Planning Commission (2025-09-09)

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 2025 5:30 PM Council Chambers 400 N. Douty St. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Nelson Curtis Norris Douglas Ham Alternate Commissioner Marez None INVOCATION: Diana Black led the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Chair Ham led the flag salute. PUBLIC COMMENT: This is the 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. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence. None. 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 a separate motion. None. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Community Development: Zone Text Amendment No. 2025-10, a request to amend: 17.56.230 Wall mural placement and design criteria: in order to comply with free speech requirements and establish new application process.

Chair HAM opened the public hearing and called for the staff report. Director Waters presented the staff report, recommended approval of the resolution, and invited questions of staff. Commissioner NORRIS asked for the definition of "obscene". City Attorney Mizote stated that the definition is defined by case law, and the Supreme Court decision is that obscene content is not protected. The closest we can get is to define elements that the Supreme Court has considered as obscene. If something is questioned by staff, it would be referred to the City Attorney's office for review. Director Waters added that property-owner approval would be required. Chair HAM asked if there would be a definition of mural size, noting that the Kings Art Center mural covers almost the entire building. He also asked if this location was zoned MX-D (Downtown Mixed Use). Director Waters replied that it is outside MX-D, but it was compliant with the municipal code at that time and was approved. Chair HAM opened Public Comment: IN FAVOR None. OPPOSED Muralist and Hanford resident Jennifer Butts spoke in opposition to the Amendment, due to the restriction to MX-D only. She presented photos of murals of various sizes and styles from other jurisdictions. She also referred to a letter she had written to City Council asking the city to reconsider the restriction, and she listed some benefits of murals (e.g. murals tend to discourage graffiti). Mr. Butts suggested a "Yes" (but guided) to murals. Commissioner CURTIS asked if this passed, would schools be required to remove their murals. Director Waters: "No." Commissioner NORRIS asked if there is a possibility of getting this expanded to include other zone districts, if it is approved as is today. Director Waters noted that the mural at The Plunge was approved (outside MX-D) before this direction was given. He added that staff will relate Planning Commission's comments and Public Comments to City Council. Chair HAM asked if someone could paint a mural on their fence in a residential zone. Director Waters stated that they could not. Chair HAM then asked if the Commission could approve this, with a recommendation to add other zones outside of MX-D. City Attorney Mizote stated the Commission's is doing this evening is deciding if the proposed amendment meets the required findings and providing input. He added that they could recommend changes to the proposed ordinance. Chair HAM closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Motion to adopt Resolution 2025-24, recommending approval of Zone Text Amendment No. 2025-10 to the City Council, with a recommendation that the restriction to MX-D be removed, allowing murals in all zone districts. RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: (UNANIMOUS) NORRIS DOUGLAS NORRIS, DOUGLAS, NELSON, CURTIS, HAM B. Community Development: Zone Text Amendment No. 2025-11, a request to amend: 17.56.050, 17.56.150, 17.56.155, and 17.56.310 Temporary and Portable Signs: in order to establish the placement, size and materials for portable signs. Chair HAM opened the public hearing and called for the staff report. Director Waters presented the staff report, recommended approval, and invited questions of staff. Chair HAM reported that CVS at 11th & Lacey has many feather flags and other types of signage.

Chair HAM opened Public Comment. There being no comments, he called for a motion. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2025-24, recommending approval of Zone Text Amendment No. 2025-11 to the City Council. RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: (UNANIMOUS) CURTIS NELSON CURTIS, NELSON, NORRIS, DOUGLAS, HAM C. Community Development: Zone Text Amendment No. 2025-12, a request to amend: 17.56.200 Property maintenance and add Chapter 9.12 – Graffiti: in order to regulations for abatement of graffiti on public and private property. Chair HAM opened the public hearing and called for the staff report. Director Waters presented the staff report, recommended approval, and invited questions of staff. Commissioner CURTIS asked if this applies only within city limits. Director Waters confirmed that it only applies to city limits. Alternate Commissioner MAREZ asked if there would be assistance with liens or fines for disabled or low-income property owners. Director Waters replied that there are no fines, only reimbursement to the city for the cost of abatement. Alternate Commissioner MAREZ asked if those owners would be offered information regarding agencies that might abate graffiti at no cost to them. Director Waters stated that any such services would be posted. Commissioner NORRIS asked how quickly the city is required to have graffiti abated from city property. Director Waters replied that, if the city is notified, the complaint is addressed as quickly as possible; however, a time limit was not included in the ordinance. Commissioner NORRIS suggested the city should be held to the same standard to responding for graffiti as private property owners. Director Waters added that the city responds to complaints as they are received; however, there are sometimes limitations. Chair HAM referred to Page 18 of the Staff Report: "The proposed amendment includes: 2. Restricting the sale and possession of aerosol paint containers and wide-tipped markers by minors," stating he thought this was already in place. Director Waters replied that it is a state law. Chair HAM then referred to the proposed timelines stated in the handout from staff: 9.12.070 Removal General A. General which states that "Any person applying graffiti. . . shall remove it within twenty-four hours. . ." and C. Private Property--Notice and Removal. Director Waters clarified the different applications of the requirement and stated the requirements were directed by City Council. Chair HAM opened Public Comment. IN FAVOR None OPPOSED Hanford resident Onan Champi stated that he is a graffiti victim. He owns 400 feet short of a mile of privacy fence that gets graffitied frequently and stated that he would not remove it nor would he pay the fines, because the criminals are doing the graffiti, not the property owners. Director Waters clarified that there is no fine. It is recovery of the cost to abate. The decision is will graffiti be allowed or not: A. Buildings get tagged; City of Hanford does nothing, or B. The city says, 'You need to clean up your property." The city does not make money. We can have city enforcement or none. Commissioner NORRIS stated that he cannot see penalizing the victims. Director Waters mentioned that the city could allow waivers if the property owner cannot afford abatement. That was presented to the City Council. Commissioner NORRIS felt it was unfair that there was no timeframe to hold the city accountable. Commissioner NELSON agreed, stating that citizens get a deadline, and the city does not. Director Waters again mentioned that the Planning Commission could suggest a hardship waiver, consistent with other sections of the Municipal Code. Chair HAM asked if the city could provide information about how to report graffiti. Director Waters suggested it be kept broad and not be included in the ordinance, since various reporting mechanisms are accepted. City Attorney Mizote reminded the Commissioners that if they vote against this, the existing ordinance remains in effect. Director Waters added that this amendment would remove

the fines. Director Waters suggested that they adopt the resolution, with recommendations. City Attorney Mizote added that if they do not approve, they must identify which findings cannot be made to approve. Chair HAM closed the public hearing and called for a motion: Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2025-26, recommending approval of Zone Text Amendment No. 2025-12 to the City Council, with recommendations to add a hard-set timeframe for the City of Hanford to comply with graffiti abatement to align with property owner requirements and a hardship waiver for abatement costs. RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: PASSED NORRIS DOUGLAS NORRIS, DOUGLAS, NELSON, HAM NONE CURTIS DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS: None. COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS OF INTEREST: At this time, any Commissioner may ask a question for clarification of matters within the Planning Commission’s jurisdiction, make an announcement, or report briefly on activities in their role as a Planning Commissioner. In addition, subject to the Planning Commissioner’s Handbook, Commissioners may request staff to report back to the Planning Commission at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter within the Commissioner’s jurisdiction (GC 54954.2). Commissioner CURTIS asked if staff had any updates on the High Speed Rail. He had heard that the state is making changes in building homes. Director Waters replied that the state is pausing building codes and many things are coming, but he had no updates on High Speed Rail. He also noted that a hardship must be measurable, including what constitutes a hardship (government assistance, utilities shut-off notice, etc.) ADJOURNMENT: Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Planning Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available to public inspection in the Planning Division Office located at 317 N. Douty Street, Hanford, California 93230, during normal business hours. Such documents are also available at the city’s website, www.cityofhanfordca.com subject to staff’s ability to post documents before the meeting. If you need a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Division’s office, 559-585-2580, 317 N. Douty Street, Hanford, California 93230, at least 2 days prior to the meeting {28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II} APPEALS: Any action of the Planning Commission, which is a final project decision, may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or any adversely affected person. To file an appeal, an appeal application and filing fee of $1,100.00 must be submitted to the Community Development Department, 317 N. Douty Street, Hanford, California, within ten (10) days following the date of the final decision of the Planning Commission. Chair HAM adjourned the meeting at 6:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diana Black Recording Secretary