Kingsburg — After more than two hours of public comment and council discussion, the Kingsburg City Council declined to affirm the planning commission’s recommendation to award 88 housing‑unit allocations to San Joaquin Valley Homes.

Community Development Director Holly Owen opened the public hearing by reviewing the city’s growth management process, noting the allocation cap that results from a voter‑backed system: "There are 115 housing units available each year — 80 for single‑family residential units, and 35 for multifamily units," she told the council and audience.

The applicant’s representative (listed in the record as **** Peters) requested all 88 allocations as a first step toward a gated subdivision on roughly 29.65 acres. Peters said the submittal is conceptual and that environmental review, tentative map and annexation steps would follow if allocations were awarded.

Public commenters living adjacent to the proposed site urged the council not to move forward. Paul Nelson, who said his backyard borders the conceptual map, warned the council about easements that could create "dead space" he said would be "hidden from the community" and susceptible to homeless encampments. Jeff Reynolds and other residents said they did not receive the outreach materials that appear in the application; Larry Ping, who said he spoke with owners over several years, told council the applicant’s yes/no/unknown chart reflected conversations across a five‑year span, not a contemporaneous survey.

Several speakers raised infrastructure concerns: residents described well water that has fallen in depth over years and said hooking to city water or sewer could impose substantial costs on property owners. One resident said a quoted connection cost was about $25,000.

Questions about a potential conflict of interest also surfaced. The city attorney disclosed on the record that his firm represents both the city and San Joaquin Valley Homes but said the developer had executed a written waiver allowing the firm to represent the city for this meeting; he said he would recuse the firm from future proceedings if necessary.

Council deliberations ranged from legal exposure if the council refused allocations to zoning, public safety near the Peach Pit area and the accuracy of the applicant’s outreach documentation. Councilor (name on the record) proposed phasing the 88 allocations into 48 for 2026 and 40 for 2027, but that motion failed for lack of a second.

Ultimately the council voted to deny (not affirm) the planning commission’s recommendation to award the 88 allocations. Mayor Purcell and council members said staff and the developer must address the outreach, safety and technical items before the project advances; the council noted that, if allocations were not affirmed, the developer could still pursue other channels including review by LAFCO if the project proceeds.

The decision stops short of a land‑use denial: the council’s vote did not reject future consideration of the subdivision at later stages, but it removes the immediate step that would have allowed the applicant to proceed to the next parts of the approval chain.

What happens next: the developer can revise outreach, address the questions raised at tonight’s hearing and reapply, or pursue separate entitlements; any annexation would still require review by Fresno LAFCO and additional environmental and map review.