April 23, 2025
Via Electronic Mail
Fresno City Council
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]
Re: Agenda Item 1, Project ID 25-373, Consideration of Plan Amendment Application No. P23-03006, Rezone Application No. P23-03006 and related Environmental Assessment
To the Fresno City Council:
We are writing on behalf of the Central Valley Urban Institute in strong opposition to Agenda Item 1, Project ID 25-373, which relates to Plan Amendment Application No. P23-03006, Rezone Application No. P23-03006 and the related Environmental Assessment. This proposal once again proposes a zoning change for a parcel that has been the subject of extended controversy for years.
This is the latest attempt to undermine the community-created Southwest Fresno Specific Plan by business owners that operate on the Elm Avenue property and seek to increase industrial use despite strong community opposition and serious environmental concerns. As with previous efforts, this proposal does not address the loss of land available for housing development that is required by SB 330, did not go through the required community input process, and violates numerous fair housing laws. The City Council should follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation and deny the proposal.
Previous efforts to make these changes include File ID # 21-206, wherein the business owners requested a rezone for the entire 92-acre parcel on Elm Avenue from Neighborhood Mixed Use to Light Industrial. This proposal was considered by the Planning Commission on September 1, 2021 and was the subject of vehement public opposition because it directly conflicts with the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan goal of reducing industrial uses in this neighborhood. When that effort initially failed, the City worked with the business owners on a series of thinly veiled efforts to avoid public scrutiny by allowing the zone change through city-wide ordinance, including a proposed Overlay District that would have allowed these same businesses to expand on this parcel without a parcel-
specific zoning change. When that effort failed, another version of this proposal was put forward and rejected by the District 3 Committee in October 2024. This letter outlines the legal obligations that are implicated by the newest version of the proposed zone change currently before the Planning Commission, and explains why the Commission should reject the proposal to avoid violating multiple federal and state laws.
Enclosed is the opposition letter that was submitted to the Planning Commission, where the proposal was considered, and ultimately recommended for denial, on April 16, 2025. The letter submitted to the Planning Commission, and all of its arguments contained therein, are incorporated herein to be considered and reviewed by the City Council.
I. The proposal violates the City’s duty under SB 330 because the proposal lessens housing intensity and no other proposal adequately makes up for it.
The City of Fresno is prohibited from taking any zoning action that would reduce the ability to develop housing on a given parcel. Gov’t Code § 66300(b)(1)(A). Specifically, the provision identified as SB 330, codified at Government Code section 66300(b)(1), provides that “with respect to land where housing is an allowable use, an affected county or an affected city shall not enact a development policy, standard, or condition that would have any of the following effects:… lessen the intensity of housing.” The documents supporting the rezone proposal acknowledge SB 330’s legal constraint but do not present any specific solution to complying with it.
Project ID 25-472, Text Amendment Application No. P24-00794 and related Environmental Finding for Environmental Assessment No. P24-00794 (the “Ministerial Text Amendment”), could not comply with SB 330’s housing capacity requirement in application to the rezone proposal because the City has already continued the item to another City Council meeting, and therefore, the item could not be passed concurrently with the subject Elm Ave rezone item, Project ID 25-373. Even if both items were considered in the same meeting, the Ministerial Text Amendment would still not cure the Elm Ave rezone SB 330’s problem because the City of Fresno’s Housing Element has already required the City to implement an identical program to expand residential capacity into the City’s Office Zone. The City cannot “double dip” a program that is required by the Housing Element to also remedy the loss of housing intensity from a subsequently considered zoning change.
An additional problem with trying to shoe-horn in the Ministerial Text Amendment to solve the expected loss of housing intensity from the proposed Elm Ave rezone is that the available analysis of the text amendment’s impact does not directly address residential capacity, the key component to analyzing SB 330’s requirement. The available analysis, primarily from an Environmental Assessment conducted by Precision Civil Engineering, Inc., who also aided the application for the Elm Ave rezone, focuses on speculative “build out” numbers over the next 30 years. The analysis of “build out” numbers over 30 years does not coherently address what changes to new residential capacity, which are needed to satisfy SB 330, come from the text amendment, if any. Without adequate analysis of residential capacity, the City is not presented with the requisite information to
determine that there would be no net loss of housing from passing these items. Even if the timing issue and “double dipping” issue were not impediments, the City would act imprudently in relying on the Ministerial Text Amendment’s analysis of changes to residential capacity, or lack thereof, to find Elm Ave rezone would result in no net loss of housing.
It should be noted that in its Housing Element the City optimistically estimated that an identical program providing ministerial approval would “create additional capacity” of 2,500 residential units by December 2031. (Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional 2023-2031 Housing Element, Adopted December 12, 2024, at 1E-1-11.) As noted by the applicant in its submission to the Planning Commission, in the applicant’s own analysis, the loss of housing units from the rezone would amount to 3,540. (See Planning Commission Agenda 4/16/2025, ID 25-372, Exhibit F, FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE FINDINGS PLAN AMENDMENT-REZONE APPLICATION NO. P23-03006.) Despite the other issues, there is a clear deficit in residential housing capacity in these numbers, and thus, facially, the ministerial approval text amendment does not remedy the Elm Ave rezone’s SB 330 problem.
II. The April 24, 2025, City Council Agenda confusingly suggests the subject proposal is continued to the City Council’s May 1, 2025, Meeting, potentially limiting public participation in this process.
As seen on pages 7 and 8 of the City Council’s April 24, 2025, Agenda, item ID 25-472, is modified as continued to May 1, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. The next agenda item immediately below is the subject proposal, to be heard at 5:35 p.m. It would not be difficult to interpret that the subject proposal is also continued to May 1, 2025, given its proximity in position on the agenda and in time (both set in the evening) to the item that is continued. With the City’s resources and personnel, there could have been a less ambiguous execution to differentiate the scheduling for item ID 25-472. Given the contentious history of the subject item, and what is at stake for the Southwest Fresno community, it was obvious this item deserved the City’s full attention. Unfortunately, suspicious slip ups such as this sow distrust among invested members of this community.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons above, and those incorporated from the enclosed letter originally submitted to the Planning Commission, the City Council should reject the proposed rezone. Any other course of action would violate numerous legal obligations. If the proposal is approved by the City, Central Valley Urban Institute will be forced to consider all available legal remedies. Thank you for your consideration of these critical issues. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] with any questions about the issues raised in this letter.
///
///
April 15, 2025
Via Electronic Mail
Fresno Planning Commission
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Re: Agenda Item VIII-A, Project ID 25-372, Consideration of Plan Amendment Application No. P23-03006, Rezone Application No. P23-03006 and related Environmental Assessment
To the Fresno Planning Commission:
We are writing on behalf of the Central Valley Urban Institute in strong opposition to Agenda Item VIII-A, Project ID 25-372, which relates to Plan Amendment Application No. P23-03006, Rezone Application No. P23-03006 and the related Environmental Assessment. This proposal once again proposes a zoning change for a parcel that has been the subject of extended controversy for years.
This is the latest attempt to undermine the community-created Southwest Fresno Specific Plan by business owners that operate on the Elm Avenue property and seek to increase industrial use despite strong community opposition and serious environmental concerns. As with previous efforts, this proposal does not address the loss of land available for housing development that is required by SB 330, did not go through the required community input process, and violates numerous fair housing laws. It should be rejected.
Previous efforts to make these changes include File ID # 21-206, wherein the business owners requested a rezone for the entire 92-acre parcel on Elm Avenue from Neighborhood Mixed Use to Light Industrial. This proposal was considered by the Planning Commission on September 1, 2021 and was the subject of vehement public opposition because it directly conflicts with the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan goal of reducing industrial uses in this neighborhood. When that effort initially failed, the City worked with the business owners on a series of thinly veiled efforts to avoid public scrutiny by allowing the zone change through city-wide ordinance, including a proposed Overlay District that would have allowed these same businesses to expand on this parcel without a parcel-