Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm going to call the meeting of the Hanford City Planning Commission to order. It is July 28th, 5.30 p.m. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Juarez. Commissioner McElwain.

Here.

Commissioner Esparza. Here. Commissioner Gill. Present. Commissioner Nelson. Present. Commissioner Hamm.

Here. Go ahead and please stand for the flag salute. Ready, salute. 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. 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 under public comment? Seeing none, we'll move on to the next item, which is the consent calendar. Consent calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless the request is made, and then the item will be removed from the consent calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion. We only have one item on the agenda, and that's for the approval of the minutes of July 14th. Chair would entertain a motion.

I make motion we approve.

Second. I'll second. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to approve the minutes of July 14th Planning Commission meeting. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Nelson?

Yes.

Commissioner Gill?

Yes.

Commissioner McElwain? Yes. Commissioner Esparza? Yes. And Chair Hamm.

Yes. Eight minutes are approved. We only have one item on our agenda as far as public hearing is concerned, and it is for amended annexation number 165, and it's a request to reduce the previously proposed annexation boundary in order to annex approximately 86.4 acres into the city of Hanford city limits from the Kings County jurisdiction. Amended pre-zone number 0013-24 requests to amend the previous pre-zoning scope in order to coincide with the amended annexation boundary. Pre-zone will apply to the properties proposed to be annexed as RM medium density residential, and that's 80.95 acres, and an MXN neighborhood mixed use 5.45 acres. Consistent with the previously approved general plan amendment number 009-24. The amended project area is located north of Grangeville Boulevard and east of 9 1⁄4 Avenue. The development site includes two parcels comprising of 83.61 acres. Assessor parcel number 009. Accessor parcels 014-143-069 and 014-143-078 and an initial parcel APN 014-143-022 is also proposed to be annexed and pre-zoned as part of the project scope. Now I'm going to open the public hearing and request staff report.

Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. There we go. Copper Ridge proposed the development of 83.61 acres into a 650-unit multi-family, 300 units, and single-family, 350 units, residential subdivision, and a 5.45-acre neighborhood mixed-use site with a planned unit development overlay. Additional projects included annexation 165, general plan amendment 9-24, Pre-Zone 13-24 and Planning Development 3724, as well as the associated environmental document mitigated negative declaration 2573. On January 20, 2026, following a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council took action to approve all components of the original project request. The original annexation 165 was a request to annex approximately 141.85 acres into the Hanford City limits from the Kings County jurisdiction. The annexation area was a combination of the project site, which is 83.61 acres, and an area to the north not proposed to be developed at the time, as well as a small portion to the east. And the original annexation scope is shown on the screen. The project boundary is outlined in yellow, while the hatched line represents the additional annexation area. General Plan Amendment 00924 was a request to change the land use designation from a combination of low and medium density residential to medium density residential for 78.16 acres and neighborhood mixed use for 5.45 acres for the 83.61 acre project site. And the project was approved and no changes are requested to the general plan amendment. And the general plan is shown as outlined on the screen with medium density residential in this area and a 5.45 acre neighborhood mixed use designation on the corner. Pre-zone 0013-24 was a request to pre-zone the properties as RM, medium density residential for 78.16 acres and MXN, neighborhood mixed use for 5.45 acres consistent with the general plan amendment 00924 and RL5, low density residential for 51.92 acres and CN, neighborhood commercial for 6.32 acres consistent with the general plan designation. Tentative subdivision map 1224 was a request to subdivide the 83.61 acre project area into 650 units subdivision half 300 of those being multi-family and 350 being single family as well as a 5.45 acre neighborhood mixed use site with a planned unit development overlay the pud was a request to allow various deviations from the regulations of the rm medium density residential zone district for the mixed use subdivision proposed under tract 945, including reduced lot sizes, lot width, lot depth, site area per dwelling unit requirements, setbacks, open space dimensions, and allow the removal of a block wall requirement between the neighborhood mixed use and the medium density residential components of the site. And here is the subdivision map, which was approved with the overlay. And both the subdivision map and planned unit development are approved, and no changes are requested with this project. So following forwarding the annexation application to the local agency formation commission of Kings County, LAFCO, The city received a request by the applicant to amend the original annexation request in order to reduce the annexation area to be annexed into the city limits. And this shows the updated annexation request. And here is the request versus the original request. So the original request includes the area shown in red. Now the updated reduced scope only includes the portion shown in green. Amended pre-zone 001324 is a request to amend the previous pre-zoning scope in order to coincide with the amended annexation boundary and not exceed boundary to this area, which will no longer be requested to be annexed. And the pre-zone will apply to the properties proposed to be annexed as a RM, medium density residential site, for 80.95 acres, and neighborhood mixed use MXN for 5.45 acres, consistent with the previously approved general plan amendment, 00924. The annexation... Oh, I'm sorry. The Planning Commission is charged with finding the annexation consistent with the general plan, specifically policies L15 and L17. Policy L15, initiation of annexations, says to consider the annexation when... The following criteria are met. Number one, that the land is within the primary sphere of influence. Property proposed to be annexed is within the city's primary sphere of influence. Number two, that the capacity of water, sewer, fire, school, and police services are adequate to service the area to be annexed or will be adequate at the time that the development occurs. A plan for services was prepared by engineering for water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage. Fire and police and school service will be mitigated through impact fees paid to the project upon development. Number three, land for development within the city limits is insufficient to meet the current land use needs. The applicant is proposing a 83.61 acre development in the northeast planning area. Available land for new development within the city limits is limited. Within the existing city limits, the majority of property available for residential has been developed or has been entitled, and the proposal is considered an implementation of the general plan. Number four that the territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing developed areas The territory to be annexed is directly contiguous to the current city limits to the North and to to the well a portion of the north and Then to the west and will be contiguous upon this annexation Happening which is shown in green and this annexation is in progress. So And L17 requires that a plan for services be prepared. And a plan for services was prepared for the project and included in the staff report. Favorable and unfavorable factors for annexation have been adopted by LAFCO. The presence of favorable or unfavorable factors should not decide approval or denial. However, a substantial number of favorable or unfavorable factors may determine approval or denial of the proposal. Number one, that the proposed project area is close to urban development and municipal type services and would enhance its potential for full development. Once again, the proposed area is close to the existing city limits and a logical extension of the city, and the annexation can be served by municipal type services upon development. Number two, that the proposed annexation conforms to the adopted general plan. The annexation area is designated as a combination of medium density residential and neighborhood mixed use in accordance with the approved general plan amendment. And this area has been considered for urban development by the general plan and is necessary to accommodate growth within the city of Hanford. The development was evaluated for consistency with the zoning ordinance and regulations. The annexation is consistent with General Plan Section 3.2.4, which states annexation of land into Hanford allows previously undeveloped land to become available for development and allows the city to provide the territory that is annexed with a full range of city services. The annexation is also consistent with Policy L15 and L17 of the General Plan, as previously analyzed. Number three, that the area is consistent with the sphere of influence and that has been addressed. The area is within the sphere of influence. Number four, that the proposed annexation comes with 100% consent of all landowners. So this has been updated from the staff report and consent to annex form was emailed out to the commission because we do have 100% consent of the landowners to annex this property now that the scope has been reduced. And we already went over the pre-zone request. The necessary findings have been made for the project and appear in the context of your staff report. Annexation 165, as amended, is consistent with the general plan policy LU15 and LU17. And the pre-zone 1324, as amended, the appropriate findings have been made in accordance with section 17.88030 of the Hanford Municipal Code. The original project scope was evaluated in an initial study in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA guidelines, and based on the review, it was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, mitigated negative declaration number 2025-73 was certified by the City Council on January 20, 2026, and a notice of determination was filed for the project. The environmental document covers the entire project boundary and development, and therefore, additional environmental review is not required. Notice of the public hearing for the amended project was published in the Hanford Sentinel and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on July 8. And the Community Development Department has not received comments on the project as of the date of this report. And with that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the proposed Annexation 165 as amended, is consistent with the Hanford General Plan Policies L15 and 17, and forward Annexation 165 to the City Council with the recommendation that an application be made to LAPCO of Kings County. And number two, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2026.13, recommending approval of amended Pre-Zone 1324 to the City Council. With that, I'll invite any questions you may have of staff at this time.

Thank you. I want to confirm that before the meeting, we did receive the email that shows the confirmation of the people in the southeast corner of the properties. And we also received a map that shows the meets and bounds of the properties.

Correct. And this differs from your packet very slightly. Originally, there was a line in this area. It showed a city limits line here, but the line really begins here. But that's the only difference.

What's the difference?

Yes.

Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? Anybody? Go ahead.

In the staff report, the annexation is 83.61 acres. But on this map here on the screen, it says 86.40 acres. Okay. It is the 86.4 acres. The project site is the 83.61.

So those might have been incorrectly referenced.

okay yes but is it is the larger okay and does removing the pre pre-planned or pre-zoning area does that create a county island in that area so let's go back to this i think the boundary for a county island is 60 percent um

It may, however, we have received, we had discussions with LAFCO and it was their recommendation that it be eliminated because of concern raised from residents.

Okay.

Anybody else? I have a few questions, actually. So one is the, I think it's just, I was just also confused with some of the numbers, which is like finding three users, like several different acreage figures, 78.1 section resolution title, 80.95 as amended RNM acreage, and 72.92 as zoned up acreage in the balance of land uses paragraph.

So the original annexation, I'm sorry, the original general plan amendment didn't take in the entire project. It was, there was a portion that was already, and I don't know if I have that in the map. There was a portion that was already designated as medium density residential, so it doesn't apply to the entire thing. I want to say the boundary was around right here. So only this portion had the general plan amendment from low the medium, as well as this corner here. So that might be the discrepancy there.

The site's bigger, but the area that needed a general plan amendment is smaller. Correct. The entire site.

Also, like, one of the recital sites, like MND number 202578, while everything else is 202573.

Oh, for the MND, it should be 73, so typo.

Oh, it might be typo then. And also, like, the applicant name is also showing at the MMRP. It shows Quest Equity LLC instead of NNM Tulare. Yeah. Instead of the owner's name, it's mentioned as Quest Equity LLC in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program on page number 29. Okay. Very first paragraph. I just wanted to verify if that's the same applicant. Page 29, first paragraph, last line.

It says Quest Equity LLC in the city of Hanford.

Oh, okay. Okay. Yes. So the applicant that we received on the application is the LM. West Equity might have been a different LLC name. L&M Tulare LLC is the correct name.

Sure.

And the mitigation monitoring reporting program was prepared by the environmental consultant, so it might have been... Well, it might have been the LLC that requested the environmental be prepared.

I understand. So also I have a question about... Do you know which school district serves the site in that area?

I don't off the top of my head. I can look it up.

Okay.

Also, does the district have existing capacity for a funded facilities plan to secure the site bond, or are we just solely relying on the impact fees?

So we would rely on the impact fees. There's a government code section that essentially says that schools govern themselves and they can choose to designate a site, kind of like we saw a couple meetings ago. But we make them aware of our plans and it's up to them to designate sites. And the only obligation that the city has is to collect developer impact fees for the school sites. Sure.

And the impact fees that they collect, the intent is that they're aware. They set those, right? So they're aware of, hey, how many units are coming in, how many dollars we collect per unit, with the idea that it would help facilitate future growth for new facilities or those type of things.

Okay.

And I have one more question about the child safety thing. It's like I saw there's the Hamilton School and the Freedom Park is across the 9 1⁄4 Avenue. And what controlled crossing or safe routes improvements are in the frontage work for the children crossing daily?

Those were addressed through the tentative subdivision map conditions of approval in the engineering comments. But before us today is just the annexation and pre-zoning request. We're not looking at the subdivision map, so I don't have that information readily available.

Okay. And one last thing I found was regarding the... Yeah, so it was regarding the job housing, the ratio calculation thing.

Okay.

We see that it's the 1.17 to 1.62 job housing figure. Is it a project specific calculation or is it a citywide general plan?

That's general plan designated housing balance that was figured.

Yeah, because if we consider the project specific, it's actually the ratio is going down instead of going up because we are adding 650 units and the number of jobs that we're creating out of that five and a half, whatever the number is, 5.45 acres of, in that particular lot, I don't know how many jobs we are creating because the number wasn't provided.

Yeah, so if you look at the job housing balance, that's a, a ratio that's assigned for the general plan throughout the entire city. And it doesn't look at the project specific. In this site specifically, we did increase the commercial area to 5.45 acres when originally the entire site was designated as low and medium density residential only. So it does contribute to the jobs balance.

But I was thinking about, like, because the number of housing is in the denominator, so if 650 units are being added, wouldn't that ratio go below one?

Well...

Yeah, because the opposite will happen in certain cases too. Like if we were to present a commercial development to you, obviously job creator but not residential creator. So when we look at, on the aggregate, on the whole, the city is supposed to be about that balance. But on a project-specific level, it's never going to be that perfect balance because it's going to be either most like a residential heavy or commercial heavy. Maybe in this case we have a combination, but...

That's all from my side. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay, we'll go ahead and open the floor for public input. First of all, those in favor of the project, please come forward.

Good evening, Planning Commission. My name is Greg Nunley. My address is 2590 Diamante Drive in Tulare. I'll be present for any questions you guys have. One of your questions was In-N-Am Tulare, which is In-N-Am Capital now. We've changed the name of that. It's the same. I own that and Quest Equity. So what I did is probably hired a study out of Quest Equity and then gave it to the staff. That's how that got mixed up. Anything else you guys ask Freefield to call me back up, and I'll answer your questions.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of the project? I have to ask a question. Anybody opposed to the project, please come forward. Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close the public input part of the hearing and bring it back to the Commission for further discussion and a decision.

Any further questions or comments?

If not, then the Chair will entertain motions. We'll be up on the screen momentarily.

There we go.

Someone please take number one.

I move to adopt, I move to find that the proposed annexation number 165 as amended is consistent with the Hanford general plan policies L15 and L17 and forward annexation number 165 to the city council with the recommendation that an application be made to the local agency formation commission, LAFCO of Kings County.

Is there a second? I second. It's been moved and seconded to find that the proposed annexation number 165 as amended is consistent with the Hanford General Plan policies L15 and L17 and forward annexation number 165 to the City Council with the recommendation that an application be made to the local agency formation commission, LAFCO of Kings County. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Gill?

Yes.

Commissioner McElwain? Yes. Commissioner Esparza? Yes. Commissioner Nelson? Yes. Commissioner Hamm?

Yes. Second item, please.

I move to adopt resolution number 2026-13, recommending approval of amended pre-zone number 0013-24 to the City Council. I second it.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt resolution number 2026-13, recommending approval of amended pre-zone number 0013-24 to the City Council. Roll call vote, please.

Mr. Gill?

Yes.

Mr. Nelson?

Yes.

Mr. McElwain? Yes. Mr. Esparza? Yes. And Chair Hamm?

Yes. It's been ordered. The motion is passed. Both items have been approved, and I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Next item on the agenda is Director's Comments.

Nothing from me tonight to add that I can think of. Oh, yes. That was something. So we looked into whether or not, A, there was going to be an event held that possibly needed planning commission approval and a location. So it was – I can't remember the name of the business off the top of my head – So they do have a business license. It's at a different location, so we're working with our business licensing just to make sure that licensing is where it should be on that. So appreciate that that was brought to our attention. But we did verify business licensing. They have one, but it's not at the location here. It's at a separate site. So we're making sure that they do everything as they should.

Great. Thank you. No further directors' comments. Do the commissioners have any items?

No.

There's nothing else. Meeting adjourned.