Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm gonna call the meeting of the Hanford City Planning Commission to order. It is 01/13/2026. Roll call,

Commissioner Curtis? Here. Commissioner Norris?

Here.

Vice chair Douglas? Here. Chair Ham?

Here.

Alternate commissioner Maris and commissioner Nelson are absent.

Please rise for the invocation and flag salute. The invocation tonight will be led by reverend Michael Hopper.

Pray with me, please. Almighty father, we come before you tonight lifting the planning commission up to you as you see the work that needs to be done and accomplished. We ask that you give them the knowledge, wisdom, and tenacity to achieve the items on their agenda and meet the goals that will allow the city of Hanford to continue to prosper and stay a great community for the residents that abide here. We also ask that you bless each member of the committee as they strive to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. We thank you for each member and all that they do for their community. We ask all these things in the precious name of our Lord Jesus. Amen.

Please join me with the flag salute. Ready to begin. Tonight's meeting is a little bit unique in that we will have a study session. At this time, I'm going to ask for the study session to begin. We're going to have the objective design standards for single family development outreach summary and a project presentation. Please have the presentation.

Thank you, Commissioner Ham. I'd like to go ahead and sort of introduce the team that will be presenting tonight. So we have Brent and Hannah here from Mintyr Harnish. So we've been working with them for the last, I don't know, I'll say several months all around on several things, one of which are the objective design standards, which will help potentially guide future development here in Hanford. So wanted to give the commission an opportunity to take a look at this before it gets formally adopted and receive input from you all. So with that, I'll hand it over to the Mentier Harness

Good evening, planning commissioners. We're excited to give you guys an update on this project and where we're at so far. Again, our project team consists of city planning staff members as well as, Minture Harnish, your consultant team. So my name is Hannah Woolsey. I'm a planner with Minture Harnish.

With me today is Brent Gibbons. He's our project director, and he's the lead for the Objective Design Standards. Not with us today is Michael Gibbons. He is the lead on the environmental justice element, another component of this project. So just to give a brief outline of what we will cover today, we'll give a brief overview of the project, as well as an overview of the objective design standards for single family development specifically.

We will then cover the outreach that we have conducted thus far in the project, as well as some next steps, and we'll conclude with a discussion with the Planning Commission. So the project began in March. That began with the project initiation, which is the completed phase of this project. Current phases of the project include the environmental justice element and the single family objective design standards, which we will be discussing today. Other elements of this project include drafting of subdivision regulations, will be beginning shortly, as well as environmental review of all tasks that I've talked about so far.

And finally, we are aiming for public review and adoption in 2026. What are objective design standards? As the name implies, they are objective. There's no personal or subjective judgment in the standard itself. It would say, for example, a developer shall do x y z, not a developer should do XYZ, which could bring some personal judgment into the implementation of the standard or guideline itself.

Objective standards aim to be measurable and very clearly defined just by nature, whereas a guideline would be more subjective in nature, could be up to the personal determination of a specific person. Objective standards also provide more transparency and certainty for developers as they're going to get their application materials together and also just through the permit process in general, provides them more certainty about what they can expect as far as city expectation goes. Some state laws are driving this issue, notably shown on the slide, SB 167, SB 35, and SB three thirty. All of these acts go towards improving housing supply and affordability. And so as such, with this project, what we are hoping is that with the drafting of these objective standards, we can help remove some constraints and barriers to housing development in the city, and we can improve housing choice and affordability in the city as well.

So why are we drafting objective standards specifically for single family residential development? So state law the state laws they are mainly focused on drafting objective standards for multifamily and residential mixed use developments. However, when we were initially working with your planning staff, we were realizing that a lot of the multifamily and residential mixed use standards in the city today are already pretty objective. And so we decided to instead focus on creating objective standards for single family development to reduce constraints to this specific type of housing, and allow for a wider range of single family housing types in the city moving forward. On the screen now are some examples of the types of standards that you might expect in objective design standards.

This could relate to site specific standards, so for example, setback standards, parking, or landscaping and lighting standards, or it could relate to standards that regulate the structure itself. Massing, articulation, maybe building materials that are allowed or prohibited, roof, and fenestration. Part of the reason that we want to focus on all these different types of objective design standards is most people don't necessarily want to live in a simple box. They wanna live in a nice looking house. So say, for example, the picture of the house on the top right uses different design design standards to create the type of interesting facade you see where there's a porch, there's different materials used, it's not just a blank box.

So the single family objective design standards would apply to subdivision and track map development. However, we are not anticipating that they would apply to stand alone single family residential development. Again, we're not drafting multifamily or residential mixed use objective design standards, given that the city standards are already pretty objective. These standards would also not apply to any buildings structures listed on the register of historic places. That would have to go through a separate permitting process.

Once we draft these objective design standards for single family development, that just provides one way of permitting these types of structures. If a developer chooses, they could go through this kind of easier way of permitting. However, if a developer would like to deviate from the design standards that we draft, they could still go through a discretionary review process if they so desired, so that option would still be available to them. They wouldn't necessarily have to conform to the design standards that we will be drafting. So the drafting process itself will mainly be based on review of the existing design standards in the city's zoning code and in various other city documents, for example, the downtown design guidelines.

We will then take into account city planning staff input and stakeholder engagement, which I will talk about shortly, and industry best practices. And we'll take all of these into account when we begin the actual drafting process for the objective design standards. So we began doing doing engagement for this project in July and August of this past year. We started with an audit of the existing design standards and guidelines with your city planning staff. We also conducted a number of stakeholder interviews with the public works director and local developers who are familiar with the city and know what is good about developing in the city and maybe what could be improved.

Ongoing throughout this process, we will continue to do study sessions, like today, and we will also be doing a number of hearings with both Planning Commission and City Council. The design standards and guidelines audit consisted of a matrix with each individual existing residential design guideline and standard in the city. And again, with your city planning staff, we looked at each of these individual standards and guidelines to and we looked at a number of different questions determine if these standards and guidelines should be maintained in some way, shape, or form, either in their current standard or in a modified way in the newly drafted single family objective design standards. We looked at if they could be made objective, because there are certain guidelines that can't really be made objective, at least not in a way that constraints development. We also looked at standards that maybe are a pretty good start, but they just need a small modification to be made truly objective.

And we also looked at how well each of these standards and guidelines work in practice today in the city. For the stakeholder interview portion of the outreach process, we did a total of five one on one interviews with your public works director and four local housing developers. These stakeholder interviews mainly focused on understanding the context of building single family housing today in the city and looked at issues with developing the city as well as opportunities for future residential development. A common thread throughout these interviews was how can the city reduce constraints on single family housing developments. The following slides contain a summary of all of the feedback that we heard, both from local stakeholders and your planning department.

We took copious notes in all of the interviews that we facilitated, and we'll begin with our recommendations for items to include in the single family objective design standards, specifically from local stakeholders. So in our interviews, many local stakeholders requested that the city provide flexibility and a variety of options to meet standards. The reasoning for this is that we don't want objective standards to be too prescriptive. We want to give developers a set of options to meet the same goal. This allows more flexibility as developers are looking to make new projects, and allows for a range of housing types.

Local stakeholders also requested that the city consider reducing rear and side setbacks for single family homes, but mainly, this was specifically to two story homes. A number of local developers noted that existing rear setbacks in Hanford are some of the most restrictive in the valley. For a typical two story home, the requirement is a 25 foot setback, whereas most jurisdictions in the valley only require a 10 foot setback. In addition to allowing more homes within a certain area, local developers noted that there is a number of home buyers who do want some type of private backyard, but they don't necessarily want to do all the maintenance that comes with a large, say, 25 foot with a backyard. And so this not only would help developers build more homes on a single lot, but it also would be responsive to local homebuyer desires.

Local developers also requested that the city consider reducing side setbacks to three and five feet, which would still allow for adequate access to the rear, but again, would allow more homes in a specific area. Some stakeholders requested that the city allow front setback flexibility, and that the city mainly consider the garage setback in regards to a specific number, and that the frontage could be located within plus or minus seven feet of that garage setback. This would allow for more variety in the frontages of homes in a specific development, and it would allow for less of a cookie cutter home look and just more flexibility of home frontages on the same street. Another recommendation was to reduce the minimum lot size to 2,500 square feet. It's not that developers would need to go to quite that small size of lot.

It's just that if they would like to do a more small lot type single family home, they could be allowed to do so. Another bit of feedback that we heard from local developers was to increase the allowed maximum garage frontage to 75% of the frontage. Something that several developers noted was that although the city has a relatively low minimum lot frontage requirement, when you factor in the typical of a two car garage, which many developers noted is industry standard at this point, have a two car garage, the garage would take up more than 50% of the frontage, which is the city's current maximum standard for the allowed garage frontage. Increasing that to 75 would allow for smaller homes to still have that two car garage. Another recommendation was to allow for more flexibility in the open space requirement.

One component of this would be to reduce the minimum width of any single side of an open space area to 10 feet, as well as to allow for a combination of both private and communal open spaces. This gets back to my point of some homeowners wanting, again, some private open space, but not necessarily wanting to keep up with all the maintenance that comes with a larger backyard. So a communal open space could provide some of that outdoor area that they don't necessarily need to personally maintain all the time. Something that some developers noted was they didn't want the city to limit specific exterior color requirements. This is something that is best practice anyways, because with objective design standards, it's pretty difficult to specifically define which colors are allowed or not allowed.

For example, if the city only allowed earth tones for home exteriors, what I consider to be an earth tone might be different from what you all consider to be an earth tone. Even things like saying browns and tans are allowed can be subjective, and other than specifying exact hex code colors that are allowed, it's difficult to limit specific types of colors. Instead, it's generally recommended to maybe limit the number of colors that are allowed on the exterior of a house, but not necessarily limit exact colors in objective design standards. And then finally, a lot of developers noted that they would like the park strip requirement reduced. Currently, it is seven feet.

Some developers know they would like to see it go down to two feet, which again would just allow for more homes in a specific area and hopefully would reduce the cost of each of those individual homes. Addition to feedback that we heard from local developers as it relates to design standards specifically, we also heard some other feedback for recommendations that the city could take that, again, while they're not specific to design standards, they do help to meet the goals of the project, which are to reduce constraints on building housing and help developers have a more consistent and predictable permitting process. Amongst these recommendations, some developers would like to see CEQA requirements eased where possible. Currently, many developers noted that they require an EIR to develop single family subdivisions. They would prefer if the process could include an ISMND, which is more typical of other jurisdictions in the region.

Some developers would like to see permitting and impact fees minimized where possible, and they would also like to see the plan check and approval process streamlined just to limit the amount of excessive plan checks. On to recommendations from your city planning staff, and these were this was feedback that we got during the audit portion of this process. For standards such as setbacks, high lot size, and fencing and landscaping, they would like to defer to the base zoning district requirements. For building material requirements, your city planning staff would like to include at least one change in material or color on the exterior structure with a maximum number of colors to be used in a single project or subdivision, as well as for the materials and or colors to be used to be consistent on all structures in the same parcel. For example, if you had a home that used specific material and color, and it had an ADU in the backyard, the ADU would have to be similar materials or color.

For the minimum open space requirements per unit, the recommendation is to have a minimum of two fifty to 400 square feet per unit and have a minimum width on any specific side of open space of 15 feet. As far as fencing requirements goes, in general, fences could use any material. However, for front fences that are three feet or more, the fence material would have to have some sort of visibility. You could use slat fencing or wrought iron fencing, something that you can see through to see the house, so it doesn't create a wall, essentially. For fenestration, front entry, and window requirements, we recommend requiring at least one window of substantial size to be located along the street frontage to create some interest along the street, and to also require a pathway from the sidewalk to the front entry for easier access.

For roof style options, the recommendation is to allow a range of roof style options for developers to choose from. The recommendations right now are to offer a standard pitched roof, a dormer style roof, and flat roofs as different options for developers to choose from. Roofing materials could include clay or concrete tile, ceramic tile, or composite shingles. And then for other existing residential standards that could be made objective in nature, we would just go through each standard. If there's any shoulds, we were would would replace it with a shall, and we would do any other tweaks needed to make them objective as opposed to subjective.

So as your consultant, our recommendation is to incorporate all of your city planning staff's input into the draft single family objective design standards with some additions and edits based on the stakeholder input that I just covered, as well as to incorporate best practices into the standards. Just some next steps before we get into the discussion of this evening. Today, we will receive direction from Planning Commission on how to proceed with the recommendations you heard tonight. Following your recommendations, we will refine our outline to the objective design standards, and we will prepare the actual draft objective design standards for single family development in the city. And with that, I will hand it back over to the Planning Commission to facilitate a discussion.

We're available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from the Commission?

I learned a new word tonight. Administration? Administration. Thank you.

Anybody else have any questions or comments? Nobody? I do. Okay.

There was a comment up there about CEQA issues and potentially using the design standards to avoid an EIR for a single family residential subdivision project. Can you clarify that? I mean, how specifically would these design standards avoid an EIR? Because, you know, from what I've seen in reviewing environmental documents over the past year, you're dealing with issues like VMT, which triggers the EIR requirement for some projects. So I'm just curious.

Yeah. So for this one, it it we wouldn't necessarily solve this specific issue, I'll call it. We wouldn't solve this through the design standards themselves. These are just other additional recommendations that we heard during the stakeholder interview process that we thought we would at least bring forward to the planning commission, but we wouldn't we wouldn't specifically deal with this during the design standard drafting process itself.

Brent Gibbons, Mintier Harnish. You are correct. You're not able to circumvent an EIR. There are obvious, stop gaps in there that evaluate different impacts and different mitigation measures. This was just a comment by the stakeholders saying we would like to ease CEQUA requirements. We learned through this process that not all stakeholders were fully versed in CEQA and understand the process, but we at least wanted to be transparent with the commission and show what we heard from the stakeholders. But, yeah, this isn't part of that effort, and you are correct in hearing. Thank you.

I think to the surprise of no one, developers would like to request relaxed CEQA regulations. Think that's when given a form to express that, I think they'll certainly express that.

The overall

goal, I guess, of this whole project, right, is to increase affordability in housing. How is this going to do that?

You're putting this mostly the same size building on a smaller lot. How is this overall gonna help us get there?

So for developers, say if you,

as

a city, say if you have some standard that happens to be subjective in nature. So when a developer goes, they put in their application, maybe they had one understanding of that standard or guideline, but you as the city have a different understanding of that standard or guideline. So now the developer has to have a lot of back and forth with the city on what is allowed, what isn't allowed. They have to work with your planning department, your building department, other applicable departments, and that time can add to the expenses of the overall development project itself. So if the city could draft this set of objective design standards so it creates more consistency and reliability for what the developer can expect from the permitting process with the city, it can decrease the amount of time that they have to spend in that portion of the process and can reduce their overall budget that they have to account for, which ultimately gets passed along to the future homebuyers.

So if they're able to decrease that portion of cost in some way, shape, or form, they could potentially decrease the cost for the future consumer itself.

Just to give kind of an example, something we run into pretty frequently is most recent subdivision maps we've seen, we've seen a trend towards very small lot development. I think that's where the market's heading. But right now, the city doesn't really have a very good mechanism just to allow it upfront. We have to request PODs, like that, which is an additional application, there's an additional fee the developer pays, there's additional approvals, additional reviews. And if we can sort of mitigate that upfront and say, oh, you're allowed to do it under these specific circumstances, then they get a bypass, that process, which in the past we were, the city was collecting a check, we were taking a significant amount of time reviewing.

Oftentimes, it's not objective, it's negotiation. Gabrielle and I and others are negotiating with them, saying, okay, you want a smaller lot, well in return, the city needs x, y, or z for open space or something like that. But if we can sort of hammer that out in a written document ahead of time, then we get to avoid those things.

In essence, you're trying to streamline a little bit, I would

say.

That's the exact thought. This is supposed to be beneficial to developers, right? That they know upfront, hey, I want to have smaller lots, here are the things I'll need to do, and so it's not a negotiation, it's not up to city staff.

Okay, I've got some comments. I've got some serious concerns about this. Right now the minimum slot size that we're down to is roughly 5,000 square feet. Based on this proposal that you've given us, there's a potential that we could have that only 2,500 square feet. One darn small house.

The other concern I have is you mentioned that you're considering minimizing the setbacks, the side lot setbacks. One of the latest subdivisions that we've got now does not have any roof overhangs at all. And so if you put those two homes like that side by side, you can almost reach across to your neighbor. Or if you put a fence between them, you've only got three to five feet between the fence and the side of your house. So you're walking between the side of your house pretty much like your hallway, which is awfully narrow. And I'm also concerned about potential fire safety when the houses are that close together. So those are some of the concerns that I have. If you are gonna build 2,500 square foot lots,

you're gonna

have like a con development of condominiums. And so once if this does get approved, how strictly is this going to be enforced? Is there going to be any deviation from these standards? Or are we going to have to go through a permitting process like PUD's and that type of stuff every time they want to do something different?

Yes, I think the intent is the opposite. So we would avoid PUD's by allowing for smaller watt developments.

What I'm saying is if this is the standard, if you deviate from that, or since it's larger, you don't have

No, so if it goes larger, zoning would still apply and they'd be able to have larger lots. I think where we run into, really the purpose of this is we're seeing this now. The city's getting proposals with 3,000 lots or less on occasion. We're seeing that right now because the development trend right now in the city is, in order to make houses affordable for buyers, developers are going with smaller and smaller lots. As far as the side yard setback, obviously very we want to make sure we comply with fire code.

I think fire code right now lasts for three feet without any additional firewalls or those type of things. So definitely on the forefront of our minds, and our proposal here would allow for side yard setbacks that comply with fire codes. So we'd want to make sure, certainly, that we meet those standards. But yeah, know as surprising as it may sound, this is mostly a developer driven thing. This isn't necessarily the city imposing something on a developer, but developers are driving the demand for this type of housing, and we want to make sure we have something in place that you know, when they do propose something to us, we have standards in place that we're comfortable with.

Just to echo, every project that goes forward still has to comply with the building code, still has to comply with the fire code. So the setbacks do come into play there. These do meet fire code, setbacks. And what's being presented tonight is not solidified by any means. This is the reason why we're having the study session is to bring forth the concepts that were told to us and to vet them through you, the planning commission.

So when we go to draft something, we're meeting the expectations. If a lot size down to 2,500 square feet is something that does not meet the expectations of the planning commission, that is something to voice to us, the consultant team, and city staff, and then that would get reflected through the process. If the planning commission is open to lots going down to that size, which at this point, the city has received development proposals that get down to the that small lot size, then what we would do is we would craft development standards that would fit a lot of that size. When you're getting down to 2,500 square feet, you're not talking side by side garages anymore. You're talking single garages, tandem garages.

Front doors may not face the street. They face the side. So there's a lot of other considerations that come into play, and that's something that if we were given the direction by Planning Commission and city staff, we would craft those standards and then bring back to you for your reaction and eventual action.

And I think as a component of that, the reason we brought up objective standards as it relates to fenestration and those other things, if you have these smaller lots, you can maybe offset some of the downsides of the smaller homes if you have specific design standards associated with them. They look a certain way, the sidewalks are in a certain place, those type of things. So that's the other component of that. If we do allow for these things, are there other things that we can incorporate to offset maybe some of the things that might be concerns?

Any other questions or comments?

So what environmental assessment is going to occur with respect to these standards?

We would evaluate the standards against state law. There are some streamlining in regards to when look at environmental review of the objective standards. I'd have to go back to our scope and get the exact environmental document that would be prepared. But it's not an EIR that we would look to evaluate this project.

That's a little bit surprising because a lot of what you're discussing seems like general plan level type environmental issues that the GP EIR covered at the time the city adopted its current general plan. And another thought that comes to mind is, if these developers are thinking, okay, we're gonna streamline the process, the environmental process, because we're gonna have these objective standards. The city's gonna wanna have some type of program level environmental document to tear off of. I

mean, that's something that's up for discussion with city staff and yourself as the city attorney about the best path forward. As part of this project, we proposed in a a specific environmental process, not having that scope directly in front of me. I adequately speak to it, we can have that discussion. But if it is direction of the city that that that does not provide enough environmental protections for a project like this or for a project to base or tier off of, we can definitely bring that forward.

Yeah, we'll talk and figure out what would be appropriate.

Thank you. Taking Yeah, on Ty's comments about the environment more that I think about it is if you double basically if we had a 5,000 square foot subdivision, you would have certain amount of traffic. Now if you're going to double that and put in 2,500, you're going to almost double your traffic. And so there's going be quite a bit of impact of just the traffic flow besides the amount of other environmental issues with the gases and other things that are going to happen. So I think there will be quite a bit of environmental that needs to be done.

Well, I think that we can take a look at the different different aspects of CEQUA. There could be a general plan addendum that could be done that that could offset it and look at mitigation from this. From a design standpoint, design standards when we're looking at massing articulation, they don't have the the same result than if you were modifying your subdivision regulations to allow more compact development, thus more strain on infrastructure, more vehicle traffic. But we can talk with the city and and look at different CEQA routes further. And that might be a further discussion at a separate meeting.

Something

else that's getting a little concerning to me is you're looking at trends across the country now. Prices are up. Wages really aren't for the most part. You've got single family homes, but they're not being occupied by children or whatever. You're putting multiple generations of family into one home.

Now, lot sizes are shrinking. If you look at some building developments that have gone in the South end of town, your streets are shrinking, everything's getting packed into a same size overall development, but you're putting twice as many homes in there. Is anything being done to address that? Because that's a real thing. One person is buying that house, but multiple families are living there. So now you're dealing with multiple vehicles, two families worth of vehicles and stuff like that.

It's funny you mentioned that something that we've run into several times recently with these higher density single family projects is street parking. So we've discussed internally how do you address street parking. Once those lots get narrow, you can't park on the street without blocking garages and those type of things, so we've talked about implementing some type of standard where there's off-site parking within these small op subdivisions to help address exactly, you know, your friends come over or something, there's no room to park on the street, or maybe the driveway, because the driveway's shorter. Do you implement some type of parking within these subdivisions? So, certainly has crossed our minds, and I'm with you on that.

I'm you that, okay.

Looks like a trailer park. Okay, well I guess we'll see what happens. Anybody else have any? Okay, we'll let the process continue and see what happens. Hopefully we'll get more chances to review this and respond because I think there's gonna be a lot more questions coming up as we see it.

Yeah, once we take your feedback that we've heard tonight and we begin the drafting process, we will bring an initial draft to you for your review in May, is what we're aiming for.

You. Will we have adequate time to review that before said meeting? Instead of the standard maybe seventy two hours?

Yeah, I think once we have a draft document, we're okay with the clerk can email it out to you all so that you at have a draft version of the document that you can mark up and review and provide comments?

This sounds like a sizable document.

Sure.

Getting it on a Friday afternoon. Then, we've got families too, so I've to entertain my eight year old.

Sure.

Thank you. So,

that concludes the study session. Am I correct?

Yeah, I don't know if there's any opportunity or provide opportunity if there's public comments.

Actually that's the next item on the agenda. Perfect.

Okay, so we'll go ahead and close study session and move on to the

next item which is public comment. So if anybody who's in the audience heard this, you have the opportunity. So next time is public comment. This is a time for citizens to comment on subject matters not on the agenda and that are within the jurisdiction of the commission. This is also the public's opportunity to request an item from the consent calendar be pulled for discussion purposes or to comment any item that was on the agenda.

Comments related to public hearing items will be heard at the time of the address discussed. A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing city of Staying on, we'll go ahead and close public comment. Move on to the next item, which is consent calendar. And tonight we only have two items.

Consent calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made and then the item will be removed from the consent calendar to be discussed and voted upon under separate motion. Items we have tonight is the minutes of November 25 and the second item is the minutes of the December 9 meeting. Commissioners, how would you like to handle this?

I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes for the 11/25/2025.

In that case, are you separating it or are we gonna

do that? I'm separating it.

Okay. It looks like item a is pulled. Item B is actually since it's two items, we'll vote on it individually. Okay. Is there a motion to approve the

Motion

has been moved and seconded to approve the minutes of the December, I'm sorry, the November 25. November. You want to vote on?

The fifth.

Okay. Alright. Motion is made and approved to, seconded to approve the minutes of the November 25 meeting. Roll call vote please.

Mr. Curtis? Yes. Vice Chair Douglas? Yes. Mr. Norris? Yes. And Chair Ham?

Yes. Item A is approved. Since Item A is approved, did you mean to

in December, so that's why I

Okay, I got that. Parade it. Okay, so is there a motion to

I will make a motion to approve the December. And I'll second.

Okay. So moved and seconded to approve the minutes of December 9. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Norris. Yes. Vice chair Douglas. Yes. Mayor Ham. Yes. And commissioner Curtis. Abstain.

Okay. The minutes have been approved. There is nothing else on the agenda. There is an item that says public hearing, but there's nothing there.

So the next item will be Director's comments. Just one brief comment. I've received questions from some of the commissioners regarding the status of the recruitment for a new commissioner process. So the application period has closed. The council members on the subcommittee that are going to be reviewing them have been provided with those applications. So I think the intent is for them to go through their screening and interview process this month, and then have a final selection in February at council. And at that time, the new commissioners would be on the commission after that. Anything else? That's it for me, happy to answer any questions. Commissioner on the commission?

As far as the process of bringing on new commissioners, does that mean that is Commissioner Douglas under if he wishes, is he going to be on board if we do have another meeting this month?

If needed, I will be here.

If I could kindly request it, I would. Having you present might help us out until we're able to fill it.

Will be here if needed, sir. Yes.

I appreciate it.

Is there anything else? Nothing else, meeting's adjourned.

I don't know.