Initial: City______ Consultant______
3 7. SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY: Client authorizes Agency to exercise % settlement authority on assigned accounts to expedite or facilitate payments or payment-in-full. Settlement authority below % will require specific Client authority.
8. BANKRUPTCY NOTIFICATION: Client shall notify Agency immediately when notified that their customer has filed bankruptcy.
9. LEGAL ACTION: In the event Agency is unable to collect an account directly; it may be referred to an attorney of our choice for legal action. Client will be required to sign an authorization prior to pursuing such action. All legal fees are paid by Agency.
10. WITHDRAWAL AND CANCELLATION OF ACCOUNTS: The Client will have the right to withdraw or cancel accounts forwarded to Agency; however, Agency reserves the right to continue treatment on accounts that are in an active repayment plan or have been reduced to a judgment. If legal action has been authorized and Client requests for same account to be withdrawn, Agency will invoice Client for any out-of-pocket legal fees. Agency shall provide monthly written confirmation of all cancellations. Special circumstances will be evaluated upon receipt of request by Client. Agency will not reactivate any account previously returned to Client, without express written permission by Client.
b. Consultant shall correct any and all errors and/or omissions, which arise out of Consultant’s negligence or intentional misconduct, in the performance of the Services and any documents resulting therefrom even though City has accepted said Services or documents. Consultant shall make such corrections upon City’s request and at no cost or expense to City.
3. Compensation. Compensation to be paid to Consultant shall be in accordance with Section (2) (a) (5) of this document. Payment by City under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of errors, even if such errors were known to the City at the time of payment.
4. Method of Payment. Consultant shall submit monthly billings to City describing the work performed during the preceding month. Consultant’s bills shall include a brief description of the Services performed and the date the Services were performed the number of hours spent and by whom, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than sixty (60) calendar days after the date of submittal of an invoice for completed tasks and approval of the invoice by City staff.
5. Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, “Extra Work” means any work which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Services, but which are not included in the project scope of services. Extra work will be performed on terms agreed upon by the parties.
Initial: City______ Consultant______
4 Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for Extra Work without written authorization from City.
8. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by the City immediately and without notice for cause or by City without cause upon thirty (30) days’ written notice of termination to Consultant. Upon termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for Services performed up to the effective date of termination, unless this Agreement is terminated for cause, in which case, City may withhold compensation due Consultant in order to reimburse City for any losses, damages or expenses caused by Consultant’s default under this Agreement.
9. Ownership of Documents. All plans, studies, documents and other writings and electronic disks containing drawings prepared by and for Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors in the course of implementing this Agreement, except working notes and internal documents, shall become the property of the City, and the City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or to any other party.
Consultant shall, at Consultant’s expense, provide such reports, plans, studies, documents and other writings to City upon written request.
However, the City’s use of completed documents for other projects and/or the use of uncompleted documents without the written authorization of Consultant will be at the City’s sole risk.
The City shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify and hold harmless the Consultant from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from any unauthorized reuse of, or changes to the Project Documents not performed by the Consultant.
10. Licensing of Intellectual Property. This Agreement creates a non-exclusive and perpetual license for City to use, modify, reuse or sublicense any and all copyrights, designs, and other intellectual property embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data electronic or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement (“Documents & Data”).
Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that City is granted non-exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepared under this Agreement.
Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to license any and all Documents & Data. City shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purpose intended by this Agreement shall be at City’s sole risk. The City shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify and hold harmless the Consultant from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from any unauthorized reuse of or changes to the Project Documents not performed by the Consultant.
10. Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents & Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of City, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services under this Agreement, nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not
Initial: City______ Consultant______
5 connected with the performance of the Services under this Agreement. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use City’s name, insignia, photographs, or the project for which Consultant’s Services are rendered, or any publicity pertaining to the Consultant’s Services under this Agreement in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent by City.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City acknowledges that the Consultant may want/need to include projects performed under this Agreement on proposals for similar work in the future. The City hereby grants permission to list any projects performed under this agreement for marketing purposes; provided however, Consultant will not make any representations regarding City’s satisfaction with Consultant’s work product unless Consultant receives a written statement or evaluation from City.
11. Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age. Such nondiscrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.
Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of City’s programs or guidelines currently in effect as identified and provided to Consultant by City.
12. Insurance Requirements.
a. Consultant, at Consultant’s own cost and expense, shall procure and maintain, for the duration of this Agreement, the following insurance policies. i. Workers Compensation Coverage. As required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with a limit of no less than ONE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. ii. Commercial General Liability (CGL) Coverage. Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 0001, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury, and personal & advertising injury with a limit of no less than TWO MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, and a general aggregate limit of no less than FOUR MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($4,000,000).
iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. ISO Form Number CA 0001 covering any auto (Code 1), or if Consultant has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (non-owned),with a limit no less than ONE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
iv. Professional Liability Coverage. Consultant will maintain Professional Liability coverage with limits no less than ONE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence or claim, and ONE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000,000) policy aggregate.
Initial: City______ Consultant______
6 v. Crime. Consultant will maintain Commercial Crime insurance that shall include the following coverages or their substantial equivalents: employee dishonesty and theft, forgery or alteration, and computer fraud and funds transfer fraud. Consultant’s commercial crime policy shall have minimum combined limits of not than ONE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence; however, coverage limits shall not be less than a minimum amount of four percent (4%) of the total amount of consideration set forth under this Agreement. Consultant shall submit an applicable Certificate of Insurance (ACORD 25) to City.
City will be named as loss payee on Consultant’s Commercial Crime policy.
If Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by Consultant.
Consultant’s insurance policies shall be “occurrence” policies and not “claims-made” coverage except for Professional Liability Coverage. “Claims-made” policies must satisfy the following requirements: (i) the retroactive date of coverage must be shown and must precede the effective date of the contract; (ii) coverage shall be maintained and evidence of coverage must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract work; and (iii) if coverage is canceled or non-renewed and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date preceding the contract effective date, Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work.
Consultant may use Umbrella or Excess Policies to provide the liability limits as required in this Agreement. This form of insurance will be acceptable provided that all of the Primary and Umbrella or Excess Policies shall provide all of the insurance coverages herein required, including, but not limited to, primary and non-contributory, additional insured, deductibles and self-insured retentions, indemnity, and defense requirements. The Umbrella or Excess policies shall be provided on a true “following form” or broader coverage basis, with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying insurance. No insurance policies maintained by any additional insureds, whether primary or excess, and which also apply to a loss covered hereunder, shall be called upon to contribute to a loss until Consultant’s primary and excess liability policies are exhausted.
b. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. City may require Consultant to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. Alternatively, City may require Consultant to provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. c. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:
i. City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL and automobile liability policies with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of Consultant including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations; products used by Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by Consultant. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to Consultant’s insurance at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or if not available, through the addition of both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33 or CG
Initial: City______ Consultant______
7 20 38 and CG 20 37 if a later edition is used. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City and its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. ii. For any claims related to this contract, Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 with respect to City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City and/or its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be in excess of Consultant’s insurance and shall be non-contributory.
iii. Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to City.
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII.
Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time. d. Consultant hereby grants to City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of Consultant may acquire against the City and/or its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Consultant agrees to obtain endorsements necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
13. Indemnification. To the fullest extent allowable by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers from and against all claims, demands, actions, injuries, liabilities, losses, costs or damages, direct or indirect, and any and all attorneys’ fees and other expenses which City or its officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers may sustain or incur as a consequence of or are in any way related to Consultant’s or its owners, directors, officers, managers, employees, agents and subcontractor’s willful or negligent acts or omissions in the performance of the services and Consultants responsibilities and obligations to be performed under this agreement or its failure to perform or comply with any of its obligations or responsibilities contained in this agreement; excluding, however, such liability, claims, losses, damages or expenses arising from City’s sole or active negligence or willful acts. This duty to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless shall survive the termination of this agreement.
14. Independent Contractor Status. It is understood and agreed that Consultant, in the performance of the Services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and shall not act as an agent or employee of City. Consultant shall obtain no retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City’s employees and Consultant hereby expressly waives any claim it may have to any such rights. Nothing in this Agreement shall create or
Initial: City______ Consultant______
8 be construed as creating a partnership, joint venture or any other relationship between City and Consultant.
15. Consultant’s Books and Records.
a. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services, or expenditures and disbursements charged to City for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement.
b. Consultant shall maintain all documents and records that demonstrate performance under this Agreement for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of termination or completion of this Agreement. c. Any records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available for inspection or audit, at any time during regular business hours, upon written request by the City. Copies of such documents shall be provided to the City for inspection at the City offices.
d. Where City has reason to believe that such records or documents may be lost or discarded due to dissolution, disbandment or termination of Consultant’s business, City may, by written request, require that custody of the records be given to the City and that the records and documents be maintained in the City offices. Access to such records and documents shall be granted to any party authorized by Consultant, Consultant’s representatives, or Consultant’s successor-ininterest.
16. Interest of Consultant. Consultant and its shareholders covenants and represents that they do not now have any investment or interest in real property and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, in the area covered by this Agreement or any other source of income, interest in real property or investment which would be affected in any manner or degree by the performance of Consultant’s Services hereunder. Consultant further covenants and represents that in the performance of the Services hereunder, to the best of its knowledge no person having any such interest shall perform any Services under this Agreement.
Consultant is not a designated employee within the meaning of the Political Reform Act because Consultant:
a. will conduct research and arrive at conclusions with respect to rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel independent of the control and direction of the City or of any City official, other than normal agreement monitoring; and b. possesses no authority with respect to any City decision beyond rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel. FPPC Reg. Sec. 18700, et seq.
17. Professional Ability of Consultant. City has relied upon Consultant’s representations regarding its training and professional ability to perform the Services hereunder as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. Consultant shall therefore provide properly skilled
Initial: City______ Consultant______
9 personnel to perform all Services under this Agreement. The primary provider of the Services called for by this Agreement shall be Kris Davisson who shall not be replaced without the written consent of the City. All work performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall be in accordance with the applicable professional standard of care and shall meet the local professional standard of quality ordinarily to be expected of competent persons in Consultant’s field of expertise working in Kings County.
18. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall use the proper standard of care in performing the Services and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time the agreement is executed. In addition, if the request for proposal to provide professional services which are the subject of this Agreement cited any federal or state financial assistance involved in the project for which the Services are provided, the Consultant shall perform all services in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws, rates and regulations in effect at the time the agreement is executed.
19. Licenses. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, and insurance which are legally required of Consultant to lawfully and competently perform the Services. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any licenses, permits, and insurance which are legally required of Consultant to lawfully and competently perform the Services. Consultant shall maintain a City of Hanford business license.
20. Assignment and Subcontracting. The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the reputation, experience and competence of Consultant. Assignments of any or all rights, duties or obligations of the Consultant under this Agreement will be permitted only with the express written consent of the City, which will not be unreasonably withheld. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the Services to be performed under this Agreement without the express written consent of the City, which will not be unreasonably withheld. If City consents to such subcontract, Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts or omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall: (i) create any contractual relationship between City and subcontractor; (ii) create any obligation on the part of the City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such subcontractor; (iii) or relieve Consultant of any of its obligations and responsibilities under this Agreement.
21. Attorneys’ Fees. If an action at law or in equity is necessary to enforce or interpret the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and necessary disbursements in addition to any other reasonable relief to which he may be entitled.
With respect to any suit, action or proceeding arising out of or related to this Agreement, or the documentation related hereto, the parties hereby submit to the jurisdiction and venue of the Superior Court for the County of Kings, State of California for any proceeding arising hereunder.
22. Sole and Only Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties hereto with respect to the matters set forth herein and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the parties regarding said matters.
Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or in writing, have been made by any party or anyone acting on behalf of any party
Initial: City______ Consultant______
10 which are not embodied in this Agreement and no other agreement, statement or promise shall be valid or binding.
23. Invalidity. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect without being impaired or invalidated in any way.
24. Amendment. No change, amendment or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless the same be in writing and signed by the parties hereto.
25. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and governed pursuant to the laws of the State of California.
26. Waiver. Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision under this Agreement.
27. Mediation. The parties agree to make a good faith attempt to resolve any disputes arising out of this Agreement through mediation prior to commencing litigation. The parties shall mutually agree upon the mediator and shall divide the costs of mediation equally. If the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator, the dispute shall be submitted to JAMS/ENDISPUTE (“JAMS”) or its successor in interest. JAMS shall provide the parties with the names of five qualified mediators.
Each party shall have the option to strike two of the five mediators selected by JAMS and thereafter the mediator remaining shall hear the dispute. If the dispute remains unresolved after mediation, either party may commence litigation.
28. Prohibited Interests. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or result from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
29. Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver and perform the Agreement. Each party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and to bind each respective party.
30. Notice. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, any notice, consent, authorization or other communication to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly given and received when delivered personally, when transmitted by facsimile or e-mail if receipt is acknowledged by the addressee, one business day after being deposited for next-day delivery with a nationally recognized overnight delivery service, or three business days after being mailed by first class mail, charges and postage prepaid, property addressed to the party to receive such notice at the
Initial: City______ Consultant______
11 last address furnished for such purpose by the party to whom notice is directed and addressed as follows:
Mario A. Cifuentez, II Kris Davisson
City of Hanford Financial Credit Network, Inc.
319 N. Douty 2922 W. Main Street
Hanford, CA 93230 Visalia, CA 93291
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective on the day and in the year first set forth above.
CITY
CITY OF HANFORD,
a Municipal Corporation
By:__________________________________
MARIO A. CIFUENTEZ, II
City Manager
CONSULTANT
FINANCIAL CREDIT NETWORK, INC.
By:___________________________________
KRIS DAVISSON
Vice President
12.J.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/21/2025 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:
Authorization to Reject Claim for Damages - GHC0078117
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation: That the City Council, by motion, direct the City Manager, or assigned representative, to send a notice of rejection to claimant's attorney.
Recommended Motion:
BACKGROUND:
A claim for damages in the amount of TWO HUNDRED SEVENTEEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS SEVENTY SIX CENTS ($217,900.76), was sent to the City of Hanford from the attorney for Viking Ready Mix Sales, LLC. The Claim relates to work that Viking Ready Mix provided to Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. (CEDI) at the 426 W. Lacey Blvd. property that CED leases from the City of Hanford. Viking alleges that it has not been paid and believes that the City should have required CED to bond for the improvement work.
Richard Barron, Viking's attorney, called the City attorney's office on January 2, 2025, to inquire whether the City will be rendering payment on the claim. The City Attorney's Office did inform Mr.
Barron that they anticipate the City will reject the claim because the City was under no legal obligation to require CED to bond for improvement work that it chose to undertake.
FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Claim
2. Codes Referenced
3. Certificate of Insurance
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
[Government Code Section 905]
To: The City Clerk of the City of HanfordVIKING READY MIX SALES, LLC, hereby makes claim against the CITY OF HANFORD for the sum of TWO HUNDRED SEVENTEEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS SEVENTY-SIX CENTS ($217,900.76) and makes the following statements in support of its cIam:
1. Claimant’s post office address is:
P.O. Box 9129
Fresno, CA 93790
2. Notices concerning this claim should be sent to:
Richard B. Barron
Attorney at Law
632 West Oak Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
3. The date and place of the occurrence giving rise to this claim are as follows:
426 West Lacey Boulevard, Hanford, California, between February 29, 2024, and May 30, 2024.
4. The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as follows:
The CITY OF HANFORD is the record owner of a certain commercial building located at 426 West Lacey Boulevard, Hanford, California.
On or about October 5, 2023, the CITY OF HANFORD entered into a lease with Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. (hereafter “CEDI”). Under the terms of its lease, CEDI, as lessee, was authorized to make extensive alterations and improvements tà the property owned by the CITY OF HANFORD. Although the effect of this agreement was to alter, repair or improve the CITY OF HANFORD’s property, the CITY OF HANFORD did not require its tenant to obtain a payment and performancebond from its contractor to guarantee payment to subcontractors and materialmen providing labor and materials for the construction of such alterations and improvements.
CEDI thereafter contracted with Innovative Construction, Inc. to alter and improve the property it had leased from the CITY OF HANFORD. Although the project comes
within a “public works contract” as defined under Public Contracts Code §1101, Innovative Construction was not required to and did not furnish a payment and performance bond.
Thereafter, between February 29, 2024, and May 30, 2024, Claimant provided ready-mix concrete and related materials having a value of TWO HUNDRED
SEVENTEEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS SEVENTY-SIX CENTS ($217,900.76) at the request of Innovative Construction that was used to alter andimprove the building owned by the CITY OF HANFORD. Innovative Construction,however, failed to pay Claimant and the entire balance of TWO HUNDRED
SEVENTEEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS SEVENTY-SIX CENTS ($217,900.76) remains unpaid.
In failing to require a payment and performance bond for this project, the CITY OF HANFORD failed to discharge its duty under Civil Code §9550 to require a paymentand performance bond.
As the direct and proximate result of the CITY OF HANFORD’s failure to secure a payment and performance bond for the project, Claimant has sustained economic damages of TWO HUNDRED SEVENTEEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS SEVENTY-SIX CENTS ($217,900.76).
/ I V
DATED: (((iii z.%i ,1
Richard B. Barron, Attorney for
Viking Ready Mix Sales, Inc.
Public Contract Code - 1101
“Public works contract,” as used in this part, means an agreement for the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement of any public structure, building, road, or other public improvement of any kind.
(Added by Stats. 1982, Ch. 1120, Sec. 3.)
Civil Code 9550
(a) A direct contractor that is awarded a public works contract involving an expenditure in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) shall, before commencement of work, give a payment bond to and approved by the officer or public entity by whom the contract was awarded.
(b) A public entity shall state in its call for bids that a payment bond is required for a public works contract involving an expenditure in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). (c) A payment bond given and approved under this section will permit performance of and provide coverage for work pursuant to a public works contract that supplements the contract for which the bond is given, if the requirement of a new bond is waived by the public entity. (d) For the purpose of this section, a design professional is not deemed a direct contractor and is not required to give a payment bond.
(e) This section does not apply to a public works contract with a “state entity” as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 7103 of the Public Contract Code. (Added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 697, Sec. 20. (SB 189) Effective January 1, 2011. Operative July 1, 2012, by Sec. 105 of Ch. 697 and by Section 8052.)
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.
CANCELLATION
ACORD 28 (2016/03)
© 2003-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.
YES NO
YES NO
Subject to Different Provisions: If YES, LIMIT: DED:
Subject to Different Provisions:
NAMED STORM INCL
If YES, LIMIT: DED:
If YES, LIMIT:
If YES, LIMIT:
If YES, LIMIT:
If YES, LIMIT:
If YES, LIMIT:
If YES, LIMIT:
RENTAL VALUE
N/A
FUNGUS EXCLUSION (If "YES", specify organization's form used)
LIMITED FUNGUS COVERAGE
$
EARTH MOVEMENT (If Applicable)
WIND / HAIL INCL
ORDINANCE OR LAW
EQUIPMENT BREAKDOWN (If Applicable)
COINSURANCE
AGREED VALUE
REPLACEMENT COST
DED:
IS DOMESTIC TERRORISM EXCLUDED?
IS THERE A TERRORISM-SPECIFIC EXCLUSION?
TERRORISM COVERAGE Attach Disclosure Notice / DEC
BLANKET COVERAGE
YES NO COVERAGE INFORMATION
FLOOD (If Applicable)
PERMISSION TO WAIVE SUBROGATION IN FAVOR OF MORTGAGE
HOLDER PRIOR TO LOSS
If YES, %
DED:
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY COVERAGE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE: DED:
PERILS INSURED BASIC BROAD SPECIAL
- Demolition Costs
- Incr. Cost of Construction
- Coverage for loss to undamaged portion of bldg
DED:
DED:
DED:
DED:
DED:
If YES, indicate value(s) reported on property identified above: $ BUSINESS INCOME If YES, LIMIT: Actual Loss Sustained; # of months:
If YES, LIMIT:
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
ADDITIONAL INTEREST
NAME AND ADDRESS
CONTRACT OF SALE LENDER SERVICING AGENT NAME AND ADDRESS MORTGAGEE
LENDER'S LOSS PAYABLE
LOCATION / DESCRIPTION
THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING
ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS EVIDENCE OF PROPERTY INSURANCE MAY
BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. (ACORD 101 may be attached if more space is required) BUILDING OR BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY
THIS EVIDENCE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY INSURANCE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE ADDITIONAL INTEREST NAMED BELOW. THIS EVIDENCE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE ADDITIONAL INTEREST.
ADDITIONAL NAMED INSURED(S)
NAMED INSURED AND ADDRESS
CODE: AGENCY CUSTOMER ID #: SUB CODE: E-MAIL ADDRESS:
(A/C, No, Ext): PHONE
FAX
(A/C, No):
PRODUCER NAME, CONTACT PERSON AND ADDRESS
EFFECTIVE DATE EXPIRATION DATE
THIS REPLACES PRIOR EVIDENCE DATED: TERMINATED IF CHECKED
CONTINUED UNTIL
IF MULTIPLE COMPANIES, COMPLETE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH
COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS NAIC NO:
POLICY TYPE
LOAN NUMBER POLICY NUMBER
EVIDENCE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
PROPERTY INFORMATION
LOSS PAYEE
12/26/2023 800-345-0275 23043
Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, LLC
245 South Executive Drive, Suite 200
Brookfield, WI 53005
262-792-1712 [email protected]
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
175 Berkeley Street
Boston, MA 02117
Property
Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc.
1920 Westridge Dr
Irving TX 75038-2901
YAC-L9L-477235-013 12/31/2023 12/31/2024 2877R
X
CONTACT: Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc., 426 W Lacey Blvd, Hanford, CA 93230-4438 PC #2877R See Attached... X
30,000,000 $100,000 X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X Policy Limit X
X
X
X Policy Limit X Policy Limit X X Policy Limit X X Policy Limit X X
City of Hanford
19 N Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
ACORD 101 (2008/01)
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
© 2008 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.
THIS ADDITIONAL REMARKS FORM IS A SCHEDULE TO ACORD FORM, FORM NUMBER: FORM TITLE:
ADDITIONAL REMARKS
ADDITIONAL REMARKS SCHEDULE Page of
AGENCY CUSTOMER ID:
LOC #:
AGENCY
CARRIER NAIC CODE
POLICY NUMBER
NAMED INSURED
EFFECTIVE DATE:
1 1
Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, LLC YAC-L9L-477235-013 Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc.
1920 Westridge Dr
Irving TX 75038-2901
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 23043 12/31/2023 28 EVIDENCE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY INSURANCE REMARKS:
Additional Insured & Loss Payee: All parties to whom a Certificate of Insurance has been issued are automatically added to this policy upon issuance of said certificates, either as Additional Insured or as Loss Payee, or both, in accordance with the terms and conditions of this policy unless otherwise agreed to by the Insurer.
LOCATION/DESCRIPTION:
Property Location: 426 W Lacey Blvd, Hanford, CA 93230-4438 PC #2877R Valuation: $1,775,198
CITY OF HANFORD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
Tuesday, January 21, 2025
PROJECT: Annexation No. 163 Parts 9, 12, 13 and 14: A proposal to annex four separate substantially surrounded county islands with a combined total of 197.15 acres into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction.
Prezone No. 0001-24, Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14: A proposal to prezone the proposed territory to be annexed consistent with the 2035 Hanford General Plan Land Use Map.
CEQA Determination: The project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Categorical Exemption Class 19 (Annexation of areas containing existing public or private structures developed to the density allowed by the current prezoning) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15319(a), and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). A Notice of Exemption has been prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA
LOCATION: Island 9 is generally located East Lacey Boulevard, South of Southern Pacific Railroad Tracks.
Island 12 is generally located west of 10 ½ Avenue, north of Houston Avenue.
Island 13 is generally located west of 10th Avenue, between Idaho and Iona Avenues.
Island 14 is generally located west of 11th Avenue, south of Flint Avenue.
PLANNER: Gabrielle Myers, Senior Planner
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Certify the Notice of Exemption for the proposed projects, in accordance with CEQA.
2. Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 01-25, approving Prezone No. 0001- 24, Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14.
3. Adopt Resolution 25-02-R, initiating proceedings for Annexation 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14 and direct staff to file the appropriate forms with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Kings County.
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move to:
1. Certify the Notice of Exemption for the proposed projects, in accordance with CEQA.
2. Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 01-25, approving Prezone No. 0001- 24, Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14.
3. Adopt Resolution 25-02-R, initiating proceedings for Annexation 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14 and direct staff to file the appropriate forms with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Kings County.
MULTIPLE PROJECTS
The City of Hanford is in the process of conducting the following projects, which are all intertwined and contingent upon each other, but are separated into separate projects for ease of processing and differing timelines.
Projects:
1. Substantially Surrounded Island Annexations
2. Heroes Park Annexation General Plan Amendment, and Prezoning
3. Hidden Valley General Plan Amendment and Rezone
Substantially Surrounded Island Annexations
The application for review herein is the Substantially Surrounded Island Annexations. As discussed later in the report, the annexation of the substantially surrounded islands is the result of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Hanford and Kings County to annex the remaining substantially surrounded islands into the City limits. The MOU was referenced and required as a condition of annexation of Annexation 159, shown below. Originally, the parcels to the east of the annexation area, adjoining 10th Avenue, were included in the annexation request, however, at the direction of Council, were removed. The removal of the parcels along 10th Avenue maintained a substantially surrounded island, which is against LAFCo policy. As such, the City and County were required to enter into a MOU, acknowledging and agreeing to the annexation of the remaining substantially surrounded islands within 18 months of the MOU’s execution date.
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
Figure 1: Annexation 159
Consequence: The failure to preform, in accordance with the MOU, would put future annexation projects at risk of approval with LAFCo, including Heroes Park.
Heroes Park
Heroes Park is a future 40-acre regional park located near the intersection of Grangeville Boulevard and 9 1/4 Avenue. It is being partially funded by the State Parks' Statewide Development and Community Revitalization Program (Prop 68). Currently Heroes Park is in the conceptual design phase. The park is not currently located within the City limits, as such, it is necessary to annex the territory into the City limits, prior to development of the park space. A General Plan Amendment to allocate the Open Space Designation and change the location and size of the Neighborhood Mixed Use designation is proposed as part of the annexation request.
The General Plan Amendment proposed for Heroes Park off-sets the loss of housing opportunity as a result of the Hidden Valley Park General Plan Amendment.
In accordance with Government Code Section 66300, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, the City is unable to change the designation of the a property where housing is permitted, unless the loss of housing opportunity is accommodated elsewhere:
(b) (1) Notwithstanding any other law except as provided in subdivision (i), with respect to land where housing is an allowable use, an affected county or an affected city shall not
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
enact a development policy, standard, or condition that would have any of the following effects:
(A) Changing the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district in effect at the time of the proposed change, below what was allowed under the land use designation or zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as applicable, as in effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise provided in clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) or subdivision (i). For purposes of this subparagraph, “reducing the intensity of land use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or any other action that would individually or cumulatively reduce the site’s residential development capacity.
The table below demonstrates the City’s ability to off-set the housing opportunity loss from Hidden Valley Park with the redesignation of the land for Heroes Park Annexation and General Plan Amendment/Prezone.
Table 1: Housing Opportunity
Zone Zone Name
Vacant Acres to
be Added or
Subtracted
Housing
Element
Realistic
Density
Total
Potential
Housing Units
Added or
Subtracted
Hidden Valley Park Site
RLD Low Density Residential -18.5 4.00 -74
OS Open Space 18.5 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.00 -74
Heroes Park/Latis LLC Property
MU-N Neighborhood Mixed Use 25% of -19.0 16.00 -76
OS Open Space 40.0 0.00 0
RLD Low Density Residential -41.0 4.00 -164
MU-N Neighborhood Mixed Use 75% of 20.0 16.00 +240
Subtotal 0.00 0
Planned “Floating” Park Sites Moving to Heroes Park
OS Open Space -10.1 0.00 0
RLD Low Density Residential 10.1 4.00 +40
OS Open Space -16.9 0.00 0
RMD
Medium Density
Residential 16.9 4.00 +68
Subtotal 0.00 +108
OVERALL TOTAL CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HOUSING UNITS +34
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
In addition to the need for the Heroes Park Annexation and General Plan’s housing opportunities to off-set the loss associated with Hidden Valley Park’s General Plan Amendment/Rezone, it shall be noted that Heroes Park cannot be approved without the approval of the substantially surrounded islands annexation, specifically Island #9.
Figure 2: Proposed Annexation Area #9 El Ranch, 113.78 +/- acres Failure to annex Island #9 of Annexation 163 (Substantially Surrounded Islands) would create a fully-surrounded island, for the area shown in blue, below, Figure 3.
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
Figure 3: Heroes Park Annexation Relation to Island 9 Annexation Creation of islands as a result of annexation is not permitted by LAFCo Policy and could result in the denial of the Heroes Park annexation.
B. STANDARDS FOR ANNEXATION TO CITIES AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS
PROVIDING URBAN SERVICES
2. Unfavorable Factors:
a) The proposed annexation would create extensive corridors or peninsulas extending into an unincorporated area and would cause further distortion of existing city boundaries.
Consequences: Denial of any part of the substantially surrounded islands annexation 163, but especially Island #9, would jeopardize LAFCo’s ability/willingness to annex Heroes Park, due to the inability to perform in accordance with the existing MOU and creation of a fully surrounded
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
island. The denial of the Heroes Park Annexation and General Plan Amendment would make it infeasible to change the General Plan/Zoning on the vacant portion of Hidden Valley Park from Low-Density Residential to Open Space, due to the loss of housing opportunity, which is prohibited by State Law, SB330.
Hidden Valley
General Plan Amendment No. 2024-01 (GPA0011-24) is a request, by the City of Hanford, to change the General Plan designation from Low-Density Residential to Open Space for an 18-acre portion of a 38.48-acre parcel, as directed by the City Council of the City of Hanford. Pursuant to SB330, if a jurisdiction proposes a reduction in the intensity of the residential land use, then the jurisdiction must concurrently change the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is a “No Net Loss” in residential capacity. As described in Table 1, and discussed in the Heroes Park project section, the City proposes to remove Low Density Residential Land Uses and replace the opportunity elsewhere.
As demonstrated Table 1 and by using the City’s Housing Element’s Realistic Density for the associated parcels, the concurrent processing of the General Plan Amendments for Heroes Park and Hidden Valley Park provide for an increase in the potential housing units by 34 units. The proposed removal and replacement of the Low-Density Residential Land Uses will not result in a loss in total residential capacity and therefore is compliant with the provisions of the SB330.
Consequence: Failure to execute the substantially surrounded island annexation and Heroes Park annexation will result in an inability to approve the General Plan amendment associated with the vacant portion of Hidden Valley Park, due to a loss off housing opportunity off-set.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Annexation No. 163, Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
There are six separate county islands within the Primary Sphere of Influence. Excepting Island 10, which is not eligible for island annexation proceedings, due to the Prime Agricultural designation, and Island 11, which is being proposed through private application, there are four substantially surrounded islands (# 9, 12, 13 and 14) proposed to be annexed into the City of Hanford from the Kings County Jurisdiction, totaling 197.15 acres, approximately. The Overview Map below shows the locations of the substantially surrounded county islands in the City. Each county island is shown separately in Figures 5 through 8. The parcels to be annexed are shown in white.
The City of Hanford entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Kings County, agreeing annex the remaining substantially surrounded islands, identified in the 2016 Island Study.
A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding is attached as Attachment 1.
The LAFCo determination of what constitutes an island is attached as Attachment 2. Sixty percent is the established substantially surrounded island threshold, according to LAFCo.
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
Figure 4: Overview Map – Location of County Islands
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
Figure 5: Proposed Annexation Area #9 El Ranch, 113.78 +/- acres Figure 6: Proposed Annexation Area #12 Thompson/ 10 1/2 Ave, 60.46 +/- acres
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
Figure 7: Proposed Annexation Area #13 S 10th/Iona, 6.01+/- acres Figure 8: Proposed Annexation Area #14 11th/Flint, 16.9 +/- acres
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
Prezone No. 0001-24 Part 9, 12, 13 and 14
Prezone No. 0001-24 Part 9, 12, 13 and 14 is a request to prezone the four substantially surrounded areas to be annexed consistent with the 2035 Hanford General Plan Land Use Map.
The specific proposed prezoning is illustrated as they would be shown on the Zoning Map in Figures 9, 11, 13, and 15.
Prezone No. 0001-24 Part 9
Prezone No. 0001-24 Part 9 is a request to prezone Island #9, as MX-C Corridor Mixed Use, RL-8 Low Density Residential (8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size), and C-R Regional Commercial Corridor Mixed Use, Low-Density Residential, and Regional Commercial.
Figure 9: Proposed Prezone Area #9 El Rancho
General Plan Designation – Corridor Mixed Use, Low-Density Residential, and Regional Commercial
Proposed Prezoning MX-C Corridor Mixed Use, R-L-8 Low Density Residential (8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size), and C-R Regional Commercial
Project Location #9
Substantially surrounded Island #9 totals approximately 113.78 acres, located on East Lacey Boulevard, south of Southern Pacific Railroad tracks.
Existing Land Use #9
This annexation area is primarily developed with single-family residences with scattered commercial uses. All parcels are within City Urban Development and the Sphere of Influence. The
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
City considers this area as Corridor Mixed Use, Low-Density Residential, and Regional Commercial, per City of Hanford 2035 General Plan.
County Zoning
In accordance with Kings County Zoning, the area is zoned C-S Service Commercial, R-1-6 LowDensity Residential, and R-1-8 Low-Density Residential.
Figure 10: Island 9 County Zoning
Prezone No. 0001-24 Part 12
Prezone No. 0001-24 Part 12 is a request to prezone substantially surrounded island No. 12 Island #12, as R-L-12 Low-Density Residential and I-L Light Industrial, in accordance with the General Plan Designation for the area, Low-Density Residential and Light Industrial. On parcels 011-420-012 and -013, staff proposes to change the prezoning of the two parcels from I-L Light Industrial to R-L-12 Low-Density Residential, to capture the existing use of the sites, which is residential. Following a meeting with residents in this island, it was brought to the attention of staff that there are residences on these two parcels and prezoning to I-L Light Industrial would render these parcels nonconforming, should the I-L zoning remain. In the event of destruction exceeding 75 percent, the residences would not be able to be reconstructed. As such, staff determined the prezoning should be changed to R-L-12 for the parcels located at 011-420-012 and -013. The parcels total 0.88 acres, which represents a 4.4% change to the surrounding Light Industrial designation. Staff determined this change to be substantially consistent with the General Plan.
The General Plan is meant to be a general guide of the designation of parcels, whereas zoning is parcel specific.
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
17.02.020 Purposes and objectives.
A. To provide a zoning map and associated regulations to guide the physical development of the city in such a manner as to progressively achieve the general arrangement of the land uses described and depicted in the Hanford General Plan.
Figure 11: Proposed Prezone Area #12 10 ½ and Thompson
General Plan Designation – Light Industrial and Low-Density Residential Proposed Prezoning I-L Light Industrial and R-L-12 Low-Density Residential Project Location #12
Substantially surrounded county island #12 consists of 60.46 acres generally located on the west side of 10 ½ Avenue, between Thompson Drive and Houston Avenue.
Existing Land Use #12
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
The existing land uses are large-lot single-family residential with approximately 18 acres of light industrial in the northern portion of the island. All parcels are within City Urban Development and the Sphere of Influence. The City considers this area as Light Industrial and Low-Density Residential, per City of Hanford 2035 General Plan.
County Zoning
In accordance with Kings County Zoning, the area is zoned IL Light Industrial and RRA Rural Residential
Figure 12: County Zoning Island 12
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
Prezone No. 0001-24 Part 13
Prezone No. 0001-24 Part 13 is a request to prezone substantially surrounded island #13, as a IH Heavy Industrial, in accordance the General Plan land use designation for the island, Heavy Industrial.
Figure 13: Proposed Prezone Area #13 S 10th Avenue
General Plan Designation – Heavy Industrial
Proposed Prezoning I-H Heavy Industrial
Project Location #13 S 10th Avenue
Substantially surrounded island #13 includes five parcels: 018-242-014 through 018. The parcels are located west of 10th Avenue, between Iona and Idaho Avenues.
Existing Land Use #3 S 10th Avenue
The existing land uses are rural residential within the County boundary. All parcels are within City Urban Development and the Sphere of Influence. The City considers this area as Heavy Industrial, per City of Hanford 2035 General Plan.
County Zoning
In accordance with Kings County Zoning, the area is zoned IH Heavy Industrial.
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
Figure 14: County Zoning Island 13
Prezone No. 0001-24 Part 14
Prezone No. 0001-24 Part 14 is a request to prezone substantially surrounded Island #14 as RL-12 Low-Density Residential, in accordance the General Plan land use designation for the island, Low Density Residential.
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
Figure 15: Proposed Prezone Area #14 11th and Flint
General Plan Designation – Low-Density Residential
Proposed Prezoning to R-L-12 Low-Density Residential (12,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) Project Location #14 11th/Flint
County island #14 is generally located West of 11th Avenue, South of Flint. APN 007-010-006 through -015.
Existing Land Use #14 11th/Flint
The existing land uses are urban residential and rural residential within the County boundary. All parcels are within City Urban Development and the Sphere of Influence. The City considers this area as Low Density Residential per City of Hanford 2035 General Plan.
County Zoning
In accordance with Kings County Zoning, the area is zoned AL-10 Limited Agriculture.
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
Figure 16: County Zoning Island 14
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
General Plan Land Use Designations
The General Plan designates the various substantially surrounded properties as Low-Density Residential, Corridor Mixed Use, Regional Commercial, Light Industrial, and Heavy Industrial. The following policies apply to these land use designations.
3.4.1 Low Density Residential
The expected density range for Low Density Residential is 2 to 10 units per gross acre with an expected average of 4 units per gross acre.
Policy L31 Purpose of the Low-Density Residential Land Use Designation Establish the Low-Density Residential land use designation to provide mainly single-family development on lot sizes typically found in urban settings.
Policy L32 Typical Uses in the Low-Density Residential Land Use Designation Define the uses allowed in the Low-Density Residential land use designation to include residential uses in a variety of single-family lot types. Duplexes, second dwelling units, and home occupations can also be allowed when made compatible with the residential nature of the neighborhood.
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
Policy L33 Size of Lots in the Low-Density Residential Land Use Designation While it is recognized that existing lot sizes of 10,000 to 40,000 square feet are included in this designation, new individual lot sizes shall range from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet in size. Under Planned Unit Development provisions, smaller lot sizes at higher densities may be permitted when clustered around shared open space amenities or through density bonus policies.
3.6.2 Corridor Mixed Use
Policy L65 Purpose of Corridor Mixed Use Land Use Designation Establish the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation to promote a mix of commercial, office, and multifamily residential uses along transportation corridors at a scale compatible with adjacent residential neighborhood, with the intent of creating a pedestrian-friendly environment that encourages walking between uses.
Policy L66 Typical Uses in Corridor Mixed Use Land Use Designation Define the uses allowed in the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation to include small- and medium scale commercial providing primarily day-to-day goods and services, office, and multifamily dwellings along with horizontal and vertical mixed-use developments that include these uses. Typical uses include duplexes, townhomes, apartments, markets, small retail shops, eating establishments, offices, service stations, medical and dental offices, convenience stores, dry cleaning and laundry services, beauty salons, and other similar uses. Both vertical and horizontal mixed-use developments are encouraged.
Policy L67 Design of the Corridor Mixed Use Land Use Designation Require that new development projects and major site reconfigurations in the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation provide site layouts, buildings, landscaping, and walkways that are designed to encourage pedestrian access on the site and between adjacent sites. Strongly encourage buildings to be located near the street corridor with parking to the side of or behind buildings.
3.5.2 Regional Commercial
Policy L47 Purpose of Regional Commercial Land Use Designation Establish the Regional Commercial land use designation to provide a variety of commercial goods, entertainment, and services in large format shopping centers for both the Hanford community and the larger region outside of Hanford.
Policy L48 Typical Uses in Regional Commercial Land Use Designation Define the uses allowed in the Regional Commercial land use designation to include goods, entertainment, and services that benefit from the market synergy that occurs when the uses are located in close proximity to each other. Typical uses include retail sales in big box or large format buildings, shopping malls, eating establishments, and service stations. Prohibit uses that typically provide only day-to-day goods and services.
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
Policy L49 Design of Regional Commercial Land Use Designation Require that new development projects and major site reconfigurations in the Regional Commercial land use designation lay out buildings and parking as a single, integrated shopping center with shared driveway access and parking, with walkways connecting buildings to each other and the street so as to promote pedestrian accessibility.
Policy L50 Location and Size of Regional Commercial Land Use Designation Locate Regional Commercial land use designations along arterial streets near access to Highways 198 or 43. Offices and high-density residential development are typically located adjacent to the Regional Commercial land use designation. Require new development projects to be a minimum 10 acres in size.
3.8.1 Light Industrial
Policy L83 Purpose of Light Industrial Land Use Designation Establish the Light Industrial land use designation to support warehousing operations, storage, business parks, research and development facilities, and establishments engaged in light manufacturing, assembling, packaging, and processing that are not obnoxious or offensive to nearby properties due to odor, dust, exhaust, noise, vibration or other nuisances.
Policy L84 Typical Uses in Light Industrial Land Use Designation Define the uses allowed in the Light Industrial land use designation to include warehousing operations, storage, business parks, research and development facilities, and business and commercial uses that support light industrial uses. Uses are typically conducted within buildings with some limited outside storage or activity permitted. Uses in this designation differ from uses in the heavy industrial designation in that operations are smaller in scale, truck traffic is typically less intense, and customers may visit the site more often.
Policy L85 Location of Light Industrial Land Use Designation Locate Light Industrial land use designations south of Houston Avenue to serve as a land use buffer between Residential and Heavy Industrial land use designations. Locations north of Houston Avenue that are near rail lines or that have access to Arterial streets, are also allowed when they do not result in land use compatibility conflicts.
Policy L86 Size of Light Industrial Land Use Designations Require that the area of Light Industrial land use designations be a minimum 5 acres, regardless of individual property ownership, when located north of Houston Avenue.
3.8.2 Heavy Industrial
Policy L87 Purpose of Heavy Industrial Land Use Designation
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
Establish the Heavy Industrial land use designation to provide for manufacturing facilities and industries that may be obnoxious due to odor, dust, smoke, gas, noise, vibration or similar causes and therefore require isolation from many other kinds of land uses.
Policy L88 Typical Uses in Heavy Industrial Land Use Designation Define the uses allowed in the Heavy Industrial land use designation to include industrial parks, manufacturing, truck terminals, fabrication, processing, assembling, warehousing and distribution, large machinery sales and service, and research and development activities. The uses in this designation differ from uses in the light industrial designation in that operations are typically larger in scale, freight rail service may be needed, large trucks and equipment are utilized, outside processing and storage of materials may be permitted, and nuisance effects may be higher.
Policy L89 Location of Heavy Industrial Land Use Designation Locate Heavy Industrial land use designations south of Houston Avenue, between 9th Avenue and 12th Avenue. Locate the Heavy Industrial land use designation adjacent to only a Light Industrial, Open Space, or Public Facilities land use designation to minimize conflicts with other land uses.
Policy L90 Generous Supply of Industrial Land
Maintain a generous supply of industrial land that is attractive and desirable to potential industrial developers.
Policy L91 Incompatible Adjacent Land Uses
Prohibit the establishment of Residential and other sensitive land uses near Heavy Industrial land use designations.
Annexation Policies
The General Plan also has policies regarding annexation of land into the city limits. The Planning Commission is charged with reviewing proposed annexations and making a finding that the proposed annexation is consistent with the policies of the General Plan, and then forward that finding to the City Council. The Planning Commission will need to find that Annexation 163, Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14 is consistent with the Hanford General Plan Policies L15, L16, and L17.
The Planning Commission made the required finding of consistency on December 10, 2024.
Policy L15 Initiation of Annexations
Consider initiation of annexation of land into the City of Hanford only when the following criteria are met:
1. The land is within the Primary Sphere of Influence.
2. The capacity of the water, sewer, fire, school, and police services are adequate to service the area to be annexed or will be adequate at the time that development occurs.
3. Land for development within the City limits is insufficient to meet the current land use needs.
4. The territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing developed areas.
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
Policy L16 County Islands
Initiate annexation of County islands when it is found that urban services are needed and can be provided or made available in the near future.
Policy L17 Plan for Services
Prepare and make publicly available a written Plan for Services that describes how urban services will be provided prior to initiating an annexation.
State Law
To facilitate the annexation of county islands to contiguous cities, the state legislature has adopted specific provisions in the Government Code that require LAFCo annexation approval and waiver of protest proceedings if LAFCo makes certain findings and determinations. Those determinations are found in Government Codes 56375(a)(4) and 56375.3.
Government Code Section 56375
(a)(4) A commission shall not disapprove an annexation to a city, initiated by resolution, of contiguous territory that the commission finds any of the following:
(A) Surrounded or substantially surrounded by the city to which the annexation is proposed or by that city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean if the territory to be annexed is substantially developed or developing, is not prime agricultural land as defined in Section 56064, is designated for urban growth by the general plan of the annexing city and is not within the sphere of influence of another city. (B) Located within an urban service area that has been delineated and adopted by a commission, which is not prime agricultural land, as defined by Section 56064, and is designated for urban growth by the general plan of the annexing city. (C) An annexation or reorganization of unincorporated islands meeting the requirements of Section 56375.3.
Government Code Section 56375.3
(a) In addition to those powers enumerated in Section 56375, a commission shall approve, after notice and hearing, the change of organization or reorganization of a city, and waive protest proceedings pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 57000) entirely, if all of the following are true:
(1) The change of organization or reorganization is initiated on or after January 1, 2000.
(2) The change of organization or reorganization is proposed by resolution adopted by the affected city.
(3) The commission finds that the territory contained in the change of organization or reorganization proposal meets all the requirements set forth in subdivision (b). (b) Subdivision (a) applies to territory that meets all the following requirements:
(1) It does not exceed 150 acres in area, and that area constitutes the entire island. (2) The territory constitutes an entire unincorporated island located within the limits of a city or constitutes a reorganization containing several individual unincorporated islands.
(3) It is surrounded in either of the following ways:
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
(A) Surrounded, or substantially surrounded, by the city to which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean. (B) Surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed and adjacent cities. (4) It is substantially developed or developing. The finding required by this paragraph shall be based upon one or more factors, including, but not limited to, any of the following factors:
(A) The availability of public utility services.
(B) The presence of public improvements.
(C) The presence of physical improvements upon the parcel or parcels within the area.
(5) It is not prime agricultural land, as defined by Section 56064. (6) It will benefit from the change of organization or reorganization or is receiving benefits from the annexing city.
(7) This subdivision does not apply to any unincorporated island within a city that is a gated community where services are currently provided by a community services district.
While the final determination will be made by LAFCo, City staff believes that the proposed island annexations meet all the requirements in these two State codes. This means that, if initiated by the City Council, there is a high likelihood that Kings LAFCo will approve the annexations.
Planning Commission
A public hearing was scheduled to be held on November 21, 2024, however, due to a power outage, the meeting was continued to December 10, 2024. Deputy City Manager Waters presented the staff report. Following the staff report, City Attorney Mizote provided the following legal points:
1. Planning Commission’s primary responsibility is to confirm whether the proposed annexation is consistent with the General Plan
a. Is the land proposed for annexation within City’s Sphere of Influence? b. Consideration of Prezoning, does the prezoning match the land use designation set forth in the General Plan?
2. Noted that the annexation satisfies agencies of higher authority a. LAFCo has final decision authority over annexations
i. Noted Planning Commission does not make final decision on annexation, neither does City Council; LAFCO makes final decision
ii. LAFCO Policies: eliminates islands
iii. LAFCO could condition future annexations on the City moving forward with annexations of islands – reason stemming for MOU
b. State of California: annexations of undeveloped land is needed to accommodate housing
i. Housing objectives – RHNA goals
ii. Through zoning and annexations, local agencies must accommodate their share of new housing. State is aggressive in enforcement efforts as to local agencies achieving housing goals through zoning and annexations through fines and lawsuits
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
3. Noted that this application is not a case of city wanting to annex land for development purposes
4. Reiterated that the island annexations are part of larger, interconnected issues controlled by outside agencies including LAFCO and the State of California Following the presentation of the staff report and legal points, the public comment portion of the public hearing was opened. Vice-Chair Ham took public comments in the order of Islands Island 9
Favor – none
Opposed:
1. Tom Buford, Public Comment Submitted – Attachment 3.
Island 12
Favor – none
Opposed:
1. Bob Ramos: Island 12 City has encroached on this strip of land from Thompson moving south. May not have been 60% in the past, but is now. These properties are unique, in this case, most properties do business off their properties. A lot of the residents raise animals, have mechanic businesses, and auto-part dismantling. When Code Enforcement comes out, the businesses will be taken away and thus their livelihood. Some of their fences are above the required height. there is a way to give these residents time to make adjustments to conform with City regulations.
2. [Name] Cotta: Resident for over 40 years. Doesn’t see how there would be adequate space to accommodate City and future businesses. Prefers country way of living out in this area.
3. Alexander Moreno: Resident/landowner – does not want to be part of the City, wants to remain in the County and maintain style of living. Fields across the street, doesn’t feel like the City, feels like Country. Understand that this is a directive from Sacramento because of Mandate and MOU. Opposed to annexation, want to continue to maintain same style living.
4. David Guzman: resident of 10 ½ last 40 years. This is the third time this has been proposed to be annexed into the City. Bought in this area because it is County. Landfill west of the project area is contaminated, due to oil sludge dumping. Signed petition stating they do not wish to be in the City. Asked Planning Commissioners if they had been out to 10 ½ Avenue. Reiterated that he does not wish to be in the City. The Government Code is a recommendation, not a law. The State encourages but does not mandate.
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
5. Al Kasem (sp?): resident and runs a business on his property. Able to conduct business in the County. Advantages to being in the County, does not need to concern themselves with Code Enforcement. City Attorney has indicated that Planning Commission does not have authority to deny the annexation, only LAFCO does. When you talk about 60% of the City surrounding the annexation area, that was not the case at the time of purchasing.
This will have a detrimental impact on self and neighbors. West of tracks is an open field all the way over to Shepard and the area is maintained by County. To the south of Houston Avenue, all County except for City yard. East is open yard, county. LAFCo hearings – waiver of due process. As property owners, notes he has not received any noticing.
Cannot maintain way of life. Enforcing statue and there is no one here to answer for it – need to go to LAFCo or State. Has issue with MOU and County Counsel’s lack of participation in the MOU.
6. Alejandro Santian – echoed sentiments of previous commenters. been in area over 20 years. Code Enforcement concerns. Wants to remain country living.
7. Anthony Perez – echoed sentiments of previous commenters. Has been long opposed to this annexation effort over the years.
8. Luis Ramirez, Jr. – been living in area for 5 years. Different way of life between City and County. Main reason for annexation is monetary. Enjoys freedoms of the County.
Island 13
Favor – none
Opposed – none
Island 14
Favor – none
Opposed - none
Commissioner Questions:
1. Vice Chair Ham asked a question regarding grandfathering Deputy City Manager Waters responded: p. 118 includes information relating to grandfathering of non-conforming uses. If a use is legally allowed in the County, the use may continue to operate in the City limits. As long as the use continues to operate, the grandfathering statues still apply.
City Attorney noted under the County zoning ordinance, if a use permit is required in the County, the use permit must be issued for the use to be considered legal and continue after annexation.
City Attorney provided clarification of comments/questions raised:
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
1. Government Code requires that if City provides utility services, the City obligates itself to move forward with the annexation where utility services are provided.
2. Role County played in executing MOU: 1st MOU drafted by County staff and County Counsel. 2nd MOU based on the first MOU. Prepared jointly by City and County. County Counsel did review on behalf of the County. Accurate to state that the County has been involved in the MOUs. County’s intent that the islands be annexed into the City. Through the annexation process, some of the property tax money will shift from County to City.
County has full understanding of ramifications to annexation.
3. Properties being developed out and properties cannot be constructed all annexations intertwined. LAFCO looking to City to annex these islands. When City moves forward with annexation of undeveloped properties, LAFCo will look at the islands and will have an expectation when the City annexes the undeveloped land, the City will have to address the remaining island annexations.
Deputy City Manager Water noted 10 ½ Avenue (Island 12) is designated majority designated as Rural Residential by the County; the City is applying Low-Density Residential consistent with the County’s designation.
Commissioner Morales Questions:
1. Can an MX designation be applied to the Island 12 area? Deputy City Manager Waters: The City would grandfather in whatever was legally permitted by the County in this area.
2. Asked for clarification on County and City Coding - Would they rely back on old County zoning?
Deputy City Manager Waters: Clarified that whatever was legally established/allowed by the County could be grandfathered in.
3. Asked a Government Code Section Clarification Question.
4. What timeline are we looking at for the annexation?
Deputy City Manager Waters: Take to council in January, then recommendation is taken to LAFCO, noticing requirements apply – anticipate LAFCo sometime in early spring.
Motions were made to:
1. Recommend adoption of the Notice of Exemption, in accordance with CEQA. (Motion passed 3,2)
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2024-20 (A-D), recommending approval of Prezone No. 0001-24, Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14 to the City Council. (Motion Passed 3,1 [1 abstention])
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
3. Find that the proposed Annexation No. 163, Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14 is consistent with the Hanford General Plan Policies L15, L16, and L17 and forward Annexation No. 163, Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14 to the City Council, with a recommendation that an application be made to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Kings County. (Motion passed 3,2).
PROJECT EVALUATION
Annexation No. 163 Part 9, 12, 13 and 14
The project is a request to annex the four substantially surrounded islands into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction. The premise and guidance for the proposal is given by State law, which finds that county islands should generally be annexed into a city so they may receive more efficient delivery of services, as a city is usually more equipped to provide urban level services than a county or other entity.
Annexation of land into Hanford allows previously undeveloped land to become available for development and allows the City of Hanford to provide the territory that is annexed with its full range of City services. However, in this case, most land within the substantially surrounded county islands is already developed and some territories already receive some of the City’s services.
The General Plan also has policies regarding annexation of land into the city limits. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed annexations and made a finding that the proposed annexations are consistent with the policies of the General Plan. On December 10, 2024, the Planning Commission found Annexation 163, Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14 is consistent with the Hanford General Plan Policies L15, L16, and L17.
Policy L15 Initiation of Annexations
Consider initiation of annexation of land into the City of Hanford only when the following criteria are met:
1. The land is within the Primary Sphere of Influence.
Analysis: All four substantially surrounded islands are within the Primary Sphere of Influence.
2. The capacity of the water, sewer, fire, school, and police services are adequate to service the area to be annexed or will be adequate at the time that development occurs.
Analysis: Table 2 shows which services are currently being provided by the City or the County.
Table 2
Current Island Annexation Service Providers
Municipal Service Type Island Annexation #
9 12 13 14
Law Enforcement County County County County
Fire / Emergency Service County County County County
Water Supply City/Private City Private City
Water Distribution City/Private City Private City
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
Wastewater Collection City/Private City Private City
Wastewater Disposal City/Private Private Private City
Solid Waste Collection* Private Private Private Private Flood Control/Drainage County/City County County County City Street Maintenance County County County County/City
Street Lighting County County County County/City
Parks and Recreation County County County County
* Solid waste collection in the County islands is currently optional.
Water
The City currently supplies and distributes water to two of the four County islands proposed to be annexed. Were the City to annex the islands, the City has the capacity to add 57 more residential units to its water system. The City encourages property owners to hook up the house to city water, but the existing well can be retained long term for watering the property as long as a backflow device is installed on the domestic water service. Residents will only be required to connect to the City water system when major work on their well is needed to provide water. Minor work, such as cleaning or pump replacement, will not trigger a requirement to connect to the City water system.
Sewer
The City currently provides wastewater collection and disposal service to two of the four County islands proposed to be annexed. The City would not require hookup to City sewer service if the home’s septic tank is operating properly. If the septic system violates State or local health codes, then both City and County ordinances require connection to the City system if one is available within 200 feet of the property. The City will issue permits for a new septic tank or substantial work on the leach field if a City sewer line is not within 200 feet of the property.
Fire and Police
The County is currently responsible for police, emergency, and fire protection of the four substantially surrounded County islands proposed to be annexed.
The Police Department’s current staffing ratio is 1.09 officers per 1,000 residents. The General Plan Background Report suggests a ratio of 1.1 to 1.2 is appropriate for similar cities of the size of Hanford. Annexation of the County islands will result in an increase in population of persons who will need to be served by the City’s Police Department.
The City’s current ISO rating is 2 (ISO rating is on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being best).
Due to the City’s ability to provide such services to its current population, there is no evidence indicating that the addition of residents resulting from the island annexations would be too great for the City to adequately served. The City continues to be able to use the County’s fire services in times of need, therefore the overall fire service capacity will not be affected.
School
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
There would be no change to school districts because of the island annexations. Since no new development is proposed, the annexations will not affect school enrollment.
Utilities/Public Services
Natural gas, electricity, and communications public services would not change because of annexation of the county islands.
3. Land for development within the City limits is insufficient to meet the current land use needs.
Analysis: The proposed annexation of the four substantially surrounded county islands is not to accommodate any specific proposed development project. Instead, the purpose of the proposed annexations is to further good local government and make available the full range of City services to both developed and undeveloped county island areas. Therefore, this requirement is not relevant to the proposal.
4. The territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing developed areas.
Analysis: All four islands are substantially surrounded by developed areas within the city limits of Hanford.
Policy L16 County Islands
Initiate annexation of County islands when it is found that urban services are needed and can be provided or made available in the near future.
Analysis: As shown in Table 1, urban service provision is shared between the City and County. The City has the capacity to provide all of the services currently being provided by the County. Because of their proximity inside the city limits, the provision of service within the county islands can be more efficiently provided by the City. Additional water and sewer can be made available to the two island areas currently using individual systems if the property desires City water and/or sewer or if their individual systems fail.
Policy L17 Plan for Services
Prepare and make publicly available a written Plan for Services that describes how urban services will be provided prior to initiating an annexation.
Analysis: The Plan for Services was described in the letter to property owners dated October 7, 2024 – attached as Attachment 4. The letter describes the City’s intention to provide services to the substantially surrounded county islands, when the property has the choice to add City services, and when additional City services will be required.
Prezone No. 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13 and 14
Prezone No. 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13 and 14 would be consistent with the land use designations shown on the 2035 General Plan Land Use Map. This will ensure that zoning after annexation is consistent with the General Plan. The specific prezoning is described above and shown on four maps in Figures 9 through 12. Most land use designations in the General Plan are only consistent with one corresponding zone in the Zoning Ordinance. The Low-Density Residential land use
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
designation found in Annexation Area #9, 12, and 14 can be consistent with the R-L-8 and R-L12 zones. In these cases, the specific prezoning is recommended based on the size of the existing parcels in the particular annexation area and the adjacent surrounding zoning.
In accordance with the Hanford Municipal Code Section 17.86.030, before a zone change may be approved, all of the following findings shall be made by the reviewing authority:
1. That the amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and the Municipal Code.
Analysis: Prezone No. 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14 is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, specifically consistent with Land Use Policies L15, L16, and L17. There is not a plan for development at this time. Most of the parcels proposed for annexation are already developed.at the densities consistent with the proposed prezoning.
2. That the amendment would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.
ANALYSIS: There is no evidence that annexation of the county islands into the city limits would negatively affect health, safety, or welfare. On the contrary, the coordination of services between the City and County will be improved by reducing inefficiencies through annexation.
3. That the amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City.
Analysis: The proposed prezoning is consistent with the land use designations established in the General Plan.
4. That the anticipated land uses on the subject site would be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses.
Analysis: It is anticipated that the few undeveloped sites in the substantially surrounded county island areas will eventually develop in a manner consistent with the proposed prezoning. Most of the sites are already developed, and those uses appear to be consistent with the proposed prezoning, with limited exceptions, where uses appear to be legally existing non-conforming, primarily in Island 13.
Favorable Factors for Annexation
Favorable and unfavorable factors for annexation have been adopted by LAFCO. The existence of favorable or unfavorable factors should not decide approval or denial; however, a substantial number of favorable or unfavorable factors may determine approval or denial of the proposal.
1. The proposed area is close to urban development and municipal-type services and would enhance its potential for full development.
Analysis: The four islands are mostly developed and are all substantially surrounded by urban development. City services are available to each of the island area.
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
2. The proposed annexation conforms to the adopted General Plan.
Analysis: As discussed above, there is evidence to support a finding that annexation of the four islands is consistent with Policies L15, L16, and L17 of the General Plan. The island areas will be prezoned so that zoning after annexation is consistent with the 2035 General Plan Land Use Designation Map.
3. The proposed area is consistent with the sphere of influence.
Analysis: All four county islands are within the Sphere of Influence adopted by LAFCo.
4. The proposed annexation comes with 100% consent of all landowners.
Analysis: The county island annexations do not come with 100% consent of the landowners. However, as previously stated, State law encourages the annexation of county islands and waives the protest hearings at LAFCo that determine landowner consent for island annexations like those being proposed here. The City staff held an open-forum community meeting on October 23, 2024, in the training room of City Hall to address any questions posed by landowners. For residents who did not receive notice in time, due to a noticing issue with ½ Avenue property owners, staff held subsequent meetings with property owners to discuss concerns and answer questions.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
Based on the information and analysis above, City staff recommends that the following findings be made:
1. All four substantially surrounded county islands are within the Primary Sphere of Influence.
2. Most of the annexation area already received some services from the City of Hanford.
3. There is capacity in the City water and sewer systems to add the parcels currently on individual water and sewer systems if those property either desire to hook up or are required to because their systems fail.
4. Inclusion of the islands in the city limits will not negatively affect the Police or Fire Department’s ability to provide their services to the community.
5. There would be no change to school districts because of the island annexations.
6. The proposed annexation of the four county islands is not to accommodate any specific proposed development project. The purpose of the proposed annexations is to further good local government and make available the full range of City services to both developed and undeveloped county island areas.
7. All four islands are substantially surrounded by developed areas within the city limits of Hanford.
8. Because of their proximity inside the city limits, the provision of service within the substantially surrounded county islands can be more efficiently provided by the City.
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
9. The prezoning is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and the Municipal Code.
10. The prezoning would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.
11. The prezoning would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City.
Annexation would not change most land uses since most parcels are already developed.
12. The anticipated land uses on the subject site would be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses, except where uses are deemed legally existing non-conforming.
13. The four county islands are mostly developed and are substantially surrounded by urban development. City services are available to each of the island areas.
14. State law encourages the annexation of county islands to further the goal of effective and efficient provision of local government services.
15. Based on the above findings, Annexation No. 163, Parts 9, 12, 13 and 14 is consistent with the Hanford General Plan Policies L15, L16, and L17.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Annexation No. 163, Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14 and Prezone No. 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13 and 14 were determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Categorical Exemption Class 19 (Annexation of areas containing existing public or private structures developed to the density allowed by the current prezoning) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15319(a), and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). A Notice of Exemption has been prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA – Attachment 5.
Planning Commission:
Noticing of the project was published in the newspaper on November 7, 2024. Notices were mailed to property owners within the annexation territories and to property owners within 300 feet of the annexation territories on November 5, 2024.
One written comment was received in opposition – Tom Buford, Buford Oil – Attachment 3.
City Council:
Noticing of the project was published in the newspaper on January 10, 2025. Notices were mailed to property owners within the annexation territories and to property owners within 300 feet of the annexation territories on January 9, 2025.
No additional comments have been received as of the date of preparation of this report.
ANX 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
PRZ 0001-24 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Certify the Notice of Exemption for the proposed projects, in accordance with CEQA.
2. Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 01-25, approving Prezone No. 0001- 24, Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14.
3. Adopt Resolution 25-02-R, initiating proceedings for Annexation 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14 and direct staff to file the appropriate forms with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Kings County.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move to:
1. Certify the Notice of Exemption for the proposed projects, in accordance with CEQA.
2. Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 01-25, approving Prezone No. 0001- 24, Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14.
3. Adopt Resolution 25-02-R, initiating proceedings for Annexation 163 Parts 9, 12, 13, and 14 and direct staff to file the appropriate forms with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Kings County.
CC Ordinance Prezone 0001-24, Page 1 of 9
ORDINANCE NO. 25-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD PREZONING ANNEXATION 163, PARTS 9, 12, 13, AND 14 CONSISTENT WITH THE 2035 HANFORD
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
The City Council of the City of Hanford does ordain as follows:
Section 1: The following described territory situated in the City of Hanford is hereby prezoned under the terms of Chapter 17.86 of the Hanford Municipal Code:
Annexation 163, Part 9 filed by the City of Hanford
FROM: County zoning C-S Service Commercial, R-1-6 Low-Density Residential, and R1-8 Low-Density Residential TO: City zoning R-L-8 Low-Density Residential, MX-C Corridor Mixed Use, and CR Regional Commercial On property described as follows:
Approximately 113.78 acres generally located on East Lacey Boulevard, South of Southern Pacific Railroad Tracks, as depicted in attached Exhibit A; and Annexation 163, Part 12 filed by the City of Hanford
FROM: County zoning IL Light Industrial and RRA Rural Residential TO: City zoning I-L Light Industrial and R-L-12 Low-Density Residential On property described as follows:
Approximately 60.46 acres generally located west of 10 ½ Avenue, north of Houston Avenue, as depicted in attached Exhibit B; and
Annexation 163, Part 13 filed by the City of Hanford
FROM: County zoning IH Heavy Industrial
TO: City zoning I-H Heavy Industrial
On property described as follows:
Approximately 6.01 acres generally located west of 10th Avenue, between Idaho and Iona Avenues, as depicted in attached Exhibit C; and
Annexation 163, Part 14 filed by the City of Hanford
FROM: County zoning AL-10 Limited Agriculture
TO: City zoning R-L-12 Low-Density Residential
CC Ordinance Prezone 0001-24, Page 2 of 9
On property described as follows:
Approximately 16.9 acres generally located west of 11th Avenue, south of Flint Avenue, as depicted in attached Exhibit D; and
Section 2: The Council does hereby find as a fact that this Ordinance has been recommended for passage by the Planning Commission of the City of Hanford after public hearing before the Planning Commission after notice required by Section 17.70.100 of the Hanford Municipal Code and Government Code Section 65854. The City Council that the Project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Categorical Exemption Class 19 (Annexation of areas containing existing public or private structures developed to the density allowed by the current prezoning) and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The City Council hereby finds that the prezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the zoning regulations as set forth in Section 17.06.010 of the Hanford Municipal Code, and that this Ordinance has been introduced by the City Council after public hearing held on the 21st day of January 2025 at 7:00 p.m. of said day after notice required under the provisions of Section 65856 of the Government Code.
Section 3: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage, and shall be published once in the Hanford Sentinel within fifteen (15) days after its passage, and the zoning will apply to such property in the event of subsequent annexation to the City under the provisions of Section 65859 of the Government Code.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on the ____ day of ________, by the following roll call vote:
ATTEST:
Natalie Corral
APPROVED
_________________________
MAYOR of the City of Hanford
CITY CLERK
CC Ordinance Prezone 0001-24, Page 3 of 9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss
CITY OF HANFORD )
I, NATALIE CORRAL, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing ordinance was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford on the 21st day of January, 2025 and it was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the _______ day of ______________, 2025.
Dated: _____________________ _____________________________ Natalie Corral
City Clerk
CC Ordinance Prezone 0001-24, Page 4 of 9
Exhibit A
Prezone No. 0001-24 Part 9
From: County zoning C-S Service Commercial, R-1-6 Low-Density Residential, and R-1-8 Low-Density Residential
To: City zoning R-L-8 Low-Density Residential, MX-C Corridor Mixed Use, and C-R Regional Commercial
Exhibit B Page 200 of 481
ZUMWALT
HANSENINC.
Company A
POINT OF BEGINNING
N
1
CC Ordinance Prezone 0001-24, Page 5 of 9
Prezone No. 0001-24 Part 12
FROM: County zoning IL Light Industrial and RRA Rural Residential Exhibit B
CC Ordinance Prezone 0001-24, Page 6 of 9
TO: City zoning I-L Light Industrial and R-L-12 Low-Density Residential
1 HANSEN
ZUMWALTINC.
Company A
POINT OF BEGINNING
N
CC Ordinance Prezone 0001-24, Page 7 of 9
Exhibit C
Prezone No. 0001-24 Part 13
FROM: County zoning IH Heavy Industrial
CC Ordinance Prezone 0001-24, Page 8 of 9
TO: City zoning I-H Heavy Industrial
N
POINT OF BEGINNING
1
CC Ordinance Prezone 0001-24, Page 9 of 9
Exhibit D
Prezone No. 0001-24 Part 14
FROM: County zoning AL-10 Limited Agriculture
TO: City zoning R-L-12 Low-Density Residential
1 N
DRAFT
1-10-2025 Page 209 of 481
RESOLUTION NO. 25-02-R
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF HANFORD REQUESTING THE
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION NO. 163, PART 9, 12, 13, and 14: A REQEST TO ANNEX FOUR
SUBSTANTIALLY SURROUNDED COUNTY ISLANDS, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 197.15 ACRES, INTO THE CITY OF HANFORD FROM THE KINGS COUNTY JURISDICTION.
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hanford, that, WHEREAS, the City of Hanford desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-KnoxHertzberg Local Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3, commencing with Section 5600 of the California Government Code, an affected City, as defined therein, may by resolution adopted by its legislative body make a proposal for a change of organization and request initiation of proceedings thereon; and WHEREAS, notice of intent to adopt this resolution of application has been given, and this Council has conducted a public hearing based upon this notification; and WHEREAS, the principal reasons for the proposed annexation are as follows:
1. All four substantially surrounded county islands are within the Primary Sphere of Influence.
2. Most of the annexation area already received some services from the City of Hanford.
3. There is capacity in the City water and sewer systems to add the parcels currently on individual water and sewer systems if those property either desire to hook up or are required to because their systems fail.
4. Inclusion of the islands in the city limits will not negatively affect the Police or Fire Department’s ability to provide their services to the community.
5. There would be no change to school districts because of the island annexations.
6. The proposed annexation of the four county islands is not to accommodate any specific proposed development project. The purpose of the proposed annexations is to further good local government and make available the full range of City services to both developed and undeveloped county island areas.
7. All four islands are substantially surrounded by developed areas within the city limits of Hanford.
8. Because of their proximity inside the city limits, the provision of service within the substantially surrounded county islands can be more efficiently provided by the City.
9. The prezoning is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and the Municipal Code.
10. The prezoning would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.
11. The prezoning would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City. Annexation would not change most land uses since most parcels are already developed.
12. The anticipated land uses on the subject site would be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses, except where uses are deemed legally existing non-conforming.
13. The four county islands are mostly developed and are substantially surrounded by urban development. City services are available to each of the island areas.
14. State law encourages the annexation of county islands to further the goal of effective and efficient provision of local government services.
15. Based on the above findings, Annexation No. 163, Parts 9, 12, 13 and 14 is consistent with the Hanford General Plan Policies L15, L16, and L17.
WHEREAS, the following agency would be affected by the proposed jurisdictional changes:
Agency Nature of Change
City of Hanford Annexation
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is inhabited, and a map and description of the boundaries of the territory are attached hereto as:
Annexation 163, Part 9: Exhibit A (annexation map) and (legal description) Annexation 163, Part 12: Exhibit B (annexation map) and (legal description) Annexation 163, Part 13: Exhibit C (annexation map) and (legal description) Annexation 163, Part 14: Exhibit D (annexation map) and (legal description) and by this reference incorporated herein, and,
WHEREAS, the proposal is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Hanford; and WHEREAS, it is desired to provide that the proposed annexation be subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. That the annexation areas be prezoned as follows:
a. Annexation 163, Part 9: R-L-8 Low-Density Residential (8,000 square foot minimum lot size), MX-C Corridor Mixed Use, and C-R Regional Commercial
b. Annexation 163, Part 12: I-L Light Industrial and R-L-12 Low-Density Residential (12,000 square foot minimum lot area)
c. Annexation 163, Part 13: I-H Heavy Industrial
d. Annexation 163, Part 14: R-L-12 Low-Density Residential (12,000 square foot minimum lot area)
WHEREAS, this proposal will be consistent with the spheres of influence for all agencies which would be affected by the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the Project was Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Categorical Exemption Class 19 (Annexation of areas containing existing public or private structures developed to the density allowed by the current prezoning) and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of Hanford and the Local Agency Formation Commission of Kings County is hereby requested to take proceedings of the annexation of territory as authorized in the manner provided by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the 21st day of January 2025, by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member ________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
NOES: Council Member ________________________
ABSTAIN: Council Member ________________________
ABSENT: Council Member ________________________
__________________________________________
MAYOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF KINGS )
CITY OF HANFORD ) SS
I, Natalie Corral, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hanford at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of January, 2025.
Dated: ______________________
__________________________________
City Clerk
Exhibit A: Annexation 163, Part 9
ZUMWALT
HANSENINC.
A Company
POINT OF BEGINNING
N
1
ANNEXATION NO. XXX
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF HANFORD
GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
A portion of Sections 29, 30 and 32 in Township 18 South, Range 22 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, State of California, County of Kings, further described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner, of the Southeast Quarter, of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 30, being a point on the existing boundary of the City of Hanford; Thence along the existing boundary of the City of Hanford the following courses:
1. North 00°01’57” West, along the West line of said Southeast Quarter, of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 225.95 feet to a point on the Southern Pacific Railroad Right of Way; being 50.90 feet northerly from the center of said Right of Way;
2. North 79°13’22” East, along last said Right of Way, a distance of 295.19 feet to the intersection of the Southerly prolongation of the Easterly line of a parcel described in a deed recorded as document # 1415457 in Official Documents, on October 23, 2014, in the Office of the Kings County Recorder , also being an angle point in the existing City boundary of the City of Hanford;
Thence leaving the existing boundary of the City of Hanford the following courses:
3. South 00°01’57” East, parallel with said West line of said Southeast Quarter, of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 50.90 feet to a point in the center of said Southern Pacific Railroad Right of Way;
4. North 79°13’22” East, along last said center of Right of Way, a distance of 4,655.07 feet to a point on the Northerly prolongation of the West line of Parcel 1, as shown on a map recorded in Book 6 at Page 58 of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the Kings County Recorder, also being a point on the existing boundary of the City of Hanford; Thence along the existing boundary of the City of Hanford the following courses:
5. South 00°03’14” West, along said West line of said Parcel 1, a distance of 1,105.30 feet to a point on the South line, of the Southeast Quarter, of said Section 29;
6. South 89°59’07” West, along last said South line of Section 29, a distance of 899.24 feet to the Southwest corner of last said Southeast Quarter, of Section 29, also being the Northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter, of said Section 32, also being the Northeast corner of El Rancho Park, Tract 117 recorded in Book 4 at Page 100 of Licensed Surveyors’ Plats in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;
7. South 00°04’17” West, along the East line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32, also being the East line of last said Tract 117 and the East line of El Ranch Park , Unit #2 and the East line of a parcel described in a deed recorded as document # 0513079 in Official Records on April 27, 2005 in the Office of the Kings County Recorder, a distance of 1100.00 feet to the Southeast corner of last said deed;
8. South 89°59’34” West along the South line of last said deed, and the South line of El Rancho Park Unit #3 as shown on a map recorded in Book 5 at Page 58 of Licensed Surveyors’ Plats, and El Rancho Unit #4 as shown on a map recorded in Book 6 at Page 64 of Licensed Surveyors’ Plats, a distance of 1,983.98 feet to the Southwest corner of said El Rancho Unit #4, also being a point on the West line of East half, of the Northwest Quarter, of the Northwest Quarter, of said Section 32;
9. North 00°06’00” West, along last said West line, a distance of 260.00 feet to the Northwest corner of last said El Rancho Unit #4;
10. North 89°59’34” East, along the North line of last said El Rancho Unit #4, a distance of 430.00 feet to Southwest corner of lot #12, as shown on a map of El Rancho Park Unit #3 recorded in Book 5 at Page 56 of Licensed Surveyors” Plats in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;
11. North 00°06’00” West, along the West line of last said El Rancho Park Unit #3, and the West line of said Tract 117, a distance of 840.10 feet to a point on the North line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 32, also being the South line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 29;
12. South 89°59’34” West, along the last said South line, a distance of 1091.62 feet to the Southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of Section 29, also being the Southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter, of the Southeast Quarter, of said Section 30;
13. Thence North 89°51’01” West along the South line of last said Southeast Quarter of Section 30, a distance of 1,316.52 feet to the Point of Beginning; Containing 113.78 Acres more or less.
Exhibit B: Annexation 163, Part 12
1 ZUMWALT
HANSENINC.
A Company
POINT OF BEGINNING
N
,ANNEXATION NO. XXX
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF HANFORD
GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
A portion of Section 1 in Township 19 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, according to approved Government Township plats thereof, State of California, County of Kings, further described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner, of the Southwest Quarter, of said Section 1, being a point on the existing boundary of the City of Hanford;
Thence along the existing boundary of the City of Hanford the following courses:
1. South 88°07’17” West, along the South line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 400.34 feet to an angle point in said boundary of the city of Hanford, also being the westerly line of the BN & SF Railroad Right-of-Way;
2. North 08°12’21” West, along last said Right-of-Way, a distance of 3,990.29 feet to an angle point in said city boundary, also being the center line of Thompsen Drive as shown on a map recorded in Book 2, at Page 5 of Licensed Surveyors’ Plats in the Office of the Kings County Recorder;
3. North 87°59’21” East, along said centerline, a distance of 933.77 feet to an angle point in the existing boundary of the City of Hanford, also being a point on the East line, of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 1;
4. South 00°14’53” East, along last said East line, a distance of 1320.19 feet to the Center of Section 1 also being the Northeast Corner of said Southwest Quarter;
5. South 00°39’54” East, along the East line of last said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1,324.54 feet to the Southwest Corner of the Northeast Quarter, of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 1;
Thence leaving said boundary of city of Hanford along the following course:
6. South 00°39’54” East, along last said East line of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1,324.54 feet to the Point of Beginning;
Containing 60.46 acres more or less.
Exhibit C: Annexation 163, Part 13
N
POINT OF BEGINNING
1
ANNEXATION NO. XXX
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF HANFORD
GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
A portion of the Northeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 19 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, according to approved Government Township Plats thereof, State of California, County of Kings, further described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of the North half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 13, being a point on the existing boundary of the City of Hanford, also being the Northeast corner of the South half of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; Thence leaving the existing boundary of the City of Hanford the following course:
1. South 01°24’32” West, along the East line of said South half of the Southeast Quarter, of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 681.66 feet to the Southeast corner of said South half, also being a point on the existing city limits of the City of Hanford; Thence along the existing boundary of the City of Hanford the following courses:
2. North 89°53’48” West, along the South line of said South half, a distance of 466.43 feet;
3. North 00°52’55” East, a distance of 681.44 feet to the North line of said South half;
4. South 89°54’38” East, along last said North line, a distance of 472.70 feet to the Point of Beginning;
Containing 7.35 Acres more or less.
DRAFT
1-10-2025 Page 223 of 481
Exhibit D: Annexation 163, Part 14
1 N
DRAFT
1-10-2025 Page 225 of 481
ANNEXATION NO. XXX
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF HANFORD
GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
A portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 18 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, according to approved Government Township Plats thereof, State of California, County of Kings, further described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 14, being a point on the existing boundary of the City of Hanford; Thence along the existing boundary of the City of Hanford the following courses:
1. South 00°09’16” West, along the East line of said Northeast Quarter, of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 874.40 feet;
2. North 89°57’19” West, a distance of 783.21 feet to the West right way line of the Peoples Ditch recorded in 1985, in book 8 of Parcel Maps, at Page 52, of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter;
Thence along said West right of way line of Peoples Ditch and the existing city limits of the City of Hanford the Following courses:
3. North 20°45’11” East, a distance of 137.85 feet;
4. North 02°57’32” East, a distance of 110.46 feet;
5. North 14°28’53” West, a distance of 148.18 feet;
6. North 43°22’13” West, a distance of 156.14 feet;
7. North 62°49’02” West, a distance of 299.12 feet;
8. North 46°05’40” West, a distance of 116.43 feet;
9. North 27°16’49” West, a distance of 171.67 feet, to the north line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 14;
Thence leaving the existing boundary of the City of Hanford the following course:
10. North 89°39’54” East, along the North line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 1303.97 feet to the Point of Beginning Containing 18.60 Acres, more or less.
DRAFT
BUFORD OIL COMPANY
9925 8-3/4 Ave – P O Box 104
Hanford, CA 93232
To: Gabrielle Myers November 20, 2024
Senior Planner
City of Hanford
Re: Public Hearing November 21, 2024
Gabrielle,
As you and I discussed on the phone on Thursday November 14, we have significant concerns regarding the rezoning of the property on which our business is located. I have done additional research and the concerns that I brought up in our phone call still present issues for us. As you pointed out in your email dated October 15, 2024, our business is involved in Fuel Distributing and would not be in compliance with the proposed zone changes.
First, I would like to point out that Buford Oil Company has been in business in Hanford since the 1930’s. While I am not certain of the date we moved to our current location, it is safe to say that we have been at this site for 70+ years. Throughout our history, we have been a huge community supporter and Marcie Buford, our majority owner, served on the Hanford Elementary School Board and for many years on the Hanford City Council. Buford Oil Company employs about 25 individuals, pays property and sales taxes locally, and supports many local charities and community service organizations.
We are concerned that by changing our zoning to MX-C Corridor Mixed Use, the city will be impairing our ability to operate in the future. I have reviewed Section 17.90 Non-Conforming Uses, Structures and Lots of the Hanford city code. The code states that we would be unable to expand our business by more than 10% of our current footprint, and expanding our business footprint by up to 10% is only allowed by conditional use permit. This CUP is only available to us one time. We also would be unable to rebuild on our site, if there were to be a loss of greater than 75% of our buildings. At some point in the future, Buford Oil Company may be sold to a new owner. On our phone call, I stated my concern that a buyer would not be able to secure bank financing for such a purchase, in that banks will not finance a business purchase when such a business is in a location that is a legally existing but non-conforming use. I was able to confirm with an associate that most banks will not finance such a purchase, as they view business purchases to already have a certain risk associated with them. Adding that this business would be operating as a non-conforming use is generally a deal-breaker for them. This same concern exists for trying to sell the real estate, and changing the property zoning to MX-C will essentially significantly de-value the land.
We propose that since our land does not front onto Lacey Blvd but sits at the corner of 8¾ Ave and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, and that our building is about 300 feet from
Lacey Blvd, that our property be zoned in a way that allows our business to continue operation in a permitted and conforming use zone. You mentioned during our phone conversation that the city does not like to “spot” zone. There are other properties to our east and west that may also be adversely impacted by the proposed changes and they could be included in this alteration to the current plan. This proposal would still allow the Lacey corridor to fully comply with the stated goal of having consistent usage and appearance, especially considering that we’re so far back from Lacey Blvd. If the appearance of our building is of concern, perhaps we could negotiate something.
Our discussion on the phone today, November 20, was informative and thank you.
However, I would like to say that while Buford Oil Company would prefer to stay in the county rather than be annexed into the city, more important to us is the re-zoning issue. Had we known back when LAFCO, the city and the county were creating the agreement that required the annexation would now lead to this re-zoning, we would have protested then. When Hanford created their General Plan 2035 update, we would have protested then had we known that our property was to be re-zoned resulting in our non-conforming use. To me, this is indicative of the fact that a business cannot rely on what current plans, ordinances and zoning may exist for long term planning, as they are entirely too easy to change. This results in a challenging business environment. As if business isn’t enough of a challenge already.
I would also like to take issue with the notion that by carving out our (and potentially neighboring) property, the city would be creating an island. While the city agreement with LAFCO may agree that an island is only surrounded on 60% of its borders, a true island is surrounded on all sides. I am aware of the unfortunate finding by the California Attorney General that Government Code section 56375.3 Official Report 10-902 published June 1, 2012, which I am sure led to the LAFCO, city, county annexation agreement. The “island’ that we now find ourselves in was created by previous city annexation. Thus, we would have protested at those annexation hearings, had we known then what we know now.
I would also like to point out that any future business improvement or possible sale of our business that could not be approved at our current location would very likely have us looking at a location closer to the fuel pickup point that we most commonly use, which is in Fresno. This would result in lower transportation costs for us but it would be sad for Hanford to lose yet another long time locally owned business.
I would appreciate if you could include these comments in the public hearing.
Unfortunately, neither I nor my brother John (current President of Buford Oil Company) is able to attend the November 21, 2024 meeting. We both have prior out of town commitments.
However, please keep us informed as to the progress of this issue and future hearings as they are scheduled.
Sincerely,
Tom Buford
Project Manager
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | 317 N. DOUTY ST. HANFORD, CA 93230 559.585.2500 | WWW.HANFORD.CITY
October 7, 2024
To: Property Owners within Substantially Surrounded Islands Re: Effect of Annexation on County Islands
This letter serves as notice that the City of Hanford is proposing to initiate the annexation of substantially surrounded county-islands, in accordance with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act) and the State of California’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) guidelines.
There are six substantially surrounded County islands within the bounds of the City of Hanford city limits. The City and County have agreed that it is in both parties’ best interest to annex these islands to reduce inefficiencies and deficiencies of services provided.
Prior to initiation of the annexation of the County islands, the City of Hanford wishes to inform property owners within the County islands of the effect of annexation into the City limits. This letter provides answers to some of the most frequently asked questions associated with annexation. Please review the information below.
Should you have any questions not addressed by this letter, or wish to discuss further, please contact the staffmember associated with the topic you wish to discuss.
Any remaining questions will be addressed during an open-forum community meeting, which will be held on October 23, 2024 from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the Training Room of City Hall, 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA 93230.
PUBLIC COMMENT: All interested parties are invited to attend the meeting and/or send written comments to Natalie Corral, City Clerk, City of Hanford, 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford CA 93230; [email protected] To ensure comments will be considered, all comments are requested to be submitted to the City by 12:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.
Frequently Asked Questions:
1. What is annexation?
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 governs annexation of unincorporated areas to a City. Annexation is a reorganization that changes the governmental authority from one jurisdiction (the County) to another (the City). The Kings County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) reviews and approves annexation requests. For more information regarding LAFCO, please visit the website at http://www.kingslafco.com/
2. What is an island?
An unincorporated “island” is a relatively small pocket of land currently served by the Kings County, but substantially surrounded by the City of Hanford. Generally, in accordance with Section 56375.3 of the Government Code, LAFCO characterizes an “island” as follows:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | 317 N. DOUTY ST. HANFORD, CA 93230 559.585.2500 | WWW.HANFORD.CITY
a. the land is substantially surrounded by a city, is substantially developed or developing, is not prime agricultural land, is designated for urban growth in the city’s general plan, and is not within the Sphere of Influence of another city, and
b. the land is located within an urban service area designated by the LAFCO, is not prime agricultural land, and is designated for urban growth in the city’s general plan, and c. the land area does not exceed 150 acres.
Although islands are completely or substantially surrounded by a city, they remain under the land use and service authority of the County. The State Legislature determined that the continued existence of these islands created problems for cities, counties, island residents, adjacent city residents, and various agencies and special districts responsible for providing services and facilities. Consequently, the State modified the procedures to encourage cities to undertake island annexations by limiting the due process otherwise afforded other types of annexations.
3. What is the streamlined process for island annexation? In 1999, the California Legislature adopted AB 1555 (codified in Government Code Section 56375.3) that encouraged cities to annex small unincorporated islands. The law allows cities to annex islands without protest proceedings or elections, provided the island meets special criteria. By law, LAFCO must approve an annexation request submitted by a city if all the criteria mentioned in Question #2 above are satisfied.
All islands proposed to be annexed by the City of Hanford satisfy the specified criteria; therefore, protest proceedings are not required.
Finance Department
Contact Finance, Utility Billing via phone (559)585-2510 or email, [email protected], regarding the information below:
1. Will my utility bills increase?
The cost to residents for City utilities will be as follows (based on utility rates effective July 1, 2024):
Rates as of July 1, 2024 @ 11 Units of Water
Water Service 19.85
Water Consumption 24.64
Sewer Service 27.63
Storm Drain Service 5.04
Trash Service 29.99
Total 107.15
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | 317 N. DOUTY ST. HANFORD, CA 93230 559.585.2500 | WWW.HANFORD.CITY
2. Will my property taxes increase?
No change will occur. All properties are taxed at the same rates whether annexed to the City or not (approximately one percent of assessed value). That is, City and County property owners pay the same tax rates. Thus, property tax assessments will not be affected by annexation. However, if the property is resold, or if new improvements to the property are constructed, the assessed value of the property will most likely increase. This increase, however, has nothing to do with a property being in the City or the County.
Public Works Department
Contact the Public Works Department via phone (559)585-2550 or email, [email protected], regarding the information below:
1. Must I hook up to the City's sewer system if I already have a septic system? Not at this time. Neither the County nor the City can require you to have sewer service if you are using a properly operating septic system. However, if your septic system violates State and/or local health and building codes, both County and City ordinances require most homeowners to connect to a sewer system if one is available within 200 feet of the property.
2. Can I replace my septic tank or do substantial work on the leach field once I am in the City? The city will issue permits for new septic tank work or substantial work on the leach field only if the sewer line is not within 200 feet of your property line. Minor work on the leach field is allowed.
3. Can I keep my existing well and continue to use it after annexation to the City? Yes. Existing wells can be retained after annexation. The City encourages property owners to hook up the house to city water, but the existing well can be retained long term for watering the property as long as a backflow device is installed on your domestic water service.
4. Is there a time in which I must connect the house to city water? No. You will only be required to connect to city water when major work on the well is needed. Minor work, such as cleaning or pump replacement, will not require connection.
5. If I already have City water and sewer service, will my water and sewer bills go up after annexation? No; however, the City will begin street sweeping the annexed areas and that charge will now appear on your bill.
6. What about curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, storm drains, or streetlights? There is no requirement that curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, storm drains, or streetlights be installed as part of the annexation. The City may require a developer to make off-site improvements, which may include
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | 317 N. DOUTY ST. HANFORD, CA 93230 559.585.2500 | WWW.HANFORD.CITY
improvements along the frontage of individual properties. If a property owner undertakes substantial building remodeling or new building construction on an individual lot basis after annexation, then curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees and streetlights must be constructed along the frontage of property. If desired by a neighborhood, a special district could be established to install these items at the cost of the property owners within the newly established district.
7. I now have trash service from a private contractor, can I keep my existing service and for how long? You would have 12 months after annexation before you are required to sign up for City trash service. Currently, the city trash service for solid waste, and recycling and green waste is $25.76 per month (fees subject to change). The City also provides a spring clean-up for a free pickup truck load to the dump. This service is included in the normal service fees.
Fire Department
Contact the Fire Department via phone (559)585-2545 or email, [email protected], regarding the information below:
1. Who will be responsible for Fire protection?
Fire protection service will be provided by the City Fire Department upon annexation.
Police Department
Contact the Police Department, via phone (559)585-4540 or email, [email protected] , regarding the information below:
1. Who will be responsible for Police protection?
Police protection service will be provided by the City Police Department.
Kings County Elections Office
Contact the Kings County Elections Office via phone (559)852-4401 or email, [email protected], regarding the information below:
1. What changes will annexation have on elections?
The Kings County Elections Department conducts Federal, State, School, County, City and Special District elections. After annexation, residents of the areas affected would become citizens of the City, entitled to vote in City elections, and eligible to hold City elective and appointive positions.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | 317 N. DOUTY ST. HANFORD, CA 93230 559.585.2500 | WWW.HANFORD.CITY
Community Development Department – Planning Division
Contact Senior Planner, Gabrielle Myers, via phone (559)585-2578 or email, [email protected], regarding the information below:
1. What effects will annexation have on zoning?
The county islands will be pre-zoned, based on the General Plan Designation for the area.
The ordinance can be viewed at this address: http://qcode.us/codes/hanford/ Island
#
General Location General Plan Designation Pre-Zoning
9 East Lacey Boulevard, South of
Southern Pacific Railroad
Tracks
Corridor Mixed Use MX-C Corridor Mixed Use
Low-Density Residential R-L-8 Low-Density Residential
Regional Commercial C-R Regional Commercial
12 West of 10 ½ Avenue, North of
Houston Avenue
Low-Density Residential R-L-5 Low-Density Residential
Light Industrial I-L Light Industrial
13 West of 10th Avenue, between
Idaho and Iona Avenues
Heavy Industrial I-H Heavy Industrial
14 South of Flint Avenue, West of
11th Avenue
Low-Density Residential R-L-12 Low-Density
Residential
County Island #9
General Plan Designation: Combination of Corridor Mixed Use, Low-Density Residential, and Regional Commercial
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | 317 N. DOUTY ST. HANFORD, CA 93230 559.585.2500 | WWW.HANFORD.CITY
Pre-Zone: MX-C Corridor Mixed Use, R-L-8 Low Density Residential (8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size), and C-R Regional Commercial
County Island #12
General Plan Designation: Combination of Light Industrial and Low-Density Residential
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | 317 N. DOUTY ST. HANFORD, CA 93230 559.585.2500 | WWW.HANFORD.CITY
Pre-Zone: I-L Light Industrial and R-L-12 Low-Density Residential County Island #13
General Plan Designation: Heavy Industrial
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | 317 N. DOUTY ST. HANFORD, CA 93230 559.585.2500 | WWW.HANFORD.CITY
Pre-Zone: I-H Heavy Industrial
Island #14
General Plan Designation: Low-Density Residential
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | 317 N. DOUTY ST. HANFORD, CA 93230 559.585.2500 | WWW.HANFORD.CITY
Pre-Zone: R-L-12 Low-Density Residential (12,00 sq. ft. minimum lot size)
2. What effects will annexation have on the uses allowed? If a use is allowed in the County, but not allowed in the City, what happens?
A use shall be deemed nonconforming if it was lawfully commenced while under the jurisdiction of Kings County, but which, after annexation of the site into the City, does not conform to the use regulations of the City
For example: If you are legally operating (have a valid business license and all required permits for operation/structures) a vehicle repair shop in Kings County, currently, but upon annexation the use is not allowed in the City’s zone district, you may still operate. However, if you discontinue the use for a period of six months or more, the non-conforming use shall not be able to reestablish. A nonconforming use may be expanded by up to 10% of its exiting floor area if a conditional use permit is granted. The expansion of a nonconforming use or structure may be allowed only one time per use.
3. What is the permitting process like in the City?
The permitting and entitlement process is a similar process and requirements as Kings County.
4. I have various animals in the County, can I keep them in the City?
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | 317 N. DOUTY ST. HANFORD, CA 93230 559.585.2500 | WWW.HANFORD.CITY
An animal raising use that is nonconforming due to annexation or adoption or amendment to this title shall be allowed to continue, provided that the intensity of the animal raising use (i.e., type and number of animals) shall not change or increase. The provisions for abandonment or discontinuance shall not apply.
Please note that you are limited to the allowances approved by Kings County.
Community Development Department – Building and Code Enforcement Contact Building Official, Tom Webb, via phone (559)585-2584 or email, [email protected] regarding the information below:
1. Does the City of Hanford have Code Enforcement?
Yes, the City of Hanford does have Code Enforcement officers and will enforce the City ordinances upon annexation on a complaint-basis. Code enforcement issues include, but are not limited to:
a. Abandoned vehicles
b. Junk and debris
c. Property maintenance
d. Building without permits
2. Will my address be changed?
It depends, if you currently do not have a City-style address, you will be reassigned one; City-style addressing is typically four numbers verses County-style, which is five. a. The City will notify you and the post-office of the change Community Development Department – Housing Division
Contact Housing Analyst, Sandra Lerma-Martinez, via phone (559)585-4766 or email, [email protected], regarding the information below:
1. Upon annexation, homeowners will now be eligible to apply for City assistance programs (formerly, while being located outside of city limits, owners were not eligible for these programs).
Should you have any questions not addressed by this letter, or wish to discuss further, please contact the staffmember associated with the topic you wish to discuss. Thank you! Sincerely,
Jason Waters
Deputy City Manager
319 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
(559)585-2590
[email protected]
Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
_______________________________________________
Print Form
Notice of Exemption Appendix E
To: Office of Planning and Research From: (Public Agency): ____________________________ P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 _______________________________________________ Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 County Clerk
(Address)
___________________________
___________________________
County of: __________________
Project Title: ____________________________________________________________________________ Project Applicant: ________________________________________________________________________ Project Location - Specific:
Project Location - City: ______________________ Project Location - County:
Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project:
_____________________
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: _____________________________________________________ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: ________________________________________________ Exempt Status: (check one):
Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
Reasons why project is exempt:
Lead Agency
Contact Person: ____________________________ Area Code/Telephone/Extension: _______________ If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No Signature: ____________________________ Date:
Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code. Date Received for filing at OPR:
Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code. _______________
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: ____________________________________ ______________________________________________
______________ Title: _______________________
Revised 2011
www.qkinc.com
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Four Islands Annexations
The City of Hanford (City) is proposing the annexation of four, non-contiguous areas that are identified as county islands (Project). County islands are made up of unincorporated parcels that are substantially surrounded by a municipality or where the unincorporate area has borders that involve a combination of a municipality or municipalities. Kings Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) policy encourages annexation proposals that eliminate or reduce in size any county islands, near islands, peninsulas, or other distortions of existing City and District boundaries.
The Project is comprised of four non-contiguous annexation sites adjacent to the City’s jurisdictional boundaries. To clearly describe the total Project, the sites will be referenced as Annexation No. 9, No. 12, No. 13, and No. 14.
The proposed annexations are as follows:
• Annexation No. 9 consisting of 113.78 acres generally located on both sides of Lacey Boulevard between 9 ¼ Avenue and 8 ¾ Avenue (Figure 1). This annexation area is primarily developed with Single Family Residenices with scattered commercial uses. • Annexation No. 12 consisting of 60.46 acres generally located on the west side of 10 ½ Avenue between Thompson Drive and Houston Avenue (Figure 2). This annexation area consists of mostly larger rural residential lots.
• Annexation No. 13 consisting of 20.47 acres generally located on the west side of 10th Avenue approximately 3/8 mile south of Iona Avenue (Figure 3). This annexation area primarily consists of a few rural residential lots.
• Annexation No. 14 consisting of 16 acres generally located on the west side of 11th Avenue and south of Flint Avenue (Figure 4). This annexation area primarily consists of large lot single-family parcels.
EXEMPTIONS:
• 15061(b.3) – Common Sense Exemption: the activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. • Class 5 15305: Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations: consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result in any changes in land use or density.
• Class 4 15319 (a): Annexations of Existing Facilities and Lots for Exempt Facilities: consist of annexations to a city or special district of areas containing existing public or private structures developed to the density allowed by the current zoning or pre-zoning of either the gaining or losing governmental agency whichever is more restrictive, provided, however, that the extension of utility services to the existing facilities would have a capacity to serve only the existing facilities.
MEMO PAGE 2 OF 6
www.qkinc.com
REASONS WHY PROJECT IS EXEMPT
The aforementioned Project proposes four annexations varying in size and location. At this time, annexations and prezoning are the only requested entitlements. No other land uses or development projects have been proposed.
All annexation areas will be Prezoned consistent to the existing General Plan land use designation. The existing uses will be allowed to operate within the City limits. The city wishes to initiate annexations in an effort to reduce the number of county islands/peninsulas found within the City limits. The continued existence of these occurrences increases the difficulty for the City to adequately provide all municipal services to the neighboring parcels due to the inconsistent nature of the City’s jurisdictional boundary. In addition, some of these annexation areas are already receiving some of the City’s municipal services, however, the City is not collecting any property tax to offset the cost of providing services.
CEQA Guidelines allow exemptions to streamline the environmental review process and play a key role in project planning and development. These exemptions acknowledge that environmental impacts for some types of projects are known to be less-than-significant, will not increase land use density beyond what is allowed, and the public would benefit from having them expeditiously implemented. The proposed annexations would promote orderly development and would provide standardized services to those who live in or would move into the annexed areas.
CONCLUSION
Approval of the proposed annexations does not give away authority to develop the land encompassed Annexation No. 9, 12, 13, and 14 areas. Any future development proposals would be subject to subsequent development-related entitlement review processed through the City, which will require its own consideration as a “project” under the CEQA Guidelines, and possible environmental analysis. The annexations and the establishment of the zone districts by Prezoning will not impact the physical environment. The Project is consistent with current General Plan land uses and are not anticipated to be altered. Therefore, the Project is not expected to have a significant environmental impact and the exemption under CEQA is warranted.
www.qkinc.com
Figure 1
Annexation No. 9
MEMO PAGE 4 OF 6
www.qkinc.com
Figure 2
Annexation No. 12
MEMO PAGE 5 OF 6
www.qkinc.com
Figure 3
Annexation No. 13
MEMO PAGE 6 OF 6
www.qkinc.com
Figure 4
Annexation No. 14
16.A.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/21/2025 AGENDA SECTION: Successor Agency for the discussion of the following
SUBJECT:
Review And Approval Of the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 25-26) For The Period July 1, 2025 To June 30, 2026, as required by AB 1484 and amendments under SB 107 of Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Successor Agencies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation:
That the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Successor Agency review and approve the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 25-26) for the period July 1, 2025 To June 30, 2026.
Recommended Motion:
That the RDA Successor Agency, by motion, approve the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 25-26) for the period July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026.
BACKGROUND:
AB 1484 and amendments under SB 107 require Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Successor Agencies to prepare a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) annually and submit the ROPS to the State Department of Finance (DOF). The ROPS 25-26 is a list of obligations or payments that are, or may be, due within the twelve-month period. The attached ROPS is for the period of July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026. Once all obligations are paid in full, the Agency can file a dissolving statement with the DOF and future ROPS statements will no longer need to be filed.
Approval of the City of Hanford’s ROPS 25-26 by the Kings County Oversight Board will take place at the January 22, 2025 meeting. This approval is necessary in order to submit the ROPS to the State Department of Finance (DOF) by the February 1, 2025 deadline.
The Agency owes Kings Economic Development Corporation (EDC) principal on a loan for purchase of land in the Kings Industrial Park plus appreciated value. The EDC will also be entitled to a portion of the “appreciation” in accordance with the terms of its Promissory Note. As instructed by the DOF, since the amount of appreciation will not be realized until the date of sale, the Agency shall report the outstanding debt as $0.
The subject land was in a long pending lawsuit which was settled with final City Council approval at a Special Meeting held on January 31, 2023. While the lawsuit did not legally prevent other potential
buyers from purchasing the land, it did have discouraging effects. Interested parties indicated a desire to continue negotiations once all legal matters were resolved. Since the settlement of the lawsuit, the City has been actively looking to sell this last remaining parcel.
Staff is requesting the (City Council serving as) RDA Successor Agency Board approve the ROPS 25-26 for the period July 1, 2025 - June 30, 2026.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This report is for informational purposes only to the State. There is no financial impact until sale of the final parcel of land occurs.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. ROPS 25-26 Summary
18.A.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/21/2025 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS SUBJECT:
Adoption of Resolution 25-01-R establishing a Measure H Oversight Board as required by Ordinance 2024-10 and consistent with the voter-approved Sales and Use Tax Accountability Measures.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation: That that City Council, by motion, adopt the Resolution 25-01-R establishing the Measure H Oversight Board in accordance with Ordinance 2024-10, The City of Hanford Sales and Use Tax Accountability Measures.
Recommended Motion: I move to adopt Resolution 25-01-R establishing the Measure H Oversight Board as required by Ordinance 2024-10, The City of Hanford Sales and Use Tax Accountability Measures.
BACKGROUND:
On November 5, 2024, the voters of the City of Hanford approved Ordinance 2024-10, which introduced The City of Hanford Sales and Use Tax Accountability Measures. The ordinance requires the establishment of a citizens oversight board by resolution, referred to as the Measure H Oversight Board, to ensure transparency and accountability in the expenditure of Measure H tax revenues.
At the December 17, 2024 council meeting, City Council discussed various aspects of the formation of a Measure H Oversight Board. The following outlines the consensus of the council from that meeting and is presented in the accompanying resolution for approval. The Board shall serve as a formal city council commissioned committee, including having public meeting notifications, following Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, and adherence to the Brown Act. In accordance with the municipal code, no individual may serve on more than one commission at any one time.
Measure H Oversight Board Outline
Section 1. [Number of board members] The board shall be comprised of nine (9) members appointed at-large through an application process and interview with City Council.
Section 2. [Length of term] The length of term of the members shall vary as outlined in Section 3 and 4 to provide continuity in members as terms end.
Section 3. Five (5) members of the Board shall serve an initial three (3) year term.
Section 4. Four (4) members of the Board shall serve an initial two (2) year term.
Section 5. [Reappointment and term limits] A Board member may be reappointed so that he/she serves up to two (2) consecutive terms. No individual having served two (2) consecutive terms may be reappointed to the Board for at least one (1) year from the last date served.
Section 6. [Initial appointments] For initial Board members who are appointed mid-year, their initial term shall be deemed to have started on January 1 of the following calendar year.
Section 7. [Regular appointments] At the first council meeting in January (or at the earliest possible meeting), the Council shall endeavor to fill vacancies caused by the regular expiration of Board members’ terms. Upon expiration of a member’s term, the member shall, however, continue to serve until his or her replacement is appointed.
Section 8. [Midterm appointments] The Council shall endeavor as soon as possible to fill midterm vacancies caused by any reason. A member appointed to fill a midterm vacancy shall serve the remainder of the seat’s pending term, and the partial term shall not count as a full term for purposes of term limitations. At the end of the seat’s term, the member shall be eligible for regular appointment to serve two (2) full consecutive terms, subject to provisions above.
This resolution formally establishes The Measure H Oversight Board, detailing the board's composition, term limits, and responsibilities, including providing recommendations to the City Council on expenditure plans and reviewing annual audits. The application window was opened earlier in January 2025 and will remain open until mid February 2025 (for a minimum of 30 days) and will be presented to City Council at its regular February 18, 2025 meeting. City Council will be able to review, interview and select at this meeting.
In March 2025, the board will be able to formally meet and conduct business needed for Measure H oversight. This will allow for timely budget adoption of Measure H funding along the City's regular budget process, anticipated by early June 2025. Measure H funds will begin to be collected April 1, 2025, received by June 2025 and expenditures to be approved for use starting July 1, 2025.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of this resolution. The Measure H Oversight Board members will serve without compensation. Administrative support for the board will be provided by existing City staff and cost of materials and supplies for board meetings should be minimal.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
18.B.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/21/2025 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS SUBJECT:
Authorization to reimburse Presidio JJR Bella Vista II 150, LLC and Presidio FFO Bonterra II 160, LLC in the amount of $284,014.51 for Tract 938, Unit 3 additional right of way, street improvements, and water main oversizing in Fargo Avenue and Sangiovese Street, including a credit for uninstalled Sanitary Sewer mains and City Surveyor review of the final map; AND approve an appropriation of $343,655.61 to fulfill the reimbursements from Water Impact Fees and Transportation Impact Fees, and credits to Wastewater Impact Fees and Engineering Special Services account.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council, by motion:
1. Authorize a reimbursement to Presidio JJR Bella Vista II 150, LLC and Presidio FFO Bonterra II 160, LLC in the amount of $284,014.51 for street improvements and water main oversizing in Fargo Avenue and Sangiovese Street including a credit for sewer impact fees and final map review for Tract 928, Unit 3.
2. Approve an appropriation of $175,232.30 from the Water Impact Fees and $168,423.31 from the Transportation Impact Fees funds to fulfill the reimbursement and credit fees for Sewer impact fees and Surveyor review.
BACKGROUND:
Tract No. 928, Unit No. 3 is an 88 lots single family development that is located at the southeast corner of Fargo Avenue and Centennial Drive, as shown on the attached Final Map. (Attachment 1) This Unit 3 is part of the Tract 928 development, which contains 283 single family residential lots as shown on the attached Tentative Map for Tract 928. (Attachment 2) On December 1, 2020, the City Council approved the attached Resolution 20-33-R for Vesting Tentative Tract 928 as filed by Cal Clark Farms and developed by Presidio JJR Sterling Oaks 104, LLC. (Attachment 3).
On June 21, 2022, the Subdivision Agreement for Tract 928, Unit No. 3 was approved (Attachment 4). The agreement states that reimbursements for improvements must be made in writing prior to the Council approval of the Notice of Completion. The Notice of Completion was approved by City Council on December 19, 2023. (Attachment 5). A written request for reimbursements was provided to the city in September 2023.
As stated in the Resolution Conditions of Approval and the Subdivision Agreement, certain
improvements are eligible for reimbursement. Costs are based on the City Impact Fee Study (Attachment 6).
1. Offsite right of way and improvements are reimbursed to the developer for pavement and water main installation in Fargo Avenue. To be reimbursed from the Transportation Impact Fees and Water Impact Fees.
2. A reimbursement for the required street construction of Fargo Avenue at frontage “for permanent street widening improvements across their frontage and for offsite improvements consisting of curb and gutter, street paving from gutter lip to edge of pavement, and street striping, signing”. And for permanent paving on Sangiovese Street per the City Impact Fee Study to be reimbursed to the developer through the Transportation Impact Fee fund.
3. A reimbursement to the developer for oversize of water main from 8” to 12” across development frontage, to be reimbursed from the Water Impact Fees fund.
4. A credit for the sanitary sewer that was stated to be installed in Fargo Avenue per the Conditions of Approval and the Sewer Masterplan, which was not installed with the development. The developer to pay their share of an 8” sewer main in Fargo.
5. The City Impact Fees Study additionally provides for payment to the city for the Surveyor Plan Review of the final map. The developer shall pay the city the Actual Cost plus 10% for administrative costs for Final Map review. The credit shall be applied to the Engineering Special Services fund.
These reimbursements are totaled in the Summary of Reimbursements. (Attachment 7) and shown on the Subdivision Improvement Plans. (Attachment 8)
Offsite Right of Way to be acquired at the “Not a Part” parcel on Fargo. $ 10,515.63 Offsite Pavement Improvements in Fargo Avenue. $ 30,708.75 Offsite Curb and Gutter on Fargo Avenue. $ 23,401.60
Offsite 12” Water Main in Fargo. $104,742.00
Onsite Frontage Pavement in Fargo Avenue. $ 51,826.30
Striping on Fargo Avenue and at intersection with Centennial Drive $ 4,902.50 Signage on Fargo Avenue $ 300.00
Frontage 12” Water Main oversizing in Fargo. $ 70,490.30 Credit for 15” Sanitary Sewer Main per COA and Masterplan-not installed $ 57,949.85 Sangiovese Pavement Improvements $46,768.53
Credit for Final Map review $ 1,691.25
Total Reimbursement $ 284,014.51
A copy of the reimbursement calculations are shown in Attachment 7 for Council review. The appropriations for the reimbursements and credits shall be made from following accounts:
1. Fargo Avenue reimbursable acquisition of offsite right of way and improvements, and for frontage street improvements through Transportation Impact Fees Fund in the amount of $168,423.31 (Acct. # 21810000-825600).
2. Offsite 12” water main installation on Fargo Avenue and Oversize 8” to 12” water main installation on Fargo Avenue frontage through the Water Impact Fees per Muni. Code
13.04.140. (Attachment 10). The total reimbursement amount is $175,232.30 (Acct # 21850000-825601).
3. Credit for share of 8” sewer for a 15” sanitary sewer masterplanned main in Fargo Avenue, as stated in the Conditions of Approval and not constructed through the Sewer Impact Fees per Municipal Code 13.08.0152 (Attachment 10). The total credit to be applied to the Wastewater Impact Fees is determined as -$57,949.85 (Credit to Wastewater Impact Fees account).
4. The credit payment due to the city for Surveyor Final Map plan review per the City Master Fee Schedule, and to be applied to the City Engineering Special Services line is -$1,691.25 (Credit to Acct. # 20100000-540300).
The developer has requested that the reimbursement of $284,014.51 for Tract 928, Unit 3 to be divided between the two developer investors and that two separate checks be provided as follows:
• The total reimbursement to Presidio JJR Bella Vista II 150, LLC (14%) is $39,762.03. • The total reimbursement to Presidio FFO Bonterra II 160, LLC (86%) is $244,252.48.
If approved by Council, reimbursements to the developers will be provided immediately as the Final Map for Tract 928, Unit 3 has been recorded and Notice of Completion was approved and accepted by the City Council on December 19, 2023.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The FY 24/25 Water Impact Fees reimbursement fund has a current balance of $3,355,945.00. The FY 24/25 Transportation Impact Fees reimbursement fund has a current balance of $8,528,303.00.
An appropriation of $175,232.30 is needed from the Water Impact Fees fund, and an appropriation of $168,423.31 is needed from the Transportation Impact Fees fund to reimburse the developer the $284,014.51 for water main and street improvement requirements, a credit fee and transfer funds for the final map review by the City Surveyor -$1,691.25 and a credit fee and transfer funds for the 15” Sanitary Sewer masterplanned main in Fargo Avenue -$57,949.85.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Tract 928-3 Recorded Final Map
2. Tract 928 Tentative Map
3. Resolution 20-23-R with Conditions of Approval
4. Tract 928, Unit 3 Subdivision Agreement
5. Tract 928 Unit 3 Recorded Notice of Completion
6. City Impact Fee Study - Portion - 9- 2019
7. Tract 928-3 Summary per COA
8. Tract 928 Unit III-Improvement Plan
9. 928-3 fees PAID
10. Muni Code Oversized Water and Sewer
PARK
97937 SQ FT
2.25 Acres
215,204 S.F.
4.94 AC.
BASIN
8,840 S.F.
50 8,955 S.F.
39 7,800 S.F.
84 10,867 S.F.
68 8,840 S.F.
49 8,603 S.F.
99 7,800 S.F.
83 8,894 S.F.
67 8,840 S.F.
48 8,100 S.F.
98 7,800 S.F.
82 8,882 S.F.
66 8,840 S.F.
55 8,840 S.F.
47 9,017 S.F.
34 8,100 S.F.
97 7,800 S.F.
89 7,800 S.F.
81 12,033 S.F.
73 9,282 S.F.
65 9,915 S.F.
62 8,840 S.F.
54 8,840 S.F.
46 9,180 S.F.
35 9,180 S.F.
96 8,365 S.F.
88 8,840 S.F.
80 12,036 S.F.
72 9,282 S.F.
64 9,282 S.F.
61 8,840 S.F.
53 8,840 S.F.
45 9,180 S.F.
36 8,793 S.F.
95 9,404 S.F.
87 8,443 S.F.
79 11,252 S.F.
71 9,915 S.F.
63 9,282 S.F.
60 8,840 S.F.
52 8,509 S.F.
44 8,100 S.F.
37 9,350 S.F.
94 8,840 S.F.
86 8,912 S.F.
78 11,252 S.F.
70 9,282 S.F.
59 8,840 S.F.
51 8,461 S.F.
43 7,653 S.F.
38 8,983 S.F.
93 8,840 S.F.
85 10,860 S.F.
77 10,850 S.F.
69 9,282 S.F.
58 8,450 S.F.
42 8,456 S.F.
92 10,848 S.F.
76 9,404 S.F.
57 7,984 S.F.
41 8,840 S.F.
91 11,248 S.F.
75 8,840 S.F.
56 8,531 S.F.
40 7,800 S.F.
90 11,249 S.F.
74 6,781 S.F.
152
8,100 S.F.
128
7,099 S.F.
154
6,810 S.F.
153
6,781 S.F.
149
6,779 S.F.
143
6,779 S.F.
142
6,257 S.F.
141
6,779 S.F.
146
8,351 S.F.
120
8,456 S.F.
155
7,020 S.F.
125
6,779 S.F.
144
6,781 S.F.
151
6,779 S.F.
145
6,781 S.F.
150
7,259 S.F.
227
7,261 S.F.
228
6,779 S.F.
147
6,781 S.F.
148
7,020 S.F.
137
7,474 S.F.
127
7,020 S.F.
131
7,650 S.F.
139
7,020 S.F.
129
6,683 S.F.
138
7,020 S.F.
135
7,020 S.F.
130
6,935 S.F.
133
7,020 S.F.
136
6,934 S.F.
134
7,020 S.F.
132
7,020 S.F.
121
7,020 S.F.
122
7,020 S.F.
123
7,020 S.F.
124
7,020 S.F.
126
7,078 S.F.
140
9,520 S.F.
5 7,018 S.F.
10 11,724 S.F.
9 7,147 S.F.
12 7,147 S.F.
11 7,656 S.F.
13 16,296 S.F.
8 8,206 S.F.
7 9,520 S.F.
6 9,520 S.F.
2 9,520 S.F.
4 9,520 S.F.
3 10,048 S.F.
1 8,010 S.F.
114
8,506 S.F.
119
8,010 S.F.
118
8,010 S.F.
117
7,080 S.F.
106
7,656 S.F.
111
8,010 S.F.
112
8,010 S.F.
113
8,010 S.F.
115
8,010 S.F.
116
16,578 S.F.
110
7,036 S.F.
108
7,080 S.F.
107
7,080 S.F.
102
7,080 S.F.
105
7,080 S.F.
104
7,080 S.F.
103
7,498 S.F.
100
7,080 S.F.
101
9,028 S.F.
109
7,800 S.F.
28 7,800 S.F.
20 7,800 S.F.
27 7,800 S.F.
19 7,800 S.F.
26 7,800 S.F.
18 13,543 S.F.
33 7,673 S.F.
25 7,800 S.F.
17 7,800 S.F.
32 12,425 S.F.
24 7,800 S.F.
16 7,800 S.F.
31 15,217 S.F.
23 7,800 S.F.
30 7,551 S.F.
22 7,800 S.F.
14 7,800 S.F.
29 7,800 S.F.
21 7,858 S.F.
266
7,068 S.F.
163
7,858 S.F.
171
6,963 S.F.
256
7,858 S.F.
156
7,764 S.F.
164
7,858 S.F.
172
6,948 S.F.
257
6,938 S.F.
260
7,858 S.F.
157
7,612 S.F.
165
7,858 S.F.
173
8,083 S.F.
259
6,937 S.F.
261
7,858 S.F.
158
6,902 S.F.
166
7,858 S.F.
251
7,051 S.F.
262
7,858 S.F.
159
7,418 S.F.
167
7,834 S.F.
252
7,361 S.F.
263
7,862 S.F.
160
7,730 S.F.
168
7,686 S.F.
253
7,721 S.F.
264
7,765 S.F.
161
7,846 S.F.
169
7,375 S.F.
254
7,860 S.F.
265
7,454 S.F.
162
7,858 S.F.
170
7,083 S.F.
255
8,119 S.F.
258
7,718 S.F.
175
7,498 S.F.
188
7,080 S.F.
187
7,080 S.F.
186
6,805 S.F.
185
14,695 S.F.
184
10,259 S.F.
183
7,059 S.F.
182
7,087 S.F.
181
7,094 S.F.
180
7,100 S.F.
179
7,106 S.F.
178
7,112 S.F.
177
7,118 S.F.
176
7,156 S.F.
247
7,725 S.F.
174
7,138 S.F.
250
7,144 S.F.
249
7,150 S.F.
248
7,175 S.F.
244
7,162 S.F.
246
7,168 S.F.
245
7,621 S.F.
243
7,039 S.F.
232
6,844 S.F.
222
7,177 S.F.
230
7,115 S.F.
225
7,046 S.F.
231
6,962 S.F.
224
15,575 S.F.
235
9,484 S.F.
269
10,639 S.F.
267
6,600 S.F.
218
7,364 S.F.
219
8,024 S.F.
216
6,649 S.F.
220
13,485 S.F.
234
6,746 S.F.
221
7,134 S.F.
233
6,941 S.F.
223
7,571 S.F.
229
7,753 S.F.
226
7,388 S.F.
276
10,503 S.F.
268
11,371 S.F.
270
7,202 S.F.
239
7,051 S.F.
236
7,202 S.F.
237
7,202 S.F.
238
7,202 S.F.
241
7,202 S.F.
240
7,730 S.F.
242
10,281 S.F.
271
7,800 S.F.
272
6,480 S.F.
281
6,480 S.F.
278
7,344 S.F.
279
7,344 S.F.
280
7,797 S.F.
283
7,344 S.F.
282
7,775 S.F.
273
7,010 S.F.
274
6,718 S.F.
275
6,600 S.F.
217
7,344 S.F.
277
8,100 S.F.
192
7,800 S.F.
203
8,541 S.F.
195
7,572 S.F.
194
8,100 S.F.
193
8,100 S.F.
190
8,100 S.F.
191
8,603 S.F.
189
8,230 S.F.
196
6,480 S.F.
197
7,344 S.F.
198
6,480 S.F.
199
7,800 S.F.
205
7,800 S.F.
206
8,365 S.F.
207
7,344 S.F.
211
8,254 S.F.
201
7,279 S.F.
202
7,800 S.F.
204
6,480 S.F.
200
7,874 S.F.
215
6,480 S.F.
214
6,480 S.F.
213
7,344 S.F.
212
7,344 S.F.
209
7,344 S.F.
210
7,797 S.F.
208
7,800 S.F.
15 1
CHECKED BY:
INDEXED BY:
DATE:
JOB NO.:
SHEET:
OF 1
DRAWN BY:
AD
4/6/2020
0606351
MO No. Revisions Date
609 N. Irwin St.
Hanford, CA 93230
Office: (559) 582-1056
Fax: (559) 584-4143
COUNTY TRACT 634 L.S.P. 16-6 K.C.R.
NOT A PART
PHASE I
PHASE III COUNTY TRACT 769 L.S.P. 21-38 K.C.R.
COUNTY TRACT 918 L.S.P. 26-19 K.C.R. COUNTY TRACT 919
L.S.P. 26-38 K.C.R.
1 Relocated Park, adjusted Lots 02-28-20
COUNTY TRACT 835 LSP. 21-53 K.C.R.
3 Updated Street Sections & General Information04-06-204 Move park North 9 lots 04-17-202 Adjusted Lot Dimensions and Layout 03-23-20
PHASE II
5 Reconfigure Subdivision Layout 07-13-20 6 Reconfigure Phase Layout 07-17-20 7 Ex. Basin Dimensions/Updated Street X-Sections 07-20-20 P:\JOB FILES\0606351 SJVH-CAL CLARK\DWG\0606351m - JB 07-22-20.dwg, 7/27/2020 8:15:40 AM, Client Submittal, Plotted by JTB
Developer did NOT install this sewer main
CITY OF HANFORD
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
TRACT NO. 928 Unit III
tot THIS SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this ~ day of JLt-n '€/ , 2022, by and between PRESIDIO JJR BELLA VISTA II 150, LLC, A DELWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND PRESIDIO JJR BONTERRA II 160, LLC, A DELWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ("SUBDIVIDER"), and the City of Hanford, a Municipal Corporation ("CITY").
RECITALS
A. The SUBDIVIDER has presented to the CITY a final map of the proposed Subdivision of certain real property located within the city limits of the City and more particularly described in Exhibit "A" which has been filed with the City Engineer and is made a part hereof by reference ("Final Map") and identified as Tract No. 928 Unit III ("SUBDIVISION"). The real property is to be developed in accordance with subdivision improvement plans, which have been filed with the City Engineer and are made a part hereof by reference and identified as Exhibit "B" ("Improvement Plans"). SUBDIVIDER has requested that the CITY accept and approve the Final Map and the dedications delineated and shown on the Final Map for the use and purposes specified thereon, and otherwise approve the Final Map in order that the same may be recorded as required by law.
8. The CITY requires as a condition precedent to the acceptance and approval of the Final Map, the dedication of such streets and easements as are delineated and shown on the Final Map, and deems the same as necessary for the public use, and requires that any and all streets and easements delineated and shown thereon shall be improved by the construction thereon and the installation therein of the improvements specified herein.
C. Certain public improvements are required to be made by SUBDIVIDER in an·onlancc with the approved tentative map of the SUBDIVISION. Section 66462 of the c~llifornia Government Code 1>rovides, as a condition precedent to the approval of the Final Map,
that the City Council shall require the SUBDIVIDER to enter into an agreement to complete said public improvements.
D. Chapter 16.24.070 of the Hanford Municipal Code requires the SUBDIVIDER to enter into an agreement with the CITY to perform and complete the work and matters as hereinafter described in this Agreement, in conformance with Sections 16.24.010 through 16.24.120, inclusive of the Hanford Municipal Code, which Sections by reference are incorporated into this Agreement and made a part hereof.
NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed as follows:
1. Improvements.
SUBDIVIDER shall complete all required public improvements in the Subdivision as identified in Exhibit "B" of this Agreement (collectively "IMPROVEMENTS") and in accordance with all of the requirements and standards as set forth in the approval or conditional approval of the Tentative Map of the SUBDIVISION, the Hanford Municipal Code, all applicable laws, codes and regulations and the terms and conditions of this Agreement. In accordance with Section 16.24.110 of the Hanford Municipal Code, all of the Improvements shall be completed no later than two (2) years from the date of approval of this Agreement by the City of Hanford. A request to extend the time for completion of the Improvements must be in written form and received by the CITY not less than thirty (30) days prior to expiration of this Agreement and shall include facts in support of the request for such extension of time. Only the City shall have the authority to extend such time period. The extension period shall not exceed twelve (12) months.
Within thirty (30) days after the SUBDIVIDER notifies the City Engineer that the required work has been completed, the City Engineer shall inspect such work, and if such work has been performed in the required manner and in accordance with this Agreement, the Final Map, the Hanford Municipal Code and all other applicable laws, codes and regulations, the City Engineer shall advise the City Council that the public improvements are ready for acceptance by the CITY.
2. Inspection.
2
The CITY shall inspect all work in accordance with Section 16.24.100 of the Hanford Municipal Code including the SUBDIVIDER'S conformance with CITY Standards and Specifications and any and all conditions, standards or requirements identified at the preconstruction conference held prior to commencing construction.
CITY shall schedule a preliminary final inspection and a deficiency list shall be compiled and submitted to the SUBDIVIDER for correction. Upon completion of all corrections or additional work as outlined by the deficiency list, the SUBDIVIDER shall certify in writing that all corrections have been completed and request a final inspection. Upon finding that all items have been corrected and upon receipt of as-built improvement plans, the Improvements may be provisionally accepted by the CITY pending approval of the final map and subdivision agreement for Tract No. 928 Unit II, by the City Council.
The completion of corrections indicated by the deficiency list shall not relieve the SUBDIVIDER from the responsibility of correcting any deficiency not shown on the list that may be subsequently discovered. Should the CITY require payment of additional engineering and inspection fees and costs for improvements constructed after the stated date of completion, the SUBDIVIDER must pay said additional fees and costs prior to acceptance by the City Council of the IMPROVEMENTS.
3. Costs and Fees.
The SUBDIVIDER shall be responsible for the work, including without limitation, the costs identified in the IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE attached hereto and made a part hereof and identified as Exhibit "C" to this Agreement. SUBDIVIDER agrees to the amount thereof and agrees to pay, when due, all amounts identified therein, including without limitation, all CITY engineering and inspection fees.
4. Security.
3
SUBDIVIDER agrees to furnish security, which complies with Section 66499 et. seq. of the California Government Code, in such amounts as are fixed by the CITY, to guarantee the faithful performance of this Agreement, including without limitation, the construction of the IMPROVEMENTS and to guarantee payment to contractors, subcontractors, laborers, material men and other persons employed in the performance of the work under this Agreement. In the sole discretion of the CITY and with the written authorization of the CITY, the sureties provided by the SUBDIVIDER may be released in whole or in part in the following manner:
(a) Faithful performance sureties, not in excess of ninety percent (90%) of the estimated costs of the individual items of public improvements, may be released or the required surety amounts may be reduced as work is satisfactorily completed and tentatively accepted by the CITY.
(b) Forty-five (45) clays after recorclation of the Notice of Completion for the Subdivision, the sureties securing the payment to contractors and subcontractors and to persons furnishing h1bor, materials, or equipment may be released if claims, including without limitation, stop notices have not been filed.
(c) Ten percent (10%) of the total faithful performance surety, retained as the public improvement warranty, may be released one year after the Notice of Completion has been recorded. In the alternative, SUBDIVIDER shall provide CITY with new warranty security of not less than ten percent (10%) of the Improvement Cost Estimate identified in Exhibit "C" hereto, which security shall have a term of one (1) year from the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion.
In accordance with Section 16.24.080 of the Hanford Municipal Code, the SUBDIVIDER shall furnish, in writing, proof of adequate security deposit to all utility companies for the installation of electricity, gas, telephone, cable television and any other utility which charges are not part of the Improvement Cost Estimate set forth in Exhibit "C." No final map shall be signed by the City Engineer or recorded until all improwment securities required by Section 16.24.080 of the Hanford Municipal Code and under 4
this Agreement have been received and approved. The form of securities shall be one or the combination of forms as approved by the CITY.
5. Liability.
As a condition precedent and prior to commencement of the work to be performed pursuant to this Agreement, SUBDIVIDER shall furnish the CITY with a certificate of insurance with a separate endorsement evidencing the following insurance coverages:
(1) Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 0001, including products and completed operations, with limits of no less than FIVE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($5,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be TEN MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10,000,000), twice the required occurrence limit.
(2) Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 0001 covering any auto (Code 1), with a limit no less than FIVE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($5,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Workers' Compensation: as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer's Liability Insurance with a limit of no less 5
than ONE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease.
If SUBDIVIDER maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by SUBDIVIDER.
SUBDIVIDER's insurance policies shall be "occurrence" policies and not "claims-made" coverage.
SUBDIVIDER may maintain an Umbrella policy in conjunction with the insurance policies referenced above. In such case, SUBDIVIDER shall be deemed to have satisfied the insurance requirements of this contract as long as: (i) the coverage limits of the Umbrella policy and of the underlying liability policy(ies), when combined, satisfy each of the per occurrence and aggregate requirements identified in this subsection a.; and (ii) coverage under the Umbrella policy is as broad as and includes all incidents and events covered by the underlying insurance that it supplements.
a. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may require SUBDIVIDER to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. Alternatively, the City may require SUBDIVIDER to provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. b. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
6
(1) The City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL and automobile liability policies with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of SUBDIVIDER including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations; products used by SUBDIVIDER; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by SUBDIVIDER. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to SUBDIVIDER's insurance at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or if not available, through the addition of both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 if a later edition is used. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2) For any claims related to this contract, SUBDIVIDER's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City and/or its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be in excess of SUBDIVIDER's insurance and shall be non-contributory. (3) Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.
c. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII.
d. SUBDIVIDER shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the SUBDIVIDER's obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require 7
complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.
e. SUBDIVIDER hereby grants to City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of SUBDIVIDER may acquire against the City and/or its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. SUBDIVIDER agrees to obtain endorsements necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. f. The City reserves the right to modify the insurance requirements contained in this contract, including, without limitation, coverage limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.
6. Indemnification.
SUBDIVIDER hereby agrees to and shall protect, indemnify and hold harmless the CITY and all officials, officers, agents, representatives and employees thereof from and against any and all liability, loss, claims or damages of whatsoever kind or character, including attorneys' fees and costs of all types, to the extent arising out of, or related, directly or indirectly, to the work to be performed pursuant to this Agreement or the acts or omissions of the SUBDIVIDER, SUBDIVIDER's independent contractors, employees, representatives, agents and invitees. These indemnification and hold-harmless provisions shall be in full force and effect regardless of whether or not there shall be insurance policies covering such damages, claims, or liability. This indemnification shall be binding upon the SUBDIVIDER whether or not there are any allegations of fault, negligence or liability of the parties indemnified hereunder and shall survive the completion of construction of the IMPROVEMENTS.
8
SUBDIVIDER agrees that the use of any and all public streets and improvements, which are part of the Subdivision, shall be at all times, prior to the final acceptance by the CITY, the sole and exclusive risk of the SUBDIVIDER.
7. Permits and Compliance.
Should SUBDIVIDER be required to perform any work within any public rights-of-way or easements located beyond the Subdivision limits, SUBDIVIDER shall satisfy any and all requirements, other than the payment of fees, as necessary to obtain an encroachment permit for said work.
SUBDIVIDER shall make arrangements for the relocation of all overhead and underground public utility facilities that interfere with the construction of the IMPROVEMENTS.
The SUBDIVIDER shall be responsible for the full cost of relocating such facilities.
The SUBDIVIDER shall repair any damage to public streets or other public property or improvements resulting from or incidental to, the construction of the Improvements, or in lieu of making such repairs, the SUBDIVIDER shall pay to the CITY the full cost of such repairs.
Building permits for individual lots of the Subdivision will not be issued until all underground utilities are installed within the public right-of-way, the trenches have been backfillccl, and an approved all-weather road is constructed for street frontage and access.
No occupancy permit for any dwelling to be constructed within the Subdivision shall be issued until all Improvements are completed and accepted by the City Council.
In accordance with Section 16.24.090 of the Hanford Municipal Code, construction methods and materials for all Improvements shall conform to the Standards and Specifications of the CITY. Construction shall not commence until required Improvement Plans have been approved by the City Engineer and payment of all fees have been received by the CITY. 9
The IMPROVMENTS shall be constructed in accordance with all applicable street, plumbing, building, electrical and zoning codes and any other codes, rules or regulations of the CITY and the State of California.
The SUBDIVIDER shall require contractors and subcontractors to provide and maintain barricades and warning signs to protect and warn the public of construction hazards. Traffic control shall conform to a traffic control plan approved by the City Engineer. If, in the opinion of the City Engineer, proper barricades and warning signs are not being provided, the Contractor will be required to immediately stop work until proper traffic control is provided and approved by the City Engineer.
The SUBDIVIDER shall require all contractors and subcontractors to conform to the applicable provisions of the California Occupational Safety and Health Act ("OSHA"). Onsite inspection of the work will be requested of OSHA officials, and all work subject to this Agreement shall immediately stop if, in the opinion of the City Engineer, any such work is being performed in violation of OSHA or when appropriate safety measures are not being utilized for said work.
The SUBDIVIDER and its contractors and subcontractors shall pay for any materials, provisions and other supplies used in, upon, for, or about the performance of the work to be performed hereunder and for any and all work or labor associated therewith and for all amounts due under the Workers' Compensation and the unemployment insurance acts and all other applicable laws or regulations of the State of California or the United States with respect to such work or labor, including without limitation, as required by Section 3200 of the California Labor Code and Section 4200 of the California Government Code.
8. Scheduling.
It shall be the responsibility of the SUBDIVIDER to coordinate all work performed by its contractors and subcontractors, such as scheduling the sequence of operations and the determination of liability if one operation delays another. In no case shall representatives 10
of the CITY be placed in the position of making decisions that are the responsibility of the SUBDIVIDER. It shall further be the responsibility of the SUBDIVIDER to give the City Engineer written notice not less than two (2) working days in advance of the actual date on which work is to be started. Failure on the part of the SUBDIVIDER to notify the City Engineer may cause delay for which the SUBDIVIDER shall be solely responsible.
9. Soil and Dust Control Provisions.
The SUBDIVIDER is responsible for arrangement for and payment of all CITY-required soil tests at locations as determined by the City Engineer. Payment for said tests shall be made directly by the SUBDIVIDER to the certified testing firm of the SUBDIVIDER's choice. Adequate dust control shall be maintained by the SUBDIVIDER on all streets within and outside of the Subdivision on which work is required to be performed under this Agreement, from the time work is first commenced until all work is completed. "Adequate dust control" as used herein shall mean the sprinkling of the streets with water or approved dust palliative with sufficient frequency to prevent the scattering of dust by wind or the activity of vehicles and equipment onto any street area or private property adjacent to the Subdivision. Whenever, in the opinion of the City Engineer, adequate dust control is not being maintained on any street or streets or other areas of the Subdivision, the City Engineer shall give notice to the SUBDIVIDER to comply with the provisions herein, or, at the election of the City Engineer, notice may be mailed to the SUBDIVIDER at his address on file with the City Engineer. If, within twenty-four (24) hours after personal service or within forty-eight (48) hours after mailing of notice, the SUBDIVIDER has not commenced to maintain adequate dust control or at any time thereafter fails to maintain adequate dust control, the City Engineer may, without further notice of any kind, cause any street or streets to be sprinkled with water or an approved dust palliative as may be deemed necessary by the City Engineer to eliminate the scattering of dust. Such dust 11
control shall be performed by equipment and personnel of the CITY or by contract as the City Engineer shall determine, and the SUBDIVIDER agrees to pay to CITY, upon receipt of the billing, therefore, the entire cost to the CITY of such dust control.
When the surfacing on any existing street is disturbed, the surfacing shall be immediately replaced with temporary surfacing and permanently paved within fourteen (14) calendar days thereafter. The streets shall be maintained in a safe and passable condition at all times between the commencement of construction of IMPROVEMENTS and final completion thereof.
10. Reimbursement.
If the City Municipal Code provides SUBDIVIDER with the right to receive cash reimbursement or impact fee credit because of the construction of certain improvements or the oversizing thereof, SUBDIVIDER must request payment of the cash reimbursement or preparation of a reimbursement agreement, whichever is applicable, or the impact fee credit prior to the date of final acceptance of all subdivision improvements by the City Council. Such request must be made in writing and received by the City Engineer prior to the date of final acceptance of the IMPROVMENTS by City Council. SUBDIVIDER agrees that should it fail to make such written request by the date identified herein, SUBDIVIDER forever waives its right to request and receive any cash rdmbursement, reimbursement agreement or impact fee credit.
11. Prevailing Wage Laws, Rules and Regulations.
SUBDIVIDER shall comply with and shall require all contractors to comply with all prevailing wage laws, rules and regulations applicable to the SUBDIVISION. Unless otherwise advised in writing by the City, SUBDIVIDER shall be solely responsible for making any and all decisions regarding any portion or aspect of the SUBDIVISION including, without limitation, any form of reimbursement by the City to the SUBDIVIDER or any contractor, that will require the payment of prevailing wages. Further, SUBDIVIDER will be solely responsible for the payment of any claims, fines, penalties, reimbursements, payments or any other actions 12
that may be initiated against applicant or any contractor as a result of failure to pay prevailing wages.
SUBDIVIDER shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Hanford, its officials, officers, employees, representatives, agents and attorneys from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, judgments, liabilities, expenses and other costs, including, without limitation, litigation costs and attorney's fees arising out of, to the extent resulting from any violation or claim of violation of any prevailing wage law, rule or regulation applicable to any portion or aspect of the SUBDIVISION. SUBDIVIDERS's obligation to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless specifically includes, but is not limited to, any suit or administrative action against the City which claims a violation of any prevailing wage law, rule or regulation applicable to any portion or aspect of the SUBDIVISION.
SUBDIVIDERS's obligations to defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, representatives, agents and attorneys harmless as set forth herein, shall include, but shall not be limited to, staff time, copying costs, court costs, the costs of any judgments or awards against the City for damages, losses, litigation costs or attorney fees arising out of any violation or claim of violation of any prevailing wage law, rule or regulation applicable to any portion or aspect of the SUBDIVISION and costs of any settlement representing damages, litigation costs and attorney's fees to be paid to other parties arising out of any such proceeding or suit.
The City may, at any time, require the SUBDIVIDER to reimburse the City for costs that have been, or which the City reasonably anticipates will be, incurred by the City during the course of any action. SUBDIVIDER shall reimburse the City within thirty (30) days of receipt of an itemized written invoice from the City for costs actually incurred. Failure of the SUBDIVIDER to timely reimburse the City shall be considered a material violation of the conditions of approval of the SUBDIVISION.
12. Sole and Only Agreement.
13
This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the pa1·ties hereto with respect to the matters set forth herein and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the parties regarding such matters. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or in writing, have been made by any party or anyone acting on behalf of any party which are not embodied in this Agreement, and no other agreement, statement or promises shall be valid or binding.
13. Severability.
If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect without being impaired or invalidated in any way.
14. Attorneys' Fees.
If an action at law or inequity is necessary to enforce or interpret the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and necessary disbursements in addition to any other reasonable relief to which he may be entitled.
With respect to any suit, action or proceeding arising out of or related to this Agreement or the documentation related hereto, the parties hereby submit to the jurisdiction and venue of the Superior or Municipal Court, whichever is applicable, in the County of Kings, State of California for any proceeding arising hereunder.
15. Successors and Assigns.
The covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. This Agreement shall not be assignable by SUBDIVIDER without the express prior written consent of CITY.
14
16. Governing Law.
This Agreement shall be construed and governed pursuant to the laws of the State of California.
17. Time of the Essence.
Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the 2l ~ day of j U[lf.1
SUBDIVIDER:
, 2022.
Presidio JJR Bella Vista II 150, LLC,
A Delaware Limited Liability Company
By: JJR Management Service, Inc.
A California Corporation
It's Operating Manager
Presidio JJR Bonterra II 160, LLC,
A Delaware Limited Liability Company
By: JJR Management Service, Inc.
A California Corporation
It's Operating Manager
15
CITY OF HANFORD APPROVAL:
. Doyel, P.E., P.L.S.
Public Works Director, City of Hanford
ATTEST: By: ------.a.... N_______.__~-------- Natalie Corral City Clerk, City of Hanford
16
EXHIBIT "C"
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE
In accordance with Section 16.24.080 of the Hanford Municipal Code, estimated construction costs used in this Agreement are increased for projected inflation computed to the estimated mid-point of construction.
ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COST
Sanitary Sewers
Construction of sanitary sewer mains, manholes and appurtenances as shown on the approved improvement plans in accordance with City Standards and Specifications.
Storm Sewers
Construction of storm drain mains, manholes, catch basins and disposal facilities as shown on the approved improvement plan in accordance with City Standards.
Water System
Construction of water mains, hydrants, services and appurtenances as shown on the approved Improvement Plans in accordance with City Standards and Specifications.
Curb and Gutter and Other Concrete Construction
Construction of curb and gutter, sidewalk, wheelchair ramps, drive approaches, valley gutter and other concrete improvements as shown on the approved Improvement Plans in accordance with City Standards and Specifications.
Street Surfacing
Construct Type "B" asphalt concrete surfacing over Class II aggregate base as shown on the approved Improvement Plans in accordance with City Standards and Specifications.
17 $497,452.80
$299,182.00
$700,091.60
$743,960.10
$893,426.30
Street Lighting
Install street lighting as shown on the approved Improvement Plans in accordance with City Standards and Specifications.
Street Barricades
Install street barricades as shown on the approved Improvement Plans in accordance with City Standards and Specifications.
Fencing, Landscaping, and Irrigation System
Construct fencing, block walls and install landscape and irrigation system improvements, misc. as shown on the approved Improvement Plans in accordance with City Standards and Specifications.
Monuments and Lot Markers
Install permanent monuments and lot markers in accordance with City Standards and Specifications.
Engineering Services
Engineering, surveying, & geotechnical services associated with Completion of the Subdivision Improvements.
Earthwork Improvements
• Excavation & Compaction
• Subgrade Compaction & Fine Grade
• Final Lot Grading
• Total Improvements subject to Plan Review & Insp. Fees Private Utilities
• Applicant Install Utilities Onsite Construct
Total Estimated Improvement Cost (To be bonded with Final Map)
SECURITY REQUIREMENTS
Performance
Labor and Materials
Warranty (Minimum 12-mo. from N.O.C.)
18 $121,550.00
$ 4,550.00
$473,772.00
$ 10,400.00
$128,700.00
$140,400.00
$141,350.30
$ 34,911.50
$4,189,746.60
$440,000.00
$4,629,746.60
$4,629,746.60
$2,314,873.30
$ 462,974.66
City Engineering Plan Review and Inspection Fee Schedule City Engineering and Inspection Fees are established by Council Resolution No.1902, and are set forth below:
(1) 6% of first
(2) 5% of next
(3) 4.5% of next
(4) 3.5% of next
(5) 2% over
$ 5,000.00
$ 20,000.00
$ 75,000.00
$150,000.00
$250,000.00
Total City Engineering Review and Inspection Fee obligation Fee balance payable with this Agreement Acct. #001-2010-4937 NOTE:
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
300.00
1,000.00
3,375.00
5,250.00
78,794.93
88,719.93
882719.93
• Engineering Plan Review & Inspection Fees are based on estimated cost of Improvements, including all items constructed both prior to & following posting of security. • Private utility costs are not included in determination of City Engineering Plan Review and Inspection fee calculation.
Note: Additional fees and charges will be payable prior to approval of Final Map and Final Subdivision Agreement by the City Council2 including:
12th Ave. Sewer Benefit District, Acct. #161-2161-5494 (22.56 Ac@ $1,734.30/Ac) $ 392125.81 Street Sign Fee, Acct. #001-2010-4937 (9 @$200.00 Ea.) $ 12800.00 (Per intersection cost for sign blades furnished by City.) Final Map Review Fee, Acct. #001-2010-4937 $ 12250.00
.!.:..!!
(Determined at completion of final map review.)
Engineering Plan Review & Inspection Fees, Acct. #001-2010-4937 Storm Drainage Impact Fees, Acct. #184-2184-5504 (N/A)
(Onsite drainage Basin provided, no impact to existing City drainage facilities) Building Dept. block wall plan review fees paid from Acct. #001-2010-4937 18 SUBTOTAL
PAID
BALANCE DUE:
$ 882719.93
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$1302895.74
$1302895.74
$0.00
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document.
State of California
County of Tulare
On May 31, 2022 before me, Amanda Ramos, Notary Public
(insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared _ J_o_s_e;_ph_A_._L_e_a_l ------------+-------,.--- who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person ) whose name( is/a,:e subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shertRey executed the same in his/RefltReif authorized capacity(ie&), and that by his/he!'/tt:telr signature(jf on the instrument the person(f , or the entity upon behalf of which the personf65 acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
(Seal)
FINAL DRAFT
CITY OF HANFORD
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
SEPTEMBER 2019
FINAL DRAFT
CITY OF HANFORD
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
Prepared for:
City of Hanford
900 South 10th Avenue
Hanford, CA 93230
Contact Person: Lou Camara, Public Works Director
Phone: (559) 585-2567
Consultant:
901 East Main Street
Visalia, CA 93292
Contact: Steve Brandt
Phone: (559) 733-0440
September 2019
© Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc.
Unauthorized use prohibited.
Project #130118
Development Impact Fee Study September 2019
City of Hanford Page i
Table of Contents
SECTION 1 - Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1 SECTION 2 - Report Purpose and Organization ................................................................................................. 5
2.1 - Report Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 - Report Organization................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.3 - Basics of an Impact Fee Calculation................................................................................................................... 7 SECTION 3 - Population, Growth Estimates, and Assumptions ..................................................................... 8
3.1 - Undeveloped Land Acreage Projections........................................................................................................... 8
3.2 - Residential Dwelling Unit Projections ............................................................................................................12
3.3 - Non-Residential Square Footage Projections...............................................................................................12
3.4 - Assumption of Land Acquisitions Costs .........................................................................................................13
3.5 - Adjustment for Downtown Uses, Educational Facilities, and Open Space........................................14 SECTION 4 - Fire Facilities ...................................................................................................................................... 15
4.1 - Methodology for Calculating Fire Facilities Impact Fee...........................................................................15
4.2 - Fire Facilities Impact, Need and Cost ..............................................................................................................16
4.3 - Determination of Fire Facilities Impact Fee .................................................................................................17 SECTION 5 - Police Facilities .................................................................................................................................. 20
5.1 - Methodology for Calculating Police Facilities Impact Fee.......................................................................20
5.2 - Police Facilities Impact Need and Cost...........................................................................................................21
5.3 - Determination of Police Facilities Impact Fee .............................................................................................22 SECTION 6 - Water Supply, Treatment and Storage Facilities ..................................................................... 26
6.1 - Methodology for Calculating Water Impact Fee..........................................................................................26
6.2 - Water Infrastructure Impact, Need and Cost ...............................................................................................26
6.3 - Determination of Water Impact Fee ................................................................................................................27 SECTION 7 - Wastewater Collection and Treatment/Disposal Facilities ................................................. 31
7.1 - Methodology for Calculating Wastewater Impact Fee..............................................................................31
7.2 - Wastewater Infrastructure Impact Need and Cost....................................................................................31
7.3 - Determination of Wastewater Impact Fee ....................................................................................................32 SECTION 8 - Storm Drainage Facilities ............................................................................................................... 35
8.1 - Methodology for Calculating Storm Drainage Impact Fee ......................................................................35
8.2 - Storm Drainage Infrastructure Impact Need and Cost.............................................................................35
Development Impact Fee Study September 2019
City of Hanford Page ii
8.3 - Determination of Storm Drainage Impact Fee.............................................................................................36 SECTION 9 - Parks and Recreation Facilities .................................................................................................... 39
9.1 - Methodology for Calculating Parks and Recreation Impact Fees.........................................................39
9.2 - Parks and Recreation Impact, Need and Cost ..............................................................................................39
9.3 - Determination of Park Development Impact Fee .......................................................................................41 SECTION 10 - Refuse/Recycling Collection ....................................................................................................... 42
10.1 - Methodology for Calculating Refuse/Recycling Collection Impact Fee...........................................42
10.2 - Refuse/Recycling Collection Impact Need and Cost...............................................................................42
10.3 - Determination of Calculating Refuse/Recycling Impact Fee...............................................................43 SECTION 11 - Circulation Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 44
11.1 - Methodology for Calculating Circulation Impact Fee .............................................................................44
11.2 - Circulation Infrastructure Impact Need and Cost....................................................................................44
11.3 - Determination of Circulation Impact Fee....................................................................................................47 SECTION 12 - Comparison of Proposed Fees to Previous Fees and Fees of Nearby Cities ................. 53
12.1 - Comparison to Current Impact Fee Schedule............................................................................................53
12.2 - Comparison to Other Cities’ Impact Fees ....................................................................................................57 SECTION 13 - Implementation............................................................................................................................... 58
13.1 - Accounting...............................................................................................................................................................58
13.2 - Collection of Fees..................................................................................................................................................58
13.3 - Non-conforming Buildings................................................................................................................................58
13.4 - Increase in Fees for Inflation............................................................................................................................58
13.5 - Credits and Reimbursements ..........................................................................................................................59 List of Figures
Figure 3-1 Hanford General Plan Land Use Map.....................................................................................................9 Figure 3-2 Developed and Vacant Lands ................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 11-1 Future Streets, Intersections, and Signals Included................................................................... 46
Development Impact Fee Study September 2019
City of Hanford Page iii
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Proposed Impact Fees for Fire, Police, Water, Wastewater, and Parks*..................................2 Table 1-2 Proposed Impact Fees for Storm Drainage..........................................................................................3 Table 1-3 Proposed Impact Fees for Refuse............................................................................................................4 Table 1-4 Proposed Impact Fees for Circulation ...................................................................................................4 Table 3-1 Land Available for Development ..........................................................................................................11 Table 3-2 Projected Population.................................................................................................................................12 Table 3-3 Estimated Potential Residential Acreage and Units ......................................................................12 Table 3-4 Estimated Potential of Non-Residential Building Square Footage ..........................................13 Table 3-5 Estimated Land Acquisition Costs........................................................................................................14 Table 4-1 Fire Incidence Response by Occupancy Type (2012-2017) ......................................................16 Table 4-2 Fire Facilities Costs ....................................................................................................................................17 Table 4-3 Distribution of Fire Facilities Impact..................................................................................................18 Table 4-4 Fire Facilities Impact Fees.......................................................................................................................19 Table 5-1 Future Police Vehicle and Building Space Estimates ....................................................................21 Table 5-2 Police Facilities Costs ................................................................................................................................21 Table 5-3 Police Incidents per Acre .........................................................................................................................23 Table 5-4 Distribution of Police Impact .................................................................................................................24 Table 5-5 Police Facilities Impact Fee.....................................................................................................................24 Table 6-1 Water System Improvements for Future Users ..............................................................................27 Table 6-2 Distribution of Water Impact.................................................................................................................28 Table 6-3 Redistribution of Open Space Water Impact to Residential Uses ............................................29 Table 6-4 Water Impact Fee........................................................................................................................................30 Table 7-1 Wastewater System Improvements for Future Users ..................................................................32 Table 7-2 Distribution of Wastewater Impact.....................................................................................................33 Table 7-3 Wastewater Impact Fee............................................................................................................................34 Table 8-1 Storm Drainage System Improvements for Future Users...........................................................35 Table 8-2 Distribution of Storm Drainage Impact..............................................................................................37 Table 8-3 Storm Drainage Impact Fee ....................................................................................................................38 Table 9-1 Development Costs for Hypothetical 10-acre Park .......................................................................40 Table 9-2 Park Improvements for Future Users.................................................................................................40 Table 9-3 Park Cost Distribution and Impact Fee ..............................................................................................41 Table 10-1 Estimated Refuse/Recycling Unit Costs ..........................................................................................42 Table 10-2 Distribution of Refuse/Recycling Impact .......................................................................................43 Table 10-3 Commercial Refuse Impact Fee Formula ........................................................................................43 Table 11-1 Traffic Circulation Costs ........................................................................................................................45 Table 11-2 Land Use Category and Corresponding ITE Category................................................................47 Table 11-3 Land Use Category Adjustment Factor ............................................................................................48 Table 11-4 Trip Demand Factor by Land Use Category with Adjustment Factor..................................49 Table 11-5 Estimated Total Trips from New Growth .......................................................................................50 Table 11-6 Cost per Trip Estimate ...........................................................................................................................51 Table 11-7 Circulation Facilities Cost Allocation and Fee (except within Downtown Mixed Use).51 Table 11-8 Circulation Facilities Cost Allocation and Fee (Downtown Mixed Use) .............................52
Development Impact Fee Study September 2019
City of Hanford Page iv
Table 12-1 Comparison of Proposed and Current Development Impact Fees for Fire, Police, Water, Wastewater and Parks ..................................................................................................................................................53 Table 12-2 Comparison of Proposed and Current Development Impact Fees for Storm Drainage 55 Table 12-3 Comparison of Proposed and Current Development Impact Fees for Circulation .........56 Table 12-4 Comparison of Proposed and Current Development Impact Fees for a Single-family Residence ...........................................................................................................................................................................57 Table 12-5 Comparison of Proposed Development Impact Fees for a Single Family Residential Dwelling Unit with Nearby Cities’ Estimate Fees (rounded to nearest dollar) .......................................57 Table 13-1 Available Impact Fee Credits from Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drainage Impact Fee Accounts ...............................................................................................................................................................................60 Table 13-2 Available Impact Fee Credits from Circulation and Parks Impact Fee Accounts ..............61
Development Impact Fee Study September 2019
City of Hanford Page 44
SECTION 11 - CIRCULATION FACILITIES
The following General Plan Objectives and Policies in the General Plan’s Chapter 4: Transportation & Circulation provide the foundation for the City's provisions of circulation infrastructure.
Policy T1: Coordination of Circulation and Land Use
Develop a circulation network that reinforces the desired land use pattern for Hanford, as identified in the land use element.
Policy T3: Circulation Map
Identify the locations of existing and future Highways, Major Arterials, Arterials, Collectors, and Minor Collectors with the Planned Area Boundary on the Circulation Map. Locations shown shall be fixed, with allowance for slight variation from the depicted alignments of new Collectors and Minor Collectors.
Policy T36: Traffic Impact Fees
Periodically review and update the traffic impact fee program to ensure new development contributes its fair share of funding for new street, intersection, and highway improvements.
11.1 - Methodology for Calculating Circulation Impact Fee Figure 11-1 identifies the future streets, intersections, and signals that will be needed to implement the circulation goals of the General Plan. Table 11-1 lists the identified improvements. Each of these improvements has an estimated cost which is summed to obtain an estimated total cost of new circulation infrastructure needed to support new growth. Table 11-2 lists typical land uses along with their corresponding land use found in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Manual. Because some uses’ vehicle trips are more often a result what is called pass-by trip (i.e. getting fuel for the car while on the way to work), Table 11-3 estimates an adjustment factor to adjust the raw daily trip estimates. Table 11-4 makes this adjustment and provides a trip demand factor for each identified use. identifies most typical land uses and develops a trip demand factor for each land use.
Table 11-5 uses the estimated total future residential units and total future non-residential square footage to estimate the total future vehicle trips. Table 11-6 divides the total costs from Table 11-1 by the total trips from Table 11-5 to generate a cost per vehicle trip. Table 11-7 identifies the impact fee by multiplying the trip demand factor from Table 11-4 by the cost per vehicle trip in Table 11-
6. Based upon the discussion in Section 3.5, a separate table for the impact fees for downtown uses is shown in Table 11-8. Fee amounts vary by the type of units used.
11.2 - Circulation Infrastructure Impact Need and Cost
Figure 11-1 shows that General Plan Circulation Map and identifies the future streets, intersections, and signals that will be needed to implement the circulation goals of the General Plan. The General
Development Impact Fee Study September 2019
City of Hanford Page 45
Plan goals, policies, and resulting map are based upon the estimated future growth of the city up to 2035. Only improvements attributable to future growth were included. Table 11-1 lists the identified improvements along with one grade separation project, the 9th Avenue interchange project, and seven other Caltrans projects. Each of these improvements has an estimated cost which is summed to obtain an estimated total cost of new circulation infrastructure needed to support new growth.
Table 11-1
Traffic Circulation Costs
Item Count Unit Unit Cost Total
Facilities
Limited Arterial Roadway
Improvements 13.90 miles $1,579,717 $21,958,071
Arterial Roadway Improvments 36.31 miles $1,579,717 $57,359,536 Collector Roadway Improvments 15.74 miles $599,339 $9,433,591 Intersection Improvements 66 number $400,000 $26,400,000 Traffic Signal Improvements 27 number $400,000 $10,800,000 Railroad Grade Separation 1 number $15,000,000 $15,000,000 9th Avenue Interchange 1 number $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Other Caltrans Improvements 7 intersections $500,000 $3,500,000 Subtotal $149,451,198
Contingency 15% $22,417,680
Engineering 15% $22,417,680
Arterial and Limited Arterial Right
of Way in Excess of 42 feet wide* 3,446,414.40 square feet $2.066 $7,120,292 Total Traffic Circulation Costs $201,406,849
* Square feet is the linear miles of arterials and limited arterials multiplied by 13 feet. Unit cost is $90,000 per acre converted to square feet.
Source: Hanford General Plan, Hanford Public
Works Dept.
Development Impact Fee Study September 2019
City of Hanford Page 46
Figure 11-1
Future Streets, Intersections, and Signals Included
Development Impact Fee Study September 2019
City of Hanford Page 58
SECTION 13 - IMPLEMENTATION
The new impact fees will be effective 60 days after they are adopted by resolution by the City Council. In order to effectively implement the impact fee program, several practices and procedures must be established. This section discusses accounting, collection, and reimbursement.
13.1 - Accounting
Proceeds from the development impact fees must be collected and segregated into separate accounts to ensure that fees are used for the purposes and projects for which the fees are collected.
The City need not provide separate accounts for different projects or improvements that are part of a specific impact fee and can utilize these monies for any project included in the original fee justification based on present day priorities. For example, traffic impact fees may be used for the highest priority traffic project that was included in the fee justification, as determined by the City Council. Annual reporting to the City Council of the status of each impact fee fund is required by law.
13.2 - Collection of Fees
Government Code Section 66007, adopted in 2007, states that the agency shall not require the collection of impact fees for residential development projects until either the final inspection has been made or the certificate of occupancy has been issued, whichever comes first. Most cities meet this requirement by identifying the amount of the fees when the building permit is issued, and then flagging the project so that final inspection is not given until the fees are paid. This code section does not apply to non-residential development projects.
13.3 - Non-conforming Buildings
There can be uncertainty about whether to collect impact fees when it is found that a building or dwelling has been constructed without proper building permits. When an unpermitted building or dwelling is discovered by the City and made to obtain a building code conformance permit, impact fees should also be paid.
13.4 - Increase in Fees for Inflation
Impact fees and the standard reimbursement amounts should be adjusted at least once per year to account for inflation. These adjustments are usually based upon Engineering News Record Construction Costs Index (ENRCCI), which estimates a general percentage change in construction costs over the previous year.
It is strongly recommended that, as part of the initial adoption of impact fees, the Council direct City staff to automatically increase fees once a year based on ENRCCI, as opposed to having the Council vote for increases every year. Voting once to authorize automatic yearly increases allows the City
Development Impact Fee Study September 2019
City of Hanford Page 59
to collect the full and current amount of impact fees on vesting tentative map subdivisions when new homes are constructed on those maps.
13.5 - Credits and Reimbursements
From time to time there will be instances where a developer may construct an infrastructure improvement for which fees are being collected. In these cases, the City can provide a fee credit in exchange for the actual infrastructure improvement that is constructed. Many cities provide a credit based on actual costs of construction. However, if actual unit costs are higher than are estimated in this study due to special circumstance, inflation, or otherwise, then those cities will be paying out more than they would have collected. An alternative approach that better protects the City from the risk of cost fluctuation is to only provide a credit based on the unit costs in this report and the master plans it relied upon for costs. This puts the risk of cost fluctuation on the developer. If costs are higher, the developer must cover that cost. Conversely, if the developer can build the infrastructure improvements for less, then the developer gets to keep that cost savings.
It is recommended that the amount of any fee credits be specifically identified in writing and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of a final map for a residential project or issuance of a building permit for a non-residential project. If the amount to be credited is greater than amount of the impact fee, a cash reimbursement can be identified in writing and approved by the City Engineer and the Finance Director. The cash reimbursement for residential projects should be paid at final occupancy (the same time the fees are paid). All credits must be paid from their respective impact fee account. One account cannot pay a credit for another account.
Figures 13-1 and 13-2 list the types of credits and credit amounts that can be provided if the developer constructs improvements. Improvements that are not specifically listed in their respective master plans would only be creditable at the discretion of the Public Works Director. The amount of the credit should be automatically adjusted each year at the same rate that the impact fees are adjusted.
For water, wastewater, and storm drain pipelines the reimbursement credit will be the difference between the credit amount of an 8” water line and the credit amount of the required size, the credit amount of an 8” wastewater line and the credit amount of the required size, and the credit amount of a 12” storm drain line and the credit amount of the required size. There will be no credits given for 8” water and wastewater line installation or 12” storm drain line installation.
For wastewater lift stations, the reimbursement credit will be the difference between the ultimate design size being required in gallons per minute (gpm) and the size in gpm that would be required to serve the individual development.
Development Impact Fee Study September 2019
City of Hanford Page 60
Table 13-1
Available Impact Fee Credits from Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drainage Impact Fee Accounts Item Credit per Unit Unit
Water
8" Pipeline $65.00 lineal foot
12" Pipeline $173.25 lineal foot
18" Pipeline $210.28 lineal foot
Groundwater Well (1,500 gpm) $1,200,259.00 each
Pump Station (3 @ 3,100 gpm) $4,002,999.00 each
Pump Station (4 @ 1,400 gpm) $2,738,421.00 each
Storage Tank (1.5 MG) $3,419,975.00 each
Land for Storage Tank or Well $40,000.00 acre
Wastewater
8" Gravity Main $178.00 lineal foot
12" Gravity Main $301.53 lineal foot
15" Gravity Main $316.08 lineal foot
18" Gravity Main $341.21 lineal foot
21" Gravity Main $370.30 lineal foot
24" Gravity Main $384.85 lineal foot
27" Gravity Main $444.36 lineal foot
30" Gravity Main $522.39 lineal foot
36" Gravity Main $649.35 lineal foot
18" Force Main $304.39 lineal foot
Lift Station $1,382.80 gpm
Storm Drain
12" Pipeline $96.00 lineal foot
21" Pipeline $219.54 lineal foot
24" Pipeline $259.21 lineal foot
30" Pipeline $318.72 lineal foot
36" Pipeline $378.24 lineal foot
42" Pipeline $437.75 lineal foot
48" Pipeline $517.10 lineal foot
60" Pipeline $596.45 lineal foot
96" Pipeline $1,014.36 lineal foot
Retention Basin (0 to 5 acre feet) $33,040.08 acre foot Retention Basin (Over 5 to 10 acre feet) $19,725.46 acre foot Retention Basin (Over 10 to 20 acre feet) $11,224.84 acre foot Retention Basin (Over 20 acre feet) $6,816.16 acre foot
Development Impact Fee Study September 2019
City of Hanford Page 61
The available fee credits for circulation and park improvements made by developers are listed in Table 13-2. These are set fees that coincide with the unit costs used to calculate the impact fees.
Actual costs will not be used to determine fee credits. The Public Works Department will evaluate improvement plans when they are submitted to determine the type of fee credits that apply and their amount.
The right of way fee credit only applies to credit for right of way for General Plan designated arterials and limited arterials. The amount of square feet dedicated beyond a 42-foot wide half street will be eligible for fee credit. This fee credit would not apply to outlot parcels used for landscaping or other purposes.
Table 13-2
Available Impact Fee Credits from Circulation and Parks Impact Fee Accounts Item
Credit per
Unit Unit
Circulation - Arterial and Major Arterial Street
Median Curb (both sides) $20.00 lineal foot
Median Concrete (16' wide) $160.00 lineal foot
Pavement (one side - 22' wide) $79.59 lineal foot
Right of Way in exceeding 42’ wide half street $2.066 square foot Circulation - Collector Street
Pavement (one side - 18' wide) $56.76 lineal foot
Circulation - Street Intersections
Traffic Signal $400,000.00 each
Intersection Improvements (full) $400,000.00 each
Parks - Must be Identified in General Plan
Park Improvements $184,255.15 acre
Land for Park $90,000.00 acre
Engineering News Record Construction Costs Index (ENRCCI) Item Credit per Unit Unit 2019 to 2023 = 16.79% increase 8" Pipeline $65.00 LF $75.91
12" Pipeline $173.25 LF $202.34
18" Pipeline $210.28 LF $245.59
Groundwater Well (1,500 gpm) $1,200,259.00 EA $1,401,782.49 Pump Station (3 @ 3,100 gpm) $4,002,999.00 EA $4,675,102.53 Pump Station (4 @ 1,400 gpm) $2,738,421.00 EA $3,198,201.89 Storage Tank (1.5 MG) $3,419,975.00 EA $3,994,188.80
Land for Storage Tank or Well $40,000.00 AC $46,716.00
8" Gravity Main $178.00 LF $207.89
12" Gravity Main $301.53 LF $352.16
15" Gravity Main $316.08 LF $369.15
18" Gravity Main $341.21 LF $398.50
21" Gravity Main $370.30 LF $432.47
24" Gravity Main $384.85 LF $449.47
27" Gravity Main $444.36 LF $518.97
30" Gravity Main $522.39 LF $610.10
36" Gravity Main $649.35 LF $758.38
18" Force Main $304.39 LF $355.50
Lift Station $1,382.80 GPM $1,614.97
12" Pipeline $96.00 LF $112.12
21" Pipeline $219.54 LF $256.40
24" Pipeline $259.21 LF $302.73
30" Pipeline $318.72 LF $372.23
36" Pipeline $378.24 LF $441.75
42" Pipeline $437.75 LF $511.25
48" Pipeline $517.10 LF $603.92
60" Pipeline $596.45 LF $696.59
96" Pipeline $1,014.36 LF $1,184.67
Retention Basin (0 to 5 acre feet) $33,040.08 AC-FT $38,587.51 Retention Basin (Over 5 to 10 acre feet) $19,725.46 AC-FT $23,037.36 Retention Basin (Over 10 to 20 acre feet) $11,224.84 AC-FT $13,109.49 Retention Basin (Over 20 acre feet) $6,816.16 AC-FT $7,960.59 Median Curb (both sides) $20.00 LF $23.36
Median Concrete (16' wide) $160.00 LF $186.86
Pavement (one side - 22' wide) $79.59 LF $92.95
Right of Way in exceeding 42’ wide half street $2.07 LF $2.41 Pavement (one side - 18' wide) $56.76 LF $66.29
Traffic Signal $400,000.00 EA $467,160.00
Intersection Improvements (full) $400,000.00 EA $467,160.00 Park Improvements $184,255.15 AC $215,191.59
Land for Park $90,000.00 AC $105,111.00
Water
Wastewater
Storm Drain
Circulation - Arterial and Major Arterial Street
Circulation - Collector Street
Circulation - Street Intersections
Parks - Must be Identified in General Plan
Tract 928, Unit 3 Reimbursement Summary
The subdivision agreement for Tract 928, Unit 3 states that reimbursements are allowed for certain improvements, and must be made “in writing prior to the Notice of Completion being accepted by the City Council. The conditions of approval, which are included in the Resolution 20-23-R for Tract 928, states that reimbursements shall be made per the City Impact Fee Reimbursements document.
Per the Subdivision Agreement:
The developer states that a request for reimbursement was made in September 2023. The Notice of Completion was approved by City Council in October 2023.
The developer, per the Conditions of Approval, was required to submit three cost proposals prior to construction for the costs incurred for the improvements for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to start of construction.
The developer did not submit any cost proposals for work performed on Fargo Avenue or Sangiovese Street. Reimbursements for pavement are determined by the City Impact Fee Study with a cost escalator, and Caltrans costs for construction of the additional specified improvements that are stated in the Conditions of Approval.
The following exhibits are from the City Impact Fee Study. Reimbursements are allowed for BLUE streets as shown below. Tract 928, Unit 3 reimbursements include street, sewer, and water improvements in Fargo Avenue (Arterial) and Sangiovese Street (Collector).
The reimbursable costs for improvements shall include an ENR Escalator (based on Impact Fee Reimbursement document adoption date to the Notice of Completion date (September 2019 to December 2023). The escalator to costs stated in the City Impact Fee Study are determined to be 19.48% increase in costs stated.
Tract 928, Unit 3 Final Map boundary:
Reimbursements are eligible for improvements on Fargo Avenue frontage (545 lf) and offsite (Not a Part – 355 lf), and on Sangiovese Street (689 lf).
Pavement and Oversize of Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Storm Reimbursements:
Per the City Impact Fee Study:
Fargo Avenue Reimbursements:
The improvements on Fargo Avenue included pavement across the frontage and pavement and right of way acquisition across the Not a Part parcel to the east. Additionally, a reimbursement for the installation of an oversized 12” water main in Fargo is included.
The conditions state that a 15” sanitary sewer main was to be installed in Fargo Avenue, however, the developer did not install the sewer main stated in the Conditions of Approval and as shown on the city Sewer Masterplan. Therefore, the developer shall contribute their share of an 8” sanitary sewer main in Fargo Avenue for a future city project to perform the work.
Improvements on Sangiovese Street included pavement and installation of an 8” water main. The water main is not oversized, and therefore only the pavement reimbursement for a Collector street per the City Impact Fee Study shall be included.
The Conditions of Approval state the following:
A traffic signal is identified at the intersection of Fargo Avenue and Centennial Drive to be installed, which would be reimbursable. The developer provided information to the city that the project did not warrant a traffic signal with their development, therefore the traffic signal is not required with Tract 928 development.
Not a Part improvements:
Additional right of way was acquired by the developer across the Not a Part parcel and improvements including paving, curb and gutter, and striping and signage are reimbursable.
The Conditions of Approval state that Fargo Avenue frontage reimbursements include street paving and median curbs and median concrete as identified in the City Impact Fee Study. Median curbs and concrete were not installed with the project.
The 15” sanitary sewer main was not installed in Fargo Avenue as was required in the Conditions of Approval and the City Sewer Master Plan. The developer shall pay their share of an 8” sewer line in Fargo Avenue per the City Impact Fee Study.
A 12” water main was installed in Fargo Avenue, and the developer is entitled to a reimbursement for oversizing of the water main from 8” to 12” per the City Impact Fee Study.
Reimbursement unit costs: (escalator of 19.48% to be applied. • Additional off site right of way Per the Impact Fee Study is $2.066 per s.f. • Arterial Pavement (Fargo) – one side, 22’ wide at $79.59 per lf • Offsite Arterial Pavement - $79.59 per lf / 22’ wide = $3.62 per s.f. • Collector Pavement (Sangiovese) – one side, 18’ wide at $56.76 per lf. • Pavement Striping per Caltrans construction costs is $1.00 per lf, plus thermoplastic arrows at $4.75 per sf. – Current costs with no escalator. • Signage per Caltrans construction costs are $300.00 per sign. – current costs with no escalator.
• Curb and gutter per Caltrans construction costs is $65.92 per lf. – current costs with no escalator.
• Oversize 8” to 12” water main cost is $108.25.
• Not a Part 12” water main cost is $173.25.
1. Fargo - Offsite/Not a Part right of way and improvements: Not a Part frontage=355.00 lf. • Offsite Right of way to be acquired: 12’ additional right of way (30’ to 42’) along the “Not a Part” parcel.
o 12’ wide x 355.00’ length = 4,260 sf of R/W; 4,260sf x 2.066 per sf = $8,801.16 x 119.48% = $10,515.63 to be reimbursed from the Transportation Impact Fees for Offsite R/W on Fargo.
• Offsite Pavement from edge of pavement to gutter lip: $3.62 per sf x (355 lf x 20’ wide)= $25,702.00 x 119.48% = $30,708.75 to be reimbursed from the Transportation Impact Fees for offsite frontage pavement. • Offsite curb and gutter: Cost for curb and gutter not provided by developer and is determined by Caltrans minor concrete cost for curb and gutter. $65.92 per LF x 355 LF = $23,401.60 to be reimbursed from Transportation Impact Fees for offsite frontage curb and gutter.
• Water Main 12”: 682’ + 369’ = 1051’ installed (506’ offsite and 545 frontage) o Offsite 12” Water Main installed: ($173.25 x 119.48% = $207.00 per LF) 506’ (per improvement plans) x $207.00 = $104,742.00 to be reimbursed from the Water Impact Fees for offsite water main. • Signing and striping on Fargo Avenue: (2280 lf + 2 arrow legends) Striping not applied per plans, diagonal lines omitted. Per Caltrans costs = $1.00 x 2380 lf x 2 (double yellow lines) = $4,760. Thermoplastic arrows = $4.75 per sf. 2 arrows x 15 sf x $4.75 = $142.50 reimbursement for arrows. Total reimbursement for striping $4,902.50 from Transportation Impact Fees.
• Signage as determined by Caltrans costs = $300 each X 1 sign = $300.00 reimbursement for signage from Transportation Impact Fees.
2. Fargo frontage improvements: Site frontage improvements: 545.29 lf • Frontage Pavement from edge of pavement to gutter lip (22’): $79.59 per LF (for 22’ if paving.) x 545 LF = $43,376.55 x 119.48% = $51,826.30 to be reimbursed from the Transportation Impact Fees for frontage pavement.
3. Water Main 12”: 682’ + 369’ = 1051’ installed (545’ frontage) a. Frontage Water Main: Oversize from 8” to 12”: $173.25 - $65.00 = $108.25 x 119.48% = $129.34 per lf.
i. 545’ x $129.64 = $70,490.30 to be reimbursed from the Water Impact Fees for oversize water main.
4. Sewer Main: Developer to pay for share of 8” SS main – SS main was not installed as required per masterplan:
a. 8”SS: $178.00 x 119.48% = $212.67 per lf. Developer share is 50% of 8” SS=$106.33
b. 545’ x $106.33 = Credit of $57,949.85 to be paid by developer to the Sewer Impact Fees.
5. Reimbursement for Final Map review (per invoices from Acting City Surveyor Michael Sutherland plus 10% markup: $1,537.50 x 110% = Credit of $1,691.25 to be paid by Developer for final map review to the Engineering Special Services for Plan Review fund.
Sangiovese Street Improvements (Collector)
6. Sangiovese improvements: Site frontage improvements: 689.63 lf • Pavement for Collector (18’-one side): $56.76 per lf x 689.63 LF = $39,143.40 x 119.48% = $46,768.53 to be reimbursed from the Transportation Impact Fees for Collector Street pavement.
Summary:
Transportation Impact Fees – $10,515.63 + $30,708.75 + $23,401.60 + $4,902.50 + $300.00 + $51,826.30 + $46,768.53 = $168,423.31
Water Impact Fees - $104,742.00 + $70,490.30 = $175,232.30 Sewer Impact Fees – Credit -$57,949.85 = -$57,949.85
Final Map Review – Credit -$1,691.25 = -$ 1,691.25
Total Reimbursement = $284,014.51
Total Reimbursement to the developer: $284,014.51
§ 13.04.140. Oversized water mains.
The city shall have the right to require a customer to construct an oversized water main pipeline. If the city requires a customer to construct an oversized water main pipeline, the city shall reimburse the customer the actual cost paid by the customer for the oversizing in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 15.49 of the Hanford Municipal Code. Only water main pipelines larger than eight inches in internal diameter shall be considered oversized; however, if a customer requires a water main pipeline larger than eight inches for its own purposes, the oversized water main pipeline constructed and installed by the customer will be considered the size required to serve that customer. The city engineer is hereby empowered to make the determination as to how much, if any, oversizing is required and is also empowered to determine the difference in cost between the actual construction and installation cost and the average cost of pipeline. The decisions made by the city engineer shall be binding and conclusive on the customer. (Prior code § 6-6.14; Ord. 99-01, 1999)
City of Hanford, CA
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/HA4933 on 2024-04-29 7
§ 13.08.150Oversized sewer line.
The city shall have the right to require an applicant to construct an oversized sewer line. If the city requires an applicant to construct an oversized sewer line, the city shall reimburse the applicant the actual cost paid by the applicant for the oversizing in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 15.49 of the Hanford Municipal Code. Only sewer lines larger than six inches in internal diameter and which have been identified in the city's sewer impact fee program, shall be considered oversized; however, if an applicant requires a sewer line larger than six inches for its own purposes, then the oversized sewer line will be considered the size required to serve that applicant. The city engineer is empowered to make the determination as to how much, if any, oversizing is required and is also empowered to determine the difference in cost between the actual construction and installation cost and the average cost of a six inch (or larger) sewer line. The decisions made by the city engineer shall be binding and conclusive on the applicant.
(Ord. 12-02, 2012)
18.C.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/21/2025 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS SUBJECT:
Authorization to reimburse Presidio JJR Bella Vista II 150, LLC and Presidio FFO Bonterra II 160, LLC in the amount of $47,209.08 for Tract 928, Unit 4 for street improvements on Fargo Avenue and Centennial Drive, including a credit for uninstalled Sanitary Sewer mains and City Surveyor review of the final map; AND approve an appropriation of $136,013.38 to fulfill the reimbursements from Transportation Impact Fees Fund, and credits to Wastewater Impact Fees and Engineering Special Services account.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation:
That the City Council, by motion:
1. Authorize a reimbursement to Presidio JJR Bella Vista II 150, LLC and Presidio FFO Bonterra II 160, LLC in the amount of $47,209.08 for street improvements in Fargo Avenue and Centennial Drive including a credit for sewer master planned installation and final map review for Tract 928, Unit 3.
2. Approve an appropriation of $136,013.38 from the Transportation Impact Fees Fund to fulfill the reimbursement and credit fees for Sewer installation and Surveyor review.
Recommended Motion:
I make a motion that the City Council (approve/deny),
1. A reimbursement to Presidio JJR Bella Vista II 150, LLC (and Presidio FFO Bonterra II 160, LLC) in the amount of $47,209.08 for the Fargo Avenue and Centennial Drive street improvements located within Tract No. 928, Unit No. 4.
2. Approve an appropriation of $136,013.38 from the Transportation Impact Fees Fund to fulfill the reimbursement and credit the fees to the Sewer Impact Fees and Engineering Special Services fund for Surveyor final map review.
BACKGROUND:
Tract No. 928, Unit No. 4 is a 93 lots single family development that is located at the southeast corner of Fargo Avenue and Centennial Drive, as shown on the attached Final Map. (Attachment 1) This Unit 4 is the final phased unit of the Tract 928 development, which contains 283 single family
residential lots as shown on the attached Tentative Map for Tract 928. (Attachment 2) On December 1, 2020, the City Council approved the attached Resolution 20-33-R for Vesting Tentative Tract 928 as filed by Cal Clark Farms and developed by Presidio JJR Sterling Oaks 104, LLC. (Attachment 3).
On May 18, 2023, the Subdivision Agreement for Tract 928, Unit No. 4, was approved. (Attachment 4). The agreement states that reimbursements for improvements must be made in writing prior to the Council approval of the Notice of Completion. The Notice of Completion was approved by City Council on June 4, 2024. (Attachment 5). A written request for reimbursements was provided to the city on February 16, 2024.
As stated in the Resolution Conditions of Approval and the Subdivision Agreement, certain improvements are eligible for reimbursement. Costs are based on the City Impact Fee Study (Attachment 6).
1. A reimbursement for the required street construction of Fargo Avenue at frontage “for permanent street widening improvements across their frontage consisting of street paving, median curbs, and median concrete as identified in the City Impact Fee Study, to be reimbursed to the developer through the Transportation Impact Fee fund.
2. The Impact Fee Study includes reimbursements allowed for Centennial Drive, a Collector street identified in the reimbursable eligible roadways in the Study.
3. The City Impact Fees Study additionally provides for payment to the city for the Surveyor Plan Review of the final map. The developer shall pay the city the Actual Cost plus 10% for administrative costs for Final Map review. The credit shall be applied to the Engineering Special Services fund.
4. Per the Conditions of Approval, the developer was to install a 15” master planned sanitary sewer main in Fargo Avenue across the property frontage. The sewer main was not installed, therefore a credit for said sewer main is applied to allow the future developers on the north side to install the sewer main at a later date.
These reimbursements are totaled in the Summary of Reimbursements. (Attachment 7) and are shown on the Subdivision Improvement Plans. (Attachment 8) Frontage Pavement on Fargo Avenue. $ 78,452.43
Frontage Pavement on Centennial Drive $57,560.95
Credit for 15” Sanitary Sewer Main per COA and Masterplan-not installed -$ 87,731.80 Credit for Final Map review -$ 1,072.50
Total Reimbursement $ 47,209.08
A copy of the reimbursement calculations is shown in Attachment 7 for City Council review. The appropriations for the reimbursements and credits shall be made from the following accounts:
1. Fargo Avenue and Centennial Drive frontage street improvements through Transportation Impact Fees Fund in the amount of $136,013.38 (Acct. # 21810000-825600).
2. Credit for share of an 8” of a 15” sanitary sewer masterplanned main in Fargo Avenue, as stated in the Conditions of Approval and not constructed through the Sewer Impact Fees per Municipal Code 13.08.0152 (Attachment 9). The total credit to be applied to the Wastewater Impact Fees is determined as -$87,731.80 (Credit to Acct # Sewer Impact Fees).
3. The credit payment due to the city for Surveyor Final Map plan review per the City Master Fee Schedule, and to be applied to the City Engineering Special Services fund is -$1,072.50 (Credit to Acct. # 20100000-540300).
The developer has requested that the reimbursement of $47,209.08 for Tract 928, Unit 4 to be divided between the two developer investors and that two separate checks be provided as follows:
• The total reimbursement to Presidio JJR Bella Vista II 150, LLC (14%) is $6,609.27. • The total reimbursement to Presidio FFO Bonterra II 160, LLC (86%) is $40,599.81.
If approved by the Council, reimbursements to the developers will be provided immediately as the Final Map for Tract 928, Unit 4 has been recorded and the Notice of Completion was approved and accepted by the City Council on June 4, 2024.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The FY 24/25 Transportation Impact Fees reimbursement fund has a current balance of $8,528,303.00. An appropriation of $136,013.38 is needed from the Transportation Impact Fees fund to reimburse the developer the $47,209.08 for street improvement requirements, a credit fee and transfer funds for the final map review by the City Surveyor -$1,072.50 and a credit fee and transfer funds for the 15” Sanitary Sewer masterplanned main in Fargo Avenue -$87,731.80.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 928-4 Recorded Final Map 8.10.23
2. Tentative Tract 928 TM
3. Resolution 20-23-R (includes Conditions of Approval)
4. 928-4 Subdivision Agreement- signed
5. Tract 928 Unit 4 NOC - Recorded
6. City Impact Fee Study - Portion - 9- 2019
7. Tract 928-4 Summary of Reimbursements
8. TR928-4 Improvement Plans (504. 534. 4)
9. Muni Code Oversize Sewer-PCI-request for reimb
PARK
97937 SQ FT
2.25 Acres
215,204 S.F.
4.94 AC.
BASIN
8,840 S.F.
50 8,955 S.F.
39 7,800 S.F.
84 10,867 S.F.
68 8,840 S.F.
49 8,603 S.F.
99 7,800 S.F.
83 8,894 S.F.
67 8,840 S.F.
48 8,100 S.F.
98 7,800 S.F.
82 8,882 S.F.
66 8,840 S.F.
55 8,840 S.F.
47 9,017 S.F.
34 8,100 S.F.
97 7,800 S.F.
89 7,800 S.F.
81 12,033 S.F.
73 9,282 S.F.
65 9,915 S.F.
62 8,840 S.F.
54 8,840 S.F.
46 9,180 S.F.
35 9,180 S.F.
96 8,365 S.F.
88 8,840 S.F.
80 12,036 S.F.
72 9,282 S.F.
64 9,282 S.F.
61 8,840 S.F.
53 8,840 S.F.
45 9,180 S.F.
36 8,793 S.F.
95 9,404 S.F.
87 8,443 S.F.
79 11,252 S.F.
71 9,915 S.F.
63 9,282 S.F.
60 8,840 S.F.
52 8,509 S.F.
44 8,100 S.F.
37 9,350 S.F.
94 8,840 S.F.
86 8,912 S.F.
78 11,252 S.F.
70 9,282 S.F.
59 8,840 S.F.
51 8,461 S.F.
43 7,653 S.F.
38 8,983 S.F.
93 8,840 S.F.
85 10,860 S.F.
77 10,850 S.F.
69 9,282 S.F.
58 8,450 S.F.
42 8,456 S.F.
92 10,848 S.F.
76 9,404 S.F.
57 7,984 S.F.
41 8,840 S.F.
91 11,248 S.F.
75 8,840 S.F.
56 8,531 S.F.
40 7,800 S.F.
90 11,249 S.F.
74 6,781 S.F.
152
8,100 S.F.
128
7,099 S.F.
154
6,810 S.F.
153
6,781 S.F.
149
6,779 S.F.
143
6,779 S.F.
142
6,257 S.F.
141
6,779 S.F.
146
8,351 S.F.
120
8,456 S.F.
155
7,020 S.F.
125
6,779 S.F.
144
6,781 S.F.
151
6,779 S.F.
145
6,781 S.F.
150
7,259 S.F.
227
7,261 S.F.
228
6,779 S.F.
147
6,781 S.F.
148
7,020 S.F.
137
7,474 S.F.
127
7,020 S.F.
131
7,650 S.F.
139
7,020 S.F.
129
6,683 S.F.
138
7,020 S.F.
135
7,020 S.F.
130
6,935 S.F.
133
7,020 S.F.
136
6,934 S.F.
134
7,020 S.F.
132
7,020 S.F.
121
7,020 S.F.
122
7,020 S.F.
123
7,020 S.F.
124
7,020 S.F.
126
7,078 S.F.
140
9,520 S.F.
5 7,018 S.F.
10 11,724 S.F.
9 7,147 S.F.
12 7,147 S.F.
11 7,656 S.F.
13 16,296 S.F.
8 8,206 S.F.
7 9,520 S.F.
6 9,520 S.F.
2 9,520 S.F.
4 9,520 S.F.
3 10,048 S.F.
1 8,010 S.F.
114
8,506 S.F.
119
8,010 S.F.
118
8,010 S.F.
117
7,080 S.F.
106
7,656 S.F.
111
8,010 S.F.
112
8,010 S.F.
113
8,010 S.F.
115
8,010 S.F.
116
16,578 S.F.
110
7,036 S.F.
108
7,080 S.F.
107
7,080 S.F.
102
7,080 S.F.
105
7,080 S.F.
104
7,080 S.F.
103
7,498 S.F.
100
7,080 S.F.
101
9,028 S.F.
109
7,800 S.F.
28 7,800 S.F.
20 7,800 S.F.
27 7,800 S.F.
19 7,800 S.F.
26 7,800 S.F.
18 13,543 S.F.
33 7,673 S.F.
25 7,800 S.F.
17 7,800 S.F.
32 12,425 S.F.
24 7,800 S.F.
16 7,800 S.F.
31 15,217 S.F.
23 7,800 S.F.
30 7,551 S.F.
22 7,800 S.F.
14 7,800 S.F.
29 7,800 S.F.
21 7,858 S.F.
266
7,068 S.F.
163
7,858 S.F.
171
6,963 S.F.
256
7,858 S.F.
156
7,764 S.F.
164
7,858 S.F.
172
6,948 S.F.
257
6,938 S.F.
260
7,858 S.F.
157
7,612 S.F.
165
7,858 S.F.
173
8,083 S.F.
259
6,937 S.F.
261
7,858 S.F.
158
6,902 S.F.
166
7,858 S.F.
251
7,051 S.F.
262
7,858 S.F.
159
7,418 S.F.
167
7,834 S.F.
252
7,361 S.F.
263
7,862 S.F.
160
7,730 S.F.
168
7,686 S.F.
253
7,721 S.F.
264
7,765 S.F.
161
7,846 S.F.
169
7,375 S.F.
254
7,860 S.F.
265
7,454 S.F.
162
7,858 S.F.
170
7,083 S.F.
255
8,119 S.F.
258
7,718 S.F.
175
7,498 S.F.
188
7,080 S.F.
187
7,080 S.F.
186
6,805 S.F.
185
14,695 S.F.
184
10,259 S.F.
183
7,059 S.F.
182
7,087 S.F.
181
7,094 S.F.
180
7,100 S.F.
179
7,106 S.F.
178
7,112 S.F.
177
7,118 S.F.
176
7,156 S.F.
247
7,725 S.F.
174
7,138 S.F.
250
7,144 S.F.
249
7,150 S.F.
248
7,175 S.F.
244
7,162 S.F.
246
7,168 S.F.
245
7,621 S.F.
243
7,039 S.F.
232
6,844 S.F.
222
7,177 S.F.
230
7,115 S.F.
225
7,046 S.F.
231
6,962 S.F.
224
15,575 S.F.
235
9,484 S.F.
269
10,639 S.F.
267
6,600 S.F.
218
7,364 S.F.
219
8,024 S.F.
216
6,649 S.F.
220
13,485 S.F.
234
6,746 S.F.
221
7,134 S.F.
233
6,941 S.F.
223
7,571 S.F.
229
7,753 S.F.
226
7,388 S.F.
276
10,503 S.F.
268
11,371 S.F.
270
7,202 S.F.
239
7,051 S.F.
236
7,202 S.F.
237
7,202 S.F.
238
7,202 S.F.
241
7,202 S.F.
240
7,730 S.F.
242
10,281 S.F.
271
7,800 S.F.
272
6,480 S.F.
281
6,480 S.F.
278
7,344 S.F.
279
7,344 S.F.
280
7,797 S.F.
283
7,344 S.F.
282
7,775 S.F.
273
7,010 S.F.
274
6,718 S.F.
275
6,600 S.F.
217
7,344 S.F.
277
8,100 S.F.
192
7,800 S.F.
203
8,541 S.F.
195
7,572 S.F.
194
8,100 S.F.
193
8,100 S.F.
190
8,100 S.F.
191
8,603 S.F.
189
8,230 S.F.
196
6,480 S.F.
197
7,344 S.F.
198
6,480 S.F.
199
7,800 S.F.
205
7,800 S.F.
206
8,365 S.F.
207
7,344 S.F.
211
8,254 S.F.
201
7,279 S.F.
202
7,800 S.F.
204
6,480 S.F.
200
7,874 S.F.
215
6,480 S.F.
214
6,480 S.F.
213
7,344 S.F.
212
7,344 S.F.
209
7,344 S.F.
210
7,797 S.F.
208
7,800 S.F.
15 1
CHECKED BY:
INDEXED BY:
DATE:
JOB NO.:
SHEET:
OF 1
DRAWN BY:
AD
4/6/2020
0606351
MO No. Revisions Date
609 N. Irwin St.
Hanford, CA 93230
Office: (559) 582-1056
Fax: (559) 584-4143
COUNTY TRACT 634 L.S.P. 16-6 K.C.R.
NOT A PART
PHASE I
PHASE III COUNTY TRACT 769 L.S.P. 21-38 K.C.R.
COUNTY TRACT 918 L.S.P. 26-19 K.C.R. COUNTY TRACT 919
L.S.P. 26-38 K.C.R.
1 Relocated Park, adjusted Lots 02-28-20
COUNTY TRACT 835 LSP. 21-53 K.C.R.
3 Updated Street Sections & General Information04-06-204 Move park North 9 lots 04-17-202 Adjusted Lot Dimensions and Layout 03-23-20
PHASE II
5 Reconfigure Subdivision Layout 07-13-20 6 Reconfigure Phase Layout 07-17-20 7 Ex. Basin Dimensions/Updated Street X-Sections 07-20-20 P:\JOB FILES\0606351 SJVH-CAL CLARK\DWG\0606351m - JB 07-22-20.dwg, 7/27/2020 8:15:40 AM, Client Submittal, Plotted by JTB
Developer did NOT install this sewer main
FINAL DRAFT
CITY OF HANFORD
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
SEPTEMBER 2019
FINAL DRAFT
CITY OF HANFORD
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
Prepared for:
City of Hanford
900 South 10th Avenue
Hanford, CA 93230
Contact Person: Lou Camara, Public Works Director
Phone: (559) 585-2567
Consultant:
901 East Main Street
Visalia, CA 93292
Contact: Steve Brandt
Phone: (559) 733-0440
September 2019
© Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc.
Unauthorized use prohibited.
Project #130118
Development Impact Fee Study September 2019
City of Hanford Page i
Table of Contents
SECTION 1 - Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1 SECTION 2 - Report Purpose and Organization ................................................................................................. 5
2.1 - Report Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 - Report Organization................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.3 - Basics of an Impact Fee Calculation................................................................................................................... 7 SECTION 3 - Population, Growth Estimates, and Assumptions ..................................................................... 8
3.1 - Undeveloped Land Acreage Projections........................................................................................................... 8
3.2 - Residential Dwelling Unit Projections ............................................................................................................12
3.3 - Non-Residential Square Footage Projections...............................................................................................12
3.4 - Assumption of Land Acquisitions Costs .........................................................................................................13
3.5 - Adjustment for Downtown Uses, Educational Facilities, and Open Space........................................14 SECTION 4 - Fire Facilities ...................................................................................................................................... 15
4.1 - Methodology for Calculating Fire Facilities Impact Fee...........................................................................15
4.2 - Fire Facilities Impact, Need and Cost ..............................................................................................................16
4.3 - Determination of Fire Facilities Impact Fee .................................................................................................17 SECTION 5 - Police Facilities .................................................................................................................................. 20
5.1 - Methodology for Calculating Police Facilities Impact Fee.......................................................................20
5.2 - Police Facilities Impact Need and Cost...........................................................................................................21
5.3 - Determination of Police Facilities Impact Fee .............................................................................................22 SECTION 6 - Water Supply, Treatment and Storage Facilities ..................................................................... 26
6.1 - Methodology for Calculating Water Impact Fee..........................................................................................26
6.2 - Water Infrastructure Impact, Need and Cost ...............................................................................................26
6.3 - Determination of Water Impact Fee ................................................................................................................27 SECTION 7 - Wastewater Collection and Treatment/Disposal Facilities ................................................. 31
7.1 - Methodology for Calculating Wastewater Impact Fee..............................................................................31
7.2 - Wastewater Infrastructure Impact Need and Cost....................................................................................31
7.3 - Determination of Wastewater Impact Fee ....................................................................................................32 SECTION 8 - Storm Drainage Facilities ............................................................................................................... 35
8.1 - Methodology for Calculating Storm Drainage Impact Fee ......................................................................35
8.2 - Storm Drainage Infrastructure Impact Need and Cost.............................................................................35
Development Impact Fee Study September 2019
City of Hanford Page ii
8.3 - Determination of Storm Drainage Impact Fee.............................................................................................36 SECTION 9 - Parks and Recreation Facilities .................................................................................................... 39
9.1 - Methodology for Calculating Parks and Recreation Impact Fees.........................................................39
9.2 - Parks and Recreation Impact, Need and Cost ..............................................................................................39
9.3 - Determination of Park Development Impact Fee .......................................................................................41 SECTION 10 - Refuse/Recycling Collection ....................................................................................................... 42
10.1 - Methodology for Calculating Refuse/Recycling Collection Impact Fee...........................................42
10.2 - Refuse/Recycling Collection Impact Need and Cost...............................................................................42
10.3 - Determination of Calculating Refuse/Recycling Impact Fee...............................................................43 SECTION 11 - Circulation Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 44
11.1 - Methodology for Calculating Circulation Impact Fee .............................................................................44
11.2 - Circulation Infrastructure Impact Need and Cost....................................................................................44
11.3 - Determination of Circulation Impact Fee....................................................................................................47 SECTION 12 - Comparison of Proposed Fees to Previous Fees and Fees of Nearby Cities ................. 53
12.1 - Comparison to Current Impact Fee Schedule............................................................................................53
12.2 - Comparison to Other Cities’ Impact Fees ....................................................................................................57 SECTION 13 - Implementation............................................................................................................................... 58
13.1 - Accounting...............................................................................................................................................................58
13.2 - Collection of Fees..................................................................................................................................................58
13.3 - Non-conforming Buildings................................................................................................................................58
13.4 - Increase in Fees for Inflation............................................................................................................................58
13.5 - Credits and Reimbursements ..........................................................................................................................59 List of Figures
Figure 3-1 Hanford General Plan Land Use Map.....................................................................................................9 Figure 3-2 Developed and Vacant Lands ................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 11-1 Future Streets, Intersections, and Signals Included................................................................... 46
Development Impact Fee Study September 2019
City of Hanford Page iii
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Proposed Impact Fees for Fire, Police, Water, Wastewater, and Parks*..................................2 Table 1-2 Proposed Impact Fees for Storm Drainage..........................................................................................3 Table 1-3 Proposed Impact Fees for Refuse............................................................................................................4 Table 1-4 Proposed Impact Fees for Circulation ...................................................................................................4 Table 3-1 Land Available for Development ..........................................................................................................11 Table 3-2 Projected Population.................................................................................................................................12 Table 3-3 Estimated Potential Residential Acreage and Units ......................................................................12 Table 3-4 Estimated Potential of Non-Residential Building Square Footage ..........................................13 Table 3-5 Estimated Land Acquisition Costs........................................................................................................14 Table 4-1 Fire Incidence Response by Occupancy Type (2012-2017) ......................................................16 Table 4-2 Fire Facilities Costs ....................................................................................................................................17 Table 4-3 Distribution of Fire Facilities Impact..................................................................................................18 Table 4-4 Fire Facilities Impact Fees.......................................................................................................................19 Table 5-1 Future Police Vehicle and Building Space Estimates ....................................................................21 Table 5-2 Police Facilities Costs ................................................................................................................................21 Table 5-3 Police Incidents per Acre .........................................................................................................................23 Table 5-4 Distribution of Police Impact .................................................................................................................24 Table 5-5 Police Facilities Impact Fee.....................................................................................................................24 Table 6-1 Water System Improvements for Future Users ..............................................................................27 Table 6-2 Distribution of Water Impact.................................................................................................................28 Table 6-3 Redistribution of Open Space Water Impact to Residential Uses ............................................29 Table 6-4 Water Impact Fee........................................................................................................................................30 Table 7-1 Wastewater System Improvements for Future Users ..................................................................32 Table 7-2 Distribution of Wastewater Impact.....................................................................................................33 Table 7-3 Wastewater Impact Fee............................................................................................................................34 Table 8-1 Storm Drainage System Improvements for Future Users...........................................................35 Table 8-2 Distribution of Storm Drainage Impact..............................................................................................37 Table 8-3 Storm Drainage Impact Fee ....................................................................................................................38 Table 9-1 Development Costs for Hypothetical 10-acre Park .......................................................................40 Table 9-2 Park Improvements for Future Users.................................................................................................40 Table 9-3 Park Cost Distribution and Impact Fee ..............................................................................................41 Table 10-1 Estimated Refuse/Recycling Unit Costs ..........................................................................................42 Table 10-2 Distribution of Refuse/Recycling Impact .......................................................................................43 Table 10-3 Commercial Refuse Impact Fee Formula ........................................................................................43 Table 11-1 Traffic Circulation Costs ........................................................................................................................45 Table 11-2 Land Use Category and Corresponding ITE Category................................................................47 Table 11-3 Land Use Category Adjustment Factor ............................................................................................48 Table 11-4 Trip Demand Factor by Land Use Category with Adjustment Factor..................................49 Table 11-5 Estimated Total Trips from New Growth .......................................................................................50 Table 11-6 Cost per Trip Estimate ...........................................................................................................................51 Table 11-7 Circulation Facilities Cost Allocation and Fee (except within Downtown Mixed Use).51 Table 11-8 Circulation Facilities Cost Allocation and Fee (Downtown Mixed Use) .............................52
Development Impact Fee Study September 2019
City of Hanford Page iv
Table 12-1 Comparison of Proposed and Current Development Impact Fees for Fire, Police, Water, Wastewater and Parks ..................................................................................................................................................53 Table 12-2 Comparison of Proposed and Current Development Impact Fees for Storm Drainage 55 Table 12-3 Comparison of Proposed and Current Development Impact Fees for Circulation .........56 Table 12-4 Comparison of Proposed and Current Development Impact Fees for a Single-family Residence ...........................................................................................................................................................................57 Table 12-5 Comparison of Proposed Development Impact Fees for a Single Family Residential Dwelling Unit with Nearby Cities’ Estimate Fees (rounded to nearest dollar) .......................................57 Table 13-1 Available Impact Fee Credits from Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drainage Impact Fee Accounts ...............................................................................................................................................................................60 Table 13-2 Available Impact Fee Credits from Circulation and Parks Impact Fee Accounts ..............61