Hanford Planning Commission approves parcel split and PUD amendment for drive‑through at Hanford Mall

The Hanford City Planning Commission on Feb. 11 adopted resolutions approving a tentative parcel map (0008‑24) and a plan unit development amendment (40‑24) that create a new pad site for a drive‑through restaurant at 1673 West Lacey Boulevard, within the Hanford Mall development.

Planning staff told commissioners the project would divide an approximately 6.54‑acre parcel into two lots: Parcel 1 at about 5.98 acres containing the existing mall and Parcel 2 at about 0.56 acres for the proposed shell drive‑through building. Staff recommended adoption of Resolution No. 2025‑09 (tentative parcel map 0008‑24) and Resolution No. 2025‑10 (plan unit development 40‑24), and said “All requirements of the Regional Commercial Zone District have been met.”

The amendment modifies the original planned unit development for the mall to add a seventh pad site but does not enlarge the overall PUD boundary or change existing anchor buildings, staff said. The proposal includes use of a portion of the existing parking area for the building, a drive‑through lane, a trash enclosure and new parking spaces, and relies on a recorded reciprocal access and parking agreement to meet the municipal requirement that lots in the Regional Commercial zone provide a minimum 40 feet of street frontage or share access.

Staff stated the project is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, citing section 15315 (minor land divisions) and section 15303 (new construction or conversion of small structures). Staff also referenced findings under sections of the Hanford Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act to support the tentative map and PUD amendment.

Commissioners asked about the timeline for construction, circulation and signage. Planning staff said no construction timetable was provided and that tenant leases were still under negotiation. Ken Vang, the project engineer representing the applicant, told the commission, “they're still negotiating the leases with the proposed tenants, so we don't have exact time frame yet,” and said the drive‑through stacking was designed to remain on‑site and that the applicant would add directional signage at the drive‑through entrance.

On signage, staff and the applicant said monument or pylon signs and building signage would be processed through the mall's master sign program and via separate permits; no new monument sign plans were proposed with this application. On seating and occupancy, staff said capacity and restroom requirements will be determined by building‑code review during the building‑permit process once a tenant is selected.

After public comment from the applicant's engineer and no speakers opposed, the commission voted to approve both resolutions. The roll call votes recorded in the hearing were unanimous in favor: Commissioners Norris, Nelson, Curtis, Vice Chair Douglas and Chair Ham voted "yes" on both actions. The motions as recorded in the public hearing were: adoption of Resolution No. 2025‑09 approving tentative parcel map 0008‑24 (outcome: approved; tally: 5–0–0) and adoption of Resolution No. 2025‑10 approving plan unit development 40‑24 (outcome: approved; tally: 5–0–0).

Next steps identified during the hearing include recordation of reciprocal access and parking easements with the Kings County Recorder's Office and subsequent submittal of building and signage permits when a tenant is selected. No construction schedule or tenant identity was provided at the hearing.

Votes at a glance: Resolution No. 2025‑09 — Tentative Parcel Map 0008‑24: approved (yes: Norris; yes: Douglas; yes: Nelson; yes: Curtis; yes: Ham). Resolution No. 2025‑10 — Plan Unit Development 40‑24: approved (yes: Norris; yes: Douglas; yes: Nelson; yes: Curtis; yes: Ham).