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

PublicCommentsPlanning@fresno.gov. 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.

a. Attendees may also email comments to be read during the meeting.

Please 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.

b. Emails will be a maximum of 450 words.

c. 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.

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 meeting to order at 6:02 pm

Commissioner Bray was not in attendance until 6:08pm

Present 6 -

Chairperson Peter Vang, Vice Chair Brad Hardie,

Commissioner Haley M. Wagner, Commissioner Kathy Bray,

Commissioner Monica Diaz, and Commissioner Jacqueline

G. Lyday

Absent 1 - Commissioner David Criner

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

6:02pm

After the Pledge of Allegiance, Chair Vang introduced the Interpreters.

III. PROCEDURES - PROCEDIMIENTOS - KEV SAB LAJ

6:03pm

Chair Vang read the procedures aloud.

IV. AGENDA APPROVAL

Trejo had no changes to the agenda.

On motion of Commissioner Diaz, seconded by Vice Chair Hardie,the

above AGENDA was APPROVED. The motion carried by the following

vote:

Aye: 5 -

Chairperson Vang, Vice Chair Hardie, Commissioner

Wagner, Commissioner Diaz, and Commissioner Lyday

Absent: 2 - Commissioner Criner , and Commissioner Bray

V. CONSENT CALENDAR

6:06pm

Gary McDonald (on behalf of applicant) spoke about V-A (ID 23-424),

reporting his current discussions on the timeline of Public Works

requirements.

On motion of Commissioner Diaz, seconded by Vice Chair Hardie,the

CONSENT CALENDAR was APPROVED. The motion carried by the

following vote:

Aye: 5 -

Chairperson Vang, Vice Chair Hardie, Commissioner

Wagner, Commissioner Diaz, and Commissioner Lyday

Absent: 2 - Commissioner Criner , and Commissioner Bray

February 15, 2023 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes

V-A

V-B

V-C

ID 23-24

March 1, 2023 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes

ID 23-150

ID 23-424

CONTINUED FROM MARCH 1, 2023

Consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6385, Planned

Development

Permit

Application

No.

P22-04278,

and

Environmental Assessment No. T-6385/P22-04278 for approximately

11.10 acres of property located on the northwest corner of North Alicante

Drive and North Willow Avenue (Council District 6).

1. ADOPT Environmental Assessment No. T-6385/P22-04278 dated

January 25, 2023, an Addendum to the Final Subsequent

Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 200021003

(“SEIR”) for the proposed project pursuant to the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2. APPROVE Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6385 dated December

19, 2022, proposing to subdivide approximately 11.10 acres of the

subject property into a 39-lot single-family residential subdivision,

subject to compliance with the Conditions of Approval dated March

15, 2023.

3. APPROVE Planned Development Permit Application No. P22-

04278 proposing to modify the RS-4 (Single-Family Residential,

Medium Low Density) zone district development standards to allow

for a reduction in the front yard setback to living façade, increase of

maximum lot coverage, and gated private streets.

VI. REPORTS BY COMMISSIONERS

6:07pm

Chair Vang introduced the new Commissioner (Jacqueline Lyday) who then

talked about her background and eagerness to be part of the team.

Vice Chair Hardie announced his recusal from item VIII-B (ID 23-167).

VII. CONTINUED MATTERS

N/A

VIII. NEW MATTERS

Commissioner Bray arrived at 6:08pm

Consideration of an appeal filed regarding Conditional Use Permit

VIII-A

ID 23-386

Application No. P22-02534 and related Environmental Assessment, for

property located at 2840 Tulare Street; Located on the southeast side of

Tulare Street between “R” Street and “S” Street.” (Council District 3) -

Planning and Development Department

Based upon the evaluation contained in this report and the appeals

received from the appellants, staff recommends that the Planning

Commission take the following actions:

1. CONSIDER Environmental Assessment No. P22-02534 dated

January 18, 2023, a determination that the proposed project is

exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

through a Section 15332/Class 32 Categorical Exemption.

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

Development Department Director in the approval of Conditional

Use Permit Application No. P22-02534 authorizing the

construction of a ± 2,406 square foot Starbucks shell building

with a ± 840 square foot patio, a drive-through with capacity for

seventeen (17) vehicles, and full improvements to the site with a

new parking lot and landscaping.

6:08pm

Planner, Steven Martinez, made a presentation on the scope of work,

location, history, and staff recommendations of the project.

Wagner asked about the traffic impact and Martinez confirmed this would be

a question for the applicant.

Ian Robertson, on behalf of the applicant, made a presentation on

community impact, benefits available, comparison to other stores & why it is

larger than nearby locations, location choice, and changes made after

community feedback.

Chair Vang asked about the public outreach but Robertson was unable to

answer the question.

Wagner repeated her question on traffic, but Robertson was unable to

answer this question.

Public:

Those in favor appreciated the added security and economic interest for the

community.

Monique Erratchu, a representative from Starbucks, addressed Wagner's

question talking about idle time and goals for the business.

Those opposed referenced the frequency of this franchise in the San

Joaquin Valley, noting that while an individual location may not add a great

deal of emissions influence, the concern stems from the cumulative impact

of having so many in the area. The opposition also voiced concern about

the homeless population in the area and concern of the vehicles using EV

chargers for extended periods of time.

Applicant Rebuttal:

Chair Vang reminded him of the pending questions. Robertson said that he

knew they were under the program with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution

Control District, but was unaware of the specifics regarding terms. He also

admitted to not knowing the amount of Starbucks in the area.

Vang asked for contact information if the public had any comments or

questions, to which Erratchu said she would report back.

Robertson notified the Commission that the EV chargers were not a

requirement but were added by request. If the public did not want them, they

were willing to have them removed.

Bray made a motion to agree with Staff's recommendation, including the

denial of the appeal.

On motion of Commissioner Bray, seconded by Vice Chair Hardie,

that the above Action Item be RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL. The

motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 6 -

Chairperson Vang, Vice Chair Hardie, Commissioner

Wagner, Commissioner Bray, Commissioner Diaz, and

Commissioner Lyday

Absent: 1 - Commissioner Criner

Consideration of Development Permit Application No. P22-01346 and

VIII-B

ID 23-167

related Environmental Assessment No. P22-01346 for approximately

±0.69 acres of property located on the northwest corner of East McKinley

and North Fine Avenues. (Council District 4) - Planning and Development

Department.

1. CONSIDER Categorical Exemption Class 32 (In-Fill Development

Project) prepared for Environmental Assessment (EA) No. P21-

01346, dated December 8, 2022, for the proposed project pursuant

to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2. DENY the appellant’s appeal and UPHOLD the action of the

Planning and Development Department Director to approve

Development Permit Application No. P22-01346,

request to

construct a carwash, subject to Conditions of Approval dated

December 8, 2022.

6:36pm

Hardie recused himself from this item.

Vang announced that because of the translation needed for some speakers,

the public would be limited to 2.5 minutes to speak, giving translators 2.5

minutes as well.

Planner, Jose Valenzuela, made a presentation on the location, scope of

work, background, outreach & concerns (addressing each analysis for main

areas), and staff recommendations.

Vang asked about the hours of operation, to which Valenzuela confirmed

7am-9pm. He also asked if there was an existing car wash nearby, and was

told that only self-service options were close, not automated.

Wagner asked about the compliance with ADA parking spaces (Applicant

would have to respond) & who would bear the cost of the extra spaces

(Developers).

Bray asked about the noise concerns and Valenzuela referred to noise

consultant speaking later.

Applicant team spoke on the zoned district, addressed queuing, impact of

noise & traffic, parking (including the removal of two vacuum stations to

replace the ADA stall), mitigated sound, water usage, intent of project, and

City requirements. They said they were told no mitigation measures would

be approved by neighbors and cited CEQA requirements.

Vang confirmed parking agreement is ratified in 2030.

Claire Pincock (noise consultant) reported her research found insignificant

impact when compared to existing decibels. She responded to questions

from the Commission by explaining the reverberation chamber, sound

power levels, confirmation levels, and a checks & balances system that

helped form their determination.

Vang asked questions about a potential wall (none planned) and amount of

outreach (permitted by rite use but offered meeting and tour of facility).

Public:

No one spoke in favor

23 people spoke in opposition. Among this group were property owner, staff,

clients, and family of the neighboring adult school who voiced their concern

over the impact of noise and safety for residents. They talked about the

influence of altering the valued routine, inevitable fear reactions of clients to

the noise, environmental concerns, and parking struggles as a result of the

proposal. Individuals spoke of the importance of the school for the Asian

community as well as those with disabilities. People reported negative

impacts of other car washes in different areas.

During the applicant rebuttal, he reported following all rules and steps

asked of him and questioned the school's staff and use of property.

Wagner asked about original plan (coffee shop) that fell through.

Vang suggested continuing the item, encouraging better communication

between both parties. He also suggested staff research the parking

agreement from 1981. After Wagner's motion & Bray's second to continue

the item, they discussed the rule of the law verses the spirit of the law. In

the end, they agreed the item should return on 5/3/23, making sure

translation is available, and City Attorney's Office will verify statements

made in the discussion.

An amendment was made by the commission to continue the item to a date

certain of 5/3/2023, requesting more community involvement in the

meantime.

On motion of Commissioner Wagner, seconded by Commissioner

Bray, that the above Action Item be CONTINUED AS NOTED. The