Hanford City Council
May 19, 2026

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 13 Table 4: Race and Ethnicity
Racial /Ethnic Group Hanford Kings County
Non-Hispanic or Latino 56.0% 45.1%
White 38.5% 31.6%
Black or African American 5.7% 5.9%
American Indian/Alaska Native 0.2% 0.8%
Asian 7.4% 3.6%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.2% 0.1%
Other races or2+ races 4.1% 3.2%
Hispanic or Latino (any race) 44.0% 54.9%
Total 100% 100%
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table B03002
Table 5: Population by Race by Hispanic Origin Over Time 2000 2010 2020
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race 16,116 25,419 30,763
White Non-Hispanic 20,794 22,205 19,608
Black or African American Non-Hispanic 1,989 2,367 2,423 American Indian and Alaska Native Non-Hispanic 305 331 365 Asian Non-Hispanic 1,164 2,205 2,307
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Non-Hispanic 59 43 87 Some Other Race Non-Hispanic 55 160 305
Two or More Races Non-Hispanic 1,204 1,237 2,132
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, 2010; Social Explorer Table for Census 2020.

Gini Index
The Gini index is a measure of the extent to which the distribution of income among families/households within a community deviate from a perfect equal distribution. The scale is from 0 to 1, with 0 representing perfect equality and 1 representing the highest possible level of inequality. Gini coefficient for California is 0.49. City of Hanford and Kings County has a Gini index is 0.41. All three jurisdiction have a similar amount of inequality in terms of distribution of income among households, with the City of Hanford and Kings County performing marginally better.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
15 Figure 2: Local Racial Demographics

6.02

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 17 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) and Racial Concentration of Areas of Affluence (RCAA)
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs To better understand fair housing, HUD uses the designation Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) which requires:
• a non-white population of 50 percent or more in a metropolitan or micropolitan area, or a nonwhite population of 20 percent or more outside of these areas. • extreme poverty, defined as census tracts with either 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line or with a poverty rate of three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.

As illustrated in Figure 3, CT 11 is identified as a R/ECAP area based on HUD definition. Census Tract 11 includes a portion of Hanford and the unincorporated community of Home Garden. Census Tract 11 (R/ECAP) exhibits disproportionately high poverty rates, with over 50% of residents living below the federal poverty line, and more than 75% identifying as Hispanic or Latino. The area also contains the highest levels of housing cost burden, overcrowding (HUD CHAS), and substandard unit conditions (based on local code enforcement data). In terms of educational opportunity, California Department of Education (CDE) data from nearby schools (e.g., Roosevelt Elementary) show performance ratings significantly below the city average, with high rates of absenteeism and low standardized test proficiency. Infrastructure gaps are evident—limited park access, aging sidewalks, and minimal public transit options reduce mobility and livability for residents. This census tract is also characterized by a CalEnviroScreen percentile score over 75% which indicates high environmental hazards that include ozone, particulate matter, pesticide, toxic releases, and is also categorized as a Low Resource area by the TCAC/HCD Opportunity map.

Environmental hazards and opportunities areas are discussed in more detail in this FHA.

HCD has a designation called Racial Concentration of Areas of Affluence (RCAA) which is based on two factors:
• A location quotient based on the percentage of white, non-Hispanic or Latino population in the census tract compared to the average percentage of total white population for the COG region. • If the median income for the census tract is greater than 1.5 times the COG median income or State median income, whichever is lower.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 18 Figure 3: Racial/Ethnic Area of Concentration of Poverty (R/ECAP) In Figure 4, CTs 6.03 and 6.04 are identified as RCAAs. The RCAAs generally coincide with TCAC/HCD highest-resource areas. Census Tracts 6.03 and 6.04 are among the highest-income areas in Hanford, with median household incomes over $100,000, a population that is over 70% White non-Hispanic, and homeownership rates above 85%. These tracts are characterized by low poverty, high-performing schools (e.g., Pioneer Elementary), low pollution burden scores per CalEnviroScreen, and greater access to private open space and recreational amenities. Public infrastructure is well maintained, and safe routes to school, bike lanes, and nearby retail or employment centers contribute to a higher overall quality of life.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 19 Figure 4: Racial Concentration of Areas of Affluence (RCAA) Disparities are most pronounced in communities like Census Tract 11, which encompasses older areas of the City of Hanford with housing built between 1930 and 1940 and Home Garden, which faces limited services, high overcrowding, and cost burden. Home Garden is not incorporated into the City limits and is considered a Community Service District. The area does not have full curb, gutter, and sidewalk, and therefore it is required to be installed as part of a development application. Structures within the Home Garden area are generally constructed in the early 1960s and in many instances are aging and in need of repair.

Home Garden
Housing Conditions.

The community of Home Garden’s residential development is generally achieved through limited infill development and by increasing density, often through the installment of Accessory Dwelling Units. There is a mix of aging homes and types of homes (i.e., stick built or mobile home). These housing conditions are similar to the closest residential areas of the City of Hanford, which is located to the north and west.

Neighborhood Conditions.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 20 Residential areas within the existing Home Garden Community are mostly laid out in a grid street pattern. There have been limited curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along some of the arterial residential streets. Installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk is dependent on available grant funding or are required improvements when a zoning permit is approved by Kings County. Limited commercial development exists along the western side along 10th Avenue. Home Garden has a recently constructed Community park, which is maintained by the Home Garden Community Service District. Home Garden does not have access to a library within the Community.

Since the area is not incorporated into the City limits, there is not active Code Enforcement to address code violations. Due to its location, in the southeasternmost quadrant of the City, near the Municipal Airport, there are limited opportunities for services, including grocery stores (1 within a 1-mile radius), medical clinics (1 within the neighborhood), and high-school (nearest campus is 2 miles from Home Garden).

Figure 5: Grocery Stores Near Home Garden
Source: Google. (n.d.) Grocery Stores [Map]. Retrieved March 30, 2026, from https://maps.app.goo.gl/wHjMLxsPqdDb7J6S6

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 21 Figure 6: Medical Clinics Near Home Garden
Source: Google. (n.d.) Medical Clinics [Map]. Retrieved March 30, 2026, from https://maps.app.goo.gl/YpX45YxU2cDPLugN6

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 22 Figure 7: High School Sites Near Home Garden
Source: Google. (n.d.) High School [Map]. Retrieved March 30, 2026, from https://maps.app.goo.gl/YpX45YxU2cDPLugN6 New Development
The newest development has been focused on residential infill throughout the Community and the limited commercial development along 10th Avenue. Many of the existing single-family homes were constructed in the 1940s and 1950s, while some of the newer homes built on the west side of 10th Avenue were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. This is an older area, in comparison to the nearby residential within the City to the north and west. According to inquiries received by Kings County, interest for commercial development along 10th Avenue has recently increased, with the expansion of a small strip mall that currently holds a convenience store and fast-food restaurant. Home Garden has less commercial development compared to nearby City limits.

Physical Features
Home Garden is not situated directly along 10th Avenue, an arterial street and runs north-south along the western side. Home Garden is bounded by the City of Hanford’s sphere of influence to the north, west, and south (west of 10th Avenue), and agriculturally zoned lands to the east and south, preventing

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 23 growth beyond its current boundaries. The Community is southwest of Hanford Airport and mostly lies within one of the Aviation Land Use Overlay Zones.

Overall Conditions
The Home Garden Community differs from the nearby Hanford Community in aging housing, lack of infrastructure (curb, gutter, and sidewalk), and limited access to services, including groceries, medical clinics, and proximity to a high school.

The City will implement programs to assist with affordable housing development (Program 3.9), promote Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing (Program 3.21), support infrastructure improvements (Program

3.16), ensure the General Plan and Development Code comply with state laws (Program 3.15), conduct ADU outreach (Program 3.19), support the development of extremely-low income housing (Program 3.20).

Racial Concentration of Areas of Affluence (RCAA)
While the R/ECAP addresses racial poverty and segregation, the FHA also examines the other side of the spectrum, which is the Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA). According to a HUD policy paper, RCAA is defined as an affluent, White community. Patterns of segregation in the United States show that of all racial groups, Whites are the most severely segregated2 . Therefore, this FHA examines the
percentage of White population and median household income as an indicator of areas of affluence.

Census Tract 6.03 and 6.04 represent newer built communities within the City and because of their proximity to the City’s western boundary are highly occupied by military persons/families stationed at NAS Lemoore.

As seen on the Median Household Income by Race or Hispanic Origin table, apart from Asian and White Non-Hispanic groups, all other racial groups and Hispanic or Latino of any race earned less than the median household income. The City of Hanford has programs to help ensure fair housing opportunities like Program 3.7 First Time Homebuyer Program that provides financing assistance to very-low-, low- and moderate-income first-time homebuyers. The program has been revised to increase the loan limit to $75,000, reduce the interest rate to 3% and extend the term to 30 years. Payment is deferred for the entire loan term. Program 3.8 Section 8 Rental Assistance extends rental subsidies to extremely-low- and verylow-income households equal to the difference between 30% of the monthly income and the allowable rent determined by the program.

Income Distribution
The City of Hanford consists of 13 census tracts and is the most populous city and county seat of Kings County. Highway 198 runs through the middle of the City of Hanford.

Along with housing prices and rents, household income is the most important factor affecting housing opportunities within Kings County. Housing choices such as tenure (owning versus renting), housing type, and location are dependent on household income. On the other hand, however, household size and type often affect the proportion of income that can be spent on housing. According to the ACS 2016- 2020 Table S1901 the median household income for the entire County was reported as $61,556.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 24 The City of Hanford’s median household income is above the county average at $65,974 according to the Census ACS 2016-2020 . As shown in Figure 8, the City of Hanford has varied median incomes with northwestern tracts consisting of incomes above $120,000 and the eastern, western and southern region consisting of incomes between $60,000 - $84,097 and central regions having incomes ranging from $35,000 - $60,000 and a tract with income below $35,000.

As Hanford consists of a larger proportion of the workforce which holds “white-collar” jobs when compared to other counties such as Avenal and Corcoran with lower median incomes as larger proportion of the demographics are involved in more "blue collar jobs". Although median household income is a common benchmark for comparison, the distribution of household income also provides a useful measure of housing needs in a community. In housing analysis, households are typically grouped into categories, expressed relative to the Area Median Income (AMI) and adjusted for family size. Using State of California income thresholds, the income groups analyzed were as follows:
• Extremely low income: Up to 30% of AMI
• Very low income: 31-50% of AMI
• Low income: 51-80% of AMI
• Moderate income: 81-120% of AMI
• Upper income: Above 120% of AMI
Table 5 estimates the percentage of households by tenure within each income category in each jurisdiction as reported in HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data based on the Census ACS 2014-2018. Countywide, almost one-quarter (24%) of owner households were in the lower-income category (80% or less than the AMI --extremely-low, very-low, and low incomes), while over one-half (55%) of renter households were in the lower-income category.

In the City of Hanford, approximately three-fourths of owners belonged to the moderate- and upper-income category whereas close to half the renters belong to the moderate- and upper-income category. There is a huge difference in tenure for extremely low-income households. Only 4.1% of extremely low-income households own while 19.1% of them rent. There are also about half as many very low incomes and lowincome households that own in comparison to those that rent. Clearly there is more housing choice for lower-income households that rent than own.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 18 Figure 8: Local Median Income

6.02

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 19 Table 6: Household Income Distribution by Tenure
Income Category Hanford Kings County
Owners
<= 30% 4.1 % 5.50%
>30% to <=50% 6.8% 7.30%
>50% to <=80% 11.0% 11.0%
>80% to <=100% 7.80% 8.60%
>100% 70.4% 67.5%
Total 100.00% 100.00%
Renters
<= 30% 19.1% 17.70%
>30% to <=50% 12.1% 14.60%
>50% to <=80% 21.0% 22.80%
>80% to <=100% 9.3% 11.40%
>100% 38.5% 33.50%
Total 100.00% 100.00%
Source: HUD CHAS data based on Census ACS 2014-2018
In the City of Hanford, much like Kings County and California, there are income disparities when comparing race and ethnicity. Before examining the physical concentration of resources, integration, and segregation in Hanford, this discussion will cover local median household income, poverty status, extremely low-income households.

Asian Non-Hispanic and Two or More Races Non-Hispanic groups had the highest median household incomes, in the $80,000 range. White Alone Non-Hispanic earned approximately $10,000 less than Asians Non-Hispanic. Black or African American Non-Hispanic earned approximately $20,000 than the highest median household income earners. Hispanic or Latino of Any Race earned roughly $30,000 less than Asian Non-Hispanic and Two or More Races Non-Hispanic groups. American Indian and Alaska Native NonHispanic earners made approximately half of their Kings County counterparts and roughly a third of their California counterparts.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 20 Table 7: Median Household Income by Race or Hispanic Origin City of
Hanford
Kings
County California
Asian Alone Non-Hispanic $82,447 $80,530 $101,380
White Alone Non-Hispanic $74,934 $74,918 $90,496
Black Or African American Alone Non-Hispanic $62,990 $56,076 $54,976 Hispanic Or Latino of Any Race $52,925 $49,373 $62,330
American Indian And Alaska Native Alone Non-Hispanic $21,951 $44,842 $60,182 Native Hawaiian And Other Pacific Islander Alone Non-Hispanic -- $98,864 $81,682 Some Other Race Alone Non-Hispanic $45,461 $47,592 $59,287 Two Or More Races Non-Hispanic $86,160 $72,188 $76,733
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B19013.

Poverty Status
In 2020, the poverty rate for the City of Hanford was 10.9%, which was lower than Kings County's overall rate of 13.1%. As presented in Table 8, both the City and County were higher than the State at 9.0%. At the census tract level, Figure 9 shows that in the northern (CTs 6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 7.02) and western (CTs

10.01 and 10.03) portions of the City generally displayed the percentage of the population below the poverty at less than 10%. However, the central and eastern areas (CTs 9.02 and 8) had 20%-30% of the population in poverty status. The highest levels of poverty status of the population (30%-40%) were in CTs 9.01,

10.02, and 11). Hanford also shares CT 11 with the unincorporated community of Home Garden.

Additionally, Table 9 shows that Hanford's households in poverty increased from 11.8% of the total households in 2010 to 17.4% in 2015, with a decline to 10.9% in 2020.

Table 8: Total Households in Poverty
No. Poverty Percent
City of Hanford 1,586 10.9%
Kings County 4,464 13.1%
California 806,599 9.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS2016-2020, Table B17019.

Table 9: Percent of Households in Poverty Over Time
2010 2015 2020
Income in the Past 12 Months Below Poverty Level 1,487 2,279 1,586 Total Households 12,621 13,062 14,530
Percent of Households in Poverty 11.8% 17.4% 10.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B17019.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 21 Special Housing Needs
Familial Status
A household refers to the people occupying a home, such as a family, a single person, or unrelated persons living together. Families often prefer single-family homes or condominiums to accommodate children, while single people generally occupy smaller apartments or condominiums. Single-person households often include seniors or young adults.

Table 10 displays household composition by community as reported by the Census ACS 2015-2020.

Hanford has 18,960 households, just under half of Kings County's total. Family households are prevalent in both areas, forming 76.6% of households in Hanford and 78.3% in Kings County. The City of Hanford has an 8% higher proportion of family households compared to California.

A little under half of family households have children under 18 years. Married or cohabiting couples are a significant portion of households in both regions, though slightly more predominant in Kings County. In Hanford, 30.4% of these couples have children under 18, a bit lower than in Kings County. Single male householders are approximately one-third less common than single female householders. Hanford has a larger share of large households, 5 or more people, compared to California; Large households make up 16% of Hanford’s households while it makes up 13.7% of California’s households. Nonfamily households, which include singles and unrelated individuals living together, constitute a slightly higher percentage in Hanford than in Kings County.

Overall, the average household size in Hanford is 3.00, smaller than Kings County's average. These figures provide insight into the varied household compositions in Hanford, highlighting differences in family size, marital status, and the presence of children compared to the broader Kings County area.

As mentioned before, the City of Hanford consists of three-fourths of family households while non-family households are around one-fourth of households. As seen on Table 11, there are many more family and married couple family households that own than rent. While households that are nonfamily, male householder with no wife present, and female householder with no husband own and rent at similar rates.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 22 Figure 9: Poverty Status
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development. American Community Survey (ACS), 2017-2021

6.02

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 23 Table 10: Household Characteristics
Age Group Hanford Kings County
Total Households 18,960 43,604
Family Households 76.6% 78.3%
With own children under 18 years 40.0% 41.3%
Married/Cohabiting Couples 58.9% 61.2%
With own children under 18 years 30.4% 32.2%
Male Householder, no spouse/partner present 16.5% 16.2% With own children under 18 years 2.8% 2.4%
Living Alone 7.9% 8.3%
Age 65+ 2.8% 2.5%
Female Householder, no spouse/partner present 24.5% 22.6% With own children under 18 years 6.8% 6.8%
Living Alone 9.7% 8.8%
Age 65+ 5.3% 4.7%
Nonfamily Households 23.4% 21.7%
Average Household Size 3.00 3.14
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Tables DP-2, B11012, and S1101 Table 11: Household type by tenure
Household Type
Hanford Kings County
HH % HH %
Total Households 18,960 43,604
Family households: 14,530 76.6% 34,155 78.3%
Owner 9,262 48.9% 18,997 43.6%
Renter 5,268 27.8% 15,158 34.8%
Married-couple family: 9,689 51.1% 23,236 53.3%
Owner 7,013 37% 14,704 33.7%
Renter 2,676 14.1% 8,532 19.6%
Male householder no wife present: 1,440 7.6% 3,653 8.4% Owner 700 3.7% 1,499 3.4%
Renter 740 3.9% 2,154 4.9%
Female householder no husband present: 3,401 17.9% 7,266 16.7% Owner 1,549 8.2% 2,794 6.4%
Renter 1,852 9.8% 4,472 10.3%
Nonfamily households: 4,430 23.4% 9,449 21.7%
Owner 2,091 11.0% 4,371 10.0%
Renter 2,339 12.3% 5,078 11.6%
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table B25007

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 24 Table 12: Households by Size
City of
Hanford Percent
Kings
County Percent California Percent
Total: 18,960 43,604 13,103,114
Family Households: 14,530 76.6% 34,155 78.3% 8,986,666 68.6% 2-Person Household 4,849 25.6% 9,940 22.8% 3,209,170 24.5% 3-Person Household 3,501 18.5% 7,998 18.3% 2,054,635 15.7% 4-Person Household 3,187 16.8% 7,984 18.3% 1,945,127 14.8% 5-Person Household 1,631 8.6% 4,886 11.2% 1,006,126 7.7% 6-Person Household 1,018 5.4% 2,216 5.1% 433,324 3.3%
7-Or-More Person Household 344 1.8% 1,131 2.6% 338,284 2.6% Nonfamily Households: 4,430 23.4% 9,449 21.7% 4,116,448 31.4% 1-Person Household 3,334 17.6% 7,439 17.1% 3,114,819 23.8% 2-Person Household 950 5.0% 1,652 3.8% 774,224 5.9%
3-Person Household 97 0.5% 242 0.6% 135,683 1.0%
4-Person Household 0 0.0% 34 0.1% 59,938 0.5%
5-Person Household 49 0.3% 82 0.2% 19,730 0.2%
6-Person Household 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6,805 0.1%
7-Or-More Person Household 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5,249 0.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B11016

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 25 Table 13: Tenure by Household Size
City of
Hanford Percent
Kings
County Percent California Percent
Total Occupied Housing Units 18,960 43,604 13,103,114
Total Large Households (5 or More
Persons) 3,042 16.0% 8,315 19.1% 1,809,518 13.7%
5-Person Household 1,680 8.9% 4,968 11.4% 1,025,856 7.8% 6-Person Household 1,018 5.4% 2,216 5.1% 440,129 3.3%
7-or-More Person Household 344 1.8% 1,131 2.6% 343,533 2.6% Owner-Occupied 11,353 59.9% 23,368 53.6% 7,241,318 55.3% 1-Person Household 1,722 9.1% 3,694 8.5% 1,416,913 10.8% 2-Person Household 3,890 20.5% 7,071 16.2% 2,403,865 18.3% 3-Person Household 2,290 12.1% 4,338 9.9% 1,235,833 9.4% 4-Person Household 1,761 9.3% 4,161 9.5% 1,182,987 9.0% 5-Person Household 943 5.0% 2,443 5.6% 567,528 4.3%
6-Person Household 603 3.2% 1,113 2.6% 238,866 1.8%
7-or-More Person Household 144 0.8% 548 1.3% 195,326 1.5% Renter-Occupied 7,607 40.1% 20,236 46.4% 5,861,796 44.7% 1-Person Household 1,612 8.5% 3,745 8.6% 1,697,906 13.0% 2-Person Household 1,909 10.1% 4,521 10.4% 1,579,529 12.1% 3-Person Household 1,308 6.9% 3,902 8.9% 954,485 7.3%
4-Person Household 1,426 7.5% 3,857 8.8% 822,078 6.3%
5-Person Household 737 3.9% 2,525 5.8% 458,328 3.5%
6-Person Household 415 2.2% 1,103 2.5% 201,263 1.5%
7-or-More Person Household 200 1.1% 583 1.3% 148,207 1.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25009 Female Headed Households.

Female-headed households, especially for children in single-parent, female-headed households, have special housing needs. State law recognizes that these households face challenges due to a combination of income levels, childcare expenses, and housing availability.

Female headed households without a spouse or partner compromise 24.5% of Hanford households, the only jurisdiction that has a higher proportion is the City of Corcoran with 29.2%. Unincorporated Kings County has the lowest share with 18.2%. As Table 14 shows, Hanford and Kings County have higher percentage of female headed households that are living alone than with children or relatives. However, half of female headed households live alone in California while the City of Hanford and Kings County is around 40%, approximately 10% less. Conversely, the City of Hanford and Kings County has around 10% more of female headed households with their own children under 18 years.

In the City of Hanford, there are 1,586 identified households in poverty. Of those 1,586 households, roughly half are Female-Headed Households with Children, No Spouse Present. The City of Hanford has a lower percentage, 24.3%, of Female-Headed Households with Children, No Spouse Present in poverty compared to similar households in Kings County, 29.8%, but a higher percentage than California, 21.5%.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 26 Table 14: Female-Headed Households
City of
Hanford Percent
Kings
County Percent California Percent
Female Householder, No
Spouse Or Partner Present 4,653 9,847 3,430,426
Living Alone 1,845 39.7% 3,825 38.8% 1,722,600 50.2%
With Own Children Under 18
Years 1,287 27.7% 2,963 30.1% 615,734 17.9%
With Relatives, No Own
Children Under 18 Years 1,408 30.3% 2,812 28.6% 858,959 25% With Only Nonrelatives
Present 113 2.4% 247 2.5% 233,133 6.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B11012 As shown on Figure 10, there some areas in the northeast (CT 7.01 and 7.02) and central Hanford (CT 10.02 and 11) have 20%-40% of households with children that are headed by a female single parent while the rest of Hanford has under 20% of concentration. The distribution of single-parent, female-headed households correlate with TCAC/HCD opportunity areas designations, indicating that areas with lower resources and higher segregation and poverty have higher rates of such households.

Notably, across all jurisdictions, the data reveals that a higher percentage of female-headed households are renters rather than homeowners. This trend is indicative of the economic challenges and housing affordability issues faced by these households. This breakdown of household types and tenures, including the specific focus on female-headed households, provides a comprehensive overview of the diverse household compositions and housing situations in these regions, highlighting the need for tailored policy interventions and support services.

Seniors
Seniors, defined as 65 years or older, compromise 12.2% of the population. In comparison, that proportion is 10.3% for Kings County. Typically, senior households have special housing needs primarily due to three concerns – physical disabilities or limitations, limited income, and higher medical costs. 77.8% of Hanford’s seniors own their home which is higher than the general proportion of owners in Hanford, 59.9%.

In the last decade, there has not been much of a shift in rates of ownership and renting among seniors in the City of Hanford, Kings County, and California. The median household income in Hanford is $65,974.

Around 42% of seniors make more than the median income which influences housing choice and ownership. It is important to note that disabilities are most common among senior citizens. Approximately 41% of total seniors reported one or more types of disability. See further discussion about housing needs for people with disabilities below, in the Disability Rates and Services section.

Many elderly households live on fixed incomes (e.g., SSI or pensions), and nearly 40% of elderly renter households are cost-burdened, per CHAS data. Aging residents are more likely to need accessible, onestory housing and proximity to healthcare, public transit, and social services. However, much of the existing affordable rental stock lacks ADA-compliant features.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 27 Figure 10: Single-Parent Female-Headed Households with Children

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 28 Large Families
Large families—those with five or more members—make up approximately 14.3% of all households in Kings County, per ACS data. As shown in previous Table 13 (Tenure by Household Size), 16.0% have five or more family members in Hanford. This compares to 19.1% countywide. These households often struggle to find adequately sized affordable units, particularly those with 3+ bedrooms. HUD CHAS indicates that 32% of large renter families are overcrowded and cost-burdened. The rental market has a limited supply of larger units, and overcrowding is especially common among Latino and farmworker families.

Persons With Disabilities
Persons with disabilities comprise over 13% of the county's population and are disproportionately concentrated in central Hanford and unincorporated communities like Armona. Often these areas have older housing stock and limited ADA retrofits. Many of these areas also lack proximity to services such as clinics, paratransit access, or rehabilitation support, creating compounding disadvantage.

Due to the multitude of possible functional limitations that may present as disabilities, and in the absence of information on external factors that influence disability, surveys like the Census Bureau’s ACS are limited to capturing difficulty with only selected activities. As such, people identified by the ACS as having a disability are, in fact, those who exhibit difficulty with specific functions and may, in the absence of accommodation, have a disability. To capture a variety of characteristics that encompass the definition of disability, the ACS identifies serious difficulty with four basic areas of functioning – hearing, vision, cognition, and ambulation.2
As presented in Table 15, the largest number of residents with disabilities was in the 18 to 64 years age group or the working age population with 3,698 individual in Harford and 8,357 individuals countywide.

However, disabilities were most common among senior citizens (65 years and over), with 39% in Hartford and County with 41% of total seniors reported one or more types of disability. The most common type of disability among seniors was having ambulatory difficulty.

Developmental Disabilities as defined by federal law; “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that:
• Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments.
• Is manifested before the individual attains age 18.
• Is likely to continue indefinitely.
2 Source: American Community Survey 2013 Subject Definitions. Beginning in 2008, questions on disability represent a conceptual and empirical break from earlier years of the ACS. Hence, the Census Bureau does not recommend any comparisons of disability data to 2007 and earlier ACS disability data, or to disability estimates from the 2000 Census.)

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 29 • Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: a) self-care; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning; d) mobility; e) selfdirection; f) capacity for independent living; or g) economic self-sufficiency. • Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.

Table 15: Population with Disability Type by Age
Disability Type by Age
Hanford Kings County
Persons % Persons %
Population under 18 years w/disability 914 5.6% 1,498 3.7% With a hearing difficulty 92 0.6% 193 0.5%
With a vision difficulty 336 2.1% 480 1.2%
With a cognitive difficulty 520 3.2% 890 2.2%
With an ambulatory difficulty 58 0.4% 127 0.3%
With a self-care difficulty 115 0.7% 219 0.5%
Population 18 to 64 years w/disability 3,698 11.1% 8,357 10.7% With a hearing difficulty 542 1.6% 1,632 2.1%
With a vision difficulty 576 1.7% 1,354 1.7%
With a cognitive difficulty 1,602 4.8% 3,009 3.8%
With an ambulatory difficulty 1,858 5.6% 4,087 5.2%
With a self-care difficulty 681 2.0% 1,424 1.8%
With an independent living difficulty 1,693 5.1% 3,094 4.0% Population 65 years and over w/disability 2,693 39.4% 6,179 40.8% With a hearing difficulty 1,320 19.3% 2,657 17.6%
With a vision difficulty 565 8.3% 1,265 8.4%
With a cognitive difficulty 576 8.4% 1,458 9.6%
With an ambulatory difficulty 1,530 22.4% 3,807 25.1%
With a self-care difficulty 857 12.5% 1,500 9.9%
With an independent living difficulty 1,303 19.1% 2,659 17.6% Note: Numbers represent people, not disabilities. Persons may report more than one type of disability Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table S1810 and C18108
The Census Bureau does not record developmental disabilities. According to the U.S. Administration on Developmental Disabilities, an accepted estimate of the percentage of the population that can be defined as developmentally disabled is 1.5 percent. Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 30 developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

As seen in Figure 11, people with disabilities are mostly concentrated in the cities and not unincorporated Kings County. The City of Hanford has rates of 10% - 20% of people with disabilities concentrated mostly on the east side of the City as well as CT 10.02 that is also identified as an area with High Segregation and Poverty.

The State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides community-based services to approximately 243,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two community-based facilities. Kings County is served by the Central Valley Regional Center (CVRC) which is based in Fresno. During 2014, CVRC served approximately 16,200 clients, of which about 900 to 1,000 lived in Kings County. CVRC provides diagnosis, evaluation, and case management services. The Kings County Rehabilitation Center in Hanford also offers rehabilitation, vocational and life training, and operates four group homes for mentally and physically handicapped individuals. State and federal law mandate minimum accessibility standards for housing. For example, local governments that use federal housing funds must meet federal accessibility guidelines for new construction and substantial rehabilitation. At least 5% of the units must be accessible to persons with mobility impairments, and an additional 2% must be accessible to persons with sensory impairments. New multi-family housing must be built so that:
• the public and common use portions of such units are readily accessible to and usable by disabled persons.
• the doors allowing passage into and within such units can accommodate wheelchairs; and • all units contain adaptive design features. In addition, state law requires all jurisdictions to provide reasonable accommodation in the application of housing policies and regulations The City’s Program 3.12 Housing for Persons with Disabilities objective is to monitor legal requirements and local conditions in order to make necessary updates to local regulations to remove barriers to housing for persons with disabilities.

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2025 | DRAFT 31 Figure 11: Population with a Disability

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2025 | DRAFT 32 The special housing needs analysis shows the magnitude of housing needs, available resources, existing gaps, the effectiveness of past strategies, and proposed programs and funding strategies. Approximately

19.1 percent of renter households are classified as Extremely Low-Income (ELI), while 39.4 percent of seniors report living with one or more disabilities. The City of Hanford exhibits diverse patterns of overcrowding across different areas, reflecting a complex urban housing situation. Central and southern regions of the city are marked by higher rates of overcrowding, with 15-20% of housing units in some tracts experiencing this issue.

The City of Hanford currently offers several resources, including affordable housing developments targeted to lower-income households, limited emergency shelter beds in the City, owner-occupied housing rehabilitation programs, and regional partnerships with fair housing organizations. However, significant gaps remain, including a shortage of affordable units for ELI households and large families, insufficient accessible housing for persons with disabilities, and an aging housing stock in need of major rehabilitation.

The City’s review of the effectiveness of past strategies indicates progress in:
• providing emergency repair program assistance (135 grants and loans for a total of $1,339,205 • preservation of at-risk affordable units through continuous monitoring • development of 1,709 units of the City’s RHNA allocation • continued assistance to the First Time Home Buyer Program and HOME Sweet Home Program • Assistance in the development of affordable housing
To continue to address the City’s needs, the City of Hanford proposes a comprehensive set of actions, including the expansion of affordable and supportive housing production, increased investment in rehabilitation and rental assistance programs, pursuit of additional state and federal funding sources (such as CDBG, HOME, and farmworker housing grants), implementation of anti-displacement strategies, promotion of mixed-income housing developments, and strengthened partnerships with nonprofit organizations and regional service providers.

This integrated strategy aims to address the full continuum of special housing needs, promote equity, and affirmatively further fair housing throughout the City of Hanford.

Employee Housing and Farmworker Compliance
The Housing Element has been updated to ensure full compliance with the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.), including Sections 17021.5, 17021.6, and 17021.8.

Zoning Consistency: In accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5, the City confirms that employee housing for six or fewer persons is classified as a single-family residential use and is permitted by-right in all residential zones. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6, the Housing Element

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2025 | DRAFT 33 commits to amend zoning for employee housing consisting of no more than 12 units or 36 beds is permitted in agricultural zones in the same manner as other agricultural uses.

Ministerial Processing: In compliance with Section 17021.8, the Housing Element specifies that qualifying employee housing developments are subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process and are not subject to a conditional use permit. A program has been added to revise local procedures and Development Code language to reflect this requirement.

Farmworkers
Kings County is a significant agricultural producer, with the number of employed farmworkers ranging from 7,000 to 10,000 workers. Farmworker households often face unstable income, seasonal unemployment, and substandard living conditions. Many live in shared housing, mobile homes, or employer-provided units that lack permanent tenancy rights. Farmworkers—especially those who are undocumented or migrant—often lack access to stable rental contracts and may reside in overcrowded or informal housing units.

Recent Census data in Table 16 shows that approximately 8,300 of employed Kings County civilian residents (16 years and over) worked as agricultural workers. Of the four cities, the highest percentage of civilian workers in agricultural related jobs was Avenal, where 45% of its workers were in this industry.

The City of Hanford had over 2,200 agricultural workers, however, it only accounted for 9% of the total civilian work force.

Table 16: Agricultural Employment by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction of Civilian
Employed Pop. (16 and over)
Number of Agricultural
Workers % of Total Workers
Avenal 1,617 45%
Corcoran 1,275 30%
Hanford 2,213 9%
Lemoore 692 6%
Unincorporated 2,474 22%
Kings County 8,271 15%
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table DP-3
Table 17 presents the number of farms and hired farm workers in Kings County. According to the 2017 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Census estimates, there were 507 farms and a total of almost 7,000 hired farm workers countywide. The largest number of workers (5,820) were employed at farms with 10 or more employees or 83% of the countywide total number of hired workers. Also, there were more permanent hired workers (worked more than 150 days) than seasonal workers (worked less than 150 days) for both farm operations with less than 10 employees and with more than 10 employees.

Agricultural workers, and especially farmworkers, have special housing needs due to their relatively low wages. According to an article in Rural Migration News, the average hourly wage for all California

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2025 | DRAFT 34 farmworkers in the years 2015-2019 was approximately $12.3. This is equivalent to approximately $25,000/year for full-time work. As a result, farmworkers often overpay for housing (in relation to their income) and/or live in overcrowded and substandard living situations.

Table 17: Hired Farm Labor-Workers, Kings County
Farmworkers No. of Farms No. of Hired Workers
Percent of Total
County Hired
Workers
Total Hired Farm Labor 507 6,998
Farm operations with less than 10 employees 351 1,178 17% Permanent (> 150 days) 275 1,034 15%
Seasonal (< 150 days) 246 677 10%
Farm operations with 10 or more employees 156 5,820 83% Permanent (> 150 days) 96 3,046 44%
Seasonal (< 150 days) 49 2,241 32%
Source: USDA, 2017 Census of Agriculture
Although no farmworker camps exist in Kings County, the County does have a significant number of government-subsidized housing projects (e.g., Section 515 and public housing) that house farmworkers and their families. Many farmworkers live in mobile homes on the farming site. A farmworker housing project was completed in Hanford during the 2003-2008 planning period. That project involved the renovation of an existing former motel into temporary and/or long-term, permanent agricultural employee housing. The project included 24 units plus parking, courtyard, children’s play areas and open space.

In addition, there is a 40-unit apartment complex in unincorporated Kettleman City that serves farm labor families. This apartment includes 10 two-bedroom units, 20 three-bedroom units, and 10 four-bedroom units, with approximately 70-100 farmworkers residing in the apartment complex. The Constraints analysis contains a discussion of each jurisdiction’s land use and zoning policies and regulations regarding farmworker housing. In communities with large farmworker populations, farmworker housing needs are met through homeownership assistance and rehabilitation loans.

Most loans under both types of programs are issued to people working in the agricultural industry.

Moreover, many occupants of Section 515 projects and other subsidized projects are also employed in the farming industry. The Housing Plan (Chapter 5) includes Program 3.10 Farmworker and Employee Housing where the City permits farmworker housing in conformance with Health and Safety Code §17021.5 and §17021.6. In addition, the City will assist interested developers by providing incentives, identifying suitable sites, and assisting in preparation of funding applications.

Kings County is one of California’s top-producing agricultural counties, with over $2.4 billion in crop value in 2021. According to California Employment Development Department (EDD) and USDANAWS (2021–22) data:
• An estimated 6,800 to 7,200 farmworkers are employed annually in Kings County, with additional 3 https://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/blog/post/?id=2805

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2025 | DRAFT 35 seasonal variation (peaking up to 10,000).
• Approximately 93% identify as Latino/Hispanic, with 85% foreign-born, primarily from Mexico. • Nearly 48% are considered migratory, and 29% are considered settled farmworkers. • The median annual income for crop workers is $22,000 to $25,000, well below the area median income (AMI).

Farmworker households in Kings County face significant housing challenges:
• Approximately 40% of farmworker households are renters, while others live in informal or seasonal housing arrangements, some in unpermitted dwellings or trailers. • Kettleman City, rural Corcoran, and Hanford's southern fringe are identified as farmworkerconcentrated zones with high rates of poverty, limited infrastructure, and older housing stock.

Farmworker households face disproportionate burdens in the following ways:
• Overcrowding is a dominant issue. According to HUD CHAS and local knowledge, over 37% of farmworker households experience overcrowded conditions (1.01+ persons per room). • Severe Cost Burden: CHAS data shows over 52% of low-income farmworker households pay more than 50% of income toward housing.
• Many reside in older, single-family homes, converted garages, or employer-provided units, often without formal leases or tenant rights.
• Lack of Permanence: Migrant workers often face frequent relocations, leading to disruptions in children’s education and healthcare access.
• Unsafe Living Conditions: Multiple stakeholder consultations (2019–2023) and Kings County code enforcement records indicate farmworkers are overrepresented in units with health/safety violations (e.g., mold, leaks, non-functional plumbing).
• Barriers to Assistance: Language barriers, immigration status, and employer-control over housing reduce access to public programs, including voucher eligibility and code complaint processes.

Disparities in Access to Opportunities
The Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) have developed annual maps of access to resources, such as high-paying job opportunities; proficient schools; safe and clean neighborhoods; and other healthy economic, social, and environmental indicators in 2017.

It uses economic and education indicators that include the following:
• Percentage of population with income above 200% of federal poverty line • Percentage of adults with a bachelor’s degree or above, • Percentage of adults aged 20-64 who are employed in the civilian labor force or in the armed forces • Value of owner-occupied units
• Percentage of 4th graders who meet or exceed math proficiency standards

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2025 | DRAFT 36 • Percentage of 4th graders who meet or exceed literacy standards • Percentage of high school cohort that graduated on time • Percentage of students not receiving free or reduced-price lunch The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps help to identify areas within the community that provide stronger access to economic, environmental, or educational opportunities for residents or, conversely, provide more limited access to opportunities. The information from this mapping can help to highlight the need for housing element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low-resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty and to encourage better access for lower-income households and communities of color to housing in high-resource areas.

Areas designated as “highest resource” are the top 20.0 percent highest-scoring census tracts in the region. It is expected that residents in these census tracts have access to the best outcomes in terms of health, economic opportunities, and education attainment. Census tracts designated “high resource” score in the 21st to 40th percentile compared to the region. Residents of these census tracts have access to highly positive outcomes for health, economic, and education attainment. “Moderate resource” areas are in the top 30.0 percent of the remaining census tracts in the region and those designated as “moderate resource (rapidly changing)” have experienced rapid increases in key indicators of opportunity, such as increasing median income, home values, and an increase in job opportunities.

Residents in these census tracts have access to either somewhat positive outcomes in terms of health, economic attainment, and education, or positive outcomes in a certain area (e.g., score high for health, education) but not all areas (e.g., may score poorly for economic attainment). Low-resource areas are those that score in the bottom 30.0 percent of census tracts and indicate a lack of access to positive outcomes and poor access to opportunities. The final designation are those areas identified as having “high segregation and poverty;” these are census tracts that have an overrepresentation of people of color compared to the county as a whole, and at least 30.0 percent of the population in these areas is below the federal poverty line ($27,750 annually for a family of four in 2022).

As seen in Figure 12, the City of Hanford in Kings County presents a complex socio-economic landscape, as evidenced by its mixed resource distribution in TCAC and HCD Opportunity Maps.

Hanford's Opportunity Areas by census tracts include:
• Highest Resource - CTs 6.03, 6.04, and 10.1 (missing/insufficient data in much of the census tracts, including all of CT 6.02)
• High Resource - CTs 7.01 and 7.02
• Moderate Resources - CT 10.3
• Low Resources - CTs 8, 9.01, 9.02, 11 and 12
• High Segregation/Poverty - 10.02
Hanford faces significant challenges in bridging spatial economic disparities. These disparities necessitate nuanced policy interventions aimed at promoting equitable development. The high-resource zones offer potential for economic growth, which could be strategically leveraged to benefit the entire city, particularly the lower-resource and segregated areas. Additionally, the surrounding unincorporated low-resource areas further complicate the regional development scenario, calling for collaborative efforts.

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2025 | DRAFT 36 Figure 12: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, 2023

6.02

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2025 | DRAFT 37 Transit Mobility
Transit mobility refers to an individual’s ability to navigate the community and region daily to access services, employment, schools, and other resources. Indicators of transit mobility include the extent of transit routes, proximity of transit stops to affordable housing, and frequency of transit.

The need to plan for and address the mobility needs of the County’s growing population. Public Transportation services are available to people with lower incomes, seniors, and persons with disabilities through the Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) system, overseen by the Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA) and through the City of Corcoran’s transit system, Corcoran Area Transit (CAT). Kings Area Regional Transit (KART) is Kings County’s public transportation provider. KART provides public transit service Monday through Friday and limited service on Saturdays. KART provides transportation services to the cities of Armona, Avenal, Corcoran, Grangeville, Hardwick, Hanford, Kettleman City, Laton, Lemoore, and Stratford. KART Paratransit (origin to destination) is available to eligible certified ADA passengers. In addition, KART provides regular transportation services to Fresno and Visalia Monday through Friday. All KART bus routes begin and end at the KART Terminal located at 504 W. 7th Street Hanford, California, west of the AMTRAK station in Downtown Hanford.

AllTransit is a transit and connectivity analytic tool developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology for the advancement of equitable communities and urban sustainability. The tool analyzes the transit frequency, routes, and access to determine an overall transit score at city, county, and regional levels.

AllTransit scores geographic regions (e.g., cities, counties, Metropolitan Statistical Areas [MSAs]) on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being complete transit connectivity. Figure 13 depicts Kings County’s AllTransit Performance score, including metrics representing average household transit access. City of Hanford’s overall score is 4.0, demonstrating “low” connectivity. It is important to note that this score is for Kings County as a whole, including incorporated areas, as AllTransit does not provide a score just for the unincorporated county. Hanford’s is consistent with comparable counties, which are typified by rural and semi-rural communities. However, the AllTransit methodology, which determines scores according to an “average” household, may not fully represent transit availability in the unincorporated areas, as the estimate is an average of both incorporated and unincorporated areas.

As is shown in Figure 11, many high quality transit stops in terms of facilities, accessibility and frequency of services are concentrated in the City of Hanford while they seem to be lacking in the other cities and unincorporated areas. Many of Hanford's high quality transit stops are located along W. Lacy Boulvard and along N. 11th Avenue, generally in CTs 9.02. 10,01, and 10.2). It’s also evident that the connectivity is focused on moving people within cities rather than between cities. Most unincorporated areas in the central areas of Kings County are not served by transit, except for the Hanford area. Based on the information in the Kings County Transit Development Plan 2021 document, Kings County faces challenges in providing comprehensive transit services, especially in rural areas. The report identifies gaps in service and highlights the difficulty of connecting transit-dependent residents living in remote areas to services in larger communities.

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024
1A-41
Figure 13: Hanford All Transit Performance Score

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
Figure 14: Hanford High Quality Transit Stops and Transit Area (1/2 mile)

KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 40 APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
Housing Mobility
Housing tenure (owner vs. renter) influences several aspects of the local housing market. Residential mobility is influenced by tenure, with ownership housing evidencing a lower turnover rate than rental housing. The vacancy rate also indicates the match between the demand and supply of housing. Table 18 details housing tenure and vacancies in Kings County and incorporated communities according to the Census ACS 2016-2020 estimates. Vacancy rates of 5% to 6% for rental housing and 1.5% to 2.0% for ownership housing are generally considered to be optimum. A higher vacancy rate may indicate an excess supply of units, a softer market, and result in lower housing prices. A lower vacancy rate may indicate a shortage of housing and high competition for available housing, which generally leads to higher housing prices and diminished affordability.

The balance between owner-occupied and rental housing, along with vacancy rates, shapes the housing market dynamics. For instance, areas with high owner occupancy and low vacancy rates may see appreciating property values, while areas with high rental vacancy rates might experience stagnating or declining property values. The demand exceeds the supply, driving up rental costs, which can disproportionately affect lower-income residents and contribute to housing insecurity.

Table 18: Household Tenure and Vacancy Rates
Housing Type
Hanford Kings County
Units % Units %
Occupied housing units 18,960 95.8% 43,604 94.20%
Owner-occupied housing units 11,353 57.4% 23,368 50.50% Avg. HH size of owner-occupied units 2.98 3.12
Renter-occupied housing units 7,607 38.5% 20,236 43.70% Avg. HH size of renter-occupied units 3.03 3.17
Vacant housing units 824 4.2% 2,663 5.80%
For rent 46 0.2% 446 1.00%
Rented, not occupied 71 0.4% 140 0.30%
For sale only 29 0.1% 426 0.90%
Sold, not occupied 66 0.3% 194 0.40%
For seasonal or occasional use 9 0.0% 54 0.10%
All other vacant 603 3.0% 1,403 3.00%
Homeowner vacancy rate 0.3% 1.80%
Rental vacancy rate 0.6% 2.10%
Total housing units 19,784 100.0% 46,267 100.00%
Source: Census, ACS 2016-2020, Tables DP04 and B25004

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 | DRAFT 41 According to the census, the housing vacancy rate in Kings County is 1.8% among homeowner units and

2.1% for rental units. The homeowner rate is in the optimal range mentioned above. However, the rental vacancy rate is much lower than the optimal rate of 5% - 6%. When you consider Hanford’s rental vacancy rate, it is much lower than the optimal rate. This indicates the likelihood that the housing demand exceeds the housing supply and has driven up rental cost in the area. Additionally, unlike Kings County, Hanford’s homeowner vacancy rate is also much lower than the optimal range; Hanford’s rate is .3% while the optimal rate 1.5% - 2.0%.

Hanford consists of more owners who occupy their own units in comparison to Kings County where about half of homeowners occupied their own unit. In turn, renter-occupied housing units are less common in the City of Hanford compared to Kings County. These conditions, areas with high owner occupancy and low vacancy rates, may see appreciating property values.

Employment
Kings County’s economy has an important impact on housing needs. Employment growth typically results in increased housing demand in areas that serve as regional employment centers. Moreover, the type of occupation and income levels for new employment also affects housing demand. This section describes the economic and employment patterns in Kings County and how these patterns influence housing needs.

Employment trends indicate that Kings County remains anchored by agriculture, government, correctional facilities, and logistics, with Hanford serving as the commercial and service center of the county. As of 2023, the unemployment rate remains higher than the state average (8.2% vs. 4.6%), reflecting sectoral reliance on seasonal or lower-wage labor. However, new job growth is emerging in healthcare, manufacturing, and food processing, increasing housing demand near economic nodes such as industrial parks in Lemoore and Hanford.

Kings County supports a diversified economy as illustrated in Figure 15. This figure shows the proportion of jobs held by residents (civilian employed population 16 years and over) living in the County. Based on the Census ACS 2016-2020 information, the education, health care, social assistance industry was the largest employer of Kings County residents, providing approximately 10,800 jobs, or 20% of workforce.

As important as agriculture is to the County, the agriculture sector was the second largest employer of its residents, which employed 8,300 residents or 15% of the workforce. Kings County’s civilian labor force was estimated at 57,800, with an unemployment rate of 7.0% (not seasonally adjusted). This compares to the statewide unemployment rate of 4.1%. However, compared to recent trends, Kings County’s unemployment rate has decreased significantly from the 2020 annual average unemployment rate of 12.0%.

Historically, agriculture has played a key role in Kings County’s economy. Agriculturally oriented counties tend to have higher unemployment rates and greater seasonal variations in unemployment.

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 | DRAFT 42 Figure 15: Employment by Industry of Kings County Workforce Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table DP03
Job-Housing Balance and Commute Patterns
Commuting patterns in Kings County have an important implication for housing needs. Larger employers in the County (e.g., three state prisons, Naval Air Station Lemoore, and agricultural industries) generate a significant number of jobs. However, the workforce employed at these institutions or in the agricultural industries may live in other communities for a variety of reasons, including preferences, the availability of suitable housing, or other reasons.

Commuting patterns show the relationship between where people live and where they work. Long commuting distances increase traffic congestion that strains the existing overcrowded road and highways infrastructure systems that are often in need of maintenance. Long commuting distances also contribute to poor air quality, increases expenses to the commuting workforce, and has been shown to have negative consequences on personal health. One of the aims of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan is to direct new housing growth to employment centers to balance the jobs-housing ratio and decrease commuting distances.

Table 19 shows that 38% of the City of Hanford’s workforce aged 16 years and older who do not work at home travel less than 15 minutes to work and another 31% of workers travel 15-30 minutes to work. The average travel time for Hanford workers is 24 minutes, which is similar to commute times for countywide workers at 23 minutes.

Table 20 shows that a little less than one half (45.7%)of the resident workers of Hanford work in the City and 54.3% work outside of Hanford.

Education, health care,
social assistance
20%
Agriculture
15%
Public admin.
13%
Retail trade
10%
Arts, entertainment,
recreation,
accomodation, food
services
8%
Manufacturing
7%
Professional, scientific,
management, admin.
7%
Transportation,
warehousing, utilities
6%
Construction
4%
Other services, except
public admin.
3%
Finance, insurance, real
estate
3%
Wholesale trade
3%
Information
1%

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 | DRAFT 43 Table 19: Travel Time to Work
Note: Workers included those 16 years and over who did not work from home.; Source: Census ACS 2016-2020 Table S0801
Table 20: Work Locations of City/County Resident Workers Note: Workers included those 16 years and over who did not work from home.; Source: Census ACS 2016-2020 Table S0801
Figure 16 illustrates the distribution of jobs within a 45-minute transit commute. It shows that CTs

7.02,09.02,10.02, and 11, are within a 45-minute transit commute time of 5,000-10,000 jobs.

Travel Time to Work Hanford Kings County
Less than 15 minutes 38.0% 36.8%
15-30 minutes 30.8% 32.0%
30 to 59 minutes 25.3% 25.1%
60 or more minutes 5.9% 6.1%
Average Travel Time 24 min. 23 min.

Travel Time to Work Hanford Kings County
Number of Resident Workers
(Age 16 and over) 23,502 56,560
Work in Same City/County) 45.7% 75.6%
Work Outside of City/County 54.3% 24.1%
Total 100% 100%

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 44 Figure 16: Jobs within 45-minute transit commute.

Sources: Caltrans, 2022; Smart Locations Database, 2018.

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 45 Services for Persons with Developmental Disabilities
The State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides community-based services to approximately 243,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two community-based facilities. Kings County is served by the Central Valley Regional Center (CVRC) which is based in Fresno. During 2014, CVRC served approximately 16,200 clients, of which about 900 to 1,000 lived in Kings County. CVRC provides diagnosis, evaluation, and case management services. The Kings County Rehabilitation Center in Hanford also offers rehabilitation, vocational and life training, and operates four group homes for mentally and physically handicapped individuals. State and federal law mandate minimum accessibility standards for housing. For example, local governments that use federal housing funds must meet federal accessibility guidelines for new construction and substantial rehabilitation. At least 5% of the units must be accessible to persons with mobility impairments, and an additional 2% must be accessible to persons with sensory impairments. New multi-family housing must be built so that:
1) the public and common use portions of such units are readily accessible to and usable by disabled persons.
2) the doors allowing passage into and within such units can accommodate wheelchairs; and 3) all units contain adaptive design features.

In addition, state law requires all jurisdictions to provide reasonable accommodation in the application of housing policies and regulations.

The City’s Program 1.15 Housing for Persons with Disabilities continues to facilitate reasonable accommodation in housing for persons with disabilities and expedite developmental applications like residential care facilities.

Education
According to the Kings County office of education as of October 1, 2025 there are a total of 27,674 students enrolled in Kings County schools. 19,104 in elementary schools and about 8,368 students in high schools across the county, as per data submitted by the districts. Figure 17 below shows some of the school districts in Kings County.

The City of Hanford is served by the Hanford Joint Union High School District (6 schools), Hanford Elementary School District (11 schools), Pioneer Elementary School District (3 schools), and the Kings River-Hardwick Union School District (1 school).. Intra-district and inter-district transfers are permitted under California state law, and both charter and private school options are available to residents. There are no notable disparities in school access between neighborhoods

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 46 Figure 17: School districts in Kings County
Source: Kings County, Cal EM

SECTION 1A-3: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 | DRAFT 47 Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement Risk
Overpayment
State and federal housing law defines overpayment as a household paying more than 30% of gross income for housing expenses, including utilities. Housing overpayment is especially problematic for lower-income households that have limited resources for other living expenses.

As shown in Table 21, a significant portion of lower-income households in Hanford overpaid for housing according to HUD CHAS data (special tabulations based on the Census ACS). More than half of all Hanford's owner and renter households in the extremely low- (<= 30%), very low- (>30% to <=50%) and low-income (>50% to <=80%) categories reported to be overpaying. The highest overpayments were renters households in the very low-income category at 85.2% and owners in the extremely low-income category at

82.4%. These are similar patterns countywide. In most communities, however, more rental households than owner households were overpaying. Few households with incomes above the median faced overpayment – often less than 10% of households.

Table 21: Household Overpayment by Tenure
Source: HUD CHAS data based on Census ACS 2014-2018
The data from Figures 18 and 19, which illustrate overpayment by renters and homeowners in Hanford at the tract level, reveal distinct patterns of housing affordability challenges within the city. For renters, the overpayment rate is considerably high, ranging from 20% to 60%. Notably, the central areas of Hanford, particularly CT 9.01, exhibited a higher range of overpayment, between 40% and 60%, indicating that a significant portion of renters in these areas are spending a substantial part of their income on housing. This could reflect higher rental costs or lower income levels among renters in these central areas. In contrast, the peripheral areas of Hanford show somewhat lower rent overpayment rates, falling between 20% and 40%.

Income Category Hanford Kings County
Owners
<= 30% 82.4% 79.00%
>30% to <=50% 67.1% 68.60%
>50% to <=80% 53.9% 48.30%
>80% to <=100% 46.0% 32.80%
>100% 7.7% 7.40%
Total 22.8% 22.50%
Renters
<= 30% 77.9% 79.30%
>30% to <=50% 85.2% 78.30%
>50% to <=80% 53.4% 57.00%
>80% to <=100% 32.2% 22.50%
>100% 7.2% 6.40%
Total 42.1% 43.20%

SECTION 1A-3: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 | DRAFT 48 This suggests that while housing affordability is still a concern in these areas, it is not as severe as in the central parts of the city. When it comes to homeowners, the pattern of overpayment is somewhat different.

Higher levels of overpayment among homeowners are observed in CT 9.01 and in CT11 towards the edges of the city and near the unincorporated community of Home Garden, with rates ranging between 40% and 60%. This indicates that homeownership in these areas may be associated with higher mortgage payments relative to income, or possibly higher property values.

Hanford’s Program 3.9 Affordable Housing Assistance implements various strategies to continue the construction of affordable housing. The City seeks applicable grants from state and federal sources including funding specifically targeted to ELI housing, provide an inventory of housing sites to interested developers, continue to provide a density bonus to qualifying projects, provide financial and regulatory assistance such as reduced fees and/or modified development standards, fee reductions and concurrent processing of lot mergers for multi-family projects that include units affordable to lower-income households, and continue to pursue housing production and rehabilitation with nonprofits including assistance in preparing grant applications. Housing for very-low- and extremely-low-income persons will be prioritized where feasible. In addition, the City’s affordable housing incentives will be promoted on the website and in handouts provided at the Planning counter.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 49 Figure 18: Overpayment by Renters -- Census Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), ACS, 2017-2021

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 50 Figure 19: Percentage of Homeowners Overpaying
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), ACS, 2017-2021

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 51 Local Median Housing Costs
In the City of Hanford, the median monthly housing costs is $1,152. (Table 22) For the wider Kings County, the median costs are slightly lower at $1,094. In contrast, California's median is significantly higher at $1,688. From 2010 to 2020, the City of Hanford’s median monthly housing cost increased by a smaller percentage, 8.1%, compared to Kings County at 14%. California’s rate of increase is more than double Hanford’s rate at 19.8%.

In Hanford, the median monthly owner cost with a mortgage as a percentage of household income is 21.9% and 9% for those homeowners without a mortgage. (Table 22) The percentage that renters spend is much higher at 28.1% which is just shy of the acceptable standard to spend on housing, one third of income.

However, as seen below, overcrowding and overpayment is an issue in Hanford. It is important to note that these figures are medians.

Table 22: Median Monthly Housing Costs Over Time
2010 2015 2020
Percent Change
(2010 to 2020)
City of Hanford $1,066 $1,054 $1,152 8.1%
Kings County $960 $978 $1,094 14.0%
California $1,409 $1,419 $1,688 19.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-Year Estimates), Table B25105 Table 23: Median Monthly Housing Costs by Tenure as a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 Months
2010 2015 2020
Median Gross Rent 29.0% 29.4% 28.1%
Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs -
Total 23.0% 20.5% 18.9%
Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs -
Units with a Mortgage 26.0% 23.4% 21.9%
Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs -
Units without a Mortgage 10.9% 10.1% 9.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-Year Estimates), Tables B25071, B25092

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 52 Overcrowding
Overcrowding is often closely related to household income and the cost of housing. The U.S. Census Bureau considers a household to be overcrowded when there is more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens; and to be severely overcrowded when there are more than 1.5 occupants per room.

Overcrowded households are usually a reflection of the lack of adequate income for housing.

Table 24 details the percentage of households that live in overcrowded situations. Overcrowding is more prevalent among renters than owners. For example, countywide, 12% of renters and 5% of owners reported more than one person per room.

Table 24: Overcrowding by Tenure
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table B25014
In Figure 20 it could be seen that the city of Hanford exhibits diverse patterns of overcrowding across different areas, reflecting a complex urban housing situation. Central and southern regions of the city are marked by higher rates of overcrowding, with 15-20% of housing units in some tracts experiencing this issue. dropping below 5.19%, which is notably lower than the statewide average. This indicates that housing in these areas is relatively more spacious or that fewer people are living in each household. Severe overcrowding, which typically refers to more extreme cases where the number of occupants per room is high, also varies within the city. Some areas have 2.5% to 6.5% of severely overcrowded units, indicating pockets of the city where living conditions are quite cramped. Interestingly, the edges of Hanford have rates below 2.5%, suggesting more comfortable living spaces, whereas a specific tract in the west shows a higher range of severe overcrowding, between 6.5% and 12.5%.

Occupants per Room Hanford Kings County
Total households 18,960 43,604
Owner occupied: 11,353 23,368

0.50 or less 66.0% 60.70%

0.51 to 1.00 29.5% 34.20%

1.01 to 1.50 3.3% 3.90%

1.51 to 2.00 0.2% 0.70%

2.01 or more 0.9% 0.50%
Renter occupied: 7,607 20,236

0.50 or less 42.3% 39.70%

0.51 to 1.00 45.2% 48.10%

1.01 to 1.50 8.8% 8.70%

1.51 to 2.00 2.8% 2.90%

2.01 or more 0.8% 0.60%

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
53 Figure 20: Overcrowding in Kings County
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), ACS, 2017-2021

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
54 Housing Conditions
According to the HUD CHAS data, 10–15% of occupied units in Hanford have plumbing or kitchen facility deficiencies. Also, local code enforcement records (2021–2023) cite recurring violations related to roof leaks, electrical hazards, inadequate ventilation, mold, and foundation issues, especially in older neighborhoods south of SR-198 and west of 11th Avenue in Hanford, To update the assessment of housing conditions across Kings County, the County and cities conducted a qualitative review of recent code enforcement data (2020–2024), building permit records, and consultations with local housing inspectors and planning staff. This updated review builds upon and refines the estimates derived from the prior housing conditions survey conducted over a decade ago, which found that approximately 11–13% of units countywide were in need of some level of rehabilitation or replacement.

As Table 25 shows, it was estimated that in the urban core of Hanford, 8-10% of the units moderate rehabilitation, 2-3 required substantial rehabilitation and about 1% required replacement.

Based on this localized knowledge, housing conditions have remained a significant concern in older neighborhoods and rural areas, especially where reinvestment has been limited. The following updated estimates and qualitative observations summarize current housing conditions:

Table 25: Estimated Units Requiring Rehabilitation or Replacement (2024 Update) Jurisdiction % Needing Moderate
Rehab
% Needing Substantial
Rehab
% Needing
Replacement
Hanford (urban core) 8–10% 2–3% ~1%
Avenal & Corcoran 10–12% 3–4% 1.5–2%
Unincorporated areas 12–14% 4–5% 2.5–3%
Countywide
Estimate 10–12% 3–4% 1.5–2%
Source: Local planning department staff consultation (2024), Kings County and City of Hanford Code Enforcement Reports (2020–2024), ACS 2021 5-Year Estimates, and comparison with prior Kings County Housing Condition Survey (2012).

Key Housing Condition Issues Identified (2020–2024):
• Roofing deterioration and mold intrusion reported in multiple neighborhoods in Avenal, Corcoran, and south Hanford.
• Electrical and plumbing violations increasing in unincorporated mobile home parks and older subdivisions built prior to 1980.
• Substandard units identified through outreach efforts (e.g., Kings County Housing Authority intake records) have consistently revealed nonpermitted additions, septic failures, and lack of insulation. • In farmworker communities, housing is often overcrowded and exhibits signs of foundation cracks, rodent infestations, and ventilation issues.
• Mobile homes, particularly in rural areas, have been flagged for poor anchoring, aging electrical panels, and non-weatherized exteriors.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
55 Although new affordable and market-rate housing has been added in recent years, a substantial share of older units remain unrepaired, particularly in low-income and unincorporated areas. These findings justify continued emphasis on housing preservation and rehabilitation programs to support safe and adequate housing for all residents.

The City is committed to updating the Housing Conditions Survey and seeking grant funding to compete this effort.

Homelessness
Homelessness is often the result of multiple factors that converge in a person’s life. The combination of loss of employment, inability to find a job because of the need for retraining, and high housing costs lead to some individuals and families losing their housing. For others, the loss of housing is due to chronic health problems, physical disabilities, mental health disabilities or drug and alcohol addictions along with an inability to access the services and long-term support needed to address these conditions. Obtaining an accurate assessment of the magnitude of the homeless population is difficult because many individuals are not visibly homeless but rather live with relatives or friends, in hotels/motels or shelters, and other temporary accommodations. To address the needs of homeless people in Kings County, the Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance (KTHA) conducted a Point-in-Time (PIT) survey of homeless people in these two counties in January 2022. The study used HUD’s definition of homelessness, which is defined as people who reside in emergency shelters, transitional housing, or places not meant for human habitation such as cars, parks, sidewalks, and abandoned buildings.

Table 26: Homeless Persons
Jurisdiction Estimated Homeless
Avenal 4
Corcoran 17
Hanford 260
Lemoore 8
Unincorporated area 24
Kings County totals 313
Source: Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance Point-in-Time Survey, 2022 Based on the 2022 PIT survey, the following portrait of the 313 homeless individuals counted in Kings County included:
• 22% chronically homeless
• 39% persons with disability
• 20% suffer from mental disability.
• 12% suffer from substance abuse problems.
• 11% victims of domestic violence
• 6% veterans
• 2% unaccompanied children

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
56 • 12% young adults under age 25
In 2022, 39% of the homeless population was housed in temporary living arrangements (31% in emergency shelter and 8% in transitional housing). Over half (61%) were unsheltered and homeless or in a car.

Table 26 presents the 2022 PIT homeless counts for the four cities and unincorporated areas of the County.

The table shows that the City of Hanford had the highest counted with 260 homeless individuals or 83% of the countywide total. This was followed by the unincorporated area with 24 homeless individuals.

Table 27: Shelter Facilities in Kings County
Source: Kings Tulare Homeless Alliance, 2023
:Total
Project Name & Organization
PIT
Beds
Use
Count
Use
Rate

EMERGENCY SHELTER
Barbara Saville Shelter - DV 15 4 27%
Barbara Saville Woman's Shelter 23 6 26%
EHA Kings 7 7 100%
PRK Holiday Lodge 57 57 100%
PRK Stardust Hotel 17 17 100%
Temporary Housing Program 7 7 100%
Total 126 98 78%

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
KGM Men's Transitional 15 15 100%
KGM Women's Transitional 6 6 100%
New Song Academy 6 3 50%
Total 27 24 89%

PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
Anchors II 6 4 67%
Anchors IV 6 5 83%
Grace Homes 13 13 100%
Hope Survives 6 6 100%
Kings County Act 28 28 100%
Kings VASH 5 1 20%
Total 64 57 89%

OTHER PERMANENT HOUSING
HAKC Emergency Housing Voucher 15 14 93%
Total 15 14 93%

RAPID REHOUSING
Bringing Families Home 16 16 100%
HANA 4 4 100%
Housing Support Program 76 76 100%
Kings Rapid Rehousing 1 1 100%
RRH4 Kings 6 6 100%
Total 103 103 100%

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
57 Table 27 lists the shelter facilities in Kings County that served the homeless. It identifies an inventory of 126 emergency shelter beds (78% use rate), 27 transitional housing beds (89% use rate), 64 permanent supportive housing beds (89% use rate), 15 other permanent housing beds (93% use rate), and 103 rapid rehousing beds (100% use rate) in Kings County. Additional emergency assistance is provided by the Salvation Army in Hanford, which provides short-term assistance in the form of food, financial assistance for rent and utility bills, motel vouchers and bus or plane tickets. Corcoran Christian Aid provides food, vouchers, and other types of emergency financial assistance within Corcoran.

Despite these services, a significant shortage in emergency shelters and transitional housing remains. In 2007 the State Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 2, which strengthened the planning and zoning requirements for emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing. SB2 requires that all jurisdictions adopt zoning regulations that allow emergency shelters by-right in at least one zone, subject to objective development standards, or as an alternative, the jurisdiction may meet the need through a multijurisdictional agreement with up to three adjacent jurisdictions. As noted in the Constraints section, all of the jurisdictions in Kings County have adopted zoning regulations for emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing in response to SB 2. In Kings County and surrounding counties, the number of unsheltered individuals went down dramatically from 2005 to 2020. The number of individuals in emergency shelters and transitional housing did not change drastically.

Hanford’s Program 3.11 Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing objective is to continue the establishment of emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing. Hanford allows emergency shelters by-right in the OR zone and transitional/supportive housing are permitted subject to the same regulations that apply to other residential uses of the same type, in the same zone.

Extremely Low Income Households
In 2006 state law was amended (Assembly Bill 2634) to add the extremely low-income (ELI) category (up to 30% AMI) to the required analysis of household characteristics and housing growth needs. Due to their limited incomes, these households have the greatest difficulty finding suitable housing at an affordable price. In previous Table 5 showed, Hanford consists of about 4.3 % of extremely low-income owners and

19.1% of extremely low-income renters. Extremely low-income households have high rates of overpayment. Owners in other income categories overpay for housing at rates between 67.1% to 7.7%.

Renters in other income categories overpay for housing at lower rates apart from households in the >30% to <50% income category. These high rates indicate that there is less affordable housing choice for low and extremely low-income households.

Extremely Low-Income households—defined as those earning at or below 30% of Area Median Income (AMI)—are among the most vulnerable populations in Kings County and require targeted analysis due to their severe housing cost burden and higher risk of housing instability. According to HUD CHAS 2015– 2019 estimates, approximately 3,340 households in Kings County qualify as ELI, comprising roughly

12.8% of all households in the county. Of these, more than 83% are renters, and 68% experience severe cost burden, paying more than half of their income toward housing.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
58 Table 28: Extremely Low Income Households Overpaying by Tenure Owner
Occupied Percent
Renter
Occupied Percent Total Percent
Cost Burden > 30% 350 82.4% 1,160 77.9% 1,520 79.4%
Cost Burden >50% 275 64.7% 1,040 69.8% 395 20.6%
Total ELI Households 425 1,490 1,915
Source: US Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2014-18 (5-Year Estimates) In terms of household characteristics, ELI households are more likely to:
• Reside in overcrowded conditions: CHAS and ACS data show that over 18% of ELI renter households live in units with more than one person per room—more than double the countywide average.
• Be headed by single parents or seniors: Roughly 24% of ELI households are headed by elderly persons, many of whom depend on fixed Social Security incomes. A further 27% are single femaleheaded households with children, facing compounded burdens from child care costs and low employment flexibility.
• Live in substandard housing: Code enforcement records and local knowledge identify that ELI households disproportionately occupy older, poorly maintained rental units in areas such as central Hanford, west Corcoran, and unincorporated Kettleman City.

Housing options affordable to ELI households are extremely limited. Based on current HUD fair market rents (FMR), an ELI household earning under $19,000/year can afford rent of approximately $480/month— a level unmet by most market-rate units in Kings County. Furthermore, waitlists for Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) and deeply subsidized units remain long and often closed. The County Housing Authority has reported that only 1 in 4 eligible ELI households can currently be served by available subsidy programs.

Lastly, ELI households face limited housing mobility due to poor credit, transportation barriers, and lack of available units. These challenges are exacerbated in rural and agricultural communities, where informal rental agreements, overcrowding, and employer-provided housing limit tenant protections and fair housing enforcement.

This analysis underscores the urgent need for policies and programs specifically calibrated to the unique and disproportionate burdens faced by ELI households, including preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing, new deeply affordable development, and rental assistance tied to household characteristics and location-based disadvantage.

At-Risk of Conversion
A review of assisted housing developments in Kings County and the City of Hanford reveals a total of six HUD- or USDA-subsidized properties with affordability covenants scheduled to expire within the next ten years, placing them at risk of conversion to market-rate housing. These properties include Hanford Senior Village (2026, USDA Section 515), Sandstone Apartments (2028, LIHTC), and Twin Cedars Apartments (2032, Section 8). Collectively, these developments represent approximately 198 affordable units, with 82

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
59 units specifically reserved for extremely low- and very low-income households. According to the California Housing Partnership’s Affordable Housing Preservation database, one USDA Rural Development property in Lemoore and two HUD 202 properties in Avenal also fall within the 2035 risk window.

These properties are considered at risk due to mortgage maturity, expiring rental assistance contracts, and the non-renewal of use restrictions. The potential loss of these units would represent a significant setback in maintaining housing stability for seniors, persons with disabilities, and large low-income families. Many of these units are located in census tracts already experiencing high cost burdens and lower access to opportunity, making their preservation a priority.

A review of the inventory of assisted housing developments identifies Amberwood I, Amberwood II, Cedarbrook, and Hanford Senior Villas as properties with affordability restrictions reportedly expiring between 2030 and 2032. However, cross-referencing these dates with data from the California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Preservation Database indicates that these developments have affordability covenants extending beyond 2035, placing them outside the ten-year at-risk window. This discrepancy highlights the need to verify data sources and ensure accuracy in risk assessment.

Conversely, Cameron Commons and View Road Apartments, which are not flagged in the element’s risk inventory, are listed in HCD’s preservation database with affordability covenants set to expire within the next ten years—by 2034 and 2033, respectively. These two developments collectively provide 124 affordable units, including 42 for very low-income households, and their potential conversion to marketrate status could severely affect housing stability for low-income renters in Hanford.

The risk of conversion for these properties stems from expiring HUD Section 8 contracts and the potential prepayment of federally subsidized mortgages, especially as property owners face increased maintenance costs and limited incentives for covenant renewals. The absence of a dedicated local preservation strategy or early warning system could hinder proactive intervention.

Several regional and statewide nonprofit organizations have the legal, financial, and managerial capacity to acquire and preserve at-risk developments. These include:
• Self-Help Enterprises, Visalia – Extensive experience in rural preservation and USDA RD properties.
• California Coalition for Rural Housing (CCRH) – Statewide advocacy and technical support. • The John Stewart Company – Affordable housing acquisition and property management. • Central Valley Coalition for Affordable Housing, Merced – Operates LIHTC and USDA properties in adjacent counties.

Financing options for acquisition and preservation include a combination of federal and state resources, such as:
• Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
• CalHFA Preservation Loan Program
• Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)
• HOME Investment Partnerships Program
• CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Set-Asides

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
60 • USDA Rural Development Section 538 and 515 Programs • Local Housing Trust Funds (if applicable)
The City and County continues to coordinate with these organizations and funding channels to monitor affordability expiration timelines and develop proactive acquisition and rehabilitation plans. Inclusion of an early warning database, regular communication with property owners, and technical assistance for nonprofit acquirers would enhance the jurisdiction’s capacity to preserve affordability.

The City of Hanford’s Program 3.3 Preservation of At-Risk Affordable Housing objective to monitor the status of publicly assisted housing affordable units. Hanford has approximately 766 units of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households created through City, state, and federal programs.

However, these units have no identified risk of converting to market-rate housing in the next decade.

Additionally, the City works with interested agencies and community organizations to provide technical and/or financial assistance in return for extended affordable controls.

Displacement Risk
Displacement risk—though not driven by rapid gentrification in most of Kings County—is rising in key investment corridors such as eastern Hanford, where new infrastructure and rising rents are placing pressure on older, lower-income neighborhoods. In these areas, anecdotal evidence from tenant organizations and legal aid groups indicates increasing reports of informal evictions, “cash for keys” offers, and lease nonrenewals following property acquisition by investors.

The Urban Displacement Project, a joint research and action initiative of the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Toronto, analyzes income patterns and housing availability to determine the level of displacement risk at the census tract level. According to the Urban Displacement Project's Estimated Displacement Risk (EDR) model for California, displacement risk is determined by evaluating census tract characteristics that are strongly correlated with a net loss of low-income renter populations.

Essentially, a high displacement risk suggests that more low-income households are leaving a neighborhood than moving in, often due to factors like affordability, development pressures, or changes in the housing market.

The EDR provides three layers of displacement information. The “Overall Displacement” map layer shows the number of income groups experiencing any displacement risk. The dark red tracts (2 income groups), our models estimate displacement (Elevated, High, or Extreme) for two income groups. In the light orange tracts categorized as “Probable”, one or all three income groups had to have been categorized as “Probable Displacement”. The EDR map shows that all the cities in the county and the southern western region are at predominant risk of At-Risk displacement. "At risk of displacement" refers to the likelihood of residents, particularly low-income renter households, being forced to move out of their neighborhoods due to various factors. This concept is often evaluated in the context of gentrification, rising housing costs, and changing neighborhood dynamics.

The city of Hanford is at risk of displacement in the southern and central areas while a tract contains 1 income group displacement the rest of city is at lower risk of displacement. While the neighboring areas have lower risk of displacement as well.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
61 C. CONSTRAINTS
Governmental regulations—while intended to safeguard public health, safety, and orderly development— can inadvertently pose constraints on housing production, affordability, and accessibility. In Kings County and the City of Hanford, several regulatory mechanisms may impact the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing across income levels, including those serving persons with disabilities.

Governmental Constraints
Development Standards and Permit SRO Units
In accordance with Government Code § 65583, subdivision (c)(1), jurisdictions must demonstrate the availability of zoning that facilitates a variety of housing types, including Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units. The City of Hanford and Kings County currently permit SROs in multiple zoning districts, particularly in C-2 (General Commercial within the County) and R-H (High-Density Residential) zones.

SROs are also permitted through ministerial application type in MX-D Downtown Mixed Use, MX-C Corridor Mixed Use and O-R Office Residential.

However, a detailed review of associated development standards and procedural requirements reveals constraints that may inhibit their production, particularly for very low- and extremely low-income populations.

SRO development in Hanford is subject to discretionary review under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process within the R-M zone district, which introduces uncertainty, delays, and financial burden for developers. Moreover, zoning regulations require a minimum unit size of 300–350 square feet, on-site parking ratios of one space per unit, and open space or communal amenity requirements. These thresholds, while designed to uphold livability, may conflict with affordability objectives, especially for transitional housing operators or nonprofit developers. For instance, based on parking construction cost estimates from the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley (2022), structured parking can add $35,000 to $70,000 per unit, significantly increasing development costs and reducing financial feasibility for SROs.

In Kings County, SROs are generally addressed under the umbrella of boarding houses or group living arrangements, which are subject to conditional permits in urban unincorporated areas. As of 2024, no SRO projects have been entitled or built under this zoning framework in the past eight years, suggesting that regulatory barriers or lack of incentives may be discouraging their development.

In response to these findings, Hanford is proposing to revise its zoning ordinances to include:
• Explicit SRO definitions as a permitted use in R-H
• Ministerial approval pathways for SRO projects meeting objective development standards • Reduced or flexible parking ratios, especially for projects near transit corridors or serving formerly homeless populations.
• Allowances for reduced unit sizes (e.g., 200–250 sq. ft.) consistent with state building code minimums.

Zoning regulations in Hanford dictate allowable densities and residential use types. In some residential zones, minimum lot sizes, low-density requirements, or conditional use permits for multifamily housing

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
62 may limit production, especially for low-income and special needs housing. For example, higher-density developments are primarily restricted to R-3 or mixed-use zones, and single-room occupancy (SRO) or transitional housing may require discretionary review even when allowed in the use table.

California Government Code §65940.1 mandates that jurisdictions make available on their websites—in a clear and easily accessible format—comprehensive information regarding zoning ordinances, development standards, impact fees, inclusionary housing requirements, and other development-related policies affecting residential construction. This requirement is intended to facilitate developer understanding of local constraints, streamline pre-application decision-making, and promote public transparency.

A review of Hanford’s official website confirms that basic zoning code chapters are posted online; however, access to complete development standards (e.g., Public Works Construction Standards) is often fragmented across multiple documents. Additionally, the fee schedule for development services is published, but there is no consolidated dashboard or dedicated web page compiling all housing-related requirements in one place, including any applicable inclusionary housing mandates or affordability incentives.

This fragmented access hinders effective pre-development planning, especially for smaller housing developers and nonprofit affordable housing providers who rely on complete and timely data for project feasibility analyses. The Housing Element proposes to include a targeted program to ensure full compliance with state law by developing a centralized online repository that houses up-to-date zoning maps, tables of permitted uses by zone, all development standards, the full suite of fee schedules by unit type and housing category, and any affordable housing or inclusionary provisions adopted by the City or County.

Height Limits as a Constraint on Multifamily Housing
Height limits in residential and mixed-use zoning districts serve as a critical regulatory parameter that directly affects the ability of developers to achieve maximum residential densities. In the City of Hanford, multifamily housing is typically permitted in R-M Medium-Density Residential, R-H (High-Density Residential), and all mixed use zones. According to Table 4-4 of the draft Housing Element, these zones generally impose maximum building heights ranging from 35 to 45 feet, which equates to approximately three stories depending on construction type. While these limits may support moderate-density development, they may act as a constraint for developers seeking to utilize density bonuses, mixed-income incentives, or podium-style construction methods that exceed three stories. This height restriction is consistent with the development proposed throughout the region and does not present a constraint for development of multi-family housing. There is not a story limitation in the City of Hanford.

For example, achieving densities above 25–30 dwelling units per acre—a common benchmark for lowerincome RHNA feasibility—typically requires 4- to 5-story construction, particularly for projects incorporating structured parking or ground-floor commercial uses. Restrictive height caps in high-density or mixed-use districts may therefore reduce financial feasibility or require costly variances. Furthermore, these height limits are often applied uniformly across parcel sizes without accounting for lot depth, adjacency buffers, or context-sensitive infill design strategies that could otherwise support greater vertical development without compromising neighborhood character.

While state density bonus law can offer partial relief, the lack of corresponding height increases in the base zoning may reduce the practical utility of such incentives. Therefore, height limits—as currently structured—present a potential governmental constraint on the production of affordable and multifamily housing, particularly in infill areas near transit, employment, and services.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
63 Reasonable Accommodation
While the City of Hanford have adopted reasonable accommodation procedures, additional clarification is necessary to evaluate whether these policies fully comply with the Fair Housing Amendments Act and do not unintentionally hinder access to housing for persons with disabilities. The current process generally allows applicants to request modifications from land use or zoning standards (e.g., setback adjustments, parking requirements); however, neither jurisdiction publishes standardized application procedures, timeframes for decision-making, or clear approval findings criteria online, making it difficult for housing providers or applicants to navigate the process efficiently. Lack of transparency in procedural timelines and decision logic can serve as implicit barriers to equal housing access.

A critical zoning constraint arises from the treatment of group homes for seven or more individuals, which in many residential zones in Hanford and unincorporated Kings County are subject to conditional use permits (CUPs) and excluded entirely from single-family residential zones. For example, Hanford’s zoning ordinance permits group homes of six or fewer persons by right in residential districts, but requires a CUP for homes of seven or more residents, even when operated by licensed care providers. This regulatory distinction imposes a heightened burden on housing for individuals with disabilities, which is inconsistent with California law, including SB 1228 (2001) and Gov. Code §12955(l), which require local governments to treat licensed group homes like other residential uses without additional layers of discretion.

Such requirements introduce potential discrimination risks and increase housing development timelines and costs. Conditional use permit processes often involve public hearings, discretionary reviews, and neighbor opposition, all of which may deter service providers from siting homes for persons with developmental, cognitive, or physical disabilities. Moreover, the CUP process lacks uniform approval standards and often varies in duration depending on community pushback, which disproportionately affects vulnerable populations.

Permit Processing and Timelines
The efficiency and clarity of local permit processing procedures have a direct impact on housing production across all income levels. A review of existing practices in City of Hanford reveals potential constraints arising from procedural ambiguity, lack of codified timelines, and the absence of formal documentation for statutorily required streamlining processes.

Notably, both jurisdictions do not currently maintain published or codified procedures for the SB 35 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process (Government Code § 65913.4), which applies to jurisdictions not meeting their RHNA progress benchmarks. While certain housing types such as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and limited multifamily infill projects are reviewed ministerially, there is no evidence of a clearly defined internal workflow, eligibility checklist, or staff guidance to facilitate SB 35-compliant review. This omission could deter developers of lower-income housing projects from pursuing otherwise eligible sites, effectively acting as a regulatory constraint despite the statutory mandate.

In addition, local implementation of the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code §§ 65920–65964) lacks operational transparency. There is no systematic tracking of completeness determinations, final decision timelines, or integration with CEQA milestone dates. The absence of documented review periods or internal accountability systems for processing times weakens the ability of both agencies to ensure consistency and predictability, particularly for affordable and mixed-income developments. Public

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
64 comments collected during housing element outreach further underscore concerns over unpredictable timelines and discretionary layers even in zones where residential uses are conditionally permitted.

CEQA review, which often intersects with the Permit Streamlining Act, is applied variably without publicfacing guidance on how CEQA exemptions or streamlining tools—such as infill exemptions or SB 35 waivers—are triggered or applied. This creates further uncertainty and potential delays in the entitlement process. In practice, the permitting experience appears to be project-specific and dependent on staff interpretation rather than standardized procedures, increasing the risk of processing delays, especially for nonprofit or mission-driven housing providers with limited legal resources.

Public comments on the initial Housing Element submittal further emphasized the need for clarity in processing times, improved coordination between planning and building divisions, and more predictable outcomes for housing applicants. In response, the Hanford proposes a formal SB 35 protocols that include:
• An objective checklist for determining project eligibility; • Defined timelines consistent with HCD’s 30–60–90-day review expectations; • Publication of ministerial approval standards for qualifying projects; • Integration with CEQA streamlining tools such as Class 32 (infill) categorical exemptions where applicable.

Overall, the absence of published SB 35 protocols, weak monitoring of statutory deadlines, and unclear CEQA coordination constitute material procedural constraints. These affect the feasibility of lower-income housing development and limit the jurisdictions’ ability to meet housing production goals under RHNA.

While the zoning ordinance provides a basic regulatory framework, the operational processes governing application intake, review, and decision-making remain a significant area where constraint mitigation is necessary through increased administrative clarity and procedural integration.

Development Fees and Exactions
Hanford’s standard impact fees for residential development include charges for sewer, water, traffic mitigation, and school facilities. While these fees are necessary for infrastructure provision, they may disproportionately affect small or affordable projects, especially when fees are assessed per unit rather than by square footage. Fee deferral or reduction programs specific to affordable housing are limited or inconsistently applied.

Non-Governmental Constraints
Land Cost and Availability
Non-governmental factors play a critical role in determining the pace and affordability of housing development. In Kings County and Hanford, the rising price of land—particularly in areas close to urban services or within infill zones—acts as a significant constraint. Recent real estate data indicates that residential land values in Hanford have increased by 15–25% over the past three years, reaching approximately $7 to $12 per square foot, with higher values in the northwest quadrant where much of the City’s RHNA capacity is located. In rural unincorporated areas, land prices remain somewhat lower, but constraints such as lack of infrastructure and limited market interest make housing infeasible in the absence of subsidies.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
65 Another development constraint is the prevalence of downzoning requests or development at densities lower than those anticipated in the Housing Element site inventory. This often stems from neighborhood opposition, cost concerns, or market preferences, especially in transitional zones. A review of recent project approvals indicates that approximately 18% of sites entitled for high-density multifamily housing (20–30 du/ac) were instead developed at medium densities (12–18 du/ac). Additionally, there are notable delays between entitlement and permit application, with an average lag time of 12 to 18 months, especially for larger multifamily and mixed-use developments. These delays are often attributed to market timing, financing gaps, or developer efforts to phase construction.

Combined, these nongovernmental constraints pose significant challenges to meeting Kings County’s and Hanford’s share of the regional housing need, particularly for low- and very low-income households.

Construction Cost
In terms of construction costs, average per-unit costs for single-family homes now range from $250,000 to $325,000, while multifamily construction averages $180,000 to $240,000 per unit, depending on scale and design efficiency. These figures are in line with Central Valley trends and reflect escalating material and labor costs. For developers, access to financing, particularly for moderate- and lower-income housing, remains a persistent challenge. While conventional financing is generally available for market-rate singlefamily projects, affordable housing developments often rely on Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), state Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) funds, and gap financing, all of which are highly competitive and subject to lengthy award timelines.

Development Delays and Timing Gaps
A key non-governmental constraint impacting the City of Hanford’s ability to accommodate their share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is the lag between project approval (e.g., site plan, zoning entitlements) and submittal of building permit applications. Recent planning data and interviews with local staff indicate that for many market-rate and multifamily housing developments, the average delay ranges from 12 to 18 months following approval. For affordable housing projects, this timeline can extend beyond 24 months, primarily due to prolonged efforts to secure funding sources such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), MHP, and HOME funds, which require alignment of multiple application rounds.

These delays pose significant challenges to meeting RHNA production targets, especially for very low- and low-income units, which depend more heavily on complex financing structures. In contrast, moderate- and above-moderate income housing shows faster turnaround times due to easier access to private financing and speculative development models. The cumulative effect of entitlement-to-permit delays, especially on lower-income RHNA categories, has contributed to a backlog of approved but unbuilt units, which skews the jurisdiction’s annual progress reports (APR) and undercuts the actual production pipeline.

Furthermore, local developers cite site improvement obligations, utility connection fees, and lack of staff capacity for expedited plan checks as additional causes for delay between project approval and the permit stage. Addressing these delays will be essential to ensure RHNA feasibility and programmatic success. The Housing Element should incorporate monitoring systems to track entitled but unbuilt units, identify stalled projects, and create early intervention measures to reduce timing gaps for critical housing segments.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
66 Environmental Health
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) reports CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores for the unincorporated county, suggesting relatively adverse environmental conditions throughout the county. (Figure 21). According to OEHHA, except for some of the smaller tracts in the center of the cities of Hanford, Lemoore, and Corcoran the rest of the areas have scores above the 90th percentile. The environmental conditions in Kings County likely due to the dominance of commercial agricultural practices and natural resource extraction, both of which are known to have negative impacts on the surrounding areas resulting from air pollution and other contaminants.

The primary indicators leading to the high environmental scores as reported by OEHHA’s CalEnviroScreen vary across the county, but include ozone, particulate matter (PM) 2.5, diesel PM, pesticides, toxic releases, drinking water contaminants, chemical cleanup, lead in housing, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water, and solid waste. Ozone, diesel particulate, and PM2.5, forms of pollution generated by car traffic and industrial uses, score higher throughout the county. In the unincorporated county, pesticide use, groundwater threats, and solid waste facilities are more prevalent than in urbanized areas, reflecting the presence of agricultural industries and chemical and waste storage outside of urban areas. Nearly all of Kings County is Senate Bill (SB) 535-qualifying disadvantaged communities excluding areas around Lemoore, north of Hanford and some tracts in Corcoran. This indicates that the unincorporated county represents an area of potential concern regarding fair housing and disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards and a concentration of vulnerable populations. The CalEnviroScreen scores in Hanford, California, display a varied environmental and socioeconomic landscape across the city. In most regions of Hanford, the CalEnviroScreen scores are above 75%, suggesting that these areas face significant pollution burdens and vulnerabilities.

This high score is indicative of greater environmental and health risks, potentially including higher levels of pollutants, greater exposure to toxic substances, or socio-economic factors that amplify these risks, such as lower income levels or limited access to health care. Contrastingly, the northern areas of Hanford have somewhat lower scores, ranging from 50-75%. These scores, while still indicating some level of environmental and socioeconomic concerns, are comparatively less severe than the higher-scoring regions of the city. Additionally, there is a single tract within Hanford with an even lower CalEnviroScreen score, falling in the range of 25-50%. This could indicate that this particular area experiences fewer environmental health risks or has better socio-economic conditions compared to other parts of the city.

These disparities in CalEnviroScreen scores across Hanford highlight the uneven distribution of environmental and socio-economic challenges within the city. Understanding these variations is crucial for local policymakers and community organizations in targeting interventions and resources to those areas most in need. Further, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) develops flood maps that identify areas with the highest risk of flooding, differentiating them by the degree of severity and frequency of flooding anticipated. The city of Hanford is only at a minor risk of flooding when compared to the rest of the county (Figure 22)
Environmental Constraints
In alignment with Government Code § 65583.2(b), this section provides an expanded analysis of environmental constraints that may impact housing development opportunities within the City

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
67 of Hanford during the 6th cycle planning period (2024–2032). This section enhances that discussion by identifying and evaluating specific site-related and regional constraints—including topography, access, contamination, flood risk, infrastructure limitations, and compatibility with adjacent uses—that may influence the feasibility, timing, and capacity for residential development. This targeted analysis supports a more comprehensive understanding of development readiness and informs programmatic strategies to address potential barriers and promote housing production consistent with the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations.

Topography and Site Shape:

The identified housing sites are located on flat terrain suitable for development. However, select parcels exhibit irregular configurations or limited frontage, which may reduce their developable area or layout efficiency. These conditions have been noted and the Housing Inventory. The Housing Element includes programmatic strategies to encourage lot consolidation and flexible site design standards to address these constraints.

Environmental Hazards and Contamination:

The CalEnviroScreen scores in Hanford, California, display a varied environmental and socioeconomic landscape across the city. In most regions of Hanford, the CalEnviroScreen scores are above 75%, suggesting that these areas face significant pollution burdens and vulnerabilities.

This high score is indicative of greater environmental and health risks, potentially including higher levels of pollutants, greater exposure to toxic substances, or socio-economic factors that amplify these risks, such as lower income levels or limited access to health care. Contrastingly, the northern areas of Hanford have somewhat lower scores, ranging from 50-75%. These scores, while still indicating some level of environmental and socioeconomic concerns, are comparatively less severe than the higher-scoring regions of the city. Additionally, there is a single tract within Hanford with an even lower CalEnviroScreen score, falling in the range of 25-50%. This could indicate that this particular area experiences fewer environmental health risks or has better socio-economic conditions compared to other parts of the city.

Compatibility with Adjacent Uses:

The City proactively uses zoning and overlays to buffer residential uses from hazards, including the Aviation Land Use Compatibility Overlay Zone and limitations of residential zones from being located near the City’s Industrial park. The Aviation Land Use Compatibility Overlay Zone is applied to reduce potential conflicts around the Hanford airport concerning noise and safety due to the operation of private aircraft and to ensure that aircraft and residential uses can co-exist while maintaining a strong quality of life for nearby residents.

Flooding and Drainage: A limited number of sites within the City, fall within FEMA-designated 100-year flood zones.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD
68 Based on this analysis, the City concludes that no environmental constraints fully preclude residential development of the identified sites within the planning period.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
68 Figure 21: CalEnviroScreen 4.0

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
69 Figure 22: Flood Hazard Zones

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
70 D. Local Data and Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors In addition to quantifiable housing needs and demographic patterns, several other contextual factors contribute to disparities in housing access and opportunity. This section explores historical development trends, land use and zoning decisions, infrastructure investments, and geographic features that have influenced settlement patterns in the City of Hanford. Understanding these factors is essential for evaluating how past and present planning actions may have contributed to concentrations of poverty, disparities in neighborhood conditions, or limitations in fair housing choice. This analysis supports the broader goal of affirmatively furthering fair housing by identifying structural influences beyond current housing data.

Segregation and Integration –
Race and Ethnicity. Census data indicates that the City of Hanford includes neighborhoods with varying racial and ethnic compositions. While certain areas may reflect higher concentrations of minority populations, there are no neighborhoods identified as having especially low minority presence. These patterns likely reflect historic residential settlement trends rather than explicit policy-based segregation.

City staff are not aware of any historical factors, such as discriminatory zoning or redlining, that directly contributed to these patterns. Similarly, there are no known current conditions—such as exclusionary land use regulations or public infrastructure disparities—that reinforce racial or ethnic segregation.

Recent planning practices, including the distribution of housing sites to meet Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets and mixed-use land use strategies, are expected to improve integration by creating a more equitable distribution of housing and services throughout the city.

Disability.

Based on available Census data, there are no specific neighborhoods in Hanford identified as having a concentration of residents with disabilities. There are also no known clusters of licensed group homes or residential care facilities that would suggest geographic patterns of segregation for this population.

Building permits for accessibility improvements, such as ramps, are not tracked separately from other home modifications, limiting the availability of localized data. No formal requests for reasonable accommodation were submitted during the most recent planning period.

While accessibility improvements have been implemented citywide, there are no identified locations with pronounced deficiencies or needs for infrastructure upgrades related to disability access. However, continued attention to ADA-compliant infrastructure—particularly in older neighborhoods—will be important to support inclusive development.

Familial Status.

Families in Hanford are broadly distributed across both single-family and multi-family neighborhoods, with no significant segregation based on familial status. However, non-family households (e.g., singles, couples without children) appear to be more concentrated in the Downtown area, where housing types tend to be smaller and more oriented toward individual living.

Child care services are present throughout the city, as shown in the Hanford Child Care Facilities Map.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
71 There are no major locational disparities in access to licensed child care facilities, suggesting that family households generally have equitable access to these services.

Income and Housing Assistance
Census data identifies both lower-income and higher-income neighborhoods within Hanford. While income disparities exist, there are no official records indicating geographic concentrations of Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)/Section 8 recipients. Similarly, while public financing has supported affordable housing development in various areas of the city, there is no significant clustering of publicly financed housing in any one location.

The city’s efforts to distribute affordable housing developments throughout multiple zoning districts, including mixed-use areas, helps to mitigate economic segregation and promotes income integration.

Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Education
Public schools in Hanford are distributed across the city, providing access to elementary, middle, and high school education. The Public School Review notes that overall school performance is comparable to regional averages. Staff report no known disparities in educational access between neighborhoods.

Postsecondary and vocational education is available through the College of the Sequoias and other regional vocational institutions. School enrollment is generally district-based, with limited transfer options. Charter and private school options are available citywide, and district transfers are permitted though the criteria are unclear.

The Boys and Girls Club provides tutoring services, but staff are not aware of differences in access across neighborhoods. Several new subdivisions have been approved, and a master planned development is forthcoming; however, potential impacts on school capacity or access have not been documented.

Economic
Major employers in Hanford include the Kings County Government Center and Adventist Health. Many residents commute to work at state prisons in Corcoran, Avenal, and Coalinga. There have been no recent shifts in commercial or industrial development.

High-speed internet access is available, though detailed service gaps are not documented. The City contracts with the Kings County Economic Development Corporation (KEDC) to support business growth, including training and financing. The Valley Community Small Business Development Center (SBDC) also supports small business development across Kings County and surrounding regions.

Transportation
Hanford is served by Kings Area Regional Transit (KART) and Amtrak. Local KART routes connect neighborhoods to major destinations, and the City’s 2016 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and its draft Active Transportation Plan aim to enhance walking and biking options.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
72 Sidewalk infrastructure is mostly complete citywide, but annexed county island areas may lack sidewalks due to prior county development standards. Residents in these areas may vote to fund their own improvements. Bike lanes are generally limited, though bike paths follow most major collectors.

U.S. Highway 198 bisects the city and presents a barrier to non-motorized mobility, especially between northern and southern Hanford. Community facilities are concentrated in the central and southern sections of the city, limiting access for residents in the north.

The City recently completed a major sewer infrastructure project in 2019 (East Side Sewer Trunk Main) and anticipates further water, sewer, and storm drain upgrades according to adopted Master Plans.

Environment
Water quality is regularly monitored through the City's Consumer Confidence Report (2022). A significant contamination site at 325 E 5th Street—formerly a manufactured gas plant—presents an environmental hazard with potential soil and groundwater contaminants. Residential development is discouraged near heavy industrial zones.

According to the Hanford Parks Master Plan (2020), park access is provided citywide based on a standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. Several new subdivisions have been developed, but no master planned communities have been entitled. Differences in park access by neighborhood have not been identified.

Access to grocery stores and healthy food is more concentrated in central and southern Hanford. Northern neighborhoods have limited access to food retail, which may affect food security and health outcomes in those areas.

The City of Hanford provides generally equitable access to education, transportation, and public facilities.

However, localized infrastructure deficiencies in formerly annexed county areas, limited grocery access in the north, and historical environmental contamination in specific areas highlight the need for targeted improvements to support equity across all neighborhoods.

Disproportionate Housing Needs, Including Displacement
Overpayment
Home prices in Hanford have increased significantly—approximately 47%—from January 2020 to January 2025, according to real estate market estimates (e.g., Zillow). This growth has outpaced income trends and may exacerbate affordability challenges, particularly for lower- and moderate-income households.

However, no neighborhood-level data is available to indicate differences in overpayment rates across the city. Additionally, the City has not identified patterns of evictions or foreclosures that are specific to any geographic area.

Overcrowding

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
73 There are no known areas within Hanford experiencing elevated rates of overcrowding. Code enforcement staff report that they have not received complaints related to “doubling-up” of families or occupancy violations. As a result, no spatial patterns of overcrowding have been documented.

Housing Conditions
Housing rehabilitation needs are most concentrated in older neighborhoods, particularly those south of Grangeville Boulevard and near the city’s original boundaries. These areas contain many homes that are more than 50 years old, and some are in deteriorating condition due to aging infrastructure and deferred maintenance.

Although specific data on housing conditions by unit type (e.g., single-family, multifamily, mobile homes) is unavailable, it is generally understood that housing quality issues are not limited to a particular structure type or location. Frequent code enforcement complaints in these older neighborhoods typically involve property maintenance violations and the presence of abandoned vehicles.

Newer subdivisions, developed over the past decade, feature smaller lot sizes (typically 3,000 to 7,000 square feet) compared to older subdivisions (where lots often exceed 7,000 square feet). However, infrastructure in newer areas is generally comparable to that in older neighborhoods.

Opportunities for non-single-family homeownership options—such as condominiums or owner-occupied duplexes—remain limited across the city, reducing the range of affordable homeownership pathways for residents.

Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Homeless individuals in Hanford are primarily located on large vacant parcels near the city limits. These areas are often outside the urban core and may have limited proximity to services. Some locations near the periphery are accessible by public transportation.

Emergency rental assistance is available through several non-profit organizations, but no geographic differences in access to those services have been reported.

Displacement
There is no evidence of significant displacement occurring within Hanford. While rents and home prices have increased citywide, no particular neighborhood has experienced documented displacement pressures or forced relocations. Similarly, no specific local events—such as redevelopment or infrastructure expansion—have caused residential displacement.

However, long-term affordability concerns may still arise, particularly for cost-burdened renters and homeowners in aging housing stock.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
74 Environmental Risk and Housing Vulnerability
Neighborhoods located near the original city boundaries and south of State Route 198 contain older homes that may be more vulnerable to environmental damage. These risks are typically associated with poor roofing, outdated drainage systems, and limited structural resilience during rain events.

The City of Hanford does not currently conduct defensible space inspections or operate structured environmental hazard prevention programs. Additionally, no areas have been identified as having elevated flood risk outside designated FEMA zones due to poor stormwater absorption or infrastructure limitations.

Other Relevant Factors
This section identifies additional structural, historical, and environmental conditions that may influence patterns of fair housing access and socio-economic opportunity within the City of Hanford.

Historic Patterns and Demographics
While no specific historical events or formal redlining policies have been documented, current settlement patterns indicate that minority populations are more likely to reside in the southern portion of the City. This area is also more economically disadvantaged compared to the northern half.

Zoning and Land Use Decisions
There is no available documentation on past zoning or land use decisions that may have influenced socioeconomic disparities. However, the continuation of existing land use patterns and zoning regulations may reinforce neighborhood disparities over time.

Settlement Trends and Population Shifts
No available information was provided regarding historical immigration waves, major development patterns, or population shifts. Future research may be needed to explore any long-term influences on housing access and neighborhood composition.

Defining Land Use Features
State Route 198 is a prominent east-west corridor that physically and socioeconomically divides the City.

Areas south of SR-198 tend to house a larger percentage of minority populations and are more likely to exhibit lower income levels. This bifurcation has implications for access to education, employment centers, and public resources.

Infrastructure and Capital Improvements
Based on recent reports and staff input, no significant differences in infrastructure supply, public safety conditions, or capital improvement efforts have been observed between neighborhoods. The City’s infrastructure investments appear to be distributed equitably, although some older neighborhoods may still require targeted maintenance and modernization.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
75 E. Site Analysis
The site analysis provides a review of available vacant and under-utilized sites in the City of Hanford that would allow for and facilitate production of the city’s regional share of housing as required by State Law.

This data is supplemented with local knowledge of existing conditions in the community to present a more accurate depiction of fair housing issues in the City. Figures 23 and 24 present the vacant sites inventory of the City of Hanford.

To ensure adequate capacity for meeting the City of Hanford’s 2024–2032 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the Housing Element includes a detailed inventory of land suitable for residential development. This includes both vacant parcels and non-vacant sites with realistic redevelopment potential, categorized and analyzed by zoning designation, existing use, and income level potential. Housing Element Appendix B: Land Use Inventory present parcel-level data for each site identified, including:
• Parcel size and Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN)
• General Plan designation and zoning classification
• Current use and existing structures (if any)
• Realistic unit capacity based on allowed densities
• Status (vacant or underutilized)
• Income category assignment
• Availability of infrastructure

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
76 Figure 23: City of Hanford Vacant Sites 6,000 Square Feet or Greater

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
77 Figure 24: City of Hanford Vacant Land Inventory

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
78 Figure 25: with Census Tracts & Block Groups

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
79 Redevelopment Potential of Under Utilized Sites
To comply with Government Code § 65583.2(c), the Housing Element must include a specific program addressing any vacant sites identified in two or more consecutive planning periods or non-vacant sites carried over from prior housing elements that are currently proposed to meet lower-income RHNA. These reused sites are presumed to face constraints that limit their development viability without additional intervention. Therefore, jurisdictions must include a clear, enforceable program that permits housing developments with at least 20 percent of units affordable to lower-income households by right, meaning without discretionary review, on these sites.

In Kings County and the City of Hanford, several parcels listed in the current Housing Element have also appeared in the 4th and 5th cycle housing elements as part of the inventory for accommodating lowerincome housing. For example, portions of the Downtown infill parcels, 10th Avenue corridor, and Houston Avenue sites have been repeatedly listed without seeing significant housing development. These sites should now be subject to a by-right development program as required by law, and the Housing Element should:
• Identify each reused site explicitly in the Sites Inventory table. • Reference their inclusion in multiple prior housing elements. • Commit to permitting qualifying projects (with 20%+ lower-income units) without discretionary approval, including streamlined review and objective standards. • Specify the zoning districts and densities applicable to each reused site, ensuring they meet the statutory thresholds for lower-income development (e.g., at least 20 du/acre for suburban jurisdictions).

This program ensures that reused sites do not remain speculative placeholders and are prioritized for actual affordable housing production during the current planning cycle.

For nonvacant parcels, the Housing Element provides a detailed description of existing uses, which may include single-family homes on multifamily-zoned land, aging commercial structures, or surface parking lots. Each nonvacant site is evaluated based on several key redevelopment indicators:
• Improvement-to-land value ratio (typically less than 1.0) • Structure age and condition, particularly buildings older than 40 years • Underutilization, such as a single dwelling on a large, multifamily-zoned lot • Commercial or industrial properties with declining market viability or obsolete layout • Local redevelopment trends and market feasibility based on nearby project proposals Descriptions include whether a site contains a duplex, retail store, storage facility, or parking lot.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
80 Figure 26: Representative Sites Analysis: Non-Vacant Lots Large Lot – Single Family Residences over 1 acre
Site Characteristics Site Suitability Site Description and Factors Supporting Development
APN 014-080-099-000 Status Non-Vacant The site contains a large-lot single family residence on a

2.8-acre in an area formerly
within Kings County’s
Jurisdiction. There is potential
to divide the property into
additional sites, while
maintaining street frontage
requirements and a 12,000 sq.
ft. minimum lot size. Based on
the neighboring sites, which
are generally 20,000 sq. ft.,
approximately 3 additional
sites could be accommodated
(one north of the residence and
2 to the south).

Location 9434 FARGO AVE Type Single-Family
Residential
Site Acreage 2.8 Ownership: Private
Developable
acres
2 Year Built 1990
Zoning R-L-12
FAR: .03
Density 2-4 units/acre
Potential Units 3
Income
Category Above Mod

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
81 Figure 27: Similar Properties – 7536 10th Avenue
Address APN Zoning Lot Size
(Sq. ft.) Acres Density Range
Unit
Potential
7536 10TH
AVE
007-070-002-
000
Low-Density
Residential RL-1298881.2 2.27 1 to 3 3
Figure 28: Similar Properties – 7584 10th Avenue
Address APN Zoning Lot Size
(Sq. ft.) Acres Density Range Unit Potential
7584 10TH
AVE
007-070-003-
000
Low-Density
Residential RL-12
104979.6 2.41 1 to 3 4

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
82 Figure 29: Similar Properties – 8521 12th Avenue
Address APN Zoning Lot Size
(Sq. ft.) Acres Density Range Unit Potential
8521 12TH
AVE
008-410-001-
000
Low-Density
Residential RL-12
149846.4 3.44 1 to 3 5

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
83 Figure 30: Similar Properties – 10711 Thompson Drive Address APN Zoning Lot Size
(Sq. ft.) Acres Density Range
Unit
Potential
10711

THOMPSON
DR
011-420-035-
000
Low-Density
Residential RL-5
217800 5 2 to 10 15
Assumption: 165,000 sq. ft. of development potential, 4 units per acre (consistent with R-L-5 average) = 15 units Site Aerial:

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
84 Usable Site Opportunity:

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
85 Figure 31: Similar Properties – 11339 Jones Street

Address APN Zoning Lot Size
(Sq. ft.)
Acres Density
Range
Unit
Potential
11339

JONES ST
011-420-039-
000
Low-Density
Residential RL-5 108900 2.5 2-10 7
Assumption: 76,000 sq. ft. of development potential, 4 units per acre (consistent with R-L-5 average ) = 7 units Site Aerial:

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
86 Usable Site Opportunity:

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
87 Figure 32: Similar Properties – 10796 Thompson Drive Address APN Zoning Lot Size
(Sq. ft.)
Acres Density
Range
Unit
Potential
10796

THOMPSON
DR
011-420-041-
000
Low-Density
Residential RL-5 134600.4 3.09 2 to 10 7
Assumption: 79,000 sq. ft. of development potential, 4 units per acre (consistent with R-L-5 average ) = 7 units Site Aerial:

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
88 Usable Site Opportunity:

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
89 Figure 33: Similar Properties – 382 Thompson Drive
Address APN Zoning Lot Size
(Sq. ft.)
Acres Density
Range
Unit
Potential
382

THOMPSON
DR
011-420-056-
000
Low-Density
Residential RL-5 182516.4 4.19 2 to 10 11
Assumption: 123,000 sq. ft. of development potential, 4 units per acre (consistent with R-L-5 average ) = 11 units
Site Aerial:

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
90 Usable Site Opportunity:

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
91 Figure 34: Representative Sites Analysis: Mixed-Use Sites Mixed-Use Sites

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
92 Site Characteristics Site Suitability Site Description and Factors Supporting Development
APN 010-121-050-000 Status Non-Vacant The site is considered underutilized with improvements on site exceeding 50 years
in age. The parcel is largely surrounded
by residential development. With access
to the major arterial, 10th Avenue, there is
potential of the site to be developed for
multi-family at a medium- to highdensity. An estimated 10 units is assumed, based on a realistic density of
16 units per acre, with approximately
28,000 sq. ft. available for development.

Location 1212 N 10TH AVE Type Commercial
Site Acreage .91 Ownership: Private
Developable
acres
Year Built 1972
Zoning MX-C FAR: .03
Density Improvement:

Land Value

2.8 Potential
Units
Income
Category
Low

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
93 Figure 35: Small Shed Structures on High-Density Site Site Characteristics Site Suitability Site Description and Factors Supporting Development
APN 008-410-054-
000
Status NonVacantThe site was formerly owned by the YCMA. The closure of the YMCA in 2014 and the sale of the site
to a church reduced the use of the site to the southern parcel, occupied by the former gymnasium and
tennis courts, which are now used by a pickleball
group. The northern portion is mostly vacant, except
for two small shed structures.

Location 1010 W
Grangeville
Blvd
Type Small
shed
structure
Site Acreage 3.53 acres Ownership: Private
Developable
acres

3.53 Year Built unknown
Zoning R-H FAR: .03
Density 14-29
Potential
Units
56 Income
Category
Low
Infrastructure and Public Services Availability
The current infrastructure has the capacity to accommodate the level of growth in the RHNA for the City of Hanford, however, according to Water, Sewer, and Storm Drain Master Plans, in the next ten year significant infrastructure improvements are necessary/planned. An example of a recent infrastructure improvement was the 2019 East Side Sewer Trunk Main project which included the construction of a sewer trunk main from the City's Wastewater Treatment Facility on Houston Avenue near 11th Avenue, east along

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
94 Houston Avenue to 9th Avenue and then north to an existing sewer main in Lacey Boulevard. The sewer trunk line is intended to be a 24-30-inch diameter pipe from the Wastewater Treatment Facility to the intersection of 9th Avenue and Hanford-Armona Road. The sewer trunk line is intended to be a 24-inch diameter in 9th Avenue from Hanford-Armona Road north to Lacey Boulevard. The sewer trunk main would be constructing within existing rights of way of Houston Avenue and 9th Avenue. The total length of sewer main is proposed to be approximately 3.8 miles. Total land disturbance will be approximately 7 acres. This can include, but is not limited to, roads, bridges, or water/sewer infrastructure.

Hanford’s WWTP, located west of 11th Avenue, currently has a design capacity of 6.0 million gallons per day (MGD) and treats an average of 4.2 MGD, indicating unused capacity of approximately 1.8 MGD (30%) as of 2023. According to the 2022 Infrastructure Master Plan and data from the City’s Public Works Department, planned improvements in Hanford include pipe rehabilitation and expansion in east Hanford and North Hanford Specific Plan areas. The City has capacity reservation agreements and mitigation fee programs in place to prioritize development aligned with the Housing Element.

Mixed Use Analysis
18 mixed-use sites are utilized to accommodate the RHNA. The mixed use sites are a combination of the MX-N Neighborhood Mixed Use and MX-C Corridor Mixed Use zones. Both mixed use zones allow highdensity residential development along with commercial uses – both vertical and horizontal mixed use is allowed in each zone. The MX-N Neighborhood Mixed Use zone district requires a residential component for development, up to 75% of the site. The MX-C Corridor Mixed Use zone allows for non-residential development, though general plan policy encourages mixed-use:

Policy L66 Typical Uses in Corridor Mixed Use Land Use Designation Define the uses allowed in the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation to include small- and mediumscale commercial providing primarily day-to-day goods and services, office, and multi-family dwellings along with horizontal and vertical mixed use developments that include these uses. Typical uses include duplexes, townhomes, apartments, markets, small retail shops, eating establishments, offices, service stations, medical and dental offices, convenience stores, dry cleaning and laundry services, beauty salons, and other similar uses. Both vertical and horizontal mixed-use developments are encouraged.

Table 29: Mixed Use Sites to Accommodate RHNA
APN Zone Density Range Acreage
Lower
RHNA
Moderate
RHNA
Above
Moderate
RHNA
Total
RHNA
14181012000 MX-C 14 29 0.17708907 0 1 0 1
10121050000 MX-C 14 29 0.90853994 10 0 0 10
10132035000 MX-C 14 29 0.33425161 0 5 0 5
10121058000 MX-C 14 29 0.18071625 0 3 0 3
14161015000 MX-C 14 29 1.5 24 0 0 24
11010042000 MX-C 14 29 5.26 84 0 0 84
11010043000 MX-C 14 29 5.26 84 0 0 84

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
95 11040005000 MX-C 14 29 13.3 213 0 0 213
14161014000 MX-C 14 29 0.17217631 0 3 0 3
14161049000 MX-C 14 29 0.56 9 0 0 9
14161050000 MX-C 14 29 2.82 45 0 0 45
11010044000 MX-C 14 29 5 80 0 0 80
11010041000 MX-C 14 29 5.56 89 0 0 89
11040004000 MX-C 14 29 21.15 338 0 0 338
11440031000 MX-N 14 29 2 32 0 0 32
11440030000 MX-N 14 29 4.18 67 0 0 67
11440032000 MX-N 14 29 4.64 74 0 0 74
8360028000 MX-N 14 29 19.17 307 0 0 307
A review of past entitlements revealed that the MX-C Corridor Mixed Use designation develops with a residential component approximately 50% of the time, however, sites over one acre have a higher likelihood of residential development. Sites over 5 acres, especially when already proximal to commercial development, have the highest likelihood of being developed for 100% residential development.

Additionally, the City of Hanford will provide incentives for development of mixed-use zones for 100% residential development, as well as implement performance standards requiring sites over 5 acres to provide a minimum 25% residential component.

Mixed-Use Site Opportunity
APN: 008-360-028
Zone: MX-N
Figure 36: Mixed Use Site - Southeast Corner of 12th and Fargo Avenues

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
96 The parcel located at 008-360-028 has a high likelihood of developing for as multi-family, due to its location and proximity to existing residential and planned residential uses. The General Plan provides multiple policies requiring the development of the site for mixed-use:

3.6 Mixed Land Use
The intent of the mixed-use land use designations is to provide for a mixture of stores, services, restaurants, offices, and homes (dwelling units) in close proximity, thereby allowing residents to work and shop close to home and reduce the length and frequency of trips between home, work, shopping, and services. This contributes to opportunities to increase the use of public transit, reduce auto dependency, provide a wider range of housing choices, and promote activity during more hours of the day. Both vertical and horizontal mixed-use developments are encouraged in the mixed use designations. The Hanford Zoning Ordinance provides the enforcement mechanism to implement the identified policies.

Mixed Use Land Use Designations Goals
Goal L15: More opportunities for mixed use projects.

Goal L16: A mix of land uses, vertical, horizontal or both, at appropriate locations in the city.

Goal L17: A mixture of commercial shopping and services with multi-family residential dwellings in a vibrant, walkable environment.

Goal L18: Opportunities to design land uses that meet people’s residential and shopping needs while reducing reliance on automobiles.

3.6.1 Neighborhood Mixed Use
Policy L60 Purpose of Neighborhood Mixed Use Land Use Designation Establish the Neighborhood Mixed Use land use designation to promote mixed-use commercial and multi-family residential areas that allow walking to and between the mix of uses. New development may be oriented towards an existing public street or a new street or civic space within the development site.

Policy L61 Typical Uses in Neighborhood Mixed Use Land Use Designation Define the uses allowed in the Neighborhood Mixed Use land use designation to include multi-family dwellings along with businesses providing day-to-day goods and services for the surrounding and nearby residential neighborhoods. Commercial uses that would primarily serve a citywide or regional market area shall not be allowed. Typical uses include duplexes, townhomes, apartments, markets, small retail shops, eating establishments, service stations, convenience stores, dry cleaning and laundry services, beauty salons, and other similar uses. Both vertical and horizontal mixed-use developments are encouraged.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
97 Policy L62 Design of Neighborhood Mixed Use Land Use Designation Require that new development projects and major site reconfigurations in the Neighborhood Mixed Use land use designation provide site layouts, buildings, landscaping, walkways, and signage that are oriented primarily to the pedestrian. Require pedestrian access between residential and commercial uses and prohibit parking areas, walls, and landscaping in locations on the site that block or hinder pedestrian access. The maximum residential density permitted in a horizontal mixed use development is fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre.

Policy L63 Location and Size of Neighborhood Mixed Use Land Use Designation Locate Neighborhood Mixed Use land use designations on eight (8) to twenty-five (25) acres at roughly one-mile intervals on one corner of an intersection of an arterial street and an arterial or collector street.

This land designation takes the place of the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation on some corners.

3.14.2 Northwest Planning Area
The Northwest Planning Area is primarily located east of 13th Avenue, north of Fargo Avenue, west of the BNSF Railroad tracks, and south of Flint Avenue. The land around the intersection of Fargo Avenue and 12th Avenue would serve as the neighborhood commercial hub. Most of the land is currently being farmed and some land is subject to Williamson Act Contract.

Policy L161 Northwest Growth Limitation
Approve new development projects in the Northwest Planning Area only within the 2035 Development Boundary until such time as the boundary is expanded in accordance with General Plan policies.

Policy L162 Northwest Higher Density Residential Uses
Support the development of higher density residential uses in close proximity to the neighborhood commercial development at the intersection of Fargo Avenue and 12th Avenue with a gradual transition to lower density, single-family residential uses.

Policy L163 Northwest Neighborhood Commercial Center
Encourage a new mixed use neighborhood commercial center to serve residents of the Northwest Planning Area at the intersection of Fargo Avenue and 12th Avenue.

APN(s): 011-040-004-000 and 011-040-005
Zoning: MX-C
Figure 37: Mixed Use Site - Hanford-Armona Road, East of 13th Avenue

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
98 The parcels located at 011-040-004-000 and -005 have a high likelihood of developing as either a majority residential or all residential, based on:

1. Developer interest:
a. The City has received inquiries from developers in this area to develop multi-family residential housing, especially as the majority of the sites in the southwest quadrant of the City have been entitled or developed.

2. Proximity to single-family residential:
a. As discussed above, the majority of the southwest quadrant has been entitled or developed as single-family residential. Developers have already expressed interest in developed multi-family within this area, to accommodate a varied housing stock, to allow various options for residential housing opportunities.

3. The proximity to a nearby commercial designation:

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
99 a. Directly north of this site, a 25-acre Regional Commercial site is designated. Recent discussions with commercial developers have indicated a difficulty to attract commercial users, especially as online retail remains popular. Developers have discussed the possibility of allowances for multi-family in commercial zones or the City’s ability to support rezones in some cases to allow residential opportunities. Given the downward trend of commercial uses, the City would expect these vacant mixeduse sites to develop largely (if not wholly) as multi-family residential .

Figure 38: Proximity of Mixed-Use Site to Commercial Opportunity APN(s): 014-161-015, -049, and -050
Zoning: MX-C
Figure 39: Mixed Use Site - 10th Avenue and Cameron Street

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
100
The properties are under singular ownership – the total size of the parcels is 4.86 acres. Given the aggregate size of the parcel, based on recent development trends, the City expects this site would develop as either majority or wholly multi-family development. Given the location of the site on 10th Avenue, a major arterial, as well as the proximity to existing commercial uses, the site could be adequately served by nearby services and develop as multi-family residential. Additionally, as an infill site, the site would be able to be streamlined for CEQA review. The General Plan envisions this area as a vertical or horizontal mixed-use area.

3.6.2 Corridor Mixed Use
Policy L65 Purpose of Corridor Mixed Use Land Use Designation Establish the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation to promote a mix of commercial, office, and multi-family residential uses along transportation corridors at a scale compatible with adjacent residential neighborhood, with the intent of creating a pedestrian-friendly environment that encourages walking between uses.

Policy L66 Typical Uses in Corridor Mixed Use Land Use Designation Define the uses allowed in the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation to include small- and medium- scale commercial providing primarily day-to-day goods and services, office, and multifamily dwellings along with horizontal and vertical mixed use developments that include these uses. Typical uses include duplexes, townhomes, apartments, markets, small retail shops, eating

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
101
establishments, offices, service stations, medical and dental offices, convenience stores, dry cleaning and laundry services, beauty salons, and other similar uses. Both vertical and horizontal mixed-use developments are encouraged.

Mixed Use Program:

By July 2027, the City will establish an incentive program to promote residential development in the MXC zone. Incentives and strategies to be considered include but are not limited to:
- Outreach and marketing to property owners and developers - Increased density and modification to development standards - Fee deferrals
- Priority processing
- Ministerial review, including ministerial lot line adjustments In addition to complying with No Net Loss Law (Government Code section 65863), the City will annually monitor progress on MX-C zoned sites and if progress is not made toward residential development, the City will complete alternative strategies, as appropriate, including but not limited to establishing residential performance standards or rezoning additional sites to promote residential development. (See Program 3.4 c)
Small Site Analysis
Sites smaller than 0.5 acres
A parcel smaller than one half acre is considered inadequate to accommodate housing affordable to lower income households, unless the housing element demonstrates development of housing affordable to lower income households on these sites is realistic or feasible. While it may be possible to build housing on a small parcel, the nature and conditions (i.e., development standards) necessary to construct the units often render the provision of affordable housing infeasible. The housing element must consider and address the impact of constraints associated with small lot development on the ability of a developer to produce housing affordable to lower income households. To demonstrate the feasibility of development on this type of site, the analysis must include at least one of the following:
• An analysis demonstrating that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period with an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site. • Evidence that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing. Evidence could include developer interest, potential for lot consolidation, densities that allow sufficient capacity for a typical affordable housing project, and other information that can demonstrate to HCD the feasibility of the site for development. For parcels anticipated to be consolidated, the housing element must include analysis describing the jurisdiction’s role or track record in facilitating small lot consolidation, policies or incentives offered or proposed to encourage and facilitate lot consolidation, conditions rendering parcels suitable and ready for consolidation such as common

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
102
ownership, and recent trends of lot consolidation. The housing element should include programs promoting, incentivizing, and supporting lot consolidations and/or small lot development. • A site may be presumed to be realistic for development to accommodate lower income housing need if, at the time of the adoption of the housing element, a development affordable to lower income households has been proposed and approved for development on the site The housing element must also describe existing and proposed policies or incentives the jurisdiction will offer to facilitate development of small sites. Examples of program incentives for lot consolidation include deferring fees specifically for consolidation, expediting permit processing, providing flexible development standards such as setback requirements, reduced parking or increased heights, committing resources for development of affordable housing on small sites, or increasing allowable density, lot coverage or floor area ratio.

Sites smaller than 0.5 acres are generally not considered appropriate to accommodate the housing needs of lower-income households unless an analysis demonstrates the suitability of these sites to facilitate development of housing for lower-income households. The City does not use any sites under 0.5 acres to accommodate the lower-income RHNA.

Large Sites Analysis (>10 Acres)
Step 3B: Sites larger than 10 acres
Parcels larger than 10 acres are considered inadequate to accommodate housing affordable to lower income households, unless the housing element demonstrates development of housing affordable to lower income households on such sites was successful during the prior planning period, or there is other evidence that the site is realistic and feasible for lower income housing.

Definition of a Large Site For purposes of this requirement, “site” means that portion of the parcel designated to accommodate lower income housing needs. For example, a parcel greater than 10 acres in size could have to be split zoned, have an overlay zone with identified boundaries, or be identified in a specific plan that provides for subdivision of the parcel. If the specified boundaries of the site identified to accommodate the RHNA for lower income is less than 10 acres in size, then the large site analysis would not be required. However, the analysis must describe how the development will work on the site, including opportunities and timing for specific-plan development, further subdivision, or other methods to facilitate the development of housing affordable to lower income households on the identified site within the planning period. End definition
To demonstrate the feasibility of development on this type of site, the analysis must include at least one of the following:
• An analysis demonstrating that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period with an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site. • Evidence that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing. Evidence may include developer

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
103
interest, proposed specific-plan development, potential for subdivision, the jurisdiction’s role or track record in facilitating lot splits, or other information that can demonstrate to HCD the feasibility of the site for development. The housing element should include programs promoting, incentivizing, and supporting lot splits and/or large lot development.
• A site may be presumed to be realistic for development to accommodate lower income housing need if, at the time of the adoption of the housing element, a development affordable to lower income households has been proposed and approved for development on the site.

Sites larger than 10 acres are generally not considered appropriate to accommodate the housing needs of lower-income households unless an analysis demonstrates the suitability of these sites these sites to facilitate development of housing for lower-income households. The City has identified 5 sites to accommodate the lower-income RHNA, as follows:

Table 30: Sites over 10 Acres to Accommodate the Lower-Income RHNA APN Number Size Zone Density Lower Units Total Units
011-040-004 21.15 acres MX-C 14-29
units/acre
338 338
008-360-028 19.17 acres MX-N 14-29
units/acre
307 307
011-440-027 14.6 acres R-H 14-29
units/acre
234 234
011-040-005 13.3 acres MX-C 14-29
units/acre
213 213
011-020-045 13.11 acres R-H 14-29
units/acre
210 210
Generally, developments assisted by state funding are comprised of approximately 50 to 150 units but can also be smaller or larger depending on different circumstances such as special needs, smaller rural areas and multiple phased developments. In the San Juaquin Valley, several 100 percent affordable developments have occurred. Examples include:

Table 31: Recent Developments on Large Sites
Project Acreage Affordable
Units Market Rate Total Units
Parc Grove Commons 24 acres 213 2 215
Ben Maddox Property -
Visalia

10.8 acres 292 0 292
Lovers-Caldwell Property 11.4 acres 342 0 342
Demaree Street
Apartments - Visalia

7.62 acres 220 2 222
Caldwell Apartments –
Tulare County
303 3 306

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
104
Fiddyment Apartments –
Placer County
330
Anton Power Inn –
Sacramento County
194
Monarch – Sacramento
County
241
4995 Stockton Boulevard –
Sacramento County
198 2 200
The Lyla – Sacramento
County
291 3 294
Asteria Flats 234 2 236
Based on these recent developments and approximate range of 200 to 300 units for larger sites, the 5 sites identified are considered suitable and appropriate to facilitate the development of housing for lower income households. In addition, based on conversations with non-profit developers, sites larger than 10 acres are suitable to facilitate development of housing affordable to lower income households and could be developed in phases and combined with different unit types such as single family. Finally, to further facilitate affordability on these larger sites, through Program 3.4 b, the City will establish incentives such as priority processing, fee deferrals and ministerial lot splits.

The Housing Element confirms that all large parcels:
• Are under single ownership, minimizing entitlement risks; • Are within areas identified in the City's CIP for infrastructure expansion; • Are supported by specific plans or community development frameworks encouraging mixedincome housing.

Moreover, development trends in the unincorporated areas of Kings County reflect a shift toward higherdensity, phased developments on large sites when located near services and transit corridors. These conditions collectively support the conclusion that such parcels have realistic development capacity for affordable housing during the 2024–2032 cycle.

Figure 40: Representative over 10 acres proposed to be utilized for lower-income E of 10 1/2 Ave, S of
Hanford Armona
Road
APN General Plan /
Zoning
Designation
Lot Size
(s.f.)
Acreage Density
(Units/acre)
Realistic
Density
(Units/acre)
Potential
Units
Lower
Income
011-440-
027-000
High-Density
Residential
RH
635976 14.60 14 to 29 16 234

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
105

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
106
The site has potential to be subdivided and phased. The site is zoned R-H High-Density Residential, which requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and 40 feet of frontage. Therefore, there is potential to improve the site’s eastern frontage along the Gilkey Lane alignment and southern frontage along the Thompson Road alignment, in order to subdivide the site into multiple parcels for phased development. (sample above, taking into account 60’ local roads.

Policy
The City will commit to processing TPMs for large-lot development for low-income projects on an expedited timeline.

Program 3.4 (b): Lot Merger and Subdivision
There are a number of parcels larger than 10 acres that could support single-family and/or multi-family housing at a range of affordability levels. As needed to facilitate the development of housing, the City shall facilitate lot mergers (aka lot consolidation) or subdivision (aka lot splitting) to promote the efficient use of land for residential development in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances, when an applicant submits an application.

On a case-by-case basis, the City may use any of the strategies below to facilitate housing development:

Assist developers/property owners in identifying opportunities for lot consolidation or lot splitting.

Continue to streamline the processing of requests for lot mergers and lot subdivisions concurrent with other development reviews.

Encourage the use of planned unit developments or master plans to provide a cohesive strategy for the development of large lots.

Units Built or Under Construction and Planned or Approved Projects Jurisdictions can credit units from approved or projects pending approval to meet a portion of the RHNA.

Each jurisdiction’s Housing Element includes a list of all residential projects that are planned or approved and scheduled to be built by the end of the current RHNA projection period.

Table 32: Pending Projects Towards RHNA
Trac
t # Name Subdivider Location APN Zone
Date of
Approval
Acre
s
Numbe
r of
Units
Income
Category
Under Construction – Single Family
902 Live Oak
North
Century
Homes
N of
Hume, W
of 12th
multiple R-L5 3/23/2012 20.5 99 Above
Moderate

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
107
915
The
Enclave
(PUD
2018-01)
Enclave
Developers,
LLC
W of
Centennia
l, S of
Lacey
multiple R-L5 6/26/2018 14.1
2 66 Above Moderate
937 Billingsly DR Horton
S of HAR,
btw 12 &
13th
multiple R-L5 1/24/2023 21.1
2 95 Above Moderate
938 Lunaria DR Horton
10 1/2 btw
HAR
&Houston
multipl
e
R-L5 6/13/2023 95 350 Above
Moderate
940 Stonehave
n
DR Horton
S of
HanfordArmona,
E of 13th
011-
040-
030-000
R-L510/17/202
3 12.1
7 82 Above Moderate
Project
#
Name Developer Location APN Zone Date of
Approva
l
Acre
s
Numbe
r of
Units
Income
Category
Under Construction – Multi-Family
West
Park
Place
Hanford
Millennium,
LLC
S of
Millennium
, W of
Centennial
011-
020-
045-
000
R-H 13 216 Above
Moderat
e
Total Above-Moderate Units Counted: 908
Low:

Project
Number
Name Developer Location APN Zon
e
Date of
Approval
Acre
s
Numbe
r of
Units
Income
Categor
y
Recently Entitled/Moving Forward within Planning Cyle:

SPR0122
-24
Tierra
Vista
II
AM G Land
Development
, LLC
700 - 706
S.

Williams
St
700 -
706 S.

William
s St
R-M 3/10/202
5 2.66 40 Low*
* affordability based on pending density bonus agreement The City of Hanford anticipates building permits to be submitted by November 2026, within one year of the enacted impact fee deferral agreement.

Total Low- Units Counted: 40 + 40 ADU projected units = 80 Tract 902 – Live Oak North; (99 units – Above Moderate Income) Live Oak North, Tentative Tract 902, was a request to subdivide approximately 20.5 acres into 99 singlefamily residences in the R-L-5 Low-Density Residential zone district. The project was approved in 2009, but due to the economic downturn at the time has had multiple map extensions and developers. Beginning in 2024, Century Communities began developing the subdivision and the project is nearing completion.

Home prices range from $365,000 to $465,000 for 3-5 bedrooms. The project is categorized as abovemoderate income.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
108
https://www.centurycommunities.com/find-your-new-home/california/central-californiametro/hanford/live-oak/ The Enclave Hanford (66 Units – Above Moderate)
The Enclave (Tract 915) was a subdivision of a 14.29-acre parcel into 66 single-family residential lots in the R-L-5 Low-Density Residential zone District with a planned unit development overlay to allow deviations from the standards of the Hanford Municipal Code Section 17.10 to permit reduced lot sizes, a reduced street width for a private street, reduced setbacks, reduced street frontage, and reduced lot widths for the development. The project was approved in 2018 and is currently under construction. The home prices within the subdivision range from $650,000 - $750,000, which is considered above-moderate income. https://enclavehanford.com/
Billingsly Ranch (97 Units – Above Moderate)
Billingsly Ranch, Tract 937, was a request to subdivide 21.12 acres into 95 single-family residences in the R-L-5 Low-Density Residential zone district. The project was approved in 2023 and is under construction with completion expected in the next three years (within the planning cycle). The home prices within the subdivision range from $363,990 for 3-bedrooms to $415,000 for 4-bedroom units, which is considered above-moderate income.
https://www.drhorton.com/california/central-valley/hanford/billingsley-ranch Stonehaven – (40 units – Above Moderate)
Stonehaven, Tract 940, was a request to subdivide 12.17-acre into 82 single-family residences in the R-L5 Low-Density Residential zone district. The project was approved in 2023 and is under construction with completion expected within the planning cycle. The project is considered above moderate income. https://www.drhorton.com/california/central-valley/hanford/stonehaven Lunaria – (457 Units; 350 towards RHNA – Above Moderate) Lunaria, Tract 938, was a request to subdivide 95 acres into 457 single-family residential lots in the R-L-5 Low-Density Residential zone district. The project was approved in 2023 and is nearing vertical construction with an estimated 50 units expected to be constructed each year of the planning cycle (2026- 2032) for a total of 350 units towards the RHNA (above moderate). https://www.drhorton.com/california/central-valley/hanford/lunaria West Park Place (216 multi-family units – Above Moderate) West Park Place is a 216-unit multi-family project under construction in Hanford. The project is a marketrate apartment complex. Phase I is currently under construction and Phase II is estimated to be completed within the planning cycle.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
109
Accessory Dwelling Unit Potential – 40 units; Low Income California Government Code Section 65583.1(a) states that a town, city, or county may identify sites for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) based on the number of ADUs developed in the prior Housing Element planning period, whether the units are permitted by right, the need for ADUs in the community, the resources or incentives available for their development, and any other relevant factors. Since 2021, the City has average approximately 8 ADUs per year Based on recent changes in state law reducing the time to review and approve ADU applications, requiring ADUs that meet requirements to be allowed by right, planned outreach and incentives, eliminating discretionary review for most ADUs, and removing other restrictions on ADUs, it is anticipated that the production of ADUs will increase above this average to 10 ADUs per year in the 6th cycle Housing Element planning period. In 2025, 7 ADUs were permitted and 5 completed. Over the planning cycle, it is estimated 80 ADUs will be completed. Occupied ADUs are generally utilized for multi-generational households, including seniors and those with special needs as an option for independent living. While these units are considered low-income, conservatively based on affordability studies from the ABAG region, the City assumes 30 percent affordable to very low income households, 30 percent affordable to low income households, 20 percent affordable to moderate income households and 20 percent affordable to above moderate income households.

Table 33: ADUs Constructed Per Year
Year Number of ADU
2021 20
2022 3
2023 3
2024 6
2025 7
TOTAL 39
AVG PER YEAR 7.8

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
110
Site Inventory Findings
The vacant sites identified comprise more than 85% of total RHNA capacity. These sites are often located in infill areas or within urban service boundaries, reducing infrastructure development timelines. The majority are sized appropriately (0.5–10 acres) for by-right development, suitable for both small-scale and multifamily projects, and do not require subdivision to proceed.

Table 34 provides a summary of the RHNA allocation by income category and compares it with the total unit capacity identified across the site inventory. This ensures that the City has designated adequate capacity, including an identified buffer, to meet its assigned housing needs. The RHNA includes allocations for extremely low-, very low-, low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income units, all of which are addressed through the collective development potential of listed sites. Based on the site inventory presented in Appendix B, there are adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA housing units figured for Hanford.

Table 34: Land Inventory and RHNA Targets
Jurisdiction Income Category Total
EL/VL Low Mod Above Mod
Hanford
RHNA (Table 2-32) 1369 993 1066 2119 5,547
Housing sites 2,428 1,164 4,120 7,790
Adequate Capacity? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and Identified Sites A qualitative analysis discussing distributions within each census tract appears below, addressing the following:

1. Discussion of any concentration or lack of concentrations (distribution) of the lower-income RHNA and the magnitude of the impact

2. Discussion of any concentration or lack of concentrations (distribution) of the moderate and above moderate-income RHNA and the magnitude of the impact

3. Discussion of higher resource areas that have little RHNA and reasoning

4. A conclusion of whether the identified sites improve or exacerbate any socio-economic patterns Census Tract 6.02
There are a total of four Low-Density Residential sites available in this census tract for housing opportunity.

It is classified as a High Resource area with a local median income of $84,097 - $120,000. The area is identified as Low-Medium Segregation with no identified flood hazard risk and low environmental risk, >25% - 50%, measured by the CalEnviroScreen 4.0. Between 2.5% - 6.5% of households in this area experience severely overcrowded units. Since only a limited number of units can be accommodated within Census Tract 6.03, the identified sites will have little- to no-impact on the socio-economic patterns of the Census Tract.

Table 35: Census Tract 6.02 Analysis

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
111
Characteristic Census Tract 6.02
Socio-economic Characteristics
TCAC Resource Category High Resource
Median Income $84,097 -120,000
Poverty Level < 10%
Persons with Disabilities < 10%
Overpayment (by renters) 40% - 60%
Overpayment (by owners) 20%-40%
Overcrowding < 5.19% (Statewide Average)
Displacement Risk Lower Displacement Risk
Regional Housing Need Allocation
Lower Income 0
Moderate Income 0
Above Moderate Income 4
TOTAL 4
Census Tract 6.03
Census Tract 6.03 consists of two vacant land sites, as much of the tract is built out. According to the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas map, this area is classified as Highest Resource with a local median income over $120,000. It is also identified as a Racial Concentration Area of Affluence and is a Lower Displacement Risk area. In addition, there is no identified risk in terms of the flood hazard zones.

Prioritizing new housing development in this area can result in higher integration, varied income distribution and further choice for lower income households. Since only a limited number of units can be accommodated within Census Tract 6.03, the identified sites will have little- to no-impact on the socioeconomic patterns of the Census Tract.

Table 36: Census Tract 6.03 Analysis
Characteristic Census Tract 6.03
Socio-economic Characteristics
TCAC Resource Category Highest Resource
Median Income >$120,000

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
112
Poverty Level < 10%
Persons with Disabilities < 10%
Overpayment (by renters) 40% - 60%
Overpayment (by owners) 20%-40%
Overcrowding < 5.19% (Statewide Average)
Displacement Risk Lower Displacement Risk
Regional Housing Need Allocation
Lower Income 0
Moderate Income 0
Above Moderate Income 3
TOTAL 3
Census Tract 6.04
This tract is primarily made up of vacant land. This area is identified as Highest Resource with a local median income between $84,097 to $120,000. Additionally, it is identified as a Racial Concentration Area of Affluence and is Lower Displacement Risk. There is very little of .2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard. It is adjacent to Census Tract 6.03 which is also in the northwest of the City of Hanford. Prioritizing a mix of new housing development across the three income categories (21% low-, 6% moderate, and 73% above moderate) in this area can result in higher integration, varied income distribution and further choice for lower income households.

Table 37: Census Tract 6.04 Analysis
Characteristic Census Tract 6.04
Socio-economic Characteristics
TCAC Resource Category Highest Resource
Median Income $84,097 -120,000
Poverty Level < 10%
Persons with Disabilities < 10%
Overpayment (by renters) 20%-40%
Overpayment (by owners) 20%-40%
Overcrowding < 5.19% (Statewide Average)
Displacement Risk Lower Displacement Risk

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
113
Regional Housing Need Allocation
Lower Income 363
Moderate Income 106
Above Moderate Income 1284
TOTAL 1753
Census Tract 7.01
There are 19 vacant or underutilized sites within Census Tract 7.01. This area is identified as High Resource with a local median income between $84,097 to $120,000. The tract is identified as Low-Medium Segregation and Lower Displacement Risk. The area has between 10% - 20% of the population experiencing poverty and 20% -40% of single parent female headed households with children. This area has no identified flood hazard risk. Between 20% - 40% of homeowners pay over a third of their income towards their housing needs. The majority of the RHNA allocation within this census tract are for abovemoderate income, due to the zoning of the vacant sites (mostly low-density residential).

Table 38: Census Tract 7.01 Analysis
Characteristic Census Tract 7.01
Socio-economic Characteristics
TCAC Resource Category High Resource
Median Income $84,097 -120,000
Poverty Level 10% - 20%
Persons with Disabilities 10% - 20%
Overpayment (by renters) 20%-40%
Overpayment (by owners) 20%-40%
Overcrowding 5.19% - 10%
Displacement Risk Lower Displacement Risk
Regional Housing Need Allocation
Lower Income 0
Moderate Income 6
Above Moderate Income 81
TOTAL 87

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
114
Census Tract 7.02
Within this tract, there are 9 vacant land sites. This area is identified as High Resource with a local median income of $60,000-$84,097. The poverty status rate is less than 10% and is one of two Racially Integrated census tracts. It also has a higher rate of single parent female headed households with children, between 20% - 40%, and population with a disability, at 10% - 20%. It is also identified as an area with Lower Displacement Risk. Prioritizing a mix of new housing development across the three income categories (24% low-, 42% moderate, and 34% above-moderate) in this area can result in higher integration, varied income distribution, and further choice for lower income households.

Table 39: Census Tract 7.02 Analysis
Characteristic Census Tract 7.02
Socio-economic Characteristics
TCAC Resource Category High Resource
Median Income $60,000 - $84,097
Poverty Level < 10%
Persons with Disabilities 10% - 20%
Overpayment (by renters) 20%-40%
Overpayment (by owners) 20%-40%
Overcrowding < 5.19% (Statewide Average)
Displacement Risk Lower Displacement Risk
Regional Housing Need Allocation
Lower Income 28
Moderate Income 50
Above Moderate Income 40
TOTAL 118
Census Tract 8
Census Tract 8 has a variety of available land within differing zone districts to accommodate the various income categories. The tract is identified as Low Resource with a Lower Displacement Risk. It is one of two census tracts identified as Racially Integrated. In comparison to the other census tracts in Hanford, it has a higher rate of overcrowded units at 5.19% - 10%. Since this tract is a Low Resource and there are other census tracts that could benefit more from new housing production, this area does not have to be a priority for development. Prioritizing a mix of new housing development across the two of the income categories (41% low-, 59% above-moderate) in this area can result in higher integration, varied income

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
115
distribution, and further choice for lower income households.

Table 40: Census Tract 8 Analysis
Characteristic Census Tract 8
Socio-economic Characteristics
TCAC Resource Category Low Resource
Median Income $60,000 - $84,097
Poverty Level 20% - 30%
Persons with Disabilities 10% - 20%
Overpayment (by renters) 20%-40%
Overpayment (by owners) 20%-40%
Overcrowding 5.19% - 10%
Displacement Risk Lower Displacement Risk
Regional Housing Need Allocation
Lower Income 114
Moderate Income 6
Above Moderate Income 169
TOTAL 289
Census Tract 9.01
There are a few areas of vacant land in this tract. Census tract 9.01 is identified as a Low Resource area with a local median income of $35,000 - $60,000. This census tract has the highest percentage of poverty in the City of Hanford at 30% - 40% and is identified as At Risk of Displacement. There is no identified risk of flood hazard but is in the highest category of environmental risk (75% - 100%) according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 metrics. Census tract 9.01 has a high percentage of overpayment for both owners and renters, 40% - 60%. Between 2.5% - 6.5% of households in this area experience severely overcrowded units. This area is less suitable for housing production than other census tracts that have more opportunity access and less environmental hazard. A total of 80 units are allocated for this Census Tract (19& low-, 65% moderate, and 16% above-moderate).

Table 41: Census Tract 9.01 Analysis
Characteristic Census Tract 9.01
Socio-economic Characteristics

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
116
TCAC Resource Category Low Resource
Median Income $35,000 - $60,000
Poverty Level 30 % - 40%
Persons with Disabilities 10% - 20%
Overpayment (by renters) 40%-60%
Overpayment (by owners) 40% - 60%
Overcrowding < 5.19% (Statewide Average)
Displacement Risk At Risk of Displacement
Regional Housing Need Allocation
Lower Income 15
Moderate Income 52
Above Moderate Income 13
TOTAL 80
Census Tract 9.02
There are very few vacant sites in this tract, which is identified as Low Resource and At Risk of Displacement. The vacant sites within the tract are below 0.5 acres. The local median income is $35,000 - $60,000. The poverty level in this area is between 20% - 30% but there is not data available regarding the local racial demographics in terms of integration and segregation. There is no identified flood risk but the environmental hazard level according to CalEnviroScreen 4.0 is >75% - 100%. This census tract has some of the highest levels of overpayment by renters at 40%-60%. There are other census tracts that can benefit from incentivizing housing production because it offers more opportunities and has less displacement and environmental risk. A total of 25 units are allocated, all of which are categorized as available for moderateincome RHNA.

Table 42: Census Tract 9.02 Analysis
Characteristic Census Tract 9.02
Socio-economic Characteristics
TCAC Resource Category Low Resource
Median Income $35,000 - $60,000
Poverty Level 20% - 30%

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
117
Persons with Disabilities 10% - 20%
Overpayment (by renters) 40% - 60%
Overpayment (by owners) 20%-40%
Overcrowding 5.19% - 10%
Displacement Risk At Risk of Displacement
Regional Housing Need Allocation
Lower Income 0
Moderate Income 25
Above Moderate Income 0
TOTAL 25
Census Tract 10.01
There are some large areas of vacant land in this tract. According to the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas map, this tract is identified as Highest Resource and Lower Displacement Risk. The local area median income is $60,000 to $84,097 with less than 10% of the population experiencing poverty. It is as identified as Low-Medium segregation. There is no identified risk of flood hazard but is in the highest category of environmental risk (75% - 100%) according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 metrics. It is an area identified as Lower Displacement Risk. It has similar rates of overpayment by renters and homeowners, 20% - 40%, which is lower than about half of the other census tracts in Hanford. Census Tract 10.01 is more suitable for housing production because it offers more access to resources and has less displacement risk than other areas. This census tract accommodates a total of 961 units, the majority of which are available for the lower RHNA. Identified sites will contribute to a mix of housing units, including lower RHNA, within a highresource, low-poverty area.

Table 43: Census Tract 10.01 Analysis
Characteristic Census Tract 10.01
Socio-economic Characteristics
TCAC Resource Category Highest Resource
Median Income $60,000 - $84,097
Poverty Level <10%
Persons with Disabilities 10% - 20%
Overpayment (by renters) 20%-40%
Overpayment (by owners) 20%-40%

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
118
Overcrowding < 5.19% (Statewide Average)
Displacement Risk Lower Displacement Risk
Regional Housing Need Allocation
Lower Income 797
Moderate Income 0
Above Moderate Income 164
TOTAL 961
Census Tract 10.02
There are several vacant sites in this census tract. Census tract 10.02 is the only tract in Hanford that is identified as a High Segregation & Poverty and 1 Income Group Displacement Risk. The local median income of the area is $35,000 - $60,000 where 30% - 40% of households experience poverty. This census tract is one of four census tracts that consists of a higher percentage of single parent female headed households with children, 20% - 40%, compared to the other 9 census tracts. Census Tract 10.02 consists of the most severely overcrowded units compared to all the other census tracts in Hanford. There is no identified risk of flood hazard but is in the highest category of environmental risk (75% - 100%) according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 metrics. Since this area has high poverty and segregation, production of moderate income units will diversity the socio-economic conditions and provide proximity to transportation access.

Table 44: Census Tract 10.02 Analysis
Characteristic Census Tract 10.02
Socio-economic Characteristics
TCAC Resource Category High Segregation and Poverty
Median Income $35,000 - $60,000
Poverty Level 30% - 40%
Persons with Disabilities < 10%
Overpayment (by renters) 40% - 60%
Overpayment (by owners) 20%-40%
Overcrowding 10 % - 15%
Displacement Risk 1 Income Group Displacement
Regional Housing Need Allocation

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
119
Lower Income 76
Moderate Income 515
Above Moderate Income 24
TOTAL 615
Census Tract 10.03
There are large areas of vacant land in census tract 10.03. This area is identified as a Low Resource Area, Lower Displacement Risk with no identified risk of flood hazard but is in the highest category of environmental risk (75% - 100%). It consists of 10% - 15% of overcrowded units, which is higher than the statewide average which is less than 5.19%.. On the other hand, it has some of the lowest rates of severely overcrowded units in Hanford, less than 2.5%. Additionally, this census tract also has some of the lowest rates of single parent female headed households with children and people with a disability. Multi-family units in this area at different price points can help reduce overcrowding and diversify the socio-economic conditions of the area.

Table 45: Census Tract 10.03 Analysis
Characteristic Census Tract 10.03
Socio-economic Characteristics
TCAC Resource Category Low Resource
Median Income $60,000 - $84,097
Poverty Level < 10%
Persons with Disabilities < 10%
Overpayment (by renters) 20%-40%
Overpayment (by owners) 20%-40%
Overcrowding 10 % - 15%
Displacement Risk Lower Displacement Risk
Regional Housing Need Allocation
Lower Income 551
Moderate Income 0
Above Moderate Income 992
TOTAL 1543

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
120
Census Tract 11
This area is identified as a Low Resource Area and At Risk of Displacement. It is also identified as an area with Low-Medium Segregation. Census Tract 11 has the lowest median income compared to the other 12 census tracts in Hanford. The local median income in this area is less than $35,000 and one of the highest levels of households experiencing poverty, 30% - 40%. This census tract has more single parent female headed households with children and people with a disability than other census tracts, 10% - 20% and 10% - 20% respectively. In this census tract, there is a small area of 2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard and is in the highest category of environmental risk (75% - 100%) according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 metrics. It has high rates of homeowners and renters paying more than a third of their income to housing needs, both at rates between 40% -60%. A total of 1397 units are allocated for this census tract. The units are across the three income categories (40% low-, 23% moderate, and 37% above moderate) and will provide housing opportunities for all, thus diversifying the census tract.

Table 46: Census Tract 11 Analysis
Characteristic Census Tract 11
Socio-economic Characteristics
TCAC Resource Category Low Resource
Median Income Low Resource
Poverty Level < $35,000
Persons with Disabilities 30% - 40%
Overpayment (by renters) 10% - 20%
Overpayment (by owners) 40% - 60%
Overcrowding 40% - 60%
Displacement Risk 10 % - 15%
Regional Housing Need Allocation
Lower Income 554
Moderate Income 324
Above Moderate Income 519
TOTAL 1397
Census Tract 12
There are no vacant sites in this census tract, as Census Tract 12 generally includes the City’s industrial area, as well as portions of the unincorporated Kings County limited agriculture designation. Census Tract 12 is identified as a Low Resource Area, Lower Displacement Risk with no identified risk of flood hazard

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
121
but is in the highest category of environmental risk (75% - 100%). The local median income is $60,000 - $84,097. It is identified as a Low-Medium Segregation area. It is an area characterized by a higher rate of overcrowded units, 5.19% - 10%, than the statewide average of 5.19%. However, it has some of the lowest rates, less than 2.5%, of severely overcrowded units in comparison to other census tracts in Hanford. This census tract is one of eight census tracts that has a higher concentration of people with a disability than the other five census tracts that has less than 10% of the population with a disability.

Table 47: Census Tract 12 Analysis
Characteristic Census Tract 12
Socio-economic Characteristics
TCAC Resource Category Low Resource
Median Income $60,000 - $84,097
Poverty Level < 10%
Persons with Disabilities 10% - 20%
Overpayment (by renters) 20%-40%
Overpayment (by owners) 20%-40%
Overcrowding 10 % - 15%
Displacement Risk 10 % - 15%
Regional Housing Need Allocation
Lower Income 0
Moderate Income 0
Above Moderate Income 0
TOTAL 0
Summary
The available sites are dispersed through various census tracts. The majority of the opportunity for housing occurs in Tracts 6.04, 10.01, 10.02, 10.03 and 11.

Tract 6.04 is located in northwest Hanford. The northwest portions of Hanford are areas that are identified as Highest Resource and with median household incomes above $84,097. Therefore, a concentration of sites in the northwest portion of Hanford to accommodate the RHNA allocation do not unduly burden existing areas of concentrated racial or ethnic homogeneity or poverty. The intent of introducing new residential development in these areas is to add new housing to desirable areas and provide a range of housing choices at different prices for current and future residents. With a broader range of housing options, housing will become more affordable across the community, which should lessen the housing cost burden,

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
122
particularly for renters in Hanford.

Further, an emphasis on increasing access in primarily single-family neighborhoods through ADUs, SB 9units, and alternative housing types as discussed in the Housing Plan will increase opportunities in areas where single family neighborhoods coincide with higher-than-average income levels, areas of opportunity, and lower diversity.

Tract 10.01, 10.02, and 10.03 are located in the southwest quadrant of the City, south of Lacey Boulevard, west of 11th Avenue, north of Houston Avenue and have varying qualities amongst them. The allocation of units across these census tracts for the various RHNA will diversify the socio-economic conditions of the area.

Tract 11 also presents a large majority of sites to accommodate the RHNA. The units accommodate the three income categories and will contribute to a diversification of the high-poverty area. Place based strategies for housing mobility and toward community realization are necessary for this Census Tract.

Below are Table 48 and 49 summarizing different characteristics of each of the census tracts in the City of Hanford.

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
84 Table 48: Characteristics by City of Hanford Census Tracts (Census Tract 6.02 – 8) Characteristic Census Tract 6.02 Census Tract 6.03 Census Tract 6.04 Census Tract 7.01 Census Tract 7.02 Census Tract 8 Socio-economic Characteristics
TCAC Resource
Category High Resource Highest Resource Highest Resource High Resource High Resource Low Resource Median Income $84,097 -120,000 >$120,000 $84,097 -120,000 $84,097 -120,000 $60,000 - $84,097 $60,000 - $84,097 Poverty Level < 10% < 10% < 10% 10% - 20% < 10% 20% - 30% Persons with
Disabilities < 10% < 10% < 10% 10% - 20% 10% - 20% 10% - 20% Overpayment (by
renters) 40% - 60% 40% - 60% 20%-40%
20%-40% 20%-40% 20%-40%
Overpayment (by
owners) 20%-40% 20%-40% 20%-40% 20%-40% 20%-40% 20%-40% Overcrowding
< 5.19%
(Statewide
Average)
< 5.19%
(Statewide
Average)
< 5.19%
(Statewide
Average)

5.19% - 10%
< 5.19%
(Statewide
Average)

5.19% - 10%

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
85 Displacement Risk Lower
Displacement Risk
Lower
Displacement Risk
Lower
Displacement Risk
Lower
Displacement Risk
Lower
Displacement Risk
Lower
Displacement Risk
Regional Housing Need Allocation
Lower Income 0 0 363 0 28 114
Moderate Income 0 0 106 6 50 6
Above Moderate
Income 4 3 1284 81 40 169
TOTAL 4 3 1753 87 118 289
Table 49: Characteristics by City of Hanford Census Tracts (Census Tract 9.01 - 12) Characteristic Census Tract

9.01 Census Tract

9.02 Census Tract

10.01 Census Tract

10.02 Census Tract

10.03 Census Tract
11 Census Tract
12 Socio-economic Characteristics
TCAC Resource
Category Low Resource Low Resource Highest
Resource
High
Segregation and
Poverty
Low Resource Low Resource Low Resource
Median Income $35,000 -
$60,000
$35,000 -
$60,000
$60,000 -
$84,097
$35,000 -
$60,000
$60,000 -
$84,097 < $35,000 $60,000 - $84,097

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
86 Poverty Level 30 % - 40% 20% - 30% <10% 30% - 40% < 10% 30% - 40% < 10% Persons with
Disabilities 10% - 20% 10% - 20% 10% - 20% < 10% < 10% 10% - 20% 10% - 20% Overpayment
(by renters) 40%-60% 40% - 60% 20%-40% 40% - 60% 20%-40% 40% - 60% 20%-40% Overpayment
(by owners) 40% - 60% 20%-40% 20%-40% 20%-40% 20%-40% 40% - 60% 20%-40% Overcrowding
< 5.19%
(Statewide
Average)

5.19% - 10%
< 5.19%
(Statewide
Average)
10 % - 15% 10 % - 15% 10 % - 15% 10 % - 15%
Displacement
Risk
At Risk of
Displacement
At Risk of
Displacement
Lower
Displacement
Risk
1 Income Group
Displacement
Lower
Displacement
Risk
At Risk of
Displacement
Lower
Displacement
Risk
Regional Housing Need Allocation
Lower Income 15 0 797 76 551 554 0
Moderate
Income 52 25 0 515 0 324 0
Above
Moderate
Income
13 0 164 24 992 519 0

APPENDIX D4: CITY OF HANFORD FAIR HOUSING ANALSYS
87 TOTAL 80 25 961 615 1543 1397 0

KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 88 Contributing Factors and Fair Housing
The December 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule Guidebook published by HUD identifies examples of contributing factors by each fair housing issue area: outreach, fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, disparities in access to opportunities for persons with disabilities, disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risks, and sites inventory.

The County supports the recommendations of the 2014 San Joaquin Valley Fair Housing and Equity Assessment (FHEA) that was prepared by the California Coalition for Rural Housing. The FHEA analyzes patterns in racial and economic segregation, discusses how segregation impacts individuals’ and families’ ability to access housing opportunity, and proposes strategies and recommendations to create more equitable and integrated communities.

Based on the issues identified in this Fair Housing Analysis, the following are the top 5 issues to be addressed through the programs in the Housing Plan:

1. Maintaining and preserving the existing affordable housing stock;

2. Assisting in the provision of housing;

3. Removing governmental constraints, as necessary;

4. Providing adequate sites to achieve a variety and diversity of housing; and

5. Promoting equal housing opportunity.

After considering these issues and FHEA recommendations, the County has identified in Table 50 potential contributing factors to fair housing issues in unincorporated Kings County and outlines the meaningful actions to be taken. The meaningful actions listed in the Table relate to the actions identified in the Housing Plan.

First time homebuyer program:

The HOME Sweet Home First-time Homebuyers Program offers qualified first-time homebuyers the opportunity to borrow up to $75,000 for down payment and/or closing costs to purchase a newly constructed (limit $392,000) or existing (limit $371,000) home within the Hanford city limits. This program offers a 45-year loan with deferred payments (meaning no payment due) for the entirety of the loan term. The loan carries a 0% simple interest rate and is secured by a second Deed of Trust. With a $1000.00 flat fee downpayment requirement. Staff currently maintains an interest list for this program.

Emergency repair program
The City of Hanford Emergency Repair Program is designed to assist low- to moderate-income persons make emergency/minor repairs, disability-accessibility modifications to their home. Emergency repairs are those repairs that are necessary to safeguard against imminent danger to human life, health and safety, or to protect property from further structural damage. Grants up to $24,999 are available to qualifying homeowners. Staff currently maintains an interest list for this program. https://www.cityofhanfordca.com/1213/Housing

KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 89 Table 50: Potential Contributing Factors
AFH Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Meaningful Actions Limitations in local Consolidated Planning
Processes, ongoing CDBG and HOME
funding allocations, Housing Elements
Processes, and other city planning
documents.

Existing low-density
residential development
under general plan and
zoning code
Gap between low density
and medium density and
high-density
classification
High Program 3.9 Affordable
Housing Assistance:

Through direct financial
assistance such as CDBG
and HOME, priority
entitlement processing,
regulatory incentives such
as density bonus and
modified development
standards,
Assist in the provision of housing by
removing government constraints and
promoting equal housing opportunity
Limitations in zoning
code and density
classifications
Permission of preapproved design, and
development standards
High Program 3.9 Affordable
Housing Assistance
Programs 3.8 Section 8
Rental Assistance
Program 3.10 Farmworker
and Employee Housing
Program 3.11 Emergency
Shelters and
Transitional/Supportive
Housing
Program 3.12 Housing for
Persons with Disabilities
Funding for marginalized or distressed
communities, such as Transit Oriented
Development Funds, Strategic Growth
Council grants, HCD's Housing-Related
Parks Program, Safe Routes to School, and
Brownfield funding.

Ensuring funding is
available for marginalized
and distressed community
High Research, identify, and
apply for funds available
through the CDBG and
HOME Programs, Mobile
home Park Rehabilitation
and Resident Ownership
Program (MPRROP),
United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA),
Cap-and-Trade Program,
and other funding sources
that support affordable
housing development and
preservation,
infrastructure investment,
energy efficiency,
homeownership, code
enforcement, farmworker
housing, etc.

Program 3.7 First-Time
Homebuyer Program
Program 3.8 Section 8
Rental Assistance
Program 3.14 Reduce

KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 90 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and promote
affordable housing by
facilitating mixed-use,
higher density and infill
development near transit
stops, existing community
centers, downtown
Provide guidance for site selection of
affordable housing developments.

Housing Element identifies
adequate sites to
accommodate the City’s
share of the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation
of 5,547 units
High Program 3.4 Adequate
Sites: Adequate sites are
those with sufficient
development and density
standards, water and sewer
services, and adequate
infrastructure.

Develop a program to educate and
encourage landlords to accept Housing
Choice Vouchers.

Lack of readily available
information regarding fair
housing resources and
assistance to persons in
filing a complaint
Lack of education of public
and housing providers
regarding rights and
responsibilities under the
AFH and FEHA
High Program 3.13 Promote
Equal Housing
Opportunities
Develop and implement a proactive code
enforcement program that holds property
owners accountable and proactively plans
for resident relocation when necessary.

Code enforcement High Program 3.1 Code
Compliance, 3.2 Housing
Rehabilitation Program,
Disproportionate Housing Needs, including
Overpayment and Substandard Housing
Ongoing need for affordable
housing
Need for assistance with
monthly housing costs
Lack of local information
regarding available housing
rehabilitation, emergency
repair, and weatherization
programs
Need for targeted housing
revitalization strategies
Medium Program 3.8 Section 8
Rental Assistance Program
Program 3.11 Emergency
Shelters and
Transitional/Supportive
Housing
Program 3.10 Farmworker
and Employee Housing
Program 3.12 Housing for
Persons with Disabilities
Use design tools to seamlessly
integrate affordable housing
development into larger mixed-income
developments.

Limitations in zoning code
and density classifications ·
Approval process
Medium Program 3.5 Density Bonus
Program
Program 3.6 Planned Unit
Development

KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 91 Displacement Risk Land use and zoning laws
Displacement of residents
due to economic pressures
Medium Program 3.3 Preservation of
At-Risk Affordable
Housing

KINGS COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | APRIL 2026 92 Kings County • Corcran • Hanford • Avenal • Kings (Unincorporated)

14.C.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT:

PUBLIC HEARING – To receive ballots and public testimony on proposed funding changes/assessment increases for 2026/27 of the Hyde Park Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District in the City of Hanford. Following close of Public Hearing, ballots will be opened and tabulated, with results certified and reported prior to the close of the City Council Regular Session. Authorization for staff to implement assessment changes based on certified results.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing to receive ballots and public testimony on the proposed funding changes, amendment, and assessment increases for the maintenance of the balloted Hyde Park Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District.

2. Direct staff to open and tabulate ballots, and to certify the results

3. If no majority protest:
a. Direct staff to implement the proposed changes.
b. Authorize the placing of the increased assessment amount on the 2026/27 Kings County Property Tax Roll.

Recommended Motion:

1. Move to open the Public Hearing to receive public input on the proposed assessment increases to the balloted Landscape & Lighting Maintenance Assessment District.

2. Certify the results of the balloted District and, if passed, move to approve the recommended assessment increases of the balloted Landscape & Lighting Maintenance District and place the increases on the 2026/27 Kings County Property Tax Roll.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Hanford has been allowing the developers of subdivisions to form assessment districts under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, which are subject to the requirements of Proposition 218, in lieu of using homeowners’ associations for the maintenance of common features such as common area landscaping, irrigation systems, streetlights, and trees on local streets. The maintenance of these improvements is a special benefit to the development and enhances the land values to the individual property owners in the district. Through an established Landscape & Lighting Maintenance District (LLMAD), each property owner pays an equal portion of the total annual costs to maintain the common landscape areas in their neighborhood and are assessed their portion on their property taxes each year.

The Hyde Park subdivision was originally established and approved by City Council in 1990 and was completed over one (1) construction phase, bringing the total lots within the Landscape and Lighting District to 14. The original maintenance assessment was $62.30 per lot and has not been increased since the formation of the district. The district maintenance has been eliminated, to reduce expenditures and reduce the budget deficit. The district has now balanced the budget deficit, but funding is not sufficient to complete the required maintenance and repairs to the existing irrigation.

Staff have presented a ballot measure to increase the maintenance assessment to the property owners within the Hyde Park Landscape and Lighting District to make the repairs needed and restore maintenance.

On March 24, 2026, the City mailed 14 ballots to parcels within the Hyde Park (90-04) LAD asking property owners to consider an assessment increase for common area landscaping and lighting for their neighborhood. The increase includes tree maintenance, landscape enhancements in the common area landscape, raising the assessment to pay for maintenance costs on an ongoing annual basis that have increased since the Hyde Park 90-04 District was formed.

On Saturday, April 18, 2026, City staff conducted a community meeting at Centennial Park for the Hyde Park LAD. There was no attendance from residents/property owners. At this meeting, staff were prepared to share information on the current state of funding in the district’s account, maintenance areas, and previous maintenance contract specifications. Staff were going to discuss the balloting process that would need to be completed to increase the tax assessment to perform maintenance of the common area landscape and what the increased assessment would fund and address any concerns or questions from residents/property owners.

PUBLIC HEARING, BALLOTING AND APPROVAL PROCESS
Proposition 218 requires that creation of, additions, or increases to a property-based assessment not previously approved shall be subject to a ballot vote of all the affected property owners. For the district being balloted for increases, each property can only submit one ballot vote, and all votes are equally weighted; approval or denial of the proposed increase is determined by majority protest - assessments cannot be increased if a majority of the returned ballots oppose the increase.

At the public hearing, property owners can address the Council regarding the increase. The City Clerk’s office has collected the sealed returned ballots and will accept any additional ballots up to the close of the Public Hearing. After public testimony has been received, staff will open and tabulate the ballot votes and present the results to Council later in the Council meeting. As long as there is no majority protest (a majority of the returned ballots oppose the increase), Council may then approve the recommended changes for the district and the increase will be added to the 2026/27 Tax Roll.

Should a majority protest occur, the LAD will not have enough available funding to support continued maintenance of the district at current levels and staff has been directed to subsequently reduce the level of maintenance of the trees, turf, and shrub areas. The reduction in services will take effect 60 days from the public hearing date.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Table 1 shows the current and projected financial condition of the Hyde Park Landscape and Lighting District annual shortfall. The City issued ballots to districts that are in a deficit and are in need of an increase to their annual assessment to continue maintenance.

TABLE 1: Projected LLMAD Cash Balances
Table 2 displays the Hyde Park District's proposed annual assessment increase. The proposed increase, if approved, will fund tree maintenance, and landscape enhancements in the common area landscape, will raise the assessment enough to maintain a balanced budget, and pay for maintenance costs on an ongoing annual basis. The increase in the benefit assessment will be implemented in the 2026/27 tax roll.

TABLE 2: Proposed Assessment
District #
District
Name
Lots #
Beg.

Cash
Balance
06/30/25
2025/26
Assessment
Revenue
2025/26
Operating
Expenses
(estimated)
Ending
Balance
06/30/26
(estimated)
90-04 Hyde Park 14 $274.34 $872.20 ($763.00) $383.54
District # District Name Lots # Current
Annual
Assessment
Proposed
Annual
Assessment
Proposed %
Increase in
Assessment
District Lot District Lot
90-04 Hyde Park 14 $872.20 $62.30 $2,320.60 $165.76 166% ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ballot LAD 90-04 Hyde Park

CITY OF HANFORD
D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c W o r k s
Focused On Our Community 24/7
900 South 10th Avenue • HANFORD, CA 93230-5234 • (559) 585-2550 «DATE_MAILED»
«OWNER_NAME»
«PO_ADDRESS»
«PO_CITY_ZIP»
Subject: Maintenance of common landscape for
Lighting and Landscape District: 90-04 Hyde Park
Proposed Benefit Assessment Increase for Fiscal Year: 2026 and an Annual Adjustment for Inflation Allowance for the district.

Service
Level
Level No
Service
Dear «OWNER_NAME» :

The maintenance of the common landscaping (lawn mowing, planting and replanting of plants and trees, sprinkler maintenance, etc.) for your subdivision is funded by your payment of a benefit assessment through a Lighting and Landscaping District. The common landscaping is maintained at the service level mentioned above. In order to improve this level of service, the City is seeking your support of an increase in the assessment amount you currently pay and establishing an annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment. The maintained landscaping and improvements visually enhance your neighborhood, add value to the surrounding properties and increase your quality of life.

This letter includes a ballot. The City is requesting you return the enclosed ballot indicating your choice, either approving or disapproving increasing the annual benefit assessment amount, and the establishment of an annual CPI adjustment allowance. The approval of the assessment increase and the CPI adjustment will allow the City to make changes in the benefit assessment fee to balance the district’s finances and increase the current level of service to an A service. The increased assessment amount will also provide funds to refurbish the district’s landscaping over a period of time as reserves are replenished.

Proposal: Current
Rate
Proposed
Rate
Increase the annual benefit assessment and
establish an annual benefit district CPI adjustment
allowance in accordance with California
Government Code Section 53739(b)(1).
from $62.30 to $165.76
Please consider the enclosed documents, which include an informational page about the district, a ballot form, a return envelope, Notice of Public Hearing and a map depicting the landscape areas maintained by your district.

If you have questions or concerns, you may contact Alvin Dias, Deputy Public Works Director at 559- 415-7189 or Russ Sterling, Public Works Director at 559-585-2565. Thank you for your time and consideration.

INFORMATION
The City is proposing an increase in the Benefit District Assessment Amount in order to keep up with maintenance costs for the common landscape areas in the District and to create a small reserve to help offset any future unexpected maintenance costs. Keeping the landscaped common areas maintained helps to keep neighborhoods looking good and helps to maintain property values.

Currently your district is comprised of 14 lots, with total current year benefit assessments equaling $872.20. The projected expenses are detailed as follows:

Annual Benefit District Assessment Reserve - Cash Balance as of June 30, 2024 $182.43 Annual Benefit District Assessment Revenue Collected Amount $858.20 Proposed Expenses for the Fiscal Year $(766.29)
TOTAL PROJECTED ENDING CASH BALANCE $274.34
Projected CY Assessment Reserve - Cash Balance as of June 30, 2025 $274.34 Annual Benefit District Assessment Revenue Proposed Collection Amount $872.20 Proposed Expenses for the Fiscal Year $(763.00)
TOTAL PROJECTED ENDING CASH BALANCE $383.54
Projected CY Assessment Reserve - Cash Balance as of Jun 30, 2026 $383.54 Annual Benefit District Assessment Revenue Proposed Collection Amount $872.20 Proposed Expenses for the Fiscal Year $(717.54)
TOTAL PROPOSED ENDING CASH BALANCE $538.20
Based on the current benefit district assessment revenue and proposed expenses the total cash balance is $538.20 for the projected fiscal year 2026.

Existing Amount Proposed Amount Increase
Monthly Per Lot $5.20 $13.81 $8.61
Annually Per Lot $62.30 $165.76 $103.46
Annually Per District $872.20 $2,320.60 $1,448.40
The cost to you to keep the maintenance up in your District will be an additional $103.46 per year, or $8.61 per month.

You will see this as an increase in the Property Benefit Assessment included on your County of Kings real property tax bill.

District: Hyde Park
Fiscal Year Cash Balance: 2025 $ $383.54
Projected Fiscal Year Cash Balance: 2026 $ $538.20
Number of Lots multiplied by Assessment per Lot 14 X $62.30 $872.20

In addition to the proposed benefit assessment increase, the City is proposing that an annual benefit CPI adjustment allowance be established in accordance with California Government Section 53739(b)(1). The annual benefit assessment amount will be adjusted by the CPI on an annual basis in accordance with the following formula:

Commencing with fiscal year 2026 and on July 1 or each fiscal year (“Adjustment Date”) thereafter during the life of the District, the Total Annual Assessment amount for the next fiscal year shall be an amount equal to the greater of:
(i) the Total Annual Assessment amount in effect immediately prior to the Adjustment Date; or (ii) the product obtained by multiplying the Total Annual Assessment amount in effect immediately prior to the Adjustment Date by a fraction, the numerator of which is the Index published nearest but prior to the Adjustment Date and the denominator of which is the Index published nearest but prior to July 1 of the first year of the Adjustment becomes effective.

The term “Index” means the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consolidated Statistical Area, 1982-1984, equal 100, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. If the Bureau of Labor Statistics revises the Index, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will be the sole judge of the comparability of successive indexes, but if that agency fails to supply indexes that it deems comparable or if no succeeding index is published, the City shall determine an appropriate alternative published price index.

This annual CPI adjustment allowance process is already being used in districts created after 2001. If approved, the annual inflation allowance will allow the City to better fiscally manage the district and to more closely match benefit assessment revenue to the actual costs incurred.

On the last page is a ballot which gives you, the property owner, certain options:

Yes. I approve of the proposed Benefit Assessment Increase for Fiscal Year 2026. If a majority of the returned ballots select YES, it will allow the City to secure funding from your District for the current increased costs of maintenance and utilize a CPI adjustment inflation formula to offset future maintenance cost increases. With the proposed Benefit Assessment Increase the current cash balance deficiency will be repaid and funding will become available to fund enhancement projects for the district.

No. I do not approve of the proposed Benefit Assessment Increase for Fiscal Year 2026. If a majority of the returned ballots select NO, it will cause the City to re-evaluate the level of maintenance provided to your District, which will likely result in reduced maintenance, such as reduced watering and/or reduced frequency of mowing and trimming of the common areas.

It is very important that you complete and return your ballot. Ballots that are not returned will not be counted. If the “no” ballots exceed the number of “yes” ballots, the proposed fee increase and automatic CPI adjustment will not occur. If only a few people return ballots to the City, those few people will make the decision for the entire district.

The failure to raise assessment fees will result in a reduction in maintenance services, which will result in a deterioration of the landscaping and/or other improvements.

If the CPI adjustment is approved, any future increase in assessment fees that exceed the CPI adjustment will require the City to distribute ballots and seek owner approval.

If you want maintenance of the landscaping and other improvements to remain at the current level, it will be necessary to vote “yes” and to return your ballot to the City.

Notice of Public Hearing
A Public Hearing for this proposal will be held on May 19, 2026, at the hour of 5.30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Civic Auditorium at 400 N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA. The ballots will be counted and the results announced at the end of the City Council Special Meeting that same evening. At this meeting, affected citizens will have an opportunity to speak to Council, and may also change their ballot vote if desired.

City of Hanford City Clerk’s Office
319 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
May 19, 2026

BALLOT INSTRUCTIONS
Completion and Return Instructions:

1. Fill out the ballot at the bottom of this page. Be sure to print your name, mark your choice, sign, and date the ballot (the ballot will not be counted without your signature)

2. Fold this page so the address above is visible.

3. Insert this page into the provided return envelope so the Clerk’s address is visible through the window of the envelope.

4. Place appropriate postage on the return envelope and mail it.

5. In order to be counted, the ballot must arrive at the above address (City Clerk’s Office) on or before 5:00pm, May 19, 2026.

6. ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY: You may also hand deliver the ballot to the City Clerk’s office at 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA, on or before 5:00pm on May 19, 2026, or hand deliver the ballot to the City Clerk at the time of the Public Hearing on May 19, 2026. If delivered in person, the ballot must be in a sealed envelope, or it cannot be accepted.

If you have any questions or concerns about the ballot process or Increase in the Annual Benefit District Assessment or Annual Benefit District Assessment Adjustment for Inflation Allowance, please contact Alvin Dias, Deputy Public Works Director at 559-415-7189 or Russ Sterling, Public Works Director at 585-2565.

DISTRICT No. 90-04 HYDE PARK BENEFIT DISTRICT
City of Hanford, City Clerk’s Office
319 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Re: 90-04 Hyde Park District Ballot

BALLOT (HYDE PARK)
Proposal: Increase the annual benefit district assessment amount from $62.30 to $165.76 and establish an Annual Benefit District Assessment adjustment for inflation allowance. «OWNER_NAME», owning property with Assessment Number «APN»:
(Check one) Fee Increase APPROVES DISAPPROVES
_________________________________________________ ______________________ (Property Owner Signature) (Date)
_________________________________________________
(Print Name)

14.D.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT:

PUBLIC HEARING – To receive ballots and public testimony on proposed funding changes/assessment increases for 2026/27 of the Crystal Springs Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District in the City of Hanford. Following close of Public Hearing, ballots will be opened and tabulated, with results certified and reported prior to the close of the City Council Regular Session. Authorization for staff to implement assessment changes based on certified results.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing to receive ballots and public testimony on the proposed funding changes, amendment, and assessment increases for the maintenance of the balloted Crystal Springs Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District.

2. Direct staff to open and tabulate ballots, and to certify the results

3. If no majority protest:
a. Direct staff to implement the proposed changes.
b. Authorize the placing of the increased assessment amount on the 2026/27 Kings County Property Tax Roll.

Recommended Motion:

1. Move to open the Public Hearing to receive public input on the proposed assessment increases to the balloted Landscape & Lighting Maintenance Assessment District.

2. Certify the results of the balloted District and, if passed, move to approve the recommended assessment increases of the balloted Landscape & Lighting Maintenance District and place the increases on the 2026/27 Kings County Property Tax Roll.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Hanford has been allowing the developers of subdivisions to form assessment districts under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, which are subject to the requirements of Proposition 218, in lieu of using homeowners’ associations for the maintenance of common features such as common area landscaping, irrigation systems, streetlights, and trees on local streets. The maintenance of these improvements is a special benefit to the development and enhances the land values to the individual property owners in the district. Through an established Landscape & Lighting Maintenance District (LLMAD), each property owner pays an equal portion of the total annual costs to

maintain the common landscape areas in their neighborhood and are assessed their portion on their property taxes each year.

The Crystal Springs subdivision was originally established and approved by City Council in 1998 and was completed over three (3) construction phases, bringing the total lots within the Landscape and Lighting District to 126. The original maintenance assessment was $38.00 per lot. This is the first ballot measure to increase the Crystal Springs landscape district. The district maintenance has been eliminated, to reduce expenditures and reduce the budget deficit. The district continues to stay in a budget deficit and staff have presented a ballot measure to increase the maintenance assessment to the property owners within the Crystal Springs Landscape and Lighting District.

On March 24, 2026, the City mailed 126 ballots to parcels within the Crystal Springs (98-01) LAD asking property owners to consider an assessment increase for common area landscaping and lighting for their neighborhood. The increase includes tree maintenance, landscape enhancements in the common area landscape, raising the assessment enough to eliminate the deficit balance, and pay for maintenance costs on an ongoing annual basis that have increased since the Crystal Springs 98- 01 District was formed.

On Saturday, April 18, 2026, City staff conducted a community meeting at Freedom Park for the Crystal Springs District. There were three (3) residents/property owners that attended. At this meeting, staff shared information on the current state of funding in the district’s account, maintenance areas, and previous maintenance contract specifications. Staff also discussed the balloting process that would need to be completed to increase the tax assessment to perform maintenance of the common area landscape and what the increased assessment would fund. Staff addressed any concerns or questions from the residents/property owners.

PUBLIC HEARING, BALLOTING AND APPROVAL PROCESS
Proposition 218 requires that creation of, additions, or increases to a property-based assessment not previously approved shall be subject to a ballot vote of all the affected property owners. For the district being balloted for increases, each property can only submit one ballot vote, and all votes are equally weighted; approval or denial of the proposed increase is determined by whether a majority protest occurs (a majority of the returned ballots oppose the increase).

At the public hearing, property owners can address the Council regarding the increase. The City Clerk’s office has collected the sealed returned ballots and will accept any additional ballots up to the close of the Public Hearing. After public testimony has been received, staff will open and tabulate the ballot votes and present the results to Council later in the Council meeting. Should no majority protest occur, Council may then approve the recommended changes for the district and the increase will be added to the 2026/27 Tax Roll. Should a majority protest occur, the LAD will not have enough available funding to support continued maintenance of the district at current levels and staff has been directed to subsequently reduce the level of maintenance of the trees, turf, and shrub areas. The reduction in services will take effect 60 days from the public hearing date.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Table 1 shows the current and projected financial condition of the Crystal Springs Landscape and Lighting District annual shortfall. The City issued ballots to districts that are in a deficit and are in need of an increase to their annual assessment to continue maintenance.

TABLE 1: Projected LLMAD Cash Balances

Table 2 displays the Crystal Springs District's proposed annual assessment increase. The proposed increase, if approved, will fund tree maintenance, and landscape enhancements in the common area landscape, will raise the assessment enough to eliminate the deficit balance, and pay for maintenance costs on an ongoing annual basis.

The increase in the benefit assessment will be implemented in the 2026/27 tax roll.

TABLE 2: Proposed Assessment
District #
District
Name
Lots #
Beg. Cash
Balance
06/30/25
2025/26
Assessment
Revenue
2025/26
Operating
Expenses
(estimated)
Ending
Balance
06/30/26
(estimated)
98-01 Crystal
Springs
126 ($6,407.75) $4,788.00 ($3,473.00) ($5,092.75)
District # District Name Lots # Current Annual
Assessment
Proposed Annual
Assessment
Proposed %
Increase in
Assessment
District Lot District Lot
98-01 Crystal
Springs
126 $4,788.00 $38.00 $18,787.81 $149.11 292%
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ballot LAD 98-01 CRYSTAL SPRINGS

CITY OF HANFORD
D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c W o r k s
Focused On Our Community 24/7
900 South 10th Avenue • HANFORD, CA 93230-5234 • (559) 585-2550 «DATE_MAILED»
«OWNER_NAME»
«PO_ADDRESS»
«PO_CITY_ZIP»
Subject: Maintenance of common landscape for
Lighting and Landscape District: 98-01 CRYSTAL SPRINGS
Proposed Benefit Assessment Increase for Fiscal Year: 2026 and an Annual Adjustment for Inflation Allowance for the district.

Service
Level
Level No
Service
Dear «OWNER_NAME» :

The maintenance of the common landscaping (lawn mowing, planting and replanting of plants and trees, sprinkler maintenance, etc.) for your subdivision is funded by your payment of a benefit assessment through a Lighting and Landscaping District. The common landscaping is maintained at the service level mentioned above. In order to improve this level of service, the City is seeking your support of an increase in the assessment amount you currently pay and establishing an annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment. The maintained landscaping and improvements visually enhance your neighborhood, add value to the surrounding properties and increase your quality of life.

This letter includes a ballot. The City is requesting you return the enclosed ballot indicating your choice, either approving or disapproving increasing the annual benefit assessment amount, and the establishment of an annual CPI adjustment allowance. The approval of the assessment increase and the CPI adjustment will allow the City to make changes in the benefit assessment fee to balance the district’s finances and increase the current level of service to an A service. The increased assessment amount will also provide funds to refurbish the district’s landscaping over a period of time as reserves are replenished.

Proposal: Current
Rate
Proposed
Rate
Increase the annual benefit assessment and
establish an annual benefit district CPI adjustment
allowance in accordance with California
Government Code Section 53739(b)(1).
from $38.00 to $149.11
Please consider the enclosed documents, which include an informational page about the district, a ballot form, a return envelope, Notice of Public Hearing and a map depicting the landscape areas maintained by your district.

If you have questions or concerns, you may contact Alvin Dias, Deputy Public Works Director at 559- 415-7189 or Russ Sterling, Public Works Director at 559-585-2565. Thank you for your time and consideration.

INFORMATION
The City is proposing an increase in the Benefit District Assessment Amount in order to keep up with maintenance costs for the common landscape areas in the District and to create a small reserve to help offset any future unexpected maintenance costs. Keeping the landscaped common areas maintained helps to keep neighborhoods looking good and helps to maintain property values.

Currently your district is comprised of 126 lots, with total current year benefit assessments equaling $4,788.00. The projected expenses are detailed as follows:

Annual Benefit District Assessment Reserve - Cash Balance as of June 30, 2024 $(5,200.02) Annual Benefit District Assessment Revenue Collected Amount $4,666.94 Proposed Expenses for the Fiscal Year $(5,874.67)
TOTAL PROJECTED ENDING CASH BALANCE $(6,407.75)
Projected CY Assessment Reserve - Cash Balance as of June 30, 2025 $(6,407.75) Annual Benefit District Assessment Revenue Proposed Collection Amount $4,788.00 Proposed Expenses for the Fiscal Year $(3,473.00)
TOTAL PROJECTED ENDING CASH BALANCE $(5,092.75)
Projected CY Assessment Reserve - Cash Balance as of June 30, 2026 $(5,092.75) Annual Benefit District Assessment Revenue Proposed Collection Amount $4,788.00 Proposed Expenses for the Fiscal Year $(2,987.98)
TOTAL PROPOSED ENDING CASH BALANCE $(3,292.73)
Based on the current benefit district assessment revenue and proposed expenses the total cash balance is $(3,292.73) for the projected fiscal year 2026.

Existing Amount Proposed Amount Increase
Monthly Per Lot $3.17 $12.43 $9.26
Annually Per Lot $38.00 $149.11 $111.11
Annually Per District $4,788.00 $18,787.81 $13,999.81
The cost to you to keep the maintenance up in your District will be an additional $111.11 per year, or $9.26 per month.

You will see this as an increase in the Property Benefit Assessment included on your County of Kings real property tax bill.

District: CRYSTAL SPRINGS
Fiscal Year Cash Balance: 2025 $ $(5,092.75)
Projected Fiscal Year Cash Balance: 2026 $ $(3,292.73)
Number of Lots multiplied by Assessment per Lot 126 X $38.00 $4,788.00

In addition to the proposed benefit assessment increase, the City is proposing that an annual benefit CPI adjustment allowance be established in accordance with California Government Section 53739(b)(1). The annual benefit assessment amount will be adjusted by the CPI on an annual basis in accordance with the following formula:

Commencing with fiscal year 2026 and on July 1 or each fiscal year (“Adjustment Date”) thereafter during the life of the District, the Total Annual Assessment amount for the next fiscal year shall be an amount equal to the greater of:
(i) the Total Annual Assessment amount in effect immediately prior to the Adjustment Date; or (ii) the product obtained by multiplying the Total Annual Assessment amount in effect immediately prior to the Adjustment Date by a fraction, the numerator of which is the Index published nearest but prior to the Adjustment Date and the denominator of which is the Index published nearest but prior to July 1 of the first year of the Adjustment becomes effective.

The term “Index” means the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consolidated Statistical Area, 1982-1984, equal 100, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. If the Bureau of Labor Statistics revises the Index, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will be the sole judge of the comparability of successive indexes, but if that agency fails to supply indexes that it deems comparable or if no succeeding index is published, the City shall determine an appropriate alternative published price index.

This annual CPI adjustment allowance process is already being used in districts created after 2001. If approved, the annual inflation allowance will allow the City to better fiscally manage the district and to more closely match benefit assessment revenue to the actual costs incurred.

On the last page is a ballot which gives you, the property owner, certain options:

Yes. I approve of the proposed Benefit Assessment Increase for Fiscal Year 2026. If a majority of the returned ballots select YES, it will allow the City to secure funding from your District for the current increased costs of maintenance and utilize a CPI adjustment inflation formula to offset future maintenance cost increases. With the proposed Benefit Assessment Increase the current cash balance deficiency will be repaid and funding will become available to fund enhancement projects for the district.

No. I do not approve of the proposed Benefit Assessment Increase for Fiscal Year 2026. If a majority of the returned ballots select NO, it will cause the City to re-evaluate the level of maintenance provided to your District, which will likely result in reduced maintenance, such as reduced watering and/or reduced frequency of mowing and trimming of the common areas.

It is very important that you complete and return your ballot. Ballots that are not returned will not be counted. If the “no” ballots exceed the number of “yes” ballots, the proposed fee increase and automatic CPI adjustment will not occur. If only a few people return ballots to the City, those few people will make the decision for the entire district.

The failure to raise assessment fees will result in a reduction in maintenance services, which will result in a deterioration of the landscaping and/or other improvements.

If the CPI adjustment is approved, any future increase in assessment fees that exceed the CPI adjustment will require the City to distribute ballots and seek owner approval.

If you want maintenance of the landscaping and other improvements to remain at the current level, it will be necessary to vote “yes” and to return your ballot to the City.

Notice of Public Hearing
A Public Hearing for this proposal will be held on May 19, 2026, at the hour of 5.30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Civic Auditorium at 400 N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA. The ballots will be counted and the results announced at the end of the City Council Special Meeting that same evening. At this meeting, affected citizens will have an opportunity to speak to Council, and may also change their ballot vote if desired.

City of Hanford City Clerk’s Office
319 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
May 19, 2026

BALLOT INSTRUCTIONS
Completion and Return Instructions:

1. Fill out the ballot at the bottom of this page. Be sure to print your name, mark your choice, sign, and date the ballot (the ballot will not be counted without your signature)

2. Fold this page so the address above is visible.

3. Insert this page into the provided return envelope so the Clerk’s address is visible through the window of the envelope.

4. Place appropriate postage on the return envelope and mail it.

5. In order to be counted, the ballot must arrive at the above address (City Clerk’s Office) on or before 5:00pm, May 19, 2026.

6. ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY: You may also hand deliver the ballot to the City Clerk’s office at 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA, on or before 5:00pm on May 19, 2026 or hand deliver the ballot to the City Clerk at the time of the Public Hearing on May 19, 2026. If delivered in person, the ballot must be in a sealed envelope, or it cannot be accepted.

If you have any question or concerns about the ballot process or Increase in the Annual Benefit District Assessment or Annual Benefit District Assessment Adjustment for Inflation Allowance, please contact Alvin Dias, Deputy Public Works Director at 559-415-7189 or Russ Sterling, Public Works Director at 585-2565.

DISTRICT No. 98-01 CRYSTAL SPRINGS BENEFIT DISTRICT
City of Hanford, City Clerk’s Office
319 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Re: 98-01 CRYSTAL SPRINGS District Ballot

BALLOT (CRYSTAL SPRINGS)
Proposal: Increase the annual benefit district assessment amount from $38.00 to $149.11 and establish an Annual Benefit District Assessment adjustment for inflation allowance. «OWNER_NAME», owning property with Assessment Number «APN»:
(Check one) Fee Increase APPROVES DISAPPROVES
_________________________________________________ ______________________ (Property Owner Signature) (Date)
_________________________________________________
(Print Name)

14.E.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT:

PUBLIC HEARING – To receive ballots and public testimony on proposed funding changes/assessment increases for 2026/27 of the Portofino Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District in the City of Hanford. Following close of Public Hearing, ballots will be opened and tabulated, with results certified and reported prior to the close of the City Council Regular Session. Authorization for staff to implement assessment changes based on certified results.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: Staff recommends that City Council take the following actions:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing to receive ballots and public testimony on the proposed funding changes, amendment, and assessment increases for the maintenance of the balloted Portofino Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District.

2. Direct staff to open and tabulate ballots, and to certify the results

3. If no majority protest:
a. Direct staff to implement the proposed changes.
b. Authorize the placing of the increased assessment amount on the 2026/27 Kings County Property Tax Roll.

Recommended Motion:

1. Move to open the Public Hearing to receive public input on the proposed assessment increases to the balloted Landscape & Lighting Maintenance Assessment District.

2. Certify the results of the balloted District and, if passed, move to approve the recommended assessment increases of the balloted Landscape & Lighting Maintenance District and place the increases on the 2026/27 Kings County Property Tax Roll.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Hanford has been allowing the developers of subdivisions to form assessment districts under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, which are subject to the requirements of Proposition 218, in lieu of using homeowners’ associations for the maintenance of common features such as common area landscaping, irrigation systems, streetlights, and trees on local streets. The maintenance of these improvements is a special benefit to the development and enhances the land values to the individual property owners in the district. Through an established Landscape & Lighting Maintenance District (LLMAD), each property owner pays an equal portion of the total annual costs to maintain the

common landscape areas in their neighborhood and are assessed their portion on their property taxes each year.

The Portofino subdivision was originally established and approved by City Council in 1992 and was completed over four (4) construction phases, bringing the total lots within the Landscape and Lighting District to 78. The original maintenance assessment was $50.80 per lot. The Portofino Landscape and Lighting District has been balloted in the past for an assessment increase in 2013, 2019, and 2021 with all three ballot measures failing to receive the required majority vote. The district maintenance has been eliminated, to reduce expenditures and reduce the budget deficit. The district has now fallen further into a budget deficit and staff have again presented a ballot measure to increase the maintenance assessment to the property owners within the Portofino Landscape and Lighting District.

On March 24, 2026, the City mailed 78 ballots to parcels within the Portofino (92-01) LAD asking property owners to consider an assessment increase for common area landscaping and lighting for their neighborhood. The increase includes tree maintenance, landscape enhancements in the common area landscape, raising the assessment enough to eliminate the deficit balance, and pay for maintenance costs on an ongoing annual basis that have increased since the Portofino 92-01 District was formed.

On Saturday, April 18, 2026, City staff conducted a community meeting at Portofino. There was no attendance from residents/property owners. At this meeting, staff were prepared to share information on the current state of funding in the district’s account, maintenance areas, and previous maintenance contract specifications. Staff were going to discuss the balloting process that would need to be completed to increase the tax assessment to perform maintenance of the common area landscape and what the increased assessment would fund and also address any concerns or questions from residents/property owners.

PUBLIC HEARING, BALLOTING AND APPROVAL PROCESS
Proposition 218 requires that creation of, additions, or increases to a property-based assessment not previously approved shall be subject to a ballot vote of all the affected property owners. For the district being balloted for increases, each property can only submit one ballot vote, and all votes are equally weighted; approval or denial of the proposed increase is determined by whether a majority protest occurs (a majority of returned ballots oppose the increase).

At the public hearing, property owners can address the Council regarding the increase. The City Clerk’s office has collected the sealed returned ballots and will accept any additional ballots up to the close of the Public Hearing. After public testimony has been received, staff will open and tabulate the ballot votes and present the results to Council later in the Council meeting. If there is no majority protest (a majority of the ballots returned oppose the increase) Council may then approve the recommended changes for the district and the increase will be added to the 2026/27 Tax Roll. Should a majority protest occur, the LAD will not have enough available funding to support continued maintenance of the district at current levels and staff has been directed to subsequently reduce the level of maintenance of the trees, turf, and shrub areas. The reduction in services will take effect 60 days from the public hearing date.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Table 1 shows the current and projected financial condition of the Portofino Landscape and Lighting District annual shortfall. The City issued ballots to districts that are in a deficit and are in need of an increase to their annual assessment to continue maintenance.

TABLE 1: Projected LLMAD Cash Balances

Table 2 displays the Portofino District's proposed annual assessment increase. The proposed increase, if approved, will fund tree maintenance, and landscape enhancements in the common area landscape, will raise the assessment enough to eliminate the deficit balance, and pay for maintenance costs on an ongoing annual basis. The increase in the benefit assessment will be implemented in the 2026/27 tax roll.

TABLE 2: Proposed Assessment
District #
District
Name
Lots #
Beg.

Cash
Balance
06/30/25
2025/26
Assessment
Revenue
2025/26
Operating
Expenses
(estimated)
Ending
Balance
06/30/26
(estimated)
92-01 Portofino 78 ($8,155.73) $3,962.40 ($4,361.00) ($8,554.33) District # District Name Lots # Current Annual
Assessment
Proposed Annual
Assessment
Proposed %
Increase in
Assessment
District Lot District Lot
92-01 Portofino 78 $3,962.40 $50.80 $18,809.16 $241.14 374% ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ballot LAD 92-01 PORTOFINO

CITY OF HANFORD
D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c W o r k s
Focused On Our Community 24/7
900 South 10th Avenue • HANFORD, CA 93230-5234 • (559) 585-2550 «DATE_MAILED»
«OWNER_NAME»
«PO_ADDRESS»
«PO_CITY_ZIP»
Subject: Maintenance of common landscape for
Lighting and Landscape District: 92-01 PORTOFINO DISTRICT Proposed Benefit Assessment Increase for Fiscal Year: 2026 and an Annual Adjustment for Inflation Allowance for the district.

Service
Level
Level No
Service
Dear «OWNER_NAME» :

The maintenance of the common landscaping (lawn mowing, planting and replanting of plants and trees, sprinkler maintenance, etc.) for your subdivision is funded by your payment of a benefit assessment through a Lighting and Landscaping District. The common landscaping is maintained at the service level mentioned above. In order to improve this level of service, the City is seeking your support of an increase in the assessment amount you currently pay and establishing an annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment. The maintained landscaping and improvements visually enhance your neighborhood, add value to the surrounding properties and increase your quality of life.

This letter includes a ballot. The City is requesting you return the enclosed ballot indicating your choice, either approving or disapproving increasing the annual benefit assessment amount, and the establishment of an annual CPI adjustment allowance. The approval of the assessment increase and the CPI adjustment will allow the City to make changes in the benefit assessment fee to balance the district’s finances and increase the current level of service to an A service. The increased assessment amount will also provide funds to refurbish the district’s landscaping over a period of time as reserves are replenished.

Proposal: Current
Rate
Proposed
Rate
Increase the annual benefit assessment and
establish an annual benefit district CPI adjustment
allowance in accordance with California
Government Code Section 53739(b)(1).
from $50.80 to $241.14
Please consider the enclosed documents, which include an informational page about the district, a ballot form, a return envelope, Notice of Public Hearing and a map depicting the landscape areas maintained by your district.

If you have questions or concerns, you may contact Alvin Dias, Deputy Public Works Director at 559- 415-7189 or Russ Sterling, Public Works Director at 559-585-2565. Thank you for your time and consideration.

INFORMATION
The City is proposing an increase in the Benefit District Assessment Amount in order to keep up with maintenance costs for the common landscape areas in the District and to create a small reserve to help offset any future unexpected maintenance costs. Keeping the landscaped common areas maintained helps to keep neighborhoods looking good and helps to maintain property values.

Currently your district is comprised of 78 lots, with total current year benefit assessments equaling $3,962.40. The projected expenses are detailed as follows:

Annual Benefit District Assessment Reserve - Cash Balance as of June 30, 2024 $(4,733.60) Annual Benefit District Assessment Revenue Collected Amount $3,903.45 Proposed Expenses for the Fiscal Year $(7,325.58)
TOTAL PROJECTED ENDING CASH BALANCE $(8,155.73)
Projected CY Assessment Reserve - Cash Balance as of June 30, 2025 $(8,155.73) Annual Benefit District Assessment Revenue Proposed Collection Amount $3,962.40 Proposed Expenses for the Fiscal Year $(4,361.00)
TOTAL PROJECTED ENDING CASH BALANCE $(8,554.33)
Projected CY Assessment Reserve - Cash Balance as of June 30, 2026 $(8,554.33) Annual Benefit District Assessment Revenue Proposed Collection Amount $3,962.40 Proposed Expenses for the Fiscal Year $(3,716.98)
TOTAL PROPOSED ENDING CASH BALANCE $(8,308.91)
Based on the current benefit district assessment revenue and proposed expenses the total cash balance is $(8,308.91) for the projected fiscal year 2026.

Existing Amount Proposed Amount Increase
Monthly Per Lot $4.23 $20.10 $15.87
Annually Per Lot $50.80 $241.14 $190.34
Annually Per District $3,962.40 $18,809.16 $14,846.76
The cost to you to keep the maintenance up in your District will be an additional $190.34 per year, or $15.87 per month.

You will see this as an increase in the Property Benefit Assessment included on your County of Kings real property tax bill.

District: PORTOFINO DISTRICT
Fiscal Year Cash Balance: 2025 $ (8,554.33)
Projected Fiscal Year Cash Balance: 2026 $ (5,775.00)
Number of Lots multiplied by Assessment per Lot 78 X $50.80 $3,962.40

In addition to the proposed benefit assessment increase, the City is proposing that an annual benefit CPI adjustment allowance be established in accordance with California Government Section 53739(b)(1). The annual benefit assessment amount will be adjusted by the CPI on an annual basis in accordance with the following formula:

Commencing with fiscal year 2026 and on July 1 or each fiscal year (“Adjustment Date”) thereafter during the life of the District, the Total Annual Assessment amount for the next fiscal year shall be an amount equal to the greater of:
(i) the Total Annual Assessment amount in effect immediately prior to the Adjustment Date; or (ii) the product obtained by multiplying the Total Annual Assessment amount in effect immediately prior to the Adjustment Date by a fraction, the numerator of which is the Index published nearest but prior to the Adjustment Date and the denominator of which is the Index published nearest but prior to July 1 of the first year of the Adjustment becomes effective.

The term “Index” means the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consolidated Statistical Area, 1982-1984, equal 100, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. If the Bureau of Labor Statistics revises the Index, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will be the sole judge of the comparability of successive indexes, but if that agency fails to supply indexes that it deems comparable or if no succeeding index is published, the City shall determine an appropriate alternative published price index.

This annual CPI adjustment allowance process is already being used in districts created after 2001. If approved, the annual inflation allowance will allow the City to better fiscally manage the district and to more closely match benefit assessment revenue to the actual costs incurred.

On the last page is a ballot which gives you, the property owner, certain options:

A. Yes. I approve of the proposed Benefit Assessment Increase for Fiscal Year 2026. If a majority of the returned ballots select YES, it will allow the City to secure funding from your District for the current increased costs of maintenance and utilize a CPI adjustment inflation formula to offset future maintenance cost increases. With the proposed Benefit Assessment Increase the current cash balance deficiency will be repaid and funding will become available to fund enhancement projects for the district.

No. I do not approve of the proposed Benefit Assessment Increase for Fiscal Year 2026. If a majority of the returned ballots select NO, it will cause the City to re-evaluate the level of maintenance provided to your District, which will likely result in reduced maintenance, such as reduced watering and/or reduced frequency of mowing and trimming of the common areas.

It is very important that you complete and return your ballot. Ballots that are not returned will not be counted. If the “no” ballots exceed the number of “yes” ballots, the proposed fee increase and automatic CPI adjustment will not occur. If only a few people return ballots to the City, those few people will make the decision for the entire district.

The failure to raise assessment fees will result in a reduction in maintenance services, which will result in a deterioration of the landscaping and/or other improvements.

If the CPI adjustment is approved, any future increase in assessment fees that exceed the CPI adjustment will require the City to distribute ballots and seek owner approval.

If you want maintenance of the landscaping and other improvements to remain at the current level, it will be necessary to vote “yes” and to return your ballot to the City.

Notice of Public Hearing
A Public Hearing for this proposal will be held on May 19, 2026, at the hour of 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of the Civic Auditorium at 400 N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA. The ballots will be counted and the results announced at the end of the City Council Special Meeting that same evening. At this meeting, affected citizens will have an opportunity to speak to Council, and may also change their ballot vote if desired.

City of Hanford City Clerk’s Office
319 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
May 19, 2026

BALLOT INSTRUCTIONS
Completion and Return Instructions:

1. Fill out the ballot at the bottom of this page. Be sure to print your name, mark your choice, sign, and date the ballot (the ballot will not be counted without your signature)

2. Fold this page so the address above is visible.

3. Insert this page into the provided return envelope so the Clerk’s address is visible through the window of the envelope.

4. Place appropriate postage on the return envelope and mail it.

5. In order to be counted, the ballot must arrive at the above address (City Clerk’s Office) on or before 5:00pm, May 19, 2026.

6. ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY: You may also hand deliver the ballot to the City Clerk’s office at 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA, on or before 5:00pm on May 19, 2026 or hand deliver the ballot to the City Clerk at the time of the Public Hearing on May 19, 2026. If delivered in person, the ballot must be in a sealed envelope, or it cannot be accepted.

If you have any question or concerns about the ballot process or Increase in the Annual Benefit District Assessment or Annual Benefit District Assessment Adjustment for Inflation Allowance, please contact Alvin Dias, Deputy Public Works Director at 559-415-7189 or Russ Sterling, Public Works Director at 585-2565.

DISTRICT No. 92-01 PORTOFINO BENEFIT DISTRICT
City of Hanford, City Clerk’s Office
319 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Re: 92-01 PORTOFINO District Ballot

BALLOT (PORTOFINO)
Proposal: Increase the annual benefit district assessment amount from $26.10 to $153.76 and establish an Annual Benefit District Assessment adjustment for inflation allowance.

«OWNER_NAME», owning property with Assessment Number «APN» :
(Check one) Fee Increase APPROVES DISAPPROVES
_________________________________________________ ______________________ (Property Owner Signature) (Date)
_________________________________________________
(Print Name)

14.F.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT:

PUBLIC HEARING – To receive ballots and public testimony on proposed funding changes/assessment increases for 2026/27 of the Gateway Estates Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District in the City of Hanford. Following close of Public Hearing, ballots will be opened and tabulated, with results certified and reported prior to the close of the City Council Regular Session. Authorization for staff to implement assessment changes based on certified results.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing to receive ballots and public testimony on the proposed funding changes, amendment, and assessment increases for the maintenance of the balloted Gateway Estates Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District.

2. Direct staff to open and tabulate ballots, and to certify the results

3. If no majority protest:
a. Direct staff to implement the proposed changes.
b. Authorize the placing of the increased assessment amount on the 2026/27 Kings County Property Tax Roll.

Recommended Motion:

1. Move to open the Public Hearing to receive public input on the proposed assessment increases to the balloted Landscape & Lighting Maintenance Assessment District.

2. Certify the results of the balloted District and, if passed, move to approve the recommended assessment increases of the balloted Landscape & Lighting Maintenance District and place the increases on the 2026/27 Kings County Property Tax Roll.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Hanford has been allowing the developers of subdivisions to form assessment districts under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, which are subject to the requirements of Proposition 218, in lieu of using homeowners’ associations for the maintenance of common features such as common area landscaping, irrigation systems, streetlights, and trees on local streets. The maintenance of these improvements is a special benefit to the development and enhances the land values to the individual property owners in the district. Through an established Landscape & Lighting Maintenance District (LLMAD), each property owner pays an equal portion of the total annual costs to maintain the common

landscape areas in their neighborhood and are assessed their portion on their property taxes each year.

The Gateway Estates subdivision was originally established and approved by City Council in 1994 and was completed over one (1) construction phase, bringing the total lots within the Landscape and Lighting District to 114. The original maintenance assessment was $26.10 per lot. The Gateway Estates Landscape and Lighting District has been balloted in the past for an assessment increase in 2018, 2019, and 2021 with all three ballot measures failing to receive the required majority vote. The district maintenance has been eliminated, to reduce expenditures and reduce the budget deficit. The district has now fallen further into a budget deficit and staff has again presented a ballot measure to increase the maintenance assessment to the property owners within the Gateway Estates Landscape and Lighting District.

On March 24, 2026, the City mailed 114 ballots to parcels within the Gateway Estates (94-01) LAD asking property owners to consider an assessment increase for common area landscaping and lighting for their neighborhood. The increase includes tree maintenance, landscape enhancements in the common area landscape, raising the assessment enough to eliminate the deficit balance, and pay for maintenance costs on an ongoing annual basis that have increased since the Gateway Estates 94-01 District was formed.

On Saturday, April 18, 2026, City staff conducted a community meeting at Gateway Park. There was no attendance from residents/property owners. At this meeting, staff were prepared to share information on the current state of funding in the district’s account, maintenance areas, and previous maintenance contract specifications. Staff was going to discuss the balloting process that would need to be completed to increase the tax assessment to perform maintenance of the common area landscape and what the increased assessment would fund and also address any concerns or questions from residents/property owners.

PUBLIC HEARING, BALLOTING AND APPROVAL PROCESS
Proposition 218 requires that creation of, additions, or increases to a property-based assessment not previously approved shall be subject to a ballot vote of all the affected property owners. For the district being balloted for increases, each property can only submit one ballot vote, and all votes are equally weighted; approval or denial of the proposed increase is determined by whether a majority protest occurs (a majority of the returned ballots oppose the increase).

At the public hearing, property owners can address the Council regarding the increase. The City Clerk’s office has collected the sealed returned ballots and will accept any additional ballots up to the close of the Public Hearing. After public testimony has been received, staff will open and tabulate the ballot votes and present the results to Council later in the Council meeting. If no majority protest occurs, Council may then approve the recommended changes for the district and the increase will be added to the 2026/27 Tax Roll. Should a majority protest occur, the LAD will not have enough available funding to support continued maintenance of the district at current levels and staff has been directed to subsequently reduce the level of maintenance of the trees, turf, and shrub areas. The reduction in services will take effect 60 days from the public hearing date.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Table 1 shows the current and projected financial condition of the Gateway Estates Landscape and Lighting District annual shortfall. The City issued ballots to districts that are in a deficit and are in need of an increase to their annual assessment to continue maintenance.

TABLE 1: Projected LLMAD Cash Balances

Table 2 displays the Gateway Estates District's proposed annual assessment increase. The proposed increase, if approved, will fund tree maintenance and landscape enhancements in the common area landscape, will raise the assessment enough to eliminate the deficit balance, and pay for maintenance costs on an ongoing annual basis. The increase in the benefit assessment will be implemented in the 2026/27 tax roll.

TABLE 2: Proposed Assessment
District #
District
Name
Lots #
Beg. Cash
Balance
06/30/25
2025/26
Assessment
Revenue
2025/26
Operating
Expenses
(estimated)
Ending
Balance
06/30/26
(estimated)
94-01 Gateway
Estates
114 ($12,193.40) $2,975.40 ($2,774.00) ($11,992.00)
District # District Name Lots # Current Annual
Assessment
Proposed Annual
Assessment
Proposed %
Increase in
Assessment
District Lot District Lot
94-01 Gateway
Estates
114 $2,975.40 $26.10 $17,528.78 $153.76 489%
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ballot LAD 94-01 GATEWAY

CITY OF HANFORD
D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c W o r k s
Focused On Our Community 24/7
900 South 10th Avenue • HANFORD, CA 93230-5234 • (559) 585-2550 «DATE_MAILED»
«OWNER_NAME»
«PO_ADDRESS»
«PO_CITY_ZIP»
Subject: Maintenance of common landscape for
Lighting and Landscape District: 94-01 GATEWAY ESTATES
Proposed Benefit Assessment Increase for Fiscal Year: 2026 and an Annual Adjustment for Inflation Allowance for the district.

Service
Level
Level No
Service
Dear «OWNER_NAME» :

The maintenance of the common landscaping (lawn mowing, planting and replanting of plants and trees, sprinkler maintenance, etc.) for your subdivision is funded by your payment of a benefit assessment through a Lighting and Landscaping District. The common landscaping is maintained at the service level mentioned above. In order to improve this level of service, the City is seeking your support of an increase in the assessment amount you currently pay and establishing an annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment. The maintained landscaping and improvements visually enhance your neighborhood, add value to the surrounding properties and increase your quality of life.

This letter includes a ballot. The City is requesting you return the enclosed ballot indicating your choice, either approving or disapproving increasing the annual benefit assessment amount, and the establishment of an annual CPI adjustment allowance. The approval of the assessment increase and the CPI adjustment will allow the City to make changes in the benefit assessment fee to balance the district’s finances and increase the current level of service to an A service. The increased assessment amount will also provide funds to refurbish the district’s landscaping over a period of time as reserves are replenished.

Proposal: Current
Rate
Proposed
Rate
Increase the annual benefit assessment and establish
an annual benefit district CPI adjustment allowance in
accordance with California Government Code Section
53739(b)(1).
from $26.10 to $153.76
Please consider the enclosed documents, which include an informational page about the district, a ballot form, a return envelope, Notice of Public Hearing and a map depicting the landscape areas maintained by your district.

If you have questions or concerns, you may contact Alvin Dias, Deputy Public Works Director at 559- 415-7189 or Russ Sterling, Public Works Director at 559-585-2565. Thank you for your time and consideration.

INFORMATION
The City is proposing an increase in the Benefit District Assessment Amount in order to keep up with maintenance costs for the common landscape areas in the District and to create a small reserve to help offset any future unexpected maintenance costs. Keeping the landscaped common areas maintained helps to keep neighborhoods looking good and helps to maintain property values.

Currently your district is comprised of 114 lots, with total current year benefit assessments equaling $2,975.70. The projected expenses are detailed as follows:

Annual Benefit District Assessment Reserve - Cash Balance as of June 30, 2024 $(10,379.52) Annual Benefit District Assessment Revenue Collected Amount $2,890.88 Proposed Expenses for the Fiscal Year $(4,704.76)
TOTAL PROJECTED ENDING CASH BALANCE $(12,193.40)
Projected CY Assessment Reserve - Cash Balance as of June 30, 2025 $(12,193.40) Annual Benefit District Assessment Revenue Proposed Collection Amount $2,975.40 Proposed Expenses for the Fiscal Year $(2,774.00)
TOTAL PROJECTED ENDING CASH BALANCE $(11,992.00)
Projected CY Assessment Reserve - Cash Balance as of June 30, 2026 $(11,992.00) Annual Benefit District Assessment Revenue Proposed Collection Amount $2,975.40 Proposed Expenses for the Fiscal Year $(2,498.98)
TOTAL PROPOSED ENDING CASH BALANCE $(11,515.58)
Based on the current benefit district assessment revenue and proposed expenses the total cash balance is $(11,515.58) for the projected fiscal year 2026.

Existing Amount Proposed Amount Increase
Monthly Per Lot $2.18 $12.81 $10.63
Annually Per Lot $26.10 $153.76 $127.66
Annually Per District $2,975.40 $17,528.78 $14,553.38
The cost to you to keep the maintenance up in your District will be an additional $127.66 per year, or $10.63 per month.

You will see this as an increase in the Property Benefit Assessment included on your County of Kings real property tax bill.

District: GATEWAY ESTATES
Fiscal Year Cash Balance: 2025 $ $(11,992.00)
Projected Fiscal Year Cash Balance: 2026 $ $(11,515.58) Number of Lots multiplied by Assessment per Lot 114 X $26.10 $2,975.40

In addition to the proposed benefit assessment increase, the City is proposing that an annual benefit CPI adjustment allowance be established in accordance with California Government Section 53739(b)(1). The annual benefit assessment amount will be adjusted by the CPI on an annual basis in accordance with the following formula:

Commencing with fiscal year 2026 and on July 1 or each fiscal year (“Adjustment Date”) thereafter during the life of the District, the Total Annual Assessment amount for the next fiscal year shall be an amount equal to the greater of:
(i) the Total Annual Assessment amount in effect immediately prior to the Adjustment Date; or (ii) the product obtained by multiplying the Total Annual Assessment amount in effect immediately prior to the Adjustment Date by a fraction, the numerator of which is the Index published nearest but prior to the Adjustment Date and the denominator of which is the Index published nearest but prior to July 1 of the first year of the Adjustment becomes effective.

The term “Index” means the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consolidated Statistical Area, 1982-1984, equal 100, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. If the Bureau of Labor Statistics revises the Index, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will be the sole judge of the comparability of successive indexes, but if that agency fails to supply indexes that it deems comparable or if no succeeding index is published, the City shall determine an appropriate alternative published price index.

This annual CPI adjustment allowance process is already being used in districts created after 2001. If approved, the annual inflation allowance will allow the City to better fiscally manage the district and to more closely match benefit assessment revenue to the actual costs incurred.

On the last page is a ballot which gives you, the property owner, certain options:

Yes. I approve of the proposed Benefit Assessment Increase for Fiscal Year 2026. If a majority of the returned ballots select YES, it will allow the City to secure funding from your District for the current increased costs of maintenance and utilize a CPI adjustment inflation formula to offset future maintenance cost increases. With the proposed Benefit Assessment Increase the current cash balance deficiency will be repaid and funding will become available to fund enhancement projects for the district.

No. I do not approve of the proposed Benefit Assessment Increase for Fiscal Year 2026. If a majority of the returned ballots select NO, it will cause the City to re-evaluate the level of maintenance provided to your District, which will likely result in reduced maintenance, such as reduced watering and/or reduced frequency of mowing and trimming of the common areas.

It is very important that you complete and return your ballot. Ballots that are not returned will not be counted. If the “no” ballots exceed the number of “yes” ballots, the proposed fee increase and automatic CPI adjustment will not occur. If only a few people return ballots to the City, those few people will make the decision for the entire district.

The failure to raise assessment fees will result in a reduction in maintenance services, which will result in a deterioration of the landscaping and/or other improvements.

If the CPI adjustment is approved, any future increase in assessment fees that exceed the CPI adjustment will require the City to distribute ballots and seek owner approval.

If you want maintenance of the landscaping and other improvements to remain at the current level, it will be necessary to vote “yes” and to return your ballot to the City.

Notice of Public Hearing
A Public Hearing for this proposal will be held on May 19, 2026, at the hour of 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of the Civic Auditorium at 400 N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA. The ballots will be counted and the results announced at the end of the City Council Special Meeting that same evening. At this meeting, affected citizens will have an opportunity to speak to Council, and may also change their ballot vote if desired.

City of Hanford City Clerk’s Office
319 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
May 19, 2026

BALLOT INSTRUCTIONS
Completion and Return Instructions:

1. Fill out the ballot at the bottom of this page. Be sure to print your name, mark your choice, sign, and date the ballot (the ballot will not be counted without your signature)

2. Fold this page so the address above is visible.

3. Insert this page into the provided return envelope so the Clerk’s address is visible through the window of the envelope.

4. Place appropriate postage on the return envelope and mail it.

5. In order to be counted, the ballot must arrive at the above address (City Clerk’s Office) on or before 5:00pm, May 19, 2026.

6. ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY: You may also hand deliver the ballot to the City Clerk’s office at 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA, on or before 5:00pm on May 19, 2026 or hand deliver the ballot to the City Clerk at the time of the Public Hearing on May 19, 2026. If delivered in person, the ballot must be in a sealed envelope, or it cannot be accepted.

If you have any question or concerns about the ballot process or Increase in the Annual Benefit District Assessment or Annual Benefit District Assessment Adjustment for Inflation Allowance, please contact Alvin Dias, Deputy Public Works Director at 559-415-7189 or Russ Sterling, Public Works Director at 585-2565.

DISTRICT No. 94-01 GATEWAY ESTATES BENEFIT DISTRICT
City of Hanford, City Clerk’s Office
319 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Re: 94-01 GATEWAY ESTATES District Ballot

BALLOT (GATEWAY ESTATES)
Proposal: Increase the annual benefit district assessment amount from $26.10 to $153.76 and establish an Annual Benefit District Assessment adjustment for inflation allowance. «OWNER_NAME», owning property with Assessment Number «APN» :
(Check one) Fee Increase APPROVES DISAPPROVES
_________________________________________________ ______________________ (Property Owner Signature) (Date)
_________________________________________________
(Print Name)