THE PLANNING COMMISSION WELCOMES YOU TO COUNCIL CHAMBERS,

LOCATED AT CITY HALL, 2600 FRESNO STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – Any interested person may appear at the public hearing

and present written testimony or speak in favor or against the matters scheduled on

the agenda. Public participation during Fresno City Planning Commission meetings is

always encouraged and can occur in one of the two following ways:

1. Participate In Person: Council Chambers, City Hall, 2nd Floor, 2600 Fresno

Street, Fresno, CA 93721

a. To speak during a Commission meeting in person: You may approach

the speaker podium upon the Chair’s call for public comment.

2. Participate Remotely via Zoom:

https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_I18M0bh8TbSGAo27i5ze1Q

a. The above link will allow you to register in advance for remote participation

in the meeting via the Zoom platform. After registering, you will receive

a confirmation email containing additional details about joining the meeting.

b. To speak during a Commission meeting while attending remotely in the

Zoom application, click on the icon labeled “Participants” at the bottom of

the screen. Then select “Raise Hand” at the bottom of the Participants

window. Your digital hand will now be raised. You will be asked to

“unmute” when your name is called to speak. You will not be visible via

video and there will be no opportunity to share your screen.

All public speakers will have up to 3 minutes to address the Commission pursuant to

Rule No. 13 of the Planning Commission Bylaws of the City of Fresno (available in the

City Clerk’s Office).

SUBMIT DOCUMENTS / WRITTEN COMMENTS –

1. E-mail – Agenda related documents and comments can be e-mailed to the

Planning & Development Department. Unless otherwise required by law to be

accepted by the City at or prior to a Commission meeting or hearing, no documents

shall be accepted for Commission review unless they are submitted to the Planning

and Development Department at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of the

Commission meeting at which the associated agenda item is to be heard. All

comments received at least 24 hours prior will be distributed to the Planning

Commission prior and during the meeting and will be a part of the official record,

pursuant to Article 4 (3).

a. Email comments to PublicCommentsPlanning@fresno.gov.

b. Emails should include the agenda date and item number you wish to speak

on in the subject line of your email. Include your name and address for the record, at

the top of the body of your email.

VIEWING PLANNING MEETINGS (non-participatory) – For your convenience,

there are ways to view Planning Commission meetings live:

1. Community Media Access Collaborative website: https://cmac.tv/

2. Cable Television: Comcast Channel 96 and AT&T Channel 99

Should any of these viewing methods listed above experience technical

difficulties, the Commission meeting will continue uninterrupted. Commission

meetings will only be paused to address verifiable technical difficulties for all

users participating via Zoom or in the Chambers.

The City of Fresno’s goal is to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA). Anyone requiring reasonable ADA accommodations, including sign

language interpreters, or other reasonable accommodations such as language

translation, should contact the office of the City Clerk at (559) 621-7650 or

clerk@fresno.gov. To help ensure availability of these services, you are advised

to make your request a minimum of 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.

I. ROLL CALL

Chair Vang called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. He introduced Linda

Calandra to the Commissioners. She gave a brief description of her

background and expressed her excitement to be part of the Commission.

Commissioner Criner arrived at 6:06 p.m.

Also present were Jennifer Clark, Israel Trejo, Robert Holt, Kari Camino,

Yamilex Nava, Heather Thomas (CAO), Harmanjit Dhaliwal (DPW), Dejan

Pavic (DPU), and Theodore Semonious (Fire).

Present 5 -

Chairperson Peter Vang, Commissioner David Criner ,

Commissioner Kathy Bray, Commissioner Monica Diaz, and

Commissioner Linda Calandra

Absent 2 -

Commissioner Haley M. Wagner, and Commissioner

Jacqueline G. Lyday

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

6:03 p.m.

III. PROCEDURES - PROCEDIMIENTOS - KEV SAB LAJ

6:04 p.m.

Chair Vang read the procedures aloud.

IV. AGENDA APPROVAL

6:06 p.m.

Commissioner Criner arrived at 6:06 p.m.

Trejo reported no changes to the agenda and advised the public that cards

were available to sign up for public comment.

On motion of Commissioner Bray, seconded by Commissioner Diaz,

the AGENDA was APPROVED. The motion carried by the following

vote:

Aye: 5 -

Chairperson Vang, Commissioner Criner , Commissioner

Bray, Commissioner Diaz, and Commissioner Calandra

Absent: 2 - Commissioner Wagner, and Commissioner Lyday

V. CONSENT CALENDAR

6:07 p.m.

On motion of Commissioner Criner, seconded by Commissioner Diaz,

the CONSENT CALENDAR was APPROVED. The motion carried by the

following vote:

Aye: 5 -

Chairperson Vang, Commissioner Criner , Commissioner

Bray, Commissioner Diaz, and Commissioner Calandra

Absent: 2 - Commissioner Wagner, and Commissioner Lyday

April 17, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes

V-A

V-B

ID 24-586

ID 24-647

May 1, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes

VI. REPORTS BY COMMISSIONERS

6:07 p.m.

None

VII. CONTINUED MATTERS

N/A

VIII. NEW MATTERS

On motion of Chairperson Vang, seconded by Commissioner Criner,

PUBLIC COMMENT was changed to 2 1/2 minutes from 3 minutes. The

motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 -

Chairperson Vang, Commissioner Criner , Commissioner

Bray, Commissioner Diaz, and Commissioner Calandra

Absent: 2 - Commissioner Wagner, and Commissioner Lyday

Election of Vice Chair

VIII-A

ID 24-118

6:07 p.m.

Chair Vang made a motion to elect Commissioner Bray as Vice Chair.

On motion of Chairperson Vang, seconded by Commissioner Diaz,

that the above Action Item be APPROVED. The motion carried by the

following vote:

Aye: 5 -

Chairperson Vang, Commissioner Criner , Commissioner

Bray, Commissioner Diaz, and Commissioner Calandra

Absent: 2 - Commissioner Wagner, and Commissioner Lyday

CONTINUED TO JUNE 5, 2024

VIII-B

ID 24-664

Consideration of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-13 and related

Environmental Assessment No. TPM 2023-13 for approximately 2.91

acres of property located on the northeast corner of North West and West

Olive Avenues (Council District 3)

Department.

Planning and Development

1. APPROVE Environmental Assessment No. TPM-2023-13 dated

February 6, 2024, a determination that the proposed project is

exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Guidelines

Exemption.

through

Section

15315/Class

Categorical

2. DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the action of the Planning and

Development Department Director in the approval of Tentative Parcel

Map No. 2023-13 authorizing the subdivision of approximately 2.67

acres of property into a two-lot subdivision, subject to the following:

Development shall take place in accordance with the

Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-13

dated May 15, 2024.

6:08 p.m.

Item continued to June 5, 2024.

Consideration of an appeal filed regarding Development Permit

Application No. P21-00989 and related Environmental Assessment for

property located at 7056 North Prospect Avenue on the northeast corner of

West Herndon and North Prospect Avenues (Council District 2).

VIII-C

ID 24-651

APPROVE

Environmental

Assessment

No.

P21-00989

dated

February 9, 2024, a determination that the proposed project is exempt

from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guidelines

Section 15332/Class 32 Categorical Exemption.

DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the action of the Planning and

Development Department Director in the approval of Development Permit

Application No. P21-00989 authorizing the construction of an 82-unit

private gated multi-family development, subject to the following:

Development shall take place in accordance with the

Conditions of Approval for Development Permit

Application No. P21-00989 dated May 15, 2024.

6:09 p.m.

Chair Vang made a motion that Public Comment be limited to 2 1/2 minutes

from 3 minutes in order to accommodate time for every person.

Holt made a presentation regarding the Appeal of a Development Permit

Application. He discussed the location, conditions of zoning, development

standards (which included walls, density, height requirements, open space

standards, setbacks, lot coverage, Expressway Area Overlay, and parking),

and community outreach. He further explained the appeal process,

concerns that were expressed by members of the public, and findings. Staff

was available for questions.

Commissioners asked questions about proximity to the school, and the

difference of zoning types.

Scott Vincent, Architect (representing Landvalue Management) made a

presentation regarding the proposed project, including the Concept Site

Plan and renderings of the project. He also spoke about understanding the

difficulties from the traffic circle, lack of parking at the park and school,

noise, Section 8 concerns and safety, but assured the public that the

impacts from the project are well within the thresholds. He was available for

questions.

Commissioners asked about a neighborhood meeting and amount of open

space planned for the project. Vincent stated the developer was not invited

to the meeting, and that they decided to take a step back from community

outreach. He stated there is some green space included in the plans by the

pool, the dog park and the park across the street is available for use as well.

Chair Vang expressed he would encourage the applicant to be more

proactive in reaching out and working with the community.

Holt answered the Commissioner's questions regarding proximity to the

school and the difference of zoning types per the General Plan.

Public Comment:

No one spoke in favor of the project.

29 people spoke in opposition of the project, voicing concerns of safety for

the children in the neighborhood, lack of safe walking routes to the school

and park, overcrowding of the school, traffic (including the roundabout), lack

of parking for the school and park and if project is complete, overflow from

the apartments, noise, public safety and access for emergency vehicles and

lack of neighborhood outreach by the developers. They spoke of the project

not fitting in with the neighborhood and they were unaware of the change in

zoning. They also voiced their concerns about the lack of availability of

records and supporting documentation available to the public.

Semonious (Fire) stated that all projects must go through a review process

with their development team. They make notes and until those

requirements are met, they will not give approval. There are ways to

mitigate the problems to approve the project. Calandra asked if interior

residential fire sprinklers would be required, which they are.

The Commissioners asked Staff a few more questions regarding withholding

records, the Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission Board and Fresno

Area Express requirements. Calandra also asked about other four-story

apartments in Fresno. Staff answered those questions.

Vincent was able to address the concerns from the community. He repeated

that traffic will not exceed the threshold found in the City's PEIR, and

therefore a traffic analysis is not required, and that schools do create more

traffic. He doesn't anticipate that the residents of the complex will park in

the park parking lot, they will likely walk to the park and that the project has

included a commercial fire sprinkler system that exceeds the requirements

of a residential multi-family complex. Chair Vang asked if the developer

would be willing to change to a three/two story complex and was told no.

Bray spoke of the controversy of a development coming in without the

proper infrastructure and community outreach. Chair Vang praised the work

of the Planners and expressed the difficult decision they have before them.

Calandra asked if a Traffic Study could be completed even though not

required. Director Clark said that would be something for the City Attorney's

Office to answer.

Director Clark clarified the role of the Planning Commission for the appeal

and what findings they must find the Environmental Assessment doesn't

meet, if any.

Chair Vang made a motion to deny the Environmental Assessment and

uphold the appeal on the basis of Finding B (the General Plan and any

operative plan or policies the City has adopted) that it doesn't meet the

General Plan in regards to Urban Neighborhood Residential Planned Land

Use.

Roll call vote was taken.

Director Clark asked Chair Vang for evidence for the record that the Finding

does not meet the General Plan. Vang responded that it does not meet the

General Plan due to it being completed in 2015 and does not take into

account the significant growth within the City of Fresno, especially the traffic

that will be detrimental to the public if this project was approved.

On motion of Chairperson Vang, seconded by Commissioner Bray,

that the above Action Item be REJECTED. The motion carried by the

following vote:

Aye: 5 -

Chairperson Vang, Commissioner Criner , Commissioner

Bray, Commissioner Diaz, and Commissioner Calandra

Absent: 2 - Commissioner Wagner, and Commissioner Lyday