Planning commission recommends denying rezone request to restore light‑industrial zoning on Elm Avenue amid community opposition

The Fresno City Planning Commission on Thursday recommended denial of a plan amendment and rezone request (P.2303006) that would change roughly 55.31 acres south of Annadel Avenue and east of State Route 41 from neighborhood mixed use to light industrial.

The commission's vote asks the City Council to reject the applicants' request to revert the Elm Avenue properties to light industrial zoning; the item is scheduled for a council hearing the week following the commission meeting. The item drew more than an hour of public comment, with business and economic‑development representatives urging approval and neighborhood residents and community organizations urging denial.

Staff told the commission the subject area covers 55.31 acres and that, under current zoning, the land carries a theoretical capacity of 64 dwelling units per acre. "At 64 dwellings per acre you have a net residential capacity loss of 3,541 units," Planning and Development supervising planner Rob Holt said while outlining constraints imposed by California law (SB 330 and related statutes) on plan amendments that reduce residential capacity.

Holt said the proposed action would amend Policy LU 8.1 of the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan, rezone the parcels from neighborhood mixed use to a light industrial (I‑L) zone with a set of conditions of zoning, and that any approval would be "subject to compliance with SB 330." He reviewed proposed conditions that staff and the applicant included in the application packet: a requirement that many industrial uses be subject to a conditional use permit; explicit prohibitions on a long list of uses (including recycling processing, waste transfer facilities, concrete batch plants, primary metal manufacturing and others listed in the application); limits on interior expansion (no more than a 10% increase of an existing exterior footprint); truck routing that avoids schools and residential neighborhoods; landscaping in required setbacks per Fresno Municipal Code; limits on off‑site odor and noise; mandatory connection to municipal water (private well use not permitted for new industrial uses); compliance with California Air Resources Board trucking rules and other permitting; compliance with the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program; and cooperation in contamination investigation and remediation if contamination is discovered on site.

The project's attorney and presenter, John Kinsey of Wanger Jones Helsley, said the applicants — identified in the staff report as Buzz Oates Management Services and related landowners — want the zoning restored to the industrial district that applied to much of the site before the Southwest Specific Plan adoption in 2017. "Mid Valley recycling is not a part of this project," Kinsey said in response to public concerns, and he described the properties as "fully built out," occupied by light industrial tenants, and not suitable for the neighborhood mixed use pattern envisioned by the specific plan.

Proponents from the business community framed the request as necessary to preserve existing jobs and keep property values and financing viable. Nick Audino, an industrial broker, told commissioners vacancy in the local industrial market had risen and argued the legal nonconforming status of many users makes leasing and financing difficult. Will Oliver, president and CEO of the Fresno County Economic Development Corporation, and representatives from the Fresno Chamber of Commerce also urged a recommendation of approval.

Residents, community groups and faith leaders urged denial and said the change would reverse or undermine a community‑driven Southwest Fresno Specific Plan that they said was designed to reduce industrial burden and improve health and housing outcomes. "I urge you to consider rejecting this agenda item. It isn't just a zoning change. It's a breach it's a breach of trust," resident Ariana Burton said during public comment. Pastor B. T. Lewis of Rising Star Missionary Baptist Church told the commission: "Changing the zoning of these properties will increase the health risk to Southwest Fresno residents." Community presenters cited long‑standing concerns about air pollution, elevated infant mortality and shorter life expectancy in Southwest Fresno and urged the commission to uphold the specific plan.

Several speakers — including a representative of the Central Valley Urban Institute and other community advocates — raised procedural and CEQA concerns, saying additional environmental review and notice were required given community testimony about potential significant health and pollution impacts. Staff noted the revised environmental analysis used for the northern portion of the property had been prepared as an addendum and that CEQA questions could be addressed in subsequent proceedings.

Commission discussion touched on two recurring tensions: the legal effect of long‑standing, built‑out industrial uses that are now "legal nonconforming" under the neighborhood mixed use zoning (which can limit the ability of owners to retenant spaces), and the community's insistence that the adopted Southwest Fresno Specific Plan — the result of multi‑year community work — not be undermined. Staff and the applicant said owners did not receive notice of the specific plan outreach before its adoption, and applicant representatives described multiple meetings and negotiation attempts since then; community speakers disputed those characterizations and said they had engaged extensively in the specific plan process.

The commission voted 3–1 to recommend denial of the rezone and plan amendment to the City Council. Commissioner Kreiner moved to recommend denial; Commissioner Sher Gil seconded. Vice Chair Bray voted no; Chair Vang and Commissioners Kreiner and Sher Gil voted yes. The commission record notes the recommendation to deny will be forwarded to the council, which will need to address SB 330's housing‑capacity replacement requirements if it takes any action that reduces residential capacity.

Next steps: the staff presentation noted the matter was scheduled for the City Council hearing the following week and that any council approval that reduces residential capacity would need concurrent action to replace that capacity elsewhere under SB 330. The City Council will have the final decision on the plan amendment and rezone.

Community members and applicant representatives may submit additional written materials to the council packet prior to the council hearing; the transcript records calls by multiple residents requesting more stringent environmental review and stronger community safeguards.