HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-12-11 Council Regular Session Continued Agenda PacketThursday, December 11, 2014
5:00 PM
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
Convention Center Exhibit Hall III
848 "M" Street
City Council
Meeting Agenda - Final
Regular Session Continued
December 11, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Please refer to the 1:00 P.M. "Regular Session" minutes from December 11, 2014.
5. SCHEDULED COUNCIL HEARINGS AND MATTERS
5:00 P.M. (HEARING TO BE HELD AT THE CONVENTION CENTER EXHIBIT HALL III -
848 "M" STREET, FRESNO, CA 93721
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed
General Plan Update (Citywide)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification
of the related Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No.
2012111015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and
Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of
Fresno, citywide application
a. RESOLUTION - Certifying Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) No. SCH 2012111015 prepared for the
General Plan Update and the Development Code Update;
and,
i. Adopting Findings of Fact as required by Public
Resources Code, section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15091; and
ii. Approving a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required
by Public Resources Code, section 21081.6 and CEQA
Guidelines, section 15097; and
iii. Adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations as
required by Public Resources Code, Section 21081(b) and
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093
b. RESOLUTION - Adopting the proposed Fresno General
Plan as an update to the 2025 General Plan, including all
text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits and contained in
the Fresno General Plan document dated December,
2014
c. RESOLUTION - Adopting plan modifications
recommended by staff and identified as “City of Fresno
Staff Preferred Land Use” in the “Land Use Change
Requests” and “Land Use and Circulation Map,” and
denying the remaining plan modifications
ID#14-653
Page 2 City of Fresno ***Subject to Mayoral Veto
December 11, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
d. RESOLUTION - Authorizing the Development and
Resource Management Director or her designee to update
the text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits contained in
the Fresno General Plan document to reflect the final
action taken by Council, to the extent that such updates
are necessary to maintain consistency
Sponsors:Planning and Development Department
Page 3 City of Fresno ***Subject to Mayoral Veto
City of Fresno
Staff Report
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
December 11, 2014
FROM:JENNIFER CLARK, Director
Development and Resource Management Department
SUBJECT
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update (Citywide)
1.Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) SCH No. 2012111015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and Resource Management
Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
a. RESOLUTION -Certifying Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. SCH 2012111015
prepared for the General Plan Update and the Development Code Update; and,
i. Adopting Findings of Fact as required by Public Resources Code, section 21081(a)
and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091; and
ii. Approving a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by Public Resources Code,
section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines, section 15097; and
iii. Adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Public
Resources Code, Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093
b. RESOLUTION -Adopting the proposed Fresno General Plan as an update to the 2025
General Plan, including all text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits and contained in the
Fresno General Plan document dated December, 2014
c. RESOLUTION -Adopting plan modifications recommended by staff and identified as “City
of Fresno Staff Preferred Land Use” in the “Land Use Change Requests” and “Land Use and
Circulation Map,” and denying the remaining plan modifications
d. RESOLUTION -Authorizing the Development and Resource Management Director or her
designee to update the text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits contained in the Fresno
General Plan document to reflect the final action taken by Council, to the extent that such
updates are necessary to maintain consistency
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related EIR SCH No.2012111015 filed
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 1 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related EIR SCH No.2012111015 filed
by Jennifer K.Clark,Development and Resource Management Director,on behalf of the City of
Fresno, citywide application:
a.Approve Resolution -Certifying Final EIR No.SCH 2012111015 prepared for the General
Plan Update and the Development Code Update; and,
i.Adopting Findings of Fact as required by Public Resources Code,section 21081(a)
and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091; and
ii.Approving a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by Public Resources Code,
section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines, section 15097; and
iii.Adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Public
Resources Code, Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093
b.Approve Resolution -Adopting the proposed Fresno General Plan as an update to the
2025 General Plan,including all text,policies,maps,tables,and exhibits and contained in the
Fresno General Plan document dated December, 2014;
c.Approve Resolution -Adopting plan modifications recommended by staff and identified as
“City of Fresno Staff Preferred Land Use”in the “Land Use Change Requests”and “Land Use
and Circulation Map,” and denying the remaining plan modifications; and
d.Approve Resolution -Authorizing the Development and Resource Management Director
or her designee to update the text,policies,maps,tables,and exhibits contained in the Fresno
General Plan document to reflect the final action taken by Council,to the extent that such
updates are necessary to maintain consistency.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
By design,the General Plan (Plan)is a visionary document.It envisions a future in which the best
traits of today’s Fresno are preserved,and opportunities for improvement are seized.The theme of
resilience runs throughout the Plan and its strategies to address the city’s challenges and capitalize
on its assets.The Plan describes a balanced city with an appropriate proportion of its growth and
reinvestment focused in Downtown,established neighborhoods,and along Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
corridors.This will result in a city with a revitalized core and with livable new suburban
neighborhoods supporting one another.
The Plan is not merely a compendium of ideas and wish lists.While it is general and long-range in
scope,the Plan is also comprehensive with many near-term actions.It lays out policies and
implementation strategies from the date of adoption to 2035 and beyond.The defined policies,
figures,standards,guidelines and actions to be undertaken by the City focus on what is concrete and
achievable in order to accommodate the future population.At its heart,the Plan gives the City the
opportunity to effectively and efficiently plan for long-term land uses in a comprehensive way so that
future development is implemented in a cohesive and sustainable manner.
The three guiding principles of the new Fresno General Plan,which are woven throughout the
document, are as follows:
·Protect.The new General Plan protects existing and future investments in homes,property,
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 2 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
·Protect.The new General Plan protects existing and future investments in homes,property,
and businesses.
·Preserve.The new General Plan preserves the character and values that make Fresno a
unique and desirable place.
·Promote.The new General Plan promotes and incentivizes new investments by existing
businesses and by new businesses seeking to relocate or expand.
The Plan is the result of input from hundreds of interviews,workshops,over 40 public meetings and
hearings,and other outreach to thousands of residents,business owners and community
stakeholders.In addition,the City conducted a survey of 400 area residents on their vision for the
future of Fresno and incorporated the findings in the Plan.In total,the Administration,General Plan
Advisory Committee,Planning Commission,and City Council have led an extensive four-year
outreach process, setting a new standard for public engagement in the City of Fresno.
On April 19,2012,the City Council voted (5-2)to adopt the Alternative “A-Modified”as the preferred
General Plan Alternative.On August 23,2012,the City Council unanimously adopted Resolution No.
2012-150 (Exhibit C)which initiated the General Plan update based upon the preferred alternative
and further initiated the amendment and/or repeal of several Specific and Community Plans.These
actions were a culmination of a plan development process that included 12 public workshops,22
General Plan Citizens Committee (GPCC)meetings,six Planning Commission meetings and three
City Council hearings.
Following the direction contained in the Council’s action,the staff,together with the consulting firms
of Dyett &Bhatia and MW Steele Group,has prepared the proposed Fresno General Plan.The
Public Review Draft of the Plan was available from July 2 through October 9,2014 and the Draft
Master Environmental Impact Report (DMEIR),conducted by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS)was
available for public review and comment from July 31 through October 9,2014.During this public
review period,public presentations were made to numerous groups;including but not limited to all
seven Council Districts, the Planning Commission, and the City Council.
BACKGROUND
Purpose of the General Plan
The Fresno General Plan is the community’s most important planning tool.A General Plan is a
comprehensive,long-range planning document that every city and county in California is required to
have under state law (California Government Code Section 65300).The California Supreme Court
has described a general plan as “the constitution for future development.”A general plan expresses
the community’s vision,values and priorities and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of
future public and private land uses.What this means is that the policies of the general plan are
intended to serve as the framework for future land use decisions and is intended to provide the
following:
1.Reflect the community’s vision,values and priorities related to land use,as well as the
community’s goals for circulation,environmental,economic,social issues and policies which
are affected by future land use and development.
2.Provide the framework for the City’s decision-making associated with future development
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 3 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
approvals.
3.Provide residents with an opportunity to participate in the planning and decision-making
processes of their communities.
4.Inform citizens,developers,decision-makers,and other public agencies of the principles that
guide development in the City.
As a charter city,Fresno is required to adopt a general plan that contains certain mandatory elements
set out in Government Code Section 65302.These required elements are:land use,circulation,
housing,conservation,open-space,noise,and safety.Under Government Code Section 65303,the
City can adopt optional elements beyond the mandatory list to address additional specific needs that
relate to the physical development of the City.Optional elements were created for the new General
Plan to address specific needs for the City such as economic development and historic preservation,
as well as the ability to provide and maintain essential services.The Plan also includes an
implementation chapter to assist the policy makers in carrying out the visions,goals,policies,and
objectives of the Plan.These additional elements evolved out of feedback received during the initial
public outreach for the Plan.Upon adoption,they carry the same weight as the state-mandated
elements.
As initiated by the Council, the Plan establishes 17 goals for the City which are as follows:
Initiated Plan Goal Commentary
Goal 1. Increase opportunity, economic
development, business and job creation.
Use urban form, land use, and Development Code
policies to streamline permit approval, promote local
educational excellence and workforce relevance,
significantly increase business development and
expansion, retain and attract talented people, create
jobs and sustained economic growth, strategically
locate employment lands and facilities, and avoid over-
saturation of a single type of housing, retail or
employment.
Goal 2. Support a successful and competitive
Downtown.
Emphasize infill development and a revitalized central
core area as the primary activity center for Fresno and
the region by locating substantial growth in the
Downtown, and along the corridors leading to the
Downtown. Use vision-based policies in a development
code specific to the Downtown, when adopted, to
ensure the creation of a unique sense of place in the
central core.
Goal 3. Emphasize conservation, successful
adaptation to climate and changing resource
conditions, and performance effectiveness in the
use of energy, water, land, buildings, natural
resources, and fiscal resources required for the
long-term sustainability of Fresno.
Acknowledges both the environmental and fiscal
impacts of future growth and the limitations related to
water, energy, natural resources as well as provide and
maintain essential services, amenities, and supporting
infrastructure.
Goal 4. Emphasize achieving healthy air quality
and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Prioritizes and incentivizes infill development as well as
investing in alternative modes of transportation,
including Bus Rapid Transit, which are needed to
reduce the number of vehicle miles travelled and
associated emissions.
Goal 5. Support agriculture and food production
as an integral industry.
Emphasize the economic and cultural role of Fresno as
a center of agriculture and food production systems by
conserving farmland through a focus on developing
vacant and underutilized land within the established
Sphere of Influence of the City, limiting any further
urban boundary expansion, and developing urban
agriculture within the city and designated growth areas.
Goal 6. Protect, preserve, and enhance natural,
historic, and cultural resources.
Emphasize the continued protection of important
natural, historic and cultural resources in the future
development of Fresno. This includes both designated
historic structures and neighborhoods, but also “urban
artifacts” and neighborhoods that create the character
of Fresno.
Goal 7. Provide for a diversity of districts,
neighborhoods, housing types (including
affordable housing), residential densities, job
opportunities, recreation, open space, and
educational venues that appeal to a broad range
of people throughout the city.
Recognizes the need to provide other forms of housing
opportunities that are conveniently located close to
employment, educational, and other activity centers
that can be easily accessed without having to incur the
cost of owning an automobile.
Goal 8. Develop Complete Neighborhoods and
districts with an efficient and diverse mix of
residential densities, building types, and
affordability which are designed to be healthy,
attractive, and centered by schools, parks, and
public and commercial services to provide a
sense of place and that provide as many services
as possible within walking distance.
Intentionally plan for Complete Neighborhoods as an
outcome and not a collection of subdivisions which do
not result in Complete Neighborhoods.
Goal 9. Promote a city of healthy communities and
improve quality of life in established
neighborhoods.
Emphasize supporting established neighborhoods in
Fresno with safe, well maintained, and accessible
streets, public utilities, education and job training,
proximity to jobs, retail services, health care, affordable
housing, youth development opportunities, open space
and parks, transportation options, and opportunities for
home grown businesses.
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 4 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
Initiated Plan Goal CommentaryGoal 1. Increase opportunity, economicdevelopment, business and job creation.Use urban form, land use, and Development Codepolicies to streamline permit approval, promote localeducational excellence and workforce relevance,significantly increase business development andexpansion, retain and attract talented people, createjobs and sustained economic growth, strategicallylocate employment lands and facilities, and avoid over-saturation of a single type of housing, retail oremployment.Goal 2. Support a successful and competitiveDowntown.Emphasize infill development and a revitalized centralcore area as the primary activity center for Fresno andthe region by locating substantial growth in theDowntown, and along the corridors leading to theDowntown. Use vision-based policies in a developmentcode specific to the Downtown, when adopted, toensure the creation of a unique sense of place in thecentral core.Goal 3. Emphasize conservation, successfuladaptation to climate and changing resource
conditions, and performance effectiveness in the
use of energy, water, land, buildings, natural
resources, and fiscal resources required for the
long-term sustainability of Fresno.
Acknowledges both the environmental and fiscalimpacts of future growth and the limitations related to
water, energy, natural resources as well as provide and
maintain essential services, amenities, and supporting
infrastructure.
Goal 4. Emphasize achieving healthy air quality
and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Prioritizes and incentivizes infill development as well as
investing in alternative modes of transportation,
including Bus Rapid Transit, which are needed to
reduce the number of vehicle miles travelled and
associated emissions.
Goal 5. Support agriculture and food production
as an integral industry.
Emphasize the economic and cultural role of Fresno as
a center of agriculture and food production systems by
conserving farmland through a focus on developing
vacant and underutilized land within the established
Sphere of Influence of the City, limiting any further
urban boundary expansion, and developing urban
agriculture within the city and designated growth areas.
Goal 6. Protect, preserve, and enhance natural,
historic, and cultural resources.
Emphasize the continued protection of important
natural, historic and cultural resources in the future
development of Fresno. This includes both designated
historic structures and neighborhoods, but also “urban
artifacts” and neighborhoods that create the character
of Fresno.
Goal 7. Provide for a diversity of districts,
neighborhoods, housing types (including
affordable housing), residential densities, job
opportunities, recreation, open space, and
educational venues that appeal to a broad range
of people throughout the city.
Recognizes the need to provide other forms of housing
opportunities that are conveniently located close to
employment, educational, and other activity centers
that can be easily accessed without having to incur the
cost of owning an automobile.
Goal 8. Develop Complete Neighborhoods and
districts with an efficient and diverse mix of
residential densities, building types, and
affordability which are designed to be healthy,
attractive, and centered by schools, parks, and
public and commercial services to provide a
sense of place and that provide as many services
as possible within walking distance.
Intentionally plan for Complete Neighborhoods as an
outcome and not a collection of subdivisions which do
not result in Complete Neighborhoods.
Goal 9. Promote a city of healthy communities and
improve quality of life in established
neighborhoods.
Emphasize supporting established neighborhoods in
Fresno with safe, well maintained, and accessible
streets, public utilities, education and job training,
proximity to jobs, retail services, health care, affordable
housing, youth development opportunities, open space
and parks, transportation options, and opportunities for
home grown businesses.
Goal 10. Emphasize increased land use intensity
and mixed-use development at densities
supportive of greater use of transit in Fresno.
Greater densities can be achieved through
encouragement, infrastructure and incentives for infill
and revitalization along major corridors and in Activity
Centers.
Goal 11. Emphasize and plan for all modes of
travel on local and Major Streets in Fresno.
Facilitate travel by walking, biking, transit, and motor
vehicle with interconnected and linked neighborhoods,
districts, major campuses and public facilities, shopping
centers and other service centers, and regional
transportation such as air, rail, bus and highways.
Goal 12. Resolve existing public infrastructure
and service deficiencies. Make full use of existing
infrastructure, and invest in improvements to
increase competitiveness and promote economic
growth.
Emphasize the fair and necessary costs of maintaining
sustainable water, sewer, streets, and other public
infrastructure and service systems in rates, fees,
financing and public investments to implement the
General Plan. Adequately address accumulated
deferred maintenance, aging infrastructure, risks to
service continuity, desired standards of service to meet
quality-of-life goals, and required infrastructure to
support growth, economic competitiveness and
business development.
Goal 13. Emphasize the City as a role model for
good growth management planning, efficient
processing and permit streamlining, effective
urban development policies, environmental
quality, and a strong economy.
Work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and
institutions to further these values throughout the
region. Positively influence the same attributes in other
jurisdictions of the San Joaquin Valley-and thus the
potential for regional sustainability-and improve the
standing and credibility of the City to pursue
appropriate State, LAFCO, and other regional policies
that would curb sprawl and prevent new unincorporated
community development which compete with and
threaten the success of sustainable policies and
development practices in Fresno.
Goal 14. Provide a network of well-maintained
parks, open spaces, athletic facilities, and walking
and biking trails connecting the city’s districts and
neighborhoods to attract and retain a broad range
of individuals, benefit the health of residents, and
provide the level of public amenities required to
encourage and support development of higher
density urban living and transit use.
Emphasizes the importance of providing these kind of
amenities in order to improve the quality of life for our
residents, and how these kind of investments help to
maintain and enhance the value of the properties in
which these types of amenities are located.
Goal 15. Improve Fresno's visual image and
enhance its form and function through urban
design strategies and effective maintenance.
Goal 16. Protect and improve public health and
safety.
Goal 17. Recognize, respect, and plan for Fresno's
cultural, social, and ethnic diversity, and foster an
informed and engaged citizenry.
Emphasize shared community values and genuine
engagement with and across different neighborhoods,
communities, institutions, businesses and sectors to
solve difficult problems and achieve shared goals for
the success of Fresno and all its residents.
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 5 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
Goal 10. Emphasize increased land use intensity
and mixed-use development at densities
supportive of greater use of transit in Fresno.
Greater densities can be achieved through
encouragement, infrastructure and incentives for infill
and revitalization along major corridors and in Activity
Centers.
Goal 11. Emphasize and plan for all modes of
travel on local and Major Streets in Fresno.
Facilitate travel by walking, biking, transit, and motor
vehicle with interconnected and linked neighborhoods,
districts, major campuses and public facilities, shopping
centers and other service centers, and regional
transportation such as air, rail, bus and highways.
Goal 12. Resolve existing public infrastructure
and service deficiencies. Make full use of existing
infrastructure, and invest in improvements to
increase competitiveness and promote economic
growth.
Emphasize the fair and necessary costs of maintaining
sustainable water, sewer, streets, and other public
infrastructure and service systems in rates, fees,
financing and public investments to implement the
General Plan. Adequately address accumulated
deferred maintenance, aging infrastructure, risks to
service continuity, desired standards of service to meet
quality-of-life goals, and required infrastructure to
support growth, economic competitiveness and
business development.
Goal 13. Emphasize the City as a role model for
good growth management planning, efficient
processing and permit streamlining, effective
urban development policies, environmental
quality, and a strong economy.
Work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and
institutions to further these values throughout the
region. Positively influence the same attributes in other
jurisdictions of the San Joaquin Valley-and thus the
potential for regional sustainability-and improve the
standing and credibility of the City to pursue
appropriate State, LAFCO, and other regional policies
that would curb sprawl and prevent new unincorporated
community development which compete with and
threaten the success of sustainable policies and
development practices in Fresno.
Goal 14. Provide a network of well-maintained
parks, open spaces, athletic facilities, and walking
and biking trails connecting the city’s districts and
neighborhoods to attract and retain a broad range
of individuals, benefit the health of residents, and
provide the level of public amenities required to
encourage and support development of higher
density urban living and transit use.
Emphasizes the importance of providing these kind of
amenities in order to improve the quality of life for our
residents, and how these kind of investments help to
maintain and enhance the value of the properties in
which these types of amenities are located.
Goal 15. Improve Fresno's visual image and
enhance its form and function through urban
design strategies and effective maintenance.
Goal 16. Protect and improve public health and
safety.
Goal 17. Recognize, respect, and plan for Fresno's
cultural, social, and ethnic diversity, and foster an
informed and engaged citizenry.
Emphasize shared community values and genuine
engagement with and across different neighborhoods,
communities, institutions, businesses and sectors to
solve difficult problems and achieve shared goals for
the success of Fresno and all its residents.
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 6 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
Timeline
As noted in previous reports to the Council,the effort to update the City’s General Plan and
Development Code has been funded by federal grants from the U.S.Department of Energy (DOE)
under the Energy Efficiency &Conservation Block Grant (EECBG)program,HUD Sustainable
Communities Initiative,and a state grant from the California Strategic Growth Council Sustainable
Communities program.The DOE grant was provided to the City of Fresno for the Energy Efficiency
Survey program and to encourage comprehensive energy conservation and efficiency in Fresno’s
land use planning and property development standards.The other grants were provided to integrate
long term community sustainability principles and practices into the City’s comprehensive General
Plan addressing land use,transportation,public utilities and services,and resource management
goals and the implementing property development regulations.
A complete description of the Fresno General Plan update planning process and alternative growth
concepts was presented to the City Council on April 5,2012,with additional requested information
presented at a follow-up meeting occurring on April 19,2012.Both meetings included thorough
discussion.At the conclusion of this review,the Council selected a preferred alternative and four
months later on August 23, 2012, initiated the completion of the Plan.
The Public Review Draft of the Plan and the Draft Master Environmental Impact Report (DMEIR)with
technical studies,conducted by FCS were released for public review and comment on July 31st.On
July 29th,a community information meeting about the public review draft was held at Fresno City
College which was attended by more than 200 people.During the public comment period,public
workshops were held in each Council District.Presentations were also made to numerous community
groups, and a Planning Commission workshop was held.
Summary of Public Comments
The public comment period ended on October 9,2014.Numerous comments were received during
the public review period including letters on both the General Plan and the Draft Master
Environmental Impact Report (DMEIR).Comments on the Plan itself were carefully considered and
thoroughly analyzed by staff.As part of the longstanding commitment to community involvement in
the Plan,requested changes that could feasibly be accommodated without creating internal
contradictions,or conflicts with the goals of the Plan or MEIR,were accommodated.A summary of
the comments and how these were incorporated into the General Plan are listed in Exhibit K.
Comments on the DMEIR were forwarded to FCS.FCS then wrote,in coordination with City staff,
formal responses to each DMEIR comment. These responses are incorporated into the Final MEIR.
Comments on the General Plan were diverse and in some cases contradictory in nature. The main
categories of comments were as follows:
Land Use Diagram.Many of the comment letters requested very specific changes to the land
use diagram.In particular,it was often requested that certain parcels of land be changed from
one land use designation to another.For example,the draft Plan may have shown a parcel as
Medium High Density Residential,but the commenter requested that it be changed to Medium
Density Residential.Such comments were received from property owners regarding their own
land, as we as from people who did not own the sites in question.
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 7 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
The”Roughly Half”Ratio of Infill Development.Some commenters felt that this policy was
too biased in favor of new growth areas,while others felt that it was too biased in favor of infill.
Many felt that it wasn’t strong enough and that there ought to be strict control mechanisms to
ensure that half of the City’s growth was in the form of infill,but some letters expressed
concern that the language in the draft Plan was already too strict and could result in a
development moratorium in new growth areas.
Underserved Neighborhoods.There were several comments urging that the Plan do more to
address needs in traditionally underserved neighborhoods.Some comments focused on the
need for infrastructure in certain areas,while others commented on a disproportionate
concentration of industrial uses in certain neighborhoods.
Non-Automobile Transportation.Several commenters requested that a stronger emphasis
be placed on infrastructure for alternative modes of transportation.Bicycle facilities were
commonly requested,and walkability was also discussed.Multiple letters requested better
public transit,some of which focused on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)specifically,and others
which discussed the bus system more generally.
Non-Suburban Development and Transportation Concepts.Some letters expressed
discomfort with the Plan’s intentions to create a more compact urban environment in
Downtown and along the BRT corridors.Reasons included concerns over traffic,potential BRT
costs, and fears that conventional suburban lifestyle options would be eliminated.
Outward Growth.The consequences of outward growth were the focus of some of the
comment letters received by staff.Some commenters stated that there was a need for
stronger farmland preservation strategies,and others felt that new growth at the edge of the
City ought to pay the full costs of its required infrastructure.
The Development Code.Some commenters felt that the new Development Code should be
adopted at the same time as the General Plan.
In addition to the broader issues addressed above,there are several erroneous statements that have
been made recently about the Plan.It is important to address such statements in order to clear up
misunderstandings and provide accurate information for the City Council and the public.
·Statement: The General Plan intends for Fresno to be more dense that San Francisco.
This statement is false.At 4,545 people per square mile,Fresno’s density is significantly lower
than San Francisco’s 17,867 people per square mile.While the General Plan does call for
targeted increases in density in order to revitalize Downtown and to maximize the benefit of
infrastructure investments,the overall density of the community will only rise to 5,732 people
per square mile under the Plan,and most existing neighborhoods won’t experience any
increases in density.
·Statement:The General Plan will repeal the Community and Specific Plans,leaving
neighborhoods with no protections.
This statement is false.The community and specific plans will not automatically be repealed.
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 8 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
This statement is false.The community and specific plans will not automatically be repealed.
They will remain in place until the protections that they afford are carried forward in the new
Development Code and/or new community and specific plans.
·Statement:The General Plan will constrain greenfield developers or result in a
moratorium on greenfield development.
This statement is false.Roughly half of future growth will be greenfield development.Over
10,000 greenfield lots in the incorporated areas,which represent nearly 10 years of inventory.
While certain thresholds must be met before development can occur in some growth areas,
other growth areas will be available immediately for development.
·Statement: The General Plan is far too weak to promote infill.
This statement is false.Roughly half of future growth will be infill development,and the Plan
provides for the strongest set of infill incentives in the region in order to help that goal become
a reality.
·Statement:The General Plan doesn’t address the needs of underserved
neighborhoods, especially in south Fresno.
This statement is false.Most new development will occur south of Shaw Avenue.The City will
make capital improvements based on the age and condition of infrastructure,and based on
these criteria the greatest needs are south of Shaw.Additionally,given substantial greenfield
development opportunities in Southwest and Southeast Fresno,the City will create specific
plans to further define investment opportunities in these areas.Further community input and
resident involvement will be sought through this process.
·Statement: The General Plan plans Industrial uses only for low income neighborhoods.
This statement is false.Concerns about industrial uses were taken very seriously and every
effort was made to accommodate such concerns when it was feasible.The General Plan
update does not expand industrial uses.In fact,some industrial land uses have been moved
from Southwest to Northwest Fresno.Furthermore,the Plan’s implementing Development
Code will require that new industrial uses provide buffers adjacent to neighborhoods,and
where it was possible to do so,the Plan designates Heavy Industrial uses away from
neighborhoods.Some commenters expressed interest in removing all industrial from south
Fresno, but given the location of rail and highway infrastructure this is not feasible.
·Statement:The General Plan doesn’t address Disadvantaged Unincorporated
Communities (DUCs).
This statement is misinformed.DUCs,such as Calwa,remain in Fresno County where the City
of Fresno has no jurisdiction to provide services.However,the City of Fresno is willing to work
with these communities to find a path forward to annexation if that is their desire.
·Statement:The General Plan doesn’t promote parks in underserved/underrepresented
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 9 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
neighborhoods.
This statement is false.The Plan calls for the park supply to grow to 3 acres of pocket,
neighborhood,and community parks per 1,000 residents,and calls for an additional 2 acres of
regional parks per 1,000 residents.In addition to the creation of new City parks,the City of
Fresno will identify joint use opportunities in locating parks with other public facilities such as
schools.
·Statement:The General Plan does not do enough to limit the overconcentration of
liquor stores in low income areas.
This statement is premature.The Community will have an opportunity to address the location,
separation and number of package liquor stores as part of the Development Code.
·Statement: The General will eliminate cul-de-sacs.
This statement is false.As long as pedestrian options are available to connect neighborhoods
to adjacent services and shopping,some cul-de-sacs can still be built.Specific standards will
be addressed in the forthcoming Development Code.
Next Steps
On Monday,December 8 the Planning Commission considered this item.Staff will provide an oral
report on those proceedings to the Council at their meeting on December 11.
If the Plan is adopted by the Council, two significant implementation actions will follow:
Citywide Development Code.After the adoption of the General Plan,staff will proceed with
the completion of the public review draft of the Citywide Development Code,and will then
bring the Code to the City Council for consideration.If adopted,this document will replace the
current Zoning Ordinance,which has not been comprehensively updated since 1964.It is
anticipated that the Citywide Development Code will be presented to the City Council for
consideration by the summer of 2015.
Downtown Plans and Development Code.The Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan,
the Fulton Corridor Specific Plan,and the Downtown Development Code-which propose a
refined vision,revitalization strategy,and development regulations for the center of the City-
were released for public comment in 2011.After the adoption of the General Plan they will be
revised and brought to the City Council for consideration by the summer of 2015.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
An environmental document for the proposed Fresno General Plan was prepared by the City to
satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).The City is the lead agency for the Project
under CEQA and a Draft Master Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the Fresno General
Plan,pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15175,et seq.The MEIR was
prepared by FCS/Michael Brandman Associates (FCS) under contract with the City.
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 10 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
LOCAL PREFERENCE
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal Impact of Developing the General Plan -Funds for consultants to assist in completion of the
Fresno General Plan and Development Code documents were provided by a grant from the
California Strategic Growth Council.All environmental assessment studies and reports were funded
by grants from the U.S. Departments of Energy and Housing and Urban Development.
Fiscal Impact on the City Resulting from Implementation of the General Plan -Analysis was
conducted on the financial impact of implementing the goals and policies in the General Plan.Initial
fiscal analysis reveals a distinct revenue advantage for development in incorporated areas (i.e.infill
areas)primarily as a result of the existing Tax Sharing Agreement with Fresno County.It also reveals
a need for new strategies to fund ongoing maintenance of development in unincorporated areas.
·The City of Fresno receives more tax revenue in the existing neighborhoods and downtown
(incorporated/infill)than in the unincorporated areas.The City receives 27-31 percent of tax
revenue in the incorporated areas of the City,as compared to 17-22 percent of tax revenues
when development occurs in unincorporated areas that are annexed to the City:
o Fiscal advantage of almost 50 percent from incorporated areas -on average,every
$1,000 of new assessed value from existing neighborhoods and downtown generates
$2.90 compared to unincorporated area where the amount is only $1.95.
o Under the Tax Sharing Agreement with Fresno County,the County retains its share of
property tax base plus 62 percent of increment on new development.In other words the
General Fund “capture rate”on annexed land is significantly below that within existing
City boundaries.
·The City of Fresno falls behind on every annexed property without adding a new funding
source for maintenance.Impact fees and Community Facility Districts (CFD)are among the
options to pay for construction and maintenance in the new growth areas for public streets,
curbs,gutters,and sidewalks within neighborhoods,median islands,and parks spaces.Public
Safety and infrastructure on main thoroughfares will require additional contribution from the
General Fund or “other”funding sources.Providing services in unincorporated areas,without
additional funding,will further constrain the already stressed service levels is existing
neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENTS:
·Exhibit A: Land Use Change Requests, Map and Table
·Exhibit B: Staff Recommended Land Use and Circulation Map
·Exhibit C: City Council Resolution 2012-150 Initiation of the General Plan Update
·Exhibit D: Draft Master Environmental Impact Report (DMEIR SCH NO. 2012111015)
·Exhibit E: Final Master Environmental Impact Report (FMEIR)
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 11 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
·Exhibit F: Revised General Plan, December 2014
·Exhibit G: Redline General Plan
·Exhibit H: Errata Sheet for Redline General Plan
·Exhibit I: Table of General Plan Text Revisions
·Exhibit J: General Plan Comment Letters
·Exhibit K: Frequently Asked Questions
·Exhibit L: Planning Commission Staff Report
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 12 of 12
powered by Legistar™
,ircflvfD
Agenda ltem: lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
¡û1r1 ¡[t B f;n g 0I Date: LzlLLlL4
crTY clrRr{, FiFffiSNO CITY COU NCI L
City ofÉo=alrSr/z:fflE-=iE?ñ-
Supplemental lnformation Packet
Agenda Related ltems - lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
Supplemental Packet Date: December Lf-,2Ot4
Item(s)
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update
(Citywide)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental
lmpact Report (ElR) SCH No. 201211 1015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and
Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
Supplemental lnformation:
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the City Council after the
Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as
needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, 2600
Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2').
ln addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the City Council meeting in the City
Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available on-line on the City
Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be
made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language interpreters,
assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meeting. Please call
City Clerk's Office at621,-7650. Please keep the doorways, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open
and accessible. lf vou need assistance with seating because of a disability,see Sec
To:
Subject:
)effrey Roberts
General Plan Update; December 9th,2074, Planning Commission Hearing
ç)t-rn
7J
ì7)rrl
aJ)
o
c)
These items will be discussed by Granville Homes at the scheduled hearing of the Pf anning Commission on December
12'h,2or4 @ 5:oo pm:
The proposed "Modifications" to the General Plan land Use map that were previouslysubmitted by Granville
Homeson several different occasions. Some of these Modification requests proposed a change in land use and
others were submitted to maintain the existing land use and density previously approved for the property. Only
those proposed modifications not supported by the staff in the report to the Planning Commission will be
discussed in the public hearing, The discussíon at the Commission Hearing will include the followíng;a. Several modifications in the "Copper River Ranch" project area
b. Several modifications in the vicinity of N. Fowler and E. clinton Avenuesc. Several Modifications of land within the "Mission Ranch" ( formerly "Running Horse,, )
Request a modífication to the Land Use map for 75.72 acres of land located at the southeast corner of W.
Herndon Ave. and N. Riverside Dr. ( APN 504-O9t-I4,35, 37 ) be changed from "High Density', to ,,Urban
Neighborhood".
The need for Zoning Districts that can "implement" the land use designations outlined in the General plan
Document / Plan Map if they are approved by the City Council ahead of the creation/adoption of the proposed
Development Code. This can be accomplished with a modified "Zoning Consistency Matrix" ( Table 3-3 or Table
12-1 ) or a new Matrix that will identífy applicable zoning categories available to implement the plan
designations until a new "Development Code" is adopted by the Council at a later date. This MatrÍx needs to be
adopted as a part of any Council action or selected propert¡es in the City will not be able to develop as planned.
Elimination of Policy No. RC-9-b including the creation of a "Farmland Preservation policy"
Modification of Policy No. ED-S-b that requires new development annexing to the City to "fully fund ongoing
public safety and public service cost".
Modification of Polícy UF-12 and UF-13 ( and assocíated "Commentary" )to provide clarity regarding the intent
forgrowthanddevelopment¡nall oftheareasdesignatedas"Residential" bytheGeneral planUpdate(see
attached wording changes )
Any and possibly allof the issues that have been submitted to the City in wr¡ting or presented orally at
scheduled public workshops or public hearings where the General Plan Update/ Development Cotidoraft
Environmental lmpact Report has been the scheduled topic of discussion.
Jeffrey T. Roberts
¡ i; :' ! j,
d'íi f t'j.li,, i-) t ¡ ¡ t ¡ t ¡ ti I i: ¡e ! ¡ ¿ ;t! ! ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¿ t 1, ¡ ¡ ¡ 7 ¡ t : ;
1396 W. Herndon Suite 101, Fresno, CA 93711
559.436.0900 / fax 559.436.1659 / ce||559.288.0688
Visit us at www.ovhomes.com to follow us on facebooko and YouTubeg!
1
2.
3.
4
5.
6
7
-E
r-lancl
cÐ
=
co
C]r\)
c)
=:il
l'lr)
rrl
r1IO
/ T€'tr( lrh -L
4¿¿- lþ rcßl1î¿f nnp PÆv/ôê(9Lr" lttgørtÉt TD TvtE Clry
-
l"noo UÇe ¿4lF /Ltootn+w'ÚÐ
7'l& D¡! ir t¡ ^'w.¡¡t atDpttt sty.ltò d tD ú øtt^.ó û ñ.lrvbgd úñrlip ú crvltiqtt ú M þt
amþt ol ÆìE s ,d,
Agrlcultural P¡eserue
J.C. Forkner Fþ Ga¡&n No.3 - Plat 8k.8, P9.79
J,C, Forkner FþGatún No.7 - PIatBk.lA Pg.t7
J.C. FükEr Flgcerden No.tO. PlatBkro, pg.æ
Parcel Map No 2æ8-13 - Bk 71, Pgs.9t-At)
Ræ,ord ol Survey - 8k.48. Pgs.3-4
¡rtas2ot. sH Record ol Suuey:8k. 54, pç. 25-2g
@sz07Ac
I
suBDtvtDED [-AND IN pOR._ SEC.4 Z13S., R.19E., M.D.B.&M_
| æ ¡.r¿s
. 7.r9S
@
a"ò\lay N
t
l.\ì,t€,V
4ye
0Ð
0s)
¡rOfE - Assqr.sor'! &ocl ,VûrÈ.rs St¡ofl/¡ ,n f.lrþscs
Asos¡oll Pdæl NtfrrûÆrs Sluyn in Cidos-
Assessor's Map 8,k.504 - Pg. O9
County ol Fresno, Calit.O
..e.t
æ
ÞI
zrt
I
It.rt
t;
I
I
I
I
Iì-
I
I
¡t.rÍ
t8
I
I
t
I
ãtt
2?6
@s8,to^cs
P,,rcH_x
fa ra
@sg.2EÆ
¡t¡
,,.rr\
714
Os
ô38Äc'
FI
â
åi
g
t
=
]
I
ç
Tf.l
¿I
r
lrItÌ
.r
ıt¡I
I
17ÐÛ( l^b.
Jeffrey RoË:rts
7
From:
Sent
To:
Subjcct:
leffrey Roberts
Friday, December 05,20t410:36 AM
Jeffrey Roberts
Zoníng Consistency matrix
For the following land use designations proposed by the Draft General Plan Update, the zoning districts that are
currently adopted should be used to implement the development on selected sites in the City of Fresno:
1. "Medium Low Density'' Designation: Use R-1 Zoning ( 12-211 FMC )2. "Medium Density''designation: Use R-1 Zoning ( 12-211 FMC )3. "Medium High Density'' Designation: Use R-2 Zoning ( 12-212 FMC )4. "Urban Neighborhood" Designation: Use R-3 Zoning for existing Code ( 12-213 FMC )5. "High Densit/ Designation: Use R-4 Zoning ( 12-214 FMC )
This will allow development to continue during the ongoing discussion of the Devetopment Code/Zoning Ordinance.
The Council must adopt thís "Matrix" concurrent w¡th the General Plan.
Jcffity T. Robort¡
(ii':t;¡ i'iilc Éí r)ìircs
Possitttt, Contmiltttcnl &. Innotúiott {'. '.!'. .,'
1396 W. Hcrndon Suite l0l, Frosno, CA 93711
559.436.0900 I Íax559.436.1659 lcell 559.288.0688
Vlrit ug at rrryw.ovhomes.com to follow us on facebook6 and YouTubeq¡
I c
/7aU /Jo'+
City ol Frctno
Gencrol Plon ønd Development Code Updotí
F es po n s.è to Co m ñê nl I Ò, .! 9_!r:lt ! "
t t *.'l!!
P age 5,2-I2, Agricultu ra f Resou rces
The following is ¿dded after Policy RC-g-b.
proRramS.
farmland."
Page 5.2-13, Agricultural Resources
The following is added after policy RC-g-b.
proqrams,
farmland."
Page 5.2-13, Agricultural Resources
The reference to Policy RC-8-c is revised as follows;
"PolicyR€-8-e RC-9-c. Farmland Enrollment. Advocate for the enrollment ..."
/IE/UL t9a' î
l)0 ,1 IT A¿' t't4e'<tT
| |Etur e ¿=
Qenerat 5 (rurrtt aeat)
The proposed wording modifications will strengthen the objectives and provide clarity regarding the ¡ntent of theobjectives contained in the General Plan. The exact wording recommended by staff was used and enhanced withadditional text contained in two of the "commentary" sections following the objectives:
1. Objective No- UF-12 ( proposed by staff )
"Locate roughly one half of future resíde pment in the ínfill areas defined as being within the city ofFresno on December 3I't,2072, includíng the c
The commentary discussion below this objective includes the foilowing words:
"The Planning Director will provide an annual report describing the cítys'compliance with the plan and progress torrardmeetíng the goals and objectives to City , and pre
with recommended appropriate policy a ents and
meeting this goal
areas may pfogre
those related to BRT ) and the impacl of market brces. However, the cityexpects to make steady progress toward all of the goals and objectives and anticipates meet¡ng them at or near theclose of the General Plan Horizon in 2035' see the tmplementaiion Element for additional imptementat¡on str¿tegies furthis objective"
i r. Objective No. UF-12 ( proposed dification ) i
"Locate roughly one harf of future residentiat deverop nfiil areas ithin the city ofFresno on Decembel3!'t,2O].Z including the Downtown C surround mixed use center$and transit oriented development along Major BRT corridor non_corri vacant land. Thetoward mee al ís n in a linear or'one to one" pattern. Development ofs growth are tress , depending upon the schedure of relevant keyms (such as ed to of market forces,,
The "Modified" Commentary language would read as follows:
'The Planning Director wíll provide an annual report describing the citys' compliance with the ptan and progress tounrd
with recommended appropriate policy amendments and als
goal by 2035' However, the city expects to make steady progress toward all of the goals and objectives and anticipatesmeeting them at or near the close of the General Plan Horizon in 2035. see the lmplementation Elernent for add¡t¡onalim plementatio n strategies for this o bjective.,,
t7E/t/ * þ -Z
ifications will
General plan. íty regarding the intent of the
two of the "c ,i!'.1"t"0
and enhanced with
1. O ctive No. UFt3 ( proposed by staff );
"Locate roughly one half of future residentíal development in the Growth Areas, defined as unincorporated rand asof December 311 zorz sol, which are to be-developed wittr comptete Neighborhoods that include housíng, services,and rec tion; mixed use centersi or along future BRT corridors.,,
The commentary discussion betow this objective incrudes the foilowing words:
with recommended appropriate policy amendments and also new implementatgoal by 2o35' The rate of progress toward meet¡ng this goal is not expected to occur in a rinear or ,,one to one,, pattern.
relevant kev i ntive programs ( such as rhose rerated ro BRl and rhe impact ïT:ri"",i:iä:i"JJÏ.ïi;:1iltexpects to make steâdy progress toward all of the goals and objectives and anticipates meeting them at or near theclose of the General Plan Horizon in 2035. see the lmplementaiion Element for additional implementation strategies forthis obj ive-
1. O No. UFt3 ( proposed Modification )
-Locate roughly one half of future residential development in the Growth Areas, defined as unincorporated land asof December 3r1 zorz sot, which are to be developed with compËte Neighborhoods that include housing, services,and recreatbn; mixed use centers; or along future 8RT corridors". The rate of progress toward meeting this goal is norexpe d lo occur in a linear or 'one to one" pattern. Development of ¡nfill ,ra., J"rr* growth areas rnay progress in
låä*å:?ïî'ïiå1':t upon the schedule of relevanr kev incentive prosrams I su-crr as those reratåå toîÃi I .n¿
The -Modífied'Commentary language would read as follows:
with recommended appropriate policy amendments and also new implementation strategies necessary to meet thisgoal by 2035' However' the city expects to rnake steady progress toward ail of the goats ano objectives and anticípatesmeeting them at or near the close of the General Plan Horizon in 2035. see the lm plementation Element for additíonalimplerneniat¡on strateg¡es for this object ve.,,
Jìf CEIVf D
¡,Jlt{ Dit t Rr.l iL ?0 Agenda ltem: lD#14-6s3 (5:00 P.M.}
Date: tzltllt4
crTY
'LERH'
r'rs*û
Énesruo clTy cou Ncr L
City ofÉo=ar,rSlzzfflE=iEz¿¡ñ---
Supplemental lnformation Packet
Agenda Related ltems - lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
Supplemental Packet Date: December tt,20t4
Item(s)
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update
(Citywide)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and ce¡tification of the related Environmental
lmpact Report (ElR) SCH No. 201211 1015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and
Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
Supplemental Information:
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the City Council after the
Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as
needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, 2600
Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2l,.
ln addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the City Council meeting in the City
Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available on-line on the City
Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be
made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language interpreters,
assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meeting. Please call
City Clerk's Office aL 627-7650. Please keep the doorways, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open
and accessible. lf you need assistance with seating because of a disability, please see Security.
F_RE_SN _SIA_TE
Community and Economic Develop íl I C I lV E D
December 8,2014 ¡,li'l DIi] I fin 11 1?
The Honorable Steve Brandau, Oliver Baines, Lee Brand, Paul Caprioglio, Clint Olivier,
Sal Quintero, and Blong Xiong ClîY tl[f þi, FRSSN9 CA
Fresno City Council
2600 Fresno Street, 2nd Floor
Fresno, California 937 2l
Dear Council President and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of the Offrce of Community and Economic Development (OCED) at Fresno State, I
write in strong support of the 2035 Fresno General Plan (draft dated December 2014).
Established in August 2000, OCED is an on-campus division of Fresno State that is dedicated to
aligning the University's intellectual capacity and innovation-driven economic development
initiatives to improve the competitiveness and prosperity of the San Joaquin Valley region.
Recognized regionally for its ability to link, align and leverage the University and its resources to
the needs of the community, OCED continues to serve the region through several programs,
initiatives, and collaboratives.
As the Secretariat for California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley (Partnership), OCED has
worked to encourage collaboration on a regional scale by bringing together experts and leaders
committed to the same purpose- sustainable economic development, environmental stewardship,
and human advocacy. The Partnership is an unprecedented public-private partnership sharply
focused on improving the region"s oconomic vitality and quality of life for the over 4 million
residents who call the San Joaquin Valley home. Founded in June 2005 by Governor
Schwarzenegger with Executive Order 5-05-05, the Partnership is an effort to address the unique
challenges facing the Valley as well as the region's importance to California.
Building on years of regional cooperation established by the development of the Partnership, the
Partnership's Strategic Action Proposal, and the San Joaquin Valley Regional Blueprint's smart growth
principles, Smart Valley Places - FYl0 HUD $4 million Regional Planning Grant under the Federal
Partnership for Sustainable Communities- is the region's roadmap to creating more transportation
choices, equitable-affordable housing, economic competitiveness, and healthier, safer and walkable
neighborhoods.
As the regional administrator for Smart Valley Places, OCED has been working with the region's urban
cities, including the City of Fresno, to promote sustainable development through the adoption of smart
growth principles into local planning documents and through building local capacity for sustained civic
engagement in the planning process. In August 2010, the City of Fresno entered into the compact of
urban cities in the San Joaquin Valley by contributing a comprehensively updated General Plan with all
Office.of Community & Economic Development
California State University, Fresno ¡ Student Recreation Center
5010 North Woodrow Avenue Suite 200 M/S WC142 r Fresno, California 93740
P 559.294.602t F 559.294..æ24 ww-FtesnoState-edu/oced THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
mandatory and some additional innovative elements and a revised development code, both built with
Smart Growth and Livability Principles, designed and assessed using an I-PLACE3S GIS technology
platform.
In August 20II, OCED received an Economic Adjustment grant from the U.S. Economic
Development Administration (EDA), U.S. Department of Commerce, to prepare a Valley-wide
industry cluster analysis and a regional strategy - Cluster Action Plan - to catalyze the growth of
priority clusters. The goal of the project is to support improved regional economic performance,
sustainability, and shared opportunity for Valley residents, businesses and communities. As a
result of the Cluster Action Plan, the Regional Industry Clusters Initiative got its official start in
February 2013, with team members engaging champions in the seven identified clusters:
Agriculture, Clean Energy, Health & Wellness, Logistics, Manufacturing, Public Sector
Infrastructure, and W ater Technology.
Fresno's General Plan not only meets the purpose of the Partnership - sustainable economic
development, environmental stewardship, and human advocacy- and the smart land-use and
sustainability planning goals and objectives of Smart Valley Places, but also demonstrates
Fresno's commitment and imperative vision to ensure the City continues to be economically
competitive while ensuring prudent stewardship of financial and natural resources. The General
Plan accomplishes this by prioritizing the following:
. Emphasize conservation, successful adaptation to climate and changing resource
conditions, and performance effectiveness in the use of energy, water, land, buildings,
natural resources, and fiscal resources required for the long-term sustainability ofFresno
o Support agriculture and food production as an integral industry
o Provide for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, housing types (affordable housing),
residential densities,job opportunities, recreation, open space, and educational venues
that appeal to a broad range of people throughout the city
o Develop Complete Neighborhoods and districts with an efficient and diverse mix of
residential densities, building types, and affordability which are designed to be healthy,
attractive, centered by schools, parks, and public and commercial services to provide a
sense of place and that provide as many services as possible within walking distance.
o Promote a city of healthy communities and improve quality of life in established
neighborhoods.
This type of planning, infrastructure, and community building is exactly the tlpe of work that
Smart Valley Places and the Partnership were meant to encourage. The City of Fresno has been
an important partner in regional planning efforts and partnerships, and the 2035 Fresno General
Plan will no doubt lead Fresno and the region in making improvements that have catalytic impacts in
regard to preserving agriculture land, improving air quality, and promoting livable communities
in general.
I know there has been and will continue to be criticism of this plan. A vision and blueprint for a city of a half
million people and growing shouldn't be without careful deliberation and consideration of all perspectives.
However, after nearly four years of careful analysis, community outreach, and deliberation, I believe that this plan
has evolved into a vision that sets a higher bar for the City to lead as the major economic force in the region,
while protecting property values, accommodating market forces, and preserving neighborhood character. We
cannot further delay this opportunity to set a compelling vision - and as a partner of the City of Fresno, I look
forward to working to help implement this blueprint immediately in the new year.
On behalf of OCED, I am pleased to support the 2035 Fresno General Plan and strongly encourage
your affirmative vote when it comes before you later this month. Should you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Mike Dozier
Executive Director
cc:
Mayor Ashley Swearengin
City Clerk Yvonne Spence
RECrivEo
¡ù1tl DtC I Rn i1 i7
Louise A. Yenovkian
clo246 West Shaw Ave
Fresno, CL 93704 CITY CLERK, FRESNO CA
I)ecember 4,2014
City of Fresno Council Members
2600 Fresno Street, 2nd Floor
Fresno, California 93721
Honorable Counoil Members:
I am writing to express my support of the 2035 Fresno General Plan Update (Plan
Update) as General Plan Citizens Aclvisory Committee member. 'this plan provides
strong policy frameworlc and visioti to ensure that the City continues to protect, preserve
and promote Fresno,
As amember of the 2035 General Plan Citizens Committee, I have an extensive
understanding of the Plan Update and the importance of this vision document, We lrave
been engaged in this processfor over 5 years. This planwas careftrllythought out,
Although the Citizens Committee disbanded ín 2013, ahandful of the members have
remained engaged in this subject. I, for one, remain fully engaged in the issue and am
confident that our efforts will not be in vain,
After several years of unprecedented community outreach, analysis and discussion, I urge
you to approve ttre 2035 General Plan Update on December 18, 2014. Unnecessatily
delaying the approval of the plan is not in the best interest of moving our community
fo¡ward, Rather, it is important that we begin as soon as possible working on the
implementation of the PlanUpdate.
Agam, I would strongly encourage your affumative vote of the 2035 General Plan when
it comes before you later this month. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me at my office (559)224-2L31 or via my email at Lyenovkian@wctlaw,com
/n ,-'
ccl
MayorAshþ Swearengin
City Clerlc Yvome Spence
Soulhcast Fresno (-onrr
{iÀ t( }t r!ì; ' l "ti-'l,elt rl iÏ
qTCfIVED
¡i1'r Dtc B Rn i1 17
CITY CLER{, FRESNO C,1
December 5,2014
Paul Caprioglio
Councilmember
Dlstrlct4
fennifer Clark
Fresno City
PlanningCommission
Mayor Ashley Swearengin
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Room 2075
Fresno, C493721
Dear Mayor Swearengin:
RE: Resolution in Support of 2035 General Plan
On behalf of the Board of DirectoÌs of the Southeast Fresno Community Economic Development
Association we would like to express our support for the current version ofthe 2035 Generd Plan.
The City of Fresno continues to rank number one in concentrated poverty in the State and number
two in the Nation Ttre implementation of the General Plan is a unique opportunity to improve
quallty of life and promote better economic conditions in our clty and Southeast Fresno. A more
prosperous communlty can also bring more revenue to the Clty's General Fund.
Although we support the approrral of the General Plan in its current form, tle attached resolution
idendfies areas we view as high priorides for our city and Southeast Fresno and we provide
recommendaüons on more specific projects and lnidadves for Southeast Fresno thatwe would
support and help in the implementaüon stages of thls General Plan.
The areas that we consider to be a high priority for our city are:
1. Employment, Vocadonal Training Entrepreneurship
2. Housing and Healthy Netghborhoods
3. Recreation
4. Educadonal lnstitutions.
We look furwerd to participate in your final hearing of thls important matter. On behalf of the
Board and member: of SEFCEDA we urge you to approve the 2035 General Plan.
CC:
BlongXiong
Councilmember
District 1
Sal Quintero
Councilmember
DisuictS
Enclosure
Steve Brandau
Councilmember
District2
Lee Brand
Councilmember
District 6
t/
Oliver L. Baines lll
Councilmember
Dlstrict 3
Clint Olivier
Councilmember
District 7
www.SEFCEDA.org
CA 93747 c 'IEL: (559) 453-0124
josc'l tlon ber rr¿ì z-a (0 s ef ce(la, o rg
P.O. Box BBl 7 o Fresno,¡ FAX: (559) 25r.¡-7635
RESOTUTION
SOUTHEAST FRESNO COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVETOPMENT ASSOCIATION
(SEFCEDA)
In the matter of: IN SUPP0RT OF THE 2035 FRESNO CITY GENERAT PLAN.
WHEREAS, the mission of SEFCEDA is to improve the quality of life of southeast
Fresno and Fresno Region residents and promote economic prosperityby
e:çanding opporhrnities in education, recreation, employmenÇ housing and
entrepreneurship for healthy neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, SEFCEDA is already actively involved in improving economic conditions
and qualÍty of life in our city and Southeast Fresno and welcomes the opportunity to
partner with the City of Fresno and other entities in this efforÇ
WHEREAS, the City of Fresno is considering adoption of the 2035 Fresno City
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the SEFCEDA Board views this planning document as the foundation and
vision to address current and future needs of the residents of our city and Southeast
Fresno; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan is an important tool to improve the quality of life of the
resÍdents of our city and Southeast Fresno and promote economic prosperity;
The SEFCEDA Board hereby supports the adoption of this plan and makes the
following recommendations to ensure a positive economlc lmpact on the City of
Fresno and Southeast Fresno residents:
1. EMPTOYMENT, VOCATIONAL TRAINING, & ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Background:
The General Plan recognizes the need to improve economic conditions and increase
the earning power of Fresno residents.
SEFCEDA Recommendations:
a) Efforts of the City of Fresno to address poverty should be directed to the most
impoverished neighborhoods in the City of Fresno to change Fresno's ranking as
number one in concentrated poverty in the State and number 2 in the nation.
Improving this ranking should be the most important goal of the General Plan.
(1)
www.SEFCEDA.org
P.O. Box BB17 . Fresno, CA 93147 .'lEL: (559) 453-0124 . FAX: (559) 255-7635
jose leorrba rra za @sefcecla.org
b) The City of Fresno needs to be a stronger advocate in seeking state and federal resources to prepare
the Fresno workforce to fill jobs that go unfilled because resources to improve the skills of the workforce
are limited and inadequate.
c. The City of Fresno should more actively dupport efforts to expedite the construction of a Career
Technical Center in Southeast Fresno by the State Center Community College District. SEFCEDA is
committed to be a partner with the State Center Community College District, the City of Fresno and
other entities/organÍzations to ass¡st in generating community/public support to accelerate the
implementation of this project.
d. SEFCEDA welcomes the opportunity to partner with the City of Fresno in the creation of good paying
jobs and the attraction, retention, and expansion of businesses in Southeast Fresno through the
implementation of new more creative ideas that can improve economic conditions.
e. The General Plan should encourage funding of programs that offer opportun¡ties to train and prepare
residents to open their own businesses
2. HOUSING AND HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS
Backqround:
SEFCEDA supports provisions of the General Plan that call for the creation of complete neighborhoods
for a safe and healthy community with adequate access and proximity to recreational opportunities,
transportation, businesses and other amenities.
SEFCEDA concurs that high density housing and affordable housing are necessary to accommodate
population growth of our city.
The General Plan (UF-12 states: "Locate roughly one half of future residential development in infill
areas-defíned as being within the City on December 2L,2ÛL2-including the Downtown core area and
surrounding neighborhoods, mixed-use centers and transit-development along major BRT corridors, and
other non-corridor infill areas and vacant land" Future residential development ¡s to occur in the form of
infÍll and new construction within the sphere of influence of the City of Fresno.
SEFCEDA appreciates that the Ventura/Kings Canyon Corridor is a major BRT Corridor being targeted by
the General Plan to include infill development with higher-densities, mixed-use centers and transit
development. The targeting of well designed, higher density residential projects and high-quality
affordable housing on the Ventura/Kings Canyon Corridor can bring economic benefits to the area with
adequate economic incentives. SEFCEDA is already involved in the revitalization of the Ventura/Kings
Canyon Corridor along with other commun¡ty partners.
(2)
SEFCEDA Recommendations:
a, The City of Fresno needs to further clariff a policy for future residential development as to the
sequence of where and when ínfill and sphere of influence residential development is to take place.
a. SEFCEDA supports infill and revitalization of the Ventura/Kings Canyon Corridor and efforts to fund
improvement of established neighborhoods along this corridor
b. SEFCEDA also supports the revitalization of other established neighborhoods in Southeast Fresno in
combination with new residential development w¡thin the sphere of influence boundaries. A balance of
infill development and sphere of influence growth must take into consideration the economic benefits
that a vibrant housing industry under both scenarios can bring to the Fresno's economy,
c. The proposed housing mix for Development Area 4-East shows 5,100 multi-family units versus 3,800
single-family units. SEFCEDA believes that higher densities and affordable housing should be available
at all parts of our City and should not be concentrated only in impoverished neighborhoods.
3. RECREATION.
Backsround:
According to the Draft Fresno General Plan, South ofShaw City Park Space is 1.02 acres per 1,000
residents (Total Acres: 242.73 acres). North of Shaw City Park Space is 4.62 acres per 1,000 residents
(Total Acres: 764.431. This disparity in the provision of parks and recreational facilities in established
neighborhoods south of Shaw versus north of Shaw Avenue and the very low availability of park
facílities compared to other cities in the Central Valley, the State and the Nation reported in recent
surveys is a serious quality of life problem that requires the attention of our City.
SEFCEDA's Recommendations:
a. SEFCEDA desires a partnership with the City of Fresno and other like minded community and
corporate entitíes for the purpose of establishing and sustaining more ambitious short-term and long-
term goals greater than 3 acres of parks per 1,000 residents for Southeast Fresno, lncluding the funding
and construction of a regional park facility with a soccer fields complex in Southeast Fresno.
4. EDUCATIONAL I NSTITUTIONS.
Backsround:
Elementary and high schools, community colleges and universities play an important role in preparing
residents for the job market. Low performance of these institutíons in the number of students who
graduate continues to be a problem in the Fresno Region. We must address this problem in order to
reverse the cycle of poverty ¡n the Fresno Region.
(3)
R TCf ,VED
¿f1lr orc s Rn 11 ï1 åï:l',iti; Àf,o'o-'53
(5:00 P'M')
crTY cLERx, TnFRESNO CITY COU NCI L
Ëå=er.lSrzzfflE-=iE7¿¡ñ--
Supplemental lnformation Packet
Agenda Related ltems - lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
Supplemental Packet Date: December 9,2OL4
Item(s)
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update
(Citywide)
l. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental
lmpact Report (ElR) SCH No. 2012111015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and
Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, cityruide application
Supplemental lnformation:
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the City Council after the
Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as
needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, 2600
Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(21.
ln addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the City Council meeting in the City
Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available on-line on the City
Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADAI:
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be
made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language interpreters,
assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meeting. Please call
City Clerk's Office at 62L-7650. Please keep the doorways, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open
and accessible. lf vou need assistance with because of a disability, please see Security.
File lD#14-653
5:00 P.M. HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed
General Plan Update (Citywide)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related
Environmental lmpact Report (ElR) SCH No. 2012111015 filed by
Jennifer K. Clark, Development and Resource Management Director, on
behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
For additional information regarding the Proposed General Plan Update
please refer to the link below. The URL will take you to the Development
and Resource Management Department's website where all the information
for the General Plan Update is located.
.htm
-\,("-
C) -E
=
cJ s)
t- l'lq LL> C)ãmTrÐ=;¡ --a\
ü=Frlz
(]v
C-J(r c-c
RICEIVED
Agenda ltem: lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
irllÏ Ctû io PR ? û8 Date: tzlLLlL4
CITY CLTRK, FRESËRESNO CITY COUNCI L
Ëåi=arrSrz¿fflE=i?z¿¿ñ-
Supplemental lnformation Packet
Agenda Related ltems - lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
Suppfemental Packet Date: December LO,2OL4
Item(s)
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update
(Citywide)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental
lmpact Report (ElR) SCH No. 201211 1015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and
Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
Supplemental lnformation:
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the City Council after the
Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as
needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, 2600
Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(21.
ln addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the City Council meeting in the City
Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available on-line on the City
Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be
made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language interpreters,
assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meeting. Please call
City Clerk's Office at62L-7650. Please keep the doorways, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open
and accessible. lf you need assistance with seating because of a disability, please see
RE: 2035 General Plan
N ECf IVED
December gth,20t4 clTy CLERK, FRESHo cA
The Honorable Steve Brandau, Oliver Baines, Lee Brand, Paul Caprioglio, Clint Olivier,
Sal Quintero, and Blong Xiong
Fresno City Council
2600 Fresno Street, 2nd Floor
Fresno, California 937 2l
Dear Council President and Members of the City Council:
I am writing to express my strong support of the 2035 Fresno General Plan (draft dated
December 2014) as a member of The General Plan Citizens Committee. This plan
provides an imperative vision to ensure that the City continues to be economically
competitive while ensuring prudent stewardship of our financial and natural resources.
I know there has been and will continue to be criticism of this plan. A vision and
blueprint for a city of a half million people and growing shouldn't be without careful
deliberation and consideration of all perspectives. However, after nearly four years of
careful analysis, community outreach, and deliberation, I believe that this plan has
evolved into a vision that sets a higher bar for the City to lead as the major economic
force in the region, while protecting properly values, accommodating market forces, and
preserving neighborhood character. We cannot further delay this opportunity to set a
compelling vision - and as a partner of the City of Fresno, I look forward to working to
help implement this blueprint immediately in the new year.
I would shongly encourage your affirmative vote of the 2035 General Plan when it comes
before you later this month. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (559) 790-5484.
Sincerely,
Ryan Calvert
cc:
Mayor Ashley Swearengin
City Clerk Yvonne Spence
f,í[CflVfD
Agenda ltem: lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
¡l1T û[C i0 FR 1 ¡5Date: tzlLLlLa
CTryRGTN@GITY COUNCIL
City ofÉo=alrSr/z-fflE=iE7¿¡¡:-
Supplemental lnformation Packet
Agenda Related Items - lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
Supplemental Packet Date: December tO,2OL4
Item(s)
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update
(Citywide)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental
lmpact Report (ElR) SCH No. 201211 1015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and
Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
Supplemental I nformation:
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the City Council afterthe
Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as
needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, 2600
Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2).
ln addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the City Council meeting in the City
Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available on-line on the City
Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be
made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language interpreters,
assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meeting. Please call
City Clerk's Office aT 621,-7650. Please keep the doorways, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open
and accessible. lf you need assistance with seating because of a disability, please see Security.
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
December 11,2014
!ircIivfD
¡ ;'i i.l ;û fl 3 13
CtiY ÛLT;:í, IRESi.IC C,{FROM: JENNIFER CLARK, Director
Development and Resource Management Department
SUBJECT
..Title
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update (Citywide)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental lmpact Report
(ElR) SCH No. 2012111015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and Resource Management
Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
a. RESOLUTION - Certifying Final Environmental lmpact Report (ElR) No. SCH 2012111015
prepared for the General Plan Update and the Development Code Update; and,
i. Adopting Findings of Fact as required by Public Resources Code, section 21081(a)
and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091; and
ii. Approving a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by Public Resources Code,
section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines, section 15097; and
iii. Adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Public
Resources Code, Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093
b. RESOLUTION - Adopting the proposed Fresno General Plan as an update to the 2O2S
General Plan, including all text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits and contained in the
Fresno General Plan document dated December,2014
c. RESOLUTION - Adopting plan modifications recommended by staff and identified as "City of
Fresno Staff Preferred Land Use" in the "Land Use Change Requests" and "Land Use and
Circulation Map," and denying the remaining plan modifications
d. RESOLUTION - Authorizing the Development and Resource Management Director or her
designee to update the text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits contained in the Fresno
General Plan document to reflect the final action taken by Council, to the extent that such
updates are necessary to maintain consistency
..Body
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions.
Consideration of General Plan Update and ceftification of the related EIR SCH No.201211101Sfiled
by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of
Fresno, citywide application :
a. Approve Resolution - Certifying Final EIR No. SCH 2012111015 prepared for the General
Plan Update and the Development Code Update; and,
i. Adopting Findings of Fact as required by Public Resources Code, section 21081(a)
and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091; and
ii. Approving a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by Public Resources Code,
section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines, section 15097; and
iii. Adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Public
Resources Code, Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093
b. Approve Resolution - Adopting the proposed Fresno General Plan as an update to the
2025 General Plan, including all text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits and contained in the
Fresno General Plan document dated December, 2014;
c. Approve Resolution - Adopting plan modifications recommended by staff and identified as
"City of Fresno Staff Preferred Land Use" in the "Land Use Change Requests" and "Land Use
and Circulation Map," arìd denying the remaining plan modifications; and
d. Approve Resolution - Authorizing the Development and Resource Management Director
or her designee to update the text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits contained in the Fresno
General Plan document to reflect the final action taken by Council, to the extent that such
updates are necessary to maintain consistency.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
By design, the General Plan (Plan) is a visionary document. lt envisions a future in which the best
traits of today's Fresno are preserved, and opportunities for improvement are seized. The theme of
resilience runs throughout the Plan and its strategies to address the city's challenges and capitalize
on its assets. The Plan describes a balanced city with an appropriate proportion of its growth and
reinvestment focused in Downtown, established neighborhoods, and along Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
corridors. This will result in a city with a revitalized core and with livable new suburban neighborhoods
supporting one another.
The Plan is not merely a compendium of ideas and wish lists. While it is general and long-range in
scope, the Plan is also comprehensive with many near-term actions. lt lays out policies and
implementation strategies from the date of adoption to 2035 and beyond. The defined policies,
figures, standards, guidelines and actions to be undertaken by the City focus on what is concrete and
achievable in order to accommodate the future population. At its heart, the Plan gives the City the
opportunity to effectively and efficiently plan for long-term land uses in a comprehensive way so that
future development is implemented in a cohesive and sustainable manner.
The three guiding principles of the new Fresno General Plan, which are woven throughout the
document, are as follows:
o Protect. The new General Plan protects existing and future investments in homes, propefty,
and businesses.
Preserve. The new General Plan preseryes the character and values that make Fresno a
unique and desirable place.
Promote. The new General Plan promotes and incentivizes new investments by existing
businesses and by new businesses seeking to relocate or expand.
The Plan is the result of input from hundreds of interviews, workshops, over 40 public meetings and
hearings, and other outreach to thousands of residents, business owners and community
stakeholders. ln addition, the City conducted a survey of 400 area residents on their vision for the
future of Fresno and incorporated the findings in the Plan. ln total, the Administration, General Plan
Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council have led an extensive four-year
outreach process, setting a new standard for public engagement in the City of Fresno.
On April 19,2012, the City Council voted (5-2) to adopt the Alternative "A-Modified" as the preferred
General Plan Alternative. On August 23,2012, the City Council unanimously adopted Resolution No.
2012-150 (Exhibit C) which initiated the General Plan update based upon the preferred alternative
and further initiated the amendment and/or repeal of several Specific and Community Plans. These
actions were a culmination of a plan development process that included 12 public workshops, 22
General Plan Citizens Committee (GPCC) meetings, six Planning Commission meetings and three
City Council hearings.
Following the direction contained in the Council's action, the staff, together with the consulting firms of
Dyett & Bhatia and MW Steele Group, has prepared the proposed Fresno General Plan. The Public
Review Draft of the Plan was available from July 2 through October 9, 2014 and the Draft Master
Environmental lmpact Report (DMEIR), conducted by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) was available for
public review and comment from July 31 through October 9,2014. During this public review period,
public presentations were made to numerous groups; including but not limited to all seven Council
Districts, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. The Planning recommended cedification of
the Final Master Environmental lmpact Report and adoption of the General Plan on Monday,
December 8,2014.
BACKGROUND
Purpose of the General Plan
The Fresno General Plan is the community's most important planning tool. A General Plan is a
comprehensive, long-range planning document that every city and county in California is required to
have under state law (California Government Code Section 65300). The California Supreme Court
has described a general plan as "the constitution for future development." A general plan expresses
the community's vision, values and priorities and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of
future public and private land uses. What this means is that the policies of the general plan are
intended to serve as the framework for future land use decisions and is intended to provide the
following:
1. Reflect the community's vision, values and priorities related to land use, as well as the
community's goals for circulation, environmental, economic, social issues and policies which
are affected by future land use and development.
2. Provide the framework for the City's decision-making associated with future development
approvals.
3. Provide residents with an opportunity to padicipate in the planning and decision-making
processes of their communities.
4. lnform citizens, developers, decision-makers, and other public agencies of the principles that
guide development in the City.
As a charter city, Fresno is required to adopt a general plan that contains certain mandatory elements
set out in Government Code Section 65302. These required elements are: land use, circulation,
housing, conservation, open-space, noise, and safety. Under Government Code Section 65303, the
City can adopt optional elements beyond the mandatory list to address additional specific needs that
relate to the physical development of the City. Optional elements were created for the new General
Plan to address specific needs for the City such as economic development and historic preservation,
as well as the ability to provide and maintain essential services. The Plan also includes an
implementation chapter to assist the policy makers in carrying out the visions, goals, policies, and
objectives of the Plan. These additional elements evolved out of feedback received during the initial
public outreach for the Plan. Upon adoption, they carry the same weight as the state-mandated
elements.
As initiated by the Council, the Plan establishes 17 goals for the City which are as follows:
I u¡ilil rÌr'fd ll kì ¡r (c ('r.J O¡c.r ¡¡l¡ rlt'l¡t¿riyr
Goal 1. lncrease opportunity, economic
development, business and job creation.
Goal 2. Support a successful and competitive
Downtown.
Goal 3. Emphasize conservation, successful
adaptation to climate and changing resource
conditions, and performance effectiveness in the
use of energy, water, land, buildings, natural
resources, and fiscal resources required for the
long-term sustainability of Fresno.
Use urban form, land use, and Development Code
policies to streamline permit approval, promote local
educational excellence and workforce relevance,
significantly increase óusrness development and
expansion, retain and attract talented people, create
jobs and sustained economic growth, strategically
locate employment lands and facilities, and avoid
over-saturation of a single type of housing, retail or
employment.
Emphasize infill development and a revitalized central
core area as fhe primary activity center for Fresno and
the region by locating substantial growth in the
Downtown, and along the corridors leading to the
Downtown. Use vision-based policies in a
development code specific to the Downtown, when
adopted, to ensure the creation of a unique sense of
place in the central core.
Acknowledges both the environmental and fiscal
impacts of future growth and the limitations related to
water, energy, natural resources as well as provide
and maintain essenfla/ services, amenities, and
su p pofti n g i nfrastru ctu re.
Goal 4. Emphasize achieving healthy air quality
and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Prioritizes and incentivizes infill development as well
as investing in alternative modes of transpoftation,
including Bus Rapid Transit, which are needed to
reduce the number of vehicle miles travelled and
associafed emlssions.
Goal 5. Support agriculture and food production
as an integral industry.
Emphasize the economic and cultural role of Fresno
as a center of agriculture and food production
sysfems by conserving farmland through a focus on
ínq vacant and underutilized land within the
established Sphere of lnfluence of the City, limiting
any fufther urban boundary expansion, and
developing urban agriculture within the city and
designated growth areas.
Goal 6. Protect, preserve, and
historic, and cultural resources.
enhance natural,Emphasize the continued protection of impoftant
natural, historic and cultural resources in the future
development of Fresno. This includes both designated
historic structures and neighborhoods, but also "urban
artifacts" and neighborhoods that create the character
of Fresno.
Goal 7. Provide for a diversity of districts,
neighborhoods, housing types (including
affordable housing), residential densities, job
opportunities, recreation, open space, and
educational venues that appeal to a broad range
of people throughout the city.
Recognizes fhe need to provide other forms of
housing oppoftunities that are conveniently located
close to employment, educational, and other activity
centers that can be easily accessed without having to
incur the cost of owning an automobile.
Goal 8. Develop Gomplete Neighborhoods and
districts with an efficient and diverse mix of
residential densities, building types, and
affordability which are designed to be healthy,
attractive, and centered by schools, parks, and
public and commercial services to provide a
sense of place and that provide as many services
as oossible within walkinq distance.
lntentionally plan for Complete Neighborhoods as an
outcome and not a collection of subdivisions which do
not result in Complete Neighborhoods.
Goal 9. Promote a city of healthy communities and
improve quality of life in established
neighborhoods.
Emphasize suppoñing established neighborhoods in
Fresno with safe, well maintained, and accessible
sfreefs, public utilities, education and job training,
proximity to jobs, retail seruices, health care,
affordable housing, youth development oppoftunities,
open space and parks, transportation options, and
oppoñunities for home qrown buslnesses.
Goal 10. Emphasize increased land use intensity
and mixed-use development at densities
supportive of greater use of transit in Fresno.
Greater dens/res can be achieved through
encouragement, infrastructure and incentives for infill
and revitalization along major corridors and in Activity
Centers.
Goal ll. Emphasize and plan for all modes
travel on local and Major Streets in Fresno.
Facilitate travel by walking, biking, transit, and motor
vehicle with interconnected and linked neighborhoods,
districts, major calnpuses and public facilities,
shopping centers and other service centers, and
regional transportation such as air, rail, bus and
highways.
Goal 12. Resolve existing public infrastructure
and service deficiencies. Make full use of existing
infrastructure, and invest in improvements to
increase competitiveness and promote economic
growth.
Emphasize the fair and necessary cosfs of
maintaining sustainable water, sewer, sfreefs, and
other public infrastructure and service sysfems rn
rates, fees, financing and public investments to
implement the General Plan. Adequately address
accumulated deferred maintenance,
infrastructure, nsks to service continuity, desired
standards of se¡vice to meet quality-of-life goals, and
required infrastructure to support growth, economic
competitiveness and óusrness development.
Goal 13. Emphasize the City as a role model for
good growth management planning, efficient
processing and permit streamlining, effective
urban development policies, environmental
quality, and a strong economy.
Work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and
institutions to further fhese values throughout the
region. Positively influence the same attributes in
other jurisdictions of the San Joaquin Valley-and
thus the potential for regional sustainability-and
improve the standing and credibility of the City to
pursue appropriate Sfafe, LAFCO, and other regional
policies that would curb sprawl and prevent new
unincorporated community development which
compete with and threaten fhe success of sustainable
policies and development practices in Fresno.
Goal '14. Provide a network of well-maintained
parks, open spaces, athletic facilities, and walking
and biking trails connecting the city's districts
and neighborhoods to attract and retain a broad
range of individuals, benefit the health of
residents, and provide the level of public
amenities required to encourage and support
development of higher density urban living and
transit use.
Emphasizes the importance of providing fhese kind of
amenities in order to improve the quality of life for our
residents, and how ff¡ese kind of investments help to
maintain and enhance the value of the properties in
which fhese types of amenities are located.
Goal 15. lmprove Fresno's visual image and
enhance its form and function through urban
design strategies and effective maintenance.
Goal 16. Protect and improve public health and
safetv.
Goal 17. Recognize, respect, and plan for Fresno's
cultural, social, and ethnic diversity, and foster an
informed and engaged citizenry.
Emphasize shared community values and genuine
engagement with and across different neighborhoods,
communities, institutions, businesses and secfors fo
solve difficult problems and achieve shared goals for
fhe success of Fresno and allifs residenfs.
Timeline
As noted in previous reports to the Council, the effort to update the City's General Plan and
Development Code has been funded by federal grants from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
under the Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program, HUD Sustainable
Communities lnitiative, and a state grant from the California Strategic Growth Council Sustainable
Communities program. The DOE grant was provided to the City of Fresno for the Energy Efficiency
Survey program and to encourage comprehensive energy conservation and efficiency in Fresno's
land use planning and property development standards. The other grants were provided to integrate
long term community sustainability principles and practices into the City's comprehensive General
Plan addressing land use, transportation, public utilities and services, and resource management
goals and the implementing property development regulations.
A complete description of the Fresno General Plan update planning process and alternative growth
concepts was presented to the City Council on April 5,2012, with additional requested information
presented at a follow-up meeting occurring on April 19, 2012. Both meetings included thorough
discussion. At the conclusion of this review, the Council selected a preferred alternative and four
months later on August 23,2012, initiated the completion of the Plan.
The Public Review Draft of the Plan and the Draft Master Environmental lmpact Report (DMEIR) with
technical studies, conducted by FCS were released for public review and comment on July 31st. On
July 29th, a community information meeting about the public review draft was held at Fresno City
College which was attended by more than 200 people. During the public comment period, public
workshops were held in each Council District. Presentations were also made to numerous community
groups, and a Planning Commission workshop was held.
Summary of Public Comments
The public comment period ended on October 9,2014. Numerous comments were received during
the public review period including letters on both the General Plan and the Draft Master
Environmental lmpact Report (DMEIR). Comments on the Plan itself were carefully considered and
thoroughly analyzed by staff. As part of the longstanding commitment to community involvement in
the Plan, requested changes that could feasibly be accommodated without creating internal
contradictions, or conflicts with the goals of the Plan or MEIR, were accommodated. A summary of
the comments and how these were incorporated into the General Plan are listed in Exhibit K.
Comments on the DMEIR were fon¡uarded to FCS. FCS then wrote, in coordination with City staff,
formal responses to each DMEIR comment. These responses are incorporated into the Final MEIR.
Comments on the General Plan were diverse and in some cases contradictory in nature. The main
categories of comments were as follows:
Land Use Diagram. Many of the comment letters requested very specific changes to the land
use diagram. ln particular, it was often requested that certain parcels of land be changed from
one land use designation to another. For example, the draft Plan may have shown a parcel as
Medium High Density Residential, but the commenter requested that it be changed to Medium
Density Residential. Such comments were received from property owners regarding their own
land, as we as from people who did not own the sites in question.
The" Roughly Half" Ratio of lnfill Development. Some commenters felt that this policy was
too biased in favor of new growth areas, while others felt that it was too biased in favor of infill.
Many felt that it wasn't strong enough and that there ought to be strict control mechanisms to
ensure that half of the City's growth was in the form of infill, but some letters expressed
concern that the language in the draft Plan was already too strict and could result in a
development moratorium in new growth areas.
Underserved Neighborhoods. There were several comments urging that the Plan do more to
address needs in traditionally underserved neighborhoods. Some comments focused on the
need for infrastructure in cerlain areas, while others commented on a disproportionate
concentration of industrial uses in certain neighborhoods.
Non-Automobile Transportation. Several commenters requested that a stronger emphasis
be placed on infrastructure for alternative modes of transportation. Bicycle facilities were
commonly requested, and walkability was also discussed. Multiple letters requested better
public transit, some of which focused on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) specifically, and others
which discussed the bus system more generally.
Non-suburban Development and Transportation Goncepts. Some letters expressed
discomfort with the Plan's intentions to create a more compact urban environment in
Downtown and along the BRT corridors. Reasons included concerns over traffic, potential BRT
costs, and fears that conventional suburban lifestyle options would be eliminated.
Outward Growth. The consequences of outward growth were the focus of some of the
comment letters received by staff. Some commenters stated that there was a need for stronger
farmland preservation strategies, and others felt that new growth at the edge of the City ought
to pay the full costs of its required infrastructure.
The Development Code. Some commenters felt that the new Development Code should be
adopted at the same time as the General Plan.
ln addition to the broader issues addressed above, there are several erroneous statements that have
been made recently about the Plan. lt is important to address such statements in order to clear up
misunderstandings and provide accurate information for the City Council and the public.
o Statement: The General Plan intends for Fresno to be more dense that San Francisco.
This statement is false. At 4,545 people per square mile, Fresno's density is significantly lower
than San Francisco's 17,867 people per square mile. While the General Plan does call for
targeted increases in density in order to revitalize Downtown and to maximize the benefit of
infrastructure investments, the overall density of the community will only rise to 5,732 people
per square mile under the Plan, and most existing neighborhoods won't experience any
increases in density.
. Statement: The General Plan will repeal the Community and Specific Plans, leaving
neighborhoods with no protections.
This statement is false. The community and specific plans will not automatically be repealed.
They will remain in place until the protections that they afford are carried fon¡rard in the new
Development Code and/or new community and specific plans.
o Statement: The General Plan endangers the Forestiere Underground Gardens.
This statement is false. The General Plan does not propose that the Underground Gardens be
removed or changed. The Gardens are on the National Register of Historic Places, the Local,
Register of Historic Resources, and are a designated California Landmark. This means that
they are protected by both the Fresno Historic Preservation Ordinance and the California
Environmental Quality Act. lt is true that the Highway City Specific Plan, which includes the
Underground Gardens, was written long ago and is proposed to be repealed by the staff-
recommended General Plan. However, Highway City Specific Plan will remain in place until it
is replaced by new plans and codes that will be created with the participation of community
residents. Further, repeal of the Highway City Specific Plan, and adoption of its replacement,
must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council following
noticed public hearings.
Statement: The General Plan will constrain greenfield developers or result in a
moratorium on greenfield development.
This statement is false. Roughly half of future growth will be greenfield development. Over
10,000 greenfield lots in the incorporated areas, which represent nearly 10 years of inventory.
While certain thresholds must be met before development can occur in some growth areas,
other growth areas will be available immediately for development.
Statement: The General Plan is far too weak to promote infill.
This statement is false. Roughly half of future growth will be infill development, and the Plan
provides for the strongest set of infill incentives in the region in order to help that goal become
a reality.
Statement: The General Plan doesn't address the needs of underserved neighborhoods,
especially in south Fresno.
This statement is false. Most new development will occur south of Shaw Avenue. The City will
make capital improvements based on the age and condition of infrastructure, and based on
these criteria the greatest needs are south of Shaw. Additionally, given substantial greenfield
development opportunities in Southwest and Southeast Fresno, the City will create specific
plans to further define investment opportunities in these areas. Further community input and
resident involvement will be sought through this process.
Statement: The General Plan plans lndustrial uses only for low income neighborhoods.
This statement is false. Concerns about industrial uses were taken very seriously and every
effort was made to accommodate such concerns when it was feasible. The General Plan
update does not expand industrial uses. ln fact, some industrial land uses have been moved
from Southwest to Northwest Fresno. Furthermore, the Plan's implementing Development
Code will require that new industrial uses provide buffers adjacent to neighborhoods, and
where it was possible to do so, the Plan designates Heavy lndustrial uses away from
neighborhoods. Some commenters expressed interest in removing all industrial from south
Fresno, but given the location of rail and highway infrastructure this is not feasible.
Statement: The General Plan doesn't address Disadvantaged Unincorporated
Communities (DUCs).
This statement is misinformed. DUCs, such as Calwa, remain in Fresno County where the City
of Fresno has no jurisdiction to provide services. However, the City of Fresno is willing to work
with these communities to find a path fonruard to annexation if that is their desire.
Statement: The General Plan doesn't promote parks in underserved/underrepresented
neighborhoods.
This statement is false. The Plan calls for the park supply to grow to 3 acres of pocket,
neighborhood, and community parks per 1,000 residents, and calls for an additional 2 acres of
regional parks per 1,000 residents. ln addition to the creation of new City parks, the City of
Fresno will identify joint use opportunities in locating parks with other public facilities such as
schools.
o Statement: The General Plan does not do enough to limit the overconcentration of
liquor stores in low income areas.
This statement is premature. The Community will have an opportunity to address the location,
separation and number of package liquor stores as part of the Development Code.
. Statement: The General will eliminate cul-de-sacs.
This statement is false. As long as pedestrian options are available to connect neighborhoods
to adjacent services and shopping, some cul-de-sacs can still be built. Specific standards will
be addressed in the forthcoming Development Code.
Nexf Sfeps
On Monday, December I the Planning Commission considered this item. The Commission
recommended certification of the FMEIR and adoption of the General Plan (with minor corrections to
the staff-proposed land uses) by a vote of 6 to 1.
lf the Plan is adopted by the Council, two significant implementation actions will follow:
Gitywide Development Code. After the adoption of the General Plan, staff will proceed with
the completion of the public review draft of lhe Citywide Development Code, and will then bring
the Code to the City Council for consideration. lf adopted, this document will replace the
current Zoning Ordinance, which has not been comprehensively updated since 1964. lt is
anticipated that the Citywide Development Code will be presented to the City Council for
consideration by the summer o12015.
Downtown Plans and Development Code. The Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan,
the Fulton Corridor Specific Plan, and lhe Downtown Development Code-which propose a
refined vision, revitalization strategy, and development regulations for the center of the City-
were released for public comment in 2011. After the adoption of the General Plan they will be
revised and brought to the City Council for consideration by the summer of 2015.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
An environmental document for the proposed Fresno General Plan was prepared by the City to
satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City is the lead agency for the Project
under CEQA and a Draft Master Environmental lmpact Repod was prepared for the Fresno General
Plan, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15175, et seq. The MEIR was
prepared by FCS/Michael Brandman Associates (FCS) under contract with the City.
LOCAL PREFERENCE
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal lmpact of Developing the General Plan - Funds for consultants to assist in completion of the
Fresno General Plan and Development Code documents were provided by a grant from the California
Strategic Growth Council. All environmental assessment studies and reports were funded by grants
from the U.S. Departments of Energy and Housing and Urban Development.
Fiscal lmpact on the Gity Resulting from lmplementation of the General Plan - Analysis was
conducted on the financial impact of implementing the goals and policies in the General Plan. lnitial
fiscal analysis reveals a distinct revenue advantage for development in incorporated areas (i.e. infill
areas) primarily as a result of the existing Tax Sharing Agreement with Fresno County. lt also reveals
a need for new strategies to fund ongoing maintenance of development in unincorporated areas.
. The City of Fresno receives more tax revenue in the existing neighborhoods and downtown
(incorporated/infill) than in the unincorporated areas. The City receives 27-31 percent of tax
revenue in the incorporated areas of the City, as compared lo 17-22 percent of tax revenues
when development occurs in unincorporated areas that are annexed to the City:
o Fiscal advantage of almost 50 percent from incorporated areas - on average, every
$1,000 of new assessed value from existing neighborhoods and downtown generates
$2.90 compared to unincorporated area where the amount is only $1.95.
o Under the Tax Sharing Agreement with Fresno County, the County retains its share of
properly tax base plus 62 percent of increment on new development. ln other words the
General Fund "capture rate" on annexed land is significantly below that within existing
City boundaries.
. The City of Fresno falls behind on every annexed property without adding a new funding
source for maintenance. lmpact fees and Community Facility Districts (CFD) are among the
options to pay for construction and maintenance in the new growth areas for public streets,
curbs, gutters, and sidewalks within neighborhoods, median islands, and parks spaces. Public
Safety and infrastructure on main thoroughfares will require additional contribution from the
General Fund or "other" funding sources. Providing services in unincorporated areas, without
additional funding, will further constrain the already stressed service levels is existing
neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENTS:
o Exhibit A: Land Use Change Requests, Map and Table [Previously provided on 12/9, updated
version provided on 12/101
. Exhibit B: Staff Recommended Land Use and Circulation ltlap [Previously provided on 12/9,
updated version provided on 12/101
. Exhibit C: City Council Resolution 2012-150 lnitiation of the General Plan Update [Previously
provided on 12/91
. Exhibit D: Draft Master Environmental lmpact Reporl (DMEIR SCH NO.2012111015)
[Previously provided on 12/9]
o Exhibit E: Final Master Environmental lmpact Report (FMEIR) [Previously provided on 12/9]
. Exhibit F: Revised General Plan, December 2014 [Previously provided on 12/9]. Exhibit G: Redline General Plan [Previously provided on 12/9]. Exhibit H: Errata Sheet for Redline General Plan [Previously provided on 12/9]o Exhibit l: General Plan Comment Letters [Previously provided on 12/9]. Exhibit J: Frequently Asked Questions [Previously provided on 12/9]o Exhibit K: Planning Commission Staff Report [Previously provided on 12/9]. Exhibit L: Errata Sheet for December 2014 General Plan fNof previously providedl
. Exhibit M: Planning Commission Resolution 13313 [Not previously provided]. Exhibit N: Planning Commission Resolution 13312 [Not previously provided]o Exhibit O: RESOLUTION - Certifying Final Environmental lmpact Report (ElR) No. SCH
201211 1015 prepared for the General Plan Update and the Development Code Update fNof
previously providedl. Exhibit P: RESOLUTION - Adopting the proposed Fresno General Plan as an update to the
2025 General Plan, including all text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits and contained in the
Fresno General Plan document dated December, 2014 [Not previously provided]. Exhibit Q: RESOLUTION - Adopting plan modifications recommended by staff and identified as
"City of Fresno Staff Preferred Land Use" in the "Land Use Change Requests" and "Land Use
and Circulation Map," and denying the remaining plan modifications fNof previously providedlo Exhibit R: RESOLUTION - Authorizing the Development and Resource Management Director
or her designee to update the text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits contained in the Fresno
General Plan document to reflect the final action taken by Council, to the extent that such
updates are necessary to maintain consistency [Not previously provided]
fi I¡:IiVID
Agenda ltem: lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
¿Ìiï ü:l it i'n T 1E Date: t2ltLlt4
c;TY cLIF.,., rorr',TFRESNO CITY COU NCI L
City ofÉoeauSru¿fffE-=iE7¿¿N-
Supplemental lnformation Packet
Agenda Related ltems - lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
Supplemental Packet Date: December tO,2Ot4
Item(s)
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update
(Citywide)
l. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental
lmpact Report (ElR) SCH No. 201211 1015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and
Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
Supplemental lnformation :
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the City Council after the
Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as
needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, 2600
Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2't.
ln addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the City Council meeting in the City
Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available on-line on the City
Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADAI:
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be
made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language ¡nterpreters,
assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meet¡ng. Please call
City Clerk's Office at62t-765O. Please keep the doonruays, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open
and accessible. lf you need assistance with seating because of a d se see
¡i]ï i:: iû ffl T ûû
CiTY CL!1Ii, FÍì[5}iÛ CA
EXHIBIT L
Errata Sheet for December 2014
General Plan
Paqe November 25th Published Draft Proposed Corrections:
lUpdate inside coverl
I 6.6 Disadvantaqed Unincorporated Communities 6-30
IList of Tables]
Table 1 1 -3....,....1 1 -6
Table 1 1 -6... ......1 1 -1 I
Table 11-7 .........1 1 -1 9
Table 1 1 -8.. .......11-21
Table 1 1 -9.. .......11-23
Table 1 1-10. ........11-24
Table 1 1 -1 1 .........11-25
Table 11-12 Building Form and location Standards--Mixed-
Use Districts in General Plan. .....11-26
Table 1 1 -1 3. ........11-27
[List of Tables]
Table 1 1 -3.,.......1'1 -5
Table 1 1 -6.. .......11 -17
Table 11-7 .... ....1 1 -18
Table 1 1 -8.. .......1 1 -20
Table 1 1 -9.. .......11-22
Table 1 1 -1 0. ........1 1-23
Table 11-1 1 .........11-24
Table 11-12 Building Form and Location Standards--Mixed-
Use Districts in General Plan. .....11-25
Tahle 1 1-13 11-26
1 lChapter 1 - Add paqe numbers for odd paqesl
1-4
The update process that created this General Plan was
initiated to take a comprehensive look at where the city is,
where it would like to be by General Plan Horizon (2035),
and by General Plan Buildout beyond 2035 (see
description for both on page 1-20).
The update process that created this General Plan was
initiated to take a comprehensive look at where the city is,
where it would like to be by General Plan Horizon (2035),
and by General Plan Buildout beyond 2G35 (see
description for both on page 1-19).
1-19
It elected not to expand the SOI in part to fully develop
Development Areas west and southwest of State Route 99,
and to plan for the phased development of the Southeast
Development Area (SEDA), formally known as Southeast
Growth Area (SEGA) which requires its development
through adoption of a specific plan that include
comprehensive provision of public infrastructure.
It elected not to expand the SOI in part to fully develop
Development Areas west and southwest of State Route 99,
and to plan for the phased development of the Southeast
Development Area (SEDA), formerly known as Southeast
Growth Area (SEGA), which requires its development
through adoption of a Specific Plan that includes
comprehensive provision of public infrastructure.
1-26
It creates a framework for provision of Complete Streets,
identifies future street and bikeway improvements,
addresses trails, parking, public transit, goods movement,
and long-term plans for the municipal airport.
It creates a framework for provision of Complete Streets;
identifies future street and bikeway improvements; and
addresses trails, parking, public transit, goods movement,
and long-term plans for the municipal airport.
2-4
ln addition, the percentage of families receiving food
stamps is significantly percent higher in the city than that of
the state. Table 2-1 provides details.
ln addition, the percentage of families receiving food
stamps is significantly higher in the city than that of the
state. Table 2-1 provides details.
1-of8
Paoe November 25th Published Draft Proposed Co'rrections
2-8
A balance of jobs across all industry sectors throughout the
County ensures that jobs are offered across the income
spectrum and support all aspects of a healthy local
economv.
A balance of jobs across all industry sectors throughout the
county ensures that jobs are offered across the income
spectrum and support all aspects of a healthy local
economv.
2-8
While this data is for the entire County and these sectors do
not currently represent a very high percentage of total jobs,
except for manufacturing and financial activities, all are
projected to increase its share over the next decade. Since
the large majority of the County's job base is located in the
city, this is an encouraging statistic for the city.
While this data is for the entire county and these sectors do
not currently represent a very high percentage of total jobs,
except for manufacturing and financial activities, all are
projected to increase its share over the next decade. Since
the large majority of the county's job base is located in the
city, this is an encouraging statistic for the city.
2-16
Planned efforts include providing City Hall procurement
briefings to ensure these entity know about opportunities to
bid on Citv proiects.
Planned efforts include providing City Hall procurement
briefings to ensure these entities know about opportunities
to bid on Citv proiects.
2-19
This would include maintaining appropriate financial
reserves in Enterprise Funds to provide necessary bond
debt coverage ratios and emergency reserves for these
essential utilities
This would include maintaining appropriate financial
reserves in Enterprise Funds to provide necessary bond
debt coverage ratios and emergency reserves for these
essential utilities.
3-6
. The California Avenue BRT corridor, which will connect
Southwest Fresno from the area located between Hughes
and Marks Avenues to Downtown; and
. The California Avenue BRT corridor, which will connect
southwest Fresno from the area located between Hughes
and Marks Avenues to Downtown; and
3-19
. Concept Plans should envision parks, and in some cases
a school, with a variety of densities clustered around the
park and school, and predominantly medium-density
residential development with a mix of housing types beyond
the core.
. Concept Plans should envision parks, and in some cases
a school, with higher densities located around the park and
school, and predominantly residential development with a
mix of housing types beyond the core.
3-22
The Veteran's Community Activity Center will be centered
by a community park next to the Veteran's Home Complex
located on the Southeast corner of Marks and California
Avenues. This area is envisioned as a high density and
urban neighborhood residential density around the core with
Complete Neighborhoods to the noñh, south, and east.
The Veteran's Community Activity Center will be centered
by a community park next to the Veteran's Home Complex
located on the southeast corner of Marks and California
Avenues. This area is envisioned for high density and urban
neighborhood residential density around the core with
Complete Neighborhoods to the north, south, and east.
2of8
Page November 25th Published Draft Proposed Corrections
3-25
Primarily a residential area, the area would be served with
local strets, park and recreational trails, and multi-family
townhomes, and it will be filled-out by medium density
residential to conform with adiacent centers.
Primarily a residential area, the area would be served with
local streets, park and recreational trails, and multi-family
townhomes, and it will be filled-out by medium density
residential to conform with adiacent centers.
3-28
Block Length. Create development standards that provide
desired and maximum block lengths in residential, retail,
and mixed-use districts in order to enhance walkability.
UF-14-c Block Length. Create development standards that
provide desired and maximum block lengths in residential,
retail, and mixed-use districts in order to enhance
walkabilitv.
3-56
[LU-6-d] Neighborhoods can be anchored by community
commercial centers with a mix of uses that meet the area's
needs and create a sense of place; and
[LU-6-d] Neighborhoods will be anchored by community
commercial centers with a mix of uses that meet the area's
needs and create a sense of place; and
4-40
[MT-6-g] Commentary: This should be done pursuant to
Figure MT-2: Paths and Trails, and the adopted BMP, as
mav amended..
[MT-6-g] Commentary: This should be done pursuant to
Figure MT-2: Paths and Trails, and the adopted BMP, as
mav amended.
5-8
[Footnote 4] ...ponding basins with park improvements
(excludes fenced off flood areas); Clovis and Central
Unified School District School playgrounds, Fresno Unified's
Borroughs Elementary and Yosemite Middle School (grass
fields and courts, Kindergarlen play areas, and parking
areas onlv).
[Footnote 4] ...ponding basins with park improvements
(excludes fenced-off flood areas); Clovis and Central
Unified School District playgrounds, Fresno Unified's
Burroughs Elementary and Yosemite Middle School (grass
fields and courts, Kindergarten play areas, and parking
areas onlv).
5-9
Nevertheless, Clovis and Central Unified' policies for open
playgrounds provide a very significant amount of
recreational area for residents in those school districts.
lncluding Fresno Unified's Borroughs Elementary and
Yosemite Middle School open space, city schools provide
over 450 acres of recreational land.
Neverlheless, Clovis and Central Unified's policies for open
playgrounds provide a very significant amount of
recreational area for residents in those school districts.
lncluding Fresno Unified's Burroughs Elementary and
Yosemite Middle School open space, city schools provide
over 450 acres of recreational land.
5-21 IPOSS-1-bl Consider updatinq the Parks Master Plan.|'POSS-1-bl Uodate the Parks Master Plan.
5-28 The vision of the Valley Arboretumu is to establish a link the
"botanical brothers" in the reqion...
The vision of the Valley Arboretumt is to establish a link
between the "botanical brothers" in the reoion...
6-5 ...Ceasefire (prevention, intervention and community-
mobilization strateqies to reduce community)...
...Ceasefire (prevention, interyention and community-
mobilization strateqies to reduce violence)...
7-30 Groundwater pumpage in 2010 was 128,578 af. which
created a 28,578 af overdraft on the aquifer that year alone.
Groundwater pumpage in 2010 was 128,578 af which
created a 28,578 af overdraft on the aquifer that year alone.
3of8
Paoe November 25th Published Draft Proposed CorrectionÈ' "'.'
7-40
tRc-8-bl Commentary: Theses targets represent 28 and
30 percent reductions respectively, fom the 2010 rate of
consumotion.
[RC-8-b] Commentary: These targets represent 28 and
30 percent reductions respectively, from the 2010 rate of
eonsumotion.
9-5
Each of the three airports in Fresno have their own noise
policies and land use compatibility criteria, all of which are
incoroorated into this Plan.
Each of the three airports in Fresno has its own noise
policies and land use compatibility criteria, all of which are
incorporated into this Plan.
9-9
Ã-LUC and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
provides guidance to localjurisdictions on determining
appropriate and compatible adjacent land uses through the
detailed findings and policies of ALUCPS. Among other
objectives, these airport plans strives to minimize the effects
of aircraft noise on communities adjacent to airports and
prevent uses incompatible with airport operations from
locatino near the airport.
ALUC and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
provide guidance to localjurisdictions on determining
appropriate and compatible adjacent land uses through the
detailed findings and policies of ALUCPS. Among other
objectives, these airport plans strive to minimize the effects
of aircraft noise on communities adjacent to airports and
prevent uses incompatible with airport operations from
locatino near the airport.
9-13 Inseft Figure NS-4 Existing Fresno Yosemite lnternational
Airoort Noise and Safetv Zonesl
4of8
November 25th Published Draft Prooosed eoirectionS,
9-16
NS-1-a Desirable and Generally Acceptable Exterior
Noise Environment. Establish 65 OdBA L¿nor CNEL as the
standard for the desirable maximum average exterior noise
levels for defined usable exterior areas of residential and
noise-sensitive uses for noise, but designate 605 dBA L6n or
CNEL (measured at the propefty line) for noise generated
by stationary sources impinging upon residential and noise-
sensitive uses. Maintain 65 dBA LDN or CNEL as the
maximum average exterior noise levels for non-sensitive
commercial land uses, and maintain 70 dBA LDN or CNEL
as maximum average exterior noise level for industrial land
uses, both to be measured at the property line of parcels
where noise is generated which may impinge on
neighboring propefties,
Commentary: The Noise Ordinance will define usable
exterior areas for single family and multiple family
residential and noise sensitive uses to include rear yards
and other outdoor areas intended to accommodate leisure
or active Ltse, exclLtding front or side yard areas, and front
or side porches. Balconies or roof decks ( facing front and
side yards shall be included in designated areas to be
protected from noise where these spaces are used to
calculate compliance with required outdoor living area as
required by adopted development standards ) .
NS-1-a Desirable and Generally Acceptable Exterior
Noise Environment. Establish 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL as the
standard for the desirable maximum average exterior noise
levels for defined usable exterior areas of residential and
noise-sensitive uses for noise, but designate 60 dBA L¿n or
CNEL (measured at the propefty line) for noise generated
by stationary sources impinging upon residential and noise-
sensitive uses. Maintain 65 dBA L6¡ or CNEL as the
maximum average exterior noise levels for non-sensitive
commercial land uses, and maintain 70 dBA L¿¡ or CNEL as
maximum average exterior noise level for industrial land
uses, both to be measured at the propedy line of parcels
where noise is generated which may impinge on
neighbori ng properties.
Commentary: The Norse Ordinance will define usable
exterior areas for single family and multiple family
residential and noise sensitive uses to include rear yards
and other outdoor areas intended to accommodate leisure
or active use, exclLtding front or side yard areas, and front
or side porches. Balconies or roof decks facing front and
side yards shall be included in designated areas to be
protected from noise where these spaces are used to
calculate compliance with required outdoor living area as
required by adopted development standards.
5of8
Paoe Ñovember 25th Published Draft Proposed Corrections
9-17
NS-1-c Generally Unacceptable Exterior Noise
Exposure Range. Establish the exterior noise exposure of
greater than 7065d8 L6nor CNEL to be generally
unacceptable for residential and other noise sensitive uses
for noise generated by sources in Policy NS-1-a, and study
alternative less noise-sensitive uses for these areas if
othenruise appropriate. Require appropriate noise reducing
mitigation measures as determined by a site specific
acoustical analysis to comply with the generally desirable or
generally acceptable exterior noise level and the required
45 dB interior noise level standards set in Table 9-2 as
conditions of permit approval.
NS-1-c Generally Unacceptable Exterior Noise
Exposure Range. Establish the exterior noise exposure of
greater than 65 dB Ldn or CNEL to be generally
unacceptable for residential and other noise sensitive uses
for noise generated by sources in Policy NS-1-a, and study
alternative less noise-sensitive uses for these areas if
othenruise appropriate. Require appropriate noise reducing
mitigation measures as determined by a site specific
acoustical analysis to comply with the generally desirable or
generally acceptable exterior noise level and the required
45 dB interior noise level standards set in Table 9-2 as
conditions of permit approval.
9-18
NS-1-f Performance Standards. lmplement performance
standards for noise reduction for new residential and noise
sensitive uses exposed to exterior community noise levels
from transportation sources above 65 dB L6¡ or CNEL, as
shown on Figure NS-3: Future Noise Contours, or as
identified by a project-specific acoustical analysis based on
the target acceptable noise levels set in Tables 9-2 and 9-3
and Policies NS-1-a throuqh NS-1-c.
NS-1-f Performance Standards. lmplement performance
standards for noise reduction for new residential and noise
sensitive uses exposed to exterior community noise levels
from transportation sources above 65 dB L6¡ or CNEL, as
shown on Figure NS-3: Future Noise Contours, or as
identified by a project-specific acoustical analysis based on
the target acceptable noise levels set in Tables 9-2 and 9-3
and Policies NS-1-a through NS-1-c.
9-19
NS-1-¡ Significance Threshold. Establish, as a threshold
of significance for the City's environmental review process,
that a significant increase in ambient noise levels is
assumed if the project would increase noise levels in the
immediate vicinity by 5 3 dB Ldn or CNEL or more above the
ambient noise limits established in this General Plan
Update.
NS-1-j Significance Threshold. Establish, as a threshold
of significance for the City's environmental review process,
that a significant increase in ambient noise levels is
assumed if the project would increase noise levels in the
immediate vicinity by 3 dB L6n or CNEL or more above the
ambient noise limits established in this General Plan
Update.
9-24
NS-2-d Bluff Preservation Overlay Zone. Per the
requirements of the Bluff Preservation Overlay Zone District
and Policy POSS-7-f (Chapter 5, Parks and Open Space),
the following standards shall be applicable for property
located within the Bluff Preservation zone
NS-2-d Bluff Preservation Overlay Zone. Per the
requirements of the Bluff Preseruation Overlay Zone District
and Policy POSS-7-Í (Chapter 5, Parks and Open Space),
the following standards shall be applicable for property
located within the Bluff Preservation zone:
6of8
Paqe November 25th Published Draft Proposed Corrections
10-19
While Fresno is surrounded by some of the most productive
agricultural land in the world, one in five residents in the
County of Fresno are "food insecure," and less than 10
percent of residential land in the city is within walking
distance to a qrocery store.
While Fresno is surrounded by some of the most productive
agricultural land in the world, one in five residents in the
county of Fresno is "food insecure," and less than 10
percent of residential land in the city is within walking
distance to a grocery store.
10-22
Public transit provides travels option for people who cannot
or choose not to drive, and can be a crucial means of
accessing health services as well as jobs and education.
Public transit provides travels options for people who cannot
or choose not to drive, and can be a crucial means of
accessinq health services as well as iobs and education.
10-23
The City Council adopted the Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails
Master Plan (BMP). Which serues as an administrative and
implementing guide, to increase the miles of bike lane
(along roadways) and bike paths (separate rights-of way)
available to bike riders.
The City Council adopted the Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails
Master Plan (BMP), which serues as an administrative and
implementing guide, to increase the miles of bike lane
(along roadways) and bike paths (separate rights-of way)
available to bike riders.
1 1-1 1
12.1.161 Nevertheless, the General Plan is not inconsistent
with this program.See LU-S and implementing policy LU-4-c
and HC-2-b.
12.1.16] Nevertheless, the General Plan is not inconsistent
with this program. See LU-S and implementing policy LU-4-
c and HC-2-b.
12-17
Density and intensity limits, consistent with the Plan's land
use classifications, will also being updated.
Density and intensity limits, consistent with the Plan's land
use classifications, will also be updated.
12-24
Due to these limitations, the City will need to establish a
method to monitor investment within infill areas, and
Growth Area '1 prior to approving development in areas
subject to the restrictions enumerated in the City/County
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
Due to these limitations, the City will need to establish a
method to monitor investment within infill areas and Growth
Area 1 prior to approving development in areas subject to
the restrictions enumerated in the City/County
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
12-29
[Table 1 2-2 lmplementing Policy]
Retain talented people and attract new talent to the city;
increase educational attainment and relevant job skill levels
in the Fresno workforce.[Add Policies ED-4-e, ED-4-f]
12-29
[Table 12-2 lmplementing Policy]
Coordinate, establish partnerships, and strengthen
relationships with other local and regional public and private
entities, including California State University, Fresno.lAdd Policies ED-4-e, ED-4-fl
7of8
Paoe November 25th Published'Draft
12-30
[Table 1 2-2 lmplementing PolicY]
Continue to implement housing programs that support a
diversity of neighborhoods, activities, and housing types in
the Fresno Planning Area, while accommodating
m arket/cost con strai nts.lAdd Policv LU-S-il
12-30
[Table 1 2-2 lmplementing PolicY]
Adopt and apply local urban form, land use, and design
policies to specific neighborhoods and locations.lAdd Policv D-7-bl
12-32
[Table 1 2-2 lmplementing PolicY]
Support the goods movement transportation system with
capacity increasing and inter-modal connectivity enhancing
improvements.lAdd Policv MT-1 1-fl
12-33
[Table 1 2-2 lmplementing PolicY]
Utilize existing and future public infrastructure efficiently,
and adopt priority improvement programs for neighborhoods
with the qreatest needs.[Add Policv RC-1-hl
12-34
[Table 1 2-2 lmplementing PolicY]
Protect agricultural land outside of the area planned for
urbanization under this General Plan.tAdd Policv RC-9-cl
12-36
[Table 1 2-2 lmplementing PolicY]
Adopt regulations and programs and support efforts to
create safe, healthy, and affordable housing, and to
improve property maintenance.lAdd Policies HC-4-e, HC-4-fl
G-13
Fresno Metropolitan Area. See Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan
Area (FCMA) for definition.
G-34 FAX: City of Fresno's Fresno Area Express FAX: Fresno Area Express
Land Use Change Request '
27- STaÍÍ recommended at the Planning Commission hearing held on December 8, 2014 fo update the incorrect land use
designation of Office with the correct designation of Commercial/General. The Planning Commission voted in favor of this
recommendation and on December 10,2014, the Staff Preferred Land Use has been changed to reflectthis decision.
3h2, 59, 211,46 and F12 - Staff recommended at the Planning Commission hearing held on December 8, 2014, to have the City
of Fresno Staff Preferred Land Use revert backto the land use in the lnitiation Draft, dated August 9,2012'The Planning
Commission voted in favor of this recommendation and on December 10, 2014, the Staff Preferred Land Use has been changed
to reflect this decision.
8 of 8
P: T CIIVED
tiif iû Pn T c0
EXHIBIT M r'Tyclr,ì:i,FRE$Fjû cfi
Planning Commission Resolution
13313
FRESNO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 13313
The Fresno City Planning Commissio.l at itsregular meeting on December g, 2014,ad.opted the follorruingresolution relatilg .1g ReıommenOing"to tfiã-C¡t/ Councl-tnäAdoption of the Stafl Recommended Módifications to the fiesno Ceñeial plãn l_anãuse and circulation Map and the Associated Environmental nnãìysis. -
$|llFl_SL C,llY, staff prepared a modified Land Use and Circutation Map datedDecemþer 5, 2014, based on comments received from the public, land o*nórs äñOother stake holders; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared addit
Use and Circulation Map and concl
and Circulation Map did not result
what was assessed in the DEIR o
assessed in the DEIR; and
t to Fresno Municipal Code section 12-609,nning Commission was held to consideiing the FMEIR and proposed Fresno
to the Land Use and Circulation Map, ataff presentation as well as written'and
e public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED that the Fresno City Planning Commissionfinds as follows:
1' The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by this reference.2' The Planning Commission recommènds to the city Counıil-aãoplion otthe modified Land Use and Circulation Map dated Däcember S,2O'14, aidassociated environmental review entitled 'iAppendix 1 Planneci LanO'ÙseRequests Environmental Evaluation.',3. The foregoing Resolution w?s adopted by the Fresno planning
Commission u.qol a motion by Commissioñer Reed,- seconOeO O|Commissioner Holt.
vorlNG åyes - F-"ed, catalano, Garcia, Torossian, vasquez, HoltNoes - Medina
Not Voting - None
Absent - None
DATED: December 8,2014
Filed By: 13313-
Action: Recommend Approval
'K. Clark, Secretary
City Planning Commission
EXHIBIT N
fiiCEIVED
: -4|l r¡.. .r
^, .,i !,., *U i'íJ I t0
C:;'r' Ci[11.., F,Ì[l¡:C Ci'
Planning Commission Resolution
13312
FRESNO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO 13312
The Fresno City Planning Commission at its regular meeting on December 8, 2014,
adopted the following resolution relating to Recommending the Certification of the Final
Environmental lmpact Report for the Fresno General Plan, the Adoption of a Statement
of Overriding Considerations, and the Adoption of the Fresno General Plan to the City
Council.
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2002, by Resolution No, 2002-378, the Council of the
City of Fresno updated the 1984 Fresno General Plan for the Fresno-Clovis
Metropolitan Area by adopting the 2025 Fresno General Plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 12-605-G of the City's Local Planning and Procedures Ordinance
(LPPO), found in Chapter 12, Arlide 6 of the Fresno Municipal Code, calls for the
periodic review, and revision as necessary, of the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2012, the City Council initiated the update of the General
Plan based on the matters generally outlined in the 2035 Fresno General Plan lnitiation
Review Draft; and
WHEREAS, on July 30, 2014, the Planning Commission held a workshop on the Draft
Master Environmental lmpact Report (DEIR) and Draft Fresno General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on July 31 ,2014, the DEIR and Draft Fresno General Plan were published,
distributed, posted on the City's website and made available for review and comment by
responsible and trustee agencies, neighboring jurisdictions, persons and entities
requesting copies of said documents and the public, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15087; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2014, the DEIR was filed with the State Office of Planning &
Research under State Clearinghouse No. 201211 1015; and
WHEREAS, on October 9,2014, the public review and comment period closed; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to the comments received during the
comment period and included these responses in a separate volume entitled
"Responses to Comments on the Draft Master Environmental Impact Report General
Plan and Development Code Update" which together with the DEIR and other
information required by CEQA Guidelines section 15132 constitutes the Final Master
Environmental lmpact Report (FMEIR); and
WHEREAS, on December 8,2014, pursuant to Fresno Municipal Code section 12-608,
a duly noticed public hearing of the Planning Commission was held to consider
recommendations to the City Council regarding the FMEIR and proposed Fresno
General Plan at which the Planníng Commission received a staff presentation as well as
written and extensive oral testimony from members of the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED, that the Fresno City Planning Commission
finds as follows:
The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by this reference.
The Planning Commission recommends certification of the FMEIR and
adoption of the Fresno General Plan to the City Council based on the
following findings:a. That the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing and
reviewed the proposed Fresno General Plan pursuant to Section
12-609 of the Fresno Municipal Code; andb. That the Planning Commission has reviewed and analyzed the
FMEIR and other information in the entire record and has
considered the information contained therein, including the written
and oral comments received at the public hearing on the FMEIR
and the proposed Fresno General Plan, prior to acting upon and
recommending certification of the FMEIR and adoption of the
Fresno General Plan to the City Council; andc. That the Planning Commission has determined that the FMEIR is
adequate and sufficient and has been completed in compliance
with CEQA, and represents the independent judgment of the City of
Fresno.
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations that complies with the
requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15093 and that identifies the
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including
region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed General
Plan that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of
implementing the proposed General Plan, thus making the adverse
environmental effects acceptable.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Fresno Planning
Commission upon a motion by Commissioner Reed, seconded by
Commissioner Holt.
VOTING Ayes - Reed, Catalano, Garcia, Torossian, Vasquez, Holt
Noes - Medina
Not Voting - None
Absent - None
DATED: December 8,2014
Resolution No. 13312
Fíled By: Jennifer K. Clark, City of Fresno
Action: Recommend Approval
1.
2.
3.
4.
K. Clark, Secretary
City Planning Commission
EXHIBIT O
RilCf IVED
:riti Ll:l iû fn T 00
Ti;Y CLiRI, FRIS¡{O CA
Certifying Final Environmental
lmpact Report (EIR) No. SCH
20121 11 015
Plan
prepared for the
Update and theGeneral
Development Code Update
FTCTIVED
¡f1'l Uil iû Pn T 00
EXHIBIT P c:Ty clrn:{,FRrs¡is c,l
Adopt¡ng the proposed Fresno
General Plan as an update to the
2025 General Plan, including all
text, policies, maps, tables, and
exhibits and contained in the
Fresno General Plan document
dated December, 2014
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED
FRESNO GENERAL PLAN AS AN UPDATE TO THE 2025
GENERAL PLAN, INCLUDING ALL TEXT, POLICIES,
MAPS, TABLES, AND EXHIBITS CONTAINED IN THE
FRESNO GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENT DATED
DECEMBER 2014
WHEREAS, the California Planning and Zoning Law, specifically California
Government Code Section 65300, requires the City to adopt a comprehensive, long
term general plan for the City's physical development and for any land outside City
boundaries which bear relation to the City's planning; and
WHEREAS, On November 19, 2002, the City Council of the City of Fresno
(Council) adopted the2025 General Plan as a comprehensive update to the City's 1984
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 12, Atlicle 6, of the Fresno Municipal Code, known as the
Local Planning and Procedures Ordinance (LPPO), at Section 12-601, ef seq., governs
procedures for the adoption and amendment of general, community, and specific plans;
and
WHEREAS, Section 12-605-G of the LPPO calls for periodic review (and
revision, as necessary) of the City's general plan, and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2012, pursuant to LPPO Section 12-606, the Council
adopted Resolution No. 2012-150, initiating a comprehensive update to the 2025
General Plan, initially referred to as the 2035 General Plan, and now titled "Fresno
General Plan"; and
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
City Attorney Approval:
1of 7
Resolution No.
WHEREAS, the Fresno General Plan was initiated based upon the Preferred
General Plan Alternative presented in the 2035 General Plan lnitiation Review Draft,
and included all plan elements as a comprehensive update to the 2025 General Plan
(with the exception of the Housing Element, which has been processed, heard, and
enacted separately as required by State law); and
WHEREAS, the Fresno General Plan was selected as the preferred alternative
from four alternatives presented to the Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the LPPO, numerous plan modification
requests were received by the Development and Resource Management Department
which are identified in Exhibit A to the resolution titled "A Resolution of the Council of
the City of Fresno, California, Adopting Plan Modifications Recommended By Staff and
ldentified As 'City of Fresno Staff Preferred Land Use' in the 'Land Use Change
Requests' and 'Land Use and Circulation Map' Denying the Remaining Plan
Modifications"; and
WHEREAS, the City procured the assistance of a professional environmental
consultant to assist in the drafting and circulation of Master Environmental lmpact
Report (MEIR) SCH No. 2012111015 for the Fresno General Plan and Development
Code Update, and to include assessment of the initiated text, policies, land use and
circulation map amendments to the Fresno General Plan as well as potential future
changes to the initiated text, policies, land use and circulation map amendments to
various community and specific plans; and
WHEREAS, staff conducted a series of duly noticed Planning Commission
workshops, Council workshops, and public informational meetings on Draft MEIR SCH
2of7
No. 2012111015 and the Fresno General Plan including the proposed text, policies,
land use and circulation map for the Fresno General Plan, at which substantial public
input was received on the merits of the Fresno General Plan and Draft MEIR SCH No.
2012111015; and
WHEREAS, on December 1,2014, the Airporl Land Use Commission (ALUC)
determined that the Fresno General Plan is consistent with the ALUC's Sierra Sky Park
Land Use Policy Plan, ALUC's Fresno-Chandler Downtown Airport Land Use Policy
Plan and the ALUC's Fresno Air Terminal Land Use Policy Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Fresno City Planning Commission, pursuant to a duly noticed
and scheduled hearing on December 8, 2014, received public testimony and other
information and deliberated and considered the provisions of the Fresno General Plan,
the requested plan modifications and Draft MEIR SCH No. 201211 1015; and
WHEREAS, on December 8,2014, the Planning Commission made the following
recommendations to the City Council regarding the Fresno General Plan and MEIR
SCH No. 2012111015, as shown in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 133'12 and
13313 as follows:
1. That the City Council review and consider Master Environmental lmpact
Report (MEIR SCH No. 2012111015), apply the Council's independent judgment and
analyses to the review, and then certify the MEIR as having been completed in
compliance with CEQA, based on the Commission's recommendations on the proposed
Draft MEIR and comments thereon.
2. That the Council find that based upon testimony presented by staff, there
are significant, unavoidable environmental impacts which have not been mitigated to a
3 of7
level below significant. Therefore, the City Council should consider an appropriate
statement of overrid ing considerations.
3. That the Council adopt the proposed MEIR with all the recommendations
as presented by staff at the public meetings.
4. That the Council find that the proposed Fresno General Plan has been
prepared in accordance with the Local Planning and Procedures Ordinance (LPPO).
5. That the Council adopt the proposed Fresno General Plan as an update to
the 2025 General Plan, including all text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits as
contained in the Fresno General Plan document dated December,2014.
6. That the Council adopt the plan modifications recommended by staff and
identified as "City of Fresno Staff Preferred Land Use" on the "Land Use Change
Requests" and "Land Use and Circulation Map" and submitted pursuant to the
provisions of the LPPO to this report, and recommend that the Council deny the
remaining plan modifications.
7. To the extent that approval of the staff recommended plan modifications
requires updates to the text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits contained in the
proposed Fresno Plan General Plan document in order to maintain consistency, the
Planning Commission further recommends that the Council authorize the Director of
Development and Resource Management Department or her designee to update those
items to reflect the final action taken by Council.
8. That the Council make the findings and take the action recommended in
relation to the MEIR (SCH NO. 2012111015).
4 of7
L That the Council consider the Planning Commission's additional
comments and recommendations as articulated; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2014, the City conducted a public hearing and
received public testimony and reviewed and considered the information in the Fresno
General Plan and related MEIR SCH No. 2012111015, including, but not limited to, the
"Response to Comments on the Draft Master Environmental lmpact Report General
Plan and Development Code Update" and "Planned Land Use Requests Environmental
Evaluation"; and all recommendations as presented by staff at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2014 the City Council considered and discussed
the adequacy of the proposed Final MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 as an informational
document, reviewed the potential significant impacts of the Fresno General Plan and
Development Code Update as presented in the Final MEIR and takes the following
action to certify the Final MEIR SCH No. 2012111015, as having been completed in
compliance with the Californian Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Fresno as
follows:
1. All staff reports and analysis submitted in connection with this matter are
hereby incorporated by this reference.
2. The Council completed and closed its hearings on the Fresno General
Plan on December 11 ,2014, in accordance with all relevant provisions of the LPPO.
3. The Council finds that the Fresno General Plan has been prepared in
accordance with the LPPO and the provisions of Government Code Section 65302.
5of7
4. The Council adopts the Fresno General Plan (formerly the 2035 General
Plan) as an update to the 2025 General Plan, including all text, policies, maps, tables,
and exhibits as contained in the Fresno General Plan document dated December 2014.
5. The Council adopts the plan modifications as set out in the resolution titled
"A Resolution of the Council of the City of Fresno, California, Adopting Plan
Modifications Recommended by Staff and ldentified as 'City of Fresno Staff Preferred
Land Use' in the 'Land Use Change Requests' and 'Land Use and Circulation Map'
Denying the Remaining Plan Modifications".
6. The Council makes the findings and takes the action recommended in the
attached exhibits and in the accompanying resolution relating to Final MEIR SCH No.
2012111015.
Hl
Ht
ilt
6 of7
STATE OF CALTFORNTA )
COUNTY OF FRESNO ) ss.
crTY oF FRESNO )
l, WONNE SPENCE, City Clerk of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno, at a regular meeting held
on the day of
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
2014.
Mayor Approval:,2014
,2014
,2014
Mayor Approva l/No Return:
Mayor Veto:
Council Override Vote:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DOUGLAS T. SLOAN
City Attorney
WONNE SPENCE, CMC
City Clerk
2014
By:
Deputy
By:
Talia Kolluri-Barbick Date
Senior Deputy City Attorney
TKB:elb [66427e1b/tkb] Resolution 12'1014
7 o17
íi ICf IV ED
¿litl DtC i0 Pn T C0
EXH I BIT ö CLTR.{' FR.SI*O TA
Adopting plan modif¡cat¡ons
recommended by staff and
identified as "City of Fresno Staff
Preferred Land Use"the "Land
"LandUse Change Requests" and
Use and Circulation Map," and
denying the remaining plan
mod¡f¡cations
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING PLAN
MODIFICATIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND
IDENTIFIED AS -CITY OF FRESNO STAFF PREFERRED
LAND USE' IN THE "LAND USE CHANGE REQUESTS"
AND "LAND USE AND CIRCULATION MAP'' DENYING
THE REMAINING PI-AN MODIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, on August 23,2012, pursuant to LPPO section 12-606, the Council
of the City of Fresno adopted Resolution NO. 2012-150, initiating a comprehensive
update to the 2025 General Plan, initially referred to as the 2035 General Plan, and now
titled "Fresno General Plan"; and
WHEREAS, after initiation and pursuant to the provisions of the LPPO, numerous
plan modification requests were received by the Development and Resource
Management Depaftment; and
WHEREAS, City of Fresno Staff reviewed each plan modification request and
made a determination as to Staff's recommended land use designation for every parcel
that was the subject of a plan modification; and
WHEREAS, Staff, in conjunction with a professional environmental consultant,
reviewed the environmental impacts of adopting the plan modification requests, as set
forth in Final MEIR SCH No.2012111015 document "Planned Land Use Requests
Environmental Evaluation"; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2014, the Council of the City of Fresno heard staff
presentations and public comment regarding the Fresno General Plan and Final MEIR
SCH No.2012111015; and
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
City Attorney Approval:
1of 3
Resolution No.
WHEREAS, included in the staff presentation at the December 11,2014,
hearing, staff presented the Council with minor corrections to the "Staff Preferred Land
Use".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Fresno as
follows:
1. The Council adopts the plan modifications identified as "City of Fresno
Staff Preferred Land Use" in the "Land Use Change Requests" table attached as Exhibit
A and "Land Use and Circulation Map" attached as Exhibit B, submitted pursuant to the
provisions of the LPPO, with the incorporation of the corrections recommended by Staff.
2. The Council denies the remaining plan modifications included in Exhibit A,
submitted pursuant to the provisions of the LPPO.
ul
ill
Ht
2 ol3
STATE OF CAL¡FORNIA )
COUNTY OF FRESNO ) ss.
crTY oF FRESNO )
l, WONNE SPENCE, City Clerk of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno, at a regular meeting held
on the day of
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
2014.
Mayor Approval:,2014
Mayor Approval/No Retu rn :2014
Mayor Veto:,2014
,2014
WONNE SPENCE, CMC
City Clerk
By:
Deputy
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DOUGLAS T. SLOAN
City Attorney
Talia Kolluri Barbick Date
Deputy City Attorney
TKB:elb [66430e1b/tkb] Resolution 121014
Council Override Vote:
By:
3of3
F I CTIV ED
-ri1 [i;l iÛ Pn I 00
EXHIBIT R TTTYCLERä'FRESN. cA
Authorizi ng the Development and
Resource Management Director or
her deslgnee to update the text,
policies, maps, tables, and exh¡bits
contained in the Fresno General
Plan document to reflect the fi nal
action taken by Council, to the
extent that such updates are
necessary to maintain consistency
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE
DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
DIRECTOR OR HER DESIGNEE TO UPDATE THE TEXT,
POLICIES, MAPS, TABLES, AND EXHIBITS CONTAINED
IN THE FRESNO GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENT TO
REFLECT THE FINAL ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL, TO
THE EXTENT THAT SUCH UPDATES ARE NECESSARY
TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY
WHEREAS, the City of Fresno (City) has prepared a Fresno General Plan
document which contains the goals, objectives, policies, maps, tables and exhibits
necessary to fully describe the required components and clarifying details of the plan;
and
WHEREAS, City of Fresno Staff (Staff) has prepared a table of potential land use
designation changes that were either proposed by City of Fresno Staff or submitted to
the City by members of the community, and presented the same to the Planning
Commission and Council; and
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of
Fresno considered the Fresno General Plan, the proposed land use changes, and Final
MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 and recommended approval of the same to the Council of
the City of Fresno; and
WHEREAS, on December 11,2014, the Council of the City of Fresno heard staff
presentations and public comment regarding the Fresno General Plan, the proposed
land use changes, and Final MEIR SCH No. 2012111015; and
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
City Attorney Approval:
1of 3
Resolution No.
WHEREAS, on December 18,2014, the Council of the City of Fresno completed
deliberations and took action on the Fresno General Plan, the proposed land use
changes, and Final MEIR SCH No. 2012111015; and
WHEREAS, changes to the Fresno General Plan and approval of land use
designation changes may require clerical updates to the text, policies, tables, maps and
exhibits contained in the Fresno General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Fresno as
follows:
1. The Director of the Development and Resource Management Department,
or her designee, is hereby authorized to update the text, policies, tables, exhibits, and
maps contained in the Fresno General Plan to reflect the final action taken by the
Council of the City of Fresno to the extent such changes are necessary to maintain
consistency.
2. The Director of the Development and Resource Management Department,
or her designee, is hereby authorized to update the land use map for the Fresno
General Plan to reflect the final action taken by the Council of the City of Fresno.
ut
ilt
ilt
2of3
**************
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
CITY OF FRESNO
l, WONNE SPENCE, City Clerk of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno, at a regular meeting held
on the day of
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
2014.
SS.
Mayor Approval:2014
2014
2014
2014
Mayor Approval/No Return:
Mayor Veto:
Council Override Vote:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DOUGLAS T. SLOAN
City Attorney
WONNE SPENCE, CMC
City Clerk
By:
Deputy
By:
Talia Kolluri-Barbick Date
Senior Deputy City Attorney
TKB:elb [66431e|b/tkb] Resolution 121014
3of3
=T*CíìV
ED
Agenda ltem: lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
Date: LzlLLlL4
¡ìli\ D[t 1Û Pn 'l l'8
C1TY CLTçJ
CITY COUNCIL
Ë[,=olrs\r/,-fflE-=iE7¿¿N-
Supplemental lnformation Packet
Agenda Related ltems - tD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
Supplemental Packet Date: December tO,2OI4
Item(s)
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update
(Citywide)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental
lmpact Report (ElR) SCH No. 201211 1015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and
Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, cityruide application
Supplemental lnformation :
Anyagenda related publicdocuments received and distributed to a majorityof the CityCouncilafterthe
Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as
needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, 2600
Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(21.
ln addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the City Council meeting in the City
Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available on-line on the City
Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be
made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language interpreters,
assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meeting. Please call
City Clerk's Office at 62I-7650. Please keep the doorways, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open
and accessible. lf you need assistance with seating because of a disability,see Securitv.
fif CTIVED
¡ùiT ttr L0 Prj I 17
C|TY CL[Rï{, FRISHO CA
Sophia DeWitt
4910 N. Sequoia Avenue, #104
Fresno, CA 93705
(ssg) 222-904s
s ophi a_d ew iÍt@att.net
December I0,2014
Dear Fresno City Council Members:
I write in strong support of the Final 2035 General Plan now before you for consideration and
vote. The plan before you is the result of almost four years of an extensive public engagement
process, during which time all segments of the community have been heard-- in many diverse
languages-- including many hundreds of residents of our City's oldest neighborhoods in south
Fresno. While no plan is perfect, and much depends on implementation, the General Plan before
you is a good plan and a step in the right direction for our City-away from the sprawl pattem of
development that has charactenzed our city since World War II and towards reinvesting in our
city's oldest neighborhoods and their people.
In my role at Fresno Interdenominational Refugee Ministries(FlRM), it was my pleasure,
beginning in 2010 and continuing until June of 2014 to work with many diverse residents of
South Fresno from Southeast Asian, African-American, Latino, indigenious and faith-based
backgrounds. We learned together about about City Planning terms, discussed what residents
wanted and needed in their neighborhoods in the future, studied each draft policy paper and
chapter of the plan, testified at public meetings of the General Plan Citizen's Committee, the
Planning Commission and City Council-as well as holding individual meetings with each of
you. Community members came up with a list of nine planning values including: Affordable
Variety of Housing Options, Anti-Displacement, Complete Neighborhoods, Funding for
Infrastructure, Healthy Air and Food, Local Jobs and Homegrown Businesses, Parks and Open
Space, Safety and Transportation. Based on these values, South Fresno neighbors asked for
specific policies to be included in the final General Plan
These values were represented in the planning theme selected by Council in April, 2012,
Altemative A, modified. I am gratified to see that these values, as well as specific policies
requested by the community in the last two years, are included in the General Plan before you.
Specifically,l am pleased to see that while the goal is for half of new growth to occur within City
Limits, there are also annual reports to the Council and community to make sure the plan is on
track. (UF, 12) The plan also requires fiscal impact analyses for all proposed annexations of land
and General Plan ammendments, an important test of the f,rscal sustainability of new growth.
(ED-5-e) The plan includes a policy for proactive code enforcement, something that community
members who daily live in substandard housing have long desired. (LU,4), along with support
for community-based testing programs for housing related illnesses, such as childhood lead
poisoning and respiratory health conditions. (HC-3-b)
Sophia DeWitt
4910 N. Sequoia Avenue, #104
Fresno, Cl^93105
(sse) 222-e04s
s ophi a_dew itt@att.net
Many residents in South Fresno rely on public transportation, and had asked that the plan
prioritize improvements to the City's public transportation system and basic infrastructure in
older neighborhoods. I am pleased to see that the plan prioritizes the needs of transit and
pedestrians, including such things as support for Bus Rapid Transit, sidewalk improvements so
that children can get to school safely and additional bike trails in neighborhoods with low vehicle
ownership rates. I am also pleased to see that the plan prioritizes land use patterns that make
more efftcient use of the transportation system and discourages investment in infrastructure that
does not meet these criteria. (RC-2-a)
Residents have consistently asked for more parks and open space in south Fresno so that children
and families would have safe places to play. The plan responds to this request by setting a goal
of 5 acres of parks/I,000 residents, with 3 acres/l,000 residents within a half mile of homes.
(POSS-2-b) Priority would be given to neighbohoods with low public health scores. (HC-7-a)
This would be a huge improvement in park space in Fresno, which currently ranks last among
cities in Califomia-and where some neighborhoods in Southwest Fresno have as little as 0.6
acres/l,000 residents of open space currently. Increased park space in older neighborhoods will
help impove health of residents.
I am also pleased that the final General Plan retains an entire chapter devoted to Healthy
Communities, which recognizes the role of residents and their health in the success of the City.
This chapter also includes several other community requests including Neighborhood
Associations to assist in the implementation of the plan (HC-1-a) and increased siting of medical
facilities in South Fresno, that can serve the diverse communities of Fresno with cultural
sensitivity and competence, (HC- 1 -d, HC-3 -e).
The 2035 General Plan before you is the "People's Plan", representing the hopes of residents
across Fresno for a healthier City, with opportunities for all. I urge you to vote for the plan at
your next Council meeting on December l8th, setting the stage to turn the page to implementation
in2015. I look forward to continuing to work with the City and diverse residents of Fresno on
the implementation of this plan, to assure that it lives up to its promise of improving Fresno's
future.
Sincerely,
Rev. Sophia DeWitt
CC: Ashley Swearingin, Mayor, City of Fresno
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
PM
¿til Dtt i0 Pn T 17
CITY CLEÊI{, FRISNO CA
One more supplement.
From: Trai Her
Sent: Wednesday, December I0, 2014 4:05 PM
To: Yvonne Spence
Subject: GP letter - FW: Butler/Villa
Another letter
From: Arnoldo Rodriguez
Sent: Wednesday, December 10,2014 3:58 PM
To: Trai Her
Cc: Talia Kolluri
Subject: FW: Butler/Villa
PIease add to Council report
From: seisavo@vahoo.com lmailto:seisayp@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December I0,20L4 3:57 PM
To: Arnoldo Rodriguez
Subject: Butler/Villa
Hello, hope you are having a good day. We leave here in the neighborhood of Butler/Villa and
Minnewawa. We see the proposed plan for this area and hope it changes. This area cannot take high density
development. As it is their is a lot of car activity without the proposal and with the proposal it will get
worse. This area is truly for low density development. It would be great if the city can put a great park in these
locations, but I know money and safety is an issue. But I'm sure their is a way around that.
I thank you for your hard work and hope the planning department will do what is right for our neighborhood as
if they leaved here also.
Have a great and productive rest of the week.
Thanks
Sent frcm rny Verizon Wireless 4G LTE srnartphone
Yvonne Spence
Wednesday, December 10,201.4 4:08
Cindy Bruer
FW:GP letter - FW: Butler/Villa
December 10,2074
Ms. Jennifèr K, Clark, AICP
Director of Development
City of Fresno Development & Resource Management Depafitnent
2600 Fresno Street, Roorn 3065
Ftesno, CA9372I
S['JBJECT: Siena Nut House Property NEC Siena and Chestnut Avenues
Dear Ms, Clark,
DIRK POESCHEL 923 Yan Ness Avenue, Suite 200 . Frcsno, Califomia 93721
Land Dewlopmenl Seruices, Inc 5591445-0374 . Fax: 559/445-0551 . e-mail: dpoeschel@dplds.com
C)
=
C)r-m:o
;
7Jm
<n
O
(lÞ
Reference is made to the 3 .57 ac.;re parcel at 3034 East Sierra Ave, owned by my client
Ms. Joann Sorrenti, Since 1974, Ms. Sorrenti has operated Sierra Nut House at the
aforementionecl location. The site is zoned AE-5 ancl designated in the current City of
Fresno General Plan for medium density residential uses.
Ms, Sorrenti's requests that thc subject property be clesignated for ofÍice uses as part of
the city's gencral plan update process. We sincerely apologize for making this late
request. Due to Ms, Sorrenti's focus on business and related matters, she simply did not
recognize the opportunity to modify the proposed land-use designation as part of your
general plan update process.
The proposed change to officc is justihed due to the property's location proximate to the
three major hospitals serving our community and excellent access to State Route I68 and
Hemdon Avenue. The site is irnmediately adjacent to Fresno State University.
The site has an irregular shape with a canal along the northern borcler and will require
significant road dedications, Such factors severely affect the ability of the property to
yicld adequate number of residential units. Based on conversations Ms. Sorrenti has had
with local real estate brokers, a high quality ofhce project would likely be very successful
on the subject site.
Water consumption and trafflrc generation are insignificant as it relates to the evaluation
of plan uses in the general plan update environmental impact reporl. A simplilied review
of the project site suggests that approximately 8 offices of 5000 ft.' or less would likcly
be developed on the subject site. The same review suggests that approximately 34
residential units would be developed on the Sorrenti property.
â
F]
T
rTìtl
C]
frl(]-)
c)
-u
=]-
{
December 10,2014
Ms. Jennifer Cla¡k, AICP
Director of Deveþment
Page2
Ms. So¡renti and I apologize for our late request btû believc this proposal tns de minimr¡s
impacts, provides a moTe logical use of the property and should therefore be srryported by
city staff. Thark you for your consideration of this request. If you have any questions
please feel free to contactmc.
I trust this ove,rr¡iew has been of assistance. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Oun ft.
Dirk Poeschel, AICP
Attachment
cc. \ds. Jsann Sorrenti
cc. CouncilmanLeeBrand
g:\wpdocs\siena nut house expansion l4-60\conespondence\12-10.14 darft jennifer clark l@er-do€(
I r3 S., R.2tÊ. n D, B. a n.làt fu)e Atoo
t.n
-rcfl-naìf a1ú,,f,Ertt''lI',arrtllDtra.cr'|f/'llarrf/'Ðtr''
llOÊ-lr üt åd ilsrÊrr i¡crn h Etilln..,bl Ècd ftunô¡r $rn h Orrlr.
4I
F"
8,.
Ë
-ll¡l.¡EÐ
J
Ë
aa'
t-Illlt,
H(t
Ë
ìlltîl
I l,e t
@
ta
o
,lt
o
lr
Ø
ø
2t
Ø
a
ø
t
Øto¡
i
4rt/*ttr'rdÜ*¡'tl'.,
u@,
lTntat I @ @
0a
a ,toa] a,
at
I taact at
c7@trtøat t[-t
9
fl
.*
,r?*+@
tt. .t'
@i
- (nt
@>.L
a,
l't- &
Øtt'tutt
a
l rat'' Ò,@
¿rt
lrl@ at
@
{
taara at
,t@
IIENLO AYE.'|
Jaa
I t ottt lt
@
aa
laøat
o
$twat
Ø
al
I tcrat at
ø
@
Llt
i ttottt ot
,t'l -. --
@
4l.øat
ø
1lîr'',at
e
Ilto ilnaÐat
aat,
t A¡
a.t4 .3
9lrn!
-,
Tt ìto.æt _-_ptgt e*!o, fr, ooTræ¡ lto æ- pta¡ Bt-.E , tþ. d-'-
Ørtrly ol Fntp, Øllî,
Trai Her
From:
Sent:
lo:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cecilia Lopez
Wednesday, December I0, 2014 1:37 PM
Jennifer Clark; Trai Her; Arnoldo Rodriguez
FW:3283 N. Marks
attachment_l- 478236904383_image001,png; image00L-2.png
Please see below email. Thank you,
From : Tony Terzia n fmailto :tt_0553@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 70,2014 10:48 AM
To: Cecilia Lopez
Subject: 3283 N, Marks
Hi Cecilia,
Could you kindly forward this email to Jennifer Clark and the members ofthe planning commission. Thank you.
'fhank you for the opportunity to speak at the platrning commission meeting on Monday evening. I arn writing so that you may
reconsider your decision on3282 N. Marks Avenue. As you know, the area along Marks avenue is Ml and Commercial, while the
area along Pleasant street is residential. With that in mind, may I propose that the west parcel to be M I and keep the east parcel the
same so that more uniformity is givin to the zoning in the arca. This would complement the area on both Marks and Pleasant street
well as is creates a smooth buffer between the two areas. I have attached an aerial photo that demonstrates the plan. If you have any
further questions, please let me know. Thank you for you consideration,
Tony Terzian
-\'r
(? -ç
4 V) ttJ rn .^t
; Ç') [rlr'ñsoä
^;3"ã -r rrl.n -E f-'l
OPc) co
I
I
I
I
t_l
i)
F.RESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
File 400.20
Decembcr 10, 2014
Jennitbr K Clark, Director
City of Fresno
Development and Resource Management
2600 Fresno Street, Third Floor, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721-3604
Dear Ms. Clark,
Additional Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Comments
on the City of Fresno's 2035 General Plan Update Land Uses
This letter is in response to the letter you sent to the District on November 26,2014 in regards to
reviewing the latest digital version of the 2035 General Plan Update, The District would like to
reiterate our previous comments regarding land use densification.
In solne instances, where land use densities at'e increasing above the current land uses that were
previously adopted and implemented tllough the existing General Plan, drainage mitigation may
be reqr,rired. For example, within a District developed drainage system that the pipeline was
designed, sized and constructed for approved medium density residential and a development
proposal comes in f'or a higher density development such as cornmercial, mitigation would most
likely be required. Mitigation options ale usually a District condition that is required through the
ploject entitlement permitting process. The following is a sample of the standard Distlict
language used and includes the requested mitigation options;
The District's Master Plan drainage system for the areaof the subject site is designed to
serve medium density residential uses. The existing Master Plan fàcilities do not have
adequate capacity to serve the proposed land use of the subject project. The District
requests, as a condition of the subject development, the Developer be required to mitigate
the impacts of the increased runoff fiom the proposed use to a rate that would be
expected if developed in conformance with the Master Plan, The Developer may either
make improvements to the existing pipeline system to provide additional capacity or may
use some type of permanent peak reducing fäcilities in order to eliminate adverse impacts
on the existing system. Should the Developer choose to construct a permanent peak
reducing facility, the Developer will need to provide a peak reducing pond to mitigate the
additional runoff. Such a system would be required to reduce runoff from a ten-year (10)
storm produced by the development, to a two-year (2) discharge which would be
produced by the property if developed in conformance to the District's Master Plan. The
Developer will be required to submit improvement plans to the District for review and
approval showing the proposed method of mitigation.
K:\Lener s\City Of Fresno General Plan\General Plan Update 2035 Cornrnents l2- I l-20l4.Docr(
l'\)
a) -E
ãc-l-n
1 T'1 lv
cl c? frl(' t--¡qcr;í-;.- | r¡
'ryt,/11 _-Y <-
- -j rrlu, __E l-l'o
c) co
5469 E. OLIVE . FRESNO, C^93727 . (559) 456-3292. FÐ((559) 456-3194
Ms. Jennifer Cl¡rk
Ilecember 10,2014
Pnge2
The above language is just an example of medir¡m dcnsity æsidential to a higber
density. Other types of land uses other than medir¡ur fusity rcsiertial rezone to higber
land use densities may also be subject to drainage mitigation rcqulrcmens. has looked at
each individuat requested tand usc change sent by th City of F¡cmo ad by the Disüict
on December 1,2014 to determine how it impacts tb Dishict's sys[em- A of those proposed
pro.iects uùere mitigation may be required are atlached.
Please implement this letter as an attachment to the 2035 Gcr¡er¿l Plm . Thank you for
the oppornrnity to comment.
Very truly youn¡,
VlhMé-
Wendell Lum
Maser Planning & Special Projects Manager
WL/BN/lrl
Attachmen(s)
f:Uclcrsìc¡ry dfcsto Bstcret d¡rÞæd pln rAdlc ãl35 m ¡2-llãll
1.¡L l, lål l¡r
Cl¡[.ht.a Cì.{.h#rasl¡'rshlll ¡{l¡}
ls, tôr ltt 0 ¡lilllfàhlly
la¡ll ffilðù.ll4l4¡k
å¿ Ux ó{a. t.qrÍ lþ ol ¡rü Sl{ trú.r.¿ ¡¡.¿ lre
ù¡l#r
^¡tr.a 'l¡tac¡
t¡d Il||¡h
clæhll ct {.Lw¿r¡rqffilll tdll,
*úru.¡.r|il
Iti 'ksfdrË C¡ryhIJar¡h*lrl
N 9oull ol$aw Cllv
t t,l loftl.lttñûûl 0
ilL{
0
¡0
I Ë l,ot ir! Mrdrufrl¿ 1l Þoblr fidill !¡ra N 9òu(fr619ù.* t[Y Mlllrl¡((1
ir! MÈdruil lðw (i ll tðffìñ
tðnhpdl(I 9)Ollil{ t
3 a Etth trhh
p¡ht10ì i!! MtútühßJil EI
0at 0
tl ¡t
¡ t¡åt **"--*":':lì:shdsfltlhr$Mhsd uÉ #BúrÁlnúllhrd ulr Mult hhrlt rÅ I ihfl¡ t[Y Mllt.Èt(M
¿9 Ht¡ñWat ¡ Âutd ñ6trı- w--EI
9¡
gôUth ot 9ff.T Cilt
I ?09¡tt3
t009 ¡{, Mldluñ to*t9 0 c$
,N
il Nöiliot sñr, cily
¡¡9 129 0 n ilôilñ bll¡¡* Cl
t
¡a! M.dr0nHr¡hlt,rri
l.¡ l6 66 cñhuiilyeffihlrcl.l(t l!,!¡ Mrdruh ro lt,6{mñ.frt.| 0 o M![!hñ¡li N ilôilù ol th.* tlv MDRdO & MIII}R
'N
1., M.dlunlt la¡ P.itr.l0 r l4,r ll rr¡ i.t !t .¡,Mdrùóro* 17 0 !ra! l.dly ñ Nðnh dr$¡* Clv )N
tii
a:tt1fi
{ft¡ tr¡l¡¡n F¡ ¡rr! ulnN prqrn ràÞ llff
ll ill! öülderP¡Allil
iz1Êz=
Er,ZZ,è e=
',=r22=.¿
ËiiãEÉEt¿" i
i¿=li
E:i!Et¿!
Ê E E.'
È!! ì
t :r
e
Î.¡L ¡r l$¡ Ur C¡sa. l.{srtr ' Clï oa fi.ru l,t.ll
Îl¡L ll td¿ ur Clmt. t.qf,!ú . t*{¿r¿ lhd lll.|l l¡f
lrttr,úUr. tß¡ú vr i.lúþ1.Ù úrifry
p tr rìElv EDí1it-w
zllltl Ûtt 10 Pn T 18
November 70,2074
CITY CLERK, FRESI{O CA
fennifer K. Clark, AICP
Director, Development and Resource Management Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA937ZI
RE: Proposed Land Use Changes in the Draft General Plan Update
ATT: Miss Clark
Canyon and Minnewawa remain as Office.
Thå proposed Corridor Center Mixed Use application in the 2035 Generaì PÌan Update, which would
require 16-30 units an acre and unspecified commerciaì uses, is not compatible with the adjacent
ìow-densily residential uses.
Both parcels are currently located in the County, zoned for Residential/Professional (R/P) Single
Story Office onìy. The parcel on the corner is developed with a single farnily home and the parcel to
the east is vacant. The remainder ofthe block to the east and the entire block to the south is
deveìoped with single family homes and is designated as low-density residential with R1AH zoning
(minimum 20,000 square foot parcels, horses allowedJ. R/P is compatible with the residential area
and would serve the community with additional offìce space depending on the preference of the
landowner. The adopted 2025 Ciry General Plan designates the two parcels as office.
Careful consideration ís needed to ensure that all proposed land uses are consistent with one ofthe
primary goals ofthe General PIan update, to preserve neighborhood character and protect
community values.
Respectfull¡
,/' ',,' :.,'
-. 'J.,1,, iL(¿i.t.', *n
(6^f ù.JL*ü-
Sue and Kurt Williams
5437 E. Montecito Avenue
Fresno, CI^93727
Cc: Supervisor Debbie Poochigian
ftlcllv[D
Post Office Box 8074
_ Squaw Valley, California 93675
:'i1ï Dll iÛ iR '1 13
December 10,2014
CITY tLIl;i' FíìitS::ü ;i\
Fresno City Council
c/o Fresno City Clerk
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721
SUBJECT: WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
LAND USE CHANGE REQUEST #32
I am submitting this letter as a California Registered Environmental Health Specialist (#4916),
as a private person, not as a City employee. I am writing this letter to support the staff's and
the Planning Commission's recommendation that Land Use Change Request #32 be denied.
The applicants always have the opportunity to use the plan amendment process, with a
complete assessment, to evaluate and deal with landfill contamination and allow future
development.
The applicant for Planned Land Use Change #32 is requesting "corridor mixed use," which
would provide for residential development to occur in conjunction with commercial use
(dwelling units would be built on this site if "mixed use" were approved). The subject property
is not on one of the identified transit corridors in the General Plan; it is at the edge of the urban
area, an area where there is no planned intensification of through traffic. That makes the
requested "Corridor mixed use" inconsistent with the site's location.
The main issue for #32 is that this property was once used for disposal of waste. Testing of
soil vapor on the property revealed not only methane, but also the presence of vinyl chloride.
Vinyl chloride forms when trichloroethylene (TCE) solvent decays underground. Vinyl chloride
is flammable, but the main concern for long-term exposure (of residents, including children) is
that vinyl chloride is an identified carcinogen.
ln general, contaminated properties have to be tested and remediated prior to re-use. The
level of study and remediation required for residential use is much higher than the requirement
for most commercial uses, or for industrial use.
State regulations specific to solid waste facilities require that a Post Closure Landfill Plan be
approved by the State (CalEPA) or its Lead Enforcement Agency before property can be re-
used after landfill activity is discontinued. To date, no acceptable Post-Closure Landfill Plan
for this site has been provided to the Lead Enforcement Agency.
Approving this site for "mixed use" would be to plan it for residential units (under the General
Plan definition of "mixed use"). However, the plan modification (land use change) request
process did not include detailed site assessments.
Letter supporting staff and Planning Commission recommendation on Land Use Change No. #32
December 10,2014
Page 2
The plan modification process should not be used to evade the health protections of state law
relating to former landfill sites. These land use change requests were not accompanied by
technical reports or studies, were not routed to responsible and trustee agencies for individual
evaluation, and do not have conditions or mitigations which would provide for public health and
safety.
California Environmental Quality Act case law does not allow deferral of analysis or mitigation
when a discretionary decision is being made on a matter where there are known potential
adverse effects.
Given the information that is provided for consideration of Land Use Change #32, it is not clear
vinyl chloride exposures could be prevented or managed to protect human health.
What is clear is, vinyl chloride is present; what is known is, long-term exposure to vinyl chloride
could affect human health.
Also, if this site were approved for "mixed use," but if it could never be approved for
construction of residences, then the City could find itself in the situation of not allowing a use
which it had designated on the property. Years ago, this scenario was found to be a
"regulatory taking" and the City ended up losing the "Blosser" case, at great expense.
As an environmental health professional,
Sincerely,
5u,,,rS^r%u l<
Sandra L. Brock
Attachments
Plan Change Request #32
Requesting "Corridor M¡xed Us e"
...located on the
terminus of North
Palm Avenue.
This site is not on
a ny tra nsit corridor
identified in the GP.
Problematic location for residential use!
Site #32 is the location of a former landf¡ ll, where
methane and vinyl chloride gases are in the soil
.Ll-/:t'\/>
Ë
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Malthew Roctrlguoz
Secretary for
Envlronmental Protgctio¡l
Deborah O. Raphael, Director
1515 Tollhouse Roacl
Clovis, California 9361 1
Edntund G. Brown Jr.
Governor
As described in the Amendment, the future development would consist "of a mixed use
retail and residential project consisting of approximately 7 thousand squaro feet of retail
space on grade with a garage structure and four stories above for multiple farnily
residential dwelling and residential amenities." lnformation included in the report
indiætes that the footprint of the subject development will partially overlie a landfill
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
has determined that vinyl chloride is a known
carcinogen. The lnternational Agency for Research on
Cancer has determined that vinyl chloride is
carcinogenic to people. The U.S. EPA has determined
that vinyl chloride is a human carcinogen.
htt www.atsdr.cdc.ovlPHS/PHS.as ?¡d=280&tid=51
The California Health Screening Level for vinyl chloride
is 1-3 micrograms per cubic meter.
ln the subsoil of site #32, vinyl chloride was found at
460 and Lzo micrograms per cubic meter.
Contamination at Site #32 has not been
evaluated to the satisfaction of
DTSC or other regulato ry agencies.
No Post-Closure Land Use Report
has been approved by
sol¡d waste enforcement agencies
to provide for future residential use.
CEQA case law does not allow defeffal of
studies or mitigation of ident¡f¡ed
problems to future appl¡catiorìs.
g
Matthew Rodriquez
Secretary for
Environmental Protection
May 9,2012
Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos
Supervisíng Planner
City of Fresno
Development and Resource Management Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721
REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL RELATED DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 8065 AND BO75 NORTH PALM AVENUE, FRESNO
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:
This is in regards to your e-mail dated April 23, 2012wherein it is requested that
Depadment of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) staff review environmental related
documents associated with a proposed development at the above noted location. The
documents include a "Plan Amendment Submittal" that was routed originally for public
review between August 5,2011 and August 1s,2011, and one dated Ãpril ã, 2012 and
titled "Limíted Soil Vapor lnvestigation Report."
As described in the Amendment, the future development would consist "of a mixed use
retail and residential project consisting of approxim ately 7 thousand square feet of retail
space on grade with a garage structure and four stories above for multiple family
residential dwelling and residential amenities." lnformation included ¡n ine report
indicates that the footprint of the subject development will partially overlie a landfill
known as the Spanos Landfill, which is near the northwest intersection of North palm
Avenue and West Ness Avenue in Fresno. The report presents the results of two soil
gas samples that were collected at a depth of about 30 feet below the ground surface,
The report notes that methane was detected "at concentrations of 21% of total gases in
sample SVP-1 and 17% of total gases in sample SVP-2." The indicated lower explosive
limit (LEL) for methane is approximately 5%. Vinyl chloride was reported at
concentrations of 460 ug/m3 in SVP-1 and 120 ug/m3 in SVP-2. The California Human
Health Screening Level for vinyl chloride in a residential setting is 13 ug/m3. Estimated
risks based on a Johnson and Ettinger model that is due to vapor intruéion to indoor air
is presented. These risks were apparently calculated using the "Johnson and Ettinger
(J&E) soil gas screening model EPA version 2.0."
¡lP:cm
MP02512
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Governor
"IY:ty>
ã
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Deborah O. Raphael, Director
1515 Tollhouse Road
Clovis, California 9361 1
O I-'llt(er,l on l"ìr..r;ylír:ci lr;:f,ll
Ms. Sophia Paqoulatos
May 9,2012
Page 2
DTSC staff comments for consideration are as follows.1. lt is not clear if the estimated risks are for a commercial/industrial setting or if
they are for an unrestricted, residential setting. Many of the parameters utilized
for the modeling are not included in the report text. DTSC has a modified
Johnson and Ettinger model on its web site that should be used. The accuracy
of the risk calculations were not reviewed by DTSC staff or a DTSC toxicologist.
It is not clear if the estimated risks are cumulative risks, which sum the risks
posed by all of the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detected in the two
samples collected. lf not, then the risks may be underestimated.
2. Collection of additional soil gas samples is warranted and there is a need to
assess the extent of soil gas contamination. This should include the collection of
relatively shallow soil gas samples, such as from a depth of about 10 feet below
ground surface.
3. A risk analysis should be completed after the extent of soil gas contamination is
collected.
4. lf appropriate, remedial actions or mitigation measures should be evaluated and
ímplemented. Mitigation measures that may be appropriate can be found in the
DTSC document titled Final Guidance for the Evaluation & Mitigation of
Subsurface Vapor lntrusion to lndoor Air. A copy of this document can be found
at http ://www.dtsc.ca. gov/SiteC I ea n u p/Va por I ntrus ion. cfm,
5. lf needed or desired DTSC can enter into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with
the proponent to oversee needed activities such as soil gas assessment work
and risk analysis. The Agreement would identify a scope of work and include
provisions for reimbursement of DTSC staff oversight costs.
6. ln 2007, assessment and remediation work was competed at a nearby property
located at 675 West Nees Avenue, near the south east corner of North Palm
Avenue and West Nees Avenue, Fresno. The work was overseen by County of
Fresno representatives. The results of the assessment activities and a summary
of the remediation work is summarized in a report dated February 7, 2008 and
titled "Subsurface lnvestigation Report, Building 4.1.' A single soil gas sample
was collected in soil at a location below where contaminated soil and other
materials (approximately 300-55 gallon drums) were removed, Volatile organic
compounds were detected, including vinyl chloride at a concentration of 51,000
ug/m3 and trichloroethylene at a concentration of 23,000 ugim3' This may be
important to consider if additional assessment work is conducted at the subject
property.
lvlP:m
MP02.512
Ms. Sophia Paqoulatos
May 9,2012
Page 3
lf you have any quest¡ons, please contact me at (559) 297-3958 or by e-mail at
mpfister@dtsc.ca. gov.
Sincerely,
)/'UJ*,} ?/ffi-
Michael Pfister, PG, CEG
Engineering Geologist
San Joaquin & Legacy Landfills Office
Clovis Office
cc: Ms. Janet Gardner, R.E.H.S.
Environmental Health Specialist lll
Environmental Health Division
County of Fresno
1221Fulton Mall
P.O. Box 11867
Fresno, California 9377 5
Mr. RussellWalls, P.E.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
1685 E Street
Fresno, California 93706
Mr. Tim Miles
Hazardous Substances Scientist
Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
8800 CalCenter Drive
Sacramento, California 95826
MP:m
MP02 512
City ofEEDEGII.I>'"'---rfrEiEfiãiF Develop ent and Resource Management Department
2600 Fresno Street, Third Floor Jennifer K. Clark
Fresno, California 93721-3604 Director
(559) 621-8003, FAX (559) 498-1026
Please Replv To:
Mike Sanchez
(5s9) 621-8040
mi ke. sanch e z@f resn o. g ov
April 1 ,2014
Bradley Roznovsky
New Generations Group, LP and Oscar Spano Trust
7545 North Del Mar Avenue, Suite 206
Fresno, California 93711
Greg Quiring
The Quiring Corporation
51 18 East Clinton Way, Suite 201
Fresno, California 93727
Gentlemen,
SUBJECT: Plan Amendment Application No. A-11-08 and Rezone Application
No. R-1 1-01 1 regarding approximately 4.4 acres of property located on
the northwest corner of the intersection of West Nees and North Palm
Avenues
The Development and Resource Management Department has met internally to ensure that
there is a common understanding regarding the plan amendment and rezone applications
for the aforementioned project, including the subject property's location, land use history,
and the status of surrounding properties with regard to assessment of contamination and
remediation.
As you are aware, technical reports have been submitted to various responsible agencies
for their review and comment. These agencies include the following:
. Fresno County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division (EHS) as
Lead Enforcement Agency (LEA) for state solid waste disposal regulations
promulgated by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle);
. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (APCD);
. California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC); and
. California Water Board/Central Valley RegionalWater Quality Control (RWOCB).
Comments from these entities have been previously provided to you and have been
attached for your information.
Plan Amendment Application No. A-1 1-08 and Rezone Application No. R-1 1-01 1
April 1 ,2014
Page 2
Because the former solid waste disposal activity at the subject property ceased prior to the
effective date of certain water quality regulations, RWQCB advised that it wold not be
involved in resolving contamination issues at the subject property unless it is discovered that
groundwater beneath this site is contaminated with substances derived from material
previously disposed of on the subject property.
The responsible and trustee agencies all related that key information has not been supplied
that would have a bearing on their interpretation of these and future studies of the subject
property. The information needed includes: A site diagram (site plan) showing the location
of the proposed building on the subject property, areas to be paved for parking and access,
and areas intended for passive or active use of building residents
. A site diagram (site plan) showing the location of the proposed building on the subject
property, areas to be paved for parking and access, and areas intended for passive
or active use of building residents.
o Elevation detail, particularly design detail of the elevators for the future building
(including subterranean construction and type of lift mechanism to be employed)
. Existing topography of the subject property and intended future topography of the
subject property, to reveal whether existing filled areas will be excavated and where
any new fill material may be placed
. Geotechnical information for soils beneath the proposed building, parking lots, and
on-site open space areas intended for use of future building residents.
ln the absence of concurrence from responsible and trustee agencies regarding the
presence and health risk of contaminants at the subject property, our department cannot
determine the extent of potential environmental impacts of this project or levels of
significance of those impacts.
While it is understood that the preparation of a conditional use permit may be difficult at this
time, the typical information that is found on the permit application would supply necessary
information, and would clarify other issues relating to the project such as grading, and
construction details of the proposed buildings (e.9., how they relate to abutting San Joaquin
River Parkway property).
It is strongly recommended that the project applicants facilitate discussions with the
respective agencies and provide any additional documentation, such as topographical
information and a revised, site-specific Post Closure Plan needed to complete their
respective evaluations.
Staff will suspend further processing of this project until the necessary information has been
provided and reviewed by the respective agencies. lf you have any questions, or wish to
meet with us regarding this project, please feel free to contact me at the number listed above.
Plan Amendment Application No. A-1 1-08 and Rezone Application No. R-1 1-01 1
April 1 ,2014
Page 3
Mike Sanchez
Planning Manager
Enclosures: December 19, 2013 emailfrom Michael Pfister, DTSC
December 19,2013 email from Patia Siong, APCD
December 20,2013 email from David Warner, APCD
December 23,2013 letter from Janet Gardner, EHS
December 30,2013 email from Alfred Worcester, CalRecycle
c. Ed Bergthold, Fresno Supreme/New Generations Group LP
Joseph J. Miller, SCS Engineers
Alvin P. Solis, Sol Development Associates
Janet Gardner, REHS, Fresno County Certified Unified Permit Agency
Michael Pfister, DTSC Clovis regional office
David Warner, APCD
Dan Carlson, RWQCB
Sandra Brock
Subject: FW: request for your written response to studies submitted in latter part of 2013 for
the "New Generations" Project
From: Pfister, Michael@DTSC I
Senh Thursday, December 19, 2013 3:29 PM
To: Sandra Brock
Cc: Shaddy, Kevin@DTSC
SubJech RE: request for your written response to studies submitted in latter part of 2013 for the "New
Generations" Project
Hi Sandra,
ISUBJECT:] REVIE\ry OF ..VAPOR INTRUSION HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT FOR
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT NORTHWEST OF INTERSECTION OF WEST NEES
AVENUE AND NORTH PALM AVENUE, FRESNO DATED OCTOBER 1,2013; AND
REVIEW OF "RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATION'' SUBMITTAL DATED AUGUST 28,
2013
Per your request I have completed a cursory review of the above two documents. Comments
regarding review of the August submittal are as follows.
1. The vinyl chloride reporting limit for the active soil gas survey conducted at the site
using a mobile lab was 100 ug/m3. This exceeds by about one order of magnitude
most screening levels that are used for evaluating vapor intrusion to indoor air
conditions.
2. All soil gas samples were collected from a depth of approximately 5 feet below ground
surface. The shallow lithology at the site is not described. The shallow lithology is
important for determining the appropriate interval(s) for collecting soil gas samples.
This is often determined by the collection of continuous cores prior to the start of the
survey. Review of the shallow lithology is used for determining the depth intervals
from which the soil gas samples should be collected.
3. Soil samples from the interval from which the sampling occurred were apparently not
collected. Site specific soil parameters such as moisture content, porosity and
hydraulic conductivity are usually needed for properly estimating the potential vapor
intrusion risk using the Johnson and Ettinger model.
4. Surface emission testing for methane was conducted. There may be some benefit to
collecting ambient air samples and analyzing them for chlorinated VOCs.
5. Soil gas samples were collected from the apparent three permanent vapor wells at the
site. VOC analysis was apparently not performed.
Comments regarding review of the October submittal are as follows.
1. A DTSC toxicologist or equivalent should complete a peer review of the submittal.
2. The exposure point concentrations for the contaminants that were used for the
presented risk calculations are listed. The concentration used for vinyl chloride was
320 ug/mS and was calculated using a 95 UCL. The maximum concentration detected
at concentrations about reporting limits was 550 ug/m3. The maximum concentration
should be utilized.
3. Ïhe indicated cancer risk "for standard slab-on-grade construction (without mitigation)"
is 6.75 x 10-6. This exceeds the 1 x 10-6 point of departure that is considered. Again I
recommend that a toxicologist review the risk analysis.
4. Numerous VOCs were detected in the two deeper soil gas samples that were
collected at the site and that are reported in the BSK report dated April2,2012 and
titled "Limited Soil Vapor lnvestigation Report." An evaluation of this data is not
included in the subject submittal and should be considered for evaluating potential
risks at the site.
5. lnformation indicates that the proposed housing facility at the site will consist of four
stories and that the first level will consist of a "non-enclosed, podium-deck parking
area." The submittal also proposes installation of a 60-mil liner underlain by a passive
ventilation system. The design plans for this should be peer reviewed by person with
expertise in these types of mitigation measures. This should be accompanied by a
proposal that includes a contingency for a covenanVdeed restriction that requires that
these measures be maintained and that sensitive land uses at other locations at the
site be precluded.
Mike
Mike Pfister, PG, CHG, CEG
Engineering Geologist
Department of Toxic Substances Control
1 515 Tollhouse Road
Clovis, CA 93619
559-297-3958
Fax = 559-297-3904
From: Patia Siong I
Sent Thursday, December 19, 2013 3:45 PM
To: Sandra Brock
Cc: Leland Villalvazo
SubjecÈ FW: request for your written response to studies submitted in latter part of 2013 for the "New
Generations" Project
Importance: High
Good afternoon Sandra,
Per your request, please find below our comments. lf you have any questions, please don't
hesitate to contact us.
Health lmpacts: Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are defined as air pollutants that
which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which
may pose a hazard to human health. The most common source of TACs can be
attributed to diesel exhaust fumes that are emitted from both stationary and mobile
sources. Health impacts may require a detailed health risk assessment (HRA).
i) The location of development projects is a major factor in determining whether they
will result in localized air quality impacts. ïhe potential for adverse air quality
impacts increase as the distance between the source of emissions and receptors
decrease. From a health risk perspective there are two types of land use projects
that have the potential to cause long{erm public health risk impacts: those that
locate new toxic sources in the vicinity of existing receptors and those that locate
new receptors in the vicinity of existing toxics sources.
Accurate quantification of health risks and operational emissions requires detailed
site specific information, e.g. type of emission source, proximity of the source to
sensitive receptors, and trip generation information. The required level of detail is
typically not available until project specific approvals are being granted.
ii) Various tools exist to perform a screening level analysis for emissions from new
stationary sources, such as prioritization charts, and various spreadsheets
available from the District's website. For projects being impacted by existing
emission sources, one screening tool is contained in the ARB Handbook: Alr
Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. The document
includes a table with recommended buffer distances associated with various types
of common sources. The ARB handbook can found on the ARB's website at:
http ://www.arb.ca. govichllanduse. htm
lf the screening level analysis indicates that TACs arc a concern, the District
recommends that a more detailed HRA be performed. lf an HRA is to be
performed, it is recommended that the project proponent contact the District to
review the proposed modeling approach. The project would be considered to have
a significant health risk if the HRA demonstrates that project related health impacts
would exceed the District's significance threshold of 10 in a million.
More information on TACs, prioritizations and HRAs can be obtained by:
. E-mailing inquiries to: hramodeler@valleyair.org; or
. Visiting the District's website at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Tox_Resources/AirQualityMonitoring.
htm
Patia Siong
Supervising Air Quality Specialist
San Joaquin Valley APCD
1990 East Gettysburg Ave.
Fresno, CA 93726
559-230-5930
Leland Villalvazo
Supervising Air Quality Specialist
San Joaquin Valley APCD
1990 E Gettysburg Ave
Fresno, CA93726
Ph:(559) 230-5881
Fax(559) 230-6061
Emails:
H RAModeler@vallevai r.oro
i nventorv@vallevai r.org
UJ
HE.ILTHY AIR I.IVIIIB'
wvw,hr¿l thV¡irlitl in0.¡om
M¿ke ons change for cle¿n ¿i¡!
Sandra Brock
Subject: FW: request for your written response to studies submitted in latter part of 2013 for
the "New Generations" Project
From ¡ David Wa¡:ner Imailto:dave.warner@ualleyair.org]
Sent: Friday, December 20,20t3 8:09 AM
To: Sandra Brock
Cc: Patia Siong; Leland Villalvazo
Subject: RE: request for your written response to studies submitted in latter part of 2013 for the "New
Generations" Project
Sandra,
After our discussion, I would like to clarify that the comments subm¡tted by Ms. Siong apply to
all sources of air toxics near a proposed development, not just those specifically listed in the
comments.
As the comments below also indicate, we would be pleased to work with you and the project
proponent to review a health risk assessment plan and prócess, to assist the city in its
obligation as a CEQA lead agency in identifying all potentially significant environmental
impacts.
We understand that there may be concern about toxic emissions from an abandoned landfill
or illegal dumping site underneath the planned development. While we are not experts on
expected emissions from such sites, we do have the expertise to analyze and assess
potential health risks based on known or suspected emission rates, and it this latter expertise
that we offering to use to review, or even help design, any health risk analysis process
required of the project proponent by the city in its CEQA role.
Dave Warner
Director of Permit Services
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
County of Fresno
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
DAVID POMAVILLE, M.B.A., R.E.H.S.
INTERIM DIRECTOR
December 23,2013
Sandra Brock
City of Fresno
Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Dear Ms. Brock:
PROJECT NUMBER: A-11-08, R-1'1-011
New Generations Group, LP project
Plan AmendmentApplication No. A-11-008 and Rezone Application No. R-11-011 were filed by
Brad Roznowsky of New Generation Group LP, and pertain to 424 acres of property located on the
northwest corner of North Palm and West Nees Avenues. Plan Amendment Application No. A-11-
008 proposes to amend the 2025 Fresno General Plan and Bullard Community Plan from the special
commercial planned land use designation to the offìce commercial land use designation. Rezone
Application No. R-11-011 proposes to reclassify the property from the C-UUGM (Commercial
Limited/Urban Grovvth Management) zone district to the C-P/UGM (Administrative and Professional
Qffice/ Urban Grovvth Management) zone district. The applicant proposes the future development of a
mixed use retail and residential project consisting of approximately 7,000 square feet of retail space
on grade with a garage structure and four stories above for 180 multiple family residential dwellings
and residential amenities.
APN:402-030-70, -43
ZONING: C-LIUGM to C-P/UGM
ADDRESS: 8011 N Palm Ave (site address)
This Department's comments have been prepared as both a responsible agency for local land use
projects as well as that of the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), as designated by the Department
of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycfe) for permitting and enforcement relating to
solid waste facilities within the County of Fresno.
These parcels are part of the Spano River Ranch Disposal Site and are listed in the Solid Waste
lnformation System (SWIS) database as site number 10-CR-0014. Any proposed change to the
use of the parcels requires compliance with Californía Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 27, Title
14, and Public Resources Code.
Prior to further consideration and any action by the City of Fresno, clarification of the
proposed project and a site specific post-closure land use plan is required to be submitted to the
Enforcement Agency (EA), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), local air district and
local land use agency.
DedÍcated to Public Health
1221 Fulton Mall I P.o. Box 11867, Fresno, californta93775 / (559) 600-327L1 FM (559) 600-7629
Equal Employment Opportunity ' Affirmative Action ' Disabled Employer
www,fcdph.org
FAo270876
1U001 61 33
2602
CX
Sandra Brock
A-11-08, R-11-011
December 23,2013
Page 2 of 3
From the Operational Statement for the proposed project it consists of mixed use with a garage
structure and 7,000 square-feet of retail space "on grade" and four stories of "Type VA" apartments
above the garage and retail portion. The amenities proposed are related to "resort lifestyle" with a
pool and spa, fitness room(s), lounge/game rooms, conference rooms and a business center.
A LimÌted SoilVapor lnvestigation was conducted by BSK Associates in March 2012 which
included two exploratory soil vapor probes installed to a depth of roughly 3OJeet below ground
surface, at or near the New Generations westerly property boundary APN: 402-030-70 and -43.
Results of samples taken from the probes indicate methane levels of 21 percent and 17 percent.
This is above the five percent lower explosive limit for methane (Title 27 CCR 520921(a)(2)). Vinyl
chloride was also reported at 460 uglms and 120 lJgtmt in the two soil vapor probes. tne
residential CHHSL for vinyl chloride is 13 ¡.rglm'. ln accordance with Title 27 CCR 520921(a)(3)
trace gases also need to be controlled to prevent adverse acute and chronic exposure to toxic
and/or carcinogenic compounds.
A subsequent Field lnvestigation was conducted in June 2013 and Vapor lntrusion Health Risk
Assessmenf completed in October 2013 by SCS Engineers. The Vapor lntrusion Health Risk
Assessmenf consisted of forty nine (49) five-foot soíl vapor samples taken on a 50 by 50 foot grid
layout. Results and conclusion of the SCS report indicate VOCs were not detected in 40 of the 49
probe locations tested.
Concerns: The five-foot probe depth does not adequately reflect final grade for the proposed
project. Given the current grade of the property, the top five or more feet could easily be graded
away for the proposed structure(s) and parking areas. There is a roughly five to eight foot rise ín
elevation from Palm Avenue going west.
. Soil lithology was not included with the report. The soil type used for Assessment model was
sandy clay. This is inconsistent with soils/materials known to be in the area of the probes
toward the west.o Depth of the 49 probes relative to final grade of the proposed project was not addressed.. Maximum soil gas concentration levels for each VOC were not used in the model calculation
for the Health RrskAssessøenf.¡ Results of the prior Limited Soil Vapor lnvestigation by BSK Assocrates 30-foot probe samples
were not evaluated as part of the Assessment.. The submitted Land Use proposal indicates 7,000 square-feet of retail space "on grade".
The Assessment indicates the first level as a "non-enclosed, podium-deck parking area."
A site specific Post-closure Land Use proposal shall be submitted in accordance with Title 27 CCR
S21 100 et seq. As per Title 27 CCR S21 190(c) All proposed postclosure land uses, other than
non-irrigated open space, on sites implementing closure or on closed sites shall be submitted to
the EA, RWQCB, local air district and local land use agency.
The Vapor lntrusion Health Rrsk Assessmenf shall be revised to address final proposed grade
relevant to five-foot probe results. The postclosure land use plan shall include methods proposed
to protect public health and safety for future tenants from indoor and outdoor exposure to landfill
gas emissions, potential land subsidence in areas of landfill debris, structure construction and
indoor air monitoring and alarm methods. An Emergency Response Plan shall be íncluded to
Sandra Brock
A-1'1-08, R-11-0'11
December 23,2013
Page 3 of 3
address the control of landfill gas emissions as well as potential evacuation of residents and
temporary relocation should it be necessary,
It is highly recommended that a toxicologist or equivalent complete a peer review of the submittal
and all data pertinent to the proposed project.
As per Tille 27 CCR S21 190(d) ... The owner or operator shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
EA that the activities will not pose a threat to public health and safety and the environment. Results
oT the Limited Soil Vapor lnvestigation by BSKAssociates indicate landfill gases are migrating
across the parcel line between APNs 402-030-70 and 402-03043 in excess of regulatory
requirements and would have an effect on future structures within the area.
lf you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (559) 600-3271.
Sincerely,
-1
J¿"r/ fu.øá',t2
Janet Gardner, R.E.H.S.
Environmental Health Specialist lll
Environmental Health Division
JG/bbj
cc: David Pomaville, lnterim Director, Public Health Department
Glenn Allen, lnterim Director, Environmental Health Division
Abel Martinez-Centeno, Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (via e-mail)
Alfred Worcester, Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (via e-mail)
Daniel Carlson, Regional Water Quality Conhol Board (via +mail)
Mike Pfister, Department of Toxic Substances Control(via e-mail)
Sandra Brock
Subject:FW: New Generations Proposed Project
From: Worcester, Alfred@CalRecycle I
Sanh Monday, December 30, 2013 11:17 AM
To: 'Gardner, Janet'; Sandra Brock
Cc: Allen, Glenn; Maftinez-Centeno, Abel@CalRecycle; dcarlson@waterboards,ca.gov; mpfister@dtsc.ca.qov;
Pomaúlle, David
Subject: RE: New Generations Proposed Project
HiJanet:
I have to agree w all of the proposed concerns, esp w regards to the submittal of a PCLU for
the proposed project. Based on my limited knowledge of the site, it appears that a more
complete geotechn¡cal and geo-environmental assessment of the site is needed before
further consideration can be given to the project. As you are aware, in PCLU matters we take
an adv¡sory role w the LEA as a lead. However, we can comment on any of the submitted
documents, up to incl the PCLU submittals. We would also advise the LEA to consider
conduct¡ng a third party review of the PCLU; the proponent/owner/operator would be required
to pay for this third party review.
Please call if you have any further questions.
Thanks,
Alfred
Alfred P. Worcester, P.G., C.E.G.
Englneerlng Geologist
Closure & Technical Support Section
Enginæring Support Branch
Waste Permitting, Compllance and ìlitigation Division
Department oî Resources Recycling and Recovery - CalRecycle
tel: 91 6.341.6353 fax: 31 9,7462 cel: 61 3.6053
e-mail:
Web Address : calrecycle.ca. gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is a PRIVATE communication and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed' rt mav contain 't"-il;"r'3ã i.so,'¿T.å:n.itJ.ätiff:ix,:H'ffii;,?lå'..;?:ii''.ïl i":'",ï'# #i,îirî#'iî 13.
otify the sender of the delivery enor by replying to th¡s message, and then delete it from your
unication. Thank you.
RiCf IVED Agenda ttem: ID#14-6s3 (5:00 p.M.)
Date: L2lLLlL4
¡i111 DtC 1i Pn ? -39
FRESNO CITY COUNCIL
clTY CLERä, FRtSNo CA cigof
FRES}Td3
Supplemental Information Packet
Agenda Related ltems - lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
Contents of Supplement: An additional Letter
Item(sl
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update
(Citywide)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental
lmpact Report (ElR) SCH No. 201211 1015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and
Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
Supplemental lnformation :
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the City Council after the
Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as
needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, 2600
Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(21.
ln addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the City Council meeting in the City
Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available on-line on the City
Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be
made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language interpreters,
assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meeting. Please call
City Clerk's Office at 621-7650. Please keep the doonruays, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open
and accessible. lf you need assistance with seating because of a disability, please see Securi
R ICf IVED
DAVID POMAVILLE, DIRECTOR
CITY CLERH, FRTSHO CA
December 11,2014
Jennifer K. Clark, Director (via email)
Development and Resource Management
City of Fresno
F40270876
1U001 61 33
2602
CX
2600 Fresno Street, Third Floor, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721-3604
Dear Jennifer K. Clark:
Master Environmental lmpact Report (MEIR)
Gity of Fresno General Plan and Development Code Update
Change Request ltem # 32
APN:402-030-70
This Department's comments are being provided as both a responsible agency for local land use
projects as well as that of the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), as designated by the Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)for permitting and enforcement relating to solid
waste facilities within the County of Fresno. The subject parcel, identified within Change Request
Item # 32 of the General Plan and Development Code Update is part of the Spano Rivér Ranch
Disposal Site which is listed in the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle), Solid Waste lnformation System (SWIS) database as site numberl0-CR-0014. The
parcel lies within the defined landfill boundary and as such is subject to Title 27 California Code of
Regulations for any post closure land use development.
The City of Fresno routed General Plan Amendment Application No. A-11-OO8 and Rezone
Application No. R-1 1-01 1 in August 2011 , filed by New Generation Group LP. ln the time since the
application submittal the Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division has met with
and corresponded with the applicant and/or their consultants on multiple occasions concerning the
requirement for a Solid Waste Facility Post-closure Land Use plan that clearly identifies the potential
hazards and offers mitigation measures addressing the protection of public health and safety for the
proposed project. The applicants have submitted studies; however, specific mitigation measures for
the proposed project have not been proposed in writing nor approved.
MEIR Section 3.8-Hazards and Hazardous Materials does not identify the parcel as part of a Solid
Waste Disposal Site, nor does it consider the potentialhazard to public health and the environment.
The MEIR indicates under City of Fresno Preferred PLU, CEQA lmpacts: "No lmpacts" resulting from
the change in use for ltem #32.
Additional analysis is required to properly evaluate and offer mitigations for potential health effects in
an area where landfill gases are known to be present. The Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) also expressed concerns with prior submittals by the New Generations Group (see enclosed
letter).
Promotion, preservation and protection of the community's health
1221 Fulton Mall / P.O. Box 11867 / Fresno, California 93775 | Phone (559) 600-3271 / FAX (559) 4554646
Emair:Environm:ffi
H;?|Iis;i[iìtrf iHï:.ffi;:J!ii,ä'.us':'r';ww'f cdph.org
City of Fresno
MEIR General Plan and Development Code Update
December 11,2014
Page 2 of 2
A Limited SoilVapor lnvestigation was conducted by consultants hired by the New Generation Group
LP in March 2012 consisting of two soil vapor probes installed to a depth of roughly 3O{eet below
ground surface, along the property boundary between APNs 402-030-70 and 402-030-43. (Both
within the defined boundary of the disposal site) Results of samples taken from the probes indicated
methane levels of 21 percent and 17 percent, above the five percent lower explosive limit for methane
(Tille 27 CCR 520921(a)(2)). Vinyl chloride was reported at 460 lrglm3 and 120 pglm3 in the two soil
vapor probes, where the residential CHHSL for vinyl chloride is 13 ¡,rglm3. The results of the sampling
indicate there is a potential for adverse acute and chronic exposure to toxic and/or carcinogenic
compounds.
The analysis performed for this MEIR is not adequate considering the potential environmental effects
resulting from the change in zoning designation within the General Plan and planned adoption of
zoning utilizing the same MEIR for Change Request ltem #32 within the Spano River Ranch Disposal
Site. The Environmental Health Division concurs with the City of Fresno Staff "Planned Land Use" of
Community Commercial, and to not approve change request #32 requesting a "Planned Land Use" of
Corridor/Center Mixed Use on APN 402-030-70. The applicant's proposed land use change warrants
further CEQA review and analysis.
lf you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (559) 600-3271.
Sincerely,
,/+*--6^.--
Janet Gardner, R.E.H.S.
Environmental Health Specialist lll
Environmental Health Division
JG
cc: David Pomaville, Director, Public Health Depaftment
Glenn Allen, Environmental Health Division
Abel Martinez-Centeno, Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (via email)
William Heung, Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (via email)
Gino Yetka, Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (via email)
Daniel Carlson, Regional Water Quality Control Board (via email)
Kevin Shaddy, Department of Toxic Substances Control (via email)
Mike Pfister, Department of Toxic Substances Control (via email)
Amoldo Rodriguez, City of Fresno (via email)
Mike Sanchez,Ctty of Fresno (via email)
Steve Brandau, Fresno City Council, District 2 (via web email)
l/tø (zt,t¿rrti,"*
RECEIVTJ
MAY I O ZÜiZ
f hrblic
Heulth
Matthew Rodriquez Deborah o' Raphael' Director
Secretary for , 15'1 5 Tollhouse Road Edmund G' Brovi
Environmentat protection clovis, california 93611 Governor
May 9,2012
Deborah O. Raphael, Director
15'15 Tollhouse Road
Clovis, California 9361 1
Edmund G, Brown Jr.
Governor
Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos
Supervising Planner
City of Fresno
Development and Resource Management Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721
REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL RELATED DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 8065 AND 8075 NOR-IH PALM AVENUE, FRESNO
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:
This is in regards to your e-mail dated April 23, 2012wherein it is requested that
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) staff review environmental related
documents associated wíth a proposed development at the above noted location. -[he
documents include a "Plan Amendment Submittal" that was routed originally for public
review between August 5,2011 and August 15,2011 , and one dated April 2, 2012 and
titled "Limited Soil Vapor lnvestigation Report."
As described in the Amendment, the future development would consist "of a mixed use
retail and residential project cons¡sting of approximately 7 thousand square feet of retail
space on grade with a garage structure and four stories above for multiple family
residential dwelling and residentialamenities." lnformation included in the report
indicates that the footprint of the subject development will partially overlie a landfill
known as the Spanos Landfill, which is near the northwest intersection of North Palm
Avenue and West Ness Avenue in Fresno. The report presents the results of two soil
gas samples that were collected at a depth of about 30 feet below the ground surface.
The report notes that methane was detected "at concentrations of 21% of total gases in
sample SVP-1 and 17% of total gases in sample SVP-2." The indicated lower explosive
limit (LEL) for methane is approximately 5%. Vinyl chloride was reported at
concentrations of 460 ug/m3 in SVP-1 and 120 ug/m3 in SVP-2. The California Human
Health Screening Level for vinyl chloride in a residential setting is 13 ug/m3. Estimated
risks based on a Johnson and Ettinger model that is due to vapor intrusion to indoor air
is presented. These risks were apparently calculated using the "Johnson and Ettinger
(J&E) soil gas screening model EPA version 2.0."
MP:cm
MP02 512
O i)iiii::,,1 r.;lr lìec/':liil i'¿Ì:rit
Måi 8:Bbi"rtasouratos
Page 2
DTSC staff comments for consideration are as follows.1. lt is not clear if the estimated risks are for a commercial/industrial setting or if
they are for an unrestricted, residential setting. Many of the parameters utilized
for the modeling are not included in the report text. DTSC has a modified
Johnson and Ettinger model on its web site that should be used. The accuracy
of the risk calculations were not reviewed by DTSC staff or a DTSC toxícologist.
It is not clear if the estimated risks are cumulative risks, which sUm the risks
posed by all of the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detected in the two
samples collected. lf not, then the risks may be underestimated.
2. Collection of additional soil gas samples is warranted and there is a need to
assess the extent of soil gas contamination. This should include the collection of
relatively shallow soil gas samples, such as from a depth of about 10 feet below
ground surface.
3. A risk analysis should be completed after the extent of soil gas contamínation is
collected.
4. lf appropriate, remedial actions or mitigation measures should be evaluated and
implemented. Mitigation measures that may be appropriate can be found in the
DTSC document titled Final Guidance for the Evaluation & Mitigation of
Subsurface Vapor lntrusion to lndoor Air. A copy of this document can be found
at http://www.dtsc.ca.qov/SiteCleanup/Vapor_l ntrusion.cfm.
5. lf needed or desired DTSC can enter into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with
the proponent to oversee needed activities such as soil gas assessment work
and risk analysis. The Agreement would identify a scope of work and include
provisions for reimbursement of DTSC staff oversight costs.
6. |n2007 , assessment and remediation work was competed at a nearby property
located at 675 West Nees Avenue, near the south east corner of North Palm
Avenue and West Nees Avenue, Fresno. The work was overseen by County of
Fresno representatives. The results of the assessment activities and a summary
of the remediation work is summarÍzed in a report dated February 7, 2008 and
titled "Subsurface lnvestigation Report, Building A.1.' A single soil gas sample
was collected ín soil at a location below where contaminated soil and other
materials (approximately 300-55 gallon drums) were removed. Volatile organic
compounds were detected, including vinyl chloride at a concentration of 51,000
ug/m3 and trichloroethylene at a concentration of 23,000 ug/m3 This may be
important to consider if additional assessment work is conducted at the subject
property.
MP:m
MPO2512
Ms. Soohia Paooulatos
May 9,2012
Page 3
lf you have any questions, please contact me at (559) 297-3958 or by e-mail at
mpfister@dts c. ca. gov.
Sincerely,
t/t,|úJ*JW'T-
Michael Pfister, PG, CEG
Engineering Geologist
San Joaquin & Legacy Landfills Office
Clovis Office
cc: Ms. Janet Gardner, R.E.H.S.
Environmentai Health Specialist I ll
Environmental Health Division
County of Fresno
1221Fulton Mall
P.O. Box 11867
Fresno, California 9377 5
Mr. RussellWalls, P.E.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
1685 E Street
Fresno, California 93706
Mr. Tim Miles
Hazardous Substances Scientist
Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
8800 Cal Center Drive
Sacramento, California 95826
MP;m
MP02.512
lt
2' Modification of Policy No' RC-9-c { Agricultural preservation program affecting new growth areas ) ?-C
3. Modification of policy ED-s-d and Elimination of policy No. pU_3_a ( affecting New Growth areas ) ?- C
4' Modification of objectives uF-12 and uF-13 ( affecting deveropment alr over the city )2-?
leY fre z-A
Subjeet:
Request:
Adoption "Interím Zoning Consistency Matrix,,
The Development code /zoningordinance has not been completed at the time of hearing for the Generar pran update.blic that they can continue to enjoy the full use of their property, the counciltency Matrix" for the residential zone districts. This action will provide assuranceplan' can continue using the current st ¡ndarJs consistent w¡th the new rand use
wilt no longer be needed and can o" ,."ä"?ïiffi:i"t""i /zoninsordinance, the lnterim Zoning consistency Matrix
For the following land use-designations proposed by the Draft Generar pran update, the zoning districts that arecurrently adopted should be used t" itpt"r"nt the deverop*"nì ãn serected sites in the c¡ty of Fresno:
nat¡on: Use R_l Zoning ( 12-211 FMC l
)
de ( 12-213 FMC )
êüy / ë,*,ffi,
Modificatíon of policy No. RC_9_c ( page No. 7_45 )
Modifo wording of the wording of the proposed Farmtand preservation Frogram,, to eriminate the reference to amandatory use of an easement at a l:L ratio. This modification would resuri in the removar of one sentence from thepolicy' This sentence was placed within the plan within the last two weeks and promotes the use of something that isuncommon within the state of california and is not used ,hrougr,or, the region. rf the Foricy remains as recentry draftedby staff it will place an unnecessary burden upon developr"ntl within tr," city of rresno onry. communitíes adjacent;:ffi;::ï:ï"nï:,îil1îlïiî,:'åî';;r'Jå:t',ffiî:ïi,tion in rresnó wou,d serve to increase the costor
Subject:
Request:
Subjeet:
y â*c
Modíficatíon of porícy ED-s-d and Erimination of poricy No. pu-3-a.
Request,
Modify the wording on two proposed policies that require development in ',Growth Areas,, to pay for the ,,staffing,operation and maintenance of fire stations' and "fully rrn¿ puui¡. safety and public service costs,,. The two polices, attwo completely different locations within the Generai plan iocument, prace a new financiar ,,burden,, on every newhomeowner in the Growth areas' The city has not done the required "Nexus', *roy io determine the appropriate feelevels yet wants to mandate that the unknown costs are paid by owners of new residences. These policies should bemodified to eliminate the wording referenced above:
ED-5-t Fair and Proportionatr payments. Requrre new residentialand commercial development that ..qriro annexabion to theCiry (nor including Counry Islandj ro pay its fair andproportional share of needed community improvements throughimpact fees, assessment districts,
".rd othe, mechanisms. ,\pprovenew residential and commercial development projects thatrequrre annexarion ro the Ciry (nor including Counry Islands)only after making findings that all of the following condirions aremet:
co¡nmr¡nÍty Faciritics Di¡E¡ct nor emegsnsy .scruiq" Ðweropstrat€gies to mandate Conmnunity Facilities District forrnations ir, r"iDevelopment Areas to fund the staffing, operation, and maintcnanceof the primaqy response ftre stations r;r; those areas so that sucl¡sewices do not overþ irrrpact the Genera! Frlnd.
No Ciry revenue will 6. used to replace or providedeveloper, funding that has or *""fj have beencommitted to âny mitigation projecr;
The dwelopmenr project will fully fund public facilitiesand infrastructure as ner:ec(îh, r^ *:,;^^i.
arising from the ".- oÏtåifl.lo mitiSate any impacts
The developmenr projec will pay andinfrastructure improvements in thedevelopmenr's neighborhood and c d
The developmenr will fully fund ongoi ilirv aand infrasmucrure m2' ;i (
public service costs.
rntenance and p
"r'
Fti-z-g
Suhjeet:
/ ff ""JÞ
Modification of objective No. uF-12 and objective No. uF-13 ( page No. 3_1g and 3_28
Tàe ælt". e{pÆs=sp
fue,
Ptogtæs ín an. un*en pattem-...der zd¡ng_ uoo¡l the-schdulc gf
Request:
Modiñ¡ wording in the two objectives that discuss the "ratio" of_deveropment expected to occur in the ,,rnfi!r,, and"Growth Areas"' The objectivås, as drafted, both indicate that'Rough ry Harf,otitre Jeveropment is expected to occur íneach of the geographical areas during the life of the plan. rnã staff arso prov¡oeo sonne ,commentary,, to crarífo the twoobjectives' The proposal would be tJmove the "commentarviànguage into the text of the objective. Both of thecommentary sections are similar, and by moving one sentenc" or ıom-me^"t il;ì;e two objectives, the ranguage
T,i :ff iï:i::ffiillflïff: ,:T.:,1,l",i.JiffiffifrHi[*"":oî;;;il;ïi'äi,"'*n,,.y was prepared by srarr and
Objective No. UF_12 (Current wording before modification )
of futurr rc¡iderrtial developm ín ünff¡lg wfuhfn the Çity or¡ Deçe¡nl¡er , Agt?-
rnixed.pse ccntenß a oodç'
cor¡ido¡s,.rrd oth." BRT
Ønrrßrby Tke Fhnning Ðiæçto¡ wiil povûlc an annual ,uport:
' næessaDr to meet this gæl by ZtSg. Thc
this g:oal is op!
-aevelopa¿eu
,n an uneven pdttem. depending upon ¡lp
at tho_Ee rehtcd to
the Çiy expects ¡o
tot:zard all the Saats aad obiectivæ anda¿ttcÞa¡ce ,=ry - the close o[ General plan i- torizo!,
in AAJS. See the Element for addftíonalímphtnentation stra
Move the foilowing sentence from the ,,commentary,, into the text of objective No. uF_12
-.,* ,'.rtwct at Inarßet tolcg.
Objectíve No. 13 (Current wording before modification )
Locate rougùþ
Growth Area¡-J
zotz S0l_rryhich
that lnclude hous
along ftture BßT
Comtwøry The
descríbing the
meeting the goals
p,Eparc an upda
apprcprhte
strategíet
to-one" pattern. Development in infrll areas ve¡sus grov4h dreas lpyyprogress ín an. uneven pattem, depending upon the schcdule sj[relevant LeI íncentive proprdms
the impact plf
€lead! prcgress
meeting them at or
See the lmphmen
stÌâtryies fot thís
Move the foilowing sentence from the "commentary,, into the text of objective No. uF_13
e
lË+Å crt E
Objective No. UF-L2 ( Froposed wording after rnodification)
Fres the infi, areasand and surroundrat€ ther non-corriinlIl. ,ÞåGma¡¡ occu¡ in a linearçr "one toincen*veprcsrâms(*.n","1ïil."i#i:f,ixi?i:î:lî:nii'jï."Hi*#r,':
Commentary (After Modification )
Obj_ectíve No. 13 ( proposed Wording after modification )
- _ "Locate rour-.s.hry one harf of future residentlar deveropment ¡n the Growthof December 31s, 2012 SOl, which a
and recreation; mixed use centers; or
expectêd to occur in a linear or,one
an uneven pattern, depending upon
the impact of market brGGs"
Commentary ( After Modification )
NORTHWEST
lËå åË å å-BSI¡E
(,
T,
a
É
.J
NORTHEAST
N€sa
å¡I
l-lsm
bd
Erd
Eãbr
s
Aeflan
È¡É
ìle
CT
Belmonl
l.rEr
Hlìlhr Brl
¡
E
t
I{
tå-
C¡
Mc
Of$
B oùt
1úfr
Klngr C
Br¡t
c
Ch¡rfr
Jaman
H-
¡-! ISOUTHEAST
:oDper River Ranch
zla1,D6 )utlot M 20.52 lsh Urban Neighborhood {ich27a2D6lutlot P 77.63 Vledium Hish Portion Urban Neishborhood 7 +/- ocres of Urbon Neiqhborhood Vledium High21a3hD6/illase I 30.09 Vledium Low Low Vled¡um Low2!a3c D6 0utlot LL 2.95 Vledium High Medium Low Medium High27a4D6Outlot Y 10.08 Medium Hieh Medium Medium Hish2Ia5D6Outlot X 12.85 Medium Hieh Medium Low Medium Hieh2la6D6Cpen Space 5.27 Open Space \4ed um Cpen Space27a7D6Cutlot OO 26.82 Medium Hish Vledium Elementary Schl2!a8 D6 f,utlot NN 6.66 Medium High and Community
Commercial
Medium and Street Realignment 3ommercial
27a9 D6 f,utlot PP t2.oo Commercial lommercial (10 acres) Medium H¡sh to the North f 12 acresl Motrix ¡ncorrcctlv rearesents chonoes reouested 3ommercial2LatLD6Port¡on Outlot JJ 3s0 Commercial Vledium Low 3ommercial
Fowler/Shlelds
2LbTA D4 rortion 310-041-38 100 Business Park lommercial :ieht lndustrial
2LbTB D4 lort¡on 310-041--38 3.56 Business Park Medium Residential -isht lndustrial21b3AD4portion 310-740-07 100 Business Park Commercial -isht lndustrial2tb2D4portion 310-041-39 3ommercial/UN Commercial Q2+/-acl GP not Clear on Aïeoqe -isht lndustrial27b4D4310-740-08& 310-740-09 t4.o2 Business Park Urban Neighborhood -ight lndustrial
rST
lrllssion Ranch
2Li3 D3 Mission Ranch 492 -ow Medium Low Medium Low2ti4D3Mission Ranch !6 42 _ow Medium Low Medium Low
2L¡5a D3 Mission Ranch 3.45 -ow Medium Low Medium Low21isbD3Mission Ranch 3.61 :ondine Basin Medium Low Medium Low
2]-i5c D3 Mission Ranch 7.64 -ow Medium Low Medium Low2!i6a D3 Mission Ranch 14 09 _ow Vledium Low Medium Low21i6bD3\4ission Ranch 5.20 )ondine Basin Vledium Low Medium Low277D3Vlission Ranch 9.75 -ow (on matrix)
)ondine Basin (on Mao)
Vedium Low Medium Low
21i8 D3 Vlission Ranch 4.95 Low Medium Low Medium Low2ti9D3Vlission Ranch !4.37 Low Medium Low Medium Low27it0D3Vliss¡on Ranch 981 Low Medium Low Medium Low27itLD3Mission Ranch 17.95 Low Medium Low Medium Low27i13D3Mission Ranch 18.96 Low Medium Low Medium Low27i14D3Mission Ranch 77.65 Low Medium Low Medium Low2ti75D3Mission Ranch 7.O7 Low Medium Low \4edium Low27i16D3Mission Ranch 19.5s Low Medium Low \4edium Low
D3 uV Kearnev Blvd. & S Hushes Ave.18.00 Medium Low
[orthwest
21,c D2 i04-080-16s (Bullard/Brva n I 9.51 Vledium Medium Low 9ullord/Bryan Vledium Hish27p1,D1 & Countv Artisan Square (Ashlan/Brvan/Haves)4.00 Medium/Pa rk/Commercia I Medium Vlotr¡x ¡ncorrectly represents chonses requested Vledium
21s.2 D1 Artisan Souare lAshlan/Brvan/Havesl 1.00 Medium/Park/Commercial Vledium Low Matr¡x ¡ncorrectlv rcDresents chonoes reouested Medium27e3D1Artisan Square (Ashlan/Brvan/Havesl t2.00 Medi um/Park/Commercial Vledium High Motr¡x incorrectlv reDresents chonoes reouestpd Medium2le4D1Artisan Souare lAshlan/Brvan/Havesì 2'J,.O0 Medium/Pa rklCommercia I lommercial Motrix incorrectlv represents chonaes reauested Medium2tdCounW312-06L-L8 19.51 Medium Vledium Low Clinton/Between Polk ond Hoves Medium2rfD2505-281-L6. 17. 18 lGrantland/Barstowì 3.93 Urban Neishborhood lommercial Citv orisinollv hod opproved chonqe Neishborhood Commercial
z1,e Countv 5!2-t4t-33 19.56 Urban Neishborhood Vledium G to ntl a n d/South of Do koto Ali o n m e nt Medium Hish2thCounWs12-050-89 t7.54 Urban Neighborhood Vledium 9rvon/Between Ashlon ond Dakoto Medium
Herndon/Riverside
D2 5O4-O9!-37 a nd 504-09 1-35 13 89 High Density Jrban Neishborhood Medium
General Plan Update
City Council Public Hesring
Jennifer Clark
Director of Deuelopment and Resource Management
DECEMBER 11, zot4
. Summary of Documents
. CEQA Analysis
. Public Input and Changes to the Plan
. Staff Recommendation
Summary of Documents
. E>rhibit A: Land Use Change
Requests, Map and Table
. Exhibit B: Staff Recommended
Land Use and Circulation Map
. Exùribit C: City Council
Resolution 2o12-15o Initiation of
the General Plan Update
. Exhibit D: Draft Master
Environmental Impact Report
(DMEIR SCH NO. zorzrnor5)
. Exhibit E: Final Master
Environmental Impact Report
(FMETR)
. Exhibit F: Revised General Plan,
December 2ot4
Exhibit G: Redline General Plan
Exhibit H: Errata Sheet for
Redline General Plan
Exhibit I: General Plan
Comment Letters
Exhibit J: Frequently Asked
Questions
Exhibit K: Planning Commission
StaffReport
Exhibit L: Errata Sheet for
December 2or4 General PIan
Summ"y"il}focuments
Exhibit M: Planning Commission
Resolution 13313
Exhibit N: Planning Commission
Resolution 13312
Exhil¡it O: RESOLUTION - Certifying
Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) No. SCH zorzrrror5 prepared
for the General Plan Update and the
Development Code Update
Exhibit P: RESOLUTION - Adopting
the proposed Fresno General Plan as
an update to the zoz5 General Plan,
including all text, policies, maps,
tables, and exhibits and contained in
the Fresno General Plan document
dated December, zo14
Exhibit Q: RESOLUTION - Adopting
plan modifications recommended by
staff and identified as "City of Fresno
Staff Preferred Land Use" in the "Lancl
Use Change Requests" and "Land Use
and Circulation Map," and denying the
remaining plan modifications
EXhibit R: RESOLUTION -
Authorizing the Development and
Resource Management Director or her
designee to update the text, policies,
maps, tables, and exhibits contained in
the Fresno General Plan document to
reflect the final action taken by
Conncil, to the extent that such
updates afe necessary to maintain
consistency
Environmental
Evaluation
Overview of Environmental
Evaluation Process
NOVEMBER 6,2012
Notice of
Preparation
NOVEMBER 6_
DECEMBER 6,2A12
Public Review
Period
NOVEMBER 27,2012
Scoping
Meeting
Ovenriew of Environmental
Evaluation Process
JULY 22,2t14
Draft EIR
JULY 22_
ocToBER 8,2014
Public Review
Period
DECEMBER 8,2A14
Planning
Comrnission
Public Hearing
DECEMBER 11,2T14
City Council
Public Hearing
City of Fresno Planning Area
. Areas withfn City Limits
.Areas oufside City Limits
and usithin Sphere-of-Influence
. Area north of City and
north of Sphere - of- Influence
The Planning Area
General Plan and
Development Code Update
. Comprehensive lJpdate of the
Approved 2o2S General Plan
. Comprehensive update of City's
Regulation of Land Use and
Development Throu gh Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance
. Streamlines Entitlement Process
Master EIR
Project Description
. Future Buildout Development
Within The Planning Area
. Existing Development vs.
Buildout Under General Plan
Update
. Incremental Increase in
Development
Master EIR Document
Master EIR
One of the T¡les of EIRs Allowed in CEQA
Allowed for a General Plan Update
Fresno Currently has a Master EIR for the zoz5
General Plan
Allows Streamlining Later Environmental Review of
Projects
Streamlining Can Only Occur if Potential
Environmental Effects of Later Projects Were
Addressed in the Master EIR
Master EIR Document
Master EIR
-, If Potential Environmental Effects of Later Projects
Were Not Addressed, a MND, Subsequent EIR,
Supplemental EIR, or Revision of the Master EIR
would be Required
, Adequacy of the Master EIR Findings Need to be Re-
Evaluated at Least Once Every Five Years
Master EIR
Environmental Issues
. Issues Found to be
Signifi.cont and Unou oidqble
. fssues Found to be Less Than
Sig nificant With Mitig ation M essur es
. Issues Found to have No Impact or
Less than Signífrcant Wíthout
Mitigation Measures
Issues Found to be
Sig nificant nnd (Jnau oido"ble
Aesthetics
. Visual Character
" Illumination of the Dark Sþ
Agricultural Resources
o Loss of Farmland
o Removal of Williamson Act Contract Land
Air Quality
" Criteria Pollutant Emissions
" Toxic Air Contaminant Pollutant Concentrations
Issues Found to be
Sig nificant ond Unsu oida.ble
Cultural Resources
. Potential Removal of Historic Resources
Greenhouse Gases
" Increase in Emissions Beyond the Year 2o2o
Noise
" Exceed Noise Standards
,, Substantial Permanent Increases in Noise Levels
Issues Found to be
Significnnt snd Unau oido,ble
Transportation and Traffic
.. Potentially Exceed Levels of Service Thresholds for
Roadways (under the jurisdictions of the County of
Fresno, City of Clovis, and Caltrans)
Utility and Service Systems
Construction of Facilities Could Cause Substantial
Impacts to Agriculture and Air Qualþ
Issues Found to be Less Thqn
Sig nificont utith Mitig ation M easure s
Biological Resources
. Habitat
, Plant and Wildlife Species
Wetlands
Cultural Resources
,- Archaeology
Paleontology
, Hurnan Remains
Issues Found to be Less Thqn
Sig nifi"cant usith Mitig ation M eosur e s
Hazards
Airport
, Emergency Response Plan
Hydrology
Groundwater Supplies
, Polltrted Runoff
Public Services
, Construction of Facilities
Issues Found to be Less Thon
S_ign frrort usith Mitigatíon Measures
Utilities and Service Systems
. Capacities for Water, Sewer, Drainage, and Landfill
Facilities
Issues Found to have Àtro Impacf or Less thqn
Sig nificqnt without Mitigãtíon M e asur e s
Geology and Soils
Hazardous Materials
Land Use and Planning
Noise
., Groundborne Vibration
, Construction Noise
. Aircraft Noise
Population and Housing
Issues Found to have Àtro Impacf or Less thon
Si g nifi c,ant w_i;tltout M ttig àti o n M e a sur e s
Transportation and Traffic
.. Roadways Under City Jurisdiction
., EmergencyAccess
Energy Conservation
Mineral Resources
16lr
Project Alternatives
Alternatives Considered But Rejected
Five Alternatives Developed for the General Plan
Citizens Committee in March 2oL2
Alternatives Considered and Evaluated
' No Project/No Development
z No Project/Development In Accordance with the
Existing General Plan
s, Growth Area Expansion
+. Growth Area Reduction
Summary of Comments Received
on Draft Master EIR
38 Comment Letters Received
of Draft Master EIR
-- 5 State Agencies
8 Regional and Local Agencies
z5 Citizens and Organizations
Summary of Comments Received
on Draft Master EIR
Primary Reoccurring Concerns
-- Loss of Farmland
. State Highway System
, Timing of Residential Development Within the City
-' Adequate Water Supply
,, High Speed Rail
. San Joaquin River ParkwayAccess
, Mitigation Measures
Final Master EIR
Draft Master EIR
Response to Comments Document
. Responses to Comments Provided on Draft
Master EIR
. Environmental Evaluation of Requested Land
Use Changes
PUBLIC INPUT:
Continue to support the creation
of community äñd Specific Plans.
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
The community and Specific Plans will not
automaticaþ be amended or repealed.
ADDED COMMENTARY TO D-Z-b FOR CLARIFICATION:
The Citywill work with community members in
the preparation of new community, neighborhood,
and/or Specific Plans after the adoption of the
General Plan.
PLIBLIC INPT]T:
Protect established neighborhoods
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
LU-z-e Neighborhood Presen¡ation
CHANGED POLICY FOR CI¿,RIFICATION:
PUBLIC INPUT:
The Citv should focus on
enforcement of existing standards.
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
ADDED POLICIES:
HC-+-e Code enforcement
IJC- +-f Chronic Violators
Design and implem es to address
chroñic code violati properties.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Provide additional protections for
properties containiñg liquor sales.
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
ADDED POLICY:
sale liquor stores to help
ore inviting and safe r
The Plan Update focuses on the ouerall uisfon.
The Development Code will address the detsíls
of irnplernentíng ttre vision.
PUBLIC INPUT:
ACTIVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
ADDED NARRATTVE FOR CI-ARIFICATION:
6.6 Disadvantaged. Unincorporated
Communities
SECTION INCLUDES:
In comoliance with identifv
ail DUÖs within the equireð
infrastructure analvsis to next
Housing Element Úpdate.
PUBLIC INPIJT:
Provide alternatives to DfICs
for annexation into the CiW
ACTIVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
LU-r-e Annexation Requirement
ADDED COMMENTARY FOR CI,ARIFICATION:
ate and support the
annexation process.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Strengthen policies related to
incentivizing affordable housing.
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
PUBLIC II.{PUT:
Strengthen access to
education and training
ACTIVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
ADDED POLICIES:
rships
partnershins that brine
ê:mployers ihrough intërnships,
s.
PUBLIC INPI]T:
Fiscal Impact Analysis should be
proportional to project size.
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
BD-5-e Fiscal Impact Analyses
ADDED COMMENTARY FOR CLARIFICATION:
asures for
smaller projects.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Encourage development in activi
centers other th¿ n Downtown.
ACTIVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
LU-g-c The Primacy of Downtown
ADDED COMMENTARY FOR CI,ARIFICATION:
Activiw Centers outsi
but noi be limited to,
Park and the Blackstone
Avenue, and Shaw Ave
ACTIVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
VT-l-g Complete Streets Concept
Imptementation
PoLIcY .HANGE FoR cLARIFICATIoNtooon
a complete streets
e^of all viable travel modes
PUBLIC INPUT:
The noise level standards are too
restrictive for infill development.
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
NS-r-a Desirable and Generally Acceptable
Bxterior Noise Bnvironment
POLICY CIIANGE FOR CI/,RIFICATION:. Updated Policy to clarify the exterior noise levels for
non-stationary sources.
. Noise levels on certain corridors will rise to reflect
urban environments.
PUBLIC INPIJT:
Provide for safe sidewalks.
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
MT-5-b Sidewalk Requirements
CHANGED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CITY POLICY:
the Americans with Dis
PUBLIC INPUT:
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
MT-6-g Path and Trail Development
Require all projects to incorporate planned multi-purpose
path and trail development standards and corridor linkages
consistent with the General Plan, applicable law and case-
by-case determinations as a condition of project approval.
ADDED COMMENTARY FOR CI.AIFICATION:
This should be done pursuant to Figure MT-z: Paths and
Trails, and the adopted BMP, as may amended.
PUBLIC IITIPUT:
ACTIVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
POSS-B-h
Coordination with School Districts
P OLICY CIIANGE FOR CI/,RIFICATION:
Continue to coordinate with school districts to
explore opportunities for joint use of both outdoor
and indoor recreation facilities, such as
playgrounds, play fields, and gymnasiums, for City
recreation programs.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Do more to protect farmland.
ACTIVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
ADDED POLICY:
RC-g-c Farmland Presen¡ation Program
POLICY INCLUDES:
In coordination with resional partners or
independently, establisñ a Farmland Presewation
Program.
PUBLIC INPIJT:
There should be more
on lJrban Agriculture.
emphasis
ACTWE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
HC-5-f Urban Agriculture
STREAMLINED POLICY:
Amend the FMC to provide clear and concise
permitting procedures regarding Community
Gardens, On-site Garden Produce Market
Stands, and Urban Farms that allow sale of
foods grown locally.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Provide assurances that Infill
investment will be prioritized.
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
After adoption. the Administration
will establish ah Infill
Implementation Task Force.
PUBLIC INPIJT:
Reouest to uodate the
Parks Mastei Plan.
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
RECOMMEND AMENDMENT OF POSS-T-B:
CHANGE FROM:
"Consider updating. .. "
CHANGETO:
"Update the Parks Master Plarr..."
PUBLIC I}TPTIT:
Protect the Forestiere
Underground Gardens.
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION:
The Forestiere Underground Gardens is
included on both the National Register
of Historic Places and is on the list of
California Historical Landmarks.
PUBLIC INPTIT:
Do not repeal community
or Specifið Plans.
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION:
Community or Specific Plans won't
be repealed or amended unless there
is subsequent legislative action.
PUBLIC INPUT:
lot single family
t from m( re intense
es.
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION:
LU-z-e Neighborhood Preservation
Incorporate standards in the Development Code to preserve the
existing residenti al qu alþ of established neighborho ods.
LU-S-g Scale and Character of New Development
Allow new development in or adjacent to established
neighborhoods that is compatible in scale and characterwith the
surrounding area by promoting a transition in scale and
architectural character between new buildings and established
neighborhoods
Recommendations
Recommended Actions
a. Approve Resolution - Certifying Final EIR No.
SCH 2oL2\Lro1S prepared for the General Plan
Update and the Development Code Update; and, i.
Adopting Findings of Fact as required by Public
Resources Code, section zro8r(a) and CEQA
Guidelines, Section 1So9U and ii. Approving a
Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by
Public Resotrrces Code, section zro8r.6 and CEQA
Gnidelines, section t;og7; and iii. Adopting the
Statement of Overriding Considerations as
requiled by Public Resources Code, Section
zro8r(b) and CEQA Guidelines, Section 1So93;
b. Approve Resolution - Adopting the proposed
F resno General Plan as an update to the 2o2S
General Plan, including all text, policies, maps,
tables, and exhibits and contained in the Fresno
General Plan document dated Decemb eÍ, 2or4;
c. Approve Resolution - Adopting plan modifications
recommended by staff and identified as "City of
F'resno Staff Preferred Land IJse" in the "Land Use
Change Requests" and "Land Use and Circulation
Mup," and denyng the remaining plan
modifications; and
cl. Approve Resoltrtion - Authorizing the
Development ancl Resource N{anagernent Director
or her cì.esignee to update the tert, policies, maps,
tables, and exhibits contained in the F'resno
General Plan doctrment to reflect the final action
taken b)'Council, to the extent that snch upclates
are necessary to maintain consistency