Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

5.30 p.m. We call the meeting of the Hanford City Planning Commission to order September 8th, 2026. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Hamm.

Here.

Vice Chair Nelson.

Here.

Commissioner Gill. Here. Commissioner Esparza.

Here.

Commissioner Brickely. And let the record reflect that Commissioner Juarez is absent today.

Thank you. Would you please stand for the flag salute? Please be seated. First item on the agenda is public comment, and this is a time for citizens to comment on subject matters not on the agenda and that are within the jurisdiction of the Commission. This is also the public's opportunity to request an item from the consent calendar be pulled for discussion purposes. or to comment on any item on the agenda comments related to public hearing items will be heard at the time the item is discussed a maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker and please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence would anyone like to come forward on public comment Seeing none, we'll move on to consent calendar. Consent calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion, and there will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made, and then the item will be removed from the consent calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion. The only item we have is for time extension, and I'm going to go ahead and pull that item. I'd like to have the clarification on that. The item is time extension number 0010-26 and its request to extend the life of tentative parcel map number 0003-23 for one year.

Staff, could I like to ask a question on that?

My question is that the reason for pulling it is to complete any roadway improvement requirements and formation of the community facilities district. My question is just about the roadway. There is a map of the project on page 10 of the project. And my question is, it looks like there is a need to do something on the exit from the subdivision. If you're coming out and then wanting to make a right turn, it looks like there is some construction just outside of the property of the subdivision. Is that part of the reason why this was delayed?

Yeah, so there are a couple of things identified in the original conditions which were requested as part of the parcel map. So the applicant is currently working with engineering. They do have the parcel map that's been going through. It's kind of working out making sure all of that, they have their ducks in a row for that before recording. It's just it's been taking a little longer than expected.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. That answers my question. Does anybody else have any questions?

No.

Then I would go ahead and move to approve the consent calendar. I'll second. Then moved and seconded to approve the consent calendar. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Esparza? Commissioner Gill?

Yes.

Vice Chair Nelson?

Yes.

Chair Hamm?

Yes. And the consent calendar is approved. thank you all right we only have one we have a public hearing tonight and it is it's a continuation of a project that was brought forward on august 25th 2026 and it's an annexation 167 request to annex approximately 16.65 acres into the city of hanford city limits from the kings county jurisdiction the annexation area is a combination of project site which is 13.44 acres and it is also an area to the southeast which is not proposed to be developed at this time which is 2.77 acres we also will be doing a pre-zoning number zero zero one six that's two six and it's a recommend it's a request to pre-zone the properties as rl5 low density residential that'll be for 5.08 acres and also an rm medium density residential and it'll be for 8.38 acres consistent with the general plan designation tentative subdivision map also zero zero two three dash two six and it's going to be subjection map number 952 it's a request to subdivide 13.4 acres annexation area into 74 single family residential lots utilizing the small provisions of section 17.10.100 and 17.12.100 to permit lot sizes below 5 000 square feet and also we'll be doing a Mitigated negative declaration number 2026-53, and it's going to be a request to certify that the project will have less than significant impact on the environment with the incorporation of Medicaid and measures. And the location of the project is going to be south of Lacey Boulevard, west of 12 1⁄2 avenue which is aquifer drive that's your parcel numbers zero one one dash zero one zero dash zero zero three zero zero four zero zero five zero zero six zero zero seven zero zero eight and dash zero zero nine i will now open the public hearing and request a staff report after reading all that thank you chair and commissioners

The project is located as shown on the screen. The annexation area is a combination of the yellow and red outlines, and the subdivision will occur within the red portion of the map. The property is located south of Lacey Boulevard, west of Oxford for a drive or 12 and a half. The annexation request is outlined and shown in red on the screen. Staff distributed an additional memo addressing the qualification of the annexation area as an island, which is subject to streamlining provisions in accordance with government code. State law provides streamlining provisions for annexations fully or substantially surrounded by the city limits. The purpose of the streamlining is to facilitate the annexation of county islands to contiguous cities. And those determinations are found in government codes 56375A4 and 56375.3. Various criteria need to be satisfied to qualify as an island. Number one, that the area be substantially surrounded by city limits. In this case, this is a 75% surrounding. The property is not deemed prime agricultural land as defined in section 56064 of the government code. That the site be designated for urban growth by the general plan of the annexing city. that the area to be annexed is not within the primary sphere of influence of another city, and that the annexation area be less than 150 acres in size. And the annexation does qualify for all these criteria. As part of the initiation of annexation applications, the Planning Commission is charged with reviewing the proposal and making a finding of general plan consistency and forwarding that request to the City Council. The Planning Commission must find that the annexation is consistent with LU 15, 16, and 17. Policy L15 has various criteria. The first being that the land is within the primary sphere of influence, which this is. The capacity of water, sewer, fire, school, and police services are adequate to service the area to propose to be annexed or will be adequate at the time the development occurs. And this is addressed under the plan for services section as well as included as an attachment. Three, that land for development within the city limits is insufficient to meet current land use needs. And I have an image to show next. And four, that the territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing developed areas. And this coincides with this figure as well. So the annexation area is outlined in red. You'll see surrounding areas are mostly high density residential, which contains one undeveloped portion here, one undeveloped high density portion here, and two high density projects here. And the single family designation here is developed developing and then this is tentative track 949 which was approved April 28th and this is that Millennium Estates subdivision so the property is contiguous to areas that are developing within the city and the need is demonstrated in this area for single-family residential policy L 16 was provided as part of the handout and is further addressed under the plan for services and this Policy touches on the initiation of County Islands for annexation 17 a plan for services has been prepared by the Public Works Department and is included in the package and These services can be extended to the area upon development as required through conditions of approval for the tentative subdivision map. Capacity was determined as part of the general plan and municipal services review, and projects will be able to adequately be served as addressed through the conditions of approval for the development area. LAFCO has adopted favorable and unfavorable conditions Factors for annexation the first being that the proposed area is close to urban development and municipal type services and would enhance its potential for full development which the project would proposed annexation conforms to the general plan and which has been supported through consistency with the policies and the development's consistency with the low and medium density residential designation. The project is consistent with the, or I'm sorry, the annexation is consistent with the sphere of influence, which this is. And the last being that the annexation comes with 100% consent of all landowners. Since the three properties shown yellow here have not consented to annexation. This annexation does not come with 100% consent. Pre-Zone 2026-16 is a request to pre-zone the annexation area as a combination of low density residential and medium density residential adhering to the general plan designation for the area, which is low and medium density residential. Included in the project is a request to subdivide Vesting Tentative Track 952, and this subdivides 13.44 acres of the annexation area into a 74-lot subdivision, utilizing the provision set forth in Section 17-10-100 and 17-12-100, which allow lot sizes below 5,000 square feet. The project is located on APN's 0110100303 004, 005, and 006. The total area is 13.44 acres. Number of dwelling units proposed is 74. And the units per acre ends up being 5.5 units per gross acre. The potential population increase based on 3.17 persons per household and 74 households is 235 persons. and once again tentative track 952 proposes to utilize the small lot provision set forth in the municipal code the project was evaluated for consistency with the rl5 and rm zone district for consistency with the required lot area lot dimensions density dwelling units per lot and additionally The project was evaluated for conformance with 1710-100 and 1712-100. The additional conformance requirements include that the subdivision not propose more than 150 lots, which this does not, that streets be constructed to public street standards, and that is touched upon in the staff report and required as conditions of approval, that the applicant provide three different floor plans with two available elevation designs, applicant provided five floor plans with three elevation designs for each floor plan that the primary frontage face the street which each resident is does frontage does include the primary entrance and one window required covered parking will be in garages as required This is shown in red that the width of the garage not exceed 50% of the frontage of the residence. So this is something that we are updating through our objective design standards. And as a condition of approval, we have noted that if the applicant has not, or I'm sorry, if the city has not completed this update prior to the applicant seeking building permits that they need to apply for a planned unit development since they're not conforming with this statute. However, staff is in the process of getting this updated, and we anticipate that would be sometime in November that that increase takes place. And finally, that the covered front porch be at least four feet deep, and that's demonstrated through the staff report for each floor plan. Findings for approval. Annexation 167, the project is consistent with general plan policy LU 15, 16, and 17. For the pre-zone, the appropriate findings have been made in accordance with section 1788030 of the Hanford Municipal Code. Vesting tentative track 952, the appropriate findings have been made in accordance with section 16.04010 of the Hanford Municipal Code. of the subdivision ordinance, section 66474 of the subdivision map act and the zoning ordinance. An initial study was conducted, and on the basis of the initial study, the Community Development Department has determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, mitigated negative declaration 202653, state clearinghouse number 2026071023 has been prepared for the project. In accordance with Section 15073 of the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines, a notice of intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration was published on the state's OPR website on July 24, 2026. And consultation was received from the Department of Toxic Substance Control, Department of Conservation, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. the responses to comments received are attached to the staff report and included in the environmental review mitigation measures were incorporated to address comments received from the department of fish and wildlife Notice of the public hearing for the proposed project was published in the Hanford Sentinel and posted on SequaNet, the state's Office of Planning and Research website, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on July 29th. The Community Development Department has not received comments on this project as of the date of preparation of this report. And with that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend certification of mitigated negative declaration 202653, SCH number 2026071023, for the project to the City Council. Adopt resolution 202615, recommending approval of pre-zone 1626 to the City Council. Find that the proposed annexation 167 is consistent with the Hanford General Plan policies L15, 16, and 17, and forward annexation 167 to the city council. And this is shown in red, because originally this was not included in your report. But that consistency with that finding does need to be supported. Finally, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2616, recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Track 952 to the City Council. With that, I'll invite any questions you may have of staff.

Thank you. Any questions from the commission for staff? I have a question. Go ahead.

I have a question about the three property owners inside the annexation area that have not consented. So what is the current status or what happens at LAFCO if they formally protest and can the annexation still be moved forward?

So because it does qualify as an island, LAFCO does not hold protest hearings because of the state streamlining provisions that I addressed within the beginning of the presentation. So even if the owners do not consent to annexation because it qualifies as an island, the annexation is able to move forward.

Okay, sounds good.

And the next one in the report, many times it's mentioned it's 78 residential units, but I saw the presentation like it says 74.

Right. So the environmental evaluated up to 78 units, but 74 is the maximum being proposed.

Okay. Sounds good.

Okay. Go ahead. Yes, sir. Okay, I've got a couple. Bring up the subdivision map, the Montanelli subdivision map.

Thank you.

In the heading, we are going to create two different zone districts. One is going to be RL5, and then the other is going to be the medium density. So I want clarification. I'm guessing that the low density is going to be mainly the Bonadoli 74 lots, and then the three out lots that are The three outlets are going to be the other one, medium density?

So actually the line is, I believe it goes almost straight across this bottom portion here. Let me pull it up really quickly.

It's only going to be partial. Then everything's south of that line over here.

Yes, so that line, if you can kind of see... Right off of Lacey Boulevard, those three parcels are medium density residential, and then this portion, including the three not-a-parts, are low density residential.

My question also is about the three outlots. As far as the sewer line is concerned, I'd like to get a clarification or an idea about that sewer line, since they are basically not part of the subdivision, but they are affected by the annexation, which would include some sewer lines. When would the three homeowners expect to be included to have their sewer line increased? I'm guessing usually when the subdivisions are built, there's a lot of trenching, and so all the sewer lines possibly would be put in at that time. So would the sewer lines for the three owners also probably go in at that time, down aquifer?

So typically, no. If they have an existing septic system that's operating, they're not required to hook up to city services. The municipal code indicates that if that system were to fail and they're within 200 feet of a city sewer line, they're supposed to connect at that time. Having said that, if the owners of these parcels would like to connect to city sewer services, we can coordinate with them.

My question still is, would there be a sewer line trenched in front of their houses anyway but not teed off to their homes?

I'm trying to recall where the sewer main is, if it goes in front of those three lots or not.

I mean, if the subdivision gets completed and at that time their septics are fine, they wouldn't need it, but some later date they might, so would there be a provision already in their street so that they could cope up?

They could. The municipal code indicates that if their septic system were to fail and they're within 200 feet of a sewer main, then they would need to do so.

Would it already be in the ground, or would you have to go back later and dig it up?

There would have to be some type of trenching to connect to that sewer main, but hopefully because of its proximity, it wouldn't be a major undertaking. Okay.

Okay, that's all the questions I have. Okay, I will now open the floor up to public comment and first those in favor of the project. Please state your name and city of residence.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Alex DeWiggins. I'm a civil engineer with the Hanford office of QK. Our firm represents the developer, Bonadelli Homes. With me tonight is John Bonadelli, and he'll have a few words to say when I'm done with my presentation. I'd like to first thank staff for their presentation and the opportunity to address the Commission this evening. We have reviewed the staff report conditions and we agree with the staff's assessment that the annexation is a logical extension of the city of Hanford and is consistent with the general plan. The zoning is also in accordance with the policies of the general plan and the new missile code. and lastly the tentative map is also consistent with general plan and zoning ordinances including the addition of the small lot provisions as outlined in the zoning ordinance we appreciate that it allows us to streamline an increase in density The one thing that I would like to address out of the conditions is, and Mr. Hamm, this is kind of going to answer part of your questions about some sewer and water. Abby, can you bring up the yellow and the red box? Okay, so... There you go. The three not-apart parcels there are under ownership. They did not consent to annexation. But public works is conditioning the developer to construct the street, water facilities so they can hook up, and sewer facilities. So, Dennis, I think that answers your question. Thank you. What the conditions did not address is how the developer would be reimbursed for that construction. This is not within the boundary of his subdivision. The developer is not arguing or pushing back against the requirement. He only wishes to clarify how he will be reimbursed for it. And we did discuss this with city staff this morning. Yeah, we can confirm or deny, but we were all in a general agreement that we could use the impact fee, the greatest impact fees for the off-site construction. And so we wanted to get it on record here. We were in agreement, and we will work with city staff to get language adjusted for the city council to make sure it is on record and clarified. That was the only item I wish to clarify. I am here to answer any questions you might have, and it was the developer. This side of town hasn't had a lot of typical single-family development. There's a subdivision to the south that will be getting going. Then there's this one. I think it's going to continue developing to the west. The logical extension, we're close to the major residential and freeway access points, which helps for the VMT analysis. So I hope that this commission votes to move this to city council. Like I said, I'm going to answer any questions you might have.

Any questions? I just have a question. Is the 10-inch, Is there an existing 10-inch sanitary sewer over there already? I'm sorry. There's one of the, like, page 9 out of 41, or 40 out of 590. It says there's an existing developer shell that extends a minimum of 10-inch sanitary sewer to the north boundary.

yes um the previous development you see is listed as track 915 they extended a sewer line to the north end of the 915 development and the condition reads that we will extend it north i believe to the northerly most not a part parcel okay and so i mean obviously the other side of the street will utilize it in the future which is another reason why I feel it's only fair that the developer be reimbursed for 100% of that cost because our plan is to not utilize that line. But it's good policy. You put a line in the ground and you pave over it, so you don't have to tear a street up. All right.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Alex.

Like I said, unless you have anything further, I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thanks, Alex. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor?

Good evening. That was Alex's. Got to reset the clock. Good evening. John Bonadelli, based out of Fresno. I'm the project applicant representing Bonadelli Neighborhoods. First and foremost, I wanted to thank staff as well for their recommendation of approval. Our company is a local home builder in the Central Valley for the last 80 years. We're based out of Fresno, but our projects span from the Fresno area all the way down to Bakersfield and throughout Tulare County. We have not had the opportunity before to build in Hanford, but it has been a priority for us given how great the community is here. When we saw the opportunity to build on this particular site potentially, we were really excited about it. It has excellent proximity to retail with the mall nearby. and it gives homeowners an opportunity to live a really pedestrian friendly lifestyle walking to their shopping and then also with location of the high school as well so we're really excited about the opportunity particularly with this location in hanford and in a growing area with us being a local builder it's a little bit more rare nowadays in the housing industry but with what makes us different is we really invest in our street scene we want these communities when we come back 10 20 40 years from now to look as as good as they do on day one uh we put a lot of money into our elevations there we have three standard elevations that are totally unique for home buyers to choose from there's a lot of stone on those elevations brick front porches garage hardware that's decorative so we really want a unique street scene we use an architect out of newport beach to design all of our floor plans he's one of the leading architects on the west coast for home building for this particular product line it ranges from 1400 square feet all the way up to 2500 square feet for the floor plans and it's a mix of single stories and two-story homes and what i really like about that is it appeals to a wide demographics of residents here in the area you can have a first-time home buyer getting in on that 1400 square foot home you have a growing family with a couple of children wanting to take advantage of the school district you can buy that 2400 square foot two-story home with four or five bedrooms And then if you are an elderly couple looking to downsize, the single stories offer you something as well. And then these are also pool-sized lots, which residents here in the valley put a premium on and value when they're looking for a home. So overall, I appreciate your time, appreciate staff's time in getting this project here to date, and I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

I recognize the project is a large developer out in Fresno.

Yes, thank you. We build this product that we're proposing here tonight in southeast Fresno right now. It debuted earlier this spring, and it's been very popular with homebuyers. So we're very excited about the potential opportunity here in Hanford.

Any questions for Mr. Barnabell?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of this project?

I'm going to switch sides. Anybody wishing to oppose this project, please come forward. State your name and city of residence.

Hi, my name is Terry. My name is Terry. I'm from Layton. I'm here on behalf of my mom. She's in one of the yellow box. Recent widow and handicapped, so she has to be here. Thank you for asking about the sewer situation. That's one thing that we rely on out there, being on septic. well as well because we had a situation where our well went dry a couple years ago my dad came to the city and asked to be hooked up to the city because this was going to happen it was going to cost twice as much to get hooked up to the city than it was to put a well so he had to spend thirty thousand dollars to put in a well if we have to get put on sewer for the city is that going to be our cost You know, that's one thing. You know, my mom's on a fixed income now. We can't afford to do all that extra. The traffic, what's going to be with the traffic? Is our road, is barely one vehicle going to go down it? Is it going to be widened? Is it going to have curves? Is it going to have a fire hydrant now that there's more people there? Safety reasons. You know, we have... horses we used to have horses in fact are we still going to be able to have that back there because we've always been country for over 50 years we've lived there i was six months old um the timeline when is it going to happen because as of right now the only way to get it on our back is the easement on the north side we'd have to change is it going to be a cement wall up against the property we're not going to be able to get back there do we need to make other arrangements we need to know ahead of time what we need to do on our part to make it easier for my mom on these changes and the road going to be shut down if they do you know widen it because there's only one entrance into that road for one of the other neighbors in the yellow box he's mentally handicapped as well so you know Yes, he has a nurse that comes every day, a couple times a day. We can't have that road shut down. The traffic, too. It's going to be, is that the main entrance to the housing? That. And, yeah, who's responsible for all the costs of the updates that we have to do? I don't know if anybody has. I understand things change and the city is moving out. Yes, I understand that. It's just, I mean, it's a little hard for my mom.

Once you get all your questions out, I'll have Steph answer those.

Thank you.

We can start with the grandfathering. So when it comes to animals specifically, so as long as you had a legally allowed use in the county, you can continue use in the city. So assuming that it was something that was okay to do in the county, when you're brought into the city limits upon annexation, you can continue to have that use there. Regarding traffic, so there's going to be some road work out there. Usually there's some form of traffic control so people can access their properties, right? They're going to make sure that you still have a way to be able to access your property with some form of traffic control when work's being done out there. I'm trying to remember if I'm missing any other.

Are they going to widen the 12 1⁄2, the main road there? Are they going to take part of the property in the front, curb it up,

Yeah, so there is going to be road work out there. So the plans, I think, themselves show – I'm trying to figure out what page they're on.

It's just their frontage.

Yeah, it's just on the frontage. I don't think it extends any further to the houses. I'm trying to look for a cross-section in the plans so I can guide you to a page, but I'm having a hard time finding it. But, yeah, there will certainly be road improvements because there is going to be more traffic there due to residential properties being built in the area. Regarding connections, as sort of mentioned, city main lines will be nearby. If there's a period in time in which you would like to connect, you can connect. It would be at the cost of the homeowner to connect to the city or water or sewer services. There is funding available through another agency for water, especially if you have a well that went dry. There is funding through the county to connect to city services if you had a well go dry. We don't offer that financial incentive, but through the county GSA, they do offer something.

Anybody else wishing to speak opposing the project? What you doing, a rebuttal?

How about if we use further explanation?

Okay, go ahead.

I certainly understand all the concerns. Like I said, the conditions require we stub the water and sewer to the front property line. But as Jason mentioned, it would be the owner to make the final connection. But the vast majority of the financial burden would be relieved by getting the services to the property line. I would like to point out that there yes with construction there's always a little bit of disruption but once aquifer is complete these three owners will also now have access to millennium drive which is the street that splits the west park place and the village apartment and so with track 949 subdivision and the completion of the street by the apartment developer there will be two points of ingress and egress or not only the three parcels but every every other lot out there that's having one in way out is not good and so these projects in general are going to alleviate what could be some potential congestion We are required to put hydrants everywhere, all over the place. So there will be better fire protection for the three homes. And let's see here, we've got fire hydrants, the traffic. And there is, in the staff report, there is a cross-section of Aquifer Drive. It's called a two-third street. The west side will have curb and gutter. We are required to work with the owners to locate driver approaches. full-width development on the west side and a northbound travel lane.

That's on page 92 for the commission if you're interested in looking at what the roadway cross-section might look like.

What kind of fencing or walls might be on the outside of their property?

Okay, so the developer is required to put block wall around the perimeter of the subdivision. there is no requirement to put a block wall between similar residential uses. And so on the, I'm going to say the easterly and southerly side of the subdivision that abuts the three parcels, it would revert to the requirement of a wood fence.

They would expect a wood fence behind them?

Unless John is a wood fence. Block walls are typically required when you have different zones.

On the west side of Aquifer probably will be a block wall on the subdivision?

Yes. And along the backing of the lots along Lacey and Aquifer, yeah. The standard block wall and publicly maintained landscaping with an escalator.

Thanks, Alex.

So I believe that's all of the concerns that adjacent neighbor had. Once again, happy to answer more questions.

Again, are there any further public comments opposing the project?

I think there was one more question about timeline. And this will, if successful here, will go to city council beginning of October. And that requires two readings because of the pre-zone. And then from there, we would forward an application to LAFCO. And LAFCO, so that'll probably be around November. LAFCO may hear it in November or December or January, depending on it. their scheduling. And then recordation of the annexation map typically takes a couple weeks.

Shortly after the first of the year, probably.

Probably.

Any other questions or comments from the public? If not, I'm going to go ahead and close the public input part of the hearing and bring it back to the commission for any further discussion or final vote. Do we have any further discussion or comments before we vote?

I just have a question about for staff, like, is there any open space requirement for the subdivision?

So there is an open space fee that would get paid because as far as open space requirements go, whenever a subdivision would not trigger a requirement that's over two acres, two acres is our threshold for reimbursement. We don't require open space within the subdivision. We just require that they pay fees. So they are subject to park impact fees.

And then those keys are going to be used in some capacity somewhere else for a park space.

Right.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Ready to vote? I second that. It's been moved and seconded to recommend the certification of the mitigated negative declaration number 2026-53, FCH 2026-071023 for the project to the City Council. We'll call a vote, please.

Chair Hamm.

Yes.

By Chair Nelson.

Yes.

Commissioner Gill.

Yes.

Commissioner Esparza. Yes.

before we move on where should we insert the comment about so that will be addressed in resolution 20 2016 and if you want to just add some language that staff will work with the developer to solidify or clarify conditions of approval prior to City Council for the last motion

Okay, so that would be a four on number two?

I'm sorry, number four.

Okay.

Okay. I move to adopt Resolution 2026-15, recommending approval of Pre-Zone Number 0016-26 to the City Council. I second. I second.

Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt resolution 2026-15, recommending approval of pre-zone number 001626 to the council. Roll call vote, please.

Chair Hamm?

Yes.

Vice Chair Nelson? Yes. Commissioner Gill?

Yes.

Commissioner Esparza? Yes.

Okay. Moving on.

Proposed.

I second it. and moved and seconded to find the proposed annexation number 167 is consistent with the Hanford City, Hanford General Plan policies L15, L16, and L17, and forward annexation number 167 to the City Council with a recommendation that the application be made to the local information, AFCO, and this county. Roll call vote, please.

Chair Hamm?

Yes.

Vice Chair Nelson? Yes. Commissioner Gill? Yes. Commissioner Sparza? Yes.

The last item, I move to adopt Resolution No. 2026-16, recommending approval of vesting tentative to Act 1952 to the City Council. I'll second that.

We need to insert that staff and the developer will work on a reimbursement agreement to align. All right. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt resolution number 2026-16, recommending approval of vesting tentative tract 9522 to the City Council, and also the staff and developer will work on an agreement regarding the reimbursement of the sewer line and aquifer. Roll call vote, please.

Chair Hamm? Yes. Vice Chair Nelson? Yes. Commissioner Gill? Yes. Commissioner Sparta? Yes.

All right, all items have been approved. This public hearing is closed.

Thank you.

Okay. Next item on the agenda is Director's Comment.

Just one comment. City staff is working with the consultant to wrap up the latest draft of the objective design standards. We'll be presenting them to city council at the next city council meeting in a week. Following the council's input, we'll get it back to the planning commission. My hope is to get you the draft design standards in advance of the meeting to give you some time to review them all because there will be several policies and comments in there. So expect those to come your way very soon, and expect it to come before the commission formally in a second meeting in October, most likely. That's it for me.

I have a question. Did anybody sign up for the training that came up for March 1?

So they hadn't opened yet. Last I checked with Diana, they hadn't allowed for registration yet, so they just have announced the dates. But, yeah, as soon as registration opens, we'll send an email out and see who would like to sign up for it. Yeah, I think it would be a good opportunity for those that can attend. Oh, great.

Okay, any commissioners, items of interest? If there's nothing else, return to it.