Fresno City Council
November 7, 2024

Tower District Specific Plan
Update Public Comments
July 12, 2024 – August 12, 2024
1 Table of Contents
Comments received online.................................................................................................

Comments received by email
Carrie Woong Louie................................................................................................

Ethel Chan Woong..................................................................................................

Hugo Morales..........................................................................................................

Harmon Shragge Jr..................................................................................................

Radio Bilingüe, Inc.................................................................................................

South Tower Community Land Trust.....................................................................

Suzanne Watkins.....................................................................................................

La Tapatia Tortilleria, Producers Dairy,
Patton Air Conditioning, & Meza Electric Inc........................................................

Producers Dairy.......................................................................................................

Lisa Flores...............................................................................................................

Pages 1-18

Pages 21-22

Pages 24-25
Pages 26-61
Pages 62-63

Pages 65-70
Pages 71-72
Douglas A. Cords....................................................................................................

Marco A. Zamora.....................................................................................................

Diana Diehl.............................................................................................................. Pages 75-83 Peter Cohen..............................................................................................................

Comments Received at the 7/30, 8/20, 9/3, 9/9 & 9/17 Committee Meetings......................

Pages 87-93
2 T ower District Draft Specific Plan Public Comment
Q1
Please leave your comments below.

If a Trader Joe’s or other lower cost grocery chain was added to Tower district I think it would change the whole area. It’s crazy to have to drive across town to access healthy foods at an affordable price. Also a public library is needed in the actual tower district. Gillis is too far and too small. Also parks in the areas that are not all rich people! Trolley park is great but that area already has lots of green space. We need more parks throughout the tower district Q1
Please leave your comments below.

This beautiful neighborhood has so much potential. The day-to-day residence are such great polite people. We also put up with a lot.

The homeless is getting out of control. How is it that there are so many cops yet so much crime down here. Another thing farmers market why close down all of olive, all of the businesses don’t like it have you guys considered van ness village instead instead? Another issue is cleanliness due to the homeless population and the nightlife the streets are filthy. I don’t have kids, but if I did, I would fear for them picking up Alcohol bottles that I find on my walk daily, There really needs to be a better tower, clean initiative.

There is also a need for more family, friendly events, and businesses in order to make this more of a neighborhood like fig garden or other desirable areas people need to feel safe, bringing their children over here and taking them to eat. I understand the nightlife is vital to the survival of the businesses, but there needs to be a better mix. #1

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
Started: y y
ASaturday, July 13, 2024 11:29:07 AM
MoLast Modified: u d y u y 3 3 ASaturday, July 13, 2024 11:46:32 AM STime Spent:
00:17:24
P IP
Address: 104.28.123.
72

#2

COMPLETECOMPLETE
o oCollector: W Web Link 1 W (Web Link)
SSta
rted: u d y u y 3 9 PSaturday, July 13, 2024 12:41:19 PM MoLast Modified: u d y u y 3 PSaturday, July 13, 2024 12:45:07 PM Time Spent:
00:03:48
P AIP
Address: 8 8108.78.51.17

3 T ower District Draft Specific Plan Public Comment
Q1
Please leave your comments below.

I most agree with the need for grocery stores that focus on healthy options. I strongly believe something like a Trader Joes or Sprouts would absolutely transform this entire area of town. A library would also be huge.

Q1
Please leave your comments below.

Clinton Ave:
a. Re-stripe to 3-lanes similar to Dakota, Gettysburg, Fruit etal collector streets. Residence fronting Clinton are seriously challenged when bac
king out of driveways. The widening of Clinton resulted in sub-standard width sidewalks. Provide bike lanes. b. Lower speed limit to 25 mph if Clinton is not re-striped to 3-lanes. More of Clinton should be maximum 35 mph (or lower) due to the increase
d multi-residential housing, Veteran's Hospital, schools and churches fronting Clinton. c. Create a quiet zone adjacent to the BNSF RRX.
#3

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
SSta
rted: u d y u y 3 PSaturday, July 13, 2024 10:07:16 PM MoLast Modified: y y Saturday, July 13, 2024 10:08:35 PM STime Spent: 800:01:18
P AIP Address: 9104.6.156.96

#4

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
Started: y y
Sunday, July 14, 2024 4:54:38 PM
MoLast Modified: u d y u y 8 PSunday, July 14, 2024 5:08:11 PM Time Spent:
00:13:33
P IP
Address: 99.162.186.
128

4 T ower District Draft Specific Plan Public Comment
Q1
Please leave your comments below.

I liked much of the plan. I do feel there was not enough done to address crime and the homeless, which is an obstacle to much of this plan. The circulation plan also seemed very strong, but some of those measures have been implemented in my area already and it is concerning that it has made matters worse. Every single day someone passes in the center lane or bike lane at about 60 mph, for example. People also seem to not have basically understood the new traffic patterns. Without some support from the city to enforce change, all of those plans are useless. I appreciate how the plan calls out the overabundance of smoke shops and liquor stores. I would add tattoo parlors to that list (not a specific objection, but they never stay in business long and it creates vacant properties).

More and diverse shopping opportunities are needed. Also, I would double-down on the plan to bring a grocery store into the area.

Much-needed for many years. And a real grocery store, not a big-lot discount or bodega. Strongly support the mixed use of schools and the need to add parks. Also strongly support the walkability and bikeability focus of this plan.

Q1
Please leave your comments below.

Gillis Branch library is located walking distance from many low income apartments up and down both Dakota and Palm. It would be a crime to move the branch away from residents who are less likely to have access to a car. #5

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
SSt
arted: d y u y 3 PMonday, July 15, 2024 12:32:54 PM MoLast Modified: y y Monday, July 15, 2024 12:42:22 PM STime Spent: 9 800:09:28
P AIP Address: 824.7.185.216

#6

COMPLETECOMPLETE
o oCollector: W Web Link 1 W (Web Link)
SSt
arted: d y u y 8 PMonday, July 15, 2024 4:22:08 PM MoLast Modified: d y u y 9 PMonday, July 15, 2024 4:26:49 PM Time Spent:
00:04:40
P AI
P Address: 162.227.1.
247

5 T ower District Draft Specific Plan Publ ic Comment
Q1
Please leave your comments below.

Overall, I love the ideas in the plan and think it will greatly serve our community! As someone who lives with their family in the Apartment House Overlay in the "Entertainment District", I would just like to reiterate that I hope efforts to curb noise pollution are implemented and enforced, as the nightlife can cause detrimental effects to mental health and quiet enjoyment.

Q1
Please leave your comments below.

Great job. I can see you spent a lot of time and thought putting together the draft. Thank you.

Two minor points: you do mention Anthony Elementary once, but the other two times you name the elementary schools in the Tower, you omit it.

When you mention the events that involve the whole Tower, you might mention Porch Fest (music), Lit Hop (lit readings), and the Rogue Festival. I don't think any of these events involve street closures and they bring in people from all over Fresno and other regions. Su
bmitted by Linnea Alexander:
#7

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
SSta
rted: d y u y PMonday, July 15, 2024 4:26:52 PM
MoLast Modified: y y Monday, July 15, 2024 4:30:21 PM STime Spent: 3 800:03:28
P AIP Address: 3 9 8945.31.169.189

#8

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
Sta
rted: y y Tuesday, July 16, 2024 2:50:09 PM
MoLast Modified: u d y u y 8 PTuesday, July 16, 2024 2:58:16 PM Time Spent: 00:08:07
P IP Address: 67.174.41.17

6 T ower District Draft Specific Plan Public Comment
Q1
Please leave your comments below.

Your outreach is abominable. The flyer you sent in the mail has a link that will allow you to make comments but not read the plan.

I would love to read the plan and I would love to make an informed contribution to the community, but there doesn’t seem to be a way to do that
Q1
Please leave your comments below.

I have lived in the Tower district for 35 years, the Tower District Was doing just fine until the homeless were allowed to take over And run amok, when this happened there was trash everywhere, crime increased and became rampant and many businesses closed and went elsewhere. Unless and until this problem is addressed it doesn't matter what beautiful plans you have for this area, people will not visit people will not want to live here. The deterioration has accelerated since this has been allowed, if you truly want to know what people that live here think and people that have businesses think they will agree that if this is not addressed it doesn't matter what the other plans are, it will be a failure.
#9

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
SSt
arted: u d y u y PTuesday, July 16, 2024 6:27:44 PM MoLast Modified: y y Tuesday, July 16, 2024 6:30:14 PM STime Spent: 300:02:30
P AIP Address:
146.75.154
.1

#10

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
Started: W y
y AWednesday, July 17, 2024 8:51:08 AM
MoLast Modified: W d d y u y 8 33 AWednesday, July 17, 2024 8:54:33 AM Time Spent:
00:03:24
P IP
Address: 98.41.203.
129

7 T ower District Draft Specific Plan Public Comment
Q1
Please leave your comments below.

Please take action to remove the ECO World bins on Olive Ave. and Arthur. I live across from the burned building and their bin they placed there to replace the building. It is a magnet to the homeless and eye sore. People are constantly breaking into it and throwing the contents all over our yards. It is not a good area for this. It is just ugly. And the vandalism is daily.

Q1
Please leave your comments below.

I disagree with ANY planned changes that will infringe on existing property owners, particularly historic area property owners rights, freedoms, liberties. We are NOT an HMO! We own property here for the freedom, liberty that is part of the Tower! The Tower does not need more regulation to appease a few.
#11

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
SSt
arted: W d d y u y 8 PWednesday, July 17, 2024 2:52:18 PM MoLast Modified: W y y Wednesday, July 17, 2024 2:57:43 PM STime Spent:
00:05:24
P AI
P Address: 3 8174.236.228.110

#12

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
Started: y y
Thursday, July 18, 2024 10:11:16 PM
MoLast Modified: F d y u y 9 38 AFriday, July 19, 2024 12:02:38 AM Time Spent:
01:51:22
P IP
Address: 98.41.185.
241

#13

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
SSt
arted: F d y u y 9 AFriday, July 19, 2024 6:40:04 AM MoLast Modified: y y AFriday, July 19, 2024 6:43:17 AM STime Spent: 300:03:12
P AIP Address: 9104.6.157.190
8 T ower District Draft Specific Plan Public Comment
Q1
Please leave your comments below.

I strongly support the creation of more bike lanes. I bike daily and need safe spaces to navigate my way north through the Tower District. I also support more speed bumps to slow vehicles on residential streets. Speeding has become a serious problem on my street (North Calaveras Street between Olive and McKinley).

Q1
Please leave your comments below.

Redesign of the northeast corner of N Van Ness and McKinley (FCC). Currently is a rounded corner intersection that does not prioritize pedestrian safety in a very traversed area. Cars often do not stop when making a right turn onto N. Van Ness from McKinley Ave.

Add trash receptacles along N. Van Ness throughout Van Ness Village. Highly pedestrianized area that can be made cleaner (possible dog waste stations)
Plant trees along Van Ness throughout Van Ness Village
Plant trees in industrial areas to lower pollution burden Establish community gardens in north and central Tower
Create affordable housing on empty lot at Olive and Palm Plant trees along Olive Ave
Improve pedestrian connections between central Tower and Roeding Park Create affordable housing across from Roeding Park along Olive Ave

#14

COMPLETECOMPLETE
o oCollector: W Web Link 1 W (Web Link)
SSta
rted: F d y u y 9 3 PFriday, July 19, 2024 12:14:03 PM MoLast Modified: F d y u y 9 PFriday, July 19, 2024 2:51:25 PM Time Spent:
02:37:22
P AIP
Address: 98 39 8898.239.64.188

#15

COMPLETECOMPLETE
o oCollector: W Web Link 1 W (Web Link)
SSta
rted: u d y u y 3 PSaturday, July 20, 2024 3:04:14 PM MoLast Modified: u d y u y 3 3 33 PSaturday, July 20, 2024 3:23:33 PM Time Spent:
00:19:18
P AIP
Address: 9 8104.6.159.178
9 T ower District Draft Specific Plan Public Comment
Q1
Please leave your comments below.

Echo and McKinley needs a flashing pedestrian sign/light. We have lived at the corner of Peralta and Echo for just over two years, and there have been 4 pedestrian accidents in this vicinity, and at least two fatalities.

There must also be a priority to SLOW traffic on McKinley and Echo near Fresno High. Traffic on McK is so high, and so fast.

Students are released from FHS to dangerous situations attempting to cross Wishon, Weldon, Echo, and McKinley. This will prove deadly at some point. Echo has no speed bumps or light up crosswalks/signs that alert. This is an oversight. Dozens to hundreds of people use the Echo/McKinley/N Van Ness corridor throughout the day on foot, on scooter/bike/skateboard and in vehicles.

I love the historical homes preservation, and feel that it is vital to maintain the look and feel of our homes in this area, from developers and flippers who strip the homes of their original character to turn a profit. It’s also important for history to maintain or help preserve homes which have been vacated, or not maintained.

We need parks, we need access to the pools at the schools during summer. Real access- not 4 hours twice a week.

It would be great to plant trees as often, and able as we can be. There should be no street in Tower that is not lined with foliage.

Including Olive- which butchers their trees. Why isn’t Olive Avenue tree lined and the focus on arts. There should be murals on the buildings- all blank walls should feature murals.

Tower -Olive in particular- needs a Park and Ride area. Perhaps near Roeding park, or ??? by the 99 FWY and routinely buses on Friday and Saturday especially should do a park and ride service.

YIMBY- parks, trees, slower cars, more apartment buildings/duplex/etc that are architecturally alike to the homes surrounding them, speed bumps, bike lanes, outdoor dining areas, cooling centers, Free Little Libraries, a LIBRARY, festivals/(REAL) produce stands type of farmer’s markets in shaded areas! A dog park, less policing in the neighborhoods, a GROCERY store with an emphasis on fresh food. We need Bus Stops with SHADE. Bring back historical-like Bus Stops with SHADE and SHELTER. Stop vilifying people using the bus and give them shade and a proper place to sit. YIMBY- light up pedestrian walk signs when someone hits the crosswalk button. Speed bumps and smaller streets to stop speeding and accidents. Tree lined streets everywhere, accessible water fountains, everywhere. Bus stops with electricity, shade, maps. Community events that include live music, farmers markets, beer gardens, and closing of Olive for it.

NIMBY- dollar stores, corner markets that only sell lotto and cigarettes, soda/beer, fast cars racing around, butchered trees, hate for the unhoused, addicted and/or hungry.

#16

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
Started: y y
Sunday, July 21, 2024 7:43:50 PM
MoLast Modified: u d y u y PSunday, July 21, 2024 7:46:01 PM STime Spent:
00:02:10
P IP
Address: 162.224.16

4.110
10 T ower District Draft Specific Plan Public Comment
Q1
Please leave your comments below.

What is being done to address the very visible drugs issue in tower? People are openly dealing and intoxicated on olive avenue every single day. So dangerous and damaging to the community!! Q1
Please leave your comments below.

Unfortunately I was unable to attend the meeting you held at the Big Red Church, but I am vested in this community as I have lived here close to 9 years. I get the painting of the crosswaljs, but that does not do for other problems we have here. The first week of June, car thieves went up and down our street on Farris, breaking into cars trying to steal them and succeded by stealing and destroying mine. Between that and all the homeless and people shooting up in plain sight, our neighborhood needs help.

Q1
Please leave your comments below.

Please consider the vacant lots on the east side of Van Ness and Home as future parks.

#17

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
SSt
arted: d y u y 9 AMonday, July 22, 2024 9:15:14 AM MoLast Modified: y y AMonday, July 22, 2024 9:20:13 AM STime Spent: 800:04:58
P AIP Address: 8 8867.182.57.188

#18

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
Started: y y
Tuesday, July 23, 2024 12:57:33 PM
MoLast Modified: u d y u y 3 PTuesday, July 23, 2024 1:00:45 PM STime Spent: 300:03:11
P IP Address:
104.247.14

6.75

11 T ower District Draft Specific Plan Public Comment
Q1
Please leave your comments below.

Hi, I live in and tower and own multiple rental properties here as well. Please take seriously an effort to add more green spaces for our residents. Also, the streets are unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists due to reckless and speeding drivers. Please ensure leaders are taking action on this. Many of us are disapoointed wiht our representees, Miguel Arias', lack of action.

Q1
Please leave your comments below.

Regarding a library, the draft states, “the community has been working with Fresno County Public Library district to create a new branch, relocate an existing one, or enhance the quality of the Gillis Library Branch…”. I strongly feel this should be a priority for the neighborhood. While a library can house books and a museum for the Tower District, it can be so much more for the youth growing up in the area. Libraries often provide safe places for kids after school to study, access resources, find mentors etc. A library often serves as a free hub for technology and vital information that families might not have access to. With education becoming almost entirely based on digital platforms, students will know they have access to Wi-Fi without burdening their family’s finances. If we can create a space for the youth to feel welcome and at home in the Tower District, they will become adults who care about preserving the neighborhood and all that it has to offer. Is there someone leading the charge for this? What steps have been taken and what still needs to be done?
#19

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
SSt
arted: d y u y 9 PMonday, July 29, 2024 2:57:47 PM MoLast Modified: y y Monday, July 29, 2024 2:59:48 PM STime Spent:
00:02:01
P AI
P Address: 98162.224.165.98

#20

COMPLETECOMPLETE
o oCollector: W Web Link 1 W (Web Link)
Started: W y
y Wednesday, July 31, 2024 3:20:13 PM
MoLast Modified: W d d y u y 3 3 PWednesday, July 31, 2024 3:25:02 PM Time Spent:
00:04:48
P AI
P Address: 8 350.250.178.153

12 T ower District Draft Specific Plan Public Comment
Q1
Please leave your comments below.

1. Spectrum Art Gallery and similar businesses that have recessed doorways or alcoves should be able to install security gates to prevent
homeless campouts that risk fire or other damage.

2. Spectrum Art Gallery and similar businesses should be able to install neon signage.

3. Covid outdoor structures on the street should be removed to return street parking spaces as before.

4. Return of an active police “substation” or improved patrolling in the Tower district.

5. the trash cans on Echo next to Aroma are a constant source of trash on the ground and in the street from the homeless going through
them.

Q1
Please leave your comments below.

The Olive commercial district has two very different realities. There is the thriving Olive East of Palm and then there is the Olive west of Palm. To not separate the two and highlight the immediate need for more development specifically on the west side of Palm is a disservice to so many Tower neighbors who dutifully showed up to meetings and expressed time and time again the need for Olive West of Palm to have its own specific revitalization efforts. This document hides the blight that west of Palm is facing by continuing to refer to Olive as one complete thriving commercial district.

There were also no comments about the damage Circle K and the Palm Olive car wash do to the walk ability and safety of the whole corridor.
#21

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
SSt
arted: u d y Augu 3 9 PThursday, August 01, 2024 7:23:29 PM MoLast Modified: y A Thursday, August 01, 2024 7:26:19 PM STime Spent: 900:02:49
P AIP Address: 3 373.41.123.126

#22

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
Started: y A
Monday, August 05, 2024 1:26:13 PM
MoLast Modified: d y Augu 3 8 PMonday, August 05, 2024 1:34:58 PM STime Spent: 800:08:44
P IP Address:
174.208.16

1.1

13 T ower District Draft Specific Plan Public Comment
Q1
Please leave your comments below.

As a business owner on North Van Ness, the biggest concern among other small businesses in the area is parking. We lost a huge percentage of our parking with the installation of the new bike lanes. Referencing the bicycle accident heat map in the plan, North Van Ness does not seem to be an area of great concern for bicycle safety. We all wish for safer roads for both bikes and pedestrians, but the installed bike lanes on Van Ness have been detrimental to our customers safety and convenience. We are constantly walking customers to their cars late at night, due to them having to park in the undeveloped and unlighted parcels. We were never consulted about these and when concerns were raised, they fell on deaf ears.

There is not enough parking for our employees, let alone customers.

Q1
Please leave your comments below.

Producers Dairy submitted public comment to Adrienne via email on 8/9/24 in PDF format. #23

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
SSt
arted: W d d y Augu AWednesday, August 07, 2024 11:24:54 AM MoLast Modified: W y A AWednesday, August 07, 2024 11:31:34 AM STime Spent:
00:06:40
P AI
P Address: 3 845.31.168.56

#24

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
Started: y A
AFriday, August 09, 2024 9:20:05 AM
MoLast Modified: F d y Augu 9 9 3 AFriday, August 09, 2024 9:21:32 AM STime Spent:
00:01:27
P IP
Address: 50.203.163
.19

14 T ower District Draft Specific Plan Public Comment
Q1
Please leave your comments below.

TDP (1991) page 1-12 reads; A citizens task force is recommended to serve as an implementation Committee...". Question; in addition to the task force, which I assume to be the committee, are there any plans for localize groups? And if so, how could the committee assist to form these groups to have a greater voice for their community. The thought is that every block/nieghborhood/community has different needs and it would be beneficial if every sector had a unique voice to be heard.

Q1
Please leave your comments below.

Bear in mind that marginalized individuals aren't expected to have quick fixes for the complex issues they didn't cause simply because of their struggles. However, they offer valuable insights and perspectives you may not have considered. It's essential to begin by acknowledging and embracing their viewpoints. This is a good place to start if you are interested in regards to the LGBTQIA+, BIPOC, Immigrant, and Disabled communities, to name a few.
#25

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
SSt
arted: u d y Augu 33 PSunday, August 11, 2024 7:33:01 PM MoLast Modified: y A Sunday, August 11, 2024 7:48:13 PM STime Spent:
00:15:12
P AI
P Address: 3 3975.42.53.39

#26

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
Started: y A
Monday, August 12, 2024 12:18:50 PM
MoLast Modified: d y Augu 3 PMonday, August 12, 2024 12:26:32 PM Time Spent:
00:07:42
P IP
Address: 102.129.14

5.184

15 T ower District Draft Specific Plan Public Comment
Q1
Please leave your comments below.

What if drafts of this plan erred on the side of inclusion and involved more marginalized people, groups, and organizations in its foundation instead of after the fact?
Q1
Please leave your comments below.

Regarding the racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and xenophobic history of Fresno, there is a cause for every effect. And if we are to understand and heal these effects, it's crucial to understand the causes. These harms need to be addressed for them to be understood. Omitting them or mentioning them without context, like they only happened in the past and not like they are not still happening today, will never fix the divide they caused. For context: https://www.facingfresno.org/timeline #27

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
SSt
arted: d y Augu 9 PMonday, August 12, 2024 4:59:51 PM MoLast Modified: y A Monday, August 12, 2024 5:19:38 PM STime Spent: 900:19:46
P AIP Address: 8 39 3984.239.27.139

#28

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
Started: y A
Monday, August 12, 2024 6:02:06 PM
MoLast Modified: d y Augu 9 3 PMonday, August 12, 2024 6:29:36 PM Time Spent:
00:27:29
P IP
Address: 191.101.61
.188

16 T ower District Draft Specific Plan Public Comment
#29

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
SSt
arted: d y Augu 8 9 PMonday, August 12, 2024 8:44:09 PM MoLast Modified: y A Monday, August 12, 2024 9:07:04 PM STime Spent:
00:22:55
P AI
P Address: 9 9107.209.25.9

17 T ower District Draft Specific Plan Public Comment
Q1
Please leave your comments below.
"4.4 Public Schools and Libraries
While the Tower District has no public library branch at this time, the community has been working with Fresno County Public Library district to create a new branch, relocate an existing one, or enhance the quality of the Gillis Library Branch, located on west Dakota Avenue that currently serves the District. A new library would be not just a community amenity and educational resource, but could be designed to serve as a community center and could house a museum on Tower District history." (pg. 83)
-I am the Tower District Library Advocate, and I need to clearly state that my efforts to get a public library in the Tower District are a complet
ely grassroots movement that cannot be officially endorsed by the Fresno County Public Library. My efforts have not as yet gone be
fore the County Board of Supervisors to be officially voted on as an approved Fresno County Library Capitol Project. What I would l
ike stated here is that the Tower District Specific Plan strongly supports the community efforts to have a Fresno County Public Library
in the Tower District. I agree with the statements on the benefits a Tower District Library would bring the community. "POS 4

ALIGN PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES WITH

COMMUNITY NEEDS TO SUPPORT QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE
TOWER DISTRICT.

POS 4.1 Tower Public Library.

Work with Fresno County to bring a library back to the Tower District, by relocating an existing branch or creating a new branch. Support this effort through actions that may include, but are not limited to, zoning to allow for a library and allowing for the joint use of City-owned facilities." (pg. 89) -The work is not with Fresno County alone. The work is with the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, Fresno County Public Library, and Fre
sno City Council. To not state each part is detrimental to how people view the solution to the problem. This also needs to reflect
again that there is the potential for there to be a Tower District Library and a Tower District Museum, as the need for one may help th
e creation of the other.
"CHP 1.9 Historic museum
Consider supporting the establishment of a museum in the Tower District, representing the Tower District, using a historic building or building as an interactive place of learning." (pg. 40) -This should also state that a museum dedicated to the Tower District could reside within a Tower District Library. There was discuss
ion of a nexus of a museum and a library at the Tower District Specific Plan meetings and Historical Preservation subcomm
ittee meetings that agreed to add that language to the Tower District Specific Plan. 18 T ower District Draft Specific Plan Public Comment
Q1
Please leave your comments below.

One of the ways that the new Tower District Specific Plan can help our community is to be provide long term and short term goals. I know that it is unreasonable to think that my neighborhood (Palm/Clinton) will receive a park within a year or two, but it would be useful if it pulled from its city resources to communicate to the public how realistic it would take for a new park to be built in our community. If this information was provided, perhaps there could be a greater push to use some portion of the Measure P funds to temporary solve our need of parks for public use. The Plan strongly needs to consider Joint usage of schools since they can also serve as public gatherings for information.

How exactly does the Plan help support any person in the community if it would like to explore Green Alley use? The city has informed us that we as property owner are responsible to maintained our alleys, therefore, it sounds great for blocks of neighborhood to use these as green alleys. However, does the underground or overhead utility companies know of the intent to possibly place gardens? If so, what are the limitations, does it have to be movable, how much can it protrude from my rear property line, height limitations. What about agreements with neighbors on guidelines? Could they serve as a limited dog park? Green Alleys would be awesome, however, the Plan needs to dig deeper instead of just indicating how nice it would be to have.

The plan does not mention anything about Block Sales during the spring to summer Saturdays. This was a hot topic this year and the City finally got involved. There is great potential for this, however, it needs a lead that can help steer it in the right direction.

What mechanisms exist for the public to encourage property owners (assuming they are out of tow) to do something about blighted buildings. Currently there is a one way street N Wishon/N Fulton Ave of commercial buildings from Olive Ave to Belmont Ave that are not fulfilling the communities need and are currently surrounded by the homeless population. There is enormous potential for the community to use these as either dance studios or recreational uses. But the Plan and the City need to force the owners to do something or else relinquish these properties.

Has the City discussed closing off a street weekly/monthly for biking, walking and running? #30

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
SSt
arted: d y Augu 9 9 PMonday, August 12, 2024 9:45:19 PM MoLast Modified: y A Monday, August 12, 2024 9:48:24 PM STime Spent: 300:03:05
P AIP Address: 3 3975.42.53.39

#31

COMPLETECOMPLETE
Co oCollector:

W Web Link 1 W )(Web Link)
Started: y A
ATuesday, August 13, 2024 5:36:58 AM
MoLast Modified: u d y Augu 3 38 ATuesday, August 13, 2024 5:38:51 AM Time Spent:
00:01:53
P IP
Address: 102.129.14

5.184
19 T ower District Draft Specific Plan Public Comment
Q1
Please leave your comments below.

History without discomfort is propaganda. Don’t be so afraid to talk about Fresno’s injustices like redlining.

20 Carrie Woong Louie
August 11, 2024
To: Adrienne Asadoorian-Gilbert, Supervising Planner of City of Fresno, From: Carrie Woong Louie
Cc: Harmon Shragge Jr., Property Manager
RE: I am against the Tower District Specific Plan Neighborhood Mixed-Use.

APN 451-031-12
ADRESS: 1590 North Palm and 1596 North Palm
Dear Adrienne, Supervising Planner of City of Fresno,
I am one of the owners of the property that my family bought in 1979. I would like to register my opposition to the Tower District Specific Plan Neighborhood Mixed- Use. Specifically, I am against the necessity of being forced to apply for a conditional use permit for a similar tenant if one of our current tenants vacates.

Further, our lot in and of itself, is not big enough to be redeveloped into a multi mixed used property. This plan will substantially reduce the future value of this property.

Respectfully,
Carrie Woong Louie
21 Ethel Chan Woong
August 11, 2024
To: Adrienne Asadoorian-Gilbert, Supervising Planner of City of Fresno, From: Ethel Chan Woong
Cc: Harmon Shragge Jr., Property Manager
RE: I am against the Tower District Specific Plan Neighborhood Mixed-Use.

APN 451-031-12
ADRESS: 1590 North Palm and 1596 North Palm
Dear Adrienne, Supervising Planner of City of Fresno,
Our family bought this property in 1979. I would like to register my opposition to the Tower District Specific Plan Neighborhood Mixed- Use. Specifically, I am against the necessity of being forced to apply for a conditional use permit for a similar tenant if one of our current tenants vacates.

Further, our lot in and of itself, is not big enough to be redeveloped into a multi mixed used property. This plan will substantially reduce the future value of this property.

Respectfully,
Ethel Chan Woong
22 Hugo Morales Letter Tower District
City Council
City of Fresno
RE: DRAFT TOWER DISTRICT SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UPDATE 2024 Dear Council and Mayor,
As a long time resident of the Tower District, since 1978, I am an interested party to the Tower District Plan. I am writing to support the draft tower district specific implementation plan update 2024. It maintains the established zoning, that is important to me.

The plan captures what I and other residents would like to see in the District. The Plan honors the established zoning. This is very important for our neighborhood. I believe it maintains a good mix of activities for our area. We want to maintain a healthy neighborhood to raise our families and, at the same time, maintain the zoning that has allowed our neighborhood to attract small businesses to our area and maintain existing ones. Jobs are important and so are small businesses.

I have lived in the Tower District since 1978. My first decade in the tower, I lived in the 800 block of North Van Ness. For the past twenty years I have lived in the 500 block of East Terrace Avenue. I have witnessed our area’s growing business vitality. I have also enjoyed living in the area and raising my children.

My background:
• I am the founder of the Central California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (1983). • I have been a Fresno County First Five Commissioner for the past 20 years; the Commission awards 7 million annually to Fresno city and county nonprofits serving the needs of children 0-5.
• I currently have children enrolled at Fresno Unified Schools and am an elected site council member in their school.
• I served as a Trustee of the California State University system from 2012 to 2020. • In 2021 I was the recipient of a National Endowment for the Arts Heritage Fellowship, for my decades of promotion of the traditional arts through my leadership (Executive Director) of Radio Bilingüe, The National Latino Public Radio Network. Radio Bilingüe, a Fresno nonprofit that I founded in 1976, began broadcasting on July 4, 1980. Radio Bilingüe is a multilingual service celebrating the music, culture, and languages of Fresno and the San Joaquin Valley. Radio Bilingüe produced the largest community based mariachi festival in California that ran for 30 years at the Selland Arena. Radio Bilingüe also provides vital health and welfare information, so important to our large community of essential workers in Fresno. During the pandemic, thousands of families turned to Radio Bilingüe for reliable information on prevention, testing, and the opportunities to receive a vaccine.

Sincerely,
Hugo Morales
23 Notes on Tower District Specific Plan update:

Wilson’s North Fresno Tract. George D. Wilson’s Rosanna C. Wilson’s North Fresno Tract subdivision, filed in 1908, is an 18-block area in the geographical heart of the Tower District. The historic district includes many of the historic structures identified in the survey and captures many of the characteristics associated with the Tower District, perhaps most notably the 1926 Tower Theatre and the Tract’s substantial porch-front homes and bungalows. Opening in 1912, the Roeding streetcar line helped to make development feasible and first anchored the commercial district centered at Olive and Wishon. Retail commercial architecture of this period is referred to as “showcase architecture,” in light of its extensive
NOTE: Rosanna C. Wilson was the landowner who filed the subdivision map in 1908. NOT her husband, George. She owned about 400 acres between roughly Palm and Blackstone, and Olive and McKinley. This is confirmed on parcel maps of that era. The subdivision was hers, NOT George’s. She developed the lots, managed sales, and negotiated with the city on easements for the Fulton/Forthcamp streetcar line. George’s part was negotiating with A.G. Wishon on the streetcar line that went up Wishon Ave.

Read my book, Fresno’s Wilson Island and Rosanna Cooper Wilson, the woman who created it.

Details and documentation are all there.

CHP 1.5 Evaluate designation of potential resources in the public right of way.

Using historic resource survey(s) and community engagement for guidance, identify and evaluate public realm design elements that may be eligible for historic designation. These elements should be researched for their historic significance and, if eligible, nominated for designation accordingly.

Note: There are contractor impressions in the cement sidewalks in the Wilson Island from the early 1900s. Specifically, the Thompson Brothers Construction Co. that paved many of Fresno’s early streets. Claude M. Thompson’s home was at 600 E. Carmen on the southeast corner of Carmen and Echo Avenues. It was built in 1919. These sidewalk impressions need to be saved!!! There are WPA impressions along Olive Ave between roughly Van Ness and Wishon.

CHP 1.9 Historic museum
Consider putting the brass plaque that was on the Belmont underpass (torn out for high-speed rail) in this museum. What ever happened to that plaque? It stated the construction was done by the Thompson Bros Co.

Land use section
It mentions proposed zoning changes for the Wilson Island on a map but in the list of recommendations there is no mention of pursuing that expeditiously to preserve the historic character of this district.
24 August 9, 2024
To: Adrienne Asadoorian-Gilbert, Supervising Planner of City of Fresno, From: Harmon Shragge Jr. , Property Manager
Cc: Mrs. Carrie Woong Louie
RE: We are against the Tower District Specific Plan Neighborhood Mixed-Use.

APN 451-031-12
ADRESSES: 1590 North Palm and 1596 North Palm
Dear Adrienne Supervising Planner of City of Fresno,
I would like to register my opposition to the Tower District Specific Plan Neighborhood Mixed- Use. Specifically, I am against the necessity of being forced to apply for a conditional use permit for a similar tenant if one of our current tenants vacates.

Further our lot, in and of itself, is not big enough to be redeveloped into a multi mixed used property. This plan will substantially reduce the future value of this property.

Respectfully,
Harmon Shragge, Jr.
25 Radio Bilingüe, Inc.

National Latino Public Radio Network
Listen Live! On the Web: radiobilingue.org
Network Headquarters
5005 E. Belmont Avenue
Fresno, CA 93727
(559) 455-5777 (ph)
(559) 455-5750 (admin. fax)

Salinas Office
161 Main Street, Suite #4
Salinas, CA 93901
(831) 757-8039 (ph)
(831) 757-9854 (fax)

El Centro Office
c/o Imperial Valley College
380 E. Aten Road
South Information Room
Imperial, CA 92251
(760) 337-8051 (ph)
California
KSJV - 91.5 FM - Fresno
KMPO - 88.7 FM - Modesto
KTQX - 90.1 FM - Bakersfield
KUBO - 88.7 FM - Calexico/
El Centro
KHDC - 90.9 FM - Salinas
KVUH - 88.5 FM - Laytonville/
Fort Bragg
K233AV - 94.5 FM - Paso Robles
K264BQ - 100.7 FM - Palmdale/
Lancaster
K258CK - 99.5 FM - Barstow
K281BR - 104.1 FM - Hollister
K225BQ - 92.9 FM - Santa
Margarita/San Luis Obispo
K266BX - 101.1 FM - Coachella/
Mecca/Indio
K254CA - 98.7 FM - Santa Maria/
Guadalupe
K229CN - 93.7 FM - Tracy/
Tassajara
Arizona
KREE - 88.1 FM – Douglas
K224EV – 92.7 FM – Yuma
New Mexico
KVMG - 88.9 FM - Raton
KYOL - 91.7 FM - Chama
KQTO - 88.1 FM - Hurley/Silver City
KDUO – 91.3 FM - Columbus
Texas
KRZU - 90.7 FM - Batesville
KHEM - 89.3 FM - Zapata
KRBP - 88.1 FM - Presidio
KXJT -88.3 FM - Rio Grande City
Colorado
KHUI - 89.1 FM - Alamosa
August 12, 2024
City Council
City of Fresno
RE: DRAFT TOWER DISTRICT SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UPDATE 2024 - Comments Dear Council and Mayor,
Radio Bilingüe would like to congratulate the exemplary work done to bring about an update to the Tower District Plan that seeks to improve the lives of Fresno residents, the growing arts community, small businesses and industry that collectively have made the Tower District a desirable community to live, shop, dine, work, and for entertainment.

The plan calls on the City to work with and seek input from residents, property owners, small and large businesses to help capture the essence of what everyone would like to see in the District , which we applaud. It is particularly important that the City has taken steps to ensure as many voices are heard as the City contemplates adoption of the plan update. Radio Bilingüe (RB) as an interested party would like to voice our support for the draft plan. The plan takes inspiring steps to ensure The Tower is a healthy and welcoming community for a wide diversity of residents, including residents and working people of diverse economic backgrounds. As some of you may be aware, Radio Bilingüe has been actively looking to construct a new studio and headquarters for the past year and a half . This process leads us to also support the proposed plan’s honoring of the established zoning to include industrial businesses in some sections.

Radio Bilingüe Latino Public Radio (RB) is the leading educational network for Latinos in U.S. public media. Radio Bilingüe was founded in Fresno in 1976. It was built by and for Fresno essential workers. The Fresno-based network owns and operates 26 FM public radio stations in California, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, and a national Spanish language news and information service used by more than 75 affiliates in the U.S. With our award-winning music, news and public affairs programming and creative educational radio campaigns, Radio Bilingüe informs and engages traditionally underserved Spanish-, Mixteco- and English-speaking listeners on issues such as immigration rights, health and mental health, environmental justice, worker rights and safety, civic engagement and disaster preparedness. Radio Bilingüe’s radio service has always been multi- generational, with segments of programming targeting the great diversity of Latino individuals and families, including youth.

Because Radio Bilingüe is a nonprofit dedicated to lift the voices of diverse immigrants and essential workers, Radio Bilingüe also opened our airwaves to the first radio service by and for the Hmong community in the Americas beginning in 1990, the Sunday program was broadcast for 20 years produced by Hmong volunteers from the Fresno community; the radio shows featured traditional Hmong music and language and community announcements.

Radio Bilingüe’s target communities include the long-standing lower-income Latino residents in the central and southern parts of the city of Fresno, our focus on locating a new studios/offices site have included the Tower District and the corridors on Belmont and Cesar Chavez Boulevard. To our surprise and frustration, the only zoning that allows for a business like Radio Bilingüe is Light Industrial or 26 Industrial. This has resulted in very limited options because of the size of lot we need and the extreme shortage of lots that are zoned for light industrial. Thus the City’s proposed plan to maintain the existing industrial zoning in the Tower District would be important and instrumental for Radio Bilingüe. Wherever Radio Bilingüe eventually locates, we will work with and honor the voices of residents and advocacy groups, whose concerns we share for creating healthier neighborhoods and closing disparities in quality of life in Fresno.

Locally, Radio Bilingüe employs 26 full time employees; most work, live, shop and raise families here in the city. Our planned new headquarters and production studios would allow for us to grow our production capacity as well as to grow the number of employees and volunteers from the community. Additionally, our plan includes space and capacity to train Fresno youth in journalism and broadcasting; recording facilities that could be made available to the Fresno community through partnerships; and public spaces to host forums, community arts and entertainment gatherings. We are confident that our investment will contribute to the economic stimulation for the neighborhood we relocate to as well as to the city of Fresno to keep our city growing stronger, healthier, and sustainable.

Sincerely,
Hugo Morales Jose Martinez-Saldana
Co-Executive Director Co-Executive Director
Cell: 415415-233-3254 Cell: 831-578-7329
27 8/12/2024
Attn: Adrienne Asadoorian-Gilbert
Planning and Development Department
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno St,
Fresno, CA 93721
Comments in response to Draft Tower District Specific Plan We appreciate this opportunity to review the draft T ower District Specific Plan Update. We are providing this formal letter to aggregate our feedback and suggest significant alteration to more fully document the history and current reality in the T ower District as well as to chart a more equitable future for our neighborhood.

First it is important for us to frame what perspective this letter comes from.

Leading this organization is our founding executive director, Kiel Lopez-Schmidt. They have a diverse experience in architecture, affordable housing development, community development finance. This has included leading numerous project in the T ower District such as:

1. banquet hall adaptive reuse of the former Turpin’s Furniture at 1028 N Fulton St

2. affordable housing development 541 @ South T ower

3. food truck commissary in former restaurant at 504 E. Belmont Ave

4. Nomination of the JR Turner Home at 815 E. Dudley Ave. to Local Historic Registry

5. Served 10 years on the T ower District Design Review Committee.

6. Design and manufacturer coordination of T ower Bike Racks

7. Conditional Use Permit for Goldstien’s

8. Ongoing ADA upgrades for Color Me Cula and En Las Nubes

9. Two ongoing affordable housing developments
Additionally, the board of directors of our organization included diverse backgrounds and experience:

1. Affordable housing developer a small business owner

2. User experience design researcher

3. Educator

4. Substance abuse counselor

5. Registered nurse

6. City planning professional

7. And two LGBTQ+ health educators and non-profit founders Our other Policy Committee members that contributed to this letter bring additional diverse experience and perspectives
28 Our organization was born out of the community organizing and design for Broadway Parque. So we strongly believe in including community in the projects and policies that we advocate for. Living out those values, we have gone door to door informing and listening to South T ower neighbors about their concerns and barriers for health and prosperity and as well as their aspirations and assets to contribute to a shared vision.

When the daft Specific Plan Update was made available, we organized a study session that 16 community members were able to attend. We broke out into 6 groups each group reading and discussing one chapter. The group discussion following the chapter break out groups generated numerous detailed comments that follow. Many of these topics were uplifted by our group throughout the Specific Plan outreach process. Hopefully this letter will have a greater impact on the final plan.

The comments that follow are focused on improved social determinants of health in a framework of correcting racial and economic inequities experienced by South T ower residents and other residents who do not yet enjoy the full vitality that some T ower District residents have the privilege of enjoying.

These comments also come from the perspective of a community development organization that has a proven ability to increase park and affordable housing access. I took decades to arrive at this point of disparity and we commit to the decades of work that will take to dismantle the structures that continue these inequities.

Overall

1. Many of the sections are missing an answer to the question “But How?” - meaning they are describing a nice yet at times vague vision without relating it to how the Plan will create and implement positive change. Each Chapter should adequately convey What Is the Issue and How Will this Plan Help Solve It.
01 Introduction

1. Page 9
a. “The District’s vitality extends to its residential neighborhoods.” This statement lacks nuance and does not ring true when throughout the process we have uplifted the conditions that have left several segments of the corridors as well as large segments of the residential neighborhoods behind. It is critical to understand the existing limits of vitality inorder to structure policies that can correct this inequity. b. “The broad range of housing options, from granny flats to mansions, ensure accessibility for all economic strata and life stages.” Substandard housing stock, regular residential fires, ongoing industrial expansion, seniors struggling to age in place, and the low income housing burden shown in figure 3.4 are data points that show house accessibility is not currently available for all economic strata and stages of life. 29 2. Page 12. Figure 1.4: The Light Industrial layer is showing where parcels are zoned IL, but this does not necessarily correlate with what’s on the ground. a. Recommendation: Revise the Light Industrial hatching to include current industrial land uses.

3. Page 13. Figure 1.5. This information could be improved with more context. a. The image quality on this figure is fuzzy.
i. Recommendation: Improve the image quality.
b. There is no context for how T ower compares to the city as a whole in terms of economic and racial diversity.
i. Recommendation: Show how the T ower compares to Fresno as a whole. c. From disaggregated census data we can see differences in race, ethnicity, age, across different census tracks of the T ower District. The greater diversity is seen in the South T ower tracks and the on the Eastern and Western edges of the neighborhood. i. Recommendation: Include analysis of how differences across T ower District census tracts include different rates of race, ethnicity, and age. This is critical in evaluating health and equity interventions.
d. Question: Is there any explanation why “some other race alone” is so large?

4. Page 14. The last paragraph on this page is the one that best explains why T ower is special and means so much to people. We appreciate this framing.

5. Page 14. Figure 1.6 and 1.7 showing density and median household income are important maps, however, presented in a vacuum without demographics corresponding with those figures, it is difficult to make accurate health and equity policy interventions. Including more intentional narrative connecting to the maps and analysis.
a. The color scheme makes it hard to distinguish between some of the categories. i. Recommendation: Use fewer categories and consider using a color scheme that has more distinguishable transitions.
b. In Figure 1.6 the categories are not equal blocks and therefore could skew the perception of the data.
i. Recommendation: Use fewer categories of equal increments. c. In Figure 1.7 the categories are similarly not equal nor intuitive. i. Recommendation: Match income brackets to familiar AMI categories.

6. Page 15 “This Plan updates the 1991 Specific Plan, to respond to issues that have remained, changed, and emerged.” This is a vague statement. It is difficult to find where in the plan there is an analysis of issues that have remained, changed or emerged. a. Recommendation: Add a list of or matrix of issues that have changed over time.

7. Page 16. “T o help understand issues and existing conditions, interviews were conducted with residents’ representatives, property owners, merchants, restaurateurs, real estate professionals, affordable housing developers, land trusts, social service providers, and the local transit agency.”
30 a. Question: Does “residents’ representatives” mean Councilmembers? It’s a slightly awkward way to phrase this if so.

8. Page 16. It feels like there is a huge piece missing from this section and the rest of the Plan.

While the survey data is neatly featured in each section, there is not enough connection to the information shared in the first and second workshops. Hundreds of people attended each and the Plan would benefit from drawing a clearer connection to how precisely those workshops shaped the Plan.
a. Recommendation: Add more information either in this section or in the relevant chapters about how the information gathered from the workshops influenced policy development.

Consider adding to the existing What We Heard sections, making them into a full page with more detail from each workshop and adding narrative to explain how what was heard was translated into policy.

1.4 Health and Equity

9. Page 20. This section introduces the reader to the Health and Equity framework, but the definition of “everyone has a fair and just opportunity to be as healthy as possible” refers more to a vague vision of equality rather than the process of corrective investment adn policy required to improve health and reverse inequities. Additionally, this section does not include the maps and analysis that were presented as the Health & Equity report that demonstrate existing health and equity disparities within the Plan Area. With out these details in the plan, how can we weigh the various policies for their health and equity impact? a. Recommendation: Include the maps that were produced either here or reference which maps later in the Plan relate to each topic.
b. Recommendation: Add important historical context to help frame how the inequities in the plan came to be. This should include the 1930’s Red Lining Map and samples of white only racial covenants that exclude people of color and immigrants from the Porter Tract and Wilson Island neighborhoods
c. Recommendation: Add historical context of how freeway projects have historically been used a blight clearing and disruption of communities of color. Also how intercity freeways have facilitated white flight and urban sprawl that leaves inner city neighborhood driven over rather than through this disinvestment coupled with disrupted economic vitality of commercial corridors along with an increase pollution burden. That is the case of the 180 freeway that cut across the Belmont corridor and cut South T ower off from Lowell and Downtown neighborhoods.

10. Page 20. Figure 1.9
a. Access to health services and education are critical pieces missing from this 6 part framework.

11. Page 22. 6 Safety seems like a catch all for disparate social determinants of health. 31 a. Recommendation: Carve out air quality into a new category and add access to health services. This will leave the topic of Safety, to include numerous concerns community have voiced about walkability at night and break-ins happening to cars. As well the maps of pedestrian and traffic accidents need more nuanced analysis. b. Recommendation: Add maps analyzing lighting and presence of crime.

12. Page 23. “Every objective and policy in this Plan has been considered from a health and equity perspective through analysis and community engagement – metrics which were determined by the Implementation Committee at the start of this planning process. As the Plan was developed, the Implementation Committee and its subcommittees assessed the performance of draft objectives and policies as they relate to air quality, environmental comfort, access to food, housing burden, access to jobs, safety, and land use.” a. The Committee looked at each of the 1991 Plan’s policies through the Health and Equity Matrix in order to help determine which policies should be updated. For transparency, if that has been done for the policies in the Update then please share the results of that analysis. If it has not been done, explain why this critical and promised component of the process was left out. Note: there is not an expectation that each policy will boost each Health and Equity topic, but the tradeoffs between what is helped and what is hurt need to be transparent for informed decision-making.
i. Recommendation: Either add the Health and Equity Matrix for the Updated Plan’s policies as an Appendix to the Plan or explain why this part of the process was not completed.
b. This is a critically weak point of this Plan in that it claims that Health and Equity are considered in each topic area, but there is actually NO substantial discussion nor consideration of health and equity impacts in the rest of the document. i. Recommendation: Review each Chapter to either add in a health and equity section to fully consider the tradeoffs or more consciously discuss this in the appropriate places within the existing narrative.

13. Page 24. “Existing utility infrastructure is currently in place - no new policies were needed for this plan, however, a more detailed description of existing utilities will be included in the final plan.” (emphasis added)
a. It is unacceptable to release a draft plan for public review that is incomplete, especially when there has been discussion around the need to upgrade infrastructure to support new development and that there are barriers involving PG&E with the addition of new housing units. This Chapter has issues to discuss and the lack of this information does not provide an appropriate and fair opportunity for public input.

14. Page 24. There is notably no Implementation Chapter, which would provide not just a nice conclusion to the document (as it does in the 1991 Plan), but it would also be a useful tool to the Committee to continue their work in implementing the Plan. 32 a. Recommendation: Create an Implementation Chapter that includes measurement criteria to aid in the transparency and accountability in Plan implementation. 02 Conservation and Historic Preservation

1. While this Chapter does a nice job of celebrating the historic quality of the T ower District, it does not have any discussion of the historic decisions that have created disparities between different neighborhoods and therefore does not have any discussion on how we can look at historic conservation through an equity lens. Uplifting equity in historic preservation would involve a deeper consideration of how traditional conservation methods may inadvertently carry on past sins. Without such consideration, this Plan provides little platform for innovative thinking towards better methods that could still allow for the important outcome of preservation, but also achieve ways to repair past harms.

2. Page 32. There is no acknowledgment of Rosanna Cooper Wilson’s involvement in the North Fresno Tract, when it appears she was mainly responsible for its development. a. Recommendation: Add information about Rosanna Cooper Wilson to this paragraph.

3. With regards to the historic districts, beautiful as they are, it is interesting to note that the districts that were adopted coincide with the districts that previously held racial covenants. a. Recommendation: The Plan should acknowledge this trend and consider how future districts could intentionally be more inclusive.
b. Recommendation: The plan should survey more of the South T ower historic districts that contain more modest adn working class properties with important histories and characteristics including:
i. Kroeger’s Addition with 254 N. Roosevelt Ave. Lamb T owne House (link) ii. Sunset Tract
iii. La Sierra Tract - this tracts contains about ½ of the homes that were originally developed. The loss of these homes and vacation of streets have coincided with the growth of industrial businesses.
iv. Stratford Place

4. The 1991 Plan noted the historic value of the Grain Silos and this Update misses an opportunity for placemaking at that site.
a. Recommendation: Add both narrative and a policy that conceptualizes and supports a future Grain Silos Plaza that can a) provide more public space, especially in South T ower, b) affirm and celebrate a widely held attachment to the silos as a local landmark, c) showcase local art through the creative adaptation of the silos, and d) use the adaptation of the silos int a public celebration our agricultural roots.

5. Page 33. Figure 2.2 does not show the Bungalow Courts as a thematic district.

6. Page 34. It is good to see that Bungalows Courts thematic district are included here, but an example picture could also be provided, similar to the other district. a. Recommendation: Add an example photo for the Courts Thematic District. 33 7. Page 35. This is a welcome discussion of context-sensitivity for new development in the T ower, however, one of the example photos (Fulton Village, which is in the Mural District not in the T ower with conceptual massing designed by Kiel Lopez-Schmidt for Granville Homes the roof line reflects the mid-century modern design of T okyo Gardens next door) could be replaced with a better example in the T ower.
a. Recommendation: Replace the photo of Fulton Village with a photo of 541 @ South T ower, which was developed in a matching art deco style.

8. Page 36. There is no discussion or information provided of how these policies fit within a health and equity framework.
a. Recommendation: Conduct the analysis and share the results.

9. Page 36. There currently is no policy in this chapter (or, the Land Use chapter or the Parks and Public Facilities chapter) that speaks to protecting the T ower Theatre as a symbol of the community and to keep it in the public realm.
a. Recommendation: Add a policy to explicitly protect the T ower Theatre as a community asset.

10. Page 36. The 1991 Plan noted the special feature of the Phoenix Palms on Belmont and other unique and potentially historic landscape features, but these are not discussed in this Update. a. Recommendation: Include information and policy to uplift these special landscape corridors.

11. Page 36. CHP 1.2 “Encourage the character of infill development to be compatible within its historic context…Consider the adoption of context-appropriate design standards, in recognition that some new housing projects may not be exempt from discretionary review.” a. Words like “encourage” and “consider” are not strong enough to ensure these policies are well-implemented. This language as it stands relies on voluntary compliance instead of creating vetted, reasonable, and predictable standards to apply to all new projects. b. Recommendation: “Encourage the character of infill development to be compatible within its historic context…Consider the adoption of Adopt context-appropriate design standards to ensure that the character of infill development will be compatible within its historic context, in recognition that some new housing projects may not be exempt from discretionary review.”

12. Page 37. CHP 1.4
a. Question: Why are some areas listed as (proposed), but the last two are not? b. Recommendation: The area bounded by Olive, Van Ness, Elizabeth, and San Pablo may be the Alhambra Tract, which may have been developed by Elizabeth Cooper. If this can be verified, it could be a nice fact to add to the Plan.

13. Page 41. CHP 2.3 and 2.4 appear to be more about standards to help new uses be compatible with conservation efforts, therefore may be better placed under Objective CHP 3. a. Recommendation: Move CHP 2.3 and CHP 2.4 to Objective CHP 3 and renumber accordingly.
34 14. Page 41. CHP 2.3 “Work with affordable housing developers to consider acquiring historic and/or vacant buildings for the creation of affordable, multifamily housing through appropriate modernization and adaptive reuse.”
a. Recommendation: Remove specifying multifamily to allow consideration other models of affordable housing, such as affordable homeownership or co-op opportunities. “Work with affordable housing developers to consider promote acquiring historic and/or vacant buildings for the creation of affordable, multifamily housing through appropriate modernization and adaptive reuse.”

15. Page 41. CHP3.1 “Work with the Historic Preservation Commission and the T ower Design Review Committee to craft design standards and guidelines as may be used for historic properties, districts and renters. Recognize that California law has eliminated discretionary authority over the review of qualifying multifamily housing and residential solar projects and that, in such instances, objective standards may be needed to maintain compatibility.”
a. Recommendation: “Work with the Historic Preservation Commission and the T ower Design Review Committee to craft design standards and guidelines as may be used for historic properties, and historic districts and renters. Recognize that California law has eliminated discretionary authority over the review of qualifying multifamily housing and residential solar projects and that, in such instances, objective standards are may be needed to maintain compatibility.”

16. Page 42. CHP 3.3 “Encourage the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings.” a. Recommendation: “Create standards and guidance to Eencourage the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings.”

17. Page 42. CHP 4.1 Examples and ideas could bolster this policy, to help visualize how it can be effectively implemented. In addition, either in this chapter or possible under the Land Use or Circulation chapters, there should be policy language to actively utilize art and placemaking as steps to address the harm and disconnection that Highway 180 caused between T ower and Downtown. These could include interpretive signage, models of the homes that used to be there, murals showing the old homes and streetcars, or something more modern and visually dynamic like the rainbow underpass at Commerce and Highway 281 in San Antonio, T exas.

This treatment could have the effect of turning these underpasses from barriers to gateways. a. Recommendation: Add a policy to transform the underpasses into welcoming and visually pleasing gateways through the use of light, art, murals, etc. 03 Land Use

1. Land Use is a critical area for the implementation of health and equity. It is concerning that this draft omitted the Implementation Committee’s vote to rezone back to residential all existing 35 homes that have industrial zoning currently applied to them. We have counted 25 dwelling units in South T ower that currently have industrial zoning applied to them. This includes 4 single family homes, 3 duplexes and 2 apartment buildings.

2. Additionally, the Central Valley Cheese Building has been a point of land use contention. During the process of the original T ower District Specific Plan, Producers Dairy negotiated industrial zoning applied to these sites adjacent to residential in exchange for several mitigation that were memorialized in a deed covenant. Those commitments were never fulfilled by the property owners and those covenants were never enforced. A copy of this covenant is attached as an exhibit to this comment letter.
a. Recommendation: That plan should include narrative about this history and update the mitigation measures to be current or strip the properties of the industrial zoning for a more appropriate zone such as Mixed Use.

3. Page 47. Figure 3.1
a. Question: Does the existing land use map add to the chapter or would having the existing General Plan Planned Land Uses be more helpful in context of the proposed changes?

4. Page 48. T op Community Priorities for Housing and Businesses • Affordable housing/ housing programs for new homeowners • Limit investment purchases of homes/ require buyers to live in their homes • Less smoke shops and liquor stores
• Streamline permitting to encourage small business
• More high density and mid density housing
a. Recommendation:
• Affordable housing/ housing programs for new homeowners • Limit investment purchases of homes/ require buyers to live in their homes • Fewer Less smoke shops and liquor stores
• Streamline permitting to encourage small business
• More high density and mid density housing Increased housing density that is still context-sensitive

5. Page 49. There is no information on what the different Land Use designations and Overlay Districts mean or why key areas were considered for land use changes. a. Recommendation: Include a summary of the purpose of each land use designation and the various overlay districts. Add information in the chapter to better explain what the application of these overlay districts will do to promote better land use outcomes in the T ower. Furthermore, add a more detailed overview of the proposed Entertainment District Overlay and how it will address certain issues within these areas.
36 6. Page 50. Figure 3.2. The Planned Land Use map does not clarify that it is the proposed land uses, not the current General Plan Land Uses. It also does not include the Steering Committee’s May 14’s recommendation. It does not propose to add new park space, which does a disservice to the community in that the T ower District is extremely park deficient.
a. Recommendation: Specify in the figure title that this is the Specific Plan Planned Land Use.
b. Recommendation: Include the Steering Committee’s recommendation to rezone existing homes and the Cheese building to non-industrial uses. This also is supported by Policy LU 2.6 and LU 2.1.
c. Recommendation: Add more park designations to the map to support opportunities to add needed park space to the T ower, especially where overlapping with the Areas of Highest Park Need.

7. Page 51. Figure 3.3 does not show which areas are already zoned with the Apartment House Overlay.
a. Update the map to shore the areas where the AH Overlay already applies.

8. Page 52. 3.4 Diverse and Affordable Housing. This section is notably thin and could be improved by including more information on relevant conditions and needs in the T ower. a. Recommendations: Recognize that T ower is one of the few places in the city that currently has a wealth of missing middle housing and a larger mix than most other neighborhoods of single-unit and multi-unit housing types. b. Recommendation: Recognize that housing affordability in T ower is especially important for the LGBTQ+ community and others who have identified as being outside the mainstream. People who are part of these communities face higher barriers to housing generally, and T ower has long stood as one of the safer neighborhoods to live in without fear of being harassed or harmed (see Nowhere to Go: Housing assessment for LGBTQ2+ people living in Fresno County). c. Recommendation: Recognize that housing conditions vary wildly within the T ower District and some parts of the neighborhood are in more dire need - from home repair and maintenance support, to addressing rental properties allowed to fall into terrible conditions from slumlords.
d. Recommendation: Examine to what extent T ower is being made less affordable due to outside investors purchasing properties and what solutions can help keep homes in the hands of people who care about and want to be a part of the T ower. 37 e. Recommendation: Discuss what kinds of innovative housing models and zoning approaches (in addition to missing middle housing) can be utilized to support more affordable housing in the T ower.

9. Page 53. 3.5 Commercial Activity. This section has a balanced narrative that does well in explaining the benefits, needs, and challenges of commercial uses, especially “entertainment” uses, in the T ower.

3.6 Industrial Employment and Compatibility .

10. Page 55 - Unlike the previous section and contrary to its title as well, there is no balanced discussion about the actual compatibility of industrial uses within the neighborhood. Without an honest examination of the legitimate issues created by the interface of industrial and residential uses, there cannot be an opportunity to create fair solutions to benefit all stakeholders. Instead the existing one-sided power structure will persist to the benefit of a few businesses at the expense of the health and safety of those who live in proximity to them. T o add insult to injury, this section lifts up a single axiom of the Health and Equity Framework - access to jobs - as if this alone should bless the status-quo. There is no discussion on how the adjacency of industrial uses also affects housing burden, active lifestyles, access to healthy food, environmental comfort, and safety. Lastly, the planners behind this work should take it upon themselves to be challenged to examine whether or not a section like this, so lacking in balance, reflects the aspirational principles held in the AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.
a. Recommendation: Revise this section to address the existing issues. Employ a more balanced narrative identifying the real tradeoffs such that a foundation can be made for informed and fair solutions.
b. Recommendation: Require any industrial use with more that 20 employees and within 100 feet of residential uses to adopt a community benefits agreement that addresses local hiring, streetscape improvements and negative impact mitigations.

11. Page 56. Figure 3.5 Access to Jobs. There is no discussion in the narrative about this map. While we may infer from the map, it would be helpful to affirm in the narrative about employment trends in the T ower, leading to a consideration of what makes the most sense in terms of promoting access to jobs.
a. Recommendation: Add a section for Economic Development, looking at this topic through the Health and Equity Framework to better understand what is the 38 appropriate Economic Development strategy to pursue for the T ower District.

Then, relate this to the application of land use designations.

12. Page 64. LU 2 “Retain and expand the existing inventory of affordable housing in the T ower District and discourage displacement of its residents.” a. Recommendation: “Retain and expand the existing inventory of affordable housing in the T ower District and discourage prevent displacement of its residents.”

13. Page 65. There is no discussion or information provided of how these policies fit within a health and equity framework.
a. Recommendation: Conduct the analysis and share the results.

14. Page 65. LU 2.2 “Enable development of well-designed “missing middle” housing within single-family and other areas. Allow small multiplex buildings with six or less units on infill sites where their massing can have a positive effect on “density tolerant” sites that include street corners, along collector and arterial streets, adjacent to open space, and on larger properties where building mass can transition in scale to adjacent single-family homes.”
a. Recommendation: “Enable development of well-designed “missing middle” housing within single-family and other residential areas. Allow small multiplex buildings with six or less units on infill sites where their massing can have a positive effect on “density tolerant” sites that include street corners, along collector and arterial streets, adjacent to open space, and on larger properties where building mass can transition in scale to adjacent single-family homes.”

15. Page 66. Policy LU 2.3 and its following text are discussing two separate issues and should be two distinct policies. LU 2.3 appears to be a carryover of Goal II Objective 1 Policy 1 and should incorporate more of the intent from the 1991 as it is still relevant. a. Recommendation: Create a new policy that, similar to the 1991, disallows auto-oriented uses and design. Meanwhile, update LU 2.3 to more accurately reflect the intent of this policy.

16. Page 66. Policy LU 2.4 “Provide building rehabilitation programs or encourage community land trusts (CLT s) and/or forms of collective ownership.” a. Recommendation: “Provide building rehabilitation programs or and encourage community land trusts (CLT s) and/or forms of collective ownership to revitalize existing buildings for affordable housing .”

17. Page 66. LU 2.5 “Encourage the application of citywide anti-displacement policies within the T ower District. Continue to work with residents to understand displacement as it occurs and how it can be better addressed. Consider strategies to strengthen 39 neighborhood stabilization policies, such as establishing a local resource center to facilitate access to tenant protection and buying assistance programs.” a. Recommendation: “Encourage Call for the application of citywide anti-displacement policies within the T ower District. Continue to work with residents to understand displacement as it occurs and how it can be better addressed. Consider Enact strategies to strengthen neighborhood stabilization policies, such as establishing a local centralized and accessible resource center to facilitate access to for tenant protection and buying assistance programs.”

18. Page 66. LU 2.6 “T o be consistent with existing use, consider rezoning of existing legal non- conforming multi-family residential uses to the density-appropriate zoning district.

Rezone property with legally non-conforming multifamily residential uses to zoning consistent with the existing use, and encourage the current number of units and the mitigation of potential impacts on surrounding residential uses and require prior review and comment by the T ower District Specific Plan Implementation Committee and the T ower District Design Committee.”
a. The second half of this text does not make sense or does not seem necessary because the units are already in place. It is unlikely that someone would tear down an existing apartment complex to build more units. In addition, the new units would still need to be reviewed by the T ower Design Review Committee. b. Recommendation: “T o be consistent with existing use, consider rezoning of existing legal non- conforming multi-family residential uses to the density-appropriate zoning district. Rezone property with legally non-conforming multifamily residential uses to zoning consistent with the existing use., and encourage the current number of units and the mitigation of potential impacts on surrounding residential uses and require prior review and comment by the T ower District Specific Plan Implementation Committee and the T ower District Design Committee.”

19. Page 67. LU 3.2 “Consider regulatory changes to reduce costs and risks associated with mixed-use and multifamily development, such as to reduce parking requirements where justified by TDM measures (see Chapter 6) and anticipated parking demand, and provide greater flexibility in addressing private open space requirements. New developments will be required to comply with Fresno Municipal Code parking standards and applicable State law.”
a. Recommendation: “Consider regulatory changes to reduce costs and risks associated with mixed-use and multi-unitfamily development, such as to reduceing parking requirements where justified by TDM measures (see Chapter 40 6) and anticipated parking demand, and provideing greater flexibility in addressing fulfilling private open space requirements. New developments will be required to comply with Fresno Municipal Code parking standards and applicable State law Consider modifying the Development Code to reduce regulatory barriers for mixed-use and multi-unit housing .”

20. Page 67. LU 3.3 “Consider ways to increase potential residential yields, such as by increasing allowable densities and building heights as appropriate.” a. Recommendation: “Consider ways updating the Development Code to increase potential residential yields, such as by increasing allowable densities and allow increased building heights, as appropriate, to improve feasibility of new commercial and residential development .”

21. Page 68. LU 3.6 “Proactively identify underutilized parcels for affordable housing and mixed-use development where appropriate. Evaluate underutilized parcels for the development of workforce and affordable housing, such as to encourage the creation of mixed-use nodes at the Shields/Maroa and Palm/McKinley intersections and replace low-intensity uses along Shields (between Fruit and Del Mar) with mixed use and multifamily development.”
a. Recommendation: “Proactively identify underutilized parcels for affordable housing and mixed-use development where appropriate. Evaluate underutilized parcels for the development of workforce and affordable housing , such as to; encourage the creation of mixed-use nodes at the Shields/Maroa and Palm/McKinley intersections and replace encourage the evolution of low-intensity uses along Shields (between Fruit and Del Mar) with into mixed use and multifamily development.”

22. Page 68. LU 4.1 It seems inappropriate for the City to provide guidance on how businesses should market themselves. This policy also implies that it’s not being done well currently.
a. Recommendation: Remove policy or revise to focus on more appropriate ways the City can support small businesses in the T ower.

23. Page 69. LU 4.5 “Encourage grocery stores that offer fresh produce and other healthful foods. Consider incentives such as streamlined permitting for changes in use and new development projects that result in grocery stores that commit to at least one fresh produce aisle.”
a. Recommendation: “Encourage grocery stores that offer fresh produce and other healthyful foods. Consider incentives such as streamlined permitting for Healthy 41 Food Grocers changes in use and new development projects that result in grocery stores that commit to at least one fresh produce aisle .”

24. Page 69. LU 5.1 “Encourage restrooms that are available to the public, such as in public buildings and parking garages. Require portable toilets at significant events.” a. Recommendation: “Encourage Provide restrooms that are available to the public, such as in public buildings and parking garages. Require portable toilets at significant events.”

25. Page 69. LU 5.2 “Utilize zoning standards to mitigate conflicts and potential noise impacts, and support business owners by providing clear sound mitigation guidelines and strategies to ensure code compliance. Appropriate noise mitigation approaches will be proposed.”
a. Recommendation: “Utilize zoning standards to mitigate conflicts and potential noise impacts, and support business owners by providing clear sound mitigation guidelines and strategies to ensure code compliance . Create a list of aAppropriate noise mitigation approaches for different scenarios that include affordable, effective options will be proposed .”

26. Page 69. LU 5.3 “Encourage increased police presence at night and during major events.”
a. Recommendation: “Encourage increased police presence at night and during major events Employ various strategies to ensure safety at night and during major events. Strategies may include increased police presence, but should prioritize other methods that are community based .”

27. Page 70. LU 5.4 There is no information about this program provided in the chapter. a. Recommendation: Include more information about this program and the proposed adjustments in the narrative of the chapter.

28. Page 70. LU 5.5 “Support the T ower Marketing Committee or other Business Improvement District (BID) or Public Business Improvement District (PBID) to support on-going commercial area marketing, organization of festivals and other events, enhanced landscape maintenance and sidewalk cleaning, graffiti abatement, and other beneficial programs.”
a. Recommendation: “Support the T ower Marketing Committee or other Business Improvement District (BID) or Public Business Improvement District (PBID) to support on-going commercial area marketing, organization of festivals and other events, enhanced landscape maintenance and sidewalk cleaning, graffiti abatement, and other beneficial programs. Support the existing T ower Marketing Committee’s involvement in these efforts and evaluate if the establishment of a 42 Business Improvement District (BID) can further support the enhancement of the District’s commercial areas.”

29. Page 70. LU 6.1 “Maintain industrial zoning for existing industrial uses, while striving to mitigate their negative effects on residential areas. Examples of mitigation can include buffering using landscaping and trees, also see policies in Chapter 4: Circulation. - Engage industrial business owners and nearby residents in dialogue regarding needs and impacts.
- Consider expanding the City’s noticing system to increase transparency and civic participation.
- Consider ways to reduce and mitigate truck traffic on surrounding residential streets, as described in Chapter 4: Circulation.
- Encourage light industrial uses to adopt improved technology. - Provide compatible transitions between light industrial and surrounding uses and consider limiting further expansion of light industrial zoning.” a. Recommendation: “Maintain industrial zoning for existing industrial uses, while striving to mitigate the their negative effects of industrial operations on adjacent residential areas. Examples of mitigation can include buffering using landscaping and trees, also see policies in Chapter 4: Circulation. - Engage industrial business owners and nearby residents in dialogue regarding needs and impacts.
- Consider expanding Enhance the City’s noticing system to increase transparency and civic participation.
- Consider ways to rReduce and mitigate truck traffic on surrounding residential streets by prohibiting trucks to travel on local streets, relocating truck parking facilities to areas with fewer impacts, and by providing adequate landscape buffering and operating hours between residential areas and areas with truck operations., as described in Chapter 4:

Circulation.
- Encourage light industrial uses to adopt improved technology. - Develop a plan and seek funding for the creation of Provide compatible transitions between light industrial and surrounding uses and consider limiting disallow any further expansion of light industrial zoning in the T ower District.
- Complete the Industrial Compatibility Study, as called for in the General Plan.”

30. LU 6.2 Allow light industrial uses to have neighborhood-serving retail. 43 a. Question: Do they not already? Which specific use is not currently allowed? This policy may be unnecessary.

31. Page LU 6.3 As written, this policy is toothless as it does not say what is to be done after monitoring the data.

32. Page 71. LU 6.4 “Significant improvements to properties should be accompanied by streetscape improvements and neighborhood landscape buffering, also see Chapter 4.

Circulation.”
a. Recommendation: “When Ssignificant improvements to are made to industrial properties, should be accompanied by require streetscape improvements and neighborhood landscape buffering,. aAlso see Chapter 4. Circulation.”

33. Page 71. LU 7 There is nothing currently in the Plan that identifies the subdistricts of the T ower nor what their needs are. In the development of subdistricts, please note that west of Palm should be identified as residents in this area have expressed feeling forgotten about in terms of neighborhood attention and improvement efforts. a. Recommendation: Add to the Plan’s narrative more information about the potential subdistricts of the T ower and what are some unique assets and needs of each.

34. LU 7.1 Consider naming Olive Avenue in this policy as well. 03a Planned Land Use Map Community Alternative

1. The current proposed Planned Land Use map makes some adjustments to promote more vibrant commercial corridors, added housing capacity, and alignment with some existing uses, however, it does not do enough to designate more park space in an area that is significantly park-deficient, nor does it do enough to promote the revitalization of the Belmont Corridor.
a. Recommendation: Accept and initiate the Community Alternative Planned Land Use Map for the T ower District. This alternative:
i. Adds additional park dual designations, which will allow more opportunities for the community to work with the City to add more park space in the T ower District. By dual designating these areas, it does not prevent them from developing as another use, should the City not be able to acquire the land for parks.
ii. Rezones existing multi-unit housing along Belmont from Light Industrial to a more compatible zone district (CMS). This is in-line with Policy LU 2.6 and the Steering Committee’s vote on 5.14.24.
44 iii. Rezones the Central Valley Cheese building from Light Industrial to a dual designation of Public Facility and CMS in order to facilitate its adaptive reuse. This allows for a fire station and/or mixed-use development. This is in-line with policies LU 2.1 and LU 3.6 and the Steering Committee’s vote on 5.14.24.
iv. Rezones areas along Palm to Business Park, which will allow existing uses to continue without placing them into non-conformity, and allows for a more appropriate land use buffer with the adjacent residential area. v. Rezones the Grain Silos to a dual designation of Business Park and Open Space to facilitate the future development of a Grain Silos Public Plaza - an artistic community space that pays homage to our agricultural roots. 03b Commercial Truck Parking Text Amendment

1. The Draft Update does not do enough to remedy the issue of truck parking uses. This was uplifted both by community members concerned about the pollution, impact on streets and street safety as well as by business interests who expressed desire for efficient and safe operations. Yet this is left undressed by the Plan. In fact, this is an issue of city-wide concern.
a. Recommendation: Initiate a text amendment alongside the Plan that will clarify where Commercial Truck Parking is allowed and what mitigation measures should apply to truck parking sites.
04 Parks and Open Space

1. Note that the chapter title and the T able of Contents do not match. The T able of Contents calls this chapter “Parks and Open Spaces.”
a. Recommendation: Update the titles to match.

2. Page 76. Figure 4.1 Instead of Planned Parks it should say Future Park as Broadway Parque is in-development. Additionally, Dickey Playground is misspelled. a. Recommendation: Replace “Planned Parks” with “Future Park” and correct the spelling of Dickey Playground.

3. Page 78 and Page 79. Figures 4.2 and 4.3 Focus on the T ower District instead of the whole city and ensure the images are not blurry and ADA accessible.

4. Page 81. Park Opportunities lists several areas where new parks and open space can be developed, but does not carry forward the concept designs of the Central Plaza from the 1991 Plan and there is also a missing opportunity to promote the adaptive reuse of the Grain Silos as a public plaza.
45 a. Recommendation: Incorporate concept designs for the Central Plaza opportunity and include Grain Silos Plaza as a public space opportunity.

5. Page 83. “Dating from 1915, the Old Administration Building has historic significance, but the community identity of the City College largely consists of parking lots as seen from public streets.”
a. Recommendation: “Dating from 1915, the Old Administration Building has historic significance, and was restored through the patient dedication of many community members. From the major street, McKinley, however, the predominant feature of the campus is its large parking lot. but the community identity of the City College largely consists of parking lots as seen from public streets.”

6. Page 86. There is no discussion or information provided of how these policies fit within a health and equity framework.
a. Recommendation: Conduct the analysis and share the results.

7. Page 89. POS 4.2 This policy would benefit from being broadened to allow for the pursuit of other ways to increase community safety.
a. Recommendation: Revise the policy to focus on utilizing a variety of safety measures, one option of which can be more police presence. 05 Circulation

1. Page 92. It would be helpful to explain how the Plan uses walkable to mean accessible. a. Recommendation: Add an acknowledgement in this Chapter (or in another if that placement is better) that “walkability” is often used interchangeably, albeit not perfectly, with “accessibility” and that when the Plan discusses places that are walkable, it is intending to mean places that are nearby and safely accessible.

2. Page 96. 5.3 Complete Streets - this section could also reference the City’s existing complete streets policy.
a. Recommendation: Add information about the City’s Complete Streets policy and how it is applied in the context of the T ower.

3. Page 96. 5.4 Placemaking and Streets. This section is well-written and highlights the vision of how placemaking for T ower’s streets can enhance quality of life.

4. Page 98. This section could be enhanced by sharing sentiment that was heard through community voices that there is a desire to extend Olive’s central energy westward to Fruit Avenue and south to Belmont Avenue. There could also be more information about the history of Belmont as the former “cruising” street and Blackstone as the former Highway 41.
46 a. Recommendation: Add more information to the text about the history of some streets and how Olive’s energy could get extended to the west.

5. Page 100. There is a paragraph that discusses how community members expressed interest in the potential of alleys, but it does not note that this was not universal. Alleys have unfortunately become “nuisance attractors” and some people would rather close them. This section could benefit from talking about how this worries can be address through an alley program and it would be helpful if there are any examples that could be shared of a success story.
a. Recommendation: Update the paragraph about alleys to be more nuanced to the positive and negative interest and provide reasoning and examples of how an alley program can address issues and benefit the community.

6. Page 107. Figure 5.5 Because the central portion of Olive has limited right of way, it may make sense to reconsider that stretch as a Class III Bike Lane.

7. Page 108. Two points are missing in this section. The first is the realization that the T ower is lacking in safe and convenient east/west connections. The second is that the Class IV bike lanes were not well-received by many in the community. While creating safe infrastructure for bicycling is important, there could be some discussion on how the City could have improved communication on infrastructure projects in the future.

8. Page 111. There is no information about cut-through traffic or issues with drunk drivers, even though these were concerns voiced by community members. a. Recommendation: Include discussion of the issues of cut-through traffic and drunk driving and share solutions that tie closely with proposed policies.

9. Page 113. 5.9 Trucks does not include a map of the truck routes, does not include information about how the rerouting will impact the T ower, does not say what uses are generating truck traffic, and does not have any discussion on the current impacts of truck traffic.
a. Recommendation: Include more detailed information in this section about current truck impacts, how the Study will improve or hinder conditions in the T ower, and what solutions are possible to reduce truck traffic impacts.

10. Page 114. 5.10 Parking and Transportation Demand Management mentions parking benefits districts, but should note that this was an idea in the 1991 Plan. A useful example of a parking district is downtown Orange.

11. Page 115. Question: Regarding truck circulation, would Belmont be impacted by trucks using it to access the 180 ramps at Fulton and Van Ness?

12. Page 116. There is no discussion or information provided of how these policies fit within a health and equity framework.
47 a. Recommendation: Conduct the analysis and share the results.

13. Page 116. C1 The Plan can promote the installation of artistic and functional shaded bike and pedestrian paths. This can be incorporated into an existing policy or added as a new on under this Objective.
a. Recommendation: Add shaded pathways in policy language.

14. Page 118. While the policies on this page are welcome, there could be more discussion of these approaches in the narrative of the chapter.
a. Recommendation: Add more information about universal accessibility, mobility hubs, etc. in the narrative of this chapter.

15. Page 118. C 1.8 “Improve transit waiting areas with better shelters, seating, and real-time arrival information.”
a. Recommendation: “Improve transit waiting areas with better shelters, shade structures, seating, and real-time arrival information.”

16. Page 120. C 4.2 deserves a special call out for the way it directly addresses an issue that was identified in the planning process and provides very tangible and clear ways to make improvements.

17. Page 120. C 4.4 “Address motorist needs and potential impacts from vehicles during special events.”
a. Recommendation: “Address roadway motorist needs and potential impacts from vehicles during special events.”
b. This policy discusses cut-through traffic, but it’s not mentioned in the narrative.

Cut-through traffic was also reportedly occurring after the bike lanes were installed.

18. Page 121. C 5.1 says to create a study about the impacts of truck traffic, but enough may already be known at this point to take more action to mitigate the impacts. a. Recommendation: Add more specific actions and interventions to this policy aside from initiating another study.

19. Page 122. C 6.2 Evaluate demand and location for bicycle parking. T o build on the multi-modal nature of the T ower District, encourage non-motorized modes of transportation. Require off-street bicycle parking with new development. a. Recommendation: “Evaluate demand and location for bicycle parking. T o build on the multi-modal nature of the T ower District, encourage non-motorized modes of transportation. Require off-street bicycle parking with new development , to be located in highly visible areas, such as in front of storefronts with wide sidewalks.”
48 20. Page 122. C 6.3 Surface parking fronting major streets. “Establish development standards that dramatically limit on-site surface parking where it fronts major streets, such as to require that at least three-quarters of a parcel’s street frontage be lined by building or community open space.”
a. Recommendations: “Establish development standards that dramatically limit Prohibit on-site surface parking where it fronts major streets in front of buildings., such as to rRequire that at least three-quarters of a parcel’s street frontage be lined by building or community open space.”

21. Page 122. C 7 Policies under this Objective might be better placed under Public and Open Spaces rather than in Circulation.
a. C 7.2 could fit under Conservation and Historic Preservation. b. C 7.4 is similar to the Green Alleys policy.

22. Page 124. C 8 Policies under this Objective might be better placed under Public and Open Spaces rather than in Circulation.

23. Page 125 “C 8.5 Plant street trees to enhance tree canopy and maintain uniformity within plan areas” The policy states “Plant street trees along sidewalks especially along Olive and Belmont Avenues and in the South T ower neighborhood…” This policy could use more specificity in relation to the identified heat islands on Figure 5.3 a. Recommendation: Add “specificity prioritize tree planting on the following street segments with the most extreme heat island effects shown in Figure 5.3 i. Weber from Thomas to Belmont
ii. H Street from Belmont to Palm
iii. Palm from Thomas to H Street
iv. Belmont from H Street to 180
v. Olive From Adoline to Palm and Broadway to Van Ness
vi. Blackstone from Dudley to Clinton
vii. Maroa from Shields to Princeton
viii. Shields from Fruit to Arthur, Harrison to Wilson and Wishon to Maroa ix. Fruit from Shields to Cornell, and Clinton to Home
x. McKinley from Harrison to Palm
xi. Wishon from Hedges to Olive
xii. Fulton from Olive to Dudley
b. Recommendation: T ower District Implementation Committee to update the heat island map with mitigations from street tree planting and new development every three years.
49 c. Add policy to “Require significant renovation projects to add street trees and parking lot trees when current shading standards are not met.” A recent example of this is the Dr. Green Thumbs renovation did not add street trees or parking lot shading despite being a significant renovation and change of use. d. Add policy to “require Industrial renovation and expansion to include street trees and shaded parking.” An example of this is despite numerous phases of expansion Producers Dairy lacks street trees on 80-90% of it street frontage and lacks adequate parking lot shading.
06 Utilities

1. Page 128. The opening paragraph of this Chapter states that “Many utilities are aging and in need of upgrades” but then does not include information on which utilities these are, where they are located, how they impact the ability of the District to grow, nor any proposed solutions to improve them. The requirement to extend roughly ¼ mile of sewer and water line nearly stopped 541 @ South T ower from starting construction. a. Recommendation: Include maps of City of Fresno utilities including water and sewer.
b. Recommendation: Note on a map existing wells in the District and determine any potential contaminants from nearby uses included truck routes, and industrial uses.
c. Identify and apply for funding to extend utilities to key opportunity sites identified in the plan to set the stage for development.

2. Page 129. Although the City does not have direct control over electricity provision, it may be worthwhile to provide information on it since it can inhibit the development of new housing units, including ADUs. It also factors into sustainability and affordability. a. Recommendation: Work with PG&E to determine priorities for transformer replacement and undergrounding of power lines.

3. 6.4 Solid Waste - Trash enclosure requirements for commercial and multifamily residential or mixed use projects can be a barrier to designing quality urban site plans. a. Recommendation: Allow for flexibility for urban developments on tight in-fill sites to utilize hand cart for solid waste, recycling and green waste rather than dumpsters. This will free up precious square footage for other uses while also encourage limiting waste produced on site.
b. Recommendation: Add publicly accessible trash cans on sidewalks throughout the commercial corridors that can be emptied with automated lift of existing 50 garbage trucks to reduce cost of trash collection and limit trash over flows and littering.

4. Broadband internet access is a key equity issue.
a. Recommendation: Identify areas of T ower District that lack broadband access.

Work with broadband providers to encourage full coverage. 07 Implementation

1. The Plan should include an implementation chapter to bring a sense of closure to the document and to be practically used as a tool for the Committee and community members to make strides on implementing the Plan. The South T ower Community Land Trust is committed to be an implementer of this plan, but it need refinement, detail and the tools for us to utilize.
a. Recommendation: Add an Implementation Chapter that includes measurement criteria to aid in the transparency and accountability in Plan implementation.

D. Other Asks

1. Commit to holding the Council adoption hearing at the T ower Theatre.

Commit to holding an evening Council meeting to allow more people to participate, especially since Zoom was taken away.

Sincerely,
South T ower Community Land Trust - Policy Committee
Kiel Lopez-Schmidt, executive director
Germán Quiñonez, community development manager
Elliot Bailey, community outreach coordinator
Jacob Bailey, board member
Casey Lauderdale, board member
Yania Escobar, board member
Edgar Salazar Velazquez, board member
Arthur Robinson
Alicia Rodriguez
Jertell Palmer
Brooke Payton
Deborah Schmidt
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 Suzanne Watkins
Greetings,
The most important point of the TDSP is to preserve the historical character of the Tower neighborhoods and our “Main Street” - Olive, enhancing our unique community. Add a Trolly - an electric street car, with tires - Olive from Fruit to Van Ness Village and back. Other good “main street” recommendations are in the plan. (Consultants: review Jane Jacobs' “The Death and Life of American Cities”).

Important for ALL goals to incorporate strategies and tactics in a Tower Strategic Plan: Improvement must take the presence of the intentionally “unhoused”, Tower “street people” (mentally ill or habitual drug users) and squatters occupying empty rentals (often starting fires, committing burglary and porch-pirate theft for drug trades) into primary consideration. Some are armed.

Too many druggies sleep, eat and use Olive Ave. and community sidewalks for a toilet - like dogs. One can’t walk to our Olive “main street” without being accosted. (Palm and Olive-major drug problem). It’s ruining tax- paying citizen’s Constitutional “pursuit of happiness.” *** On 7/30/24, the Fresno city Council passed a ban on homeless camps, to
mirror the state mandate. We don’t see this street-people problem in Fresno North!
How will this huge and on-going “street-people” problem be reflected into the Tower District Plan? Including strategies and tactics? Remember, this is an involved community of walkers, bike riders (tricycles!) and pets - and many, voting, home-owning senior citizens!
Important additions to the beloved Tower community - universally desired among residents:
~Much more police presence - squad cars in neighborhoods and bike cops on Olive and Van Ness. (***See “homeless” problems above). 64 ~ Add a branch Library - a long-empty furniture store is perfect, on Olive at Vagedes. Even has a parking lot! Many “new library” volunteers available. ~Higher-end Tower grocery store - corner of Palm/Olive or Van Ness/Olive or on a larger site on or near Belmont? Plus, these empty lots are an eyesore with a lot of drug dealing (***). Recruit retail businesses to the Tower! Infrastructure Repair:
~Fix the streets, curbs and holes in sidewalks. A lot of elderly walk on the sidewalks; some sidewalks are dangerous, uneven from street tree roots. Speed bumps to slow down the cross traffic on residential streets. ~The alleys (especially in the Adoline/Palm Historic area). Street-people use the alleys for trash dumps, camps and toilets.(***). (Tactic: Deed the still- existing alleys to property owners on each alley border. That was done on Stafford and Harrison Aves. in the 50’s - problem solved for the city!)
~Designate more Historic Districts in the Tower. (I’m willing to work on an Adoline-Palm Historic committee, and have historic preservation experience).

Thank you.
65 Dear City of Fresno,
As local business owners in the Fresno Tower area, we are writing to express our support for maintaining the industrial zoning within the Tower District. The current zoning has been instrumental in fostering a thriving business environment that not only sustains our local economy but also provides hundreds of jobs for Fresno residents, many of whom live within the Tower area.

Our businesses have flourished under the existing zoning, contributing to the economic sustainability of Fresno by creating living-wage jobs, essential tax revenue, and forming partnerships with local vendors and organizations. These relationships have further strengthened the Tower area’s economy, making it a vibrant and vital part of our city.

We believe that maintaining the existing industrial zoning will continue to support and encourage investment in our infrastructure, resulting in community improvement and sustained economic growth. By maintaining the current zoning, the City will help ensure our employees’ jobs are protected and that Fresno remains a place where businesses can thrive and contribute to the prosperity of our community for generations to come.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to working together to preserve the economic vitality and job access for the Fresno Tower community. 66 August 9, 2024
Re: Public Comment on the Draft Tower District Specific Plan The Producers Dairy team is grateful for the hard work and commitment of City of Fresno (City) staff, the Tower Committee, and the public to bring this draft Tower District Specific Plan (Plan) to fruition. We remain committed to providing input on the Plan that allows us to continue operating our family business alongside and in cooperation with the City and neighbors.

As currently proposed, the sentiments expressed in the draft Plan align with those of the 1991 Plan. The 1991 Plan acknowledged “the existing industrial and light manufacturing uses, located on the southwestern edge of the Tower District and south of Belmont Avenue, as sufficiently established and economically viable to argue that they should remain as part of the Tower District Land Use Plan.” The industrial area was identified as “having such an established industrial land use character, specifically the mid-line of the alley to the east of Palm recognized as a generally effective edge between the industrial and adjacent residential land uses.”
The Industrial Employment and Compatibility Section of the current draft Plan further acknowledges the established industrial area, stating that “The Tower District’s light industrial uses are clustered near the southwest boundary of the planning area. They bring economic vitality and employment opportunities to the community. Producers Dairy has been in the neighborhood for many decades; Producers Dairy, La Tapatia Tortilleria, and other industrial businesses are important to Fresno’s economy and provide centrally-located jobs for Fresno residents, including many who live in the District – reinforcing a primary objective of the health and equity framework to provide access to jobs.” Producers has been a member of the Tower Community for over 70 years, and we feel privileged to offer job opportunities to people living in the area; Producers employs more than 500 individuals, out of which over 300 reside within a 10-mile radius of our establishment.

Our employees have emphasized the importance of living near their workplace for a multitude of reasons including the ability to walk and bike to work, use less gas, and use public transportation.

In addition to providing access to jobs, the industrial area in Tower District provides access to healthy food, another component of the health and equity factors detailed in the plan.

Whether through a business storefront or proximity to schools, grocery stores, and hospitals, the food processed in the industrial area serves the very residents within the Tower District, students in schools, and the Central Valley.

See the specific recommendations below for revisions to the draft Plan. 67 • Page 12 - Figure 1.4 Community Character
o Recommendation: this map characterizes several properties that are currently zoned industrial as being a “Commercial Area.” To maintain consistency with the underlying zoning and the character of the area along Palm and to align with the historical zoning and previous uses of 450 E. Belmont as industrial, it is recommended to remove the “Commercial Area” designation from these parcels. • Page 37 - CHP 1.4 Revive designation efforts for previously proposed historic districts. The 1991 Tower District Specific Plan proposed several areas as potential historic districts that have not been formally listed or designated in the intervening years. The identified potential historic districts include South of Belmont, West of Broadway.
o The current policy implies that the area South of Belmont, West of Broadway was included in the 1991 Plan as a proposed historic district. However, the 1991 Plan did not specify this area as such. Pages 31-36 of the current draft Plan also do not mention South of Belmont, West of Broadway as a recommended area for consideration.
o Recommendation: The policy should be revised to clearly differentiate between areas that were previously proposed and those that were not. There needs to be clarity on the source of the recommendation regarding South of Belmont, West of Broadway. It may be appropriate to conduct further research on this area under the proposed policy 1.3 “Conduct new historic resources survey(s) of the Tower District.”
• Page 47 - Figure 3.1 Existing Land Use
o Recommendation: the map shows industrial zoned parcels as having an “existing use” of commercial. It should accurately depict these parcels as industrial, consistent with Figure 3.2 Planned Land Use (page 50), where the parcels are designated as remaining industrial.
• Page 66 - LU 2.6 To be consistent with existing use, consider rezoning of existing legal non- conforming multi-family residential uses to the density-appropriate zoning district.
o Recommendation: include verbiage at the beginning of the policy to state “when appropriate” and “with the consent of the landowner”.
• Page 70 - LU 6.1 Maintain industrial zoning for existing industrial uses, while striving to mitigate their negative effects on residential areas. o Recommendation: add the word “properties” in the policy where “industrial uses” is stated to be consistent with the zoning designation as well as the use. • Page 113 - Deteriorating Air Quality Narrative
68 o Recommendation: recommend that the narrative on page 113 be comprehensive and inclusive of the air quality improvements, while acknowledging Fresno’s commitment to this topic. Additional context is provided below.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District
https://ww2.valleyair.org/about/#:~:text=In%20the%20past%2C%2047%25%20of,5%20healt h%20standard.
“After billions of dollars of investment by Valley businesses, pioneering air quality regulations and consistent effort by Valley residents, the Valley air basin has made historic improvements in air quality. Despite natural challenges such as the geography, topography and meteorology of the air basin, which create a low capacity for air pollution, the Valley has worked its way up from nonattainment to attainment of critical health standards. Air quality in the Los Angeles area is only marginally worse than the Valley’s although about 10 times more pollution is emitted in that region. The Bay Area’s air quality is much better than the Valley’s, even though about six times more pollution is released there. Yet the Valley has reduced emissions at the same rate or better than other areas in California and set unparalleled achievement milestones in the process.”
“In the 1990s, the Valley became the first air basin classified as “serious nonattainment” to come into attainment of health standards for coarse particulate matter (PM10). In 2013, for the first time in recorded history, the Valley had zero violations of the hourly ozone standard established under the federal Clean Air Act, down from 281 violations in 1996 and seven violations in 2012. This remarkable achievement makes the Valley the first air basin in the country to improve from a designation of “extreme” nonattainment to attainment of an air pollutant. Emission reductions are required by federal and state mandates such as the Federal Clean Air Act amendments and the California Clean Air Act. Though effective air pollution control programs are still needed, past efforts have brought about a significant improvement in air quality.”
Below are graphics from the SVAPD website regarding air quality in Fresno. 69 70
https://www.iqair.com/us/usa/california/fresno
71 72
73 74
From: Doug Cords
To: Adrienne Asadoorian
Subject: RE: 245 McKinley, Fresno (Proposed NMX Zone District) Date: Thursday, August 15, 2024 6:19:29 PM

External Email: Use caution with links and attachments

Hi Adrienne,

Thanks again for taking the time to talk with me about the proposed NMX zoning yesterday and for providing the text of the zoning.

I’ve discussed it with my partners in the ownership of the building, and we are opposed to the change in zoning, if it proceeds further than this initial study.

Douglas A. Cords |
Commercial Retail Associates, Inc.

75 From: MARCO ZAMORA
To: Adrienne Asadoorian
Subject: 322 E Belmont Fresno CA 93701
Date: Monday, August 19, 2024 2:12:27 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Dear Adrienne Asadoorian,
I am writing in regards to a letter I received a few days ago and just recenlty opened it. It is in regards to my properties located at 322 E Belmont and 340 E Belmont Fresno, CA 93701.

This letter states a proposed change from the CG zoning to a Commercial Main Street zoning.

I completely oppose to this and would like to meet in this regards. I put alot of work into getring my zoning changed so I could get my Car Dealer license and have future plans for this properties with a CG zoning.

Please contact me ASAP to discuss.

Sincerely,
Marco A. Zamora
Owner of 322 and 340 E Belmont Fresno Ca 93701

76 Tower District Draft Specific Plan update input.

Apologies, I really thought I was keeping up with the Tower District Draft Specific Plan meetings but last night I learned that the public input period ended Aug 14, I guess I missed the clearly printed date and thought that input was accepted until the Plan was up for vote.

And after 41 years living in Tower, I do have some suggestions and comments. I apologize that this isn't more polished.

I moved to Tower in 1981, and I bought my house in 1987. After seeing several Planning "Don'ts" on my street and before making an offer I went to city hall for some small due diligence and asked what the office building next door was zoned for; we didn't want to wind up living next to a problem.

I was told it was zoned for "medical offices" and their operating hours would be limited to 7am-7pm, Monday-Saturday, and a legal notice process to neighboring owners would be required to change that.

Well, that's not what happened. No medical offices, a 24-hour recording studio. Churches, radio stations, illegal dispensaries, massage studios, a youth center, office machine repair, used car sales, beauty services, construction, "sovereign citizen" group, and several ongoing pre-COVID live-work situations. We mostly tried to look the other way because it was very obvious that the various owners were all having trouble keeping it rented, and vacant property is a magnet for trouble in Tower. My day job used to be the discovery of new businesses for the County of Fresno, and it became obvious even before I retired in 2016 that the demand for that kind of small office spaces has been decreasing very steadily. A few times we tried talking to the tenants, to the owners, or to the City, but it turns out that the "be a good neighbor" phrase so prominently posted in the City meetings' powerpoints isn't legally enforceable.

So when I read that the City of fresNo was looking for neighborhood input to reduce the impact of The Entertainment District on the residents, I got pretty excited. Because it's easy to be positive about the benefits of mixed use when you're not the one paying market rent (or a mortgage) to listen to the coffee shop's kitchen radio at 4 o'clock in the morning, and it looked like the City was finally going to recognize the negative impact that business can have on residents and was seeking much-needed compromise for those of us who live adjacent. I even thought that the City had finally recognized how the impact of so many drinking places in such a small area had negatively impacted the area for residents, causing many homeowners to leave the area to disinterested landlords, causing a further spiral into decay as invested residents see the disinvestment increasing and flee.

Much of the long term planning meetings was spent talking about how South Tower industrial affects residents. I saw a powerpoint slide about not wanting to repeat the mistakes of the past. Made me think of the small businesses in the 1980s on Palm behind 77 the houses, and how they closed one by one when they couldn't keep up with the theft and vandalism, and how odd to suggest trying that again now that the neighborhood is even more distressed. But I was happy to see that got dropped, so can we please talk about the negative impact on residents of South Tower commercial?

In October 2021, the American Public Health Association declared noise a public health hazard. Decades of research links noise pollution with not only sleep disruption, but also a host of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cognitive impairment, depression, and anxiety.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/california-noise-pollution- 17695268.php Studies have shown how nighttime noise levels impact health, how decades of redlining has increased noise and pollution in low income communities and fresNo is no different. Research indicates that constant exposure to noise increases the risk of heart disease by 8% and diabetes by 6%. The European Environment Agency estimated in 2020 that noise exposure causes about 12,000 premature deaths and 48,000 cases of heart disease each year in Western Europe. I hope the City does their own research on this topic.

I started looking at things other cities were doing to mitigate the impact of tourist areas.

Residential quiet zones - large posted signs delineate the noisy commercial area from the residential. Tourists aren't "forbidden" to park/walk but are encouraged to be considerate. Resident concerns are considered equal to business concerns and there are expectations that business also practices compromise. No amplified music within so many feet, hours are limited, uses are limited. Public congregating and mobile food vendors actively discouraged on residential streets.

No delivery trucks - that sounds great, because we're still learning how industrial pollution negatively affects health disparately in poor communities, but I'm not sure there's any other way to deliver to the businesses on Olive.

No idling - that would be awesome; we get so many idlers. AirBnB or apartment dwelling smokers who want heat or aircon (City ordinance 10-2002), unhoused car campers, people waiting for the recording studio, people waiting for the performers, people waiting for the event venue, Olive nightlife and event venue party cars, Lyfts and Ubers waiting for their next pickup, late night/early morning speakerphone calls, for some fully unknown reason a lot of people stop on our street to eat lunch/dinner in their cars. No idea how close to the street Taylor and Wheeler built originally but right now our duplex' front steps are 6.5 feet from the public sidewalk. So an idling car will set off our CO detectors if windows are open or conditions are right. Which is extremely frustrating at any time but especially at 3 o'clock in the morning. Limitations on side street idling would greatly improve our lives and hopefully the local air quality.

78 Traffic calming - many other cities recognize the high impact and REALLY discourage the impact of business/tourist traffic on nearby residents. Speed limits, speed humps, no turns, roads blocked into cul-de-sacs. Producers and La Tapatia truck their product out, the Olive strip trucks inventory and tourists in. The entire Tower business model relies on traffic. With the primary entertainment in Tower being traveling from Drinking Place To Drinking Place, this seems like a safety issue as well as the negative impact on quality of life. What's the plan to limit the impact of nightlife traffic on residents, and how will it be enforced? Currently Public Works sees the nightlife and the frequent/weekly events as a complete non-issue. How exactly are "Sunday streets" going to slow traffic in residential areas? It diverts the traffic INTO them. This suggestion suggests that the City may not even understand the problem that residents are experiencing.

Trash issues - the City mentioned starting a BPID to possibly fund extra trash cans but these cans aren't for the benefit of "business". They benefit everyone. Visitors, taxpayers, every business. And the only reason they are needed at all is because the City's policies and decisions have concentrated too many high-impact commercial business uses right next door to neighborhoods that have existed for over a hundred years. This is the City's issue to address. I mean, at least have all vendors label all to-go food containers so we know whose customers to blame for the trash and have them pay, if you're going to look for problems instead of solutions. Attached is a screenshot of how neighborly and cooperative a local business owner feels on this issue (from the Facebook Tower anti-crime forum).

Public restrooms are an issue. A big issue. The age of Tower buildings mean that their restrooms are small and non ADA compliant. Having street vendors naturally encourages more time in the street and more street crowds. The lack of proper facilities mean that many visitors are exposing themselves in public and trespassing, and once again, nearby residents are left to clean up Tower nightlife mess, but this time it's also a biohazard. It's also an unpleasant thing to witness should you happen to look out of your own front room window. I realize the City doesn't want to fund the nightmare a public restroom facility would be and all the businesses are going to play "Not it!" but something has to be done because it's not acceptable that tourists are literally peeing on the street and in our driveways. What is the plan to address this fragrant issue?

Policing - most cities seem to find congregated drunken pedestrians and those who prey upon them a serious concern. The meetings repeatedly mention that mixed use is good for "having eyes" on business for security reasons, but this just makes residents unpaid security. What do the residents get from this arrangement? We get spillover crime from the booming "robbing Tower tourists" industry, and we already spend weekend mornings picking up nightlife garbage and broken auto glass. What is the Tower plan to reduce the nightly thriving crime enterprise that comes for the tourists but stays for the residents?

Parking - every touristy area seems to handle parking differently though they all do have a parking plan; what is the plan for Tower? At one meeting, a subcommittee member mentioned officially addressing the parking on the shared schools issue because on game 79 nights she can't park in front of her own house and I'm wondering how other Tower residents can get in on that? Because the former antique store is now a four-hundred person event venue with only 20 parking spaces that are shared with 4 other businesses.

And the 14-unit apartments where half the tenants were car-free and used the public transit FAX stop right out front, is now an airbnb with 19 units, zero off-street parking, and multiple cars per unit. The 24-hour business location has a small parking lot but the gate is heavy and noisy so they park on the residential side street because Fulton cars get their windows broken overnight. It's a rare day when we can park in front of our own house regardless of "game nights", and the car alarms are chirping on, chirping off, and alerting to broken windows or traffic or heavy bass TWENTY FOUR HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK. And then add on event traffic, and weekend nightlife traffic, and parking is difficult for everyone in Tower. So not only is our street parking limited, our driveways and the fire hydrant are blocked regularly. What exactly is considered a parking issue worth addressing in Tower, and how do we apply for equity? Approving projects without any parking doesn't seem to be forcing residents out of their cars, it's just aggravating the existing parking problem and no solutions are being offered.

Consideration for commercial use immediately adjacent to residential; limited hours, limited low-impact uses. One of the public speakers at an early meeting mentioned that she thought it would be nice to have a "cobbler shop" a "couple doors down." Great! But I noticed that she DIDN'T say "next door". Next door bears the brunt. The house next door gets to hear the industrial leather sewing machines at whatever hours, the house next door gets to smell the glue and the chemicals, the house next door gets their City trash cans stolen by the fellows who think they found treasure in the cobbler's garbage, the house next door gets their driveway blocked by customers and their packages misdelivered or stolen in all the business traffic. A few actual examples we've experienced though I'm using cobbler shop language. The more successful the business, the more direct the impact on "next door".

There's always going to be a border between residential and business/commercial, and they will always have slightly competing interests - peaceful enjoyment and property values vs the "right to make a living however I see fit!" How the City treats that border affects residents far more than commercial, but the topics of these meetings don't seem to find any distinction between Olive-adjacent and Olive-distant. There's a difference between Tower living on Yosemite/Olive and Tower living on Lucerne/Hedges - both pay a mortgage, both pay taxes, both enjoy the benefits of "mixed-use" but only one has their property values and quality of life negatively impacted daily by City policies and decisions regarding mixed use and business friendly. Detention is a much different kind of neighbor than the bank was. The City "ambassadors" relocate the unhoused off Olive away from commercial, and the immediately adjacent residential streets are where they stay until they can venture back. That's just moving a City problem from a business to a resident when the City should be addressing the issue instead. The City says they want families to live here, but codifying ongoing nuisances like residential CMS isn't "family-friendly" in the 80 slightest. Is the impact to be limited for some or for all? Who decides who gets equity, and what does it look like?

So what is fresNo doing here - is this project an effort to make Tower a nice place to coexist with mixed-use, or are we continuing the current practice of being business-forward and only a nice place to live for some people?

Because I've been listening pretty closely to these meetings and the only changes I've heard mentioned, besides the official discouragement of industrial next to residential (which seems like a no brainer BUT sadly seems related to the lawsuits re further industrializing the west side and Bonta criticizing the County's General Plan) have been loosening the noise regulations and reassigning everything to commercial main street, which actually *increases* the impact on neighbors since it seems to reduce the restrictions on high impact activities.

The City continues redlining by promoting the wealthier areas like Porter Tract, Wilson Island, Wilson North, etc., when fresNo owes so much to her working class and little neighborhoods like Bloomington and the Dunbar Tracts. And while promoting Porter/Wilson and at long last acknowledging the impact of industrial and commercial on south Tower, the City also rezones the houses of Dunbar Tract to "main street commercial" - I was horrified to see in the presentations that Dennett and Yosemite were as commercially-purple as Olive. Dunbar Tract was advertising cement walks, curbed streets, and electric lights as early as 1909, which is how long this has been residential. We're being further punished for our financial inability to garner the necessary influence to keep greedy developers at bay for 115 years, because making these blocks commercial doesn't seem to benefit the residents at all, so who IS the planned beneficiary? Who requested this devaluation of our neighborhood?

There is history everywhere one cares to look in Tower, not just on the north side of Olive:

Dunbar Tracts were platted in the 1890s and had curbs and sidewalks by 1909, 831 Dennett was the Dunbar residence. 858/856 Dennett was built in 1938 by noted locals Taylor and Wheeler. 806 has been owned by the Crill family since 1953. 811 was built by Henry Gede in 1912 for Dr. Frank McMahon, "prominent fraternal man"; Chris P. Jensen, elected Fresno County Surveyor in 1919 lived there until his death in 1937. His wife lived there until her death in 1967. 1047 Fulton was once one of "Fresno's Fine Apartment Homes" (Fresno Morning Republican, June 10 1923), the Ryan Felchlin Apartments, currently the Carleton, was built by R F Felchlin who also constructed the Bank of Italy building, the San Joaquin Light and Power building, and the Burnett Sanitarium among others. These historic residences are now zoned commercial.

The City mentions "equity" in nearly every powerpoint; where is the equity in that? The City mentions not wanting to repeat the mistakes of the past"; how is this not exactly that? Rezoning 100+ year-old houses to commercial does not solve the problem; there will ALWAYS be a house next to a business in Tower. The houses were there first. The 81 commercial designation negatively affects property values. Unrestricted business activity negatively affects property values. One of the pro-industrial speakers said with regard to Producers that it isn't fair for the City to change land use without the property owner's permission, yet the City is doing just that to residents, constructively. Because favoring high impact business uses that aren't resident- or family-friendly effectively changes the land usage for all the nearby residents, as it also devalues their homes, which for many families is their primary asset as well as residence.

It is ironic that these same meetings that discuss removing commercial zoning and its negative effects from South Tower residential are apparently ADDING commercial zoning to Olive-adjacent South Tower residential, instead of removing the noncompatible business use sites that were inflicted on Tower residents during fresNo's corrupt developer years. The City also talks about needing more housing; it seems clear that with the decreasing need for small offices/retail sites that these can quickly be flipped to housing since they are already located among residences anyway. Yet the City's suggestion here is to remove existing housing for the benefit of some possible future business when business-use vacancies continue to plague Tower. Even the super cute work-live spaces on Fulton near Belmont don't seem to be utilized as designed. The houses on Yosemite and Dennett should be immediately rezoned back to residential; it's the noncompatible business spaces that should be rezoned especially now that housing is so desperately needed that we're planning to dwarf our beloved theater with 3-story balconied apartments looming over our little backyards. (Balconies over the street or a courtyard are awesome, balconies overlooking other people's houses and yards are intrusive and noisy, ask me how I know.) It makes more sense to concentrate commercial near the freeway and HSR instead of expanding into residential off Olive. Converting housing to commercial use isn't sensitive to existing use nor is it historic preservation, it's a throwback to our ReZone days.

The Commercial Main Street designation seems to mean "anything goes unless you need a liquor license" but with no apparent limits on business types and no definition of or prohibition of a "nuisance", what options are open to neighbors at that point? The standard California real estate seller disclosure forms describe a lot of Tower's unrestricted business activity and this literally affects our property values: "litter" "odor" "noise" "restaurants" "generators" "parking congestion" "entertainment facilities" "parades or fairs", etc. The City has decided the mobile vendors have no impact as long as they are 100 feet from a residence. Opinions vary. We are 500+ from Olive and Wishon and I got out of bed at 1:38 a.m. to see whose music was rattling my windows so hard it woke me. We're 400+ feet from The Golden but we can hear them cleaning grease traps in the parking lot at 1am, then ScrubCan comes at 4 a.m., then the Waste Management dumpsters start getting picked up. The daily logistics of Tower are already noisy; mitigating the things that CAN be mitigated seems like the very least the City can do to support residents of the neighborhood. The City is ensuring that Tower property owners have a lot of disclosures to list, literally negatively impacting hundreds of property values, and property values determine the tax base, a vicious declining circle.
82 Unless the City plans to put itself into the business of mediating disturbing activities, the CMS designation looks like it will be pretty much anything goes. I see the benefit to commercial, they will have fewer restrictions on location, and I see the benefit to the City, they won't have to worry about enforcement, but where is the benefit to residents? Where is the reduced impact on residents that the City told us was the reason for this plan?

What is the plan for enforcement of the limited impact? Self-reporting? The honor system? The current frustratingly ineffective "wait to see if a neighbor complains so many times that we can no longer ignore them", because nearly every Tower resident has a story about calling the City without receiving an appropriate response? Or will the City actually take affirmative, proactive steps - decibel meters, parking enforcement, increased patrols to address the crime the "entertainment district" brings its residents? Will the City be adding mobile vendor, noise, parking, traffic, noncompliant, unhoused complaint abilities to the fresGo app so that metrics can be collected and these issues can be recorded, tracked, and resolved? The City should be PROactive on this, not reactive. As we apparently learned from the smoke shops, not every business is a good fit for the neighborhood.

Hearing a lot about expanding business but not much about actually limiting the impact on residents. First entertainment district meeting was last summer. Since then I've contacted City of fresNo with concerns several times on these very same topics we're discussing that have a big impact on the residents, and the response has consistently been pretty chilly.

So a big question I have is, exactly how is this going to be any different?

Feels like the City is very much changing the nature of the neighborhood by greatly expanding the impact of the business aspect, even as you say we desperately need more housing, and is just going through these motions while planning to continue to ignore resident concerns. And it's frustrating, because you're literally telling us you're planning to make this historic neighborhood a weekend party event center, and I've seen that the City understands how events impact nearby residents when it's Woodward Park concerts or Christmas Tree Lane or the Big fresNo Fair. But this process has been pretty silent on minimizing impact for Tower, and separate from this process, the City's stance seems to affirm that Business Is Always First, regardless of resident concerns - traffic, noise, not even a chronic perpetual event will merit mitigation for Tower. Turning Dennett into Olive one day per week plus the standard events is very much negatively changing the character of the neighborhood yet local electeds and Public Works continues to blow us off with "speed hump" petition referrals instead of bothering to actually listen to our concerns.

Park space: we've lost access to Roeding, we've lost park space to the zoo & HSR. Given that the City has devalued that area by letting that little neighborhood crash and deteriorate around people's homes, the City should buy those few remaining houses across from the tennis courts and convert them to a public use or donate to a community group that serves the unhoused. Neighbors complain that San Pablo park is often unavailable for kids due to drug use and unhoused camping; Broadway Parque is 83 desperately needed but what is the City's plan to keep the park available to all when we've already got the unhoused "sitting, sleeping, and lying" in our own front yards, and how will this be different from how things are now?

Where feasible, alleyways should be returned to the adjacent homeowner. Until fresNo gets her unhoused issues under control, "green alleys" as park space invites trouble directly to homeowners and residents.

Incentivize converting nonconforming or problematic business locations into housing where feasible with grants.

Incentivize resident-friendly mitigation and updates for business with grants.

Require securing vacant buildings or vacant property from unhoused campers. Require securing commercial garbage and dumpsters from vandalism and theft. I fully understand why people are picking out recyclables but the nuisance is that this overnight practice is often a cover for other types of theft, and the process is noisy and messy and concentrated in a small area, the people who come to pick cans on Olive often leave a noticeable trail through the residential areas.

Recognize during this plan update process that our bedrooms and living spaces are often only feet from the road or the public sidewalk. It's the nature of the historic neighborhood.

And in the City's perpetual game of "the (airport, train tracks, mall, freeway) was there first!" we were already here.

Recognize and address light trespass from the installation of the (very needed) security lighting in Tower, the lighting for commercial buildings should NOT be lighting up residences. Dark Sky initiatives are a thing.

Address the number of problematic transitional/halfway/care/boarding homes that are concentrated in Tower. A notice and complaint process for problematic residents that are affecting neighbors.

It's a free country so landlords can rent to anyone and people can live anywhere, but it would be nice if landlords were encouraged to commit to not renting to gangbangers and other problematic individuals. Maybe create a City process to track and address the neighborhood nuisances.

A discovery and followup process for City business licenses in Tower. I have learned though experience that Tower business owners are often vocal about the benefit to Tower that they believe their business brings, but they don't actually hold a City business license to operate. How can the City ensure their business activities are compliant when the City doesn't even know they exist? This is unfair to those who are operating under their City license. How much more funding would be available if everyone who was supposed to pay 84 actually paid their fair share? Discovery of missing licenses should be something the City was already doing, but especially in Tower where business is a heavy user of City services.

The cost of policing the rowdy area the City is creating here should be factored in up front.

There was already drinking and nightlife, then the City added mobile vendors, who apparently don't have the same noise restrictions as brick and mortar establishments and serve beverages but don't have restrooms. The City's decision to allow free for all drinking brings rowdy traffic and rowdy behavior, none of the plan seems to address any of that.

I hope it's very clear that we're not complaining about the vibrant nightlife but about the traffic and the disorderly behavior on the streets that spills over to residents. We enjoy the nightlife and the community events and want them to continue. We are begging the City to recognize the negative impact that the "entertainment district" can have on the taxpaying residents and their families who live immediately adjacent and to take some reasonable proactive mitigation measures on so many of these issues that ARE able to be mitigated.

Diana Diehl

District 3 resident since 1981

85 From: Peter Cohen
To: Adrienne Asadoorian
Subject: Comments on the Tower District Specific Plan
Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 10:57:45 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Recently, my wife, son and I had dinner at Sequoia Brewing. We then walked over to see the Tower Theater and were surprised to find that the city was there handling out copies of the Tower District Specific Plan.

Thank you for that. It is rare that a city will make that kind of effort to get a Specific or General Plan out into the hands of the public.

My son lives in the South Tower district in a house jointly owned by my wife, my son and me, but I actually live in the Bay Area, in Pleasanton.

I
would like to share some observations on the Tower District Specific Plan and what I have learned from similar initiatives in Pleasanton.

It’s HOT in Fresno. While I applaud the intention of the City to plant trees and try to mitigate heat islands, I think it is naïve to believe that people will willingly walk places in a hot climate when they could get there in an air-conditioned car.

Do not make it hard to park. I have stopped doing business in cities where it is inconvenient or expensive to park. When we go out to dinner, we typically drive 7 miles to Livermore rather than deal with the lack of parking in our own downtown.

If you want to keep parking spaces
available, create and enforce 30-minute or 1 hour parking zones. Do not charge for parking.

Public transportation needs to go directly to the rider’s destination.

While we usually take BART when travelling to downtown San Francisco, we are not willing to use it when a series of bus trips will also be required.

In today’s society, a high level of productivity is expected of us. When you add the time to walk to and from a bus stop and the travel time to take multiple buses, it is often not time-efficient to do anything but drive.

Only install bike lanes if they will actually be used by people trying to get somewhere. If the percentage of Tower District residents who do not have a car is accurate, there could well be a demand for bike lanes and they would be justified. I do not see many bicyclists when I am driving in the Tower District.

In my town, the bike lanes are rarely used and then,
mostly by people riding for exercise. People who need to get somewhere should not be delayed by riders who are simply out for exercise. eter Cohen
86 July 30th, 2024 Tower District Specific Plan Implementation Committee Meeting Public Comment
Public Comment
- Health and Equity section avoids racial equity
- Concerns over downzoning areas regarding racial equity - No mention of health and equity impacts
- Concern over truck traffic
Public Comment
- No mention of how plan will address unhoused community - Want a grocery store and library in Tower
Public Comment
- Plan fails to address inequity in South Tower
- Plan does not give tools to address public housing (affordable housing) Public Comment
- How was the committee formed?
- Want more open space opportunities
- Question on how community members can continue engaging on events in the Tower District 87 August 20th, 2024 Tower District Specific Plan Implementation Committee Meeting Public Comment
Marco Zamora
- Received a letter regarding the change in land use on his property - He initially changed the zoning of property and its proposed now for CMS, not in agreement with the change in zoning
- Would like to keep his zoning the way it is and it allows for his future plans - Also questioning why he is the only property on the map that has a proposal for rezoning - Producers cheese factory – why does plan not talk about this. It causes pollution and dust and truck traffic but they aren’t being proposed for a land use change - Wants to keep his zoning the way it is. Will continue to attend meetings and get informed and do whatever it takes to keep zoning CG
- 322 and 340 E Belmont
Public Comment
- Problem is with text and maps not zoning
- Need to reflect whats on the ground and especially when it comes to industrial uses - Residential uses zoned industrial:
o 363 N Palm
o 365 N Palm
o 240 E Franklin
o 238 E Franklin
o 236 E Franklin
o 234 E Franklin
o 342 N Palm
o 332 N Palm
o 444 N Ferger
o 441 N Roosevelt
o 462 N Yosemite, units ABCDEFGHI
o 450 N Yosemite
o 452 N Yosemite
o 454 N Yosemite
o 456 N Yosemite
o 458 N Yosemite
o 460 N Yosemite
o 348 N Palm (no longer a home – was demolished and purchased by patton) - Whole triangle that is producers used to also be homes, in the next 30 years how far with this go?
- Zoning changes after CEQA are difficult, want to reflect whats on the ground and we need to do that consistently not just in historically designated areas and north of olive, need to also do this south of olive. Policy fails to do this and needs to do that before 88 Daniel Brannick
- Thank you for comments and skepticism, mad at certain parts of plan and appreciate trying to be part of the solution
- Would rather move forward slowly then move backwards faster - Don’t allow planners and Director to gaslight you into moving this along faster - Hasn’t submitted any comments but may get around to it - Unfortunate seeing things like health and equity get left off Kiel Lopez Schmidt
- Had hopes of this plan and this plan does not address issues with South Tower - Broken promises in plan, need to find ways of adding housing to the neighborhoods - We have areas north of olive that are proposed for down zoning to protect housing which is not okay
- This did not happen overnight, the policies came from 1991 plan - Need to put policies in place that protect areas such as South Tower and adding affordable housing
- Plan does not address utility issues
- Going to continue working on these things and do ore and find ways to control injustices Scott Shehady
- With producers dairy
- Has been conducting one on one meetings with residents and businesses to actively work with community
- Actively working to re-route truck traffic in residential areas - Delivered 38,000 bottles of water to the community due to extreme heat - Also hosting a blood drive in a couple weeks
- Want to recognize the work of the committee
Miguel Arias
- In his experience, everyone wants to slow traffic in their neighborhood and speed it up somewhere else
- Also in his experience everyone wants to create more housing opportunities, just not in their neighborhood
- Noticed the plan downzones historic neighborhoods and those represent largest lots in the neighborhoods
- Bigger lots means more space and more space for more housing - We are in a housing crisis and people need somewhere to go 89 - If we are going to downzone biggest lots in district and not make it available to affordable housing
- Upzoning makes sense along high transit corridors, if we are looking at downzone we should look at more areas not just smaller areas
- Lets embrace more housing
Juan Camarillo
- Thank you for trying to get this plan as perfect as possible - Want to thank the chairperson for his passion on parks section - Got into meetings a bit late and he got interested because he has daughters and wants more park space in the area and not drive 15 minutes away to parks - We have to try to get short term solutions in our schools so they can be open to us and better communicate to the public
- Another thing is closing off streets, has seen in Mexico that once a week downtowns close streets
- Went to Tower Porch fest and saw hundreds of bikes and saw the potential – want something like this to close van ness for 4 hours on a Saturday
- These things could help the community engage with one another - Doesn’t understand why we give preference to cars
Brooke Payton
- In land use policy if it could be stated any where that we want mixed use for the purpose for a museum and library annex or a library and a museum
- Wants more strength behind desire for a library throughout the entire document 90 September 3rd, 2024 Tower District Specific Plan Implementation Committee Meeting Public Comment
Daniel Brannick
- Are dual designations just for park and public open space or park, public open space, and public facility?
Lynn Owens
- Would like to be able to participate in adding a mother-in-law unit and asked if the Committee received training.
91 September 9th, 2024 Tower District Specific Plan Implementation Committee Meeting Public Comment
Alex Bellinger
- Highlighted the importance of integrating parks and public facilities into schools
- Advocate for safe access to schools and enhance
sidewalks.
- Emphasized the need to focus on infrastructure for infill development in schools
- Re-purposing existing spaces for parks
- Determine the appropriate class of trucks for roads
- Issue a request for tree maintenance proposals
Aldi Ramirez
- Want to discuss the Committee’s recommendation to rezone legal non-conforming uses, which Producers does not support
- Want to honor the separation between residential and industrial areas by adding landscaping and trees
- They have been involved in the truck re-route study
- Want to invite everyone to their blood drive on Saturday 9/14 92 September 17th, 2024 Tower District Specific Plan Implementation Committee Meeting Public Comment
Daniel Brannick
- Dropping off an alternative land use map for consideration which is based off staffs recommendations and South Tower public comment letter. Will drop off a copy to staff and submit a comment to Council
- Blue areas are staffs recommendation, magenta areas are community alternatives. Also requesting dual designation for park sites
93