Exhibit G - Comment Letters — Fresno City Council, October 19, 2023

Exhibit G – Comment Letters

FENNEMORE,

DOWLING AARON
David D. Schneider
Director
[email protected]
8080 N Palm Avenue, Third Floor
Fresno, California 93717
PH (5s9) 446-3218 | FX (ss9) 432-4s90
fen nemorelaw,com
February 6,2023

VIA E-MAIL
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
publiccommentsplannin@fresno. gov
Re: CUP Application p22-03146 I 2287 W. Bullard Ave
Dear Planning and Development Director:

I represent several residents that currently reside within the immediate vicinity of, and in many cases within 1 ,000 feet of, 2287 W . Bullard Ave, Fresno, CA 937 Il (the "subject property',).

The purpose of this letter is to formally object to CUP Application No. p22-03146 (the..eio¡eót',j.

Several residents have requested materials from the City in an attempt to learn more about the Project, as the information initially provided to the residents has not been sufficiently detailed for them to understand all of the impacts the Project-a commercial medical office development- would have on the surrounding neighborhoods. They have since been provided .om" upplication materials from the City that comprise of: 1) June 13,2022letter from Infinite Living generally describing the planned use; 2) and, a 5 page site plan. These materials continue to-bã wholly inadequate and insufficient to inform and advise the residents of the Project's potential impacts.

Under Section 15-5306 of the Development Code, one of the factors for approval is whether the project will have a substantial adverse impact to public health, safety, or welfare. The lack of sufficient information in the Application regarding the impact of the proposed development prevent the City from being able to meet the necessary findings. Giverr that the City has represented to the neighbors that this is the body of the application materials, it appears any findings to support the approval of a Conditional Use Permit would be unsupported by zubstantial evidence. This is particularly true given that the City does not appear-to have prepared an environmental document under the Califomia Environmental euality Act, g zrôoo, et seq. ("CEQA"), and has not provided any information to the public regarding any supposedþ applicable exemption.

Arizona I California I Colorado I Nevada
FENNEMORE.

DOWLING AARON
City of Fresno
February 6,2023
Page2
Alternatively, if the City has not provided all relevant application materials to area residents concerning the application for the Project, the City has failed io meet its obligations under the Public Records Act by failing to fully and timely respond to a request for records. lGovt. Code, 5 6253.) Either way, the city should decline to approve the projeci.

In addition, while the application materials are incomplete and unclear, the City,s"Neighborhood Notification" charactenzes the proposed commercial project as a ..residential respiratory care facility" fApplication Description]. The Application fufihLr states, .,the facilitywill provide acute care services, skilled nursing care and complex respiratory care . . .', Ubidi.Fresno Municipal Code, Section l5-6702 defines "Residential Care Facilities as:

Resídentíal Care Facílìtíes. Facilities that are licensed by the State o.f California to prottide permanent lit'ing accommodations and 24-hour prímaríly non-medìcal cøre ønd supervisionþrpersons in need of personal setrices, supen,ision, protection, or assistance for sustaining thàactivities of daily living... (emphasis added) Thus, it is clear that the proposed facility is not a Residential Care Facility as defined by the City.

The current zoning designation for the lot at issue is RS-2/EQ. This denotes a district ofsingle-family residences with very low density. Table l5-go2 (City Dìvelopment Code) does noteven contemplate the proposed use - a group of structures housing up to fifty-plus residents requiring constant medical care. As such, the Application should be denied because it is not a permitted or conditional use under the city's Devôlopment code.

Even if the City could assert the Project is a permitted or conditional use under the Development Code, the City would need to assess the impact associated with inviting commercial office and medical uses into the heart of a residential neighborhood. CEQA requires agencies to evaluate the land use and planning impacts associated with projects proposed under CEþR. tn its evaluation of this issue, a land agency must ask whether thepróposeà pioject would:
-Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency withjurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the pnrpor" oiavoiáing or -
mitigating an environmental effect. (cEeA Guidelines, Rppendix c.¡ My clients and the residents of this neighborhood purchased their homes with the understanding that they were moving into a low density, non-commercial neighborhood. Theproposed Application seeks to radically transmogrif, the lot at issue to triple the normal number of structures on the lot, construct large numbers of parking places (more thån twenty), and operate a twenty-four hour a day business with numerous vehicle trips in and out ofthe facility. A business

FENNEMORE,

DOWLING AARON
City of Fresno
February 6,2023

Page 3 ends

operating twenty-four hours a day, seven day a week, three hundred sixty-five days ayear in a residential neighborhood is the proverbial square peg in a round hole.

The applicant's Operational Statement also contains admissions that the City is seeking to piecemeal environmental review of the Project. Specifically, the Applicant's June 13,2022litter contemplates subdividing - "The property will consist of two phases and will not be subdivided until a later date.". This is a clear signal that the applicant is seeking to avoid CEQA at this time, and that a subdivision will be requeJte d after the Èioject is fully built out. Subdivision is plainly a discretionary action that requires CEQA review. (Rominger v. County of Colusa (2014) (224 Cal.App.4th 690.) Given that the applicant expressly intends to subdivid ",
iny exemption or other
CEQA document that fails to describe all project components would result in the environmental failing to assess the "whole of the action" as required under Section 15378 of the CEeA Guidelines. (See also Santiago Water Dist. v. County íf Orange (1981) l l8 Cal.App.3d 8lS, g3ò.) At a minimum, the Applicant and the City should provide information relating to the expected number of vehicle trips, the distance of those trips, the noise, light, and other environmental factors associated with a three structure facility populated *ítn ñ'or" than frfty residents and fìfteen staff members in a low density zoned neighbòrhood.

Based on the foregoing, my clients respectfully request that the Application be denied.

I hereby request notice of the Director's final action on the Application.

Sincerely,

FENNEMORE DOWLING AARON
DDSC/tIb
Thomas Veatch (Thomas.veatch@fresno. gov)
Brent Smittcamp ([email protected])
Mike Karbassi ([email protected])
cc
2873s904n0r378.0909
7409497
Clyde & Co US LLP is a Delaware limited liability partnership with offices in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, New Jersey, New York, Orange County, Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington D.C.

Clyde & Co US LLP is affiliated with Clyde & Co LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales.

February 6, 2023
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
[email protected]
Re: CUP Application P22-03146 / 2287 W. Bullard Ave
Dear Director of Planning and Development :

Please be advised that I represent multiple residents who reside close to 2287 W. Bullard Ave, Fresno, CA 93711. My clients have received a “Neighborhood Notification” regarding Conditional Use Permit Application No. P22-03146. Further, I am a resident at 2330 W. Roberts Ave, Fresno, CA 93711 – near the proposed commercial development and a recipient of the City’s “Neighborhood Notification”.

The purpose of this letter is to formally object to the CUP Application (hereinafter “the Application”).

The Proposed Project is Not Permitted in the RS-2 Zoning and Would Fundamentally Alter the Character of the Neighborhood
The subject residential lot at 2287 W. Bullard has been a residential lot for more than fifty years and is zoned RS-2/EQ – a single family residential designation with low density. The proposal seeks to construct two additional structures, for a total of three structures on the property, to house a total of more than fifty residents in a medical environment. This proposed business, which is most akin to a medical office or hospital land use—neither of which are permitted by right or conditionally in the RS-2/EQ zoning district—seeks to operate twenty-four hours a day and will require staff at all times. It should be noted that there are no other known businesses operating in this residential neighborhood.

The proposed use is a fundamental and drastic alteration of the current and zoned residential use. The neighbors purchased their homes with the understanding that they would reside in a residential setting, not a commercial setting burdened with increased traffic, noise, lighting, Clyde & Co US LLP
150 California Street
15th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
USA
Telephone: +415 365 9840
Facsimile: +415 365 9801
www.clydeco.com
[email protected]

February 6, 2023

Page 2 ends

7409497
additional structures and parking lots on individual lots that otherwise alter the aesthetic nature of their neighborhood.

The City Must Conduct an Environmental Review Under CEQA in Advance of Considering a Conditional use Permit for the Project
A Conditional Use Permit is a quintessentially discretionary decision. As such, CEQA applies to the City’s consideration of the Project. No environmental document appears to have been prepared by the City. The City cannot consider approval of the project without completing environmental review under CEQA.

The City bears the burden - not the neighbors - to assess the environmental impact of the proposed commercial use. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311 [“CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on government rather than the public,” and a lead agency “should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather data.”].) Prior to considering any “project” under CEQA, a lead agency must first determine whether to prepare a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR for the project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15063.) The lead agency makes this determination based on what is called the “fair argument” standard. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(f)(1).) As explained by the California Supreme Court:
[S]ince the preparation of an EIR is the key to environmental protection under CEQA, accomplishment of the high objectives of hat act requires the preparation of an EIR whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact.
(No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) The Supreme Court has explained that even in “close and doubtful cases,” an EIR should always be prepared to ensure “the Legislature’s objective of ensuring that environmental protection serve as the guiding criterion in agency decisions.” (Id. at 84; see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21101, subd. (d).) Many courts have stated that the “EIR is the heart of CEQA. The report . . . may be viewed as an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.” (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 438 [quoting County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810] [emphasis added].) The CEQA Guidelines set forth the “fair argument” test used to evaluate whether an EIR is required:

If the lead agency finds there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR. Said another way, if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may February 6, 2023

Page 3 ends

7409497
also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(f)(1); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (d) [internal citations omitted].)
Accordingly, if any commenting party makes a fair argument that the proposed project’s environmental impacts “may have a significant effect on the environment,” the County must prepare an EIR, even if other substantial evidence supports the argument that adverse environmental effects will not occur. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(g)(1); see also Sierra Club v.

County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1316 [“[i]f there is substantial evidence of such an impact, contrary evidence is not adequate to support a decision to dispense with an EIR.”].) Here, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that an EIR is necessary:

Traffic
The Application provides no information regarding ingress and egress plans. This despite the fact that there will be more than fourteen staff members (per the Application) arriving at and leaving the facility daily, emergency vehicles, delivery vehicles, and visitor vehicles all entering and leaving the facility. Bullard Avenue is a highly trafficked throughfare that does not afford a realistic ingress / egress point for regular vehicle traffic. The Application offers no traffic study to provide the residents comfort that a feasible plan exists to prevent the aforementioned vehicle traffic from coming into the residential neighborhood to use Roberts Ave, Celeste Ave, Sequoia Ave or Morris Ave access to the property. These access points are already the subject of weekday school traffic and voluminous pedestrian traffic (adult and juvenile) due to the presence of Malloch Elementary.

The roads in this neighborhood already suffer greatly from the Malloch Elementary traffic and the neighbors have been in contact with the County (specifically, Supervisor Brandau’s office directed residents to Robert Jeffers for road repair updates) for years to obtain repairs to Roberts Ave, Sequoia Ave and Celeste Ave. The requested repairs have yet to commence and roads remain in disrepair. Additional vehicle traffic on these roads from the commercial use of the subject lot will further degrade these roads.

The increased vehicle and truck traffic will also heighten the safety risk to residents and students, parents, and users of Malloch Elementary (this includes numerous youth sports teams that utilize the fields at Malloch on a weekly basis). A medical facility with fifty-four residents will require frequent deliveries, emergency vehicle and staff trips in and out of the property. A normal residence in this neighborhood has two to three vehicles – the Application denotes more than twenty parking spaces for staff and visitors. The deviation from a normal residential lot use is not reasonable nor desirable.

February 6, 2023

Page 4 ends

7409497
The intersections of Bullard and Van Ness and Bullard and Forkner are frequently the scenes of vehicular accidents. Adding another inflection point on the busy thoroughfare that Bullard Ave is constitutes a dubious proposal.

Lighting
The Application appears to contemplate at least six light posts to provide lighting to the extensive parking areas that will surround the three buildings. No indication is given in the Application as to how many other additional lighting sources will be constructed – but there will undoubtedly be lighting attached to the three structures that will remain on the entirety of the night given that the facility necessarily will be staffed twenty-four hours a day. The application fails to address the glare and aesthetic impact of the commercial lighting plan in a residential neighborhood, or otherwise offer any mitigation to ensure there will be no adverse impacts on the school or adjacent residential properties.

Noise
A commercial facility shoehorned into a residential neighborhood will necessarily generate additional noise during the entirety of its operational day – here, twenty-four hours a day. This will mean vehicle noise, emergency vehicle noise, delivery truck noise (with corresponding reverse gear warnings), and HVAC units necessary to regulate temperatures within three medical structures.

The Operational Statement Suggests the Applicant Seeks to Avoid Environmental Review Under CEQA Until a Later Date

Given that the City did not provide any information concerning CEQA in response to requests for records concerning the Project, it appears the City and the Applicant may seek to assert the Project is exempt from environmental review. This suspicion has been heightened because the Operational Statement submitted by the Applicant suggests that the project includes a potential subdivision, but the property will “not be subdivided until a later date.” This strongly suggests the Applicant is seeking to avoid discretionary actions for which no exemption applies to a later date—after the Project is fully built and the construction is part of the environmental baseline.

Because the Applicant plainly intends to subdivide at some point in the future, the “project” as a whole admittedly includes a subdivision, which would not be exempt from CEQA. If the environmental review does not include assessment of the subdivision, this constitutes a piecemeal approach to environmental review, which is prohibited under CEQA as a failure to assess the “whole of an action.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(c).) Application Materials are Insufficient
The materials submitted to the City and the impacted neighbors are wholly inadequate to enable a reasoned analysis and review of the project and Application. If this is a function of the owners not wanting to invest in a thorough plan – that creates concerns that the project itself will be done on the “cheap” and degrade the character of the neighborhood. If the lack of information is due to the owners not wishing to reveal the “whole story” then this is also a problem for the residents.

Again, the applicant seeks to fundamentally alter a use that has existed for more than fifty years February 6, 2023

Page 5 ends

7409497
– the neighbors should not have to carry the burden of justifying why such a proposal is unreasonable. The Application should explain why the use is necessary and reasonable.

It is the position of my clients that the Application should be denied and the integrity of this residential neighborhood preserved.

I wish to be notified of the Director’s final project action so as to preserve any appellate rights.

Very truly yours,
Andrew Wanger
Cc: Thomas Veatch ([email protected])
Mike Karbassi ([email protected])

Elizabeth Helon
1432 W. San Bruno Avenue
Fresno, CA 93711

February 6, 2023

City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
[email protected]

RE: CUP Application P22-03146 / 2287 W. Bullard Avenue

Dear Director of Planning and Development,

I am writing regarding the Conditional Use Permit Application Number P22-03146 for 2287 W. Bullard Avenue, Fresno, CA 93711. As a Malloch Elementary School parent, I strongly oppose the consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for without an Environment Impact Review.

Through an Environmental Impact Review, the city will find that the single family residential, low density zoning designation is not an appropriate location for a 24-hour medical business. My primary concern is for the safety and well-being of students, parents, and users of Malloch Elementary (sports teams, after school programs, etc.).

The addition of a medical facility with fifty-four residents will create an influx in traffic that cannot be supported by this residential neighborhood. Malloch Elementary’s weekday school traffic (pedestrian and vehicle) already impacts the residential neighborhood of Roberts Avenue, Celeste Avenue, Sequoia Avenue and Morris Avenue.

The front of the school faces Morris Avenue, a one-way street that, according to the application, would be used as an ingress / egress point of the medical facility. Morris Avenue is also where school buses are picking up or dropping off students at multiple points throughout the day. This residential neighborhood is not meant for this additional traffic flow and will put everyone at risk. Additionally, I feel that adding an ingress / egress point on Bullard Avenue, between Van Ness and Forkner creates additional safety concerns as those intersections have frequent vehicle accidents as it is.

Furthermore, a commercial business, with three buildings on a single lot no less, is not meant for a low density residential neighborhood. The lighting, noise and aforementioned traffic, will drastically impact the residents and alter the character of the neighborhood.

Consideration and approval of this Conditional Use Permit is negligent before conducting an Environmental Impact Review.

I wish to be notified of the Director’s final project action.

Thank you,

Elizabeth Helon

Cc: Thomas Veatch ([email protected])
Mike Karbassi ([email protected])
Jennifer Clark AICP, HDFP, Director
Planning and Development Department
City of Fresno

RE: Public input on Permit application No P22-03146
Location: 2287 W Bullard Ave south side of West Bullard Ave between N Van Ness Bld and N Forkner Ave.

Ms. Clark,
My husband Viktor and I are residents of Van Ness extension (2216 W Roberts Ave) and live within 1000 ft of the proposed project area covered by permit application #P22-03146. We are writing to express our absolute opposition to the proposed permit and project action. Van Ness extension is a residential neighborhood and we are opposed to the following actions:

1. Rezoning of the 2287 W Bullard Ave location. Currently the area is zoned residential single family, very low density / equine overlap. We oppose rezoning. This is an expensive, quite neighborhood and we want to keep it that way. Zoning changes and the building of this sprawling facility will bring pollution, noise, traffic, medical waste and unwanted attention to the area. Our neighborhood is well established with home values above the average for the area. This proposed project will negatively impact home values, crime and safety.

2. Creation of a medical/ nursing residential care facility at the 2287 W Bullard ave. location.

This is an absolute inappropriate use of the site location. Our neighborhood is small and cannot cope with the additional traffic burden that this facility will bring. We already have an elementary school with insufficient parking in the same neighborhood. Increased traffic also means increased risk to the youngsters that attend Mallock elementary.

We strongly oppose this permit application and project, and we urge you to reject both. In addition, we wish to be notified of your final action regarding this permit so that we can be involved in any potential appeals process. Finally, we would like to be notified of date and location that the vote will take place as we would like to be present in person to represent our dissent.

Thank you for your consideration,

_______________________ ________________________ Dr. Chelsey Juarez Viktor Zaytsev
[email protected] [email protected] 510-612-0673 919-389-7339
2/2/23
2/2/23
February 4, 2023

To all concerned:

As residents at 2310 W. Roberts Ave. since 1975, we are most concerned about the potential approval of Conditional Use Permit No. P22-03146 for 2287 W. Bullard Ave. This CUP would modify long- standing planning rules and allow development of a “residential respiratory care facility” in a neighborhood historically devoted to single-family homes.

We have a number of objections, but our primary concern is with the obvious traffic problems that will be added along Morris Avenue, where an entrance and exit are indicated on the site plan. This small stretch of Morris is a narrow, one-way street already over-loaded by moving and parked buses and cars associated with the adjacent Malloch Elementary School. And, for your information, Morris currently has a problem with wrong-way violators seeking a shortcut to the school. The proposed project can only magnify these issues. (To properly reach the Morris entrance, visitors and other drivers wishing to access the care home will need to detour approximately one-half mile through residential streets.)
We are likewise concerned about changing the character of this quiet residential neighborhood to one of mixed use and with the precedent approval of this permit will set. We are greatly concerned about the safety to Malloch’s students that more traffic will cause.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and careful consideration of neighbors’ objections to the proposal. As objectors, we wish to be notified of any and all actions that are taken on this matter.

You may use our e-mail address or mailing address of 2310 W. Roberts Ave., Fresno, CA 93711.

As a point of interest, Mr. Glaser has reviewed the applicant’s materials both from the standpoint of a neighbor and a retired career planner for the City of Fresno.

Sincerely,
Lynne Enders and Francis E. Glaser

February 6, 2023
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
[email protected]
Re: CUP Application P22-03146 / 2287 W. Bullard Ave

Dear Director of Planning and Development :

Please be advised that we are residents who reside close to 2287 W. Bullard Ave, Fresno, CA 93711. We have received a “Neighborhood Notification” regarding Conditional Use Permit Application No. P22-03146.

The purpose of this letter is to formally object to the CUP Application (hereinafter “the Application”).

We set forth below language from another resident with which we fully agree and ask that it be incorporated by reference.

The Proposed Project is Not Permitted in the RS-2 Zoning and Would Fundamentally Alter the Character of the Neighborhood

The subject residential lot at 2287 W. Bullard has been a residential lot for more than fifty years and is zoned RS-2/EQ – a single family residential designation with low density. The proposal seeks to construct two additional structures, for a total of three structures on the property, to house a total of more than fifty residents in a medical environment. This proposed business, which is most akin to a medical office or hospital land use— neither of which are permitted by right or conditionally in the RS-2/EQ zoning district—seeks to operate twenty-four hours a day and will require staff at all times. It should be noted that there are no other known businesses operating in this residential neighborhood.

The proposed use is a fundamental and drastic alteration of the current and zoned residential use. The neighbors purchased their homes with the understanding that they would reside in a residential setting, not a commercial setting burdened with increased traffic, noise, lighting, additional structures and parking lots on individual lots that otherwise alter the aesthetic nature of their neighborhood.

The City Must Conduct an Environmental Review Under CEQA in Advance of Considering a Conditional use Permit for the Project

A Conditional Use Permit is a quintessentially discretionary decision. As such, CEQA applies to the City’s consideration of the Project. No environmental document appears to have been prepared by the City. The City cannot consider approval of the project without completing environmental review under CEQA.

Prior to considering any “project” under CEQA, a lead agency must first determine whether to prepare a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR for the project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15063.) The lead agency makes this determination based on what is called the “fair argument” standard. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(f)(1).) As explained by the California Supreme Court:

[S]ince the preparation of an EIR is the key to environmental protection under CEQA, accomplishment of the high objectives of hat act requires the preparation of an EIR whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact.

(No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.)

The Supreme Court has explained that even in “close and doubtful cases,” an EIR should always be prepared to ensure “the Legislature’s objective of ensuring that environmental protection serve as the guiding criterion in agency decisions.” (Id. at 84; see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21101, subd. (d).) Many courts have stated that the “EIR is the heart of CEQA. The report . . . may be viewed as an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.” (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 438 [quoting County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810] [emphasis added].)

The CEQA Guidelines set forth the “fair argument” test used to evaluate whether an EIR is required:

(CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(f)(1); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (d) [internal citations omitted].)

Accordingly, if any commenting party makes a fair argument that the proposed project’s environmental impacts “may have a significant effect on the environment,” the County must prepare an EIR, even if other substantial evidence supports the argument that adverse environmental effects will not occur. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(g)(1); see also Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1316 [“[i]f there is substantial evidence of such an impact, contrary evidence is not adequate to support a decision to dispense with an EIR.”].)

Here, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that an EIR is necessary:

Traffic

The Application provides no information regarding ingress and egress plans. This despite the fact that there will be more than fourteen staff members (per the Application) arriving at and leaving the facility daily, emergency vehicles, delivery vehicles, and visitor vehicles all entering and leaving the facility. Bullard Avenue is a highly trafficked throughfare that does not afford a realistic ingress / egress point for regular vehicle traffic.

The Application offers no traffic study to provide the residents comfort that a feasible plan exists to prevent the aforementioned vehicle traffic from coming into the residential neighborhood to use Roberts Ave, Celeste Ave, Sequoia Ave or Morris Ave access to the property. These access points are already the subject of weekday school traffic and voluminous pedestrian traffic (adult and juvenile) due to the presence of Malloch Elementary.

The Applicants do not take a position nor provide their view as to which ingress / egress point will be used. This is likely intentional because they must know that Bullard is not a realistic and safe option. As such, the resultant burden to the residential neighborhood will be extensive and unfair. The roads in this neighborhood already suffer greatly from the Malloch Elementary traffic and the neighbors have been in contact with the County (specifically, Supervisor Brandau’s office directed residents to Robert Jeffers for road repair updates) for years to obtain repairs to Roberts Ave, Sequoia Ave and Celeste Ave. The requested repairs have yet to commence and roads remain in disrepair. Additional vehicle traffic on these roads from the commercial use of the subject lot will further degrade these roads.

The intersections of Bullard and Van Ness and Bullard and Forkner are frequently the scenes of vehicular accidents. Adding another inflection point on the busy thoroughfare that Bullard Ave is constitutes a dubious proposal.

Lighting

The Application appears to contemplate at least six light posts to provide lighting to the extensive parking areas that will surround the three buildings. No indication is given in the Application as to how many other additional lighting sources will be constructed – but there will undoubtedly be lighting attached to the three structures that will remain on the entirety of the night given that the facility necessarily will be staffed twenty-four hours a day.

The application fails to address the glare and aesthetic impact of the commercial lighting plan in a residential neighborhood, or otherwise offer any mitigation to ensure there will be no adverse impacts on the school or adjacent residential properties.

Noise

A commercial facility shoehorned into a residential neighborhood will necessarily generate additional noise during the entirety of its operational day – here, twenty-four hours a day. This will mean vehicle noise, emergency vehicle noise, delivery truck noise (with corresponding reverse gear warnings), and HVAC units necessary to regulate temperatures within three medical structures.

The Operational Statement Suggests the Applicant Seeks to Avoid Environmental Review Under CEQA Until a Later Date

Application Materials are Insufficient

The materials submitted to the City and the impacted neighbors are wholly inadequate to enable a reasoned analysis and review of the project and Application. If this is a function of the owners not wanting to invest in a thorough plan – that creates concerns that the project itself will be done on the “cheap” and degrade the character of the neighborhood. If the lack of information is due to the owners not wishing to reveal the “whole story” then this is also a problem for the residents. Again, the applicant seeks to fundamentally alter a use that has existed for more than fifty years. The neighbors should not have to carry the burden of justifying why such a proposal is unreasonable. The Application should explain why the use is necessary and reasonable.

It is our position that the Application should be denied and the integrity of this residential neighborhood preserved.

We wish to be notified of the Director’s final project action so as to preserve any appellate rights.

Richard J. Yrulegui
Carol s. Yrulegui
5745 N. Van Ness Blvd.
559-269-0925
[email protected]
From: Dave Kroeker
To: PublicCommentsPlanning
Cc: Thomas Veatch
Date: Wednesday, February 01, 2023 9:06:16 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Planning department Permit app. P22-03146
I resided in the neighborhood at 2260 w Roberts. This area is a residential area and introducing this planned commercial medical project would substantially increase traffic. The people that use our streets to get to the school regularly speed and drive very aggressively, both parents and school employees. Bringing another project like this would only increase the traffic and bad driving. Commercial projects in Fresno today no matter where they are Herndon or Copper all attract drug dealing, robberies, and encampments like we see all over town. There would also be traffic issues on Bullard between Van Ness and Forkner.

This is a residential area and needs to stay that way.

Please deny this application
Dave Kroeker
From: Wanger, Andrew
To: Thomas Veatch
Subject: RE: P22-03146 RE: 2287 W. Bullard
Date: Wednesday, February 01, 2023 8:35:19 PM
Attachments: image001.png
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Thank you

From: Thomas Veatch <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 11:59 AM
To: Wanger, Andrew <[email protected]>
Cc: Jamee Moltini ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Ryan Peranick <[email protected]>; Geoff Dervishian ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Wanger, Christa L <[email protected]>; Lynn Glaser ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Brad Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: P22-03146 RE: 2287 W. Bullard

Andrew,
Some of the recipients Cc’ed did not receive the file because it was too large. The packet is available at the link below.

https://cityoffresno.sharefile.com/d-s8c67e9f5ff0d4b579c1d25cab0fc290a

From: Thomas Veatch
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2023 11:37 AM
To: 'Wanger, Andrew' <[email protected]>
Cc: Jamee Moltini ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Ryan Peranick <[email protected]>; Geoff Dervishian ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Wanger, Christa L <[email protected]>; Lynn Glaser ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Brad Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: P22-03146 RE: 2287 W. Bullard

Andrew,
Attached is a packet of the exhibits including the operational statement and site plan.

The application is currently still in the review process, and I don’t have any CEQA documents at this time. An environmental assessment will be included when an action is taken on the project.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions,

Thomas Veatch
[email protected]
559 621 8076
Planner
City of Fresno, Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043 · Fresno, CA 93721

From: Wanger, Andrew <[email protected]
>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 6:13 PM
To: Thomas Veatch <[email protected]>
Cc: Jamee Moltini ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Ryan Peranick <[email protected]>; Geoff Dervishian ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Wanger, Christa L <[email protected]>; Lynn Glaser ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Brad Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: 2287 W. Bullard

External Email: Use caution with links and attachments

Dear Mr. Veatch:

I received a notice re a CUP application for 2287 W. Bullard Ave, Fresno, CA 93711.

Would it be possible for you to send to me via email:

-the CUP application materials (including site plan and operational statement); -any CEQA documents re the subject property/ application.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Andrew Wanger

If our account details change, we will notify these to you by letter, telephone or face-to-face and never by email.

This email message and any attachments may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, fax or email and delete the message and all attachments thereto. Thank you. Clyde & Co US LLP is a Delaware limited liability law partnership affiliated with Clyde & Co LLP, a multinational partnership regulated by The Law Society of England and Wales.

Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS in Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachment that does not explicitly state otherwise) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

From: Carol Yrulegui
To: Thomas Veatch
Subject: Conditional Use Permit - P22-03146
Date: Thursday, February 02, 2023 8:33:16 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Mr. Veatch: As a homeowner in the vicinity of this proposed project - am very concerned about the additional traffic in an intersection that already has multiple accidents Bullard/Van Ness - plus having a grammar school on the back side.

Am requesting an electronic copy of this project. Please send as soon as possible - This written notice was mailed (postmarked) on 1/27/23 and was received on 1/31/23 - with a comment deadline of 1/6/23.

Was this short notice done intentionally??
Thank you for your prompt response.

Carol Yrulegui
From: Brad Homen
To: Thomas Veatch
Subject: Conditional Use Permit Application No. P22-03146 Date: Thursday, February 02, 2023 8:40:48 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Mr. Veatch,
We live on Celeste and Sequoia, the only concern I have about this project is to make sure there is no access to this business from Sequoia or Morris Ave. Can you tell me that the only access to the business will be from Bullard Ave, and the back of the property will not have public access?
Thank you,
Brad & Connie Homen
2315 W Celeste
From: alan davis
To: Thomas Veatch
Subject: 2287 WEST BULLARD PROJECT COMMENTS
Date: Thursday, February 02, 2023 10:15:22 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
I am a nearby resident located at 5740 N Woodson Ave, I am concerned with the additional congestion this would cause to the surrounding area on Bullard Ave and Morris Ave.

Thank you
Alan Davis
Home owner
From: Stephanie Krahnke
To: Thomas Veatch
Cc: Mike Karbassi; christa councilman
Subject: Opposition to Proposed rezoning of 2287 W. Bullard Ave Date: Thursday, February 02, 2023 11:23:06 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Good morning.

I am writing this email in order to oppose the proposed rezoning of 2287 W. Bullard Ave into a commercial zone from a residential zone. As a member of this neighborhood who lives at 2261 W. Roberts Ave and purchased my childhood home which my family has owned since 1996, I can truthfully say that rezoning the property on Bullard would be a terrible deal for the neighborhood.

The proposed plan will add multiple buildings with an estimated minimum of 26 parking spaces and will house an estimated 54 patients and minimum 14 staff based upon the information given during the neighborhood meeting.

The amount of traffic from Malloch Elementary School is already increased from years prior and the proposed plan would add a likely 100+ cars per day addition to our roads which already are being used at high volume for residential streets.

In addition, the facility will operate 24 hours a day and will add an increase of traffic, noise, and lighting during all hours. With terminal patients at care facilities, ambulances are called quite regularly during all hours and will be quite a nuisance in a residential neighborhood as well as a safety hazard with the amount of school traffic already using the streets. The lot on Bullard is zoned residential as this is a neighborhood for families, not businesses. There are many lots open to the developer that would not require rezoning in an established residential neighborhood that is already being used at capacity for vehicles due to the school.

Also, if the lot is rezoned commercial and this business fails as many do within the first several years, we, the neighbors, have no recourse if they sell this lot to any other commercial developer who wants to put in any kind of commercial building. Again, this is an established residential zone for a reason. There are many people and especially children who walk our streets for exercise who do not need the increased danger from both traffic and constant unknown visitors coming from outside the neighborhood.

We implore you, as long time residents of this neighborhood, to please deny the rezoning of this residential lot for the safety, security, and livability of our established neighborhood.

Thank you,
Stephanie Pardini-Krahnke
559-630-5353
[email protected]
Resident of 2261 W. Roberts Ave
Sent from my iPhone
From: Art Estrada
To: Thomas Veatch
Subject: Re- zone of area behind Smittcamp property. Across from Malloch Elementary. We are OPPOSED! No. P22- 03146.

Date: Thursday, February 02, 2023 11:59:04 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
From: Leo Landaverde
To: PublicCommentsPlanning
Cc: Thomas Veatch; Sandra Garcia; Leo Landaverde
Subject: Feedback on Conditional Use Permit Application No. P22-03146 Date: Friday, February 03, 2023 11:26:35 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
To Whom it May Concern,

I recently received a letter from the Planning and Development Department from the City of Fresno alerting me of a conditional permit for a property located at 2287 West Bullard Ave, located within 1,000 feet of my residence.

My wife and I STRONGLY OPPOSE
this permit. We feel it would significantly increase traffic on already busy street. We live near the corner of Bullard and Van Ness Boulevard and it took 3 minutes to walk from my house to the proposed site of the permit. I am very concerned about noise pollution, added traffic, proposed construction, etc.

Please consider our input and deny the permit. Please notify me of final action on the project.

Please feel free to call me should you have any questions.

Thank you in advance for taking our comments into consideration.

Respectfully,

Leo & Sandra Landaverde
559-455-8700

From: Mark B. Schuh
To: PublicCommentsPlanning; Thomas Veatch
Cc: Wanger, Andrew
Subject: CUP Application # P22-03146
Date: Friday, February 03, 2023 4:43:17 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Dear Mr. Veatch

My name is Mark Schuh and my wife and I live at 5630 N. Van Ness Blvd., Fresno, CA. We have lived in our current location since 1997 and raised a family including sons at our current home.

Additionally, I have lived in the general neighborhood since 1976 so I know this area, the streets, traffic patterns and neighborhood issues very, very well.

With that said, the reason for my email to you is to express my strong opposition to CUP Application No. P22-03146. This proposed use simply does not belong in our single-family residential neighborhood that is facing a myriad of other issues materially impacting our quality of life, so much so, that we recently had to gather for a community meeting at Malloch Elementary School to discuss these issues with a host of public representatives. Discussed at that session were a minimum of the following concerns: public safety, homelessness, gang activity, infrastructure deterioration, an unmanned or unmaintained Oso De Oro Park and the ever-growing problem of the vacant lot on the southeast corner of Bullard and Van Ness. Adding yet another negative impact in the form of a non- conforming use stands to further devalue our residences.

Most importantly, the proposed use when compared to a single-family residential use will undoubtedly increase traffic flows by and next to our neighborhood school (the aforementioned Malloch Elementary). As someone who walks or runs by the school every morning and done so for the past 25+ years, I can tell you that several times a week during peak morning drop-off time I am nearly run over by parents dropping their children. Given that several of the proposed ingress/egress points for the proposed respiratory care facility are adjacent to the school, the safety of the children attending this school will no doubt be endangered by the additional activity (whether ambulance, fire or other medical transportation) the use will generate.

Mr. Veatch, I would like to implore you or any others who are involved with the decision or have a vote on this application to please spend some time at Malloch Elementary School and next to the proposed site for a school morning at approximately 8 am. I promise you that it will open your eyes as to why this proposed facility is not only ill-suited for this location but will be considered a danger to the young children attending Malloch if approved.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Sincerely – Mark Schuh

▪
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
▪
Mark B. Schuh
President, Cima Management Corporation
Chief Financial Officer, Saladino's, Inc.

P.O. Box 12266
Fresno, CA 93777-2266
559.256.4640 (office)
559.974.4640 (cell)
559.365.7028 (fax)
[email protected]

From: Jenny Lemker
To: Thomas Veatch
Subject: Opposition to CUP Application #22TMP-013811
Date: Saturday, February 04, 2023 11:46:48 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Re: 2287 Bullard Development by Infinite Living
As homeowners around the corner, we are writing to formally oppose the proposed development by Infinite Living at 2287 Bullard.

The initial legal notice sent to us indicated a small residential facility, but the recent meeting with the developer told an entirely different long term story: 3 buildings, 52 residents, 26 parking spaces, plus at least 15 staff members for every shift with 2/3 egress onto small residential streets including the one way Morris Ave on which school children walk to school and wait for school buses daily.

This is not in line with the character and pedestrian dignity of the neighborhood. To our knowledge there are no other commercial developments between Marks & Forkner, Herndon & Barstow.

The proposal is without precedent for this area and would significantly change traffic flow and character of our
neighborhood.

There is no shortage of other spaces already zoned for the purpose set forth by the developer. There are no benefits to the impacted neighborhood but plenty of costs, the most salient being impacted property values and bodily danger to pedestrians including the hundreds of school children, student athletes, teachers and residents who have until now enjoyed safe
pedestrian dignity in this area.

We will not quietly allow this development force its way into our neighborhood. The addition to our neighborhood is unwelcome and unacceptable, and we ask that the proposal for rezoning and development be denied.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Lemker, CLC, ALC
Erich S Lemker, MD
2217 W Roberts Ave
(559) 473-9835
From: FRANCIS GLASER
To: PublicCommentsPlanning; Thomas Veatch; Mike Karbassi Subject: CUP for 2287 W. Bullard
Date: Saturday, February 04, 2023 7:22:58 PM
Attachments: February 4.docx
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
From: Jim Maxwell
To: PublicCommentsPlanning
Cc: Thomas Veatch
Subject: Conditional Use Permit P22-03146
Date: Sunday, February 05, 2023 6:08:49 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
I’m writing to express my objections to the approval of Conditional Use Permit P22-03146. This application should not be approved. This parcel is immediately adjacent to a very active elementary school (Malloch). The traffic pattern of those coming and going to the elementary school is on Morris where children are dropped off and picked up directly across the of some of the proposed project’s driveways. Currently, the traffic on Morris doesn’t flow efficiently as there is too much traffic for the existing roadway which has resulted in having to limit traffic to one way, in a west to east direction. The day to day safety of these elementary school children is of the utmost priority.

As a recipient of the City’s “Neighborhood Notification” we have live within the 1,000 foot boundary surrounding the above referenced project. We have lived in this neighborhood for more than 35 years. The proposed project would dramatically alter the long established character of this neighborhood. We are relying on the City to protect those who live in this neighborhood from the significant adverse influences related to this project.

From: Vic K
To: PublicCommentsPlanning
Cc: Thomas Veatch
Subject: APN: 415-033-44 Response to Proposal
Date: Sunday, February 05, 2023 9:55:04 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
To whom this may concern:

I am a resident at 2276 W. Bullard Ave, Fresno Ca. 93711 who opposes to the idea of having a nursing care facility across the street from my home. To begin, I feel a facility of this size should not be in a residential zone, because it can negatively impact the neighborhood. In addition, I believe this will increase the traffic on Bullard Ave, which already is very busy. In my opinion this will also impact the traffic in front of Malloch Elementary school when parents are dropping off and picking up their children. Also, this will increase noise levels from the ambulance vehicles, as well as medical supply vehicles and will disturb our peace.

One other point I would like to make is it could negatively impact the value of the homes in the area.

I understand that there are investors from bigger cities that want to grow their company, but we the locals would be the ones impacted by this facility. I grew up in NW Fresno and take great pride in our city and community and therefore I feel a facility like this should be in a commercial setting. I appreciate your time and consideration regarding my concerns on this matter.

Regards,
Varoujan K.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Kristine Maxwell
To: PublicCommentsPlanning
Cc: Thomas Veatch
Subject: Application P22-03146/2287 W. Bullard Ave.

Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 4:11:29 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Director of Planning and Development,
Please be advised that my family and myself object to the approval of application P22-03146 at 2287 W. Bullard Ave. The applicant is proposing a large 24 hour a day, 7 days a week care facility across the street from our cul de sac. This would dramatically change the residential feel of our neighborhood. We purchased our property over 35 years ago with the belief that we would always be surrounded by single family residences. I view the proposal as a large, care facility, a hospital of sorts with many non residents coming in and going out of the area.

Parking, laundry, medical care supplies, food supplies, medical personnel, visitors, lighting, all required for the 'care facility'. This a far cry from a Single Family Residential environment.

City of Fresno Planning and Development, please, deny this application and protect our Single Family Residential neighborhood.

Thank you,
Kris Maxwell
From: Devon Casida
To: PublicCommentsPlanning
Cc: Thomas Veatch; Mike Karbassi
Subject: Objection to No. P22-03146
Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 10:22:37 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Dear Director of Planning and Development:

My family resides at 6026 N. Van Ness Blvd, 93711. I am writing today to strongly object to the Conditional Use Permit Application currently being considered by your Department (No. P22-03146).

I urge you to consider many factors that make this project a poor planning decision such as increases in traffic on an already busy street, noise pollution, light pollution, and lack of cohesiveness with the rest of the obviously well-established residential community.

Above all, I urge you to consider safety. The Van Ness/ Bullard intersection is dangerous at baseline. There are frequent, severe motor vehicle accidents that necessitate ambulance, police, and fire department response. As a nurse, when I hear a crash I have to run to stabilize the crash victims until EMS arrives. I have lost track of the number of times I've had to provide emergency response myself. Approving this proposed project will increase the traffic, and thus increase the number of accidents.

Additionally, I urge you to consider the lack of bicycle and pedestrian safety. There are many children who walk or bike to and from school at Malloch Elementary and Tenaya Middle School. They will all tell you harrowing incidents about almost being hit by cars, and how the Forkner/Van Ness and Bullard areas are the most dangerous. I can confidently say this as my son and I came within inches of being hit despite following all the road safety rules.

Please understand that this proposed project is a bad idea for countless reasons. I urge you to deny this application immediately.

If you have any questions you can call my cell phone at (559) 284-4794.

Sincerely,
Devon Casida
6026 N. Van Ness
From: Scott Black
To: PublicCommentsPlanning
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: FW: 2287 W. Bullard Ave
Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 9:36:01 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Dear Director of Planning and Development Department:
??
I write to you to object to Conditional Use Permit Application No. P22-03146. ??
I reside at 2342 W. Bullard Ave ??? across the street from 2287 W. Bullard Ave.?? The proposal to alter 2287 W. Bullard from a single-family residence to a commercial medical business is an unacceptable and undesirable use of the residential lot at issue.?? This alteration to our neighborhood will open the door to any commercial business applying to build multiple structures on a residential lot in our purely residential neighborhood.?? I purchased my home because of its location and inclusion in a low-density area not next to commercial developments.?? ??To consider creating an entry / exit point for a business on this stretch of Bullard Ave is not well-planned.?? Bullard Ave is a busy street and adding vehicles that will turn off of Bullard into a business will negatively impact the flow of traffic and create a safety hazard. ??
I respectfully request that the Planning Department reject the Application and maintain the current zoning for our neighborhood.
??
I wish to be advised of the Director???s final decision and can be reached at [email protected] ??
Thank you,
S. Scott Black
??
??
S. Scott Black
NMLS # 325429
??
California Funding
700 E. Shaw Ave, Ste 101
Fresno, CA 93711
(559) 224-6200
(559) 437-1593
NMLS # 325594
??

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
??
The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information, and is protected under The Privacy Act of 1974 and The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 2000, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, disseminate, distribute or copy this email message or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply email if you received this email message by mistake and delete this email message and any attachements from your system. ??
??
From: alan davis
To: Thomas Veatch
Subject: 2287 WEST BULLARD PROJECT COMMENTS
Date: Thursday, February 02, 2023 10:15:22 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
I am a nearby resident located at 5740 N Woodson Ave, I am concerned with the additional congestion this would cause to the surrounding area on Bullard Ave and Morris Ave.

Thank you
Alan Davis
Home owner
From: Wanger, Andrew
To: PublicCommentsPlanning
Cc: Mike Karbassi; Thomas Veatch
Subject: 2287 W. Bullard letter (final)
Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 11:34:04 AM
Attachments: image001.png
2287 W. Bullard letter (final).pdf
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Dear Planning Department:

Please see attached objection letter to CUP Application P22-03146.

Thank you,

Andrew Wanger

If our account details change, we will notify these to you by letter, telephone or face-to-face and never by email.

From: Scott Burns
To: Thomas Veatch
Subject: Re: P22-03146 - exhibits packet
Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 10:53:29 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Thomas,
Thanks for the earlier conversation and answers to my questions. You were very helpful. Will take a look at the attachments.

In reading the cover letter, it references subdivision in later phases. Do you know why a subdivision is contemplated, and why the applicant did not provide subdivision proposal at this time? Would this project be processed differently if a parcel map was included? Is there a CEQA issue with segmenting a reasonably foreseeable component? Also, seems some of the project improvements we discussed would be influenced by the proposed parcel configuration.

Appreciate your offer to answer further questions. Also, would appreciate being notified of decision. Mailing address is: S.E. Burns, 2140 W. Rue St. Michel, Fresno 93711.

Thanks again,
Scott Burns
760.914.1510
[email protected]
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 6, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Thomas Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:

Scott,
Attached is the exhibits packet for the proposed respiratory care facility.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions,

Thomas Veatch
[email protected]
559 621 8076
Planner
City of Fresno, Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043 · Fresno, CA 93721

<P22-03146 Exhibits packet.pdf>
From: [email protected]
To: PublicCommentsPlanning; Thomas Veatch
Subject: FW: 2287 W. Bullard Ave
Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 11:38:12 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 11:36 AM
To: 'mailto: ' <mailto:[email protected]> Cc: 'mailto:[email protected]' <mailto: >
Subject: 2287 W. Bullard Ave

Director of Planning and Development,

I am writing this letter in regards to the subject property of 2287 W. Bullard Ave. My wife and I have been long time residents of the Malloch area with both us attending (Malloch) and now two of our three children attending that same school. We reside at 2340 W. Roberts Ave……close proximity to the subject property. We recently purchased the home and went through an extensive remodel because we loved the feel of the neighborhood…. (not to be next to a commercial operated facility/business.) I am writing this letter to OBJECT to the Conditional Use Permit Application that is currently under consideration. There is plenty of opportunity and land elsewhere throughout the City of Fresno, it does not belong in this neighborhood and nor does it fit with the landscape that has been developed over the many decades.

Thank you for your time on this matter.

Sincerely,

Ryan & Lauren Peranick
From: renea61
To: Thomas Veatch
Subject: FW: Opposed: CUP Application No. P22-03146;
Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 12:17:03 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Sent from Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------
From: renea61 <[email protected]>
Date: 2/6/23 12:15 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Opposed: CUP Application No. P22-03146;
This email is to state my opposition to CUP Application No. P22-03146. I am a resident and property owner in this specific area and will be directly impacted. I oppose on the grounds of having purchased my home in good faith the neighborhood and surrounding area would remain residential. I also oppose on the grounds of the increased traffic and noise this would bring to an already impacted area due to Malloch Elementary. I also strongly believe the safety of pedestrians and children would be impacted. Specially the children walking to and from school and attending multiple sporting events held at Malloch.

Lastly, as a retired police officer, I believe this rezoning and building of the medical facility and parking lots will increase criminal activity in our neighborhood. Parking lots and commercial sites attract thefts at various levels, the homeless, etc. I do not believe this is an environment we want to create across the street from a walk-in elementary school.

Respectfully,
Renea Estrada
5661 N. Sequoia Ave.

Fresno, CA 93711
Sent from Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

From: Brent Smittcamp
To: PublicCommentsPlanning
Cc: Thomas Veatch; Mike Karbassi
Subject: Conditional Use Permit
Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 1:43:16 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments

Dear Director of Planning and Development:

My family has resided at 5811 N. Forkner, Fresno, CA 93711 for more than forty years. Our property sits to the east of 2287 W. Bullard Ave and shares a fence along our western property line. The purpose of this letter is to object
to the Conditional Use Permit Application currently being considered by your Department (No. P22-03146).

The proposal to modify the current use of 2287 W. Bullard from a single family residence to a three building commercial enterprise that operates full-time - 24 hours a day, 365 days a year – is wholly inconsistent with the current zoning and, more importantly, the current character of our neighborhood. While the Application materials are thin and lacking in details to afford me the opportunity to analyze noise, vehicle and human traffic, lighting, trash, and other important factors that will necessarily impact my property – the logical conclusion is that the residential character of our property and the surrounding properties will be negatively impacted.

The proposed use will need to involve significant lighting for a commercial parking lot which will undoubtedly cause glare issues for my family’s residence. This lighting will need to remain on the entirety of the night given that the facility intends to operate 24 hours a day. Additionally, the traffic pattern for the property will significantly increase the flow of vehicles and trucks around my property. This will not be a desirable consequence. Bullard Ave is highly used thoroughfare and the idea that staff or delivery vehicles will be able to regularly enter the business from Bullard is not logical or feasible. The alternative solution then becomes increasing daily traffic around Malloch Elementary – and introducing vehicles that may not be familiar with the student population and less careful than a neighbor or parent is when driving around a school populated with their children.

My family purchased our home with the intent of joining a residential neighborhood and becoming part of the fabric of a vibrant, safe and family-based community. My father made significant improvements to our five acre lot. The concept of wedging a full-time business next door to our residence will surely devalue our property and negatively impact our enjoyment and use of the property. Accordingly, I strongly encourage you to reject the Application and listen to the community that has resided around 2287 W. Bullard for decades.

I wish to be notified of the Director’s final action and can be reached at: [email protected] .

Thank you for your consideration of this objection to the CUP Application.

Brent Smittcamp
President – Smittcamp Ag Enterprises

From: LeeAnn Kipp
To: PublicCommentsPlanning
Cc: Thomas Veatch; [email protected]
Subject: Objection to CUP Application #P22-031 46
Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 1:58:15 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Good afternoon,
My husband Larry Kipp and I live at 2351 W. Celeste Avenue, Fresno, California. We purchased our home in 1997 and have enjoyed the
quiet, peaceful family neighborhood the area has offered. I am emailing you to submit my official objection to CUP Application No. P22-031 46.

I believe approval of the application will negatively impact our neighborhood in the following ways:
*Increased traffic - traffic surrounding Malloch Elementary is already congested. Adding additional vehicles will make matters worse
*Street maintenance - the streets surrounding the area are already in poor condition. The increased traffic will cause further damage
*Safety - increased traffic and numerous employees coming and going will increase safety issues *Noise - increased traffic and day to day running of the facility (day and night) will add unnecessary noise to a quiet neighborhood
*Lights - the facility will need exterior lighting for it's safety, and thus negatively impact our neighborhood
*Re-zoning / Multiple structures - residents of this neighborhood intentionally purchased in a "residential zone" and do not wish it changed to a "commercial / business zone" due to the many negative results of doing so Please note that I wish to be notified of the final project action.

Thank you.

LeeAnn (Leonore) Kipp
559-974-4472
Larry (Lawrence) Kipp
559-974-4473

From: Shari Rainwater
To: PublicCommentsPlanning; Thomas Veatch; Mike Karbassi Subject: CUP No. P22-031-46
Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 2:21:30 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
I write on behalf of myself and my husband Greg Rainwater in objection to the planned respiratory facility at 2267 W. Bullard. We reside directly across the street at 6045 N Sequoia Ave. When I spoke to Mr.

Andrade
he described a small 15 bed care facility however what is proposed is a major medical facility that will include "acute care services". This facility will be a 24/7 operation that must include numerous staff, visitors,
delivery trucks: food, laundry, various medical supplies, pharmacy, repair, transport, ambulances, lights etc..

This area of Bullard Ave is residential, with many people walking, jogging and biking in the area. Bullard Ave
has become a busy road and a large commercial facility would be a detriment to the neighborhood and a safety
hazard.

Respectfully,
Shari Rainwater
559-250-7927
From: Monica Swanson
To: [email protected]
Cc: Thomas Veatch; Mike Karbassi
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of 2287 W. Bullard Ave Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 2:39:52 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing to you in light of the Neighborhood Notification we received (CUP Application No. P22- 03146), as we reside within 1,000 feet of this proposal. We purchased our home in 2017, at 6075 N.

Sequoia Avenue, to raise our family because it is located in a residential zone, not a commercial zone.

The adverse effects of this rezoning does not end with the obvious increased traffic, resulting commotion from emergency vehicles, and glaring lights. The student body of Malloch Elementary will undoubtedly be subjected to a vastly increased level of harm. The roadway is already compromised and will only worsen with the addition of a commercial facility impinging on a long established elementary school.

We strongly oppose the rezoning of 2287 W. Bullard Avenue. We urge you to consider the negative impact of this decision to permit this illegitimate rezoning. Please consider how you would feel if this was your home, children, and school and find another location more suitable and less damaging to the residents who have built their livelihood in this area.

Sincerely,
Monica Swanson

Sent from
Mail for Windows

From: Mark Topoozian
To: PublicCommentsPlanning
Subject: CUP#P22-04146
Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 3:01:35 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
I live at 5775 N Van Ness about 500 feet from the proposed project.

I OBJECT TO THIS BECAUSE I feel it is not consistent with the residential make up of the area and will be a safety and traffic headache. The corner of Van Ness/Bullard is an accident prone intersection already and this project if allowed will greatly add to more accidents.

Please do not allow this type of use in the area.

Mark Topoozian
From: Kit Burden
To: [email protected]
Cc: Mike Karbassi; PublicCommentsPlanning
Subject: Opposition to Proposed rezoning of 2287 W. Bullard Ave Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 2:33:17 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
To whom it may concern,
I am writing concerning the proposed rezoning of 2287 W. Bullard Ave from a residential zone to a commercial zone.

We have lived for 40 years on North Sequoia Drive, a cul-de-sac that opens onto Bullard Ave. and would be directly across from this proposed facility.

As it is, exiting our street at certain times of the day can be precarious. I can only imagine how difficult it would be if there was a medical facililty on the other side.

I walk down Bullard avenue every day in order to reach surrounding neighborhoods. This is a residential area. Adding the traffic of the proposed plan would be destructive and dangerous for pedestrians.

Thank you for taking into account the residential neighborhoods surrounding this project.

Cathleen and Jim Burden
6060 N Sequoia
From: Elizabeth Helon
To: PublicCommentsPlanning
Cc: Thomas Veatch; Mike Karbassi
Subject: 2287 W. Bullard - Objection to CUP Application Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 3:10:00 PM
Attachments: 2287 W. Bullard Avenue_Helon Family.pdf
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Hello - please see my attached letter opposing the 2287 W. Bullard Ave., Fresno CA 93711 CUP application.

Please let me know if any other information is needed. I would like to be notified of the Director's final decision.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Helon
[email protected]
From: Carol Yrulegui
To: PublicCommentsPlanning
Cc: Thomas Veatch
Subject: CUP Application P22-03146
Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 3:15:47 PM
Attachments: zoning letter.docx
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Please see attached letter referencing above application From: Bohlander, Tara
To: PublicCommentsPlanning
Cc: Schneider, David
Subject: CUP Application P22-03146 / 2287 W. Bullard Ave Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 3:08:12 PM
Attachments: 0.png

1.png

2.png

3.png
1737_001.pdf
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Good afternoon,

Attached please find correspondence of this date from Mr. Schneider.

Sincerely,
Tara Bohlander

Tara L. Bohlander
Legal Administrative Assistant
8080 North Palm Avenue, Third Floor, Fresno, CA 93711
T: 559.446.3208 | F: 559.432.4590
[email protected]
Legal Administrative Assistant to:

Leigh W. Burnside, Jared C. Marshall, David D. Schneider CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received the message in error. Then delete it.

Thank you.

From: Oliver XEzenwugo
To: PublicCommentsPlanning
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 2287 W. Bullard - Objection to CUP Application Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 3:44:40 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments

Hello,

I hope that this e-mail finds you in good spirit, I am writing to express my concerns as well as my objections to the CUP Application No. P22-03146.

I live on 6040 N. Sequoia Drive, Fresno, Ca. 93711.....quite close to the property/location in question. My objection to CUP Application No. P22-03146 is multifaceted; First and foremost, I believe that chances are that this applicant probably does not live in the Fresno Metropolitan Area otherwise, he or she will know the History of this neighborhood from many, many years ago....thus will not contemplate opening a commercial entity at this addressor location.

My second objection to this application is the safety concern for our school children in the neighborhood, because opening up this project will increase the traffic in the neighborhood.

At issue also is the fact that this proposed commercial business in a residential neighborhood will be 3 buildings on a single lot.

As the traffic will be increased the traffic will be during the day and night hours including the emergency teams (EMT) and the enforcement officials, 911 responders, who will have the sirens and it can disturb the sleep of individuals living in the neighborhood, considering the said I submit my objections asking the City seriously consider this application and not to approve this CUP.

Please at your earliest priority....if you were to drive by the address in question, you will immediately notice the peace and tranquility that is about to be disrupted and your decision will be swift, especially if you were to be living in the neighborhood as well.....please every great day starts with the night before and that is all we are asking for, and to everyone in the Panel....."this above all else, and to thy known selves, please be true".

Thank you.

Best,
Dr. Oliver Ezenwugo
CC. [email protected]
CC. [email protected]
CC. [email protected]

From: Mark Topoozian
To: Thomas Veatch
Subject: CUP#P22-04146
Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 4:03:53 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
I live at 5775 N Van Ness about 500 feet from the proposed project.

Please do not allow this type of use in the area.

Mark Topoozian
From: Jordan Esraelian
To: PublicCommentsPlanning; Mike Karbassi; Thomas Veatch Subject: 2287 w Bullard
Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 4:09:24 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Jordan esraelian
Teacher at Malloch Elementary
Objection to the 2287 w. Bullard
Adding three buildings to this neighborhood will create more traffic and therefore create safety issues for the students attending Malloch Elementary.

From: Seth Mehrten
To: PublicCommentsPlanning
Cc: Thomas Veatch; Mike Karbassi; Kara Mehrten
Subject: CUP Application No. P22-03146 - 2287 West Bullard Avenue Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 4:28:37 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Dear Director of Planning and Development:

The purpose of this e-mail is to formally object to Conditional Use Permit Application No. P22-03146. My family and I reside at 2573 West Calimyrna Avenue, which is within a half-mile of 2287 West Bullard Avenue, Fresno, California 93711, and have been notified of this application. We strongly object to this application because we believe the proposed project would fundamentally alter the current/zoned residential use.

A significant reason that we purchased our home was because it was located in a neighborhood that is insulated from the noise, traffic, density, and lighting that is associated with commercial buildings and higher density areas. The proposed plan would significantly change the quiet, residential nature of this area. For these reasons, we object to this application and proposed project. --
Seth Mehrten
559.906.9387
From: William Podolsky, MD
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; PublicCommentsPlanning; Thomas Veatch; Mike Karbassi; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: 2287 W. Bullard - objection to CUP application Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 4:37:32 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Dear planning department/council:

My wife Karen and I live at 6072 North Sequoia Avenue, entering Sequoia off Bullard across from a proposed subacute care facility,CUP Application No. P22-03146. This facility would be intermediate between a nursing home and a hospital, not a "residential facility" in the usual sense of the word.

It would be a complete change from the residential zoning and would add traffic (possibly also noise and lights) to an area of homes and an elementary school. There would not be a safe way to enter/exit from westbound traffic. We request that you do not approve this facility or zoning change. William Podolsky, MD (phone 559-940-2455)

If our account details change, we will notify these to you by letter, telephone or face-to-face and never by email.

From: Josh Clarke
To: PublicCommentsPlanning; Thomas Veatch; Mike Karbassi Subject: objection to CUP Application No. P22-03146
Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 4:51:43 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
To whom it may concern,
I’m writing to declare my objection to objection to CUP Application No. P22-03146.

I am a homeowner at the following address which is about 1/4 mile away from the property listed in the application.
2581 W Calimyrna
Fresno, CA. 93711
I have many concerns with the proposed project but chiefly the increased traffic and safety issues that will impact Malloch elementary school. This area already has congestion during schools days and this project will only exacerbate it. I’m also concerned with panting a business in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Neighbors of this business will have to deal with increased noise, lighting, and traffic that they shouldn’t need to be exposed to at their homes.

Thank you for your time,
Josh Clarke
Sent from my iPhone
From: PublicCommentsPlanning
To: Thomas Veatch
Subject: FW: Reason to commercial on Bullard
Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 5:04:57 PM
FYI

From: Saib Salem <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2023 4:54 PM
To: PublicCommentsPlanning <[email protected]> Subject: Reason to commercial on Bullard

External Email: Use caution with links and attachments

Hello
My name is Saib Salem. I reside at 6044 N. Van Ness Blvd. in Fresno.

I would like to voice my concern in regards to the new commercial building that is adjacent to our neighborhood. I completely oppose this rezone this will bring in so much traffic so much siren so many people in one area it takes away from the character of the area to have such a thing around Just put yourself in my spot and you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about. You don’t want things like that around your kids when they go out and walk when they’re playing with their friends a commercial building does not belong in a residential neighborhood , very well established neighborhood to say the least .

Saib salem
559-307-2220
6044 N. Van Ness Blvd.

Fresno, CA 93711

From: PublicCommentsPlanning
To: Thomas Veatch
Subject: FW: CUP Application P-22-03146/2287
Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 5:05:26 PM
FYI
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamee Moltini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2023 5:05 PM
To: PublicCommentsPlanning <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]
Subject: CUP Application P-22-03146/2287
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Dear Mr Veatch
My name is Jamee Moltini and I live at 2331 W Roberts Ave and my parents, Jim and Terran Ashjian live at 5560 N Forkner.

I will not go into a long dissertation as to why we do not agree with the proposed project at 2287 W Bullard and why we feel this is not the neighborhood for it. As we know you are well aware of the surrounding neighbors concerns and we do not need to reiterate. However, please know that we are in full agreement that this project would have such a negative impact on this neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods. We strongly believe that if you spent any time over here during school and park hours you would agree with our concerns.

I thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Kindly,
Jamee Moltini
Sent from my iPhone
From: Dave Kroeker
To: Thomas Veatch
Date: Monday, February 06, 2023 5:17:04 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Dear Thomas
Please oppose the 2287 W Bullard ave CUP P22-03146 project. This is not in keeping with this residential area. We do not need more traffic on our street. I am a co signer of the letter sent by Andrew Wanger
Thank you Dave Kroeker
2260 W Roberts ave
From: PublicCommentsPlanning
To: Thomas Veatch
Subject: FW:

Date: Tuesday, February 07, 2023 7:09:49 AM
FYI

From: Dave Kroeker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2023 5:12 PM
To: PublicCommentsPlanning <[email protected]> Subject:

External Email: Use caution with links and attachments

To the planning department

Regarding 2287 w Bullard p22-03146

I live on the street Roberts ave This proposed project is not in the communities best interest It is not a normal home, it will increase traffic and additional blight to the neighborhood. I am a co signer to the letter written by Andrew Wanger

Thank you
Dave Kroeker

2260 w roberts ave
From: Bohlander, Tara
To: [email protected]; Thomas Veatch; Mike Karbassi Subject: CUP Application P22-03146 / 2287 W. Bullard Ave Date: Tuesday, February 07, 2023 9:57:53 AM
Attachments: 0.png

1.png

2.png

3.png
1737_001.pdf
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Good morning,
Attached please find correspondence from Mr. Schneider to The City of Fresno.

Sincerely,
Tara Bohlander

Tara L. Bohlander
Legal Administrative Assistant
8080 North Palm Avenue, Third Floor, Fresno, CA 93711
T: 559.446.3208 | F: 559.432.4590
[email protected]
Legal Administrative Assistant to:

Thank you.

From: Bohlander, Tara
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 3:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Schneider, David <[email protected]>
Subject: CUP Application P22-03146 / 2287 W. Bullard Ave

Good afternoon,

Attached please find correspondence of this date from Mr. Schneider.

Sincerely,
Tara Bohlander

From: Chelsey Juarez
To: PublicCommentsPlanning; Thomas Veatch; Mike Karbassi Cc: Wanger, Andrew
Subject: CUP Application No. P22-03146
Date: Thursday, February 23, 2023 8:46:12 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Mr. Karabassi,
I live at 2216 W Roberts Ave. Fresno 93711. On 2/23/23 I attended a meeting held at Mallock Elementary School by Mr. Jason Andrade, President of Infinite Living regarding the proposed CUP application No. P22-03146. There were approximately 30 members of the neighborhood present at this meeting. I can confidently say after attending the meeting that the concerns of the neighbors were not allayed by Mr. Andrade or his team. I am vehemently opposed to this permit and to this facility. This meeting made it even more clear that the VanNess extension neighborhood is not the appropriate place for this facility. I again urge you and your fellow. council members to vote NO on this permit and prevent this facility from moving any further.

Best,
Dr. Chelsey Juarez
--
Dr. Chelsey Juarez
Associate Professor of Anthropology
Department of Anthropology
California State University Fresno
The Fresno State campus sits in the midst of the San Joaquin Valley, a valley rich in the traditions and representation of Native American peoples and cultures. We are grateful to be in the traditional homelands of the Yokuts and Mono peoples, whose diverse tribal communities share stewardship over this land.

From: Carol Yrulegui
To: PublicCommentsPlanning
Cc: Thomas Veatch
Subject: CUP application P22-03146
Date: Saturday, February 25, 2023 12:20:18 PM
Attachments: Application P22-03146 #2.doc
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
As residents in a neighborhood to be impacted by the above CUP application - please see attached follow-up letter opposing this application

Febrauary 24, 2023

City of Fresno
Planning and development department
[email protected]
Re: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application P22-03146

Dear Director of Planning:

This is a follow up communication regarding the above CUP application. This is also being sent following a neighborhood meeting ( February 23, 2023) with the business applying for this permit.

Although the developers of this business indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to address all concerns and questions about their proposed project – It was disappointing to learn that they weren’t there to “Listen.” The reality is that none of the neighbor’s concerns were satisfied. This was not surprising, as the mood of all attendees was that the project as presented was not appropriate for the area. Neither side agreed with the other. The primary issues are traffic and the safety of the children, parents and teachers.

The size of this project – up to 50 beds - begs to have an Environmental Impact Report. (EIR). When it was suggested by the neighbors to have an EIR, it was refused by the developers saying it wasn’t needed. Unless an EIR is done – there can be no possible way the Planning Commission can make an informed decision. A thorough and non- biased EIR needs to be done to independently assess these issues, as this has not yet been done by the developers.
\
Although this type of medical facility may very well be an asset and in the best interest to the community - the location is NOT because of the high volume traffic – both cars and people - in the area.

As it stands today – we are against the project as currently presented with a 50 bed medical facility. We respectively encourage the Planning Commission to decline this permit as presented.

We wish to be notified of the Commission’s and City Council’s final action so as to preserve any appellate rights.

Richard Yrulegui [email protected]
Carol Yrulegui [email protected].

CITY OF FRESNO

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION

Please Note: You are receiving this notice because you live within 1,000 feet of a property that has requested a special permit for a use described below. For this type of permit, the Fresno Municipal Code (FMC) requires that the City give notice to surrounding property owners to give you the opportunity to express concerns or appeal the permit. Further information is provided below. If you have no concerns regarding the permit, no response is needed.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Development Department Director, in accordance with Common Procedures of the FMC, Section 15-5007, will take action on the applications below:

Application Type and
Number:

Conditional Use Permit Application No. P22-03146
Applicant: Cesar Rodriguez of CR Consulting Group on behalf of Jason Andrade of Infinite Living
Location: 2287 West Bullard Avenue ; Located on the south side of West Bullard Avenue, between North Van Ness Boulevard and North Forkner Avenue.

APN: 415-033-44
Application Description: Conditional Use Permit Application No. P22 -03146 proposes the adaptive reuse of an existing residence to be used as a new residential respiratory care facility to be constructed in two (2) phases. Phase I proposes to remodel and expand the existing ± 3,310 square-foot home from to ±4,500 sq uare feet. P hase II proposes to build two (2) new buildings with a combined area of ±9,011 square feet. The facility will provide acute care services, skilled nursing care, and complex respiratory care to on- site residents. Additional on and off -site improvements are proposed, including but not limited to four (4) drive approaches, parking, landscaping, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.

Zone District: RS-2/EQ(Residential Single Family, Very Low Density/Equine Overlay) Comment Deadline: February 6, 2023 at 5:00 p.m.

The purpose of this notice, at this time, is only to solicit public input and provide members of the public with the opportunity to communicate comments or concerns for consideration prior to the Director making a final determination for project action. In the event you wish to provide comments for consideration, you may do so by written letter sent via post mail to the address below or via written email to [email protected] (cc [email protected]). Comments must include the person's interest in, or relationship to, the subject property and specific reason(s) why the person believes the project should or should not be approved.

ANY WRITTEN comments, concerns, or requests for notification of final project action must be submitted to this office prior to the close of business on:

February 6, 2023
If you wish to be notified of the Director’s final action in order to be provided an opportunity to formally appeal said action, you must specify in your written comments that you wish to be notified of the final project action. If no written request for notification of final project action is included in the written comments, you will not be notified of the Director's final action, and no further communication or notice will be sent. Once the Director takes final action, there will be a 15-day appeal period. Unless otherwise specified in governing state or federal law, all formal appeals shall be filed with the Director in writing within 15 days of the date of the Director's final project action, decision, CEQA determination, motion, or resolution from which the final action is taken. Failure to object to the Director's final action and/or state said reasons prior to the decision shall potentially bar any later court challenge to the project approval.

All documents related to this project are available for public review at the Planning and Development Department at the address listed below. Electronic copies may be requested by contacting the Planner at the number listed below. Documents are available for viewing at City Hall during normal business hours (Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.) by appointment only. Please contact the Planner listed below via email or phone to request electronic copies or schedule an appointment to view documents.

For additional information regarding this project, contact Thomas Veatch , Planning and Development Department, by telephone at (559) 621-8076 or via email at [email protected]. Si necesita información en Español, comuníquese con Enrique Aponte al teléfono (559) 621-8046.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Jennifer K. Clark, AICP, HDFP, Director
Dated: January 27, 2023

Thomas Veatch

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
2600 FRESNO STREET, ROOM 3043
FRESNO CA 93721

THIS IS A LEGAL NOTICE
2287 West Bullard Avenue
CUP No. P22-03146

VICINITY MAP

Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043 · Fresno, CA 93721 · Phone (559) 621-8277 Legend
Subject property:

Fresno City CouncilOctober 19, 2023

Fresno City Council
October 19, 2023