Agenda packet — Hanford City Council, March 18, 2025 (part 11 of 11)

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM 2044+Project 7: 11th Ave & Hanford Armona Rd 07/16/2024
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 315 368 106 106 166 91 54 417 127 70 318 137 Future Volume (veh/h) 315 368 106 106 166 91 54 417 127 70 318 137 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q, veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj (A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 342 400 115 115 180 99 59 453 138 76 346 149 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 602 1110 866 473 673 370 215 596 465 156 596 465 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Prop Arrive On Green 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 19.4 10.3 8.4 15.4 0.0 9.7 34.9 33.5 23.7 43.2 27.3 23.9 Ln Grp LOS B B A B A C C C D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 857 394 650 571
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.7 11.4 31.6 28.6
Approach LOS B B C C
Timer: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Case No 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.0 58.0 33.0 58.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5
Max Green (Gmax), s 27.5 52.5 27.5 52.5
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.2 4.5 4.4 4.6
Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 21.9 31.5 30.9 19.8
Green Ext Time (g_e), s 1.4 3.9 0.0 1.9
Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prob of Max Out (p_x) 0.66 0.00 1.00 0.00
Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 5 7 1 3
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 831 1013 760 816
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 4 6 8
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1870 1870 1870 1134
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 14 16 18
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1460 1460 1460 624
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 5 0 7 0 1 0 3

Page 1467 of 1543 ends

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM 2044+Project 7: 11th Ave & Hanford Armona Rd 07/16/2024
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Lane Assignment L L L L
Lanes in Grp 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 59 0 342 0 76 0 115
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 831 0 1013 0 760 0 816
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 5.8 0.0 22.4 0.0 9.1 0.0 7.7
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 19.9 0.0 29.5 0.0 28.9 0.0 17.8 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 831 0 1013 0 760 0 816 Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 29.0 0.0 54.0 0.0 29.0 0.0 54.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 14.9 0.0 46.9 0.0 9.2 0.0 43.9 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 5.8 0.0 22.4 0.0 9.1 0.0 7.7 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 215 0 602 0 156 0 473
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.24
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 215 0 602 0 156 0 473
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 34.2 0.0 16.1 0.0 40.9 0.0 14.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.3 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.2
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 34.9 0.0 19.4 0.0 43.2 0.0 15.4 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 1.1 0.0 4.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.2 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 1.1 0.0 4.8 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.4 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.26 0.00 1.22 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.35 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8
Lane Assignment T T T
Lanes in Grp 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 453 0 400 0 346 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1870 0 1870 0 1870 0 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 19.8 0.0 10.1 0.0 14.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 19.8 0.0 10.1 0.0 14.1 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 596 0 1110 0 596 0 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 596 0 1110 0 596 0 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 27.9 0.0 9.6 0.0 25.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 33.5 0.0 10.3 0.0 27.3 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 7.9 0.0 3.2 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0

Page 1468 of 1543 ends

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM 2044+Project 7: 11th Ave & Hanford Armona Rd 07/16/2024
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 8.8 0.0 3.4 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 18
Lane Assignment R R R T+R
Lanes in Grp 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 138 0 115 0 149 0 279
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1460 0 1460 0 1460 0 1758
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 6.5 0.0 3.2 0.0 7.0 0.0 7.1
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 6.5 0.0 3.2 0.0 7.0 0.0 7.1 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.35 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 465 0 866 0 465 0 1043
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.27
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 465 0 866 0 465 0 1043
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 23.3 0.0 8.2 0.0 23.5 0.0 9.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.6
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 23.7 0.0 8.4 0.0 23.9 0.0 9.7 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.1 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.3 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 21.5
HCM 7th LOS C

Page 1469 of 1543 ends

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM 2044+Project 8: 12th Ave & Hume Ave 07/16/2024
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 24 283 179 11 183 228
Future Volume (veh/h) 24 283 179 11 183 228
Number 3 18 2 12 1 6
Initial Q, veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj (A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 308 195 12 199 248
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 391 348 1175 72 764 1261
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prop Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67
Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 26.9 43.4 0.0 5.7 8.2 5.9
Ln Grp LOS C D A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 334 207 447
Approach Delay, s/veh 42.1 5.7 6.9
Approach LOS D A A
Timer: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 2 8 6
Case No 8.0 9.0 6.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 65.3 25.7 65.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green (Gmax), s 48.0 35.0 48.0
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.0 4.3 4.4
Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 5.7 20.5 13.3
Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.7 1.1 1.9
Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prob of Max Out (p_x) 0.00 0.01 0.00
Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 5 3 1
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1641 1082
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 8 6
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1744 0 1870
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 18 16
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 107 1460 0
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 5 3 0 0 1 0 0

Page 1470 of 1543 ends

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM 2044+Project 8: 12th Ave & Hume Ave 07/16/2024
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Lane Assignment L L
Lanes in Grp 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 0 26 0 0 199 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 0 1641 0 0 1082 0 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 1641 0 0 1082 0 0
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.3 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.6 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 61.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 0 391 0 0 764 0 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 0 631 0 0 764 0 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 26.8 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 2 8 0 0 6 0 0
Lane Assignment T
Lanes in Grp 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 248 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 1870 0 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 1261 0 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 1261 0 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0

Page 1471 of 1543 ends

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM 2044+Project 8: 12th Ave & Hume Ave 07/16/2024
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 12 18 0 0 16 0 0
Lane Assignment T+R R
Lanes in Grp 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 207 308 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1851 1460 0 0 0 0 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 3.7 18.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 3.7 18.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.00 0.06 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 1248 348 0 0 0 0 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.17 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 1248 562 0 0 0 0 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 5.4 33.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.3 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 5.7 43.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 1.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 1.1 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 18.6
HCM 7th LOS B

Page 1472 of 1543 ends

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

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

MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 03, 2023
TO: Linda J Hakimi, PE
FROM: Ambarish Mukherjee, P.E., AICP
SUBJECT: Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Memorandum
LSA has prepared a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Memorandum (Memo) for the proposed Silicon Valley Ranch residential development (project) in the City of Hanford (City). The project will be located at the southwest corner of 12th Ave and Hanford‐Armona Rd (south of State Highway 198) in the City. The Project proposes to develop 22 acres with up to 342 single family dwelling units.

BACKGROUND
On December 28, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law cleared the revised California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines for use. Among the changes to the guidelines was removal of vehicle delay and level of service from consideration under CEQA. With the adopted guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project’s effect on vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

The project is located within the jurisdiction of City of Hanford. The City recently adopted its Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) guidelines, and therefore, the VMT analysis has been based upon the methodology and significant threshold criteria identified in the “City of Hanford ‐ VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, November 2022” (guidelines).

The guidelines include multiple screening criteria for small to medium sized land use projects to be screened out of a detailed VMT analysis. The project was reviewed with all screening criteria from the guidelines and it was determined that the project doesn’t meet any screening criteria.

Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis was conducted for the project.

VMT Metrics and Thresholds
The project consists of residential land uses only and the guidelines established use of VMT per capita to evaluate residential land uses. Also, as per the guidelines, the definition of the region was established as Kings County and the threshold for evaluation of land use projects was established as 13%. Therefore, the project will constitute a significant impact if the project VMT per capita is greater than 87% of the baseline VMT per capita of Kings County. Numerically, based on the guidelines if the project VMT per capita is greater than 8.99, then project will have a significant VMT impact.

Page 1473 of 1543 ends

3/3/23 (P:\20231003_SiliconValleyRanch_Hanford\Traffic\SiliconVlyRnch_Res_VMTMemo_03‐03‐2023.docx) 2 The Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) Travel Demand Model (TDM) is the regional travel demand model applicable to jurisdictions within Kings County including the City for evaluating project VMT. Therefore, based on the guidelines, KCAG TDM was used to conduct project VMT analysis.

Project Traffic Analysis Zone Update
To calculate the project VMT, the first step was to update the TAZs in the model that include the project area. The project should be isolated in the travel model to estimate project VMT. KCAG TDM includes ability to add new TAZs. One new TAZ was used to model the project land use. The project land use (dwelling units) was input into the model as households in the newly created zone for modeling purposes. No project specific network modifications were conducted. Model run was conducted for existing/base year scenario with updated model inputs. The outputs from this updated model run were utilized to estimate project specific VMT metrics.

VMT ANALYSIS
As mentioned above, the outputs from the updated model run were used to estimate project VMT per capita. Table A shows the VMT analysis results using the county as the region. As shown in Table A, VMT per capita metric for the project is 6.9% higher than the regional threshold. As mentioned above, the regional/countywide average VMT per capita and the threshold were obtained from the City’s guidelines (Table E: Significance Thresholds for VMT Analysis).

Table A: Project and Threshold VMT per Capita

Silicon Valley Ranch
(project)
City of Hanford VMT
Threshold * Difference
Percentage
Difference
VMT per capita 9.61 8.99 0.62 6.9%
Source: Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) Travel Demand Model * Threshold obtained from City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, November 2022 Threshold is 87% of regional baseline (10.33*0.87 = 8.99) Conclusion
As mentioned before, the project consists of residential land uses only. The City’s guidelines recommend use of VMT per capita to evaluate residential projects. Also, based on the guidelines the project would constitute a significant VMT impact if the project VMT per capita is greater than 87% of the baseline Kings County VMT per capita. As shown in Table A, the project VMT per capita is higher than the threshold and hence the project has a significant VMT impact.

Detailed VMT calculation for the project is included in Appendix A.

ATTACHMENT
Appendix A –VMT Calculation Worksheet

Page 1474 of 1543 ends

2018 Silicon Valley Ranch (Project) City of Hanford Threshold* Total Households 342Total Population 1,069Homebased Production (HBP) VMT 10,274 HBP VMT per capita 9.61 8.99
Source: Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) Travel Demand Model *: Threshold Obtained from City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, November 2022 Appendix A
VMT Calculations
Silicon Valley Ranch
\\lsa1269\Transfer\KCAG_Model_2018RTP\SiliconValleyRanch\Book1_4.xlsx\Appendix A (03/03/2023)

Page 1475 of 1543 ends

Na'IICE'·OF.AVAILABIIJ1YFOR· PUIUC REVIEW AN"D HEARING DN 1 nlE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACl'REPORT FOR1ME PROPOSED.SILICON VALlEYRMCM RellDENTW. DEVELGPMENT PROJECT
this 'is· ·to ~ that tim City of Han-Ford' lw-prepated m Enwonmental Impact:. Report (BIR) for ·ttJe ]8'qject i4eP..tifi'e4 b~c,w; ~ ~ted:b,-,stiU: Jaw. 1be mmitw.wi'I--R11bUQ reviewpeo·btl for 'fhis dacu•nt ,Is. 4~ days.

It! ·•·M ,,.,. .... ~,,__..... .7111 . 4at .. _,Of . . r~-, .SJltcon Valh31'Ral1cb ~s~Dtl:al Develppme.nt.PtoJ eet-a reqµestt.o· construct 32"6 stifl]e-ffam.ilyresldences~ jmenuil 1.'Qads~ a ?.86-•cr~ ~ ~R\itm. basin,. ·and a 3,58~park mt~. apprvzi~hly ;8S:9-J.C$ .!jte· [Pi'qject;). An approximately itl.87-a.cre-_pom.cm. .of, 'the site at, the nolithea-llt cornet dF the property "is intended. ia he: rmnoved via .a 101-line: adjustment The P.roject is •within ~ -City af. Ha.nford".s Sphere af lnfluence; (SDJ)but.U ''ba.atmaed mm the Cfly l1m1ts, tmough annaatl'on.. ,,,,._ Wo,1
i:hc 9Uiton Valley 1bmdi Re1idential DIMiJJJpm=t Pmject is lu~d.agu.th ·a_f Hanmrdkm.ana 11.oad; id ths sphere .of itl.flucm.ce uf tlu! -City af Hanftird. 'The P'rojdl± encampas!!s awmmmat.e1y 88,9 atr1$ (~ 011 D+a~D08,. P10, and 027)
COMMENT. PBRIDD:;NO\\'Mber zs~ ,2024,ta, ... Jau~ 9~ 2QZ5 Ct5 m,i) ,PUBUC RUR1NC AND· CUM:MBNT: ·The ·ctty af Hanford: ts·. 10Uddng .romnu:nts on. the adeq~ .m:I ·CU"".· :111.1•,nrUl'id- r1'f • ... e ........ ,.~ .... _ .. --- A ....... -tH.-:Ho,n ifta,!Ul!l~l'Na, de ~bed Ir, ..... Draft EJID . You "' · !in-· ... ,.p""pj;,J.1-.,.. , ~ - &11.......,ii'!!..,, _,. p,i.waJJ~ .II""!~"" _ _ __ ,.,.S li&..-.a·.i, _ , .. jjll,q. _ _ . ···""'" . _ . ..,.!KV .commenfby pnmding tuttmon, at the pulilk heatmg on;
DA TB: T\lesdaf, Jan111ry '14, 2035
'TIMHt· !i~91J p.m.
-~TIOlf.: Cotwdl, Cbam,ber dfffi.e ctw of Jlanfard,QViC I\Udttortmr,. 40{1 N: 'Ooi#r street., ifanford; CA. ·n~ documenf.an'tf dQClllDeflts, am awlla.ble for :review at-thee City of'Hanfont, CommunltyD.evelapment a,p,n;mellt loc:ated at 317 N. Dpwt,Stre~ and_ =¢ibe Hsllford Br~ Library l\i~at 44;)1 Doug, Street Ha.nf«m\. CA 93230 ar • • • or
'HOW'TO COMMEN'Ti¥ou .. mayprnvide testimony at'the JiUblich'eatingon,dm date and time s,pecified a'.bave 0r1 ~ ·Wfittfn mmm~tspri~1r· to the~ of p~1~m: ,triod1 un 'Tu~;, Januar, 14,.202$ at :s.=ao pin,.. tbl ,en.tar· Pla.111.n,:r,; Gabl1_1:ue MyeJS,., 317 N Oout, Street HanfQnl, •CA ta-230 or vta ematl·

Page 1476 of 1543 ends

Figure 3-1
Project Site Area

Page 1477 of 1543 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FINAL FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Project
(SCH #2024060956)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Hanford has completed and is making available for public review the Final Focused Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) prepared for the proposed Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Project – Annexation 161, Prezone No. 0005-23, and Vesting Tentative Tract 943 located south of Hanford-Armona Road between 12th and 13th Avenues. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, February 25, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Auditorium, 400 Douty Street, Hanford, California, to consider recommendation of certification of the Final Focused EIR and the associated entitlements to the City Council of the City of Hanford
PROJECT LOCATION: The Project is adjacent to Hanford Armona Road to the north, between Greenbrier Drive to the east and 13th Avenue to the west, and encompasses approximately 88.9 acres (APN 011-040-008, 010, and 027). The Project site is located within the Hanford USGS Quad, Section 3, Township 19S, Range 21E, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Project proposes to construct a 326-lot residential subdivision within the City of Hanford Sphere of Influence. The Project will be annexed into the City under separate application. An approximately

12.5-acre portion of the site at the northeast corner of the property is intended to be removed via a lot-line adjustment.

The Project will be developed with a 326-unit single-family subdivision, a 3.58-acre park, and a three-acre retention basin. Lots will range between 5,000 to 6,000 square feet and would be developed with single-family residential units. Associated utility and right-of-way infrastructure would also be developed in accordance with City of Hanford standards and regulations.

Construction:

Development of the Project is anticipated to occur over a 12-month period. Construction equipment will vary over the course of development and would include the following:
• Excavators/earth-moving equipment
• Depending on foundation system, auger rig, or pile-driving rig • All-terrain forklifts
• A man/material hoist
• Truck cranes and potentially a tower crane (pending permit approval) • Concrete trucks
• Dump trucks
• Street sweepers/water trucks for dust control
• Construction delivery trucks (typically box trucks of flat beds) • Small tools (generators, light plants, compactors, air compressors) EIR CERTIFICATION: A Draft EIR was prepared for the project to assess potential environmental impacts and was made available and circulated for public review and comment, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It also examined environmental impacts for alternatives to the project, as required by CEQA. The Draft EIR concluded that the potential impacts of the Project were determined to be less than significant for the following topics: aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. The potential impacts of the Project were determined to be significant and

Page 1478 of 1543 ends

unavoidable impacts for Transportation and Traffic. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and a Statement of Overriding Considerations are part of the EIR certification.

The Draft EIR was made available for a public comment period of 45 days from November 25, 2024 to January 9, 2025.

The Final EIR includes the response to the comment(s) in response to the input received on the Draft EIR. No new information was required as part of the response to comments. The Final EIR does not constitute “significant new information” within the meaning of CEQA so as to require recirculation of the Draft EIR or Final EIR.

The Final EIR will be available for review for a 10-day period from February 14 to February 24, 2025 at the Community Development Department at City Hall, 317 N. Douty Street in Hanford and online at:

Hanford Website: https://www.cityofhanfordca.com/1236/Current-Projects and the Office of Planning and Research’s CEQAnet web portal at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/ PUBLIC COMMENT: All interested parties are invited to attend the meeting and/or send written comments to:

Gabrielle Myers, Senior Planner
City of Hanford
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford CA 93230
or via email to [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. Oral and written comments may be submitted until the close of the public hearing. For further information, contact the Hanford Community Development Department at (559) 585-2580.

NOTE: If you challenge the City’s final action on this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. (Gov. Code 65009(b)(2).

HANFORD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Page 1479 of 1543 ends

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 1 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025

FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS

RELATED TO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091
for
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2024060956
Lead Agency: City of Hanford
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
The following findings of fact are based in part on the information contained in the draft and final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development Project (Project) as well as additional facts found in the complete record of proceedings. The final focused EIR is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review at the City of Hanford (City), City of Hanford Community Development Department, 317 N Douty St, Hanford, CA 93230.

SECTION II. FINDINGS REGARDING THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

OF THE PROJECT
The City issued a notice of preparation of a draft focused EIR on June 21, 2024. Based on the initial study, technical studies and Notice of Preparation, a determination was made that the final focused EIR would contain a comprehensive analysis of environmental issues not screened out during the Notice of Preparation.

With respect to all impacts identified as “less than significant” or as having “no impact” in the final focused EIR, the Planning Commission finds that those impacts have been described accurately and are less than significant or have no impact. Despite concluding that certain impacts would be less than significant or would have no impact, the final focused EIR nonetheless incorporates mitigation measures in the form of complying with the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the City of Hanford General Plan or other adopted regulations. The Planning Commission finds that these effects are less than significant or have no impact before and after implementation of these mitigation measures.

In addition, one impact in the final focused EIR was found to be “significant and unavoidable.” The Planning Commission finds that this impact has been described accurately and is significant and unavoidable.

LAND USE AND PLANNING
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.

The Project could cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (Impact

4.2-1)

Page 1480 of 1543 ends

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 2 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
The City of Hanford General Plan establishes land use policies and regulations that are applicable to the Project. In addition to the City of Hanford General Plan, applicable policies and regulations of the Kings County General Plan and Kings County LAFCo were identified as they pertain to annexations of land.

The Project site has a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential and would be prezoned R-L-5. Per the City General Plan zoning matrix, the R-L-5 zone district is compatible with the General Plan designation. Approval of the tentative map subject to the provisions of the City of Hanford municipal code would allow subdivision of the Project area into lot sizes consistent with the R-L-5 zone district. Pursuant to Table 17.08.020, the proposed development of single-family dwellings throughout the subdivided Project area is permitted uses under the R-L-5 zone district.

The Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Hanford General Plan and Kings County General Plan. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect. Impacts of the Project are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

The Project would not have any environmental effects on land use and planning that are potentially significant and that can be mitigated to less than significant levels.

C. Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant.

The Project would not have any environmental effects on land use and planning that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Findings
The proposed Project would not have any potentially significant environmental effects related to land use and planning. No mitigation would be required, and impacts are less than significant.

Level of Significance
Impacts would be less than significant.

Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts. However, impactsrelated to land use and planning would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project that Would Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.

As discussed in the Cumulative Project List section of the draft EIR, 12 similar projects are proposed within a one and a half-mile radius of the proposed Project, the geographic scope being the City of Hanford General Plan planning area. The Project and future development are required to be consistent with the City of Hanford General Plan and other applicable planning documents. Cumulative projects requiring additional

Page 1481 of 1543 ends

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 3 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
consideration including rezones, General Plan Amendments, and annexation would require approval by the County. Consistency with the City’s applicable General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance (and any other applicable planning documents) would ensure compliance and orderly development of the proposed Project and other related cumulative projects. Additionally, all cumulative projects are subject to environmental review and compliance with all federal, State, and local policies and plans. As such, the proposed Project’s incremental contribution to the less than significant cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable Cumulative impacts related to land use and planning would result in a less than significant impact on the environment.

E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project that Would Have a Significant Impact on the Environment.

The Project would not have any cumulative effects on land use and planning that would have a significant impact.

Findings
The proposed Project would not have any potentially cumulative significant environmental effects related to land use and planning. No mitigation would be required and impacts are less than significant.

Level of Significance
Impacts would be cumulatively less than significant.

Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts. However, cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.

B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.

The Project could conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities (Impact 4.2-1).

The Hanford General Plan has policies related to traffic systems. The General Plan has established LOS E as the acceptable level on streets and intersections within the area bounded by State Route (SR) 198, 10th Avenue, 11th Avenue, and Florinda Avenue, and a peak hour LOS D on all other streets and intersections within the Planned Growth Boundary. The County of Kings has established LOS D as the acceptable level of traffic congestion on County roads. Since the study facilities for this Project lie outside of the SR 198, 10th Avenue, 11th Avenue, and Florinda Avenue boundary, the LOS D threshold was utilized to evaluate the potential significance of LOS impacts to the City of Hanford roadway facilities and the County of Kings facilities.

Page 1482 of 1543 ends

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 4 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
As noted in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the Project, signal warrant criteria was met for the 13th Avenue and Hanford Armona Road intersection, which is included in the City’s traffic impact fee program. However, it is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which signalization of an intersection might be warranted. Meeting this threshold does not suggest traffic signals are required, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be considered to determine whether signals are truly justified. Pursuant to General Plan Policy T36, the Project proponent will be required to pay traffic development impact fees. The provision of an intersection signalization would be determined by the City of Hanford. Improvement costs for signalization are within the purview of traffic development impact fees as required in Policy T36, therefore eventual signalization of the intersection by the City would address the LOS deficiency caused by General Plan buildout (2044) and Project development (2044+Project).

For the 12th Avenue and Hanford Armona Road intersection, the TIS recommends improvements be made to the eastbound roadway to include changing the existing eastbound right turn lane (EBR) to an eastbound through and right turn lane (EBTR). The Project proponent would be required to pay their fair share cost for the needed improvement to ensure that the intersection by the year 2044, operates at an acceptable LOS (Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers, 2024). The inclusion of fair share cost payment as determined in the TIS is recommended as a Mitigation Measure and is included as MM 4.2-1. Implementation of MM

4.2-1 would allow the intersection studied to operate at an acceptable LOS under City LOS standards and reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
MM 4.2-1: The Project proponent or developer shall be required to pay their fair share of costs for the improvements needed. This includes changing the 12th Avenue and Hanford Armona Road intersection eastbound right turn lane to an eastbound through lane and a right turn lane.

The fair share cost for the improvement is calculated at 18.94% and shall be collected by the City of Hanford at the appropriate time
Level of Significance
Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.

Finding
The proposed Project would not have any potentially significant environmental effects related to LOS and the impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding roadway network. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Brief Explanation of the Rational for Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts related to General Plan policies related to LOS. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1 as described above, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

C. Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant.

Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b) (Impact 4.2-2)

Page 1483 of 1543 ends

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 5 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
Land use developments meeting one or more of the screening criteria contained in the VMT Guidelines are presumed to create a less than significant transportation impact and no further VMT analysis is required.

These criteria relate to project type, size, location, proximity to transit, and trip-making potential. The Project does not meet any of the screening criteria. Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis was prepared for the Project (Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers, 2024).

An analysis of Project VMT was conducted in accordance with the VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, City of Hanford, dated November 2022 (VMT Guidelines). The analysis involved comparing an estimate of VMT attributable to the project to a threshold VMT and assessing whether project VMT would result in a significant transportation impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

For projects that are not screened out, a quantitative analysis of VMT impacts must be prepared and compared against the adopted VMT thresholds of significance. According to the VMT Guidelines, residential developments that generate more than 8.99 daily VMT for residential VMT per capita would be considered to have a significant transportation impact.

Based on the VMT analysis included in the TIS, the Project would result in 9.61 VMT per capita and exceeds the 8.99 VMT per capita threshold. As a result, it is recommended that the Project implement VMT mitigation measures for the residential component to reduce VMT per capita. In order to reduce VMTs, a project must decrease the number of vehicle miles travels to and from the Project site. For land development projects, VMT mitigation focuses on measures that reduce the number and/or length of single-occupant vehicle trips generated by the project.

The VMT Guidelines cite the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, December 2021 (CAPCOA Handbook) as a source for mitigation measures with quantitative methods for estimating VMT reduction.

Below are quantitative measures contained in the CAPCOA Handbook for residential projects in suburban areas. Measure identifiers are shown within parentheses, and italicized text addresses the applicability of each measure to the Project.
• Increase residential density to a level higher than the national average (T-1) Applicable, but not feasible: The residential density for the project is 6.5 dwelling units/acre (326 single-family homes/50 acres of developable land). As stated in the CAPCOA Handbook, the national average is 9.1 dwelling units/acre and includes apartments, townhomes and condominiums in addition to detached single-family housing.

Below is the VMT reduction formula in the CAPCOA Handbook for this measure (-0.22 = VMT elasticity factor).

VMT reduction = [ (project du/acre – 9.1 du/acre) / 9.1 du/acre] x (-0.22) Assuming no change in the amount of developable land, the project would need at least 455 dwelling units to reach the national average and be credited for any reduction in project VMT. Moreover, the project would require a total of 590 dwelling units to mitigate the impact of project VMT to a less than significant level. Such an increase in project residential density (approximately 80 percent) would not be feasible.

Per the General Plan and the allowable density in the zone district, an increase in density is not feasible without a zone change and General Plan Amendment to increase residential density beyond what is allowed.

Page 1484 of 1543 ends

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 6 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
• Provide easy access to high-quality public transit (T-3) Not applicable: Because the project does not meet implementation requirements. Project must be located within 0.5 miles of a high frequency transit station (either rail or bus rapid transit with headways of less than 15 minutes).
• Integrate affordable and below market rate housing (T-4) Not applicable: Because the project does not meet implementation requirements. Project must be a multifamily residential development permanently dedicated as affordable housing for lower income families. This project is not a low income housing project, therefore it is not applicable and the VTM analysis applies
• Provide electric vehicle charging infrastructure (T-14) Not applicable to single-family residential projects: Mitigation potential available only to developments with buildings that have designated parking areas (e.g., commercial, educational, retail and multifamily housing).
• Limit residential parking supply (T-15)
Not applicable: The measure is ineffective in locations where unrestricted street parking or other off-street parking is available and has adequate capacity to accommodate projectrelated vehicle parking demand. • Unbundle residential parking costs from property costs (T-16) Not applicable: There are no residential parking costs associated with the project.

As noted, the measures listed above are found to be infeasible (Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers, 2024). There are no applicable and feasible mitigation measures available to reduce VMT below the adopted City and County thresholds. Other valley cities have adopted VTM thresholds and applicable mitigation measures. Kings County and the City have not adopted mitigation measures or other measures to implement or guidance to create feasible mitigation. Therefore, the Project is expected to result in a significant transportation impact under CEQA Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures
Level of Significance
Impacts would be significant and unavoidable
Finding
As noted above, there are no feasible and applicable mitigation measures that would be able to reduce VMT for the Project under City adopted thresholds. Therefore, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.

Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the Project to reduce impacts.

However, no mitigation measures were identified that are feasible and applicable to the Project that would reduce VMT under the City adopted thresholds.

Page 1485 of 1543 ends

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 7 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project that Would Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.

There are no cumulative impacts related to transportation and traffic would result in a less than significant impact on the environment.

E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project that Would Have a Significant Impact on the Environment.

Significant Effect
The Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3, Subdivision (b). In combination with other approved or reasonably foreseeable projects, cumulative impacts to VMT would also be significant and unavoidable.

Description of Significant Impact
The Project’s VMT would exceed the City’s adopted VMT per capita thresholds.

Finding
There are no feasible and applicable mitigation measures that would be able to reduce VMT for the Project under City adopted thresholds. Other valley cities have adopted VTM thresholds and applicable mitigation measures. Kings County and the City have not adopted mitigation measures or other measures to implement or guidance to create feasible mitigation. Measures such as purchasing bicycles for home buyers, adding bike lanes and new bus routes have either not been accepted by the City, or are shown to be an effective way to reduce VTM. Therefore, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. This impact is overridden by Project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. There are no other feasible mitigation measures or changes to the Project that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the Project to reduce impacts.

However, no mitigation measures were identified that are feasible and applicable to the Project that would reduce VMT under the City adopted thresholds.

SECTION III. FINDINGS REGARDING CONSIDERATIONS, WHICH MAKE CERTAIN

ALTERNATIVES, ANALYZED IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT INFEASIBLE.

The following findings and brief explanation of the rationale for the findings regarding Project alternatives identified in the EIR are set forth to comply with the requirements of Section 15091(s)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

The consideration of alternatives is an integral component of the CEQA process. The selection and evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives provides the public and decision-makers with information on ways to avoid or lessen environmental impacts created by a Project. When selecting alternatives for

Page 1486 of 1543 ends

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 8 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
evaluation, CEQA requires alternatives that meet most of the basic objectives of the Project, while avoiding or substantially lessening the Project’s significant effects. Thus, the objective of the Project was considered by this board in evaluating the alternatives. This objective is to build and operate an economically viable and competitive development with a mix of commercial and residential uses in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, optimally utilizing the available land resource, and while minimizing any environmental impacts to the extent feasible. Thus, objectives for the Project were considered in evaluating the alternatives.

The Project has the following objectives:
• Provide a variety of housing opportunities with a range of styles, sizes, and values that will be designed to satisfy existing and future demand for quality housing in the area. • Provide a sense of community and walkability within the development through the use of street patterns, parks/open space areas, landscaping, and other Project amenities. • Create a successful and financially feasible Project by meeting the housing needs of the area. • Provide a residential development that assists the City in meeting its housing goals and objectives.

The alternatives considered in this EIR include two land use alternatives, a reduced construction alternative, and the No-Project Alternative. CEQA requires that alternatives that have been considered but rejected by the lead agency be addressed in the EIR. This portion of the EIR is also to determine which alternative is considered to be environmentally superior. This evaluation is to be based on which alternatives have the fewest unmitigated impacts and this comparison is to be made even for alternatives that may not completely fulfill all of the Project objectives. For the purpose of this evaluation, the following impacts were determined to be unmitigable after implementation of the mitigations recommended in the EIR.

Significant Impacts Listed
 Transportation and Traffic – The project and the project in conjunction with cumulative projects would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3, Subdivision (b).

All other impacts can be mitigated to a relative level of insignificance through the implementation of the mitigation measures. Mitigation measures that reduced these impacts to a level below the Thresholds of Significance are detailed in the EIR.

Alternative A- No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Project area would remain unchanged and there would be no residential units or parks constructed. Under the No Project Alternative, the Project area would remain unchanged and there would be no residential units or parks constructed. The No Project Alternative would keep the site as agriculture and remain under the jurisdiction of Kings County. As no change would occur, the Project site would continue to be consistent with the Kings County General Plan land use designation and zoning of Limited Agriculture, 10 acres (AL10). The No Project Alternative would not: (a) address the City’s current and projected housing needs by providing a range of single-family residences; (b) meet any of the General Plan policies or objectives related to meeting the housing needs of all citizens, or provide; (c) provide residential housing opportunities for a wide range of housing choices that insure opportunities for a variety of age groups, lifestyles, and income levels that are visually attractive and accommodate the future housing demand in Hanford; (d) establish a mixture of housing types, sizes and densities that collectively provide for local and regional housing demand; (e) provide infrastructure that meets the City standards and is integrated with existing and planned facilities and connections; and (f) develop a project that meets City standards by implementing a logical phasing plan for development of public infrastructure improvements.

Page 1487 of 1543 ends

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 9 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
With regard to transportation impacts, the No Project Alternative would result in no new trips generated.

The No Project Alternative would reduce the significant and unavoidable impact relating to VMT; however, none of the General Plan goals and objectives for new housing in the City would be met.

Alternative B- Reduced Project Alternative
This alternative would decrease the number of single-family residential houses from 326 to 242. As described in this draft EIR, the proposal to approve the tentative tract map, annex the site into the City, and prezoning the site to R-L-5 would remain the same. A similar outcome to the proposed Project would occur with regard to County and City General Plan consistency. The annexation would meet County and LAFCo objectives in addition to providing planned City expansion within their SOI. This alternative will meet all Project objectives but would have a reduced positive effect of assisting the City in meeting the City’s housing needs. Under this Alternative, overall VMT for the Project would decrease; however, per capita VMT impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

With regard to City LOS thresholds, overall trip generation would be reduced, resulting in lessened impacts on studied intersections. However, this reduction is still likely to exceed LOS thresholds cumulatively, and require mitigation as indicated in this draft EIR to improve the impacted intersection of 12th Avenue and Hanford Armona Road. Impacts regarding LOS would continue to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Alternative C- Multi-Family Alternative
This alternative would replace the proposed single-family residential with multi-family apartments at a density of at least 14.5 dwelling units per gross acre (1,088 units). The Project site is currently designated by the General Plan for low-density residential and prezoned R-L-5. The proposed Project request would be modified to include a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change to Medium Density Residential (RM) to allow multi-family apartments. With regard to the addition of a General Plan Amendment, consistency findings with General Plan goals and policies would be necessary to determine if the proposed Medium Density Residential land use would comply. Although it is not guaranteed that the multifamily housing would be rented at rates to meet the criteria as very low or low incoming housing, if such units were constructed and rented at those rates, they would help the City meet the housing requirements for new very low or low income housing in the City under the Housing Element of the City General Plan.

Under Alternative C, the overall density increase could result in higher trips generated, which in turn, may cause impacts to LOS and VMT. It has been theorized that residents who live in very low or low income housing tend to utilize mass transit. Although it is unknown, if the multifamily housing met the criteria for very low or low income housing, LOS might not increase with the use in mass transit. However, if the multifamily units were considered as moderate or above moderate income units, the Project could generate a rise in vehicle trips due to an increased number of residents originating from the Project site, and would result in higher utilization of intersections in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, depending on the income category of the multifamily housing units, Alternative C could decrease LOS impacts or could negatively impact LOS for the studied intersections and would potentially require additional mitigation/improvements to intersections to meet LOS standards.

In regard to VMT, the City of Hanford has adopted VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, which was utilized for the proposed Project to determine impacts, as noted in the TIS prepared for the Project (Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers, 2024). With regard to the adopted screening criteria and VMT thresholds, Alternative C does not meet the screening criteria and could generate more than 1,000 average daily trips, is not located within 0.5 miles of a transit priority area and is not located within an area where existing VMT per capita is low. The City’s VMT Guidelines cite the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse

Page 1488 of 1543 ends

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 10 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, December 2021 (CAPCOA Handbook) as a source for measures with quantitative methods for estimating VMT reduction.

It was found in CAPCOA Handbook that an increase in density over the national average (9.1 dwelling units per acre) can result in a VMT reduction. Assuming no change in the amount of developable land, the Project would need at least 455 dwelling units to reach the national average and be credited for any reduction in project VMT. Moreover, the project would require a total of 590 dwelling units to mitigate the impact of project VMT to a less-than-significant level. (Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers, 2024). As Alternative C proposes a density larger than the national average, it can be seen that a reduction in Project VMT would occur. Therefore, VMT under Alternative C would result in a less than significant impact.

Alterative D- Different Site Alternative
This alternative would relocate the Project to a different site in order to be located nearer to corridor mixed use where a mix of commercial and office uses would be available in addition to be located closer to major transit corridors. This alternative would place the Project on the east side of the City, bounded by Lacey Boulevard to the south, 9 1/4 Avenue to the west, SR 43 to the west, and Grangeville Boulevard to the north. This alternative will meet all Project objectives and would assist the City in meeting its housing needs.

Additionally, Alternative D would result in similar conditions as the proposed Project, consistency findings with Kings County and LAFCo for annexation, and General Plan conformity with the City can be made.

With regard to LOS standards, the alternative site would require an analysis of intersections in the vicinity of the site and the comparisons of future conditions at the chosen intersections. It can be assumed that under Alternative D, impacts to LOS at intersections could occur similar to the proposed Project. Dependent on the LOS grade found as a result of Project implementation, mitigation measures for intersection improvements and the use of transportation impact fees per General Plan policy would be applicable to Alternative D and therefore result in similar impacts as the proposed Project.

Under Alternative D, overall VMT per capita for the Project would still exceed City VMT thresholds as the majority of the site is located within a high VMT area and cannot be screened out using the City’s screening thresholds, the VMT Guidelines cite the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, December 2021 (CAPCOA Handbook) as a source for mitigation measures with quantitative methods for estimating VMT reduction (Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers, 2024), in addition to no changes made to the Project lot count. Therefore, per capita, VMT would remain similar to the proposed Project as there are no other factors including proximity to high-quality transit corridors that could provide VMT reductions.

Impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable. In addition, the applicant does not currently own either of these properties and it is not known if the current owners are willing to sell these properties. As noted, available land for new development within the Low-Density Residential land use designation is limited in the southwest planning area of the City. The majority of the properties designated for LowDensity Residential development have been developed or entitled, as shown in Figure 4.1-1, below. The proposed Project is considered implementation of the General Plan..

Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an

Page 1489 of 1543 ends

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Section 15091 Page 11 of 11
Planning Commission
February 25, 2025
environmentally superior alternative be designated, and states, “[I]f the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” In Chapter 6-Alternatives, Table 6‐1 displays the environmental impacts of alternatives to the Project in terms of the impact areas that were analyzed in this Draft EIR in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis. As shown, No Project is environmentally superior, but does not meet any of the objectives of the Project or the City. The Multi-Family Alternative could be considered the environmentally superior alternative if the criteria for very low or low income units was met, LOS impacts would not increase with the increased density of units. while fulfilling most of the objectives of the proposed Project.

Selection of an environmentally superior alternative is based on an evaluation of the extent to which the alternatives reduce or eliminate the significant impacts associated with the Project on a comparison of the remaining environmental impacts of each alternative. In conducting this comparative evaluation, it can be difficult to make a determination of relative significance because some categories are relatively more or less important and cannot be simply summed. In some cases, these categories do not create a picture of the nuances of the alternatives.

Finding: The Planning Commission finds that the No Project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, but that the No Project Alternative would be less desirable than the Project because it would not achieve any of the City General Plan policies or goals for new housing or any Project objectives.

Facts Supporting the Finding: The EIR contains facts and analyses supporting the Finding, some of which are set forth here. The No Project Alternative would not help the City to meet General Plan goals and policies for new housing in the City. The Alternative would not fulfill the objectives of the Project. Demand for residential development would be met by other projects that may have greater impacts than the proposed Project. Moreover, employment opportunities would not be generated for construction workers in Handford or Kings County. In short, the No Project Alternative does not meet overall Project objectives.

Environmentally Superior” Build Alternative”
Where, as here, the environmentally superior alternative is the” No Project Alternative”, the State CEQA Guidelines require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative from among the remaining alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2).) Finding: The Planning Commission evaluated the Project and Alternatives A, B, C and D to the Project, and finds that Alternative C is the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative C – Multi-Family would reduce significant and unavoidable environmental impacts relating to VMT while fulfilling most of the objectives of the proposed Project. However, as discussed in the Section 6.4- Alternatives Considered and Evaluated of the EIR, while Alternative C could incrementally reduce LOS and VMT impacts of the Project, it possibly would not reduce significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project to below a level of significance. Moreover, it may not be economically feasible to implement, thereby impeding the ability to meet the Project objectives set forth by the applicant.

Page 1490 of 1543 ends

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Planning Commission Section 15093 1 February 25, 2025

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093
for
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Final Environmental Impact Report
(SCH# 2024060956)
Lead Agency: City of Hanford
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed Project against its significant unavoidable adverse impacts in determining whether to approve the Project. Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines states:

CEQA requires the decision making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the Project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
As discussed in more detail in the final EIR and CEQA Findings of Fact (Section 15091), the Project will result in environmental impacts related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which cannot be feasibly mitigated by the implementation of mitigation measures, will remain significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. These significant unavoidable impacts are summarized below and constitute those impacts for which this Statement of Overriding Considerations is made. These impacts are summarized below and constitute those impacts for which this statement of overriding considerations is made.

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts

1. Transportation and Traffic The Project’s Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and Cumulative VMT would exceed the City’s VMT thresholds and is considered significant and unavoidable.

CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the Project to reduce impacts.

However, no mitigation measures were identified that are feasible and applicable to the Project that would reduce VMT under the City adopted thresholds. The Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3, Subdivision (b). In addition, in combination with other approved or reasonably foreseeable projects, cumulative impacts to VMT would also be significant and unavoidable.

Findings
The City Planning Commission (Commission) finds and determines in recommending approval of the development of the Project that it has considered the identified means of lessening or avoiding the Project’s significant effects. The Commission further finds and determines that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits of the project, as discussed below, outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. Therefore, this Commission

Page 1491 of 1543 ends

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Planning Commission Section 15093 2 February 25, 2025
finds and determines in recommending approval that such benefits override, outweigh, and make “acceptable” any such remaining environmental impacts of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 (a) and (b)).

The following benefits and considerations outweigh such significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. All of these benefits and considerations are based on the facts set forth in the findings, the final focused EIR, and the record of proceedings for the project. Each of these benefits and considerations constitutes a separate and independent basis that justifies approval of the project, so that if a court were to set aside the determination that any particular benefit or consideration justifies project approval, the Commission would stand by its determination that the remaining benefits or considerations are sufficient to justify and substantiate project approval.

Facts in Support of Statement of Overriding Considerations The objective of the Project is to build and operate an economically viable and competitive development with residential uses in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, optimally utilizing the available land resource, and while minimizing any environmental impacts to the extent feasible.

Each benefit set forth below constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the project, independent of the other benefits, and the City Council determines that the adverse environmental impacts of the project are “acceptable” if any of these benefits would be realized. The project would provide benefits as follows:

1. Accommodates the Need for Housing. At buildout, the Project proposes to construct approximately 326 dwelling units. As discussed in EIR Section 4.1 Land Use and Planning Table 4,1-2 the Project is consistent with the applicable City General Plan Goals and Policies. As noted in Section 6.4- Alternatives Considered and Evaluated -, the Project would help the City achieve its need to accommodate residential growth. It would also (a) address the City’s current and projected housing needs by providing a range of single-family residences; (b) meet any of the General Plan policies or objectives related to meeting the housing needs of all citizens, or provide; (c) provide residential housing opportunities for a wide range of housing choices that insure opportunities for a variety of age groups, lifestyles, and income levels that are visually attractive and accommodate the future housing demand in Hanford; (d) establish a mixture of housing types, sizes and densities that collectively provide for local and regional housing demand; (e) provide infrastructure that meets the City standards and is integrated with existing and planned facilities and connections; and (f) develop a project that meets City standards by implementing a logical phasing plan for development of public infrastructure improvements.

The Project aligns with the City's General Plan, specifically with the policies within the Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element, such as Goal L1, to promote a well-planned community that grows in an organized fashion, Goal L3, limiting urban sprawl, Goal L4 Adequate land available to meet housing needs for all citizens through the year 2035, Goal L6 , which encourages the City to support development with a wide range of housing choices that insure opportunities for a variety of age groups, lifestyles, and income levels, L7 that promotes the City’s SOI to be coterminous to the Planned Area Boundary, L18 that new development is compatible with existing and surrounding neighborhoods, L27 that encourages mixing of residential densities and lot sizes within neighborhoods . As noted, the Project would help fulfill the goals and housing objectives of the City and implement the projected population growth of the City and surrounding area .

2. Provides Orderly Expansion and Consistent with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Project provides new development in an orderly manner and is coordinated with the

Page 1492 of 1543 ends

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Planning Commission Section 15093 3 February 25, 2025
General Plan Policy L15 regarding the criteria needed to initiate annexation of land into the City boundary, Policy L24 that ensures new residential developments have the sufficient urban infrastructure and public facilities needed, and Goal L32, to improve Hanford’s quality of life through use of practical design principles and standards. The Project proposes to eliminate several dead end roads by the development of new through streets, and will connect the dead-end roads along the eastern boundary so that residents have another access to Hanford Armona Road, which allows for a more efficient traffic flow in that area of the City. In addition, the proposed Project provides a safe and efficient street system that links all Project areas and allows for the movement of both vehicle and non-vehicle traffic. The Project will be required to use and expand upon the existing local road system and contribute to certain transportation improvements that will help to develop the orderly development of the roadway system in the area.

Further, per the 2016 Island Study prepared by LAFCO the Project would fill in an undeveloped island of county land surrounded by development and will build the infrastructure to connect to the City’s existing infrastructure of roads, water, sewage and drainage. As analyzed in the EIR, the City concurs that it can support the proposed residential development without significant impacts to public services or facilities.

3. Provides More Efficient Use of Land and Existing Resources. The property was previously farmed with animal feed and fodder such as wheat, milo and corn. The last two years only had enough water for a portion of the property and the crops grown, corn and milo, which are considered low-income crops generating a small net income. Permanent crops such as almonds, pistachios, vineyard and olives were no longer viable due to reduced water availability. The property owner states that surface water supplied by the local water district can no longer reach the property due to adjacent developments. This left only underground water available for agriculture, which the property owner stated was too expensive.

The General Plan identifies the Project parcel as within the Planned Area Boundary and is designated Low Density Residential. The parcels to the north are designated as Medium Density Residential and all other abutting properties as Low Density Residential. The designations indicate that the City anticipates future non-agricultural development in this area. Chapter 5.2 of the City of Hanford General Plan contains several goals and policies for agricultural resources. Goal 1 strives for the conservation and long-term protection of agricultural resources and soils located outside of the Planned Area Boundary. Policy 4 under Goal 1 states “retain existing agricultural areas as an interim use inside the Planned Area Boundary and support agricultural operations until such time that the areas are needed for logical urban expansion.”

4. Will Provide Additional Economic Benefits. Farming the site required less than two workers for the entire year, as noted by the property owner. The economic benefit and revenue were marginal to the City and County.

The Project will result in creating affordable housing at lower market rates, in addition to providing good paying construction jobs. According to available data, the median home price in the City is approximately $217,260. The typical annual property tax rate is 1.08%, and tax bills run at approximately $2,159 annually, which is below the national median of $2,690.1 To be conservative, using a median home cost of $217,260 and a tax rate of 1.08% the tax revenue per home is anticipated to be $2,346/year or $760,236 of tax revenue paid annually at full buildout of the Project.
1 Ownwell- Hanford California Property Taxes: https://www.ownwell.com/trends/california/kings-county/hanford

Page 1493 of 1543 ends

Silicon Valley Ranch Residential Development (Tract No. 943) Project Planning Commission Section 15093 4 February 25, 2025
Conclusion
As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed action, the City has reviewed the project description for the Project and the FEIR and fully understands the Project proposed by the applicant. Based on the entire record before the Commission, and having considered the unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project, the Commission hereby determines that all feasible mitigation has been adopted to reduce the potentially significant impacts identified in the FEIR, and that no additional feasible mitigation is available to further reduce significant impacts.

The Commission finds that economic, social, technological, and other considerations of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts described above. Further the Commission finds that each of the separate benefits of the Project is hereby determined to be, in itself and independent of the other Project benefits, a basis for overriding all unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the FEIR and in the CEQA Findings. In making this finding, the Commission has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those risks

Page 1494 of 1543 ends

15.A.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 3/18/2025 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS SUBJECT:

Approval of pre-qualified consultants for Environmental Consulting Services, Peer Review for Environmental Consulting Services, and, Planning and Environmental Services (directly for the City of Hanford) for up to five years with a cost up to $300,000 annually. Approval of appropriation in the General Fund for the current fiscal year (FY25) for up to $100,000 combined for all three services.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommended Motion:

1. Approval to enter into contract for on-call services with pre-qualified consultants for Environmental Consulting Services, Peer Review for Environmental Consulting Services, and, Planning and Environmental Services (directly for the City of Hanford) for up to a five-year term up to $300,000 annually.

2. Appropriate $100,000 in fiscal year 2024/2025 (FY25) and future appropriations to be included in future budgets.

BACKGROUND:

In February, City staff issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to establish a list of pre-qualified consultants to provide planning and environmental services for both private development projects and City-led initiatives. Consultants were invited to submit qualifications for four distinct categories:

1. Pre-qualified Environmental Consulting Services

2. Pre-qualified Peer Review for Environmental Consulting Services

3. Planning and Environmental Services (directly for the City of Hanford)

4. Contract Planning Staff Services

1. Pre-qualified Environmental Consulting Services
This category establishes a list of consultants to provide environmental services directly to project developers related to meeting the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as well as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) where applicable. This list may also be used for environmental services for City-led projects.

The City will provide a list of pre-qualified Environmental Consultants to prospective project developers for their consideration; however, developers are able to select their own consultant.

Selection of an Environmental Consultant is at the will of a project developer and the City does not get involved in the selection process or payment for services.

Page 1495 of 1543 ends

Proposals Received:

1. 4Creeks, Inc (Englewood, CO)

2. Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. (Visalia, CA)

3. CSG Consultants, Inc. (Orange, CA)

4. EcoTierra Consulting (Los Angeles, CA)

5. EMC Planning Group (Monterey, CA)

6. EPD Solutions (Irvine, CA)

7. LSA Associates, Inc. (Irvine, CA)

8. Montrose Environmental Solutions (Oakland, CA)

9. PlaceWorks (Berkeley, CA)

10. Precision Civil Engineering (Fresno, CA)

11. UltraSystems Environmental Inc. (Irvine, CA)

Selected Pre-Qualified Consultant List:

1. Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. (Visalia, CA)

2. CSG Consultants, Inc. (Orange, CA)

3. EcoTierra Consulting (Los Angeles, CA)

4. EMC Planning Group (Monterey, CA)

5. EPD Solutions (Irvine, CA)

6. Montrose Environmental Solutions (Oakland, CA)

7. PlaceWorks (Berkeley, CA)

8. UltraSystems Environmental Inc. (Irvine, CA)

2. Pre-qualified Peer Review for Environmental Consulting Services This category establishes a list of consultants to peer review environmental documents when an applicant chooses a consultant that is not on the pre-qualified list. Additionally, peer review services may be used to evaluate complex technical data prepared by pre-qualified consultants when needed.

Proposals Received:

1. 4Creeks, Inc (Englewood, CO)

2. CSG Consultants, Inc. (Orange, CA)

3. EcoTierra Consulting (Los Angeles, CA)

4. EMC Planning Group (Monterey, CA)

5. EPD Solutions (Irvine, CA)

6. LSA Associates, Inc. (Irvine, CA)

7. Montrose Environmental Solutions (Oakland, CA)

8. PlaceWorks (Berkeley, CA)

9. QK (Visalia, CA)

10. UltraSystems Environmental Inc. (Irvine, CA)
Selected Peer Review Consultant List:

1. EcoTierra Consulting (Los Angeles, CA)

2. EPD Solutions (Irvine, CA)

Page 1496 of 1543 ends

3. UltraSystems Environmental Inc. (Irvine, CA)

3. Planning and Environmental Services (directly for the City of Hanford) This category creates a list of one or more planning consultants that have the capabilities to provide comprehensive planning and limited environmental services directly to the City including zoning updates, general plan updates, master planning, etc. on an as-needed basis.

Proposals Received:

1. 4Creeks, Inc (Englewood, CO)

2. 4LEAF, Inc. (Pleasanton, CA)

3. CSG Consultants, Inc. (Orange, CA)

4. EMC Planning Group (Monterey, CA)

5. LSA Associates, Inc. (Irvine, CA)

6. PlaceWorks (Berkeley, CA)

7. Precision Civil Engineering (Fresno, CA)

8. QK (Visalia, CA)
Selected Planning and Environmental Services Consultants:

1. 4Creeks, Inc (Englewood, CO)

2. 4LEAF, Inc. (Pleasanton, CA)

3. CSG Consultants, Inc. (Orange, CA)

4. PlaceWorks (Berkeley, CA)

5. QK (Visalia, CA)

4. Contract Planning Staff Services
To ensure continuity in planning services during vacancies or temporary absences of City planners, the City will utilize contract planning staff. These consultants will function as Senior Planners under the direction of the Community Development Director.

Proposals Received:

1. 4Creeks, Inc (Englewood, CO)

2. 4LEAF, Inc. (Pleasanton, CA)

3. CSG Consultants, Inc. (Orange, CA)

4. EMC Planning Group (Monterey, CA)

5. Precision Civil Engineering (Fresno, CA)

6. QK (Visalia, CA)
Selected Contract Planning Staff Services:

1. 4Creeks, Inc (Englewood, CO)
4Creeks has entered into an agreement with the City to provide these services for an amount not to

Page 1497 of 1543 ends

exceed $40,000.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City will appropriate $300,000 annually for these services. However, in most cases, costs will be covered by applicants who will pay consultants directly, resulting in no impact on the General Fund.

The City may, at its discretion, utilize these services for City-led projects when necessary.

ATTACHMENTS:

None

Page 1498 of 1543 ends

15.B.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 3/18/2025 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS SUBJECT:

Authorization to Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) to Receive REAP 2.0 Funds for the Updates to the Hanford Planning Documents Project ($250,000) and Modernizing Hanford’s GIS and Permitting Processes Project ($455,000), and to Award Contracts to Mintier Harnish ($250,000) and Langan ($455,000) for Consulting Services. Approve appropriation of $705,000, to be reimbursed by REAP 2.0 grant funds.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommended Motions: That the City Council:

1. Authorize the Deputy City Manager to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to receive REAP 2.0 funding in the amount of $250,000 for Updates to the Hanford Planning Documents project and $455,000 for Modernizing Hanford's GIS and Permitting Processes project

2. Authorize staff to enter into an agreement with Mintier Harnish for the Updates to the Hanford Planning Documents project, for an amount not to exceed $250,000, and appropriate $250,000 for these services.

3. Authorize staff to enter into an agreement with Langan for the Modernizing Hanford’s GIS and Permitting Processes project, for an amount not to exceed $455,000, and appropriate $455,000 for these services.

BACKGROUND:

In August 2024, the Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) issued a call for projects under the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) 2.0 Grant Program. The grant funds projects that align with three key objectives:

1. Accelerating infill development to facilitate housing production.

2. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) to promote equitable housing policies.

3. Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to support sustainable transportation.

The City of Hanford successfully applied for two projects that align with the grant objectives:

Updates to the Hanford Planning Documents: General Plan, Municipal Code and ObjectiveBased Standards: $250,000 This project will update critical planning documents to support sustainable development and housing

Page 1499 of 1543 ends

growth, including:

1. Creating an Environmental Justice Element for the General Plan: A formally adopted Environmental Justice Element integrated into the City's General Plan, outlining policies and objectives to reduce environmental health risks and promote equitable access to resources in disadvantaged communities.

2. Updating the City's Subdivision Ordinance: A revised subdivision ordinance that incorporates standards, streamlines the approval process, and supports sustainable growth aligned with state and local regulations.

3. Establishing Objective-Based Housing Standards: A set of clearly defined and adopted objectivebased housing design standards that will guide the design and approval of residential developments, ensuring consistency, quality, and affordability in new housing projects. These deliverables will serve to enhance sustainable development, promote equity, and support increased housing opportunities within the City of Hanford.

Modernizing Hanford's GIS and Permitting Processes: $455,000 This project will enhance the City's GIS and permitting systems to improve efficiency and public access to planning resources. Key components include:

1. Publicly accessible GIS maps on the City’s website, offering relevant information for residents and developers.

2. Creation of utility, planning and relevant GIS data to support City staff in planning and permitting processes. Creation of GIS data that identifies infill opportunities, zoning, land use, utility availability, and proximity to trails and multimodal facilities.

3. Update permitting systems that minimize manual entry, clearly communicate fees to applicants, and reduce errors.

4. Additionally, the project will provide staff training and allocate time for staff to ensure that the City can maintain and update the GIS system in the future.

City Staff is also requesting authorization to contract with two consulting firms to complete the projects associated with the REAP 2.0 grant.

Consultant Experience
Mintier Harnish will prepare the planning documents associated with the Updates to the Hanford Planning Documents project. The firm has extensive experience with similar projects, including the development of Visalia’s Environmental Justice Element and Objective-Based Housing Standards under a previous REAP grant.

Langan will oversee the GIS and permitting system enhancements under the Modernizing Hanford’s GIS and Permitting Processes project. The firm specializes in municipal GIS modernization and has the capacity to complete the project within the grant timeline.

To execute these projects, staff recommends contracting with two consulting firms and authorization to enter into the attached MOU with KCAG to receive the REAP 2.0 funding.

Page 1500 of 1543 ends

FISCAL IMPACT:

All consultant services will be funded through the REAP 2.0 grant, with no impact to the City’s General Fund.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. KCAG MOU Modernizing GIS

2. KCAG MOU Planning Updates

Page 1501 of 1543 ends

1 Agreement No. 2025-03

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

KINGS COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AND CITY OF HANFORD FOR

SUBALLOCATION OF REGIONAL EARLY ACTION PLANNING FUNDS
THIS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), entered into this _____ day of _____________, 2025, by and between the Kings County Association of Governments, hereinafter referred to as “KCAG” and City of Hanford, hereinafter referred to as “GRANTEE” with respect to the following recitals:

W I T N E S S E T H :

WHEREAS, the State of California (the "State"), Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is authorized to provide up to $480,000,000 in non-competitive funding available to the state’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) for planning and implementation activities under the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) 2.0 Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) submitted an application to HCD for REAP 2.0 funds consistent with the Notice of Funding Availability and Final Guidelines - Metropolitan Planning Organization Allocation Regional Early Action Planning Grant (REAP 2.0), attached as Exhibit “A”; for the purpose of suballocation available funding to eligible projects; and
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2023, the State Department of Housing and Community Development signed Standard Agreement No. 22-REAP2-17549 between KCAG and the State Department of Housing and Community Development providing $1,733,320 in REAP 2.0 funding to KCAG, attached as Exhibit “B”; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2024, KCAG developed a REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program (“Grant Program”) and issued a call for applications from its member agencies; and WHEREAS, the GRANTEE developed and submitted a REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Application for a “City of Hanford Modernizing Hanford’s GIS and Permitting Processes” (“Grant Application”), attached as Exhibit “C”; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2024, the KCAG Commission approved the REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant applications and authorized the Executive Director to enter into an agreement with GRANTEE.

Page 1502 of 1543 ends

2 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED, by and between KCAG and the GRANTEE as set forth below.

1. CONTRACT ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT:

This MOU is fully comprised of these terms and the attached exhibits: “Exhibit “A" Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) and Final Guidelines - Metropolitan Planning Organization Allocation Regional Early Action Planning Grant (REAP 2.0); "Exhibit B" State of California-Department of General Services Standard Agreement 22-REAP2-17549; and "Exhibit C" REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program application for a “City of Hanford Modernizing Hanford’s GIS and Permitting Processes”; all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.

2. GRANTEE’S OBLIGATIONS:

A. Scope of Work: The work to be conducted by GRANTEE is specified in the REAP

2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Application for a City of Hanford Modernizing Hanford’s GIS and Permitting Processes as set forth in “Exhibit C” approved by the KCAG Commission on December 11, 2024. GRANTEE shall comply with all Program requirements contained in the REAP 2.0 NOFA and Final Guidelines for MPO Applicants as set forth in “Exhibit A”.

KCAG shall only be obligated to make payments to the GRANTEE for work performed as part of the approved REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Application and the REAP 2.0 NOFA and Final Guidelines for MPO Applicants up to the maximum amount of $172,728 (“Grant Funds”).

The GRANTEE shall use the Grant Funds in accordance with the approved REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Application it submitted and the REAP 2.0 NOFA and Final Guidelines for MPO Applicants.

B. Time for Completion: Time is of the essence in this MOU. The term for this MOU shall begin on the “Effective Date” of this MOU and continue until June 30, 2026, hereinafter referred to as the “Completion Date”, unless terminated earlier as provided herein.

C. Project Status Reporting: The GRANTEE shall provide KCAG with monthly reports and a final report as specified in Section 3 of this MOU, which shall include an accounting of Grant Fund expenditures. The GRANTEE shall retain a copy of payment records, invoices, receipts, and any other documentation requested by KCAG for all Grant Fund expenditures.

3. SUBALLOCATION AWARD:

A. Suballocation Grant Award: Notwithstanding any other provision in this MOU, the total Grant Funds disbursed to GRANTEE shall not exceed $455,000.00. (Grant Suballocation Funds)
B. Progress Payments: KCAG shall request and receive from HCD payments of an allowable amount in advance of GRANTEE’s first invoice. KCAG shall thereafter make progress payments to GRANTEE upon receipt and approval by KCAG and HCD of

Page 1503 of 1543 ends

3 GRANTEE’s invoice and progress report. Progress billings and reports in arrears may be submitted as often as monthly. KCAG shall thereafter submit the required reports to HCD to account for the Grant Funds expensed for City of project and in compliance with the Audit provisions of the Standard Agreement No. 22-REAP2-17549 (“Exhibit B”).

C. Invoices: Invoices for reimbursement shall provide a summary of work completed by task (based on clear deliverables outlined in the Grant Application as set forth in “Exhibit C”. If KCAG disagrees with any aspect of the invoice, including amount, percent complete or supporting documents, KCAG will notify GRANTEE in writing within ten (10) days of receipt of invoice. If the invoice is not contested, KCAG shall submit eligible cost to HCD for reimbursement. KCAG shall remit payment thereof to GRANTEE within thirty (30) days of receipt of the funds from HCD.

D. Billing Format and Content: Invoices for payment shall refer to or comply with the provisions of "Exhibit B" State of California-Department of General Services Standard Agreement 22-REAP2-17549, or as may be specified in a written notice by KCAG.

Specific budget category detail is given below:
i. Direct Labor and Fringe Benefits: All direct labor charges should be billed by class of employee, rate per hour, and number of hours. (Anticipated personnel cost-of-living or merit increase, if any, should be reflected in the budget). ii. Other Direct Costs: All direct costs billed must be specifically identified.

Any travel costs may not exceed the applicable California Department of Human Resources HR Manual Section 2203 per diem rates and mileage rates shall be reimbursed at the IRS established standard mileage rate. Any other direct costs not specifically identified in the project budget of the Grant Application, attached as “Exhibit C” cannot be reimbursed.
iii. Narrative: The invoice should include a description of task(s) completed during the invoice period and a discussion of task(s) currently underway.

E. Allowable Uses of Grant Suballocation Funds:
i. KCAG shall not award or disburse funds unless it determines that the Grant Suballocation Funds shall be expended in compliance with the terms and provisions of the Statute and Guidelines which include associated forms and guidance, approved applications and this MOU.
ii. Grant Suballocation Funds shall only be used by the GRANTEE for project activities approved by HCD and KCAG that involve planning and implementation activities in accordance with the Statue and Guidelines. iii. Grant Suballocation Funds may not be used for the administrative costs of persons employed by the GRANTEE for activities not directly related to eligible activities.
iv. The GRANTEE shall use no more than 5 percent of the Grant Suballocation Funds amount for costs related to administration of the project as described in the Guidelines.

Page 1504 of 1543 ends

4 v. The GRANTEE may use a subcontractor and GRANTEE shall be accountable to KCAG to ensure subcontractor’s performance of the subcontract shall comply with all the requirements of the Grant Program. vi. After the MOU has been executed by KCAG and all parties, approved and eligible costs for eligible activities may be reimbursed for the City of Hanford Modernizing Hanford’s GIS and Permitting Processes upon completion of deliverables or paid in advance in accordance with the scope of work and subject to the terms and conditions of this MOU.

F. Allowable Costs and Documentation: All costs charged pursuant to this MOU by GRANTEE shall be supported by properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices, and vouchers, evidencing in proper detail the nature and propriety of the charges, and shall be costs allowable as determined by Title 48 Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1, Part 31 (Contract Cost Principles and Procedures), Subpart 31.2 (Contracts with Commercial Organizations), as modified by Subpart 31.103. GRANTEE shall also comply with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 18, (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments) in the procurement of services, supplies or equipment.

G. Disallowed Costs: Any costs for which the GRANTEE receives reimbursement or credit that is determined by a subsequent audit or other review by either KCAG, HCD or other State authorities to be ineligible or otherwise unallowable, are to be repaid by the GRANTEE within thirty (30) days of the GRANTEE receiving notice of audit findings and a penalties or related fees, as determined by HCD or other State authorities. Should the GRANTEE fail to reimburse unallowable costs due to KCAG within thirty (30) days of demand, or within such other period as may be agreed between both parties hereto, KCAG is authorized to withhold future payments due to the GRANTEE.

4. ADMINISTRATION OF MOU BY KCAG:

A. KCAG Project Manager: The Executive Director of KCAG shall act as the KCAG Project Manager and represent KCAG in carrying out the provisions of this MOU. The GRANTEE will communicate with and receive instructions only through the KCAG Project Manager or designated representative.

B. Document Review: KCAG shall give reasonable prompt consideration to all documents and matters submitted by the GRANTEE for approval to the end that there will be no substantial delays in the GRANTEE’s project schedule.

C. Communications: Communications between the GRANTEE and KCAG officials and employees shall be provided through the KCAG Project Manager or his/her designee.

Access to pertinent KCAG records and documents shall also be provided through the KCAG Project Manager or his/her designee.

5. NOTICES: All notices, claims, correspondence, reports and/or statements authorized and/or required by the terms of this MOU shall be in writing and shall be either personally delivered or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the parties as follows:

Page 1505 of 1543 ends

5 To KCAG: To the GRANTEE:

Terri King Jason Waters, Deputy City Manager
KCAG Executive Director City of Hanford
339 W. D Street, Suite B 317 N. Douty Street
Lemoore, CA 93245 Hanford, CA 93230
Notice shall be deemed effective on the date personally delivered, or if mailed, three (3) days following the date of deposit with the United States Postal Service.

6. TERMINATION OF MOU:

KCAG shall have the right to terminate the MOU in whole or in part for cause, for convenience. The following termination provisions apply:

A. Termination for Cause. KCAG shall have the right to terminate the MOU, in whole or in part, for cause upon a determination that the GRANTEE is in default of its own Grant Program Application or this MOU. Unless a shorter time is determined by KCAG to be necessary, KCAG shall effect termination according to the following procedure:
i. Notice to Cure. KCAG shall give written notice of the conditions of default signed by the Executive Director, setting forth the ground or grounds upon which such default is declared (“Notice to Cure”). The GRANTEE shall have ten (10) days from receipt of the Notice to Cure or any longer period that is set forth in the Notice to Cure to cure the default(s). The Executive Director of KCAG may temporarily suspend services under the MOU pending the outcome of the default proceedings pursuant to this section.
ii. Opportunity to be Heard. If the conditions set forth in the Notice to Cure are not cured within the period set forth in the Notice to Cure, the Executive Director of KCAG may declare the GRANTEE in default. Before the Executive Director may exercise his or her right to declare the GRANTEE in default, the GRANTEE must be given an opportunity to be heard upon not less than five (5) business days’ notice. The Executive Director may, in his or her discretion, provide for such opportunity to be in writing or in person. Such opportunity to be heard shall not occur prior to the end of the cure period but notice of such opportunity to be heard may be given prior to the end of the cure period and may be given contemporaneously with the Notice to Cure.
iii. Notice of Termination. After an opportunity to be heard, the Executive Directory may terminate the MOU, in whole or in part, upon finding the GRANTEE in default. The Executive Director of KCAG shall give the GRANTEE written notice of such termination (“Notice of Termination”), specifying the applicable provision(s) under which the MOU is terminated and the effective date of termination. If no date is specified in the Notice of Termination, the termination shall be effective either ten (10) days from the date the notice of personally delivered or fifteen (15) days from the date the Notice of Termination is sent by other method. The Notice of Termination shall be personally delivered, sent by certified mail (return receipt requested), or sent by fax and deposited in a post office box regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service in a postage pre-paid envelope and properly addressed to GRANTEE.

Page 1506 of 1543 ends

6 B. Termination for Lack of Funding. The GRANTEE acknowledges, understands and agrees that KCAG, a local agency, is dependent upon State appropriations for the funding of the REAP 2.0 Grant Program. In the event State or governmental funds are not appropriated, are terminated, suspended, reduced, or otherwise not made available to support this REAP 2.0 Grant Program, then KCAG shall terminate this MOU and shall have no further obligation to GRANTEE under this MOU. KCAG shall provide written notice to GRANTEE and this MOU shall terminate without penalty or expense to KCAG.

The written Notice of Termination For Lack of Funding shall be personally delivered, sent by certified mail (return receipt requested), or sent by fax and deposited in a post office box regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service in a postage pre-paid envelope and properly addressed to GRANTEE.

7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: All documents, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other materials prepared by GRANTEE in relation to the Grant Program activities are and shall remain the property of GRANTEE. However, GRANTEE shall provide KCAG with all documents in an electronic format specified by KCAG at any time upon request. GRANTEE shall not withhold such documents due to any disputes with KCAG regarding payment or services under this MOU. KCAG may retain a copy of such documents for archival purposes.

8. INDEMNITY: GRANTEE agrees to defend and indemnify, hold harmless and release KCAG and its officers, agents and employees from and against any and all actions, claims, damages, disabilities or expenses that may be asserted by any person or entity, including GRANTEE, to the extent arising out of or as a result of any negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct in the performance of services by GRANTEE or its agents or assigns hereunder, and proportionally if there is any concurrent negligence on the part of KCAG, but excluding liability due to the gross negligence or willful misconduct of KCAG.

9. INSURANCE:

A. General Liability Insurance: The GRANTEE shall, at its sole expense, obtain and keep in full force and effect for the duration of this MOU, general public liability and property damage insurance, from an insurance carrier authorized to transact business in California, which includes automobile liability insurance in a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000. Said insurance coverage shall include KCAG, its officers, employees and agents, as additional insured and shall contain a provision that the insurance shall not be canceled without thirty (30) days prior written notice to KCAG.

B. Worker’s Compensation: The GRANTEE shall at its sole cost and expense obtain and keep in full force and effect for the duration of this MOU workers’ compensation insurance as required by law.

C. Term of Coverage: The GRANTEE shall at his/her own expense maintain coverage in conformance with above requirements with the carrier providing the coverage pursuant to this MOU for a period of three (3) years after the termination of this MOU. In lieu of maintenance of coverage with the same carrier, GRANTEE shall secure coverage of the extended recovery period with a carrier approved by KCAG for a period ending not earlier than three (3) years after the term of this MOU.

D. Certificates of Insurance: A Certificate for each such insurance policy shall be submitted to KCAG within thirty days of execution of this MOU.

Page 1507 of 1543 ends

7 10. RECORDS: GRANTEE agrees to make available upon reasonable notice to KCAG, or KCAG’s auditor or the State of California or the United States, or any duly authorized representative thereof, its books, records, documents, and any and all other evidence of all work or services performed or accounting of costs or expenses incurred in the performance of this MOU, for inspection, examination and copying at all reasonable times, at GRANTEE’s place of business, or other mutually agreeable location in California. GRANTEE agrees to organize and maintain in accordance with general business standards and generally accepted accounting procedures any and all pertinent books and records pertaining to the goods and services furnished under the terms of this MOU. All records pertaining to the Project or this MOU shall be maintained for three (3) years from the date of final payment by KCAG. GRANTEE hereby agrees to cooperate with KCAG, or KCAG’s auditor or the State of California or the United States, or any duly authorized representative thereof, by making all appropriate and relevant City of Hanford Modernizing Hanford’s GIS and Permitting Processes Project records available for audit and copying.

11. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: GRANTEE, its employees, contractors, and assigns, shall have no interest, nor acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of this MOU.

12. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING: Except as otherwise allowed expressly hereunder, GRANTEE shall not assign, transfer, or subcontract this MOU or any interest herein without prior written approval of KCAG.

13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: GRANTEE is an independent contractor and neither GRANTEE nor any employee or subcontractor of GRANTEE is an employee of KCAG.

GRANTEE shall retain the right to exercise full control and supervision of its officers, employees and agents in the provision of services hereunder, and full control over the employment, direction, compensation and discharge of officers, employees and agents. GRANTEE shall be solely responsible for payment of its employees and compliance with social security, workers compensation, unemployment insurance, and income tax withholding and all laws and regulations governing such matters.

14. NON-DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE: During the performance of this MOU, GRANTEE and its subcontractors shall not deny the contract’s benefits to any person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identify, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status, nor shall they discriminate unlawfully against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military or veteran status. GRANTEE shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination.

GRANTEE and subcontractors shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code §12900 et. Seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (Cal.

Code Regs., tit. 2, §11000 et seq.), the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (Government Code §§11135-11139.5), and the regulations or standards adopted by the awarding state agency to implement such article. GRANTEE shall permit access by representatives of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the awarding state agency upon reasonable notice at any time during the normal business hours, but in no case less than 24 hours’ notice, to such of its books, records, accounts, and all other sources

Page 1508 of 1543 ends

8 of information and its facilities as said Department or Agency shall require to ascertain compliance with this clause. GRANTEE and its subcontractors shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §11105.) GRANTEE shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this section in all subcontracts to perform work under this MOU.

15. ENERGY CONSERVATION: GRANTEE shall comply with mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the California State Energy Conservation Plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub., L. 94-163).

16. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION AND DVBE PARTICIPATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

A. If for this MOU, GRANTEE made a commitment to achieve small business participation, then GRANTEE must within sixty (60) days of receiving final payment under this MOU report to the awarding department the actual percentage of small business participation that was achieved. (Government Code § 14841.) B. If for this MOU, GRANTEE made a commitment to achieve disabled veteran business enterprise (DVBE) participation, then GRANTEE must within sixty (60) days of receiving final payment under this MOU certify in a report to the awarding department: (1) the total amount the prime Contractor received under this MOU; (2) the name and address of the DVBE(s) that participated in the performance of the MOU; (3) the amount each DVBE received from the prime Contractor; (4) that all payments under the MOU have been made to the CVBE; and (5) the actual percentage of DVBE participation that was achieved. A person or entity that knowingly provides false information shall be subject to a civil penalty in violation. (Mil. & Vets. Code §999.5(d); Government Code §14841.)

17. COMPLIANCE: GRANTEE shall comply with all current Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations applicable in carrying out its obligations under this MOU.

GRANTEE's failure to so comply shall constitute a material breach of this MOU.

18. JURISDICTION AND VENUE: This MOU shall be administered and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. Venue for any litigation arising from the MOU shall be the Superior Court for the State of California in Kings County, California. GRANTEE hereby waives the provisions of section 394 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

19. SEVERABILITY: If any part of this MOU is found to be in conflict with applicable laws, such part shall be inoperative, null and void insofar as it is in conflict with said laws, but the remainder of the MOU shall be in full force and effect.

20. INTEGRATION & AMENDMENTS: This MOU including the recitals and exhibits represents the entire understanding of the parties as to those matters contained herein and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This MOU may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both KCAG and GRANTEE.

21. USE OF KCAG PROPERTY: GRANTEE shall not use KCAG premises, property (including equipment, instruments and supplies), or personnel for any purpose other than in the performance of GRANTEE’s obligations under this MOU.

Page 1509 of 1543 ends

9 22. AUTHORITY: Each signatory to this MOU represents that it is authorized to enter into this MOU and to bind the Party to which its signature represents.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this MOU is executed on the day and year first above written.

Terri King, Executive Director Date
Kings County Association
of Governments
Jason Waters, Deputy City Manager Date
City of Avenal
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Counsel Date
Kings County Association
of Governments

Page 1510 of 1543 ends

EXHIBIT A
Notice of Funding Availability and Final Guidelines - Metropolitan Planning Organization Allocation Regional Early Action Planning Grant (REAP 2.0)

Page 1511 of 1543 ends

EXHIBIT B
State Department of Housing and Community Development signed Standard Agreement No. 22-REAP2-17549 between KCAG and
the State Department of Housing and Community Development

Page 1512 of 1543 ends

EXHIBIT C
City of Hanford: REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Application for a “City of Hanford Modernizing Hanford’s GIS and Permitting Processes”

Page 1513 of 1543 ends

1 Agreement No. 2025-04

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

KINGS COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AND CITY OF HANFORD FOR

W I T N E S S E T H :

General Plan, Municipal Codes, and Objective-Based Standards” (“Grant Application”), attached as Exhibit “C”; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2024, the KCAG Commission approved the REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant applications and authorized the Executive Director to enter into an agreement with GRANTEE.

Page 1514 of 1543 ends

2 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED, by and between KCAG and the GRANTEE as set forth below.

1. CONTRACT ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT:

This MOU is fully comprised of these terms and the attached exhibits: “Exhibit “A" Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) and Final Guidelines - Metropolitan Planning Organization Allocation Regional Early Action Planning Grant (REAP 2.0); "Exhibit B" State of California-Department of General Services Standard Agreement 22-REAP2-17549; and "Exhibit C" REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program application for a “City of Hanford Updates to the Hanford Planning Documents: General Plan, Municipal Codes, and Objective-Based Standards” all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.

2. GRANTEE’S OBLIGATIONS:

A. Scope of Work: The work to be conducted by GRANTEE is specified in the REAP

2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Application for a City of Hanford Updates to the Hanford Planning Documents: General Plan, Municipal Codes, and Objective-Based Standards as set forth in “Exhibit C” approved by the KCAG Commission on December 11, 2024. GRANTEE shall comply with all Program requirements contained in the REAP

2.0 NOFA and Final Guidelines for MPO Applicants as set forth in “Exhibit A”.

3. SUBALLOCATION AWARD:

A. Suballocation Grant Award: Notwithstanding any other provision in this MOU, the total Grant Funds disbursed to GRANTEE shall not exceed $250,000.00. (Grant Suballocation Funds)
B. Progress Payments: KCAG shall request and receive from HCD payments of an allowable amount in advance of GRANTEE’s first invoice. KCAG shall thereafter make progress payments to GRANTEE upon receipt and approval by KCAG and HCD of

Page 1515 of 1543 ends

Page 1516 of 1543 ends

4 v. The GRANTEE may use a subcontractor and GRANTEE shall be accountable to KCAG to ensure subcontractor’s performance of the subcontract shall comply with all the requirements of the Grant Program. vi. After the MOU has been executed by KCAG and all parties, approved and eligible costs for eligible activities may be reimbursed for the City of Hanford Updates to the Hanford Planning Documents: General Plan, Municipal Codes, and Objective-Based Standards upon completion of deliverables or paid in advance in accordance with the scope of work and subject to the terms and conditions of this MOU.

4. ADMINISTRATION OF MOU BY KCAG:

C. Communications: Communications between the GRANTEE and KCAG officials and employees shall be provided through the KCAG Project Manager or his/her designee.

Access to pertinent KCAG records and documents shall also be provided through the KCAG Project Manager or his/her designee.

Page 1517 of 1543 ends

5 To KCAG: To the GRANTEE:

6. TERMINATION OF MOU:

KCAG shall have the right to terminate the MOU in whole or in part for cause, for convenience. The following termination provisions apply:

Page 1518 of 1543 ends

9. INSURANCE:

B. Worker’s Compensation: The GRANTEE shall at its sole cost and expense obtain and keep in full force and effect for the duration of this MOU workers’ compensation insurance as required by law.

D. Certificates of Insurance: A Certificate for each such insurance policy shall be submitted to KCAG within thirty days of execution of this MOU.

Page 1519 of 1543 ends

7 10. RECORDS: GRANTEE agrees to make available upon reasonable notice to KCAG, or KCAG’s auditor or the State of California or the United States, or any duly authorized representative thereof, its books, records, documents, and any and all other evidence of all work or services performed or accounting of costs or expenses incurred in the performance of this MOU, for inspection, examination and copying at all reasonable times, at GRANTEE’s place of business, or other mutually agreeable location in California. GRANTEE agrees to organize and maintain in accordance with general business standards and generally accepted accounting procedures any and all pertinent books and records pertaining to the goods and services furnished under the terms of this MOU. All records pertaining to the Project or this MOU shall be maintained for three (3) years from the date of final payment by KCAG. GRANTEE hereby agrees to cooperate with KCAG, or KCAG’s auditor or the State of California or the United States, or any duly authorized representative thereof, by making all appropriate and relevant City of Hanford Updates to the Hanford Planning Documents: General Plan, Municipal Codes, and ObjectiveBased Standards Project records available for audit and copying.

13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: GRANTEE is an independent contractor and neither GRANTEE nor any employee or subcontractor of GRANTEE is an employee of KCAG.

GRANTEE and subcontractors shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code §12900 et. Seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (Cal.

Page 1520 of 1543 ends

16. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION AND DVBE PARTICIPATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

17. COMPLIANCE: GRANTEE shall comply with all current Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations applicable in carrying out its obligations under this MOU.

GRANTEE's failure to so comply shall constitute a material breach of this MOU.

Page 1521 of 1543 ends

9 22. AUTHORITY: Each signatory to this MOU represents that it is authorized to enter into this MOU and to bind the Party to which its signature represents.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this MOU is executed on the day and year first above written.

Terri King, Executive Director Date
Kings County Association
of Governments
Jason Waters, Deputy City Manager Date
City of Hanford
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Counsel Date
Kings County Association
of Governments

Page 1522 of 1543 ends

EXHIBIT A
Notice of Funding Availability and Final Guidelines - Metropolitan Planning Organization Allocation Regional Early Action Planning Grant (REAP 2.0)

Page 1523 of 1543 ends

EXHIBIT B
State Department of Housing and Community Development signed Standard Agreement No. 22-REAP2-17549 between KCAG and
the State Department of Housing and Community Development

Page 1524 of 1543 ends

EXHIBIT C
City of Hanford: REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Application for a “City of Hanford Updates to the Hanford Planning Documents: General Plan, Municipal Codes, and Objective-Based Standards

Page 1525 of 1543 ends

15.C.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 3/18/2025 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS SUBJECT:

Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Hawk on Hand, in the amount of $53,600 to continue to provide Falconer services in Downtown Hanford and areas outside the Business Improvement District for Calendar Year 2025 services.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: That the City Council consider the approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Hawk on Hand, in the amount of $53,600 to continue to provide Falconer services in Downtown Hanford and areas outside the Business Improvement District for Calendar Year 2025 services..

BACKGROUND:

On February 18, 2025, the City Council discussed partnering with Main Street Hanford on the annual contract for falconer services in the downtown Business Improvement District. As a result of that discussion, Council voted to fully fund the falconer services out of the City's general fund for Calendar Year 2025. Because the proposal from Hawk on Hand did not meet the requirements of the city's purchasing policy as a formal contract, staff is presenting the attached Professional Services Agreement for council approval. While the funding has previously been appropriated, the Agreement exceeds the City Manager's approval authority and, therefore, requires Council approval.

Large concentrations of American crows gather to roost in downtown Hanford year-round, reaching the highest numbers in the fall and winter. They come from the surrounding agricultural areas and residential neighborhoods to begin assembling just before sunset. The birds eventually settle in to roost in street trees and on power lines, and during the course of the night, leave an unsightly and unhygienic mess on the sidewalks, benches, restaurant tables, lamp posts, parked vehicles, and everything else beneath them. Pressure washing can be cost-prohibitive and does not address the root of the problem. With the growth of the Thursday Night Market Place into the Civic Park and the hugely successful Winter Wonderland, the City now has two signature events in the downtown that span 9 months out of the year. Those events amplify the need to keep the crows from roosting in the downtown area.

Up until 2020, the approach to dealing with a growing Crow problem in the Downtown had been largely reactive. Through the efforts of the Main Street Hanford organization, they were able to work with the Falconer to dramatically reduce the crow population in downtown Hanford. Main Street Hanford continues to support the Crow Abatement and its members are very supportive of the service as well.

Past results have proven that a year-long program with the firm Integrated Avian Solutions would be

Page 1526 of 1543 ends

advantageous in relocating the Crow population to a more appropriate roosting and nesting environment away from local businesses. This renewal contract is offered for the same contract price as 2024. Several years of providing the service have allowed the contractor to maintain an efficient schedule and continue to provide services at the same overall cost.

With the City Council's recent action to modify the Hanford Municipal Code and pass through all of the revenue from the B.I.D. to Main Street Hanford, any share of the Contract that the Council would approve would have to be funded out of the City's General Fund. Accordingly, this item is being presented as a General Business item to allow Council to have discussion regarding what would be the "City's Share" of the coverage area above and whether or not Council believes the abatement of the area outlined above warrant being funded by the general tax payers.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Annual contract with Hawk on Hand for an amount not to exceed $26,800, and approve an appropriation of the same amount from the General Fund to cover the expenditure.

Page 1527 of 1543 ends

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Hawk on Hand Professional Services Agreement

Page 1528 of 1543 ends

Initial: City______ Consultant______
1 AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
This Agreement for Professional Services (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this 5th day of March, 2025, by and between the City of Hanford, a municipal corporation (“City”), and Hawk on Hand (“Consultant”).

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

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

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

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

2. Scope of Services and City Responsibilities.
a. Consultant shall perform the services (“Services”) and the City shall have the responsibilities described on the attached Exhibit “A,” which is incorporated herein by reference. To the maximum extent possible, the terms of the body of this Agreement and Exhibit “A” shall be interpreted so they are consistent; however, if there is an direct and irreconcilable conflict between the text of this Agreement and Exhibit “A”, the former shall control.
b. Consultant shall correct any and all errors and/or omissions, which arise out of Consultant’s negligence or intentional misconduct, in the performance of the Services and any documents resulting 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. Time of Performance. Services shall be completed by the dates identified in the attached Exhibit “A.”

4. Compensation. Compensation to be paid to Consultant shall be in accordance with the attached Exhibit “A.” 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.

Page 1529 of 1543 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that City is granted non-exclusive and perpetual license for 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

Page 1530 of 1543 ends

Initial: City______ Consultant______
3 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 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).

Page 1531 of 1543 ends

Initial: City______ Consultant______
4 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 TWO MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,000,000) per occurrence or claim, and TWO MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,000,000) policy aggregate.

If Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, 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

Page 1532 of 1543 ends

Initial: City______ Consultant______
5 20 38 and CG 20 37 if a later edition is used. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to 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

Page 1533 of 1543 ends

Initial: City______ Consultant______
6 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

Page 1534 of 1543 ends

Initial: City______ Consultant______
7 material inducement to enter into this Agreement. Consultant shall therefore provide properly skilled personnel to perform all Services under this Agreement. The primary provider of the Services called for by this Agreement shall be Adam Baz 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

Page 1535 of 1543 ends

Initial: City______ Consultant______
8 which are not embodied in this Agreement and no other agreement, statement or promise shall be valid or binding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 1536 of 1543 ends

Initial: City______ Consultant______
9 last address furnished for such purpose by the party to whom notice is directed and addressed as follows:

Mario A. Cifuentez, II Adam Baz, Owner
City of Hanford Hawk on Hand
319 N. Douty 2914 Amethyst St.

Hanford, CA 93230 Los Angeles, CA 90032
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
By:___________________________________

ADAM BAZ
Owner

HAWK ON HAND

Page 1537 of 1543 ends

HAWK ON HAND
F a l c o n r y S e r v i c e s, B i r d C o n t r o l, E d u c a t i o n w w w . h a w k o n h a n d . c o m

B I R D A B A T E M E N T P R O P O S A L
6 November 2023

PURCHASER
City of Hanford
PURCHASER’S REPRESENTATIVE
Mario Cifuentez (City Manager) – 559.585.2516
Hawk on Hand (Vendor), has successfully cleared roosting crows from an approximately 30-block area of downtown Hanford, CA for the past 4 winters. Due to the project’s success we began providing yearround services over an expanded project area in 2021. Our work has provided an effective solution to the long-standing crow problem in Hanford, and virtually eliminated unsightly crow droppings in the core business district and historical downtown area. The need for a year-round crow abatement program in Hanford is evident and has been requested by several prominent businesses, including FAST Credit Union, Smart & Final, Aria Health Clinic, and Staples.

We propose continuing the year-round program in 2025 (January 1 – December 31). The project area (Page 4) includes the core of Hanford’s BID and historic downtown.

Our proposed Schedule of Services is outlined on Page 2. Given the success of our program in recent years we suggest this same scheduling. Services for year-round work will be billed at $400 per day and total program costs will not exceed $53,600 for the entirety of 2025.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our proposal. We look forward to helping you keep your community clean again this year.

Sincerely,
Adam Baz
Falconer / Owner
845.532.5401

Page 1538 of 1543 ends

H a n f o r d C r o w P r o p o s a l 2 0 2 5 P a g e 2

S C H E D U L E O F S E R V I C E S
Month Total shifts Rate Cost
January 12 400 4,800
February 12 400 4,800
March 14 400 5,600
April 13 400 5,200
May 9 400 3,600
June 9 400 3,600
July 8 400 3,200
August 9 400 3,600
September 9 400 3,600
October 13 400 5,200
November 13 400 5,200
December 13 400 5,200
$53,600

Page 1539 of 1543 ends

H a n f o r d C r o w P r o p o s a l 2 0 2 5 P a g e 3

T E R M S & C O N D I T I O N S
A. Vendor shall furnish the labor and falconry-trained raptors to assist in the abatement of roosting crows within the project area. Vendor is well experienced in bird abatement and possesses the relevant licenses and permit. All raptors used will be legally allowed for bird abatement.

B. Services will commence on January 1, 2025.

C. Services will include mobilization/demobilization to and from the project area, assessment and observation of pest birds, free flying of raptors, raptor feeding and maintenance, equipment maintenance, and tracking of wayward or lost raptors if required. Raptors are the primary method of bird abatement, but our falconers may use other tools such as noisemakers and visual deterrents (e.g., tree tappers, laser pointers, whistles, etc.).

D. Abatement activities will begin around sunset when crows are staging to roost. Shifts will end once crows have retreated from the project area. Some pre-dawn shifts may also be implemented if needed.

E. Vendor and Vendor’s falconers are independent contractors and are not employees of Purchaser.

F. Purchaser shall assist Vendor in properly advertising the project and notifying relevant stakeholders (e.g., Police Department, City officials, local businesses, etc.) of the proposed activities.

G. Vendor shall submit monthly invoices to Purchaser. Payment terms are Net 15. Invoices remaining unpaid beyond thirty (30) days may be subject to service charge of 5% per annum.

H. This Proposal is confidential and contains proprietary information and intellectual property of Vendor.

The rates, schedule, scope-of-work or other elements may not be disclosed to anyone outside this agreement without the express written permission of Vendor.

Page 1540 of 1543 ends

H a n f o r d C r o w P r o p o s a l 2 0 2 5 P a g e 4

P R O J E C T A R E A M A P

Page 1541 of 1543 ends

H a n f o r d C r o w P r o p o s a l 2 0 2 5 P a g e 5

A B O U T T H E C O M P A N Y
Hawk On Hand is a network of talented falconers, experienced wildlife biologists, and passionate bird management professionals. We take a long and comprehensive view of every new opportunity and bring all our faculties and resources to bear with the singular goal of solving your bird problem. Our company is unique in that it is run and managed by falconers who also hold graduate degrees in wildlife biology. Thus, we offer a deep and unparalleled understanding of avian biology, which is invaluable for managing nuisance bird problems. Falconry is the foundation of our business and the most powerful bird management tool on the market. When everything else falls short, pest birds will not ignore the threat posed by a free-flying falcon or hawk. Our falconry programs are turn-key, natural, non-lethal, and sustainable.

Adam Baz (Owner & Lead Falconer) is a Master Falconer with 15 years of experience. He holds a Masters of Science in Avian Biology from Portland State University, and has conducted over 10 years of research focusing on human-wildlife conflicts, and the behavior of wildlife in urban settings. He delivers highly effective bird control programs throughout California and Oregon.

Page 1542 of 1543 ends

Council Future Agenda Items
Originated
Date Item Originator Staff Lead Date Estimate
10/1/2024 Presentation to the City Council of a
comprehensive needs analysis of the
City’s Historic Buildings and options for
future uses and possible funding
mechanisms
Council
Direction
Various Staff 4/1/2025
12/3/2024 Presentation to the City Council
regarding City resources used to
address homelessness in the City of
Hanford.

Council
Direction
Various Staff 4/15/2025
12/3/2024 Update to the City Council on the
rollout of the My Hanford App
City Manager Brian Johnson 4/1/2025
12/17/2024 Presentation to the City Council on the
collection and approved uses of past
and future Park Impact Fees under the
current Impact Fee Study adopted by
Council in 2019.

Council
Direction
Various Staff 4/15/2025
1/21/2025 Further discussion of future changes to
Council Compensation as allowed
under SB329.

City Manager Mario
Cifuentez
8/5/2025

Page 1543 of 1543 ends

Hanford City CouncilMarch 18, 2025

Hanford City Council
March 18, 2025