Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

e CH Salis we're ready for you call a regular meeting of the Selma Planning Commission to order at 6: p.m. on February 24th 2025 Selma city council chamber 1710 Tucker Street Selma California teleconference phone number 301 7158 592 webinar ID 888311804 9306 when on the phone if you wish to address the commission during the public comment portion of the agenda press star n to raise your hand and we will select you from the meeting queue press star six to unmute or mute yourself um 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 liberty and justice for all roll call commissioner Corey here

commissioner Franco present commissioner Garcia here commissioner San Ridge here commissioner K Kesler chair salad here uh potential conflict of interest any commissioner who has a potential conflict of interests may now identify the item and recuse themselves from discussing and voting on the matter no okay um oral Communications notice to the public at this time any member of the public May address the commission regarding any item over which the commission has jurisdiction no action or discussion will be taken on any item not on the agenda issues raised will be referred to the chairperson for review members of the public shall limit their remarks to three minutes is there anyone who would like to say anything during or communication okay uh first item is a consent calendar all items listed under consent calendar are considered routine the complete consent calendar will may be enacted by one motion by roll call vote for purposes of discussion any commission member may have an item removed from the consent calendar and made part of the regular agenda the commission can then approve the remainder of the consent calendar the uh item one on the consent calendar is a consideration and necessary action on the minutes of the January 27 2025 meeting any comment or a motion I make a motion to approve the minutes second second I'll second it roll call commissioner Franco yes

commissioner Corey yes commissioner Garcia yes commissioner Sandridge yes commissioner Kesler chair Salis yes motion approved the next item is a public hearing during the public hearing I will first ask for staff's comments and reports on the item being discussed after staff's presentation I will then open the hearing to public testimony I will then close the public hearing at which time no member of the public shall address the commission unless specifically asked by a member of the commission through the chair the Planning Commission will then discuss the matter amongst themselves and take action on the it item being considered a public hearing Zone ordinance text amendment to recommend approval to the city council to amend the multif family section 11- 2.3 of the zoning ordinance of the Selma Municipal Code the section Amendment will add development standards for Housing Development projects located on identified priority housing sites under the city's housing element to address lower income Regional needs allocation efforts addendum a is draft notice of exemption has been prepared concerning the proposed project in compliance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality act staff's report thank you uh chair Solace um as you know the city um officially adopted its 2023 2031 housing element on November 18th of last year um following that approval staff forwarded the adopted draft to hcd for certification review um in our conversations with hcd

we received one subsequent comment um that uh they requested be added to the zoning ordinance um pertaining to the vacant and underutilized sites um inventory list that's identified in table and that's actually an O It's one o o-7 of the multi-jurisdictional housing element it's not a zero um it's an O um that identifies um certain Provisions for how those properties would be developed in accordance with state law again the housing element is a I'm not going to say weird but it's an abnormal part of our general plan that we do not necessarily have 100% control over um it requires subsequent certification by uh the California Housing and Community Development department and without that certification the general plan could be found to be um out of compliance with state law so um this is a relatively minor addition it'll be a note at the end of the use table uh in the residential zones um one item we did discuss with hcd was the possibility of amending the list uh if we had subsequent projects that were constructed and having those units allocated to other properties that require State approval but it can be done and they were generally supportive of that if you had an approved project to move some of those units off other properties so um with that staff's available for questions um if the count if the uh commission recommends approval this would be forwarded to the March 18th council meeting becau because Council meetings are now on Tuesdays this is a public hearing I item so at this time we'll open the public hearing to comment from the public is anybody anyone

online for all callers on the line star N9 to raise your virtual hand star six to unmute yourself I see no one chair salus okay at this time we will close the public hearing and refer the item back to the commission for discussion I see this as a just a way of getting back in compliance with the state it's mandated we really kind of have to do it right the housekeeping issue correct TR just a housekeeping issue to get us on the same page that is correct as we stated this is really in compliance with uh government code 65583 point2 subsection I uh which identifies specific spe ific minimums for how items identified for your Arena specifically on the inventory list need to be developed so really this is a note um we would have done it anyway they just want it further clarified in the zoning ordinance and this only refers to Apartments it only refers to properties that were identified in the vacant or underutilized site list in the housing element where which were generally zoned R4 or rezoned to R4 as part of the current housing cycle so it doesn't have an impact on any of the housing developments that are and I think it maybe to to clarify projects such as Amberwood is not an affordable housing project so it would not affect that project the properties we're talking about are Again Properties that were identified um in the housing element uh site list um again this is a state mandated item um where we can make accommodations for property owners if there's a general preference maybe they don't want to do affordable housing if we can trade with other properties as we've stated uh we we will try and

facilitate that to the furthest extent allowable this just makes us compliant with hcd requirements okay um so as they're listed as affordable housing can you explain the difference between Section 8 and affordable housing for people that don't understand the difference the City attorney will correct me if I'm incorrect in my in my summary but basically affordable housing or sometimes referred to as Workforce housing is more of a planning and land use type of item and term uh that is for compliance with the housing element it usually has certain minimum standards um in terms of density in most jurisdictions it's 20 units an acre um in addition um it has a specific time frame to provide affordability usually usually upwards of 30 plus years maybe upwards of 50 plus years um in both cases they do refer to the average Medi median income household size which is usually uh from the general average it's a four person household that they use um and then it's like 30% of median income 50% median income 70% median income for low very low and extremely low housing categories but for all intensive purposes affordable housing usually refers to the development aspect of it and the mandate to provide a certain number of units uh Section 8 housing is more of a vouer program uh that is funded by the federal government um that assures some landlords you know a a constant stream of income because it's federally funded right um there's certain mandates for inspection as part of section8 as well um but for all intensive purposes it's more of a voucher rent program um for for private entities to facil to

um not say capitalize on but utilize uh for their project um in most cases affordable housing projects of all types as well as government funded um rental assistance programs require uh periodic inspections of their property so in some cases um these properties may be more maintained or better maintained um because they have mandates to do so because they otherwise lose their funding status if they don't um it's the issue of if you have a project that does not receive any subsidies that then maybe they have to lower rents and then they don't have any oversight and that's when we may have more of a blight issue or a um people call it a a slum Lord issue with lack of Maintenance of the apartment complex lack of um uh background on tenants what have you um so in in for all intensive purposes I think affordable housing projects especially those that may be run by an entity such as the Fresno Housing Authority uh self-help Enterprises or some place like that they have mandates and inspection requirements and and that I think keeps those properties in in better working order in some cases than sometimes even market rate Apartments how does that affect Construction that's a very general question how do you mean um the type of construction the um you know I I don't know if it necessarily affects I I don't think it necessarily affects construction it may draw it out depending on if the affordable housing project is capitalizing on uh income like the tax credits uh construction tax credits um they may have to wait a cycle for those credits to be issued so if they miss the cycle it may delay it year

but I don't think it necessarily um the quality of construction would be every project is mandated to meet the California building code and so there's a minimum standard everything has to be built to okay um I would say if you're looking for something I mean and and in addition we have specific development standards that they have to comply with also so regardless of whether it was an affordable project or a market rate project they're going to have development standards of both type that they're going to have to meet and so in some cases is if you have a density bonus instance where they're allowed to increase the density of the Project based on the amount of affordability that they're offering they may be able to wave some development requirements like setbacks or parking or maybe have a little bit less landscaping and that's that's a mandate of the state as well to have a density bonus program which we do in our Municipal Code so um but at the end of the day um they have to comply from a quality standpoint they have to comply with the California bill code but we still have some control over Aesthetics correct okay The Limited extent again you have the objective design standards that have been adopted and there's certain mandates in state law for um streamlined approval non-discretionary approval for certain projects that meet certain standards um and so uh I would say yes in most instances as as long as our objective design standards are adopted which they are and if the project meets those standards then they they uh are approved in some cases ministerially so the oversight for the Planning Commission would be to make sure those standards meet the quality that you would expect to some extent for market rate housing would obviously if it would required a conditional use permit or a reone or something it would come to you guys and you guys would have more of a

discretionary approval at that point but for some affordable housing projects the uh objective design standards are for all intensive purposes what the city can mandate okay perfect anything else make a motion make a motion to approve roll call commissioner Franco yes commissioner Kesler yes commissioner Corey yes commissioner Garcia yes commissioner Sandridge yes chair Salis yes motion approved approved is there anything else that we need to bring that's the only item on the agenda it's the only action item um staff has I think one item to discuss that we will likely be bringing back in in some form for further discussion whether it's a zoning text amendment that is similar to um housing element things for compliance with state law um and again the City attorney can correct me if I'm wrong um the some of the recent housing laws adopted by the state of California such as s sp9 uh mandate that the city enforce certain development standards such as four-foot setbacks on side and Rears for um primary what what they term is primary as well as accessory dwelling units and Junior uh accessory dwelling units that would differ from our current code um in the fact that um we have a 5- foot setback as well as a 10-ft setback in the rear for all structures and so um obviously um the state felt the need to change these development standards to

encourage more Housing Development um and in some cases even the front setback can be affected when the unit is of a certain size if there's no other place to put it so um under sp9 now you can build up to four units on a property if you invoke the S sp9 requirements it's kind of one of these things where like if you ask for it you get it if you don't ask for it you you get the current development standards applied against you right and so if you know about it you actually get benefit of it and so to some extent you know staff is currently enforcing it that way um but we're considering um you know further discussion on the item maybe at uh starting with the city council but we want to make you guys aware of it as well since we were meeting with you guys that um from an equity standpoint knowing about something and and having the standard applied are two different things right and so if we just changed our standards to the S sp9 standards it would just be easier to enforce across the board obviously that's a bigger discussion and people can always choose these are minimum standards people can choose a larger standard it's just whether or not people want to invoke the sb9 development standards or not again all the standards that we have in the municipal code are the minimums that's the minimum allowed you could do more if you want to it's just that sometimes people try to maximize what they're doing right and so because they try to maximize what they're doing they don't like our standard sometimes but at the end of the day everything in our municipal code is the absolute minimum anybody has to do you could do more it's just a matter of does your project entail you doing more um and so um for us the S sp9 requirements um you know you could do two primary dwellings of at least 800 square feet attached or detached it could be a duplex or it could be two

detached homes and then you could do um two adus or you could do an Adu and a Jadu but upwards of four units on a property without having to split it and this is an R1 lot this is a single family Zone okay so currently our zoning ordinance already allows a duplex um and an Adu right and so we allow three um and so we would clean up our ordinance to resemble that you could do upwards of four um and include a lot of those cleanup items in s sp9 to ensure compliance with SP sp9 um it's not a huge change to our zoning ordinance um because I think you could do an Adu and an attached Jadu now um so you could do four units theoretically on a property now under the current structure we just want to clarify it for the public to make sure that they understand what they're allowed to do because we are getting requests uh we we have about three right now uh where people are trying to do what is termed the sb9 units and so we've added um a detail to our application asking if they are using S sp9 but again if you ask you get it if you don't and you just assume it's something else and you say no then we're going to apply the current development standards so for us again it's as much a a a disclosure and Equity issue to ensure everybody's being treated with the same measuring stick so our current development standards include covered Andor enclosed parking which under sb9 is eliminated correct I think it's limit I think it's limited I think it's one space per and I don't think it entails whether it needs to be covered or not um obviously most homes in California have garages past practice has been to require two-car garage uh two enclosed parking spaces with single

family development sp9 only requires one for each unit yeah so the other ones could be converted to units to housing units correct the garages yes yes good good so when something passes at the state level you know and that makes sense in an urban area to meet that but Le here again I think it's it's a matter of how you view this um obviously these are minimums every Project's not going to be developed this way a lot of people still prefer the traditional single family lot one home garage and as much backyard as possible and I think that's the general preference I don't think it's going to be every project comes in is going to be an s sp9 project um it's just an option offered by the state to try and uh maximize and and and spur uh smaller unit construction for folks that's more affordable again it's an affordability issue so if a homeowner wanted to go ahead in s sp9 they're a lot to use you know those terms we as a Planning Commission would be mandated to approve it correct I I don't believe they even come we don't currently we don't have a outline process for an S sp9 lot split um we had discussed processing them similar to lot line adjustments um because it is strictly mandated that they have to have record corners and things like that if they were going to split the lot under the updates to S sp9 they don't even have to split the lot to have four units okay so there are certain cases where um again as as commissioner Garcia said you split the lot 6040 I think is the minimum but

there's certain mandates it has property Corners it has access to a roadway there's no other utilities that need to be installed Etc um that's a very limited scope for those lot splits but they should be very simplified in terms of application because they are um in exist usually in existing surveyed or subdivided areas already where there's property Corners so most maps for all intensive purposes are record documents to identify what property is being divided and the size of property being sold along with ensuring that they meet minimum lot standards have proper roadway access and things like that sb9 lots have already gone through a subdivision process usually because they have recorded corners and they already have roadway access and things like that so by adding you know splitting the lot and allow because in on an existing lot if there's an existing home there's certain Provisions that we can enforce um new setbacks to like a j8u that's being added to that existing structure we still have to allow it at four feet so an existing structure or existing home is usually much larger than the typical sp9 unit which is going to be probably 800 800 to 1200 square feet right so existing development or where there's an existing home and someone's like I want to split my lot there's going to be very few Lots I think in town that you're going to be able to do that at a rate of 6040 given the size and the existing size of the home where they're located and how they want to split them because if I were to split a single family lot then I have a 1,800 square foot home on it on all likelihood that home standard single family lot with Street access I probably won't be able to split it at a at a 40 because my home sits right in the middle and probably will be

on the second lot so it's going to be inherently hard I think for existing homes to split you're going to see it mostly with the existing B so uh say you have an existing home on a lot that is um uh destroyed by fire and now you have an empty lot that probably would fall under okay that would have different Provisions because you don't have existing setbacks to comply with in in addition you won't have the hindrance of an existing structure limiting how you could split the lot okay I have questions but they don't pertain to this please uh who serves on our policy advisory committee and what's their job which policy advisory committee because there's many that we go to and that has to do with our planning department planning and Engineering we don't we don't have a planning advisory committee for the Planning Commission or for the plan for the Community Development Department that's all for in total intensive purposes you all are it okay so for engineering then when when people get an email saying uh the plans are being reviewed by our planning advisory policy who is that uh I can't think of an instance of no that's never been language that we've used we say that it's being reviewed by the Community Development Department or it's being reviewed by specific yeah plan Checkers or um you know the city engineer uh city planner um the language of uh an advisory committee or that it's for the trunk line okay so that's a different that's thef that's the SKF policy advisory committee okay so and

if that is the question the city manager sits on the policy advisory committee all three city managers sit on the policy advisory committee they meet and make recommendations to the SKF board on various issues okay thank you and can you give us an update for the Dau buas trunk Lan because I thought it was supposed to break ground in August but I haven't seen anything so as part of the SKF Sewer Master Plan update um SKF went through the arduous process of remodeling the sewer system um for dauba the plans were based off of the old master plan and the assumptions in the old modeling um when we went back and reviewed the modeling data for everything along dauba it actually necessitated smaller pipe and so staff's in the process of going back and revising the plan accordingly because it's going to be inherently cheaper to do smaller pipe based off of the modeling which we feel is much more accurate than it was done previously um under the prior city engineer as well um and getting an appropriate cost for that pipe um because we will have to go out for financing for that as well which has not even begun um so at the end of the day um we're working through and waiting for the SKF master plan to be adopted um as well as revising those plans for plan check by SKF once those plans are approved they would go out for construction bid so we get a construction estimate and cost for which we have to go out for Bond financing which needs to be approved by the city council for so the delay in the dauba line has been as much a process of ensuring that we don't oversize the pipe and spend more taxpayer dollars than we need to um as well as ensuring that that cost is not also passed on to the

developers that want to go up in that area so um rather than construct a pipe too big get too much Bond financing and because they won't allow us to revise the bond financing after we get it um what's the difference between the two sizes that we're talk it could be it could be a matter of a million dollars between the two in terms of the length of pipe and size uh but based off prior construction estimates and current construction I couldn't tell you that exact dollar amount no am me sizewise are we talking from how many inches to how many inches it was like 27 the whole length of the pipe and now it's I think the widest section might be like 22 or 24 and it actually as you go further east gets smaller and I think the smallest pipe size is like 18 but wouldn't it be wise to leave it bigger so we don't have to dig up all of that in 30 years like we're doing dealing with right now I don't think we're digging up any pipe per se I mean a lot of that no I mean to put right now to put new pipes your guys are going to have to and they modeled the extent of all the development all the way out to Manning as part of the general plan so I mean it's an extensive area that they modeled um and as part of the project and in most engineering practices they include they don't plan it for 100% per se they plan it for 75 in case there's variances in flows maybe emergency things and they don't plan it for 100% capacity from jumps so um at the end of the day the general plan as it sits was what was modeled all the way out to like I said Manning Avenue um and so that whole area is not developed so they accommodated all the future development north of dauba as part of the estimated modeling for that project okay I'm just thinking like we're holding up all these um Builders and Developers for the gas station for these all these new homes that want to go in there and if we can expedite it

we'll make up that whatever the extra cost of the pipe simply by having new businesses and new homes in town and they pay their fair share instead of dragging it out for so long until they review for a smaller pipe in certain sections I mean again we're talking about taxpayer dollars to put in the pipe we've offered it to developers they can go out and put it in and we'll reimburse them for it nobody wants to do it and so staff's position is we're being prudent with taxpayer dollars and reviewing the modeling to ensure a we're not building something that is just bigger and a a use of taxpayer dollars in a fashion that could be done in a more costeffective Manner and so at the end of the day if someone were to ask us why did you oversize the pipe it's not needed because it's modeled for the growth now as the general plan sits staff can sit and clearly say this was what was needed this was what was bought and paid for and this was a good stewardship of taxpayers resources at that time um I don't think any of us um take for granted what we do in terms of the public trusting us with their money and how we use it and the decisions that are made with it and so I would say to the developers we offered them the opportunity to go put them in and be reimbursed for it and they chose not to do it and so when you have understanding because we forced them on prevailing wage well we have to do it at prevailing wage if we do it and if it's a public works project it has to be done at prevailing wage so if we do it it has to be done that way at the end of the day they were offered the opportunity to receive reimbursement credit do a development agreement whatever it is they want to do if they want to put it in to not delay their project they chose to go this route and unfortunately when government gets involved sometimes it takes a little bit

longer so for my client on dauba and Mall how long before that sewer line goes in or is he affected by that I I don't know which project that is gas station project proposed on the northeast corner I mean I don't have a timeline right now because I don't have an awarded bid I don't have anything I don't even have funding for it right now because it hasn't been approved by city council so that's kind of where I am with it I don't have a general timeline right now that I could give I know from a staff standpoint we're working through the plans once we get plan approval we're going to put it out to bid and then at that point we'll go through the funding and it would run a similar track to the Amberwood sewer trunk line project when does it go to city council like what what is holding it before it goes for approval by city council what part of it the whole thing I mean we don't have a construction a bid we don't have anything because we don't have approved plans because they're being revised okay do you know how long SKF is going to take to keep is it SKF who's revising those plans I mean staff is revising those plans and working with SKF to gain their approval so it's the cities working on those plans at the moment um and then they go to SKF for review so I can get a timeline and an update to to the Planning Commission about that item um but there's again there's other features of that that are beyond staff's control okay thank you anything else I have nothing other than happy bir birthday to the chairman happy birthday thank you thank you okay meeting adjer did we need to do one more public uh whatever comments no okay not