Fresno planning commission forwards Central Southeast Specific Plan to City Council, allows property-owner changes pending environmental review
Loading...
Summary
The Planning Commission voted to recommend adoption of the Central Southeast Area Specific Plan — a 2,067-acre infill plan that staff says would add roughly 2,938 housing units — while permitting five property-owner change requests to be considered only after additional environmental review is completed.
The Fresno Planning Commission voted to forward the Central Southeast Area Specific Plan to the City Council, with a recommendation that five property-owner change requests (Exhibit M) be considered only if subsequent environmental review finds those changes within the scope of the plan’s mitigated negative declaration.
Sophia Pagalatis of the Planning and Development Department presented the plan, describing a 2,067-acre plan area between Downtown Fresno and Sunnyside. Pagalatis said the plan focuses corridor revitalization, more housing and parks, mobility improvements and economic strategies, and covers roughly 119 acres of proposed land-use changes. “The proposed Central Southeast specific plan results in a capacity gain of 2,938 dwelling units,” Pagalatis said, and staff said the changes increase lower-income capacity by about 489 units while remaining consistent with state housing laws cited in the staff report.
The staff presentation summarized outreach and analysis: a 15-member steering committee, consultant work by Ramey and Associates, and environmental review by First Carbon Solutions. Pagalatis said outreach occurred between 2018 and 2021, with an estimated 600 survey responses and roughly 400 additional attendees at workshops and events. She also told the commission that the recirculated mitigated negative declaration had received six comment letters during the public comment period and that, according to the environmental consultant, none required further environmental analysis.
During public testimony, property owners and their representatives spoke in favor of the plan’s proposed urban-neighborhood or residential designations for specific sites. Dirk Pushl, representing the Gandulea family, urged support for an urban-neighborhood designation for the family’s 9.5-acre parcel at Chestnut and Florence as an appropriate infill housing opportunity. Chris Hernandez, speaking for a long-running nursery on South Maple, said his family supports the plan but asked how the rezoning would affect their business and what notifications would follow; staff replied that legally nonconforming uses established prior to rezoning may continue and would be grandfathered where applicable.
Other speakers raised procedural and policy concerns. One commenter identified as Des said they had not received notices and argued the city should prioritize deeply affordable housing, citing homelessness figures and past funding. Several speakers urged that the environmental review be complete and that the city improve notification and outreach to affected neighborhoods.
Commissioners asked staff to clarify housing capacity and the effect of the five Exhibit M requests (property owners requesting to retain existing General Plan land uses). Staff said granting those requests would reduce the plan’s surplus by an estimated 147 units but would not violate the Housing Crisis Act or SB 330 because the plan would still show a net gain in capacity. The environmental consultant was still reviewing whether the change requests were within the scope of the current environmental document; staff said the commission could recommend that the Council consider those requests but that the Council could not act on changes not yet cleared through environmental review.
Vice Chair Bray made the motion to forward staff’s recommendation to the City Council while allowing the five property-owner change requests to be considered only if additional environmental assessment shows them to be within scope; Commissioner Calandra seconded. The commission approved the motion by voice vote.
The Planning Commission’s recommendation will go to the City Council for final action; staff said the additional environmental review for the Exhibit M requests is expected to be completed before the council hearing. The staff presentation and related exhibits (including map exhibits and Exhibit M) will be available through the Planning Department; commissioners asked staff to provide the PowerPoint and sign-in materials to the commission and attendees.
