Exhibit X
Land Use Change Requests Summary
(Presented to Planning Commission)
Planning Commission
October 2, 2025
Information Packet
ITEMS
File ID 25-1216
Public hearing to consider the adoption of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan and related Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2019069117). The following applications have been filed and pertain to approximately 7,077 acres in the Development Area-1 North Development Area.
Contents of Supplement:
Supplemental Exhibit Q – Land Use Change Requests
Supplemental Information:
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the Commission after the Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets.
Supplemental Packets are produced as needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, 2600 Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2). In addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the Planning Commission meeting in the City Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available online on the City Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language interpreters, assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meeting. Please call City Clerk's Office at 621 -7650. Please keep t he doorways, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open and accessible. If you need assistance with seating because of a disability, please see Security.
Supplemental Exhibit S
·|}þ
·|}þ
Brawley
Shields
Grantland
Hayes
M
arks
Cornelia
Ashlan
Shaw
Bullard
Herndon
Dakota
Gettysburg
Barstow
Sierra
Bryan
Polk
Valentine
Blythe
Clinton
Garfield
McKinley
1 2
4 5
99 99
Planning & Development Department
®
West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Planned Land Use
Disclaimer:
This map is believed to be an accurate representation
of the City of Fresno GIS data, however we make no
warranties either expressed or implied for correctness
of this data.
Legend
City Limits
West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
Sphere of Influence
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density (1-3.5 D.U./acre)
Medium Low Density (3.5-6 D.U./acre)
Medium Density (5.0-12 D.U./acre)
Medium High Density (12-16 D.U./acre)
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 D.U./acre)
High Density (30-45 D.U./acre)
COMMERCIAL
Community
Recreation
General
Regional
EMPLOYMENT
Office
Business Park
Light Industrial
MIXED USE
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Corridor/Center Mixed Use
Regional Mixed Use
OPEN SPACE
Community Park
Neighborhood Park
Open Space
Park
Ponding Basin
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public/Quasi-public Facility
Special School
Elementary School
Elementary & High School
High School
Church
Fire Station
0 10.5 Miles
3 6
WANSP Land Use Change Requests | October 1, 2025
1 Request 1
APNs City/ County Requested by
511-220-30S
511-220-31S
511-220-32S
511-220-33S
511-220-34S
County Jeff Roberts
PLU Request Zoning Request Same as General Plan?
Residential Medium
Density to Residential
Medium High
RS-5 to RM-1 Yes
Total Acreage Housing Capacity Impact Park Impact
19.65 Gain of 78 units of capacity No impact
First Proposed: 2019 Map
Staff Comments: The request is to keep existing General Plan PLU of RM-1 due to plans in progress to develop the site with housing. While this area is currently in the County, it is located in an area that is substantially surrounded by urban growth, therefore the addition of housing could potentially support LUH Goal 6 without detriment to the Plan's goals for orderly development.
WANSP Land Use Change Requests | October 1, 2025
2 Request 2
APNs City/ County Requested by
512-032-03 City Mike Chielpegian
PLU Request Zoning Request Same as General Plan?
Neighborhood Park to
Residential High Density No change Yes
Total Acreage Housing Capacity Impact Park Impact
19.24 No impact Loss of designation for
19.24 acres
First Proposed: 2023 Map
Staff Comments: The commenter is requesting to remove the Neighborhood Park PLU from the property while retaining the RM-3 zoning. The commenter makes three arguments against the change:
1) That the proposed application of the park designation is inconsistent with the General Plan, the Specific Plan, and the Specific Plan EIR. The proposed change is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Specific Plan EIR. The General Plan anticipates the refinement of the West Area through further planning efforts, including through a Specific Plan. This is mentioned several times in Chapter 3. Furthermore, the designation of park space is important to uphold the General Plan's ratio of park space per residents. The proposed change is also consistent with the Specific Plan and the EIR. The change supports the Plan's Guiding Principles to create more park space in the West Area, provide for a flagship regional park, and increase tree canopy. It is also located in the top-scoring area that was voted on by the Steering Committee and analyzed by the EIR. Removal of the park space would potentially be inconsistent with General Plan policy POSS-1-a and Specific Plan policy PF 1.1. 2) That the proposed change is arbitrary and not related to public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed change is not arbitrary in that it was studied, is aligned with multiple goals of the Specific Plan and General Plan, including providing more park space for the health, welfare, and enjoyment of residents. As the West Area currently lacks park space, designating land for potential park space is a prudent measure to WANSP Land Use Change Requests | October 1, 2025
3 meet park space goals. In addition, community members have commented that the park can create economic value for the area through the inclusion of a visitor's center, food hall or farmers market, and sports fields to host tournaments. 3) That the proposed change would result in a taking because it would deprive the owner of economic value. The proposed change would not remove economic value from the property. The zoning of RM-3 remains applied to the land and the property owner is still permitted to develop under the RM-3 designation should the either the PARCS department not have the ability to acquire the land or the property owner not want to sell the land to the PARCS department.
About Dual Designation. When a vacant or underutilized property has a Park or Public Facilities land use designation, it will also receive a dual designation for another land use type. The Dual Designation allows the property to be fully developed with another land use (such as Employment, Commercial, or Residential), should either a) the property owner not want to sell the land to the City or b) the City not have the present resources to acquire the land.
WANSP Land Use Change Requests | October 1, 2025
4 Request 3
APNs City/ County Requested by
510-040-38S City Madelyn Cuellar-Gomez
PLU Request Zoning Request Same as General Plan?
Corridor-Center Mixed Use
to Residential Urban
Neighborhood
CMX to RM-2 Yes
Total Acreage Housing Capacity Impact Park Impact
18.86 Loss of 848 units of
capacity No impact
First Proposed: 2019 Map
Staff Comments: The commenter is concerned about the current use becoming legally nonconforming due to approved plans to add storage buildings to the site. The commenter states that Personal Storage is conditionally allowed in RM-2, but not CMX, however, Personal Storage is also conditionally permitted in CMX. Changing the parcel to RM-2 would significantly reduce the housing capacity that can be counted for the Plan Area.
WANSP Land Use Change Requests | October 1, 2025
5 Request 4
APNs City/ County Requested by
433-050-06 City Salvatore Giovannotto
PLU Request Zoning Request Same as General Plan?
Neighborhood Park to
Residential Medium High
Density
RS-5 to RM-1 Potentially
Total Acreage Housing Capacity Impact Park Impact
2.9 Gain of 11 units of capacity Loss of designation for 2.9 acres
First Proposed: 2019 Map
Staff Comments: Under the existing General Plan, this parcel has split zoning (RS-5 and RM-1). The preference is to remove the park designation and apply RM-1 to the whole parcel, but if this is not feasible, then a second request would be to keep the existing General Plan designation. Removal of the park space would potentially be inconsistent with Specific Plan policy PF 1.1., however, the addition of housing could potentially support LUH Goal 6.
About Dual Designation. When a vacant or underutilized property has a Park or Public Facilities land use designation, it will also receive a dual designation for another land use type. The Dual Designation allows the property to be fully developed with another land use (such as Employment, Commercial, or Residential), should either a) the property owner not want to sell the land to the City or b) the City not have the present resources to acquire the land.
WANSP Land Use Change Requests | October 1, 2025
6 Request 5
APNs City/ County Requested by
510-022-78
510-022-79 City Palwinder Singh
PLU Request Zoning Request Same as General Plan?
Residential Urban
Neighborhood to
Residential Medium High
RM-2 to RM-1 No
Total Acreage Housing Capacity Impact Park Impact
4.23 Loss of 59 units of capacity No impact
First Proposed: 2019 Map
Staff Comments: The commenter is okay with changing from the General Plan's commercial designation to a residential designation, however, they would prefer the RM-1 designation. Accommodating this request would result in the loss of approximately 59 housing units. The parcels to the south are being proposed to be designated as NMX. Staff proposes that instead of RM-1 that NMX also be considered because it has the same minimum density at RM-1 (12 du/ac), but would increase the housing capacity of the parcels due to the maximum density being calculated at 64 du/ac.
WANSP Land Use Change Requests | October 1, 2025
7 Request 6
APNs City/ County Requested by
442-040-17
442-040-18 City Mona
PLU Request Zoning Request Same as General Plan?
Residential Medium High
to Unspecified (permits
truck parking)
RM-1 to Unspecified
(permits truck parking) No
Total Acreage Housing Capacity Impact Park Impact
3.01 Loss of 48 units of capacity No impact
First Proposed: 2019 Map
Staff Comments: Request made verbally via phone, but not formally submitted through a written request. Acceptance of this change would potentially be inconsistent with Specific Plan policies IPR 1.14 and LUH 6.5.