[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6655125,"mediaKeyId","5419891-403e2cfc81beac49e8c6f72c69375041","parentId",5419891,"title","Commission hears workshop on annexation basics, protest thresholds and process","audioSeconds",724,"startMs",2534000,"endMs",3258000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5419891-403e2cfc81beac49e8c6f72c69375041&start=2534&end=3258","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5419891-403e2cfc81beac49e8c6f72c69375041/thumbnail_2534000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6655125/Fresno-City/Fresno-County/California/Commission-hears-workshop-on-annexation-basics-protest-thresholds-and-process","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6655125-494da426bc9415833d273b7fceea4d86/orig.mp4?Expires=1775067844&Signature=iltGb7ReJEr2-Um9PwfVnlTd0~9H8NSzhRQQO4A98bZpBVy7ReOe9pHlyovHBOnVF12JzsXT3vtkwhQZCjIh8eXAOv24ljYnZk32JcG1GY90q9FSfmqIOKf6e8Bd7a5CA6Ijz7xQlDm-Cx4gBEfiwpOQc8jjojdZh4~lW4~9USR--jLrSJHwYDHt1PX8Heds5LBgxLXgJZT8-XqZe-P~d-R8T-UADBU6HXKYMkYoLG1OKx6C7rkHt8L1VM8Irx0gIa8KgxIMT2g52AaecrpLO1cSm~5NPmU5DkoUhNPYXgyZG8M18xQlk2uR3eQMDB7~qTGDgZZInai6A0rEemrM9A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Fresno, CA","date","2025-07-17T08:31:54.35Z","article","The Planning Commission received a staff workshop on the basics of annexation, including how annexations are initiated, how the sphere of influence is used to define logical boundaries, the required pre‑application and neighborhood‑meeting steps, Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) procedures and protest thresholds, and typical applicant costs.

Juan Lau of the Planning and Development Department led the workshop and described the sphere of influence as “basically a plan for growth that the city has,” explaining it reflects a 20‑ to 30‑year planning horizon for areas the city anticipates annexing. Lau told commissioners that annexations generally start with property owner or developer interest, or via a county referral when a development is proposed within the city’s sphere but outside city limits.

Lau reviewed the pre‑application steps: confirming a logical boundary with county staff and LAFCO, determining whether the annexation is inhabited (more than 12 registered voters) or uninhabited, and conducting a neighborhood meeting consistent with Fresno Municipal Code section 15‑5006. He explained why logical boundaries are preferred — to avoid islands and peninsulas that can create service deficiencies — and said staff works with county and LAFCO to include adjacent properties when necessary to create logical boundaries.

Lau summarized protest thresholds that trigger different LAFCO procedures: for an uninhabited annexation, landowners holding more than 50% of land value in the annexation can terminate proceedings; for inhabited annexations (more than 12 registered voters), if more than 25% of registered voters protest, the annexation is referred to an election; if 50% or more protest, proceedings are terminated. He also described LAFCO’s certificate of filing process and the 30‑day reconsideration period after LAFCO approval before recordation and completion.

On costs, Lau said the application and processing fees vary but gave an approximate figure: “the application process for an inhabited annexation is about $12,000,” adding that applicants also pay development fees and pre‑zone fees, and may incur connection costs for city water and sewer. Lau advised applicants must be within the sphere of influence and ideally contiguous to city limits.

Commissioners asked about the frequency of LAFCO denials and whether schools or other public facilities can precipitate annexations. Lau — who previously worked at the Fresno LAFCO — said denials are rare and often tied to protest proceedings or boundary adjustments. A commissioner noted school districts often build first in unincorporated areas and thereby create the conditions that lead to later annexations.

Staff said additional materials (the West Area specific plan and EIR and forthcoming specific plans) will be circulated to commissioners in advance of future hearings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Fresno Planning Commission Meeting 7/16/25","oneSentenceSummary","Staff presented a workshop explaining how annexations begin, the role of the sphere of influence, neighborhood meetings, the LAFCO process, protest thresholds, and typical fees; staff estimated an inhabited annexation application fee around $12,000.","taxTitle","Fresno City, Fresno County, California","taxId",3699,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6655129,"Planning commission approves text amendment to ease relocation rules for drive‑throughs",1039,1526000,2565000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5419891-403e2cfc81beac49e8c6f72c69375041&start=1526&end=2565","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5419891-403e2cfc81beac49e8c6f72c69375041/thumbnail_1526000.jpg","/articles/6655129/Fresno-City/Fresno-County/California/Planning-commission-approves-text-amendment-to-ease-relocation-rules-for-drivethroughs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6655129-92b273de51638498a96db8edfc98a6e7/orig.mp4?Expires=1775067844&Signature=UAoVkmLWBfLlsqRTt-V~bkNgV3w07Z7GZm29ustUopBDrjcZmKKOpVSXn-urc4Mir7PuZPb8w68slnoUDTDML-VU~rVN26jBkiphKD25oXuOcnKs7lSfQ6zn1ITRUDKyj9noyM8t1HFr1w9PailKdMJZDqJf3jhTKzB9nLEfSPsRap0ORdfLegWYK-D~F16LgJzX1BTc0Gfhnh3X6XMbOmEMDSdwSI3UQA3VHgLdSXuRhqOKuCYtb9JLOzZ7GACRjVFNwpRwm8X7rCdBg8HIB5ruVxuPKesdckHE6PLuk4Grcz8iqCGTY-8zHQ0uLfwSYleVXAjvFRRq8LcapnUdBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Fresno City Planning Commission on a unanimous voice vote approved a text amendment (P25-00974) intended to give existing drive‑through businesses more flexibility when they must relocate because of public works projects.

The change removes a code hurdle that currently bars drive‑through aisles from being sited between a building and a street in mixed‑use districts and creates a limited exception allowing an affected business to relocate within one mile of its original location, subject to compliance with mixed‑use development standards and applicable property development standards.

Planning and Development Department staff presented the amendment. Eric Young, planning staff, told the commission the change was “initiated by the planning and development director for the purposes of providing flexibility for existing drive thrus,” and said the amendment is aimed at businesses displaced by public projects.

Philip Seagrest, Planning and Development Department, explained the rationale for the existing standards and why the amendment is limited to relocations. “It really wants to encourage pedestrian oriented development,” Seagrest said, describing how the current mixed‑use code generally places buildings at the sidewalk edge and pushes drive‑throughs to the rear. He added the proposed amendment would not change the mixed‑use standards for new development but would provide a relocation exception for businesses forced to move by a taking or public works project.

Seagrest cited examples near the Blackstone and McKinley grade separation project — specifically a Carl’s Jr. and a Taco Bell — as instances where businesses would need to relocate. He said the amendment allows those businesses to seek sites nearer their existing customer base, including closer to an existing or planned bus rapid transit (BRT) station, rather than forcing them to move beyond the one‑mile radius that staff cited as a key concern for customer retention.

Commissioners asked whether the amendment removes the existing option to request planned‑development deviations; staff responded that a property owner could still pursue a planned development application to deviate from standards, but that planned developments require findings supported by evidence in the record showing the proposed design is preferable to the base code.

No members of the public testified in support or opposition during the public hearing. Commissioner Calandra moved to approve the amendment; Vice Chair Bray seconded. The commission voted in favor; the meeting minutes record the motion as approved.

The amendment edits table 15‑11o2 (land‑use regulations for mixed‑use districts) and section 15‑27‑28 (additional drive‑through standards) of the development code to add the relocation exception. Staff said three of four active council district project review committees considered the proposal and staff received one public comment on the draft text amendment.

The commission sent the amendment forward with the approved motion; staff will proceed with the ordinance and any subsequent steps required to formally amend the development code.","The Planning Commission approved a text amendment (P25-00974) to the development code to give businesses required to relocate because of public works projects more flexibility to reestablish drive‑through facilities closer to their original sites, including exceptions near bus rapid transit stations.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission hears workshop on annexation basics, protest thresholds and process

Planning commission approves text amendment to ease relocation rules for drive‑throughs