Ceres Planning Commission approves time extension for Cherry Hollow housing project amid resident concerns

The Ceres Planning Commission approved a time extension for the Cherry Hollow housing project after hearing progress updates from the applicant and objections from a local resident worried about traffic and neighborhood impacts.

Planning staff introduced the item and said the project, originally approved in 2016 according to the agenda, had been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the applicant's personal finances. Staff told commissioners the city required a traffic study and that the project team had been negotiating the necessary improvements with the city engineer.

The applicant, identified in the record only as the applicant for Cherry Hollow, told the commission the project has made substantial progress: "the site plan layout has been completely... improvement plans for the development have been signed off by the city engineer," that structural and landscape plans are complete, and that dry-utility and metering work has been paid for. He said he is heavily financially invested and expects to continue work toward implementation.

During public comment, John Warren, speaking as a Ceres resident, urged the commission not to grant the extension, saying the zoning change that allowed apartments near Mitchell Road was inappropriate and predicting traffic safety problems from additional left-turns and delivery vehicles. "This project ... should never have been approved to begin with," Warren said, and he asked the commission to revert the parcel to commercial zoning and deny the extension.

Planning staff (Le) responded that land-use designations and zoning changes do not expire automatically and that the site currently conforms to a residential designation; staff added that market conditions influenced the mix of uses and that both commercial and residential development are expected. Staff said the traffic study had been completed and reviewed by the city engineer and that the improvement plans will show mitigation measures including a median, revised turn pockets and a dedicated turn into the adjacent school to reduce unprotected left turns.

Commissioners asked whether this would be the final extension; staff and the applicant said the applicant hoped the project would not require another extension but that future requests remained possible depending on annexation and financing. There was a discrepancy in the record: the agenda indicated a fifth extension, while staff stated this was the first extension; staff attributed delays to post-approval traffic-study work and engineering negotiations.

A motion to approve the requested extension carried on a roll-call vote with Commissioners Jamu, Condit, Johnson and Perez voting yes (4-0).