Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Call a meeting of the Hanford City Planning Commission to order. It's October 14, 05:30PM. Roll call please.

Commissioner Nelson.

Present.

Commissioner Curtis.

Here.

Commissioner Norris.

Here.

Vice Chair Douglas.

Here.

Here. Ham.

Here.

For the record our alternate Commissioner Mears is absent.

The first thing we have is the invocation and then followed by a flag salute. Stand for the invocation. Remain standing for the flag salute. Invocation be led by Mark Christian from Glad Tidings. 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. Maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker.

And please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence. Anyone like to speak under public comment? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to 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 a request is made and then the item will be removed from the consent calendar to be discussed and voted upon by separate motion. The only item we have on the consent calendar is the approval of the minutes of September 23. Here. Yes.

I move to approve

the minutes.

It's been moved and seconded to approve the minutes of September 23. Roll call, please.

Vice chair Douglas.

Yes.

Commissioner Nelson. Yes. Commissioner Curtis.

Yes.

Commissioner Norris.

Yes.

Chair

Ham. Yes. Tonight, we have three public hearings. First one, I'm gonna go ahead and open the public hearing for a conditional use permit number 0050Dash25, and it's a request to operate an indoor playground for children aged zero to five within an existing twenty nineteen square foot suite in the Regional Commercial Zone District. And the project is located at 2461 East Lacey Boulevard, Suite Number 109, Parcel Number Sixteen-three Twenty-fourteen. Staff report please.

Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. So as stated, the project is located at 200461 East Lacey Boulevard, Suite 109, which is suite on the right side of the building, in an existing building near Costco as designated on the map. The general plan designation for the site is regional commercial and the zoning designation is CR regional commercial. The applicant is applying to permit an indoor playground for children aged zero to five at this location. An indoor playground is classified as a commercial recreation facility indoor use in the Hanford zoning ordinance.

And as shown on the table, use is permitted with the conditional use permit in the Regional Commercial Zone District. So as shown on the plans, interior renovations will be made to the site to create a party play area with two smaller party rooms, an entry viewing area, a work storage area, and a restroom. No activities are proposed outside of the structure. The suite is currently vacant, not aware of any former tenants in there and plans will need to be approved through the building permit process prior to them beginning construction inside the building. So the applicant has provided an operational statement outlining the operations of the business.

Yes, we will be able to book play sessions online or in person. Customers may book all day access with reentry separated into one hour play sessions, unlimited visits with a monthly membership, 10 visits without a monthly membership with a punch card. They could book a party room for two hours during open play hours or they could book exclusive use of the entire playground for them and their guests. Daily ticket limits will be implemented to ensure equal playtime periods for guests purchasing open play sessions and to maintain building occupancy requirements. Wristbands with the child's name, date, and time for reentry will also be provided in order to track one hour play sessions.

I'm not sure hours were upright a little while ago, so I'm not sure if they've been updated since. Our proposed play hours are currently nine to 7PM 9AM to 7PM Tuesday through Saturday, and then either 12PM to 7PM or 9AM to 5AM on Mondays, including designated play hours for children with special needs and disabilities. Adult supervision will be required at all times with guests also required to sign a waiver before playing. Staff will complete general first aid and CPR training to ensure preparation for any minor incidents or emergencies that may occur. Certified staff members will be available on-site during operating hours.

Additionally, the fire department is requesting that signage is posted in a conspicuous spot stating that children must be attended at all times by parents. Prepackaged snacks and drinks will be available on-site. There is an existing location of Visalia, so this will be their second location. While the exact structures are to be determined, play equipment in Hanford will be similar to what's existing in Visalia, probably just not the exact same design. Space will feature age appropriate play structures, sensory zones, and creative play areas fostering cognitive motor and social skills while providing a welcoming community hub for families.

Also, all proposed operations and conditions are consistent with the general plan and zoning ordinance since this business will provide an entertainment space for children within a large format shopping center development that supports the area and will ensure a safe environment for all guests. Listed are the zoning requirements evaluated for compliance with the Hanford Municipal Code. All requirements of the Regional Commercial Zone District have been met. The property is located within a shopping center which provides adequate circulation on and off the site via shared access to the surrounding adjacent lots as well as adequate parking. The appropriate findings to approve a conditional 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 per section 15,301 existing facilities of the CEQA guidelines. A notice of exemption has been prepared for the project. So staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution twenty twenty five-twenty eight approving conditional use permit number Fifty-twenty5. And with that, I invite any questions the Planning Commission may have.

Thank Thank you. Any questions from the commission?

I do, Chairman. Have two questions. First question is on parking lot areas. I noticed you got two different parking areas, one on facing the south direction and then the other one's facing east. And I'm wondering, are they going to use both or just one of them?

For parking, they just customers will most likely use this parking area, which are already existing.

So that's the one facing southbound. Correct?

Yeah. Oh, I mean, I think it's parking here. Yeah. They could use any parking in this area because they're shared because of the shopping center.

Uh-huh.

They could use any of the parking.

Okay.

It's not all on the same

tell how many people are allowed inside the building because of fire issues?

Yeah. So they'll have to put occupancy notices within the building.

They'll be put

in Building code fire code standards.

Okay. Okay. That's all I got. Thank you, sir. That's all I have,

I have a few questions. I have a little bit of concern in that the age range is so young from basically zero to five years old. That's quite young for facility like this. And saying that, I'm concerned that there's only one restroom, and I would think that with such young children, one of the problems might be sanitation. You might be doing a lot of mopping and wiping up things.

With only one restroom, I would think that they might wanna have a utility sink somewhere else to help clean up during those times. It's a thought. The person wants to do as far as explaining how operation is and how it's going to. All the comments and questions I have, this time, open the floor for people speaking in favor of the proposal. Anybody want you to speak in favor?

Please come forward. State your name and city of residence. Well, that was my main concern is the cleanliness because you it's spilling things. I think it would be a constantly cleaning. I guess along with questions I had was the age range.

How can you handle all the way from zero to five with the same facility?

I'm gonna eat the toddlers a little better.

Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of the project? Seeing none, we'll have to switch sides. Anybody opposed to this project moving forward? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public comment and bring it back to the commission for any further discussion and then a resolution. Questions or comments? If not, I will entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to adopt resolution 2020Five-twenty8 approving conditional use permit number Fifty-twenty5. I'll second.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt resolution number 2025Dash28 approving conditional use permit 50Dash25. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Norris.

Yes.

Vice Chair Douglas.

Yes.

Commissioner Nelson. Yes. Mr. Curtis.

Yes. Mr. Ham.

Yes. Board, I'll close the public hearing on this item. The next item that we have is going to be a conditional use permit number 50Three-twenty5. And it's a request by OZ Inc. Lounge to relocate an existing tattoo studio into an existing eleven ten square foot suite in the corridor mixed use zone district. And the project is located at 126 North 11th Avenue, parcel number 012 Dash 271 Dash 035. I'll open the public hearing and request a staff report.

Well, thank you again, chair and commissioners. So again, as stated, the project is located at 126 North 11th Avenue in an existing building within the existing Hanford Plaza Shopping Center as outlined on this map. The general plan designation for the site is corridor mixed use and the zoning designation is also MXE corridor mixed use. The site is proposed to be utilized by O7 Inc. Lounge, which offers tattooing and piercing services and is currently located at 612 West 7th Street, which is just across 11th Avenue to the East approximately right here.

Just to these. So the suite previously utilized as a money transfer and money order business. So this business was reviewed and permitted in the current location in the MXD Downtown Mixed Use Zone District under the still current general plan and zoning ordinance standards as a tattooing or body art use at the time the business license was established in 2019. The business operations will remain the same at the new location. The applicant is applying to permit a tattoo studio at this location.

A tattoo studio is classified as a tattooing or body art use in the Hanford zoning ordinance. As shown on the table, a tattooing or body art use is permitted with the conditional lease slide. The next

please.

Restroom. Slide, No construction is proposed, although walls are existing suite. Listed are the zoning requirements evaluated for compliance with the Hanford Municipal Code. Property is located within a shopping center which provides shared access with the surrounding adjacent lots in order to provide adequate parking for this use. All requirements of the corridor mixed use zone district have been met except for the street side setback and landscaping requirements.

In this zone district, the street side setback requirement is 15 feet. Likewise, 15 feet of landscaping shall be provided and permanently maintained in a setback area not less than 15 feet from a lot line adjoining a street. However, the street site setback is only 10 feet from 6th Street and therefore there's only 10 feet of landscaping available. However, the setback and landscaped areas are legally existing nonconforming since the original development of the site was approved by the city with a 10 foot setback. The applicant is not proposing to bring the setback or landscaped area into further nonconformance.

Additionally, as a condition of approval, the use shall operate in compliance with all requirements of the Kings County Department of Public Health and the Safe Body Act. The appropriate findings to approve the conditional permit have been made in accordance with Section seventeen point eight zero point zero three zero of the Hanford Municipal Code. The project is categorically exempt from further environmental review as per Section 15,301 existing facilities of CEQA. A notice of exemption has been prepared for the project. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution Number 2020Five-twenty9 approving conditional use permit number 50Three-twenty5. And with that, I'll invite any questions at the Planning Commission.

Is this the 711 location?

No. This is just lift. This is I hope.

Okay.

Got it. Got it. Okay. I got it now. I got it now. Because I was concerned about the parking is what what

I was concerned about.

Yeah. Know it's in shopping center.

Have no questions. Anybody else? The only thing I have is that it's actually going to provide much better parking. This is a public hearing. I will go open the floor for public comment.

Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this project, please come forward. Anybody opposed to the project, please come forward. Nobody representing this? Alright, since there is nobody here for public comment, I will go ahead and bring it back to the Commission for discussion and a decision. It's been moved and seconded to adopt resolution twenty twenty five-twenty nine approving conditional use permit 50 three-twenty five.

Roll call vote please.

Commissioner Nelson?

Yes.

Vice chair Douglas? Yes. Commissioner Curtis? Yes. Commissioner Norris?

Yes. Chair Hamm?

Yes. So ordered. Now close the public hearing. Moving on to the third public We have about five different items. I'm not going to read every one, but I will highlight the title.

One of them will be the annexation number 01/1965. It will also be a general plan amendment number nine-twenty four. Also be pre zoning number thirteen-twenty four, the tentative subdivision map twelve-twenty four and a planned unit development number 30 seven-twenty 4. And lastly, a mitigated negative declaration number 2020Five-seventy3. We're going let staff let you know what it's all about. Please open the public hearing and ask for a staff report.

Thank you, chair and commissioners, and I will cover what each project is within the staff report. Copper Ridge proposes the development of 83.61 acres into a 650 unit multifamily 300 units and single family 350 units residential subdivision and a 5.45 acre neighborhood mixed use site with a plan unit development overlay. Additional projects include annexation one six five, general plan amendment nine twenty four, free zone thirteen twenty four, and plan unit development thirty seven twenty four, as well as the associated environmental document mitigated negative declaration twenty five seventy three. The project is located North Of Grangeville Boulevard and East Of 9 And A Quarter. The site include the the development site rather includes two parcels comprising of 83.61 acres, APN fourteen, one hundred forty three, sixty nine and seventy eight, shown as outlined on the screen in yellow in this area.

And the additional annexation area encompasses 58.24 acres north and east of the project site as shown in blue hatched, and there are various APNs. Annexation one six five is a request to annex approximately 141.85 acres into the city of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction. The annexation area is a combination of the project site, 83.61 acres, and the area to the north and east proposed proposed to be developed at this time. The project was evaluated in accordance with the general plan, and the planning commission is charged with reviewing the proposal and making the finding of consistency, finding the annexation consistent with the general plan. Specifically, the planning commission is tasked with finding the annexation consistent with policy l u 15, initiation of annexations, and l 17.

As far as land use policy l 15, initiation of annexations, we consider annex initiation of annexation of land into the city of Hanford only when the following criteria are met. Number one, that the land is within the primary sphere of influence. The project site is within the city the city's primary sphere of influence. The capacity of water, sewer, fire, school, and police services are adequate to service the area to be annexed or will be will be adequate at the time that the development occurs. And a plan for services has been prepared by engineering for water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage.

Fire and fire, police, and school service will be mitigated through impact fees, and the tentative track development conditions indicate when these services will be required for area. Land for development within the city limits is insufficient to meet current land use needs. The applicant is proposing an 83.61 acre development in the Northeast Planning Area of the city of Hanford. Available land for development within the city limits is limited. With the within the existing city limits, the majority of the property available for residential development has been entitled or is developing.

The proposal is considered an implementation of the general plan. And 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 west, and three annexations are in progress west and south of the project site as shown in green. The yellow is the current city I'm sorry. The annexation proposal development is existing to the west.

And then to the south, we have two annexations ongoing as well as one directly west. And covered the plan for services. So a plan for services has been prepared by public works. Services can be extended to the area upon development, capacity was determined in the general plan and municipal service review, and projects will be able to add to be adequately served as addressed through conditions of approval of the development area. Favorable and unfavorable factors for annexation have been adopted by LAFCO, and the existence of favorable or unfavorable factors should not decide approval or denial.

However, a substantial number of either may, determine approval or denial of proposal. The proposed area is close to urban development and municipal type services and would enhance its full potential for development. Again, the proposed area is close to the existing city limits and is considered a logical extension of the city, and annexation can be served by municipal type services. Two, that the proposed annexation conforms to the adopted general plan. The annexation is designated annexation area is designated as a combination of low, medium, and neighborhood commercial and is proposed to be designated a combination of low density residential, medium density residential, neighborhood commercial, and neighborhood mixed use in accordance with the proposed general plan The 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 regulations, and the annexation is consider I'm sorry, is consistent with the general plan section three point two point four, which states annexation of land into Hanford allows previously undeveloped land to become available for development and allows the city of Hanford to provide the territory that is annexed with its full range of city services. Annexation is also consistent with policy l fifteen and seventeen as demonstrated. The proposed area is consistent with the sphere of influence we've addressed. And number four, that the proposed annexation comes with 100% consent of all landowners, and we are unable to make this finding. The annexation area does not come with all property owner's consent, and that is because the, annexation boundaries were required to be expanded based on LAVCO policy to not create islands.

So therefore, we don't have full consent of property owners.

Before we continue to ask, we have so many items, break it up and.

Chair, what I would recommend is to allow staff to make it through the report because there is an issue that's not in the staff report or in the agenda packet material that may be important in terms of potential action by the commission.

Tackle it individually.

Okay. And I apologize for the length, but they do all feed into each other. Okay. General plan amendment nine twenty four is a request to change the land use designation from a combination of low and medium density residential to medium density residential and neighborhood mixed use for 83.61 acres of the project site. And the image on the left shows the existing general plan designation and proposed amendment is shown on the right.

Biggest thing to highlight is starting this area where the designation was proposed to be changed from low to medium density residential and then a 5.45 acre site of neighborhood mixed use designated on that corner. The project has been evaluated for consistency with the general plan and found to be consistent specifically with, low density residential designation L 3133, and no development was proposed here. Neighborhood commercial designation L 42 Through 46. Again, no development proposed within this portion of the site. And then medium density residential designation L 34 Through L 37, as well as neighbor I'm sorry.

That was supposed to be medium density residential and then neighborhood mixed use designation L 60 Through L 64, and a full evaluation appears in the staff report. Prezone zero zero one three two four is a request to prezone the properties as RM, medium density residential, and MXN, neighborhood mixed use, consistent with the proposed general plan amendment, and then L or L five, low density residential, and CN, neighborhood commercial, consistent with the existing general plan. Previous zoning, since it's within the county, is AL 10 and RRE. This area is considered consistent with the general plan, while this area is consistent with the general plan amendment. Tentative track zero zero one two two four, also known as tentative track nine forty five, is a request to subdivide 83.61 acres of the annexation area into 650, a a 650 unit development, which will be comprised of 300 multifamily units and 350 single family units, a 5.45 acre neighborhood mixed use sites with a planned unit development overlay.

The project is applicable to APN zero one four, one four three, zero six nine, and zero seven eight. The total area is 83.6 acres. The number of dwelling units, again, is 650, which was corrected in the staff report, and that includes 350 single family residential units and 300 multifamily units. The density for the subdivision is 8.31 units per gross acre, and the potential population increase based on 3.08 persons per household would be 2,002 people. Here is the map proposed.

Up here, we have our single family units, and that continues in here. Oh, I'm sorry. In here. And then here, we have those duplex ready sites in here. And this will all be duplexes.

Here are our eight plex low rise apartments, and then this is the commercial portion of the site. This area, this area, and this area are considered conceptual. Planned unit development 003724 is a request to allow various deviations from the regulations of the RM medium density residential zone district for the residential subdivision proposed under tentative track four nine four five, including reduced lot sizes, lot width, lot depth, and setbacks allowances, and allow removal of the block wall requirement between MX and neighborhood mixed use and RM medium density residential. Up there, but also a variation of the dimension requirement for open space. Objectives of the planning and development include to permit a site within more than one zone district to mix the permitted or conditionally permitted uses of both sites without regards to the zone district boundary, to permit development intensity greater than would otherwise be permitted by the implementations of the standard of the zone district in which the site is located, to permit lot patterns, or size, shape, and layout that would otherwise not be permitted within the standards of the zone district in which the site is located, to modify the required building setbacks, distance between structures and landscaped areas that would otherwise be required by the municipal code, and to permit the implementation of the mixed use provisions, specifically of MXN neighborhood mixed use.

Deviations include, and I apologize for the size of that table, but it is in the staff report, a deviation from section seventeen twelve zero three zero regarding lot area. So the RM Zone District requires the minimum lot size to be 5,000 square feet. The deviation requested is to allow a minimum of 2,800 square feet. The frontage requirements are 40 feet, The which would be maintained. The width, the interior width is required to be 50 feet while corner lots are required to be 60 feet.

For this, the minimum interior lot width proposed is 40 feet, while the minimum corner width is 45 feet. Minimum depth in RM would be 90 feet, and the minimum depth within the subdivision proposed is 70 feet. Minimum site area per dwelling unit shall be 3,000 square feet. However, we propose or the applicant rather proposes 2,800 square feet as the minimum site area per dwelling unit. Setbacks are the same except for the rear setback is proposed to be 10 feet for both the single story and two story, and that is a deviation from the 15 foot requirement for single story and 25 foot or two story.

The requirement for open space is 300 square feet per dwelling unit, and the open space minimum width shall be 15 feet. And the applicant is able to meet the 300 square feet per dwelling unit, however, they are requesting to deviate from the minimum width requirement, to be 10 feet. And a deviation from section seventeen twenty four thousand one hundred thirty of the neighborhood mixed use standards. A block wall is required to be provided whenever MXN abuts RM. However, the applicant proposes a deviation to remove the block wall requirement between MXN RM in order to allow for integration and flow between the mixed use sites.

Elevations were proposed and will be made condition of approval for the planning and development. The elevations floor plans and sample plot plans appear in the staff report as attachment five. The necessary findings have been made in the projects I'm sorry, for the project and appear in the context of your staff report. Annexation one six five was determined to be consistent with policy l u fifteen and seventeen of the general plan. General plan amendment and prezone thirteen twenty four.

The appropriate findings have been made in accordance with section seventeen eight six zero three zero and seventeen eight eight zero three zero of the Hanford Municipal Code, and you'll notice in the staff report that those do replicate each other. The required findings have been made in accordance with section sixteen zero four zero one zero of the subdivision ordinance, section six six four seven four of the subdivision map act, and the zoning ordinance for tentative Track 945. And the appropriate findings have been made in accordance with section seventeen eighty two zero six zero to support the planned unit development. The project was evaluated in an initial study prepared by an environmental consultant and peer reviewed by a third party reviewer. Pre consultation was provided to the interested agencies, and early consultation was received from California Department of Conservation, DOC, and Department of Toxic Substances Control, DTSC.

And those comments appear in the initial study and are addressed under response to comments. Based review of the project, it was determined that the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures, and therefore, staff recommends approval of mitigated negative declaration twenty twenty five seventy three for the project. The project has been made has been made available for public review and interested agency review for a thirty day period, and no comments were received as of the date of their report. Don't know if the city attorney, this is the appropriate time.

Chair, if I can interject. Sure. With respect to the second bullet point, I respectfully disagree with city staff. I reviewed the initial study and mitigated neg deck a number of months ago. And I created a very long list of deficiencies, very specific deficiencies with respect to the environmental document.

When I reviewed the revised document that was included in the agenda packet, I noticed that most of my comments and questions were not addressed. So it remains our legal opinion that the ISMND in your agenda packet is deficient for numerous reasons. And therefore, it doesn't satisfy CEQA requirements. And it's therefore my recommendation to your commission that the hearing be continued to allow the applicant to address those deficiencies in the environmental document. Thank you.

Think as Gabriel mentioned, just for clarification, additional information for the Commission is, as far as the environmental process is concerned, the city process here was to have there's a third party consultant prepare it. And then the applicant also, through the city, the city hired a third party consultant to review, an environmental consultant to review to make sure it conformed to CEQA guidelines. And the recommendation today is based on information we received from a CEQA consultant who indicated that for purposes of this project it was adequate. And that's where the staff recommendation came from on this.

And, Jerick, excuse me. So to add to that, I think very important issue is that the third party peer reviewer and I believe we look for different things. I look at environmental documents purely from a legal standpoint. In other words, does the document actually evaluate particular issues? And if it does, does the document identify substantial evidence to justify the findings and recommendations and or mitigation measures.

So while a third party reviewer may look for very specific and maybe scientific information to see if that is accurate in the document. I look for different issues. Again, purely legal issues that the peer reviewer may not look for. In addition, because we've been working with the city and for the city for many years, we're familiar with very specific issues, issues that are specific to Hanford that may not exist in other cities. And therefore, the third party peer reviewer may not know to look for those specific issues and may not even be familiar with those issues.

So again, that's just another area that I look for that an outside party may not even be familiar with. Thank you.

Let's see now. At this point, do you have any further party to report?

Just a couple more slides.

Notice

of the public hearing for the proposed project was published in the Hamburg Sentinel and posted on the Office of Planning and Research, OPR, Sequinet website and mailed to owners within 300 feet of the project site on 09/12/2025. And, again, the community development department did not receive comments on the projects from the interested agencies or, from the public. And then as Jason and the or I'm sorry, Waters indicated, we have, staff side, we we followed our processing consultant with the third party reviewer and put forth the document as recommended. So with that, staff's recommendation is to recommend certification of mitigated negative declaration twenty five seventy three for the project to the city council, find the project I'm sorry. Find the proposed annexation one six five consistent with the general plan policies l 1517, and forward annexation one six five to the city council with the recommendation that an application be made to LAFCO.

Adopt resolution twenty five thirty recommending approval of general plan amendment nine twenty four to the city council. Adopt resolution twenty five thirty one recommending approval of pre Zone 1324 to the city council. Adopt resolution twenty five thirty two as amended, and those amendments were included in the staff report link made available today. Amended resolution to city council for tenant of Subdivision 1224 and adopt resolution twenty five thirty three as amended recommending approval of the PUD to the city council. And the recommended motions are that fourth here.

And if you have any questions

Okay. I guess one of the first questions I have is if there is an issue with the mediate ed neg deck, is that temporarily, I mean could that put a hold on the whole thing or can we still amend, I mean, annex consider the annex?

Because the environmental document compasses all projects, it would be recommended that the item, yes, everything be kept together.

I think it's also important as far as potential options here, recommendations are recommendations that you're making to I can correct me if I'm correct, but recommendations that you'd be making to counsel on what actions you believe they should take. So just to make clear, I think city attorney mentioned tabling and things like that. There's also actions to approve. Another action would be an action not to recommend approval to counsel, but it would still potentially move forward to counsel for their consideration as well, if that makes sense.

So what you're saying is even if we do not approve it, we still could go forward to council and let them make the decision?

And we would provide the Planning Commission recommendation to council based on that action.

Recommendations to the City Council. I think that approach would mirror the typical approach taken by the Planning Commission in terms of you look at a project, including the environmental document, which is in its final form, and then you make a recommendation based upon those final documents to the city council.

So if we go with that approach and let it go back to the proponent to work it with Ty and come up with

a

decision, is there a way to, would we set a date certain when it would come back or how would that work?

Probably not date certain without knowing, because it's really going be dependent on the number of items that would be recommended to be addressed and things like that. It would go back to the applicant, they would make changes. Gabrielle can correct me wrong, recirculation of?

The entire document.

The entire document, was it thirty or forty five, okay. Thirty. Thirty days, and then it would come back to planning commission.

That's why I was kind of wondering, is it going to have to be recirculated?

Yes.

Would it be, sorry.

Go ahead, Gabrielle, Ms. Myers.

It may not be recirculation depending on what would dictate. Is that correct that if mitigations were added or additional information was considered substantial, we would need to recirculate?

Correct.

Otherwise, it could be a ten day notice referencing the initial thirty days

Correct.

More than likely, recirculation.

So if you do that, would we get a completely new packet or keep what we have and then consider only the environmental?

We would just forward the same staff report but update the environmental portion.

Because the scope of the project isn't correct. This is a public hearing? I'm sorry. Sorry, just a reminder, sorry.

We got to finish the rest of it. Okay. So first of all, is there any questions of staff based on what they've given us so far?

I do have a couple of questions, but I can put that on hold since this thing is not completed. Okay.

Alright. So, in that case, let's go ahead and open the floor then for public comment. And, first, those in favor? Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of the project?

This is on. Oh, there we go. Commissioners, my name is Melody Hague. I work for Lennar. I'm here in support of Copper Ridge. We are working on Phases one and two, which is approximately three thirty one lots. We have been patiently waiting for these studies to be processed. It's been about, I'd say, six months. Been working with Mr. Nunnley.

And again, our understanding was that that we were working with a third party to review the mitigated negative deck. We're hoping that we have Planning Commission support here because we are behind schedule and we would like to move forward with this project and we're excited to be here. If you have any questions, I'm here to answer anything you have. Thank you.

Anybody else want to speak in favor of the project? Seeing none, I'll switch sides. Anybody opposing the project? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close the public input,

Bring it

back to the commission for further discussion and decision. Yes. Offer comments

since I was mentioned. So I'll review some issues for the Commission. The Commission is aware of the issues that I previously identified, which I do not believe that even though many months have passed, the issues were not addressed in the environmental So one of the issues I pointed out is the environmental document indicates that the project is an annexation. So part of the annexation is for property that is not proposed to be immediately developed. And therefore, the environmental document doesn't even assess that other piece.

Well, CEQA, an annexation is a project. And because it's a project, all of the impacts need to be evaluated, including the piece that's not planned to be immediately developed. That's a very significant oversight with respect to this document. And I'm basing this statement on appellate court opinions, not just my own opinion. The appellate courts have said, if there's an annexation, you've got to assess all environmental impacts to the extent feasible.

And this document does not do that. Another issue is if you compare this environmental document to similar documents prepared for other very similar projects, large residential subdivisions, those other documents identified impacts to the environment, but that's where the document in your agenda packet is lacking. So there's something off in terms of that occurred for this project. Another issue that was pointed out is farmland. Well, if you look at what happened with respect to other projects in town, including Fargo Village at 12th And Fargo, the farmland assessment in terms of the conversion of farmland to something else, the assessment occurred for those other projects at the time annexation occurred.

So if we look to those other projects as an example, this is the time for the Copper Ridge project for the farmland conversion to occur. And as part of that, the mitigation for the conversion of farmland needs to be evaluated. And that's something that is very specific to the general plan. I mean the general plan, when it was updated, it contemplated that this assessment would occur whenever farmland is converted to a non ag use. Another issue that the environmental document doesn't cover is the proposed gas station.

So if you look at other projects that have occurred in the city, including and the environmental document for Fargo Village. Whenever there's a proposed gas station, you need to do an environmental assessment because of that particular use. That level of assessment, which has occurred for other projects, isn't covered in the environmental document for this project. Another issue I pointed out in my comments was the Sustainable Groundwater Mitigation Act. Now we'll give the consultant some credit.

Some paragraphs were added to environmental document to cover CEQA. But the assessment is still lacking and is inaccurate in terms of it doesn't even accurately reflect the groundwater sustainability agency that has jurisdiction in Hanford. It talks about GSA's and Tulare County. So it's off base. Now with respect to the vehicle miles traveled, the VMT issue, so I didn't do an independent study or any type of assessment.

What I did was I saw the VMT projected figure in the environmental document. And what I did was I also looked at the city's source of information that the outside consultant, LSA, put together a few years ago. So the city has an online tool to assist developers. And what this tool is, is basically a map of the city broken into different areas, little regions. And every area has a BMT number.

So you can pull up the map, go to the area, put your mouse over it, and it pops up a number. So what I did was I went online, I checked the city resource and compared it to the figure in the environmental document, and those two numbers didn't match. So I flagged that issue. So I'm not sure where the figure came from that appears in the environmental document in your agenda packet, but it certainly doesn't match the city's resource that's online. Again, prepared by a third party independent VMT consultant.

So those were some of the issues that I spotted when I reviewed the revised environmental document in the agenda packet. And these are only some of the issues that were spotted, that were flagged and were not addressed. Thank you.

Okey

dokey. Listening to Ty, let's start with the water assessment. We had Wallace engineers do a water assessment. They came back with the results that say that the project has sufficient water. We paid them $12,000 to do that.

Then after we did that, Lisa Dock and the city staff had us use Achill engineers. We paid $8,000 to do that one, and they came back with the same results. So not only did we only use a party that we used, Wallace engineers, we used the city's Achill engineering, who's doing a citywide study for water assessments that everyone's using and the city of Hanford is actually using, they came back with the same findings that there's water, this project is not environmentally damaging to the environmental. The next thing is so that it gets to the water issue. I don't know if we want to do three water assessments, four or five.

I think two would be sufficient. One would be sufficient for any other city. The next thing is the screening. The VMT tool online is a screening tool only to be used if you go to that. I am going to tell you this, and you should know this, not be insulting, please.

When you go online and use the screening tool, that number is a screening tool to be used to say if you're below that number, you're screened out. That number doesn't mean you use it for the calculations for a VMT analysis. That's why you have to hire LSA or someone else. They take and do their own calculations based on Kings County because Hanford doesn't have their own VMT. That they'd come through and they do their own VMT analysis and that number changes.

You do use a screening tool. Like we're doing another project in Hanford called Millennial Estates, that's screened out from that screening tool. Because the threshold of that number that Ty is looking at is below the number is below that threshold. So it screened out. So if Ty is going to the city or the county website, whatever it is, that's not a number you're looking at saying that, hey, that number doesn't work.

Because the experts come through and they do their own VMT analysis, and they don't even use the number that Ty is looking And that's a fact. I think Jason could probably confirm that. Farmland mitigation again. I don't know what to say. I don't know why we're talking about that anymore.

Because the general plan in the City Of Hanford states, and I don't know if Jason or Gabriela can pull this up, that if you're in the growth boundary, which we are, you're not subject to that mitigation policy. I don't know what else to say. Tai can look that up. I mean, you guys can look it up right now. But I can't argue if Tai doesn't want to look at that with the zoning ordinance. The gas station. We're not getting approval for a gas station tonight. We're getting approved for an annexation and a tentative map and what could go on a commercial corner. That's a schematic. That might be a gas station later.

That has to come back in front of you guys to get a conditional use permit for a gas station at that time. That environment will be done at that time. Where in these documents are we getting a gas station, the right to build a gas station? We're showing you what could be on that. It's the same thing as the apartments or whatever you want to say on the map.

This is nonsense. Those are four more good examples of the 150 substantial comments on an 85 page document that we could spend all night here. I don't want to go back and forth with Ty. But I'm telling you guys, and I think Jason and Gabriella can confirm what I'm doing, with the water assessment. Do I need to go spend another $10,000 to do a third water assessment? I'm sorry. Like I asked, I hope you guys consider this project recommended to City Council for approval, and then move this project forward. Thank you, guys.

I a I want to make sure. You and I both have served on this council for a number of years. Kai has been our adviser. I don't know how many annexations, different things we've approved with this board at any given time. Sometimes, Ty has made comments, most times not. They went right through. Tonight, Ty has concerns. And if Ty has concerns, I have concerns. And believe me, I want to see growth in hampered. But I think Ty's concerns need I

I think would like to see this project move forward. I think it's going be good for Hanford. Having some medium density is going to be great for the city. But we are a commission, for checks and balances. There seems to be a substantial dispute between parties. I don't think we'd be doing our city or the citizens justice by moving this forward to the city council. Getting this resolved first.

Other two commissioners, do you have any comments or agreements? Well, one would entertain a motion either to follow along what we have here or some other action

Yes. So we can, yeah, you can do continuance, you can take an action on this, go staff recommendation, can do continuance or something other than that. Continuance would give us time.

I don't

know if we want to do date certain. What's your

We do a date certain and then continue with additional time stamping?

Yeah, could do that, and we would just have to make sure that we're continuances. Yeah, could do that. What would be a good?

We're talking here.

When's the next scheduled meeting?

The twenty eighth is the next.

So we can do

a continuance to the twenty

eighth? Then

act

if What's everybody's consensus on like how long do you think it's estimated it's going to take to resolve these 150 issues or whatever they actually are?

I think it sort of depends on where those sort of compromises and issues, how they can be resolved, how that can happen. As mentioned, staff recommendation was approval because we did use sort of a third party to review it. So we would have to take a look at some of the specifics and then sort of determine what the course of action would be.

It seems to me that at least the majority of the work was done. It seems like a documentation issue. But it appears.

I'll second that motion on that continuation.

All right. I think it's been moved and seconded to continue this particular item to the next scheduled meeting. Moved and seconded to continue this to the next meeting. Roll call vote.

Commissioner Norris? Yes. Commissioner Curtis? Yes. Commissioner Nelson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Douglas?

Yes.

Chair Ham?

Yes. It's been ordered. Now I'll go ahead and close this public hearing, but actually it's continued, so continue to the next meeting.

Public hearing is still open, correct.

One question guys. This is for Ty. So in two weeks time, on your comments, we're gonna go back to your comments if we deem that necessary, and then sounds like it is. And the problem we had before was it took, like, three months or two months to get us back as and then he made a couple of different comments. So I'm going to ask Ty, could he be finally on responding to an email just so that we could work through this in two weeks?

Otherwise we could have continued again and again and again.

Right. So the reason it took so long the first time around was it just took a long time to make my way through. Which was

I'm gonna argue with you on this because you sent me an email that said it took you so long because you were working on my project at Lindsay. So it took up your time at Lindsay to do it.

To clear, we can

That's deal with correct. When I did transition to this project, 100 page document. And it it did take a while to get through it because there were a number of issues that required attention.

Okay. Well, I don't wanna argue, Ty. I'm just asking for for you to tell me.

Well, part of the time it's gonna take is like, okay, so if LSA has done an independent analysis for VMT, which was separate and apart from the analysis they did for the city for the online tool. Yes, LSA did the work for the city for the online tool. So the number that appears

this closed for this meeting?

You guys handled outside. Gonna have further discussion.

We'll handle this at staff level, we'll make sure to coordinate. Thank you. Okay,

let's move on. I think the next item is Director's Comments.

Yeah, the only comment for me, just want to draw attention to a project we're working on. I think some of you are familiar with the TOD project we're doing next near high speed rail. We have our final sort of working group meeting on that this week, and then after that, we're planning on making a presentation to counsel in the first meeting in November. So if you're sort of interested in the future planning out in the area sort of near high speed rail, what that might look like from the city's perspective, Would encourage or invite the commission to attend that City Council meeting if you'd like to see some information on that. If it piques your curiosity, then feel free to attend that City Council meeting. Or ask me questions outside of City Council meeting, happy to discuss it with you. That's it for me.

I guess for the Commission, you had something?

Yeah, wanted to ask him

a question. What day and time and where for that meeting?

The City Council meeting? It is November 4. I think it's going to be a study session item, if I remember correctly. So it would be potentially at 04:00.

04:00?

Maybe. Thank you. Depending on how many study session items we have.

Thank you. I do have a question.

Anybody know what's going on over at the old Sizzler building?

I'm the first person I asked that?

The doctor's office, dentist's office.

Dentist's office, yeah.

The dentist's office?

Yeah, it is. That's been a hot topic. Found out that people here are passionate about Sizzler. Was something I didn't realize.

I've been here long enough to know what I that building being the JCPenney's automotive center.

Yeah. Dentist office, yeah.

Thank you. What's going on there? Why is Wimpees not open?

Wimpees, I don't know where they are as far as permitting is, I'm not sure.

Right across from Pimpees.

I know there's parking, striping, stuff, I don't know where they're at, yeah. Not sure.

Okay, anything else? Okay,

if not, meeting adjourned. Thank you.