Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commissioner Esparza? Here. Commissioner McElwain? Here. Commissioner Gill? Commissioner Nelson?

Here.

Vice Chair Norris? Here. And Chair Ham?

Here. Would you all please rise for the flag salute, which will be led by commissioner Nelson?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America, republic for which it stands by a nation under God, indivisible, and there

is a republican justice. K. Please be seated. The next item on the agenda is public comment. And 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 on any item on the agenda. Comments related to public hearing items will be heard at the time the item is discussed. A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. And please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your CDF residence. Would anyone like to come forward and provide a public comment?

Seeing none, we'll move on to the next item. The next item that is on the agenda is the consent calendar. However, there is nothing on the consent calendar to be voted on or covered on. So we'll move on to the next item. And that is the election of the twenty twenty six Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair, which will be conducted by Adiyah Chani.

Yes, Mr. Chair, I can assist with that process. So typically what occurs is the position of Chair person will be considered first. We'll open nominations. At that time, each of the commissioners will have an opportunity to nominate a person to serve as Chair.

Once there are no further nominations, then we'll have the Clerk take a voice vote on the first nominee. If the first nominee does not receive a majority vote, then we'll move on to the second nominee and we'll continue until we have somebody who receives a majority vote. Okay, so are there any questions? Okay, no questions, then we'll open for nominations. Yes, sir.

And I apologize. One thing I didn't mention are the nominations do not have to be seconded, so we can just keep going with the process. So Commissioner Hamm has been nominated. Are there any more?

I'll nominate Commissioner Ham as well.

Okay. So we have two nominations for Mr. Ham. It's not necessary to nominate more than once. So from this point forward, if there are any other nominations other than Mr. Hamm for the chair position, we'll take those. Since there are no further nominations, the voice vote will be for Mr. Hamm. Madam Clerk?

Commissioner Esparza? Yes. Commissioner McElwain?

Yes.

Commissioner Gil?

Yes.

Commissioner Nelson?

Yes.

Commissioner Norris?

Yes. Okay,

so by a five-zero vote, congratulations Commissioner Han for another year of the Chair position. Okay. So we'll repeat the process for the Vice Chair position. And Madam Clerk, since we do have the five regular commissioners, they will be the only ones to vote.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, so open for nominations to Vice Chair.

I nominate Jim Nelson for Vice Chairman. Thank you.

Any further nominations? None? Thank you. So nominations are closed. Madam Clerk, roll call.

Commissioner Esparza? Yes. Commissioner Gill? Yes. Commissioner Nelson? Yes. Commissioner Norris?

Yes. Chair Ham?

Yes.

So, congratulations to Vice Chair Nelson with a five-zero vote. Mr. Chair, I return the meeting to you.

Thank you very much. The next item on the agenda is the general business. And we have one item, and that is from the community development department. And it's a finding of general plan consistency for the acquisition of real properties located on the North Side Of East 6th Street, West Of Brown Street comprised of approximately 12,000 square feet located in the City Of Hanford County Of Kings, State Of California, consisting of Kings County assessors parcel numbers APNs Twelve-fortyFive-six and Twelve-fortyFive-seven in accordance with government code section 65,402.

Thank you, Chair. Commission, I'm going to recuse myself because I own property within 500 feet of the property listed in the agenda. So I'll be outside.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Commission. Before you today is a request for a general plan finding of consistency for two APNs located on 6th Street. As mentioned, it's located on the North Side of East 6th Street, West of

Hold that one please.

West Of Brown Street. The city intends to purchase these sites from the current property owner and utilize the properties to help construct a public safety building as a proven measure H, And in accordance with government code section 65,402, in order for the city to acquire this property or these properties, the Planning Commission must find that the acquisition conforms to the general plan. This just provides some context. It's an aerial of the location of the two APNs. You'll see them on the southern side of 6th the South Side 6th Street adjacent to Brown Street.

The zoning and land use are provided here in your agenda packet. They are designated for downtown mixed use, both the land use and the zoning designations are that. The city has several policies in the general plan associated with this. Staff has provided the general plan policies, L70, L73, L124, L126, P34, P36, P37, as well as goals P8 and P9. Those were provided in your agenda packet.

I've highlighted the policy that I think is most specifically pertains to these properties. Policy P126 states that the city should locate new local, state, and federal offices in the downtown area to the greatest extent possible. The city is proposing or indicating that this property or the potential use of this property is consistent with the general plan. We intend to put a local office, local government office, it'll be a police station in the downtown so it is consistent in staff's opinion with the general plan. Additionally, government offices, including local, state, and federal offices, are permitted in the MXD zone per section seventeen-eight-thirty of the Hanford Municipal Code.

So in addition to being in conformance with the general plan, you if were to look at our zoning table and see what's allowed there, this would be a use that is allowed in the downtown. In this case, the Planning Commission's role is a finding that the acquisition of the property is consistent with the general plan, and in no serves as any but in no way serves as a approval or commitment to future approvals for the purchase of the property. So before you tonight, the only consideration the Planning Commission has is whether or not the proposed use of a police station in this area is consistent with the general plan. You're not approving the purchase of the property or anything like that. You're not indicating whether it's a good use or a bad use.

It's just whether or not it conforms to the general plan. For the environmental, in accordance with CEQUA, the city acknowledges that the use of the site as a future police station will require CEQUA review. Once the city begins to initiate the development and design process, we'll undergo the CEQUA process for this project. At this time, we're just in the acquisition stages. With that, staff has provided the recommended motion as it pertains to this specific agenda item, and I'm happy

to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for staff? I believe this property that we're looking at tonight is fairly close to the property we looked at our last meeting, Los Galloway.

That's correct. Yeah, this item probably looks very similar. It's essentially the same or very similar item to the one we had at the last meeting, it's just two different APNs. The ones we considered at the last meeting were just north of this, on the other side of the alley.

No questions, then I would entertain a motion.

Chairman, I move to find the acquisition of property is consistent with the general plan adopted April 2437 in accordance with government code section 65,402.

I second it. Okay. It's been moved by Commissioner Norris and seconded by Commissioner Nelson that we find the acquisition of the property is consistent with the general plan adopted April 2437 in accordance with government code section five four zero two. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Norris?

Yes.

Commissioner Nelson? Yes. Commissioner Esparza? Yes. Commissioner Gill?

Yes.

And commissioner Ham?

Yes. Order. Ty, you can come back in. The next item is a public hearing and it is brought forward by the community development department and is for conditional use permit 50Eight-twenty6 and it's a request to locate a massage therapy business in the OR office residential zone district. The project is located at 804 North Irwin Street, Unit C, Assessor Parcel Number 0 Dash 185 Dashes 14.

Open the public hearing and ask for a staff report.

So thank you Chair and Commissioners. So as stated, the project is located at 804 North Irwin Street, Unit C as outlined on this map. So the site is proposed to be used for a massage therapy business. The general plan designation for the property is office residential and the zoning is also OR office residential. As shown on the table on the screen massage therapy businesses are permitted with the conditional use permit in the office residential zone district.

As shown on the floor plan the suite will provide an entry area with a front desk and a waiting area as well as a treatment room where massages for clients will occur. The business will offer standard massage therapy services. No retail sales or other personal care services will be provided. The business will operate from ten a. M. To six p. M. On Tuesday to Friday and ten a. M. To two p.

M. On Saturday by appointment only. Massage equipment will be sanitized between each session. And as conditions of approval, the applicant shall ensure compliance with Chapter 8.28 of the Hanford Municipal Code, which outlines massage therapy business standards as well as ensure compliance with the California Building Code, including that an ADA compliant front desk be maintained for suite. Let's say that the zoning requirements evaluated for compliance with the Hanford Municipal Code, all requirements of the Hanford of the Office of Residential Zone District have been met except for setbacks.

So the structure was permitted and built around 1968 with the current setbacks in place. Since the building was permitted under different zoning requirements, it is considered legally existing non conforming and remain as is. The applicant is not proposing construction to modify the building and does not propose to bring the site into further nonconformance. The appropriate findings to approve a conditional use permit have been made in accordance with Section seventeen point eight zero point zero three zero of the Hanford Municipal Code. The project is categorically exempt from further environmental review for Section 15.301 existing facilities of the California Environmental Quality guidelines.

A notice of exemption has been prepared for the project. And with that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 2026Dash04 approving conditional use permit number 0058Dash26. And with that, I invite any questions the commission may have at this time. Thank you.

Any questions? In that case, I will open the floor for public comment, public input. And up first, those in favor of the project, come forward.

Thank you guys for having me.

State your name and city of residence. What's that? State your name and city of residence.

Jonathan Quair, Lemoore, California 933245. Hanford 93230. Yeah. So thank you guys for having me. This is my first time here in doing this, but but yeah. I so all this happened back in January. Was renewing my business license. They told me I needed a planning permit, so I got it. And, yeah, I just I complied as as best as I can.

You do have an is it an existing business that you're relocating? Is that what's going on?

Yes. I did relocate. Okay. Yeah. And last year. So I I relocated and yeah. Right here. I went to change my my address because I I was I was down the street at the Artesia Building. So I had moved further up Erwin Street, and it's a it's a nice nice office space. Really, really beautiful there. You know, my neighbor neighbor is a chiropractor, dentist. Dentist's office just opened up there. Hanford Eye Care. But, yeah, it's a single use. It is a single room occupancy, but they told me that it's j four.

And I understand that massage therapy, it is a service industry. You don't take any, insurance at the moment. It falls into the category as barbershop, hair salon, no care, massage therapy establishment. It was here, so, I complied. I paid the fee that they charged me. It was, yeah, $1,675. And, yeah, I have the application CP number here with me. And yeah.

Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else want to come forward and speak in favor of the project? Okay, we'll switch sides. Anybody opposed to the project, please come forward. Okay, none, I'll bring close to public comment, public input and I'll return back to the commission for any further discussion. If not, then I'll entertain a motion.

Move we adopt resolution number 2026Dash04 approving conditional use permit 58 act two six.

I second. Okay, it's

been moved by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Norris to adopt resolution number 2020Six-four approving conditional use permit number 50Eight-twenty6. Roll call vote please.

Commissioner Nelson? Yes. Commissioner Norris? Yes. Commissioner Esparza? Yes. Commissioner Gill?

Yes.

Chair Ham?

Yes. It's ordered. That closes it. What first public hearing? We have a second public hearing. However, it looks like there's a request to delay this to another time. I'll let staff let us know what do they wanna do.

Thank you, chair and commissioners. Tentative Track 949 is subdivision that is has a planned unit development overlay associated as part of the project. An initial study was prepared. The California office of planning and research requires, that staff upload these documents to the state's website. It's called Sequinet.

Diana and I have trouble almost every time uploading, but this time, this document was kicked back several times due to a flattening error. And once it was finally accepted, it was March 5, which they changed the thirty day public review period to March 5 through April 3. So it would be inappropriate to take action when the state is still in the review period. So for that reason, we're requesting that the commission push the public hearing date to 04/14/2026. The notice was, appropriately sent to all the residents within 300 feet of the project site, published in the Hanford Sentinel, and uploaded to the city's website within the required time frame.

But we just need more time for Sequinet to catch up. For that reason, we're requesting

we're not that.

So So

we're do to continue this item until April 14.

I move to continue, item B, tentative track nine forty nine to 04/14/2026 in order to allow the thirty day state review period to end.

Second it.

Moved by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Norris to continue of the occurring items that were tentative track number nine four nine to April 14 in order to allow for a thirty day state review period. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Norris?

Yes.

Commissioner Nelson?

Yes.

Commissioner Esparza. Commissioner Gill.

Yes.

Chair Ham.

Yes. So this item will be heard again on April 14. Includes all of our public hearing items for this evening. Next item on the agenda is Director's Comments.

Just one comment from me tonight Commission. Thank you for responding to a request to have a special meeting with the City Council. Unfortunately, may have to change the time. So I'm trying to find a time where everyone can meet. I think the original proposal was four. It may be a little bit later to accommodate some schedules with the city council. We'll be reaching out to you shortly. But that date looks like it's going to be a firm date, just the time may change. So watch out for another email that might request a new time. But the purpose of that meeting will be to go over the work that Mantir Harnish has been doing regarding the environmental justice element and then the objective standards. You'll have that presentation to look forward to on the twelfth.

That's all for me.

Is the item that they were looking at at the council meeting for the lots and everything were really small? Yes,

correct. So it would allow for well, it wouldn't allow for it. Would create objectives or specific standards associated with lots that were under 5,000 square feet. So we already allow for lots to go small. This would just create some additional standards by which they would have to conform if they were that small.

Correct. Thank you. The next one is commissioner's items of interest. And since we have new commissioners, I'll go ahead and read the paragraph. Says, at this time, any commissioner may ask a question for clarification of matters within the outlining commission's jurisdiction, make an announcement, or report on activities in their role as a planning commissioner.

In addition, subject to the Planning Commissioner's Handbook, commissioners may request staff to report back to the Planning Commission on subsequent meeting concerning any matter within the commissioner's jurisdiction. Any commissioner? Not everybody was here at our last meeting. Maybe we should Yeah,

absolutely. So from our last meeting we have another commissioner in attendance. Commissioner McElwain, who will now be serving as the alternate on the Planning Commission. So as part of that same process, where Commissioner Gill and Commissioner Esparza were selected, Went through the entire process, selected three, and she was one as well. And this is her first meeting. We're excited to have a full commission. I know it's been a while since we've had, I think, six commissioners attend a meeting. It has been some time, so was excited to see that we had a full bench tonight. So appreciate everyone for attending.

Nothing else? There's nothing else, being adjourned.