Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good evening everybody. Um, welcome to the uh the regular meeting of the uh planning commission Monday, March 9th uh 2026 at 6 pm. Um with the with that um for speaker slips um if you're attending a meeting and you wish to um have a comment, please fill out one of these slips that's over there on the desk and get those back to YSA uh Ya Benson, our secretary. And then you have three minutes to speak and please note that you only that you cannot transfer your three minutes to anybody else. And with that, we'll start the meeting to order and when Yatesa gets back, we'll get a roll call. Commissioner Bingham

here, Commissioner Enisil here, Commissioner Keith here, Vice Chair Nukem here, and Chair Baron

here. And with that, uh, our staff, we have community development director, Kelly Lucia. We have our Selene Sevilla. Is she hiding around here? No, she's not here. Okay. And, uh, the we have our assistant attorney, Katherine Reid. Thank you. And then we have Mike Thornton, our city's engineer. And then our secretary, Jason Benson. With that, can we please stand for the pledge of allegiance? Ready? Begin. To the flag, United States of America,

to the republic stands, one nation under Godisible, justice for all for all.

Okay. agenda items. Okay. So, we have one right now for Dr. Vera. I it's with the army and it's also with the air force. So it's not my first goaround. I've done it in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and all those other places. But the main reason I'm here is I've told you guys before that I bake for our local fire department and I call it stress baking. I don't eat it, but you guys have got a lot of cookies for you. All of you. For all of you. So, I brought cookies. And just so you know, the ones with the little raspberry thumb prints on it, those have nuts in them. So, if any of you are allergic to nuts, don't eat it. But, um, with my fire department, I'm close with them. And they show us that courage isn't the absence of fear. They chose or they choose to act despite of it. So, that's I'm like I said, I'm military transport in a few hours. I don't even know what time it is. Six. Yeah. So, I'm I'm going to be out of here and I'll be gone for the next couple of months and just thank you for allowing me to speak and I love this little town. I've lived here for about 10 years.

Thank you. So, it's uh you know, it is what it is. But, uh I'll see you later. Thank you very much. Take care. Enjoy the cookies. Thank you. Thank you for your service. Thank you. That's our only one for that one. The other one's for number six. Okay. Um, can I get a motion to approve the minutes? Make a motion to approve the minutes. Second. Second. All in favor? I. I. I.

Okay. Business items. We don't have any. Um, so we'll go right into our public hearing. All right. So, with the public hearing, I'm going to open the public hearing and then send it over to staff. Thank you, chairman, members of the commission, members of the public. Thank you for being here this evening. Our public hearing item tonight is for tenative track map 3910 0. This is located at 430 West Avenue L. The assessor parcel number is provided on the screen and also in the staff report for reference. Right. The project vicinity is here shown in uh generally the northeast area of the city and the location is on the north side of Avenue L between fourth and fifth street as shown outlined in blue on the screen here. Right. The zoning of the site is residential low medium. Um this zone is intended to um accommodate small lot single family residential subdivisions. And surrounded um by this existing development is the residential low zone. Um and there are also pockets of our residential infill priority area overlay zone. For shorthand we just say the overlay zone. So that is the district that allowed some upzoning a couple years back. The project that's being proposed is a subdivision of an approximately 1.72 acre lot. Um and the proposal is to subdivide this one existing lot into seven residential lots. There are a number of existing improvements on the site. Um the tenative trap track map indicates that the existing improvements include various outbuildings. which you can see towards the top of the

screen located on proposed lots five and six. There are also three residential units and three storage buildings located on lot seven. Right. Improvements to be removed. The existing out buildings located on proposed lots five and six are to be removed subject to demolition permits. And the improvements to remain include all existing improvements on lot 7 as proposed. So these improvements include three residential units which are shown on the screen here in yellow. These are 428, 430A, and 430B Avenue L. And there are also shown in green three existing storage buildings. So that's 428 storage. 430B has a designated storage. and then another storage facility that is simply um uh titled existing storage on the map. So those improvements are to remain. Right. So the RLM zone although it um supports a small lot subdivision does require a 6,000 foot lot minimum. Uh of the seven lots, five of them uh well exceed that. to it's kind of hard to see on the map, but we've got one lot proposed at about 12,000 square feet. Um, and then several others at, you know, 8,200, 7,400, and so forth. So, they well exceed that 6,000 ft lot minimum. Um, due to the constraints on the site, you see there's a proposed street A as well as the existing structures on lot 7. There are two lots that are proposed to be just shy of that 6,000t lot minimum. That those are lots three and six. Both of them as proposed come in at about 5,700 square feet which is a proposed 5% reduction. The municipal code does allow um with an application for this reduction um to be

granted and it is through the minor adjustment process um and requires the applicant to submit for that which allows up to a 10% reduction and again what's being requested is a 5% reduction. So it falls within um the municipal code requirements that allow that minor adjustment to standards. All right. Future approvals required. What's being um proposed tonight is just a subdivision. So just a division of the land. Should the planning commission choose to approve the subdivision this evening, there would be two additional um approvals that would still need to be uh processed. They would be a development plan review is the first one. So that includes the site plan, floor plan, architectural elevations, landscaping, walls and fences and so forth. Um that the review authority for development plan review as the commission knows is the planning commission. So when um again if this map should be approved the applicant or the successor will need to come back with actual house plans and that will be presented to the commission. The minor adjustment is another um application that will need to be granted um and that's for that 5% reduction in minimum lot sizes for three and six and that reviewing authority is the community development director uh myself. All right. There were a few minor revisions that should be before the commission um here this evening and it's just related to uh the minor adjustments u procedures and processes that are there. You can see on the screen um a minor revision to the resolution is needed. It was called a minor modification. It needs to be a minor adjustment just a different uh procedure but very similar in nature of what's um contained within the municipal code. Um and then three minor uh condition of approval revisions. So the first being uh similar to the last revision just

changing minor adjust minor modification to a minor adjustment. Um uh additional condition 1.45 is new. It's just that the applicant shall obtain demolition permits from the building and safety department prior to demolishing those existing structures on lot five and six. So whether or not this condition is in place, this requirement um stands, but we thought it would be helpful for the applicant to kind of be on notice that before they can demolish any structures, they need to get a demolition permit from building and safety. There's air quality considerations and so forth. Um and finally, uh condition 2.39, this is a minor request to revision on behalf of the applicant team. Um the original condition stated that a property owners association um will maintain all of the BMPs and water quality measures. However, uh as the applicant has requested, um each individual homeowner would be in charge of maintaining the water quality basins, which we can talk about more during the Q&A session. Right. With that, the recommendation is that the planning commission adopt the resolution as amended um and find the project categorically exempt from SQA. With that, myself, the city attorney's office, and the city engineers office are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Um with that, does the applicant have anything that they want to bring up? No. Okay. Thank you. Um and with that I will go to um the public testimony and we will have Mary Lamers first. Hello. Um bear with me. I hate public speaking. Um, I'm here today to express my strong opposition to the tenative parcel map and the proposed subdivision of the property directly behind our behind our home. Uh, when my husband and I purchased our home in 2019, we did so very intentionally. We chose not to purchase a track home because we specifically wanted a property that offered land, views, and most importantly, privacy. One of the things we loved most about our home was that we had modest but meaningful amount of land and that all surrounding properties also had similar or larger open spaces. This gave our neighborhood a rural open feel that is increasingly rare and deeply valued by the residents who live here. Over the years, we have invested a tremendous amount of time, effort, and money into building our dream home and property. We have planted fruit trees, built an extensive garden, and raised chickens. Our home and land are a place where we have intentionally created a peaceful lifestyle. We never had to worry about crowded homes, neighborhoods looking into our yard or windows, excessive traffic, light pollution, or increased in crime that often accompanies dense uh development. Within the past year, we have even paid the city thousands of dollars in fees to begin expanding our home to include a new master bedroom. one with the central feature is a large master bedroom window

that has a west look um that directly now will be impacted by any development um that has taken over this lot. Uh just three days after framing out that window, my husband sent me a photo of the posted notice on Avenue L regarding the subdivision and I was crushed. Uh since then I've spoken with neighbors, reviewed the plans online through the city of Kamea website and reached out to members of our local community to understand um if there was anything that I could do. Um so this is why I'm here today is to just speak out about that. Uh according to the table like um was said that the developmental standards the minimum lot size for properties um is 6,000 square feet and based on the proposal two of those do not meet that um that requirement. Additionally, this creates further concern regarding whether all required setback standards can res um realistically be met. At this time, the proposed map does not include any site plans or building plans showing the structures intended to be built on these lots. Without this information, it's impossible for surrounding residents to determine whether future homes will comply with setback requirements, height limits, or other developmental standards. In addition to the personal impacts, I respectfully request that the city carefully evaluate the following planning considerations that are critical under California land use law. uh general plan consistency that subdivision approvals must be consistent with the city's general plan. This includes land use policies related to neighborhood character, density, community design, and compatible with surround surrounding development. Uh the surrounding properties in this area maintain larger lots and open space that contribute to a rural residential character. Introducing a compact subdivision with smaller lots may not be

consistent with the established development pattern of the neighbor excuse me neighborhood and can conflict with intent maintaining uh residential environments. Uh planning decisions should consider whether a proposed project is compatible with existing neighborhood character. Uh a dense subdivision will closely with closely spaced homes uh with potential of multi-story structures, additional lighting and increased traffic would significantly alter the established character of the neighborhood. So sorry to interrupt. Um m uh Mr. Chair, her time has run out, so she will need a waiver to have more time. She was getting really close to the end. So

I can finish it up. I'm sorry. I'll skip that. Um and I know that the the there's exempt for the uh SEA or CQA. Um my greatest concern this property will ultimately be developed into another compact highdensity track style development with two plus story homes placed very close together. If that occurs, everything that my family and I love about our home, our views, our privacy, uh the rural character will be permanently altered or lost. Thank you. Thank you. I don't have any more any more uh speaker slips on that one. Did you fill out a speaker slip?

Filled it out online. I'm sorry. Did you send an email in or did you fill out a speaker? Mr. Chair, you can allow him to speak and he can fill out the speaker card afterwards.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and good evening to Calam City Council. Thank you for your service and what you do for our community. My name is Bubba Fleming. from a local resident, property owner, taxpayer, concerned citizen speaking tonight regarding tenative track, map 39100 at 430 West Avenue. Based on the public notice, uh this proposal would subdivide approximately 1.7.2 acres into seven uh residential lots. Uh before any approval is granted, I'm asking for complete transparency about the true nature and long-term use of this project. Uh this the notice does not state whether this is strictly a market rate for sale subdivision, whether any part of it is intended for rental use or whether there is any connection to subsidized, voucher supported, deed restricted or publicly assisted housing. Uh the those questions matter uh to nearby residents and property owners and should be addressed clearly and on the record. I also asked the city to explain the factual basis for using the CEQA section 15332 infill exemption and to identify what analysis has been done regarding traffic, parking drainage, neighborhood compatibility, density, privacy, safety, and the security and the effect on adjacent property owners. If this is simply a standard seven lot subdivision, then the city should say so clearly on the record tonight. If there are any current or anticipated connections to housing assistance programs, occupancy restrictions, public subsidies, or future changes in use, those should also be disclosed clearly before any action is taken. I respectfully request that the planning

commission require complete and specific answers before moving forward. Thank you. And my apologies. I did receive it, but it was flagged. So, Bubba, I do apologize, but it will get sent to the planning commission. Your full statement in the email. Thank you. Okay. With that, does the applicant have anything any rebuttal after that, please?

All right. From the two people that have spoken, I've heard that there one of their concerns is that there's seven lots in this 1.72 acres. I didn't wish to have seven lots divided. This this was pushed upon me by the city and their standards. So that's why you see seven lots there. That's the only thing I have to say.

Thank you. Okay, with that, I'm going to close the public hearing and uh we'll take it back to commissioner discussion. Louis. Um no major concerns at the moment just uh I guess just not without knowing what was really you know how many you know I know looking at the plans like there's stuff for primary residents along with junior use and that kind of stuff. So that's my only concern like how many but I know ultimately the city's going to be to the approval on that. So, that's just one of my concerns with it, but other than that, I don't see an issue with it.

Okay. Thank you, Mike. I um I have a couple questions. So, um to ask of staff, just to ask a little bit more about the review process on the 5% red uh reduction on those um lots at number one. And then what the uh owner just said about what was the process where we came up with this plot map because because of his statement. I'm curious how that transpired. So if you could explain that.

Sure. So this is in the residential low medium zone meaning that there is a density requirement. There needed to be at least four dwelling units per acre. And with the six lots that were originally proposed, they weren't meeting um that minimum. So there's a minimum and maximum under the general plan. They can have a max of seven, but also it was a minimum of four per acre. And so once you accounted for the public improvements and so forth, um they weren't meeting that uh minimum density requirement, which was four to the acre. And so we had to require per the general plan um consistency findings that they had at least this number of lots provided.

Okay. Okay. So, in reference that, so then the the concern about it meeting the general plan, it actually does.

It does. So, this this project with the approval of the minor adjustment, and again, it's only a 5% reduction. It's about 300 square ft off of lots three and six, um this is consistent with the general plan. So, the general plan designated um this area as a residential low medium zone. and this um map as proposed does meet the development standards that apply at this time. Um so I hear the public comments that are concerned regarding setbacks and so forth. Um we are not at the development plan review stage at this point in time and all of those sorts of considerations including setbacks, building heights, landscaping, all uh walls and fences. All of those considerations are handled at the development plan review stage. Um applicants are able to either request a subdivision first and then a development plan review which is what this applicant suggest um wanted to do or they can do them bundled development plan review and tenative track map together. That's not what was submitted to the city and they are able per the municipal code and the subdivision map act uh which is state law to uh request approval of only a subdivision at this time. So as stated early in the presentation, the planning commission will have another opportunity to review uh detailed development plans and then there'll be additional information at that time whether it is only primary units being requested or per state law if there may be requests for accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units as well. Uh we don't have that information at this time, but again uh state law preempts local zoning law and the city does not have the ability to deny accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units if they meet uh state law parameters that are set forth.

Okay. And then if you could just talk real quickly because concerned about the legality of the project review process on the reduction of those of those lots. Did you can you expand on that? Just just the review process. the review process. So the uh uh project engineer uh drafted a uh subdivision map, submitted it to the city. When it comes in, it goes through full review of all departments. So it goes to the city engineers office, it goes to the planning department, goes to fire, police, um building and safety. Um all departments review it, compile comments. We review it against municipal codes, state law, subdivision, map act, and so forth and provide comments back to the applicant. The applicants engineer is here in the audience this evening. So, he'll coordinate um between staff and um and the applicant regarding any comments where there may have been inconsistencies such as the inconsistency that was flagged with the general plan when there were only six lots. That minimum general plan density was not being met. So that was a correction that the applicants engineer had to implement into a revised plan. Um there were multiple others. This plan has been um going through the review process with staff for about a year. Um and we finally got to a point um where um there the project could come forward for consideration. Um you'll find in your pocket there are also will serve letters from the utility providers. Ukipa Valley Water District to provide sewer. South Mesa Water Company uh has a will serve on file for the water. There was also a biological study conducted that found consistency with the multiecies habitat conservation plan. Um and this project falls with under the TIA screening guidelines for um a specific focused traffic study and maybe the city engineer can touch a little bit more on traffic if needed, but this subdivision does comply with the residential low medium standards that are in place for this zone.

Thank you. Good. All right, Mike. Okay. Well, under consideration, do we know or can we lock the owner builder into developing this himself versus selling individual lots? Is there I mean, is there a condition the city puts on them or

I'm not familiar with a restriction of that kind. Um, typically once the subdiv the tenative subdivision is approved, as you know, once they meet conditions of approval, post improvement B bonds for the public improvements and so forth, and the final map goes forward to city council. Um, it's at the discretion of the applicant whether or not they want to do owner builder of the entire project um or sell individual lots for custom homes. And perhaps the applicant can speak more on the intention for development of the site. Mr. Chair, can you reopen the public hearing? I'm sorry. Say again. Can you reopen the public hearing? Reopen the public hearing. All right. Go ahead. Okay.

Can you Can you ask me the question again? Oh, use with the I was just curious. Are you planning on developing the whole project or are you just subdividing because you live there and figure I want to subdivide and sell the lots? So, I plan on developing it myself and I do wish to keep it, but it does um my financial state will verify, you know, will go based off what I do with it. But I do plan on keeping it and developing it for myself, but I don't have, you know, a blank check. So, that's what I got to say about that.

Great. Thank you. close the public hearing. I guess then one of my questions and the staff would be if we approve the project out and then we end up do getting uh for better terminology peace meal where he sells a couple of lots. I'm worried about continuity of fencing and everything else and people having a have a partial development on that. So, do we still need to wait till that portion until the first house comes in front of us and then stipulate on all of them?

Yeah, that's actually a really good point. So, um the assumption is that all seven lots, well, really six because lot seven has existing improvements that are to remain. So, all six lots, the assumption is that one development plan review would come forward and we'd get, you know, one opportunity to look at walls, fencing, landscaping or architecture, and so forth. However, if the map is subdivided and um the map is recorded, there is an opportunity for each lot to come in individually. Um and then that would be a minor development plan review process which is a staff level approval. So that is a possibility under the municipal code.

So then staff would just have to remember and keep everything. Um other question is fire departments already been okay with it. I know they have a big trouble with backing up their trucks. Yes, there was actually extensive coordination with the fire department on this um culde-sac um and they did um recommend approval of it after um a good amount of discussion. That's all I got. Thank you. Yeah, John, is there a timetable when this might come back to us? I mean, finalized.

Sure. I would again defer to the property owner. Um the only application that's been filed at this time has been for the subdivision. Um the subdivision is initially valid for two years. Um in which time they have to file a final map and at any point in that two years um they could submit the application for the development plan review or as we discussed a moment ago the map could be recorded. the seven individual lots could be created and then it's it is possible that each lot is sold for custom home building um in which case there I assume it would come in at variable time frames chairman I have a question for chief engineer has the water line been put in by Sanio Pass currently fourth

um I think it's still under construction but it is ongoing going. It's been going for a little while. Um, yes, it would be done prior to this project because you won't be able to schedule paving of that for street. So, Fourth Street repaving will be done by Sanonio Pass Water Agency, paid by the city because we were it was programmed to be part of our paving program for this year. But because of the the work that they were doing in Fourth Street, we just wrote them a check and asked them to do that work. Okay, now that's it.

Very good. Great. Um, and I see it as a regular standard project that I've always seen on built many of these um in the lot six. The only thing I have that on the plans there is the uh removal of all structures in five and six. And then it says all lot number seven says the same thing, but it says lot number six, which is in conflict saying that they remain. and then one. So number seven, I guess that's just a clerical error on the plans there, but viewing so many plans, I caught that one there. It's a it's lot seven should say um all structures in lot seven should remain, not six because it's a direct conflict.

I think you're correct. So originally it was a six lot subdivision and so the original note was that all structures were to remain on lot six because that was lot six. It does sound like perhaps that note wasn't updated when it went to a seven lot subdivision. So, good catch as usual, chairman. Um, we can make sure that that's updated and on the map. Yeah, that's I just brought that up for that that reason only because I had that problem with the city of Orange U doing a project. So, other than that, um, it's zoned forward. It looks good. Um, I like it. So, with that, um, we'll go to commission. Um, need a motion and uh advised planning.

Make a motion to approve the project. I'll second. All in favor? I I Okay, that passes 50. Uh, commissioners reports and comments. Lewis, how about you? I just thank you to the staff like always for providing the really good information. Thank you as always. Thanks staff. I know it's a lot of work and thanks for reviewing the they're talking about the review process because it is extensive and I think it's important for everybody to know that all of the departments of the city are involved in it. So I appreciate you explaining that to us. Thank you,

Mike. Thank you staff as always and uh I look forward to seeing this project come forward. Hopefully we see you soon. Right. Thank you, staff. As usual, as usual, thank you. Same thing. Uh, thank you staff. Uh, everything's been great. And thank Jason for the work that she does for us and, uh, you know, and accommodating my crazy schedule. So, I appreciate that, too. Um, with that, we will go to our community development director reports and comments.

Thank you, chairman. I have two quick updates for the commission. Everybody should have a flyer here. Uh we are currently going through an update to our safety element which is one of the required chapters in our general plan. Um we want everybody you know the commission, the public, everybody to please complete our survey. It's available on our website and we have flyers here this evening. Um it helps us plan for growth such as natural and human um cause hazards, climate change risk, um drought, earthquakes, landslides and so forth. Uh we will also be holding a community workshop um sometime in April. Keep an eye out on the city website for an announcement for that workshop. But for now, we'd really appreciate if everybody could please complete the survey so that our safety element plan update is based on uh feedback from the community. Secondly, we are doing our annual community egg hunt for Easter. So we're excited about that. That's going to be on Saturday, April 4th from 9:00 am to 11:00 a.m. at Summerwind Park, which is at 1000 Engelman Drive, Calam Mesa. That completes my report. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. So, with that, um, we'll call for adjournment to the next regular schedule meeting on Monday, April 13, 2026 at 6 PM in the Norton Younglove, uh, multi-purpose senior room here. Thank you very much.