Elm Avenue Plan Rezone:
Workshop on Status and
SB 330 Compliance Options
City Council, City of Fresno
October 13, 2022
Elm Avenue Plan
Amendment‐Rezone
• 15 Parcels; Approx. 92.5 acres
• Fully-developed properties; no
room for additional growth
• The landowners are seeking a
change of Land Use/Zoning
from NMX to IL, consistent
with existing uses
• No new construction
• No new land uses
• The applicants simply want to
preserve what is there
Project Background
• Properties were redeveloped as part
of the City’s 1999 “Elm Avenue
Corridor Blight Removal, Streetscape
and Business Attraction.”
• The City actively attracted the current
landowners to re‐develop the Elm
Avenue Corridor between the early
2000s and 2016
•Over $150 million invested in
Southwest Fresno
Overview of Elm Avenue Properties
Background
• Permits pulled for last development
within the project area on 6/27/2016
• In 2017, the properties were rezoned in
the City’s Southwest Specific Plan to
Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMX), a
residential land use
• Throughout the majority of this process
in 2015‐16, the Steering Committee
contemplated the properties at issue
would remain “Light Industrial.”
• Shortly before the NOP was released in
early 2017, the proposed land use was
changed (without Landowners’ input or
knowledge) to NMX
Steering Committee Information
Packet, July 13, 2016
Subject
Properties
shown as
Light
Industrial
Background
• During this time, the
Landowners were in
constant communication
with the City regarding their
zoning, due to inquiries by
prospective tenants and
lenders.
• During this time, the City
continued to confirm the
properties were zoned
“Light Industrial”
• City staff did not mention
that the properties were
being actively rezoned to
NMX
Background
• The Landowners received
this letter the same day
the City Council approved
the rezone to NMX
• No mention of the
rezoning
Process to Date
• 2018. Landowners learned about the rezone
to NMX.
• Early 2020. Environmental consultants
prepared an environmental document and
supporting materials in early 2020
• No negative environmental effects
• August 25, 2020. Council District 3 Project
Review Committee
• February 3, 2021. Initial Planning
Commission Meeting
• Requested further interaction with
community members
• March 1, 2021. Neighborhood Meeting
• Landowners have given tours of the property to
interested neighbors; Planning Commissioners
were also invited
• Numerous discussions with Fmr.
Councilmember Baines (who we understand
was the City‐designated community liaison)
• May 18, 2022. Planning Commission
recommended approval of the rezone for the new
Busseto project (new construction)
• June 1, 2022. Planning Commission
recommended approval of the rezone for Elm
Avenue
• September 1, 2022. Council Workshop
Concerns Raised by the Public
At Prior Meetings
1. Concerns regarding potential environmental impacts –a i r quality, traffic
2. Concern the applicants would develop new, more intense industrial uses
3. Concern that the existing businesses provide no benefit to Southwest Fresno; more Residential development is needed
4. Since the properties are “grandfathered,” why do they need their zoning back?
The Rezone Will Not Result in any Negative
Environmental Effects
• Because the application merely seeks to
preserve existing land uses, there will be
no negative change in the environment:
• The rezone “would not generate new
trips above existing conditions” and
“would not generate new” VMTs.
(Addendum at 59.)
• The rezone would not increase
criteria pollutant or GHG emissions.
(Addendum at 20, 36.)
• Environmental benefits compared to NMX:
• Traffic associated with existing uses
(3,350 trips/day) is far lower than NMX
(14,494 trips/day). (Addendum at 57‐58.)
• The rezone will allow the landowners to
receive financing to upgrade to green
infrastructure, including electrification,
resulting in an environmental benefit.
The Rezone Will Not Result in any Negative
Environmental Effects
•“[W]e believe that environmental
justice and economic development
can both occur at the same time.
They are not mutually exclusive.”
(AG Rob Bonta)
• The Elm Avenue businesses employ many of
the “best practices” recommended by the AG:
• Physical and vegetative buffers
• Adequate onsite parking
• Loading docks located away from sensitive
receptors
• Directed lighting into interior of site
• Businesses are kept clean and free of
trash/debris
• Rezone needed to facilitate electrification of
fleets, onsite equipment, and infrastructure
• Many more
The Landowners Seek to Maintain their Existing
Uses, not Engage in More Intense Uses
•The Landowners merely seek to regain what they lost in 2017, and maintain their existing land uses
•The Landowners have agreed to conditions expressly prohibiting them and future landowners from engaging in industrial land uses commonly associated with negative effects on the community:
• Rendering plants/slaughterhouses
• “Intensive Industrial” uses— i.e., regular use of hazardous materials • Salvage/wrecking yards; towing and impoundment
• Shooting ranges
• Adult‐oriented uses
The Existing Businesses Benefit Southwest Fresno;
the Properties are Not Ideal for Residential
•$150 million investment in development of well‐maintained properties with extensive landscaping
•Employment of thousands of Fresnans, including many residents of Southwest Fresno
•Existing businesses add to the tax base of the City, helping to fund City programs, including programs that benefit Southwest Fresno •The properties are not an ideal location for residential development:
• Adjacent to S.R. 41 and heavy industrial uses to the east • Due to existing, relatively new businesses and warehouse buildings on the properties, residential development would be expensive and highly unlikely to attract investment Why is the Existing (NMX) Zoning an Issue?
• Nearly all of the existing businesses located on the properties are not authorized in the NMX Zoning District
• Although the existing businesses are now a “legal non‐conforming” use:
• The inconsistent zoning diminishes the ability to attract the reputable, responsible, and well‐capitalized businesses the community deserves, such as Glaxosmithkline • The inconsistent zoning makes it nearly impossible to receive conventional financing (including capital improvements necessary for ongoing maintenance, beautification, and clean energy improvements), and could result in an event of default under existing loans • If a building is unused for a moderate period due to an economic downturn (such as the recent recession), the landowners will lose their legal nonconforming status under the code • It is far more difficult to sell properties with legal nonconforming status The City’s Prior Zone Change Has Negatively
Affected the Landowners
•Several of the landowner representatives will be making remarks:
• Joe Livaich: Buzz Oates, Elm Avenue Landowner
• Nick Audino: representing Span Development
• Steve Brock: SDG Development
• Joseph Kalpakoff: Mid‐Valley Recycling
Thank you