Hanford City Council
December 16, 2025

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
15 | P a g e

POLICE DEPARTMENT

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT

DOCUMENT COPIES
Traffic Accident Report $10.00 per Report
Citation $10.00 per Citation
Other Agency Citation Sign Off (per Occurrence) $15.00
Records Background Check (per Occurrence) $30.00
Reports - Single Sided/Copies (Evidence Code 1563) $0.10 per Page Reports - Double Sided/Copies (Evidence Code 1563) $0.20 per Page Civil Subpoena (Non Sworn) G.C. 68096.1 (b) Amended 1/1/2015 $275.00 per Subpoena/Day Civil Subpoena (Officers, Firefighters, State or Court Employee) G.C. 68097.2 (b) $275.00 per Subpoena/Day
Ticket Sign Off- Hanford PD No Charge
Ticket Sign Off- Other Agency $15.00 per Sign Off
Subpoena duces tecum $15.00 per Subpoena/Day
Non-Sufficient Funds Check $40.00 per Incident

FINGER PRINTING
Finger Printing- Live Scan (Digital) Cost Recovery plus $10.00 Rolling Fee

SPECIAL PERMITS
Concealed Weapons Permit (Inc DOJ Fees) $180.00
Lost, Stolen, Damaged ID Card provided by Hanford PD $20.00 per Card Lost ID Card provided by State $50.00 per Card
Concealed Weapons Permit Renewal (Inc DOJ Fees) $110.00 Add Weapon to CCW (Inc DOJ Fees/not during renewal or application) $25.00 Taxi Permit $75.00
Taxi Permit Renewal $25.00
Massage Permit $75.00

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
16 | P a g e

CANNABIS DIVISION

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT
Business License Will vary based on Gross Receipts
Preliminary Eligibility (Retail & Non-Retail) $4,254.00 Initial Ranking (Retail Only) $1,689.00
Second Ranking (Retail Only) $2,241.00
Final Recommendation to Council (Retail Only) $1,102.00 Background Fee (Each Person) (Retail & Non-Retail) $300.00 Environmental Review (Retail & Non-Retail) Actual Cost plus 10% Live Scan (Each Person) (Retail & Non-Retail) $135.00
Zoning Verification Letter (Retail & Non-Retail) $150.00 Campus $32,000.00
Cultivation $32,000.00
Manufacturing $32,000.00
Distribution $32,000.00
Lab Testing $15,000.00
Dispensary $32,000.00
Microbusiness $32,000.00
Cannabis Employee Application Fee (HMC 5.56.070(C)(9)) $435.00 Cannabis Employee Renewal Application (HMC 5.56.070E) $100.00 Work Permit Appeal (HMC5.56.150) $100.00
Lost, Stolen, Damaged Replacement ID Badge $25 per Badge Cannabis Award Appeal $5,000.00
Fines 1st Offense (HMC 5.56.470(B)) $300 per Violation per Day Fines 2nd Offense (HMC 5.56.470(B)) $500 per Violation per Day Fines 3rd and Subsequent Offenses (HMC 5.56.470(B)) $1,000 per Violation per Day Other Appeals in (HMC 5.56) $1,000 per Appeal
One percent (1%) of gross receipts.

Two percent (2%) of gross receipts.

TAXES- PAY AT FINANCE DEPARTMENT

BUSINESS LICENSE- PAY AT FINANCE DEPARTMENT

OTHER FEES- PAY AT POLICE DEPARTMENT

APPLICATION FEE- PAY AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

ANNUAL PERMIT FEE- PAY AT FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Six dollars ($6.00) annually per square foot of canopy space in a facility that uses exclusively artificial lighting Two dollars ($2.00) annually per square foot of canopy space for any nursery Cultivation:

A penalty of equal to ten percent (10%) of the amount of tax, in addition to the amount of the tax, plus interest on the unpaid tax calculated from the due date of the tax at the rate of one percent per month. If the tax remains unpaid for an period exceeding one calendar month beyond the due date, an additional penalty equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the tax, plus interest at the rate of one percent per month on the unpaid tax and on the unpaid penalties.

Retail, Delivery Business or Microbusiness (retail sales activity):

Distribution:

Manufacturing, Processing or Microbusiness (non-retail activity):

Penalties:

Six percent (6%) of gross receipts for both non-storefront and storefront.

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
17 | P a g e

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

PLANNING DIVISION

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT
Administrative Use Permit $550.00
Contract Cancellation $6,700.00 Deposit + Actual Cost + 10% Disestablishment $2,225.00
New Contract $550.00
Notice of Full Non-renewal $150.00
Notice of Partial Non-renewal $550.00
Easement Exchange Actual Cost + 10%
Appeal $1,100.00
Amendment to an Approved CUP $1,675.00
Minor (existing structures) $1,675.00
Regular $3,900.00
Master CUP/Planned Unit Development $7,450.00 Deposit + Actual Cost + 10% Development Agreement $4,475.00 Deposit + Actual Cost + 10% Development Agreement Amendment $1,675.00 Deposit + Actual Cost + 10% Finding of Consistency $550.00
General Plan Amendment $10,625.00 Deposit + Actual Cost + 10% Historic Review No Charge
Historic Designation/Detachment of Site $1,900.00
Home Occupation $125.00
Mural Application $150.00
Ordinance Interpretation $275.00
Sidewalk Dining Permit $75.00
Non-illuminated $150.00
Illuminated $275.00
Banner $35.00
Initial Minor (Existing Buildings no Expansion, Addition of one Residential Unit, Patio Covers, Carports, Solar Panels and Change of Occupancy within integrated shopping centers, the Historic District, and the mall) $1,100.00 Initial Major or Subdivision/Parcel Map $3,350.00
Resubmittal (First Resubmittal no Charge) $825.00
Specific Plan $9,875.00 Deposit + Actual Cost + 10%
Specific Plan Amendment $4,925.00 Deposit + Actual Cost + 10% Time Extensions $550.00
Temporary Use Permit $275.00
Right-of-Way Abandonment $5,250.00
Variance $3,900.00
Variance - Minor Deviation $1,100.00
Variance - Signs $3,350.00
Variance - Single Family Parcel $2,775.00
Pre-Zone $4,350.00
Rezone and Text Amendment $8,725.00
Zoning Verification Letter $150.00

APPLICATION/PERMIT
Zone Change:

Site Plan Review:

Sign Permit:

Conditional Use Permit (CUP):

Williamson Act Permits:

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
18 | P a g e

PLANNING DIVISION

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT
Tentative Parcel Map $5,075.00
Tentative Subdivision Map $7,500.00 + $50.00 Recording Fee Resubmittal of Tentative Subdivision Map (No Charge for First Resubmittal) $1,675.00 Certificate of Compliance $1,675.00 + $50.00 Recording Fee Lot Line Adjustment $1,675.00 + $50.00 Recording Fee
Minor Amendment to Previously Approved Map $1,675.00 + $50.00 Recording Fee National Environmental Policy Act (Categorical Exclusion, EA, EIS) Actual Cost + 10% Notice of Exemption $125.00
Initial Study, Negative Declaration, Draft & Final Environmental Impact Report Study Processing (Approved Environmental Consultant)
Applicant contracts directly with Approved
Environmental Consultant
Study Peer Review  (Required if applicant selects consultant) Actual Cost + 10% General Plan Text $60.00
Zoning Text $60.00
Recording Fee $50.00
Black and White 8 1/2 x 11 $0.25
Color (Letter and Legal Size) $1.00
Black and White 11 x 17 $0.35
Color 11 x 17 $2.00
Large Format Black and White Cost
Large Format Color Cost
Radius Map and Up to 50 Labels $100.00
CD of documents $10.00
Requests for Environmental Notices/ Public Hearing Notices Mailed (Must be Renewed Annually) $125.00
Special Service Fees/Inspections Actual Cost + 10%
Surveyor Plan Review Actual Cost + 10%
City Annexation/Reorganization $12,300.00 Deposit + Actual Cost + 10% County Fee (LAFCo) Contact Kings County
State Board of Equalization Contact State Board of Equalization Parking In Lieu Fee $4,475.00 per space
Shared Parking Agreement $1,100.00

MISCELLANEOUS

ANNEXATION/REORGANIZATION

PARKING
Copies (each):
*Additional fees as required, payable to Kings County (See Kings County Fees below)

SUBDIVISION OF LANDS

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
California Environmental Quality Act*:

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
19 | P a g e

PLANNING DIVISION

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT
Filing Fee (all environmental documents) In effect at the time Notice of Determination ND/MND (Fish and Wildlife) In effect at the time Notice of Determination EIR (Fish and Wildlife) In effect at the time Impact Fees (Verify current Fees) In effect at the time LAFCo Fee In effect at the time + City actual cost + 10% Size of Annexation In effect at the time
Less than 1 acre In effect at the time
1-5 acres In effect at the time
6-10 acres In effect at the time
11-20 acres In effect at the time
21-50 acres In effect at the time
51-100 acres In effect at the time
101 to 500 acres In effect at the time
501-1,000 In effect at the time
1,001-2,000 acres In effect at the time
2,001 acres and above In effect at the time
Please contact the appropriate school district for school fees. In effect at the time

KINGS COUNTY

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

SCHOOL DISTRICT FEES
The following applicable fees are not adopted by the City of Hanford. You must contact the agency for up to date fees.

BUILDING DIVISION

BASE COST
@

THRESHOLD
SIZE

COST FOR
EACH

ADDITIONAL
SQ FT

BASE COST
@

THRESHOLD
SIZE

COST FOR
EACH

ADDITIONAL
SQ FT

BASE COST
@

THRESHOLD
SIZE

COST FOR
EACH

ADDITIONAL
SQ FT
500 $971 $0.4285 $809 $0.3571 $647 $0.2857
2,500 $1,828 $0.2179 $1,524 $0.1816 $1,219 $0.1453
5,000 $2,373 $0.0870 $1,978 $0.0725 $1,582 $0.0580
10,000 $2,808 $0.0578 $2,340 $0.0482 $1,872 $0.0385
25,000 $3,675 $0.0800 $3,063 $0.0673 $2,450 $0.0538
50,000 $5,694 $0.1139 $4,745 $0.0949 $3,796 $0.0759
300 $646 $0.4944 $538 $0.4120 $431 $0.3296
1,500 $1,239 $0.2286 $1,033 $0.1905 $826 $0.1524
3,000 $1,582 $0.0923 $1,319 $0.0769 $1,055 $0.0615
6,000 $1,859 $0.0630 $1,549 $0.0525 $1,239 $0.0420
15,000 $2,426 $0.0842 $2,022 $0.0702 $1,618 $0.0562
30,000 $3,690 $0.1230 $3,075 $0.1025 $2,460 $0.0820
100 $667 $1.7510 $556 $1.4592 $445 $1.1673
500 $1,368 $0.5304 $1,140 $0.4670 $912 $0.3736
1,000 $1,648 $0.2390 $1,373 $0.1991 $1,099 $0.1593
2,000 $1,887 $0.1840 $1,573 $0.1533 $1,258 $0.1227
5,000 $2,439 $0.2043 $2,033 $0.1703 $1,626 $0.1362
10,000 $3,461 $0.3461 $2,884 $0.2884 $2,307 $0.2307
"B" OCC-TENANT

IMPROVEMENTS
"E" OCC-TENANT

IMPROVEMENTS
"A" OCC-TENANT

IMPROVEMENTS

OCCUPANCY
TYPE

PROJECT
SIZE

THRESHOLD

CONSTRUCTION TYPES

PLAN CHECK & INSPECTION FEES

CONSTRUCTION TYPES CONSTRUCTION TYPES

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
20 | P a g e

BUILDING DIVISION

BASE COST
@

THRESHOLD
SIZE

COST FOR
EACH

ADDITIONAL
SQ FT

BASE COST
@

THRESHOLD
SIZE

COST FOR
EACH

ADDITIONAL
SQ FT

BASE COST
@

THRESHOLD
SIZE

COST FOR
EACH

ADDITIONAL
SQ FT
1,000 $2,560 $0.5769 $2,133 $0.4808 $1,707 $0.3846
5,000 $4,868 $0.2790 $4,056 $0.2325 $245 $0.1860
10,000 $6,263 $0.1121 $5,219 $0.0934 $4,175 $0.0747
20,000 $7,383 $0.0754 $6,153 $0.0628 $4,922 $0.0503
50,000 $9,645 $0.1032 $8,038 $0.0860 $6,430 $0.0688
100,000 $14,805 $0.1481 $12,338 $0.1234 $9,870 $0.0987
100 $667 $1.7510 $556 $1.4592 $445 $1.1673
500 $1,328 $0.5604 $1,140 $0.4670 $912 $0.3736
1,000 $1,648 $0.2390 $1,373 $0.1991 $1,099 $0.1593
2,000 $1,887 $0.1840 $1,573 $0.1533 $1,258 $0.1227
5,000 $2,439 $0.2043 $2,033 $0.1703 $1,626 $0.1362
10,000 $3,461 $0.3461 $2,884 $0.2884 $2,307 $0.2307
1,000 $971 $0.2142 $809 $0.1785 $648 $0.1428
5,000 $1,828 $0.1091 $1,524 $0.0909 $1,219 $0.0727
10,000 $2,374 $0.0434 $1,978 $0.0362 $1,582 $0.0290
20,000 $2,808 $0.0288 $2,340 $0.0240 $1,872 $0.0192
50,000 $3,672 $0.0403 $3,060 $0.0336 $2,448 $0.0269
100,000 $5,688 $0.0569 $4,740 $0.0474 $3,792 $0.0379
200 $739 $0.8755 $616 $0.7296 $493 $0.5837
1,000 $1,439 $0.3737 $1,199 $0.3114 $960 $0.2491
2,000 $1,813 $0.1526 $1,511 $0.1271 $1,209 $0.1017
4,000 $2,118 $0.1065 $1,765 $0.0888 $1,412 $0.0710
10,000 $2,757 $0.0138 $2,298 $0.1148 $1,838 $0.0918
20,000 $4,134 $0.2067 $3,445 $0.1723 $2,756 $0.1378
80 $405 $1.0815 $338 $0.9012 $270 $0.7210
400 $751 $0.5933 $626 $0.4944 $501 $0.3955
800 $989 $0.2350 $824 $0.1958 $659 $0.1566
1,600 $1,177 $0.1525 $981 $0.1271 $785 $0.1017
4,000 $1,543 $0.2201 $1,286 $0.1824 $1,028 $0.1467
8,000 $2,423 $0.3029 $2,019 $0.2524 $161 $0.2019
40 $269 $1.5451 $224 $1.2876 $179 $1.0301
200 $516 $0.7142 $430 $0.5951 $344 $0.4761
400 $659 $0.2885 $549 $0.2404 $439 $0.1923
800 $775 $0.1968 $646 $0.1640 $516 $0.1312
2,000 $1,011 $0.2639 $842 $0.2199 $674 $0.1759
4,000 $1,538 $0.3846 $1,282 $0.3205 $1,026 $0.2564
*Plan Check Fees x Inspections Fees = Plan Check & Inspection Fees as Shown Plan Check or Inspection Fees available upon request.
"S" OCC-TENANT

IMPROVEMENTS
ALL "F" OCC
"H" OCC-TENANT

IMPROVEMENTS
"I" OCC-TENANT

IMPROVEMENTS
"R-1/R-2" OCCTENANT

IMPROVEMENTS
"M" OCC-TENANT

IMPROVEMENTS

OCCUPANCY
TYPE

PROJECT
SIZE

THRESHOLD

CONSTRUCTION TYPES

PLAN CHECK & INSPECTION FEES

CONSTRUCTION TYPES CONSTRUCTION TYPES

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
21 | P a g e

BUILDING DIVISION

FEE AMOUNT
$50.00 Each
$105.00 per Hour
$43.75 up to 20
$0.87 Each Addition
$35 Each
$43.75 Each
$52.50 Each
$105.00 Each
$157.50 Each
$35 Each
$157.50 Each
Commercial $315.00 for 1-3
Each Additional $105.00 Each

ELECTRICAL FEES
Electrical apparatus, conduits, and conductors for which a permit is required, but for which no fee is herein set forth $35.00 Each Units: Over 100
Signs, Outline Lighting, and Marquees
Signs, Outline Lighting, or Marquees supplied from one branch circuit Unit Fees:

Services
Services 600 volts or less and not over 1,000 amperes in rating Units: 1-50
$35 Each
Residential Appliances
Outdoor Events
Carnivals, Circuses, or other traveling shows or exhibitions utilizing transportation type rides booths, displays, and attractions Temporary Power Service
Receptacles, Switches, and Lighting Outlets
$35 Each
Residential
Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits, and Conductors
Services over 600 volts or over 1,000 amperes in rating $52.50 Each
Subpanels
Units: 51-100
EV Charging Station
Nonresidential Appliances

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE
Unit Fees:

Permit Issuance
Stand Alone Permit - Plan Check
Residential appliances and factory wired nonresidential appliances, including medical and dental devices; food, beverage, and ice cream cabinets; illuminated show cases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types of equipment
Rating in Horsepower (HP), Kilowatts (KW), or Kilovolt-amperes (KVA), or Kilovolt-amperes-reactive (KVAR) (fees include all switches, breakers, etc.)
Power Apparatus
Motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers, synchronous converters, capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners and heat pumps, cooking or baking equipment, and other apparatus as follows:

Fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets for the same, including wall-mounted electric ovens, counter mounted cook tops, electric ranges, self-contained room consoles or through-well air conditioners, space heaters, food waste grinders, dish washers, washing machines, water heaters, clothes dryers, or other motor-operated appliances (each) not exceeding one horsepower rating
$105.00 per Hour
Temporary power service pole or pedestal, including all pole or pedestal-mounted receptacle outlets and appurtenances $105.00 Each

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
22 | P a g e

BUILDING DIVISION

FEE AMOUNT
Photovoltaic Systems - Residential & Small Commercial (up to 49KW) Plan Check Inspection Total 1 - 15 Kilowatts $200.00 Each $300.00 Each $500.00 Each (includes P.I. Fee) Each Kilowatt above 15 KW $15.00 per KW $15.00 per KW
Photovoltaic Systems - Commercial
50 Kilowatts $400.00 Each $600.00 Each $1,000.00 Each (includes P.I. Fee) Each Kilowatt between 51 KW and 250 KW $7.00 per KW $7.00 per KW Each Kilowatt above 250 KW $5.00 per KW $5.00 per KW
$50.00 Each
$105.00 per Hour
$70.00 Each
$70.00 Each
$70.00 Each
$70.00 Each
$61.25 Each
$70.00 Each
$70.00 Each
$35.00 Each
$52.50 Each
$61.25 Each
$70.00 Each
$52.50 Each
$105.00 per Hour
$50.00 Each
$105.00 per Hour
$52.50 Each
$17.50 per Drain
$26.25 Each
$105.00 Each
$35.00 Each
$52.50 - 1 to 5 Outlets
$3.50 Each
$52.50 - 1 to 5 Outlets
$8.75 Each

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE

ELECTRICAL FEES, CONTINUED
Unit Fees:

Installation of each hood which is served by a mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood Unit Fees:
$52.50 Each
Each ventilation fan connected to a single duct
Each air-handling unit over 10,000 CFM
Each evaporative cooler other than portable type
$61.25 Each

MECHANICAL FEES
Unit Fees:

Install/Relocate each forced air or gravity-type furnace or burner (including attached ducts and vents) Install/Relocate each incinerator
Permit Issuance
Stand Alone Permit- Plan Check
Install/Relocate each floor furnace (including vent)
Install/Relocate each suspended heater, recessed wall heater, or floor-mounted unit heater Repair/Alteration/Addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption, or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls required by the code Unit Fees:

PLUMBING FEES
Other mechanical inspections not noted above
Permit Issuance
Stand Alone Permit- Plan Check
Install/Relocate each boiler or compressor, or each absorption system Each air-handling unit, including attached ducts up to 10,000 CFM Each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code but not classified in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in this code
Each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air-conditioning system Install/Relocate/Replace each appliance vent installed and not included in an appliance permit Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, excepting kitchen-type grease interceptors functioning as fixtures traps $52.50 Each
Plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including water, drainage piping, and backflow protection therefore) Additional outlets
Medical gas piping system
Additional outlets
Building or trailer park sewer
Rainwater system - inside building
Cesspool where permitted
Private sewage disposal system
$35.00 Each
Water heater and/or vent
Gas piping system

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
23 | P a g e

BUILDING DIVISION

FEE AMOUNT
$52.50 Each
$52.50 Each
$35.00 Each
$35.00 Each
$35.00 - 1 to 5 Outlets
$1.75 Each
$105.00 per Hour
$315.00 per Hour @ 1 1/2
$157.50 per Hour @ 1 1/2
$105.00 per Re-Inspection
$105.00 per Hour
$105.00 per Hour
Cost x 133% per Hour
$157.50 Each
$105.00 per Hour
$10.00 Each
Permit + $500.00 or 2x Fee Each

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE

PLUMBING FEES, CONTINUED
Backflow devices not included in other fee services
Atmospheric-type vacuum breakers not included in other fee services Additional outlets
Installation/Alteration/Repair of water piping and/or water treating equipment Lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including backflow protection devices therefore Repair/Alteration or drainage or vent piping
Unit Fees:

Deferred Submittals
Duplicate Permit or Job Cards
Work without permit - Permit fee + $500.00 or 2x permit fee- whichever is greater Reinspection Fee
Inspection for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge 1/2 hour) Outside plan check consultants- Actual cost to the city x 133% Compliance Inspection
Other plumbing and gas inspections not noted above
Each additional hour or portion thereof at time and one-half Inspections outside of normal business hours, (minimum charge of two hours at time and one-half) Additional plan review required because of changes, additions, or revisions to approved plans (minimum charge 1 hour)

OTHER INSPECTIONS AND FEES
PERMIT ISSUANCE PLAN CHECK INSPECTION UNIT $3.15 Each
$50 $157.50 $304.50 up to 300 Sq Ft
$0.26 $0.74 Sq Ft
$50 $52.50 $157.50 Each
$50 $35 $35 Each Antenna
$50 $26.25 $35 up to 2
$3.15 $5.25 Each
$50 $52.50 $94.50 up to 200 Sq Ft
$105 $141.75 over 200 Sq Ft
$50 $52.50 $106 ≤ 200 Sq Ft
$105 $159 over 200 Sq Ft
$50 $57.50 $105 Each
$50 $52.50 $210 Each Bldg.
$50 $52.50 $157.50 up to 200 Sq Ft
$105 $236.25 over 200 Sq Ft
$50 $52.50 $160 Each Structure
$50 $52.50 $110 Each Structure
$5 Each Permit
$50 $52.50 $52.50 up to 100 Linear Ft
$105 $0.57 Linear Ft
$50 $52.50 $105 up to 100 Linear Ft
$105 $0.66 Linear Ft
$50 $52.50 $169 Each
$50 $52.50 $52.50 Each
$50 $26.25 $52.50 Each
$50 Sq Ft
$50 $52.50 $105 up to 100 Linear Ft
$105 $0.66 Linear Ft
$50 $17.50 $26.25 First One
$2.10 $5.25 Each
$50 $105.00 $157.50 Each Bldg.

Mile
See Valuation Chart
Additional Sq Ft on same side (over 200 Sq Ft)
Change of Use/Change of Occupancy
Commercial Coach
Deck (wood)
Plus mileage cost outside city limits (Current Government Rate) Carport (200 Sq Ft)
Antenna Installations
Awning/canopy (supported by the building)
Additional
Address Assignments
Additions, Residential
Additional Sq Ft
Balcony Addition
Additional
Flag Pole
Repair
Foundation Only Valuation based on $5 per Sq Ft
Addition
Lighting Poles
Additional Poles
Moved Buildings

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT
Antennas - Telecom Facility (towers) MISCELLANEOUS & CODE COMPLIANCE FEES Masonry, Additional
Fireplace - Masonry
Pre-Fabricated/Metal/Inserts
Residential
Electronics/System Replacement
Fence - Non-Masonry, over 7 feet high
Non-Masonry, Additional
Masonry, all heights
Demolition - Commercial
Additional (over 200 Sq Ft)

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
24 | P a g e
BUILDING DIVISION PERMIT ISSUANCE PLAN CHECK INSPECTION UNIT $50 $35 $52.50 up to 30 Linear Ft $0.42 $0.84 Linear Ft
$50 $35 $32.50 up to 30 Linear Ft
$50 $0.42 $0.84 Linear Ft
$50 $52.50 $157.50 up to 300 Sq Ft
$26.25 $35 each 300 Sq Ft
$50 $84 $210 up to 300 Sq Ft
$31.50 $84 Each 300 Sq Ft
$50 $78.75 $84 up to 10 piles
$13.65 $6.30 Each
$50 $78.75 $84 up to 10 piles
$50 $13.65 $6.30 Each
$105 per Hour
$50 $105 $210 up to 300 Sq Ft
$0.21 $0.53 Sq Ft
$50 $35 $78.75 Each
$50 $35 $131.25 Each
$50 $52.50 $157.50 Each
$50 Each
$50 $35 $78.75 up to 50 Linear Ft
$0.21 $0.53 Linear Ft
$50 $52.50 $105 up to 400 Sq Ft
$50 $35 $70 up to 400 Sq Ft
$50 $52.50 $96.60 up to 400 Sq Ft
$0.16 $0.21 Sq Ft
$50 $35 $52.50 per Site
$50 $26.25 $78.75 Each
$50 $35 $105 Each
$50 $70 $131.25 Each System
$50 $52.50 $105 First Flight
$10.50 $26.25 per Flight
$50 $52.50 $35 up to 100 Linear Ft
$0.11 $0.26 Linear Ft
$50 $78.75 $52.50 up to 100 Linear Ft
$0.11 $0.32 Linear Ft
$50 $78.25 $157.50 Each
$26.25 $17.85 Each
$50 $26.29 $52.50 Each
$50 $140 Each
$50 $16.80 $52.50 Each 3
$50 $26.25 $59.85 Each 3
$50 $35.00 $68.25 Each 3
$50 $38.85 $45.15
$50 $111.30 $130.20
$50 $180.60 $212.10
$50 $249.90 $294
$50 $320.25 $375.90
$50 $389.55 $457.80
$50 $438.90 $516.60
$50

FEE AMOUNT MISCELLANEOUS & CODE COMPLIANCE FEES
Over 10 Sq Ft or Structural work involved
Stairs
Solar Panels, Pool Heating/Water Heating
Skylights- up to 10 Sq Ft
Retaining Walls (concrete or masonry)
Additional
Siding - Stone and Brick Veneer
Permit Issuance
Additional Siding (all types)
Signs
Stucco
Windows and Doors - Replacement
New
Additional
Swimming Pools/Spas
Heater
Spa or Hot Tub, Prefabricated
Wells
$15,001 to 20,000
$20,001 to 25,000
$25,001 to $30,000
$30,001 and up
Miscellaneous Repairs (Items not covered anywhere else in this fee schedule) (Based on Valuation of the Work)
$1 to $1,000
Fees applicable for valuation of $30,000 plus $1.80 per $1,000 valuation over $30,0001
$1,001 to $5,000
$5,001 to $10,000
$10,001 to $15,000
New (Structural, in shear wall or masonry)
Additional
Storage racks (shelving) - 0 to 8 ft high
Additional
Over 8 ft high
Re-Roof- Residential, Roof over
Tear-off
Additional Enclosed Patio/Porch
Pile Foundation - Cast-in-place Concrete
Additional Piles
Driven (any type)
Additional Piles
Remodel, Residential
Additional Remodel
Enclosed Patio/Porch
All Others
Partitions - Commercial, Interior
Additional
Partitions - Residential, Interior
Additional
Commercial
Plan Review Fee in excess of Submittal and two re-checks Covered Patio/Trellis/Arbor (not enclosed)
Additional Patio/Tresses/Arbor

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
25 | P a g e

BUILDING DIVISION

BUILDING DIVISION

FEE AMOUNT
Copies (each)
Black and White 8 1/2 x 11 $0.25
Color (Letter and Legal Size) $1.00
Black and White 11 x 17 $0.35
Color 11 x 17 $2.00
Large Format Black and White Cost
Large Format Color Cost
MISCELLANEOUS & CODE COMPLIANCE FEES, CONT.

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE
$23.50 for the first $500 plus $3.05 for each additional $100, or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000
$2,001 to $25,000
$500,001 to $1,000,000
$3,233.75 for the first $500,000 plus $4.75 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000 A contract, signed by all parties, for the cost to build a specific project may be substituted for the Building Valuation Data sheet as determined by the building official
$1,000,001 and up
$5,608.75 for the first $1,000,000 plus $3.15 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof
Plan Review Fees will be 65% of Building Inspection Fees $50,001 to $100,000
$643.75 for the first $50,000 plus $7.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000
$100,001 to $500,000
$993.75 for the first $100,000 plus $5.60 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000
The current building valuation data costs are published by the International Code Council and updated every 6 months.

Please refer to www.ICCsafe.org to obtain the current costs. Apply the building valuation data to the table below. $69.25 for the first $2,000 plus $14.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000
$25,001 to $50,000
$391.25 for the first $25,000 plus $10.10 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000

BUILDING INSPECTION FEES

TOTAL VALUATION FEE AMOUNT
$1 to $500 $23.50
$501 to $2,000

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
26 | P a g e

CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION
Minor $50.00
General $200.00
Health and Safety $500.00
Definitions:

Subsequent Violations:

Third Violation- Within six months of the date of the initial citation, the fine shall be four times the initial fine.

Minor: A "Minor" violation shall be defined as a violation of the Hanford Municipal Code, or other applicable law or code, that does not have the potential to create a health or safety hazard to the occupants of a structure/building or the general public.

General: A "General" violation shall be defined as a violation of the Hanford Municipal Code, or other applicable law or code, that has the potential of creating a health or safety hazard to the occupants of a structure/building or the general public if the violation is Health and Safety: A "Health and Safety" violation shall be defined as a violation of the Hanford Municipal Code or other applicable law or code that is a health or safety hazard to the occupants of a structure/building or the general public.

Second Violation- Within six months of the date of the initial citation, the fine shall be two times the initial fine.

CODE VIOLATION FINES

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
27 | P a g e

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE

FIRE FEE POLICE FEE WATER FEE

PER UNIT PER UNIT PER UNIT
Low Density Residential $646.74 $350.95 $2,938.09
Medium Density Residential $363.55 $518.94 $1,642.44
High Density Residential $182.66 $168.31 $994.41
Neighborhood Commercial $0.54 $0.72 $1.25
Regional Commercial $0.45 $0.31 $1.10
Service Commercial $0.68 $0.10 $1.51
Highway Commercial $0.54 $0.24 $1.25
Office Residential $0.23 $0.43 $1.35
Office $0.25 $0.26 $0.87
Neighborhood Mixed Use $0.54 $0.69 $1.57
Corridor Mixed Use $0.54 $0.47 $1.41
Downtown Mixed Use $0.09 $0.41 $0.30
Light Industrial $0.16 $0.01 $1.76
Heavy Industrial $0.16 $0.01 $1.79
Open Space $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Public Facilities $0.06 $0.09 $1.51
Educational Facilities $0.00 $0.00 $0.79

WASTEWATER PARKS FEE STORM DRAIN

PER UNIT PER UNIT PER ACRE
Low Density Residential $2,516.20 $3,243.55 $2,859.66
Medium Density Residential $2,014.22 $2,904.84 $3,145.62 High Density Residential $1,836.54 $2,566.11 $3,431.57
Neighborhood Commercial $0.85 $0.00 $5,147.38
Regional Commercial $0.88 $0.00 $5,147.38
Service Commercial $0.86 $0.00 $5,147.38
Highway Commercial $0.85 $0.00 $5,147.38
Office Residential $1.82 $0.00 $3,431.57
Office $0.86 $0.00 $5,147.38
Neighborhood Mixed Use $1.66 $0.00 $5,147.38
Corridor Mixed Use $1.19 $0.00 $5,147.38
Downtown Mixed Use $0.52 $0.00 $4,115.88

LAND USE CATEGORY

LAND USE CATEGORY

FEE AMOUNT

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
28 | P a g e

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE

WASTEWATER PARKS FEE STORM DRAIN

PER UNIT PER UNIT PER ACRE
Light Industrial $0.98 $0.00 $4,575.44
Heavy Industrial $1.13 $0.00 $4,575.44
Open Space $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Public Facilities $0.86 $0.00 $4,003.51
Educational Facilities $0.53 $0.00 $4,003.51

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE
Water and Wastewater Impact Analysis
Hydraulic modeling to identify utility impacts. Estimate based fee
Traffic Impact Analysis Peer Review
Estimate based fee
Developer Agreements
Estimate based fee
Inspection Fees Subdivisions
Inspection Final Fee
*Wastewater treatment portion of fee is based on standard household strength waste of 200 MG/L B.O.D. and 200 MG/L S.S. and 300 gal./day flow rate
*Fee for residential uses is per dwelling unit. Fee for other uses is per building square foot.

LAND USE CATEGORY
Actual City and/or Consultant time and materials plus a 10% admin fee
Actual City and/or Consultant time and materials plus a 10% admin fee
Actual City and/or Consultant time and materials plus a 10% admin fee
The actual City and/or consultant cost of improvement
inspections plus a 10% admin fee

FEE AMOUNT

FEE AMOUNT
Initial deposit of 1% of initial estimated construction cost of all improvements as prepared by developer's
engineers. Payment due prior to inspection of
improvements. The deposit is to be replenished once
25% of funds remaining.

Actual City and/or Consultant cost for construction
inspection(s) and/or other construction support services plus a 10% admin fee

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT

REFUSE FEES

LAND USE CATEGORY PER UNIT
Residential Container/Equip $585.44
Commercial
Per No. of 1 Cubic Yard Dumpsters $1,026.03
Per No. of 2 Cubic Yard Dumpsters $1,291.59
Per No. of 3 Cubic Yard Dumpsters $1,376.09
Per No. of 4 Cubic Yard Dumpsters $1,750.28
Per No. of 6 Cubic Yard Dumpsters TBD

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
29 | P a g e

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE

CIRCULATION FEES

LAND USE CATEGORY PER UNIT
Single-Family Residential $4,059.65 Dwelling Unit
Multi-Family Residential $2,850.66 Dwelling Unit
Senior Residential/Assisted Living $1,476.23 Dwelling Unit Hotel/Motel (per room) $2,584.33 Room
Retail (<100KSF) unless specifically listed below $11,834.53 1,000 Sq Ft Retail (>100KSF) $8,936.76 1,000 Sq Ft
Convenience Store- Without Gas Station $107,121.20 1,000 Sq Ft Gas Station- With or Without Convenience Store $15,658.80 Fueling Position Motor Vehicle Sales, Minor and Major Repair $2,241.97 1,000 Sq Ft Restaurant- No Drive-thru $22,890.04 1,000 Sq Ft
Restaurant with Drive-thru- Stand-alone $104,617.25 1,000 Sq Ft Restaurant with Drive-thru Within a Shopping Center $28,125.96 1,000 Sq Ft General Office/Bank $5,036.99 1,000 Sq Ft
Medical/Dental Office $10,188.67 1,000 Sq Ft
Government $3,084.14 1,000 Sq Ft
Industrial/Service Commercial $2,027.33 1,000 Sq Ft
Warehouse/Distribution < 100,000 sq ft $1,672.23 1,000 Sq Ft Warehouse/Distribution > 100,000 sq ft $804.19 1,000 Sq Ft Mini Storage > 100,000 sq ft $804.19 1,000 Sq Ft
Religious Institution or Public Facility $2,190.41 1,000 Sq Ft Other uses option $393.11 Trip

TYPE OF FEE
Fire, Police, Water, Wastewater, Parks
Circulation
Storm Drainage
Refuse
Total

SANITARY SEWER AREA
Area generally south of Hanford-Armona Road
Area located Between Hanford-Armona Rd and Lacey Blvd
Areal located between Lacey Blvd and Grangeville Blvd
Area located between Grangeville Blvd and Hwy 43
Area generally south of Hanford-Armona Road
Area located Between Hanford-Armona Rd and Lacey Blvd
Area located between Lacey Blvd and Grangeville Blvd
Area located between Grangeville Blvd and Fargo Ave
Area located between Fargo Ave and Flint Ave
$1,460.00
$1,939.91
$2,685.81
9th Ave Area of Benefit District (10th Ave to Hwy 43)
12th Ave Area of Benefit District (11-1/2 Ave to 13th Ave) $1,496.18
$2,254.01
$3,108.04
$695.65
$1,073.83
$2,859.66
$585.44
$17,200.28

BENEFIT DISTRICT FEE PER ACRE
$1,006.49

FEE AMOUNT

DEVELOPMENT FEE FOR SINGLE

FAMILY RESIDENCE
$9,695.53
$4,059.65

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
30 | P a g e

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE

ITEM CREDIT PER UNIT UNIT
Water:
8" Pipeline $78.47 Lineal Foot
12" Pipeline $209.12 Lineal Foot
18" Pipeline $253.82 Lineal Foot
Groundwater Well (1,500 gpm) $1,448,824.65 Each
Pump Station (3 @ 3,100 gpm) $4,831,993.46 Each
Pump Station (4 @ 1,400 gpm) $3,305,529.77 Each
Storage Tank (1.5 MG) $4,128,229.07 Each
Land for Storage Tank or Well $48,283.73 Acre
Wastewater:
8" Gravity Main $214.86 Lineal Foot
12" Gravity Main $363.98 Lineal Foot
15" Gravity Main $381.54 Lineal Foot
18" Gravity Main $411.87 Lineal Foot
21" Gravity Main $446.98 Lineal Foot
24" Gravity Main $464.55 Lineal Foot
27" Gravity Main $536.39 Lineal Foot
30" Gravity Main $630.58 Lineal Foot
36" Gravity Main $783.82 Lineal Foot
18" Force Main $367.42 Lineal Foot
Lift Station $1,669.16 GPM
Storm Drain:
12'' Pipeline $115.88 Lineal Foot
21'' Pipeline $265.01 Lineal Foot
24'' Pipeline $312.89 Lineal Foot
30'' Pipeline $384.72 Lineal Foot
36'' Pipeline $456.57 Lineal Foot
42'' Pipeline $528.40 Lineal Foot
48'' Pipeline $624.19 Lineal Foot
60'' Pipeline $719.97 Lineal Foot
96'' Pipeline $1,224.42 Lineal Foot
Retention Basin (0 to 5 acre feet) $39,882.46 Acre Foot Retention Basin (Over 5 to 10 acre feet) $23,810.47 Acre Foot Retention Basin (Over 10 to 20 acre feet) $13,549.43 Acre Foot Retention Basin (Over 20 acre feet) $8,227.74 Acre Foot

IMPACT FEE CREDITS FROM WATER, WASTEWATER AND STORM DRAINANGE IMPACT FEES

FEE AMOUNT

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
31 | P a g e

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE

ITEM CREDIT PER UNIT UNIT
Circulation- Arterial and Major Arterial Street
Median Curb (both sides) $24.14 Lineal Foot
Median Concrete (16' wide) $193.14 Lineal Foot
Pavement (one side- 22' wide) $96.07 Lineal Foot
Right of Way in Exceeding 42' Wide Half Street $2.49 Square Foot Circulation- Collection Street
Pavement (one side- 18' wide) $68.51 Lineal Foot
Circulation- Street Intersections
Traffic Signal $482,837.34 Each
Intersection Improvements (full) $482,837.34 Each
Parks- Must be Identified in General Plan
Park Improvements $222,413.17 Acre
Land for Park $108,638.40 Acre

IMPACT FEE CREDITS FROM CIRCULATION AND PARKS IMPACT FEE ACCOUNTS

FEE AMOUNT

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
32 | P a g e

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT
Application/Permit
Public Street and Infrastructure Improvement Plan Review/Inspection Fee 6% of the first $5,000 of improvement costs or fraction thereof 5% of the next $20,000 of improvement costs or fraction thereof

4.5% of the next $75,000 of improvement costs or fraction thereof

3.5% of the next $150,000 of improvement costs or fraction thereof 2% of all amounts of improvement costs over $250,000

DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENT ENGINEERING SERVICES
Water Meter Inspection Fee (all land uses) per meter $85.00 Backflow Prevention Assembly Inspection Fee (all land uses) $80.00 Final Parcel Map $950.00 + $50.00 Recording Fee

GRADING PLAN REVIEW
Residential: Single Family Residence $1,050.00
Two or Three Units $1,800.00
Four through Eight Units $3,050.00
Eight or More Units $4,400.00
Commercial: Sites less than one-half acre $2,700.00
Sites from one-half to one acre $4,200.00
Sites one to five acres $5,700.00
Sites over five acres $5,700 plus $85/acre
Permit Extensions $25.00

ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
Annual Permit $250.00
Annual Permit (Utilities) $1,000.00
Annual Permit (Trees) $900.00
Regular Encroachment Permit $365.00

TRANSPORTATION PERMIT
Annual Permit $90.00
Regular Transportation Permit $16.00

MISCELLANEOUS
Construction Water Meter Deposit $1,000.00
Conditional Watering Permit $25.00
Pool Drain Permit $25.00
Fee for Backflow Administration and Inspection $125.00
Water Department Inventory Sales Administration Fee 15% of all cost incurred by the City Street Banner Permit $100.00
Initial deposit of 1% of initial estimated construction cost of all improvements as prepared by developer's engineers. Payment due upon initial submittal of plans and specs. The deposit is to be replenished once 25% of funds remaining.

Actual City and/or Consultant cost
for checking, improvement plans,
and specs; and/or other
engineering costs plus a 10%
admin fee

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
33 | P a g e

REFUSE DIVISION

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT
1YD (4 Empties per month) $78.23
2YD (4 Empties per month) $98.37
3YD (4 Empties per month) $118.53
Delivery/Exchange Startup Fee $20.00
Removal for Discontinued Refuse Service $66.00
Delivery Fee (for each eighteen (18) 96 gallon containers up to 54 event cans) $26.00 Empty Fee (per container per empty and disposal of waste) $11.44 Cleaning Fee (per container to clean and restock) $2.08 Delivery Fee (each bin up to five (5) 2yd or 3yd commercial bins) $26.00 Empty Fee (per 2yd bin) $23.92
Empty Fee (per 3yd bin) $27.08
Cleaning Fee (per container to clean and restock) $15.60 Refuse Locks $25.00
Monthly Lock Service Fee $8.00
Miscellaneous
Temporary Bin Rental
Trash Can/bin services
Special Event Can Services
Special Event Bin Services

WASTEWATER DIVISION

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT
Flow per Gallon per Day $0.10 per Gallon per Day
BOD per Pound per Day $31.25 per Pound per Day
TSS per Pound per Day $31.25 per Pound per Day
Wastewater Discharge Permit Application Fee $250.00
Boundary Overages
Wastewater Permits

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
34 | P a g e

AIRPORT

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT
Overnight Parking- Single $8.00 per Night
Overnight Parking- Twin $12.00 per Night
Overnight Parking- Jet $20.00 per Night
Overnight Vehicle Parking inside Airport Perimeter $4.25 per Night Airport Tiedown- Long Term $50.00 per Month
Covered T-Spaces (1-10 & 20-40) $96.00 per Month
T-Hangar Spaces (11-19) $199.00 per Month
Port-a-Port (1,200 sq. ft. or less) $683.00 per Year
Port-a-Port (1,800 sq. ft. to 2,100 sq. ft.) $694.00 per Year Hangar Ground Lease (0 to 1,600 sq. ft.) $873.00 per Year Hangar Ground Lease (1,601 sq. ft. to 2,300 sq. ft.) $974.00 per Year Hangar Ground Lease (2,301 sq. ft. to 4,500 sq. ft.) $1,064.00 per Year Hangar Ground Lease (4,501 sq. ft. to 5,000 sq. ft.) $2,049.00 per Year Hangar Ground Lease (5,001 sq. ft. and above) $0.418 per sqft Heavy Appliance Electricity Surcharge $37.00 per Month
The airport has the following types of agreements: hangar, tiedown, land and facilities. The agreements will contain annual CPI increases and the Fair Market Value of the lease rates will be established by using the Council approved per square foot lease rate plus the CPI Adjustments.
(1) These rates are for the various types of storage units at the airport and are adjusted annually based on the clause contained in the individual agreements. The CPI used for these agreements is the CPIU for the average of LA and SF for April of each

Summary of Change

FINANCE DEPARTMENT
FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT COMMENT Administrative Fee - Charge assessed to pass-through funds 2% New Addition

GENERAL FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT COMMENT

BUSINESS LICENSE
Veteran Owned Business:

Required to register and provide copy of DD214.

Subject to approval
No Charge Reword

PARKS - INDOOR FACILITY FEE SCHEDULE
Comments
Fri-Sat Increased rate from $500.00|$1,000.00 to $600.00|$1,100.00 Sun-Thurs Increased rate from $275.00|$900.00 to $375.00|$900.00 2 Host Increased rate from $40.00 per hour to $50.00 per hour 3 Host Increased rate from $60.00 per hour to $70.00 per hour 4 Host Increased rate from $80.00 per hour to $90.00 per hour 5 Host Increased rate from $100.00 per hour to $110.00 per hour Rewording
FACILITY HOST FEES:
$70.00 per Hour
Resident
$600.00 $1,100.00
$375.00 $900.00
CIVIC AUDITORIUM:

FACILITY
Main Hall
$250.00
Non-Resident

FACILITY DEPOSIT
$90.00 per Hour
200-299 Party Size
$110.00 per Hour
1-199 Party Size
300-399 Party Size
400 or Larger
$50.00 per Hour
FACILITY RENTALS WITH ALCOHOL REQUIRE BOTH INSURANCE AND SECURITY Rewording

INSURANCE REQUIRED FOR ALL FACILITY RENTALS

PARKS - OUTDOOR FACILITY FEE STRUCTURE

FACILITY RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT COMMENT
Alcohol Deposit (if permitted) Add to fee to schedule
Floating Island Rentals Removed
Field Fee Changed to one rate
Youth Removed
Adult Removed
Staff Fees Increased from $18/hour/employee to $22/hour/employee Field Preparation Increased $30/field/day to $58/field/day Trash Removal: Adult Rewording
Electricity Use Removed - Incorrect section
Tournament Deposit Removed - duplicated fee
Homerun Fence New Add Rewording
City Parks:

City Plunge:
*Freedom and Lacey Park are excluded due to proximity of schools $1,000.00
$58 per Field per Day
$75.00

FACILITY RENTALS WITH ALCOHOL REQUIRE BOTH INSURANCE AND SECURITY $250.00
$60 per Field per Day
$45.00 per Unit
$22 per Hour per each Employee
$175.00
Softball Complex:
$80.00
$100.00
$130.00

PARKS - WINTER WONDERLAND

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT COMMENT
Groups of 8+ $10.00 per Person Remove
Hockey Lessons $20.00 per Lesson Remove
Broomball $5.00 Remove
Skate Aides $7.00 per Aide Increased from $6.00/aide to $7.00/aide North Pole Lounge $200.00 per Rental Decreased from $375.00/rental to $200.00/rental Santa Experience Photos TBD Remove
Santa Experience (Up to 6 people) $25.00 per Reservation Remove Private Rink Rentals: $350.00 per Hour Split to groups
1-50 $400 per Hour New add
51-100 $650 per Hour New add
Adults and Children Ice Skating:

Activities:

Miscellaneous:

PARKS – PROGRAMS AND EVENTS

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE COMMENT
Zumba, Aerobics, Yoga $16.00 Seniors $20.00 Adults Change to age group Haunted House Remove
Food Vendor Change rates from 5%-20%/ Day to 15%-20%/Day Activity Vendor Change rates from 5%-20%/ Day to 10%-20%/Day Retail Booth Vendor Remove
15%-20% per Day
10%-20% per Day
$20.00-$40.00 per Space

FEE AMOUNT
$5.00 per Person

FIRE DEPARTMENT

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT COMMENT
Annual Operational Permit per Issuance $149.00 Increased from $108.00 to $149.00 for increased staff time and cost Prospective License Pre-Inspection for all Child and Adult Day Care per Issuance $149.00 Changed wording Licensed Family Day Care Re-Inspection per Occurrence $180.00 Remove Miscellaneous Fire Prevention Permit per Permit $149.00 Increased from $108.00 to $149.00 for increased staff time and cost Illegal Burning per Hour $250.00 Decreased from $401.00 to $250.00 CPR/AED Certification
(Class size must be 10 participants, otherwise will be placed on a wait-list) per Person $100.00 Add to schedule

POLICE DEPARTMENT

FEE NAME/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FEE AMOUNT COMMENT

SPECIAL PERMITS
Enhanced CCW Card $25.00 per Card No longer providing service

RESOLUTION No. 25-73-R

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD ADOPTING A CITY OF HANFORD MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR FY 2025-26.

WHEREAS, the City Council of Hanford is empowered to impose reasonable fees, rates, and charges for municipal services, and thereby has adopted rates, charges and fees set forth in a Master Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend previously adopted fee schedules and establish fees and charges for FY 2025-26 in a single Master Fee Schedule, effective December 16, 2025.

WHEREAS, all requirements of California Government Code Sections 66016, 66017, and 66018 are hereby found to have been complied with;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Master Fee Schedule Adoption. The following schedules of fees and charges are hereby directed to be computed and applied by the various City departments, and to be collected by the City Finance Department for the herein listed services when provided by the City or its designated contractors.

2. The fees and charge adjustments proposed herein comply with the adjustment requirements required by the authorizing ordinances

3. The fees and charges adjustments are statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act either as fees and charges related to ministerial projects or that meeting operating expenses, financial reserve needs, further capital projects for services, or the purchasing or leasing of supplies; and

4. The findings required by authorizing ordinances enumerated herein to adopt fees have been made as part of the respective original adopting resolutions of the Council.

5. All resolutions and other actions of the City Council in conflict with the contents of this Resolution are hereby repealed.

6. Effective Date. Unless otherwise indicated in the Master Fee schedule for FY 2025-26 document, these rates and fees go into effect on December 16, 2025. Impact fees shall not be effective until 60 days after the adoption thereof (February 14, 2026).

PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Hanford at a Council meeting duly held on this 16th day of December 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
Mark Kairis
MAYOR of the City of Hanford

Attest:
__________________________________

NATALIE CORRAL

CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss

CITY OF HANFORD )
I, Natalie Corral, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the 16th day of December 2025.

Date: ____________________
_________________________________
City Clerk

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
A public hearing will be held before the Hanford City Council on Tuesday, December 16, 2025, at 7:00 p.m., in the Hanford City Council Chambers, Civic Auditorium, 400 N.

Douty Street, Hanford, California, pertaining to the following:

To adopt an amendment to the City of Hanford Master Fee Schedule for FY 2025- 26 A copy of the proposed Master Fee Schedule is available for inspection. Requests can be made by email to [email protected].

All interested persons may appear to present testimony at the hearings. If you challenge any action or decision by the City Council regarding the subject of the public hearing described in this notice 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 Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.

If you have questions or are in need of a translator or special services, please call the City Clerk at (559) 585-2515 at least five (5) days prior to the meeting to make arrangements.

14.C.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 12/16/2025 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT:

Adoption of Ordinance No. 25-12, adopting the 2025 California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and Amendment to Title 15 of the Hanford Municipal Code.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Waive the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 25-12, adopting the 2025 California Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 1-12), including Part 7 - California Wildland-Urban Interface Code (CWUIC) and amendments to Title 15 of Hanford Municipal Code.

Recommended Motion:

1. I move to waive the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 25-12, adopting the 2025 California Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 1-12), including Part 7 - California Wildland-Urban Interface Code (CWUIC) and amendments to Title 15 of Hanford Municipal Code.

BACKGROUND:

The State of California updates the California Building Standards Code every three years. The 2025 Edition was adopted by the California Building Standards Commission on July 1, 2025, and becomes effective statewide on January 1, 2026. Local jurisdictions must adopt the updated code and any justified amendments.

In accordance with Section 50022.3 of the California Government Code, adoption of the Codes by reference with local amendments requires that the City Council introduce the proposed Ordinances and schedule a time and place for a public hearing to consider whether or not to adopt the Codes, as amended. Accordingly, this Ordinance 25-12 was introduced during December 2, 2025 meeting and it is being continued for recommendation to adopt Ordinance.

The proposed ordinance:

1. Adopts the 2025 California Building Standards Code, including:

• Part 1 – Administrative Code
• Part 2 – California Building Code
• Part 2.5 – California Residential Code
• Part 3 – California Electrical Code
• Part 4 – California Mechanical Code
• Part 5 – California Plumbing Code
• Part 6 – California Energy Code
• Part 7 – California Wildland-Urban Interface Code (CWUIC) • Part 8 – California Historical Building Code
• Part 9 – California Fire Code
• Part 10 – Existing Building Code
• Part 11 – CALGreen
• Part 12 – Reference Standards Code

2. Repeals prior code adoption ordinances where they conflict.

3. Maintains all local amendments previously adopted.

4. Uses a consolidated adoption format for clarity and simplicity.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed zone text amendment is exempt under Section 15061(b) (3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Noticing of the project was published in the newspaper on December 2, 2025, pursuant to the requirements of Government Code. Section 50022.3.

No comments have been received as of the date of preparation of this report.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Waive the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 25-12, adopting the 2025 California Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 1-12), including Part 7 - California Wildland-Urban Interface Code (CWUIC) and amendments to Title 15 of Hanford Municipal Code.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Allocation for expenses related to the new code adoption has been budgeted under Building Safety Special Department Expense account.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinanance 25-12

ORDINANCE NO. 25-12

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (TITLE 24) AND AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE HANFORD MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 1. PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purpose of this Ordinance is to adopt by reference the 2025 California Building Standards Code, Title 24, Parts 1 through 12, including Part 7 – California Wildland-Urban Interface Code (CWUIC), and to amend Title 15 of the Hanford Municipal Code to incorporate the updated codes along with the City’s existing local amendments, modifications, and additions necessary due to local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions.

SECTION 2. REPEAL OF PRIOR ADOPTION ORDINANCE
Effective January 1, 2026, Ordinance Nos. 17-09 through 17-15, and any ordinance adopting earlier editions of the California Building Standards Code, are repealed to the extent they conflict with this Ordinance. Administrative provisions not tied to code adoption remain in effect.

SECTION 3. ADOPTION OF THE 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE The City of Hanford adopts by reference the 2025 California Building Standards Code, Title 24, Parts 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Copies shall be kept on file with the City Clerk and the Building Division for public inspection.

SECTION 4. EXPRESS FINDINGS
The City Council finds that amendments to the 2025 California Building Standards Code are justified based on local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions in accordance with Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7. All findings previously adopted in 2016 are reaffirmed and updated to reflect the 2025 code cycle.

SECTION 5. LOCAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE 2025 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE The following sections of the 2025 California Fire Code (Part 9) are amended:

1. Section 507.1 – Required hydrants must be fully operable prior to construction. Portable tanks do not satisfy required fire flow.

2. Section 906.1 – Minimum fire extinguisher rating shall be 2A:10BC unless otherwise authorized.

3. Section 903.4 – All automatic sprinkler and fire detection systems shall be monitored by a UL-listed central station.

SECTION 6. LOCAL ADDITIONS
The following appendices and sections of the 2025 California Building Standards Code are adopted:
• CBC Appendices C, F, and I
• CEBC Section 409.2 – Moving Permits
• CRC Appendix J – Existing Buildings and Structures
• CPC Appendix C – Alternate Plumbing Systems
SECTION 7. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
Title 15 adoption sections for Building, Electrical, Fire, Mechanical, and Plumbing Codes are updated to reference the 2025 editions. Administrative provisions relating to licensing, permit fees, enforcement, liability, and penalties remain unchanged.

SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY
If any portion of this Ordinance is found invalid, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.

SECTION 9. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage, and shall be published once in the Hanford Sentinel within fifteen (15) days after its passage

SECTION 10. CERTIFICATION
The City Clerk shall certify and publish this Ordinance as required by law.

APPROVED this ____ day of __________, 2025.
____________________________________
Mayor of the City of Hanford
ATTEST:
____________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
City Attorney

15.A.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 12/16/2025 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS SUBJECT:

Adoption of Chapter 12.30.01 – Regulation of Bicycles, E-Bikes, E-Scooters, and E-Skateboards RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: The City Council waive the first reading of the ordinance adding Chapter 12.30:

Bicycles, E-Bikes, E-Scooters, and E-Skateboards to the Hanford Municipal Code.

Recommended Motion: I move that the Council waive the first reading of the ordinance adding Chapter 12.30: Bicycles, E-Bikes, E-Scooters, and E-Skateboards to the Hanford Municipal Code.

The purpose of this staff report is to present for City Council consideration a proposed ordinance establishing Chapter 12.30 of the Hanford Municipal Code, regulating the operation of bicycles, electric bicycles (e-bikes), electric scooters (e-scooters), and electric skateboards (e-skateboards) within the City of Hanford. The ordinance also establishes enforcement mechanisms and penalty provisions for violations.

In recent years, the popularity of micromobility devices such as e-bikes, e-scooters, and eskateboards has increased substantially throughout California cities. While these devices provide low-cost, environmentally friendly alternatives for short-distance travel, they also raise public safety concerns about high speeds on sidewalks and in pedestrian areas; unsafe operation near schools, parks, and playgrounds; and a lack of consistent local regulation and enforcement authority.

The City's Active Transportation Plan (ATP) promotes multimodal connectivity and safe pathways for all users, including pedestrians and cyclists. However, until now, the Hanford Municipal Code did not provide specific definitions or enforcement provisions for electric-powered conveyances. This ordinance aligns Hanford's regulations with the ATP and provides a clear framework for operation, enforcement, and penalty procedures.

A. Definitions
The proposed ordinance clearly defines:
• Electric Bicycle (E-Bike): A bicycle with operable pedals and a motor under 750 watts. • Electric Scooter (E-Scooter): A small, stand-up device powered by an electric motor with a maximum speed of 15 mph.
• Electric Skateboard (E-Skateboard): A motorized skateboard designed for standing riders with a maximum speed of 20 mph.
• E-Conveyance: A collective term for all small electric-powered personal transportation devices.

These definitions ensure consistency with the City's Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and current state law.

B. Operational Rules
The ordinance establishes operational expectations for safety and consistency:
• Bicycles and e-conveyances are permitted on sidewalks, trails, and roadways unless otherwise posted.
• Operators must yield to pedestrians and equestrians and give an audible signal before passing.
• Operation is prohibited in parks, playgrounds, and school grounds unless specifically designated.
• Maximum speed on bicycle paths and trails is 20 mph or slower when conditions require. • E-conveyance use may be restricted during special events. • Riders must travel in the same direction as vehicular traffic. • Passengers are restricted, with limited exceptions for small children on appropriate seats. • Electric scooters may not carry passengers under any circumstances.

C. Enforcement and Penalties
The ordinance provides for criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement mechanisms:
• Criminal: Violations constitute infractions under Chapter 8.11. • Civil: The City Attorney may seek court orders or injunctions for ongoing violations and pursue damages or civil penalties.
• Administrative: The Police Chief or designee may issue administrative citations, with fines established by City Council resolution.

The administrative citation process includes due process, hearing rights, and provisions for financial hardship waivers. Late payment penalties, interest, and recovery costs are also detailed, ensuring fairness and accountability.

The ordinance aligns with the City’s Active Transportation Plan to promote safe multimodal travel and support environmental sustainability goals.

FISCAL IMPACT:

THE FISCAL IMPACT IS ANTICIPATED TO BE MINIMAL. ENFORCEMENT WILL OCCUR AS PART OF REGULAR PATROL. NO ADDITIONAL STAFFING OR EQUIPMENT EXPENDITURES ARE EXPECTED.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. HMC Bicycles, E-Bikes, E-Scooters, And E-Skateboards

15.B.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 12/16/2025 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS SUBJECT:

Adoption of the Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail Station Transit Oriented Development Plan RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: Adopt the Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail Station Transit Oriented Development Plan
Recommended Motion: I move to Adopt the Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail Station Transit Oriented Development Plan
BACKGROUND:

At the February 7, 2023, City Council meeting, the Council authorized staff to pursue a Sustainable Communities Grant to evaluate and guide land use planning along Lacey Boulevard and within the Kings–Tulare High-Speed Rail (HSR) Station area. The City submitted an application for the Kings– Tulare HSR Station Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and Connectivity Plan and Cross Valley Corridor (CVC) Rail Service Planning Project and was subsequently awarded $650,000 in grant funding from Caltrans.

The project supports transit-oriented development, economic revitalization, and multi-modal connectivity. It guides land use planning along Lacey Boulevard and around the Kings–Tulare HSR Station, enhances connections between Downtown Hanford and the Kings–Tulare Station, expands mobility choices and connectivity along the Cross Valley Corridor, and promotes an efficient and integrated transportation system.

A Request for Proposals was issued for the preparation of project documents, and Perkins & Will was selected as the consulting firm.

Early in the planning process, City staff and the Perkins & Will team established a Partners Working Group to provide input on the project scope and priorities. Three meetings were held with the Partners Working Group to guide the planning process, and two public outreach events were conducted during Thursday Night Market to gather community feedback. All project planning documents have been informed by input from the Partners Working Group, the public, and City staff.

Staff presented draft documents to Council in November for comments and direction. Staff also notified nearby property owners and stakeholders of the proposed plan and the intent to adopt the Plan.

Included with this agenda item is the Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail Station Transit Oriented

Development Plan that will guide future planning decisions in the TOD area. The plan includes background information and the planning framework that will be used to guide land use decisions in the future within the project. The plan does not change current land uses in the area, which will require a formal amendment to the City's General Plan. Staff is recommending adoption of the document.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No Impact
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Hanford Connected: Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail Station Transit Oriented Development Plan

2. Hanford Connected: Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail Station Transit Oriented Development Plan Appendix

Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail Station
Transit Oriented Development Plan
FINAL DRAFT: December 2025

December 2025
Shaped by Rail.

Grounded by Community.

Rooted in Resilience.

Acknowledgements
Hanford City Council
Travis Paden, Mayor, District A Council Member
Kimber Regan, District B Council Member
Nancy Howze, Vice Mayor, District C Council Member
Lou Martinez, District D Council Member
Mark Kairis, District E Council Member
City of Hanford Staff
Chris Tavarez, Interim City Manager
Jason Waters, Deputy City Manager
Gabrielle Myers, Senior Planner
Brian Johnson, Community Relations Manager
Frank Senteno, Utilities and Engineering Director
Lisa Dock, City Engineer
Jaklin Hart, Associate Engineer
Partners Working Group (PWG)
Andy Cooke, San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission
Ben Lichty, California High-Speed Rail Authority
Betsy McGovern Garcia, Self-Help Housing
Chuck Kinney, Kings County
Debbie Williams, Hanford Chamber of Commerce
Dennis Ham, Hanford Planning Commission
Edgar Hernandez, Caltrans District 6
Lorena Mendibles, Caltrans District 6
Lisa McDuffee, Caltrans District 6
Michelle Brown, Main Street Hanford
Shelley Maggard, Caltrans District 6
Stephanie Huddleston, Hanford Police Department
Consultant Team
Perkins&Will, Prime Consultant, Urban Design
Alta Planning + Design Inc., Community Outreach and Active Transportation Planning Nelson\Nygaard, Multi-Modal Planning
Economic & Planning Systems Inc., Economic Consulting
Mark Thomas, Rail Engineering
David J. Powers & Associates Inc., Environmental Planning This project was made possible by a Caltrans
Sustainable Communities Competitive Grant.

Table of Contents
Introduction
Hanford: Shaped by Rail
A Pivotal Crossroads
The Plan’s Focus Areas
A Reader’s Guide
Opportunity
The Three Design Lenses
Environment Design Strategies
Community Mobility
Design Strategies
Economy Design Strategies
The Vision
Planning
Framework
The Planning Framework
Our Approach
Working with the Climate
A Healthy Street Grid
Open Space Network
Hubs
Patches
Corridors
Closed Loop Infrastructure
Street Network
Bike Network
Boulevards
Lacey Boulevard & Loop Road
Florinda Avenue
Grangeville Boulevard
7th Avenue
9th Avenue
Local Streets
Process
The Process Overview
Partners Working Group
Community Workshops
Neighborhoods
& Districts
Land Use
Mixed Use Neighborhood
Residential Neighborhood
Production and Innovation District
Institutional District
Context
Learning From The Land
Groundwater Challenges
Understanding Demographics
Existing Market Conditions
Implementation
Public Facilities Financing Plan
Conceptual Intersection
Crossings and CVC
Rail Corridor
Appendix
Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail
Station Area Plan Conceptual
Public Facilities Financing Plan
Kings-Tulare High-Speed
Rail Station Equity and
Displacement Analysis
Hanford High-Speed Rail/
Cross Valley Corridor Project
Constraints Analysis Overview
Cross Valley Corridor Plan
Project Description Memo
Cross Valley Corridor
Infrastructure Summary Memo
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 AA
11 22 33 40 48 86 96

List of Figures
Figure 1 A Visual timeline of Hanford 15
Figure 2 A Regional Aerial Map showing CAHSR and CVC 17 Figure 3 A Map of the Plan’s Three Focus Areas 19
Figure 4 Apricot Lane Farms, Moorpark, California.

Credit: Apricot Lane Farms 27
Figure 5 Burswood Park, Perth
Credit: HelloPerth 29
Figure 6 Mariposa Phase IV, Denver, Colorado.

Credit: Daniel O’Connor 31
Figure 7 A Bird’s Eye Illustration of the Proposed TOD Vision 33 Figure 8 City of Hanford Website Screenshots 36
Figure 9 Photos from the Community Workshops 39
Figure 10 An Existing Regional Natural Context Map 43
Figure 11 An Existing Groundwater Impacts Map 45
Figure 12 Hanford’s Demographics and Travel Patterns in 2025 Credit: U.S Census 2024 46
Figure 13 Hanford’s Industry Anchors and Agricultural Trends in 2025 Credit: U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics for Industry Anchors 47 01 Introduction 05 Planning Framework
06 Neighborhoods & Districts
02 Opportunity
03 Process
04 Context
Figure 14 Map Illustrating Blue and Green Infrastructure Opportunities 52
Figure 15 Map Highlighting Pathways Connectivity Opportunities 53 Figure 16 Maps Identifying Economic Opportunities 53
Figure 17 Map of Existing Environmental Conditions 55
Figure 18 Map of TOD’s Climate-Informed Street Grid 57
Figure 19 Conceptual Diagram of Ecological Matrix 58
Figure 20 Map of the TOD’s Open-Space Framework 59
Figure 21 Axonometric of Regenerative Agriculture 60
Figure 22 Axonometric of Groundwater Recharge Zones 60
Figure 23 Map of the TOD’s Hubs 61
Figure 24 Axonometric of a Pocket Park 62
Figure 25 Axonometric of a Miyawaki Forest 62
Figure 26 Axonometric of a Bio-Retention Basin 62
Figure 27 Axonometric of a Green Roof 62
Figure 28 Map of the TOD’s Patches 63
Figure 29 Axonometric of Green Streets 64
Figure 30 Axonometric of Green Alleys 64
Figure 31 Axonometric of Oak Habitat along Florinda Avenue 64 Figure 32 Map of the Corridors 65
Figure 33 Closed-Loop Framework Diagram 69
Figure 34 Map of Proposed Street Network 71
Figure 35 Class I Shared Use Path
Credit: Hello Perth 72
Figure 36 Class III Bike Route
Credit: Kendra Ramsey 72
Figure 37 Class IV Separated Bikeway
Credit: Joe Linton 72
Figure 38 Map of Bike Network 73
Figure 39 Constitution Avenue, Canberra, Australia
Credit: John Gollings 74
Figure 40 Rue Garibaldi, Lyon, France
Credit: Ilex, Metropole de lyon 74
Figure 41 Conceptual Section of Lacey Boulevard and Loop Road 75 Figure 42 Redevelopment Project, Mail Mendes, France
Credit: Playeen 76
Figure 43 Rua Gonçalo de Carvalho, Porto Alegre, Brazil Credit: Unknown 76
Figure 44 Conceptual Section of Florinda Avenue 77
Figure 45 “Gray to Green,” Sheffield, England
Credit: Nigel Dunnet 78
Figure 46 Downtown San Luis Obispo, California, U.S.A
Credit: VisitSLO Website 78
Figure 47 Conceptual Section of Grangeville Boulevard 79 Figure 48 First Flight, Auckland, Aotearoa (New Zealand) Credit: Blake Marvin 80
Figure 49 LEAP Lebanon Innovation District, Indiana, U.S.A Credit: MKSK and Perkins&Will 80
Figure 50 Conceptual Section of 7th Avenue 81
Figure 51 Les Basses Promenades, Reims, France
Credit: Unknown 82
Figure 52 Townbranch Commons, Lexington, Kentucky, U.S.A Credit: SCAPE 82
Figure 53 Conceptual Section of 9th Avenue 83
Figure 54 “Rain Garden,” Auckland, Aotearoa (New Zealand) Credit: Taylor Cullity Leathlean and Wright+Associates 84 Figure 55 Blatchford Redevelopment, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Credit: Perkins&Will 84
Figure 56 Conceptual Section of Local North-South Streets 85 Figure 57 Conceptual Section of Local East-West Streets 85 Figure 58 Map of TOD Land Uses 89
Figure 59 Axonometric of Mixed-Use Block 90
Figure 60 Mariposa Phase IV, Denver, Colorado.

Credit: Daniel O’Connor 90
Figure 61 Multifamily Housing in San Luis Obispo, California, U.S.A 90 Figure 62 Axonometric of Residential Block 91
Figure 63 Moylan Terrace, San Luis Obispo, California, U.S.A Credit: RRM Design Group 91
Figure 64 Townhomes in San Luis Obispo, California, U.S.A 91 Figure 65 Axonometric of a Production & Innovation District Block 92 Figure 66 Confidential 92
Figure 67 LEAP Lebanon Innovation District, Indiana, U.S.A Credit: MKSK and Perkins&Will 92
Figure 68 Kas&Co Housing Community, Utrecht, The Netherlands Credit: INBO Architecture and Planning 93

Figure 69 University of Texas, El Paso, U.S.A
Credit: Adam Barbe 94
Figure 70 The Edible Academy, New York Botanical Gardens, New York, U.S.A
Credit: Robert Benson Photography 94
Figure 71 Illustrative Birdseye of Institutional Anchor 95 07 Implementation
Figure 72 Kings-Tulare HSR Station Area Context Map by Census Tracts 99 Figure 73 Kings-Tulare HSR Station Area Land Use Designation Map 101 Figure 74 Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Cost Estimates Summary (2025 Dollars) 103
Figure 75 Estimated Sources and Uses of Funding (2025 Dollars) 105 Figure 76 Summary of Estimated Infrastructure Burden (2025 Dollars) 107 Figure 77 Conceptual design for the Intersection of Highway 43 and Florinda Avenue 110
Figure 78 Conceptual design for the intersection of Highway 43 and CVC BRT Intersection 111
Figure 79 Conceptual design for the CVC Bus Rapid Transit and Multi-Use Path (Segment 1) 112
Figure 80 Conceptual design for the CVC Bus Rapid Transit and Multi-Use Path (Segment 2) 113
Figure 81 Conceptual design for the CVC Bus Rapid Transit and Multi-Use Path (Segment 3) 114
Figure 82 Conceptual design for the CVC Bus Rapid Transit and Multi-Use Path (Segment 4) 115
Figure 83 Conceptual design for the CVC Bus Rapid Transit and Multi-Use Path (Segment 5) 116
Figure 84 Conceptual design for the CVC Bus Rapid Transit and Multi-Use Path (Segment 6) 117
This page is intentionally left blank.

01 Introduction
This chapter explains why the City is undertaking
this planning effort, outlines the Plan’s geographic
focus areas, and provides guidance on how to
navigate the document.

14 | Hanford Connected Introduction | 15
Hanford: Shaped By Rail
Figure 1 A visual timeline of Hanford’s cultural, agricultural, and rail history, illustrating the roots of the community and the forces that have shaped its growth over time.

This connectivity made Hanford a nexus
of migration and cultural exchange.

Waves of settlers, including Portuguese,
Dutch, Midwesterners, Mexican laborers,
and Chinese immigrants were drawn by
the railroad’s promise of opportunity and
the Central Valley’s attractive agricultural
possibilities. This legacy of communities,
forged through connectivity, offers
a unique foundation for Hanford’s
next chapter.

Today, as rail infrastructure once
again defines the future, Hanford
has a unique once-in-a-century
opportunity to harness the
investment of California High-Speed
Rail and the Cross Valley Corridor to
create a signature transit oriented
community - one that reflects the
aspirations of residents, while
positioning Hanford as a model of
responsible development for the
Central Valley.

To this end, the City is not waiting for
trains to arrive before taking action. They
are proactively advancing a strategic
planning effort to establish a roadmap
for sustainable long-term growth, direct
targeted infrastructure investment, and
prepare for the eventual annexation
of land surrounding the Kings–Tulare
Station. This vision is designed to
enhance quality of life, stimulate
economic prosperity, and ensure Hanford
flourishes for generations to come.

Now is the moment for our community
to come together in shaping this future
regional intermodal gateway, securing
the benefits of this transformative
investment for all residents, and
redefining Hanford’s role as a major hub
at the heart of the Central Valley.

From its founding as a railroad town, Hanford has always been a place shaped by the lines that connected it to the wider world.

Hanford is positioned at the intersection of two major
California transportation investments: the California HighSpeed Rail and the Cross Valley Corridor, both slated to stop at the Kings–Tulare Station, three miles east of Downtown.

While many details of these projects remain uncertain, one fact is clear — they are moving forward. By serving as a proactive partner, Hanford can harness these investments as powerful catalysts for positive change, aligning them with the City’s values and opportunities to overcome long-standing challenges and shape a more prosperous future.

A Pivotal Crossroads
This Plan serves as a vision plan to guide
future development around the HighSpeed Rail station and along Lacey Boulevard. It focuses on addressing
community needs, shaping future land
uses, and expanding access to jobs,
housing, retail, entertainment, arts,
cultural amenities, and open spaces. A
key priority is strengthening connections
between the future station and
Downtown through active transportation
and enhanced bus services along
Lacey Boulevard.

California High- Speed
Rail (CAHSR)
The Kings–Tulare Station is one of 24
stations planned as part of the CAHSR
system, which will ultimately span 800
miles, connecting San Diego in the
south to Sacramento in the north. The
CAHSR rail line is identified in purple
on the corresponding map. In Phase
1, the Kings–Tulare Station is currently
under construction as part of the Initial
Operating Segment in the Central Valley
between Merced to Bakersfield.

Cross Valley Corridor (CVC)
The CVC is a proposed 60‑mile regional
transit line that will link towns across
the Central Valley from east to west
along the historic San Joaquin Valley
Railroad freight corridor. Initial phases
call for express bus service operating
between Naval Air Station Lemoore in
Kings County and the Lindsay Transit
Center in Tulare County, with long‑term
plans to introduce passenger rail service
extending from Huron to Porterville. At
the heart of the corridor is the future
Kings–Tulare High‑Speed Rail Station,
envisioned as a vital hub connecting
Kings and Tulare counties to the broader
San Joaquin Valley and California’s
statewide rail network. Figure 2 A regional aerial map showing the north–south alignment of the California High-Speed Rail and the
east–west alignment of the Cross Valley Corridor
along the historic San Joaquin Valley railroad freight
corridor.
16 | Hanford Connected

Introduction |
Figure 3 A map of the Plan’s three focus areas, highlighting the critical connections between the High‑Speed
Rail Station area and Downtown Hanford via Lacey
Boulevard and the Cross Valley Corridor.

The Plan’s Focus Areas
The geographic scope of this planning effort is defined by three key components: Lacey Boulevard, the Cross Valley Corridor, and approximately 1,000 acres of unincorporated land surrounding the Kings–Tulare Station.

East Lacey Boulevard
The Plan encompasses a three‑mile
section of Lacey Boulevard, linking North
10th Avenue to State Route 43. The Plan
includes conceptual design sections to
re-imagine the public right‑of‑way with
safer walking and biking connections,
enhanced transit access, street trees, and
green infrastructure.

Cross Valley Corridor (CVC)
The Plan includes a one‑mile section
of the rail corridor within the TransitOriented Development Plan Area, connecting the future Downtown
Hanford CVC and KART Station to the
Kings–Tulare High‑Speed Rail Station.

Conceptual sections and intersection
improvements at key points are designed
to advance planning and enable
seamless multimodal connections
between Downtown Hanford and
high‑speed rail service.

Kings-Tulare Station High-Speed
Rail Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) Plan Area
The Plan’s primary focus is to establish
a long‑term planning framework for
approximately 1,000 acres of agricultural
land surrounding the High‑Speed
Rail Station. This area is defined by
Grangeville Boulevard to the north, 7th
Avenue to the east, agricultural land
located about 1,300 feet west of State
Route 43 to the west, and agricultural
land directly south of State Route 198 to
the south. The intersecting alignments of
the High‑Speed Rail and the Cross Valley
Corridor create four distinct quadrants,
forming the foundation for a transit
oriented development plan area that will
support future growth and investment.

Cross Valley Corridor
(CVC)
1 Mile within the TOD
Boundary
East Lacey
Boulevard
3 Miles
Kings-Tulare Station HighSpeed Rail Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) Plan
Area
~1000 Acres
0 0.25 0.50Mi 18 | Hanford Connected

20 | Hanford Connected Introduction |
A Reader’s Guide
Before delving into the Plan, this guide clarifies what each chapter covers, the intended audience, how the document should be used, and the value it provides.

Who Is This For?
City Staff and Elected Officials
Residents, Business Owners,
and Civic Organizations
Developers
How to Use It? How Will You Benefit?
Use this Plan to guide infrastructure
investments, align capital projects
with long-term goals, and shape
development that reflects the
community’s vision and priorities.

Use this Plan to understand how the
neighborhood is evolving, advocate
for improvements, and participate in
shaping public spaces that are inclusive,
safe, and vibrant.

Use this Plan to align development
proposals with community goals,
streamline entitlement processes, and
unlock long-term value through contextsensitive, future-ready design.

Coordinate public investments and infrastructure upgrades.

Align growth with climate, equity, and livability goals.

Foster attractive, walkable, and connected neighborhoods.

Provide clarity and consistency in decision-making.

Encourage collaboration across public and private sectors.

Better public spaces that support daily life.

Safer, more walkable streets and access to local amenities.

A stronger voice in shaping the district’s future.

Advocating for better connections to Downtown and the rest of the city.

A predictable path to approvals and investment.

Design strategies that add long-term value.

A shared vision that supports both business and community outcomes.

Click on any chapter header to
jump directly to that section.

This Plan serves as a foundation for City staff, government partners, and the community at large to work together in bringing the vision to life. 21 Introduction
Explains why the City is undertaking
this planning effort, outlines the
Plan’s geographic focus areas, and
provides guidance on how to navigate
the document.

Process
Details how community engagement
and interdisciplinary coordination
shaped the development of the Plan.

Planning Framework
Provides a step‑by‑step overview of
the TOD’s horizontal infrastructure,
including the strategic placement
of parks and open spaces and the
rationale behind the street grid.

Implementation
Outlines public financing strategies
to support long‑term growth and
infrastructure around the station.

Identifies priority capital projects such
as a separated multi-use path along
the CVC rail corridor and intersection
improvements.

Opportunity
Summarizes the long‑term vision for
the transit‑oriented development
(TOD) plan area around the
station. Highlights key design
recommendations and describes how
they will deliver tangible benefits for
Hanford.

Context
Presents ecological, demographic,
and market conditions that form the
foundation for context‑specific design
recommendations.

Neighborhoods & Districts
Focuses on proposed land uses within
the TOD area, specifying where housing,
commercial, industrial, and institutional
development may occur, as well as the
scale of buildings permitted.

Appendix
Includes technical memoranda such
as the Kings–Tulare High-Speed Rail
Station Area Plan Conceptual Public
Facilities Financing Plan; the Kings–
Tulare High-Speed Rail Station Equity
and Displacement Analysis; the Cross
Valley Corridor Plan Project Description
Memo; the Environmental Constraints
Analysis; and the Cross Valley Corridor
Infrastructure Summary Memo.
01 05
03 07
02 06
04 AA

02 Opportunity
This chapter outlines the Plan’s goals, presents
design recommendations addressing the
environment, community, and economy, and
concludes with the long term urban design vision.

The Plan’s recommendations are aligned with three lenses:

Environment, Community, and Economy for a healthy, thriving Transit Oriented Development.

The Three Design Lenses
Environment Community Economy
Protect Natural Resources
Conserve water, protect air quality, and
create natural habitats to ensure a healthy
environment.

Enhance Quality of Life
Create vibrant public spaces, cultural amenities,
and recreational opportunities to improve the
overall well-being of residents.

Promote Economic Development
Improve transportation infrastructure, support
local businesses, and attract new investment to
stimulate economic growth.

Promote Sustainable Development
Implement strategies to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, minimize environmental
impact, and enhance community resilience to
climate change.

Promote Social Equity
Ensure equitable access to the benefits of the
project for all community members, including
housing, transportation, and economic
opportunities.

Diversify the Economy
Explore opportunities to diversify the local
economy, including agriculture, agri-tourism,
manufacturing, technology etc.

Preserve Agricultural Heritage
Support local agriculture and sustainable
farming practices to strengthen the rural
economy in a changing climate.

Environment Community Economy
Climate Resiliency
Enhancing and celebrating natural local and
regional features to create a new paradigm for
all living things.
• Design for a changing climate and
champion environmental stewardship.
• Integrate green infrastructure and create
ecological corridors.
• Restore and create natural and
ancient habitats.
• Promote closed-loop infrastructure.

Healthy Communities
Leveraging existing and proposed transit routes
to make low carbon modes of transit an easy
choice for a healthier lifestyle.
• Create comfortable, walkable, rollable,
bikeable streets and neighborhoods.
• Promote seamless transit connections.

Equitable Development
Co-create a future that has an equitable
outcome, providing access to opportunities and
choices for upward mobility for all.
• Connect, leverage, and enhance existing
economies and institutions.
• Incorporate and celebrate unique Hanford
heritage and agricultural identity
• Design for flexibility to attract new industries
to support economic prosperity.
• Promote social, rural, and agricultural
regeneration.

NEEDSGOALS

LENSES LENSES
D
24 | Hanford Connected Opportunity | 25

A Climate Responsive
Street Grid
Green Streets and
Alleyways
Florinda Avenue’s Green
Canopy of Oaks
Agricultural
Regeneration
Inspired by the walkable blocks
of historic Downtown, the grid is
strategically shifted to enhance airflow
and maximize shading, optimizing
comfort in Hanford’s hot, dry climate.

The redesign of major boulevards—
such as Grangeville Boulevard, Lacey
Boulevard, and Florinda Avenue—
transforms them into green streets
featuring dense canopy trees and
integrated stormwater planters. Similar
to Downtown, green alleyways weave
through the mid-block, capturing
breezes, creating space for community
and connectivity.

Florinda Avenue, stretching from the
future Heroe’s Park to the High‑Speed
Rail Station, is redesigned with a wide
planter strip lined with continuous
native oak trees. This landscape
strategy improves soil quality, supports
biodiversity, and provides shade for
pedestrians and cyclists.

Aligned with natural topographic
contours, the Plan preserves acres
of land as agricultural bands for
small‑scale farming operations,
helping to maximize water capture,
improve soil health, and sustain local
food production.

Environment Design Strategies
The Plan champions design strategies that enhance and celebrate nature, strengthen human and environmental health, and prepare Hanford for potential future shocks and stressors.

Groundwater Recharge
and Bioretention Zones
Pocket Parks and
Forests
Closed Loop
Infrastructure
The Plan designates strategic areas
as groundwater recharge zones to
maximize aquifer recharge. These
green basins filter runoff, support
native plant communities, and create
opportunities for residents to connect
with nature.

The Plan ensures that community park
spaces are located within a 10‑minute
walk of every new residential
development in the TOD. These include
pocket parks, offering family‑friendly
spaces for play and social interaction,
as well as Miyawaki Forests—compact,
native forests that help cool the block,
enrich biodiversity, and improve
air quality.

The Plan offers a roadmap for the
City to establish a self‑sustaining
system that reduces waste, reuses
resources, and strengthens resilience
by transforming outputs, such as
wastewater, energy, and materials, into
inputs that serve the community.
26 | Hanford Connected
Figure 4 Apricot Lane Farms is a certified organic and biodynamic farm that uses regenerative methods of farming to grow over 200 varieties of fruits and vegetables in Moorpark, California.

Wide Sidewalks and
Protected Bike Lanes
Multi-Modal
Boulevards
The
Loop Road
The TOD Plan builds on the
recommend facilities proposed in
the citywide Active Transportation
Plan (ATP) to deliver a comprehensive
network of wide, comfortable,
complete network of sidewalks and
protected, low-stress bicycle facilities
that connects Downtown to the TOD
in a safe, intuitive environment for all
ages and abilities.

Major corridors including Lacey
Boulevard, Florinda Avenue,
Grangeville Boulevard, and 7th
and 9th Avenues are reimagined as
multi-modal boulevards designed
to accommodate all forms of travel.

Features include generous sidewalks
with landscaped planting strips for
large shade trees, protected bike lanes,
and the preservation of two-way
vehicular traffic.

Within the ~1000-acre TOD site, an
internal boulevard is essential to
weave together the neighborhoods
surrounding the Station. The Plan
introduces a tree-lined, multimodal Loop Road that serves as the District’s central spine, designed to
accommodate walking, biking, truck
movement, and private vehicles.

Community Mobility Design Strategies
Cross Valley Corridor
(CVC) Bus Rapid Transit
Improved Intersections
across Highway 43
In coordination with ongoing planning
for the CVC, the TOD Plan illustrates a
potential configuration that integrates
high-capacity transit and active
transportation. The proposal features
a dedicated, two-way bus rapid
transit lane connecting Downtown
to the Station, ensuring efficient and
reliable service.

The Plan recognizes that Highway
43 will remain an auto‑oriented
arterial with fast‑moving traffic for the
foreseeable future, creating difficult
and potentially unsafe crossing
conditions for streets designated as
active transportation corridors.

To mitigate these challenges, the
Plan introduces conceptual designs
for two priority intersections—at
Florinda Avenue and at the junction
The Loop Road will establish critical
crossings over the rail corridor, linking
Lacey Boulevard and Florinda Avenue
to create major east–west connections
between the Station, Downtown, and the
broader city.

Beyond mobility, it will also function as
a vital utility corridor, supporting new
infrastructure such as the proposed
ambient loop.

Parallel to the rail corridor, a new shareduse path for walking and biking will provide safe, continuous, and accessible
connections, reinforcing the corridor as
a multimodal spine for the TOD and the
broader city.
with the CVC Bus Rapid Transit and
Multi‑Use Trail.

These locations are expected to see
increased pedestrian and bicycle activity,
and the proposed improvements are
designed to enhance safety, accessibility,
and overall comfort for all users, ensuring
that active transportation can coexist
with the corridor’s vehicular function.

The Plan leverages the existing and proposed transit routes to make low carbon modes of transit an easy choice for a healthier lifestyle.
28 | Hanford Connected
Figure 5 A vibrant multi-use path in Burswood Park, Perth, designed for people of all ages and abilities to bike, walk, roll, and enjoy the outdoors together.

Housing Next to Parks,
Shops, and Transit
Neighborhood
Serving Shops
Outdoor Community
Spaces
New Jobs and Economic
Opportunities
The Plan provides a diverse range of
housing choices to support residents at
every stage of life, including Hanford’s
workforce, families, and seniors. These
homes are thoughtfully connected
to park spaces, community gardens,
and green paseos, fostering healthy
lifestyles and offering comfort during
the summer months.

Major boulevards and parcels
near the High-Speed Rail Station
are envisioned to accommodate a
diverse mix of neighborhood-serving
ground-floor uses. These shops will
provide residents, employees, and
commuters with convenient access to
everyday needs, including farm-totable restaurants, locally owned small businesses, childcare facilities, and
other daily amenities.

The Plan envisions outdoor spaces
that not only support environmental
health but also prioritize people and
community. These areas are designed
as welcoming places where families
can gather, children can play, local
farmers can sell fresh produce, and
workers and students can collaborate.

They serve as vibrant extensions
of daily life that strengthen social
connections and Hanford pride.

The southeastern quadrant of the
District is designated as a dedicated
employment zone, strategically
planned to support ag‑tech, light
industrial, food processing, research,
fabrication, and small logistics
businesses. This employment hub
builds on Hanford’s agricultural
strengths, fostering innovation,
diversification, and long‑term
economic growth while creating new
opportunities for the local workforce.

Economy Design Strategies
The Plan establishes a diverse mix of uses to support future population growth, offering healthy and attainable housing options, attracting employers, expanding vocational training for Hanford residents, and introducing unique shops and services that complement—rather than compete with—the Downtown core.

Center for Learning and
Workforce Training
Located just north of the CAHSR and
CVC Station, this institutional center is
easily accessible to students, faculty, and
employees from across the region.

Envisioned as a hub for learning,
innovation, and agriculture, it builds
on the Valley’s agricultural heritage
while preparing residents for a
changing future.

The center may take shape as an
ag‑tech campus, medical or educational
facility, training hub, or hybrid innovation
center—bringing together vocational
training, applied research, greenhouse
and demonstration plots, and
year‑round community programming.

Following the site’s natural drainage
contours, the agricultural bands function
as multi‑purpose landscapes that
physically and programmatically link the
Production & Innovation zone with the
Institutional center.

Agricultural
Bands
They provide space for demonstration
crops, teaching orchards, and hands‑on
learning in regenerative farming
practices. By tying directly to local
industry, the bands prepare the next
generation of growers, makers, and
agricultural innovators while reinforcing
Hanford’s agricultural identity.
30 | Hanford Connected
Figure 6 A flourishing community garden at Mariposa Phase IV for Denver Housing Authority in Denver, Colorado.

A climate-responsive,
resilient, and connected
Transit Oriented
Development, this planning
framework pioneers a new
paradigm of community,
environmental, and
economic vitality in the
Central Valley.

The Vision
California High-Speed
Rail and CVC Station
32 | Hanford Connected Opportunity | 33
Figure 7 A bird’s eye illustration of the proposed TOD Vision at the Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail Station.

Green Alleys
Corridors
Elevated Guideways
for CAHSR
Highway Buffers
Regenerative
Agriculture Bands
Green Buffer
Pocket Park
Oak Habitat
Groundwater Recharge Zone

03 Process
This chapter details how community engagement
and interdisciplinary coordination shaped the
development of the Plan.

Process | 37
Figure 8 City of Hanford website
ceated to inform the
public of the project,
timeline, events,
goals and purpose
and frequently asked
questions.
36 | Hanford Connected
Engagement Approach
With a goal to engage a diverse range
of partners and community members to
form and refine a shared vision for the
future of Hanford. Our approach was
to include the community in key project
moments to maximize the impact of their
voices without creating outreach fatigue.

Engagement strategies used included
upkeep of a project webpage on the
City’s website, forming and facilitating
a Partners Working Group (PWG), and
hosting community workshops where
people already gather. These activities
allowed us to capture feedback from
people who live in, work in, and visit
Hanford and incorporate their feedback
and ideas into the development
of this plan.

Partner and community
engagement took place
between Spring 2024
and Fall 2025.

Process Overview
2025

SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG
Project
Initiation
Site Visit & Vision
Workshop
Land Use &
Connectivity Analysis
Local Partners Working Group
Meeting 1
(Listening)
Local Partners Working Group
Meeting 2
(Collaboration)
Community
Meeting 1
Partners Working
Group
Rich dialogue and input from the
partners informed this process and
the outcome.

SEPT OCT NOV DEC
Draft Plan &
Report
Final Plan &
Report
Local Partners
Working Group
Meeting 3
(Informing)
Community
Meeting 2
“The foliage looked nice, but we have temperatures
over 100 degree in the summer, We need to use more
drougt tolerant plants.”
“I support the visionary document and planning work for the future while demonstrating how it plays out over time.” “Welcome New Tourists, New Visitors and New Residents”
“Community members have expressed
that they don’t want the focus to be on a
second city”
Ideal Location for Production & Innovation was
voted ‘South of the HSR Station.’
Spatial moves must support economic opportunity and
reinforce Hanford’s identity.

An ‘equal mix of residential and employment land
uses,’ was a top priority for majority of partners.

Desire to see how the short-term downtown focus and longterm station area build-out complement one another.

What We Heard
Listening, Collaborating, Informing
Early in the project, the project team
formed a PWG that invited key
representatives from state, regional, and
local agencies and organizations to play
an important role in this long-term effort.

These included, but are not limited to,
various City of Hanford departments,
Caltrans District 6, Kings County, the
California High-Speed Rail authority,
Kings Area Regional Transit (KART)
and others. The PWG met three times
throughout the project to provide critical
oversight and feedback on early findings
and proposed design concepts.

38 | Hanford Connected Process | 39
Engagement
The Thursday Night Market gave the
project visibility and allowed the project
team to engage with a large, diverse
group of community members who
may not have attended a traditional,
standalone public meeting. At each
event, we located our booths next
to the California High-Speed Rail
Authority, a key partner on this project,
so rail-focused questions and concerns
could more easily be addressed by
appropriate staff.

At each event, the project team used a
set of visually rich presentation boards to
share key project information and collect
input on the draft design approach
(workshop 1) and draft concepts
(workshop 2). Input from the interactive
boards and in-depth discussions with
community members was crucial for
refining the concepts presented in
subsequent chapters of this document.

Community
Workshops
To shape the development
of this plan, the project team
hosted two pop-up style
workshops at the City’s preexisting and popular Thursday Night Market.
“ Lets make Hanford more business-friendly!”
“Hanford has so much potential!”
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs! Including entry level!”
“More trees! Help increase natural habitats!”
“We need more trails, bike lanes, and bike rental options!” Preserve our city’s family-friendly, small-town feel!”
“The train is the future, and you can’t stop the future!” “Cross Valley Corridor bus rapid transit will help me get to Lemoore Naval Air Station!”
What We Heard
Figure 9 Photos from the community workshops held at the Thursday Night Market in the City of Hanford in May and October 2025.

This chapter presents ecological, demographic, and
market conditions that form the foundation for
context-specific design recommendations.
04Context

42 | Hanford Connected
Understanding Hanford’s land, water, climate, and habitat systems ensures this project responds thoughtfully to a changing landscape.

Learning from the Land
Water
Hanford sits within the southern San
Joaquin Basin, between two major
river systems fed by Sierra Nevada
snowmelt and runoff from the Coastal
Ranges. While these rivers once
supported wetlands and seasonal
floodplains across the Tulare Basin,
decades of channelization and
groundwater pumping have depleted
water availability. This context makes
groundwater recharge, stormwater
capture, and nature-based infiltration
strategies essential for longterm resilience.

Climate
The Hanford area experiences some of
the hottest and driest conditions in the
Central Valley, with low rainfall, intense
summer heat, and high solar exposure.

During winter, dense Tule fog settles
into the valley, trapping emissions and
particulate matter and worsening air
quality. These climate realities shape
how streets, buildings, and public spaces
must be designed to support shade,
comfort and cooling year-round.

Wind
Prevailing winds move from the
northwest across the site, carrying dust,
agricultural emissions, and wildfire
smoke during certain seasons. These
wind patterns help determine how the
TOD’s street grid and open-space system
can improve air movement, comfort, and
localized air quality through orientation,
planting, and cooling strategies.

Habitat
Rising soil salinity and alkalinity
pose growing threats to agricultural
productivity and native ecosystems
in the Hanford area. Reintroducing
native oak habitat corridors and
integrating regenerative agriculture
practices can help rebuild soil structure,
support groundwater recharge, and
enhance biodiversity. These ecological
components are foundational
to restoring landscape health
across the TOD.

Figure 10 A regional natural context map highlighting the City of Hanford’s relationship to historic and current waterways, wind patterns, tule fog, and the broader Tulare Basin.

Legend
California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR)
Cross Valley Corridor (CVC)
Natural Waterways
Constructed Waterways
Hanford City Limits
Water Flow Directions
Flood Hazard Zone

44 | Hanford Connected The Context | 45
Figure 6: Regional Natural Context - showing historic waterways, wind patterns, and the location of Hanford within the Tulare Basin.

Groundwater Depth and Flow
Groundwater in the Tulare Lake Sub
basin generally flows east to west,
moving from the Sierra foothills toward
the valley floor. Shallow aquifers near
Hanford provide the strongest recharge
potential, especially where historic
drainage channels and surface runoff
naturally converge. Deeper aquifers
are more depleted and recharge slowly
due to limited surface connection and
continued extraction. These patterns
help pinpoint where the TOD can
most effectively support groundwater
recharge recovery through green
infrastructure, stormwater capture, and
infiltration-focused open space.

Groundwater Well Conditions
Well data across Hanford shows a mix
of declining and stable groundwater
levels, reflecting both regional overdraft
and localized recharge potential. High
temperatures, low rainfall, and heavy
reliance on pumping place consistent
pressure on the aquifer. This illustrates
the consequences of continuing on
todays trajectory. The TOD aims to take
pressure off the current practice and
introduce closed-loop infrastructure to
relieve and replenish the existing system.)
Groundwater Subsidence
Long-term groundwater pumping has
contributed to 3 to 5.5 feet of gradual
land subsidence across parts of the
Tulare Lake Subbasin. Highlighting where
the groundwater system is under stress
and understanding these subsidence
trends helps identify where recharge,
conservation, and climate-responsive
land-use strategies can strengthen longterm water reliability for the community.

Hanford’s groundwater tells the story of a landscape under pressure. Learning where it flows, where it recharges, and where it is depleted helps guide strategies that restore aquifers and protect the city’s future.

Groundwater Challenges
Figure 11 Map showing groundwater impacts, including land subsidence, groundwater levels in monitoring wells, and regional
groundwater flow. High
Groundwater Subsidence Depth
Medium Low
Legend
California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR)
Cross Valley Corridor (CVC)
Natural Waterways
Constructed Waterways
Hanford City Limits
Groundwater Flow Directions
Groundwater Level Conditions
All Time High Below Normal
Above Normal All Time Low
Normal

46 | Hanford Connected The Context | 47
Commuting
People and Age
Population
Family Size Race
Median Age
People and Demographics
Hanford is home to approximately
61,200 residents, with a median age
of 32.7 and an average household size
of 3.58. A quarter of the population
is under age 15, reflecting a young
community with growing mobility,
education, and service needs. The city’s
strong Hispanic community; representing
over half of residents; contributes to a
vibrant cultural identity and reinforces
the importance of inclusive public
spaces, family-oriented amenities, and
accessible transportation options.

Health
Residents in Hanford and Kings County
experience several public-health
challenges shaped by regional air
patterns, agricultural dust, wildfire
smoke, and limited shade and activemobility infrastructure. Higher asthma rates, Valley Fever exposure, and
elevated obesity rates signal the need
for a built environment that supports
cleaner air, safer walking and rolling
routes, and climate-responsive design.

Improving access to parks, shade,
everyday services, and sustainable
transportation can directly enhance
long-term community health.

Understanding who lives in Hanford today, its families, workers, and cultural communities, helps shape a place
that reflects local needs, strengthens mobility choices, and supports a healthy, connected future.

Understanding Demographics Major Industries in Hanford
Water Use to Crop Yield
Jobs
Though historically agricultural,
Hanford’s job market now includes strong
employment in healthcare, education,
public administration, food packaging,
and dairy farming equipments and
supplements. This blend offers stability
while also chartering a path into
emerging sectors such as ag-tech, food
systems, clean-energy manufacturing,
and supply-chain services. Improved
regional mobility from High-Speed Rail
and the Cross Valley Corridor will expand
access to jobs within Hanford and across
the Valley, strengthening long-term
economic resilience.

Agricultural Trends
Kings County remains one of California’s
most productive agricultural regions,
producing high-value dairy, cotton,
walnut, pistachio, and specialty
vegetable crops. Yet limited water
supplies and shifting markets drive the
need to transition toward less waterintensive crops and more sustainable practices. Trends that will shape
future farmland around Hanford and
underscore the need for water-smart,
climate-ready planning within the TOD.

Emerging Opportunities
As agriculture evolves, the region is
well-positioned to expand value-added
industries that includes food processing,
packaging, logistics, ag-tech and
farming services, and renewable-energy
supportive industries. The TOD’s strategic
location near High-Speed Rail and
major highways creates opportunities
to develop a production and innovation
district, support small local businesses,
and strengthen education-tocareer pipelines that retain young residents in Hanford.

Hanford’s economy is anchored in agriculture but increasingly shaped by education, healthcare, logistics, and regional mobility, creating a foundation for new industries and a more resilient, diversified future.

Existing Market Conditions
Community Snapshot Economy Snapshot
Figure 12 A high-level synthesis of Hanford’s demographics and travel patterns in 2025.

Figure 13 A high-level snapshot of Hanford’s industry anchors and agricultural trends in 2025.
61,200

Planning
05Framework
This chapter introduces the planning framework for
the TOD, describing how climate-responsive design,
integrated mobility, and a connected open-space
network guide Hanford toward a resilient and
regenerative future.

Green Alleys
Corridors
Elevated Guideways
for CAHSR
Highway Buffers
Green Buffer
Groundwater Recharge Zone
Pocket Park
Oak Habitat
Regenerative
Agriculture Bands
California High-Speed
Rail and CVC Station
50 | Hanford Connected Planning Framework | 51
A foundation for a responsible
future physical environment that
translates the bold vision into an
implementable plan.

Grounded in climate-responsive
design, it weaves together diverse
land uses, multimodal mobility
choices, ecological systems, and
resource-efficient infrastructure
to shape a resilient and connected
community centered around the
future Kings–Tulare High Speed Rail
Station.

An intentional, integrated openspace approach ties together human and environmental health, honoring
Hanford’s agricultural heritage
while highlighting the future of
regenerative farming in California.

Together, this planning framework
offers a blueprint for a new, resilient
way of living in Hanford.

The Planning Framework

52 | Hanford Connected Planning Framework | 53
Figure 15 Map highlighting pathways of connectivity from the TOD site to the existing community of Hanford, showcasing a range of alternative transportation choices from walking, biking and easy public transit access along Lacey Boulevard and Cross Valley Corridor.

Figure 14 Map illustrating how existing blue and green infrastructure can be strengthened to create an integrated open-space framework with potential for water collection, treatment and recharge.

Figure 16 Maps identifying activity nodes across Hanford and showing how the TOD introduces supportive new economies and neighborhood amenities that compliment and preserve the city’s historic downtown and its local businesses.

We use our three reinforcing lenses
to understand Hanford’s needs and
guide decision making.

Our Approach
Community - A lens focused on
stitching together how people live,
move, gather, and access daily
needs to create connected, healthy
neighborhoods.

Environment - A lens that reads
land, water, climate, and habitat
to guide resilient, nature-led
development.

Economy - A lens centered on
strengthening the economic
ecosystem by growing uses that
complement and reinforce
another.

A Multi-Lens Framework
These lenses are used together to reveal
how Hanford’s physical, social, and
economic conditions intersect around
the future station. By reading the city
through these three lenses, this analysis
identifies where environmental systems
can be strengthened, where gaps in
daily mobility and open space can
be expanded, and where emerging
economic activity already anchors new
opportunities.

The following opportunity maps highlight
the corridors, districts, and open-space
connections that reveal itself, pointing to
places where targeted investment can
deliver the greatest benefit for Hanford’s
residents, businesses, and long-term
climate resilience.

54 | Hanford Connected Planning Framework | 55
Figure 17 Map layering existing
environmental conditions such
as the solar and wind patterns,
contours, site drainage, and soil
recharge potential, that inform the
placement and character of the
open space framework.

Understanding the site’s natural systems establishes the environmental foundation for the TOD. Wind patterns, solar exposure, and drainage conditions shape how comfort, shade, and water management can be supported in future design decisions, especially as Hanford experiences hotter summers and growing pressure on groundwater resources.

Wind
The site receives consistent westerly winds in summer
and cooler northerly winds in winter, creating a
predominant wind from the North-West year round.

These seasonal patterns informed the planning
framework, orienting streets and open-space corridors
to create parks, plazas, and promenades that have
improved air quality, are naturally cooler, and inviting for the community to connect, gather, and live an active lifestyle within the TOD.

Hydrology
Surface drainage patterns help shape the proposed
location of open spaces and vegetated corridors.

Areas with higher groundwater recharge potential,
identified through the California DWR AEM Surficial
Recharge Map, particularly in the northeast portion of
the site, have been prioritized as an aquifer recharge
zone for maximum infiltration. Similarly, the natural
low point in the southwest corner offers opportunities
for water collection and infiltration. Together, these
naturally occurring recharge zones function as valuable habitats and play a defining role in structuring the open space network.

Solar
Hanford’s high solar exposure and long summer days
mean shading and orientation significantly influence
comfort in public spaces. Understanding how the sun
moves across the site, especially in relation to east–west streets helped identify where shade, planting, and
heat-mitigation strategies may be most effective in the planning framework.

Aquifer Recharge Zone
Low Point: Water Capture
& Infiltration
Working with the Climate
0 0.25 0.50Mi

56 | Hanford Connected Planning Framework | 57
Figure 18 Map showing a climate-informed
street grid, where grid orientation is
shaped by environmental analysis
and block sizes are borrowed from
Downtown Hanford to enhance
walkability.

Working with the site’s natural systems helps shape a neighborhood that stays cooler, more comfortable, and more resilient in Hanford’s hot-dry climate.

Street Grid Orientation
The diagonal grid is shaped directly by the site’s
environmental conditions rather than a conventional
east–west layout. By rotating the grid to sit between
prevailing northwest winds and the arc of the hottest
summer sun, streets receive more consistent shade
across the day. This orientation also improves natural
ventilation: air can move diagonally across blocks,
cooling public spaces and reducing heat buildup. The
result is a street network that works with Hanford’s
climate, staying cooler and more comfortable.

Bikeable, Walkable, Rollable
To reinforce local identity, the framework adopts the
familiar 400’ × 270’ block size from Downtown Hanford,
then rotates it so the shorter edge fronts the hottest side of the street. This reduces the length of sun-exposed
walking distances, increases crossing frequency, and
creates more opportunities for self-shading between
buildings. Compact blocks also shape a fine-grained,
human-scaled network that supports biking, rolling,
and local trips to parks, work, and transit.

Combined, the diagonal grid and Hanford-scaled
blocks deliver a climate-informed street system that
feels locally grounded, highly walkable, and designed
for everyday comfort in a hot-dry Central Valley
environment.

A Healthy Street Grid
0 0.25 0.50Mi
400’
270’
Borrowing Downtown Hanford’s
Block Size, Rotated so the Short
Edge Runs North–South
High-Speed Rail Station Area
- Future Coordination with
CAHSR

58 | Hanford Connected Planning Framework | 59
Figure 20 Map showing the TOD’s open-space
framework shaped by the principles of
the ecological matrix.

Figure 19 Illustrating the concept of the
ecological matrix and highlighting the
relationships between hubs, patches,
and corridors.

By responding to Hanford’s natural systems, the framework delivers cooler, healthier places to live, for all living things.

The Ecological Matrix
The Hanford TOD Open Space Network centers
on an Ecological Matrix of Hubs, Patches, and
Corridors, shaped by local soils, drainage, wind, and
agricultural conditions. Hubs are placed where cooling, groundwater recharge and community life are most
needed, Corridors follow natural flow paths and key
mobility routes, and smaller Patches are woven into
neighborhoods. Together, these elements create a
resilient open-space system that supports daily life,
biodiversity, and Hanford’s agricultural identity.

Hubs
Hubs are the district’s largest open spaces, often 10+
acres, located where shade, cooling, and habitat
have the strongest impact. They anchor recreation,
groundwater recharge, and community programs, with
room for a range of uses.

Patches
Patches are 0.5–2 acres green spaces embedded
within residential blocks and near key destinations.

They provide shade, seating and biodiversity pockets,
as everyday neighborhood touchpoints.

Corridors
Corridors follow major site connections, creating
continuous green routes for walking, biking, habitat,
and stormwater. They add shade, native planting,
and stormwater infrastructure while linking hubs and
patches into a unified system.

Hub
Hub
Patches
Patches
Corridor
Corridor
Corridor
Hub
Open Space Framework
0 0.25 0.50Mi

60 | Hanford Connected Planning Framework | 61
Cool the surrounding Humidifying dry winds through evapotranspiration Increase biodiversity
Increase
biodiversity
Sequesters CO2
in the soil
Trees as buffer to reduce
particulate pollution
Improve
soil quality
Rotational Grazing
for livestock
Pollinator
corridors Aquifer
recharge Figure 23 Map identifying Hubs for groundwater recharge and regenerative agriculture
informed by climate analysis, topography,
and also strategic highway buffers to shield
Figure 21 Regenerative Agriculture Figure 22 Groundwater Recharge Zones residents from noise and pollutants.

Regenerative Agriculture Bands
The regenerative agriculture bands follow natural topographic contours, using a keyline-inspired strategy that slows, spreads, and absorbs runoff as it moves from northeast to southwest. Because these bands are contour-based rather than parcelbased, the system can expand seamlessly beyond the TOD boundary, reflected in the map’s extended green areas and create a guide to be able to expand across future development. Within the TOD, the bands improve soil health, support sustainable food production, and create a vegetated buffer that reintroduces agricultural identity while reducing particulate pollution from surrounding roadways.

Groundwater Recharge Zones
Groundwater recharge zones occupy the site’s highest-performing infiltration soils, including the northeast recharge hotspot identified through Kings County AEM data and the southwestern low point. These hubs are designed as large surface areas that absorb, filter, and store stormwater, strengthening long-term water resilience for the community. Native planting systems, shaded paths, and habitat features keep these areas ecological and accessible, while their pairing with highway-buffer landscapes uses prevailing winds to reduce noise ,humidify dry winds, clean particulate pollution, and cool the air for nearby neighborhoods.

The TOD’s two largest hubs, each over 10 acres, are placed in the northeast corner and southwest low point, where soils absorb the most water. Their location allows them to act as major recharge areas while providing expansive open spaces that anchor the ecological network and offer opportunity for agriculture regeneration uses,while also buffering nearby homes Groundwater
Recharge Zones
Regenerative
Agriculture Bands
Highway
Buffers
Groundwater Recharge Zones
(Further coordination with Caltrans
needed)
Agriculture Buffers
Open Space Framework
Hubs
0 0.25 0.50Mi

62 | Hanford Connected Planning Framework | 63
Shaded pedestrian
paseos connecting
patches
Biodiversity
corridors
Recreation spaces
for children
Cool the surrounding air
through evapotranspiration
Increase
biodiversity
Biodiversity habitat
zone
Aquifer
recharge
Recreation
space
Reduces
Urban Heat Island
effect
Biodiversity
corridors
Small open spaces between 0.5–5 acres are woven throughout the TOD to support neighborhood livability, biodiversity, cooling, and daily access to nature. Each contributing differently to the ecological matrix while strengthening comfort and identity in Hanford’s climate.

Patches
Patches
0 0.25 0.50Mi
Open Space Framework
Patches
Figure 28 Map illustrating the patch network within the ecological matrix and its connection to the
broader open space framework. Figure 24 Pocket Park Figure 25 Miyawaki Forest Figure 26 Bio-Retention Figure 27 Green Roof Pocket Park
Pocket parks offer shaded retreats
embedded within residential blocks, an
essential amenity in Hanford’s climate.

Their tree canopy, seating, and play
areas cool nearby homes and paseos,
strengthen walkability, and provide
families everyday access to nature. By
capturing small amounts of runoff and
linking to nearby corridors, they support
the neighborhood’s ecological network.

Miyawaki Forest
Miyawaki forests create fast-growing
native woodland pockets that deliver
shade and biodiversity in a compact
footprint. Their dense planting structure
performs well in Hanford’s heat, cooling
surrounding homes and paseos through
evapotranspiration. Once established,
they become distinct neighborhood
anchors that reinforce identity
and comfort.

Bioretention Zones
Bioretention zones filter runoff before it
enters Hanford’s groundwater system,
using native vegetation and shallow
basins suited for long dry periods. These
patches provide cooling, habitat, and
small recreation edges while functioning
as decentralized water infrastructure that
complements the larger recharge hubs.

Green Roofs
Green roofs extend the ecological
matrix onto mixed-use and multifamily
buildings, reducing heat gain, lowering
energy demand, and supporting
pollinator habitat.These elevated
landscapes echo the region’s agricultural
heritage and work with ground-level
patches to enhance neighborhood
cooling and resilience.

64 | Hanford Connected Planning Framework | 65
Figure 29 Green Streets Figure 30 Green Alleys Figure 31 Oak Habitat along Florinda Avenue Figure 32 Map showing the location of green
corridors that connect and complete
the open-space framework.

Separated and
shaded bike paths
Shaded pedestrian
paseos
Oaks are rich hosts of
biodiversity
Shared backyard
community gardens Continuous
habitat paths
Major east–west and north–south streets double as the TOD’s green corridors, stitching planting, shade, passive cooling, and stormwater systems directly into Hanford’s block structure. These routes follow both mobility desire lines and environmental flow paths, creating comfortable, shaded, and ecologically connected streets that support everyday walking, biking, and habitat movement.

Green Streets
Grangeville Boulevard, Lacey Boulevard, Florinda
Avenue, and Loop Road serve as the backbone of
the corridor network. Their wide rights-of-way allow
for stormwater planters, generous shade canopies,
protected bike lanes, and comfortable pedestrian
zones—transforming Hanford’s principal arterials into
cool, green mobility spines that create comfortable
connections from neighborhoods to the station
and downtown.

Green Alleys
Running north–south through the grid, these alleys
become micro-corridors that capture breezes, introduce
planting into the center of residential blocks, and
provide opportunities for community gardens, shared
backyards, and small seating or recreation spaces.

They help cool parts of the neighborhood while also
providing a more porous built form.

Oak Habitat
Along Florinda Avenue, a continuous oak habitat
corridor restores a native plant system historically found in the Valley. This linear grove improves soils, shades pathways, and supports biodiversity while creating a
unique identity for the TOD. It also links directly to the future Heroes Park, forming a long habitat corridor that ties Hanford’s green spaces together.

Oak Habitat along
Florinda Avenue
Green Streets
Green Alleys
Open Space Framework
Corridors
0 0.25 0.50Mi

66 | Hanford Connected Planning Framework | 67
HUBS

PATCHES

CORRIDORS
Apricot Lane Farm, Moorpark, California
Garden Village, Berkeley, California, U.S.A - Stanley Saitowitz | Natoma Aarchitects Inc. Heritage Forest, Chelsea, U.K - SUGI Forests Town Branch Commons, Lexington, Kentucky, U.S.A - SCAPE Moorpark, California, U.S.A Sjokanten Park, Stavanger, Norway - A-Lab Historic Highlands, Pasadena, California - Carol Momsen Pogo Park, Richmond, California, U.S.A - Elm Playlot / KQUED, Nancy Deville Tanner Springs Park, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A - Dreseitl Consulting Five Rivers Metropark Harbin Qunli Stormwater Park, China - Turenscape Forest Park in St. Louis, Missouri

68 | Hanford Connected Planning Framework | 69
The Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail Station TOD is an opportunity to design an infrastructure system that honors Hanford’s deep relationship with elements of the natural environment and lays the groundwork for a new paradigm of ecological responsiveness that strengthens the community’s bond with environmental health and fosters a sense of connection to nature.

Grounded in the sensibility of water as a precious
resource, the diagram illustrates a vision for an
integrated, closed- loop infrastructure system for
the Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail Station TOD. It is
designed to mirror natural cycles, weaving together
water, energy, agriculture, and waste streams into a
regenerative urban ecosystem. This systems thinking is
embedded in the proposed TOD planning framework,
with regenerative agriculture bands and groundwaterrecharge zones to bioretention landscapes, bioswalelined streets, oak habitats, and the ambient energy loop envisioned along the Loop Road.

Water - Rainfall is captured through rainwater
harvesting systems, stored in cisterns, or directed into a network of bioswales that naturally filter runoff
and recharge the aquifer, strengthening the region’s
long-term water resilience. Additionally, wastewater
reclaimed from the existing wastewater treatment plant
after tertiary treatment and UV purification is reused
for agricultural irrigation, street trees, and landscape areas within the TOD. This integrated approach creates
a closed loop water cycle that minimizes waste and
reduces dependence on groundwater pumping.

Energy - At the heart of the district, an ambient energy loop along the Loop Road connects buildings, using
heat exchangers, cooling towers, and photovoltaic solar panels to balance energy across the development.

Excess heat is absorbed or rejected through the
loop, improving efficiency, while solar power feeds
local electrical demand. A fuel cell system produces
clean hydrogen (H₂) and additional energy, further
diversifying the district’s renewable energy sources.

Agriculture - The region’s agricultural economy is
celebrated and fully integrated into the loop as a
demonstration of sustainable farming possibilities.

Crops in the regenerative agriculture bands in the TOD
receive reclaimed irrigation water and, in turn, produce food that supports local consumption. Livestock and
agriculture generate organic by-products, which
are collected for organic waste treatment. Methane
produced from this process is converted into useful
energy, while solid waste is reintegrated into the system as fertilizer or soil amendments. Any excess renewable
energy generated is sent back to the grid.

Together, the TOD operates as a living system—
where water is reused, energy is renewable, waste
becomes a resource, and agriculture and urban life
are interdependent. This regenerative model not only
reduces environmental impact but also strengthens
economic and community resilience, establishing
Hanford’s Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail Station TOD
Plan Area as a blueprint for sustainable development.

Closed Loop Infrastructure
Figure 33 Illustratinga regenerative
closed loop framework for
energy, water, waste, and
agriculture.Demonstrating
how the TOD and the City of
Hanford can function as one
integrated ecosystem.

70 | Hanford Connected Planning Framework | 71
A connected, human-scaled street network makes it easy for residents, visitors, and future High-Speed Rail riders to move comfortably through the TOD and to the existing city fabric on foot, bike, transit, and car.

Street Network
Figure 34 Map illustrating the proposed
street network and its integration
with the existing connectivity of
the City of Hanford.

Hanford Connected
The TOD’s street network builds on Hanford’s existing
fabric, extending familiar neighborhood routes
and introducing new east–west and north–south
connections that link directly to the High-Speed Rail
station area and neighborhoods of the TOD.

Each street is designed for safe, multimodal movement,
offering shaded sidewalks, crossings, and clear routes
for walking, rolling, biking, and transit. This network forms the backbone of everyday mobility, tying together neighborhoods, parks, the station, and Downtown.

Boulevards & Local Streets
Two primary street types organize the street network.

Boulevards, including Lacey Boulevard, Grangeville
Boulevard, Florinda Avenue, and Loop Road; carry
higher volumes of people and activity, with wider rightsof-way, protected bike lanes, and a robust tree canopy that make long-distance travel between neighborhoods
and the station comfortable in Hanford’s hot climate.

Local Streets weave through residential blocks,
providing slow-speed, shaded, walkable routes that
connect homes to parks, schools, and neighborhood
amenities, and purposely place trees on sunnier street
edges to create a comfortable pedestrian experience as
well as provide shade for adjacent buildings.

Together, these street types create a legible multimodal network that supports daily life, future transit, and
development growth.
0 0.25 0.50Mi
Legend
Existing Boulevards
Proposed Boulevards
Green Alleys

72 | Hanford Connected Planning Framework | 73
Aligned with Hanford’s Active Transportation Plan, the bike network provides continuous, protected, and intuitive routes for everyday biking.

Bike Network
Figure 35 Class I Shared Use Path
0 0.25 0.50Mi
Figure 36 Class III Bike Route
Figure 38 Map illustrating the proposed
multi-class bike network and its
extensions built upon Hanford’s
existing bicycle system.

Figure 37 Class IV Separated Bikeway
Prioritizing Active Transportation
Building on Hanford’s Active Transportation Plan,
the TOD bike network provides shaded, low-stress
routes connecting neighborhoods to the High-Speed
Rail station, Downtown, parks, and key destinations.

At-grade crossings along the CVC corridor ensure
safe, legible north–south movement (see Chapter 07 -
Implementation for details).

Class I - Shared Use Path
Fully separated, high-comfort paths for walking, rolling, and biking along the CVC corridor, Highway 43*, and
major open-space hubs, offering shaded, car-free
connections.
*The Highway 43 shared-use path will require continued coordination with Caltrans.

Class III - Bike Route
Low-speed local streets forming continuous, easy-tonavigate neighborhood connections, enhanced with shade for riders of all ages and abilities. These bikeways share right of way with slow vehicular traffic.

Class IV - Separated Bikeway
Fully separated, high-comfort lanes on major
boulevards (Lacey, Florinda, Grangeville, Loop Road),
supporting higher-volume travel, direct transit
connections, and wide planted zones for shade, safety,
and visibility.
* Class I - Shared Use Path
along Highway 43 - Future
Coordination with CalTrans

74 | Hanford Connected Planning Framework | 75
These boulevards function as the TOD’s major multimodal connectors, shaping the arrival experience from the High-Speed Rail station and linking seamlessly to Downtown Hanford and neighborhoods throughout the TOD.

Boulevards
Lacey Boulevard & Loop Road
Figure 41 Conceptual Section of Lacey Boulevard and Loop Road Key Plan
Figure 39 Class I Shared Use Path with planted pathway along street edge. Figure 40 A lively street with shade, seating and dedicated bike lanes.

Lacey Boulevard
Lacey Boulevard defines the primary east–west spine of the TOD, setting the tone for Hanford’s identity as a walkable, shaded, climate-responsive Central Valley city. Its generous 80-foot right-of-way accommodates wide clear walkways, protected bike lanes, planted medians, and transit-supportive travel lanes.

The boulevard’s canopy trees and landscape buffers are designed to continuous shade that makes walking and rolling comfortable throughout the day and doubles as stormwater infrastructure.

As the main boulevard to the High-Speed Rail station, Lacey Boulevard acts as an inviting gateway, providing a dignified arrival sequence framed by greenery, active frontages, and safe multimodal access. Lacey Boulevard moves visitors and residents reliably while offering a comfortable, legible and distinctive experience.

Loop Road
This boulevard functions as an 80-foot community boulevard that connects the different neighborhoods and districts throughout the TOD. Its design emphasizes slow, comfortable circulation with shaded pathways, continuous planting, and access to parks, housing, and key TOD amenities.

Loop Road reinforces the neighborhood’s pedestrian-first character, offering a welcoming edge condition that buffers homes from traffic while providing safe connections to the local street network and other major boulevards.

It is both an organizing armature and a soft, green threshold that introduces the tone of the district: shaded, accessible, and easy to navigate for all modes.

76 | Hanford Connected Planning Framework | 77
Imagined as a neighborhood boulevard that doubles as a
continuous native oak habitat corridor.

Boulevards
Florinda Avenue
Figure 44 Conceptual Section of Florinda Avenue
Key Plan
Figure 42 Shared Use Path with stormwater infrastructure adjacent. Figure 43 Oak canopy showing extensive shading.

Florinda Avenue
Florinda Avenue is designed as a shaded, walkable neighborhood boulevard that also serves as a key 80-foot ecological spine within the TOD. Its right-of-way accommodates wide walkways, protected bike lanes, and generous planting zones, with a North street side zone dedicated to native oaks, to create large areas of shade and habitat.

Acting both as a mobility and habitat connector, Florinda strengthens neighborhood identity while linking residents to Heroes Park, nearby patches, the TOD and the broader street network. The corridor’s native oak plantings recall the region’s historical landscapes, cools the TOD, filters air, supports groundwater recharge, and local biodiversity. These qualities establish Florinda as a green, climate-resilient backbone for the surrounding neighborhoods.

78 | Hanford Connected Planning Framework | 79
Serving as a regional boulevard that supports high-capacity transit, commercial uses, and safe active mobility.

Boulevards
Grangeville Boulevard
An East-West Boulevard
Grangeville Boulevard functions as secondary regional connector, an east–west mobility spine designed to serve residents, commuters, and future transit riders. Its 80-foot right-of-way balances high-capacity travel with a safe, comfortable public realm, featuring separated bicycle lanes, wide pedestrian zones, and generous planting that prioritizes stormwater medians due to its prime location in the aquifer recharge zone.

As a key secondary link between the High-Speed Rail station and the northern part of the existing city fabric. Grangeville supports transit-ready development for future potential growth and commercial activity along its edge. Creating a cooler, more comfortable environment for walking and biking while visually stitching the TOD into the broader city - establishing Grangeville as an essential, future-ready boulevard.

Figure 47 Conceptual Section of Grangeville Boulevard
Key Plan
Figure 45 Multi-modal street with robust planting for groundwater recharge. Figure 46 Commercial businesses with generous pedestrian walkways.

80 | Hanford Connected Planning Framework | 81
Serving as a major north–south connector that provides
controlled truck access from Highway 198 and establishes a strong buffered edge for future development.

Boulevards
7th Avenue
Figure 50 Conceptual Section of 7th Avenue
Key Plan
Figure 48 Generous green buffer with travel lanes in an industrial zone. Figure 49 Clear pathways alongside a truck traffic street.

A North-South Boulevard
7th Avenue functions as a north-south boulevard located at the TOD’s most eastern edge. Designed to safely manage truck movements while establishing a clear transition between Production and Innovation uses, current existing farmland, and future development sites. Its wide right-of-way and turn-lane capacity support freight access from the highway, reducing truck circulation within the TOD’s residential and mixed-use districts.

Generous planting buffers create a green, more comfortable edge condition that softens adjacency from the street and the future Production and Innovation parcels delineated in the ‘Neighborhoods & Districts’ chapter, while also working with prevailing winds to disperse dust and particulate pollution, improving air quality for nearby homes.

82 | Hanford Connected Planning Framework | 83
A new north–south connector that manages highway traffic while extending a shaded linear park linking neighborhoods to Heroes Park.

Boulevards
9th Avenue
Figure 53 Conceptual Section of 9th Avenue
Key Plan
9th Avenue
Envisioned as a new, 110-foot high-functioning connector created in tandem with the planned Highway 198 interchange. Its extended alignment provides a direct route for vehicles entering and exiting the highway, easing pressure on neighborhood streets. Despite its regional role, the boulevard is designed with a strong ecological and community character; a continuous linear park runs along its length, creating a green thread that ties neighborhoods to Heroes Park.

Shaded walkways, protected two way bike facilities, and native planting support comfortable, climate-responsive travel, while generous buffers soften the impact of increased traffic. As both a major movement corridor and a habitat-supporting green edge, 9th Avenue balances city wide access needs with a distinctive identity.

Figure 51 Linear Park alongside a road edge. Figure 52 Generous walkway and planted buffer along a busy road.

84 | Hanford Connected Planning Framework | 85
Within the TOD, local streets form the fine-grain network that supports everyday movement, short walking trips, and neighborhood-scale comfort. Designed to complement the
broader boulevard system, they reinforce Hanford’s climateresponsive urban character with shade, planting, and safe active mobility on every block.

Local Streets
Figure 56 Conceptual Section of Local North-South Streets Figure 57 Conceptual Section of Local East-West Streets Key Plan
Key Plan
Figure 54 Green and drought tolerant native planting. Figure 55 A local street with community farming.

Local North-South Streets
The 60-feet North–south local streets reinforce the TOD’s passive cooling strategy by planting trees on both sides of the street, creating a continuous canopy that shades sidewalks and filters prevailing breezes helping draw cooler air through the neighborhood.

As calm, slow-speed streets that connect homes to parks, schools, and key east–west boulevards, these corridors deliver a comfortable walking and biking experience while maintaining the TOD’s green, pedestrian-first character.

Local East- West Streets
The 46-feet East–west local streets despite compact right-of-ways use strategic, north-side tree placement to maximize shade during the hottest hours and provide solar protection for adjacent buildings. The narrower width also affords opportunity for passive shading through building form.

These streets extend the TOD’s ecological and passive-cooling systems at the micro scale, linking homes, plazas, and mixed-use areas with shaded routes that support active mobility. Their integrated planting and green infrastructure make them climate-smart connectors that complete the neighborhood network.

Neighborhoods
06 & Districts
This chapter outlines how housing, jobs, social
spaces, and open space shape a complete,
walkable community around the future station. A
mix of residential neighborhoods, an employment
district, and an institutional anchor aims to
strengthen Hanford’s economy, and create a vibrant
place to live, work, and gather.

88 | Hanford Connected Neighborhoods & Districts | 89
This land use framework is a calibrated mix of uses - homes, jobs, open space, and community facilities balanced into a framework that supports walkability around the future station and grows in harmony with Hanford’s existing neighborhoods.

Land Use
Land Use Framework
Organized around four complementary components:

Mixed Use Neighborhood concentrated near the future
Kings–Tulare High-Speed Rail Station, Residential
Neighborhood that transition toward existing Hanford’s
residential community, a Production and Innovation
district that supports local employment and agadjacent industries, and an institutional anchor that reflects the region’s strengths in education, healthcare, and ag-tech. This arrangement creates a walkable,
transit-integrated TOD where daily needs are close
by and where new growth strengthens Hanford’s
established urban fabric.

Integration with Open Space & Agriculture
These land uses are shaped by, and integrated with,
the site’s open space network. Residential areas sit
alongside the ecological matrix of hubs, patches, and
corridors—giving residents direct access to shaded
recreation and everyday nature. Regenerative
agricultural bands not only follow the site’s natural
drainage contours, but support the Production and
Innovation district, frame the institutional anchor, and create a community-oriented growing zone near a
major regional transit hub, giving it a distinct identity and positioning it as a catalyst for complementary food and culinary enterprises to co-locate.

Together, the land-use and open space network
creates a cohesive neighborhood where open space,
agriculture, and development reinforce one another.

Legend
Label du/ac Size (acres)
Mixed Use Neighborhood >40 du/
ac 191 acres
Residential Neighborhood <40 du/
ac 130 acres
Production and Innovation District 60 acres
Institutional District 32 acres
Parking 11 acres
Hubs/Patches/Highway Buffers 294 acres
Agricultural Bands 58 acres
0 0.25 0.50Mi
Figure 58 Map illustrating the calibrated
mix of uses for the TOD along with
the robust open space network.

Existing Substation

Community facilities with access
from public pocket park
Shared lots and podium parking
that support walkable blocks
Linear patch
that acts as stepping stone
for biodiversity
This plan concentrates intensity
of uses and vibrancy around
High-Speed Rail Station.

Mixed Use
Neighborhood
Housing
Mixed use neighborhoods form the most
active areas of the TOD—positioned
closest to the future Kings–Tulare HighSpeed Rail Station, adjacent to the Loop Road, and along key east–west corridors.

Housing types typologies promote a mix
of diverse housing choices for people of
all incomes, age-groups, and household
sizes. This supports transit ridership and
offer attainable homes for Hanford’s
growing workforce and young families.

Buildings are oriented to capture
prevailing northwest winds and are
arranged to frame shaded paseos and
neighborhood green areas.

Commercial &
Neighborhood Services
Major boulevards in the TOD offer
opportunities for farm-to-table
restaurants, small businesses, childcare,
schools and neighborhood-serving retail,
uses that bring daily life closer to the
station and support both residents and
commuters. An integrated open space
network provides park frontages and
spaces to host community events and
farmers-market pop-ups.

This plan creates communities.

Residential
Neighborhood
Housing
Residential neighborhoods line the
quieter edges of the TOD, transitioning
toward existing residential community
west of 10th Avenue and north of
Lacey Boulevard. These blocks include
townhomes, duplexes, and triplexes that
offer more private outdoor space while
still maintaining quick connections to
parks, green streets, and transit. Green
north–south alleys improve airflow, heat
mitigation, while preserving Hanford’s
familiar residential scale.

Open Space
Neighborhood patches, community
gardens, and green alleys are woven
throughout, linking households directly
to the broader ecological matrix.

These spaces provide shade, native
planting, biodiversity pockets, and social
opportunities—supporting health and
comfort in Hanford’s hot-dry climate.

Several residential neighborhood blocks
connect directly to the major open
space hubs and the residential-focused
agricultural band—offering handson learning, local food production, a stroll through the seed bank forest, and
recreational activities, such as trails,
sports and wildlife spotting.

Townhomes with green
alleys along the
north-south direction
Patches as central courtyards
and share the edge with the
north-south alley
90 | Hanford Connected Neighborhoods & Districts | 91
Figure 59 Illustrating an exemplar mixed-use block featuring housing, parking, community amenities, and integrated open spaces.

Figure 60 Flourishing community gardens within living
communities in Mariposa IV, DHA in Denver, CO
Figure 61 Multifamily housing with active ground floor spaces in San Luis Obispo
Figure 62 Illustrating an exemplar residential block with diverse townhome typologies opening onto north–south green alleys and courtyards designed to enhance natural wind flow.

Figure 63 Townhomes opening into central courtyard in
San Luis Obispo
Figure 64 Townhomes in San Luis Obispo

Better
pedestrian network
in an industrial
environment
Green pocket parks
as relief for employees
Production and
Innovation District
Uses
The Production and Innovation district
creates a dedicated employment zone
on the southeastern side of the TOD,
positioned between the High-Speed
Rail station, Lacey Boulevard, and the
Cross Valley Corridor. It supports agtech, light industrial, food processing, research, fabrication, and small logistics
businesses that build on Hanford’s
agricultural strengths. Flexible block
sizes accommodate a range of business
sizes, with walkable streets linking
employees to transit, open space,
nearby neighborhoods, and the
institutional district.

Open Space
Green pocket parks, shaded breaks,
and linear patches weave through
the district—improving comfort and
connecting workplaces to the broader
ecological matrix. These spaces add
shade, native planting, and places for
rest for workers. Adjacent agricultural
bands reinforce the district’s identity
with areas for demonstration crops,
regenerative farming, and hands-on
learning tied to local industry.

This plan fosters innovation
and economic opportunity.
92 | Hanford Connected Neighborhoods & Districts | 93
Figure 65 Illustrating an exemplar block in the Production and Innovation District that demonstrates how open spaces and green alleys can break down large block sizes and enhance walkability.

Figure 66 Showing how wide sidewalks and green
infrastructure improve walkability in industrial
parcels.

Figure 67 Depicting dedicated, segregated active
mobility lanes in industrial districts.

Figure 68 Demonstration farms within institutions
showcasing regenerative agriculture.

Agroforestry
Patch
Pistachios,
Olives and Lemons
Fruit Trees
and Bushes
Tomato and
Annual Crops
Forage
Zone Flowers
Zone
Flowers
Zone
Habitat
Patch
Open Orchard
Greenhouses
Vertical Farm
Farmers Market Pavilion
Agriculture Processing
Family Breweries
Ag Tech Campus
Institutional District
Uses
The institutional anchor sits at the heart of the TOD
beside the future Kings–Tulare High-Speed Rail Station— becoming a civic landmark for Hanford. Framed
as a hub for learning, innovation, and agriculture;
it builds on the Valley’s agricultural heritage while
preparing residents for the future. Whether realized as an ag-tech campus, medical or educational facility,
training center, or hybrid innovation hub, it combines
vocational training, applied research tied to local crops and soils, greenhouse and demonstration plots, and
year-round community programming. Surrounding
agricultural bands extend its mission through teaching
orchards, regenerative farming zones, and hands-on
demonstration areas.

Jobs
It enables partnerships with local employers and
educational institutions, strengthening Hanford’s
workforce pipeline in agriculture, ag-tech, health, and related industries, and supports long-term job creation.

By combining training, innovation, public amenities, and community events, the anchor becomes a destination
that reinforces local identity while helping residents
access new economic opportunities connected to the
region’s future.

Placemaking Opportunity
Anchored by the catalytic anchor, the TOD becomes
Hanford’s vibrant center for learning, innovation,
and sustainable agriculture, while also emerging as
a regional culinary destination. Farmers’ markets,
demonstration farms, and hands-on culinary
experiences would showcase local produce and
sustainable practices, connecting residents and visitors to the region’s agriculture and food.

California High-Speed
Rail and CVC Station
Anchored beside the future station, this institutional district becomes Hanford’s new center for learning, innovation, and regenerative agriculture demonstration— advancing a complementary future for the city of Hanford. 94 | Hanford Connected Neighborhoods & Districts | 95
Figure 69 Institution with drougt tolerant
planting.

Figure 70 Agricultural demonstration farms,
and educational communal gardens.

Figure 71 Depicting the potential for an
institution that promotes regenerative
farming while fostering community
through markets and events,
celebrating Hanford’s agricultural
identity.

07 Implementation
This chapter outlines public financing strategies to
support long‑term growth and infrastructure
around the station. Identifies priority capital
projects such as a separated multi-use path along
the CVC rail corridor and intersection improvements.

Public Facilities Financing Plan
A conceptual Public Facilities Financing Plan is intended to test the potential for project feasibility based on the infrastructure requirements to support the proposed densities outlined in Chapters 4.

Overview
The purpose of this concept financing plan is to support the City and the California High Speed Rail Authority
(CHSRA) in the future when they are developing a
consistent, defensible, and equitable framework
for funding the backbone infrastructure and public
facilities for the HSR Station Area.

This document includes methods and assumptions used
as industry standards in EPS’s work and in comparable
jurisdictions. The findings and recommendations
contained herein are intended to be used to guide
infrastructure and public facilities funding for capital facilities in the Project.

Data Limitations
Please note the following limitations to this Conceptual Financing Plan:
• Many of the infrastructure cost estimates used
in this analysis are planning level estimates and
were NOT developed by engineers for the Design
Package analyzed herein. The actual costs of
infrastructure improvements may vary significantly
from what is shown in this document.
• The feasibility of this development has not been
analyzed; whether the market demand will be able
to support the proposed development. If adequate
residential and commercial demand is not sufficient
at the time of development, the value that would
incentivize a developer to build is not there.
• Detailed phasing analysis will be needed to refine
financial planning, given the scale of development
and infrastructure needed.

Approach
To inform this study, EPS conducted a detailed review of the conceptual Station Area Plan land uses developed
by Perkins & Will in their Design Package Land Use Plan, developed planning-level costs using data gleaned
from prior work and partial information provided by the City’s Public Works Department, and estimated values
of the land use shown in the Design Package.

The research summarized in this study focuses on
several key areas, including:
• Estimating the total Backbone Infrastructure and
Public Facilities costs of the Station Area Plan
conceptual land use plan.
• Estimating potential Project Value.
• Estimating the potential funding based on existing
development impact fees and other City, County,
and other agency fees.
• Funding applicable through the formation of an
Infrastructure Community Facilities District (CFD).
• Funding applicable from the creation of a future
Station Area Impact Fee.

UU
NOVEMBER 2025
Map 1-1. Kings-Tulare HSR Station Area Context Map
Approach
To inform this study, EPS conducted a detailed review of the conceptual Station Area Plan land uses developed by Perkins & Will in their Design Package Land Use Plan, Figure 72 Kings-Tulare HSR Station Area Context Map by Census Tracts 98 | Hanford Connected Implementation | 99

Implementation
Development Program
According to the Project Design Package, a mix of
residential densities, nonresidential land uses, open
space, and agriculture development is planned for the
Project. The Design Package describes the land use
designations and the maximum allowable development
program as shown in Appendix A Table A-1. To estimate
the Project value, EPS assumes a buildout of 95 percent of the Design Package as follows:
• 9,263 dwelling units.
• 1.87 million square feet of nonresidential space.
• 305 acres of parks and open space.
• 11 acres of parking.

This Finance Plan assumes the above Project
development across approximately 790 acres of the
1,000 total acreage of the station area. The remainder
of the acreage will be dedicated for public rights-ofway. Figure 1-1 summarizes the proposed land uses evaluated for the purpose of this Finance Plan.

Land Use Designation Density Assumptions
Residential (95% Buildout)
Low Density 130 Acres, 1,853 Units (15 Dwelling Units/Acre) Medium Density (Mixed Use) 195 Acres, 7,410 Units (40 Dwelling Units/Acre) Total Residential 325 Acres, 9,263 Units
Non-Residential (95% Buildout)
Production & Innovation 60 Acres, 596,000 Square Feet at 0.30 FAR Institutional 32 Acres, 318,000 Square Feet at 0.30 FAR Commercial (Mixed Use) 58 Acres, 960,000 Square Feet at 0.50 FAR Total Non-Residential 150 Acres, 1,870,000 Square Feet
Open Space
Hubs/Open Space/Buffers 260 Acres
Agriculture 45 Acres
Total Open Space 305 Acres
Other
Parking 11 Acres
HSR Station and Track n/a
Cross Valley Corridor n/a
Internal Roads/Bike Lanes n/a
Existing Power Station n/a
Total Identified 791 Acres (of 1,000 Acres Total)
Nonresidential building area estimated based on Floor Area Ratios applied to net acreage for each land use.

Acreages shown above are gross acreages. Net acreages estimated as 80% of gross acres to account for internal roadways, sidewalks, and utilities.

Figure 73 Kings-Tulare HSR Station Area Land Use Designation Map 100 | Hanford Connected Implementation | 101

Implementation
Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities
Costs
Currently the Project is in the conceptual stages
of planning. Actual land uses, phasing, approval,
construction, and buildout of the Project will take many years, and for it to be fully realized, a multitude of
phases of development will occur.

Buildout of the Project is assumed to require the
following Facilities:
• Roads
• Bike Lanes
• Intersections
• Dry Utilities
• Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
• Water
• Storm Drainage
• Open Space
• Fire Facilities
• Sheriff/Law Enforcement
• Schools
• Other Public Facilities
Where available and noted, the cost estimates for the
required Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities
were estimated by the City’s Public Works department
based on the City utility master plans. The remaining
estimates are high-level planning level estimates
developed by EPS based on previous work. Future
development phasing for the Station Area must be
based on a marketdriven approach coordinated with
a phased infrastructure program. It is too early in the Project’s planning to provide estimated phasing, as the Project is still in its conceptual stages; any estimated phasing would be too speculative at this time.

Estimated Costs
As specified above, the estimated backbone
infrastructure and public facilities program for
the Station Area includes roads, standalone bike
lanes, intersections, dry utilities, onsite sewer, water, storm drainage, open space, fire facilities, Sherrif/
law enforcement, school, and other public facilities
improvements. The total identified cost of these
improvements is approximately $684.0 million, as is
shown in Figure 72.

NOVEMBER 2025
Table 1-1. Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Cost Estimates Summary (2025$) Conceptual Financing Strategy and Funding Sources
A wide variety of financing techniques are currently and may be available in the future to fund the Station Area Plan, including:
 Project-Based Developer Funding. Funding sources originating from developer Item Source Table Estimate Basis [1] Total % of Total
Backbone Infrastructure
Roads [2] Table B-1 Linear Feet $182.4 M 26.7%
Bike Lanes Table B-1 Linear Feet $144.5 M 21.1%
Intersections Table B-2 Assumes 20 intersections, 13 signalized $21.4 M 3.1% Dry Utilities Table B-3 Linear Feet $26.9 M 3.9%
Sewer and WWTP Table B-4 Linear Feet; Costs from City Sewer Master Plan $99.9 M 14.6% Water Table B-5 Linear Feet $62.1 M 9.1%
Storm Drainage Table B-6 Linear Feet $48.1 M 7.0%
Estimated Total Backbone Infrastructure $585.2 M 85.6%
Public Facilities
Open Space Table B-7 Per Acre $39.5 M 5.8%
Fire Facilities N/A Visalia Station 56 Cost $7.7 M 1.1% Sheriff/Law Enforcement Table B-8 City DIF Revenue $15.4 M 2.3% School Table B-8 City DIF Revenue $32.2 M 4.7%
Other Public Facilities Table B-8 County DIF Revenue $4.0 M 0.6% Total Public Facilities $98.8 M 14.4%
Estimated Total Cost $684.0 M 100.0%
Source: High-level cost estimates by EPS based on planning-level estimates for infrastructure in other jurisdictions, applied to land use plan. [3] Cost estimates are planning level estimates. Numbers shows above are for estimation purposes only and were not provided or validated by a professional engineer.
[1] Estimates based on linear feet use the total LF of roadways included in Perkins & Will's land use plan and apply planning-level unit costs for infrastructure in other jurisdictions. Includes 20% contingency and 10% soft costs. [2] Includes landscaped median and sidewalks; excludes Right of Way acquisition.

Estimated Cost [3]
Figure 74 Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Cost Estimates Summary (2025 Dollars) 102 | Hanford Connected Implementation | 103

Conceptual Financing Strategy and Funding
Sources
A wide variety of financing techniques are currently and may be available in the future to fund the Station Area Plan, including: • Project-Based Developer Funding. Funding sources originating from developer payments could include
the following subcategories: • Developer Funding via Payment of Existing and Proposed Fees: • Existing Fee Programs: Project
development will be subject to several
existing City, County, and other agency
development impact fee programs. Other
agency fee programs include fees for the
school district and the California Farmland
Trust Mitigation Fee.
• Proposed Fee Programs: Project
development would also be subject
to a new HSR Station Area Impact
Fee Program.
• Private Developer Funding. Capital provided by
the private developer through debt, equity, or
combination of both.
• Kings-Tulare HSR Station Area Special Financing
District (SFD). Certain facilities could be funded via
formation of a Kings-Tulare HSR Station Area SFD,
which may take the form of a Mello-Roos CFD.

Facilities funded through a CFD or other landsecured financing mechanism may directly overlap with facilities included in the proposed Station Area
Impact Fee Program. California High Speed Rail
Authority (CHSRA). Funding such as capital, grants
or loans, from the CHSRA.
• Other Potential Outside Sources of Funding
(Regional, State, and federal). Funding sources,
such as grants or loans, from State, federal, or other
agencies or institutions for which the City may
have to apply.

There is significant uncertainty concerning development of the Project, including the ultimate amount of
development that will occur, the sequencing of
development, the ultimate Improvements that will be
constructed, and the availability of many of the funding sources. As a result, the Finance Plan should be updated on an as-needed basis based on updated infrastructure
cost estimates, funding, and development information.

Preliminary Estimated Project Requirements and
Funding
Figure 33 shows the proposed funding sources, by
Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities category, for the full buildout of the conceptual Project. At
buildout under the conceptual funding strategy,
approximately $292.6 million is estimated to be funded
though land-secured financing (CFD); $194.6 million
is estimated to be funded by existing City, County,
and Other Agency fees; $32.6 million estimated to be
contributed by the CHSRA; and $170.0 million through
a new Station Area Plan Impact Fee (including fee
program administration).

NOVEMBER 2025
Table 1-2. Estimated Sources and Uses of Funding (2025$) Maintenance Funding
Various existing City/County development impact fee programs may provide more revenue than is needed to fund construction of the Project’s Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities. If there is a surplus in fee revenue, the City may elect to reserve the surplus to fund ongoing maintenance and repairs of the Project’s infrastructure.

Land-Secured
Financing [2]
Existing City/
County Fee
Programs
California HSRA
(Est. 5%
Contribution) [3]
(Proposed)
Station Area
Impact Fee
Total
Funding
Backbone Infrastructure
Roads, Intersections, and Bike Lanes $348.3 M $174.1 M $48.1 M $17.4 M $108.6 M $348.2 M X
Dry Utilities $26.9 M $13.4 M - $1.3 M $12.1 M $26.9 M
X
Sewer $99.9 M $50.0 M $21.3 M $5.0 M $23.7 M $99.9 M
X
Water $62.1 M $31.0 M $20.3 M $3.1 M $7.6 M $62.1 M
X
Storm Drainage $48.1 M $24.0 M $21.6 M $2.4 M - $48.1 M X
Subtotal Backbone Infrastructure $585.2 M $292.6 M $111.3 M $29.3 M $152.0 M $585.2 M Parks and Open Space $39.5 M - $27.5 M $2.0 M $10.0 M $39.5 M Fire Facilities $7.7 M - $4.5 M $0.4 M $2.8 M $7.7 M
X
Sheriff/Law Enforcement $15.4 M - $15.4 M $0.8 M - $16.1 M X
Schools $32.2 M - $32.2 M - - $32.2 M
X
Other Public Facilities $4.0 M $3.6 M $0.2 M $0.2 M $4.0 M X
Total Public Facilities $98.8 M - $83.2 M $3.3 M $13.0 M $99.6 M Subtotal Public Improvements $684.0 M $292.6 M $194.6 M $32.6 M $165.0 M $684.7 M Station Area Fee Program Administration [4] $4.9 M - - - $4.9 M $4.9 M Total $688.8 M $292.6 M $194.6 M $32.6 M $169.9 M $689.6 M Source: EPS.
[4] Assumes that fee program administration is assessed as 3% of the portion of the planned Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Improvements funded by the proposed Station Area Fee.

Item
Estimated Total
Cost [1]
Estimated Amount by Funding Source
CFD
Eligible
All figures rounded. Totals may not sum due to rounding Public Facilities
[1] Not engineer's estimates. Numbers shows above are for estimation purposes only and are not validated by a professional engineer. Costs exclude Right of Way acquisition. [2] Assumes 50% funding for CFD-funded improvements.
[3] Assumes 5% of total funding from HSRA for all improvements except for schools.

Figure 75 Estimated Sources and Uses of Funding (2025 Dollars) 104 | Hanford Connected Implementation | 105

Maintenance Funding
Various existing City/County development impact
fee programs may provide more revenue than is
needed to fund construction of the Project’s Backbone
Infrastructure and Public Facilities. If there is a surplus in fee revenue, the City may elect to reserve the surplus to fund ongoing maintenance and repairs of the Project’s
infrastructure.

Infrastructure Burden
A high level infrastructure burden test was prepared to examine the potential feasibility of the magnitude of
required Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities
included in the Project in comparison to the estimated
value of the Project.
1 The infrastructure cost burden indicates that the
estimated infrastructure costs are approximately 15
percent of the Project’s value. For a project to potentially have value to a developer, a typical threshold test for the infrastructure costs ranges between 10 percent and
15 percent of the Project’s value. As such, the conceptual Station Area Plan, while considered feasible under
this test, is approaching a cost burden that could be
considered financially infeasible. Please note that
this feasibility threshold may differ depending on a
developer’s financial criterion, a developer with an
interest in seeing the HSR developed may consider a
threshold above 15 percent. See Figure 34. 1 The market feasibility of this development has not been analyzed; whether the market demand will be able to support the proposed development.

If the demand is not there, the value that would incentivize a developer to build is not there.

Conclusion
Myriad other factors will affect the financial feasibility of the Station Area Project development, including:
timing; market positioning; valuation; and absorption
of all factors into the viability of vertical development; as well as competitive advantages or disadvantages
relative to other development projects in the region. This preliminary and high-level infrastructure cost burden
comparison offers one metric by which the competitive
position and financial feasibility of the Project may be evaluated. A more detailed Public Facilities Financing
Plan should be conducted once a concrete land
use plan has been reached, utilizing cost estimates
developed by professional engineers.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 Introduction and Summary of Findings once a concrete land use plan has been reached, utilizing cost estimates developed by professional engineers.

Table 1-3. Summary of Estimated Infrastructure Burden (2025$) Land Use
Estimation
Basis
Estimated
Value
Total Units /
Bldg. Sq/ Ft.

Total Estimated
Value (Rounded)
Residential [1] per Dwelling Unit 95% buildout
Low Density Residential Recent Sales $480,000 1,853 $889.0 M Medium Density Residential (Mixed Use) Recent Sales $390,000 7,410 $2,890.0 M Subtotal Residential 9,263 $3,779.0 M
Nonresidential [2] per Bldg. Sq. Ft. 95% buildout
Production and Innovation Recent Builds $300 595,901 $179.0 M Institutional Recent Builds $600 317,814 $191.0 M
Commercial (Mixed Use) Current Rents $390 960,062 $374.0 M Subtotal Nonresidential 1,873,777 $744.0 M
Estimated Total Development Value $4,523.0 M
Estimated Total Infrastructure Value [3] $684.0 M
Estimated Infrastructure Costs as % of Development Value 15.1% Source: The Gregory Group; CoStar; Nonresidential Developers; EPS. [2] Values for Production and Innovation and Institutional uses are based on construction costs of recent projects in Sacramento region. Production and Innovation is valued based on R&D uses, Institutional is valued based on Bio/Life Science uses. Commercial space is valued based on recent retail projects in Bakersfield, as the Bakersfield retail market is more mature than Hanford's and commands higher rents that may be reflective of those achievable once the HSR station is operational in Hanford.
[3] Not engineer's estimates. Numbers shows above are for estimation purposes only and are not validated by a professional engineer. Costs exclude Right of Way acquisition. [1] Estimated value for LDR and MDR units based on recent sales in Hanford. Sales data from the Gregory Group.

HDR unit values are based on current rents for newly-constructed multifamily projects in Hanford (assumes no vacancy or OPEX). Rent and capitalized value rate from CoStar. Accounting for maturation of the market and significant amenity value in the design package proposed by Perkins & Will, actual unit values may be higher.

Figure 76 Summary of Estimated Infrastructure Burden (2025 Dollars) 106 | Hanford Connected Implementation | 107

Conceptual Intersection Crossings and CVC Rail Corridor In coordination with Caltrans District 6 and the San Joaquin Regional Rail Corridor (SJRRC), the Plan presents planning-level conceptual designs for two major intersections along Highway 43, as well as a conceptual plan for the CVC Corridor.

Overview
The Plan recognizes that Highway 43 will remain an
auto‑oriented arterial with fast‑moving traffic for the foreseeable future, creating difficult and potentially
unsafe crossing conditions for streets designated as
active transportation corridors.

To mitigate these challenges, the Plan introduces
conceptual designs for two priority intersections—at
Florinda Avenue and at the junction with the CVC Bus
Rapid Transit and Multi‑Use Trail.

These locations are expected to see increased
pedestrian and bicycle activity, and the proposed
improvements are designed to enhance safety,
accessibility, and overall comfort for all users, ensuring that active transportation can coexist with the corridor’s vehicular function.

Action Items
In coordination with Caltrans, the following
implementation action items were identified and
should be considered during a future design phase of
this project. They are categorized by facilities shown in the conceptual designs.

General
• Refer to Caltrans Complete Streets element toolbox
for general use as conceptual designs are refined
and for other intersections in the future street grid,
especially near the station.
• Incorporate ADA compliant infrastructure into
designs, including but not limited to curb ramps,
warning features, high-visibility crosswalk markings,
and appropriate crossing times.
• Coordinate with Kings Area Regional Transit, which
provides local services and commuter connections.

If new or modified bus routes are planned in the
future, modify concept designs to incorporate
transit stop improvements such as seating, shelters,
and additional crossing improvements as needed.
• Coordinate with Tulare County Association of
Governments and Tulare County Rural Transit
Agency for the Cross Valley Express.
• Prepare a traffic study that evaluates operations,
safety, and queueing (including interactions with
CVC crossings and the roundabout at Highway
43 and Lacey Boulevard); documents warrant
evaluation; and further evaluates pedestrian hybrid
beacon versus traffic signal alternatives.

Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB) at Crossings
and Bus Stops (General)
• Implement adequate warning signing, striping,
additional advanced flashing beacons,
and other devices to ensure safe driver
compliance with RRFBs.
• Complete a traffic analysis to ensure that there is
adequate storage between closely spaced stop
controls under heavy pedestrian demand.
• Because leading pedestrian intervals are not
possible on for RRFBs, evaluate an alternative
approach of installing pedestrian countdowns and
a rapid yellow/red onset.

Fully Signalized Crossings (General)
• Implement adequate warning signing, striping,
additional advanced flashing beacons, and
other devices to ensure safe driver compliance to
traffic signals.
• Complete a traffic analysis to ensure that there is
adequate storage between closely spaced stop
controls under heavy pedestrian demand.
• Incorporate leading pedestrian intervals into traffic signals to give pedestrians a head start, especially
at wider intersections and locations with heavy
foot traffic.

Highway 43 & Florinda Avenue (Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon)
• At the north end of the intersection, consider
relocating the landscaped buffer south of
the bike lane.
• Assess additional first and last-mile connections
to this intersection, particularly to the east as new
streets and the station area get built out.
• Consider repaving the entire intersection when
Florinda Avenue is paved.
• Implement adequate warning signing, striping,
additional advanced flashing beacons, and other
devices to the north and south on Highway 43 to
ensure safe driver compliance to the pedestrian
hybrid beacon.
• Complete a traffic analysis to ensure that there is
adequate storage between closely spaced stop
controls under potential heavy pedestrian demand.
• Because leading pedestrian intervals are
not possible on for a pedestrian hybrid
beacon, evaluate an alternative approach of
installing pedestrian countdowns and a rapid
yellow/red onset.

Highway 43 & Cross Valley Corridor (Fully
Signalized Crossing)
• In future design phases, the City will be required to evaluate the intersection using the Intersection and
Signal Operations Analysis Procedure (ISOAP) to
ensure consistency with Caltrans policies.
• Implement pre-emption phasing and intersection
design features to prevent queueing and landing
in “trap zone” between the railroad tracks and stop
bar placement.
• When creating a phasing sequence for the
intersection and signal timing, consider avoiding
scenarios that could lead to conflicts between
pedestrians, vehicles, and rail gate lowering.
• Coordinate traffic signal and rail crossing flashers
to reduce driver confusion.
• Add “CLEAR” signing and markings between traffic
signals and railroad warning devices.
• Implement a railroad pre-emption design to ensure
coordination between traffic signals, pedestrian
phases, and Bus Rapid Transit during rail preemption events. 108 | Hanford Connected Implementation | 109

Highway 43 and Florinda Avenue Intersection Highway 43 and CVC BRT Intersection Hanford TOD Rail Station - Crossing Exhibits

HIGHWAY 43 LEGEND:
&

FLORINDA AVENUE

CITY OF HANFORD

RAIL STATION TOD

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
STREET IMPROVEMENTS:
• Highway 43 is classified as a minor
arterial road despite the Highway
moniker.
• Highway 43 is a two lane highway with a
speed limit of 55 MPH.
• Florinda Ave is a major collector street
with associated levels of traffic and a
wide right-of-way of 80’-110’. There are no
current bike or pedestrian facilities.
• According to the Hanford Active
Transportation Plan, Florinda Ave is a
prime candidate for a separated bikeway.
• The Hanford Active Transportation Plan
also notes that the current Florinda Ave
is a Bicycle Level of Stress of 3 out of a
possible 4 points; “Involves interaction
with moderate speed or multilane traffic,
or close proximity to higher speed traffic.

A level of traffic stress acceptable
to those classified as “enthused and
confident.”
HIGHWAY 43 & FLORINDA AVE
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’

HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK

PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON

ADVANCE STOP

CROSSING SIGNAGE
A safe crossing begins with a high visibility
crosswalk. Easy to spot by pedestrians and drivers
alike, the crosswalk lets users know where the
safest place to cross is.

Pedestrian hybrid beacons are designed to allow
safe pedestrian and bicyclist movement across
higher-speed roadways. Just a step below a
complete signalization, this signal assigns rightof-way and provides positive stop control.

On a high-speed road like Highway 43, leveraging
more distance before a vehicle has to stop is key
for a safe crossing. Moving the stop bar back at
a minimum of 40 feet from the signal head and 4’
minimum from the crosswalk can help drivers slow
down when necessary and avoid cars stopping too
close to the crosswalk.

Additional crossing signage at this location further
reinforces safety as it lets drivers know this is a
sensitive area. Retroreflective paint, or tape, can
help in a darker condition such as this part of the
highway at night.

Separated Bikeway
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Crossing Signage
High Visibility Crosswalk
STOP
STOP
STOP HIGHWAY 43
Planted Buffer
Traffic Lane
STOP

FLORINDA AVE
1 1
2 2
2 3 3
3 4
4 4
Hanford TOD Rail Station - Crossing Exhibits

HIGHWAY 43 LEGEND:
& CVC

CITY OF HANFORD

RAIL STATION TOD

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK

SIGNALIZED CROSSING

ADVANCE STOP

BUS RAPID TRANSIT
HIGHWAY 43 & CVC BRT
• Highway 43 is classified as a minor arterial
road despite the Highway moniker.
• Highway 43 is a two lane highway with a
speed limit of 55 MPH.
• The Hanford Active Transportation Plan
places a Class I Shared-Use trail along the
Cross Valley Corridor.
• The Hanford Active Transportation Plan
also notes that the Bicycle Level of Stress
at this location is a High 4 out of 4 points:
“Involves interaction with higher speed
traffic or close proximity to high speed
traffic. A level of stress acceptable only to
those classified as “strong and fearless.”
• The available right-of-way along the Cross
Valley Corridor is a variable 40’-100’ wide,
with plenty of room for a shared-use path.
• Introducing a planted buffer along the rail
will help distance the trail from the rail, and
using fencing along the agricultural land
protects the users while other vehicles
continue on the maintenance paths.

A high visibility crosswalk is an important
component of this crossing. Using an advance stop
line is necessary to move the vehicular stop before
the rail back a few feet to ensure pedestrian traffic
while the rail arms stop vehicular traffic.

Introducing a traffic signal to our rail crossings
will ensure that vehicular traffic can come to a
stop regardless of pedestrian or train movement.

Using a leading pedestrian interval can help direct
pedestrians across earlier in the phase.

On a high-speed road like Highway 43, leveraging
more distance before a vehicle has to stop is key
for a safe crossing. Moving the stop bar back at
a minimum of 40 feet from the signal head and 4’
minimum from the crosswalk can help drivers slow
down when necessary and avoid cars stopping too
close to the crosswalk.

A BRT system comprised of fully prioritized bus
lanes that travel on a set corridor from point to
point benefits local transit in a big way. Combining
the reliability of a light rail system with the
simplicity and lower cost of buses, a BRT is a great
choice for local travel.

R R
R R
R R
R R
Shared Use Trail
Traffic Signal
Crossing Signage
High Visibility Crosswalk
Planted Buffer
Bus Stop
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’
STREET IMPROVEMENTS:
1 2
3 4
HIGHWAY 43
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
1 2
3 3
4 See Page 3
Figure 77 Conceptual design for the intersection of Highway 43 and Florinda Avenue Figure 78 Conceptual design for the intersection of Highway 43 and CVC BRT Intersection 110 | Hanford Connected Implementation | 111

CVC Bus Rapid Transit and Multi-Use Path
Hanford TOD Rail Station - Crossing Exhibits

SCALE PLAN SCALE FEET
PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS 50 0 25 50 100

BUS RAPID TRANSIT AND AMENITIES

NORTHERNLY EDGE PLANTING

MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS

SIGNAGE

SURFACE TREATMENTS

STRIPING
0’ 25’ 50’ 100’
Wayfinding Signage Bidirectional Trail
Asphalt Shared-Use Trail
Crossing Signage High Visibility Crosswalk
Planted Area

CVC BUS RAPID TRANSIT

RECOMMENDATION TOOLKIT

SCALE PLAN SCALE FEET
50 0 25 50 100

AMENITIES
1 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
See Page 4
See Page 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
3 BUS
LANE
3 BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
2 1
Hanford TOD Rail Station - Crossing Exhibits

SCALE PLAN SCALE FEET
PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS 50 0 25 50 100

SIGNAGE

SURFACE TREATMENTS

STRIPING
Wayfinding Signage Bidirectional Trail
Asphalt Shared-Use Trail
Planted Area
0’ 25’ 50’ 100’
2 Crossing Signage

BUS RAPID TRANSIT AND AMENITIES

NORTHERNLY EDGE PLANTING

MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS
1 2
3 2 High Visibility Crosswalk

CVC BUS RAPID TRANSIT

RECOMMENDATION TOOLKIT

SCALE PLAN SCALE FEET
50 0 25 50 100
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
BUS
LANE
3 BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
2 See Page 5
See Page 3
1 1
1 2

AMENITIES
1 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
1 Figure 79 Conceptual design for the CVC Bus Rapid Transit and Multi-Use Path (Segment 1) Figure 80 Conceptual design for the CVC Bus Rapid Transit and Multi-Use Path (Segment 2) 112 | Hanford Connected Implementation | 113

Hanford TOD Rail Station - Crossing Exhibits

SCALE PLAN SCALE FEET
PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS 50 0 25 50 100 RECOMMENDATION TOOLKIT

SIGNAGE

SURFACE TREATMENTS

STRIPING
Wayfinding Signage Bidirectional Trail
Asphalt Shared-Use Trail
Planted Area
0’ 25’ 50’ 100’

CVC BUS RAPID TRANSIT

AMENITIES
Bus Stop
2 Crossing Signage

BUS RAPID TRANSIT AND AMENITIES

NORTHERNLY EDGE PLANTING

MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS
1 2
3 2 High Visibility Crosswalk
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
BUS
LANE
3 BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
2 See Page 6
See Page 4
1 1
1 2
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons 1
2 2

SCALE PLAN SCALE FEET
50 0 25 50 100

AMENITIES
2 1
Hanford TOD Rail Station - Crossing Exhibits

SCALE PLAN SCALE FEET
PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS 50 0 25 50 100

SIGNAGE

SURFACE TREATMENTS

STRIPING
Wayfinding Signage Bidirectional Trail
Asphalt Shared-Use Trail
Planted Area
0’ 25’ 50’ 100’

CVC BUS RAPID TRANSIT

RECOMMENDATION TOOLKIT SCALE PLAN SCALE FEET
50 0 25 50 100
2 Crossing Signage

BUS RAPID TRANSIT AND AMENITIES

NORTHERNLY EDGE PLANTING

MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS
1 2
3 2 High Visibility Crosswalk
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
BUS
LANE
3 BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
2 See Page 7
See Page 5
1 1
1 2

AMENITIES
1 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
1 Figure 81 Conceptual design for the CVC Bus Rapid Transit and Multi-Use Path (Segment 3) Figure 82 Conceptual design for the CVC Bus Rapid Transit and Multi-Use Path (Segment 4) 114 | Hanford Connected Implementation | 115

Hanford TOD Rail Station - Crossing Exhibits

SCALE PLAN SCALE FEET
PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS 50 0 25 50 100

SIGNAGE

SURFACE TREATMENTS

STRIPING
Wayfinding Signage Bidirectional Trail
Asphalt Shared-Use Trail
Planted Area
0’ 25’ 50’ 100’

CVC BUS RAPID TRANSIT

RECOMMENDATION TOOLKIT SCALE PLAN SCALE FEET
50 0 25 50 100
2 Crossing Signage

BUS RAPID TRANSIT AND AMENITIES

NORTHERNLY EDGE PLANTING

MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS
1 2
3 2 High Visibility Crosswalk
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
BUS
LANE
3 BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
2 See Page 8
See Page 6
1 1
1 2

AMENITIES
1 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
1 Hanford TOD Rail Station - Crossing Exhibits

SCALE PLAN SCALE FEET
50 0 25 50 100
R R

PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS
1 2

SIGNAGE

SURFACE TREATMENTS

STRIPING

AMENITIES
Wayfinding Signage Bidirectional Trail
Asphalt Shared-Use Trail
Crossing Signage
Advance Stop/Yield Striping
Signalized Crossing with Leading Ped Signal
Planted Area
0’ 25’ 50’ 100’

CVC BUS RAPID TRANSIT
2 Crossing Signage

BUS RAPID TRANSIT AND AMENITIES

NORTHERNLY EDGE PLANTING

MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS
1 2
3 2 High Visibility Crosswalk BUS LANE
BUS
LANE
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
1 1
1 2
R R

RECOMMENDATION TOOLKIT SCALE PLAN SCALE FEET
50 0 25 50 100
See Page 7
1 1
1 2
2 2
2 3
1 1
1 3
2 3
7TH STREET
Figure 83 Conceptual design for the CVC Bus Rapid Transit and Multi-Use Path (Segment 5) Figure 84 Conceptual design for the CVC Bus Rapid Transit and Multi-Use Path (Segment 6) 116 | Hanford Connected Implementation | 117

118 | Hanford Connected The Implementation | 119
Meaningfully connect
Hanford to its future
by purposefully
planning today

Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail Station
Transit Oriented Development Plan -
Appendix
December 2025

KINGS-TULARE HIGH SPEED RAIL

STATION AREA PLAN

CONCEPTUAL PUBLIC FACILITIES

FINANCING PLAN

DRAFT REPORT
Prepared for: Prepared by:

City of Hanford Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

November 12, 2025
EPS #241045

Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Summary of Findings 1
Data Limitations .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Approach ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

2. Land Use Plan 10
Residential ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 10 Nonresidential .................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Parks and Open Space ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Parking ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

3. Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Costs 13 Definitions of Backbone Infrastructure, Public Facilities, and Other Developer Obligations .............................. 14 Estimated Costs and Phasing ........................................................................................................................................................ 14

4. Conceptual Financing Strategy and Funding Sources 16 Project-Based Developer Funding .............................................................................................................................................. 17 CHSRA Contribution ........................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Other Potential Outside Sources of Funding .......................................................................................................................... 20 Funding Summary .............................................................................................................................................................................. 20

5. Infrastructure Burden 22
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 22 Appendix
Appendix A: Land Use Summary
Appendix B: Cost Summaries & Development Impact Fees
Appendix C: Cost Allocations

List of Tables
Table 1-1. Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Cost Estimates Summary (2025$) ............................. 6 Table 1-2. Estimated Sources and Uses of Funding (2025$) ............................................................................................ 8 Table 1-3. Summary of Estimated Infrastructure Burden (2025$)................................................................................ 9 Table 3-1. Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Cost Estimates Summary (2025$) .......................... 15 Table 4-1. Estimated Sources and Uses of Funding (2025$) ......................................................................................... 18 Table 5-1. Summary of Estimated Infrastructure Burden (2025$)............................................................................. 23 List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Conceptual Station Area Land Use Plan ............................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2-1. Design Package Conceptual Land Use Plan ................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5-1. Illustrative Project Value by Development Phase ....................................................................................... 24 List of Maps
Map 1-1. Kings-Tulare HSR Station Area Context Map .................................................................................................. 2

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 Introduction and Summary of Findings

1. Introduction and Summary of Findings
As part of a multi-disciplinary team led by Perkins & Will and retained by the City of Hanford (City) preparing the Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail Station (HSR) TOD and Connectivity Plan and Cross Valley Corridor Rail Service Planning (Station Area Plan and Project), Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) developed a conceptual Public Facilities Financing Plan to test the potential for Project feasibility based on the infrastructure requirements to support Perkins & Will’s Design Package Land Use Plan.

The proposed Kings-Tulare HSR Station is located east of the current City boundaries in Census Tract 1 in Kings County, as shown in Map 1-1. The proposed Project site and surrounding areas are currently composed of predominantly agricultural land uses and are expected to be annexed into the City.

The purpose of this report is to support the City and the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) in the future when they are developing a consistent, defensible, and equitable framework for funding the backbone infrastructure and public facilities for the HSR Station Area.

This document includes methods and assumptions used as industry standards in EPS’s work and in comparable jurisdictions.

The findings and recommendations contained herein are intended to be used to guide infrastructure and public facilities funding for capital facilities in the Project.

Data Limitations
Please note the following limitations to this Conceptual Financing Plan:
 Many of the infrastructure cost estimates used in this analysis are planning level estimates and were NOT developed by engineers for the Design Package analyzed herein. The actual costs of infrastructure improvements may vary significantly from what is shown in this document.
 The feasibility of this development has not been analyzed; whether the market demand will be able to support the proposed development. If adequate residential and commercial demand is not sufficient at the time of development, the value that would incentivize a developer to build is not there.
 Detailed phasing analysis will be needed to refine financial planning, given the scale of development and infrastructure needed.

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 Introduction and Summary of Findings Map 1-1. Kings-Tulare HSR Station Area Context Map
Approach
To inform this study, EPS conducted a detailed review of the conceptual Station Area Plan land uses developed by Perkins & Will in their Design Package Land Use Plan, developed planning-level costs using data gleaned from prior work and partial information provided by the City’s Public Works Department, and estimated values of the land use shown in the Design Package.

The research summarized in this study focuses on several key areas, including:
 Estimating the total Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities costs of the Station Area Plan conceptual land use plan.
 Estimating potential Project Value.
 Estimating the potential funding based on existing development impact fees and other City, County, and other agency fees.
 Funding applicable through the formation of an Infrastructure Community Facilities District (CFD).
 Funding applicable from the creation of a future Station Area Impact Fee.

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 Introduction and Summary of Findings Summary of Findings
Development Program
According to the Project Design Package, a mix of residential densities, nonresidential land uses, open space, and agriculture development is planned for the Project. The Design Package describes the land use designations and the maximum allowable development program as shown in Appendix A Table A-1. To estimate the Project value, EPS assumes a buildout of 95 percent of the Design Package as follows:
 9,263 dwelling units.
 1.87 million square feet of nonresidential space.
 305 acres of parks and open space.
 11 acres of parking.

This Finance Plan assumes the above Project development across approximately 790 acres of the 1,000 total acreage of the station area. The remainder of the acreage will be dedicated for public rights-of-way. Figure 1-1 summarizes the proposed land uses evaluated for the purpose of this Finance Plan.

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 Introduction and Summary of Findings Figure 1-1. Design Package Conceptual Station Area Land Use Plan Source: Perkins & Will; EPS.
[1] Nonresidential building area estimated based on Floor Area Ratios applied to net acreage for each land use. Acreages shown above are gross acreages. Net acreages estimated as 80% of gross acres to account for internal roadways, sidewalks, and utilities.

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 Introduction and Summary of Findings Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Costs
Currently the Project is in the conceptual stages of planning. Actual land uses, phasing, approval, construction, and buildout of the Project will take many years, and for it to be fully realized, a multitude of phases of development will occur.

Buildout of the Project is assumed to require the following Facilities:
 Roads
 Bike Lanes
 Intersections
 Dry Utilities
 Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
 Water
 Storm Drainage
 Open Space
 Fire Facilities
 Sheriff/Law Enforcement
 Schools
 Other Public Facilities
Where available and noted, the cost estimates for the required Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities were estimated by the City’s Public Works department based on the City utility master plans. The remaining estimates are high-level planning level estimates developed by EPS based on previous work.

Future development phasing for the Station Area must be based on a marketdriven approach coordinated with a phased infrastructure program. It is too early in the Project’s planning to provide estimated phasing, as the Project is still in its conceptual stages; any estimated phasing would be too speculative at this time.

Estimated Costs
As specified above, the estimated backbone infrastructure and public facilities program for the Station Area includes roads, standalone bike lanes, intersections, dry utilities, onsite sewer, water, storm drainage, open space, fire facilities, Sherrif/law enforcement, school, and other public facilities improvements. The total identified cost of these improvements is approximately $684.0 million, as is shown in Table 1-1.

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 Introduction and Summary of Findings Table 1-1. Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Cost Estimates Summary (2025$) Conceptual Financing Strategy and Funding Sources
A wide variety of financing techniques are currently and may be available in the future to fund the Station Area Plan, including:
 Project-Based Developer Funding. Funding sources originating from developer payments could include the following subcategories:
- Developer Funding via Payment of Existing and Proposed Fees:
 Existing Fee Programs: Project development will be subject to several existing City, County, and other agency development impact fee programs. Other agency fee programs include fees for the school district and the California Farmland Trust Mitigation Fee.  Proposed Fee Programs: Project development would also be subject to a new HSR Station Area Impact Fee Program.
 Kings-Tulare HSR Station Area Special Financing District (SFD). Certain facilities could be funded via formation of a Kings-Tulare HSR Station Area SFD, which may take the form of a Mello-Roos CFD. Facilities funded through a CFD or other land-secured financing mechanism may directly overlap with facilities included in the proposed Station Area Impact Fee Program.  Private Developer Funding. Capital provided by the private developer through debt, equity, or combination of both.

Item Source Table Estimate Basis [1] Total % of Total
Backbone Infrastructure
Roads [2] Table B-1 Linear Feet $182.4 M 26.7%
Bike Lanes Table B-1 Linear Feet $144.5 M 21.1%
Intersections Table B-2 Assumes 20 intersections, 13 signalized $21.4 M 3.1% Dry Utilities Table B-3 Linear Feet $26.9 M 3.9%
Sewer and WWTP Table B-4 Linear Feet; Costs from City Sewer Master Plan $99.9 M 14.6% Water Table B-5 Linear Feet $62.1 M 9.1%
Storm Drainage Table B-6 Linear Feet $48.1 M 7.0%
Estimated Total Backbone Infrastructure $585.2 M 85.6%
Public Facilities
Open Space Table B-7 Per Acre $39.5 M 5.8%
Fire Facilities N/A Visalia Station 56 Cost $7.7 M 1.1% Sheriff/Law Enforcement Table B-8 City DIF Revenue $15.4 M 2.3% School Table B-8 City DIF Revenue $32.2 M 4.7%
Other Public Facilities Table B-8 County DIF Revenue $4.0 M 0.6% Total Public Facilities $98.8 M 14.4%
Estimated Total Cost $684.0 M 100.0%
Source: High-level cost estimates by EPS based on planning-level estimates for infrastructure in other jurisdictions, applied to land use plan. [3] Cost estimates are planning level estimates. Numbers shows above are for estimation purposes only and were not provided or validated by a professional engineer.
[1] Estimates based on linear feet use the total LF of roadways included in Perkins & Will's land use plan and apply planning-level unit costs for infrastructure in other jurisdictions. Includes 20% contingency and 10% soft costs. [2] Includes landscaped median and sidewalks; excludes Right of Way acquisition.

Estimated Cost [3]

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 Introduction and Summary of Findings  California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). Funding such as capital, grants or loans, from the CHSRA.
 Other Potential Outside Sources of Funding (Regional, State, and federal). Funding sources, such as grants or loans, from State, federal, or other agencies or institutions for which the City may have to apply.

There is significant uncertainty concerning development of the Project, including the ultimate amount of development that will occur, the sequencing of development, the ultimate Improvements that will be constructed, and the availability of many of the funding sources. As a result, the Finance Plan should be updated on an as-needed basis based on updated infrastructure cost estimates, funding, and development information.

Preliminary Estimated Project Requirements and Funding
Table 1-2 shows the proposed funding sources, by Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities category, for the full buildout of the conceptual Project. At buildout under the conceptual funding strategy, approximately $292.6 million is estimated to be funded though land-secured financing (CFD); $194.6 million is estimated to be funded by existing City, County, and Other Agency fees; $32.6 million estimated to be contributed by the CHSRA; and $170.0 million through a new Station Area Plan Impact Fee (including fee program administration).

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 Introduction and Summary of Findings Table 1-2. Estimated Sources and Uses of Funding (2025$) Maintenance Funding
Various existing City/County development impact fee programs may provide more revenue than is needed to fund construction of the Project’s Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities. If there is a surplus in fee revenue, the City may elect to reserve the surplus to fund ongoing maintenance and repairs of the Project’s infrastructure.

Infrastructure Burden
A high level infrastructure burden test was prepared to examine the potential feasibility of the magnitude of required Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities included in the Project in comparison to the estimated value of the Project.1 The infrastructure cost burden indicates that the estimated infrastructure costs are approximately 15 percent of the Project’s value. For a project to potentially have value to a developer, a typical threshold test for the infrastructure costs ranges between 10 percent and 15 percent of the Project’s value. As such, the conceptual Station Area Plan, while considered feasible under this test, is approaching a cost burden that could be considered financially infeasible. Please note that this feasibility threshold may differ depending on a developer’s financial criterion, a 1 The market feasibility of this development has not been analyzed; whether the market demand will be able to support the proposed development. If the demand is not there, the value that would incentivize a developer to build is not there.

Land-Secured
Financing [2]
Existing City/
County Fee
Programs
California HSRA
(Est. 5%
Contribution) [3]
(Proposed)
Station Area
Impact Fee
Total
Funding
Backbone Infrastructure
Roads, Intersections, and Bike Lanes $348.3 M $174.1 M $48.1 M $17.4 M $108.6 M $348.2 M X Dry Utilities $26.9 M $13.4 M - $1.3 M $12.1 M $26.9 M X Sewer $99.9 M $50.0 M $21.3 M $5.0 M $23.7 M $99.9 M X
Water $62.1 M $31.0 M $20.3 M $3.1 M $7.6 M $62.1 M X
Storm Drainage $48.1 M $24.0 M $21.6 M $2.4 M - $48.1 M X Subtotal Backbone Infrastructure $585.2 M $292.6 M $111.3 M $29.3 M $152.0 M $585.2 M Parks and Open Space $39.5 M - $27.5 M $2.0 M $10.0 M $39.5 M Fire Facilities $7.7 M - $4.5 M $0.4 M $2.8 M $7.7 M X
Sheriff/Law Enforcement $15.4 M - $15.4 M $0.8 M - $16.1 M X Schools $32.2 M - $32.2 M - - $32.2 M X
Other Public Facilities $4.0 M $3.6 M $0.2 M $0.2 M $4.0 M X Total Public Facilities $98.8 M - $83.2 M $3.3 M $13.0 M $99.6 M Subtotal Public Improvements $684.0 M $292.6 M $194.6 M $32.6 M $165.0 M $684.7 M Station Area Fee Program Administration [4] $4.9 M - - - $4.9 M $4.9 M Total $688.8 M $292.6 M $194.6 M $32.6 M $169.9 M $689.6 M Source: EPS.
[4] Assumes that fee program administration is assessed as 3% of the portion of the planned Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Improvements funded by the proposed Station Area Fee.

Item
Estimated Total
Cost [1]
Estimated Amount by Funding Source
CFD
Eligible
All figures rounded. Totals may not sum due to rounding Public Facilities
[1] Not engineer's estimates. Numbers shows above are for estimation purposes only and are not validated by a professional engineer. Costs exclude Right of Way acquisition. [2] Assumes 50% funding for CFD-funded improvements.
[3] Assumes 5% of total funding from HSRA for all improvements except for schools.

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 Introduction and Summary of Findings developer with an interest in seeing the HSR developed may consider a threshold above 15 percent. See Table 1-3.

Conclusion
Myriad other factors will affect the financial feasibility of the Station Area Project development, including: timing; market positioning; valuation; and absorption of all factors into the viability of vertical development; as well as competitive advantages or disadvantages relative to other development projects in the region. This preliminary and high-level infrastructure cost burden comparison offers one metric by which the competitive position and financial feasibility of the Project may be evaluated. A more detailed Public Facilities Financing Plan should be conducted once a concrete land use plan has been reached, utilizing cost estimates developed by professional engineers.

Table 1-3. Summary of Estimated Infrastructure Burden (2025$) Land Use
Estimation
Basis
Estimated
Value
Total Units /
Bldg. Sq/ Ft.

Total Estimated
Value (Rounded)
Residential [1] per Dwelling Unit 95% buildout
Low Density Residential Recent Sales $480,000 1,853 $889.0 M Medium Density Residential (Mixed Use) Recent Sales $390,000 7,410 $2,890.0 M Subtotal Residential 9,263 $3,779.0 M
Nonresidential [2] per Bldg. Sq. Ft. 95% buildout
Production and Innovation Recent Builds $300 595,901 $179.0 M Institutional Recent Builds $600 317,814 $191.0 M
Commercial (Mixed Use) Current Rents $390 960,062 $374.0 M Subtotal Nonresidential 1,873,777 $744.0 M
Estimated Total Development Value $4,523.0 M
Estimated Total Infrastructure Value [3] $684.0 M
Estimated Infrastructure Costs as % of Development Value 15.1% Source: The Gregory Group; CoStar; Nonresidential Developers; EPS. [2] Values for Production and Innovation and Institutional uses are based on construction costs of recent projects in Sacramento region. Production and Innovation is valued based on R&D uses, Institutional is valued based on Bio/Life Science uses. Commercial space is valued based on recent retail projects in Bakersfield, as the Bakersfield retail market is more mature than Hanford's and commands higher rents that may be reflective of those achievable once the HSR station is operational in Hanford.
[3] Not engineer's estimates. Numbers shows above are for estimation purposes only and are not validated by a professional engineer. Costs exclude Right of Way acquisition. [1] Estimated value for LDR and MDR units based on recent sales in Hanford. Sales data from the Gregory Group.

HDR unit values are based on current rents for newly-constructed multifamily projects in Hanford (assumes no vacancy or OPEX). Rent and capitalized value rate from CoStar. Accounting for maturation of the market and significant amenity value in the design package proposed by Perkins & Will, actual unit values may be higher.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 Land Use Plan

2. Land Use Plan
The Kings-Tulare HSR Connectivity Plan Design Package Land Use Plan developed by Perkins & Will establishes potential planning and development standards for the development of the Station Area. The proposed development focuses on connectivity between the Station Area and Downtown Hanford, regional employment opportunities, open space and agriculture, and residential neighborhoods.

According to the Project Design Package, a mix of residential densities, nonresidential land uses, open space, and agriculture development is planned for the Project. The Design Package includes the land use designations listed below and the maximum allowable development program as shown in Appendix A Table A-1. To estimate the project value EPS assumes a buildout of 95 percent of the maximum allowable development as follows:
 9,263 dwelling units.
 1.87 million square feet of nonresidential space.
 305 acres of parks and open space.
 11 acres of parking.

This Finance Plan assumes the above Project development across approximately 790 acres of the 1,000 total acreage of the station area. The remainder of the acreage will be dedicated for public rights-of-way. Figure 2-1 summarizes the proposed land uses evaluated for the purpose of this Finance Plan.

EPS, in consultation with the Project Team, has made the following assumptions regarding the anticipated land uses that will be developed in each land use designation.

Residential
According to the Plan Design Package, residential development in the Project comprises 1,853 low density single family units and 7,410 medium density single family units. This Finance Plan analyzes a total of 9,263 residential units. For purposes of this Finance Plan, it is assumed the units are market-rate and distributed between renter-occupied and owner-occupied.2
2 The City of Hanford currently (October 2025) does NOT have any inclusionary or affordable housing requirements.

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 Land Use Plan
Figure 2-1. Design Package Conceptual Station Area Land Use Plan Source: Perkins & Will; EPS.
[1] Nonresidential building area estimated based on Floor Area Ratios applied to net acreage for each land use. Acreages shown above are gross acreages. Net acreages estimated as 80% of gross acres to account for internal roadways, sidewalks, and utilities.

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 Land Use Plan
Nonresidential
This Finance Plan assumes approximately 1.87 million square feet of nonresidential space comprising approximately 595,900 square feet of Production and innovation space, 317,800 square feet of Institutional space, and 960,100 square feet of commercial mixed use space.

Parks and Open Space
The Project Design Package includes 56 acres of Hubs, 20 acers of Patches, 45 acres of Agriculture, 56 acres of Buffer, and 128 acres of Other Open Space.

Parking
In this Finance Plan, Parking comprises 11 acres of the Project space.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Costs

3. Backbone Infrastructure and Public
Facilities Costs
Transformation of the Station Area from mainly agricultural land into a mixed-use development, as envisioned in the Project Design Package, will generate new residents and nonresidential users that will require public infrastructure and facilities such as roads, water, storm drainage utilities, and public safety facilities.

Buildout of the Project will likely require the following Facilities:
 Roads
 Bike Lanes
 Intersections
 Dry Utilities
 Sewer and WWTP
 Water
 Storm Drainage
 Open Space
 Fire Facilities
 Sheriff/Law Enforcement
 Schools
 Other Public Facilities
Currently the Project is in the conceptual stages of planning; actual land uses, phasing, approval, construction, and buildout of the Project will take many years, and for it to be fully realized, a multitude of phases of development will occur. The success of the development hinges in great part on the orderly phasing of Project development in manageable and fundable increments.

Depending on market conditions and available funding, the sequence of public improvements and private development could vary significantly. For example, should funding become available earlier for major infrastructure components planned for a later phase of the Project development, its implementation could be accelerated, thereby affecting other components of the development program.

Conversely, if funding is not available for key infrastructure, the pace of development will be limited.

It is important to recognize that the development process will be a continuum.

Project development can be lengthened, shortened, or developed in a different sequence, depending on the availability of funding for infrastructure improvements and general market conditions.

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Costs Cost estimates for the required Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities were estimated by the City’s Public Works department based on the City utility master plans used when available and high-level planning level estimates developed by EPS based on previous work. Please refer to Appendices A and B for detail regarding Backbone Infrastructure and Public Faculties costs discussed herein.

The resulting Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities costs estimates included in the Finance Plan are summarized in Table 3-1.

Definitions of Backbone Infrastructure, Public
Facilities, and Other Developer Obligations
The term “Backbone Infrastructure” is often used to describe all publicly owned facilities. This Finance Plan will use the following definitions to more precisely define these items:

Backbone Infrastructure: This term includes most of the essential public servicebased infrastructure, including roadways and facilities underneath roadways.

These items include major roadways (including frontage improvements), storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and water facilities.

Public Facilities: This term can include the following items:
 Public Transit (Light Rail Stations, Bus Rapid Transit, and other transit facilities)  Community Center/Library facilities
 Parks and Open Space
 Public parking (surface and structures)
 Schools
 Public Safety Facilities (Sherrif and Fire)
This group of items provides amenities to the Project (e.g., park facilities and libraries) or houses employees providing services to the area (e.g., fire station).

Estimated Costs and Phasing
The development phasing for the Station Area must be based on a market-driven approach coordinated with a phased infrastructure program. It is too early in the Project’s planning to provide estimated phasing as the Project is still in the conceptual stages; any estimated phasing would be too speculative. Development will respond to market demand and the installation of Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facility improvements will be phased to correspond with the pace of development and the requirements of the City. The infrastructure phasing strategy will be adjusted to make sure adequate traffic/transit, sewer, water, storm drainage, and community facility capacity is in place to serve each increment of development.

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Costs As specified above, the estimated backbone infrastructure and public facilities program for the Station Area includes roads, standalone bike lanes, intersections, dry utilities, onsite sewer, water, storm drainage, open space, fire facilities, Sherrif/law enforcement, school, and other public facilities improvements. The total identified cost of these improvements is approximately $684.0 million, as is shown in Table 3-1.

Roadway improvements account for approximately $182.4 million of the total cost, or nearly 27 percent of the total facilities program.

Table 3-1. Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Cost Estimates Summary (2025$) The City should establish methodology, timing, and linkage requirements to ensure private development and development of infrastructure, parks, and community facilities progress as necessary to carry out the Project objectives and meet service standards for the new development.

Item Source Table Estimate Basis [1] Total % of Total
Backbone Infrastructure
Roads [2] Table B-1 Linear Feet $182.4 M 26.7%
Bike Lanes Table B-1 Linear Feet $144.5 M 21.1%
Intersections Table B-2 Assumes 20 intersections, 13 signalized $21.4 M 3.1% Dry Utilities Table B-3 Linear Feet $26.9 M 3.9%
Sewer and WWTP Table B-4 Linear Feet; Costs from City Sewer Master Plan $99.9 M 14.6% Water Table B-5 Linear Feet $62.1 M 9.1%
Storm Drainage Table B-6 Linear Feet $48.1 M 7.0%
Estimated Total Backbone Infrastructure $585.2 M 85.6%
Public Facilities
Open Space Table B-7 Per Acre $39.5 M 5.8%
Fire Facilities N/A Visalia Station 56 Cost $7.7 M 1.1% Sheriff/Law Enforcement Table B-8 City DIF Revenue $15.4 M 2.3% School Table B-8 City DIF Revenue $32.2 M 4.7%
Other Public Facilities Table B-8 County DIF Revenue $4.0 M 0.6% Total Public Facilities $98.8 M 14.4%
Estimated Total Cost $684.0 M 100.0%
Source: High-level cost estimates by EPS based on planning-level estimates for infrastructure in other jurisdictions, applied to land use plan. [3] Cost estimates are planning level estimates. Numbers shows above are for estimation purposes only and were not provided or validated by a professional engineer.
[1] Estimates based on linear feet use the total LF of roadways included in Perkins & Will's land use plan and apply planning-level unit costs for infrastructure in other jurisdictions. Includes 20% contingency and 10% soft costs. [2] Includes landscaped median and sidewalks; excludes Right of Way acquisition.

Estimated Cost [3]

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 Conceptual Financing Strategy and Funding Sources

4. Conceptual Financing Strategy and
Funding Sources
A wide variety of financing techniques are and may be available to fund the Station Area Plan. This chapter provides an inventory of mechanisms available to fund the construction of Project Improvements—some of these sources represent an ultimate funding source for Facilities improvements, while others are financing mechanisms that provide an approach to mitigate the need for large capital outlays. Because of the uncertain development period of the Project, it is possible that some of the funding and financing sources described below will no longer exist when some of the Improvements are constructed. It is also possible, however, that some new funding and financing sources will be created through new State and federal legislation and can be used to fund Facilities.

The following sections discuss the currently available sources identified to fund or finance facilities required for Project development:
 Project-Based Developer Funding. Funding sources originating from developer payments could include the following subcategories:
- Developer Funding via Payment of Existing and Proposed Fees:
 Existing Fee Programs: Project development will be subject to several existing City, County, and other agency development impact fee programs. Other agency fee programs include fees for the school district and the California Farmland Trust Mitigation Fee.
 Proposed Fee Programs: Project development would also be subject to a new HSR Station Area Impact Fee Program.
 Kings-Tulare HSR Station Area SFD. Certain facilities could be funded via formation of a Kings-Tulare HSR Station Area SFD, which may take the form of a Mello-Roos CFD. Facilities funded through a CFD or other land-secured financing mechanism may directly overlap with facilities included in the proposed Station Area Impact Fee Program.
 Private Developer Funding. Capital provided by the private developer through debt, equity, or combination of both.
 California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). Funding such as capital, grants or loans, from the CHSRA.
 Other Potential Outside Sources of Funding (Regional, State, and federal).

Funding sources, such as grants or loans, from State, federal, or other agencies or institutions for which the City may have to apply.

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 Conceptual Financing Strategy and Funding Sources Project-Based Developer Funding
Project-based developer funding will be generated by new vertical development projects within the Project. Each of these Project-based developer funding sources is described in more detail below.

Existing and Proposed Development Impact Fees
Each building project will be subject to all applicable City, County, and other agency development impact fees in place at the time of acceptance of the building permit application, based on specific land uses. Revenues generated by each fee component will be available to directly fund applicable Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities identified in the Finance Plan. Fee program revenues generated by the following fee programs may be available to partially fund facilities required for Project development and therefore are included in the Finance Plan and estimated in Appendix B:
 Existing Development Impact Fee Programs:
- City Fire Fee.
- City Police Fee.
- City Water Fee.
- City Wastewater Fee
- City Parks Fee
- City Storm Drain Fee
- City Refuse Fee
- City Circulation Fee
- City Sanitary Sewer Fee
- County Public Protection Fee
- County Library Fee
- County Public Facilities Compliance Fee
- Hanford ESD & JUHSD Fee
- California Farmland Trust Mitigation Fee
 Proposed New and Updated Development Impact Fee Program:
- New Station Area Impact Fee Program.

Appendix B Table B-8 and Table B-9 of the Finance Plan identifies and details the estimated fee amounts for each City, County, and Public Agency fee program.

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 Conceptual Financing Strategy and Funding Sources Proposed Development Impact Fee Programs
New Station Area Impact Fee Program
This conceptual Finance Plan proposes implementation of an impact fee levied on Station Area development for purposes of funding Station Area improvements that are not fully funded by existing or proposed fee programs or other sources of funding (such as a future Kings-Tulare HSR Station Area CFD). Table 4-1 indicates the funding needed from the Station Area Impact Fee, holding all other assumptions constant. If this fee were to be included as a funding source at a later stage in the Project’s planning process with established land uses and costs estimated by engineers, the fee must be imposed by the appropriate proportional cost allocation by land use for the Improvements that can be charged to new development in the Project. Note that the column below representing California HSRA’s contribution can also be considered to represent funding from other public sources, such as State and federal grants, and that the amount of funding from these sources may vary greatly in either direction.

Table 4-1. Estimated Sources and Uses of Funding (2025$) Land-Secured
Financing [2]
Existing City/
County Fee
Programs
California HSRA
(Est. 5%
Contribution) [3]
(Proposed)
Station Area
Impact Fee
Total
Funding
Backbone Infrastructure
Roads, Intersections, and Bike Lanes $348.3 M $174.1 M $48.1 M $17.4 M $108.6 M $348.2 M X Dry Utilities $26.9 M $13.4 M - $1.3 M $12.1 M $26.9 M X Sewer $99.9 M $50.0 M $21.3 M $5.0 M $23.7 M $99.9 M X
Water $62.1 M $31.0 M $20.3 M $3.1 M $7.6 M $62.1 M X
Storm Drainage $48.1 M $24.0 M $21.6 M $2.4 M - $48.1 M X Subtotal Backbone Infrastructure $585.2 M $292.6 M $111.3 M $29.3 M $152.0 M $585.2 M Parks and Open Space $39.5 M - $27.5 M $2.0 M $10.0 M $39.5 M Fire Facilities $7.7 M - $4.5 M $0.4 M $2.8 M $7.7 M X
Sheriff/Law Enforcement $15.4 M - $15.4 M $0.8 M - $16.1 M X Schools $32.2 M - $32.2 M - - $32.2 M X
Other Public Facilities $4.0 M $3.6 M $0.2 M $0.2 M $4.0 M X Total Public Facilities $98.8 M - $83.2 M $3.3 M $13.0 M $99.6 M Subtotal Public Improvements $684.0 M $292.6 M $194.6 M $32.6 M $165.0 M $684.7 M Station Area Fee Program Administration [4] $4.9 M - - - $4.9 M $4.9 M Total $688.8 M $292.6 M $194.6 M $32.6 M $169.9 M $689.6 M Source: EPS.
[4] Assumes that fee program administration is assessed as 3% of the portion of the planned Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Improvements funded by the proposed Station Area Fee.

Item
Estimated Total
Cost [1]
Estimated Amount by Funding Source
CFD
Eligible
All figures rounded. Totals may not sum due to rounding Public Facilities
[1] Not engineer's estimates. Numbers shows above are for estimation purposes only and are not validated by a professional engineer. Costs exclude Right of Way acquisition. [2] Assumes 50% funding for CFD-funded improvements.
[3] Assumes 5% of total funding from HSRA for all improvements except for schools.

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 Conceptual Financing Strategy and Funding Sources Proposed Kings-Tulare Station Area SFD
This Finance Plan includes the potential use of land-secured financing for a portion of Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities costs. Although this Finance Plan establishes the Station Area Impact Fee program to fund Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities not funded by other sources, various major infrastructure improvements will be required to be constructed at the onset of development, before they are fully funded by the proposed Station Area Impact Fee, which will be collected as development progresses. These improvements may include but are not limited to roads, dry utilities (joint trench), and wet utilities (sewer, water, storm drainage).

Land-secured financing, in the form of either a Mello-Roos CFD or an Assessment District may be used to provide debt financing for some of these early facilities:
 Mello-Roos CFD. The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 enables public agencies to form CFDs and levy a special tax on property owners in those CFDs.

These special taxes may be used to pay debt service on CFD bonds or to finance public improvements directly on a pay-as-you-go basis.
 Assessment Districts. California statutes give local governments the authority to levy several special assessments for specific public improvements such as streets, storm drains, sewers, streetlights, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Local agencies must create a special Assessment District that defines both the area to benefit from the improvements and the properties that will pay for the improvements.

Mello-Roos CFDs tend to be favored over Assessment Districts, because Assessment Districts need to establish special benefit to those being assessed. Establishing special benefit to form an Assessment District can be more challenging than the Mello-Roos requirement of establishing general benefit of facilities.

Participation and Use of Land-Secured Financing Proceeds Participation in a Mello-Roos CFD to fund all or a portion of the Project’s infrastructure is voluntary for each property owner within the Project. Certain existing or future property owners may wish to finance construction of Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities through cash, equity, or other forms of debt rather than through landsecured financing mechanisms established in concert with the City.

Generally speaking, CFD bond proceeds would be used to fund the Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities that are completed first or for which the original payment to the contractor has been outstanding the longest. As such, the financing sources and uses schedules in this Finance Plan (such as Table 4-1) are estimates of where CFD financing could be used for specific Facilities. The City and the property owners in the Project should maintain flexibility to use CFD bond proceeds for the most critical Facilities that need to be constructed at the onset of development.

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 Conceptual Financing Strategy and Funding Sources Once a CFD is formed, CFD bond sales may occur when availability of bond proceeds aligns with the need to fund or reimburse Backbone Infrastructure investments. Subsequently, the developer may request the City consider one or more subsequent CFDs over all or a portion of the Project.

CHSRA Contribution
It is assumed that the CHSRA would be contributing a certain percentage of the Backbone Infrastructure Costs because of the potential overlap of required infrastructure needs. This funding may be provided as capital, grants or loans.

Other Potential Outside Sources of Funding
Regional, State, and Federal Funding
Future federal transportation funding sources are likely to be available, although precise funding sources are uncertain. Numerous State funding sources are currently available, including funding for transportation and infrastructure projects through the State Transportation Improvement Program and Regional Transportation Improvement Program process. Another potential source of funding is the Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG).

Private Capital
Private capital could be used for improvements that serve only specific development projects in the Station Area such as on-site private roadways, landscaping and open space, local water distribution lines, sewer laterals, and local storm drains. These infrastructure costs are not included in the Finance Plan.

The developer may have to privately fund facilities necessary to serve the Project and then receive reimbursement when other funding becomes available. To the extent impact fee revenues are available, the developers would receive fee credits or reimbursements for advance-funding eligible projects included in fee programs, based on the City’s and County’s reimbursement policies.

Funding Summary
The funding of Improvements could be obtained through a wide array of sources as previously discussed in the prior section and shown in Table 4-1.

As mentioned earlier in the Finance Plan, there is significant uncertainty concerning development of the Project, including the ultimate amount of development that will occur, the sequencing of development, the ultimate Improvements that will be constructed, and the availability of many of the funding sources. As a result, the Finance Plan should be updated on an as-needed basis based on updated infrastructure cost estimates, funding, and development information.

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 Conceptual Financing Strategy and Funding Sources Preliminary Estimated Project Requirements and Funding
Table 4-1, above, shows the proposed funding sources for Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities for the full conceptual buildout of the Project. At buildout, under the conceptual funding strategy described herein, approximately $292.6 million is estimated to be funded though land-secured financing (a CFD); $194.6 million is estimated to be funded by existing City, County, and Other Agency fees; $32.6 million is estimated to be contributed by the CHSRA; and the remaining $170.0 million through a new Station Area Plan Impact Fee.

Maintenance Funding
Various existing City/County development impact fee programs may provide more revenue than is needed to fund construction of the Project’s Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities. The City may elect to reserve this surplus fee revenue to fund ongoing maintenance and repairs of the Project’s infrastructure.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 Infrastructure Burden

5. Infrastructure Burden
A high level infrastructure burden test was prepared to evaluate the potential feasibility of the required Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities cost to develop the Project in comparison to the estimated value of the Project.3

The total infrastructure cost burden consists of all Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities costs allocated to the development. The cost burden test includes all costs funded by all potential funding sources, including land-secured financing, City/County/other agency development impact fees, CHSRA’s contribution, and a new Station Area Impact Fee, and compares this total infrastructure cost to the estimated value of the Project’s residential and nonresidential development at buildout. The estimated values by the different land use types are based on recent sales, current rents, and recent builds from sources including The Gregory Group, CoStar, and discussions with nonresidential developers as shown in Table 5-1.

The infrastructure cost burden test indicates that the estimated infrastructure costs are approximately 15 percent of the Project’s value. For a project to potentially have value to a developer, a threshold test for the infrastructure costs ranges between 10 percent and 15 percent, indicating that the conceptual Station Area Plan, while considered financially feasible under these estimates, is approaching a cost burden that may be considered infeasible. Please note that this feasibility threshold may differ depending on a developer’s financial criterion, a developer with an interest in seeing the HSR developed may consider a threshold above 15 percent.

See Figure 5-1 for more on the factors contributing to a project’s feasibility. The infrastructure evaluated in Table 5-1 would be encapsulated under the second category shown in Figure 5-1, “Improved Land.”
Conclusion
As mentioned previously, myriad other factors will affect the financial feasibility of the Project’s development, including timing, market positioning, valuation, and absorption of all factors into the viability of vertical development and the Project’s competitive advantages or disadvantages relative to other development projects in the region. This preliminary and high-level infrastructure cost burden comparison offers one metric by which the competitive position and financial feasibility of the Project may be evaluated. A more detailed Public Facilities Financing Plan should 3 The feasibility of this development has not been analyzed; whether the market demand will be able to support the proposed development. If the demand is not there, the value that would incentivize a developer to build is not there.

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025
be conducted with a more concrete land use plan and costs developed by professional engineers.

Table 5-1. Summary of Estimated Infrastructure Burden (2025$) Land Use
Estimation
Basis
Estimated
Value
Total Units /
Bldg. Sq/ Ft.

Total Estimated
Value (Rounded)
Residential [1] per Dwelling Unit 95% buildout
Low Density Residential Recent Sales $480,000 1,853 $889.0 M Medium Density Residential (Mixed Use) Recent Sales $390,000 7,410 $2,890.0 M Subtotal Residential 9,263 $3,779.0 M
Nonresidential [2] per Bldg. Sq. Ft. 95% buildout
Production and Innovation Recent Builds $300 595,901 $179.0 M Institutional Recent Builds $600 317,814 $191.0 M
Commercial (Mixed Use) Current Rents $390 960,062 $374.0 M Subtotal Nonresidential 1,873,777 $744.0 M
Estimated Total Development Value $4,523.0 M
Estimated Total Infrastructure Value [3] $684.0 M
Estimated Infrastructure Costs as % of Development Value 15.1% Source: The Gregory Group; CoStar; Nonresidential Developers; EPS. [2] Values for Production and Innovation and Institutional uses are based on construction costs of recent projects in Sacramento region. Production and Innovation is valued based on R&D uses, Institutional is valued based on Bio/Life Science uses. Commercial space is valued based on recent retail projects in Bakersfield, as the Bakersfield retail market is more mature than Hanford's and commands higher rents that may be reflective of those achievable once the HSR station is operational in Hanford.
[3] Not engineer's estimates. Numbers shows above are for estimation purposes only and are not validated by a professional engineer. Costs exclude Right of Way acquisition. [1] Estimated value for LDR and MDR units based on recent sales in Hanford. Sales data from the Gregory Group.

HDR unit values are based on current rents for newly-constructed multifamily projects in Hanford (assumes no vacancy or OPEX). Rent and capitalized value rate from CoStar. Accounting for maturation of the market and significant amenity value in the design package proposed by Perkins & Will, actual unit values may be higher.

KINGS-TULARE HSR STATION AREA CONCEPTUAL PFFP
NOVEMBER 2025

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 Infrastructure Burden Figure 5-1. Illustrative Project Value by Development Phase Source: EPS.

Appendix

Appendix A: Land Use Summary
Table A-1 Land Use Summary .................................................................................................................................................... A-1

DRAFT
Table A-1
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Land Use Summary
Land Use
Average Unit
Square Feet
[1] Density [2]
Gross
Acres [2]
Net Acres
[3]
Dwelling
Units
Building
Square Feet [3]
Gross
Acres
Dwelling
Units
Building
Square Feet [3]
Land use adjustment factor [4] 95%
Residential units per acre
Low Density Residential 1,800 15.0 130.0 - 1,950 - 130.0 1,853 - Medium Density Residential (Mixed Use) [4] 1,400 40.0 195.0 - 7,800 - 195.0 7,410 - Subtotal Residential 325.0 - 9,750 - 325.0 9,263 -
Nonresidential FAR [6]
Production and Innovation 0.30 60.0 48.0 627,264 - 60.0 595,901 - Institutional 0.30 32.0 25.6 334,541 - 32.0 317,814 -
Commercial (Mixed Use) [5] 0.50 58.0 46.4 1,010,592 - 58.0 960,062 - Subtotal Nonresidential 150.0 73.6 - 1,972,397 150.0 - 1,873,777 Parks and Open Space
Hubs 56.0 - - - 56.0 - - -
Patches - 20.0 - - 20.0 - - -
Agriculture 45.0 - - - 45.0 - - -
Buffers - 56.0 - - 56.0 - - -
Other Open Space 128.0 - - - 128.0 - - -
Subtotal Parks and Open Space - 305.0 - - - 305.0 - -
Onsite Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities
High-Speed Rail/ Cross-Valley Corridor Station - - - - - - - - Onsite Roadways - - - - - - - -
Parking 11.0 - - - 11.0 - - -
Existing Power Station - - - - - - - -
Subtotal Other - 11.0 - - - 11.0 - -
Total Station Area 791.0 9,750 1,972,397 791.0 9,263 1,873,777 Offsite Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities
Offsite Roadways - - - - - - - -
Wastewater Treatment Plant - - - - - - - -
Total Other - - - - - - - -
Source: Perkins&Will; EPS.
[1] Average unit sizes by residential land use assumed by EPS based on development density. [2] From Perkins&Will's November 6, 2025 Refined Design Package. [3] Assumes 80% gross-to-net factor to account for internal roadways, sidewalks, and utilities. Nonresidential building area is estimated based on net acreage. [4] Units and building square feet adjusted to account for buildout less than that shown in the Design Package. Land use adjustment factor applied to residential units and nonresidential building square feet.
[5] Of the 195 acres of Medium Density Residential development, 58 acres are planned for Mixed-Use development, with the remaining 137 acres planned to include residential uses only.
[6] Floor-Area Ratios (FAR) shown above applied to commercial acres to estimate adjusted building square feet based on net acreage. The specific FARs by land use are assumed by EPS based on typical development density of each use.

Buildout Adjusted Buildout [4]
Prepared by EPS 11/11/2025 A Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m2 11-6-25 -1

Appendix B: Cost Summaries &
Development Impact Fees
Cost Summaries
Table B-1 Cost Summary - Onsite Roadway Improvements......................................................................................... B-1 Table B-2 Cost Summary - Major Intersection Improvements.................................................................................... B-2 Table B-3 Cost Summary - Dry Utilities (Street Lights/Joint Trench)....................................................................... B-3 Table B-4 Cost Summary - Sewer Improvements.............................................................................................................. B-4 Table B-5 Cost Summary - Water Improvements ............................................................................................................. B-5 Table B-6 Cost Summary - Storm Drain Improvements ................................................................................................. B-6 Table B-7 Cost Summary - Parks and Open Space............................................................................................................ B-7 Development Impact Fees
Table B-8 Estimated Hanford HSR Station Area Development Fee Revenue (2025$)..................................... B-8 Table B-9 Estimated Hanford HSR Station Area Development Fees (2025$)...................................................... B-9

DRAFT
Table B-1
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Cost Summary - Onsite Roadway Improvements
Item LF Cost Per LF Total Cost
Roadway Improvements
Grangeville Boulevard 6,464 $1,100 $7,110,400
Florinda Avenue 6,538 $1,100 $7,191,800
Lacey Boulvard 11,688 $1,100 $12,856,800
7th Avenue 5,279 $1,100 $5,806,900
9th Avenue 3,106 $1,100 $3,416,600
Loop Road/Ambient Loop 10,673 $1,100 $11,740,300
Internal Roads 124,190 $725 $90,037,750
Construction Subtotal $138,160,550
Contingency (20%) $27,632,110
Construction Total $165,792,660
Soft Costs (10%) $16,579,266
Total Cost (Rounded) $182,372,000
Bike Lane Improvements (Includes Signage)
Class 1 13,242 $250 $3,310,500
Class 3 (Pavement Markings Only) [1] 83,560 $25 $2,089,000 Class 4 678,413 $205 $139,074,665
Total Cost (Rounded) $144,474,000
Source: Planning-level unit costs for infrastructure in other jurisdictions applied to Perkins & Will land use plan by EPS.
[1] Assumes pavement markings on internal roadways. Cost per LF include soft costs (10%) and contingency (20%). Estimates made in 2015, escalated to 2025$ with ENR CCI. Class 3 bike lane costs per LF are based on INCOG's cost estimates for Tulsa, OK, Appendix D: Cost Estimate Details. See:
https://www.incog.org/Transportation/Documents/GO%20PLAN%20FINAL%20DOCUMEN TS/AppendixD_cost_estimates.pdf
Prepared by EPS 11/5/2025
B-1 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m1 10-29-25

DRAFT
Table B-2
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Cost Summary - Major Intersection Improvements
Item Intersection Type [1]
Cost per
Intersection Total Cost
Intersection Improvements
Grangeville / 9th Signalized $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Grangeville / Hwy 43 Signalized $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Grangeville / 7th Signalized $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Florinda / 9th Signalized $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Florinda / Hwy 43 Signalized $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Florinda / Loop Rd East Signalized $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Florinda / Loop Rd West Signalized $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Florinda / 7th Signalized $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Lacey / 9th Signalized $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Lacey / Hwy 43 Roundabout $300,000 $300,000
Lacey / Loop Rd East Signalized $300,000 $1,000,000
Lacey / Loop Rd West Signalized $300,000 $1,000,000
9th / Hwy 43 Signalized $300,000 $1,000,000
7th / Hwy 43 Signalized $300,000 $1,000,000
4-Way Internal Intersections (x45) 4-Way Stop/Roundabout $50,000 $2,250,000 3-Way Internal Intersections (x25) 1-Way Stop $25,000 $625,000 Construction Subtotal $16,175,000
Contingency (20%) $3,235,000
Construction Total $19,410,000
Soft Costs (10%) $1,941,000
Total Cost (Rounded) $21,351,000
[1] EPS assumed intersection types based on land use plan.

Estimates by EPS based on Perkins & Will land use plan.

Prepared by EPS 11/5/2025
B-2 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m1 10-29-25

DRAFT
Table B-3
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Cost Summary - Dry Utilities (Street Lights/Joint Trench) Item LF Cost Per LF Total Cost [1]
Dry Utilities Improvements
Grangeville Boulevard 6,464 $160 $1,034,240
Florinda Avenue 6,538 $160 $1,046,080
Lacey Boulvard 11,688 $160 $1,870,080
7th Avenue 5,279 $160 $844,640
9th Avenue 3,106 $160 $496,960
Loop Road/Ambient Loop 10,673 $160 $1,707,680
Internal Roads 124,190 $160 $19,870,400
Total Cost (Rounded, Includes Soft Costs and Contingency) $26,870,000 Source: Planning-level unit costs for infrastructure in other jurisdictions applied to Perkins & Will land use plan by EPS.
[1] Includes soft costs and contingencies. Estimates include trench, design costs, pads, vaults, and boxes, the electric system, and streetlights.

Prepared by EPS 11/5/2025
B-3 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m1 10-29-25

DRAFT
Table B-4
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Cost Summary - Sewer Improvements
Segment Item LF/Units
Cost per
LF/Unit Total Cost
Sewer Lines LF
Grangeville Bvld, Hwy 43 to 9th Ave 12" Gravity Pipe 5,300 $444 $2,353,200 9th Ave, Grangeville Bvld to Florinda St 18" Gravity Pipe 2,650 $558 $1,478,700 Florinda St, 7th Ave to Hwy 43 12" Gravity Pipe 5,200 $444 $2,308,800 Florinda St, Hwy 43 to 9th Ave 18" Gravity Pipe 5,350 $558 $2,985,300 9th Ave, Florinda St to Lacey Bvld 24" Gravity Pipe 2,700 $744 $2,008,800 Lacey Bvld, 7th Ave to Vidauri Ln 12" Gravity Pipe 7,100 $444 $3,152,400 Lacey Bvld, Sierra Dr to 9th Ave [1] 12" Gravity Pipe 2,550 $444 $1,007,658 Internal Roads 12" Gravity Pipe 124,190 $444 $55,140,360 Sewer Manholes Every 350 LF 443 $7,350 $3,255,840
Subtotal $73,691,058
Contingency (20%) $14,738,212
Construction Subtotal $88,429,270
Soft Costs (10%) $8,842,927
Total Sewer $97,272,197
Offsite Wastewater Treatment Plant
WWTP Construction $2,000,000
Subtotal $2,000,000
Contingency (20%) $400,000
Construction Subtotal $2,400,000
Soft Costs (10%) $240,000
Total Offsite WWTF $2,640,000
Total Cost (Rounded) $99,912,000
Source: Cost of sewer lines from City of Hanford Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, Table 9.2: Capital Improvement Program; Wastewater treatmant plant cost is a general estimate by EPS. [1] 11 percent of the Lacey Boulevard portion of the trunk line will be allocated to existing development, per the City's Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. The total cost shown above is the 89 percent of the cost which will be allocated to new development.

Prepared by EPS 11/5/2025
B-4 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m1 10-29-25

DRAFT
Table B-5
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Cost Summary - Water Improvements
Segment Item LF Cost Per LF Total Cost
Water Improvements
Grangeville Boulevard 12" Water Pipe, Trench and Patch 6,464 $280 $1,809,920 Florinda Avenue 12" Water Pipe, Trench and Patch 6,538 $280 $1,830,640 Lacey Boulvard 12" Water Pipe, Trench and Patch 11,688 $280 $3,272,640 7th Avenue 12" Water Pipe, Trench and Patch 5,279 $280 $1,478,120 9th Avenue 12" Water Pipe, Trench and Patch 3,106 $280 $869,680 Loop Road/Ambient Loop 12" Water Pipe, Trench and Patch 10,673 $280 $2,988,440 Internal Roads 12" Water Pipe, Trench and Patch 124,190 $280 $34,773,200 Construction Subtotal $47,022,640
Contingency (20%) $9,404,528
Construction Total $56,427,168
Soft Costs (10%) $5,642,717
Total Cost (Rounded) $62,070,000
Source: Planning-level unit costs for infrastructure in other jurisdictions applied to Perkins & Will land use plan by EPS.

Linear feet based on roadway improvements, assumes water lines under roads.

Prepared by EPS 11/5/2025
B-5 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m1 10-29-25

DRAFT
Table B-6
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Cost Summary - Storm Drain Improvements
Item Item LF/Units
Cost per
LF/Unit Total Cost
Storm Drainage Improvements
Drainage Basins (integrated within open space) $5,000,000 Grangeville Boulevard 24" Gravity Line 6,464 $160 $1,034,240 Florinda Avenue 24" Gravity Line 6,538 $160 $1,046,080
Lacey Boulvard 24" Gravity Line 11,688 $160 $1,870,080
7th Avenue 24" Gravity Line 5,279 $160 $844,640
9th Avenue 24" Gravity Line 3,106 $160 $496,960
Loop Road/Ambient Loop 24" Gravity Line 10,673 $160 $1,707,680 Internal Roads 24" Gravity Line 124,190 $160 $19,870,400 Drianage Manholes Every 310 LF 542 $8,400 $4,550,578
Construction Subtotal $36,420,658
Contingency (20%) $7,284,132
Construction Total $43,704,790
Soft Costs (10%) $4,370,479
Total Cost (Rounded) $48,075,000
Source: Planning-level unit costs for infrastructure in other jurisdictions applied to Perkins & Will land use plan by EPS.

Prepared by EPS 11/5/2025
B-6 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m1 10-29-25

DRAFT
Table B-7
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Cost Summary - Parks and Open Space
Item Acres
Cost per
Acre Total Cost
Parks Improvements
Hubs 56.0 $150,000 $8,400,000
Patches 20.0 $150,000 $3,000,000
Agriculture 45.0 $100,000 $4,500,000
Buffer 56.0 $250,000 $14,000,000
Construction Subtotal $29,900,000
Contingency (20%) $5,980,000
Construction Total $35,880,000
Soft Costs (10%) $3,588,000
Total Cost (Rounded) $39,468,000
Source: Planning-level unit costs for infrastructure in other jurisdictions applied to Perkins & Will land use plan by EPS. Additional estimates made as needed.

Prepared by EPS 11/5/2025
B-7 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m1 10-29-25

DRAFT
Table B-8
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Estimated Hanford HSR Station Area Development Fee Revenue (2025$) Item LDR MDR
Production and
Innovation Institutional
Commercial
(Mixed Use) Notes
Assumptions
Unit Size/Bldg. Sq. Ft. 1,800 1,400 595,901 317,814 960,062 Units/Acres [1] 1,853 7,410 60.0 32.0 58.0
Garage Sq. Ft. 450 350
Valuation $334,152 $259,896 $57,129,029 $65,774,785 $126,123,345 Residential: $169.09/sf SFR (R-3 VB), 153.58/sq MFR (R-2 VB) $66.20/sf garage(U) Nonresidential: $95.87 /sf Production/Innovation (Low Hazard Factory/Industrial); $206.96 /sf Institutional (Business); $131.37 / sf (Mercantile) Processing Fees
Building Permit $5,219,829 $17,104,559 - - - $22,324,388 $1,213.02 + $6.85 for each additional $1,000 above $100,000 valuation Building Permit Review $179,741 $718,770 - - - $898,511 $97 per unit Plan Check and Inspection Fee $2,237,498 $8,373,300 - - - $10,610,798 Based on R-1/R-2 Occupancy: $989 for first 800 sq. ft. + $0.235 per sq. ft. from 800-1,600 sq. ft.; $1,177 for first 1,600 sq. ft. + $0.1525 per sq. ft. from 1,600-4,000 sq. ft.

Building Inspection $4,271,167 $13,998,732 - - - $18,269,899 Based on valuation: $993.75 for the first $100,000 plus $5.60 for each additional $1,000 Plan Review Fee $2,776,259 $9,099,176 - - - $11,875,434 65% of Building Inspection Fee Major Subdivision Plan Review $1,340 $5,360 - - - $6,700 $3,350 per initial major or subdivision/parcel map; assumes 2 map reviews Tentative Subdivision Map $1,510 $6,040 - - - $7,550 $7,500 + $50 recording fee Document Archiving Fee $13,434 $53,723 - - - $67,157 $7.25 per residential permit Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee $80,494 $250,358 - - - $330,852 $13 per $100,000 valuation SB 1473 Building Standards Fee (Green Fee) $24,767 $77,033 - - - $101,801 $4 per $100,000 valuation Fire Plan Review (residential < 5,000 sq. ft.) $350,217 $1,400,490 - - - $1,750,707 $189 per unit Water Meter Inspection $164,917 $659,490 - - - $824,407 $89 per meter Backflow Prevention Assembly Inspection Fee $148,240 $592,800 - - - $741,040 $80 per land use / dwelling unit Installation of Meter for New Water Service $231,625 $926,250 - - - $1,157,875 $125 per meter, assumes 1 meter per 2 nonresidential acres Grading Plan Review $880 $3,520 - - - $4,400 $4,400 for 8+ units Plumbing Inspection $92,650 $370,500 - - - $463,150 $50 per unit Mechanical Inspection $92,650 $370,500 - - - $463,150 $50 per unit Subtotal Processing Fees $15,887,219 $54,010,600 - - - $69,897,818 City/County Development Impact Fees
City Fire Fee $1,198,409 $2,693,906 $95,344 $19,069 $518,433 $4,525,161 Light Industrial: $0.16 per sq. ft.; Public Facilities: $0.06 per sq. ft.;Commercial: $0.54 per sq. ft.

City Police Fee $650,310 $3,845,345 $5,959 $28,603 $691,245 $5,221,463 Light Industrial: $0.01 per sq. ft.; Public Facilities: $0.09 per sq. ft.;Commercial: $0.72 per sq. ft.

City Water Fee $5,444,281 $12,170,480 $1,048,786 $479,899 $1,200,078 $20,343,524 Light Industrial: $1.76 per sq. ft.; Public Facilities: $1.51 per sq. ft.;Commercial: $1.25 per sq. ft.

City Wastewater Fee $4,662,519 $14,925,370 $583,983 $273,320 $816,053 $21,261,245 Light Industrial: $0.98 per sq. ft.; Public Facilities: $0.86 per sq. ft.;Commercial: $0.85 per sq. ft.

City Parks Fee $6,010,298 $21,524,864 - - - $27,535,163 Nonresidential development not charged parks fee.

City Storm Drain Fee $5,298,950 $23,309,044 $274,526 $128,112 $298,548 $29,309,181 Light Industrial: $4,575 per acre; Public Facilities: $4,004 per acre; Commercial: $5,147 per acre City Refuse Fee $1,084,820 $4,338,110 $420,067 $224,036 $406,065 $6,473,099 Nonres. fee based on dumpster volume. Fee shown = 4 x 4 cu. yd. bins per acre City Circulation Fee $7,522,531 $30,082,007 $1,208,088 $696,143 $8,579,844 $48,088,613 ft.

City Sanitary Sewer Fee $383,947 $575,764 $186,240 $99,328 $180,032 $1,425,311 Based on 9th Ave Area of Benefit District (10th Ave to Hwy 43); $3,104 per acre County Public Protection Fee $2,301,426 $7,158,060 $166,864 $148,327 $358,458 $10,133,136 $0.69 / sq ft Residential. Nonres / 1,000 sq. ft.: $280.02 Industrial; $466.71 Office; $373.37 Retail County Library Fee $800,496 $2,489,760 - - - $3,290,256 $0.24 / sq ft Residential; Nonresidential development not charged Library Fee County Public Facilities Compliance Fee $66,708 $207,480 $4,171 $3,709 $8,525 $290,594 $0.02 / sq ft Residential. Nonres / 1,000 sq. ft.: $7 Industrial; $11.67 Office; $8.88 Retail Subtotal City/County Development Impact Fees $35,424,695 $123,320,191 $3,994,029 $2,100,546 $13,057,281 $177,896,743 Other Agency Fees
Hanford ESD & JUHSD Fee $17,244,018 $13,412,014 $500,557 $266,964 $806,452 $32,230,005 $5.17 / sq ft Residential, $0.84 / sq ft Commercial California Farmland Trust Mitigation Fee $1,463,005 $548,627 $710,580 $378,976 $686,894 $3,788,082 $11,843 per acre.

Subtotal Other Agency Fees $18,707,023 $13,960,641 $1,211,137 $645,940 $1,493,346 $36,018,087 Estimated Plan Area Fees
Roadways, Intersections, Bike Lanes $23,139,761 $20,652,487 $2,948,604 $3,145,177 $12,571,773 $62,457,802 Dry Utilities $4,840,000 $4,840,000 $2,233,845 $1,191,385 $2,159,385 $15,264,614 Sewer $5,925,777 $4,032,821 $955,970 $691,323 $1,002,418 $12,608,309 Water $2,219,464 $1,151,843 $223,106 $317,956 $233,347 $4,145,716 Storm Drain - - - - - -
Parks $2,609,785 $1,848,052 - - - $4,457,837
Administration $1,162,044 $975,756 $191,000 $160,000 $479,000 $2,967,800 Subtotal Plan Area Fees $39,896,831 $33,500,958 $6,552,525 $5,505,842 $16,445,922 $101,902,078 Total Fees $109,915,768 $224,792,390 $11,757,691 $8,252,328 $30,996,549 $385,714,726 Source: City of Hanford; Kings County; EPS.
[1] Units and building square feet are based on adjusted buildout to 95% of Community Plan land uses.

Nonresidential Processing Fees not Estimated
Residential
Total Fee
Revenue
Nonresidential
Prepared by EPS 11/11/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m2 11-6-25 B-8

DRAFT
Table B-9
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Estimated Hanford HSR Station Area Development Fees (2025$) Item LDR MDR
Production and
Innovation Institutional
Commercial
(Mixed Use) Notes
Assumptions
Unit Size/Bldg. Sq. Ft. [1] 1,800 1,400 595,901 317,814 960,062 Units/Acres 1,853 7,410 60.0 32.0 58.0
Garage Sq. Ft. 450 350
Valuation (February 2025 ICC) [2] $334,152 $259,896 $57,129,029 $65,774,785 $126,123,345 Residential: $169.09/sf SFR (R-3 VB), 153.58/sq MFR (R-2 VB) $66.20/sf garage(U) Nonresidential: $95.87 /sf Production/Innovation (Low Hazard Factory/Industrial); $206.96 /sf Institutional (Business); $131.37 / sf Commercial (Mercantile) Units Per Subdivision
Processing Fees
Building Permit $2,817 $2,308 - - - $1,213.02 + $6.85 for each additional $1,000 above $100,000 valuation Building Permit Review $97 $97 - - - $97 per unit
Plan Check and Inspection Fee $1,208 $1,130 - - -
Based on R-1/R-2 Occupancy: $989 for first 800 sq. ft. + $0.235 per sq. ft. from 800-1,600 sq. ft.; $1,177 for first 1,600 sq. ft. + $0.1525 per sq. ft. from 1,600-4,000 sq. ft.

Building Inspection $2,305 $1,889 - - - Based on valuation: $993.75 for the first $100,000 plus $5.60 for each additional $1,000 Plan Review Fee $1,498 $1,228 - - - 65% of Building Inspection Fee Major Subdivision Plan Review $1 $1 - - - $3,350 per initial major or subdivision/parcel map; assumes 2 map reviews Tentative Subdivision Map $1 $1 - - - $7,500 + $50 recording fee Document Archiving Fee $7 $7 - - - $7.25 per residential permit Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee $43 $34 - - - $13 per $100,000 valuation SB 1473 Building Standards Fee (Green Fee) $13 $10 - - - $4 per $100,000 valuation Fire Plan Review (residential < 5,000 sq. ft.) $189 $189 - - - $189 per unit Water Meter Inspection $89 $89 - - - $89 per meter
Backflow Prevention Assembly Inspection Fee $80 $80 - - - $80 per land use / dwelling unit Installation of Meter for New Water Service $125 $125 - - - $125 per meter, assumes 1 meter per 2 nonresidential acres Grading Plan Review $0.48 $0.48 - - - $4,400 for 8+ units Plumbing Inspection $50 $50 - - - $50 per unit
Mechanical Inspection $50 $50 - - - $50 per unit
Subtotal Processing Fees $8,574 $7,289 - - -
City/County Development Impact Fees
City Fire Fee $647 $364 $160 $60 $540 Light Industrial: $0.16 per sq. ft.; Public Facilities: $0.06 per sq. ft.;Commercial: $0.54 per sq. ft.

City Police Fee $351 $519 $10 $90 $720 Light Industrial: $0.01 per sq. ft.; Public Facilities: $0.09 per sq. ft.;Commercial: $0.72 per sq. ft.

City Water Fee $2,938 $1,642 $1,760 $1,510 $1,250 Light Industrial: $1.76 per sq. ft.; Public Facilities: $1.51 per sq. ft.;Commercial: $1.25 per sq. ft.

City Wastewater Fee $2,516 $2,014 $980 $860 $850 Light Industrial: $0.98 per sq. ft.; Public Facilities: $0.86 per sq. ft.;Commercial: $0.85 per sq. ft.

City Parks Fee $3,244 $2,905 - - - Nonresidential development not charged parks fee.

City Storm Drain Fee $2,860 $3,146 $461 $403 $311 Light Industrial: $4,575 per acre; Public Facilities: $4,004 per acre; Commercial: $5,147 per acre City Refuse Fee $585 $585 $705 $705 $423 Nonres. fee based on dumpster volume. Fee shown = 4 x 4 cu. yd. bins per acre City Circulation Fee $4,060 $4,060 $2,027 $2,190 $8,937 Light Industrial: $2,027 per 1,000 sq. ft.; Public Facilities: $2,190 per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail >100k sq ft: $8,937 per 1,000 sq. ft.

City Sanitary Sewer Fee $207 $78 $313 $313 $188 Based on 9th Ave Area of Benefit District (10th Ave to Hwy 43); $3,104 per acre County Public Protection Fee $1,242 $966 $280 $467 $373 $0.69 / sq ft Residential. Nonres / 1,000 sq. ft.: $280.02 Industrial; $466.71 Office; $373.37 Retail County Library Fee $432 $336 - - - $0.24 / sq ft Residential; Nonresidential development not charged Library Fee County Public Facilities Compliance Fee $36 $28 $7 $12 $9 $0.02 / sq ft Residential. Nonres / 1,000 sq. ft.: $7 Industrial; $11.67 Office; $8.88 Retail Subtotal City/County Development Impact Fees $19,117 $16,642 $6,703 $6,609 $13,600 Other Agency Fees
Hanford ESD & JUHSD Fee $9,306 $7,238 $840 $840 $840 $5.17 / sq ft Residential, $0.84 / sq ft Commercial California Farmland Trust Mitigation Fee $790 $296 $1,192 $1,192 $715 $11,843 per acre.

Subtotal Other Agency Fees $10,096 $7,534 $2,032 $2,032 $1,555 Estimated Plan Area Fees
Roadways, Intersections, Bike Lanes $12,488 $11,145 $4,948 $9,896 $13,095 Dry Utilities $2,612 $2,612 $3,749 $3,749 $2,249
Sewer $3,198 $2,176 $1,604 $2,175 $1,044
Water $1,198 $622 $374 $1,000 $243
Storm Drain - - - - -
Parks $1,408 $997 - - -
Administration $627 $527 $320 $505 $499
Subtotal Plan Area Fees $21,531 $18,079 $10,996 $17,325 $17,130 Total Fees $59,318 $49,545 $19,731 $25,967 $32,286
Source: City of Hanford; Kings County; EPS.
[1] Units and building square feet are based on adjusted buildout to 95% of Community Plan land uses. [2] Land use designations from Perkins & Will design package, dated August 26, 2025, applied to residential uses. Fees based on residential sq. ft. are based on estimated typical unit sizes.

Residential
Fee per Unit [2]
Fee per Unit Fee per 1,000 Building Sq. Ft.

Nonresidential Processing Fees not Estimated
Nonresidential
Prepared by EPS 11/11/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m2 11-6-25 B-9

Appendix C: Cost Allocations
Table C-1 Dwelling Unit Equivalent Factors - Road Intersection, and Bike Lane Improvements................. C-1 Table C-2 National Single Family Persons per Household and Trips per Household - Detached Units...................................................................................................................................................................................... C-2 Table C-3 Infrastructure Cost Allocation - Roads, Intersections, and Bike Lanes ............................................... C-3 Table C-4 Dwelling Unit Equivalent Factors - Dry Utilities........................................................................................... C-4 Table C-5 Infrastructure Cost Allocation - Dry Utilities and Soundwall.................................................................. C-5 Table C-6 Dwelling Unit Equivalent Factors - Sewer Improvements........................................................................ C-6 Table C-7 Infrastructure Cost Allocation - Sewer Improvements.............................................................................. C-7 Table C-8 Dwelling Unit Equivalent Factors - Water Improvements ....................................................................... C-8 Table C-9 Infrastructure Cost Allocation - Water Improvements ............................................................................. C-9 Table C-10 Dwelling Unit Equivalent Factors - Storm Drainage Improvements................................................. C-10 Table C-11 Infrastructure Cost Allocation - Storm Drainage Improvements....................................................... C-11 Table C-12 Dwelling Unit Equivalent Factors - Parks and Open Space Improvements.................................... C-12 Table C-13 Infrastructure Cost Allocation - Parks and Open Space Improvements.......................................... C-13 Table C-14 Estimated Persons per Household by Square Foot Range..................................................................... C-14

DRAFT
Table C-1
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Dwelling Unit Equivalent Factors - Road Intersection, and Bike Lane Improvements Land Use Category
Average Daily
Trips [1]
Percentage of
New Trips [2]
Per Unit / 1,000
Bldg. Sq. Ft.

Residential
Trip Adjustment
Factor [3]
Average Daily New
Trips per Unit/1,000
Bldg Sq. Ft. DUE Factor
Formula A B C=A*B D E=C*D
Residential
Single Family Residential per unit
< 1,000 sq. ft. 7.15 100% 7.15 0.85 6.07 0.72
1,000 to 1,499 sq. ft. 7.97 100% 7.97 0.94 7.53 0.89
1,500 to 1,999 sq. ft 8.43 100% 8.43 1.00 8.43 1.00
> 2,000 sq. ft. 9.24 100% 9.24 1.10 10.11 1.20
Commercial per 1,000 bldg. sq. ft.

Production and Innovation 5.06 66% 3.34 - 3.34 0.40
Institutional 10.13 66% 6.68 - 6.68 0.79
Commercial (Mixed Use) 16.75 66% 11.05 - 11.05 1.31
Total
Source: American Housing Survey; EPS.
[1] Estimated by EPS using American Housing Survey and traffic demand data. [2] Average percent new trips from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, ITE, 2021. [3] See Table C-2.

F=E/E for SF
1,500-1,999 sq. ft.

Average Daily Trips Generated
Prepared by EPS 11/5/2025
C-1 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m1 10-29-25

DRAFT
Table C-2
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan National Single Family Persons per Household and Trips per Household - Detached Units Trips per
Household
<1,000
sq. ft.
1,000-1,499
sq. ft.
1,500-1,999
sq. ft.
>2,000 sq. ft.
sq. ft. Total
Units (in thousands)
1 person 3.82 1,998 4,854 4,017 4,266 15,135
2 persons 6.88 1,879 6,315 7,451 12,551 28,196
3 persons 9.44 722 2,825 3,241 5,643 12,431
4 persons 12.61 476 2,182 2,906 6,240 11,804
5 persons 14.72 224 957 1,314 2,999 5,494
6 persons 15.28 75 436 445 1,153 2,109
7 persons or more 21.03 45 234 270 598 1,147
Total Units 5,419 17,803 19,644 33,450 76,316
Persons (in thousands) [1] 11,711 43,726 51,396 97,356 204,189 Average PPH [1] 2.16 2.46 2.62 2.91 2.68
PPH Factor [2] 0.83 0.94 1.00 1.11
Trips (in Thousands) [1] 38,768 141,843 165,667 308,942 655,220 Average Trips per Unit 7.15 7.97 8.43 9.24 8.59
Trip Factor [3] 0.85 0.94 1.00 1.10
Source: US Census American Housing Survey 2021 - National. [1] Assumes 7 persons in a "7 persons or more household." [2] PPH as compared to PPH for a 1,500-1,999 sq. ft. unit. [2] TPH as compared to TPH for a 1,500-1,999 sq. ft. unit.

Single Family Unit Size
Prepared by EPS 11/11/2025 C- Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m2 11-6-25 2

DRAFT
Table C-3
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Infrastructure Cost Allocation - Roads, Intersections, and Bike Lanes Item
Dwelling
Units/
Bldg. Sq. Ft.

DUE
Factor [1] Total DUEs
Percentage
Allocation
Roadways Cost
Allocation
Intersections Cost
Allocation
Road/Bikeway
Cost per Unit or
1,000 Bldg Sq. Ft
Intersections Cost
per Unit or 1,000
Bldg Sq. Ft
Total Cost per
Unit or 1,000
Bldg. Sq. Ft.

Formula A B C=A*B D=C/Total C E=D*Total E F=D*Total F B*$10,436 B*$2,052 Single Family Residential units per unit per unit
< 1,000 sq. ft. 0 0.72 0 0.0% $0 $0 $7,510 $1,476 $8,986 1,000 to 1,499 sq. ft. 7,800 0.89 6,962 66.9% $72,651,024 $14,283,352 $9,314 $1,831 $11,145 1,500 to 1,999 sq. ft 1,950 1.00 1,950 18.7% $20,350,180 $4,000,890 $10,436 $2,052 $12,488 > 2,000 sq. ft. 0 1.20 0 0.0% $0 $0 $12,516 $2,461 $14,977 Subtotal Residential 9,750 8,912 85.6% $93,001,204 $18,284,242 Commercial bldg. sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft.

Production and Innovation 595,901 0.40 236 2.3% $2,464,147 $484,457 $4,135 $813 $4,948 Institutional 317,814 0.79 252 2.4% $2,628,423 $516,754 $8,270 $1,626 $9,896 Commercial 960,062 1.05 1,007 9.7% $10,506,226 $2,065,547 $10,943 $2,151 $13,095 Subtotal Commercial 1,873,777 1,495 14.4% $15,598,796 $3,066,758 Total 10,406 100.0% $108,600,000 $21,351,000
Cost per DUE $10,436 $2,052 $12,488
Source: City of Hanford Public Works Department; Perkins&Will; EPS. [1] See Table C-1.

Prepared by EPS 11/11/2025 C- Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m2 11-6-25 3

DRAFT
Table C-4
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Dwelling Unit Equivalent Factors - Dry Utilities
Land Use Acres
Dwelling Units/
Bldg. Sq. Ft.

Acres per Unit/
1,000 Bldg. Sq. Ft.

DUE Factor per Unit/
1,000 Bldg. Sq. Ft.

Total
DUEs
Formula A B C=A/B D=C/C for LDR D*B
Residential
Low Density Residential 130.0 1,853 0.07 1.00 1,853
Medium Density Residential 195.0 7,410 0.03 0.38 2,780
Subtotal 325.0 9,263 4,633
Formula A B C=A/B*1,000 D=C/C for LDR D*B/1,000
Noresidential
Production and Innovation 60.0 595,901 0.10 1.44 855
Institutional 32.0 317,814 0.10 1.44 456
Commercial 58.0 960,062 0.06 0.86 827
Subtotal Noresidential 92.0 1,873,777 2,138
Total 417.0 6,771
Source: EPS.

Land Uses DUEs
Prepared by EPS 11/11/2025 C- Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m2 11-6-25 4

DRAFT
Table C-5
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Infrastructure Cost Allocation - Dry Utilities and Soundwall Item
Land Use
Category
DUE
Factor [1] Amount
Cost per DUE
Total Cost $12,100,000
Total DUEs [1] 4,633
Cost per DUE $2,612
Formula A A*$2,612
Single Family Residential per unit
< 1,000 sq. ft. HDR 0.38 $980
1,000 to 1,499 sq. ft. MDR 0.38 $980
1,500 to 1,999 sq. ft LDR 1.00 $2,612
> 2,000 sq. ft. LDR 1.00 $2,612
Commercial per 1,000 sq. ft.

Production and Innovation 1.44 $3,749
Institutional 1.44 $3,749
Commercial 0.86 $2,249
Source: EPS.
[1] See Table C-4.

Prepared by EPS 11/11/2025 C-5 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m2 11-6-25

DRAFT
Table C-6
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Dwelling Unit Equivalent Factors - Sewer Improvements
Land Use Category
Density/
FAR
Gallons per
Day per
Acre [1]
Gallons per Day
per Unit /
1,000 sq. ft.

DUE
Factor
Formula A B C=B/A D=C/C for SF-LD
Residential DU/ac per unit
Low Density Residential 15.0 1,350 90 1.00
Medium Density Residential 40.0 2,450 61 0.68
Formula A B C=B/(A*43,560)*1,000 D=C/C for SF-LD
Commercial FAR per 1,000 bldg. sq. ft.

Production and Innovation 0.30 590 45.1 0.50
Institutional 0.30 800 61.2 0.68
Commercial 0.50 640 29.4 0.33
Source: City of Hanford Public Works Department; Perkins&Will; EPS. [1] Based on the City of Hanford Sewer System Master Plan (2017) Table ES-1. Densities proposed in Station Area Design Package as assumed to be higher than those assumed in the SSMP, and flows are assigned accordingly.

Prepared by EPS 11/11/2025 C-6 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m2 11-6-25

DRAFT
Table C-7
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Infrastructure Cost Allocation - Sewer Improvements
Land Use Category
Dwelling
Units/
Bldg. Sq. Ft.

DUE
Factor [1]
Total
DUEs
Percentage
Allocation
Cost
Allocation
Cost per
Unit or 1,000
Bldg. Sq. Ft.

Formula A B C=A*B D=C/Total C E=D*Total E E/A
Residential units per unit per unit
Low Density Residential 1,853 1.00 1,853 25.0% $5,925,777 $3,198 Medium Density Residential 7,410 0.68 5,043 68.0% $16,126,929 $2,176 Subtotal Residential 9,263 6,896 93.0% $22,052,706
Formula A B C=A*C/1,000 D=C/Total C E=D*Total E E/A*1,000 Nonresidential bldg. sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft.

Production and Innovation 595,901 0.50 299 4.0% $955,970 $1,604 Institutional 317,814 0.68 216 2.9% $691,323 $2,175
Commercial 960,062 0.33 313 4.2% $1,002,418 $1,044
Subtotal Commercial 1,873,777 515 7.0% $1,647,294
Total 7,411 100.0% $23,700,000
Source: City of Hanford Public Works Department; Perkins&Will; EPS. [1] See Table C-6.

Prepared by EPS 11/11/2025 C-7 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m2 11-6-25

DRAFT
Table C-8
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Dwelling Unit Equivalent Factors - Water Improvements
Land Use Category
Density/
FAR
Gallons per
Day per
Acre [1]
Gallons per Day
per Unit /
1,000 sq. ft.

DUE
Factor
Formula A B C=B/A D=C/C for SF-LD
Residential DU/ac per unit
Low Density Residential 15.0 2,240 149 1.00
Medium Density Residential 40.0 3,100 78 0.52
Formula A B C=B/(A*43,560)*1,000 D=C/C for SF-LD
Commercial FAR per 1,000 bldg. sq. ft.

Production and Innovation 0.30 610 46.7 0.31
Institutional 0.30 1,630 124.7 0.84
Commercial 0.50 660 30.3 0.20
Source: City of Hanford Public Works Department; Perkins&Will; EPS. [1] Based on the City of Hanford Water System Master Plan (2016) Table ES-2. Densities proposed in Station Area Design Package as assumed to be higher than those assumed in the WSMP, and flows are assigned accordingly.

Prepared by EPS 11/11/2025 C-8 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m2 11-6-25

DRAFT
Table C-9
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Infrastructure Cost Allocation - Water Improvements
Land Use Category
Dwelling
Units/
Bldg. Sq. Ft.

DUE
Factor [1]
Total
DUEs
Percentage
Allocation
Cost
Allocation
Cost per
Unit or 1,000
Bldg. Sq. Ft.

Formula A B C=A*B D=C/Total C E=D*Total E E/A
Residential units per unit per unit
Low Density Residential 1,853 1.00 1,853 29.2% $2,219,464 $1,198 Medium Density Residential 7,410 0.52 3,846 60.6% $4,606,127 $622 Subtotal Residential 9,263 5,699 89.8% $6,825,591
Formula A B C=A*B/1,000 D=C/Total C E=D*Total E E/A*1,000 Nonresidential bldg. sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft.

Production and Innovation 595,901 0.31 186 2.9% $223,106 $374 Institutional 317,814 0.84 265 4.2% $317,956 $1,000
Commercial 960,062 0.20 195 3.1% $233,347 $243
Subtotal Nonresidential 1,873,777 647 10.2% $774,409
Total 6,345 100.0% $ 7,600,000
Source: City of Hanford Public Works Department; Perkins&Will; EPS. [1] See Table C-8.

Prepared by EPS 11/11/2025 C-9 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m2 11-6-25

DRAFT
Table C-10
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Dwelling Unit Equivalent Factors - Storm Drainage Improvements Land Use Category
Impervious Area
Coefficient per
Acre [1] Density
Runoff Coefficient
per Unit/1,000
Bldg. Sq. Ft. [1]
DUE
Factor
Formula A B C=A/B D=C/C for SF-LD
Residential units per acre per unit
Low Density Residential 0.55 15.0 0.04 1.00
Medium Density Residential 0.60 40.0 0.02 0.41
Formula A B C=A/(43,560*B)*1,000 D=C/C for SF-LD
Commercial FAR per 1,000 bldg. sq. ft.

Production and Innovation 0.80 0.30 0.06 1.67
Institutional 0.70 0.30 0.05 1.46
Commercial 0.70 0.50 0.03 0.88
Source: EPS.
[1] Based on the City of Hanford Storm Drainage System Master Plan (2017) Table 3-3. Densities proposed in the Station Area Design Package as assumed to be higher than those assumed in the SDMP, and imperviousarea coefficients are assigned accordingly.

Prepared by EPS 11/11/2025 C-10 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m2 11-6-25

DRAFT
Table C-11
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Infrastructure Cost Allocation - Storm Drainage Improvements Land Use Category
Dwelling
Units/
Bldg. Sq. Ft.

DUE
Factor [1]
Total
DUEs
Percentage
Allocation
Cost
Allocation
Cost per
Unit or 1,000
Bldg. Sq. Ft.

Formula A B C=A*B D=C/Total C E=D*Total E E/A
Residential units per unit per unit
Low Density Residential 1,853 1.00 1,853 25.8% $0 $0
Medium Density Residential (Mixed Use) [4] 7,410 0.41 3,031 42.2% $0 $0 Subtotal Residential 9,263 4,884 68.0% $0
Formula A B C=A*B/1,000 D=C/Total C E=D*Total E E/A*1,000 Nonresidential bldg. sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft.

Production and Innovation 595,901 1.67 995 13.8% $0 $0
Institutional 317,814 1.46 464 6.5% $0 $0
Commercial 960,062 0.88 842 11.7% $0 $0
Subtotal Nonresidential 1,873,777 2,301 32.0% $0
Total 7,185 100.0% $0
Source: City of Hanford Public Works Department; Perkins&Will; EPS. [1] See Table C-10.

Prepared by EPS 11/11/2025 C-11 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m2 11-6-25

DRAFT
Table C-12
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Dwelling Unit Equivalent Factors - Parks and Open Space Improvements Land Use Category
Residential Unit
Category Units
Persons per
Household [1]
DUE
Factor
Total
DUEs
Formula A B
Single Family Residential
< 1,000 sq. ft. HDR 0 1.81 0.71 0
1,000 to 1,499 sq. ft. MDR 7,410 1.81 0.71 5,247
1,500 to 1,999 sq. ft LDR 1,853 2.56 1.00 1,853
> 2,000 sq. ft. LDR 0 2.56 1.00 0
Total 9,263 7,100
Commercial [2]
Production and Innovation N/A N/A
Institutional N/A N/A
Commercial N/A N/A
Source: EPS.
[1] See Table C-14.
[2] Commercial development not charged park fee.

C = B / B for
1,500 to 1,999 sq. ft.

Prepared by EPS 11/11/2025 C-12 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m2 11-6-25

DRAFT
Table C-13
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Infrastructure Cost Allocation - Parks and Open Space Improvements Item
DUE
Factor [1] Amount
Cost per DUE
Total Cost $10,000,000
Total DUEs [1] 7,100
Cost per DUE $1,408
Formula A A*$1,408
Cost per Unit
Single Family Residential
< 1,000 sq. ft. 0.71 $997
1,000 to 1,499 sq. ft. 0.71 $997
1,500 to 1,999 sq. ft 1.00 $1,408
> 2,000 sq. ft. 1.00 $1,408
Source: EPS.
[1] See Table C-12.

Prepared by EPS 11/11/2025 C-13 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m2 11-6-25

DRAFT
Table C-14
Hanford HSR Station Area Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan Estimated Persons per Household by Square Foot Range
Estimated
PPH [1]
Estimated
Units [3]
Total
Population
Formula A B A*B
Single Family Residential
< 1,000 1.81 - -
1,000 to 1,499 1.81 7,410 13,414
1,500 to 1,999 2.56 1,853 4,737
> 2,000 2.56 - -
Average/Total 2.18 9,263 18,151
Source: EPS; U.S. Census Bureau American Housing Survey; National Household Travel Survey.
[1] Based on Perkins&Will's population estimes by residential land use. [2] PPH Factor * PPH for average size LDR unit. See Table 2-2.

Calculated for each land use category so that the sum of the residents across categories equal the total population shown below.

Units 9,263
PPH 2.18
Population 20,224
Sq. Ft. Range
[3] Estimates that all LDR units are 1,500 to 1,999 sq. ft., all MDR units are 1,000 to 1,499 sq. ft.

Prepared by EPS 11/11/2025 C-14 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\241000s\241045_Hanford HSR\Model\241045 PFFP m2 11-6-25

M EMORANDUM
To: City of Hanford
From: Jason Moody, Kate O’Beirne, and Nate Jakobs
Subject: Kings-Tulare High Speed Rail Station Equity and Displacement Analysis; EPS #241045
Date: October 11, 2024
This memorandum presents an Equity and Displacement
Analysis to support actionable strategies for the Hanford KingsTulare High speed Rail station Transit Oriented Development Plan. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) conducted this analysis as part of a multi-disciplinary team led by Perkins & Will and retained by the City of Hanford. The work relies on Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant funding from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

The proposed HSR Station is located east of the current City boundaries in Census Tract 1 in Kings County. The proposed site and surrounding areas are currently composed of
predominantly agricultural land uses and is expected to be annexed into the City. This analysis uses Census Tracts to represent the Station Area as shown in Map 1 and listed in Table A—1 in Appendix A.

An important goal of the planning process is to help minimize gentrification-related displacement and provide equitable access, opportunities, and outcomes to the existing community in parallel to the development of the HSR Station. To address this issue, the EPS analysis considers not only the area immediately adjacent to the proposed HSR station location, but the surrounding Census Tracts, the City, and Kings County, including Federal- and State Disadvantaged Communities
therein. The high-level assessment on the potential for displacement is based on historical socioeconomic and real estate trends as well as emerging displacement methodologies pioneered by third-party researchers.