[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6428124,"mediaKeyId","5906868-a397dcbc1302912cb50653e7e53934d4","parentId",5906868,"title","Council narrows portable-sign rules (feather flags/A‑frames): 10‑foot spacing, 7‑foot curb setback, limits near intersections","audioSeconds",3344,"startMs",10528000,"endMs",13872000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5906868-a397dcbc1302912cb50653e7e53934d4&start=10528&end=13872","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5906868-a397dcbc1302912cb50653e7e53934d4/thumbnail_10528000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6428124/Hanford/Kings-County/California/Council-narrows-portable-sign-rules-feather-flagsAframes-10foot-spacing-7foot-curb-setback-limits-near-intersections","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6428124-1c5ccae623aba32ce03b366f929560ee/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445393&Signature=SF3w~RPTK7JNaXI~ypVREeQRYkiU3y3q7ryXURLSpsNlNiyGADpc-ahbee~TulM5a4BTeCQ98otvttUFQYAz~nCOorVHknLTNuaPCnOpbvhtdWLvW5NfTif9TdVbWaZkxj0b3IcaCV23bUaAsUKQU1N7XIrFtYVlbSVU~ZLYg6pcOPo8LloqULzGImb1Yz8FybWvYshn0HbHI8SWVfxmm-E-XdYLEbKHZWcy0ipTkQwfpaKuV~qvp7QCKD2MWuNSJ6U0vzTx0-ZEfbGQ5nZUD7G273~iwhuouWQH7Oe7TKDAx3YgUyhO2rz9TtIVowTHbECxoFPWzy1bu4u0knVfzg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Hanford","date","2025-10-07T00:00:00Z","article","The City Council on Tuesday agreed to new rules for portable signs — the category that includes feather flags and movable A‑frame signs — after lengthy public comment from local businesses and several council amendments to staff’s recommended standards.

Deputy City Manager Waters and planning staff proposed creating a new “portable sign” definition distinct from temporary signage and laying out display and material rules: a maximum height of 10 feet, maximum display area roughly 16 square feet per sign, a requirement that signs be weather‑resistant and professionally maintained, and a rule that portable signs must be removed from the public-right‑of‑way and must not obstruct sidewalks or sight lines. Staff proposed that portable signs be allowed in non‑residential zones (not in the downtown MXD zone for feather flags) and displayed only during business hours (including 30 minutes before opening and 30 minutes after close).

Local auto dealers and other business owners said feather flags are an important and cost‑effective tool to attract customers. Steve Olivera and George (Shogon Auto) told council their businesses rely on flags and urged a practical rule set. “If you remove the 100‑foot restriction and allow them 7 feet back from the curb, we can live with that,” one business owner said during public comment; others asked the council to avoid a one‑size‑fits‑all limitation that would effectively ban flags on many parcels.

Council members debated multiple technical details and ultimately asked staff to make several changes to the draft: reduce the required distance between portable signs to 10 feet (staff had proposed 20), remove the blanket 100‑foot exclusion measured from permanent freestanding signs, and clarify that portable signs must not be placed where they block intersection sight triangles (the council retained the intersection sight‑triangle protection but agreed the driveway‑approach rule would accommodate a 7‑foot curb setback). The council left in a prohibition on portable feather flags in the downtown MXD zone, consistent with prior direction for that overlay.

Council moved to introduce and waive the first reading of the revised zoning text amendment with the council’s amendments. (Clerk roll call shows the motion carried by a slim majority.) Staff said the ordinance will return for a second reading and final adoption; staff will also publish clear placement diagrams and an implementation guide for businesses and code enforcement.

Ending: The council’s amendments reflect business concerns over narrow commercial frontages while protecting pedestrian paths, curb clearance and intersection sight lines. Staff will prepare final ordinance language and outreach materials before the second reading.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council","oneSentenceSummary","After extensive public comment from local merchants, the council approved introduction of a zoning amendment creating a new portable‑sign category (feather flags, A‑frames) with standards including a 10‑foot minimum spacing between signs, a 7‑foot setback from the curb, a 10‑foot maximum height and business‑hours display limits.","taxTitle","Hanford, Kings County, California","taxId",4030,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6428126,"Council approves ordinance to change graffiti enforcement: city to offer abatement and bill owners; harsher penalties for taggers",4657,5658000,10315000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5906868-a397dcbc1302912cb50653e7e53934d4&start=5658&end=10315","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5906868-a397dcbc1302912cb50653e7e53934d4/thumbnail_5658000.jpg","/articles/6428126/Hanford/Kings-County/California/Council-approves-ordinance-to-change-graffiti-enforcement-city-to-offer-abatement-and-bill-owners-harsher-penalties-for-taggers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6428126-0bfacfd2405e139d0fc3bc802bd3d632/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445393&Signature=LJa3syprGeuy-SvOs83YFbGQZBWrUjdS95DC6T9GcmEMIcItMJoCN1qDjDgSiPhXIdYqGU9QI63bCr6bwSarCl1CASYG4HPo51887hEKJibnZ5NDnhWDMstvo93X9KffZedMrxRNmZ0-UYMZ6sqFjhVKvO1qpj024NeauUDCANoQJwzWKIb9VHHHPgM-E2MPAZTMqf2ThSI8CHRZaTl1lmddUM45OqZQvUatE7J5MHZjpadBRDDQLO9SGqGbRjN-zEONRG0yFHa6QvMXu7agyluRBxraTJ5KdFQf8mUUnC2sURU~BiPcjXlJhGMGuWZC4xg52bYZOoOb8-OfTXcUiQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hanford staff proposed and the City Council approved introduction of an ordinance that restructures graffiti enforcement in the municipal code and emphasizes abatement over automatic administrative citations for property owners.

Deputy City Manager Waters summarized staff’s approach and told council “graffiti in Hanford tends to be gang related, tends to come in waves,” and that the city currently uses public‑nuisance citations and abatement to address tags. Under the proposed text, graffiti would be placed in a standalone section of the code rather than treated as a general public nuisance. Property owners would receive staged notices and have 30 business days to remove graffiti or request a city‑assisted clean up under an alternative abatement agreement. If an owner does not act, the city may obtain a warrant or other legal authority to abate the graffiti and invoice the owner for the cleanup, with costs placed as a lien if unpaid.

Waters said the ordinance also keeps penalties aimed at people who apply graffiti and minors found unlawfully in possession of graffiti implements; those penalties remain criminal in nature and separate from the property‑owner abatement process.

Police Chief Huddleston described enforcement realities: “Very rarely unless we actually see someone committing the act” can the department identify and arrest a person for graffiti, he said, because gang tags are often applied repeatedly but without an identifiable individual present.

After public comments, council moved to introduce and waive the first reading of the ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. The ordinance will return for a second reading and formal adoption at a later meeting.

Ending: The ordinance restructures the code to emphasize abatement and cost recovery, while maintaining criminal penalties directed at those who apply graffiti; staff said the city will continue outreach and consider partnerships to accelerate removal.","Council directed staff to introduce an ordinance that removes graffiti from the city’s general public‑nuisance citation list, allows a 30-business‑day abatement window for property owners, authorizes city abatement with cost recovery and keeps criminal penalties for people who apply graffiti.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6428134,"Hanford council discusses at-length changes to backyard setback and accessory-structure rules; directs staff to draft ordinance",1406,2164000,3570000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5906868-a397dcbc1302912cb50653e7e53934d4&start=2164&end=3570","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5906868-a397dcbc1302912cb50653e7e53934d4/thumbnail_2164000.jpg","/articles/6428134/Hanford/Kings-County/California/Hanford-council-discusses-at-length-changes-to-backyard-setback-and-accessory-structure-rules-directs-staff-to-draft-ordinance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6428134-e43a3dda98d761bda1b48e13938a60e1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445393&Signature=a24HjXMfrYIfE8RWV0WsVjbxzDIqkYYm3fUa4VFd8Z44gZa7uVCfGIUryHf4VZpIA1YXfjvgKzz02k-gc-bEm~N~Rliq4J9nz~Wv~Jir0sjchCZOIJZEyf1pi0FhQlb0Gj3Qy8U5qv2tw395GVjCwRILNwkzhQzFcpu9jbyrdw0r76izVRTI2t5CH3cRh5cK3qxKXC~FKh-jSMPXebcyvt~VVZVbnBxIV7FLDbbJWGMVmBkK1xe3uiS4zbvAzGKNMoXi3xXExynsl52inWFBZm1ix5THWItnVt0BnvZpy-wXLhKznD3kWotxA3D94wn1HCyWNxV~6JZZXyyfQnWGAA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planning staff and the Hanford City Council spent an extended study-session segment Tuesday reviewing the city’s single‑family setback rules and whether the municipality should relax rear and side yard restrictions for accessory structures such as sheds, gazebos and small open‑air shelters.

Senior Planner Myers led the presentation, explaining how setbacks define the buildable area on a lot and outlining current rules: a 15‑foot front setback for livable building space (20 feet for garages), a 15‑foot rear setback for single‑story homes (25 feet for two‑story), and a typical 5‑foot interior side setback. “Setbacks are the required distances a building or structure must be placed from a property line. They effectively define the buildable area of a lot,” Myers said.

Myers told the council staff had developed two principal alternatives for change: (1) broadly reduce rear setbacks in single‑family zones to as little as 5 feet for all structures, and (2) allow larger accessory structures — for example structures between about 121 and 240 square feet — to encroach into rear setback areas under a defined rear‑encroachment permit process. He reminded the council that California building code already requires a building permit for any structure over 120 square feet.

Council members and members of the public raised concerns about fire safety, privacy, lot coverage and enforcement. “I don’t like the idea of making somebody ask their neighbors permission to do something on their own property,” Councilwoman Regan said, opposing a mandatory neighbor‑consent rule. At the same time Council Member Kyres and others repeatedly emphasized potential noise, privacy and stormwater impacts if the buildable area is reduced citywide.

Discussion focused on practical tradeoffs. Staff recommended caution about a blanket 5‑foot rear‑setback change because it would significantly reduce private open space and raise enforcement questions. Several council members, however, said they wanted to allow some flexibility for open‑air accessory structures — gazebo‑style, non‑enclosed improvements — because those present a different fire and privacy profile than fully enclosed buildings. Staff and council also discussed adding a rear‑encroachment permit review that could require plans, engineering, neighborhood notice or an owner‑signed agreement and that would preserve the state‑required building‑permit process for structures above 120 square feet.

By the end of the session council members reached consensus to direct staff to prepare ordinance language that would: allow limited encroachment for open‑air accessory structures in rear yards (up to 240 square feet was discussed) with a rear‑encroachment permit and clear standards for setbacks, separation from other structures and height; continue to require building permits and engineering for structures over 120 square feet; and return the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission and back to council for formal adoption.

Ending: Staff said it will draft the proposed amendments, including definitions (for “accessory unenclosed”/open‑air structure), size and height limits, and a rear‑encroachment permitting process and return the item to the Planning Commission and then to council for a formal ordinance vote.","Council and staff debated two main options — citywide reduced setbacks or allowing larger accessory structures to encroach with a rear‑encroachment permit — and gave direction to return with ordinance language allowing limited encroachment for open-air accessory structures with permit safeguards.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6428145,"Caltrans previews Ninth Avenue interchange options, schedules public scoping meeting",1927,155000,2082000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5906868-a397dcbc1302912cb50653e7e53934d4&start=155&end=2082","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5906868-a397dcbc1302912cb50653e7e53934d4/thumbnail_155000.jpg","/articles/6428145/Hanford/Kings-County/California/Caltrans-previews-Ninth-Avenue-interchange-options-schedules-public-scoping-meeting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6428145-28387f73f12486aaf12171cfb6e3425d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445393&Signature=TmHM9eLOaQvrWwCniFWgcnhGWMVxOHPZHEoTcReg08HxZW8BcMo5Ng3beFAnHdoMGei4goap4SKxGYFSGz2wkFRRiO0uQvZlxF5EHbNTIJpVMXb2TqDE5NVZQpOqveAMEzh1dd3WLNQqJO3vUQbALZMJX8fbUW8utCB281Dv4RigoF7lQxLezu5tEmQjpLup5LLZkJJJM5X~4GuNvlM~60zr3DWAyC~TUFDKRA5dqwuDtvdNsqnvedDaCBCXmCoeFOBFkYG87kRuPJdiyM2mZK~cAsowIlV6LPRrQ8jzwkytnhRxtKm7yDGyuzuA~x98bPfSZrufYLP4~3k7L6M9kA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Caltrans officials presented Tuesday evening to the Hanford City Council a set of preliminary designs for a new interchange at State Route 198 and Ninth Avenue and said the project is now at the public scoping phase of environmental review.

The project “will provide continuity along operations on State Route 198,” Caltrans project manager Victor Aldama told the council, describing the primary objective as closing the gap between the existing interchanges at Tenth Avenue and State Route 43 and upgrading roughly a 1.5-mile segment of SR-198 to freeway standards.

The agency showed five interchange alternatives — including cloverleaf, partial cloverleaf, spread-diamond and a spread-diamond with roundabouts — and discussed expected multimodal improvements such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Some options would require removing or rerouting local streets and constructing new frontage roads; Caltrans staff said impacts to adjacent businesses and properties will be studied during the environmental phase.

Aldama said the environmental document approval target is 2028 and that construction is tentatively scheduled for 2032. He presented preliminary cost ranges during the meeting; Caltrans listed roughly $80–$89 million for one of the smaller-footprint alternatives and said costs rise with larger footprints. (Some cost figures read aloud in the presentation were garbled in the public audio record and could not be confirmed from the transcript.)

Mayor Paden asked whether Hanford would be required to provide matching funds. “So what is entailed?” he asked. Aldama said Caltrans typically works with the Kings County Association of Governments and the city on programming STEP and other funds and that staff would meet with city staff to discuss local contributions and scheduling.

Caltrans staff emphasized the project is still in early planning: the agency is at scoping and expects to circulate a draft environmental document for public review later in the process. Aldama invited the public to a scoping meeting scheduled for Oct. 14 at City Hall to review alternatives, ask questions and submit comments.

Council members and residents voiced support for better traffic flow and multimodal access to the planned Heroes Park, and several asked for attention to pedestrian/bike connections and for coordination with the city’s Lacey Avenue improvements and future Ninth Avenue development.

Caltrans also introduced its local team members and noted the agency plans a project manager transition in coming weeks. Staff repeatedly described the estimates as preliminary and dependent on the environmental and right-of-way phases.

The presentation and a staffed information table at the Oct. 14 scoping meeting will be the public’s first formal chance to comment on alternatives.

Ending: Caltrans said it will collect public comments at the scoping meeting, refine alternatives during environmental review and return with a preferred alternative after the draft environmental document is circulated. The agency and city staff said they will provide more detailed funding and property-impact information as the project advances.","Caltrans presented preliminary designs and a tentative 2032 construction target for a new interchange at SR-198 and Ninth Avenue, laid out five layout alternatives and broad cost ranges, and invited public comment at a scoping meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council narrows portable-sign rules (feather flags/A‑frames): 10‑foot spacing, 7‑foot curb setback, limits near intersections

Council approves ordinance to change graffiti enforcement: city to offer abatement and bill owners; harsher penalties for taggers

Hanford council discusses at-length changes to backyard setback and accessory-structure rules; directs staff to draft ordinance

Caltrans previews Ninth Avenue interchange options, schedules public scoping meeting