Diego Saint Claire, a planner with the Planning and Development Department, told the Fresno City Planning Commission the project at 3484 West Shields Avenue would place 36 apartments on about 2.23 acres and include a community building, 73 parking stalls and a 52‑foot public‑street dedication for curb, gutter, sidewalk and additional travel lanes.

The commission considered Conditional Use Permit application P2404504 and Environmental Assessment P24‑04504, which staff recommended be found categorically exempt from CEQA under the Class 32 infill exemption. Diego Saint Claire said the developer proposed that 35 percent of units be affordable and that a covenant would guarantee those units remain affordable for at least 30 years.

At the hearing, a nearby resident, Robert Garcia, said he opposed the project, arguing a 36‑unit complex would bring “unwanted congestion” to Shields Avenue and reduce values of adjacent single‑family homes. “There’s gonna be even more congestion on Shields,” Garcia said. The applicant’s representative replied that the site provides almost 73 parking spaces and that the project is conditioned to repair existing street damage and construct additional lanes, a sidewalk and curb to mitigate traffic effects.

Commissioners pressed staff on the west‑side buffering between the new buildings and existing homes. Staff and the applicant agreed to conditions that include a 10‑foot setback along the west property line, a 6‑foot block wall and dense landscaping. Commissioners also asked that the planting plan specify drought‑tolerant, fast‑growing trees expected to reach roughly 20–30 feet at maturity to provide second‑story screening.

Commissioner (recorded as speaker 9) moved to adopt Environmental Assessment P24‑04504 and approve CUP P2404504 subject to the conditions of approval dated 01/07/2026, including the landscaping and street dedication requirements; Commissioner (recorded as speaker 7) seconded. The motion carried on a voice vote.

The approval allows a one‑time density bonus that increased the allowable units on the site from 27 to 36. Staff noted partner agencies reviewed the project and provided conditions of approval; the Department of Public Works conditioned the 52‑foot easement for public street purposes. No letters of opposition were received by staff before the hearing; one letter of support was noted in the record.

The commission’s action is final unless appealed under the procedures read at the start of the meeting. The record reflects that the commission approved the project with the conditions described; next steps are processing building permits and implementing the required easement and covenants.