Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the 02/26/2020 02/26/2026 meeting at the City of Clovis Planning Commission. Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings by viewing the meeting via webcast on the city's website, submitting written comment at the same same website, or attending here in person. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Please join me as commissioner Henkel leads us in the flag salute. Which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Commission secretary, if you please call roll call.

Commissioner Bedstead? Here. Commissioner Hatcher?

Here.

Commissioner Hinkle? Here. Chair Antuna?

Here.

And Commissioner Abert is absent this evening.

I'd to open a motion to approve the minutes for the 01/22/2026 Planned Commission meeting.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

I'll second.

I have a motion from commissioner Betzid and a second from commissioner Hatcher to approve the January minutes. Commissioner Betzaid? Yes. Commissioner Hatcher? Yes. Commissioner Hinkle? Yes. Chair Antuna? Yes. Commissioner Hebert is absent. Minutes are approved. Four zero.

Are there any commission secretary comments today?

I do. I have two comments and then I'll pass it on to Aaron. He'll have some more to discuss. The first one is general plan updates, update for you. As a reminder, we do have our next general plan advisor committee meeting next week on Thursday, March 5.

This will be the second of three meetings discussing land use. So we definitely encourage you to attend. I know some of you have been attending, so we appreciate it. And the hope is that by our next planning commission meeting, we shall have our next few dates for the GPAC meetings. So after March 5, we do have the April 30, and we hope to have May, June, and July probably.

And we'll give those to you. The second is we want to make a special announcement. You're going to hear Eric present tonight. But just to let you know, Eric has been promoted to an assistant planner effective January 1. So we want to congratulate him. And so that's it for me.

Congratulations, Eric.

Thank you. I also have a couple of comments for you. First up is that we have a couple of commissioners that we still need to have your form seven hundreds submitted. It's due by April 1, so you have a little while still. The second comment I have for you is that you'll notice in item two, Eric will also bring this up when he presents that we had to swap out to correct one of the agency comments.

It was from the Fresno County Public Health, so there's a corrected version in there. You guys have them available to you up there. And if anybody else that's out in the audience would like a copy, I have one here as well. And then lastly, I'd have you guys turn your attention to the big screens just briefly. We did a software change for our clerking, and so now all of our agendas are provided to us by a new company called Civic Plus versus our old company, Municode.

And my our city clerk asked me to just show you guys quickly how it looks now and to let you know that if you had previously subscribed to getting alerts for a council packet posting, council minutes, planning commission packets, etcetera, you will have to resubscribe on our new platform. It's pretty quick and easy. You can always view them without logging in or subscribing. They're always available on the website. This is the main website.

The quick access for Planning Commission is clovisca.gov/planningcommission and that'll take you right to our commission page. Maybe not. I will go the long way, one second. I might have typed it incorrectly. So our planning commission page is here.

An archive of our old agendas and packets is available online before it's all transitioned into Civic Plus and then it'll all be available at this same link. Like I previously mentioned, you can always view everything without an account or signing in. However, if you would like to receive an email notification when anything is posted and that's customizable, you'll just have to click sign in here and create an account and then you can choose what you would like to subscribe to. You can sort by what you would like to view here and similarly you can choose, you can customize how you'd like to receive alerts. We are in the process of also getting an upgrade so that the packets themselves as well as the website will be translated into multiple languages.

So it's it's an easy one click and you can see the the following languages here. And that concludes my comments. Thank you.

Very good. Do we have any planning commissioner comments?

I just wanted to let staff know I will be absent for the June meeting.

Okay. No further comments from commissioners. Thank you, Amy. We're now gonna move on to hearing comments from the floor. This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the Planning Commission on any matter within the Planning Commission jurisdiction that is not listed on the agenda.

Do we have any comments from the floor? Seeing none, we're going to go ahead and move on now to our public hearing portion of our meeting. Item two, consider approval of CUP twenty twenty five dash zero one zero, adopting a class 32 categorical exemption from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and approving a conditional use permit to allow a drive through in association with proposed Dutch Bros kiosk located at 443 West Shaw Avenue, Joyce Terezian, owner and Dutch Bros Coffee of the Greater Fresno area. And I'm sorry. I'm gonna butcher this name.

Bargingham, consultant engineering applicant and representative. City assistant planner, Eric Garcia. Again, congratulations on your promotion. He will be presenting.

Thank you, chair. Good evening, commissioners. So as mentioned, this item is for a proposed Dutch bros. On the northwestern area of Sean Peach Avenue. The land use designation for this project is general commercial and it is zoned C. Two community commercial. A drive through uses are permitted in C. Two zone districts subject to a C. U. P.

Approval. The project itself is surrounded by commercial on all locations except to the north there is residential. Here is a proposed site plan. The site plan review itself will be processed separately and reviewed administratively at staff level. The Dutch Boroughs itself is gonna be approximately a 400 square feet.

It's going to have one drive through window and one walk up window. It's going to have no proposed seating. It'll have one entrance for circulation. It'll have one entrance on Shaw and three total exit points. Two of them will be on Shaw Avenue and one will be to the north that leads into an alley.

This project is required to have eight stalls, parking stalls, and the applicant has provided 20. For the stacking of the drive thru, our code requires 13 total vehicles which they do meet and that is five vehicles waiting and at least eight vehicles waiting in between the menu board and the drive up window. However, because this user has been deemed a high volume user, additional queuing capacity was required. And, they have adequate space for up to 18 vehicles. Operationally, Dutch bros will be open seven days a week and their hours will be from 5AM to 11PM.

They will have a total of 30 employees with eight staff members per shift. They will also have traffic control to actively manage vehicles in the drive through lane, and that's to keep them as close as they can to maximize queuing capacity to prevent anyone from blocking the road or blocking any other parking lot. They will also have staff members dedicated to parking areas to take orders, receive payments when needed, and deliver drinks. And, these are all mitigated measures to prevent any spillages or spillover onto Shaw Avenue. The project was noticed in the Business Journal 02/06/2026.

Mailers were mailed out to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. Staff did receive one phone call and that was from the business owner to the west, the I Love Sushi, who was very excited to have a Dutch Grills as a neighbor. The city has determined that the project is exempt from CEQA through a class 32 exemption. Staff does recommend that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving this conditional use permit subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. Also, as Erin mentioned earlier, the outside agency comments for Fresno County Public Health have been added to this one on the correct agenda packet.

We also have two representatives from Dutch Bros, one here in person and one on the phone call, if we can figure that out. But in case you have any questions for them or me, I'm happy to answer them.

Are there any clarifying questions from the Commission for staff? No. Okay. At this time, we're going to go ahead and open up for public hearing. And I'd like to invite the applicant. We said there was someone here present if they'd like to speak. Step up to the podium. State your name and address for the record.

Good evening, planning commissioners. My name is R. Keller Rysian. My business address is 389 Clovis Avenue, Suite 200. A real estate development consultant that works with the local Dutch Pros franchisee. They are trying to call in in case there were questions. I think we've got it's going to the main number. So, if there are clarifying questions, I am in contact with them. But, we've worked very closely with staff. We appreciate their help in putting together all of the required documentation and look forward hopefully to adding another location in the city of Clovis.

I do have one question for you. What actions is the applicant prepared to take should Shaw start to become impacted because of stacking?

So that came up in the discussions with engineering staff and maybe staff has it in front of them, there are the operating statement which kind of lists out exactly what the traffic management plan is. And that, I believe, is that a part of the conditions, traffic management plan? So inside of the document should be the traffic management plan. Okay, when it gets to this point, this is what we do. And then there are a series of steps that they would follow ultimately in each of the it's outlined inside of that traffic management plan. I believe that's part of the conditions and the applicant is would be required to follow those conditions.

Thank you.

Are there any other clarifying questions for the applicant? Okay. Very good. Thank you very much. At this time, I'd like to invite anyone from the public who would like to speak in support of this project. Do we have anyone who'd like to speak in support? Very good. Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition of this project? Seeing none, we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back for discussion. Any questions?

Actually I just have one question for staff. On the CUP, if approved, there is a one year review period, is that correct? That you'll just make sure that everything's in conformance with the conditions?

Yeah, that's correct.

Okay. So if there are concerns, then obviously we wouldn't wait a year to let them know there's concerns. We would want to be addressing it along the way. But if we got to that one year mark and there was

You're correct, yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Are we ready to take a vote? Okay.

I'll make a motion that we approve CUP twenty twenty five tax zero one zero.

I second.

I have a motion from commissioner Bedstead and a second from commissioner Hinkle to approve CUP twenty twenty five zero one zero. Commissioner Bedstead? Yes. Commissioner Hatcher?

Yes.

Commissioner Hinkle? Yes. Chair Antuna?

Yes.

And commissioner Abert is absent. CUP twenty twenty five zero one zero, proof four zero.

Moving on to item three, consider approval of o a twenty twenty six dash zero zero one, a resolution recommending that the city council adopt an exemption from further environmental review under CEQA guidelines, section one five zero six one subdivision b three and approve the ordinance amending the city's development code to add chapter 9.27 to to the Clovis municipal code to establish a mixed income zoning ordinance for residential development projects. City of Clovis is the applicant and staff housing programmer, Claudia Cuzares, will be presenting.

Thank you, chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Chad McCollum. I'll be printing along presenting alongside my colleague, Claudia, tonight. I'm the economic development housing and communications director for the city of Clovis. And tonight, we'll be presenting details on the mixed income zoning ordinance, also known as MISO. So if we use that acronym just in our conversation tonight, don't be confused by that. Mixed income zoning ordinance is a long phrase. MISO is kind of the term that it's used among developers and among staff. Just a quick note about what the presentation is going to look like. We've got some background information we're going to present to you.

We're going to have some key points of the draft ordinance that we'll share. We'll talk about next steps and then have plenty of time for Q and A. Before we get into that, I wanted to share with you the outreach efforts that staff has been making with residential housing developers over the course of the last year going back to March 2025. That's when we had our first meeting with the residential housing developers. Since then, we've been meeting monthly with members of the BIA, the Building Industry Association, on their teams meeting, and each each month, we'll answer questions as they arise.

We established a website with the city to ensure that we had background information, documents that were posted, and were easily accessible to the public and members of the industry. In December, we had a second meeting with the residential housing developers where we presented the draft ordinance, which we'll be sharing with you today. And we've also been taking meetings, one on one meetings with market rate and affordable residential developers as questions have come up. So we've been doing that as well. All right.

A little background to kind of present the background properly. We're just going to review just a few terms. I know you're very familiar, commissioners, but I wanted to just since we're going be sharing some acronyms, make sure that we're on the same page. So every eight years, the California Department of Housing and Community Development or HCD determines a housing need for each county, the number of housing units that that need to be built in in the county, in this case, Fresno County. And that's known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RENA.

The RENA is included in each city's housing element, which is a chapter of the general plan. That's a binding agreement between the city and HCD. We've we've agreed to do it and we're compelled to do it. In October 2019, there was a lawsuit filed against the city for being out of compliance with state law by failing to plan for the required RINA units in the 2020 '2 twenty o eight and 2016 housing elements despite having been approved previously by HCD. Court hearings went back and forth.

There was a judgment. City appealed. Ultimately, there was a judgment that was found in the case which was entered into after negotiations. So the the city lost the case and entered into these negotiations in which we agreed to include six programs into our 2024 housing element. Here are the six programs.

Changes to the r three zone district, housing local housing trust fund was established. We had a real property dedication, was created. Infill rezone program, which is underway. Mixed income zoning ordinance or MISO, which is underway and the development impact fee deferral program. So these six programs, we as a city agreed to put into our housing element and to comply with as part of that judgment.

Again, there are four programs which have been completed and are underway right now or are being taking place now and are being applied. And then there are two which are in process including the one that we're talking with you tonight about. Alright. So a little bit more about Miso. So in order to comply comply with the judgment, the city agreed to adopt the Miso and to conduct a financial feasibility study to evaluate it.

And these are the evaluations that were to be taken during that time when that study was taking place. To determine an appropriate set aside percentage in new residential developments ranging from a minimum set aside of 5% to a maximum set aside of 10%. So that was listed in the judgment that window was provided. An in lieu fee amount was to be determined. Some alternate options for the industry.

The city hired a group out of the Bay Area, very familiar with affordable housing, named Kaiser Marston Associates to conduct that final financial feasibility analysis. And that analysis was completed in October 2025. I think our the author of that analysis has either called in or is again attempting to. I know I understand we may have some issues but that is the goal right here. I'm going to turn things over now to Claudia is going to dive into a little bit more about the draft ordinance and how it will be applied.

Thank you. I'm Claudia Cazares. I'm the housing program manager for the City of Clovis. So once the feasibility analysis was completed, city staff drafted the mixed income income zoning ordinance which is before you today. It includes the following main requirements.

The mixed income zoning ordinance applies to any new residential development project, single family and multifamily, that is consisting of 11 or more market rate units. And the meso requirement is that no less than 5% of all of the proposed market rate units in that development application will be set aside as mixed income units. We also call those the MESO units, the affordable units. City staff also identified five alternative compliance measures for the ordinance to provide options in meeting the MESO requirement, and they are as follows. The the first alternate compliance measure is an in lieu fee payment, which is set at $2.80 per square foot.

That was a part of the feasibility study. The second alternative compliance measure is to dedicate land off-site. The third one is to construct the meso units off-site. The fourth one is to acquire and repair rehabilitate existing market rate units to meet the meso requirement. And the fifth one is what we call the city discretion option, which allows the developers to provide options that are not previously listed.

So again, the overriding meso requirement has the following terms. The applicability is to new residential developments of 11 or more units, and the requirement is that 5% of the housing units need to be set aside as the meso units or the affordable housing units on-site. So as an example, in a 50 unit home single family subdivision, the following calculation is applied. 50 units times the 5% requirement equals two and a half. We round up in this ordinance, so the requirement would be three units set aside for affordable housing in a 50 unit subdivision.

In a 80 unit multifamily development, as an example, the following calculation is applied. 80 times the 5% is four units, and in that case, four units would need to be set aside as affordable housing. Next, I'll review the alternative compliance measures. The alternative compliance measure number one is the payment of the in lieu fee. The requirement is to pay $2.80 per square foot of all net livable space of all of the market rate units in a development application.

And just to note, net livable square footage is identified as excluding garages for all of the units and excluding common hallways for multifamily units. So I have an example of an 11 unit single family housing subdivision, of which, of course, 11 is where it gets triggered. Depending on the net livable square footage of the homes that are proposed in the development application, that square footage is then multiplied by $2.90 per square foot for a total in lieu fee due for this type of project of $47,600. This table shows an example of a multi family projects in lieu fee calculation. This example is for the 80 unit development project.

Most development projects have different square footages depending on the size of the development application. All of those units times the net livable area multiplied by $2.80 per square foot has a total in lieu fee due of about a $173,306 for a 80 unit multifamily residential development. Alternative compliance measure two is to is the land dedication off-site. The developer could choose to dedicate land off-site that is sufficient to build the required meso units of the original requirement of of meso. The value of the land will have to be at least equal to what the applicant would have paid through the in lieu fee option.

Land should have the size, capacity, and feasibility to build the amount of mezzo units required in the application, and city staff has a worksheet of how we're gonna review all of these applications as part of their development application. Alternative compliance measure number three is to build off-site the meso units. So construct the required meso units on alternative location. The alternative location shall be preapproved by the city and within the city limits, and it has to be on ready to build suitable sites. The number of the off-site units constructed shall meet the meso construction requirement of the 5%, and the off-site unit construction shall be comparable and concurrent with construction of the market rate units in the original development application.

Alternative compliance measure number four is the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units. The applicant can purchase or convert existing market rate units elsewhere in the city to meet the required meso units. The units will be required to be repaired as needed, and deed restricted as affordable housing, and that's how that meets the meso requirements. Construction shall also be concurrent with the market rate construction of the original development application. And last is, again, the city discretion option. The city may consider alternative compliance measures as may be proposed by the applicant and that will be at the city discretion if it's accepted or not. And I will hand this back to Chad.

Thank you, Claudia. A lot of information there that came at you very quickly. We understand that. I guess the overarching goal of the staff's role in drafting this ordinance is to make it as flexible for the developers as possible within the confines of the judgment. So that's why you hear those alternative compliance measures.

We have some next steps here. The next steps are to continue to work and educate residential homebuilders. We're going to be finalizing a document called an implementation guideline which is going to, of course, it's very complicated. We will breeze through it but there's lots of information on how staff and actually works with developers when an application comes in and all the questions that might arise during that process. We will be updating our city webpage that I mentioned as mentioned.

Up here, you've got a QR code if you want to click on it now or you can find it later on our our in the documents through the web portal. You can find all the web page all the documents that are associated with this case with all the information that staff has put together. So it's really more than you'll ever need and and want to read but it's there for you. And then should the commission vote to approve the resolution and the draft ordinance tonight, the city council would meet in April for the ordinance adoption. So that is our presentation.

We're here for questions. We know you might have some and fire

away.

Are there any questions of staff?

Thanks for the presentation. How long is this meso and all of the associated programs from the judgment expected to last? Is this something that is only applicable during this next housing cycle and then it's subject to revision, elimination thereafter? Or is this planned into perpetuity? It's a great question.

Short answer is I don't know. We are planning on it to be applied throughout this housing element. We are under the understanding that once a program like this goes into a housing element, it's very challenging to come out. So we're expecting that it will be with us for the time being until there's some change that needs to be made to make both parties or development more successful.

Okay. And then specifically on the city discretion topic, who or what entity specifically would be deciding kind of what's permissible, what's allowed or what's denied? Is that something that would come before the planning commission or council, or will it be handled at the staff level?

Staff will be reviewing all of the applications including the city discretion to make sure it meets the the measle ordinance requirements. But ultimately, the especially the the discretion option will be approved by the city manager.

Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you.

Questions? Questions? I have a few questions. The fractional units, it sounds like it looks like you guys there was a decision made to utilize standard rounding. Was there discussion on utilizing other metrics as far as deciding whether it fell into one or two houses? So I guess that's my question is, how does a decision made to utilize standard rounding to decide whether it would be one house or two or three?

I may need some help from our city attorney, but I actually think that was written into the judgment or settlement agreement.

That is correct. As part of the settlement agreement, think we I'd have to look at it again. I think it's to the nearest whole number.

Okay.

Yeah, but just the nearest whole number.

So that's how we

kind of base that decision on.

Okay. Very good. Thank you. Okay. Next question.

The off-site construction of mixed income and the acquisition and rehabilitation. My question is, is there a concern that we will start building the lower or low income to very low income housing in a specific area. Meaning, we're we're gonna go ahead and build it off-site, so not in the market rate development. It's gonna be built somewhere else. And now we're gonna also rehab houses located somewhere else, not in the market rate section, is there a concern that there'll be a cluster of low income houses located in a specific area?

And what guardrails, I guess, are there how we put in place to mitigate that?

Sure. It's a great question. The goal of this program is to build units. That's number one. Number two is to ensure that they're dispersed throughout the city as widely and and as fairly as possible.

So we share your same concerns. We know that as these applicants come in and we have alternate measures that are being proposed instead of building on location, staff is going to have to really dig into those and ensure that we are being fair to the community, fair to the developer and then overall seek that overarching goal which is to build units. So there may be a concern about a location if there's an older apartment complex that needs to be rehabbed and the developer chooses to go in that direction, there's also a benefit to it by having the core of the city or some older building. It may not be apartments, may be a duplex revitalized. So we as staff will probably be watching that very carefully of course.

And if we need guardrails that are stronger than the ones that we have in place now, we'll put them in place.

Okay. So this is the ability to build off-site is for both for rental and and for sale. Correct?

Correct.

Okay. And is there a concern that older homes, I'm assuming if you're doing if the development is single family homes, then they can go in rehab a single family home somewhere else in another location. Is that my a correct assumption? Okay. So is there a concern that older homes will be rehabbed and taken off the market to market value to the market value buyers because now they're gonna be low income.

So as an example, somebody's looking to move into a mature neighborhood. Is there a concern that mature neighborhoods will be consumed with this type of development and now the buyer will have to buy a newer home or, you know, purchase a home somewhere else where the development just is happening, I guess? Is there a concern for that? I hope I explained myself. Sorry. Definitely.

Good question. Thank you. We the city of Clovis already has existing programs where we go into our mature mature neighborhoods and help lower income families purchase a home is how we build wealth. So we actually encourage that. And if we have an application where a developer chooses to build build a acquire and rehab a meso unit off-site in a mature neighborhood, I as an affordable housing programs manager, I'm all for that.

That's how we build wealth for our lower income families. We don't have the concern that they will be diminishing the market rate value of the neighborhood because when you do comps, comps are not supposed to take into account any assisted units or deed restricted units. If they do, it's a wrong appraisal. So it doesn't change the market value of a neighborhood in that manner. And so in general we don't have overriding concerns about those mature neighborhoods.

No I didn't mean that it would reduce the value of the neighborhood. What I meant is you're locking this low income home for forty five years or fifty years. So this home, whatever gets rehabbed in this neighborhood, will not be available to a person, an applicant who is not qualified to buy that home. So that was my my question was, are we going to be removing older homes from the market that will not be accessible to a person who does not qualify under this program?

That is the term of the program and is part of the judgment. And and again, similar to our other down payment assistance programs. Okay.

If I had to speculate, which I get into trouble doing sometimes, I never wanna speak for the developers, but I think to make that pencil for a developer to make that option worthwhile, it would have to be a property that is severely distressed in order for them to come in to make that to be a less costly measure than some of the other options. It's an option, but I think that we might find more likely it would be the multifamily that would be used. And they may not choose to use this at all. We're putting that there is an option. We want to make sure that we have as many alternative measures as possible.

We don't know at this point exactly what direction the developers are going to go in. And that's going to be very interesting over the course of the next few years as we determine this and as they bring ideas to us. And if we start hearing the same ideas in that last option, which is a city discretion, we may fold that into the next housing element.

Okay. For the building off-site construction, is there specific sites that are going to be designated for this? Or is this the developer owns another property somewhere else and it's an infill and he's going to build there instead? It's up to the developer to build wherever chooses.

Exactly that one. Yes.

Okay.

So if they I imagine a developer who has property elsewhere, maybe it's a tract that had not been it was completed and maybe there's three or four parcels that are left over in fill or standing alone, they could dedicate those.

Okay. Very good. Sorry. Just two more questions, I promise. This is in regards to the recipient requirement for the qualified buyer. The qualifier is only income level. Is that the only qualifier for an applicant or recipient?

For the single family homes, the main qualifier is actually that they qualify for a first mortgage like our regular down payment assistance programs. But for this for our our side of how we qualify whether or not that applicant is is able to purchase that house, it is just based on income Okay. On our side.

Okay. And it didn't have a time frame, and I'm assuming we have to adopt this ordinance into it has to be adopted before we move forward. But it mentioned, when would the city start taking applicant applications, I guess? Would it be a developer came in, developed the housing, and then the application? Would an applicant would submit an application, or is the city going to be receiving applications and when if there's ever a development then, you know, there'll be some type of vetting process?

I'll try to tackle that one.

Okay.

So as soon as this or so after tonight, should you choose to to vote and this proceeds to city council and city council approves this, it's an urgency ordinance so it would go into effect immediately. If a developer came in the next day with a residential development of 11 or more units, there would be a an application process that is is woven into the application process that already exists. So that would that would begin the process immediately.

Okay. Last question. It's also regarding the recipient occupancy. It stated in there it had provisions for not being able to rent your house or lease your house, add to be your primary residence. It didn't specify what happens if the primary purchaser were to pass. What happens to that house?

That's a very good question. Even with our existing programs, it depends on where the funding comes from, how we treat when there is a deceased homeowner. And it's it's a little bit difficult with this program because we don't have funds in the in the program. So we can say, well, pay us back, and then we'll use it for something else. I was just having this conversation today with my staff member, Holly, that it's a very unique situation that we haven't quite tackled in our infill guidelines yet. And I do need to have a conversation with our city attorney about how we tackle that when it comes to the single family homes.

Do you think it's important that it should be in this ordinance that we'd have at least a plan of what would happen? Because we we have provisions for what people are not allowed to do, which makes sense. Right? You don't lend it out. I mean, don't lease it. Don't rent it. But we should have some type of provision. What happens when the primary homeowner passes? You know, the city should have some type of action that will be taken.

Right. It it definitely the option is foreclosure, but I always tell our homeowners that I would try to do everything except kick you out of your house.

Yeah.

So but that is the ultimate option is we're gonna foreclose on you if you do not meet the requirements of the deed restriction that's recorded against your property over the forty five years.

And we there's no opt out, meaning someone passed, and so you can sell this house to someone else.

An opt out is not part of judgment or the agreement at this point.

So we're specifically just for the judgment. I see.

And the ordinance that is before you Mhmm. It's it's truly an outline.

Uh-huh.

There is an infinite number of scenarios that and and you're right to ask the questions. The implementation guidelines that have been prepared will be brought back to city council at a later date, but we don't know what we don't know yet. So we're doing the best we can. Of We're trying to answer the questions. As a new question comes in like the ones you're asking, Sometimes we go, that's a good one. You know? So we appreciate the feedback. It will be we will have things that we just don't know as we go through this process. And this is new to us. It's new to the Valley. We're the first city in the Central Valley that has this

Mhmm.

As a requirement. So we're we're doing the best we can to get ahead of those issues that will come at us.

Mhmm.

Claudia and Holly are a fantastic team. They do deal with these questions constantly where a family member either passes away or maybe they start making more money. What happens then? Or there's some other scenario that, you know, other cities have dealt with. So we're learning as we go for sure.

Very good. Yeah. Okay. Those were all my questions. Does anyone have any other questions?

I guess it's a no.

I do. Did I read correctly that these units would not be able to be used as BNBs? That's correct. Yes. It's correct.

No short term rentals yet.

Yeah. Okay. I just because I could see that happening. Thank you.

Was that a question about short term rentals? Is that

Yes.

Okay. Short term rentals. Just

one clarification. You said for first time buyers. So does that mean any home that was built, they would if they were gonna purchase the home for loan came back, they had to be a first time buyer? Or is that just the current plans that we are

the city already has? Our current programs are 100% for first time homebuyers. Okay. Now that you asked the question, I don't remember seeing that term in the judgment or the settlement agreement.

Yeah. Didn't read that in the package.

They do have to be they don't they can't own a home for sure. But not that they're first time homebuyers. And in general, that just means you haven't owned a home in three years.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Good. Alright. Move on. At this time, I'd like to invite anyone from the public who would like to speak in support of this project. Seeing none, I would like to at this time, I'll invite anyone from the public who would like to speak in opposition of this project.

Oh, sure. Step up to the mic. Step your step your state your name and address for the record, please.

My name is DJ Lauren. I live at 46 Pulaski right here in Clovis. I just had two clarifying questions. If you wanted to build the units off-site as one of the alternative measures, is that like an automatic buy write because you that's one of the measures? It's not up to the city's discretion on that, I guess. Like, yeah, I guess if you were gonna build it off-site, it's automatically, yeah, that's approved. That doesn't have to go then at the discretion of someone for that. And then if you do pay the fees as the alternative, where do the fees go? Is that then someone gets to use them or where do the fees go? That's all I had.

Thank you. The if you do you want me to answer?

Yes. Go ahead and answer.

Yes. If you decide if the developer decides to build off-site, the land that they that they pick has to be buildable and ready to build. So it has to be zoned. It has to be water, sewer, streets. It's not something that we're gonna build twenty years from now and then the market rate units have already been built. They need to be built concurrently. So when city staff reviews the off-site land property APN, the checklist will include, does it have sewer, does it have water, is it properly zoned, and there's no by right. It has to go through the general processes that are required through the planning development services department to build off-site. And then the second question was, the fees that are collected will be deposited into the city's existing housing trust fund for future affordable housing uses and projects.

Thank you for that. Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition of this project? Okay. Seeing none, we're gonna go ahead and close the public session, bring it back for discussion, and a vote. I have no further questions. I obviously had enough for them, so I'm good. Thank you. So if we're ready for a vote. We're gonna vote for the ordinance and the resolution.

Well, thank you for all that. It was very well was a major read that it was very well written. I would like to make a motion to approve o a twenty twenty six zero zero one, a resolution recommending that the city council adopt an exemption from further environmental review under CEQUA guidelines section one five zero six one subdivision b three and approve an ordinance amending the city's development code to add chapter 9.27 to the Clovis Municipal Code to establish a mixed income zoning ordinance for residential development products projects.

I'll second. Anybody?

I have a motion from commissioner Hatcher and a second from commissioner Bedstead to approve o a twenty twenty six dash zero zero one. Commissioner Hatcher?

Yes.

Commissioner Bedstead? Yes. Commissioner Hinkle? Yes. Chair Antuna?

Yes.

OA twenty twenty six zero zero one passes four zero.

Okay. At this time, I'd like to adjourn this meeting at 06:45 forty eight, I think it is actually. And we will meet here again on March 26.