Fresno planning commissioners recommend West Area Neighborhoods specific plan move to city council amid broad public support and targeted objections

The Fresno City Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan, certify the updated environmental impact report and mitigation monitoring program, repeal the overlapping portion of the Highway City Neighborhood Specific Plan and West Area Community Plan, and pursue rezones necessary to implement the specific plan.

Casey Lauderdale, a planner on the long-range planning team, told commissioners she was "happy to be before you here again, this time to formally ask for your recommendations regarding the West Area Neighborhoods specific plan." Rob Holt, supervising planner with Planning and Development, presented procedural and follow-up technical corrections staff proposed for inclusion in the commission's recommendation.

The plan covers the area west of State Route 99, north of Clinton Avenue and east of Garfield Avenue and is represented by Council Districts 12 and 3. Staff said the updated land use map was adjusted to ensure no net loss of housing capacity, to shift the potential regional park location to align with the future Herndon Canal and Power Line trails, and to carry forward policies from earlier plans into the new document.

Nut graf: The commission's recommendation advances a multi-year, community-driven planning effort intended to increase housing capacity, add parks and infrastructure, and guide future development in a historically underinvested portion of Fresno. Commissioners and dozens of residents said the plan aims to attract investment and correct long-standing disparities; a smaller group of property owners objected to specific land-use changes, particularly dual park designations placed over privately owned parcels.

Public testimony at the hearing was heavily weighted in support. April Henry, executive director and CEO of Highway City Community Development and the Tea Community Resource Center, told the commission: "This is about restoring trust for our community, building safety, and giving children the same chance to thrive." Several speakers who identified themselves as long-time West Fresno residents and steering-committee members described the plan as resident-driven after years of outreach that included workshops, tabling events, letters and surveys.

Supporters emphasized gaps in services and infrastructure in West Fresno. Commissioner Criner, speaking from the dais before recusing from the West Area item, described the project as an opportunity for the area to receive major commercial and infrastructure investment: "Starbucks is a very nationally recognized ... The significance of it is huge," she said, framing new retail as an example of broader investment.

Opposition focused on a small number of property-specific requests. Landowners objected to a dual park designation placed over roughly 19.24 acres on or near West Shaw, saying the overlay could make future sale or development more difficult. Property owner Rod DeLuca said, "I'm too old to develop it, but I've had inquiries. Now I don't know how I can sell that property with a green belt over it." Mike Schulpegian, attorney for property owners at 6277 W. Shaw (APN 51203203), said his clients prefer the site be retained for housing and questioned the practicality and safety of a park that would straddle a major arterial.

Staff responded to requests raised in public comment, identifying four requests that callers had submitted for consideration: removal of the neighborhood-park overlay on a 19.24-acre parcel (no change to underlying zoning), a request to change several APNs from higher-density RM-2 to lower-density RM-1 (staff noted that change would reduce housing capacity by about 59 units), and a separate request to change an RS-5 county parcel planned land use to RM-1 upon annexation (staff estimated a gain of 78 housing units if approved). Staff said some requests would require additional environmental review; others could be forwarded without further review because they would restore an existing general-plan designation.

Commissioners praised the sustained community involvement and staff work. After discussion, Commissioner Calandra moved that the commission recommend to the City Council certification of the EIR and the package of plan amendments, incorporate two staff technical corrections described in the staff report (one recognizing Central Unified property as public facility and another aligning a specific APN with existing zoning), and forward all land-use change requests heard at the meeting for the City Council's consideration and action on rezoning as needed. The motion instructed the City Council to consider the property-owner requests and the staff-recommended alternative of neighborhood mixed-use (NMX) where appropriate. The motion was seconded and approved; the roll call voice vote concluded with "Aye" and the chair stating the motion carried.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to approve meeting agenda — moved by Vice Chair Bray, seconded by Commissioner Scribe; outcome: approved. - Motion to approve consent calendar (minutes from 09/03/2025 and update to planning commission rules and regulations) — moved by Commissioner Calandra, seconded by Commissioner Scribe; outcome: approved. - Main recommendation to City Council (certify EIR; adopt West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan; repeal overlapping prior plans; update general plan land-use maps; rezone where needed) — moved by Commissioner Calandra; second not specified in the record; outcome: approved. The recommendation included the two staff technical corrections and asked the council to review the specific owner requests presented at the hearing.

Implementation and next steps: The commission's action is a recommendation to the City Council; any specific land-use changes requested by property owners will require council review and, where indicated by staff, additional environmental analysis prior to any change in zoning or development approvals. Staff noted that dual park designations are placeholders and do not, by themselves, require the city to acquire property; acquisition would require owner consent and city resources.

The commission's packet and staff presentation cite the Fresno Municipal Code and the updated draft EIR. Staff also referenced consistency checks with the city's housing element and a citation in the staff report to "SB 3 30" (as stated in the record). Technical corrections and exhibit references appear in the staff report; staff asked the council to incorporate two specific map/zoning corrections in the recommendation.

Community details mentioned at the hearing included the site's location (West of 99, North of Clinton, East of Garfield), Council Districts 12 and 3, the ZIP code 93706 cited by a commissioner when describing local retail access, multiple APNs referenced in staff and public comment (for example APN 51203203, APNs 51002278 and 51002279, and the APNs staff listed for Central Unified corrections), and estimated housing-capacity impacts tied to the land-use-change requests (a loss of about 59 units for the RM-2→RM-1 request; a gain of about 78 units for the county-to-annexation request). The staff report and final EIR exhibits contain the full technical and environmental analyses.

The commission closed the public hearing after receiving comments from more than a dozen speakers and directed staff to forward the record and recommendations to the City Council along with the parcel-specific requests for council consideration. The item will next appear on the City Council agenda for formal action.

Ending: The commission adjourned after a brief informational report from staff about a separate tentative tract map revision (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6470) that planning staff said was being modified by the applicant and would return for review.