Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. I wanted to let you know we're going to delay our start time for just a few minutes. Our city attorney is running a little behind. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the September 10th, 2026 meeting of the City of Clovis Planning Commission. Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings by accessing and listening to the webcast on the city's website, providing written comment at the same website, or coming in in person and attending our meetings here. Secretary, could you please call this meeting to order? Please join me in the flag salute. Commissioner Hinkle will be leading us.

Please join us.

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. Commissioner Secretary, if you could please call roll.

Commissioner Bedstead.

Here.

Commissioner Hebert.

Here.

Commissioner Hatcher.

Here.

Commissioner Hinkle. Here. Chair Antuna.

Here.

All present voting.

I would like to motion for approval of the minutes for the August 27, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

Make a motion to approve. I'll second.

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

Yes.

Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Hatcher?

I'm going to abstain since I was not present.

Commissioner Hinkle?

Yes.

Chair Antuna?

Yes.

The minutes are approved four to one with Commissioner Hatcher abstaining.

Commission Secretary, are there any comments this evening?

Good evening, just one. We have the General Plan Advisory Committee meeting coming up next week on the 17th at the Clovet Transit Center. It's gonna be regarding parks, recreation, and public safety. All the material for that meeting is available on our website. Thank you.

Very good. Are there any comments from the commission members? Seeing none, now we will hear any comments from the public. This is an opportunity for the members of the public to address the Planning Commission on any matter within the Planning Commission jurisdiction that is not currently listed on your agenda. In order that everyone be heard, I ask that you please limit your comments to three minutes. Do we have anyone in the public who would like to speak? Yes, if you could please come to the podium, turn on the mic, state your name and address for the record. Thank you. It is something right now we're only taking public comment for something that is not on the agenda. If the item is on the agenda, you'll have an opportunity to speak at that time. Okay, very good. Okay, seeing that there are none, we're gonna go ahead and move to the public portion of our meeting. Item two, consider approval of CUP 2026-006, adopting a class 32 categorical exemption from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and approving a conditional use permit to allow the sale of beer and wine beverages for off-site consumption for a 24-hour convenience store located at 2585 Owens Mountain Parkway. Dave Kirk, LLC owner, bottom line group applicant, and Eric Garcia will be presenting for staff.

Good evening, commissioners. Good evening, chair. So this project outlined here in red is on the northeast corner of North Temperance Avenue and Owens Mountain Parkway. It has a land use designation of mixed use business campus. It is within a PCC zone district. That PCC is called the Sunrise Pavilion Shopping Center and the shopping center is surrounded Sorry. The shopping center is surrounded by RT or Research and Technology Park. This is a little outdated photo, but that's the most up-to-date photo that we have. The site is developed a lot more than it is showing. There is no proposing changes to the site physically for this request, but I'll get more to that in a few slides. So some background on this project. In October 27th of 2022, CUP 2022-005 was approved by the Planning Commission and that CUP was for a 24 hour convenience store with a fuel station and to be able to sell liquor and alcoholic beverages or for a type 21 ABC license. That was subsequently appealed for the Type 21 ABC license and the 24-hour component of the CEP. In December 17th of 2022, the City Council denied that appeal and upheld the Planning Commission's approval. And they added a condition prohibiting the sale of liquor or a Type 21 ABC license. Since then, the applicant has worked with staff, planning staff and Clovis Police Department and is requesting to amend CUP 2022-005. For a more limited ABC type 20 license for the ability to sell beer and wine for off-site consumption. I So a Type 20 ABC license is required for off-site beer and wine sales. ABC and the Clovis Police Department have discretion over approval for ABC licenses. This project is in Census Track 5512, highlighted here in red. Most of this track's ABC licenses are near Herndon and Fowler location. This item was routed to the Clovis Police Department and they have no issues or concerns or opposing this project this item was noticed to the business journal on august 21st 2026 notices were also mailed to property owners within 800 feet of the subject property no public comments were received the city has determined that this project is exempt from sequa through a class 32 exemption And with that, staff has determined that the CUP was able to meet the findings for the conditional use permit. It is consistent with the general plan and no opposing comments were received. So with that, staff does recommend that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving this conditional use permit subject to the conditions of approval. That concludes my presentation. I'm here for any questions. Corporal Russell Mooring is also here if you have any questions regarding the ABC.

Are there any questions for staff, any questions? Okay, we're gonna go ahead and open the public hearing portion of this. Is the applicant present? If you could please state your name and address for the record.

Addresses 7 9 8 century Lane Clovis California name is Jay Burke president CEO bottom line group and we're the development firm behind this project. Thank you chair. Thank you planning commission city staff and fellow Clovis Indians for allowing us to do this project.

Are there any questions of the applicant. Seeing none. Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time I'd like to invite anyone in the public who would like to speak in support of this project. Seeing none, at this time I'd like to invite anyone who would want to speak in opposition of this project. Seeing none, we're gonna go ahead and close the public hearing portion and bring it back to the Commission for deliberation. We're good? Okay.

All right, well, there's no discussion. I will make a motion that we approve CUP 2026-006.

I'll second.

I have a motion from Commissioner Bedstead and a second from Commissioner Hebert to approve CUP 2026-006. Commissioner Bedstead?

Yes.

Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Hatcher? Yes. Commissioner Hinkle? Yes. Chair Antuna? Yes. Motion passes 5-0.

Moving on to item number three. Consider items associated with 7.39 acres located on the southeast corner of Shaw and Locan Avenues. City of Clovis is the applicant. Consider approval a resolution recommending the city council approve an exemption from further environmental review under public resources code 21080.085. B, consider approval of GPA 02026-004, a resolution recommending that the city council approve an amendment to the general plan to redesignate the subject property from a low density residential 2.1 dash through four point dwelling units per acre land use to high density residential 15.1 to 30 dwelling units per acre land use designation. And item C, consider approval resolution R2026-003, a resolution recommending the city council approve a rezone of the subject property from an R-17500 single family residential low density zone district to an R3 multifamily high density zone district. Marissa Parker will be presenting for the city.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Commission. So before I hop into my presentation, I did just want to let you know that the first half of my presentation will be a little bit more of background on our housing element and our RENA allocation, and then we will get into the site specifics. So as you know, each city and county is required to adopt a housing element as part of its general plan. We are currently in our sixth cycle housing element, which was adopted on November 4th, 2024, and certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development on December 17th 2024. This housing element does span a period of eight years. So from 2023 to 2031 and a component of it does require us to allocate land for our regional housing needs allocation, otherwise known as RHNA, which is what I will refer to it throughout this presentation. And with RHNA, we do have to continually track it by income level, permitted units issued by affordability, and our total remaining RHNA. So on the screen you will see a chart and on the left hand side there is a green column outlined in red and it indicates our RHNA allocation by income level. So you'll see for very low, low, moderate and above moderate we do have a total RHNA of 8,977 units and those are broken down into those four categories. Over the past three years, so 2023 to 25, we have issued a certain number of units that you can see here, which left us with a total remaining RHNA of 7,535 on this side right here. There it is. And for this purpose, we will be focusing primarily on the low and very low categories of that chart. And the tracking is particularly helpful in the case of government code section 6 5 8 6 3 which is the no net loss law that was approved back in 2019. And the purpose of that is to ensure that we have sufficient development opportunities throughout our planning period and throughout the city to accommodate the RHNA allocation. So the no net loss law is activated when a development application is approved on a lower or moderate income RHNA inventory site with fewer units or at a higher income level than was assumed in the housing element. At any time during the planning period the city has an unmet RHNA We are required to identify and make available a replacement site within 180 days and doing so will ensure that the city is in compliance with our RENA obligations our no net loss law and our housing element policy H 2.6 which is specifically discussing the no net loss of housing stock throughout the city. And this could happen multiple times. It really just depends on what applications we get and if they so happen to be on an inventory site. So starting this year we had a RHNA capacity of 4,690 units for our low and very low categories. Trying to highlight it, oh there it is, okay, here. Our RHNA units that we needed for our low and very low categories was 4,475. So with that we had a 215 unit surplus. Then a application MFR DR 2025-001 was approved and this project resulted in a loss of 236 units because they were not deed restricted units. With that we had a remaining capacity of 4,454 which resulted in a deficit of 21 units. Then tract map 6550 was approved, which resulted in a loss of 156 units because the units built were at a higher density than prescribed in the housing element, which gave us a remaining capacity of 4,298. And that is a total deficit of 177 units. So we only had 180 days to find a new site and there is a specific criteria that must be met. Not only does it have to be suitable for multifamily development within the city boundaries between point eight and 10 acres in size. It also has to be vacant or underutilized not a part of any of our other housing programs and per the housing element element it would be assumed to develop at 24 dwelling units per acre in the R3 zone district. So based on that criteria the site selected is 3030 Shaw Avenue which is located at the southeast area of Shaw and Locan Avenues. It is within our Loma Vista specific plan area. It is approximately seven point three nine acres in size. There are two requests associated with this project. The first is a general plan amendment and that would result in the adjustment of the lands GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY TO HIGH DENSITY AND THERE'S ALSO A REZONE ASSOCIATED WHICH WOULD ADJUST THE ZONING FROM R17500 TO R3. Doing so would accommodate for 177 units in the city. This would be consistent with our RENA obligation for the low income category. Additionally there is no physical development proposed with this project. It is just the rezoning of the land and any future development they would need to come in with separate development applications. With general plan amendments, our Clovis Municipal Code does require that two informational meetings are held. The first was held in this room on Tuesday, July 28th. We did mail notices to the property owners within 800 feet. There were about 15 folks who joined the meeting at that time, and there were comments on traffic, property values, and impacts on public services and schools. After this planning commission meeting we will be holding a second neighborhood meeting prior to the city council. We also did publish a notice of this hearing in the business journal on Friday August 21st as well. Staff did analyze the project for compliance with CEQA. It was determined that the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA under public resources code 21080.085. which is an exemption for rezoning land that is necessary for compliance with the housing element. Additionally, this exemption can be utilized for the general plan amendment since it is related to the rezone and it is required to maintain consistency with the general plan. So this project is consistent with the goals and policies of arena obligations no net loss law and housing element policy H 2.6. There is no physical development associated with this project. Again any future will require separate applications and staff is recommending that the planning commission adopt resolutions recommending that the city council approve GPA 20 26 0 0 4 and rezone 2026-003. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Are there any clarifying questions for staff from the commission?

Yes. Did staff choose this piece of property to rezone into this, or was it, who brought it to you, I should say?

We evaluated a number of sites throughout the city, and it met the criteria listed on the slides. And then we also had received interest from the property owner.

Thank you. I have a couple of things. So kind of following Commissioner Hinkle's question, The is the only reason this project is in front of us is because the property owner wanted to proceed versus presenting options for the commission to consider.

No the process is that staff would select a site and move forward. So even if it weren't this site we would be bringing a site before you.

So the committee so generally speaking the commission would only see a recommendation for a single site not a option analysis for us to choose from. Is that correct. That is correct. OK. The adjacent I guess lot or property I guess that's to the east. Can you tell us a little bit about that and what is planned there.

Yes. So that project I know a little.

Okay, so I can assist with that. So the site to the east has an approved multifamily design review application. It does have a multifamily design review application that was approved. I don't have the number of units. Essentially a multifamily complex was approved at that location.

And that project counts against our RHNA numbers?

If there is an inventory, then yes. So if, not all sites are on our inventory, so that site, if it's in our inventory and classified as, let's say a low income category, and they do build the number of units that are proposed, then it will remain. Once they pull permits on that site, if that site was not a low income category and they pull permits, then we'd be able to use those units as part of that category.

Okay. And looking at this project, this is just my funny math, but if we were to create a mirror of these two, the lots are relatively similar in size. It looks like we could be looking at upwards of like 460 units if both were to be built out. I'd imagine we may not know that

Potentially yeah, I don't remember the exact number but let me see if I can do a quick calculation so seven So the lowest that potentially could be on this site is 140 Because that's at the 20 units per acre We assume a density of 24 because that's what we use for our housing element So that's just an assumed density that we'll use but it could range from 140 to

about 220. okay and i i was just kind of doubling that higher number to think yes if they're similar yeah similar so i i came up with like 460 but call it 440. so okay um And and as this site was evaluated were we mindful of the fact that that was also in play with.

Yes yes yes staff was aware that that site was approved for multifamily project.

Thank you. My next question is and this may end up more of a discussion but I did take time And I appreciate the table that showed us where we started with RHNA, the multifamily project 2025. There it is, MFRDR2025-001. I don't recall that. And I wasn't able to go back in my notes to see exactly when that was approved, but that created the net loss of 21 units. Um, but I did go back and rewatch the planning commission meeting for track map 65 50. And I'm, I guess kind of what I'm trying to understand is We may not be able to solve that for this today, but there was no mention that I could find in our discussion or even my quick review through the packet historically that said we were going to create a net loss of 177 units. And that actually was probably one of the my favorite projects that came before us the track map sixty five fifty uh... i know i've been vocal about uh... the density that the developers continue to pursue and i do recognize california forces some of that but i also think our developers are taking advantage of that to maximize density and profits i'm a big advocate of wanting to see diversity in housing and i think that goes both ways not just highly dense and affordable but also bigger lots and things that families can take part in and enjoy as they have the financial means to do so i i guess regrettably i i wish we would have known that this was going to create something like that so my question to staff is why don't we at the time a project is coming before us know what the net impact is and why do we not consider identifying a suitable replacement before that project is approved essentially giving us some option analysis to say we're going to take this action but there's a result that we're going to have to deal with and ideally we're not going to deal with it 180 days down the road because that that could affect our decision proceeding with with what's before us that evening so i'm just trying to understand if there if there's a reason or is a reason why we don't do that and i guess maybe even ask that that's something we consider in future tracks that do create disruption because it's certainly not lost on me that city staff spend a lot of time on rena and for the public i mean it it's kind of an exhausting activity to stay on top of a lot of this stuff but those are just things that i'm processing through and this one's hard for me as a result of kind of some of the mechanics that have played out here

Okay, so I'm gonna try to address it, and if I miss something, just let me know. So with the inventory, when the city calculates the inventory for sites, we're selecting sites throughout the city through that sick cycle to try to meet the numbers. It is not the developer or the applicant's obligation to find another site. It becomes the responsibility of the city. So that's why it's not something that we mention with the project. We can mention in the future. I'll let Matt maybe touch on really what can be considered with the approval of that project because, again, it is not the responsibility of the developer. It is the responsibility of the city to find a site that would essentially replace that inventory So while originally we selected that site to be part of the inventory when a site is developed that property owner has a THEIR OWN ABILITY TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY WANT TO BE MARKET RATE, THE NUMBER OF UNITS WITHIN WHAT'S PERMITTED WITHIN THE LAND USE AND THE ZONING, BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S THE CITY'S OBLIGATION TO FIND A REPLACEMENT SITE. IT'S NOT LIKE THE SENATE BILL 330 WHERE IF A DEVELOPER REDUCES THE RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY FROM A SITE, THEY HAVE THAT OBLIGATION TO FIND A REPLACEMENT SITE. IN THIS INSTANCE AND WITH THE INVENTORY SITES, IT'S THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY. AS SHE MENTIONED, WE HAD A SURPLUS AND SO PROJECTS ARE COMING IN. WE ARE TRYING TO FIND SITES THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT COULD QUALIFY AND THEN currently right now we're trying to reach out to those property owners so then that way when we do have an application that is submitted that we start that process first to see and try to reach out to property owners that do have an interest to be part of of that project so that when that project gets approved then we can come back with a site So we're trying to do that now where we have a list of sites or Yeah, an inventory of sites where we think that we'd be able to go And get the units if we get another project that comes through But ultimately we know at the time that some projects submit for a pre-application through our DRC process so at that point we can start looking to see if hey when they submit we're going to have to try to find other sites and right now we're trying to work with property owners that are interested in that change and so these will be more often coming in because we'll have other projects that may come in that don't develop at that category and we'll have to find the replacement because this will bring us to a zero

And I just want to play back to you what I think I just heard here. So essentially what you're saying is we're trying to build a queue, if you will, even though it may not be listed in the arena. We're trying to almost pre-identify things that are kind of in a pipeline that could be brought forth when something's proposed. Is that what I'm?

well the site so we're looking throughout the city to see if there's other sites that would meet the criteria so that if a project came in today and was for 150 units and it wasn't any low income it was just a market rate we would try to find other sites to meet that 150 because again if if this is approved and it brings us to zero and then if that project gets approved then we're back at negative so we would try to come up and as i mentioned we could only increase that if projects are actually built that are deed restricted then we can add back to the to that so at some point if we're at zero and then the project that you mentioned to east of this pulls permits and they are issued permits then we'll be able to count that as a positive or the surplus to that category

But just for precision on that, that may or may not fall in these lower income brackets. Correct. It'll fall somewhere in the RHNA mapping. Yes.

So if it is a deed restricted project, then those would count under this category.

Right. Okay. And I mean, kind of stating the obvious, I think this is going to be the categories that we're probably going to wrestle with the most. Yes. So that's why my advocacy, I guess, is for you know, we, as a city, I think we really need to try to get ahead of this. We need to, we either, we either need to identify them and, and then they're in the surplus or we need to have some kind of high level of confidence that they're sitting in the parking lot, so to speak, and could be brought in. Um, and I do understand, ideally we want to have property owners that want to pursue that or developers that would want to pursue that versus just kind of canvassing the city and starting to pick sites that may folks may contest. Um, if, if those properties get selected for, for something like this. So, okay. I, I, I think you've answered my question. I, again, I don't, I don't know that I like this necessarily. I recognize this something we're dealing with. Um, and again, as I was reading the packet, it, it just really stood out to me that I feel like we're behind the eight ball here and we're can't, uh,

can't do too much so okay thank you and commissioners if i may just kind of interject in regards to the track map 6550 that you mentioned one thing about the rena no net loss issue is that you can't there's actually within that government code section a provision that says you can't consider that loss in deciding that project so i think what like you mentioned what should have happened was identifying those sites just so you know this is going to be arena inventory you might run into this deficit issue and we have i discussed with staff that we're going forward i think we're going to have it a lot more smooth But even in the Planning Commission's recommendation and what would go before council if there was any kind of project, that, pursuant to the government code, that couldn't be grounds to deny a project. Something to consider, yes, but it wouldn't be, I just wanted to mention that from the government code section related to that, is that it wouldn't be grounds to deny a project. If a project was going to create a deficit in our remit inventory, you couldn't deny it on that ground. That's the only thing I kind of wanted to bring up there with that. Let me know if there's any other questions related to that process.

The proposed development there, are they going to have garages required?

Are you referring to this site?

Yes.

We don't have a development application for this site now.

Would you most likely require garages?

No, our code would require covered parking. It doesn't necessarily require covered parking.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that I've looked at some of the new projects we have going on, and they have six cars parked in the street. And I happen to see two garage doors open, and they were Daryl Mini storages. Can we create an ordinance to require them to have at least one parking space in a garage?

So that's something that we could look into. Our current code does not require, we just require covered parking. It would be very difficult to enforce. A lot of the communities are gated. So unless we would get some code enforcement violations, then that's when staff would go out. But that's something that we can consider through a code update. But we can look into that.

you know and a neighbor indicated community could not like the idea that his neighbor has three cars parked in his front yard so he would then go to be able to go to the city and say joseph small over here has a daryl many storage and we need to make arrangements to get one of the cars into that garage not in our current part not in our current yes what i'm saying is if week that would That would allow someone to do that if we do create it even though it's in a gated community.

If it was in the code requirement that one of the parking spaces that was in a garage needed to maintain open for parking, then yes.

Yes, I would like to see planning look into that and possibly creating that because I see the problems arising and we're seeing now more families living together now. So instead of just having mom and dad's house, we got the kids coming back and living in the houses with them and some coming back with their families. So we're creating a lot more vehicle parking than we had anticipated in those communities. So if we can do something to control that, I think that'll help us down the road.

I just want to add, and thank you for the comment, I don't want to get too far off the topic, but I appreciate your comment. There will be an opportunity in probably the spring of 2027 where we have a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and the City Council. We're keeping a list of topics, and this is one that I've heard brought up in the past, and staff can definitely do some research, have it as a topic item, and get feedback from both Planning Commission and City Council on how to proceed.

Thank you.

Do we have any additional clarifying questions for staff. Seeing none we're going to go ahead and open the public portion of this meeting. Do we have anyone in the public that would like to speak in support of this project. Seeing none, is there anyone in the public that would like to speak in opposition to this project? Okay, very well. So one at a time, if you can step up to the mic and state your name and address for the record. And you have three minutes, thank you.

Hello, Eugene King. Property address, 1941 Whitmore Avenue, right there on Loken and Shaw, right there. Also bought property right behind mine and a big investor in the community, tried to open up a nonprofit in the community. I'm a... Executive owner, CEO of a nonprofit, Go Hoops, out here. I tried to work with the Planning Commission to also build a gym for kids privately and try to do a joint facility where we went back and forth with the Planning Commission at the time about a couple years ago. So going back to this is, basically there's a few things that I wanna note. Number one, the first project that got approved went through a totally different process than what has been allocated to me when I was trying to build a facility where you had to go through all these codes. We skipped all those steps where somebody in the back room just signed off on it, right? We didn't go through all the traffic studies and the CEQA and all the proper steps that we were supposed to to build the first project, the first apartment approved project. And then if I heard you correctly, is it a press? Yeah, McKinsey. McKinsey. Is no enforcement. So even if we do change the plan, we can't actually force the developer to actually make it low density or low income or to meet the requirement. Is that correct?

Can you I'm not sure I understand.

So if we change the zoning plan there's no guarantee that we'll still be able to meet that number because they can charge whatever they want for rents.

Correct. The zoning is just a land use change. It does not. We put the category for low income but if the development comes in at market rate then we'll have to find another site.

Awesome. So changing the planning may not even fix the problem. So we could be doing something for a developer to come in and make a lot of money just to say we did something or we tried, right? A little bit about my background. I'm a computer electrical engineer from Cal Poly. Service all my communities also. I've been in Roseville, lived in Roseville, lived in LA. And I thought this was a great place to live, settle down, bring my family and kids, and just basically grow with a community. And I'm still doing that each and every day. I'm volunteering at Clovis High. I'm going to coach after this. So I was literally trying to get done with the meeting just to coach. But the idea is that some of the proposals, like you mentioned, we're not addressing the issues. We're not coming up with planning. We're just doing things to say we're doing it. It's not actually being planned out. Like not having options on multiple sites and only saying we only have one is... not a way I solve problems as an engineer manager. I always come with multiple different solutions to problems just in case one doesn't work. I have another avenue to go down or maybe one fits. And then we're approving projects with the lack of planning, not considering the fact that it will, how it will address the problem of the multifamily housing. So that was another concern, how we're approving these projects, like you said, and that's not being mentioned in the meeting as we're approving these projects. school, impaction of schools. Talk to a lot of schools, a lot of principals. They're already talking about how impacted the schools is. The amount of people we gonna add is, if we're adding 177 units and multiply by three, we're easily gonna add some for, like you said, people are moving back home with their families and parents and staying in. what usually would be a two person might turn into a four person quickly, four to five people with kids. So the school accommodation would be another concern of mine is where we're looking at impacted schools already and shuffling kids around, meeting the requirements there. Open space, facilities, recreational use, our recreational center is already packed out. So we're gonna add more people to a place where we're already seeing max capacity of people So that's a lot of my concerns that I'm having. And then, like I said, I really moved here for the value of life, and I think this will impact my value of life tremendously for my kids, having so many people walking around, not being able to necessarily know everybody in the community. I throw a block party in my community every year to get everybody together and just to know my neighbors from my street and the streets around. And I think by having a big investment of a big general commercial apartment building will really jeopardize safety, traffic, and everything else. So that's my spiel. Thank you for your comment, Mr. King.

So anyone else who would like to speak in opposition please step up. Mike state your name and address for the record.

My name is Pat Heisler. I live at 3 1 3 9 Poe Avenue right across the street from this property. And it sounds like from all the units that you are planning on putting in sounds like apartments. If that is the case it's going to put my house the value of my house down to nothing. And we have a very nice neighborhood. We're very close. have the best neighbors. And if that is the case we even have a walkway and I can just see the trash. If there's apartments going in there I can just see it's just going to be a mess. And like I said about the garages I agree with that. Cars out in the street it's just going to look run down. I'd rather have single family homes go in there since it's over seven acres. It would just, I think, do the area much better. That's all I have to say.

Thank you for your comment.

Hello good evening my name is Jessica Garcia 22 29 Megan Avenue. I am in the small gated community of Hillcrest located at Shaw and Locan. I do have a question for you Marissa. In your slide I believe the next one or two. Yes. The site selection of vacant or underutilized lot. How does this qualify for that. There is a homeowner on the property.

There is a home on the property but because of the size and the ratio of how much land the home is taking up and the rest is is vacant and it's not like it's being actively farmed or any other purpose other than the small home then it does qualify for underutilized.

Thank you. As you guys have heard from another homeowner Clovis Unified District has already said that the nearby schools are impacted and are not able to accommodate the growth. And that's an issue. I have a student at one of the elementary schools and they are already impacted and adding upwards What for those additional children are not going to be able to be accommodated at the elementary schools the middle schools the high schools. So for low density residential housing, you're looking at upwards to maybe four homes per acre, whereas with high density residential, you're looking at upwards to 30 homes per acre. That is not a small change. And I don't want you guys looking at this property as simply 7.39 acres on a map. There are families who walk to school, ride their bikes to school, who are a community, and There are established homes surrounding the area. The roads, the infrastructures, they don't have enough support right now as it is currently to support something like this. I do want to add that I have called Clovis my home for almost 10 years now, and we specifically chose Clovis from Southern California for its schools, for its neighborhoods, and to get a strong sense of community. I currently serve on our HOA board within our community, so this is something that I am very passionate about. We are asking that you guys put the right housing in the right place. With more traffic, more parking issues, more noise, more demands on our schools and infrastructures, there is greater concerns for privacy and for safety. The original single family plan fits the surrounding neighborhoods. High density multi-family housing, it does not. We are not against the growth, but we want the city to thoughtfully respect the community that is already here, that is already thriving. So we want Clovis to grow without losing what makes Clovis so special. Thank you. Thank you for your comment.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition of this project.

Elliot and again 3036 Twain Avenue Clovis California thank you for giving me this opportunity I submitted written comments to the planning staff in advance of this meeting you've heard two people speak about the burdens to the schools the parking the traffic the noise the safety Those issues were all addressed. I heard nobody speak in favor of the proposed development. I'm a little unclear, are we taking one resolution at a time? Is this the resolution to exempt from further environmental review? Are we taking all three resolutions at the same time?

Each resolution is done independently.

And this is the one on the environmental review, is that correct? and we are right now you're hearing all three of them all three of them yet but when we when we take a vote they'll be done independently okay so i i'm for those same reasons that were expressed by the other residents in the area i look at it in terms of what's it what are the burdens to the community and i see burdens in the at least these areas uh... i point out that there's no center divider uh... locan And to bring that many housing that many residents into that area Without a center divider creates a traffic Traffic hazard I've heard comments that there is not a sufficient parking or proposal for parking in the area comments that it would be a burden on the school noise and safety it I think it is a For those reasons alone I think the Planning Commission should not approve this project. On top of that, I heard no one speaking in favor of the project. And the way I see what I've heard tonight was this is, Project that was selected by the city not by the developer But by the city so that they can meet so that the city can meet the RHNA. I guess you call that Rena Approval and The developer the owner of the property the owner of the property acquired the property while it when it was still the general plan and the zoning was still for single-family residents and low density single family. And so there is no burden to the current owner because the current owner acquired the property without the expectation that it would be turned into higher density residential. So those are in general my oppositions. I'm welcome to answer any questions that others would have of me.

Thank you very much for your comment. Do we have anyone else that would like to speak in opposition of this project.

Hello my name is Michelle Resendez and I live at 3129 Poe. So again right across from the property and just pretty much reiterating what's already been said you know it's a very nice very quiet neighborhood. Traffic is already picked up significantly because I know there's more development going eastward. So just maintaining that neighbor I bought there on purpose I'm from a city I didn't want to live in a city and being near you know any kind of high rise or very dense housing. You're right back to that kind of an issue of you know people and traffic and all of that. And so. Just the quality of life and that's why everyone lives in this area. And again I do agree it's when you look at the properties that are already there trying to maintain that same style of living would be appreciated. And all of the excuse me all the safety concerns. I completely agree with everyone who's already spoken. So thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in public that would like to speak in opposition of this project.

hello my name is Tyson Lang live at 2905 Fairmont and that's right across the street there at Hillcrest my question is is if before we approve something like this or you guys approve it have we gotten results from the school districts and from the traffic studies and everything is it even an option or we're just gonna approve this and then deal with it the headaches of it so I

I don't know if Mackenzie or who wants to address that. Right now we don't have a project before us. So I'll go ahead.

So for traffic studies we usually need project level information. So we haven't run a traffic study for the GPA rezone because there is no physical development with this project. But if one comes, engineering would be requiring a traffic study so we would understand the impacts and what required mitigations would be needed.

So we would just go ahead and say it's OK to do for this amount of population but then do the study afterward to see when the developer comes.

We need the project level information typically with the traffic studies. So we need to know how many units that some of those details that we don't have at this stage with this reason as it's not a physical project yet.

It just seems like if we're going to approve for this amount of people. We should see if our schools and traffic can handle it before we say, yes, we can rezone it to something that busy. That's the way I look at it.

I would also like to add that each of our projects is routed to Clovis Unified and they did provide us a response giving some general information about the schools in this area. And similarly to what Chris was saying when we have a physical development with the exact units and development then they would be giving us additional comments then.

Because that would put like he had said about 400 talking about 400 plus units. That's got to be a high impact and and kids alone there. You see that being an issue and the crowding and reiterating like everybody's saying with traffic being just too much for that small area in my opinion. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone else who 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 deliberation or clarification questions for staff. Questions? No, that's why we're asking, yeah. I have just a couple of questions and Marissa or Mackenzie, whoever wants to. I think there's always confusion when we are rezoning Because it sounds like we're going to develop a project that there's like we are saying there's no environmental study needed. We don't have to do any things that we typically would do. And I think sometimes it creates confusion. So I wanted to maybe one of you can just bring clarification to that that there is no project currently and what the steps would be if a project came before us and what it is exactly that we're doing here tonight.

Right so this project is just the general plan amendment and the rezone to ensure compliance with our housing element arena obligation and no net loss law. In the future if someone did wish to physically develop the site they would need to go through the entitlement process they would need to address the traffic and get traffic studies and they would need to have approval of that, it wouldn't be, it would just be a ministerial approval, correct?

Depending on the project. So if a multifamily project came in at the site, it would be a ministerial review. It is zoned R3 and other uses are permitted in R3. So if it was something else, then they would also comply with whatever requirement, whether it's a CUP, AUP. Very good.

We also had several of our people here tonight mention Clovis, the school district, and the impacts that are being felt throughout. You mentioned that we receive, and I know that we do, we receive correspondence from them. What is their take on our development? Development that's happening throughout I know that they independently provide correspondence for each project that we are looking at, but in general, what is the feeling of the district for the developments that are taking place throughout the city? and possible schools that they might be building in the future.

Yeah, so we meet monthly or bimonthly with the district, with the various school districts that are within Clovis. And so they are aware of what are projects that are coming through because again, we route them to them. So if they are not in support of a specific project, they'll let us know in their letter for this specific general plan and rezone. They did not provide a letter that said they were not in support or that there was not enough capacity. The project, when a development project would come through, they would be required to pay their impact fees and then that project would be routed to them as well. With our general plan process, we also have a representative from Clovis Unified that's on the general plan advisory committee to assist with and be aware of all the growth and the development that will come that the city's planning. So we do coordinate with them. And again, it's just depending on individual projects that come through. We have seen projects where they do not recommend approval. In this case, they did not provide that comment.

Thank you for that clarification. One more thing for me specifically is I know we need to not consider any projects other than the one that's before us. So I will absolutely try really hard to make sure that that's, but as a citizen, as a commissioner, I understand that, but as a citizen, if I lived across the street from this area, it would be of concern to me that the same size lot has already been, there's rezoned and there's a possible project in the works and now we're going to have another project of the same size there. I would be concerned with all the things that have been brought up here before us tonight and I take pause on that because If I was sitting in that chair talking to someone up here in the dais, I would want them to hear that, hey, I'm not against housing and I understand why we're doing what we need to do, but two big projects going in my neighborhood, that's hard. I don't have anything, that's it, it was just a statement.

Yeah, couple things. I think, as I said before, I think it is tough because this particular project highlights a lot of things for me that I think maybe we can do better at. I do think option analysis is important. I think despite having a project in front of us, we need to be mindful of what we're approving and how it does impact, uh, areas. And as almost just said, you know, there's, there's already a lot going on here. Um, not having a guarantee that this would even satisfy our low income is also a concern. I'm afraid we could end up in kind of a whack a mole situation where we're just bouncing this deficit from one location to another, to another, to another, And I don't mean to be a skeptic, but I also don't want to see the city get gamed where builders are saying, yeah, let's do this. It looks like it's going to help you solve this compliance problem, this regulatory problem that you have only to build housing that doesn't even fit the low income needs that we have for conformance. So again, it just really gives me pause and tells me that we as a city need to step back and really try to rethink how we're we're managing this. Otherwise, I am concerned that we're just going to keep chasing it. It. I hear the public's concerns. I mean, we hear lots of projects. Not to be dismissive, I mean, we hear about the concerns with property values. Those are real. We hear about the traffic. We hear about the safety. We hear about the schools. There's a ton of schools impacted, and there's some that aren't. And I know Clovis is changing boundaries, and that has a lot of... That has a lot of feelings that come with it too, whether you're building something or not. People's kids moving schools elicits a pretty emotional response. And I've been in the throes of that myself with my family. And so they're all real considerations for us as we sit here and thoughtfully wrestle with these challenges. You know this commission was recently faced with another similar compliance type problem where non-conformance would potentially bring us to a lawsuit or other legal action and the Commission ultimately as a body approved that and then it went to the City Council and the City Council said we want to see more options. And so again, I struggle with that because I felt just being frank, very uncomfortable with almost under duress, feeling like we had to approve something to check a box and be in conformance so that the city doesn't get sued. And at the same time, we're basically saying, well, we don't like it, so let's go look at other options. So for me, I'm in the I don't like it, we've got to look at other options camp tonight. I think we just need to step back holistically on this. Irrespective of my comments earlier around just density in general, we do have to build a diverse mix of housing. There are going to be apartments in certain areas of the city. There are going to be low density. There's going to be medium density. There's going to be high density. I think we also have to be mindful of how those things blend together. I think part of that is strategic in terms of phasing dense to less dense to more dense or vice versa. So that that's where I stand this evening.

I agree with a lot of what you said Brandon but I think in terms of the city having to chase parcels I think that's always going to be an issue because the city doesn't. We don't build. That's not our job. We plan for where things are going to go. It's up to developers and property owners to make those decisions as to what they're going to build. So I think staff is always going to have the problem of looking for more sites. Again, we're just looking at changing the zoning for this for what could potentially be built. It may never be built. It may be they could come back and want to change the zoning back again. We're just looking at what we're doing to rezone. And I hear you and I understand all of you for the concerns that you have. Like Commissioner Bedstead said, we actually hear that from every neighborhood. We have yet to have hardly anyone ever comes in here and says, please build an apartment next to me. We and I don't mean that rudely, but I've had the same thing. We've had the same thing in our own personal houses in Clovis. People don't want apartments. They don't want high density. They don't want what would be considered low income in their neighborhood. Nobody does. But time after time, we end up having people come back a few years later, and they're like, you know, that apartment complex has no problems. We have neighbors there. The kids go play. And I think it's the fear of what might happen on that piece of property or that land that people have. That fear is worse than what actually ends up happening. Because Clovis is a really small town. We have great fire and great police. And we don't have a lot of the issues that you see in our neighboring cities. And I know everybody thinks it's, you know, it could go bad, but I have faith in our, you know, police and fire that they're going to keep our neighborhoods good and in our Um, planning staff and what we're building. Um, I do, I do hear your concerns in terms of if we approve this and what could happen in it going back as a ministerial, but again, looking at the lot and looking where it's at, I think you could put decent apartments in there that are fine. I don't, I don't think you're going to get something as big as what it could be zoned for. Um, but given where it's at and given where we need to be for arena numbers, I don't have a problem.

With this reason for this lot at this time because there is no project and there's not even one in the pipeline For this to get developed right now So I agree with all my colleagues, I think we this seems like deja vu all over again We're having discussions and I think you know, it's I think someone said Putting the right housing in the right place and that's that's really the challenge, right and and so my thoughts are I don't know why I have the same feeling that I had the last time we went through this but I feel a little bit rushed I feel a little bit that once we made a decision and it went to council they went the option route and when you said options I said oh yeah that's I remember that and that's how I feel right now I guess there's I haven't seen a compelling argument to move forward at this point because I'm a little concerned about two lots being rezoned for the same purpose. And so I'm a little skeptical at this point. I agree apartments can you know there's no project in front of us but I think again I'll just repeat what I said last time once you let the genie out the bottle it's hard to put it back not that you know council can come in and do what they want but I think for for my my thinking right now I think we owe it to the public sometimes to make a compelling argument to them to say hey look these are all the things we considered And we chose this as the best one, and here's the reason why. I'm not feeling that right now. So that's kind of where I stand.

Are there any other comments from commissions?

high and i would like to make a comment and i'd like our city attorney to kind of way and i think the question about compelling reasons is a really important there's a significant difference between what you're referring to for the infill rezone and what we have in front of us tonight as far as the no net loss law and we're up against so i'm gonna turn it over to matt and have him kind of walk through where the city is right now and kind of what is driving

the timeline on this and what it means if we don't do something and we exceed that timeline of 180 days and matt will go through that what that means for the city right so as the staff showed you in the presentation that those projects brought us into the negative on our arena inventory the issue with that is that means our housing element is technically out of compliance and so that was kind of the basis of the lawsuit the martinez lawsuit housing element not being in compliance. There's a safe harbor, I think that's the right term for that, but there's a safe harbor provision regarding the arena no net loss inventory where you have 180 days to correct that issue. So if this does feel a little bit rushed, that's gonna be why, because we have 180 days to replace that inventory before consequences. Now, what those consequences are would be the most basic, I think, consequence could be hcd coming in and saying hey you guys don't have your rena inventory has fallen below what it needs to be your housing element is now invalidated and then there's a few different issues with that which i mean we kind of saw that with the lawsuit which could be enforced by a member of the public or it can be enforced by the attorney general but there's also issues where if you don't have a compliant housing element then there's other issues that can potentially come from developers themselves, such as Builder's Remedy. I don't really want to get into Builder's Remedy because I feel like that's a ways down the road, but there's just a lot of different potential legal consequences from having an in-compliant housing element. This gives the city an opportunity to maintain that. So once we had the six-cycle housing element approved, awesome, we're in the right spot. I think one of the problems is we had a surplus. As the chart showed, we had a surplus of some 200 some odd units to satisfy our arena obligation. And I think, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think when we calculate that arena inventory, it's not based on like the high and the low, it's based on kind of like a median where we think typically when we get projects, what they're gonna develop at. So even though we have a density between 15 to 30 units, we probably put somewhere in the middle to kind of calculate. Is that correct? I think that's how we do it, right? Because of that range, we don't know whether it's gonna go high or low, and if it goes low, which those projects did, even though they were probably developed within the range that they're allowed to, it brings us below what we need them to be at. So that's kind of the problem there. We had a surplus. and those projects developing the way they did just kind of put us in the deficits. But that's why I think you kind of feel that rush is because we're trying to prevent any issues with HCD so that when we get to that 180 day mark, we can say, oh yeah, we're in compliance, and then when we update, HCD yearly on where we're at with our arena compliance. We can tell them, oh yeah, we did have this deficit, but now we're at where we need to be. Because we have to update them, I think, once a year at a certain point in the year to show them where we're at. And so in regards to carrying that inventory, we have to carry it throughout the cycle. So you have this much RHNA obligation, your regional housing need. This is the housing need for the city of Clovis. You have to make sure that you have enough sites zoned for these different income levels, and it has to last through that cycle. So the sixth cycle, which I think is seven, eight years, eight years, eight year period. So throughout that period you have to have that many sites zoned appropriately. So that's what we're trying to do now is make sure that there's no longer a deficit so that there's no issues or potential issues with HCD coming in and saying that your housing element's no good or any kind of issues that we had with the Martinez case. So that's kind of where we're at and that's what we're trying to do now. So just, From a legal standpoint, I would recommend approval. Like staff has said, this is not a specific project. There is no project being brought before the Planning Commission this evening. This is, I think, what we would call a paper rezone, a general plan amendment to make it to where that we can comply with having enough sites zoned, enough parcels zoned to meet our need. But tonight, there's not a project before you to actually build or develop anything. And staff, I believe, is brought up. If there was a project, if and when there is a project, because as mentioned by the audience, there's already a house on the property. If he didn't want to, he doesn't have to, or the property owner wouldn't have to anything he doesn't have to build anything i mean he can just leave it stay there and he can probably leave the project i mean leave the site zone the way it is i mean if you that's up to him i'm not really sure what the plans are but um we don't really know that's kind of where i'm at and also just in regards to what you guys are approving tonight would be a recommendation on the rezone general plan amendment and the sequa uh exemption so just briefly the sequel exemption basically says We're exempt from this, from complying with CEQA because this is a project to comply with the housing element, one of the things within the housing element, and that was made for kind of situations like this by the state. So, like staff has mentioned though, if and when a project does come in, traffic will have to be taken into consideration to make sure there's any mitigations. In regards to schools, schools get development impact fees themselves based on the size of the project, the number of units, and everything else that's kind of laid out in the code as well. So they wouldn't be, I can understand the impact that it would have to schools, but the impacts from a project would also be addressed by the development itself. There's development impact fees for schools in particular relating to development, residential development. Does that address everything? I just want to make sure we're all on the same page on what's being approved tonight. And just for options going forward, so if you want, we can address each one individually, or you can address all three at once. Totally up to you how you guys want to make your motion. But if you have any other questions for me regarding the legalities or anything, just please let me know.

So Steph, just to clarify, the property owner is okay with this, like they're on board with the rezone, but there's no plan at this point to do anything with it? That is correct, yes. So if this is approved tonight, then it goes back and it could be developed on a ministerial level. At what point does any of that development come back to us or city council? Does it not come back?

It's all done ministerially. If it was a multifamily project meeting the density, it would not come back to the planning commission. But if for whatever reason it did not meet that density or there was something unique, then if there was a CUP, it would come. Okay.

And I'm just thinking that if part of the concern that we have is that it doesn't come back to us and it doesn't go to council to review any of it and to hear all of the traffic and all of that, is there a way that we can make that come back to us and have it not be ministerial?

No. That process is a ministerial process.

Okay.

And as long as they're...

Given the fact that this situation might happen more frequently, we might want to see if that's something we could consider.

I don't know if that's just a... We are unfortunately not able to because we have to provide a mechanism for ministerial review for residential development that complies with objective standards. So as long as a project complies with the objective standards, we are unable to... provide any discretionary input on those. As Marissa mentioned, if they are proposing a project and they do not want to comply with the objective standards, they go through a separate process that is still approved at the director level, but there is opportunity for appeal, so that may be something that would come back to Planning Commission, but unfortunately we wouldn't be able to make that modification.

Okay. Because I'm just thinking that might be some of the concerns that we have. Thank you.

Is there any further discussion? Are we ready for a motion?

I don't think we're going to make the same motion. I'll make my motion. I will make a motion to consider approval of the resolution recommending the City Council approve an exemption from further environmental review under Public Resources Code 21080.085.

we have a second we do not have a second so motion fails and do we propose a secondary motion to deny yeah i think it's the preference to have a motion

of some sort be voted on. So I think the preference pursuant to the Planning Commission's procedures is to have a motion or some action taken on the item. So if you were to recommend not approving the CEQA exemption or not approving the GPA or Rezone, you can do that. The item would still go to Council, but Council would be made aware, of course, of the Planning Commission's decision or recommendation on the item.

So for clarification, then we would propose a motion to deny this project.

Right.

Yeah.

Okay. Very good. Do we have someone who would like to propose a motion to deny? And I think we need to individually list them.

Do we need to read them or can I just reference them as items A, B, and C?

I think you can reference them as items A, B, C. If you want to do one motion to carry all three, I think that's fine as long as we can identify based on your motion what the action being taken is or what the recommendation would be from Planning Commission.

OK. I will make a motion to deny items 3A, 3B, and 3C as listed herein.

I'll second.

I have a motion from Commissioner Bedstead and a second from Commissioner Hebert to deny items A, B, and C. Commissioner Bedstead?

Yes.

Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Hatcher?

No.

Commissioner Hinkle? Yes. Chair Antuna?

Yes.

So the motion to deny carries 4-1 with Commissioner Hatcher voting no.

Thank you, everyone, by the way, for coming out. It's really important that you come out here and make your voices heard. We love to hear from all of our community. So thank you for coming out. With that, I'd like to adjourn this meeting at 7.25, and we'll meet here again on October 22nd at 6 p.m.