Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Planning Commission meeting dated August 25th. Roll call.

Commissioner Juarez. Present. Commissioner McElwain. Here. Commissioner Esparza. Here. Commissioner Gill.

Here.

Vice Chair Nelson.

Here.

And Chair Hamm is absent.

We stand for the invocation.

Lord, we thank you for your presence here this evening and ask that you would direct everything that happens in this meeting tonight and that everything would go according to plan.

And please, in Jesus' name, we give you all the praise.

public comment this is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters not on the agenda 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 that time item is discussed. The maximum of time is three minutes allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your residence, city of residence. Seeing no comments needed. yes yes none the approval community development approval for the July 28th minutes General business, community development, cannabis, retail, business, approval, process. Oh, yes, I'm sorry, yes. Need a motion on the consent calendar?

I move to approve the minutes from July 28th.

I second.

Having been recommended and seconded, the minutes are approved. And then roll call, please, Ms. Dinah.

Mr. McElwain? Yes. Mr. Gill?

Yes.

Mr. Juarez? Yes. Mr. Esparza? Yes. And Vice Chair Nelson?

Yes. Public hearing? First agenda item. This is time to... We'll take the general business item. Yes. Yes. Sorry, I skipped down. Under general business, community development, cannabis retail business approval process.

Thank you, Commission. So prior to moving forward with the agenda items today, I wanted to provide some context. That way the Commission is prepared to review these documents today. So I wanted to go over the cannabis approval process that's set forth in Hanford's Municipal Code so that there's some context to the items today. So the city has two separate approval processes for cannabis businesses. The first one is what we call the commercial cannabis business license. I think of it this way. It's who is qualified to operate. That one is associated with the business themselves. Is a business qualified to operate a cannabis business in the city of Hanford? The second approval process associated with cannabis businesses is the conditional use permit. And what that looks at is the appropriateness of a specific site for a cannabis business. So two separate processes, both very important and both are required, but neither substitutes one for the other. So first I'll go over the Canvas business license process. So that's governed in our municipal code by Title V, Chapter 5.56. There's a merit-based process. So what we do is we essentially have a request for proposal. So we indicate, hey, if you'd like to operate a Canvas business in the city of Hanford, please submit your proposal. There's a long list of things they have to provide about their business. We have a scoring committee that we set up. There's a formal scoring process where a score is assigned. And then ultimately there's a recommendation made to the city manager. So based on the scoring committee, whoever they assign the highest score to, that recommendation is made to the city manager, and then the city manager decides whether or not that license will be issued. It doesn't constitute a land use entitlement. It just indicates that this business is qualified. Here you go. Here is a business license associated with cannabis business. So it qualifies them or enables them to run a cannabis business. The conditional use permit process, as I mentioned, is the second component. And this is what the Planning Commission deals with. It's governed by Title 17 in the municipal code. It requires a notice of public hearing, which is why it's a public hearing item today. It evaluates the use at a specific location. So once the business has that license in hand, they've already selected a location because when they apply, they indicate where their location is. Then they need that conditional use permit to actually be able to operate out of that building. And that's what the Planning Commission makes a determination on. The CUP addresses compatibility and site-related impacts. It may include conditions of approval at times, and as mentioned, that's decided by the Planning Commission. So again, two separate processes, the cannabis business license process and then the conditional use permit process, but both are needed. So the commission's review is site-specific. So what the commission considers with the CUP is to make sure the zoning is correct, to make sure that the proposed location is compatible surrounding land uses. And we have things in our municipal code that help evaluate that. site design parking circulation lighting safety concerns but what the Commission doesn't consider or should not consider as part of the CUP process is the the operator so because that was already determined previously right the city manager has selected it so it's not an opportunity for the Commission to say hey why not this other operator you had two applicants you should have selected the other one so that wouldn't be under the Commission's purview just the site location itself would be It's also not, the CUP isn't an opportunity to revisit the council's decision to allow for cannabis retail businesses. So I bring that up because we've had this in the past where there might be questions from the audience just generally about cannabis. Why does the city allow for cannabis businesses? Or they may disagree with the fact that the city allows for cannabis businesses. The CUP process is completely separate from that. The council made a decision several years ago to allow cannabis businesses. Our municipal code reflects that. So the CUP process isn't an opportunity to sort of revisit why does the city allow cannabis because the purview of the planning commission is relatively narrow here. It's about does the site meet the qualifications or the specific things that it needs to meet as outlined in the municipal code. So what type of findings are we looking at for CUPs? I've listed all five here, and you'll see them again today with the items that are coming later. So the Commission must find that the use will not impair integrity and character, the use is compatible with permitted land uses, that it's consistent with the general plan, that it won't significantly affect the environment or natural resources, and that the location, design, size, characteristics, et cetera, aren't detrimental to the public health and safety. And then staff makes a recommendation based on if these findings are met. So if you take a close look at the staff report, staff has done a review and will make a recommendation that, yes, these findings are met, and then they'll provide evidence indicating why that decision was made, why staff came to that determination. The record and findings drive the decision. So as part of the public hearing, the Commission should receive staff and applicant presentations, so there will be a presentation associated with the CUP for the cannabis business today, should deliberate on the five required findings and what staff's recommendation is, and approve or approve with conditions or deny the CUP. I know our city attorneys brought this up, but I'd like to reiterate this, that any denial of a CUP must identify the specific findings or things that aren't made or that staff didn't consider or something like that. It has to be supported by evidence in the record. So denial of a CUP can't just be, I prefer not this project, that this project doesn't happen, I don't like it, I'm opposed to cannabis. Those aren't specific findings. A finding would have to be made consistent with one of these five things. So any type of no vote or any type of vote in opposition would have to be based on, hey, you cannot meet one of these five findings and here's why. Very specific and evidence-based. And because of that, if the record supports all five findings, approval is appropriate and with conditions as necessary. If there's specific things that need to be addressed, there can be conditions assuming that those conditions are appropriate to be made. Again, the key takeaway here that I just want to go over again is that the business license is the operator approval. For tonight's item for the CUP, the business license has already been issued. So they already went through the business license selection process. They were deemed to be the highest qualified applicant. The city manager indicated that he would like for them to move forward and receive the business license, which they did. The conditional use permit, which is under consideration tonight, would be the site approval. As mentioned again, site specific, not having to do with the operator. The planning commission's role here is to determine whether the proposed use is appropriate based on the standards in the municipal code. And the decision must be made on those five findings. And we'll, again, they're in the staff report, so you'll have an opportunity to review those. With that, happy to answer questions about cannabis approval process, the CUP versus the business license, if there are any type of questions or if there's something that's not clear about our process or just have general questions about the cannabis process in the city. Happy to answer them.

Can you clarify how many storefronts are operational right now?

So there are two operational storefronts. The municipal code allows for three. So that's why one is being considered tonight. It would be the third and final storefront in the city. Any other questions, if not?

Not on my end.

Fantastic. Well, if there aren't any other questions, we can move on to the agenda items, the other agenda items. Thank you.

Okay, got it.

We open public hearing. Item A, Community Development Condition Use Permit, number 0071, Act 26, a request by Embark and Hanford to permit a cannabis business to operate a storefront dispensary for retail of cannabis products at 610 West 7th Street in the MXD Downtown Mixed Use Zone District. APN 012, Act 061, Act 007.

Thank you, Chair, Commissioners. As stated and outlined on this map, the project is located at 610 West 7th 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 a cannabis storefront dispensary in the MXD downtown mixed-use zone district within an existing building on a fully developed site. According to the Commercial Office and Industrial Zone Use Table presented in Table 17.08.030 of the Hamburg Municipal Code, a cannabis storefront dispensary or sales is a permitted use with approval of a conditional use permit in the MXD downtown mixed-use zone district. Dispensary means a commercial cannabis business facility where cannabis products or devices for the use of cannabis or cannabis products are offered, either individually or in any combination for retail sale, including an establishment, whether fixed or mobile, that delivers pursuant to express... authorization, cannabis and cannabis products as part of a retail sale, and where the operator holds a valid commercial cannabis business permit from the city of Hanford, authorizing the operation of a dispensary and a valid state license as required by state law to operate a dispensary. It shall be noted that the MXD Downtown Mixed Use Zone District is the only zone district in Hanford where cannabis storefront dispensary or sales are permitted. Currently, the number of cannabis storefronts is limited to three permits. Two storefronts are already operational, those being Stizzy and Urban Joy. On the screen, you'll see the site plan as submitted to staff for site plan review. The site plan was approved under site plan review number 0194-26. On July 13th, 2026, the city awarded a dispensary permit to Embark-Hamford for the city's third retail commercial cannabis permit in accordance with the city's approved review process. The process includes several steps prior to a selection being made, including those listed on the slide. A committee made up of city staff scored applications based on several criteria, including safety, location, benefits to the local economy and labor force, and compatibility with the neighborhood. Following the phase three scoring process, the city manager reviewed the scoring and applications and Embark-Hamford was selected as the recipient of the available retail commercial cannabis permit. All applicants were notified of the selection on July 13, 2026 and were given 10 days to appeal the proposed selection. The city did not receive any formal appeals and the appeal period closed on July 23. Property owners within 300 feet of the project were notified on July 15 of the proposed selection and were invited to submit questions and comments to the city. We receive none. Upon approval of the conditional use permit and the conclusion of any appeal periods, a commercial cannabis business permit. Embark will be open for retail and delivery between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. with 150 customers anticipated per day, seven days a week. The anticipated number of employees will range from 16 to 22 within the first few years of operation. Positions will include general manager, assistant general manager, inventory and operations manager, sales and operations manager, inventory operations lead, sales and operations leads, and customer experience guides. On the slide, you will see a description of how customers will enter and purchase product. Embark utilizes state-of-the-art technology and security and customer experience protocols to ensure no person under the age of 21 or 18 with a valid physician's recommendation or medical card is permitted to enter. Security is present on site as part of the cannabis business permit. A security plan was provided and approved. As a condition of approval, the applicant is required to maintain a security plan with the Hanford Police Department. The site plan was reviewed for conformance with the standards of Chapter 17.28 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. The site plan was also reviewed for conformance with the standards of Hanford Municipal Code Standards Chapter 17.69, commercial cannabis related uses and activity, and Chapter 5.56, commercial cannabis activity. All standards were met. The appropriate findings to approve a conditional use permit have been made in accordance with Section 17.80. of the Hanford Municipal Code. The general plan accommodates compatible service uses in the downtown 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 15301 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 2026-17, approving conditional use permit number 0071-26. With that, I'll invite any questions the Planning Commission has for staff at this time.

I have questions. thought I saw it in there but I when I went back to look I couldn't find it do we know where the employees will be parking I believe in the rear of the building the rear of the building okay So they had, in their executive summary, they had detailed how there's 10 dedicated spots. That's great for customer convenience. When I looked at the building plans, it did not have any rear entry. So the handicap spot and any parking in the rear aren't really customer convenient. So that would leave parking only in front of the building. So they do talk about... parking being available in the rear and it being convenient for customers to park there, but also there's conflicting information in the executive summary. It's on page 80 of the summary, 62 in our packet, because some pages were omitted. It goes through a very detailed process of the deliveries and acceptances, and it's pretty clear that that rear gate is closed closed and they have to verify identity of the driver and the delivery before they open the gates to it so that means that tells me there's no parking in the rear unless they park at the neighboring parking lot so that leaves only the parking spaces in front of the building in which if you look at it There's really only four in that entire stretch for the stereo company, the tattoo company, the cannabis company, and then I don't know what's in between the cannabis store and the car lot. I think it's a salon or something. So if there's only four parking spots there, That means there's only four parking spots for all of those businesses. And they're saying that they get 150 customers per day. That's an average of 12 and a half customers per hour. That alone, I feel like this puts number five on our checklist on the conditional use permit in a very gray area because there's not a lot of safe parking for customers. They could park across 7th Avenue, but that... probably invite jaywalking the nearest crosswalks are at 11th and then the next ones at Santa Fe so that's not very close at all or it would encourage illegal parking at the gas station which also doesn't have a lot of parking so do we know my question is do we know if they have any kind of parking agreement with neighbors

So sort of two things here. So the first thing is state law indicates that any time there's what they call quality transit within half a mile of a location, the city can't impose any additional parking requirements. And so we do not have the ability to impose any parking requirements on them because they're within half a mile of high-quality transit. So they fully comply with... parking requirements per state law. In our downtown district, we also have some additional parking regulations that if you lacked parking, you can pay sort of an in-lieu fee, right, that gives us money so we can build parking facilities in the future. In this case, yeah, because of their proximity to what the state deems high-quality transit, we can't impose any parking requirements on them.

Okay. Okay.

I do have an additional question, just like it's similar to what Commissioner McQueen mentioned. So it's like, how the missing back door impacts the emergency egress and accessibility plans?

Make sure I understand your question, the missing back door.

Yeah, I mean, I think in part of the plans, they were not.

There's only the delivery door on the plans, which is closed off. So if there's people inside the building, the only way out would be through the front because all of it's locked down.

I believe that was addressed with the approval of the site plan. It was reviewed by the fire chief and also the building official, and they deemed that that was okay. I think that's common for all candidates. Yeah, it's for like a controlled point of ingress. Yeah.

But correct, yeah, customers would have to access through the front, yeah.

I'll open the public comment portion of the public hearing. I will now open the public portion of the public hearing. We take comments from those in favor first. Five minutes will be allowed for each speaker. Please state your name for the record. We cannot require a name if a person refuses. Anyone opposed wish to, I'm sorry, we'll stay with the in favor of. Anybody in favor that wants to make comments?

name in your residence my name is George Casares I'm the owner of the building to the west of them the right between the gas station and so if originally embark was gonna work a deal with me but um basically they want they want to pay so they want to pay like below and that's fine so i rented one building out and i'm opening a thrift shop in the other one so the problem is i had to get um i already know what was going to go on with the parking my parking's a big parking it's back so i knew they were just gonna you know well Just to protect myself, I went down to the city and I said I want a 10-foot, not just because of Embark coming in because of their traffic. I already know what's – there is no parking in front. If you see their property, there's one green room for two cars, and in the back, it's quite small. There's one handicap and I think like six parking, so minus their employees. I don't know how they're going to do it, but that's fine. We have no problem, no opposition to them. But I went down to the city, and I wanted a 10-foot wrought iron gate. It had never been done in Hanford, but I wanted it. I do a lot of – I'm a contractor out of L.A. in the Bay Area, so we see that. So I had to get an engineer to do the whole thing. So I got a giant gate that's being put up right now, engineered, approved by the city. And they called me on a Saturday asking if I wanted to rent the property, and I asked them who they were, and they said, we're opening a church. That ticked me off a little bit because I don't – mind being honest, but don't use a church for... I have nothing against marijuana, but just don't do that. Apparently, they're going to open a church, so they want to rent it on Sundays. So I go down to the city, talk to, I think, Jason, and I'm in with the city. I'm getting deeper with the city now because I'm starting to do construction here rather than just LA and the Bay Area. And yeah, so I just didn't like the trickery, so I found out that it was them posing as a church. But They wanted to do a contract. I have no problem renting the property out to them. It's going to cost – I'm going to ask for $100 a day, no problem. They're more than welcome, but there is going to be 10-foot wrought iron gates with electric gates, and it's going to be – we're going to get the city signs that it's going to be just for the two businesses. My thrift shop I'm opening up. which is going to be called Good Fortune. And then AR just opened up next to the other building is another company called AR. He does t-shirts, graphics, and t-shirts and signs. So we have no problem renting it out to them. But I mean, what happens if they start running it? Because we have to keep the two gates. They're pretty tall and pretty big. But we have to keep the gates open. So what happens if we have the signs from the city prohibiting any other than our customers Because I'm not letting a company making $10,000 a day, $5,000 a day. I have no problem with what they make, but it's fair to pay. And I'm willing to give them the parking, but $100 a day is pretty cheap, $3,000 a month if they want it. If not, what do we do? We have a problem, an issue with their customers. Because we're going to have a big problem with the customers. We're going to have two guys watching who's coming in. If the cannabis customers are coming in, taking away my renters and my stores' parkings, What are we going to do? What can we do about that? Because it will be an issue. I'm not a threatening guy, but I have attorneys. My attorneys come out of L.A., and they really don't care about this area. Why, I don't know. But they said, let us know when something happens. They'll come down and deal with the city and figure out if we can figure something out. Because we're not looking for trouble. We just want everybody to be clear and fair and transparency. And I don't want – there's going to be a lot of traffic. You know, cannabis dispensaries, there's a lot of traffic. And they have no really, they have two parches in the front and pretty much none in the back if you go look at it. It's congested. It's coming through an alley that's real congested. What happens if they start coming into my property and they don't want to pay rent? Do I talk to, come to the city council and put it on the agenda? What do I do? Because I just don't want any, I don't want my renter being upset with me and he told me if they want to pay, it's up to me. If they want to pay, then he accepts it, but he'd rather not, but What do we do in a situation like that if traffic gets really thick and they're coming into my property? Because I'm the only property if you look at it next to them.

Generally speaking, are you talking about where the stereo shop is right now? Yes. Okay. Generally speaking, it's the property owner's responsibility to lease their parking lots and... No, no, I'm not saying that part.

I'm saying they don't want to lease it and they're still... If I get the signs from the city and the police department, you know... You know the signs where it says these parkings are for AR graphics and good fortune only? What if we have a problem when people are just coming in without stopping? Can we lock the gates and have them towed until they get to know?

If you have towing signs as a property owner, you can tow.

But they're in and out. The tow trucks aren't going to make it. I do this in L.A., so there's no way the police or the tow companies can get there on time. They're going to. in and out you know you're going to get your cannabis you get out so by the time the tow truck companies and then I dealt a lot of the police on her they get tired of coming if there and there's no nothing happening that the crimes already left I had a lot of crime five minutes is up sir okay and if there's any more questions please address them to the staff not to us thank you there any other people want to speak in favor

Go ahead, sir. Please step up. State your name and city of residence, please.

Thomas Enloe, city of Hanford. I have a building down there, and we never had any trouble. I've had the building for over 10 years. Well, now we have marijuana dispensaries in the area. Have you guys looked at how many times the cops are called to come down there? I've had loitering. I have windows broken, broken in. It's an enclosed area. All the back doors, four doors broken. A guy's selling stuff out of my property when he moved in. marijuana, smoking and crack cocaine, crack whatever devices around. I have been summoned to testify against one of the guys that broke in and he destroyed cars, he sold stuff. It's just a mess when these dispensaries come around. It gets the wrong kind of crowd. So I think it's very detrimental to that area, that community. Has anybody looked into it? I mean, I've had to call the cops five or six times in the last six months. Is there an increase in crime and loitering and all sorts of problems? Because I sure see it. Two front windows broken out, that's thousands of dollars. It's a mess. So I know we're not supposed to criticize the why of this thing, but why are we promoting the dispensary of – mind-altering drugs. What message does that send to the community, to the kids in this community? I just think it's a bad idea, and we've got enough of them. Do we really need another one? It's detrimental. We want a bad impact. It's impacted my property and my bank account, fixing all the problems for these guys. Has anybody checked on the amount of vandalism and loitering and police involvement in the businesses around the dispensaries?

I think that's a question for staff. It is a question for staff. Jason?

Never received a complaint. Don't know if the police department has received anything, but as far as I know, we haven't had any issues specific to the dispensaries.

Well, I specifically have called them five or six times the last six months for loitering.

So certainly loitering still takes place in the downtown?

Into the fence, into my property. I've had to reinforce the fence, break in windows.

I don't know that we've had anything recently cannabis-related or if we ever have.

That's just a bad crowd. I'm totally against it. I think it's detrimental to the community, to the downtown area of Hanford. We've got a new security area coming in. We're upgrading the downtown. And these businesses drag it down. Thank you.

Is there anybody who wishes to also talk, not in favor of? No. Correct.

Onan Champy, I'm the... Property agent for 606 West 7th Street. Similarly to Mr. Caceres, I'm the opposite property owner on the east side. I have a common wall where they're going to do their storage. Mr. Waters had a good presentation about what decisions can actually be made. My first question is, is this the same dispensary that was approved to go into the old Robert Chevrolet building, I believe about a year ago, when they had the approval meeting across the street? Okay. I was pretty in favor of it then because it was an isolated area, and that was a good use to build out that dilapidated building of the old Robert Chevrolet. This location, I have to agree with Commissioner McIlwain that the parking is horrible. We have one parking spot in front of our salon, and... The alley is tight and narrow, and I think the parking is going to become a big issue, and it's going to probably adversely affect my tenant in the front half of my building. But the back half of my building is more of what I'm concerned about. We have a common wall with our storage area, and I didn't see any mitigation measures for smell or anything like that in the plan yet. But I will admit, I did not read all 700 pages of tonight's agenda items. I kind of scanned through them on the notice and a few other things. So if there are mitigation items, I'd like to know what they are. If there's not, I would like to see mitigation items or odor because... We had built that building in 1976. My grandpa hand-stacked every block in that building. We bought that site from the city of Hanford. It was an abandoned well site. We ran our business out of that facility until 1982 in the front. It's been a barbershop ever since then. But the back half being a warehouse is still a useful building use for us, and it would be nice if it remained with the same calm serenity and flower-like odor as opposed to our could-be street odor from unloading bulk bales of marijuana into their storage facilities. So if anyone has information regarding how they're going to store the bulk material on the common wall between us and them, I would like to know that. Other than that, there's no basis for them not being able to go in there. Their zone use is allowed. It's MXD. That's already been prepositioned. the site is reasonably normal it's just the proximity of smaller suites and then again mr cassaris with his neighboring suite in his parking i i can tell already when i saw his fence going up that he was trying to uh protect what little parking is available in that area so my guess is that a lot of the parkings that end up across the street at the purple potato is people run out of space and they're going to have to deal with it at the restaurant and run people off back and forth but Aside from parking mitigation, which seems to be a non-issue that's applicable to this, mine is just the issue of odor, so thank you. Thank you.

There is an odor mitigation addressed in the staff report as a part of their application.

104 to 106 in the business plan, correct?

Did any commission have any questions to the staff on this item?

Seeing none, we'll move on to the next item.

Motion. All right.

Need a motion for the item? Somebody? Go ahead.

I move to adopt Resolution Number 482617, approving Conditional Use Permit Number 007126. Do I have a second?

I second.

The motion has been adopted, has been recommended for approval. Full call, please.

Yes. Yes.

i don't believe we meet number five of the cup findings so i'm voting no i'll also vote no due to the loitering yes

So. move on to item a in the public hearing this is the community developed conditional use permit number zero zero seven zero two six request for sensory rock to amend conditional use permit number two zero one eight zero eight allow the construction of a new outdoor play area at two four zero North Irwin Street in the mixed downtown Use Zone District APN 012, TAC 052, TAC 004. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Please come forward. I'm sorry. Staff report, please. Sorry.

Thank you, Chair, Commissioners. As stated and outlined on this map, the project is located at 240 North Irwin Street. The general plan designation for this site is Downtown Mixed Use, and the zoning designation is also MXD. The project is a request to allow Sensory Rock to amend conditional use permit number 2018-08 to allow the construction of a new outdoor play area. Conditional use permit number 2018-08 was required because the use of an indoor commercial recreation facility requires a conditional use permit in the MXD downtown mixed use zone district. Conditional use permit number 0070-26 will amend conditional use permit number 2018-08 to allow the continuation of the above use at the site with the addition of a new outdoor play area. Proposed exterior modifications to the site will be reviewed through historic resource permit number 0023-26 as the site is located within the historic district. On the screen, you will see the site plan as submitted to staff for site plan review. This site plan was approved under site plan review number 0192-26. In the original operational statement, the time of application for conditional use permit number 2018-08, it was stated, this business will serve our community as a kids gym with equipment designed with special needs in mind. Typical gym equipment will be a climbable wall, netted trampoline, cocoons, climbing swing, and riding zip line. The business will have two sensory rooms, a calming sensory room, and a stimulating sensory room. We will serve the community with workshop and events. The site plan was reviewed for conformance with the standards of Chapter 17.28 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. The appropriate findings to approve a conditional use permit have been met in accordance with section 17.80.030 of the Hanbury 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 15301 existing facilities of the CEQA guidelines. A notice of exemption has been prepared for the project. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2026-18, approving Conditional Use Permit number 0070-26. And with that, I will invite any questions the Planning Commission has for staff at this time.

Does the Commission have any questions regarding this report?

course since this falls into the historic overlay zone and City Council is going to review that or consider that historic resource permit next week I believe September 1st if we approve it today and they don't approve it does that make our vote void

It wouldn't void it. Just two separate actions that are being considered, yeah.

Any other commission comments? I open the public comment portion for this part of the hearing. Anybody in favor? Want to speak? Seeing none, any opposed? For recommendation, motion.

I move to adopt resolution number 2026-18, approving conditional use permit number 007-26. I'll second that.

Roll call.

Commissioner Esparza? Yes. Commissioner McElwain? Yes. Commissioner Juarez? Yes. Commissioner Gill? Yes. And Vice Chair Nelson?

Yes. We will move into Item C, Community Development Condition Use Permit number 0066, TAC 26. A request to allow a new storefront retail cannabis dispensary business within the existing building in MXD downtown mixed-use zone district. The proposed project is located at 104 North Doughty Street, APN 012-054-001. Staff report, please.

So thank you, Chair and Commissioners. Again, as stated and as outlined on the map, the property is located at 104 North Dowdy Street. The general plan designation for the site is Downtown Mixed Use, and the zoning is also MXD Downtown Mixed Use. The applicant is applying to permit a new storefront cannabis dispensary at this location. Granted, it will essentially be a transfer from one cannabis business to another. And as shown on the table, a cannabis dispensary is permitted in the zone district with approval of a conditional use permit. As shown on the site plan, STEEZY will occupy an existing building formerly occupied by a different cannabis business, Caliva. Minor interior modifications include the removal of an existing interior partition wall to eliminate the previous lobby area, which is located over here. The primary customer entry and exit, as well as a security checkpoint, have been relocated from this previous area to the middle of the storefront. The retail sales area remains in the same general location, while backup house operations and areas have been more clearly defined to include secured inventory rooms, a safe room, and restricted access areas for employees only. Additional tenant improvements include installation of interior finishes and branded graphics, updated exterior signage and display elements, sorry, reflecting the business name, the removal and replacement of retail fixtures and shelving, millwork, and display elements, and then also the application of glazing frosting to exterior windows and doors to ensure that no cannabis products are visible from the public right-of-way. Since this property is located in the historic overlay zone, modifications to the exterior of the building will be reviewed by City Council through a historic resources permit. Listed are the zoning requirements evaluated for conformance with the Hanford Municipal Code for the downtown McHugh Zone District, and all requirements of that zone district have been met. For cannabis dispensaries, there are additional zoning requirements that must be met. Storefront retail dispensaries shall be located no closer than 200 feet from residentially zoned properties and shall be no closer than 600 feet from schools, daycares serving nine or more children and that are licensed by the state and youth facilities. As originally confirmed with approval of Caliva, the property is still not located within 600 feet of any of the stated zones or facilities. additionally prior to commencing operations a commercial cannabis business must obtain certification from the community planning director certifying that the business is located on a site that meets all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance and title 5 of the municipal code on may 19 2026 the city awarded the transfer and assignment of a dispensary permit from kaliva to cz All operations will remain consistent with the previously approved use and will comply with all applicable local and state regulations governing cannabis retail activity. STESI will maintain adequate security measures to help deter and prevent unauthorized access and theft of cannabis or cannabis products. The security podium to check customers in is located immediately inside the main customer entrance prior to entry into the retail sales area. All customers will be required to present valid government-issued photo ID, which will be verified by security before customers can enter the building. All commercial cannabis businesses are required to have a security plan approved by the Hanford Police Department at all times. Security plans have been reviewed and accepted by the Hanford PD. The project has been conditioned, as shown in the resolution, to ensure compliance with all applicable City of Hanford cannabis regulations. The appropriate findings to approve a condition use permit have been made in accordance with Section 17.80.030 of the Hanford Municipal Code. The project is categorically exempt from further environmental review for Section 15.301 per CEQA. A notice of exemption has been prepared for the project. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2026-19, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 0066-26. And with that, I'll invite any questions the Commissioners may have at this time. Thank you.

Does the Commission have any questions for the staff report that was just presented? No.

I do. This one also falls in the historic overlay zone. Are there regulations on the window coverings and signage that they have to have approved before they come to the Planning Commission?

So we review our requirements, our historic requirements against state law. So in this case, since it's a cannabis business, there's some regulations regarding advertising of cannabis products. So they have to ensure that they're not accidentally doing any advertising you're not supposed to do. So they have to ensure that their customers can't just walk by and look into their storefront to ensure they're not.

There's also regulations about visibility of cannabis product from public right-of-way as well, which is why you see.

Right. So does it not already have frosted windows?

They do for most of the building. It was approved under Caliva. They have a historic research room about five years ago. They just didn't complete all of the window coverings. And also their layout was a little bit different. Okay, so this is frosting more windows. Yeah, there are many. It's not that many. Okay.

The previous tenant had, you had windows that you could see through, but there was a desk. So you couldn't see any Canvas products because the check-in area was the immediate first thing.

Gotcha, okay.

Their configuration is a little different, so yeah.

I see. All right, thank you.

Any other questions or questions? Thank you. I will now open the public comment portion of the public hearing. We'll take comments from those in favor first. Five minutes will be allowed for each speaker. Anybody in favor of? Please come forward. Seeing none. Anyone opposed to address the council? Seeing none. I will now close the public comment. And I have a recommendation for a motion, please.

I move to adopt resolution number 2026-19, approving conditional use permit number 0066-26. I'll second that.

Motion has been made and seconded. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Esparza? Yes. Commissioner McElwain? Yes. Commissioner Juarez? Yes. Commissioner Gill? Yes. Vice Chair Nelson?

Yes. Yes. Next item is Community Development Continuation Request for Annex 167. Request to annex approximately 16.65 acres into the City of Hamlet limits from the Kings County area to the southeast. Now proposed to be developed at this time 2.7 acres. Residential 5.08 and RM medium density residential 8.3, consistent with the general plan designation. Entity subdivision map 00023, TAC 26, parent 952, parent, a request to subdivide 13.44 acres of the annexation into 74 single family resident lots. mitigation negative decoration number two zero two six tax seven three request to certify is MD and D for the project verifying the project will will not be a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures location The project site is located south of Lacey Boulevard, west of 12th and a half Avenue, Aqua Filter Drive, APNS 01-010-003-004-005-006-007-008-009. Staff request continuation to the public for this comment.

Thank You chair and commissioners as stated in the agenda item staff is requesting continuation of this item to the next Planning Commission meeting staff me especially got a little bit excited with this project and pushed it forward not realizing that the transportation impact analysis had not been certified bar by our third party reviewer yet and So that is still in review. I've confirmed with our environmental consultant that so long as the conclusions of the TIA, the traffic impact analysis, are the same as those analyzed within the environmental document, we do not need to recirculate. But we need the traffic engineers to verify that. So hoping that that can happen prior to our next meeting. But that's why we've requested continuation.

I look for a motion.

I move to make a motion to continue it to our next planning commission.

Second, please.

I'll second it.

The motion's been made and seconded. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Esparza? Yes. Commissioner Gill? Yes. Commissioner Juarez? Yes. Commissioner McElwain? Yes. And Commissioner Nelson?

Yes.

Thank you.

Any director's comments, please?

Just one thing. We were notified recently that Planning Commissioner Academy will be March 10th to 12th this year. So if you would like to potentially attend, cancel it in your calendar. We'll work out the details. Diana has our fingers to the pulse on this one. She was on top of it and found that they just announced. But it looks like registration isn't ready to go yet. But just put it in your calendar if it's something you would like to attend. And then once registration opens, we'll notify the commission and see if you'd like to register. That's it for me.

Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner's items of interest at this time. Any commissioner may ask a question for clarifications of matters within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction, make an announcement, or report briefly on activities in their role as Planning Commissioner. In addition, subject to the Planning Commission's handbook commissioners may request to report back to the Planning Commission at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter within the commissioners jurisdiction GC 5495 sorry let me start that again GC 54954.2

Regarding our motion not to move forward with the initial cannabis, are we allowed to propose them, like selecting a different, recommend a different location, or is that a question within our?

So the motion passed 3-2, so they're moving forward. Had it not passed, then there's an appeal process. Okay. They could initiate, yeah.

Okay. Any other commissioners? So thank you very much for your time. Meeting is adjourned.