Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah.

So what is this this mitigation one? If you could give me a little bit background on this if you're familiar with it.

I can't talk project specifics, but, an initial study and a mitigated mitigated negative declaration basically goes into all of the environmental stuff of a such a vision. So they will have they'll go over resources and then whether it has a significant impact by taking farmland, for example, and changing it to residential life from potentially significant to no impact, and they kinda rank everything. And then if they find it has an impact, they can offer, mitigation measures. And so a mitigated negative declaration is basically providing ways to avoid maximum impact, if that makes sense.

Okay. It'll kick in after a couple of

these situations. Right? Yes.

Most of the new subdivision, you'll see you'll see a it's they'll they'll abbreviate it to ISMND. Okay. And that's Yeah. Basically, for every new development, not necessarily phased projects, but, like, larger that initial the initial entitlement process for the whole development even if they're gonna, you know, develop in phases over two years.

I gotcha. Okay.

Down on it. But I think that you left me. Yeah. That is fine. Okay. And

this is a supplement to this one here. Right?

Yes.

Okay.

Right.

Oh, okay. Good evening. I will call the, March 10 planning, City of Tulare Planning Commission meeting to order. We will start our agenda by doing the, pledge of allegiance. So, Jocelyn, will you send the pledge?

I stand. Ready. Salute.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one made and under God, indivisible, with liberty, and with all. Okay. You can tell those of you who visit with us often. You can tell that we have a new member on board. His name is mister Ralph. And, Maria, will you do the swearing in, please?

Ralph, can you please meet

me at the podium in the front?

You ready? Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of The United States and the constitution of the state of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of The United States and the constitution of the state of California, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which you are about to enter. Do you each do you so affirm?

I do.

Alright. Congratulations, commissioner Kentu.

We are at the public comment portion of our main meeting. Members of the public wishing wishing to comment on any item not appearing on the agenda may address the planning commission at this time. State law prevents the commission from acting on any matter not on the agenda. However, your comments may be referred to staff for follow-up. This is also the time for the public to comment on items listed under the consent calendar or to request an item from the consent calendar be pulled for discussion purposes.

Comments related to public hearing and general business items will be heard at the time those items are discussed are discussed. In fairness to all who wish to speak, public comment is limited to a total of fifteen minutes with each speaker allowed three minutes unless otherwise extended by the commission. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence. The next item on our agenda is commissioner reports. Commissioners, do you have anything?

I'm sorry. Right. Let me see. Is there anyone who wishes to address the commission at this time? Okay. Commissioners, reports and items of interest. Alright. There being none, we will move to the consent calendar. All matters listed under the consent calendar are considered by the commission to be routine and will be enacted in one motion without discussion. If discussion is desired, that item may be removed and considered separately.

Good. I'll move that we approve the consent calendar as presented.

I'll second.

It's been moved and seconded that we approve the consent calendar as presented. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion is carried. We're to public hearings. The first public hearing is is on the Sherwood South Subdivision. And, Steven, I believe that's you.

Yes. Good evening, chair Miller, members of the commission. Just pull up a PowerPoint here, and we'll go. So, this is a request by Summit Home developer to subdivide approximately 59.3 acres into a 209, lot single family residential and just 209 single family lots and 19 multifamily residential lots. The applicant is proposing to establish duplexes or two duplexes for a total of four units on each multifamily parcel that is proposed.

The development is proposed to be located on the Northeast Corner of Enterprise Street and Bardsley Avenue. The existing general plan land use designation land use designation for the site is low density residential within the city's adopted general plan, and the applicant is proposing to change the land use designation from low density residential to medium density residential for an approximately 7.2 acre portion of the project site. The existing zoning designation for the project site is R 14, which is a low density residential or 4,000 square foot minimum lot size zone district. The applicant is proposing to change the existing zoning to RM or medium density residential for, again, approximately 7.2 acre portion of the project site. If approved, the proposed general plan and land use designations for the proposed sorry.

The the proposed general plan land use designation and proposed zoning will be consistent with one another, and will be consistent with the proposed residential density that's proposed for this, project that's proposed. The applicant is proposing to develop 209 single family residential lots and 19 multifamily residential lots. The proposed development standards of the R 14 and R M zoning designations would apply to the subdivision map that's proposed. Staff, has reviewed the proposed tentative subdivision map and has determined that it is consistent with the required lot sizes with depth depth, street frontage, and other requirements for the corresponding zones. Entry access to the proposed subdivision would be established through one new point of access from each Enterprise Street and and, again, one from Bartsley Avenue.

Access would also be extended through adjoining development to the north and the east through the existing alignments of Alpine Avenue, Gemini Street, and Justice Avenue. The proposed development, proposes to establish a 2.76 acre park, a park space that would develop be developed as part of the subdivision. On the east side of the development, a storm water collection or storm drain basin would be provided for the new subdivision on the west side of the proposed development, and the development would be required to provide connections to city water, sewer, and other improvements such as streets, gutter, curb gutter, sidewalk, block walls, landscaping, etcetera, would be provided. An initial study was prepared for the project consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. The initial study and the the initial study proposed a mitigated negative declaration and, determined that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

These mitigation measures have been included within the proposed mitigation monitoring and reporting program and as well as the conditions of approval for the project. A thirty day public notice was published on January for the proposed discretionary approvals and for the notice of intent to adopt the mitigated negative declaration for the project. Comment letters were received during the thirty day public review period from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Department of Conservation, the division of land resource protection, the California Department of Conservation geologic energy management division, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The applicant's consultant in conjunction with city staff have prepared responses to each of the comment letters that were received. These responses were provided in your agenda materials for your review, and we're also incorporated into the final draft initial study mitigated mitigated negative declaration that was attached to your agenda materials as well.

So in conclusion, staff is recommending that the planning commission recommend to the city council approval of general plan amendment number twenty twenty six zero one, zone amendment number seven seventy one, and adoption of the mitigating negative declaration that was prepared for the Sherwood South tentative subdivision map. And staff is also recommending that the planning commission approve the Sherwood South tentative subdivision map subject to the recommended, the findings and the conditions that are recommended within resolution number five five four six. Staff's recommendation is based upon the project's ability to meet the findings and the project's consistency with the policies intent of the general plan and municipal code. So in conclusion, this concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions if you may have any.

Good evening, madam chair. Council council members, commissioners. Tracy Myers representing Four Creeks. We are the consultant for the applicant in this entitlement process. Just thank you for your consideration to the project, and I'll answer any questions that you may have.

Not board, but just general comments. Sure.

Good evening, everybody. Staff commissioners, Jose Segala, city teller. I did get a chance to review some of the documents on there, but I had a couple of questions that hopefully someone could answer. In particular, I was very pleased to see a park that is being proposed there. I think, you know, I have in the past expressed my concerns that a basin is not a park, but an actual park.

And so I wanted to find out if the developer what kind of park they were looking at. I know it's gonna be connected to the development east of there along Justice Avenue. And one of the things that I wanted to to see if there was any interest in kinda developing some sort of exercise equipment type of thing, you know, we've been trying to do something in the city that would allow residents to sort of work out in terms of using equipment. There's a lot of vendors out there that could put together some, exercise equipment that wouldn't necessarily require a lot of maintenance. So, I'm not sure what type of park they were looking to complete.

And then the second item was around the multifamily housing development to see if what the developer's intent was with that, if there was gonna be any sort of offering for low income housing or low income residents or if there was any requirement that the commission would consider for that to see if that multifamily part of it. I think it's about seven acres or so you guys stated that what kind of residents would be housed in there. So those are two things that I just wanted to bring up. So thank you.

Well, I have a couple of questions. One is the size of the residential lot. I see that it's a minimum 4,000, but I saw in the report that the proposal now is 5,000 square feet. Is that correct?

So the zoning is 4,000, 4,000 square foot lot minimum, but the applicant is proposing something that that's simply because the the zoning ordinance currently doesn't have that there is an r one four zone and an r one six zone. Right. However, the applicant is proposing lots that are larger than the minimum. They're they're more of a 5,000 square foot standard. So it is consistent with the minimum requirements of the zone district and exceeds those minimums.

K. Thank you. And at what where will the multifamily, the duplexes go in the lot map?

So I don't know if you can see on this site plan, kind of

I don't know

if I can see how get the red dot to on there. But, essentially, there's the the larger parcels that are kind of on the, I'll say, the north side of the development against the, existing rural residential county properties. Mhmm. There is a line of them there all kinda together.

So what's the plan of the developer to put them all in one

So there there's nine space. Yeah. There's 19 parcels that are all being created, all tied together there, adjacent to one another. That's where the zoning is being proposed to be changed to the RM zone. And so those 19 lots that you see there, there is proposed to be two duplexes on each one of those parcels that are being created for a total of four units, and, they would all kinda line up there along that row.

Okay. And then I see from the map that the street is at Frontier Avenue that turns into whatever it is. Is there's no is there any egress from that street as it goes down in front of the duplexes?

So not immediately to the south. No. It would your closest egress would be out to Enterprise Street. There are there are essentially three cul de sacs being proposed to be created there to the south Mhmm. Of those multifamily zone parcels.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Is there anything else?

This time. Alright. I'll entertain a motion.

Do we need to do this in two separate actions?

There are two resolute so there's the approval of the tentative subdivision map if that is your account, commission's pleasure. So the tentative subdivision map and then the recommendations to the city council for the other items.

Okay. I'll make two motions then just to keep it clear. I will move that we recommend the city council approval of general plan amendment number twenty twenty six dash o one, zone amendment number seven seventy one, and adoption of the mitigated negative declaration. And I will also move that we approve the Sherwood South tentative subdivision map subject to the findings and conditions and resolution number 5546.

I second the motion.

Thank you. It has been moved and seconded that we make the following recommendations. Is there any further discussion? Maria, will you pull a commission?

Vice chair, Limas? Aye. Commissioner Kentu?

Aye. Chair Miller? Aye. Motion passes. Okay. Next on our commit on our, agenda is variance number 470. And, Steven, that is you.

Sorry. I pulled this. I'll I'll have to get started. So the item before you is a request by Steven Macias on behalf of Consulting Inc to allow a lot line adjustment to adjust three parcels of record and allow two parcels to not meet the minimum lot depth required within the r m medium density residential zone. The subject property is located on the North West Corner of Cherry Street and Tulare Avenue.

Maria, can you have the next slide? The subject's property is zoned r m, which is a medium density multifamily residential zone district and is designated medium density residential within the city's general plan. Next slide. The applicant is proposing to vary from the requirement for a parcel to have a 120 feet of minimum lot depth for lots that are fronting on an arterial or collector street. The subject property consists of three parcels that meet current zoning requirements.

However, due to the configuration of the parcels and their location, it is not possible to efficiently develop the site. Currently, all three existing parcels front to Larry Avenue or S R 137, which is the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Caltrans will not allow any new driver approaches to be established, allowing access to the subject property from Tulare Avenue. Entry access is only possible from Cherry Street. This would require cross access through interior drive aisles to be established to in order to develop the full project site.

Due to the configuration of the existing parcels, staff does not believe that it's possible to maintain three parcels and establish multi a multifamily development with for which it's zoned on each parcel while providing interior drive aisles and meeting all of the other development standards of the RM's zone such as setbacks, parking, landscaping, drive aisles, parcel width, depth, etcetera. The applicant is thus requesting a variance from the lot depth requirement. The applicant has been working to establish an eight unit multifamily residential development or an project on the the project site. The outlines of the building, it might be a little hard to see here, but, there are outlines of buildings that are proposed, essentially four buildings and eight units. So in accordance with chapter 10.8405 of the city of Tulare Municipal Code, recommendation of approval of a variance is required to be based upon seven findings.

Response and analysis of those findings have been provided within your staff report, and staff believes that the required findings can be made and is recommending approval of the project of the variance. Staff is has determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to section one five three one five or man minor land divisions and one five three three two infill development projects of the California Environmental Quality Act. If approved, the applicant would be required to file a lifeline adjustment application in order to adjust the parcels as requested. Staff would just note that this variance application is specifically to the lot depth requirement for the zone. We can answer questions on the overall development that is proposed, but just don't wanna confuse the fact that this the what is being requested is a variance to lot depth, not necessarily the overall development itself.

And so with that, that concludes my presentation. We're be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this development or this project?

Good evening, commissioners. Steven Macias with Sequoia Consulting. Our address is 131 East Kern, Tulare, California 93274. This project has been a long time in the in the works here. We've been working on this for several years trying to get a project that we thought would really help the downtown area.

We're proposing a two bedroom, two and a half bath multifamily, apartment units here that we think, again, will will contribute to the to the growth of downtown and, you know, promote walkability from this area down to the the new park and and kinda just, I guess our goal was to get young professionals who would be living in the area, maybe working at Adventist Health, stuff like that. Wanna thank staff for their time and working with us. Again, it's been a it's been a long time coming on this project, and we really appreciate all their help that they've been navigating this process. And I'm here as well as the developer, the owner. In case there are any other questions, we're we're here to help answer this. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak in favor? Is there anyone that wants to speak opposed to the project to the variance? Hearing none, I close the public hearing. Commissioners?

I like the idea of having the that lot filled in with the houses by me or, you know, homes. And I like the idea. So I think it's a great idea to have, opportunity for people to be able to live close to downtown in a nice new home right across the street from school too.

Okay.

There being no further comments, I'll entertain a motion.

Okay.

I move that we adopt the resolution approving variance number 470 to allow a lot line adjustment to adjust three parcels of record and allow two parcels to not meet the minimum lot death requirement.

Second. It's been moved and seconded that we reckon that we accept variance number 70Number470 to adopt a resolution approving variance number 470 to allow the lot line adjustment. Is there any further comments? Maria, would you please pull the commission?

Commissioner Kentu? Aye. Vice chair Limas?

Aye. Chair Miller? Aye. Congratulations. Okay. Next is general business, and I see we have none. And now we're on to stuff updates. And, Mario, that's you.

Yes. Good evening, chair Miller, vice chair Limas. Welcome, commissioner Cantu. Wanna thank, RC clerk's office for quickly filling the vacancy on the planning commission, and, actually, we have our council member Sigala here in the audience this evening. So thank you for nominations as well.

We have a full commission, although I know we have a couple absences this evening. And we had some really great items that'll kinda daylight what's coming on the next agenda. So we have our housing element, which we've been working for a number of years on coming to the planning commission first before for a recommendation for against to the city council. So that'll be at the next planning commission meeting on the twenty fourth this month. And with part of that, as you all know, is we're trying to attract a variety of housing types to Tulare.

And so I I commend I think the representative has left the chambers. But for the first development, that's it's great to see that. It's a greenfield development. It's a subdivision. Not too different from, like, the Lago where you have single family homes, but you also have an opportunity for multifamily, which we saw.

And then we have an infill opportunity site right across from the high school, right, you know, just right there at our downtown area for additional multifamily. So we need more multifamily for sure in Tulare and of different types, and we will work to to continue to create those opportunities in our city as well as, you know, once walking distance to a park, and we got a park in the new subdivision that the folks the other multifamily on the other side of town will be able to walk to as well. And it will have a walking path around it, so there could be an opportunity for some equipment. I know as a council member had asked during public comment. But just thank you for your attendance, your attention to the matters on the agenda, and plan division remains very busy with a number of mapping applications as well as some development opportunities that will be coming to your commission in the months ahead.

Thank you. That concludes my report this evening.

Thank you. Is there anything else

to come before the commission?

I had a quick question for staff. Was there any update on the our zoning update?

So, no, that is litigation. The only thing I can report, there was a statement you might see that's been issued by the council, which essentially there was a preliminary ruling issued by the judge in the case. We're waiting for the full formal writ to be released, at which time we will confer with our legal counsel and the city council to determine our next steps.