Agenda packet — Hanford City Council, May 19, 2026 (part 5 of 12)

Latitude™
Exterior Acrylic Flat
The information and recommendations set forth in this Product Data Sheet are based upon tests conducted by or on behalf of The Sherwin-Williams Company. Such information and recommendations set forth herein are subject to change and pertain to the product offered at the time of publication. Consult your Sherwin-Williams representative or visit www.paintdocs.com to obtain the most current version of the PDS and/or an SDS

SURFACE PREPARATION
WARNING! If you scrape, sand or remove old
paint, you may release lead dust. LEAD IS
TOXIC. EXPOSURE TO LEAD DUST CAN

CAUSE SERIOUS ILLNESS, SUCH AS BRAIN
DAMAGE, ESPECIALLY IN CHILDREN.

PREGNANT WOMEN SHOULD ALSO AVOID
EXPOSURE. Wear a NIOSH-approved respirator
to control lead exposure. Clean up carefully with
a HEPA vacuum and a wet mop. Before you start,
find out how to protect yourself and your family by
contacting the National Lead Information Hotline
at 1-800-424-LEAD or log on to
www.epa.gov/lead.

Remove all surface contamination by washing
with an appropriate cleaner, rinse thoroughly and
allow to dry. Existing peeled or checked paint
should be scraped and sanded to a sound
surface. Glossy surfaces should be sanded dull.

Stains from water, smoke, ink, pencil, grease,
etc. should be sealed with the appropriate primersealer. Recognize that any surface preparation short of total removal of the old coating may
compromise the service length of the system.

Aluminum and Galvanized Steel:

Wash to remove any oil, grease, or other surface
contamination. All corrosion must be removed
with sandpaper, wire brush, or other abrading
method. On large expanses of metal siding, the
air, surface, and material temperatures must be
50°F or higher.

Cement Composition Siding-Panels:

Remove all dirt, dust, grease, oil, loose particles,
laitance, foreign material, and peeling or
defective coatings. Allow the surface to dry
thoroughly. If the surface is new, test it for pH, if
the pH is higher than 9, prime with Loxon
Concrete & Masonry Primer. After power
washing, previously painted masonry may still
have a powdery surface that should be sealed
with Loxon Conditioner.

Caulking:

Gaps between windows, doors, trim, and other
through-wall openings can be filled with the
appropriate caulk after priming the surface.

Masonry, Concrete, Cement, Block:

All new surfaces must be cured according to the
supplier’s recommendations – usually about 30
days. Remove all form release and curing agents.

Rough surfaces can be filled to provide a smooth
surface. If painting cannot wait 30 days, allow the
surface to cure 7 days and prime the surface with
Loxon Concrete & Masonry Primer. Cracks,
voids, and other holes should be repaired with an
elastomeric patch or sealant. Concrete masonry
units (CMU) - Surface should be thoroughly clean
and dry. Air, material and surface temperatures
must be at least 50°F (10°C) before filling. Use
Loxon Acrylic Block Surfacer. The filler must be
thoroughly dry before topcoating.

Previously Painted Surfaces:

Spot prime bare areas, wait 4 hours, and paint
the entire surface. Some specific surfaces require
specialized treatment.

SURFACE PREPARATION
Mildew:

Prior to attempting to remove mildew, it is always
recommended to test any cleaner on a small,
inconspicuous area prior to use. Bleach and
bleaching type cleaners may damage or discolor
existing paint films. Bleach alternative cleaning
solutions may be advised. Mildew may be
removed before painting by washing with a
solution of 1 part liquid bleach and 3 parts clean
water. Apply the solution and scrub the mildewed
area. Allow the solution to remain on the surface
for 10 minutes. Rinse thoroughly with clean water
and allow the surface to dry before painting. Wear
protective eyewear, waterproof gloves, and
protective clothing. Quickly wash off any of the
mixture that comes in contact with your skin. Do
not add detergents or ammonia to the bleachwater solution.

Wood:

Sand any exposed wood to a fresh surface. Patch
all holes and imperfections with a wood filler or
putty and sand smooth. All patched areas must
be primed.

Steel:

Rust and mill scale must be removed using
sandpaper, wire brush, or other abrading method.

Bare steel must be primed the same day as
cleaned.

Stucco:

Remove any loose stucco, efflorescence, or
laitance. Allow new stucco to cure at least 30
days before painting. If painting cannot wait 30
days, allow the surface to dry 7 days and prime
with Loxon Concrete & Masonry Primer. Repair
cracks, voids, and other holes with an
elastomeric patch or sealant.
*Vinyl or other PVC Building Products:

Clean the surface thoroughly by scrubbing with
warm, soapy water. Rinse thoroughly, if needed
prime with appropriate white primer. Do not paint
vinyl with any color darker than the original color
or having a Light Reflective Value (LRV) of less
than 56 unless VinylSafe® Colors are used. If
VinylSafe colors are not used the vinyl may warp.

Follow all painting guidelines of the vinyl
manufacturer when painting. Only paint properly
installed vinyl siding. Deviating from the
manufacturer’s painting guidelines may cause
the warranty to be voided.

CAUTIONS
For exterior use only.

Protect from freezing.

Non-Photochemically reactive.

Before using, carefully read CAUTIONS on
label.

CRYSTALLINE SILICA, ZINC:

Use only with adequate ventilation. To avoid
overexposure, open windows and doors or use
other means to ensure fresh air entry during
application and drying. If you experience eye
watering, headaches, or dizziness, increase
fresh air, or wear respiratory protection (NIOSH
approved) or leave the area.

Adequate ventilation required when sanding or
abrading the dried film. If adequate ventilation
cannot be provided wear an approved particulate
respirator (NIOSH approved). Follow respirator
manufacturer's directions for respirator use.

Avoid contact with eyes and skin. Wash hands
after using. Keep container closed when not in
use. Do not transfer contents to other containers
for storage. FIRST AID: In case of eye contact,
flush thoroughly with large amounts of water. Get
medical attention if irritation persists. If
swallowed, call Poison Control Center, hospital
emergency room, or physician immediately.

WARNING: This product contains chemicals
known to the State of California to cause cancer
and birth defects or other reproductive harm. DO
NOT TAKE INTERNALLY. KEEP OUT OF THE
REACH OF CHILDREN.

HOTW 09/22/2022 K60W00651 05 39

FRC, SP

CLEANUP INFORMATION
Clean spills, spatters, hands and tools
immediately after use with soap and warm clean
water. After cleaning, flush spray equipment with
compliant cleanup solvent to prevent rusting of
the equipment. Follow manufacturer’s safety
recommendations when using solvents.

Page 555 of 1565 ends

102.62
Latitude™
Exterior Acrylic Satin
K62-650 Series
9/2022 www.sherwin-williams.com continued on back

CHARACTERISTICS
Latitude™ Exterior Acrylic Satin gives painters
more flexibility in their schedules and extends the
painting season. Latitude is formulated with
ClimateFlex Technology™, providing
exceptional early moisture resistance and
smooth application and appearance at extreme
temperatures (application at 35°F-120°F (1.7°C
- 48.8°C) air, surface and material temperatures)
and is resistant to early dirt pick up.

Latitude provides outstanding performance on
properly prepared aluminum and vinyl siding,
wood siding, clapboard, shakes, shingles,
plywood, masonry, and metal.

Key Attributes and Benefits:

ClimateFlex Technology™
Excellent application, flow and leveling
Great dirt pick up resistance
VinylSafe™ paint colors allow you the freedom
to choose from 100 color options, including a
limited selection of darker colors formulated to
resist warping and buckling when applied to a
sound, stable vinyl substrate.

Color: Most Colors
Coverage: 350-400 sq. ft. per gallon
@ 4 mils wet, 1.4 mils dry
Drying Time, @ 50% RH:
@35-45°F @45°F+
Touch: 2 Hours 2 Hours
Recoat: 24-48 hours 4 Hours
Drying and recoat times are temperature, humidity, and
film thickness dependent.

Finish: 10-20 units @ 60°
Tinting with CCE only:

Base: oz. per Strength
gallon
Extra White* 0-7 SherColor
Super White DO NOT TINT
Deep Base 4-12 SherColor
Ultradeep Base 10-12 SherColor
Light Yellow 0-10 SherColor
Vivid Yellow 0-10 SherColor
Real Red* 0-10 SherColor *Extra White and Real Red bases may be used without the addition of CCE tint.

Extra White K62W00651
(may vary by color)
V.O.C.(less exempt solvents):

Less than 50 grams per litre; 0.42 lbs. per gallon
As per 40 CFR 59.406
Volume Solids: 34 ±2%
Weight Solids: 49 ±2%
Weight per Gallon: 10.49 lbs
Flash Point: N.A.

Vehicle Type: 100% Acrylic
Shelf Life: 36 months, unopened
WVP Perms (US) 23.49 grains/(hr ft2 in Hg)
Mildew Resistant
This coating contains agents which inhibit the
growth of mildew on the surface of this coating
film.

COMPLIANCE
As of 09/22/2022, Complies with :

OTC Yes
OTC Phase II Yes
S.C.A.Q.M.D. Yes
CARB Yes
CARB SCM 2007 Yes
CARB SCM 2020 Yes
Canada Yes
LEED® v4 & v4.1 Emissions N/A
LEED® v4 & v4.1 V.O.C. Yes
EPD-NSF® Certified No
MIR-Manufacturer Inventory No
MPI® Yes

APPLICATION
When the air temperature is at 35°F (1.7°C),
substrates may be colder; prior to painting, check
to be sure the air, surface, and material
temperature are above 35°F (1.7°C) and at least
5°F above the dew point. Avoid using if rain or
snow is expected within 30 minutes.

Do not apply at air or surface temperatures below
35°F (1.7°C) or when air or surface temperatures
may drop below 35°F (1.7°C) within 48 hours.

No reduction needed.

Brush:

Use a nylon-polyester brush.

Roller:

Use a high quality 3/8-3/4 inch nap synthetic
roller cover.

For specific brushes and rollers, please refer
to our Brush and Roller Guide on sherwinwilliams.com
Spray - Airless:

Pressure ...............................2000 p.s.i.

Tip ..................................0 15-.019 inch

APPLICATION TIPS
Make sure product is completely agitated
(mechanically or manually) before use.

Thoroughly follow the recommended surface
preparations. Most coating failures are due to
inadequate surface preparation or application.

Thorough surface preparation will help provide
long term protection with Latitude coating.

SPECIFICATIONS
Latitude can be self-priming when used directly
over existing coatings, or exterior bare drywall,
plaster and masonry (with a cured pH of less than
9). The first coat acts like a coat of primer and
the second coat provides the final appearance
and performance. Please note that some specific
surfaces require specialized treatment.

Use on these properly prepared surfaces:

Aluminum & Aluminum Siding1,
Galvanized Steel1
:
2 coats Latitude Exterior Acrylic
Concrete Block, CMU, Split face Block:
1 coat Loxon Acrylic Block Surfacer
2 coats Latitude Exterior Acrylic
Brick, Stucco, Cement, Concrete:
1 coat Loxon Concrete & Masonry Primer
(if needed)
or
Loxon Conditioner (if needed)
2 coats Latitude Exterior Acrylic
Cement Composition Siding/Panels:
1 coat Loxon Concrete & Masonry Primer
(if needed)
or
Loxon Conditioner (if needed)
2 coats Latitude Exterior Acrylic
Plywood:
1 coat Exterior Latex Primer
2 coats Latitude Exterior Acrylic
*Vinyl Siding:
2 coats Latitude Exterior Acrylic
Wood (Cedar, Redwood):
1 coat Exterior Oil-Based Wood Primer
2 coats Latitude Exterior Acrylic
Knots and some woods, such as redwood and cedar,
contain a high amount of tannin, a colored wood extract.

For best results on these woods, use a coat of Exterior Oil-Based Wood Primer.

Wood Composition Board - Hardiboard:

Because of the potential for wax bleeding out of
the substrate, apply 1 coat of Exterior Oil-Based
Wood Primer and then topcoat. 1 On large expanses of metal siding, the air, surface, and material temperatures must be 50°F (10°) or higher.

Standard latex primers cannot be used below 50°F
(10°C) or above 100°F (37.7°C). See specific primer
label for that product’s application limitations.

Other primers may be appropriate.

When repainting involves a drastic color change,
a coat of primer will improve the hiding
performance of the topcoat color.

Page 556 of 1565 ends

Latitude™
Exterior Acrylic Satin
The information and recommendations set forth in this Product Data Sheet are based upon tests conducted by or on behalf of The Sherwin-Williams Company. Such information and recommendations set forth herein are subject to change and pertain to the product offered at the time of publication. Consult your Sherwin-Williams representative or visit www.paintdocs.com to obtain the most current version of the PDS and/or an SDS

SURFACE PREPARATION
WARNING! If you scrape, sand or remove old
paint, you may release lead dust. LEAD IS
TOXIC. EXPOSURE TO LEAD DUST CAN

CAUSE SERIOUS ILLNESS, SUCH AS BRAIN
DAMAGE, ESPECIALLY IN CHILDREN.

Aluminum and Galvanized Steel:

Cement Composition Siding-Panels:

Caulking:

Gaps between windows, doors, trim, and other
through-wall openings can be filled with the
appropriate caulk after priming the surface.

Masonry, Concrete, Cement, Block:

All new surfaces must be cured according to the
supplier’s recommendations – usually about 30
days. Remove all form release and curing agents.

Previously Painted Surfaces:

Spot prime bare areas, wait 4 hours, and paint
the entire surface. Some specific surfaces require
specialized treatment.

SURFACE PREPARATION
Mildew:

Wood:

Sand any exposed wood to a fresh surface. Patch
all holes and imperfections with a wood filler or
putty and sand smooth. All patched areas must
be primed.

Steel:

Rust and mill scale must be removed using
sandpaper, wire brush, or other abrading method.

Bare steel must be primed the same day as
cleaned.

Stucco:

CAUTIONS
For exterior use only.

Protect from freezing.

Non-Photochemically reactive.

Before using, carefully read CAUTIONS on
label.

ZINC:

WARNING: This product contains chemicals
known to the State of California to cause cancer
and birth defects or other reproductive harm. DO
NOT TAKE INTERNALLY. KEEP OUT OF THE
REACH OF CHILDREN.

HOTW 09/22/2022 K62W00651 04 36

FRC, SP

Page 557 of 1565 ends

113.12SGA
Pro Industrial™
Waterbased Alkyd Urethane Enamel Semi-Gloss
B53–5150 Series
04/2025 www.sherwin-williams.com continued on back

CHARACTERISTICS
Pro Industrial Waterbased Alkyd Urethane
Enamel is a premium quality interior-exterior
enamel formulated with a urethane modified
alkyd resin system for high performance. It
provides beauty and durability when applied to
interior-exterior surfaces such as properly
prepared drywall, wood, masonry, and metal. It
brings together the convenience and ease of use
of a waterborne coating with the performance and
coating characteristics of a traditional oil-based
enamel.
• Excellent washability, flow and leveling
• Excellent touch up
• Easy application & cleanup
• Resistant to yellowing compared to
traditional alkyds
• Suitable for use in USDA inspected
facilities
For use on properly prepared: Steel,
Galvanized & Aluminum, Drywall, Concrete and
Masonry, and Wood.

Finish: 50-70 units @ 60°
Color: Most Colors
Recommended Spreading Rate per coat:

Wet mils: 4.0-5.0
Dry mils: 1.3-1.7
Coverage: 320-407 sq. ft. per gallon
Theoretical Coverage: 529 sq. ft. per gallon
@ 1 mil dry
Approximate spreading rates are calculated on volume
solids and do not include any application loss.

Note: Brush or roll application may require multiple coats to achieve maximum film thickness and uniformity of
appearance.

Drying Schedule @ 4.0 mils wet, @ 50% RH:

Drying and recoat times are temperature, humidity, and
film thickness dependent.
@77°F
To touch 1-2 hours
To recoat 4 hours
Tinting with CCE only:

Base oz. per gallon Strength
Extra White 0-6 SherColor
Deep Base 4-12 SherColor
Ultradeep Base 10-14 SherColor
Extra White B53W05151
(may vary by color)
V.O.C. (less exempt solvents):
less than 50 grams per litre; 0.42 lbs. per gallon
As per 40 CFR 59.406
Volume Solids: 33 ±2%
Weight Solids: 48 ±2%
Weight per Gallon: 10.64 lbs
Flash Point: N.A.

Vehicle Type: Urethane Modified Alkyd
Shelf Life: 36 months, unopened

COMPLIANCE
As of 04/01/2025, Complies with:

OTC Yes
OTC Phase II Yes
S.C.A.Q.M.D. Yes
CARB Yes
CARB SCM 2007 Yes
CARB SCM 2020 Yes
Canada Yes
LEED® v4 & v4.1 Emissions No
LEED® v4 & v4.1 V.O.C. Yes
EPD-NSF® Certified Yes
MIR-Manufacturer Inventory No
MPI® #169

APPLICATION
Temperature:
minimum 50°F / 10°C
maximum 100°F / 37.8°C
air, surface and material
At least 5°F above dew point
Relative humidity: 85% maximum
The following is a guide. Changes in pressures and tip
sizes may be needed for proper spray characteristics.

Always purge spray equipment before use with listed
reducer. Any reduction must be compatible with the
existing environmental and application conditions.

Reducer: Water
Airless Spray:

Pressure 2000 p.s.i.

Hose ¼ inch I.D.

Tip .013-.017 inch
Filter 60 mesh
Reduction: Not recommended
Brush: Use a nylon-polyester brush such as
Purdy® Syntox®.

Roller Cover: Use a 1/4-1/2 inch woven cover
such as Purdy® White Dove™.

If specific application equipment is listed above,
equivalent equipment may be substituted.

Apply paint at the recommended film thickness
and spreading rate as indicated. Application of
coating above maximum or below minimum
recommended spreading rate may adversely
affect coating performance.

No painting should be done immediately after a
rain or during foggy weather.

When using spray equipment, use a 50% overlap
with each pass of the gun to avoid holidays, bare
areas, and pinholes. Apply coating evenly while
maintaining a wet edge to prevent lapping.

SPECIFICATIONS
Steel:
1 coat Pro Industrial Pro-Cryl Primer
2 coats Pro Industrial Waterbased Alkyd Urethane
Aluminum & Galvanizing:
1 coat Pro Industrial Pro-Cryl Primer
2 coats Pro Industrial Waterbased Alkyd Urethane
Concrete Block (CMU):
1 coat Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler
or Loxon Acrylic Block Surfacer
2 coats Pro Industrial Waterbased Alkyd Urethane
Concrete-Masonry:
1 coat Loxon Concrete & Masonry Primer
or 1 coat Loxon Conditioner
2 coats Pro Industrial Waterbased Alkyd Urethane
Drywall:
1 coat ProMar 200 Zero V.O.C. Primer
2 coats Pro Industrial Waterbased Alkyd Urethane
Wood, exterior:
1 coat Exterior Wood Primer
2 coats Pro Industrial Waterbased Alkyd Urethane
Wood, interior:
1 coat Premium Wall & Wood Primer
2 coats Pro Industrial Waterbased Alkyd Urethane
The systems listed above are representative of the
product’s use, other systems may be appropriate.

Page 558 of 1565 ends

Pro Industrial™
Waterbased Alkyd Urethane Enamel Semi-Gloss
The information and recommendations set forth in this Product Data Sheet are based upon tests conducted by or on behalf of The Sherwin-Williams Company. Such information and recommendations set forth herein are subject to change and pertain to the product offered at the time of publication. Consult your Sherwin-Williams representative or visit www.paintdocs.com to obtain the most current version of the PDS and/or an SDS

SURFACE PREPARATION
WARNING! If you scrape, sand or remove old paint,
you may release lead dust. LEAD IS TOXIC.

EXPOSURE TO LEAD DUST CAN CAUSE

SERIOUS ILLNESS, SUCH AS BRAIN DAMAGE,
ESPECIALLY IN CHILDREN. PREGNANT WOMEN
SHOULD ALSO AVOID EXPOSURE. Wear a
NIOSH-approved respirator to control lead
exposure. Clean up carefully with a HEPA vacuum
and a wet mop. Before you start, find out how to
protect yourself and your family by contacting the
National Lead Information Hotline at 1-800-424-
LEAD or log on to www.epa.gov/lead.

Do not use hydrocarbon solvents for cleaning.

Remove all surface contamination by washing with an
appropriate cleaner, rinse thoroughly and allow to dry.

Existing peeled or checked paint should be scraped
and sanded to a sound surface. Glossy surfaces
should be sanded dull. Stains from water, smoke, ink,
pencil, grease, etc. should be sealed with the
appropriate primer-sealer. Recognize that any surface
preparation short of total removal of the old coating
may compromise the service length of the system.

Iron & Steel - Minimum surface preparation is Hand
Tool Clean per SSPC-SP2. Remove all oil and grease
from surface per SSPC-SP1. For better performance,
use Commercial Blast Cleaning per SSPC-SP6.

Primer recommended for best performance.

Aluminum - Remove all oil, grease, dirt, oxide, and
other foreign material per SSPC-SP1. Prime the area
the same day as cleaned.

Galvanizing - Allow to weather a minimum of six
months prior to coating. Solvent Clean per SSPCSP1. When weathering is not possible, or the surface has been treated with chromates or silicates, first
Solvent Clean per SSPC-SP1 and apply a test patch.

Allow paint to dry at least one week before testing
adhesion. If adhesion is poor, brush blasting per
SSPC-SP16 is necessary to remove these
treatments. Rusty galvanizing requires a minimum of
Hand Tool Cleaning per SSPC-SP2. Prime the area
the same day as cleaned.

Concrete Block - Surface should be thoroughly clean
and dry. Air, material, and surface temperatures must
be at least 55°F (13°C) before filling. Use Pro Industrial Heavy Duty Block Filler or Loxon Acrylic Block
Surfacer. The filler must be thoroughly dry before
topcoating.

Masonry – All masonry must be free of dirt, oil, grease, loose paint, mortar, masonry dust, etc. Clean per SSPCSP13/Nace 6/ ICRI No. 310.2R, CSP 1-3. Poured, troweled, or tilt-up concrete, plaster, mortar, etc. must be thoroughly cured at least 30 days at 75°F. Form
release compounds and curing membranes must be
removed by brush blasting. Brick must be allowed to
weather for one year prior to surface preparation and
painting. Prime the area the same day as cleaned.

Weathered masonry and soft or porous cement board
must be brush blasted or power tool cleaned to remove
loosely adhering contamination and to get to a hard, firm surface. Apply one coat Loxon Conditioner, following
label recommendations.

Wood - Surface must be clean, dry, and sound. Prime
with recommended primer. No painting should be done
immediately after a rain or during foggy weather. Knots and pitch streaks must be scraped, sanded and spot
primed before full coat of primer is applied. All nail holes or small openings must be properly caulked.

SURFACE PREPARATION
Previously Painted Surface - If in sound condition,
clean the surface of all foreign material. Smooth, hard or glossy coatings and surfaces should be dulled by
abrading the surface. Apply a test area, allowing paint to dry one week before testing adhesion. If adhesion is poor, additional abrasion of the surface and/or removal of the previous coating may be necessary. Retest
surface for adhesion. If paint is peeling or badly
weathered, clean surface to sound substrate and treat
as a new surface as above. Recognize that any surface
preparation short of total removal of the old coating
may compromise the service length of the system.

Mildew - Clean mildew from the Surface: Mildew is a
fungus that looks like dirt but won’t wash off. Mildew
must be removed before painting, or it will grow
through any new coat of paint. To remove mildew or
suspected mildew, scrub surface before painting
with a commercial mildew remover following
manufacturer’s safety instructions.

PERFORMANCE
System Tested: (unless otherwise indicated)
Substrate: Steel
Surface Preparation SSPC-SP10
Finish:Pro Industrial Waterbased Alkyd Urethane
@5.0 W.F.T.

Adhesion:

Method: ASTM D3359 method B
Result: 4B
Pencil Hardness:

Method: ASTM D3363
Result: 4H
Flexibility:

Method: ASTM D522, 180° bend, 1/8 inch mandrel
Result: Pass
Dry Heat Resistance:

Method: ASTM D2485
Result: 200°F
Block Resistance:

Method: Lab assessment
Result: Excellent
Resistance Yellowing:

Method: Lab assessment
Result: Excellent
No painting should be done immediately after a rain
or during foggy weather.

Do not paint on wet surfaces.

Check adhesion by applying a test strip to determine
the readiness for painting.

SAFETY PRECAUTIONS
Before using, carefully read CAUTIONS on label.

Refer to the Safety Data Sheets (SDS) before
use.

FOR PROFESSIONAL USE ONLY.

Published technical data and instructions are
subject to change without notice. Contact your
Sherwin-Williams representative for additional
technical data and instructions.

CLEANUP INFORMATION
Clean spills, spatters, hands, and tools
immediately after use with soap and warm clean
water. After cleaning, flush spray equipment with
compliant cleanup solvent to prevent rusting of
the equipment. Follow manufacturer’s safety
recommendations when using solvents.

Danger: Rags, steel wool, other waste soaked
with this product, and sanding residue may
spontaneously catch fire if improperly discarded.

Immediately place rags, steel wool, other waste
soaked with this product, and sanding residue in
a sealed, water-filled, metal container. Dispose of
in accordance with local fire regulation.

HOTW 04/01/2025 B53W05151 06 28

FRC, SP

Page 559 of 1565 ends

Page 560 of 1565 ends

13.L.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

Approval and authorization for the City Manager to execute amendment #6 with Brandley Engineering for completion of phase 1 and phase 2 of the Hanford Municipal Airport Fuel Island Project in an amount not to exceed $262,000
RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation:

That the City Council, by motion:

Authorize the City Manager to execute amendment #6 with Brandley Engineering for an amount not to exceed $262,000 for completion of phase 1 and phase 2 of the Hanford Municipal Airport Fuel Island Project.

Recommended Motion:

I move to:

BACKGROUND:

At the August 19, 2023, Council meeting, the City Council approved a 5-year contract with Brandley Engineering for construction management, airport engineering, and planning for all State and Federal airport improvement projects.

At the April 21, 2026, Council meeting, council received a presentation regarding the lowest bid received for the proposed Hanford Municipal Airport Fuel Island Project and associated funding scenarios. Following careful consideration, the Council authorized approval of the project and contract and appropriated $2,878,000 from the General Fund and $150,000 from the Airport Facilities Trust Fund to support the project.

Amendment #6 is specifically for the Airport Fuel Island Project and related services required for completion of the project and proper recording of all related items. A portion of the construction management agreement cost may be reimbursable.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Previously approved appropriations from the General Fund in the amount of $2,878,000 and Airport

Page 561 of 1565 ends

Facilities Trust Fund in the amount of $150,000 will fund this amendment.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Brandley Supplemental Services Agreement 6

Page 562 of 1565 ends

Supplemental Services Agreement No. 6

Page 1 of 4 ends

SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 6
Professional, Planning, Architectural and Design/Engineering Services associated with Airport Development Projects for the Hanford Municipal Airport This Agreement, entered into this day of , 2026, by and between the City of Hanford, hereinafter referred to as the “CITY”, and Brandley Engineering, Inc. as the “CONSULTANT”. hereinafter referred to as the “CONSULTANT.”

W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, CITY entered into a Professional Services Agreement for Professional, Planning, Architectural and Design/Engineering Services associated with Airport Development Projects for the Hanford Municipal Airport with the CONSULTANT dated the 8th day of November 2023, and WHEREAS, the CITY has the desire to secure certain technical and professional services to assist in the engineering during construction and resident engineering, testing, and inspection of New Fuel Island and Tanks as described as “Scope of Work” in Exhibit “A”, and hereinafter referred to as the “PROJECT”; and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents it is licensed, qualified and willing to provide such services pursuant to terms and conditions of this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, CITY and CONSULTANT agree as follows:

This agreement supplements said Professional Services Agreement, and the terms of said Agreement apply hereto.

I. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY THE CONSULTANT
Authorized Scope of Work: The CONSULTANT agrees to perform all work necessary to complete in a manner satisfactory to the CITY those tasks described in Exhibit “A” - Scope of Work, for the cost identified in Exhibit “B” – Breakdown of Engineering Fees.

II. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The CONSULTANT shall commence performance of this Agreement within five (5) days following receipt of fully executed Agreement and Notice to Proceed and shall complete the work within one (1) year unless otherwise extended in writing by CITY, in its sole discretion (to be altered if negotiated timeframes).

If the CONSULTANT fails to complete the PROJECT within the time specified, plus any extensions of time which may be granted, the CITY shall determine the percent of each work item completed and shall pay the CONSULTANT on that basis.

CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for delays which are due to causes beyond the CONSULTANT’s reasonable control. In the case of any such delay, the time of completion shall be extended accordingly in a writing signed by both parties.

Page 563 of 1565 ends

Supplemental Services Agreement No. 6

Page 2 of 4 ends

III. COMPENSATION
A. Total Compensation: For services performed pursuant to this Agreement, the CITY agrees to pay and the CONSULTANT agrees to accept, as payment in full, a sum not to exceed Two hundred sixty two thousand dollars ($262,000.00).

This amount shall constitute complete compensation, including document production and out-ofpocket expenses for all services for the work and PROJECT identified in each Supplemental Services Agreement.

B. Payment of Compensation: The CONSULTANT shall be compensated according to Exhibit “B” upon completion of percentage of each noted phase. The CONSULTANT shall be paid no later than thirty (30) days following submission of a written, verified billing to the CITY. Said billing shall include the percentage of each task completed to date and since the date of the preceding billing, if any.

IV. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
A. CITY: The City Manager shall represent the CITY in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered under this Agreement, except where approval of the City Council of the City of Hanford is specifically required.

B. CONSULTANT: Melissa Brandley and R. Damon Brandley shall represent and act as principles for CONSULTANT in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered by it under this Agreement.

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

CITY OF HANFORD CONSULTANT

Chris Tavarez, City Manager Melissa Brandley, Secretary, CFO Attachments: Exhibit “A” – Scope of Work’
Exhibit “B” – Breakdown of Engineering Fees
4-23-26

Page 564 of 1565 ends

Supplemental Services Agreement No. 6

Page 3 of 4 ends

Exhibit “A”: Scope of Work
The complete and detailed engineering design of the Fuel Island and Tanks will be prepared that includes two major phases as listed below:

Phase 1 – Engineering Design During Construction and Final Project Closeout • Participate in a pre-construction conference.
• Provide engineering surveillance of all construction operations, including attendance at weekly construction meetings, preparation of any change orders required, preparation of contractor pay estimates, preparation of F.A.A. reimbursement requests, review of all contractor submittals, preparation of final as-constructed drawings and final engineer’s report, and updating the ALP to show as constructed conditions.

Phase 2 – Resident Engineering, Testing , and Inspection The Contractor will be required to furnish material submittals for all materials proposed for use on the project, provide all Quality Control Testing and Inspection during the construction of this project, and meet all requirements of the plans and specifications.

The Engineer will provide all Quality Assurance Testing and Inspection, which will include the following:
• Furnish qualified Resident Engineer to review and monitor all construction activities associated with the site work portion of the work which includes all underground utilities (storm drain and electrical ducts), all asphalt pavement work, all concrete foundations, concrete slabs and miscellaneous concrete work, all fencing and airfield marking.
• Excluded from this work in on site Resident Engineering during installation of the fuel tanks and associated piping. However fuel tank inspections will be performed by a fuel subconsultant per the last bullet below. • Provide quality assurance testing for asphalt and concrete. • Review and approve all contractor’s quality control testing and inspection reports. • Also included are inspection of the tanks prior to shipping at the tank manufacturer’s facility in Oregon and final inspection of the complete tank and fuel system installation at Hanford Municipal Airport by fuel subconsultant The Lynch Group.

Page 565 of 1565 ends

Supplemental Services Agreement No. 6

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 566 of 1565 ends

13.M.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

Approval of a Notice of Completion for the Hanford Municipal Airport HJO Airport Fuel Station Closure Project and authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said Notice with Kings County Recorder’s Office.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation:

That the City Council, by motion:

Approve a Notice of Completion for the Hanford Municipal Airport HJO Airport Fuel Station Closure Project and authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said Notice with Kings County Recorder’s Office.

Recommended Motion:

I move to:

BACKGROUND:

The Hanford Municipal Airport operated one underground fuel tank that exceeded its useful life. To prevent costly future remediation and comply with State-mandated timelines, it was determined that the fuel tank would be abandoned in place.

During the August 19, 2025, Council meeting, the City Council awarded a contract for the abandonment of the last underground fuel tank to PARC Environmental in the amount of $83,369.72.

Project details include the following
• Excavation and safe removal of the underground fuel tank and associated piping. • Proper disposal of any residual fuel tank contents in accordance with environmental regulations.
• Soil sampling and testing to identify potential contamination.

Page 567 of 1565 ends

• Site restoration to original grade and condition.

PARC Environmental completed the project to fulfillment within the designated timeline and received no liquidated damages or change orders.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Airport Operations Fund fully funded this project.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. NOC

2. Final Fuel Tank Abandonment Construction and Costs

Page 568 of 1565 ends

Page 569 of 1565 ends

Page 570 of 1565 ends

Page 571 of 1565 ends

13.N.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

Acceptance and authorization for staff to File the City of Hanford's Quarterly Investment Portfolio and Transactions Reports as of 03/31/26.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept and authorize staff to file the City of Hanford's Quarterly Investment Portfolio and Transactions Report as of 03/31/26.

RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move that the City Council accept and authorize staff to file the City of Hanford's Quarterly Investment Portfolio and Transactions Report as of 03/31/26.

BACKGROUND:

Quarterly Investment Report
The City has approximately $147.2 million in investments and cash, across all funds, as of 03/31/26.

Recent Activity
The City actively maintains a minimum balance of $3.5 million in its Wells Fargo cash accounts.

Meeder, the City’s portfolio manager, continues to reinvest proceeds as securities mature. During this period, $2 million was transferred from the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) to the US Bank custody account to invest in securities, as currently there is a significant amount in overnight funds.

Longer-term securities were currently being selected to lock in higher interest rates as the Federal Reserve reduced rates in 2025. However, it is likely that there will be no additional rate cuts in 2026 based on current predictions. The portfolio is well positioned to achieve competitive yields while maintaining a balanced maturity structure, with investments ranging from overnight to five-year terms.

Current Investment Environment
The Federal Reserve cut interest rates three times in 2025, lowering rates by a total of 0.75 percentage points. Policymakers made the cuts in response to signs of a slowing labor market and growing economic uncertainty.

As of early 2026, however, the Federal Reserve has paused further rate cuts, keeping the federal funds rate steady at 3.50% to 3.75% following its January meeting. The Fed’s current position suggests that any additional cuts this year will likely be limited, as inflation remains above the Fed’s 2% target. Recent inflation data have also led policymakers to delay expectations for further easing.

The Federal Reserve’s next meeting is scheduled for June 2026.

The 10-year Treasury note yield closed the first quarter of 2026 at approximately 4.30%, increasing

Page 572 of 1565 ends

from 4.18% at the end of 2025.

Future Actions
The City's portfolio will be actively managed and re-invested as securities mature. As idle cash is available, the City will deposit to the US Bank custody account to be invested by Meeder. A review of the investment pool interest rates will occur as LAIF tends to achieve higher yields during rate-cutting environments due to their investments in longer average maturity securities. Meeder provides Staff with in depth quarterly reviews and timely economic updates as available.

Summary
The primary purpose of the City’s cash is to provide residents of Hanford with services. In order to maximize the earnings potential on the City’s idle cash, the City utilizes Meeder to actively monitor the portfolio and purchase low-risk investments which will provide a higher return versus allowing the cash to be held in savings accounts earning little to no interest. Additionally, idle cash is also held with government pools, including the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), Tulare County Investment Pool and CLASS. It is the policy of the City to invest public funds in a manner that will provide a high investment return with a high level of security (low risk) while meeting the daily cash flow demands of the entity and conforming to all state and local statutes governing the investment of public funds.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This item is informational. Investing the City's cash will generate continual interest earnings on the investment portfolio.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Balance Sheet by Position

2. Transaction Detail

3. Treasurer's Report

Page 573 of 1565 ends

Report: Balance Sheet by Position
Account: City of Hanford (446861)
As of: 03/31/2026
Identifier Security Description Original Units Current Units Currency Asset Type Original Cost Yield at Cost Matures Book Value Market Value CCYUSD US DOLLAR 2,473.77 2,473.77 USD Receivable 2,473.77 0.00 03/31/2026 2,473.77 2,473.77 4496261892 Wells Fargo Commercial Checking 168,399.32 168,399.32 USD Bank Deposits 168,399.32 0.00 --- 168,399.32 168,399.32 4496895186 Wells Fargo Bank 45,056.00 45,056.00 USD Bank Deposits 45,056.00 0.00 --- 45,056.00 45,056.00 7248MEED UMPQUA Bank 4,145,344.29 4,145,344.29 USD Bank Deposits 4,145,344.29 0.00 --- 4,145,344.29 4,145,344.29 31846V567 FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG;Z 179,631.89 179,631.89 USD Money Market Funds 179,631.89 3.54 --- 179,631.89 179,631.89 4496895186A Wells Fargo Stagecoach Sweep 5,668,130.29 5,668,130.29 USD Money Market Funds 5,668,130.29 3.55 --- 5,668,130.29 5,668,130.29 CACLASS CALIFORNIA CLASS 26,855.90 26,855.90 USD LGIP 26,855.90 3.71 --- 26,855.90 26,855.90 CALAIF California LAIF 27,435,000.00 27,435,000.00 USD LGIP 27,435,000.00 3.83 --- 27,435,000.00 27,435,000.00 TCIP TCIP 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 USD LGIP 1,000,000.00 3.58 --- 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 02582JKP4 AXCMT-252-A 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 USD Asset-Backed Securities 999,981.90 4.28 04/15/2030 999,981.90 1,004,368.12 16144BAD0 CAOT-241-A4 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 USD Asset-Backed Securities 1,012,539.06 4.65 10/25/2029 1,012,539.06 1,014,751.96 161571HZ0 CHAIT-251A-A 1,875,000.00 1,875,000.00 USD Asset-Backed Securities 1,874,962.31 4.16 07/15/2030 1,874,962.31 1,880,295.34 17305EHA6 CCCIT-25A1-A1 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD Asset-Backed Securities 1,499,593.05 4.31 06/21/2030 1,499,593.05 1,506,128.39 437918AC9 HONDO-241-A3 1,750,000.00 1,135,622.96 USD Asset-Backed Securities 1,148,620.53 4.79 08/15/2028 1,148,620.53 1,143,475.60 89238DAD0 TART-24A-A3 1,437,000.00 975,554.80 USD Asset-Backed Securities 980,623.12 4.65 10/16/2028 980,623.12 980,144.22 89240JAD3 TART-25A-A3 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 USD Asset-Backed Securities 999,959.90 4.64 08/15/2029 999,959.90 1,005,984.64 13607FEJ1 CDN IMPERIAL 05/18/26 520,000.00 520,000.00 USD Commercial Paper 504,302.35 4.17 05/18/2026 504,302.35 517,257.29 63873KFF9 NATIXIS NY 06/15/26 1,200,000.00 1,200,000.00 USD Commercial Paper 1,169,011.99 3.91 06/15/2026 1,169,011.99 1,190,475.00 63873KG84 NATIXIS NY 07/08/26 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 USD Commercial Paper 2,443,466.68 3.93 07/08/2026 2,443,466.68 2,473,866.67 63873KL54 NATIXIS NY 11/05/26 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 USD Commercial Paper 975,133.33 3.83 11/05/2026 975,133.33 977,412.78 023135CG9 AMAZON.COM 3.450 04/13/29 '29 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 1,446,375.00 4.30 04/13/2029 1,446,375.00 1,470,315.00 037833ET3 APPLE 4.000 05/10/28 '28 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 1,496,805.00 4.06 05/10/2028 1,496,805.00 1,501,965.00 06055JQJ1 BOFAML 4.350 02/10/31 '28 MTN 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 1,000,000.00 4.35 02/10/2031 1,000,000.00 996,460.00 06406FAE3 BONY MELLON 2.450 08/17/26 '26 MTN 2,183,000.00 2,183,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 2,095,898.30 4.52 08/17/2026 2,095,898.30 2,168,614.03 09711CAJ3 BOFA FINANCE 4.150 11/26/27 '26 MTN 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 2,000,000.00 4.15 11/26/2027 2,000,000.00 1,989,900.00 166756AR7 CHEVRON USA 3.850 01/15/28 '27 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 1,481,790.00 4.23 01/15/2028 1,481,790.00 1,494,900.00 191216DJ6 COCA-COLA 1.500 03/05/28 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 1,368,090.00 4.16 03/05/2028 1,368,090.00 1,433,445.00 194162AT0 COLGATE 4.200 05/01/30 '30 1,750,000.00 1,750,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 1,753,675.00 4.15 05/01/2030 1,753,675.00 1,751,540.00 24422EYE3 JOHN DEERE CAP 4.550 06/05/30 MTN 1,750,000.00 1,750,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 1,745,590.00 4.61 06/05/2030 1,745,590.00 1,761,462.50 30303M8G0 META PLATFORMS 3.500 08/15/27 '27 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 1,465,755.00 4.31 08/15/2027 1,465,755.00 1,490,115.00 30303MAB8 META PLATFORMS 4.200 11/15/30 '30 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 1,499,490.00 4.21 11/15/2030 1,499,490.00 1,484,535.00 437076DB5 HOME DEPOT 4.875 06/25/27 '27 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 1,520,715.00 4.35 06/25/2027 1,520,715.00 1,514,220.00 46625HRV4 JP MORGAN 2.950 10/01/26 '26 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 1,945,840.00 4.33 10/01/2026 1,945,840.00 1,988,040.00 532457CP1 LILLY 4.150 08/14/27 '27 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 1,503,225.00 4.07 08/14/2027 1,503,225.00 1,502,145.00 58933YBQ7 MERCK & CO 4.150 09/15/30 '30 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 1,500,180.00 4.15 09/15/2030 1,500,180.00 1,490,880.00 69371RS80 PACCAR 4.600 01/31/29 MTN 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 1,510,230.00 4.43 01/31/2029 1,510,230.00 1,521,150.00 69371RT22 PACCAR 5.000 05/13/27 MTN 906,000.00 906,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 924,772.32 4.15 05/13/2027 924,772.32 915,440.52 713448EL8 PEPSICO 2.625 07/29/29 '29 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 1,390,560.00 4.26 07/29/2029 1,390,560.00 1,427,430.00 713448GB8 PEPSICO 4.600 02/07/30 '30 1,250,000.00 1,250,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 1,247,075.00 4.65 02/07/2030 1,247,075.00 1,266,125.00 89236TMY8 TOYOTA MOTOR CRD 4.600 01/08/27 MTN 950,000.00 950,000.00 USD Corporate Bonds 958,141.50 4.06 01/08/2027 958,141.50 953,173.00

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 574 of 1565 ends

Report: Balance Sheet by Position
Account: City of Hanford (446861)
As of: 03/31/2026
Identifier Security Description Original Units Current Units Currency Asset Type Original Cost Yield at Cost Matures Book Value Market Value 3132XGY34 FH WN2529 2,745,000.00 2,745,000.00 USD MBS 2,745,000.00 4.55 12/01/2028 2,745,000.00 2,766,327.09 3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 USD MBS 2,486,816.41 3.99 08/25/2028 2,486,816.41 2,486,431.93 3137FTBM8 FH-K108-A2 500,000.00 500,000.00 USD MBS 445,625.00 4.02 03/25/2030 445,625.00 454,342.23 3137FX3Q9 FH-K117-A2 1,600,000.00 1,600,000.00 USD MBS 1,419,124.99 3.94 08/25/2030 1,419,124.99 1,425,971.74 3137HJ5Y9 FHMS K-534 A2 4.7 11/25/2029 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD MBS 1,495,132.50 4.70 11/25/2029 1,495,132.50 1,523,854.32 3137HLJA1 FHMS K-540 A2 4.513 02/25/2030 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 USD MBS 999,972.00 4.44 02/25/2030 999,972.00 1,010,211.83 3137HNNC8 FHMS K-549 A2 4.34 09/25/2030 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 USD MBS 1,015,316.00 3.93 09/25/2030 1,015,316.00 1,003,879.38 3140HRBM4 FN BL0043 2,000,000.00 1,741,896.84 USD MBS 1,708,964.11 4.35 10/01/2028 1,708,964.11 1,719,392.33 3140LCLV1 FN BS2139 1,000,000.00 966,006.51 USD MBS 863,821.13 4.16 07/01/2028 863,821.13 908,141.10 3140NWHC2 FN BZ2026 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD MBS 1,488,750.00 4.29 10/01/2029 1,488,750.00 1,496,758.26 3140NXC50 FN BZ2791 640,000.00 640,000.00 USD MBS 640,754.69 4.45 01/01/2030 640,754.69 644,578.99 010878BH8 ALAMEDA CNTY CALIF 3.599 08/01/29 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD Municipal Bonds 1,469,655.00 4.05 08/01/2029 1,469,655.00 1,475,094.00 13034AL81 CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE & 1.235 10/01/27 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 USD Municipal Bonds 909,700.00 4.33 10/01/2027 909,700.00 962,582.00 13063DC48 CALIFORNIA ST 1.700 02/01/28 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 USD Municipal Bonds 1,875,640.50 3.94 02/01/2028 1,875,640.50 1,920,644.00 13063DMB1 CALIFORNIA ST 3.050 04/01/29 1,530,000.00 1,530,000.00 USD Municipal Bonds 1,466,290.80 4.04 04/01/2029 1,466,290.80 1,489,159.71 76913CBD0 RIVERSIDE CNTY CALIF PENSIO 3.120 02/15/29 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 USD Municipal Bonds 956,970.00 4.40 02/15/2029 956,970.00 970,502.00 79765RP29 SAN FRANCISCO CALIF CITY & 3.100 11/01/27 '26 1,285,000.00 1,285,000.00 USD Municipal Bonds 1,253,273.35 4.20 11/01/2027 1,253,273.35 1,266,465.16 79768HJN9 SAN FRANCISCO (CITY & COUNT 4.655 10/01/27 '27 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD Municipal Bonds 1,513,755.00 4.21 10/01/2027 1,513,755.00 1,515,031.50 899154AZ1 TULARE CNTY CALIF PENSION O 3.959 06/01/27 600,000.00 600,000.00 USD Municipal Bonds 592,098.00 4.54 06/01/2027 592,098.00 598,944.00 91412GXU4 UNIVERSITY CALIF REVS 3.909 05/15/29 145,000.00 145,000.00 USD Municipal Bonds 140,636.95 4.66 05/15/2029 140,636.95 144,047.21 977100HW9 WISCONSIN ST GEN FD ANNUAL 4.346 05/01/29 1,250,000.00 1,250,000.00 USD Municipal Bonds 1,257,062.50 4.18 05/01/2029 1,257,062.50 1,259,847.50 15118RW37 CELTIC BANK 3.900 05/20/27 249,000.00 249,000.00 USD Negotiable CD's 248,626.50 3.98 05/20/2027 248,626.50 248,788.18 61768ET78 MORGAN PVT BNK 4.350 03/13/28 250,000.00 250,000.00 USD Negotiable CD's 250,000.00 4.35 03/13/2028 250,000.00 247,836.57 747133CN4 PYRAMAX BANK 3.950 10/22/26 245,000.00 245,000.00 USD Negotiable CD's 244,755.00 4.02 10/22/2026 244,755.00 244,907.10 798186P22 SAN JOSE CALIF UNI SCH DIST 1.014 08/01/27 1,200,000.00 1,200,000.00 USD Negotiable CD's 1,097,064.00 4.42 08/01/2027 1,097,064.00 1,154,763.60 89235MRG8 TOYOTA FINL SVGS 4.000 04/10/28 245,000.00 245,000.00 USD Negotiable CD's 244,387.50 4.09 04/10/2028 244,387.50 244,577.98 90355GLP9 UBS USA 4.350 03/13/28 250,000.00 250,000.00 USD Negotiable CD's 250,000.00 4.35 03/13/2028 250,000.00 247,876.51 3130AKGN0 FHLBANKS 1.020 11/30/28 '25 1,650,000.00 1,650,000.00 USD U.S. Agencies 1,469,077.50 3.80 11/30/2028 1,469,077.50 1,523,263.50 3130AL5A8 FHLBANKS 0.900 02/26/27 '25 750,000.00 750,000.00 USD U.S. Agencies 712,635.00 3.76 02/26/2027 712,635.00 730,275.00 3130ANGH7 FHLBANKS 1.750 08/16/27 '26 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 USD U.S. Agencies 938,940.00 3.68 08/16/2027 938,940.00 977,020.00 3130APY33 FHLBANKS 1.900 12/14/26 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 USD U.S. Agencies 931,700.00 4.53 12/14/2026 931,700.00 986,400.00 3130AV5P3 FHLBANKS 4.375 03/08/30 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD U.S. Agencies 1,522,500.00 4.03 03/08/2030 1,522,500.00 1,524,375.00 3130AVBC5 FHLBANKS 4.500 03/12/27 500,000.00 500,000.00 USD U.S. Agencies 502,795.44 4.30 03/12/2027 502,795.44 503,465.00 3130AWTQ3 FHLBANKS 4.625 09/11/26 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 USD U.S. Agencies 1,009,590.00 4.14 09/11/2026 1,009,590.00 1,003,500.00 3130B9TX8 FHLBANKS 4.000 03/17/31 '27 2,360,000.00 2,360,000.00 USD U.S. Agencies 2,341,592.00 4.18 03/17/2031 2,341,592.00 2,333,874.80 3133EKS64 FED FARM CR BNKS 2.040 09/24/29 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 USD U.S. Agencies 910,670.00 4.11 09/24/2029 910,670.00 935,720.00 3133EL5U4 FED FARM CR BNKS 1.120 09/01/28 '25 500,000.00 500,000.00 USD U.S. Agencies 447,030.00 3.97 09/01/2028 447,030.00 466,090.00 3133EMHZ8 FED FARM CR BNKS 1.125 06/01/29 '25 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 USD U.S. Agencies 1,754,260.00 3.95 06/01/2029 1,754,260.00 1,825,520.00 3133EMYY2 FED FARM CR BNKS 1.600 05/11/29 '25 2,025,000.00 2,025,000.00 USD U.S. Agencies 1,813,306.50 4.21 05/11/2029 1,813,306.50 1,879,888.50 3133ENSF8 FED FARM CR BNKS 2.870 03/21/29 '25 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD U.S. Agencies 1,438,260.00 3.85 03/21/2029 1,438,260.00 1,448,940.00

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 575 of 1565 ends

Report: Balance Sheet by Position
Account: City of Hanford (446861)
As of: 03/31/2026
Identifier Security Description Original Units Current Units Currency Asset Type Original Cost Yield at Cost Matures Book Value Market Value 3133ETBF3 FED FARM CR BNKS 4.000 04/01/30 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD U.S. Agencies 1,493,220.00 4.10 04/01/2030 1,493,220.00 1,502,550.00 880591FE7 TVA 3.875 08/01/30 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 USD U.S. Agencies 1,992,380.00 3.96 08/01/2030 1,992,380.00 1,992,080.00 9128284V9 US TREASURY 2.875 08/15/28 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD U.S. Treasuries 1,446,093.75 3.85 08/15/2028 1,446,093.75 1,468,242.20 912828V98 US TREASURY 2.250 02/15/27 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 USD U.S. Treasuries 969,531.25 3.93 02/15/2027 969,531.25 987,109.38 91282CGC9 US TREASURY 3.875 12/31/27 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD U.S. Treasuries 1,500,878.91 3.86 12/31/2027 1,500,878.91 1,501,054.70 91282CGJ4 US TREASURY 3.500 01/31/30 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD U.S. Treasuries 1,469,472.66 3.97 01/31/2030 1,469,472.66 1,479,023.45 91282CGQ8 US TREASURY 4.000 02/28/30 875,000.00 875,000.00 USD U.S. Treasuries 877,604.50 3.91 02/28/2030 877,604.50 878,281.25 91282CKJ9 US TREASURY 4.500 04/15/27 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD U.S. Treasuries 1,523,964.84 3.86 04/15/2027 1,523,964.84 1,511,367.20 91282CKR1 US TREASURY 4.500 05/15/27 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD U.S. Treasuries 1,524,726.56 3.86 05/15/2027 1,524,726.56 1,511,015.63 91282CNN7 US TREASURY 3.875 07/31/30 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 USD U.S. Treasuries 2,026,562.50 3.58 07/31/2030 2,026,562.50 1,996,718.76 91282CPW5 US TREASURY 3.750 01/31/31 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 USD U.S. Treasuries 1,995,312.50 3.80 01/31/2031 1,995,312.50 1,983,125.00 91282CQD6 US TREASURY 3.500 02/28/31 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 USD U.S. Treasuries 1,955,859.38 4.00 02/28/2031 1,955,859.38 1,961,250.00 91282CQG9 US TREASURY 3.875 03/31/31 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD U.S. Treasuries 1,488,808.59 4.04 03/31/2031 1,488,808.59 1,495,195.32 --- --- 151,135,891.46 149,767,972.57 USD --- 147,269,256.61 3.95 --- 147,269,256.61 148,323,207.38 * Weighted by: Market Value
* Holdings Displayed by: Position

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 576 of 1565 ends

Report: GAAP Transaction Detail
Account: City of Hanford (446861)
Date: 01/01/2026 - 03/31/2026
* Does not Lock Down
Account Identifier Description Original Units Current Units Currency Coupon Rate Transaction Type Status Entry Date Settle Date Post Date Final Maturity Broker/Dealer Price Principal Accrued Interest Realized Gain/Loss Commission Amount City of Hanford - Operating 06055JQJ1 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 USD 4.350 Buy Settled 02/06/2026 02/10/2026 02/10/2026 02/10/2031 D. A. DAVIDSON & CO 100.000 1,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1,000,000.00) City of Hanford - Operating 3130B9TX8 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 2,360,000.00 2,360,000.00 USD 4.000 Buy Settled 03/26/2026 03/27/2026 03/27/2026 03/17/2031 STONEX FINANCIAL INC./BD RATES 99.220 2,341,592.00 2,622.22 0.00 0.00 (2,344,214.22) City of Hanford - Operating 63873KL54 Natixis, New York Branch 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 USD 0.000 Buy Settled 03/10/2026 03/10/2026 03/10/2026 11/05/2026 PERSHING LLC 97.513 975,133.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 (975,133.33) City of Hanford - Operating 91282CGQ8 UNITED STATES TREASURY 400,000.00 400,000.00 USD 4.000 Buy Settled 01/05/2026 01/06/2026 01/06/2026 02/28/2030 WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC 101.277 405,109.38 5,657.46 0.00 0.00 (410,766.84) City of Hanford - Operating 91282CPW5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 USD 3.750 Buy Settled 01/29/2026 02/02/2026 02/02/2026 01/31/2031 WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC 99.766 1,995,312.50 414.36 0.00 0.00 (1,995,726.86) City of Hanford - Operating 91282CQD6 UNITED STATES TREASURY 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 USD 3.500 Buy Settled 03/24/2026 03/25/2026 03/25/2026 02/28/2031 BOFA SECURITIES, INC 97.793 1,955,859.38 4,755.43 0.00 0.00 (1,960,614.81) City of Hanford - Operating 91282CQG9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 USD 3.875 Buy Settled 03/26/2026 03/31/2026 03/31/2026 03/31/2031 WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC 99.254 1,488,808.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1,488,808.59) City of Hanford - Operating 06055JMY2 BANK OF AMERICA CORP (1,000,000.00) (1,000,000.00) USD 4.500 Call Redemption Settled 02/06/2026 02/06/2026 02/06/2026 08/06/2027 Redemption 100.000 (1,000,000.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 City of Hanford - Operating 3130AKU61 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS (2,000,000.00) (2,000,000.00) USD 0.750 Maturity Settled 01/27/2026 01/27/2026 01/27/2026 01/27/2026 Maturity 100.000 (2,000,000.00) 0.00 98,752.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 City of Hanford - Operating 3130ALUK8 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS (1,000,000.00) (1,000,000.00) USD 3.000 Maturity Settled 03/30/2026 03/30/2026 03/30/2026 03/30/2026 Maturity 100.000 (1,000,000.00) 0.00 28,850.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 City of Hanford - Operating 3137BP4K2 FHMS K-IR1 A2 (2,500,000.00) 0.00 USD 2.849 Maturity Receivable 03/25/2026 03/25/2026 04/20/2026 03/25/2026 Maturity 100.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- 3,760,000.00 6,260,000.00 USD 2.728 --- --- --- --- --- 09/24/2026 --- --- 6,161,815.18 13,449.47 127,602.00 0.00 (6,175,264.65)

Page 1 of 1 ends

Page 577 of 1565 ends

Report: City of Hanford Treasurer's Report
Account: City of Hanford (446861)
As of: 03/31/2026
Diversification / Security Sector Identifier % of Portfolio YTM @ Cost Days to Maturity Face Amount / Shares Market Value Original Cost Receivable CCYUSD 0.002% 0.00 0 2,473.77 2,473.77 2,473.77 LGIP --- 19.326% 3.82 1 28,461,855.90 28,461,855.90 28,461,855.90 Bank Deposits --- 2.960% 0.00 1 4,358,799.61 4,358,799.61 4,358,799.61 Money Market Funds --- 3.971% 3.55 1 5,847,762.18 5,847,762.18 5,847,762.18 Commercial Paper --- 3.458% 3.93 111 5,220,000.00 5,159,011.73 5,091,914.35 Negotiable CD's --- 1.585% 4.28 524 2,439,000.00 2,388,749.95 2,334,833.00 Municipal Bonds --- 7.765% 4.17 834 11,810,000.00 11,602,317.08 11,435,082.10 Corporate Bonds --- 20.272% 4.28 883 30,289,000.00 30,121,855.05 29,854,207.12 U.S. Agencies --- 13.090% 4.04 1122 20,285,000.00 19,632,961.80 19,277,956.44 MBS --- 10.395% 4.28 1171 15,692,903.35 15,439,889.19 15,309,276.83 U.S. Treasuries --- 11.393% 3.87 1190 16,875,000.00 16,772,382.87 16,778,815.44 Asset-Backed Securities --- 5.783% 4.46 1315 8,486,177.76 8,535,148.26 8,516,279.87 --- --- 100.000% 3.95 739 149,767,972.57 148,323,207.38 147,269,256.61

Page 1 of 1 ends

Page 578 of 1565 ends

14.A.

AGENDA

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

Public Hearing to Consider the Approval of the Annual Action Plan FY 2026-2027 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation:

1. Conduct a public hearing to receive comments on the proposed 2026–2027 CDBG Annual Action Plan.

2. Adopt Resolution No. 26-21-R approving the 2026–2027 Annual Action Plan.

Recommended Motion: I move to open the public hearing, receive public comments on the proposed 2026– 2027 CDBG Annual Action Plan, close the public hearing, and adopt Resolution No. 26-21-R approving the 2026–2027 Annual Action Plan.

BACKGROUND:

The City is entering Program Year Three of its five-year Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 2024–2028. As part of federal requirements, the City must prepare and submit an Annual Action Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the upcoming fiscal year.

The Consolidated Plan, approved by the City Council on May 7, 2024, establishes a multi-year strategy for using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to support community development goals. CDBG funds support strong communities by investing in projects that provide decent housing, improve living environments, and expand economic opportunities, primarily for low- and moderate-income residents.

The Annual Action Plan identifies the specific projects and activities that will be funded each year under the Consolidated Plan. See Attachment A: 2026–2027 Annual Action Plan.

As presented during the Study Session on March 3, 2026, the City is required to adopt the 2026 Annual Action Plan, which outlines projects for the upcoming fiscal year. At that time, staff estimated a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) budget of $548,508. Based on preliminary estimates of $523,508 in entitlement funds and $25,000 in estimated program income, the City Council provided direction on funding allocations for specific projects.

On April 6, 2026, HUD announced the City’s actual CDBG allocation of $565,973. In addition, the City has $23,481 in prior-year funds and an estimated $15,000 in program income available for eligible CDBG activities, for a total program-year budget of $604,454. See Attachment B: Proposed Projects (2026) for the detailed list of funded activities.

Use of Funds

Page 579 of 1565 ends

The City will use CDBG funding to address priority community needs, including housing rehabilitation, public services, infrastructure improvements, and program planning and administration. All FY2026 CDBG funds will be used for eligible activities that meet U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements and benefit low- and moderate-income households.

Public Services (15% Cap)
Federal CDBG rules limit public service spending to no more than 15% of the City’s FY2026 CDBG allocation ($565,973), plus prior-year program income ($253,000). Based on this calculation, the maximum allowable amount for public services in FY2026 is $122,845.95. This amount represents the compliance limit only and does not reflect how funds have been planned or allocated.

Administration and Planning (20% Cap)
Federal rules also limit administrative and planning costs to no more than 20% of the City’s FY2026 CDBG allocation. This calculation is based only on the $565,973 allocation and does not include program income or prior-year funds. The maximum allowable amount for administration and planning is $113,194.60. In addition, current year program income may also be used for administrative and planning costs, subject to the same 20% limitation. These funds may be used for grant administration, financial management, reporting, environmental review, and compliance with HUD requirements.

Public Review
The Action Plan was released for a 30-day public review period beginning April 1, 2026. A public notice of availability was published in the Hanford Sentinel on April 29, 2026. No comments have been received as of the preparation of this report. Any comments received before the close of the public comment period on May 1, 2026, will be included in the final document.

Action Following Approval
If approved, staff will submit the 2026 Annual Action Plan to HUD by June 3, 2026. Funds will be available once HUD approves the plan.

FISCAL IMPACT
This action is a prerequisite to ensuring the City can receive its 2026 allocation of $565,973 in CDBG entitlement funds.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 2026 Action Plan CC Approval May 7, 2026

2. PY 2026 Action Proposed Projects May 19, 2026

3. Action Plan 2026 RESOLUTION NO. 26-21-R

Page 580 of 1565 ends

THE CITY OF HANFORD, CA

PROGRAM YEAR
2026-2027

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK

GRANT (CDBG)

DRAFT ANNUAL ACTION PLAN

Page 581 of 1565 ends

Table of Contents
AP-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) ..........................................................................2 AP-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l)....................................................................................6

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................6 AP-12 Participation – 91.105, 91.200(c)..................................................................................................15 Expected Resources.....................................................................................................................................18 AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2)............................................................................................18 Annual Goals and Objectives........................................................................................................................22 Projects ...................................................................................................................................................25 AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d)......................................................................................................................25 AP-38 Project Summary ...........................................................................................................................28 -50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f)...................................................................................................31 Affordable Housing......................................................................................................................................32 AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g)....................................................................................................32 AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h)...........................................................................................................33 AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i).............................................................35 AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j).....................................................................................38 AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k) .............................................................................................................39 Program Specific Requirements...................................................................................................................41

Page 582 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 2 | P a g e
Executive Summary
AP-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)

1. Introduction
The City of Hanford (City) is an Entitlement Jurisdiction that receives federal funds from the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to invest in local communities. The City gets HUD funding through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, which is designed to assist low- and moderate-income (LMI) households.

The primary objective of the CDBG program is to develop viable communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities. CDBG grantees can utilize the resources they receive for Planning and Administration; Public Services; Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), public facilities and infrastructure; and CIP Housing Rehabilitation.

Planning and Administration costs include staffing, general management, oversight, and coordination. Public Service projects provide social services and/or other direct support to individuals and households in need.

The City’s entitlement allocation for Program Year 2026 is 565,973.00.

The Action Plan incorporates the Consolidated Plan, which outlines a comprehensive vision for community development benefiting low-income residents and areas from 2024 to 2028.

The City of Hanford gathers input from citizens, consults its community development partners, and conducts extensive research to determine housing and community development needs. The City of Hanford also partners with nonprofit and for-profit organizations, neighborhood groups, and other local governments to implement specific actions using the developed strategies. A vital element of this Consolidated Plan is its collaborative nature.

2. Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan The overview will focus on the findings and discoveries from the needs assessment. The plan outlines the necessary components and explains how to address any shortcomings. By understanding these objectives and outcomes, the city of Hanford’s administration can align its strategies and actions to resolve the following points:
• Invest in neighborhood infrastructure in low and moderate-income areas. • Invest in remediation of access and mobility barriers in all neighborhoods. • Continue to expand the housing rehabilitation assistance to low and moderate-income residents. • Continue to expand down payment assistance to low and moderate-income residents. • Invest in public facility improvements that serve low- and moderate-income residents. • Invest in capacity and programmatic enhancements for service providers primarily serving low— and extremely low-income residents, particularly those at risk of experiencing poverty. • Homelessness.
• Invest in neighborhood and strategic planning to help identify community needs

Page 583 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 3 | P a g e
CDBG-funded programs. Each activity or program funded with CDBG must fall under one of three objectives and one of three outcomes. The framework for selecting these objectives and outcomes is HUD’s CPD Outcome Performance Measurement System. Here are the goals and outcomes to choose from:

Objectives
• Creating Suitable Living Environments refers to activities designed to benefit communities, families, or individuals by addressing issues in their living environment, ranging from physical problems with the environment to social issues. • Providing Decent Housing encompasses a wide range of housing activities aimed at meeting the individual, family, or community's housing needs. • Creating Economic Opportunities applies to economic development, commercial revitalization, or job creation activities.

Outcomes
• Availability/Accessibility applies to activities that make services, infrastructure, public services, public facilities, housing, or shelter available or accessible to lowand moderate-income people, including people with disabilities. • Affordability applies to activities that provide affordability in various ways to lowand moderate-income people and is appropriate to use whenever an activity lowers the cost, improves the quality, or increases the affordability of a product or service benefits a low-income household.

Performance measurement is a crucial process that enables organizations to assess and evaluate the effectiveness of their programs in meeting the needs of their target audience. By systematically collecting and analyzing data, performance measurement provides insights into how healthy programs perform and whether they achieve their intended outcomes. It serves as a valuable tool for decision-making, enabling organizations to identify areas for improvement, make informed adjustments, and optimize resource allocation

3. Evaluation of past performance
The City of Hanford prepares the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) each year to assess the impacts of its projects and programs. The CAPER provides specific accomplishments for the goals developed through the Consolidated Plan process.

Evaluation of past performance HUD requires an evaluation of the City’s progress toward goals for the CDBG funds each year of the five-year ConPlan period. Over the past five-year ConPlan period, 2024 through 2028, the City of Hanford was productive, successfully completing several large projects at every stage of housing, from supporting people experiencing homelessness to first-time homebuyers. These projects were made possible in partnership with various organizations, including Upholdings and Self-Help Enterprises. The following projects were completed during the past fiveyear ConPlan period, 2023 through 2026, using City of Hanford CDBG.

Page 584 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 4 | P a g e
Motel Conversion: Sunrise Apartments opened in 2023 and is a 22-unit motel conversion to permanent supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness. The City of Hanford provided $1.5 million in CDBG funds for the rehabilitation of the apartments.

First-Time Homebuyer: Land disposition & development of five lots on Parkside Drive sold to the City’s Self-Help Enterprises for the construction of 6 single-family homes that were sold to lowincome first-time homebuyers at 80% of the area median income or lower. The City of Hanford provided $225K in CDBG funds for down payment assistance to the homebuyers of the 2 singlefamily homes.

Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation:

An Emergency, Minor, and Accessibility Repair Program was administered by the City’s Housing Division, using CDBG funds, to assist low-income owner-occupants with essential home repairs, including ADA improvements.

Food Service Center:

4. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process The Citizen Participation Plan outlines the framework and process for developing and implementing Hanford’s housing and community development program, as required by HUD. The citizen participation plan is essential to the consolidated plan, ensuring that residents have a voice in shaping their communities' future. This subtopic aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the citizen participation plan and its significance. The citizen participation plan outlines how local governments engage with residents, community organizations, and stakeholders in decisionmaking. Using survey tools can help researchers gain insight into public perception. Their opinions are invaluable and should be a resource tool in shaping housing policies.

5. Summary of public comments
A summary of public comments will be included in the Final Action Plan before it is submitted to HUD.

All public meetings were properly noticed, as required by the Brown Act. Additionally, the notices included requests for physical accommodation and documents in alternative formats.

The meetings aimed to inform the community about the Action Plan process, identify opportunities to improve collaborative efforts, and eliminate service-delivery gaps to develop and sustain decent, affordable housing, suitable living environments, and expanded community and economic opportunities.

To maximize participation in the preparation of the 2026-2027 Action Plan, the city held a public meeting on March 3, 2026, during the City Council study session.

Page 585 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 5 | P a g e
The Action Plan was made available to the public from April 1, 2026, to May 1, 2026.

The City will hold a Public Hearing to approve the document on May 19, 2026

6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them All comments are accepted.

7. Summary
The City of Hanford has undertaken diligent and good-faith efforts to reach all community segments that may benefit from the CDBG programs. The City of Hanford will continue focusing on maximizing impact and addressing the needs, priorities, and goals outlined in the 2024-2028 Consolidated Plan and the 2026-2027 Action Plan.

PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b)

1. Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source The following are the agencies/entities responsible for preparing the Consolidated Planand those responsible for administering the grant program and funding source.

Agency Role Name Department/Agency
Lead Agency HANFORD Community Development Department
CDBG Administrator HANFORD Community Development Department Table 1 – Responsible Agencies
Narrative
This document is the Action Plan for the City of Hanford, an entitlement community, for 2026-2027.

Hanford receives the following funds annually from HUD: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The City is not an Entitlement City for HOME, which is state funded through an application.

The Community Development Department's Housing Division is the primary federal entitlement fund administrator.

Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
Sandra Lerma
Housing Administrative Analyst
559-585-4766
317 N Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
[email protected]

Page 586 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 6 | P a g e
AP-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l)

1. Introduction
The City's Housing Division, part of the Community Development Department and its consultant, Chrysalis Research Consulting LLC, conducted thorough community engagement outreach efforts to gather public input on potential community improvements that could be addressed using federal entitlement funds.

This division manages all funds and carries out housing development activities. The City of Hanford, along with various public and private agencies, social service organizations, nonprofits, department heads, and representatives, collaborated to gather information and feedback on the most effective use of CDBG resources.

In conclusion, an online survey regarding community and housing needs was created and made available on the city's website. The survey was also provided in paper format at the Community Development and Finance/Utility Departments.

Page 587 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 7 | P a g e
Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health, and service agencies (91.215(I)).

The city of Hanford has a healthy working relationship with the various stakeholders, community partners, and social service providers. With the combined inputs of multiple benefactors, Hanford is leveraging its resources to pursue the city's development needs. These partnerships are essential for several reasons, including gaining new insight into problem-solving, building upon successful efforts, and leveraging scarce resources. The city of Hanford will achieve the goals outlined in this consolidated plan by strengthening the network of residents, faith-based organizations, service providers, lenders, for‐profit and nonprofit developers, and state and federal agencies.

The city of Hanford has strengthened its ability to collaborate with partners to address gaps in its housing delivery system. Recognizing the importance of affordable and adequate housing options for its residents, Hanford has fostered strong collaboration to uncover voids in housing development services. Through these efforts, Hanford has identified key areas where the housing system falls short and developed effective strategies to bridge these gaps.

The City of Hanford continues to explore ways to expand its services by coordinating resources with various local agencies. The Community Development Housing Division continues to develop partnerships and initiatives to address institutional gaps and foster coordination.

Page 588 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 8 | P a g e
Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless people (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and people at risk of homelessness.

Hanford has initiated homeless reduction measures by collaborating with partners and employing innovative strategies, coupled with Hanford's Continuum of Care (CoC). Members of the CoC, such as the Kings County Homelessness Collaborative, joined with cooperative associations from internal and adjacent municipalities to combat homelessness. The Housing Authority of Kings County has also taken an initiative-driven, unified approach to this challenge of reducing homelessness.

The Housing Authority of Kings County has also adopted a proactive, unified approach to address this challenge of reducing homelessness. The Housing Authority of Kings County (HAKC) recognizes that homelessness has no borders and has joined with neighboring municipalities. HAKC has worked tirelessly to bring city officials, community organizations, and stakeholders from various municipalities within Kings County.

HAKC aims to create a comprehensive and coordinated response to the housing crisis by fostering these partnerships. Through joint initiatives and shared resources, the unification of cities under HAKC enables the efficient allocation of funding and services. This collaboration enables better identification of individuals experiencing homelessness and ensures they receive appropriate support tailored to their specific needs.

Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies, and procedures for administering HMIS. • The City of Hanford does not utilize ESG Funds.

2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations, and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdiction's consultations with housing, social service agencies, and other entities.

Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(l))
The city of Hanford has a healthy working relationship with the various stakeholders, community partners, and social service providers. With the combined inputs of multiple benefactors, Hanford is leveraging its resources to pursue the city's development needs. These partnerships are essential for several reasons, including gaining new insight into problem-solving, building upon successful efforts, and leveraging scarce resources. The city of Hanford will achieve the goals outlined in this consolidated plan by strengthening the network of residents, faith-based organizations, service providers, lenders, for‐profit and nonprofit developers, and state and federal agencies.

Page 589 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 9 | P a g e
The city of Hanford has strengthened its ability to work collaboratively with partners to address the gaps in its housing delivery system. Recognizing the importance of affordable and adequate housing options for its residents, Hanford has fostered strong collaboration to uncover voids in housing development services. Through these efforts, Hanford has identified key areas where the housing system falls short and developed effective strategies to bridge these gaps.

The City of Hanford continues to seek ways to expand the services it provides by coordinating resources with various agencies. The housing division of the Department of Community Department continues to create partnerships and initiatives to fill institutional gaps and foster institutional coordination.

Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless people (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and people at risk of homelessness.

Hanford has initiated homeless reduction measures by embracing collaboration with partners and employing innovative strategies coupled with Hanford's Continuum of Care (CoC). Members of the CoC, such as the Kings County Homelessness Collaborative, joined with cooperative associations from internal and adjacent municipalities to combat homelessness. The Housing Authority of Kings County has also taken an initiative-taking, unified approach in response to this challenge of reducing homelessness.

The Housing Authority of Kings County has also adopted a proactive, unified approach in response to this challenge of reducing homelessness. The Housing Authority of Kings County (HAKC) recognizes that homelessness has no borders and has joined with neighboring municipalities. HAKC has worked tirelessly to bring city officials, community organizations, and stakeholders from various municipalities within Kings County.

HAKC aims to create a comprehensive and coordinated response to the housing crisis by fostering these partnerships. Through joint initiatives and shared resources, the unification of cities under HAKC enables the efficient allocation of funding and services. This collaboration allows for better identification of individuals experiencing homelessness and ensures that they receive appropriate support tailored to their specific needs.

Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards for and evaluate outcomes of projects and activities assisted by ESG funds, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the operation and administration of HMIS Not applicable. The City does not receive ESG funding. The Alliance applies on behalf of the applicants.

Page 590 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 10 | P a g e

3. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdiction’s consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities. See Table #2 (pages 11, 12, 13)

Page 591 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 11 | P a g e
Agency/Group
/
Organization
Agency/Group/
Organization
Type
What section
of the Plan
was
addressed by
Consultation?
Briefly describe how the
Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas
for improved coordination?
Housing
Authority of
Kings County -
PHA
Public Agency AP-60
NA-35
The Housing Authority of Kings County
(HAKC) was interviewed for their input on
the housing and community development
needs and goals for the City of Hanford.

The HAKC consulted on the various
means and processes it uses to serve the
community by providing housing
services.

HAKC has dedicated itself to serving the
community through various means,
focusing on providing housing services.

With this goal in mind, the authority has
consulted extensively to ensure it meets
the community's needs effectively and
efficiently.

In addition to providing affordable
housing options, HAKC offers
educational resources and support
services for community residents. This
includes financial management classes,
job training programs, and access to
health and wellness resources. By
providing these services, the authority
aims to empower its residents and help
them achieve self-sufficiency.

Page 592 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 12 | P a g e
King’s Tulare
Homeless
Alliance
Housing
Services
NA-40 The KTHA (Kings Tulare Homeless
Alliance) is a non-profit organization that
aims to help the homeless population in
the Kings and Tulare counties. They offer
temporary shelter solutions to protect
people without housing from the
elements and provide them with a safe
space to sleep. They assist individuals
and families in transitioning from
homelessness to stable housing through
various support programs. They
collaborate with healthcare providers to
ensure our homeless community
members' physical and mental wellbeing. They provide job search assistance, resume workshops, and skills
training to help individuals gain
employment and financial independence.

They are ensuring that no one in our
community goes hungry by providing
access to nutritious meals and food
supplies.

Kings
Community
Action
Organization
Social Services NA-40
NA-45
NA-50
The agency has been invited to
participate in public hearings and a 30-
day plan review. The consultation is
expected to enhance data and planning
within the specified areas. Discussions
of the Navigation Center to help improve
the homeless population was discussed.

Kings County
Homeless
Collaborative
Homeless
Services
NA-40 Collaborative participated/hosted a
public meeting to discuss the housing
survey availability and the opportunity
for the 30-day review of plans. The
anticipated outcome of the consultation
is improved data and collaborative
planning within the selected sections
above.

Champions
Recovery
Alternative
Programs, INC
Social Services NA-40
NA-45

Page 593 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 13 | P a g e
Federal
Communicatio
ns
Commission
Other - Federal MA-50 Broadband Internet Needs
Internet search for data related to the
broadband internet needs for the City of
Hanford. https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov
Information from the Federal
Communications Commission was used
to address HUD’s requirement to discuss
broadband access and “the digital
divide.” Refer to Section MA-50.

Comcast
U.S. Census
Bureau
Federal
Department
MA-60
MA-65
Census Date
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Ma-65 Environmental Justice Screening and
Mapping tools for Socioeconomic
Indicators for Low-Income Populations
Table 2 – Agencies, groups, organizations who participated

Page 594 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 14 | P a g e
Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of
Plan
Lead
Organization
How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan?
Continuum
of Care
Kings Tulare
Continuum of
Care
The Kings Tulare Continuum of Care (KTCOC) is a
collaborative network of organizations and individuals
working together to end homelessness in Kings and Tulare counties in California. The KTCOC provides a wide range of services to address the various needs of the homeless
population in Kings and Tulare counties. These services include, but are not limited to, KTCOC’s operation of
emergency shelters for individuals and families, providing a safe and temporary place.

County of
Kings
Housing
Element
City of Hanford The Housing Element identifies the community's housing needs, goals, and objectives to address those needs, and outlines the community's efforts to pursue specific policies and programs to achieve its goals and objectives. The
Strategic Plan supports the Housing Elements plan to ensure that there is an adequate supply of affordable housing to meet the current and future needs of the population.

Currently, the City’s Housing Element is under state review.

Table 3 – Other local / regional / federal planning efforts Narrative (optional)

Page 595 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 15 | P a g e
AP-12 Participation – 91.105, 91.200(c)

1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize the citizen participation process and how it impacted goal setting The Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) is a critical document outlining how the local government will involve its citizens in decision-making. It is a roadmap for fostering open communication and collaboration between the government and its residents. CPP fosters public engagement and interaction between the city administration and the everyday citizens to gain various perspectives and insights about public affairs.

The Citizen Participation Plan is a valuable resource for residents of Hanford to actively engage in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of various City programs financially supported by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through federal entitlement grants.

These grants include, but are not limited to, the Community Development Block Grant. The plan promotes transparency and accountability by involving citizens in decision-making, allowing the government to become more transparent and accountable for its actions. This fosters trust and builds a positive relationship between the government and its residents.

Public Meeting
An in-person presentation was held during a public meeting to solicit community and stakeholder input for the development of this AP.

Public Review of Draft Documents
A 30-day public review was held from April 1, 2026, through May 1, 2026. Copies of the Draft AP were made available for the public at the following locations: ▪ City Website ▪ City Hall, and the Community Development Department. The final Con Plan, amendments, Annual Action Plans, and performance reports will be available for seven years at Hanford’s Community Development Department.

Page 596 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 16 | P a g e
Sort
Order
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response &
attendance
Summary of
comments
received
Summary
of
comments
not
accepted
and
reasons
URL
(If
applicable)
1 Newspaper
Ad
Non-English
Speaking -
Specify other
language:

Spanish
Nontargeted/broad
community
Notices on
the
community
outreach and
community
surveys were
posted in the
Hanford
Sentinel
newspaper.

Comments
are
summarized
in Appendix A
None
Received
All
comments
were
accepted
2 Website
Posting
Non-English
Speaking -
Specify other
language:

Spanish
Nontargeted/broad
community
Approximately
250 people
were reached
through the
Alliance's
notification
system
regarding the
community
needs survey
and ConPlan
and Action
Plan.

Comments
are
summarized
in Appendix A
None
Received
All
comments
were
accepted
Public Hearing Citizen Participation Outreach

Page 597 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 17 | P a g e
3 Public
Meeting
Non-English
Speaking -
Specify other
language:

Spanish
Nontargeted/broad
community
The City held
a public
meeting on
March 3,
2026, to
discuss
housing and
community
development
needs.

Over 40 in
Attendance
Comments
are
summarized
in Appendix A
(forthcoming)
All
comments
were
accepted
4 Public
Hearing
Non-English
Speaking -
Specify other
language:

Spanish
nontargeted/broad
community
The City will
hold a public
hearing
before
Hanford City
Council on
May 19, 2026
Comments
are
summarized
in Appendix A
(forthcoming)
All
comments
will be
accepted

Page 598 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 18 | P a g e
Expected Resources
AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2)
For Action Plan 2026, the City of Hanford expects to receive $565,973 in annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. In addition, the City has $23,480.99 in prior-year resources and an estimated $15,000 in program income available for eligible CDBG activities/projects, for a total CDBG program-year budget of $604,453.99.

Public Services (15% Cap)
Federal CDBG regulations limit public service expenditures to no more than 15% of the combined total of the City’s PY2026 annual CDBG allocation ($565,973) and prior-year program income available for use in the current program year ($253,000).

Based on this calculation, the maximum allowable public services cap for PY2026 is $122,845.95.

This amount represents only the regulatory limit and does not include funds that have been allocated or programmed for public service activities.

Administration and Planning (20% Cap)
Federal regulations also limit administrative and planning expenditures to no more than 20% of the City’s PY2026 annual CDBG allocation. This cap is based solely on the $565,973 allocation and does not include program income or prior-year resources.

The maximum allowable cap for administration and planning is $113,194.60. These funds may be used for eligible costs, including grant administration, financial management, reporting, environmental review, and compliance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements.

All PY2026 CDBG funds will be used only for eligible activities that meet U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements and benefit low- and moderate-income households.

Use of Funds
The City plans to use its CDBG funding to address priority community needs, including:
• Housing rehabilitation
• Public services
• Infrastructure improvements
• Program planning and administration

Page 599 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 19 | P a g e
Anticipated Resources
Program Source
of
Funds
Uses of
Funds
Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available
Remainder
of ConPlan
$
Narrative
Annual Description
Allocation: $
Program
Income: $
Prior Year
Resources: $
Total: $
CDBG public -
federal
Acquisition
Admin and
Planning
Economic
Developme
nt
Housing
Public
Improveme
nts
Public
Services
$565,973 $15,000 $23,480.99 $604,453.99 $0 PY 2026 include the following
resources include:
$565,973 in
entitlement funds,
$15,000 in
estimated program
income and
$23,480.99 in prior
year’s resources,
for a total of
$589,453.99
Table 4 - Expected Resources – Priority Table

Page 600 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 20 | P a g e
Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied The City leverages federal and local housing funds by supporting nonprofit organizations that develop affordable housing. The City, or its partners, provides matching funds for housing-related services to several programs, which include the following:
• First-Time Homebuyers program. In this program, low- and moderate-income families may qualify for a low-interest second mortgage loan to purchase a home. As funding is available, this program may be administered internally. • Homeowner rehabilitation program—This program is provided to Hanford homeowners with unhealthy and unsafe conditions. It also removes barriers for disabled persons. • Development of a homeless navigation center/shelter
• The City will also be receiving, on an annual basis, Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funding, which will assist with matching requirements. • Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA). PLHA will provide a permanent source of funding to all local governments in California to help cities and counties implement plans to increase the affordable housing stock. Funding will help Hanford with the following eligible uses, which include increasing the supply of housing for households at or below 60% of area median income; Increasing assistance to affordable owner-occupied workforce housing; assisting people experiencing or at risk of homelessness; facilitating housing affordability, particularly for lower- and moderate-income households; and promoting projects and programs to meet Hanford's unmet share of regional housing needs allocation.

Page 601 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 21 | P a g e
If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan
The City of Hanford does not have land to accommodate the uses identified in this plan.

Discussion
See the above discussion.

Page 602 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 22 | P a g e
Annual Goals and Objectives
AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives
Goals Summary Information
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome
Indicator
1 Housing 2026 2027 Affordable
Housing

CITY OF

HANFORD
Housing CDBG:
$184,779
Homeowner
Housing
Added: 2
Household
Housing Units
Homeowner
Housing
Rehabilitated:
6 Household
Housing Unit
2 Community
Development
Enhancement –
Public Facilities
2026 2029 Homeless CITY OF

HANFORD
Neighborhood
Preservation
and Public
Facilities
CDBG:
$200,000
Public Facility
or
Infrastructure
Activities for
Low/Moderate
Income
Housing
Benefit: 1
Household
Assisted

Page 603 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 23 | P a g e
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome
Indicator
3 Public Services 2026 2027 Non-Housing
Community
Development

CITY OF

HANFORD
Public Services CDBG:
$105,780.99
Public service
activities for
Low/Moderate
Income
Housing
Benefit: 300
Households
Assisted
Homelessness
Prevention:
15000
Persons
Assisted
Other: 73
Other
4 Program
Administration
2026 2027 Program
Administration

CITY OF

HANFORD
Administration
Community
Development
CDBG:
$113,194
20%of the
Entitlement
amount
Other: not
applicable
Table 5 – Goals Summary
Goal Descriptions
1 Goal Name Housing
Goal
Description
Homeowner Housing Rehabilitation: 7
Goal Description:

The City of Hanford seeks to increase the affordable housing stock by supporting the planning, design, and construction of new housing units; homeownership through new or existing home buyers, including down payment assistance; housing rehabilitation, including home improvement assistance programs; affordable rental housing construction for special needs families; the building or converting existing buildings for homeless housing; housing construction agencies for project work.

Alternate Activity: First Time Homebuyer: 2

Page 604 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 24 | P a g e
2 Goal Name Community Development/Enhancement
Goal
Description
Neighborhood Preservation and Public Facilities
Shelter and Services for the Homeless
1 Facility
Goal Description:

Improving recreational spaces, supporting community and social service facilities, enhancing existing infrastructure such as streets and sidewalks, curbs and other public facilities, lighting, and addressing public safety concerns. Improvements to local nonprofit community facilities such as youth or senior centers and emergency homeless shelters.
3 Goal Name Public Services
Goal
Description
Public Services
Shelter and Services for the Homeless
Senior Services
Youth Services
Goal Description:

The City of Hanford will address community and special needs through increased mental and behavioral health public services. This is to meet the public’s need for assistance with substance abuse, domestic violence, and general mental health needs. • Hanford will assist with homeless prevention services, working with the Continuum of Care Kings/Tulare Counties.
• Provide funding for youth and senior services.
4 Goal Name Program Administration
Goal
Description
Administration Community Development
Goal Description:

Planning and Administration of the City's CDBG Program.

Page 605 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 25 | P a g e
Projects
AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d)
Introduction
One-year action Plans are required for each of the five years of the Five-Year Consolidated Plan. The Action Plan implements the strategies in the Consolidated Plan to address the housing needs of Hanford's low—and moderate-income citizens. The city's administration approves and measures all projects, which must comply with the Consolidated Plan and all local, state, and federal regulations.

Each project must be carefully evaluated and prioritized within each specific year of the Action Plan. This will ensure that resources are appropriately allocated and utilized while allowing for flexibility should any unforeseen changes or developments within the community. Additionally, the Action Plan provides transparency and accountability for each project regarding how government funds are utilized to address housing needs.

Depending on the project, some of the CDBG funding will be blended with other local, state, and federal sources for each project. This is to ensure that all resources are maximized and utilized effectively to address the housing needs of Hanford residents. The Action Plan also outlines each project's specific goals and objectives, along with a timeline for completion to stay on track with meeting the overall objectives outlined in the Consolidated Plan.

Furthermore, the Action Plan also includes a monitoring and evaluation component to measure the progress and success of each project. This allows for adjustments or modifications to be made to ensure that the desired outcomes are achieved. The City's administration oversees this process and reports on the results to the community.

Page 606 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 26 | P a g e
Projects
Table 6 - Project Information
# Project Name
1 Public Services
2 Homeowner Rehabilitation
3 Community Development Enhancement
Public Facilities
4 Administration and Planning

Page 607 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 27 | P a g e
Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs.

One-Year Action Plans are required for each of the five years of the Five-Year Consolidated Plan. The Action Plan implements the strategies outlined in the Consolidated Plan to address the housing needs of Hanford's low-income and moderate-income citizens. All projects are approved and measured by the City's administration and must comply with the Consolidated Plan. The projects also must comply with all local, state, and federal regulations.

Depending on the project, some CDBG funding will be blended with other local, state, and federal sources. This is to ensure that all resources are maximized and utilized effectively to address the housing needs of Hanford residents. The Action Plan also outlines each project's specific goals and objectives, along with a timeline for completion to stay on track with meeting the overall objectives outlined in the Consolidated Plan.

Furthermore, the Action Plan also includes a monitoring and evaluation component to measure the progress and success of each project. This allows adjustments to achieve the desired outcomes.

The City's administration oversees this process and reports on the results to the community.

Alternate: The City may include an alternate list of projects in the Action Plan. Should funding become available, projects completed below budget, canceled, or delayed for various reasons will be activated. Approval of the Action Plan by the City Council and HUD will be considered approval for the backup projects. Activating the backup projects does not constitute a substantial amendment to the Action Plan. The following projects will be considered as alternate projects.

Housing Rehabilitation
(Additional funding will be added to the total.) $ 200,000 First-time Homebuyer Assistance $ 150,000
Additional funding for Public Service Subrecipients Subject to 15% CAP Additional funding for Administration and Planning Subject to 20% CAP

Page 608 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 28 | P a g e
AP-38 Project Summary
1 Project Name Public Services
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Public Services
Needs Addressed Provide public services for low- and moderate-income residents.

Funding CDBG: $105,780.99 priority project for additional funding, should it become available.

Description Provide public services for low- and moderate-income residents and older people.

Target Date 6/30/2027
Estimate the number
and type of families that
will benefit from the
proposed activities
These activities will serve approximately 179 individuals who are extremely low-income, very low-income, and low- to
moderate-income, including through the following projects below:
1) Senior Services – Kings Commission on Aging
90 individuals
2) Youth and Seniors – City of Hanford Recreation Program -57 individuals
3) Homelessness- Kings Tulare Continuum of Care (COC) - 90 Individuals
4) Fair Education – Community Services & Employment
Training (CSET) – 32 individuals and 7 meetings
Location Description Citywide.

Planned Activities

1. Kings Commission on Aging-Senior Services – Elder Adults Provides door-to-door transportation for seniors and homedelivered hot meals for homebound seniors.

Provides subsistence payments to seniors.
(Budget: $72,781/Matrix Code: 05A-Senior Services/LMC

2. Community Recreation Program- Youth and Seniors
CDBG funds will be used to provide LMI youth and seniors with access to swimming lessons, fitness memberships, youth
camps, and senior programs that promote health and safety.

Budget: $12,000/Matrix Code: 05Z-Other public services/LMC

3. KTHA Homeless Collaborative – COC/KTHA
The Kings Tulare Continuum of Care (COC) is a non-profit organization that partners with several agencies to address the needs of people experiencing homelessness in Hanford. CDBG funds will support a variety of activities, including, but not limited to, the Annual Project Homeless Connect and the Pointin-Time census. (Budget: $9,000/Matrix Code 03T: -Operating costs of

Page 609 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 29 | P a g e
2 Project Name Homeowner Rehabilitation
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Create a suitable living environment.

Needs Addressed Ensure equal access to housing opportunities. Property Repairs Funding CDBG: $170,779
Activity Delivery:

Description The City of Hanford will continue to offer the Emergency Repair Program. This program offers qualifying residents the chance to finance emergency home repairs. The program provides up to $24,999 per household. Repairs include, but are not limited to, roof or replacement, water meter replacement, heating and air repair or replacement, exterior painting, and accessibility improvements. It is anticipated that 6 households will be assisted through the program.

Target Date 6/30/2027
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the proposed
activities.

It is anticipated that 6 (LMI) households will be assisted through the program.

Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities The City will fund housing repairs and improvements for 6 LMI homeowners.
3 Project Name Food Service Center
Homeless/Aids Patients Programs/LMC

4. Fair Housing Services:

CSET proposes to provide fair housing education and outreach to Hanford residents and interested officials through a structured program developed in 2022 and refined for several years. It is designed to benefit low- and moderate-income primarily (LMI) households by increasing access to current, accurate information on fair housing rights and housing stability. Target populations include LMI renters, households receiving housing subsidies, and LMI first-time homebuyers seeking guidance on fair housing protections, eviction
prevention, sustaining tenancy, and pathways to safe and affordable housing. (Budget: $12,000/Matrix Code: 05J-/Fair Housing Activities-Public Services- LMC

Page 610 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 30 | P a g e
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements Needs Addressed • Community Improvements
• Navigation Centers
• Housing
Funding $200,000
Description Provide a new facility (i.e., shelter) or upgrade/enhance an existing one.

Target Date 6/30/2028
Estimate the number
and type of families that
will benefit from the
proposed activities.

Other: 1
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities To be determined
4 Project Name Program Administration
Target Area Program Administration
Goals Supported Citywide
Needs Addressed All
Funding All
Description CDBG: $113,194
Target Date Effective and cost-efficient implementation of the CDBG program.

Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the proposed
activities
6/30/2027
Location Description N/A
Planned Activities Citywide

Page 611 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 31 | P a g e
-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f)
Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed The City of Hanford will allocate funds to highly redeveloped areas. This will help to stimulate economic growth and create jobs, resulting in a more vibrant and thriving community.

Geographic Distribution
Target Area Percentage of Funds
CITY OF HANFORD 80
Table 7 - Geographic Distribution
Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically The allocation of resources is often based on geographic areas. These areas were chosen because they have a history of chronic poverty. This means that the people living in these regions have been struggling with poverty for an extended period. These areas have higher rates of persistent unemployment and are typically in the moderate to low-income category.

CDBG funding directed toward public services is a citywide public service benefit. Public Facilities are based on CDBG requirements, such as the area benefit noted above, limited clientele, or income qualifications; affordable housing will be citywide, encompassing CDBG Target Areas. Other programs may benefit within the CDBG Target areas as well; however, they are allowed citywide.

The average household income is at or below 80% of the area’s median income. This is an essential factor because it helps to determine the level of need in a particular region. The lower the AMI, the higher the poverty level and the greater the resource needs.

Discussion
The City of Hanford has had success in its geographic allocation of housing and community development investments. Private investment has been drawn to all areas where concentrated investment in CDBG and other resources has been used to remove blight and create new affordable housing opportunities.

Page 612 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 32 | P a g e
Affordable Housing
AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g)
Introduction
The Division of Neighborhood Housing and Revitalization is slated to rehabilitate eight (8) homeowner units.

One-Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 6
Non-Homeless 0
Special-Needs 0
Total 6
Table 8 - One-Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement One-Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported
Through
Rental Assistance 0
The Production of New Units 0
Rehab of Existing Units 6
Acquisition of Existing Units 0
Total 6
Table 9 - One-Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type Discussion
Eliminating many of the physical signs of poverty is a critical element in improving the quality of life for residents of the City of Hanford. Poverty and housing are interconnected issues that impact the well-being of individuals, families, and communities, and improving the quality and availability of affordable housing is essential.

The lack of affordable housing is a significant contributor to poverty, and living in poverty often makes it difficult for people to afford adequate housing. The City of Hanford has implemented strategies to reduce poverty and improve access to quality housing, addressing these challenges.

Page 613 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 33 | P a g e
AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h)
Introduction
The housing and infrastructure goals for the City of Hanford within the next year are ambitious but attainable. The City will continue to aid moderate— to low-income residents facing housing insecurity with supportive services and financial aid. Federal funds (CDBG) and state funds (HOME) will be used to develop a self-sustaining society.

Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing The City of Hanford does not own or operate public housing. However, the City of Hanford does collaborate with the Housing Authority of King County to increase the availability of affordable housing options within the city. The City of Hanford is also developing several strategies that will be implemented within the following year:

Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership
The City of Hanford hosts council meetings on the first and third Tuesdays of each month. These meetings are open to the public, and community organizations are encouraged to attend and share their insights and ideas for addressing poverty and aiding low-income families. Regular communication and collaboration between the city and community organizations will help identify gaps in services and find ways to support those who need updates on initiatives that can benefit them.

The City of Hanford also uses social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook to connect with residents who want to stay in the loop about community initiatives and events. Occasionally, online polling will be available, providing an additional channel for residents to express their opinions and offer feedback on city policies and initiatives. This also allows the city to gather information on the specific needs of low-income families in the community.

For individuals who are not computer-savvy or lack internet literacy, community officials have taken proactive measures to reach them by distributing paper surveys in public meeting spaces. Their opinions and inputs are also considered and incorporated into policymaking and initiatives. This inclusive approach ensures that all voices are heard and considered when implementing specific policy considerations.

Page 614 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 34 | P a g e
Home Buyers
The City of Hanford also has first-time homebuyer programs to assist low-income families seeking homeownership. This initiative aims to promote self-sufficiency and financial stability for lowincome families in the community.

In addition to these efforts, the City of Hanford works closely with local nonprofit organizations and community groups to provide resources and support for low-income families. These partnerships enable a more comprehensive approach to addressing the needs of low-income families and fostering collaboration and unity within the community. The goal is to transition families from public housing to possible homeownership through wealth-building via housing equity. This not only helps families achieve financial stability but also contributes to the community's economic growth.

If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided, or other assistance.

Not applicable.

Discussion

Page 615 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 35 | P a g e
AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) Introduction
The City of Hanford has taken a proactive approach to addressing issues faced by the homeless and disabled. There are annual initiatives focused on funding food delivery services and shelter that prioritize the needs of disenfranchised populations.

The City of Hanford has partnered with the Kings County Homeless Collaborative and the KingsTulare Homeless Alliance to assist displaced populations. This collaborative effort aims to support homeless individuals and provide valuable resources to help them regain stability in their lives. The partnership entails a concerted effort to provide meaningful aid to those in need, address the root causes of homelessness, and prevent its recurrence.

Describe the jurisdiction's one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness, including
Reaching out to homeless people (especially unsheltered people) and assessing their individual needs
This section outlines the City's goals for the upcoming year and the actions it will take to implement the SP-60 Homelessness Strategy. Additionally, it will describe the jurisdiction's objectives for the year and the specific activities it will undertake to meet the housing and supportive services requirements of non-homeless populations in need of supportive housing.

Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless people The Point in Time Count and HIC Housing Inventory Count are measures used to assess the number of resources available relative to the number of individuals who are homeless. These numbers are used as a metric to measure the resources needed to assist the homeless population. Also, it is crucial to the efficiency of fund allocation to maximize the effects of funding specific projects.

The City of Hanford allows various shelters and nonprofits to apply for funding. This spreads the funds across several organizations, potentially reaching more people. The allocated funds will be used by shelters that host citizens who need emergency sheltering as well as those who are stable enough to transition out of shelters and move into market-rate housing.

Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again

Page 616 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 36 | P a g e
All programs offered by the Homeless Alliance, including emergency, transitional, and permanent housing, provide supportive services to their clients. These supportive services are designed and implemented based on the program's target population and partnerships within the community. The primary goal of these services is to connect individuals and families with mainstream benefits and income support, education, employment services, as well as health and life-skills services. These connections are a crucial component in assisting clients towards self-sufficiency, reducing episodes of homelessness, and preventing recidivism. The programs that serve these vulnerable subpopulations include the following:

Champions, KCAO, and Kings County Behavioral Health: permanent supportive housing (PSH) programs for chronically homeless individuals and families with children.

Westcare: Rapid Re-housing and Homeless Prevention for veterans and their families through the SSVF program.

Aspiranet: a transitional housing program for young people aged 18 to 24.

The Salvation Army: Rapid Re-housing and Homeless Prevention services for homeless individuals and families.

The continued allocation of CDBG funds to sidewalks and related neighborhood infrastructure will improve accessibility and safety for underserved populations, enabling them to move more easily throughout the City.

Page 617 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 37 | P a g e
Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely lowincome individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs.

All Homeless Alliance programs, including emergency, transitional, and permanent housing, provide supportive services for their clients. Supportive services are designed and implemented by each program based on the target population and community partnerships. The primary goal of supportive services is to connect individuals and/or families with mainstream benefits and income support, education, employment services, and health and life-skills services. These linkages are essential for assisting clients in achieving self-sufficiency, reducing homelessness, and preventing relapses.

Programs that serve vulnerable subpopulations include:

Champions, KCAO, and Kings County Behavioral Health - Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) programs for chronically homeless individuals, families, and families with children.

Westcare - Rapid Re-housing and Homeless Prevention services for veterans and their families through the SSVF program.

Aspiranet - Transitional housing program for youth aged 18-24.

The Salvation Army - Rapid Re-housing and Homeless Prevention services for homeless individuals and families.

Discussion

Page 618 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 38 | P a g e
AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j)
Introduction:

The City of Hanford will monitor and review public policies for discriminatory practices. The City of Hanford has committed to monitoring and reviewing public policies to avoid discriminatory practices or impacts on housing availability. As part of the Consolidated Plan, the City has also completed an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. The aim is to remove barriers to affordable housing development wherever possible. The analysis identified specific goals to make housing more affordable, including reducing housing costs and increasing availability.

Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment
GOAL 3. Remove or mitigate potential governmental constraints to the extent feasible and appropriate to housing production, maintenance, improvement, and affordability. • Policy 3.1 Offer regulatory and financial incentives, as available and appropriate, to encourage the construction of quality housing.
• Policy 3.2 Review local ordinances and building regulations to ensure they do not impede housing investment.
• Policy 3.3 Utilize planned developments and other creative mechanisms to facilitate the construction of more innovative, well-designed housing projects. • Policy 3.4 Ensure that developments are processed efficiently to minimize holding costs and comply with the Permit Streamlining Act.

Discussion:

Page 619 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 39 | P a g e
AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k)
Introduction:

This section will describe the City’s planned actions to carry out the following strategies outlined in the Consolidated Plan:
• Foster and maintain affordable housing.
• Continue First-time services and rehab multifamily.
• Assist the Low to Moderate-Income Earners and Homeless Population • Develop scholarship Program.

Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs Despite the City’s best efforts and those of service providers, obstacles continue to hinder meeting the underserved needs in the City of Hanford. Some of these needs: The City of Hanford is facing several challenges in meeting the needs of its underserved population, despite the efforts of service providers. Among these challenges are the housing shortage due to population growth, a tight rental market, and rising housing costs that outpace household income growth. There are also concerns regarding aging in place for the growing elderly population. To address these issues, the City has a plan under the AP 2026 CDBG Program, which includes:
• Leveraging financial resources and applying for additional public and private funds. • Providing financial assistance for housing rehabilitation. • Funding for public service activities.
• Public facility improvements.
• Funding for code enforcement activities.

Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing Hanford prioritizes providing affordable housing opportunities and maintaining its existing housing stock. To achieve this, the city has developed several strategies, including implementing a first-time homebuyer program to assist low- to moderate-income individuals with financing and ensuring their housing costs fall within their affordability range. An owner-occupied rehabilitation program has also been implemented to help low-income homeowners preserve their homes. Ongoing code enforcement services are also in place.

Page 620 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 40 | P a g e
Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards
LBP remediation is a crucial component of the rehab program for owner-occupied homes. All homes are tested for lead-based paint, and any LBP found is appropriately addressed.

Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families The City of Hanford has decided to allocate a portion of its CDBG funding to support educational initiatives in the region. The main objective is to invest in the success of students with academic potential, in the hope that they will contribute to the city's growth and development through their achievements.

Actions planned to develop the institutional structure
The city of Hanford's long-term goals align with the development of institutional structures. Although scholarships encourage higher education, more overall funding is needed to pursue immediate goals.

Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies
The City of Hanford is committed to continuing its collaboration and coordination efforts with social service providers, housing agencies, community and economic development organizations, county, federal, and state agencies, and the private and non-profit sectors. The aim is to meet the needs of individuals and families with a target income within the City of Hanford.

Discussion:

Page 621 of 1565 ends

2026-2027 Annual Action Plan 41 | P a g e
Program Specific Requirements
AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4)
Introduction:

Projects to be funded with CDBG funds available for the year are listed in the Projects Table. Program income available for use on these projects is also identified.

Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1)
Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income available for use in projects to be carried out.

1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed 0

2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan. 0

3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements 0

4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan 0

5. The amount of income from float-funded activities 0
Total Program Income: 0
Other CDBG Requirements

1. The number of urgently needed activities 0

2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit people with low and moderate income. Overall Benefit - A consecutive period of one, two, or three years may determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit people of low and moderate income. Specify the years covered that include this Annual Action Plan. 100%

Page 622 of 1565 ends

Attachment B
CITY OF HANFORD ACTION PLAN – PROPOSED PROJECTS (2026)
PY 2026 ACTION PLAN – PROPOSED PROJECTS
The following table summarizes proposed allocations for the PY 2026 Action Plan and reflects revisions to funding estimates and available resources since the March 3 proposal.

A. Available Funding Resources
Funding Source March 3rd Proposal May 19th Proposal
Entitlement Allocation $523,508.00 $565,973.00
Estimated Program Income $25,000.00 $15,000.00
Prior Year Resources $0.00 $23,481.00
TOTAL AVAILABLE RESOURCES $548,508.00 $604,454.00
B. Proposed PY2026 Project Allocations
Project / Activity Description Initial
Allocation Change +/-
Revised
Allocation
Homeless Pointin-Time Count /
LINC
Annual homeless count and
coordinated services $9,000 $9,000
Senior Services Programs supporting senior
citizens $49,000 +$23,481.00 $72,781
Fair Housing
Services
Outreach, education, and
enforcement of fair housing
laws
$11,000 +$1,000 $12,000
Recreation
Programs (Youth
& Seniors)
Community recreation
programs $11,000 +$1,000 $12,000
Home Repair
Programs
Emergency and minor home
repair assistance $156,807 +$28,972 $185,779
Housing
Rehabilitation –
Activity Delivery
Delivery of housing
rehabilitation programs
Kings
Community
Action
Public Facility Improvements -
Food Service Center (Year 3) $200,000 $200,000
Planning &
Administration
Program administration and
planning $109,701 +$3,493 $113,194
TOTAL $546,508 $57,946 $604,454

Page 623 of 1565 ends

C. Backup (Contingency) Projects
Project / Activity Description Potential
Funding Notes
Housing
Rehabilitation
Additional funding if resources
become available $200,000 Increase allocation upon availability of funds First-Time
Homebuyer
Assistance
Down payment and closing
cost assistance $150,000 Contingent upon available funds Public Service
Subrecipients
Support for eligible public
service agencies
Subject to
15% CAP
Federal funding restriction
applies
Administration &
Planning
Additional administrative and
planning activities
Subject to
20% CAP
Federal funding restriction
applies

Page 624 of 1565 ends

1 ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION NO. 26-21-R

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD

APPROVING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ACTION PLAN FOR THE ACTION PLAN YEAR 2026-2027
At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held May 19, 2026, upon motion of Council Member __________, and seconded by Council Member __________, and carried, the following resolution was adopted:

WHEREAS, the City of Hanford opted to become an Entitlement Community within the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program in November 2003, allowing the city to receive an allocation directly from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) each year; and
WHEREAS, the City of Hanford should receive $565,973 in CDBG Entitlement Funds in Program Year 2026-2027 and
WHEREAS, the $565,973 in annual funds are to be used to benefit low- to moderateincome households and neighborhoods in the elimination or prevention of slum and blight for such programs as housing rehabilitation, affordable homeownership assistance, neighborhood improvement, community services, as well as community development activities, such as the construction or rehabilitation of community infrastructure and facilities and economic development; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, the thirty-day review period for the Action Plan for the program year 2026- 2027 will expire on May 1, 2026, and all comments received shall be incorporated in the final document.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopt the Community Development Block Grant Action Plan from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027.

Page 625 of 1565 ends

2 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford, duly called and held on the 19th day of May 2026 by the following vote:

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Hanford at a special meeting thereof held on May 19, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: ________________________________________________________________ NOES: ________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ________________________________________________________________ APPROVED: ___________________________
Mark Kairis
MAYOR of the City of Hanford
ATTEST:

Natalie Corral

CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss

CITY OF HANFORD )
I, Natalie Corral, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford on the 19th day of May 2026.

Date: ___________________
City Clerk

Page 626 of 1565 ends

14.B.

AGENDA

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

PUBLIC HEARING: General Plan Amendment 2026-01: A request to conduct a public hearing and recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to replace the adopted 2016-2024 Housing Element with the 2024-2032 6th Cycle Housing Element and authorize City staff to submit the 6th Cycle Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for certification.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: A request to conduct a public hearing and recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment to replace the adopted 2016-2024 Housing Element with the 2024-2032 6th Cycle Housing Element to the City Council and authorize City staff to submit the 6th Cycle Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for certification.

Recommended Motion: I move to adopt Resolution No. 2026-31-R, which will:

1. Find that the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2026-01 is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines) and that the CEQA exemption determination can be made for General Plan Amendment No. 2026-01.

2. Find that the 2024-2032 Housing Element is consistent with and will implement the policies of the 2035 Hanford General Plan.

3. Find that the 2024-2032 Housing Element substantially complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 65580 et seq.

4. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 2026-01 and adopt the 2024-2032 Housing Element for incorporation into the 2035 Hanford General Plan.

BACKGROUND:

The General Plan is the City’s primary planning policy document and includes state-mandated “elements” that set forth objectives, principles, standards and goals to guide orderly development.

The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify the housing needs of all economic segments of the community and describe the actions the City intends to take to facilitate the preservation and development of adequate housing to meet those needs. The City must also address constraints on housing development, develop programs to facilitate housing for special needs groups, and provide a fair housing analysis.

Page 627 of 1565 ends

This update to the City’s Housing Element is overdue for approval by the State due to a variety of factors, including the termination of the original consultant retained to complete the work. Staff, in coordination with other jurisdictions in Kings County, is now prepared to bring the update forward for approval by their respective governing bodies. The State’s review has been completed, and concurrence from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is already in place. Failure to adopt the update in its current form could expose the City to penalties and potential litigation.

The City’s current Housing Element that covers the 2016-2024 planning period was adopted in 2016.

State law established requirements for updating Housing Elements on an eight-year cycle. The 2024- 2032 planning period is referred to as the “6th Cycle Housing Element” in reference to the five previous updates.

The County and the Cities of Avenal, Corcoran, and Hanford have completed a collaborative process in preparing a multijurisdictional Housing Element covering these four jurisdictions. While the multijurisdictional Housing Element includes data, analysis, and general goals and policies covering the County and three Cities, each jurisdiction has separate programs that apply only to that jurisdiction. In adopting the Housing Element, no jurisdiction is required to adopt programs that apply to another jurisdiction.

The state legislature has given the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) authority to develop detailed guidelines for the preparation of Housing Elements and to issue statements regarding whether draft Housing Elements substantially comply with the requirements of Government Code Section 65580 et seq (Housing Element law). A finding of substantial compliance by HCD is referred to as Housing Element “certification.” State law requires each jurisdiction to adopt a certified Housing Element. In addition, several grant funding programs require a certified Housing Element as a prerequisite for eligibility, therefore Housing Element certification increases the City’s opportunities to receive grant funds.

A key requirement of state law is that each jurisdiction demonstrates the availability of adequate sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate residential development commensurate with its assigned share of regional growth needs as described in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).

Prior to the beginning of each Housing Element cycle, Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) prepares a RHNA plan in consultation with HCD and the County and Cities. The RHNA identifies the number of new housing units each jurisdiction must accommodate across all income levels through its land use plans and zoning designations. It is important to note that the RHNA establishes planning targets, not development quotas. KCAG allocated the RHNA for each jurisdiction through its adoption of the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Plan in January 2023.

In May 2023, the County and Cities entered into a contract with a consultant to prepare the multijurisdictional 6th Cycle Housing Element. The first draft was submitted to HCD on October 9, 2024, and comment letters were issued by HCD on January 6, 2025. A second draft was prepared by the consultant and submitted to HCD on August 26, 2025, and comment letters were issued by HCD on October 20, 2025. In November 2025, the County began meeting with HCD and the consultant for technical assistance. In February 2026, the County and Cities met to discuss the status of the Housing Element, and each jurisdiction made the independent decision to part from the consultant and to proceed with in-house staff provided by each jurisdiction with technical assistance from HCD to finish the draft. On March 27, 2026, a third draft was submitted to HCD. A certification letter was issued by HCD on May 8, 2026. The next step in the process is to adopt the 2024-2032 Housing Element update as General Plan Amendment No. 2026-01. The Housing Element is attached to

Page 628 of 1565 ends

Resolution No. 2026-31-R.

Housing Element Organization
The Housing Element is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1 – Introduction
• Chapter 2 – Housing Needs Assessment
• Chapter 3 – Resources and Opportunities
• Chapter 4 – Constraints
• Chapter 5 – Housing Plan
• Chapter 6 – Glossary of Terms
• Appendix A – Evaluation of the Prior Housing Element
• Appendix B – Land Inventory
• Appendix C – Public Participation Summary
• Appendix D1 – County of Kings Fair Housing Analysis
• Appendix D2 – City of Avenal Fair Housing Analysis
• Appendix D3 – City of Corcoran Fair Housing Analysis
• Appendix D4 – City of Hanford Fair Housing Analysis
Each jurisdiction’s programs are listed in Chapter 5 – Housing Plan. Hanford's Housing Programs begin on p. 202 of the Housing Element.

The multijurisdictional Housing Element provides an opportunity for collaboration on countywide housing issues that need to be more effectively addressed at a regional level rather than at a local level. By working together, the jurisdictions can share best practices, explore opportunities for further collaboration, and make the best of limited resources. A Housing Element Working Group will be formed and meet at least annually to evaluate success of implementation of housing programs and to identify gaps and additional needs. The objectives and timing are outlined in Program 3.24.

The City must provide a land inventory to ensure that there is an adequate supply of residential land designated in unincorporated areas to accommodate the RHNA allocation. Kings County’s total RHNA allocation is 9,429 units, and 5,547 of those units are allocated to Hanford. Below is the RHNA Allocation by Income Category that is stated in KCAG’s 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Plan.

RHNA Allocations by Income Category for Kings County Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total Units % Units % Units % Units % Units
Avenal 48 17.3% 37 13.3% 55 20.0% 137 49.4% 277
Corcoran 122 17.1% 116 16.3% 118 16.5% 359 50.2% 715
Hanford 1,369 24.7% 993 17.9% 1,066 19.2% 2,119 38.2% 5,547 Lemoore 586 25.1% 437 18.8% 408 17.5% 898 38.6% 2,329
Unincorporated 132 23.5% 89 15.9% 106 18.9% 234 41.8% 561 County Totals 2,257 23.9% 1,672 17.7% 1,753 18.6% 3,747 39.7% 9,429

Page 629 of 1565 ends

The City currently has enough inventory to accommodate its RHNA allocation.

The approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2026-01 is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines). This section states that a project is exempt from CEQA if the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Changes proposed by the Housing Element update are technical changes concerning general policy for the implementation of housing policy and there is no possibility that these changes will have a significant effect on the environment by the act of adopting the Housing Element update. In addition, any development projects will be required to undergo individual environmental review determination, and will either be ministerial, categorically exempt, or subject to individual CEQA review.

In addition to the public hearing being held tonight, a public hearing was held at the May 12th Planning Commission meeting where the Commission recommended approval of the 2024-2032 Housing Element to the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Adoption of the Housing Element will not have a fiscal impact ATTACHMENTS:

1. HCD Letter

2. Resolution 26-31-R

3. Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element

Page 630 of 1565 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
May 8, 2026
Jason Waters, Deputy City Manager
City of Hanford
317 North Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Dear Jason Waters:

RE: City of Hanford’s 6th Cycle (2024-2032) Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Hanford’s (City) revised draft housing element update which was received for review on March 27, 2026 along with revisions received on May 4, 2026. The revisions were posted and made available to the public for seven days prior to review. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review.

The revised draft element, with additional revisions, meets the statutory requirements that were described in HCD’s October 24, 2025 review. This finding is based on, among other items, Program 3.23 (Prior Identified Sites in the Sites Inventory) taking effect upon adoption to make prior identified sites available to accommodate the lower-income regional housing need allocation (RHNA). The housing element will substantially comply with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq) when the element is adopted, submitted to, and approved by HCD, in accordance with Government Code section 65585.

As a reminder, the City’s 6th Cycle housing element was due January 31, 2024. As of today, the City has not completed the housing element process for the 6th cycle. The City’s 6th cycle housing element no longer satisfies statutory requirements. HCD encourages the City to revise the element, adopt, and submit to HCD to regain housing element compliance.

For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-communitydevelopment/housing-elements for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.

Page 631 of 1565 ends

Jason Waters, Deputy City Manager

Page 2 ends

Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation at:
https://www.lci.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.

HCD appreciates the collaboration and diligence of the housing element update team to prepare the housing element as part of the multi-jurisdictional housing element process.

HCD particularly commends the efforts of Gabrielle Myers whose responsiveness and perseverance has provided tremendous public service. HCD looks forward to receiving the City’s adopted housing element and welcomes the opportunity to provide technical assistance through the adoption process. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Colleen Harjo, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager

Page 632 of 1565 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 26-31-R

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
2026-01: A REQUEST TO THE AMEND THE HANFORD GENERAL PLAN FOR ADOPTION OF THE 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford, duly called to order and held on May 19, 2026 at 7:00 p.m., it was moved by Council Member , and seconded by Council Member , and duly carried that the following resolution be adopted:

WHEREAS, the California Government Code, Section 65300, requires that the planning agency of each county or city prepare, and the legislative body adopt, a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city; and; and, WHEREAS, state law requires that the General Plan include a Housing Element; and WHEREAS, each jurisdiction within Kings County is required by state law to prepare an update to its Housing Element for the 2024-2032 planning period as the 6th Cycle Housing Element update; and, WHEREAS, on April 27, 2026, in compliance with Section 65585 of the California Government Code, a draft 2024-2032 Housing Element was transmitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2026, HCD issued a letter reporting the Draft Housing Element substantially complies with state law, which has been reviewed and considered by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 2026-01 for the 2024-2032 Housing Element update at a special meeting (time 6:30 p.m.) conducted on May 12, 2026, at which time all interested persons were provided an opportunity to offer comments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 2026-01 for the 2024-2032 Housing Element update (time 7:00 p.m.) conducted on May 19, 2026, at which time all interested persons were provided an opportunity to offer comments; and

Page 633 of 1565 ends

WHEREAS, the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 26-01 is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines). This section states that a project is exempt from CEQA if the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Changes proposed by the Housing Element update are technical changes concerning general policy for the implementation of housing policy and there is no possibility that these changes will have a significant effect on the environment by the act of adopting the Housing Element update, and none of the circumstances in Section 15300.2 apply. In addition, any development projects will be required to undergo individual environmental review determination, and will either be ministerial, categorically exempt, or subject to individual CEQA review; and WHEREAS, this Council has duly reviewed the contents of General Plan Amendment No. 2026- 01 as well as comments and testimony received from the public and interested governmental agencies; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby finds that:

1. The approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2026-01 is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), none of the circumstances in Section 15300.2 apply, and the CEQA exemption determination can be made for General Plan Amendment No. 2026-01.

2. The 2024-2032 Housing Element, as set forth in Exhibit A, is consistent with and will implement the policies of the 2035 Hanford General Plan.

3. The 2024-2032 Housing Element substantially complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 65580 et seq.

4. General Plan Amendment No. 2026-01 be approved and to adopt the 2024-2032 Housing Element for incorporation into the 2035 Hanford General Plan.

Page 634 of 1565 ends

Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford, duly called and held on May 19, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

MARK KAIRIS
MAYOR of the City of Hanford
Attest:

NATALIE CORRAL

CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss

CITY OF HANFORD )
I, Natalie Corral, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the __ day of ___________, 2026.

Date:

City Clerk

Page 635 of 1565 ends

Exhibit A
2024-2032 HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 636 of 1565 ends

2024-2032

KINGS COUNTY

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL

HOUSING ELEMENT
County of Kings
City of Avenal
City of Corcoran
City of Hanford
May 2026 – FINAL
Prepared by:

Issac A. George
Realty Planners Group, Inc.

Cities of Avenal, Corcran, and
Hanford Staff
Kings County Staff

Page 637 of 1565 ends

Page 638 of 1565 ends

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The 2024-2032 Kings County Housing Element update is a cooperative effort of Kings County and the Cities of Avenal, Corcoran, and Hanford.

County of Kings
Board of Supervisors Planning Commission
Rusty Robinson, Chair William Lynch, Chair
Joe Neves, Vice Chair Riley Jones, Vice Chair
Richard Valle, Supervisor Brent Madill, Commissioner
Doug Verboon, Supervisor Steven Dias, Commissioner
Robert Thayer, Supervisor Miguel Alatorre, Jr.,
Commissioner
City of Avenal
City Council Planning Commission
Alvaro Preciado, Mayor Tyler Naranjo, Chair
Alejandro Ramirez, Mayor Pro Tem Amado Cervantes, Vice Chair Pablo Hernandez, Councilmember Sergio Ramirez, Commissioner Ricardo Verdugo, Councilmember Jose Barrer, Commissioner Lou Gravelle, Councilmember
City of Corcoran
City Council Planning Commission
Sidonio "Sid" Palmerin , Karl Kassner, Chair
Jerry Robertson , Vice Kaitlyn Frazier, Vice Chair
Greg Ojeda, Councilmember David Bega, Commissioner
Jeanette Zamora-Bragg, Councilmember Karen Frey, Commissioner Patricia Nolen, Councilmember Janet Watkins, Commissioner City of Hanford
City Council Planning Commission
Mark Kairis, Mayor Dennis Ham, Chair
Nancy Howze, Vice Mayor Gunther Norris, Vice Chair
Lou Martinez, Councilmember Jim Nelson, Commissioner
Travis Paden, Councilmember Cecily Esparza, Commissioner Kimber Regan, Councilmember Parveer Singh Gill, Commissioner Lisa Mcllwaine, Commissioner
Alternate

Page 639 of 1565 ends

ii
Technical Steering Committee
County of Kings
Chuck Kinney, Director of Community Development
Alejandro Hernandez, Deputy Director – Planning
Noelle Tomlinson, Planner III
Maddison Faria, GIS Specialist
Casey Trevino, GIS Specialist
City of Avenal
Antony V Lopez, City Manager
Maria ‘Angie’ Oritz, City Clerk
City of Corcoran
Greg Gatzka, City Manager
Kevin Tromborg, Community Development Director/Building Official City of Hanford
Jason Waters, Deputy City Manager
Gabrielle Myers, Principal Planner
Sandra Lerma-Martinez, Housing Administrative Analyst

Page 640 of 1565 ends

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Technical Steering Committee _________________________________________ ii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION __________________________________________ 1 A. Planning Context _________________________________________________ 1

1. Purpose and Statutory Authority____________________________________ 3

2. Framework for the Joint Kings County Housing Element_________________ 4

3. Data Sources __________________________________________________ 4

4. Relationship to the General Plan ___________________________________ 5 B. Community Involvement____________________________________________ 5

1. Initial Public Meetings____________________________________________ 6

2. Housing Needs Survey ___________________________________________ 7

3. Localized Outreach_____________________________________________ 10

4. Future Public Outreach Approach _________________________________ 11 CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ___________________________ 13 A. Population and Household Characteristics ____________________________ 13

1. Population Trends______________________________________________ 13

2. Age Characteristics_____________________________________________ 14

3. Race and Ethnicity _____________________________________________ 15

4. Household Type and Overcrowding ________________________________ 15

5. Household Income and Overpayment ______________________________ 17 B. Employment Trends ______________________________________________ 21

1. Employment by Industry _________________________________________ 21

2. Occupations Held by Residents ___________________________________ 24

3. Jobs-Housing Balance and Commute Patterns _______________________ 24 C. Housing Characteristics ___________________________________________ 26

1. Housing Type _________________________________________________ 26

2. Housing Tenure and Vacancy Rates _________________________________ 27

3. Housing Conditions ______________________________________________ 28

Page 641 of 1565 ends

4. Housing Affordability_____________________________________________ 31 D. Housing Conditions in Kings County___________________________________ 35

1. Overview_____________________________________________________ 35

2. Code Enforcement Insights ______________________________________ 35 E. Special Needs Groups _____________________________________________ 35

1. Seniors ________________________________________________________ 35

2. Female-Headed Households ____________________________________ 37

3. Large Families ________________________________________________ 38

4. Military Personnel and Veterans___________________________________ 40

5. Agricultural Employees__________________________________________ 40

6. Persons with Disabilities_________________________________________ 46

7. Homeless ____________________________________________________ 49 F. Analysis of At-Risk Housing ________________________________________ 58

1. Preservation Options for At-Risk Properties__________________________ 59 G. Housing Growth Needs_____________________________________________ 63

1. Overview of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment_________________ 63 CHAPTER 3: RESOURCES AND OPPORTUNITIES ________________________ 65 A. Land Resources _________________________________________________ 65

1. Nonvacant Sites: Lease Dynamics, Market Trends, and Developer Interest_ 66

2. Strengthening Analysis of Small and Nonvacant Sites Small Sites (<0.5 Acres) 82 3. Infrastructure Capacity and Upgrade Needs by Plan Area in Kings County _ 84

4. Key Environmental Constraints _____________________________________ 86

5. Inventory Maps__________________________________________________ 86 B. Financial and Administrative Resources ______________________________ 96

1. Financial Resources ____________________________________________ 96

2. Administrative Resources________________________________________ 97

3. Opportunities for Energy Conservation _____________________________ 98

Page 642 of 1565 ends

v
C. Housing Densities, Potential Growth and Vacant Land __________________ 100

1. General Plan and Zoning _______________________________________ 100

2. Potential Growth and Vacant Land________________________________ 101 D. Electronic Sites Inventory_________________________________________ 106 E. Commitment Statement:__________________________________________ 106 CHAPTER 4: CONSTRAINTS _________________________________________ 109 F. Governmental Constraints ________________________________________ 109

1. Land Use Plans and Regulations _________________________________ 109 G. Residential Permit Processing and Environmental Review _______________ 130 H. Developer Fees, Improvement Requirements and Building Codes_________ 133

1. Planning and Development Fees _________________________________ 134

2. Developer Impact Fees_________________________________________ 136

3. Site Improvement Requirements ______________________________ 142

4. Building and Construction Codes _____________________________ 143 I. Non-Governmental Constraints ____________________________________ 143

1. Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints _______________________ 143

2. Land and Construction Costs ____________________________________ 149

3. Cost and Availability of Financing_________________________________ 150 J. Environmental Constraints in Kings County, California __________________ 151

1. Key Environmental Constraints __________________________________ 151 K. Fair Housing ___________________________________________________ 151 CHAPTER 5: HOUSING PLAN ________________________________________ 152 A. Goals and Policies ______________________________________________ 152

1. Housing and Neighborhood Conservation and Rehabilitation ___________ 152

2. Housing Production ___________________________________________ 153

3. Housing Constraints ___________________________________________ 153

4. Housing Assistance ___________________________________________ 154

5. Fair and Equal Housing Opportunities _____________________________ 154

Page 643 of 1565 ends

vi
B. Housing Programs ______________________________________________ 155

1. Avenal Housing Programs ________________________________________ 155

2. Corcoran Housing Programs ______________________________________ 180

3. Hanford Housing Programs _______________________________________ 202

4. Kings County Housing Programs ___________________________________ 232

5. Quantified Objectives ____________________________________________ 255 CHAPTER 6: GLOSSARY OF TERMS __________________________________ 257 Terms____________________________________________________________ 257

List of Figures
Figure 1-1 - Regional Location Map..............................................................................................................2 Figure 2-1 – Employment by Industry of Kings County Workforce ..............................................................22 Figure 3-1: Vacant Site Avenal 1 ................................................................................................................66 Figure 3-2: Vacant Site Corcoran 1.............................................................................................................67 Figure 3-3: Vacant Site Hanford 1...............................................................................................................67 Figure 3-4: Vacant Site Kings County 1......................................................................................................68 Figure 3-5: Vacant Site Kings County 2......................................................................................................68 Figure 3-6: Largely Vacant – Existing Residential Use Avenal....................................................................69 Figure 3-7: Largely Vacant – Existing Residential Use Corcoran................................................................69 Figure 3-8: Largely Vacant – Existing Residential Use Hanford..................................................................70 Figure 3-9: Largely Vacant – Existing Residential Use Hanford 2...............................................................71 Figure 3-10 Largely Vacant – Existing Residential Use Hanford 3..............................................................71 Figure 3-11 Largely Vacant – Existing Residential Use Kings County ........................................................72 Figure 3-12 Largely Vacant – Existing Residential Use Kings County 2 .....................................................72 Figure 3-13 Agricultural Use - Avenal .........................................................................................................74 Figure 3-14 Agricultural Use -Corcoran ......................................................................................................74 Figure 3-14 Agricultural Use – Kings County 1............................................................................................75 Figure 3-15 Agricultural Use – Kings County 2............................................................................................75 Figure 3-16 Agricultural Use – Kings County 3............................................................................................76 Figure 3-17: Commercial Use - Avenal.......................................................................................................77 Figure 3-18: Commercial Use - Hanford .....................................................................................................77 Figure 3-19: Commercial Use -Kings County .............................................................................................78 Figure 3-20: Other - Avenal.........................................................................................................................79 Figure 3-21: Other – Avenal 2......................................................................................................................79 Figure 3-22: Other - Hanford.......................................................................................................................80

Page 644 of 1565 ends

vii
Figure 3-23: Other – Kings County 1 ...........................................................................................................80 Figure 3-24: Other – Kings County 2 ...........................................................................................................81 Figure 3-25 – City of Avenal Vacant Sites 6000 Sq. Ft or Greater ...............................................................87 Figure 3-26 - City of Avenal Vacant Sites by Census Tracts .......................................................................87 Figure 3-27 - City of Avenal Vacant Sites by Income Level.........................................................................88 Figure 3-28– City of Corcoran Vacant Sites 6000 Sq. Ft or Greater.............................................................88 Figure 3-29 – City of Corcoran Vacant Sites by Census Tracts....................................................................89 Figure 3-30 – City of Corcoran Vacant Sites by Income Level .....................................................................89 Figure 3-31 – City of Hanford Vacant Sites 6000 Sq. Ft. or Greater.............................................................90 Figure 3-32: City of Hanford Vacant Sites by Census Tracts......................................................................90 Figure 3-33- City of Hanford Vacant Sites by Income Level .......................................................................91 Figure 3-34: Kings County - Home Garden Community Vacant Sites 6000 Sq. Ft. or Greater....................91 Figure 3-35 – Kings County - Home Garden Community Vacant Sites by Census Tracts ............................92 Figure 3-36 – Kings County - Home Garden Community Vacant Sites by Income Level..............................92 Figure 3-37 – Kings County - Kettleman City Community Vacant Sites 6000 Sq. Ft. or Greater................93 Figure 3-38 – Kings County - Kettleman City Community Vacant Sites by Census Tracts ...........................93 Figure 3-39 – Kings County – Kettleman City Community Vacant Sites by Income Level...........................94 Figure 3-40 – Kings County - Stratford Community Vacant Sites 6000 Sq. Ft. or Greater..........................94 Figure 3-41 – Kings County - Stratford Community Vacant Sites by Census Tracts...................................95 Figure 3-42 – Kings County - Stratford Community Vacant Sites by Income Level.....................................95 TABLES
Table 2-1 Kings County Household Population Growth, 1990-2020 ..........................................................14 Table 2-2 Age Distribution ...........................................................................................................................15 Table 2-3 Race and Ethnicity.......................................................................................................................15 Table 2-4 Household Characteristics..........................................................................................................16 Table 2-5 Overcrowding by Tenure .............................................................................................................17 Table 2-6 Median Household Income..........................................................................................................17 Table 2-7 Household Income Distribution by Tenure...................................................................................18 Table 2-8 Household Overpayment by Tenure............................................................................................19 Table 2-9 Household Size ELI Income Limit (30% of AMI).........................................................................20 Table 2-10 Major Employers .......................................................................................................................22 Table 2-11 Occupations Held by Civilians ...................................................................................................24 Table 2-12 Travel Time to Work ..................................................................................................................25 Table 2-13 Work Locations of City/County Resident Workers.....................................................................26 Table 2-14 Housing Units by Type, 2020.....................................................................................................27 Table 2-15 Household Tenure and Vacancy Rates .....................................................................................27 Table 2-16 Tenure by Year Structure Built...................................................................................................29

Page 645 of 1565 ends

viii
Table 2-17 Housing Conditions....................................................................................................................30 Table 2-18 Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing or Kitchen Facilities..............................30 Table 2-19 Housing Affordability in Kings County, 2022..............................................................................31 Table 2-20 Kings County Residential Sale Prices, January-June 2023.......................................................33 Table 2-21 King County Residential Rents, 2023........................................................................................34 Table 2-22 Elderly Households by Tenure...................................................................................................36 Table 2-23 Female Headed Households ....................................................................................................37 Table 2-24 Household Size by Tenure ........................................................................................................39 Table 2-25 Leading Agricultural Commodities, Kings County ....................................................................41 Table 2-26 Agricultural Employment by Jurisdiction ....................................................................................41 Table 2-27 Hired Farm Labor-Workers, Kings County.................................................................................42 Table 2-28 Disabilities by Age .....................................................................................................................47 Table 2-29 Persons with Developmental Disabilities Receiving Services by Residential Type 2021 ..........49 Table 2-30 Homeless Persons ....................................................................................................................50 Table 2-31 Shelter Facilities in Kings County ..............................................................................................51 Table 2-32 Quantitative Impact Summary...................................................................................................53 Table 2-33 Assisted Housing Units.............................................................................................................60 Table 2-34 Regional Housing Needs, 2024-2032........................................................................................64 Table 3-1 Redevelopment Trends on Sites with Agricultural Uses.............................................................73 Table 3-2: Infrastructure Capacity and Upgrade Needs .............................................................................85 Table 3-1 Potential New Dwelling Units By Zone (Avenal, Corcoran, Kings County)...............................104 Table 3-2 Potential New Dwelling Units by Zone (Hanford)......................................................................105 Table 3-3 Land Inventory and RHNA Targets...........................................................................................106 Table 4-1 General Plan Residential Land Use Categories ........................................................................110 Table 4-2 (A) Permitted Residential Development by Zoning District - City of Avenal...............................111 Table 4-2 (B) Permitted Residential Development by Zoning District - City of Corcoran ...........................111 Table 4-2 (C) Permitted Residential Development by Zoning District - City of Hanford.............................112 Table 4-2 (d) Permitted Residential Development by Zoning District – Kings County Unincorporated ......113 Table 4-3 Residential Development Standards ........................................................................................124 Table 4-4 Residential Parking Standards ..................................................................................................126 Table 4-5 Development Review Processing Times ..................................................................................131 Table 4-6: Development Fees – Single Family ..........................................................................................140 Table 4-7: Development Fees – Multi-Family ............................................................................................141 Table 4-8 On-Site and Off-Site Improvements...........................................................................................142 Table 4-9: City of Hanford Wastewater Treatment Capacity ....................................................................147 Table 4-10: Adequate Infrastructure Capacities in Unincorporated Kings County ...................................148

Page 646 of 1565 ends

Page intentionally left blank

Page 647 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Planning Context
1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
A. Planning Context
Kings County is located within the agriculturally rich San Joaquin Valley, with Fresno County to the north and west, Tulare County to the east, and Kern County to the south. Created in 1893, Kings County was carved from the western portion of Tulare County and later added another 100 square miles from Fresno County. The Kings River, from which the County derives its name, runs along the northern edges and flows south towards the center of the County. Historically, this river flowed farther south to what was once Tulare Lake. Now referred to as the Tulare Lake Basin, this area is extensively used for agricultural crop production.

Kings County is comprised of four cities (Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford, and Lemoore), four unincorporated community service areas (Armona, Home Garden, Kettleman City, and Stratford), and a few other smaller community pockets. According to the California Department of Finance, approximately 154,000 people lived in Kings County as of January 2025, with approximately 14,400 of those housed within the three state prison facilities. The Lemoore Naval Air Station houses approximately 10,500 naval personnel and dependents in approximately 1,630 housing units, while the Santa Rosa Rancheria is home to about 500 Tachi Yokut Indians on 1,535 acres of tribal land.

Access through the County and to other major outside destinations is provided by a network of highways and railroads. While Interstate 5 and State Route 99 provide routes to the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay metropolitan areas, State Route 41 connects the valley with the Central Coast and Yosemite National Park. State Route 198 provides access to Sequoia National Park. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad connects Kings County to Sacramento and Bakersfield while the San Joaquin Valley Railroad connects to Huron to the west and Visalia and Porterville to the east.

California High-Speed Rail expects construction to be complete for the Kings-Tulare Station just east of Hanford in 2030. The County’s transportation network has played a key role in its economic development. Agriculture remains the predominant landscape of Kings County, with approximately 84% of its land area used for agriculture. While dairy products are the County’s leading commodity, the agricultural industry is diversified with cotton, cattle, field crops, seeds, fruit & nuts, vegetables, apiary products, livestock & poultry, and other related products also having a significant presence.

As Kings County begins the 2024-2032 planning period, water management is a critical issue in Kings County, given its urban and agricultural importance and the need to balance water use with environmental conservation. As per the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS), Kings County is not affected by drought with August 2023 recorded as the second wettest month in 129 years, and January 2023 to August 2023 was the seventh wettest period in 129 years.

Page 648 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Planning Context
2 Note: General locational map. Does not include recent annexations and boundaries.

Figure 1-1 - Regional Location Map

Page 649 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Planning Context
3 1. Purpose and Statutory Authority
The Housing Element is mandated by §§65580-65589 of the California Government Code. State Housing Element law requires that each city and county identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs within their jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, programs and quantified objectives to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing. To that end, state law requires that the housing element:
• Identify adequate sites to facilitate and encourage the development, maintenance and improvement of housing for households of all economic levels, including persons with special needs;
• Remove, as legally feasible and appropriate, governmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all income levels; • Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderateincome households; • Conserve and improve the condition of housing and neighborhoods, including existing affordable housing;
• Promote equal housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability; and • Preserve lower-incomepublicly-assistedhousing developmentswithineachcommunity.

The Housing Element is organized into the following major sections:
• Chapter 2: Analysis of the demographic, housing, and special needs characteristics and trends in Kings County jurisdictions.
• Chapter 3: Analysis of land, financial, and organizational resources available to address the housing goals in Kings County.
• Chapter 4: Review of potential market, governmental, and environmental constraints that affect Kings County jurisdictions’ ability to address their housing needs. • Chapter 5: The Housing Plan to address identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies and programs.
• Appendix A: Evaluation of each jurisdiction’s accomplishments toward meeting the goals and objectives set forth in the previous Housing Element. • Appendix B: A detailed land inventory of suitable sites for housing development. • Appendix C: A summary of public participation during the Housing Element update process. • Appendices D1 – D4: Fair Housing Analyses for each jurisdiction – Kings County and the Cities of Avenal, Corcoran, and Hanford

Page 650 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Planning Context
4 2. Framework for the Joint Kings County Housing Element In California, it is typical for each city or county to prepare and maintain its own General Plan and housing element. However, in Kings County, three cities (Avenal, Corcoran, and Hanford) and the County have chosen to collectively prepare a joint multijurisdictional housing element with administrative support from the Kings County Community Development Agency. While unusual, this collaborative approach to the housing element has a number of advantages, including the following:
• Overthepast severaldecades,thetrendindealingwithcomplexpublicpolicy issueshasbeen toward a regional approach to problem-solving. Existing housing element law embodies this principle through the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) process. The Senate Bill 375 establishes a framework for regional planning and “Sustainable Communities Strategies” intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through land use, housing and transportation policies.
• Housing markets are regional in nature and do not stop at jurisdictional boundaries.

Coordinated regional strategies offerthe potential to be more effective in addressing housing needs than when each jurisdiction operates individually. • In difficult economic times such as these, economies of scale accruing from shared resources can result in significant cost savings to jurisdictions that jointly prepare housing elements. KingsCounty and the local governments collaborate togetherto integrate land use planning, aligning general plans and zoning ordinances, engaging communities and stakeholders to create more sustainable and interconnected communities within the County.

3. Data Sources
In preparing the Housing Element, various sources of information were consulted. The 2020 decennial Census and the annual American Community Survey updates were used as the primary sources of demographic information. However, other sources supplemented the Census data, including the following:
• Housing conditions surveys conducted by the jurisdictions; • Population and housing data from the California Department of Finance (DOF); • Employment data from theCalifornia Employment Development Department (EDD); • Local economic data from the Kings County Economic Development Corporation; • Housing market data from the Kings County Board of Realtors; • Population and housing characteristics from Naval Air Station Lemoore; • Point-in-time homeless data provided by Kings/TulareContinuum of Care; • Land use data based on the General Plans and zoning ordinances of each jurisdiction; and

Page 651 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Community Involvement
5 • Regional housing needs information prepared by the Kings County Association of Governments.

4. Relationship to the General Plan
Government Code Section 65302.1 is a critical component to addressing housing challenges and ensuring that local governments plan for the development of housing, especially affordable housing, in a comprehensive and coordinated manner within the context of their General Plans. State law requires that the Housing Element be consistent with other elements of jurisdictions’ General Plans.

Policies and programs set forth in this Housing Element are consistent with policies and programs in other elements of the respective General Plans. However, if during the implementation of this Housing Element any inconsistencies with other portions of the General Plans are identified, appropriate amendments to maintain internal consistency will be proposed. This Housing Element supports the provisions of state law through its assessment of housing needs, setting housing goals and policies, analysis of available resources and constraints, identification of sites for development of a variety of housing types in appropriate locations consistent with the regional growth forecast, regional housing needs plan, and regional transportation plans. This housing element also includes policies and programs aimed at promoting and facilitating the development of affordable housing units for various income levels. It also includes the environmental review component to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Government Code Sec. 65302 specifies 7 mandatory elements that must be included in the General Plan, including the housing element. These elements help local governments make informed decisions about land use, transportation, housing, conservation, open space and more.

B.Community Involvement
State law requires local governments to make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. To that end, each jurisdiction has provided opportunities for residents, interested parties, and local officials to participate in the update process and offer recommendations regarding housing needs and strategies to address those needs.

The public participation process for this Housing Element involved four major stages:

1. Public workshops andmeetings in each of the three cities andthe unincorporatedCounty during the preparation of the Draft Housing Element;

2. Publication oftheDraft Housing Element and subsequentreview by theCaliforniaDepartment of Housing and Community Development (HCD);

3. Revisions to the Housing Element to address comments from HCD and publication of a revised Draft Housing Element;

4. Public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council of each city and the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors of Kings County prior to adoption of the final

Page 652 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Community Involvement
6 Housing Element.

For details regarding the public meetings and hearings, as well as a summary of issues raised during the update process, please refer to Appendix C: Public Participation Summary.

1. Initial Public Meetings
Specific public workshops or meetings were held recently in Kings County and each of the jurisdictions on the housing element and fair housing assessment with details as follows:

1. Avenal – Town Hall Meeting on November 8, 2023, at 6:00 pm - Avenal Theater, 233 E. Kings St., Avenal, 93204

2. Corcoran – Planning Commission Meeting on November 20, 2023, at 5:30 pm - Corcoran City Council Chambers, 1015 Chittenden Ave., Corcoran, 93212

3. Hanford – Joint Study with City Council & Planning Commission in attendance on November 6, 2023, at 4:00 pm - Hanford City Hall-Training Room 319 N. Douty St., Hanford, 93230

4. Kings County – Planning Commission Meeting on November 6, 2023, at 7:00 pm - Kings County Government Center, Administration Building #1 Multi-Purpose Room, 1400 W. Lacey Blvd., Hanford, 93230
Notices of the meetings are attached in Appendix C: Public Participation Summary.

Avenal
Several members of the community attended the meeting and actively participated in discussion on several aspects of Housing Element and Fair housing analysis. Staff answered questions from the public regarding the Housing Element process and after consultant presentation Director of Community & Economic Development Department, Kao Nou Yang, closed the meeting encouraging participants to send comments by mail or email.

Corcoran
Members of the community did not attend the meeting. The Planning Commission discussed several topics on zoning, city's obligations to build, and whether the city could force a developer to build affordable housing.

Hanford
Several members of the community attended the meeting, but no questions or concerns were raised by those present. The City Council and the Planning Commission discussed topics concerning affordability, available assistance to the public such as first-time home-buyer programs, housing income categories, and income levels to qualify for affordable housing assistance. Questions were answered by both the consultant and staff.

County of Kings
Members of the public did not attend the meeting. The Planning Commission discussed several topics on the Housing Element and the Fair Housing Analysis.

Page 653 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Community Involvement
7 2. Housing Needs Survey
A housing needs survey was conducted in all jurisdictions. Residents were given the opportunity to respond to 14 questions as shown in Appendix C: Public Participation Summary. The questions related to demographics, income, expenses, housing priorities, and specific responses in relation to housing issues and affordable/fair housing needs.

Avenal
13 responses to the Housing Needs Survey were collected for the city of Avenal. Of these respondents, 31% live and work in Avenal, 61.5% work in Avenal, and 7.7% were interested in Avenal Housing Issues. 38% of respondents have lived in Kings County for 20 years or more.

Another 7.7% of applicants have lived in the County for more than 10 years. 77% of respondents owned their homes, 15% rented, with no respondents that live with family or friends, and no respondents were unhoused. Approximately, 46% of respondents were between 45 and 65 years old, 15% of respondents were 35 to 44 years old, and 38% of respondents were between 25 and 34 years old. 77% of respondents identified themselves as Hispanic/Latino, 15% as White/Caucasian, and 7% identified themselves as two or more races. Approximately 8% of respondents earned <$35,000 annually, 23% earned between $35,000 and $56,000, 8% earned between $56,000 and $72,000, 8% earned between $87,000 and $97,000, and 38% earned 97,000 or more.

When asked what percentage of income is spent on housing costs, 61% of respondents stated they spend between 30-50% of income on housing. Another 23% said they spend less than 30% of income on housing. Most respondents identified ‘Increase home ownership opportunities for moderate, low and very Extremely Low-Income residents’ (69%) with both ‘Code Enforcement’ and ‘Make it easier to build in Avenal’ at (46%), as the top housing priorities in Avenal followed by ‘Increase the amount of housing that is affordable for moderate, low, and very low-income residents’ (38%) and ‘Improve substandard housing conditions’ (31%). 24% of respondents also identified ‘Programs to help existing homeowners stay in their homes’ as a priority.

Of those surveyed, 77% were satisfied with their housing condition, with 8% that would like to downsize but are unable to find a smaller unit. An additional 8% cited difficulty with completing the survey electronically. With regards to the preferred housing types to be built in the City of Avenal, the majority (46%) identified single-family homes as their top priority followed by Mixedincome Housing (23%) and Townhomes (15%). One respondent gave a detailed response in support of apartments as affordable stepping stones to eventual home ownership.

With regards to whether there is insufficient housing in the community, 69% felt there is insufficient housing for families with children and 46% of respondents felt there is insufficient housing for single individuals. Respondents selected low-income households and older adults (seniors, elderly) both at 31% as populations with insufficient housing.

Corcoran
Corcoran had a good response to their survey with 33 responses. 48.5% of the respondents live

Page 654 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Community Involvement
8 and work in Corcoran, 45.5% work in Corcoran and a further 12.12% were interested in housing issues in Corcoran. 48.5% of respondents have lived in Kings County for 20 years or more.

Another 12% of the respondents have lived in the County for more than 10 years. 70% of respondents owned their homes, 12% rented, 18% live with family or friends, and no respondents were homeless. 48.5% of respondents were between 45 and 64 years old.

Approximately 21% of respondents were 35-44 years old, 15% of respondents were between 25 and 34 years old and 12% were between 18 and 24 years old. 55% of the respondents identified themselves as Hispanic/Latino, 21% as white/Caucasian, and 9% identified themselves as two or more races. Approximately 6% of the respondents earned < $35,000 per annum, 24% between $35,000 to $56,000, 9% earned between $56,000 to $72,000, 30% earned between $72,000 to $97,000 and 24% earned $97,000 or more.

Of the respondents, 33% spent more than 50% of their income on housing and another 33% spent between 30% and 50% of their income on housing. Most respondents identified ‘increase home ownership opportunities for moderate, low and very low-income residents (51.5%) and code enforcement (42.4%) as the top housing priorities in Corcoran. followed by programs to help existing homeowners stay in their homes (39%), 'make it easier to build in Corcoran’ (39%) and ‘increase the amount of housing that is affordable for moderate, low and very low-income residents’ (36%). 36% of respondents also identified ‘improve subsidized housing’ as a priority. 79% of the respondents were satisfied with their housing situation, 9% were unable to house all the family members they need to, and 3% identified their unit to be in poor condition needing repairs. 2Two respondents gave feedback that it’s too expensive to purchase a home. With regard to the question on preferred home types to be built in Corcoran, the majority (79%) identified single family homes as their top priority followed by mixed-income housing and townhomes. Only 3% of respondents identified multi-family housing (15+ units) as a priority.

In response to whether there is insufficient housing in the community, 42% of respondents felt there is insufficient housing for single individuals, 30% of respondents felt there is insufficient housing for families with children, 21% for low-income households, and 18% felt there is insufficient housing for older adults (seniors, elderly).

Hanford
Hanford received 70 responses to the survey. 47% of the respondents live in Hanford and 43% of the respondents live and work in Hanford. Only 14% of the respondents were interested in Hanford housing issues. 56% of respondents have lived in Hanford for 20 years or more. 70% of respondents owned their homes, 21% rented, 1 respondent was homeless, and the rest lived with family or friends. 47% of respondents were between 45 and 64 years old. Approximately 23% of respondents were over 65 years old and less than 3% of the respondents were under 25 years old. 59% of respondents identified themselves as white/Caucasian, 20% identified themselves as Hispanic/Latino and 10% as mixed race. Approximately 9% of the respondents earned < $35,000 per annum, 21% between $35,000 to $56,000 and 23% earned $97,000 or more. 41% of respondents spent between 30-50% of their income on housing costs and 16% spent more than 50% of their income on housing costs

Page 655 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Community Involvement
9 The majority of respondents identified the cost of buying a home and limited availability of affordable units as the biggest barriers to affordable housing in Hanford. In response to the top 3 housing priorities, 54% of respondents suggested to increase the amount of housing that is affordable for moderate, low, and very low-income residents, 36% identified more senior housing, and around 30% of respondents identified code enforcement, increased homeownership opportunities for moderate, low, and very low-income residents and programs to help existing homeowners stay in their homes as priorities. 74% of the respondents were satisfied with their housing situation, 4% identified their unit to be in poor condition needing repairs and another 4% identified improvements were required to their units to live with a disability. With regard to a question on preferred home types to be built in Hanford, the majority (60%) identified single family homes as their top priority followed by homes targeted for a specific purpose or population, including seniors, persons with disabilities, and farm employees (30%). 26% of respondents identified low-density multi-family housing (duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes) with 20% identifying mixed income housing and townhomes as priories. Only 13% of respondents identified high density housing (15+ units) as a priority.

In response to whether there is insufficient housing in the community, 56% of respondents felt there is insufficient housing for older adults (seniors, elderly), 40% of respondents felt there is insufficient housing for low-income households, and 36% of respondents felt insufficient housing for single individuals.

Kings County
Kings County had an excellent response to their survey with 217 responses. 72% of the respondents live and work in Kings County and 25% of the respondents were interested in Kings County housing issues. 58% of respondents have lived in Kings County for 20 years or more.

Another 13% of the respondents have lived in the County for more than 10 years. 55% of respondents owned their homes, 27% rented, 15% live with family or friends, and no respondents were homeless. 35% of respondents were between 45 and 64 years old.

Approximately 29% of respondents were 35-44 years old, and 27% of respondents were between 25 and 34 years old. 50% of the respondents identified themselves as Hispanic/Latino, 33% as white/Caucasian, and 7% identified themselves as two or more races. Approximately 7% of the respondents earned < $35,000 per annum, 35% between $35,000 to $56,000, 16% earned between $56,000 to $72,000, 16% earned between $72,000 to $97,000 and 18% earned $97,000 or more.

The majority of respondents identified the cost of buying a home (38%) and limited availability of affordable units (27%) as the biggest barriers to affordable housing in Kings County. Another 16% of the respondents felt income limits on affordable housing as a barrier to affordable housing. In response to the top 3 housing priorities, 71% of respondents suggested to increase the amount of housing that is affordable for moderate, low, and very low-income residents, 64% identified increasing home ownership opportunities for moderate, low and very low-income residents and 39% of the respondents identified programs to help existing homeowners stay in their homes as priorities.

Page 656 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Community Involvement
10 67% of the respondents were satisfied with their housing situation, 7% were unable to house all the family members they need to, and 4% identified their unit to be in poor condition needing repairs and another 2% identified improvements were required to their units to live with a disability. With regard to the question of preferred home types to be built in Kings County, the majority (40%) identified single family homes as their top priority followed by homes targeted for a specific purpose or population (23%). 14% identified mixed income housing as a priority and another 8% identified low-density multi-family housing (duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes). Only 5% of respondents identified high density housing (15+ units) as a priority.

In response to whether there is insufficient housing in the community, 61% of respondents felt there is insufficient housing for low-income households, 50% of respondents felt there is insufficient housing for single individuals, 45% felt there is insufficient housing for families with children and 35% of respondents felt there is sufficient housing for older adults (seniors, elderly).

3. Localized Outreach
Kings County Unincorporated
Localized outreach meetings were held in the unincorporated communities to receive public comment on housing-related issues:
• Home Garden Community – October 29, 2025 at 4:30 pm at Home Garden Community Park
• Armona Community – November 5, 2025 at 6:00 pm at Armona Branch Public Library • Kettleman City Community – February 19, 2026 at 6:00 pm at Kettleman City Branch Public Library
• Stratford Community – February 26, 2026 at 6:00 pm at Stratford Branch Public Library The County facilitated conversation regarding Community needs and provided an opportunity for residents to freely discuss housing-related issues. Public comments received from Home Garden residents and Home Garden Community Service District board members centered around infrastructure constraints, lack of commercial businesses to support residents’ needs, and code enforcement issues. Residents are concerned with the water pressure and the lack of curb, gutter, and sidewalks for pedestrian safety. Board members of the Home Garden Community Service District spoke regarding concerns with water supply due to ADU law increasing residential water connections. Although the Armona Community is happy with their water services and quality, there were shared concerns stemming around circulation infrastructure, a lack of street lighting, and the need for affordable housing. Kettleman City residents and a Kettleman City Community Service District board member shared several concerns around water services, including water quality and costs. Residents would like to have code enforcement to monitor blight in the residential area. Residents feel that a lack of job opportunities and affordable housing has stunted growth in the Kettleman City Community.

Stratford residents have shared the need for a park to support existing residents and improved

Page 657 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Community Involvement
11 infrastructure.

Comments have been incorporated into Program 4.13 Assist Affordable Housing, Program 4.18 Infrastructure Improvements to Facilitate Housing for Lower and Moderate Income Households and Special Needs Populations, Program 4.20 for New Environmental Justice Element, Density Bonus, Ministerial Approval of Multi-Family Developments without CEQA Review, Program 4.22 ADU Outreach Meeting and Incentives, Program 4.23 Development of Extremely-Low Income Housing, Program 4.24 Regional Collaboration on Housing Opportunities, and Program 4.25 Attainment of Infrastructure.

An additional round of public outreach meetings is to be hosted by the County in each Community in May and September of 2026.

Housing Partners
In addition, on March 31, 2026, the County and the Cities compiled a list of housing partners, such as market-rate developers, community service districts, and non-profit organizations, and emailed the draft Housing Element for their review and comment. The County and Cities conducted a virtual meeting on April 16, 2026 at 1:00 to receive comments and answer questions. None of the housing partners attended the meeting or submitted comments to the jurisdictions. Below is a list of the housing partners that received the email and draft Housing Element:
• Market-rate developers: DR Horton, San Joaquin Valley Homes, Woodside Homes, Lennar Homes, Swift Homes, Holly Hills Development
• Low-income developer: Self-Help Enterprises
• Non-profit organizations: Kings County Action Organization, Champions • Local Agencies: Kings County Housing Authority
• Community Service Districts/Public Utility Districts: Armona Community Service District, Home Garden Community Service District, Kettleman City Community Service District, Stratford Public Utility District

4. Future Public Outreach Approach
Moving forward, the County and Cities will employ additional methods for local public outreach, striving to include lower-income and special needs households, representative organizations, and neighborhoods with higher concentrations of lower-income households. The jurisdictions will conduct targeted stakeholder interviews, focus group meetings, or establish a committee representative of lower-income households in future public outreach efforts. Other options could include attending local events to engage in housing conversation with the public, social media postings for meetings and surveys, postings at each Community Service District/Public Utility District, and postings in department lobbies where there is public traffic. Based on a more localized outreach effort, the jurisdictions would more effectively incorporate public comments into the

Page 658 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Community Involvement
12 element.

Page 659 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Population and Household Characteristics 13 CHAPTER 2:

HOUSING NEEDS

ASSESSMENT
The availability of decent and affordable
housing for residents is an important housing
goal. To accomplish this goal, a comprehensive
assessment of housing needs provides the
basis for developing responsive policies and
programs. This chapter presents and analyzes
demographic, economic, and housing
characteristics and their impact upon housing needs in the cities of Avenal, Corcoran, and Hanford, and unincorporated Kings County. The Housing Plan (Chapter 5) provides policies and strategies to address identified housing needs.

A. Population and Household Characteristics
Housing needs in Kings County are largely determined by population and employment growth, coupled with various demographic variables. Characteristics such as age, household size, occupation, and income combine to influence the type of housing needed and its affordability.

1. Population Trends
Kings County is comprised of four incorporated cities (Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford, and Lemoore), four unincorporated community service areas (Armona, Home Garden, Kettleman City, and Stratford), and a few other smaller community pockets. According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), Kings County had a total population of 152,486 in 2020; however, about 10% of that is represented by persons in group quarters, primarily the state prisons and Naval Air Station Lemoore. Thus, Table 2-1 presents the household population of King County at approximately 137,000 in 2020.

During 1990 to 2020 time period, as shown in Table 2-1, the City of Hanford experienced the largest growth in household population, with over 27,000 residents, a 90% increase over its 1990 population level. Hanford’s growth also accounted for a majority (57%) of Kings County’s total household population growth of 47,495 residents during the 30-year period. Avenal and Corcoran saw population increases of about 71% and 63%, respectively, during the 1990-2020 time period. The unincorporated county has experienced a decline in population of about 2,000 residents since 1990.

According to DOF1
, Kings County’s household population is projected to reach approximately 1 California, Department of Finance, P-4 Report, Population Projections for California Counties 2020-2030, 2020

Page 660 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Population and Household Characteristics 14 153,400 by the year 2030, an increase of 12% over the 2020 estimate.

Table 2-1 Kings County Household Population Growth, 1990-2020 Jurisdiction
Household Population Change 1990-2020
1990 2000 2010 2020 Persons %
Avenal 5,505 7,973 9,082 9,406 3,901 70.9%
Corcoran 8,309 9,539 12,573 13,525 5,216 62.8%
Hanford 29,927 40,839 53,068 56,945 27,018 90.3%
Unincorporated 32,122 31,271 32,165 30,074 (2,048) (6.4%) County Totals 89,469 109,332 131,402 136,964 47,495 53.1% Note: All numbers exclude persons in group quarters (State prisons and Naval Air Station Lemoore) Sources: U.S. Census; Cal. Dept. of Finance, E5 & E8 Population & Housing Estimates, 2020

2. Age Characteristics
Although population growth strongly affects total demand for new housing, housing needs are also influenced by age characteristics. Typically, different age groups have distinct lifestyles, family characteristics, incomes, and housing preferences. As people move through each stage of life, their housing needs and preferences also change. Age characteristics are therefore important in planning for the changing housing needs of residents.

Coupled with housing prices, the homeownership rate is related to householder age.

Homeownership rates tend to increase with the age and income of the householder.

Housing needs often differ by age group. For instance, most young adults (under 34) are single or starting families. Housing needs for younger adults are addressed through apartments or first-time homeownership opportunities. Middle-aged residents (34-64) may already be homeowners, are usually in their prime earning years and have dependents living at home, and thus tend to seek larger homes. Seniors often own a home but, due to limited income or disabilities, may need assistance to remain in their homes. As life expectancies increase, the 65+ age group is projected to be the fastestgrowing population segment, resulting in increasing need for assisted living and care facilities.

As shown in Table 2-2, the median age of countywide residents was 32.0 years in 2020. In comparison to Kings County, the city of Avenal had a younger overall population, with median ages

29.4 years. Whereas, the cities of Corcoran (34.5 years) and Hanford (33.4 years) had higher median ages than the County. Avenal had the highest percentage of the under 20 age group at 34%, while Hanford had the largest percentage of seniors (65 and older) at 12% of the total population.

Page 661 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Population and Household Characteristics 15 Table 2-2 Age Distribution
Age Group Avenal Corcoran Hanford Unincorporate
d
Kings County
Total population 13,033 22,078 57,339 32,773 151,090
Under 5 years 8.5% 5.4% 7.5% 8.3% 7.6%
5 to 19 years 25.9% 16.5% 23.2% 25.0% 22.2%
20 to 29 years 16.4% 18.9% 13.9% 19.7% 17.1%
30 to 64 years 44.3% 50.5% 43.1% 37.6% 42.8%
65 to 84 years 4.9% 7. 8% 10.6% 8.5% 9.2%
85 years and over 0.0% 1.0% 1.6% 0.9% 1.1%
Median age 29.4 34.5 33.4 N/A 32.0
Source:Census ACS 2016-2020, Table S0101

3. Race and Ethnicity
As shown in Table 2-3, the largest racial/ethnic groups in Kings County in 2020 were Hispanics (55%) and Non-Hispanic Whites (32%). Asian, African American and other groups together comprised about 14% of the County total. Of the four cities in the County, Avenal had the highest percentage of Hispanic residents at 87% and then followed by Corcoran at 69%.

Table 2-3 Race and Ethnicity
Racial/Ethnic Group Avenal Corcoran Hanford Unincorporate d Kings County
Not Hispanic or Latino 13.0% 30.7% 50.6% 49.3% 45.1%
-White 8.4% 15.3% 37.3% 36.3% 35.2%
-Black or African American 3.3% 11.7% 4.8% 5.1% 5.9%
-American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.8% 0.3% 2.4% 0.8% -Asian 0.3% 0.7% 4.4% 2.4% 3.6%
-Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% -Other races or 2+ races 0.5% 2.1% 3.8% 3.0% 3.2%
Hispanic or Latino (any race) 87.0% 69.3% 49.4% 50.7% 54.9% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table B03002

4. Household Type and Overcrowding
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 persons generally occupy smaller apartments or condominiums. Single-person households often include seniors or young adults.

Page 662 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Population and Household Characteristics 16 Table 2-4 Household Characteristics
Age Group Avenal Corcoran Hanford Unincorpo
rated
Kings
County
Total Households 2,752 3,854 18,960 9,244 43,604
Family Households 86.5% 80.1% 76.6% 81.9% 78.3%
With own children under 18 years 55.0% 41.8% 40.0% 43.5% 41.3% Married/Cohabitating Couples 62.4% 56.7% 58.9% 68.2% 61.2% With own children under 18 years 39.6% 32.5% 30.4% 37.3% 32.2% Male Householder, no
spouse/partner present 15.5% 14.1% 16.5% 13.6% 16.2%
With own children under 18 years 2.4% 0.9% 2.8% 1.8% 2.4% Living Alone 6.4% 7.7% 7.9% 6.5% 8.3%
Age 65+ 1.4% 2.4% 2.8% 1.8% 2.5%
Female Householder, no
spouse/partner present 22.2% 29.2% 24.5% 18.2% 22.6%
With own children under 18 years 13.0% 8.4% 6.8% 4.4% 6.8% Living Alone 5.6% 8.7% 9.7% 8.1% 8.8%
Age 65+ 3.4% 5.5% 5.3% 4.7% 4.7%
Nonfamily households 13.5% 19.9% 23.4% 18.1% 21.7%
Average household size 3.74 3.42 3.00 N/A 3.14
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table DP-2, B11012, and S1101 Table 2-4 displays household composition by community as reported by the Census ACS 2015-2020.

Families comprised approximately 78% of all households within Kings County. Countywide, the proportion of single households (male and females living alone) was approximately 17%. At the city level, Hanford (18%) had the highest percentage of single-person households.

As noted earlier, Kings County has a significant population of people living in group quarters who are not counted as households. Avenal and Corcoran State Prisons are counted in the total population figures but are not counted as households. The same is true for persons living on-base at Naval Air Station Lemoore.

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

Page 663 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Population and Household Characteristics 17 income for housing.

Table 2-5 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. The difference between renters and owner overcrowding was even more pronounced for the City of Corcoran where 20% were renters and 9% were owners. Overall, Avenal showed the highest percentage of total households (renters and owners) living in overcrowded conditions at 17%, followed by Corcoran at 15%, while the countywide percentage was 8% in 2020.

Table 2-5 Overcrowding by Tenure
Occupants per
Room Avenal Corcoran Hanford UnincorporatedKings County Total households 2,727 3,845 18,960 9,244 43,604
Owner occupied: 1,306 1,789 11,353 4,298 23,368

0.50 or less 36.0% 47.1% 66.0% 62.9% 60.7%

0.51 to 1.00 48.9% 43.7% 29.5% 32.1% 34.2%

1.01 to 1.50 15.2% 8.6% 3.3% 2.3% 3.9%

1.51 to 2.00 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 2.4% 0.7%

2.01 or more 0.0% 0.4% 0.9% 0.2% 0.5%
Renter occupied: 1,446 2,056 7,607 4,946 20,236

0.50 or less 21.6% 27.6% 42.3% 38.6% 39.7%

0.51 to 1.00 60.2% 52.1% 45.2% 51.2% 48.1%

1.01 to 1.50 13.8% 15.0% 8.8% 7.4% 8.7%

1.51 to 2.00 4.4% 4.0% 2.8% 2.6% 2.9%

2.01 or more 0.0% 1.2% 0.8% 0.2% 0.6%
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table B25014

5. Household Income and Overpayment
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. 0 shows the median household income of each community as reported by the Census ACS.

Table 2-6 Median Household Income
Jurisdiction Median Household Income% of County
Avenal $ 49,781 80.9%
Corcoran $ 42,997 69.9%
Hanford $ 65,974 107.2%

Page 664 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Population and Household Characteristics 18 Unincorporated N/A N/A
Kings County $ 61,556 100%
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020 Table S1901
The median household income for the entire County was reported as $61,556. Hanford had the highest median household incomes at approximately $65,974 and $68,658, respectively. This is likely due to the larger proportion of these cities’ workforces with “white-collar” jobs. Avenal and Corcoran had median households below the County average, at $49,781 and $42,997, respectively.

In both communities, a larger proportion of the workforce held “blue-collar” jobs such as farming, construction, extraction, manufacturing, production, transportation, and material moving.

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 2-7 estimates the percentages 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. At the city level, Avenal and Corcoran had higher percentages of lower-income owner and renter households than those in Hanford. For example, as shown in Table 2-7, 35% of Avenal owner households and 82% of renter households were in the lower-income category. As witnessed at the county and city levels, renters experience a higher proportion of lower-income households.

Table 2-7 Household Income Distribution by Tenure
Income Category Avenal Corcoran Hanford Unincorporated Kings County
<= 30% 7.9% 10.3% 4.1% 6.5% 5.5%
>30% to <=50% 6.9% 13.5% 6.8% 9.1% 7.3%
>50% to <=80% 20.4% 13.0% 11.0% 10.7% 11.0%
>80% to <=100% 10.6% 17.8% 7.8% 7.8% 8.6%
>100% 54.2% 45.4% 70.4% 65.7% 67.5%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Renters

Page 665 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Population and Household Characteristics 19 <= 30% 34.0% 25.0% 19.1% 14.1% 17.7%
>30% to <=50% 19.3% 21.8% 12.1% 13.3% 14.6%
>50% to <=80% 29.1% 24.0% 21.0% 26.5% 22.8%
>80% to <=100% 2.9% 12.5% 9.3% 10.5% 11.4%
>100% 15.2% 16.8% 38.5% 35.4% 33.5%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: HUD CHAS data based on Census ACS 2014-2018
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. As Table 2-7 above shows, both Avenal and Corcoran owner and renter households had higher percentages of extremely low-income households as compared to other areas of Kings County. More than one-third (34%) of Avenal renter households and one-quarter (25%) of Corcoran renter households were in the extremely-low income category. Further discussion of housing costs and affordability, as well as housing growth needs by income category is provided later in this chapter
Housing 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 2-8, a significant portion of lower-income households in each community overpaid for housing according to HUD CHAS data (special tabulations based on the Census ACS). However, the overpayment rate varied by tenure and income level. More than half of all very-low- and extremely-low-income households in all jurisdictions, both owners and renters, were reported to be overpaying. In most communities, however, more renter households than owner households were overpaying. Few households with incomes above the median faced overpayment – often less than 10% of households.

Table 2-8 Household Overpayment by Tenure
Income Category Avenal Corcoran Hanford Unincorporated Kings County Owners
<= 30% 82.4% 73.7% 82.4% 84.6% 79.0%
>30% to <=50% 86.7% 68.0% 67.1% 72.2% 68.6%
>50% to <=80% 6.8% 43.8% 53.9% 35.5% 48.3%
>80% to <=100% 17.4% 19.7% 46.0% 10.3% 32.8%
>100% 0.0% 4.0% 7.7% 5.8% 7.4%
Total 15.7% 27.8% 22.8% 20.5% 22.5%
Renters
<= 30% 81.9% 73.0% 77.9% 78.3% 79.3%
>30% to <=50% 68.1% 69.0% 85.2% 66.0% 78.3%

Page 666 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Population and Household Characteristics 20 >50% to <=80% 52.1% 51.0% 53.4% 56.8% 57.0%
>80% to <=100% 0.0% 12.0% 32.2% 35.1% 22.5%
>100% 0.0% 3.0% 7.2% 5.5% 6.4%
Total 56.1% 47.5% 42.1% 40.5% 43.2%
Source: HUD CHAS data based on Census; ACS 2014-2018
Extremely Low-Income (ELI) Households in Kings County
Extremely Low-Income (ELI) households are defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as those earning at or below 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI). In Kings County, the 2024 AMI is $87,900. Therefore, ELI thresholds are:

Table 2-9 Household Size ELI Income Limit (30% of AMI)
Number of Persons Extremely Low-Income Limits
1 Person $18,450
2 Persons $21,100
3 Persons $25,820
4 Persons $31,200
5 Persons $36,580
6 Persons $41,960
7 Persons $47,340
8 Persons $52,720
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2024 State Income Limits hcd.ca.gov Housing Affordability Challenges
Severe Cost Burden
According to the 2024 Affordable Housing Needs Report by the California Housing Partnership, 84% of ELI households in Kings County spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs, classifying them as severely cost-burdened. In contrast, only 3% of moderate-income households face similar burdens.

Shortage of Affordable Units
The same report highlights a significant shortfall in affordable housing for ELI households.

Specifically, 4,015 low-income renter households in Kings County lack access to affordable homes.

Overcrowding Issues
Overcrowding is a prevalent issue among low-income populations. While specific data for ELI households in Kings County is limited, overcrowding is typically defined as more than one person per room, and severe overcrowding as more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowded living conditions can lead to negative health outcomes and decreased quality of life.

Page 667 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Employment Trends
21 B. Employment Trends
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.

1. Employment by Industry
Kings County supports a diversified economy as illustrated in Figure 2. 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, and 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.

According to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), in December 2022, the 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.

Kings County is ranked 8th among California counties in agricultural production with an annual gross value of $2.2 billion. According to the Kings County 2020 Annual Agricultural Crop Report, milk remains the County’s leading commodity, followed by pistachios (second) and cotton (third). With climate change and the long-term severe drought as well as the 2023 wet winter/spring, it is uncertain to what extent future water supplies will affect agricultural production and employment.

Table 2-10 lists the major employers for the jurisdictions of Kings County. This table reflects the employer data from the California Employment Development Department and the Kings County Economic Development Corporation. As shown in the table, the largest employer in the county is the Naval Air Station Lemoore which employs approximately 5,000 to 9,999 civilian employees. Other key employers in the county include the State prison in Corcoran, the medical center and County administrative offices in Hanford. Although the EDD list in Table 2-10 does not include any major employers in Avenal, there is a State prison located within the city, which according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation employs approximately 1,300 persons at the prison as of June 2023. Also, given the rural nature of the unincorporated communities, employment and economic activity is concentrated in the cities.

Page 668 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Employment Trends
22 Figure 2-1 – Employment by Industry of Kings County Workforce 1 Table 2-10 Major Employers
Employer Name NAICS Code Employees Industry
Corcoran
California State Prison 921120 1,000-4,999 Government Office Site California State Prison 922140 1,000-4,999 State Government-Correctional Inst.

JG Boswell Co. 339999 100-249 Manufacturers
Zepeda’s Farm Labor Service 561311 250-499 Labor Contractors Hanford
Central Valley Meat Co. Inc. 311611 250-499 Meat Packer (mfrs.) Costco Wholesales 455211 100-249 WholesaleClub

Page 669 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Employment Trends
23 Del Monte Foods Inc. 311999 1,000-4,999 Food Products & Manufacturers HanfordCommunity Medical
Ctr. 621999 1,000-4,999 Health Services
Hanford Regional Healthcare 621111 100-249 Physicians & Surgeons Hanford Sentinel 513110 100-249 Newspaper(publishers/mgrs.) Keller Ford Lincoln 441110 100-249 Automobile Dealers-New Cars KingsCounty Administration 921120 1,000-4,999 Government Offices-County Marquez Brothers Intl. Inc. 424410 250-499 Mexican Food ProductsWholesale Nichols Farm Inc. 111998 100-249 Farms
Shiny Sugar 311314 100-249 Sugar Refiners (mgrs.)
TCTranscontinental
Packaging 322220 100-249 Packaging MaterialsManufacturers Walmart Supercenter 455110 500-999 Department Store
Warmerdam Packing 424480 250-499 Fruits & Veg.-Growers & Shippers Lemoore
Badasci & Wood Transport 484230 100-249 Trucking
Lemoore High School 611110 250-499 School
Lemoore Main Navy Exchange 455219 100-249 General Merchandise-Retail Leprino Foods Co. 311513 250-499 Cheese Processors (mgrs.) Naval Air Station 928110 5,000-9,999 Military Base
NAVAL Hospital Lemoore 622110 250-499 Hospital
West Hills college Lemoore 611210 100-249 Junior-Community College-Tech Inst.

Page 670 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Employment Trends
24 Note: The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy. Source: California EDD, July 2023, https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/majorer/countymajorer.asp?CountyCode=000031

2. Occupations Held by Residents
Occupations held by residents determine the income earned by a household and their corresponding ability to afford housing. Higher paying jobs provide broader housing opportunities for residents, while lower-paying jobs limit housing options. Understanding employment and occupation patterns can thus provide insight into present housing needs. Table 2-11 presents the percentages of the type of occupations held by civilian residents in each community based on the Census ACS 2016-2020 estimates.

Table 2-11 Occupations Held by Civilians
Jurisdiction
AvenalCorcoranHanfordUnincorporatedKings County
Management, business, science, and arts
occupations

12.9% 14.3% 27.1% 24.9% 25.2%
Service occupations 10.9% 20.3% 23.3% 16.6% 20.3%
Sales and office occupations 9.7% 18.5% 22.0% 17.6% 19.0% Natural resources, construction, & maintenance
occupations

51.7% 31.3% 14.8% 25.6% 20.5%
Production, transportation, & material moving
occupations

14.8% 15.6% 12.8% 15.3% 15.1%
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020 Table C24050
In Hanford, at least one-quarter of its civilian labor force held management, business, science, or arts-related jobs. These types of “white-collar” jobs typically pay higher salaries and thus allow residents to afford a greater choice of housing opportunities. However, service occupations, sales/office positions, and “blue-collar” positions typically pay relatively lower wages. Residents in these occupations have more limited ability to afford housing and, in some cases, are in the greatest need of affordable housing and assistance. Over one-half (52%) of Avenal’s civilian labor force had occupations related to natural resources, construction, and maintenance. This was followed by Corcoran, which had almost one-third (31%) in the same related occupations.

3. Jobs-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

Page 671 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Employment Trends
25 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 contributes 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 in order to balance the jobs-housing ratio and decrease commuting distances.

Table 2-12 shows that over one-third (37%) of the County’s workforce age 16 years and older who do not work at home travel less than 15 minutes to work and another 32% of workers travel 15-30 minutes to work. The average time to work for countywide workers was 23 minutes. At the city level, Avenal workers spent on average 36 minutes on the road to work, while Hanford workers spent only 24 minutes to work. The table also shows that Corcoran workers had the highest percentage of workers traveling less than 15 minutes to work at 47%.

Table 2-12 Travel Time to Work
Travel Time to
Work Avenal Corcoran Hanford Unincorporated Kings County Less than 15
minutes 20.8% 46.9% 38.0% 35.8% 36.8%
15-30 minutes 19.7% 17.8% 30.8% 37.4% 32.0%
30 to 59 minutes 35.8% 28.6% 25.3% 22.5% 25.1%
60 or more
minutes 23.6% 6.7% 5.9% 4.3% 6.1%
Average Travel
Time 36 min. 24 min. 24 min. NA 23min.

Note: Workers included those 16 years and over who did not work from home.

Source: Census ACS 2016-2020 Table S0801
When considering the work locations of city residents within the Kings County region as illustrated in Table 2-13, the City of Hanford has the largest concentration of workers at 45.5% that live and work within their jurisdictional limits. As the largest jurisdiction in the Kings County region, the City of Hanford has the lowest proportion of residents at 54.4% who commute to jobs elsewhere in Kings County. The City of Avenal has the largest proportion of residents who commute to jobs outside of their home city at 76.6%, followed closely by the City of Lemoore at 69.6%. According to recent Census estimates, 38% of residents work in their city of residence, with 62% commuting to other work locations in Kings County. Interestingly, this is a shift from the 2000 Census data, where 48% of residents worked in their home city and 36% commuted to work elsewhere in Kings County.

Page 672 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Housing Characteristics 26 When considering work locations of residents in Kings County, the jobs-housing balance can be explored. The jobs-housing balance refers to the approximate distribution of employment opportunities and workforce population in respect to a geographic area. Research has shown that a jobs-housing balanced area is less likely to have residents who commute long distances in a vehicle.

Residents may also be more likely to walk, cycle, or use public transportation when there is a balanced jobs-housing ratio. There is a general consensus that a balance of jobs to housing within an area can contribute to more sustainable travel in the form of shorter work trip distances. In looking at job locations and travel patterns in the Kings County region, the City of Hanford has the most balanced jobs-housing ratio or the most opportunities for residents to live near their place of employment.

Table 2-13 Work Locations of City/County Resident Workers Residence Location Avenal Corcoran Hanford Kings
County
Number of Resident Workers (Age 16 and over) 3,423 4,119 23,502 56,560 Work in Same City/County) 18.6% 35.3% 45.7% 75.6%
Work Outside of City/County 81.4% 64.7% 54.3% 24.1%
Totals 100% 100% 100% 100%
Note: Kings County percentages reflect residents working in or outside of the County. Also, 0.3% of Kings County workers worked outside of California.

Source: Census ACS 2016-2020 Table 0801
C. Housing Characteristics
This section describes the housing characteristics
and conditions that affect housing needs in Kings
County. Important housing stock characteristics
include housing type, tenure, vacancy rates, age,
condition, cost and affordability.

1. Housing Type
The California Department of Finance (DOF)
provides annual estimates of the number of housing
units by type for each jurisdiction based on reported
building and demolition permits. DOF estimated that
Kings County had a total of 46,815 housing units in
2020, representing a growth of 2,948 new units (7%) countywide since 2010. As is typical in small towns and rural areas, the majority of housing stock in all jurisdictions is comprised of single-family detached houses. Single-family attached (condominium) units represent just 5% of all units countywide. Approximately 18% of the county’s housing stock consisted of multi-family projects,

Page 673 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Housing Characteristics 27 such as apartments and townhomes. The remaining 4% of housing units in Kings County were mobile and manufactured homes. As shown in Table 2-14, Avenal had the highest total percentage (32%) of multi-family units as well as the highest proportion (15%) of larger multi-family developments with five or more units. Unincorporated areas had the highest percentage (10%) of mobile homes.

Table 2-14 Housing Units by Type, 2020
Percent of Housing by Type
Jurisdictions Housing
Units
SingleFamily
Detached
Single
Family
Attached
MultiFamily
(2-4 units)
MultiFamily
(5+ units)
Mobile
homes
Avenal 2,527 60.7% 3.2% 17.1% 14.8% 4.2%
Corcoran 4,145 74.5% 3.2% 10.3% 7.2% 4.7%
Hanford 20,353 74.1% 3.1% 8.5% 12.3% 2.1%
Unincorporated 10,342 74.3% 10.0% 4.7% 1.5% 9.5%
Kings County 46,815 72.9% 4.7% 8.2% 9.9% 4.3%
Source: California DOF, E-5 Report, May 2021

2. Housing Tenure and Vacancy Rates
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 2-15 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.

Table 2-15 Household Tenure and Vacancy Rates
Housing Type
Avenal Corcoran Hanford Unincorporated Kings County
Units % Units % Units % Units % Units %
Occupied housing units 2,752 95.6% 3,845 91.5% 18,960 95.8% 9,244 91.1% 43,604 94.2% Owner-occupied housing units 1,306 45.4% 1,789 42.6% 11,353 57.4% 4,298 42.4% 23,368 50.5% Avg. HH size of owner-occupied units 3.81 3.24 2.98 N/A 3.12 Renter-occupied housing units 1,446 50.2% 2,056 48.9% 7,607 38.5% 4,946 48.8% 20,236 43.7%

Page 674 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Housing Characteristics 28 Avg. HH size of renter-occupied units 3.69 3.57 3.03 N/A 3.17 Vacant housing units 126 4.4% 356 8.5% 824 4.2% 898 8.9% 2,663 5.8% For rent 77 2.7% 111 2.6% 46 0.2% 112 1.1% 446 1.0%
Rented, not occupied - 0.0% 19 0.5% 71 0.4% 25 0.2% 140 0.3% For sale only 21 0.7% 18 0.4% 29 0.1% 108 1.1% 426 0.9% Sold, not occupied - 0.0% 58 1.4% 66 0.3% 70 0.7% 194 0.4% For seasonal or occasional use 0.0% - 0.0% 9 0.0% 45 0.4% 54 0.1% All other vacant 28 1.0% 50 3.6% 603 3.0% 538 5.3% 1,403 3.0% Homeowner vacancy rate 1.6% 1.0% 0.3% N/A
N/A

1.8%
Rental vacancy rate 5.1% 5.1% 0.6% 2.1%
Total housing units 2,878 100.0% 4,201 100.0% 19,784 100.0% 10,142 100.0% 46,267 100.0% Source:Census, ACS 2016-2020, Tables DP04 and B25004
According to the Census, the housing vacancy rate in Kings County was 1.8% among homeowner units and 2.1% for rental units. However, the vacancy rate varied among communities. Avenal and Corcoran had the highest rental vacancy rate at 5.1%. Avenal and Corcoran also had the highest homeowner vacancy rates at 1.6% and 1.0%, respectively. Hanford had the lowest vacancy rates for both homeowner and rental units at 0.3% and 0.6%, respectively. At the same time, Hanford had the highest homeownership rates, at 57%.

3. Housing Conditions
Housing conditions are an important indicator of quality of life in Kings County communities. Like any asset, housing ages and deteriorates over time. If not regularly maintained, structures can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighborhood property values, and even become health hazards. Thus, maintaining and improving housing quality is an important goal for communities.

Housing age can be an indicator of the need for housing rehabilitation. As shown in Table 2-16, recent Census estimates reported that over half of all housing in Kings County has been built since 1990 and at least 58% of the homes countywide exceeded 30 years of age, which is when most homes require increased maintenance. Common repairs include a new roof, painting, plumbing, appliances and fixtures. Homes older than 50 years often require more substantial repairs (e.g., new siding, plumbing, or upgrades to electrical systems) in order to maintain the useful life and quality of the structure. Moreover, lead-based paint hazards are also more common in homes built before 1978 and particularly for homes built more than 50 years ago.

Among the three cities and the unincorporated areas, Corcoran’s housing stock was the oldest, with 62% of housing built before 1990 (more than 30 years) and 37% built before 1970 (more than 50 years).

Another key factor used to determine housing conditions is the observation of the existing housing stock. The most recent comprehensive housing conditions survey was conducted in 2008/2009 for the jurisdictions in Kings County. The surveys were based upon criteria developed by the California

Page 675 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Housing Characteristics 29 Department of Housing and Community Development. Housing was classified according to five categories – sound, minor repair, moderate repair, substantial repair, or dilapidated. Table 2-17 summarizes the results of these housing conditions surveys.

Hanford found the fewest problems, with 73% of the housing stock reported in sound condition.

Avenal and Corcoran reported the highest proportions of structures with problems. In Avenal, 42% needed repair (minor, moderate or substantial) and 9% were considered dilapidated. In Corcoran, 55% of homes required repairs and 8% were dilapidated.

Table 2-16 Tenure by Year Structure Built
Housing
Type
Avenal Corcoran Hanford Unincorporated Kings County
Units % Units % Units % Units % Units %
Total
Occupied
housing
units
2,752 3,845 18,960 100% 9,244 43,604 100%
OwnerOccupied 1,306 47.5
% 1,789 46.5% 11,353 59.9% 4,298 46.5% 23,368 53.6%
Built 2014 or
later 74 2.7% 149 3.9% 446 2.4% 51 0.6% 840 1.9%
Built 2010 to
2013 23 0.8% 12 0.3% 177 0.9% 37 0.4% 349 0.8%
Built 2000 to
2009 303 11.0% 266 6.9% 2,568 13.5% 753 8.1% 4,951 11.4% Built 1990 to
1999 251 9.1% 264 6.9% 2,476 13.1% 616 6.7% 4,683 10.7% Built 1980 to
1989 174 6.3% 84 2.2% 1,478 7.8% 480 5.2% 2,734 6.3%
Built 1970 to
1979 73 2.7% 304 7.9% 1,197 6.3% 710 7.7% 2,882 6.6%
Built 1960 to
1969 103 3.7% 83 2.2% 1,087 5.7% 493 5.3% 2,448 5.6%
Built 1950 to
1959 103 3.7% 277 7.2% 772 4.1% 438 4.7% 1,782 4.1%
Built 1940 to
1949 85 3.1% 162 4.2% 417 2.2% 318 3.4% 1,107 2.5%
Built 1939 or
earlier 117 4.3% 188 4.9% 735 3.9% 402 4.3% 1,592 3.7%
RenterOccupied 1,446 52.5
% 2,056 53.5% 7,607 40.1% 4,946 53.5% 20,236 46.4%
Built 2014 or
later 0 0.0% 43 1.1% 246 1.3% 33 0.4% 574 1.3%
Built 2010 to
2013 5 0.2% 23 0.6% 206 1.1% 388 4.2% 708 1.6%

Page 676 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Housing Characteristics 30 Built 2000 to
2009 380 13.8% 273 7.1% 623 3.3% 861 9.3% 2,606 6.0%
Built 1990 to
1999 171 6.2% 336 8.7% 1,790 7.0% 1,073 11.6% 3,665 8.4% Built 1980 to
1989 175 6.4% 354 9.2% 1,339 9.4% 467 5.1% 3,553 8.1%
Built 1970 to
1979 406 14.8% 216 5.6% 1,087 7.1% 793 8.6% 3,739 8.6%
Built 1960 to
1969 174 6.3% 333 8.7% 602 3.2% 493 5.3% 1,976 4.5%
Built 1950 to
1959 0 0.0% 132 3.4% 668 3.5% 299 3.2% 1,374 3.2%
Built 1940 to
1949 47 1.7% 206 5.4% 492 2.6% 227 2.5% 1,015 2.3%
Built 1939 or
earlier 88 3.2% 140 3.6% 305 1.6% 312 3.4% 1,026 2.4%
Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 2016-2020 (5-year Estimates), Table B25036 Table 2-17 Housing Conditions
Jurisdiction
Housing Conditions
Sound
Minor
Repair
Moderate
Repair
Substantial
Repair Dilapidated
Avenal 49% 7% 22% 13% 9%
Corcoran 37% 18% 28% 9% 8%
Hanford 73% 19% 8% <1% <1%
Unincorporated Community
Districts and PublicUtilityDistrict
<1% 24% 47% 15% 14%
Source: HousingConditions Reports forindividual jurisdictions (2008-09) Although the Census does not include statistics on housing condition based upon observations, it does include statistics related to substandard housing conditions as a result of units lacking complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. Table 2-18 presents the data from the Census ACS 2016- 2020 data on the availability of complete plumbing and kitchen facilities of occupied housing units.

Countywide, 0.1 % of the occupied housing units lacked complete plumbing and 0.5% lacked complete kitchen facilities, which was better than the statewide percentages of 0.4% for plumbing and 1.2% for kitchen facilities. Of the jurisdictions within the County, Avenal and the unincorporated had the highest percent of the occupied units lacking complete plumbing at 0.2%, and Hanford had the highest percent of units lacking complete kitchen facilities at 0.7%.

Table 2-18 Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing or Kitchen Facilities Jurisdictions
Lack of Complete
Plumbing
Lack of Complete
Kitchen
Avenal 0.2% 0.0%
Corcoran 0.0% 0.0%
Hanford 0.0% 0.7%

Page 677 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Housing Characteristics 31 Unincorporated 0.2% 0.2%
Kings County 0.1% 0.5%
California 0.4% 1.2%
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table S2504

4. Housing Affordability
State law establishes five income categories for purposes of housing programs based on the area (i.e., County) median income (“AMI”): extremely-low (30% or less of AMI), very-low (31-50% of AMI), low (51-80% of AMI), moderate (81-120% of AMI) and above-moderate (over 120% of AMI). Housing affordability is based on the relationship between household income and housing expenses.

According to HUD and the California HCD2
, housing is considered “affordable” if the monthly
housing cost (including utilities) is no more than 30% of a household’s gross income.

Table 2-19 presents 2022 income limits and maximum affordable monthly rents and sale prices for Kings County households, which also applies to the four cities of Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford, and Lemoore. Based on HCD’s affordability calculator3
, the maximum affordable monthly rent for
extremely-low-income households is $420 for a two-bedroom unit. For very low- and low-income households, the maximum affordable rents for a two-bedroom unit are $780 and $1,280, respectively. Again, using the HCD affordability calculator, the maximum affordable price to purchase a home for an extremely low-income household would be $39,500 for a two-bedroom house and $47,000 for a three-bedroom house. For very low- and low-income households the maximum sale prices to purchase a two-bedroom house would be $84,200 and $128,900, respectively.

Table 2-19 Housing Affordability in Kings County, 2022
(Cities of Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford, and Lemoore)
Limits
(Area Median
Income of
$80,300)
1-Bedroom
(1-2 persons)
2-Bedroom
(3 persons)
3-Bedroom
(4 persons)
4-Bedroom
(5 persons)
Extremely Low Income
Annual income
limit
$16,350 one
person;
$18,700 two
persons
$23,030 $27,750 $32,470
Max. monthly rent $360 $420 $480 $530
2 HCD memo of 4/15/2015 (http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/rep/state/inc2k15.pdf) 3 HCD Tools to help with APR completion: Affordability Calculator: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planningand-community-development/annual-progress-reports

Page 678 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Housing Characteristics 32 Max. sales price $32,100 $39,500 $47,000 $52,900
Very Low Income
Annual income
limit
$27,300 one
person
$31,200 two
persons
$35,100 $38,950 $42,100
Max. monthly rent $680 $780 $880 $960
Max. sales price $71,800 $84,200 $96,600 $106,600
Low Income
Annual income
limit
$43,650 one
person
$49,850 two
persons
$56,100 $62,300 $67,300
Max. monthly rent $1,120 $1,280 $1,440 $1,560
Max. sales price $111,500 $128,900 $146,300 $160,200
Moderate Income
Annual income
limit
$67,450 one
person
$77,100 two
persons
$86,700 $96,350 $104,050
Monthly rent $1,810 $2,050 $2,290 $2,480
Max. sales price $227,400 $259,200 $291,100 $316,600
Source: HCD Income Limits 2022 and HCD Affordability Calculator https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-communitydevelopment/annual-progress-reports Housing Prices
According to Zillow listings of single-family homes sold in the first six months of 2023, Hanford had the largest number of homes sold (377 units) among the four cities in the County. In comparing the recent home prices to the housing affordability limits in Table 2-19, affordable residential homes were available to lower-income households (including extremely low, very low, and low-income) in the four cities. The exceptions to affordability were for extremely low-income households looking for homes in Avenal and Lemoore. For example, as shown in Table 2-20, the lowest price home that sold in 2023 in Avenal was $50,000 for a two-bedroom house, $60,000 for a three-bedroom house, and $100,000 for a four plus bedroom house. These prices were higher than the maximum affordability sales price for extremely low-income households, which were presented in Table 2-19 as $39,500 for a two-bedroom house, $47,000 for a three-bedroom, and $52,900 for a four plus-bedroom house.

It should be noted that although the home sale prices at the lower range may be within the maximum affordability price limit, they are significantly below the median home prices, indicating that only a few homes may be available to lower-income households. To highlight this, the median sales price of the 200 three-bedroom homes sold in Hanford was $325,000, but only 12 homes or only 6% of the homes sold were within the maximum affordability price limit of $160,200 for low-income

Page 679 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Housing Characteristics 33 households.

Table 2-20 Kings County Residential Sale Prices, January-June 2023 Bedrooms
Number of
Homes Sold
Home Prices
Low High Median
Avenal
2-bedroom 7 $50,000 $235,000 $137,000
3-bedroom 11 $60,000 $360,000 $239,000
4+ bedrooms 4 $100,000 $355,000 $230,000
Corcoran
2-bedroom 12 $30,000 $269,000 $127,000
3-bedroom 30 $35,000 $288,000 $218,000
4+ bedrooms 17 $41,000 $380,000 $299,000
Hanford
2-bedroom 51 $26,000 $414,000 $230,000
3-bedroom 200 $45,000 $805,000 $325,000
4+ bedrooms 126 $50,000 $849,000 $425,000
Lemoore
2-bedroom 9 $75,000 $750,000 $180,000
3-bedroom 92 $57,000 $625,000 $300,000
4+ bedrooms 48 $40,000 $549,000 $375,000
Source: Zillow, Homes sold in Kings County, June 2023
Additionally, new homes in Kings County are generally in the price range of over $350,000 to $530,000, which are affordable to households in the above moderate-income group. For example, the Avertine-Choral Series homes by Lennar in the City of Lemoore include 14 homes (1,856 to 3,278 square feet) priced at $397,200 to $511,700.

A relatively small but important component of the housing market is represented by mobile homes.

According to DOF 2020 estimates, Kings County had approximately 1,900 mobile homes, with almost one-half located in unincorporated, rural areas. The average sales prices for mobile homes in Kings County (June 2023) were approximately $100,000 for a two-bedroom unit and approximately $130,000 for a three-bedroom unit4
. Mobile homes represent an affordable homeownership option 4 Zillow listed nine mobile home sales in Kings County, June 2023.

Page 680 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Housing Characteristics 34 for many households.

Rental Market
In June 2023, a listing of rental units by Zillow, which is presented in Table 2-20, shows only one rental unit available in Avenal and two rental units available in Corcoran. The one unit in Avenal was renting for $1,000 per month and the two Corcoran units were renting at $900 and $1,350 per month. Recent rental rates in Hanford for one and two-bedroom units range from $800 to $2,900, with a median rent of $1,100. When compared to the maximum affordable monthly rents by income level and number of bedrooms shown in previous Table 2-18, no market rate rental units listed in June 2023 would be affordable to lower-income households (extremely low-, very low-, and low -income categories) in any of the three cities. The exception was a single four-plus unit in Hanford renting for $1,550 per month that would be affordable to a low-income household. This indicates a need for more affordable housing for households in the extremely low-, very low-, and low-income categories in each of the three cities.

Table 2-21 King County Residential Rents, 2023
Bedrooms Number of
Rental Units Low High Median
Avenal
1-2 bedroom 0 - - -
3-bedroom 1 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
4+ bedrooms - - -
Corcoran
1-2 bedroom 2 $900 $1,350 -
3-bedroom - - -
4+ bedrooms - - -
Hanford
1-2 bedroom 29 $800 $2,900 $1,100
3-bedroom 12 $1,500 $2,950 $2,100
4+ bedrooms 9 $1,550 $4,300 $2,700
Source: Zillow, Kings County rental unit listing, June 2023 In addition to the newer market-rate apartment projects, Kings County has a substantial number of assisted multi-family projects. As discussed later in this chapter, Kings County has 45 multi-family projects financed with a variety of local, state, and federal funds. These assisted housing projects provide over 2,500 units of affordable housing to extremely-low-, very-low- and low-income individuals,families, seniors, and disabled persons.

Page 681 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT D. Housing Conditions in Kings County 35 D. Housing Conditions in Kings County

1. Overview
Kings County's housing stock comprises a mix of aging structures and newer developments. While many homes are well-maintained, a portion of the housing inventory exhibits signs of deterioration, leading to concerns about habitability, safety, and code compliance.

2. Code Enforcement Insights
The Kings County Community Development Agency's Code Compliance Division is responsible for enforcing zoning, building, nuisance, surface mining, and abandoned vehicle ordinances in the unincorporated county. Enforcement typically follows a complaint-driven process, involving inspections and subsequent actions. Annually, the division addresses:
• 10–20 derelict or abandoned vehicles
• Up to 10 substandard or dangerous buildings
• Several zoning or nuisance violations
E. Special Needs Groups
Certain groups have greater difficulty in finding decent, affordable housing due to special circumstances. Special circumstances may be related to one’s income, family characteristics, and disability status among others. In Kings County, persons and households with special needs include seniors, families with children (large households and single parents with children) military personnel, agricultural employees, persons with disabilities, and the homeless. This section analyzes these special needs groups and identifies resources and programs designed to address these needs.

1. Seniors
According to Census ACS 2016-2020 estimates presented in Table 2-22, Kings County had estimated

6.917 owner-occupied households and 2,258 renter-occupied households that were headed by seniors age 65 years and older. In all jurisdictions, the majority of seniors were homeowners.

Senior households have special housing needs primarily due to three concerns – physical disabilities or limitations, limited income, and higher medical costs. The City of Corcoran had the highest percentage of both owner-occupied and renter-occupied householders age 65 and over at 34% and 17%, respectively. This compares to countywide estimates of 30% owner-occupied and 11% renteroccupied households age 65 and older.

Page 682 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT E. Special Needs Groups 36 Table 2-22 Elderly Households by Tenure
Age of
Householder
Avenal Corcoran Hanford Unincorporated Kings County
HH % HH % HH % HH % HH %
Owner
occupied: 1,306 100.0% 1,789 100.0% 11,353 100.0% 4,298 100.0% 23,368 100.0% <65 956 73.2% 1,190 66.5% 8,107 71.4% 2,883 67.1% 16,451 70.4% 65 to 74 227 17.4% 381 21.3% 1,755 15.5% 839 19.5% 3,960 16.9% 75 to 84 123 9.4% 117 6.5% 1,039 9.2% 448 10.4% 2,141 9.2% 85+ - 0.0% 101 5.6% 452 4.0% 128 3.0% 816 3.5%
Renter
occupied: 1,446 100.0% 2,056 100.0% 7,607 100.0% 4,946 100.0% 20,236 100.0% <65 1,420 98.2% 1,700 82.7% 6,681 87.8% 4,500 91.0% 17,978 88.8% 65 to 74 19 1.3% 219 10.7% 562 7.4% 291 5.9% 1,470 7.3% 75 to 84 7 0.5% 111 5.4% 284 3.7% 130 2.6% 644 3.2%
85+ - 0.0% 26 1.3% 80 1.2% 25 0.5% 144 0.7%
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table B25007
Seniors require a variety of housing options, depending on their life circumstances. While threequarters of countywide seniors’ households were homeowners, a variety of factors such as fixed retirement incomes, rising health care costs and physical disabilities can result in deferred home maintenance. Each jurisdiction’s housing plan includes grant or loan programs to help seniors with repairs. Seniors with mobility disabilities may also require home modifications to improve accessibility and facilitate independent living. All jurisdictions have programs to ensure reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.

Senior renters, while facing similar income and mobility limitations as homeowners, are often at greater risk due to rising housing costs. To address these needs, the Housing Authority administers Section 8 rent subsidy vouchers for extremely-low- and very-low-income seniors. In addition, subsidized rental projects provide affordable housing options for many seniors.

The Kings/Tulare Area Agency on Aging and the Kings County Commission on Aging provide leadership at the local level in developing systems for home- and community-based services that maintain seniors in the least restrictive environment for as long as possible. Each jurisdiction also provides other types of supportive services for seniors. However, at some point in time, seniors may require a more supportive living environment. Congregate care facilities, residential care facilities, and skilled nursing facilities provide a wide range of housing, supportive, and medical services for

Page 683 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT E. Special Needs Groups 37 seniors requiring additional care. The majority of independent and supportive residential environments are located in the most urbanized portions of the County in Hanford and Lemoore.

2. Female-Headed Households
Female-headed households have special housing needs including affordable housing, accessible daycare, health care, and other supportive services. Female-headed households comprised about 17% of all households in Kings County. State law recognizes that these households face challenges due to a combination of income levels, childcare expenses, and housing availability. As shown in Table 2-23, the proportion of female-headed households, which is highlighted in the table, ranged from about 12% in the unincorporated area to 27% in Corcoran. In all jurisdictions, the percentage of female-headed households who rent is significantly greater than those who own their homes.

Table 2-23 Female Headed Households
Housing Type
Avenal Corcoran Hanford Unincorporate
d Kings County
HH % HH % HH % HH % HH %
Total Households 2,752 4,201 18,960 9,244 100% 43,604 100% Renter Occupied 1,446 52.5% 2,056 53.5% 7,607 40.1% 4,946 53.5% 20,236 46.4% Family Households 2,380 86.5% 3,079 80.1% 14,530 76.6% 7,575 81.9% 34,155 78.3% Married-Couple
Family 1,604 58.3% 1,745 45.4% 9,689 51.1% 5,801 62.8% 23,236 53.3% Own Children <18 978 35.5% 906 23.6% 4,961 26.2% 3,162 34.2% 12,006 27.5% No Own Children
<18 626 22.7% 839 21.8% 4,728 24.9% 2,639 28.5% 11,230 25.8% Cohabitating
Couple 112 4.1% 436 11.3% 1,482 7.8% 500 5.4% 3,442 7.9% Male household,
no wife present 426 15.5% 542 14.1% 3,136 16.5% 1,258 13.6% 7,079 16.2% Own Children <18 2.4% 35 .9% 529 2.8% 164 1.8% 1,052 2.4%

Page 684 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT E. Special Needs Groups 38 No own Children 161 5.9% 175 4.6% 639 3.4% 382 4.1% 1,686 3.9% Female
Household, no
husband present:
610 22.2% 1,122 29.2% 4,653 24.5% 1,685 18.2% 9,847 22.6% Own Children <18 357 13% 322 8.4% 1,287 6.8% 406 4.4% 2963 6.8% No own children
<18 80 2.9% 443 11.5% 1,408 7.4% 503 5.4% 2,812 6.4%
Living Alone 153 5.6% 335 8.7% 1,845 9.7% 745 8% 3,825 8.8% Below poverty with
children 200 7.3% 482 11.5% 827 4.4% 349 3.8% 2,167 5%
Family
household>4
persons- 909 33% 986 23.5% 2,993 15.8% 1,977 21.4% 8,233 18.9% Source: Census 2016-2020 ACS

3. Large Families
Large households are defined as households with five or more persons and are considered a special need population due to the limited availability of affordable and adequately sized housing. Large households may also have lower incomes, frequently resulting in the overcrowding of smaller dwelling units, and sometimes two or more persons per room.

As presented in Table 2-24, large families represented approximately 18% of all owner households and about 21% of all renter households in Kings County. Large households are most prevalent in Avenal (36% of owners and 30% of renters) and Corcoran (21% of owners and 30% of renters) while Hanford has the lowest proportions of large households, even lower than the County levels.

Large families may have difficulty finding housing units that are large enough to accommodate their needs while still being affordable. The Housing Authority helps address the needs of these families by providing rental assistance in the form of Section 8 vouchers for extremely-low- and very-lowincome households. Vouchers provide the difference between the market rent charged for the unit and the amount of rent that can be afforded by the household, typically no more than 30% of household income.

Page 685 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT E. Special Needs Groups 39 Table 2-24 Household Size by Tenure
House Avenal Corcoran Hanford Unincorporated Kings County hold
Size HH % HH % HH % HH % HH %
Owner 1,306 100% 1,789 100% 11,353 100% 4,298 100% 23,368 100% 1 155 11.9% 354 19.8% 1,722 15.2% 733 17.1% 3,694 15.8% 2 237 18.1% 393 22.0% 3,890 34.3% 1326 30.9% 7,071 30.3% 3 239 18.3% 262 14.6% 2,290 20.2% 613 14.3% 4,338 18.6% 4 201 15.4% 402 22.5% 1,761 15.5% 813 18.9% 4,161 17.8% 5 276 21.1% 229 12.8% 943 8.3% 451 10.5% 2,443 10.5%
6 101 7.7% 70 3.9% 603 5.3% 190 4.4% 1,113 4.8%
7+ 97 7.4% 79 4.4% 144 1.3% 172 4.0% 548 2.3%
Renter 1,446 100% 2,056 100% 7,607 100% 4,949 100% 20,236 100% 1 173 12.0% 276 13.4% 1,612 21.2% 614 12.4% 3,745 18.5% 2 129 8.9% 430 20.9% 1,909 25.1% 1,053 21.3% 4,521 22.3% 3 479 33.1% 359 17.5% 1,308 17.2% 877 17.7% 3,902 19.3% 4 230 15.9% 364 17.7% 1,426 18.7% 1,237 25.0% 3,857 19.1% 5 291 20.1% 319 15.5% 737 9.7% 739 14.9% 2,525 12.5%
6 125 8.6% 159 7.7% 415 5.5% 223 4.5% 1,103 5.5%
7+ 19 1.3% 149 7.2% 200 2.6% 203 4.1% 583 2.9%
Whereas providing rental assistance helps meet the needs of extremely-low- and very-low-income households, the underlying need for affordable housing units must also be addressed. As discussed in section E, Analysis of At-Risk Housing, Kings County has a total of over 2,500 units of subsidized affordable housing. The majority of these projects are located in Hanford and Lemoore. The Housing Plan (Chapter 5) sets forth programs to encourage the construction of additional affordable rental and ownership housing.

Page 686 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT E. Special Needs Groups 40 4. Military Personnel and
Veterans
The U.S. Navy plays a critical role in Kings
County economy and its housing market.

Lemoore is home to the Naval Air Station
Lemoore (NASL). Commissioned in 1961,
NASL serves as the master training center for
carrier-based fighter squadrons for the United
States Pacific Fleet. According to NASL,
military personnel at the base total
approximately 7,700 enlistees and officers.

Additionally, there are 1,758 singles and 1,217
families living on base.

There are currently (2023) 1,630 residential units on base, plus additional quarters for approximately 2,300 single personnel. On-base housing does not fully satisfy the total housing need for base personnel and their families. In addition to Navy personnel, approximately 2,800 civilians are employed on-base. Because of the housing shortfall, military personnel and civilians must find accommodations in nearby communities.

The basic housing allowance provided to Navy personnel ranges from $1,494 to $2,412 depending on pay-grade and with and without dependents. Single-service members, grade E-1 through E-4, are typically required to live on-base, while enlistees with their families must compete for the remaining base family housing.

In addition to active personnel, military veterans comprised a significant need group. According to recent Census ACS 2016-2020 estimates, approximately 8,700 military veterans lived within Kings County.

5.Agricultural Employees
Kings County is one of the state’s major
agricultural areas, ranking 8th among California
counties in total agricultural production.

According to a Kings County 2022 Agricultural
Crop Report 749,100 acres are farmland of the
total 890,804 acres in Kings County, resulting in
84% of the total land area in the County being
devoted to farmland. Table 2-25 shows the
County’s top three leading agricultural products
in 2020 were milk ($700 million), pistachios ($214
million), and cotton ($195 million).

Page 687 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT E. Special Needs Groups 41 Recent Census data in Table 2-26 shows that 15% of employed Kings County civilian residents (16 years and over) worked in agriculture and related industries. Of the three cities, the highest percentage of civilian workers in agricultural related jobs was Avenal, where 45% of its workers were in this industry. This was followed by Corcoran workers at 30%.

Table 2-27 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 that hired a total of almost 7,000 hired farms 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.

Table 2-25 Leading Agricultural Commodities, Kings County Crop Rank Value
Milk 1 $999,866,000
Pistachios 2 $228,785,000
Cotton, Total 3 $192,811,000
Tomatoes, Processed 4 $177,492,000
Cattle & Calves 5 $151,274,000
Almonds, Total 6 $132,323,000
Corn Silage 7 $123,941,000
Alfalfa, Hay 8 $67,540,000
Wheat, Silage 9 $60,112,000
Plums 10 $55,245,000
Source: Kings County, Dept. of Agriculture, 2022 Crop Report, April 2024 Table 2-26 Agricultural Employment by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction of Civilian
EmployedPop.(16 and over)
Number of Agricultural
Workers % of Total Workers
Avenal 1,617 45%
Corcoran 1,275 30%
Hanford 2,213 9%
Unincorporated 2,474 22%
Kings County 8,271 15%
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table DP-3

Page 688 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT E. Special Needs Groups 42 Table 2-27 Hired Farm Labor-Workers, Kings County
Farmworkers No. of Farms with Hired
Workers 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
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 farmworkers in the years 2015-2019 was approximately $121. 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.

The nature of agricultural work also affects the specific housing needs of farmworkers. For instance, farmworkers employed on a year-round basis generally live with their families and need permanent affordable housing much like other lower-income households. Migrant farmworkers who follow seasonal harvests generally need temporary housing only for the workers themselves.

California has a statewide shortage of farmworker housing projects. For instance, the number of agricultural employee housing facilities registered with the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has dramatically declined since the 1950s. Between 1955 and 1982, grower-registered facilities declined from 9,000 to 1,414 camps. By 1998, only 500 camps were registered with HCD, none of which were in Kings County. According to growers, the dramatic decline in labor camps is due to the high cost of maintaining housing and the climate of litigation facing growers who maintain camps.

Additionally, most farm owners/managers hire the majority of their workers through temporary agencies for planting, picking, pruning, or other specific tasks, so that providing full-time housing for workers is not practical.

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 new 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,

Page 689 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT E. Special Needs Groups 43 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 fourbedroom units, with approximately 70-100 farmworkers residing in the apartment complex. The Constraints analysis (Chapter 4) 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. The majority of loans under both types of programs are issued to people working in the agricultural industry. Moreover, the majority of occupants of Section 515 projects and other subsidized projects also are employed in the farming industry. The Housing Plan (Chapter 5) includes programs to address the housing and supportive services needs of farmworkers.

Regional Housing Issues and Trends for Farmworkers
According to the USDA 2017 Census of Agriculture, Kings County has 963 farms (507 of those farms hire farm workers) and 615,958 acres of land in farms. Kings County has 91.8% of its land designated for agriculture. Fresno County has the largest number of agricultural operations in the region with 4,774 farms and 89.5% percent of its land designated for agriculture. North of Fresno County, both Madera and Merced Counties have fewer agricultural operations, with 1,386 and 2,337 farms, respectively, but a higher proportion of land designated for agriculture as Madera County has 88.2% of its land designated for agriculture and Merced County has 91.1 % designated. In contrast, counties to the west are less agriculturally oriented. Although there are 1,104 farms in Monterey County, only 61.3 percent of the land is designated for agriculture. Both Mono and Inyo Counties have fewer than 100 farms each.

Local stakeholders estimate that official counts of farmworkers significantly underestimate the true numbers, as undocumented residents often do not participate in traditional data collection methods. Further, farmworkers may be difficult to county due to their mobility, shared housing situations, and distrust of authorities.

The Association of Bay Area Governments has identified three types of farmworkers in the state which would have different housing needs:
• Permanent Residents: Permanent residents of the county in which they work and may require housing which accommodates families and may fall into the extremely low-income category for seasonal workers who do not work in the off-season. • Migrant Farmworkers: Perform agricultural labor on a seasonal or temporary basis and typically need housing for individuals, such as single occupancy rooms, bunkhouses, or dormitory style living.
• H-2A Visa Workers: Enter the United States under a federal guest worker program for a limited term and require sponsor employer who provides housing, meals, and transportation to the job site.

Page 690 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT E. Special Needs Groups 44 The California Institute for Rural Studies (CIRS) reports that an estimated 85% of farmworkers in the state are from various regions in Mexico, and 5% are from Central America, largely depending on which immigration period they entered the United States.

Between September 2021 and January 2022, Fresno County conducted a Farmworker Survey and a Farmworker Employer Survey. A second round of each survey was conducted between February 2022 and July 2022. In total, Fresno County surveyed 240 farmworkers, of whom 100 were homeowners, and 170 farm employers. Overall, less than 1 percent of all farmworkers surveyed desired to live in some type of farm labor housing, and 47% on non-homeowner households desired homeownership opportunities for single-family units. Of farm employers, 25 currently have some type of farm labor housing on-site. Of those that do not have on-site farm labor housing, 28 reported that they would consider adding labor housing as single houses or cottages and 1 specified that they would consider adding apartment-style housing. Dairy farmers were the most interested in providing on-site housing due to the 24-hour staffing required. All employers indicated that they would consider adding housing if financing was provided by the government or through grants (Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional 2023-2031 Housing Element, 2025).

Farmworker Housing Needs in Kings County
Overview
Farmworkers are a vital component of Kings County's agricultural economy. However, they often face significant housing challenges, including affordability, overcrowding, and substandard living conditions. These issues are compounded by the seasonal nature of agricultural work and limited access to affordable housing options.

Contributing factors to the barriers experienced by lower-income residents also includes the large presence of lower-income farmworkers. This contributing factor is characterized by the following:
• High unmet need for farmworkers housing, which is often in poor condition and overcrowded.
• Farmworkers cannot afford market-rate housing.
• High rates of poverty and communities of color among farmworker populations.

The farming industry is the foundation of Kings County’s economic base. Table 2-26 shows that approximately 7,000 farmworkers were hired across over 500 farms according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2017 Census of Agriculture. This indicates a significant need to provide housing for farmworkers and their families, particularly during peak harvest seasons.

Housing Challenges
Farm workers face unique housing challenges due to low wages, high poverty rates, linguistic isolation, and, in many cases, citizenship status. The composition of farmworker households is shifting from primarily migrant individual males to more family households, including the growing number of single female-headed households with children according to the CIRS COVID-19

Page 691 of 1565 ends

CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT E. Special Needs Groups 45 Farmworker Survey. The combination of socioeconomic characteristics of farmworkers in the region suggest that the conventional housing resources generally available to such lower-income households often correspond to areas of higher segregation and poverty. Due to housing costs, multiple families or individuals may share a single-family residence, converted garages, or accessory structures. The surveys conducted by CIRS and Fresno County indicate that traditional farm labor and worker camp housing are not desired by most regional farmworkers and laborers.

Based on survey results, farmworkers expressed greater interest in off-site housing options, reflecting the concerns of farm employers of finding farmworkers to live in on-site units.

Affordability and Overcrowding
A significant number of farmworkers in Kings County experience housing cost burdens. Many spend a substantial portion of their income on housing, leaving limited resources for other necessities.

Overcrowding is also prevalent, with multiple families or individuals sharing single-family homes or apartments, leading to strained living conditions.

Many farmworkers reside in communities where more affordable housing resources are available, they must compete with other lower-income households, often resulting in overcrowding, substandard conditions, and overpayment. The shortage of affordable housing for the farmworker community represents a significant barrier to fair housing in this population in Kings County, as well as the region and statewide. Throughout the region, farmworkers face a disproportionate need for safe and affordable housing options that provide access to jobs as well as other resources and amenities.

Substandard Housing Conditions
Farmworker housing often lacks basic amenities and fails to meet health and safety standards.

Issues such as inadequate sanitation, poor ventilation, and exposure to environmental hazards are common. These conditions not only affect the well-being of farmworkers but also have broader public health implications.

Often, particularly for single laborers, dwellings are converted garages, vehicles, farm buildings, or tents. Undocumented laborers face even greater challenges in securing housing.

Displacement Risk
A combination of factors can result in increased displacement risk, particularly for lower-income households like farmworker households. Displacement risk increases when a household is paying more for housing than their income can support, their housing condition is unstable or unsafe, and when the household is overcrowded. Each of these present barriers to stable housing for the occupants. Other factors contributing to the risk of displacement include vacancy rates, availability of a variety of housing options, and increasing housing prices compared to wage increases.

California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Farmworker Housing Study
In December 2023, HCD initiated a statewide study under AB 1654 to assess farmworker housing needs. The study aims to provide data to inform policy and housing development decisions to

Page 692 of 1565 ends

Hanford City CouncilMay 19, 2026

Hanford City Council
May 19, 2026