Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We call the meeting of the Hanford City Planning Commission to order. It's June 9th. Just a few minutes late. It's 533. Roll call, please.

Mr. McElwain? Here. Mr. Esparza? Mr. Gill is absent. Mr. Nielsen is absent. Mr. Hamm?

Here. All right. Would you please stand for the flag salute? Join me in the pledge. 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 that is 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 city of residence. Would anyone like to come forward for public comment? Seeing none, we will move on to the consent calendar. We have one item on there. Consent calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made, and then the item will be removed from the consent calendar to be discussed and voted upon by separate motion. Chair would entertain a motion to approve the minutes. One of the commissioners, please.

I move to approve the minutes.

Second. Thank you. It's moved and seconded to approve the consent calendar, which is the approval of the March 24th, 2026 minutes. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner McElwain? Yes. Commissioner Esparza? Your hand.

Yes, and the minutes are approved. Okay, tonight we have three items on the agenda, three public hearings. First one is from the Community Development Office, and it's for conditional use permit number 0069-26, and it's a request to allow an owner-operated pet grooming business to operate at 610 North Irwin Street in the MXD downtown mixed-use zone district.

It's assessor parcel number zero one zero dash two three two dash zero zero seven open the public hearing and request a staff report Thank You chair commissioners as stated and outlined on This map the project is located at 610 North Irwin Street The general plan designation for this site is downtown mixed-use the zoning designation is also MXD The purpose of this conditional use permit is to allow an owner-operated pet grooming business to operate at 610 North Irwin Street. In accordance with Section 1796.020, pet grooming means personal service establishment that, for a fee, trims, cleans, or carries domestic pets such as dogs and cats and which may sell pet supplies. Use of a pet grooming business requires a conditional use permit in the MXD downtown mixed use zone district. The last use of the space was a notary office. On the screen, you will see the site plan as submitted to staff for site plan review. As shown on the site plan on page 34, the business will provide a seating area for customers to wait for their dogs, as well as two grooming tables, a tub, and kennels for employee use while handling the dogs. All business operations will occur within the existing building. There is no outdoor dog relief area or dog run proposed as a part of this project. The site plan was reviewed for conformance with the standards of Section 1728 of the Hanford Municipal Code. All the development standards for properties in the downtown mixed-use zone district listed on the screen have been met, except for those identified to be legally non-conforming. In the MXD downtown mixed-use zone district, the minimum site area shall be 5,000 square feet, unless a smaller site is approved with a conditional use permit in accordance with Chapter 1780. the subject site is an existing building on an existing lot of 1875 square feet which does not meet the requirement however the property is considered a legally existing non-conforming site according to section 1790 050a of the Hanford Municipal Code, a lot shall be deemed non-conforming if it is legally created in accordance with the State Subdivision Mapped Act prior to the adoption or amendment of this title, but which does not meet all of the provision standards and requirements of this title applicable to lots. The site was in the original township and has remained unchanged over the years. The applicant does not propose to bring the site into further non-conformance. As an existing site, it may remain as is. As stated in the operational statement provided on page 29, the applicant proposes to provide services for dogs, including bathing, clipping, and nail trimming. Hours of operation will be Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. There will be no boarding or overnight care provided. The applicant expects to provide services for 7 to 10 dogs daily. with scheduling to be made by appointment with no more than three to four dogs on the premises at a time in order to assist with limiting on-site activity maintaining low noise levels and reducing traffic congestion in the area dogs will be placed in individual kennels while on-site which will be cleaned and sanitized after each use in order to ensure the safety and comfort of each animal and to maintain a clean and hygienic environment in accordance with standard health and safety practices The appropriate findings to approve a conditional use permit have been made in accordance with Section 1780.030 of Camford Municipal Code. The general plan accommodates compatible service uses in the downtown mixed-use land use designation as outlined in Policies L69 and L70 of the general plan. The project is categorically exempt from further environmental review per section 15-301 existing facilities of the CEQA guidelines. A notice of exemption has been prepared for the project. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 2026-07, approving conditional use permit number 0069-26. With that, I'll invite any questions the Planning Commission has for staff at this time.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commission?

Okay, for this to go from a notary office to a rooming salon, a backflow device will have to be installed at this property. But the city of Hanford requires 12 inches on every side of the backflow in order to be compliant. It doesn't look on this paper that there's enough room for a backflow. Has a plumber looked at this for that?

They have applied for a building permit, and the building permit will serve to to inspect the sinks and plumbing. They will look at that at that time.

A backflow goes outside.

The building permit will also review that. We'll inspect that.

During site plan review, Public Works and Engineering had an opportunity to review it, and I think they did provide some comments on that, but they will make sure that it's addressed.

Okay. I have a couple of questions. On a daily basis, how many employees will be there?

Owner. Owner-operated.

So then the next question was employee parking, so it looks like you only have to have the one parking then for the owner, and then hopefully she'll leave space, or he or she will leave space for customers.

So in the central area, It's strict for parking, and it's also within a half-mile radius of high-quality transportation, so no additional parking is required.

Okay, well, I understand that this is the old city lots, which is only 25 feet wide, so there really is only one space in front of the building for parking. And then there is a business on the south side, which has a large parking, but that's for their own business. Hopefully they'll negotiate or agree to where they can park without disrupting each other's businesses. Okay, I don't have any further questions. I'll now open the floor for public input, and first I'll open the floor for anybody in favor of the project. Anybody in favor of the project, please come forward. Seeing none, anybody opposed to the project, please come forward. I'm assuming the applicant is not here, then, to speak up for their own project. Since there's nobody to step forward. Okay, well, in that case, I will close public input and bring it back to the Commission for further discussion. If there is no further discussion, I would entertain a motion by one of the Commissioners to read the motion that's up on the screen, and then the other Commissioner to second it.

I'll move to adopt resolution number 2026-07, approving conditional use permit number 0069-26. I second it.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt resolution number 2026-07, approving conditional use permit number 0069-26. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Esparza? Commissioner McElwain?

Yes. Chair Hamm. Yes, so ordered. The public hearing item is approved, and I'm going to close the public hearing on this item. We have another item. Item B is going to be... Again, from Community Development, and it's for a tentative tract map, number 0015-25, and it's a request to divide two parcels, one that's 55.54 acres and another one that is 19.4 acres, correction, 19.48 acres in size, into three parcels, parcel one being 32.00 acres, parcel two being 25.24 acres, and parcel three being 17.79 acres. And this will be in the RL5 low-density residential zone district. The project is located south of Hanford-Armona Road between 12th and 13th Avenues. Assessor's parcel number is 011-040-040. And assessor parcel number is 011-040-027. Open the public hearing and request a staff report.

Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. As stated, the project is located south of Hanford and Mona Road between 12th and 13th Avenues, as outlined on the map. The general plan designation for the site is low-density residential, with the small portion being within the educational facility's floating designation in the area, and the zone designation is also RL5 low-density residential. The property is part of Tract 943, Silicon Valley Ranch. So, Tract 943 was approved by City Council on March 18, 2025, in order to subdivide a 75.02-acre project site into 326 single-family residential lots, a 3.58-acre park, and a 3-acre storm basin. Development of Silicon Valley Ranch is still subject to the conditions approved under Resolution No. 25-09-R, which is in your agenda packet. While subdivisions are typically approved at the planning commission level, this property was also required to be annexed into city limits as part of the entitlement process. Annexations must go through council prior to being considered by Kings County for approval. The annexation became effective on December 22, 2025. As shown at the tentative parcel map is proposal divide two parcels with a total size of 75.02 acres into three parcels intended to be consistent with the facing proposed for development of Silicon Valley Ranch. The site has been evaluated for conformance with site area, lot frontage, width, and depth requirements for the RL5 low-density residential zone district. All requirements of the zone are satisfied. Public improvements, including sidewalk, will be developed as part of the approved tentative tract. Listed are the zoning requirements evaluated for compliance with the Hanford Municipal Code on division of the property. The lot area and dimensions were evaluated as stated previously. Based on the stated zoning requirements, the proposed parcel split will not create a non-conforming zoning condition. The remaining requirements will also be evaluated during the building permit process required for each residence to be built in Silicon Valley Ranch. So the required findings have been made in accordance with Section 16.04.010 of the Subdivision Ordinance Code and Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act in order to approve the tentative parcel map. On March 18, 2025, the City of Hanford City Council reviewed Tenanted Track 943, Silicon Valley Ranch, for which a focused environmental impact report was prepared and a statement of overriding considerations was adopted for impacts to transportation traffic. A notice of determination was filed with Kings County on April 2, 2025. The changes proposed to this property do not affect any of the environmental impacts evaluated under the focused EIR for this tract.

The proposal does not change the scope of site development.

It only serves to facilitate the development of the tentative tract's development. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2026-09, approving tentative parcel map No. 0015-25. And with that, I'll invite any questions commissioners may have for staff at this time.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the commission?

Go ahead.

So how is the three-phase plan going to be sequenced? What triggers... Each one to start.

So I didn't show it on any of these maps, but the develop, you can kind of see the lines here, how they match up kind of. Hard to see, I know. But they designated each area as a phase of development where they'll start building one and then kind of go around. So, you know, how it will be, phase was up to the developer and it'll just kind of go in order.

Yeah. Yeah.

Any other questions?

Yeah. Also, there's mention in the report about 12th Avenue and Hanford-Armona improvements. Is that already started? Is that something that's already started, or is that going to happen within these phases?

You might be able to tell me, but I don't believe much construction has started based on this project. Because I don't believe, yeah, not started yet.

I believe there's been quite a bit of work on the hand for a moment already because of the adjacent.

Right, there are other subdivisions, so there's work related to other things, just not this.

Okay, thank you. It was just mentioned in there, and it wasn't quite clear.

All right, any further questions?

Okay, if not, then I'll go ahead and open the floor for public input. First, from the side that wishes to build this project.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Alex DeWiggins. I'm a civil engineer with the Hanford office of QK. Our firm represents the developer of the subdivision and the property owner. The property owner does have a representative here tonight. It's... Mr. Fleurier, if there's any questions that I might not be able to answer, he can. Mark's presentation pretty much covered everything I would have said. This is strictly a division for the purpose of sale. And as Mark mentioned, all the underlying conditions still apply from the subdivision. Commissioner McIlwain? Okay, you mentioned the configuration and the phasing. The configuration on this parcel map is specific to the phasing that was shown on the tentative map. The park is in parcel one for taxation purposes. Phase two is just below it. The third phase is to the west. The question you have is a good one. If the phasing gets out of order, Mark, can you switch back to the parcel map? The parcel map here specifically offers an irrevocable offer of dedication for the streets with the parcel map in case the phasing gets out of order. doesn't follow the order of the tentative map, the city is still protected, they will have the option of taking the streets at any time because the offer will stand with the parcel map. Either way, the developer needs to dedicate all the streets. I'm specifically talking about Aquifer Drive. Let's just say for argument's sake, parcel three develops before parcel two. There will be no issue with acquiring the rights to Aquifer Drive because the city will already have an offer for dedication. The city attorney can disagree or agree with me as he wishes, but if the offer is irrevocable, the only one that can relinquish it would be the city, and the city would have the right to take it when they deem necessary. So there's a whole other set of engineering intricacies with changing phases, and I'd like to talk about that, but that's not pertinent to the parcel map. If you have any questions, I am more than happy to answer. Like I mentioned, the representative of the owner is also here. Thank you. And if there is nothing else, I would ask that you vote to approve. Thank you. Thank you, Alex.

Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of the project? You want to go ahead? You're optional. Okay. All right. Okay. Then I'll switch sides. Anybody opposed to the project? Seeing none, I will close the public input and bring it back to the Commission for further discussion and decision. I move to adopt resolution number 2026-09, approving tentative parcel map number 0015-25. I second that. Thank you. Been moved and seconded to adopt resolution number 2026-09, approving tentative parcel map number 015-25. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner McElwain? Yes. Commissioner Sparza? Yes. Your hand.

Yes. Approved. Project is approved. I'll now close this public hearing. We have one more public hearing. Last one is item C on the agenda, and it's also by Community Development. And it's for modifications to Vesting Tentative Track number 881. It's a request by San Joaquin Valley Homes to amend previously approved tentative track map number 881 to reflect changes between the approved tentative map and the submitted final map, including an addition to Acorn Lane off Hume Avenue. Reconfiguration of ends of lots of front... Amber Harvest Drive and a reconfiguration to accommodate a cul-de-sac on Sparrow Drive. The project pertains to Unit 3 of Track 881, Live Oak East, which is generally located east of 12th Avenue, south of Hume Avenue. Assessor parcel number 011-110-051. I'll open the public hearing and request a staff report.

Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. um for background the live oak development project was approved by the city council in 2009 for the development of the master plan community the proposal covered approximately 390 acres within the hanford city limits the applicant sought approval of a plan unit development proposal vesting tentative subdivision maps and a development agreement The overall project proposed to construct 1,560 dwelling units in a range of housing and lot types. Tentative Track 881 was approved at the time of the original entitlements in 2009. Subsequent revisions have occurred, and this amendment constitutes the second amendment to the tentative track 881 map. The project pertains to Track 881 within the Live Oak development, specifically Unit 3 of Track 881, which is located south of Hume Avenue, east of 12th Avenue. The project site is designated as low-density residential by the general plan and zoned RL5. The Live Oak master plan is a planned unit development overlay for the project site. Units one and two of the map have been recorded, and upon the submittal of the final map for phase three, notable changes were observed necessitating an amendment to the tentative subdivision map by the Planning Commission. The changes included, oh, I'm sorry, modifications to the approved tentative track map are governed by section... It's 1632-120 of the Hanford Municipal Code, and minor modifications are allowed to be approved administratively. However, when there are changes to the basic design of the map or changes in orientation of roads, which is the case here, or the addition of lots or other similar changes, then approval by the Planning Commission is required. The changes observed included the addition of Acorn Avenue off of Hume Avenue, where previously Countryside Lane continued straight through. So this is the original or last version of the tentative map, and Countryside continues this way off to Hume. And here you have the addition of Acorn Lane and Countryside here. So that was a change. Lots on the reconfiguration of the lots along Amber Harvest Drive. The lots were formerly side on, and now the lots front Amber Harvest. So you can see these lots have their side property lines along Amber Harvest. And on the new map, there are a number of lots that actually front Amber Harvest Drive. Additionally, the amended subdivision included the loss of Acorn Lane south of lots 242 and 241. So Amber Harvest continued and held out here on Acorn. And that was reconfigured to accommodate a cul-de-sac here. And then there's not another area here to go through. So the amended subdivision map was evaluated for conformity with the requirements of the RL5 Low Density Residential Zone District and with the Live Oak Master Plan for lot area, depth, width, frontage, density, and units per lot. And where city standards were not satisfied, the Live Oak Master Plan allowed deviations. And in the table on the screen, staff highlighted the amended maps request overall request specific to unit three since the two previous units have recorded the total area for the map overall is approximately 54.5 acres unit 3 is 26.7 acres the number of units within track 881 the map shows 245 It's numbered through 267. However, 22 of those lots occur within Track 865. The numbering was just kept continuous to show. Within Unit 3, there are 128 lots. The units per gross acre for the map overall is 4.5. And within Unit 3, it's 4.8. And the population increase from the map overall is approximately 755. And for Unit 3 specifically, 394. Pursuant to Section 16.04010 of the Hanford Subdivision Ordinance, Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act, in Hanford Zoning Ordinance, the required findings can be made by the Planning Commission and are included within the staff report. On September 15, 2017, 2009, an EIR for the Live Oak Master Plan development was certified and a statement of overriding considerations was adopted for impacts to agricultural resources, air quality, and energy conservation and climate change. A notice of determination was filed with Kings County on September 18, 2009. Former changes to the proposed Live Oak development were analyzed in an addendum to the EIR to verify that a subsequent EIR was not warranted and none of the circumstances surrounding a subsequent EIR identified in section 15162 had been met. The changes proposed to the Live Oak development project herein do not further affect any of the environmental factors evaluated under the Live Oak EIR and consequently a subsequent EIR or ISMND required and with that staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and adopt resolution 2026 10 approving amendment to tentative track 881 any questions you may have any questions for staff I have one for clarification could you bring up the page 129 of the packet it'd be one of the maps I don't think I, the only map I have in the presentation is. I want the cul-de-sac. Oh, cul-de-sac one?

Yeah, those curves.

This one?

The next one before that. That would work. Okay. Okay, my question is that on the, on this slide, working okay wait a week there's a major 90-degree arc of a roadway and coming up from the south there's a street going into that curve of that 90-degree arc and then on the easterly end of that 90-degree arc you have another street there are two different names so what is the name of the street that is that 90-degree arc this one yep I believe it's amber harvest You've got two different names coming into it, so which one is the real one?

So as it approaches the cul-de-sac, it's Sparrow.

I think it's Sparrow or something comes from the south. Correct. And then Amber comes in from the north. So if you're going around the curve right there, what's the name of the street in that area?

Right here. Let me check the final map.

Which one?

It's the 90-degree arc. What's the name of the street on that curve?

I believe it's also Amber Harvest up to here. I think, yeah. Until 166?

I think so.

What's in the middle?

Where?

Here? No. Still staying on that curve. What's the street name for any of those homes that are on that 90-degree arc?

I assume they would be Amber Harvest.

But not the one coming up from the south?

That's the one going east-west.

Did the map change and I'm reading it wrong now? Did it finally get corrected so they're both, the whole thing is Amber Harvest now?

Except for the cul-de-sac is Sparrow.

Starting at Homestead, more or less?

Correct, after Homestead.

So the street name stops right there at the T intersection, is that? Correct. I want to get clarified, though. Okay, so anybody who's on that curve has the street name that's to the north, and it stops right where?

At Homestead.

delivery mail or if i'm on a police or fire id to know where what's that address what street am i on sorry i'm pulling up the final map here

You know what? Yeah, it's inconsistent. So I'll check with our building official on that one. It goes to city council next week, so we have time to get it corrected. Okay, great.

Thank you. Thank you.

There's nothing else on the commission? Then I'll go ahead and open the floor for public comment. And who's in favor of the project? Oh, I'm sorry.

Mm-hmm.

So that was a consideration in developing the cul-de-sac. When we received the final map, it actually dead-end here. And then there was an outlet, as you can see, utilizing Acorn Lane. However, we... worked with the applicant and got a cul-de-sac here, and fire is able to turn around here, and this meets their standard radius. And then the other question about Acorn Lane, that doesn't impact connectivity for emergency access.

Okay, and I'll go ahead and open the floor for public input. First, those in favor of the project. Anybody want to speak in favor of the project, please come. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Seth Barton. I represent the developer. Just kind of these small changes that we made, I just kind of want to say we, San Joaquin Homes as a developer really tries to take pride in the lots that we build and the subdivisions that we build. Kind of one of our core tenants is we do try to avoid four-way stops as possible. We think it creates a safer neighborhood in a lot of ways. The homes kind of facing... opposite direction the less homes that a person can probably see from their front lawn makes it the community feel a little bit smaller and then the cul-de-sac you can't really see it on these maps but just to the south of that is a not a part of the map so older home that was not a part of the development it probably makes the subdivision feel just a little bit more secluded and more homely, in my opinion. So these changes are just something that we thought would make the subdivision more desirable to live in. So that's kind of where we're coming from. That's all I really have to say, and I appreciate your guys' time.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of the project? I'll switch sides. Open the floor for anybody wishing to oppose this project. Seeing none, I'll close the public input part and bring it back to the commission for any further discussion or a decision. Apologies.

Thank you.

I move to adopt resolution number 2026-10, approving an amendment to tentative tract 881. I second it.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded to adopt resolution number 2026-10, approving an amendment to tentative track 881. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Esparza?

Yes.

Commissioner McElwain? Yes. Chair Ham?

Yes. The project has been approved. Thank you.

Just one update. As the Commission is aware, we received approval from the Planning Commission and the City Council for the housing element. Resubmit to HCD. We were notified last week by HCD that they've also approved it. So we are officially done with the housing element. So the state agency that verifies that it looks good told us it looks good. so we're pretty thrilled about that so just wanted to provide the commission with an update on where we are in the housing helmet we'll go ahead and introduce the man who's been sitting on the end oh sure we have a new commissioner as well so um we as the commission's aware so we we lost the commissioner but we gained a commissioner so mr waris is our our new alternate on the on the commission um we'll get him sworn in so he'll be official here very soon But I'm excited to have him on the commission. I know his expertise will be very helpful. We'll have two attorneys up here, so we'll have some good attorney battles, I think. But, yeah, very excited to have you on the commission. We're excited to have you here.

Thank you, and I just want to say I'm excited to be here. I know everyone here is really involved, and I'm excited to learn from everyone here.

We weren't exactly ignoring you, but since you hadn't been supporting any of us, we recognize you officially yet. All right. Thank you. The next item is Commissioner's Item of Interest. Do we have anything? Nope.

That's the same.

We'll be adjourned.