Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Good evening and welcome to the May 28, 2026 meeting of the City of Clovis Planning Commission. Members of the public are encouraged to participate in this meeting by attending the Planning Commission meeting in person, submitting written comments at least two hours prior to the start of the meeting, or viewing this meeting on the city's website via the webcast. I'd like to call this meeting to order. If you stand with me, please, and Commissioner Bedstead will lead us in the flag salute. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Commission Secretary, if you can call the roll.

Commissioner Bedstead?

Here.

Commissioner Hebert?

Here.

Commissioner Hatcher?

Here.

Commissioner Hinkle? Here. Chair Antuna?

Here. I'd like to open a motion to approve the minutes for the May 14, 2026 planning commission meeting.

I'll make a motion.

I'll second.

I have a motion from Commissioner Hatcher and a second from Commissioner Hebert. Commissioner Hatcher. Yes. Commissioner Hebert. Yes. Commissioner Bedstead. Yes. Commissioner Hinkle.

Yes.

Chair Antuna.

I will be abstaining as I was not present for the meeting and had not had the opportunity to view.

Thank you. The minutes are approved for one with chair Antuna abstaining.

Do we have any comments from the commission members. Seeing none, do we have any comments from the commission secretary?

I have one. I know Renee will have another one. But I just want to reiterate or mention again the next GPAC, the General Plan Advisor Committee meeting, is scheduled for June 18th. And the topic for that evening will be circulation and transportation. And the commission and the public are welcome to attend.

Thank you, good evening. I also wanted to let the commission know in early May, we held a meeting with the city council providing an update on the progress we've made on the general plan update. That meeting focused on some alternative land uses, some maps. We're now into the alternative analysis. Once that analysis is complete, we'll be going out with meetings with the community to get more feedback and then returning back to council council was interested in making sure when we bring that item back it's a joint meeting with the planning commission to really consider what that final land use map looks like so expect that sometime later this fall early winter very good

Now we'll be moving on to the public comment portion of this meeting. This gives the opportunity for members of the public to address the Planning Commission on any matter that the Planning Commission has jurisdiction and is not already listed on the agenda. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comment to three minutes. And if anyone wishing to if anyone is wishing to be placed on the agenda for a specific topic contact the planning division and submit your correspondence at least 10 days prior to the date that you wish to appear. Is there anyone on the floor that would like to address the planning commission on anything that is not already on the agenda. Very well seeing none. We're going to go ahead and move onto the public hearing portion of the meeting. Sorry. Consider approval for Resolution 26, General Plan Consistency Findings for the proposed 2026-27 Community Investment Program. Fernando, Supervisor Civil Engineering, is presenting.

Good evening Planning Commission. I'm Fernando Capetti. I'm a community investment program supervisor. Before I dive into my presentation, I wanted to clarify one thing on our end, that it was the housing and community development account until this past fiscal year was included in the budget. But moving on, it was removed. So it was an error on our end just to remove the, we did not remove the reference to it. So thank you very much for bringing this up to our attention. But just to make it clear, it's not part of the CIP budget.

Thank you.

So that said, I'm gonna start with the presentation. And so tonight, I am presenting to you the proposed 2026-27 Community Investment Program budget, inclusive of the five-year Community Investment Program. Section 65-401 of the government code calls for planning commissions review and consideration of the annual capital improvement program. The City of Clovis refers to its capital improvement program as the community investment program. The purpose of this provision is to have Planning Commission review the Community Investment Program and make specific finding that it is in conformance with the general plan and relevant specific plans. Following approval, Clover City Council will then proceed to adopt the budget in the next available meeting. So the proposed community investment program budget is a 56-page document attached to the report we submitted to the Planning Commission. And the projects that are proposed in this program have been identified in consultation and support from various different department heads and their representatives. And this was extensive work this past four or five months. And so the projects that are in this program provide selection of specific projects that are necessary for public service utility and our safety purposes and are consistent with the city goals. On this slide, there's a brief overview of the community investment program. The CIP or the community investment program budget is slightly over 47 million. And on this chart, you can see the capital projects are distributed in programs areas like government facilities, measure Y, sewer, parks, streets, water. and refuse or commit to sanitation. This chart also shows that there is 52 activities or projects in total for this coming fiscal year, and these activities or projects consist of design, right-of-way acquisition, and or construction. Here is a picture of the street funding for this coming fiscal year. And we have approximately $3.8 million in revenue coming from state and federal grants, like CDBG, STBG, and CMAQ this coming year. As far as SB1 and gas tax, we have approximately 3.62 million for four streets. And the whole package of measure C, it's approximately 4.3 million, which is for maintenance and flexible, ADA, bicycle, and pedestrian trails. I see myself saying this almost every year and so in the past years we've seen an upward trend and construction costs primarily due to inflation and which is reflected in the cost of materials and labor. We don't know when this is going to end but this could you know limit the amount of projects that we can deliver but we keep pushing. So some of the noteworthy projects this coming fiscal year are shown in this slide. There's a lot more, but I'm showing a brief summary of them. There's several street reconstruction or rehabilitation and some of the main avenues here in the city of Clovis, like Armstrong, Barstow, Herndon, Shaw, Sunnyside, and Willow. This coming year, we are also doing, like every year, the preventive maintenance, like the cape and slurry seals. This particular year, we are doubling the amount of roads, local roads, that will be doing slurry just to try to be ahead. Also, we have, finally, show a big widening between the Wolf and Leonard. It's really close to going construction. And same with Herndon, out of you, east of Temperance, up to the wolf. We have also very close to go out to bid on the villa widening north of Herndon in between the Daryl storage. This is part of the street funds. On the development fees and enterprise funds, we are really close to also go out to bid to hire a contractor to construct our park, the Agua Vista Park. This came to Planning Commission not that long ago. So thank you for your help on the naming convention also with other topics that you guys help us with. And we will be starting the design of a new 3.5 million gallons in our surface water treatment plant. This is going to increase the capacity to be prepared for future demands. And from the general fund account, we will be also going out to bid for construction of the Clovis Alternate Dispatch north of Fire Station 6. Measure Y will be maintaining, doing some maintenance work in three of the facilities. One will be Fire Station 4, the police and fire headquarters, and also the Clovis Rec Center. And just to give you a brief update of some of the projects we have done this current fiscal year, so 25-26. Here are some of them. Pegbos Plaza right down the street here on Sunnyside and 3rd. The annual Cape and Sleary seal project. The bridge replacement on Leonard Avenue at the Enterprise Canal. We have done some improvements and upgrades to the pump station E. We will also help transit with the installation of a little over 50 bus shelters for the new bus routes recently implemented. We constructed sidewalks in those areas that are in need of that, and we have done, with the help of Measure Y, improvements to the parks, sorry, to the restrooms in the Gettysburg Park. So with that staff is recommended approval of this resolution finding that the 2026-27 community investment program is in conformance with the general plan and the relevant specific plans. That concludes my presentation and I'm ready for any questions you may have.

Does the commission have any clarifying questions for staff? Very good we're going to go ahead and open the public portion of this item. Do we have anyone in the room that would like to speak on for this project. Seeing none. Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition of this project. Very well, seeing none, we're gonna go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion. Any other questions or a motion? Okay.

All right, just a couple comments before I make a motion. I think this is exciting. There's some exciting things ahead and also some much needed things ahead, in particular the widening projects. I think it's no surprise to anybody there's a lot of traffic and expanding the roads are important. So look forward to seeing this. And with that, I will make a motion to approve a general plan consistency finding for the proposed 2026-2027 Community Investment Program.

I'd like to second that motion. I have a motion from Commissioner Bedstead and a second from Commissioner Hinkle. Commissioner Bedstead?

Yes.

Commissioner Hinkle?

Yes.

Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Hatcher? Yes. Chair Antuna? Yes. The motion carries 5-0.

Okay, moving on to our next item. And before I move on to this item, I see that there's a lot of people out here, so I'm really glad to see you all for coming out. Thank you for coming out and joining us in this meeting. I'm assuming you are all here for this item, so I'll just reiterate, kind of go through the process of the meeting for those of you who have not attended in the past. Typically, I'll present the item just like we just did. The applicant will discuss the item and we'll have clarifying questions. Then I will invite each of you to, whoever wants to speak for or against the item. And then we're gonna close that part of the meeting. And then any questions that you may have for staff, staff's not gonna answer them immediately, but they are gonna be taking notes. And at the end when we close we'll clarify any items that you may have any questions that you may have had. And if we happen to be patient because there's quite a bit of you so and we have one note taker. So if we miss you please come and see our one of the planning someone in the planning division and they will be able to respond. OK. Having said all that. Moving on to item number three. Consider items associated with approximately 54 acres of land located throughout the city of Clovis for the infill rezone program. SC Ellis Investment Property, Cygas 3, LLC. Actually, I'm gonna skip all your names and say various landowners. or land holdings are being represented here as applicants. So item A, consider approval resolution recommend the city council adopt an environmental assessment pursuant to government code section 65759 for general plan amendment 2024-003 and rezone 2024-002. Consider approval of GPA 2024-003, a resolution recommending the City Council approve amendments to the general plan and associated specific master plans to redesignate 20 parcels from various land use designations to high density residential, 20.1 to 30 dwelling units per acre, and very high density residential, 25 through 43 dwelling units per acre land use designations. Item C, consider approval Resolution R2024-002, a resolution recommending the city council approve the rezone of 20 parcels from various zone districts to the R3 multi-high density and R4 multifamily very high density zone districts. Sorry. Deputy City Planner Mackenzie Perez will be presenting.

Good evening, chair, commissioners. Thank you for the introduction. Before I begin, I just wanted to introduce a couple of people here at the table and on the dais that may be answering questions throughout the presentation. So I'll be doing the presentation. And then to my right, I have Eric Vonberg with Rincon. He's our representative for the environmental assessment that was prepared. And then Chris Kelly with our engineering division. And then on the dais, I have our director, Renee Mathis, and George Gonzalez, our city planner that may answer some of the questions that come up. Okay, so just before I begin discussing the proposal, I just wanted to provide some background. So the state's Housing and Community Development Department requires cities to identify the regional housing needs allocation. On the screen, you'll see the RHNA reference. I'll be referring to it as RHNA. So every city is required to identify their RHNA through their city's housing element. So the city failed to meet its fourth cycle obligation of about 4,400 units. And then those 4,400 units were carried into the fifth cycle. The city again failed to fully satisfy the carried over unmet units, which resulted in the lawsuit that was filed against the city in October of 2019 for noncompliance with the city's housing element. So the next few slides are just gonna outline some of the timelines. So as I mentioned, October of 2019, there was a lawsuit filed against the city for noncompliance with the housing element. In April of 2021, a trial court issued an order directing the city to adopt a housing element that would rezone sites to accommodate the city's RHNA obligation of about 4,400 units. THEN IN JUNE OF 2021, THE CITY AND THE PETITIONER THAT FILED THE LAWSUIT FILED APPEALS. AND THEN IN APRIL OF 2023, THE CITY'S APPEAL WAS PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL, BUT MOSTLY UNSUCCESSFUL REGARDING THE RENA OVERLAY AS A MEANS TO COMPLY WITH THE UNMET ZONING REQUIREMENT THAT WAS PART OF THE HOUSING CYCLE OR THE FIFTH CYCLE. THEN IN JULY AND AUGUST OF 2023, THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO CONSIDER THE CITY'S APPEAL AND THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION WAS FINAL AND THAT CASE WAS REFERRED BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT. Between October of 23 and February of 24 the city and the petitioner negotiated and agreed to a settlement On the case and that settlement included six housing programs and it reduced significantly the amount of units that the city was going to have to rezone from 4400 units to 1284 In March of 24 there was a judgment that was entered by the Fresno County Superior Court in the case and they adopted the terms of the settlement agreement again to bring the housing element into compliance. Those six programs that were part of the settlement were included in the city's sixth cycle housing element which is our current cycle that we're in and again the infill rezone program was one of those programs that was required as part of the judgment and that's also one of the programs in our housing element. The infill rezone program is necessary to bring the city's housing element into compliance with state housing law as well as satisfaction of the judgment. In May of 24, the city council initiated a general plan amendment and a rezone that would include redesignating and rezoning 24 sites that were identified throughout the city. The city council also adopted a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute an agreement with Rincon for preparation of the environmental assessment. In June and July of 24 staff mailed notices to property owners That were identified the 24 sites Letting them know about their inclusion in the program. We did receive some feedback from some property owners both in support and opposition we also received feedback or requests from other property owners that were not part of the program that requested to be included in the program and So between July of 24 and March of 25, staff worked with property owners to determine if they would be included or removed from the program and if some of those sites would be added. We had 10 of the original 24 that requested to be removed and we had six new parcels that requested to be included in the program. So after the review, the 10 initially identified were removed from the program and we added the six sites which left us with the 20 sites. before you today. In between March of 25 and April of 26 staff worked with Rincon in the preparation of the environmental assessment. And then in December of 25 staff hosted four informational meetings here at the council chambers to provide information on the program. So going into the proposal, there is a general plan amendment and a rezone that will facilitate the development of 1,303 dwelling units on about 54 acres throughout the city limits. Now, as I mentioned earlier, we are required to accommodate 1,284 units The original 24 sites would accommodate that 1,284. However, with the revision to the 20 sites, that included 1,303 units. And the way we got to that 1,303 units is We use the assumed density that the housing element uses. So the housing element assumes a density of 24 units per acre on our three zoned parcels and 25 units per acre on our four. So in order to be consistent, those are the assumptions we used to come up with a number of units. And in regards to site selection, we also used criteria that's used for the housing element when we were looking at sites. So we looked at sites that were between 0.8 acres and 10 acres that were vacant or underutilized within city limits. And then another thing was that they would not be part of another housing program or part of our housing inventory already. Again, I mentioned there were 24 original sites, 10 were removed, six were added, and we ended up with the 20 sites. I do wanna note that there were the six properties that were requested to be added. One of the property owners has since requested to be removed. That letter is provided in the packet, and there was another letter that was provided as part of your supplemental packet as well. So the general plan amendment and rezone would redesignate 17 sites to high density residential and the R3 zone district. This would be 20 to 30 units per acre. It would also redesignate three sites to very high density residential and the R4 zone district, which is 25 to 43 units. One thing I wanna note is that there is no actual project. There's no physical development that's proposed with this project. It's solely the land use change and the zoning change. With this project we're also requesting that there be amendments to specific plans and master plans for nine sites. There are nine of the 20 sites that are located within a specific and master plan that's also outlined in the staff report on the specific sites and we're requesting that those plans be modified through this approval as well. to accommodate that R3 or R4 zone district. One of the unique things about the project as well is that we have five of the 20 sites that are located within the airport influence area of the Fresno Yosemite International Airport and with that we require a finding of consistency from the Airport Land Use Commission. They did consider the item at their meeting on April 6th and they did make a finding of consistency that's also included in the staff report. So here on the screen is just an overview of the city. If you can see the red line is our sphere. I'm not sure if you can really tell from the image, but there's the city limits outlined as well. The sites or the dots in blue, those are the locations of the sites. You can see that they're spread out throughout the city. So it just kind of gives you an idea of where the sites are located. I did want to briefly outline the five little circles that you see on your screen now are the sites of the properties that requested to be included in the program. So those are the ones that were added and that were not part of the original 24. And then the next few slides, I'm gonna go through the sites just to quickly give you an aerial. If you want to refer back to them, we can. But just one thing to note on the site numbers is there's, it'll go from, you know, like you see on the screen here, site three and site 63. Those numbers are just an identification number. It comes from our original list of sites that was generated when we first were trying to look at sites. And so that was the easiest way for staff to identify the sites. So on the screen here you have sites three and 63. Both of these sites were sites that were requested to be included in the program. Site 63 on the right is the site that has requested to be removed since their request to be included. Sites 72 and 108 are on the screen here. Site 72 just off of Nees and Peach. Site 108 off of Clovis north of Sunnyside. Or sorry, north of Sierra. Sites 110 and 115. Site 110 on the left is off of Santa Ana. Site 115 is off of Leonard north of Shaw. Sites 157 and 161, site 157 off of DeWolf and Owens Mountain. Sites 161 off of Willow. Sites 167 and 168 are under the same ownership and right next to each other off of Shaw, east of Fowler Avenue. Sites 197 and 217. So 197 is off DeWolf and Owens Mountain. And 217 is north of Gettysburg, east of Clovis Avenue. On site 217, it's a partial rezone. So that will be a split zoned parcel. And sites 589 and 590. 589 is off of Bullard, west of Temperance. And site 590 is north of Shaw, east of Leonard. Sites 592 and 595. 582 is off of Nees and Fowler. And then site 595 is adjacent to 596 and 97 on the next screen. Those are under the same ownership. Those are off of Sunnyside north of Barstow. Again, 596, 597 are both owned by the same property owner. These two sites were originally part of it. I'm sorry, 595 and 596 were originally part of the program and that property owner requested 597 on the north end to be added to the program. And then 598 and 599 are also under the same ownership and are budding each other. So you'll see that on the screen there on Fowler Avenue. So just to go over the environmental assessment that was prepared. So discretionary projects are typically required to go and be reviewed subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. So what we refer to as CEQA. However, government code section 65759 provides that CEQA does not apply to actions that are necessary to bring a general plan or its relevant mandatory housing elements which include the housing element into compliance. WITH A COURT ORDER OR JUDGMENT. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6579 ALSO REQUIRES THAT WHEN YOU PREPARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, THAT IT BE IN THE FORM SIMILAR TO A DRAFT EIR. SO THAT'S WHY THE DOCUMENT LOOKS SIMILAR TO A DRAFT EIR, BUT IS NOT AN EIR. IT'S REFERRED TO AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. And it's for informational purposes. That document does generate what's called a mitigation monitoring and reporting program that will apply to the sites. Now this mitigation monitoring and reporting program lists out mitigation measures that will apply to the sites. And so that's part of the environmental assessment that will tie into the projects. So staff, as I mentioned earlier, did host four informational meetings in December of 2025. Property owners within 800 feet of all sites were notified of those meetings. For this meeting tonight, the notice was published in the Business Journal. We also mailed out notices to property owners within 800 feet of each site. So that was over about 3,000 notices that were sent out. And in regards to public comments, So we had 81 comments that were provided in the staff report. Those were since the notification of the informational meetings up until the point of the release of the staff report. Since the release of the staff report, we did receive six additional comments. Those were provided to you as a supplement and are available on the dais if anyone from the public would like. or I have copies of those that the public can request. And then since that memo was sent out, we received two comments that were also provided to you today that were received within the five days and are considered late. However, the commission can consider them as they see fit. So in regards to the next steps, Planning Commission, once they consider the item, staff will host another informational meeting prior to the City Council meeting. And again, notices will go out to all property owners within 800 feet of each of the sites. And then City Council will consider the item in one to two months after tonight's hearing. and then that also that meeting will also be notified through the business journal as well as mailed notices to property owners within 800 feet so if they received a notice for tonight's meeting they should receive an additional two notices for one for the informational meeting one for the city council and if anyone in the public did not receive a notice and would like to be notified just to maybe see me after and i could add them to the list So staff recommends that you approve a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the environmental assessment, that you approve a resolution recommending the City Council approve the general plan amendment, and that you consider approval of the resolution recommending the City Council approve the rezoning of the 20 parcels. That concludes my presentation. Staff is here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there questions for staff from the Commission?

I have a couple questions. So site 63, I believe that's the one that there's a request to remove. If that were to be removed, is there an alternative to fill or provide the quantity of units that are needed to maintain the numbers?

No, we do not have any alternative sites. If any of the sites were to be removed, we would have to start the process over again and not be in compliance with the judgment.

Okay, thank you. And then I guess I'm gonna kinda take this a little bit further. Knowing that, if this were to move forward this evening between now and the city council, if other alternative sites were to be proposed or were to come up, are you saying that there's an opportunity to make adjustments as long as there was an environmental assessment that could accompany those parcels?

We would have to start the whole environmental process again and do the analysis that were done for all 20 sites. So we'd have to incorporate that. That's why there's no alternative sites that we've done because we haven't analyzed any backup sites. So our staff recommendation would be the 20 sites.

And then I kind of want to ask this. Really on behalf of the public so that everyone hears this Where are we at in the timeline of needing to put a bow on this and and fulfill this requirement?

Yeah, so Matt you can correct me if I'm wrong, but we were supposed to have complied with this program June of 2025 so we've been working with the petitioner On the on the project really to get it moving forward. So we're about a year past that

Okay, and are there any penalties or what are we facing if we don't move this forward within some?

We will be out of compliance and subject to another lawsuit. Matt, if you want to add anything.

Yeah, the only thing I would add is that, so we've, like Mackenzie has mentioned, we've worked with the plaintiff and their counsel regarding coming into compliance with the judgment, which, as Mackenzie mentioned, was supposed to be basically all these different programs and everything complete about a year ago. Um, but you know, I think plaintiff's council understood that a lot of these, um, programs take time to number one, develop a number two, to do the necessary studies, the environmental required for this project alone took, took a good amount of time. Cause we're basically doing an EIR without the, without the backend of the EIR. So that's why it took so long with the environmental. And so with what McKenzie's saying with regards to adding new sites or removing sites, That process would have to start over. In any further delay at this point, I think we run the risk of potentially having the plaintiff come back to court and attempting to enforce the judgment. And what consequences may come from that would vary. I would have to look into it more, but there are certain consequences from failing to abide by a judgment related to a housing element case like this that we'd probably want to avoid. That's why I think staff's recommendation at this time is to keep things the way they are. Does that answer your question? It does. OK.

Thank you. I don't have any further questions at this time.

Anybody else?

Okay. I have a follow up. I had actually similar questions than Commissioner Vestad did as well. So what level of commitment did each landowner provide the city when they entered into either an agreement or at least submit their parcel for consideration. Obviously an EIR or an EA is a very costly Project for the city to undertake and so one of the considerations. I mean we all pay our taxes, right? So this is part of that as well and To scratch it and start all over again is something that Would take us a pause meaning to seriously consider that so my question is initially when the city is approached by landowners to include their parcels and What level of commitment was there?

For these proposals, the six parcels, we did ask for something in writing requesting that they show that they were interested in being part of the program. Because in order to include them, we had to remove sites. So before we removed any of the 10 sites, we needed to make sure that we met our capacity. And the only way we were able to do that and remove the 10 sites was to have equivalent capacity with the six sites. So we received letters or emails from property owners that requested to be included. The original property owners that were part of it, some submitted letters, some we had talked over the phone or we had meetings with to discuss the program. So the initial ones were either verbal or written documentation but it was a letter for those that were requesting it to be included.

My follow-up question to that is should all of these parcels be approved this evening and make it to the council? The process for a landowner who wishes not to be part of this they would have to engage in their own They would have to submit an application and go through the rezoning process to remove. Correct.

Yeah. So after this we would go we take planning commissions recommendation to council if city council was to approve the project the rezoning would take effect 30 days and then it's up to the private property owners to decide what they'd like to do with the property develop If in several years they decide to develop something else, they'd have to come in and file their own plan amendment, rezone application and provide a compelling reason to change the designation.

And then would the city have to engage with other landowners to backfill basically whatever's being removed?

Not for this. This program is not part of our no net loss program. That no net loss program is a separate program where the city would be required to engage, but this is not part of that. The sole requirement for this program is to rezone and redesignate the sites. We are not developing, we're not proposing any physical changes as part of the project.

We're currently just creating capacity for the build of these? Correct for the potential build of those units yes. Okay very good thank you so much for that. Are there any other questions of staff? Very well. We're going to go on and open the public hearing portion. And at this time I'd like to invite anyone who would like to speak in support of this project. If you step up to the mic there state your name and address for the record. Mr. Kroll the media the. Yeah there you go.

I got a red light on. Is that good. Dwight Kroll with Kroll and Associates. I represent Kenneth Crawford. He has sites 595, 596 and 597. Those sites are located at the northeast corner of Jefferson and Sunnyside Avenues. Two of those sites were included originally with staff's report. We requested the additional site I think it's 597 to be included. That gets us a one and a half acre site. It's the Crawfords intent to develop a independent senior living facility. This action gets us over that hurdle. where we're able to then proceed with plans and come to the city of Clovis. That concludes my testimony. I'm open for any questions that the Planning Commission may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have anyone else who would like to speak in support of this project? Very well seeing none. We're going to now open up the mic for anyone who would like to speak in opposition. So if there's anyone who would like to speak in opposition step up to the mic. I'll remind you that there's a three minute limit and the clocks back there and you can just watch that clock. State your name and address for the record.

Good evening commissioners. I appreciate your service to our community. Thank you for what you're doing. My name is Susan Thompson. I live on Enterprise Avenue near Harlan Ranch and Diamond Crest Community. I am speaking to you specifically this evening about sites 157 and 197 on your records. One thing I'd like to point out to you, because I think it's very important, and it wasn't clear on the slideshow, is that these two sites are literally across the street from each other. And I don't mean in an urban area where you have a four lane highway and red lights. They are literally across each other from a little two lane street to Wolf Avenue to Wolf Avenue and Owens Mountain Parkway. So those are the two sites that I am talking about. I live close enough that I was the recipient of one of the little postcards because I'm within 800 feet. So I think that tonight, you're probably gonna hear a lot of reasons why this is not a very good idea for our communities. And they're all very good reasons. You're gonna hear about how it's gonna create strains on our local infrastructure, our traffic, and our schools. You're gonna hear about how it's going to fundamentally alter our stable, low-density residential environment that the families in Diamond Crest Community and Harlan Ranch have chosen invested in and we had every reason to believe that we were buying into a sustainable environment. You're also gonna hear about how a zone of R3 is a dramatic change from the current zoning of those two lots. One was zoned for planned commercial center Harlan Ranch had been promised a little coffee shop and a little bookstore and maybe a couple of other houses and you're taking that away by doing that rezoning. The other lot was is currently rated single family residential very low density. You're considering rezoning that to R3 20 to 20.1 specifically units to as many as 30 units per acre. So that's what we're talking about. And I completely support all of those reasons. I think they're really good reasons and they concern me greatly. But I'm a retired school teacher.

So I'm gonna talk to you about the math.

So the agreement resulting from the Desiree Martinez and City of Clovis, as we were seeing, requires that you set aside a total of 1,284 high density family units. And I appreciate everyone's work within the city that brought that number down from the 4,000 plus. Well done. Thank you for doing that on behalf of the city. So going back to the math, what we're looking at, if we go in and we rezone these two lots, again, 157, 197, that are literally across the street from each other, just hooked right into these two communities, uh... you're going to allow twenty units and as many as thirty units per acre as i just said so let me be clear when i say this you're not considering adding another twenty five or maybe fifty additional living units to our little communities over here at the edge of town as far away from a gas station or grocery store as you can get you're looking at adding anywhere from 235 to 353 new family units right within our neighborhood, right as you come off a little two-lane road off of 158, right at the entrance to all of this.

Mrs. Thompson, I'm going to ask you if you could just recap. Recap the numbers? No. Recap, you had three minutes, so I'm asking if you... Oh, I'm almost finished. Just let me...

Okay. Oh, can I just finish? I'm sorry, because it gets very important. I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was trying to speak slow to make sure everyone understood because I'm a teacher. So what I want you to understand, and I will just sum it up really quickly for you now, is that if you do that, if you approve the rezoning of those two lots, you're gonna be agreeing to putting approximately 25% of that 1,284 units in our little neighborhood for Diamond Crest and Harlan Ranch. The remaining 75% of those 1,284 units are split amongst 18 different sites. So going back to the math that I said I was going to address this evening, is the math on this one is very clear. That if you look at this, any reasonable consideration of this would conclude that this is disproportionate and it is unfair. I think that we've done our part in our community, we've maintained it, we've paid our taxes, Harlem Ranch pays HOA dues to support their park. We've done everything we were supposed to do. We've been good citizens I'm asking you now to do your part and Please reject the zoning of these two sites Please do your part So I'll leave it there because I know I've gone over my time.

Thank you for your comment. Thanks Sierra anyone else in the public that would like to speak in opposition of this I

Hi my name is Jenny Daly. I'm just speaking in support of what Susan Thompson just said on sites 157 and 197 near Harlan Ranch. I sent multiple emails out to different commissioners and the planning staff as well. I'm not sure if everyone received them but I got minimal response. So it sounds like the decision has already been made. Unfortunately I don't know if the public's opinion has been considered in all of this but just like Susan said that area of Clovis is already very populated for being such a rural part of what Clovis is. The street coming off of the freeway Owens Mountain onto DeWolf is very congested particularly when getting out of work going to school and I mean I don't understand how we are going to take in that many more families into that section of Clovis. Meanwhile also considering what could happen to Bud Rank Elementary and the influx of the population there and coming into an actual neighborhood where That school is embedded into I mean, are we are we thinking about our parks? Are we thinking about what's gonna happen to the community as far as crime goes and everything else that can be affected with? the influx of the population there Thank you

Good evening. My name is Ashley Parrish. I am a resident of Harlan Ranch and actually live on Richmond right across the street from the parcel that I believe is owned by Wilson Properties. And although we were not an original purchaser in Harlan Ranch we as far as when the master plan was was first built years ago We purchased about five years ago and we were excited about the talk about that area being developed into the coffee shops and an ice cream shop or just a small area for us to have quick access to sundries and things because we really are on the outskirts of Clovis and don't have access to a lot of that within a quick drive. So to learn that the development then was part of the infill program was a concern for us for a lot of reasons. particularly high density in in that area we're looking at two or three story building likely with views directly into our front yard or and possibly our backyard jenny talked about the congestion that's in the area already the impact on our schools traffic and the risk of bringing in crime. So all of these things are very concerning to us. You know if the idea is that we just need to move forward with the 20 parcels and save the city money in terms of Another assessment that makes sense to me as a taxpayer I don't I don't want my money to go to you know an additional review of 20 new sites We're specifically concerned about the sites that are essentially in our backyard and I guess my question is, and I don't know if it can be answered tonight, but if we can just designate those sites, those two particular sites that sound like we're probably moving forward in that direction anyways, What is the cost for the owners of those parcels to then later request them to be redesignated? So if they if they move forward to meet the the lawsuit that was filed against the city and so we don't subject ourselves to additional fines, what is the process for those owners to later redesignate them back to low density single home site or commercial site or the same density that the rest of Harlan Ranch has? Thank you for your time.

Hi my name is Margaret Lee and I live on Richmond in Harlan Ranch. I I work for Clovis Unified. You know just one of the concerns that I have with a high density residential is again just the impact on on its school system. You know. the influx and the number of incoming TKs, kindergartners, are those families gonna be going to Clovis North District into Granite Ridge? And in addition to that, is there anything within the city's plan where we are already having certain issues within our neighborhood such as there's drag racing sometimes off the freeway there. We have been strained or we've had some challenges with Clovis PD just responding to small little disturbances, whether it be violations on e-bikes or e-scooters or other things, with the high density population will also come higher instances, higher rates of crimes, petty crimes, little, and what is the city's plan to address that increase? Will there be increased allocation in other, in city funds to help increase the use for the parks that's going to be impacted. And so I'm just wondering you know it is Harlanches is a fairly quiet small neighborhood and with that as much as possible would like to keep it nice and quiet. There's already some congestion happening sometimes when There's like concerts like the Luke Bryan concert that you know we as resident residents over there have had to deal with the influx of traffic. So what more were the high density houses coming up. So you know that's just my two cents for that. But thank you for your consideration. Thank you.

Do we have anyone else who would like to speak in opposition?

Sorry I'll make this quick. I wasn't planning on speaking tonight but everything that they've pretty much said. Oh by the way my name is Nathan Vandergaan. We live on White Ash in the Harlan Creek neighborhood just right next to Diamond Crest and directly across to Wolf from Harlan Ranch 157 and 159. Just something to add. to what they've kind of already addressed. We recently went through a rezoning with the school district and we had to fight to keep our kids at Dry Creek. They were basically trying to take a small section of our neighborhood and move us out of our school move my kids out of their school and a lot of other family members out of their schools because Dry Creek's already impacted. They've got over a thousand students at that school right now. And so that's kind of all I wanted to add to what they've already addressed just because we went through that and had to fight to keep our kids where they're at because that's why we bought in that neighborhood to begin with was to keep our kids in that that area and keep them safe. So I appreciate you guys for listening to me. Thanks for everybody.

Anyone else.

Hi, I'm Claire Gottschalk. I'm talking today about sections 115 and 590. I am concerned as the other people are about crime and traffic. There's already a traffic issue on Shaw and Leonard. I understand that there's going to be a widening project there, but I'm not sure if that's sufficient. These projects that potentially could happen in the future will be peering into my backyard, and my neighbor has already put their house up for sale because of it, and it's been for sale for quite some time, and I have a feeling it's not selling because of that, so I'm concerned about how it's affecting my property value. So that's it.

Thank you.

Hi I'm here to speak in opposition to the two sites that are on DeWolf and 168.

Can I get you to state your name and address for the record please?

Cindy Donhockle. And just as everyone else spoke before a number of things one it's an undue burden on that community even if just one of those sites is approved it's an undue burden. We are already overtaxed in terms of our ability to get into the community off of 168 our schools are overburdened and It's also my understanding that both of those sites, neither one of them meet the guidelines for being close to grocery stores or bus access. So it seems as though those two sites are a bad choice. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Sue Bohigian. I'm at Muncie Avenue, and we're talking about Site 72, and I have the same concern as everybody else, so I won't repeat those, but it's not clear to me about how you assess the impact of traffic. We're across from Buchanan School District. We already can't get in and out of our neighborhoods now. So clearly high density would make that worse. So I know you can't answer that question now, but how do you assess the impact of traffic if it's already an issue now getting in and out of our neighborhoods? Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Dirk Puschel, and my business address is 923 Van Ness here in Fresno. And I'm here this evening on behalf of Dr. Bassaron, who owns the property at 1863 Alluvial. It's about 2.5 acres. You know it as item number 63 in your staff report. Over the past three and a half years, we have been working with staff based on our concerns that the minimum of 88 units would not fit properly on this particular site. It's designated in the general plan for R1-7500, but it also has the RENA overlay, which would develop a minimum of 88 units. We were concerned about parking. We were concerned about access. We were concerned about view sheds into the surrounding single-family homes. Based on our work with a project architect who is specialized in multifamily development. A standalone project at this site with the minimum density would probably be somewhere between five stories and up. Mr. Bastrong also owns the property immediately adjacent, which is at 1983 Alluvial. So we thought three and a half years ago that we ought to talk to staff about blending the densities. In other words, how if we put both properties together and said, could we blend the densities, push buildings away from the homes closer to Alluvial Avenue, unified open space, unified access. But your city doesn't have a mixed use density ordinance. and they weren't interested in developing one at that time. We even spoke to Housing and Community Development at the state with our idea to say, look, I know Clovis is under a judgment. Would this work? And we got nowhere. They were absolutely unhelpful. We were embarrassed that our time was so useless. But we continued our conversations with City of Clovis staff And in June of 2024 asked to join the infill program that you have this evening based on a commitment from city staff that we would continue to work on an infill mix of blending of densities. We also continue to work on our assessment of how much the project would cost and how it would look. And in January of 2026 January 15th precisely staff got back to us and said that they could blend densities if we he'd restricted a certain number of units for low-income housing, which we thought, at least potentially, we would do. And then later in January, we were told that of our 164 units, again, theoretically, as a minimum that we would have, 66 of these units would have to be low-income, and 11 plus or minus would be mixed-income zoning as your program tonight. So about 47% of all of our units would be low-income housing. We don't believe that the site physically can accommodate this number of units without adverse impacts to adjacent properties, and we are absolutely sure that it financially does not work. We believe that the purpose of the hearing tonight and the activities of the past three or four years of staff is to designate sites that actually do develop multifamily units, not just designate sites for the purpose of having them on a general plan map. Staff did not evaluate additional alternative sites for problems just like this. So the burden is going to land on my client if at some time later he desires to process a general plan amendment. State law also hasn't known that last requirement which means he would have to make up the last unit somewhere else in the community. We ask that we be relieved of our responsibility to join this program for the reasons I just stated. and would be happy to answer any questions if you have them of me.

Thank you for your comment. Thank you.

Is it on? My name is Alice Silverman, and I'm referring to Site 72. I believe it's about two acres. It's adjacent. It's just at Peach and Knees. And we currently have an orthodontist office on the corner and some other offices, businesses that are tied into that. The owner of the property initially came to wanting to put in either apartments or homes at one time and he was met with a lot of opposition. It's right across the street from the Buchanan complex. So you can only imagine what the traffic is like. We had another person who alluded to that as well. This area is so small. I can't imagine trying to fulfill the requirement of an R3 or an R4 rezoning. It's currently R1 and I would urge you to keep it as R1.

good evening my name is barbara hyoko and i live on north main avenue and referring specifically i believe it's 157 159 the two that have been talked about the most tonight and i i do agree with everything that has been said tonight but particularly listening to the last gentleman that was speaking It does appear to me that there needs to be much more assessment as to what's going on with these sites. Now no one wants this to happen in their backyard and I understand that. But it just appears that perhaps there hasn't been enough that I would hope that it wasn't just establishing a map. that have really looked at the impact. And I do think that 25 percent of the units going in and those two parcels that I'm talking about that is significant to that community. And I just have to give you a little anecdote. A few years ago a number of residents in that community went to the city to talk about traffic and speeding and particularly speeding on richmond and on quincy and the city really responded well they came out they put up a one of those little machines that tracked the traffic and they said yes there was speeding and people were going forty to forty five miles an hour in a twenty five mile an hour zone but the city said that was acceptable So we've seen it increase. There is drag racing Thursday night Friday night Saturday night. Everybody can probably hear it out there and this is going to impact traffic tremendously. So I really urge you to think very carefully about this and also the city may need to go back and reassess the properties that they've chosen. So again thank you for your help and I hope you will consider all these things. Thank you.

Do we have anyone else that would like to speak in opposition of this project?

Hello council members. My name is Jason Horg. I also live in the 157 with 150 year is 159 161 area that's being impacted. I wasn't planning on speaking but what came to mind and I wrote this and I had some correspondence with I believe your deputy city planner her name escapes me right now. But we went through a lengthy battle over the the Clovis boundary fight. And what confuses me is if the traffic concerns the impact, given that Dry Creek is highly impacted, so is Bud Rank, so is Clovis North that it would feed to, Given all those things that you guys should have on record the traffic that was just mentioned recently if in the end like my my proposal along with feeler similar ones were actually used in the final draft of that boundary change and it led to None. No change in our area. So they didn't change the boundaries on the other side of 168 or on our side 168 given all the considerations. So knowing that how could you guys possibly have picked those two locations given all of those problems. It doesn't add up. It doesn't make any sense to me in the slightest. So thank you.

I'm going to ask that you please withhold from clapping. Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to speak in opposition. Very well seeing none we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back for commission discussion and clarifying questions from staff. Mackenzie, do you want to take this opportunity to respond to any of the questions that were posed by the public?

Yeah, just a couple. As someone mentioned, I briefly touched on the process. If a property owner in the future wanted to change their designation, they would be permitted to do so. They would have to submit for a general plan amendment and rezone. As part of a general plan amendment, they do have to submit a compelling reason for support. Those applications would be coming before the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. That was the only thing, unless there was something else.

I believe they also asked possibly cost associated with that. I'm sure it just depends on the project.

I don't have the exact number, but it is in the thousands.

Okay, thank you. Does Commission have any clarifying questions for staff?

I do. I have a couple questions here. So maybe I misunderstood. I thought I heard you say, McKenzie, that this was not going to be subject to the no net loss requirement.

Correct. This proposal is not subject to the no net loss. All properties are being up zoned to residential. What was mentioned is if, for example, a property, I'm just gonna generalize, if a property is to be rezoned as part of the program, and in the future they come back and their property is zoned R3 and they come back and want to zone to a lower density, they do have to comply with SB 330, with Senate Bill 330 in regards to the loss of units. So another site would have to be rezoned in that situation to accommodate the loss of units.

Okay, yeah, a little bit nuanced there, but.

Correct, but not with this proposal. Yes, this proposal is upzoning, so we do not have to, if this project was dropping the density of parcels, we would also have to upzone somewhere else.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that. And then, can you talk a little bit about the process? I know, as I've sat on the commission for many years now, and I have school-aged children, I do have some concerns and maybe even criticisms about Clovis Unified keeping pace with the growth that's happening particularly in the north areas. Was there has there been dialog. I know my understanding is the city and Clovis Unified are probably in fairly constant contact about different things but can you help educate us a little bit on the dialog that is occurring with the school districts.

yeah so we probably renee can address to how often but we do meet with the school district regularly the school district is aware of the infill rezone program one of their sites is actually part of the program that's the site that i mentioned that would have the split zoning designation we have not received anything in opposition when projects come in for development The school district is also routed projects for development and they do provide comments. Typically their comments are for the developer to pay into their fees based on the type of development, number of units, et cetera.

I'll go ahead and add to Mackenzie's explanation which is spot-on we hold quarterly meetings with Clovis Unified School District we also have joint meetings with our City Council and their board we're constantly talking about applications that have been submitted potential projects that are coming in we're looking at land use because they're trying to forecast out what their school needs will be so in addition to actual applications that are being routed were in constant communication with the school district. And it's Clovis Unified, Sanger Unified, anybody that's within our boundaries.

And if I may share one more item too on that is, during right now the general plan update process, I mentioned earlier the general plan advisor committee. It's a member of citizens of Clovis and other stakeholders. And Clovis Unified is a member of that body. So they're involved in our general plan process. they're well aware of our future growth projections and where the city is heading and into the next 30 plus years thank you no further questions at this time any other questions

So Mackenzie just to confirm right now there's no projects actually being proposed so this land could still potentially sit vacant for many years before it is ever developed.

Correct. Yeah. Each each property owner is each property is privately owned and those property owners will decide when they wish to develop.

And so any concerns regarding traffic, impact to schools, all of that's also going to have to be reviewed at that time and go through all of the subsequent reviews and departments.

Correct. When projects are submitted, they are routed to several departments and agencies. And we obtain comments from the public utilities, our engineering division, flood control, air district. All agencies are routed projects as they come in for development. OK.

And then finally, just to clarify, all these properties, they were all well aware of this. They either asked to be part of the program or they were aware they are part of the program. So it's not the city going, we're going to take this land and make it an infill reason. They were actually.

Correct. Yes. four property owners that were originally included we did reach out to those and that's why with the ten that were requested to be removed before we were able to remove them we with the additional sites that requested to be added we would we wanted to have sites that were owned by property owners that were interested in the program We would rather have that versus site and property owners not wanting to be included. So we were lucky that we got six additional sites that requested to be included so that we can remove the 10. But yes, all property owners were notified.

Okay. And then a couple of follow up in the packet. There were some concerns regarding out at Harlan Ranch where it was going to be shops, you know, whatever kind of commercial is this reason going to take away? Is there going to be any spots that they can still have commercial out there or is this taken away from anything? Because there was some illusion in in the packet that this was agreed upon by the city that that would stay as commercial.

so the specific property so site 157 is that if that's when you're referring to that site would be fully redesignated to the r3 zone district so any use that's permitted in the r3 zone district would be permitted and commercial uses would not okay so is there any other commercial out there I'm gonna is this gonna be taking away the only commercial that they have available out there that is not yet developed There is, I don't know, George, if you want to add in, there are maybe not adjacent as close proximity to the site or to that master plan.

But I want to assure you, not just of myself, but our fellow.

I read the reports tonight. I expected some of the things that came up tonight and some of them I didn't. One of the things I did expect was I knew that one of the parcels on the outskirts of town I expected some of those comments those comments I know some of the people who actually purchased out there were led to believe one thing and now it's changing they were led to believe that there was good commercial out there that doesn't leave a good taste in my mouth about that there was going to be commercial and coffee shops and Now I'm hearing that it's gonna be rezoned. What I'm perplexed about is that once the genie's out the bottle, it's hard to put it back in. And so that's what troubles me. Once we rezone it and we realize that we're only talking about rezoning and environmental and land use, I get it. But I think once that genie's out the bottle, it's hard to put back in. We really have to sometimes we have these discussions where and I think you all know I struggle with traffic. That's kind of my big, big push button here is traffic, traffic, traffic. So I'm sitting here saying, hey, we've got to make a decision. I don't want to cost the taxpayers any more money by going having another lawsuit or being sued again. But at the same time, I hear these folks, and I feel the passion, and I think all my colleagues do too. So this is where I'm troubled right now. And so I'm really having a struggle within myself. How do we proceed and make this a win-win as opposed to a win and we just kick the can down the road? I mean, that's my point tonight.

I would like to echo the other commissioners and thank you all for coming out and speaking. I know that most of you don't generally do that and don't like to do that. In regards to your comment about you reached out and emailed some of us a lot of us don't actually respond and correspond until we actually are at a public meeting so that it's on record and that we're all getting the same information. So I don't want you to think we were ignoring you. That's just kind of how the practice has been at least for myself. I hear all the concerns, I echo them in terms of traffic and development, especially in Harlan Ranch where the traffic is really bad on the streets. The one thing that I can say and that I'm holding out hope on is we don't have any projects. And so this is just rezoning the land. It may be years, it may be decades before this land is developed. It may never be developed. It may sit vacant as it has for many, many years. When the time comes and there is a project that is brought before us, there will be all the due diligence to make sure that all of the traffic studies are done and everything is done to make sure that that project will align with Clovis and align with what should be out there and what can be out there and what the infrastructure can hold. So I have great faith in our staff and all of our departments in making sure that they're able to to guide us and let us know if a project comes in that is not able to be maintained at what the rate is. We hear a lot of people who don't want anything next to them. If it's a vacant lot they want it to stay a vacant lot. They don't want any development. They certainly don't want a two story apartment complex. I have yet to have anybody come up in all of my years of care who wants a two story apartment complex. Unfortunately, that's where we're going. The city does a fantastic job in working with developers, and if you have a two-story or a three-story apartment complex, that generally has a much higher setback than a two-story home would. You actually have a much better vantage point if you have an apartment behind you than a two-story house five, 10 feet from the backyard fence. So having said all that, I don't see going forward an issue with these particular rezones tonight. I think when individual projects come forward, there might be some obstacles that are going to have to be overcome. But that isn't an issue or debate for tonight. Tonight is just simply the rezone. Okay, I will make a motion to approve resolution recommending the City Council adopt an environmental assessment pursuant to government code section 65759 for general plan amendment 2024-003 and rezone 2024-002. Second.

I have a motion from Commissioner Hatcher and a second from Commissioner Bedstead. Commissioner Hatcher? Yes. Commissioner Bedstead? Yes. Commissioner Hebert?

No.

Commissioner Hinkle?

Yes.

Chair Antuna?

Yes.

The motion carries 4-1 with Commissioner Hebert voting no.

I make a motion to consider approval GPA 2024-003 a resolution recommending the City Council approve amendments to the general plan and associated specific master plans to redesignate 20 partials from various land use designations to the high density residential and very high density residential.

Second.

I have a motion from Commissioner Hatcher and a second from Commissioner Bedstead. Commissioner Hatcher.

Yes.

Commissioner Bedstead.

Yes.

Commissioner Heber.

No.

Commissioner Hinkle.

Yes.

Chair Antuna.

Yes.

Motion carries 4 1 with Commissioner Heber voting no.

And I'll make a resolution make an amendment to consider a reason on 2024 dash 0 0 2 a resolution recommending the city council approve a rezoning of 20 partials from various zone districts to the R3 and R4 zone districts.

And I'll second.

I have a motion from Commissioner Hatcher and a second from Commissioner Bedstead. Commissioner Hatcher.

Yes.

Commissioner Bedstead.

Yes.

Commissioner Hebert.

No.

Commissioner Hinkle?

Yes.

Chair Antuna?

Yes.

Motion carries 4-1 with Commissioner Hebert voting no.

Very good. At this time, we're going to go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 736, I believe, until the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 25, 2026 at 6 p.m. here in Council Chambers.

That was quicker than I thought.

I thought I would have been here a long time.