0 Yes No Yes Remove crosswalk Sixth St Irwin/Douty Weekday MD 6 335 0 Yes No Yes Remove crosswalk Sixth St Douty/Harris Weekday MD 3 407 0 Yes No No Remove crosswalk 1 MD = Midday, PM = Afternoon/Evening
2 Conflicting Vehicles = Vehicles crossing the crosswalk during the same peak hour 3 V = Vehicle, P = Pedestrian, UI = Under the influence 4 Adequate gaps in traffic for pedestrian to cross the street 5 Adequate stopping sight distance
BetweenStreet
Midblock Crosswalk Warrant Summary
Table 8
ADA-
Compliant6
Peak Hour Volumes
Recommendation
Adequate
Sight
Distance5
Adequate
Gaps in
Traffic4
Midblock
Collisions
(5 Years)3
Page | 30

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update MIDBLOCK CROSSWALK ANALYSIS

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 31
It is recommended that the following crosswalks be removed, due to having fewer than 10 pedestrians per hour during the peak hour:
 Lacey Blvd between Redington St & Irwin St
 6th St between Redington St & Irwin St
 6th St between Irwin St & Douty St
 6th St between Douty St & Harris St

If crosswalks are removed, it must be done in accordance with state law (CVC 21950.5), which requires that notification to the public be given at least 30 days prior to the scheduled removal of an existing marked crosswalk. The notice of proposed removal shall inform the public how to provide input related to the scheduled re moval and shall be posted at the crosswalk identified for removal.

It is recommended that the following crosswalks be retained and bulbouts be provided to improve sight distance:
 8th St between Phillips St & Redington St
 7th St between Phillips St & Redington St (south side only)  7th St between Douty St & Harris St

It is recommended that the following crosswalks be retained, but only if they are made ADA- compliant and bulbouts are provided for sight distance:
 8th St between Redington St & Irwin St
 Irwin St between 7th St & 8th St
 Douty St between 7th St & 8th St
 Irwin St between 6th St & 7th St
 Douty St between 6th St & 7th St

The 2021 Peters Engineering study recommended that only two of the 12 midblock crosswalks be maintained:
 Lacey St between Redington St & Irwin St
 Sixth St between Redi ngton St & Irwin St

At the time, the Downtown Committee reviewed the study’s recommendation and accepted it, except for the recommendation to remove the following crosswalks:
 Irwin St between 6th St & 7th St
 Irwin St between 7th St & 8th St
 Douty St between 6th St & 7th St

Of the five midblock crosswal k locations the Downtown Committee wanted retained, this updated study is recommending t hat the two locations the pr evious study recommended retaining, on Lacey Street and on 6th Stree t, be removed, due to less than 10 pedestrians crossings in a peak hour. Regarding the three other locations that the Downtown Committee

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update MIDBLOCK CROSSWALK ANALYSIS

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 32
wanted to be retained, this updated study recommends that they be retained only if they are made ADA-compliant and bulbouts are provided for sight distance. It is recommended that the Downtown Committee review the findings of this updated study and, based on the new data, reconsider its previous actions.

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update INTERSECTION PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 33

SECTION 6.0

INTERSECTION PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
The 2021 Peters Engineering study included re commendations for intersection pedestrian improvements to promote pedestr ian travel and improve safety. Curb extensions were recommended at 28 intersections and preliminary layouts were provided (see Appendix H).

We concur with the recommendations.

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 34
SECTION 7.0

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this study is to update the Downtown Pedestrian Safety and Traffic Circulation Project report prepared by Peters Engineering Group in 2021 (2021 Peters Engineering study).

This update includes the collection of new traffic data and an expansion of the study to consider additional, appropriate analyses. The findings and recommendations are summarized below.

Circulation Analysis – Traffi c Signal Removal. The circ ulation analysis reassessed the potential removal of the existing traffic signals at the intersections of 7th Street and Redington Street, Irwin Street, Douty Str eet and Harris Street, and their r eplacement with all-way stop controls. The LOS analysis showed that the change would not significantly impact traffic operations now or in 2040. The finding was similar to the 2021 Peters Engineering study.

Circulation Analysis – One-Way Couplet. The option of converting 6th Street and 7th Street to one-way, one-lane between Redington Street and Harris Street was also re-evaluated. This option would result in LOS F at several in tersections for both 2023 and 2040 conditions and would not be recommended. Adding a second one-way lane was also considered to improve the LOS. While it w ould improve the LOS, a couple of intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS E in 2040. With the two lanes, there would, however, be sufficient roadway width to provide additional on-street parking. Although there are benefits to one-way couplets, there are also disadvantages, such as additional signage to prevent wrong-way driving and motorist confusion. This option is not recommended due to the unacceptable LOS E and the additional signage and potential motorist confusion.

Circulation Analysis – Road Diets. Road diets were also considered for Douty Street and 7th Street, to provide additional on-street parking by reducing them from two lanes to one lane in each direction and replacing the parallel parki ng spaces with angled parking spaces. The limits of the road diet would be from 6th Street to 8th Street on Dout y Street (three blocks), and from Phillips Street to Redington Street on 7th Street (one block). The analysis found that both streets are wide enough to accommodate the redesign. Based on the analysis, the Douty Street Road Diet should not be implemented with the One-Way, One-Lane Couplet option on 7th Street. For the other two options, the LOS would be acceptable in 2023 with the road diet.

If the road diet is im plemented, however, and traffic increas es as assumed, the Douty Street Road Diet would likely need to be reversed prio r to 2040 to maintain acceptable LOS. The analysis supports converting 7th Street to one lane in each direction for the one block between Phillips Street and Redington St reet. Further study would be needed, however, to consider narrowing 7th Street to one lane in each direction west of Phillips Street.

Traffic Signals vs All-Way Stop Controls Analys is. A traffic signal warrant analysis of the intersections of 7th Street at Redington Street, at Irwin Street, at D outy Street and at Harris Street was performed to determine if the intersec tions would qualify for traffic signals today.

The analysis found that none of the intersections would currently qualify for traffic signals. An all-way stop analysis was also performed for the same intersections to determine if it would be

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 35
the traffic signals with a ll-way stop controls. A ll of the intersections qualified for all-way stop controls. A traffic collision analysis was added to the other analyses incl uded in the original study. It indicated that converting the intersection to an AWSC would be safer than maintaining the existing signalized intersection. The LOS analysis compared the operations of the existing traffic signals and the potential all-way stop controls. If the intersections were to be converted to all-way stop controls, they would operate at a similar level of service. The overall analysis concluded that all-wa y stop controls would be an appropria te replacement for the existing traffic signals.

Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE). Several traffic control options have been considered for the intersection of 7th Street and Douty Street, consisting of replacing the traffic signal with an upgraded traffic signal, an all-way stop control and a roundabout. The City is particularly interested in a roundabout. An intersection control evaluation (ICE) was performed to determine the best alternative. An ICE considers several factor s, including LOS, cost of construction and maintenance and the relative sa fety of the alternatives, to develop a benefit/cost ratio. Although a r oundabout would have shorter delays, the level of service for all alternates would be acceptable LOS A or LOS B. All three of the alternatives would be expected to result in a reduced number of traffic collisions when compared to the existing traffic signal. The construction, operations and maintenance costs were the least for an AWSC, however, roundabout costs were only slightly greater. The upgr aded traffic signal total costs were about 40% greater. The benefit/cost ratio (BCR), which compared the capital, operation and maintenance costs with the benef it of the collision savings, was 7.9 for the upgraded signal, 15.5 for an AWSC and 30.9 for a roundab out. Based on the ICE analysis, a one-lane roundabout would be the best traffic control alternat ive for the intersecti on of 7th Street and Douty Street.

Midblock Crosswalk Analysis. The project incl udes the evaluation of 12 midblock crosswalk locations, to determine if they should be removed or retained, based on their safety and effectiveness. There are no standard warrants for midblock cr osswalks. The midblock crosswalk warrant used in the 2021 Peters E ngineering study was reviewed and somewhat modified. There were a number of factors to consider in th is analysis, ranging from the relatively few pedestrians to limited sight distance to nearly half the crosswalks not being ADA compliant. As a result of the analysis, four crosswalks are recommended for removal due to having fewer than 10 pedestrians per hour duri ng the peak hour, three crosswalks are recommended to be retained with bulbouts provi ded, and five crosswalks are recommended to be retained, but only if they are made AD A-compliant and bulbouts are provided for sight distance. The updated recommendations, however, do not concur with the recommendations made by the 2021 Peters Engineering study nor with the Downtown Committee’s recommendations based on that study. In particular, the Downtown Committee agreed with the recommendation to maintain two intersections that this study is recommending to be removed, and the committee wished to maintain three intersections that this study recommends be retained only if brought into ADA compliance and sight distance is improved.

The Downtown Committee should review this updated study and reconsider its previous findings and actions.

Intersection Pedestrian Improvements. The 2021 Peters E ngineering study included recommendations for intersection pedestrian improvements to promote pedestrian travel and

City of Hanford
Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Update SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP Page | 36
improve safety. It included curb extensions at 28 intersections and pr eliminary layouts were provided (see Appendix H). We concur with their recommendations.

Recommendations. Based on the study findings, the following are recommended:

1. Remove the existing traffic signals at the intersections of 7th Street and Redington Street, 7th Street and Irwin Street and 7th Street and Harri s Street, and replace them with all-way stop controls.

2. Do not convert 7th Street and 6th Street to a one-way couplet.

3. To gain additional on-street parking, convert Douty Street to one lane in each direction between 6th Street and 8th Street and convert the paralle l parking to angled parking, however, it may need to be reversed prior to 2040.

4. To gain additional on-street parking, convert 7th Street to one lane in each direction for the one block between Phillips Street and Redington Street and convert the parallel parking to angled parking.

5. Remove the existing traffic signal at 7th Street and Douty Street and replace it with a one-lane roundabout.

6. Remove the following midblock crosswalks:
a. Lacey Blvd between Redington St & Irwin St
b. 6th St between Redi ngton St & Irwin St
c. 6th St between Irwin St & Douty St
d. 6th St between D outy St & Harris St

7. Retain the following midblock crosswalks and provide bulbouts:
a. 8th St between Phillips St & Redington St
b. 7th St between Phillips St & Redington St (south side only) c. 7th St between D outy St & Harris St

8. Retain the following midblo ck crosswalks, but only if they are made ADA compliant and bulbouts are provided for sight distance:
a. 8th St between Redi ngton St & Irwin St
b. Irwin St between 7th St & 8th St
c. Douty St between 7th St & 8th St
d. Irwin St between 6th St & 7th St
e. Douty St between 6th St & 7th St

9. Recommendations in the 2021 Peters En gineering study for intersection pedestrian improvements to promote pedestrian travel and improve safety, including curb extensions at 28 intersections.

ON STREET PARKING INVENTORY
ADA 2  HR. UNLIMITED 20  MIN. LOADING totals
Sixth St.

R/R to Phillips
Phillips to Redington 18 1 19
Redington to Irwin 23 2 1 26
Irwin to Douty 27 1 1 29
Douty to Harris 11 6 2 19
Harris to 10th Ave.

Seventh St.

R/R to Santa Fe 1 1
Santa Fe to Phillips 6 1 7
Phillips to Redington 23 2 25
Redington to Irwin 26 26
Irwin to Douty 36 36
Douty to Harris 21 8 2 31
Harris to Brown 19 19
Brown to Green 26 26
Green to White 40 1 41
White to 10th Ave.

Lacey Blvd.

R/R to Redington
Redington to Irwin 12 7 4 23
Eighth St.

Phillips to Redington 6 13 3 22
Redington to Irwin 25 4 29
Irwin to Douty 17 17
Douty to Harris 38 7 45
Harris to Brown 48 48
Ninth St.

Douty to Harris 1 3 37 1 42
Harris to Brown 0
Brown to 10th Ave. 0
Dewey St.

Irwin to Redington 26 26
Tenth St
Douty to 10th Ave.

Center St.

Redington to Irwin 25 1 26
Irwin to Douty 28 28
1

ON STREET PARKING INVENTORY
ADA 2  HR. UNLIMITED 20  MIN. LOADING TOTAL
Sante Fe Ave.

Seventh to Eighth 22 22
Eighth to Lacey signs
Phillips St.

Sixth to Lacey 1 1
Redington St.

Sixth to Seventh 11 3 14
Seventh to Eighth 16 1 17
Eighth to Lacey 6 6
Lacey to Ivy
Irwin St.

Sixth to Seventh 24 1 25
Seventh to Eighth 22 22
Eighth to Lacey 7 5 12
Lacey to Dewey 1 22 1 1 25
Dewey to Center 1 5 6 3 1 16
Center to Porter 6 9 15
Porter to Ivy 21 1 22
Douty St.

Sixth to Seventh 17 1 18
Seventh to Eighth 20 1 21
Eight to Ninth 20 4 24
Ninth to Tenth 4 20 24
Tenth to Ivy 1 1
Harris St.

Sixth to Seventh 2 2
Seventh to Eighth 17 1 18
Eight to Ninth 28 28
Ninth to Tenth 29 29
Brown St.

Green St.

Sixth to Seventh 9 1 10
Seventh to Ivy
totals 3 389 529 51 11 983
2

MAP AVERAGE
# PARKING LOT ADDRESS ADA 2 HR. UNLIMITED 20 MIN. LOAD OTHER totals USAGE 10am -2pm
1 CARNEGIE MUSEUM (11) 100  BLK E EIGHTH 3 58 61 44%
2 DOUTY STREET (8) 100  BLK N DOUTY 11 6 17 88%
3 EIGHTH/LACEY (12) 200  BLK W EIGHTH / LACEY 23 8 40 57% 4 HANFORD PLAZA (4) 100  BLK W EIGHTH 26 1 63 69%
5 IRWIN/SIXTH (2) 200  BLK W SIXTH 35 2 55 77%
6 LACEY/REDINGTON COR.  LACEY/REDINGTON 42 9 3 6 69 71% 7 METRO/HAN FURN (10) 100  BLK E SEVENTH 35 8 61 68%
8 SANTA FE 200  BLK N SANTA FE 2 6 39 2 49 77%
9 WKMAN/VAN ANDEL (1) 200  BLK W EIGHTH 32 6 2 6 55 84% 10 AUDITORIUM 400  BLK N DOUTY 23 0 32 71%
11 COURTHOUSE SQ COR  DOUTY / EIGHTH 24 7 49 55%
13 HOTEL 200  BLK W SIXTH 36 6 69 25%
14 LIBRARY 400  BLK N HARRIS 35 9 62 38%
15 McDONALD'S 300  BLK W EIGHTH 22 8 30 89%
16 SIXTH STREET 100  BLK W SIXTH 36 5 68 42%
17 SWIMMING POOL COR  KAWEAH / FORD 34 7 50 6%
18 VETERAN'S/POLICE 400  BLK N IRWIN 21 4 2 18 71%
TOTALS 43 77 724 0 2 2 848 61% % total usage

EXISTING PARKING LOT INVENTORY

MAP # %N O %
1 CARNEGIE MUSEUM (11) 100 BLK E. EIGHTH ADA USAGE 2 HR. LIMIT USAGE 20 MIN. LOAD OTHER DATE TIME 35 8
3/7/2017 3:15  PM 1 33% 29 50%
3/9/2017 8:25  AM 0 0% 17 29%
3/9/2017 2:34  PM 1 33% 31 53%
3/10/2017 12:04  PM 1 33% 30 52%
3/13/2017 10:45  AM 0 0% 26 45%
3/14/2017 1:30  PM 1 33% 26 45%
3/16/2017 9:50  AM 0 0% 23 40%
3/17/2017 11:02  AM 2 67% 25 43%
10am‐2pm Average 44%

EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY

MAP # %% N O
2 DOUTY STREET (8) 100 BLK N. DOUTY ADA USAGE 2 HR. USAGE LIMIT 20 MIN. LOAD OTHER DATE TIME 1 16
3/7/2017 3:23  PM 0 0% 15 94%
3/9/2017 8:35  AM 0 0% 10 63%
3/9/2017 2:40  PM 1 100% 14 88%
3/10/2017 12:07  PM 1 100% 15 94%
3/13/2017 10:49  AM 0 0% 9 56%
3/14/2017 1:34  PM 1 100% 15 94%
3/16/2017 9:54  AM 0 0% 15 94%
3/17/2017 11:27  AM 1 100% 16 100%
10am‐2pm Average 88%

EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY

MAP # %N O %
3 EIGHTH / LACEY (12) 200 BLK W. EIGHTH / LACEY ADA USAGE 2 HR. LIMIT USAGE 20 MIN. LOAD OTHER DATE TIME 23 8
3/7/2017 3:44  PM 0 0% 18 47%
3/9/2017 8:38  AM 0 0% 8 21%
3/9/2017 2:49  PM 1 50% 26 68%
3/10/2017 12:15  PM 0 0% 18 47%
3/13/2017 10:53  AM 0 0% 19 50%
3/14/2017 1:41  PM 0 0% 22 58%
3/16/2017 10:02  AM 0 0% 25 66%
3/17/2017 11:32  AM 1 50% 19 50%
10am‐2pm Average 57%

EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY

MAP # %N O %
4 HANFORD PLAZA (4) 100 BLK W. EIGHTH ADA USAGE 2 HR. LIMIT USAGE 20 MIN. LOAD OTHER DATE TIME 26 1
3/9/2017 8:28  AM 0 0% 18 30%
3/9/2017 2:38  PM 1 50% 41 67%
3/10/2017 12:13  PM 1 50% 51 84%
3/13/2017 10:47  AM 0 0% 32 52%
3/14/2017 1:32  PM 0 0% 40 66%
3/16/2017 9:52  AM 0 0% 37 61%
3/17/2017 11:24  AM 1 50% 45 74%
10am‐2pm Average 69%

EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY

MAP # %N O %
5 IRWIN / SIXTH (2) 200 BLK W. SIXTH ADA USAGE 2 HR. LIMIT USAGE 20 MIN. LOAD OTHER DATE TIME 35 2
3/7/2017 3:28  PM 2 67% 35 67%
3/9/2017 8:32  AM 2 67% 42 81%
3/9/2017 2:43  PM 1 33% 38 73%
3/10/2017 12:09  PM 1 33% 25 48%
3/13/2017 10:51  AM 0 0% 47 90%
3/14/2017 1:39  PM 2 67% 39 75%
3/16/2017 9:57  AM 1 33% 50 96%
3/17/2017 11:29  AM 1 33% 40 77%
10am‐2pm Average 77%

EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY

MAP # % % NO %
6 IRWIN / SIXTH (2) 200 BLK W. SIXTH ADA USAGE 2 HR. USAGE LIMIT USAGE 20 MIN. LOAD OTHER DATE TIME 42 9 3 6
3/7/2017 3:49  PM 2 67% 18 62% 25 69%
3/8/2017 8:40  AM 0 0% 14 48% 15 42%
3/9/2017 2:52  PM 2 67% 23 79% 29 81%
3/10/2017 12:18  PM 2 67% 21 72% 24 67%
3/13/2017 10:55  AM 1 33% 11 38% 22 61%
3/14/2017 1:44  PM 2 67% 17 59% 23 64%
3/16/2017 10:05  AM 0 0% 25 86% 28 78%
3/17/2017 11:36  AM 2 67% 22 76% 27 75%
10am‐2pm Average 71%

EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY

MAP # %N O %
7 METRO / HAN FURN (10) 100 BLK E. SEVENTH ADA USAGE 2 HR. LIMIT USAGE 20 MIN. LOAD OTHER DATE TIME 35 8
3/7/2017 8:15  AM 0 0% 23 40%
3/7/2017 3:00  PM 0 0% 30 52%
3/8/2017 1:35  PM 0 0% 41 71%
3/8/2017 11:00  AM 1 33% 39 67%
3/9/2017 9:00  AM 0 0% 30 52%
3/9/2017 3:30  PM 0 0% 43 74%
3/10/2017 10:05  AM 2 67% 44 76%
3/10/2017 12:15  PM 0 0% 40 69%
3/13/2017 8:45  AM 0 0% 23 40%
3/14/2017 9:16  AM 0 0% 39 67%
3/15/2017 2:05  PM 1 33% 48 83%
3/16/2017 3:18  PM 0 0% 37 64%
3/17/2017 8:30  AM 0 0% 26 45%
10am‐2pm Average 68%

EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY

MAP # % % NO %
8 SANTA FE 200 BLK N. SANTA FE ADA USAGE 2 HR. USAGE LIMIT USAGE 20 MIN. LOAD DATE TIME 2 6 39 2
3/7/2017 8:00  AM 1 50% 1 17% 31 79%
3/7/2017 2:30  PM 1 50% 3 50% 26 67%
3/8/2017 1:15  PM 0 0% 1 17% 31 79%
3/8/2017 11:25  AM 0 0% 3 50% 32 82%
3/9/2017 9:30  AM 0 0% 2 33% 26 67%
3/9/2017 3:25  PM 1 50% 0 0% 31 79%
3/10/2017 10:15  AM 0 0% 1 17% 32 82%
3/10/2017 12:20  PM 1 50% 4 67% 33 85%
3/13/2017 9:20  AM 2 100% 2 33% 24 62%
3/14/2017 9:00  AM 1 50% 1 17% 17 44%
3/15/2017 2:25  PM 0 0% 1 17% 19 49%
3/16/2017 3:09  PM 1 50% 1 17% 29 74%
3/17/2017 8:10  AM 0 0% 0 0% 24 62%
10am‐2pm Average 77%

EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY

MAP # % % NO %
9 WRKMAN / VAN ANDEL (1) ADDRESS ADA USAGE 2 HR. USAGE LIMIT USAGE 20 MIN. LOAD DATE TIME 32 6 2 6
3/7/2017 8:30  AM 0 0% 1 4% 10 38%
3/7/2017 2:40  PM 2 67% 22 85% 24 92%
3/8/2017 1:20  PM 2 67% 13 50% 21 81%
3/8/2017 11:20  AM 1 33% 15 58% 24 92%
3/9/2017 9:20  AM 1 33% 16 62% 15 58%
3/9/2017 3:10  PM 0 0% 20 77% 22 85%
3/10/2017 10:20  AM 0 0% 24 92% 21 81%
3/10/2017 12:25  PM 0 0% 24 92% 19 73%
3/13/2017 9:10  AM 0 0% 11 42% 11 42%
3/14/2017 9:05  AM 2 67% 13 50% 13 50%
3/15/2017 2:15  PM 0 0% 12 46% 22 85%
3/16/2017 3:05  PM 2 67% 24 92% 22 85%
3/17/2017 8:15  AM 0 0% 1 4% 10 38%
10am‐2pm Average 84%

EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY

MAP # %N O %
10 WRKMAN / VAN ANDEL (1) ADDRESS ADA USAGE 2 HR. LIMIT USAGE 20 MIN. LOAD DATE TIME 23 0
3/7/2017 8:10  AM 0 0% 24 80%
3/7/2017 2:50  PM 0 0% 21 70%
3/8/2017 1:23  PM 1 50% 19 63%
3/8/2017 11:15  AM 0 0% 24 80%
3/9/2017 9:15  AM 0 0% 25 83%
3/9/2017 3:15  PM 0 0% 24 80%
3/10/2017 10:30  AM 0 0% 21 70%
3/10/2017 12:30  PM 0 0% 23 77%
3/13/2017 9:05  AM 0 0% 28 93%
3/14/2017 9:14  AM 0 0% 28 93%
3/15/2017 2:20  PM 0 0% 20 67%
3/16/2017 3:14  PM 0 0% 22 73%
3/17/2017 8:20  AM 0 0% 21 70%
10am‐2pm Average 71%

EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY

MAP # %N O %
11 COURTHOUSE SQ COR DOUTY / EIGHT ADA USAGE 2 HR. LIMIT USAGE 20 MIN. LOAD OTHER DATE TIME 24 7
3/7/2017 8:45  AM 0 0% 10 21%
3/7/2017 3:05  PM 0 0% 24 51%
3/8/2017 1:25  PM 2 100% 31 66%
3/8/2017 11:05  AM 2 100% 34 72%
3/9/2017 9:25  AM 0 0% 24 51%
3/9/2017 3:10  PM 1 50% 30 64%
3/10/2017 10:25  AM 0 0% 21 45%
3/10/2017 12:35  PM 0 0% 21 45%
3/13/2017 9:00  AM 1 50% 8 17%
3/14/2017 9:12  AM 0 0% 20 43%
3/15/2017 2:10  PM 1 50% 18 38%
3/16/2017 3:11  PM 0 0% 31 66%
3/17/2017 8:25  AM 0 0% 9 19%
10am‐2pm Average 55%

EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY

MAP # %N O %
13 HOTEL 200 BLK W SIXTH ADA USAGE 2 HR. LIMIT USAGE 20 MIN. LOAD OTHER DATE TIME 36 6
3/6/2017 2:44  PM 0 0% 15 23%
3/7/2017 8:00  AM 1 33% 14 21%
3/7/2017 10:29  AM 0 0% 16 24%
3/7/2017 1:24  PM 0 0% 19 29%
3/8/2017 12:40  PM 0 0% 16 24%
3/9/2017 10:35  AM 1 33% 18 27%
3/10/2017 2:44  PM 0 0% 14 21%
3/13/2017 9:46  AM 0 0% 17 26%
3/14/2017 3:03  PM 2 67% 14 21%
3/15/2017 2:43  PM 0 0% 42 64%
3/16/2017 10:53  AM 0 0% 14 21%
3/17/2017 8:32  AM 1 33% 18 27%
10am‐2pm Average 25%

EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY

MAP # %N O %
14 LIBRARY 400 BLK N HARRIS ADA USAGE 2 HR. LIMIT USAGE 20 MIN. LOAD OTHER DATE TIME 35 9
3/6/2017 2:59  PM 0 0% 26 44%
3/7/2017 8:07  AM 0 0% 19 32%
3/7/2017 10:18  AM 0 0% 23 39%
3/7/2017 1:15  PM 0 0% 27 46%
3/8/2017 12:46  PM 0 0% 30 51%
3/9/2017 10:41  PM 0 0% 19 32%
3/10/2017 2:51  PM 0 0% 15 25%
3/13/2017 9:40  AM 0 0% 12 20%
3/14/2017 2:59  PM 0 0% 17 29%
3/15/2017 2:50  PM 0 0% 24 41%
3/16/2017 11:00  AM 0 0% 22 37%
3/17/2017 8:38  AM 0 0% 12 20%
10am‐2pm Average 38%

EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY

MAP # %N O %
15 McDONALD'S 300 BLK W EIGHTH ADA USAGE 2 HR. LIMIT USAGE 20 MIN. LOAD OTHER DATE TIME 22 8
3/6/2017 2:47  PM 1 50% 16 57%
3/7/2017 7:54  AM 0 0% 8 29%
3/7/2017 10:35  AM 0 0% 28 100%
3/7/2017 2:47  PM 1 50% 16 57%
3/7/2017 1:18  PM 1 50% 25 89%
3/8/2017 12:50  PM 1 50% 25 89%
3/9/2017 10:31  AM 1 50% 24 86%
3/10/2017 2:47  PM 1 50% 25 89%
3/13/2017 9:43  AM 1 50% 20 71%
3/14/2017 3:01  PM 1 50% 21 75%
3/15/2017 2:45  PM 1 50% 28 100%
3/16/2017 10:56  AM 2 100% 28 100%
3/17/2017 8:34  AM 0 0% 15 54%
10am‐2pm Average 89%

EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY

MAP # %N O %
16 SIXTH STREET 100 BLK W SIXTH ADA USAGE 2 HR. LIMIT USAGE 20 MIN. LOAD OTHER DATE TIME 36 5
3/6/2017 2:42  PM 1 33% 24 37%
3/7/2017 8:01  AM 0 0% 18 28%
3/7/2017 10:31  AM 0 0% 30 46%
3/7/2017 1:26  PM 0 0% 28 43%
3/8/2017 12:42  PM 0 0% 25 38%
3/9/2017 10:36  AM 0 0% 25 38%
3/10/2017 2:41  PM 0 0% 14 22%
3/13/2017 9:45  AM 0 0% 20 31%
3/14/2017 3:05  PM 0 0% 20 31%
3/15/2017 2:44  PM 0 0% 16 25%
3/16/2017 10:51  AM 0 0% 28 43%
3/17/2017 8:30  AM 0 0% 17 26%
10am‐2pm Average 42%

EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY

MAP # %N O %
17 SWIMMING POOL COR KAWEAH / FORD ADA USAGE 2 HR. LIMIT USAGE 20 MIN. LOAD OTHER DATE TIME 34 7
3/6/2017 2:51  PM 00 % 36 %
3/7/2017 7:52  AM 00 % 00 %
3/7/2017 10:22  AM 00 % 24 %
3/7/2017 1:10  PM 0 0% 6 13%
3/8/2017 12:49  PM 00 % 24 %
3/9/2017 10:30  AM 00 % 12 %
3/10/2017 2:48  PM 0 0% 6 13%
3/13/2017 9:35  AM 00 % 00 %
3/14/2017 2:55  PM 0 0% 5 11%
3/15/2017 2:46  PM 0 0% 8 17%
3/16/2017 10:57  AM 00 % 00 %
3/17/2017 8:35  AM 00 % 00 %
10am‐2pm Average 6%

EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY

MAP # %N O %
18 VETERAN'S / POLICE 400 BLK N IRWIN ADA USAGE 2 HR. LIMIT USAGE 20 MIN. LOAD OTHER DATE TIME 21 4 2
3/6/2017 2:54  PM 2 100% 6 43%
3/7/2017 8:05  AM 1 50% 9 64%
3/7/2017 10:20  AM 1 50% 13 93%
3/7/2017 1:13  PM 0 0% 8 57%
3/8/2017 12:48  PM 1 50% 10 71%
3/9/2017 10:39  AM 0 0% 9 64%
3/10/2017 2:50  PM 0 0% 3 21%
3/13/2017 9:38  AM 1 50% 9 64%
3/14/2017 2:57  PM 0 0% 5 36%
3/15/2017 2:48  PM 0 0% 5 36%
3/16/2017 10:59  AM 0 0% 5 36%
3/17/2017 8:36  AM 1 50% 7 50%
10am‐2pm Average 71%

EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY

15.C.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 3/19/2024 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS

SUBJECT:

Council: Review and discuss the committees that will have a vacancy due to the resignation of Diane Sharp and make new Appointments as appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: That the Council receive and discuss the list of committees and boards that have BACKGROUND:

The attached list represents the appointments that were made during the January 16, 2024, Council meeting. With the resignation of Diane Sharp as the District C representative and the Council's decision to leave the seat vacant until filed during the November 5, 2024, Election. Staff asks the Council to review the list and advise the Mayor on any request to be assigned to any of the committees or boards that Ms. Sharp currently represents.

The Mayor will then make a recommendation to the full Council regarding which representatives will serve on the boards that Ms. Sharp will no longer serve on.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Council Representation - 2024

2024 COUNCIL REPRESENTATION ON BOARDS,

COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES
Organization Primary
Appointment
Alternate
Appointment
Kings Economic Development Corporation
(Last Monday each month – 11:30 am)
Kalish Morrow Travis Paden
Kings County Association of Governments
(4th Wednesday each month – 4:30 pm)
Requires Form 700
Kalish Morrow Travis Paden
Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KART)
(4th Wednesday each month – 1:30 pm)
Requires Form 700
Diane Sharp Travis Paden
Kings County Abandoned Vehicle Authority
(Meets as needed/4th Wednesday each month – 4:30 pm)
Requires Form 700
Kalish Morrow Diane Sharp
Kings Community Action Organization (KCAO)
(3rd Wednesday each month - 4:30 pm)
Requires Form 700
Lou Martinez Travis Paden
Kings Waste and Recycling Authority (KWRA)
(2nd Wednesday each month - 8:00 am)
Requires Form 700
Diane Sharp Lou Martinez
Mid-Kings River Groundwater Sustainability Agency
(2nd Tuesday of each month – 1:00 pm)
(Alternate not required)
Requires Form 700
Diane Sharp Mark Kairis
Kings County Area Disaster Council
(Meets 2-3 times a year)
Director of Emergency Services, Fire Chief, or the City Manager Mario Cifuentez Fire Chief
Kings County Commission On Aging
(3rd Thursday each month – 2:30 pm) Community Member
The City Council’s within Kings County shall appoint one person each.

Susie Chavez
Kings Mosquito Abatement District Board
(3rd Thursday of each month – 9:00 am)
One (1) member from each of the three (3) cities (Corcoran, Hanford, and Lemoore) 3 Year Term
VACANT
(Exp. 12/31/2026)

15.D.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 3/19/2024 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS

SUBJECT:

Council discussion regarding the possible Censure of Council Member Lou Martinez.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: That the City Council discuss matters relating to the possible censure of Mr.

Martinez and provide direction to staff accordingly.

BACKGROUND:

At the March 5, 2024 City Council meeting, there was a consensus of Council to direct the City Manager to bring back an agenda item to discuss the possible censure of Council member Lou Martinez.

Over the course of the past year, City management has received several complaints from various staff regarding the behavior of Council Member Martinez and violations of the Council Handbook. It's worth noting that the City of Hanford has previously settled a lawsuit amid allegations that a previous employee was harassed by Mr. Martinez.

During the Study Session portion of the March 5, 2024 Council meeting, Council Member Martinez publicly acknowledged and apologized to City staff for his actions, which were the most recent violation of the handbook by means of his behavior towards City staff.

Should the Council decide to move forward with a Censure, Council Member Martinez possesses due process rights, including the right to be heard, in censure proceedings. Prior to acting on any possible Resolution, Council Member Martinez would be provided an opportunity to address the Council regarding the incidents behind the alleged violations.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

None

Council Future Agenda Items
Originated
Date Item Originator Staff Lead Date Estimate
12/5/2023 Council review of a variety of Zoning
Ordinance Clean-Up Items and
direction on proposed amendments to
several chapters.

Council
Direction
Gabrielle
Myers
4/2/2024
12/5/2023 Tentative date for a recommendation
to the City Council by the City’s
Revenue Measure Committee
Council
Consensus
Chris Tavarez 5/7/2024