Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Selma planning commission recommends against La Vina subdivision prezoning and annexation
Loading...
Summary
After extensive public comment focused on density, traffic and groundwater, the Selma Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council not approve the prezoning, annexation and tentative subdivision map for La Vina (Tract 6514), a proposed 237‑lot single‑family development.
The Selma Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council reject the prezoning, annexation and tentative tract map for La Vina (Tract 6514), a proposed 237‑lot single‑family subdivision, after hearing hours of public testimony and discussion about density, traffic and water supply.
City planning staff introduced the three‑part request — prezoning, annexation and tentative tract map — saying the proposal was consistent with the City of Selma general plan and that the application is exempt from additional environmental review under CEQA Guidelines §15183. The applicant’s representative, Dirk Pushl of Fresno, told commissioners the design includes two parks, a range of home models from about 1,360 to 2,500 square feet and lot widths of roughly 50 feet; he said the project “is consistent with the Selma general plan” and that no variances or deviations were requested.
Dozens of neighbors who live near the proposed site urged the commission to oppose the rezoning. Nadia Gonzales said neighborhood notice and environmental review were inadequate: “No public hearing notice with copy of proposed 237 single family residential units … No CEQA initial study has been provided that focuses [on] hundreds of vehicle trips that will negatively impact our quiet neighborhood’s safety,” she told the commission. Other residents described the area as established for larger custom lots, warned the proposed 4,000‑square‑foot lots would erode property values and raised safety concerns about project traffic funneling onto Rose Avenue.
Several commenters also cited water and sewer as central issues. Janette Solorio read a statement for a neighbor who is a member of groundwater trade associations and warned that the basin is already under heightened SGMA oversight and that adding permanent municipal demand could exacerbate overdraft risks. Commissioners asked staff and the applicant about sewer and traffic capacity; planning staff said the city has added new sewer trunk lines to allow for additional development and noted that a traffic‑impact report was included with the application.
During deliberations commissioners weighed the city’s general‑plan designations and state housing directives against longtime residents’ concerns about lot sizes, character and infrastructure. One commissioner moved to “continue to leave this area low density as it was promised to all those residents who built in that area,” and the motion — a recommendation to the City Council to not approve the prezoning, annexation and tentative tract map — was seconded.
A roll‑call vote on the motion recorded multiple yes votes and at least one no; the motion passed, meaning the Planning Commission will recommend that the City Council not approve the project as proposed. The commission’s recommendation is advisory; the City Council will consider the application and any formal CEQA determinations or further studies required by state or local law.
The Commission adjourned after the vote. The City of Selma planning staff will forward the record and the commission’s recommendation to the City Council for its consideration and any next steps.
