Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright, everyone. Six zero two. Welcome to the meeting. We'll go ahead and first take a row.

Commissioner Leidy? Present. Commissioner Calandra? Here. Commissioner Diaz? Commissioner Kreiner? Commissioner Schergill? Vice chair Bray. Here. Chair Vang.

Here. Thank you. Next, we're gonna go ahead and do the pledge of allegiance. Everyone, please stand. Ready? Begin. Alright. For everyone's convenience, I'll go ahead and read the procedures for tonight's meeting. This meeting is being conducted in person and electronically. For each matter considered by the commission, there will first be a staff presentation followed by a presentation from the project applicant.

Testimony from supporters of the project would then be taken followed by testimony from those in opposition. The applicant will have the right to a final rebuttal presentation prior to closing the public hearing In accordance with section 13 of article two of the planning commission rules and regulation governing length of public debate, all public testimony from those in support and opposition of the project will be limited to three minutes per person. The three lights on the podium next to the microphone will indicate the amount of time remaining for the speaker. The green light will be turned on when the when the speaker begins. The yellow light will come on with a soft bell ring when one minute is remaining.

Speaker should be completing the testimony by the time the red light comes on with this final bell indicating time has expired. All in person public testimony must be presented to the commission at the podium. Any testimony that references race, religion, ethnicity, economic status, national origin, or any other classification protected under state or federal law, and a derogatory matter shall be deemed irrelevant and will not be considered by the commission in making this land use determinations. If you challenge this land use matters in court, you may be limited to raising only those you or someone else raised in oral or written testimony or before the close of the hearing. Also, if you do have a phone, let's please put that on silent too. Thank you. Next, we have the agenda. Do we have any changes to the agenda?

Good evening, chair Vang, members of the Planning Commission. There are no changes to the agenda. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Alright. Commission, do we have any motions to approve the agenda?

I'll move to approve the agenda. I second.

Alright. We have a motion by vice chair Bray. We have a second by commissioner of the day. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Agenda is approved. Let's please note to you that we have commissioner Scherger is in attendance. Do we have any reports from the commissioners? I see none. We'll move to continue matters. So this is continuing from 01/21/2026. Please note that this is a hearing to consider the adoption of the Central Southeast Area Specific Plan and Related Environmental Assessment.

Good evening, chair Vang, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Sophia Pagalotis with the Planning and Development Department. And I'm here to present the Central Southeast Specific Plan and Related Environmental Assessment for your consideration this evening. And to operate the PowerPoint. It was working ten minutes ago.

Let's see. Thank you, Carrie. Here's our outline for this evening. As a refresher, the Planning Commission previously recommended approval of this specific plan in May 2023. Since that time, minor updates have been made to the plan and the environmental document was updated to remove reliance on the general plan programmatic EIR.

The Planning Commission has considered several specific plans recently, so this for you will be review. A specific plan is a long range land use plan that implements the general plan in a focused geographic area. Specific plans can use policies, strategies, and land use regulation to achieve their goals. The Central Southeast specific plan uses goals and strategies with some limited land use regulation to attain the desired outcomes. The use of strategies instead of policies was intended to be more action oriented and user friendly for all groups that may help implement the plan.

Whether they be property or business owners, community organizations, or the city of Fresno. The Central Southeast Pacific Plan area encompasses 2,067 acres and is located between Downtown Fresno and Sunnyside, a 100% within city limits. Since the plan was financed by City of Fresno Community Development Block Grant funds, the plan area was limited to city limits. As such, the plan represents an opportunity for infill growth, development, and revitalization of an existing established community. The plan overlaps the 1971 Butler Willow specific plan and the 1992 Roosevelt Community Plan.

Both were considered in the planning process. The recommendations in the Butler Willow specific plan intended to regulate the now vacant IRS facility and surroundings have either been implemented or are outdated. Most of the Roosevelt Community Plan is now outdated. However, some recommendations are still relevant and were carried forward in the Central Southeast Pacific Plan. The staff recommendation includes repeal of these plans to avoid confusion.

Here's a more detailed view of the plan area bounded on the North by Belmont Avenue, on the West by 4th Avenue, on the South by Church Avenue, and on the East by Peach Avenue. The entire plan area is West Of Peach Avenue. The plan area includes familiar community institutions such as the Fresno Fairgrounds, the Mosqueda Center, and Fresno Pacific University, as well as several k through 12 schools and parks. The area has a population of approximately 31,000 and about 9,500 homes. The outreach and engagement for the specific plan was extensive.

A 15 member steering committee was appointed by the council district five council member made up of neighborhood residents, business owners, and community organizations, including Habitat for Humanity, Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, the Fresno Fair, the Fresno Center, Reading and Beyond, Neighborhood Church, and the Southeast Fresno Community Economic Development Association. The steering committee met throughout the planning process and helped to synthesize community input and inform the plan. In addition to steering committee meetings, the public outreach included stakeholder meetings, workshops, surveys, mailings, and networking. One of the unique features of the process was an engagement toolkit that was developed for use by community organizations that wished to host their own workshops. This initial engagement phase took place between 2018 and 2021.

Informed by the engagement process, the guiding principles were developed. These emphasized cultural diversity, neighborhood preservation, housing affordability, mobility, parks, economic vitality, environmental health, public safety, and beautification. As the planning process progressed, it became clear that the community had big ideas for several geographic focus areas. These ideas include revitalized sites, more connected corridors, and additional housing supply. And now I'm gonna go through these on the map and explain them a little bit more.

The Cesar Chavez corridor, which is number one on the map, would connect a revitalized UMC hospital site, which is number two, with mixed use infill enhancing the Asian village. Number three, all of those along the Cesar Chavez corridor. The Orange Avenue Main Street idea on the west, which is number five, would include potential retail and community center uses at Cedar And Maple Avenues, which is number four. So number five is proposed as a mixed use corridor. Number four at Cedar And Maple is the retail and community center uses.

And terminating with the vacant IRS site on the eastern end, number six. So those uses, four, five, and six, are along the Butler Corridor. Further south along the California alignment, there are several vacant parcels that represent opportunities for more housing. So those are the yellow sites you see up there, number seven. And finally, the Business Park Employment District area applies to the parcels shown here in number eight, which is a PG and E substation at this time.

Land use changes are proposed to implement some of the big ideas. And we'll discuss this further when we get to land use. In 2020, the guiding principles, big ideas, and the proposed land use map were initiated by the city council through resolution twenty twenty one forty seven, enabling completion of the specific plan and the commencement of the California Environmental Quality Act process. Once initiated, the plan itself was drafted with the help of Ramey and associates and a team of sub consultants. And while I'm mentioning consultants, I do want to mention that the environmental consultant, First Carbon Solutions is here with us this evening.

Public outreach and engagement continued right into the COVID nineteen pandemic, at which point the interaction moved to an online format. The plan is made up of eight chapters. The goals prioritized through the engagement process will now be highlighted for each chapter. The top land use related goals of the specific plan call for activating key corridors and providing more housing. Goal l u one calls for the continued transformation of the Cesar Chavez Boulevard into a walkable and lively corridor.

LU two calls for a series of neighborhood supporting hubs along Butler. LU three calls for the gradual transformation of Orange Avenue into a neighborhood scaled Main Street. And LU nine calls for increasing the housing supply to accommodate households of all sizes and income levels. Here are the proposed land use changes in the specific plan. Of the total 2,067 acres in the plan area, only a 119 acres or less than 6% are proposed for change.

To summarize, the land use changes along Butler Avenue are for the purpose revitalization and would contribute to making the corridors more walkable, bikeable and vibrant per goals LU one and LU two. They would also add housing capacity to the plan area implementing LU nine. The changes to CMX along Orange Avenue to the west of the plan area would implement LU three providing increased opportunities for housing and other land uses along that walkable corridor. And briefly now I'm going to describe the land use changes here. And we'll just follow along with the numbering on the map.

Hopefully you can all see that. And we'll start with number one, which is the Orange Avenue proposed land use change from community commercial, general commercial and office. There's a mixture of land uses there to corridor center mixed use. Number two, and this is at Butler And Cedar. It's the old Hanoian site.

That is proposed to change from community commercial to corridor center mixed use and urban neighborhood. Number three, which is at Cedar And California, is proposed to change from office to residential medium high. Number four, which is a portion of the fairground site at Butler And Maple, is proposed to change from public facility to community commercial to provide some additional activity in the public right of way along the street. Number five is at California And Chestnut and is proposed to change from medium density residential to urban neighborhood. Number six at Butler And Maple is proposed to change from community commercial and medium density residential to urban neighborhood.

Number seven, located at Butler And Chestnut is proposed to change from community commercial to corridor center mixed use. Number eight, and this is on Cesar Chavez across the street from the Walmart. This is proposed to change from corridor center mixed use to residential medium high to match the existing development, the Las Palmas Multiunit development that's there today. Number nine is proposed to change from light industrial to medium high residential at California and Maple. And finally, number 10, you'll see a series of very small sites at the very top of the map.

These are all single family dwelling units. They currently are all zoned office. So the plan proposes to return those properties from office to medium density residential to match what's on the ground. More parkland was a top parks priority, and since the initial engagement, the recently renamed Southeast Fresno Sports Complex Park is now under construction. This 49 acre park will provide park access within walking distance to the Southeast portion of the plan area.

In addition, Muscata Park and Community Center is a cherished community institution. And the plan calls for additional programming at the center. Measure P will ensure more investment in parks and programming in the plan area. Measure excuse me. To quote the specific plan, Measure P has enabled the city to begin to address existing conditions and community identified issues through the establishment of a park ranger program.

In addition to investment in contracted security and landscape improvements, ADA improvements, regulatory maintenance, and the assignment of permanent staff to programming at Muscata Community Center. Central Southeast community members travel the plan area by walking, biking, and taking the bus in addition to car travel. The plan identifies several ways to ensure the streets are safe and comfortable for all uses. There are goals and strategies to improve the street network and ideas for streetscape improvements and complete streets along the key corridors, which are identified as Cesar Chavez Boulevard and Butler, Cedar, And Orange Avenues. Street widenings are not included in the plan.

Street modifications such as adding buffered bicycle lanes and sidewalks where missing are suggested. With regard to potential safety improvements, implementing traffic calming measures around parks and schools, installing crossing enhancements at priority intersections, and continuing to educate residents about bicycle, pedestrian and traffic safety are priorities plan. The plan includes also a broader array of economic development strategies. From identifying opportunity sites, as the specific plan does with those big ideas, to connecting small businesses to resources. It also emphasizes beautification and developing distinctive cultural branding for the area as an art, entertainment, and retail destination.

The community expressed the desire to have access to amenities, services, and complete neighborhoods. This includes access to healthy food options for all residents, culturally competent medical services, affordable and reliable childcare, and the opportunity to participate in future plans and projects in the area. Chapter eight, next steps and funding, includes a discussion of funding mechanisms and resources that could be used to implement the strategies in the plan. It also includes the plan goals that were of highest priority to the steering committee. Many of these were just highlighted in the preceding chapter summary.

Okay. The environmental assessment prepared for the Central Southeast Pacific Plan was a mitigated negative declaration. It was recirculated to remove reliance on the general plan program EIR. The public comment period was 12/19/2025 to 01/19/2026. And six comment letters were received.

These were mainly communications from partner agencies confirming project level requirements. One was also from the Sunnyside Property Owner Association expressing concern about scenic corridor preservation. According to First Carbon Solutions, our environmental consultant, who again is here this evening, none of the comment letters have raised issues that require further environmental analysis. Both the specific plan and the environmental assessment were recirculated. Partner agencies, stakeholders, and property owners were notified via the Fresno B website, mailings, and other required postings.

The Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the plan in 2023 and found it consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan by a seven zero vote. The council District Project Review Committee for District 5 voted to recommend approval of the plan on 06/12/2023. And of course there is no Project Review Committee for Council District seven. That brings us to the findings this evening. Our Fresno Municipal Code findings require that the specific plan be consistent with the general plan.

A concurrent plan amendment to the general plan land use map will be processed to ensure land use consistency. The specific plan goals and strategies are found to be consistent with the general plan goals, objectives, policies. The plan does not modify the development code and is therefore consistent. There are three housing element sites in the specific plan area affected by the proposed land use changes. With a combined capacity of 232 dwelling units in various income and density categories.

The proposed land use changes add 489 dwelling units of capacity to the lower income category, reduced moderate income category by four units, and reduced the above market capacity by two eighteen units. Because the city sites inventory for the housing element has a surplus capacity in all categories, these changes are considered consistent with the housing element. The Housing Crisis Act prohibits any loss of housing capacity in comparison to 2018 zoning. The proposed Central Southeast Pacific Plan results in a capacity gain of 2,938 dwelling units. Therefore it is in compliance with SB three thirty.

A new finding is included called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, which is now required by federal and state law. The city's housing element requires these findings to be made for land use decisions affecting housing. Affirmatively furthering fair housing states that public agencies have a legal obligation to take meaningful deliberate actions to overcome patterns of segregation. The city has committed through its housing element to prioritize projects that support integration, expand access to opportunity, and reduce racial and economic disparities that promote inclusive community engagement and promote inclusive community engagement. The Central Southeast Pacific Plan is in alignment with these principles as it brings more resources and opportunity to an area designated as low resource and high poverty on the state's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing mapping tool.

Specifically, the plan includes land use changes that provide more housing along key corridors, Cesar Chavez, Butler, Cedar, and Maple, plans for more robust bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, includes policies that call for needed sewer, water, and storm drain upgrades, and plans for parks improvements, open space, and tree canopy, as well as additional recreational programming. Finally, it includes goals and strategies to provide increased economic opportunity for residents, including workforce development, education, and small business support. Therefore, the adoption of the Central Southeast Pacific Plan is consistent with affirmatively furthering fair housing. In October 2025, a mailing was sent to all property, all owners of property with a proposed land use change. Informing them of the change and requesting a response if they were in opposition.

The city received communications from owners of five properties proposed for change shown on the map and described in exhibit m of your staff report. I'm going to review those changes now. And if you'd like, you can pull up Exhibit M. I'm going to be again referring to the map. And I will note that in all cases there are five.

The property owner's request is to retain the general plan land use that they currently have rather than the land use that the plan is proposing. So for request A, which is one of the properties along Orange Avenue, the plan proposes corridor Center mixed use. The property owner would like to keep it as office.

For

land use request, land use change request B, which is on, you can see it up on the top of the map, that is Tulare and Chestnut. The current zoning is office, And the property owner wishes to keep office. Although the plan proposes, as I previously mentioned, to rezone that to RS5. Request C, D and E are all part of the same general area and proposed land use change. The land use change is changing from light industrial, which is what the general plan calls for today, to medium high or excuse me, to RM1.

And so you can see all of those. And I'll discuss them together in a moment. And then finally request F is back up on the Tulare alignment. And it's another one of the single family dwellings that currently has office zoning, wishes to retain that instead of the plan proposed land use of RS five. So the practice.

While staff doesn't have a formal recommendation on these, our practice is to provide information about two criteria. One is impacts to housing capacity. And two is whether the change would be within the scope of the environmental analysis. With regard to the first, the impact to housing capacity would be to reduce that 2,900 unit surplus by 147 units. So that would not be a problem pursuant to SB three thirty.

The plan still comes out in the positive when it comes to housing capacity. With regard to the scope of the environmental analysis, that's the second criteria. Are these changes within the scope of the current environmental analysis? Our environmental consultant is still considering that. So we don't have a final determination on those for you at this time.

Finally, staff is requesting a technical change to pages forty one and forty two in the plan, the land use table to remove the density limit on NMX and CMX, that's Neighborhood Mixed Use and Corridor Center Mixed Use Zone Districts pursuant to the Mixed Use Text Amendment approved in 2022. It's simply a designation change since mixed use no longer has an upper limit. It is limited by height and development standards. This does not affect the land use analysis as mixed use assumptions were made based on an economic analysis that was performed by economic and planning systems. So with that we have our staff recommendations, which I will briefly summarize.

And that's to recommend approval to the city council of a finding set forth in environmental assessment P23 zero zero four hundred dated 12/19/2025 of a recirculated mitigated declaration pursuant to CEQA guidelines section one five one six eight D, see exhibit H, including the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Number two, recommend approval to the city council of plan amendment application p twenty three zero zero four hundred, which proposes two. One, it's really number three on your your report, I believe. Repeal the Roosevelt Community Plan pertaining to 15,721 acres and the Butler Willow specific plan pertaining to 563 acres, exhibit b. Number four, adopt the Central Southeast area specific plan and accompanying planned land use map.

See exhibits A, C and F. Five, amend the planned land use map of the Fresno General Plan to incorporate the land use changes proposed in the Central Southeast area specific plan. And any land use change request that the commission wishes to recommend. And finally, number six, rezone approximately rezone approximately a 119 acres of property within the Central Southeast area specific plan to be consistent with the planned land uses in the plan. And you can look at exhibit d As well as any rezones that would be consistent with a land use change request that the commission would like to entertain.

And with that, that concludes our presentation this evening.

All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Do we have any commissioners with questions?

I have one. I noticed you pointed out, I saw the letter from the Sunnyside property owners about Butler Avenue and Olive Trees. Is that going to affect this?

It will not. There are no plans for street widening.

Any other questions, comments? Sure.

Thank you, Sofia. For the public input, you said there were a lot of people involved with the steering committee, people came by. What were some of the positives or negatives you heard from the people who live in the area?

I think those are really reflected in the big ideas. So they wanted to see the some of the vacant properties get new life. I think they were really interested in building on the corridors and the assets of the community, like the fairgrounds, the Musqueda Center. And they they just really wanted to do whatever they could do to signal where they would like to see new investment and kind of how to approach that. We've definitely heard about parks and wanting more investment in parks. So the plan includes those strategies as well. Mhmm.

Alright. Any other questions or comments? Thank you. Appreciate it. Mhmm. We'll go ahead and go to the public. Do we have any individuals who would like to speak in support?

Speak at all?

Support. Please state your name, address and you have three minutes, sir.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Dirk Pushel, and my business address is 923 Van S here in Fresno. And I'm here this evening on behalf of the Gandulia family who owns 9.5 acres at General at the corner of Chestnut And Florence. And the Gandulia family interestingly has either worked or lived on this property for well over eighty years.

They have participated in years of outreach meetings with the city which we appreciate, Made presentations to the advisory committee and and work closely with your city staff. City staff and Gandulia family asked that their property be designated for urban neighborhood, which provides what we think is a viable density for apartments. This is clearly an infill site and there are a lot of reasons why this designation is appropriate. It was supported by your staff, was supported by your advisory committee. We ask that you support it this evening. I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have them of me.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Do we have any other individuals who would like to speak in support? Please state your name, address, and you have three minutes, sir.

My name is Chris Hernandez. I represent Richard Hernandez who owns 282148 South Maple. We were pretty much the sole representative of number nine on the map. We have 15 acres that is partially owned by my father, who has the 10 acre parcel and a five acre parcel, which my grandfather opened up a horticultural nursery called Maple Avenue Nursery. And we have been there since 1969, and we're gonna continue to go.

So we're just kinda wondering how this is gonna affect our business. As it was explained to us that this is kind of grandfathered in, and so we can actually continue to run the business, but it will still get rezoned. We are in support of this, but I guess we just have questions of how it's going to affect us going forward and how or what type of notification we'll receive when it actually does go into effect. But we do support it. And, yeah, we just have those questions as to how it affects us.

Perfect. We'll make sure the staff takes that into consideration when they kinda discuss some of the questions that the community has. Okay? Thank you. Any other individuals who like to speak in support? Alright. So we'll go ahead and move to any individuals who like to speak in opposition. Please state your name, address, and you have three minutes.

Yeah. So I will have some questions about where were these meetings, when were the meetings, where was the information placed. I'm signed up with City of Fresno.

Excuse me. May you please state your name first?

Des. I am signed up with the city of Fresno. I haven't gotten a note. I just I left District 5, and I don't even remember any meetings being over there. I would like to know, inquire when they do have these community meetings, they have a sign up on a piece of paper.

Right? So I would like to know the ratio between the community members that showed up and the staff that showed up. Usually, a lot of times that these decisions are being made for us, you'll have, like, 15 people staff members, and then we have, like, three individuals from the community, and those three people wanna park. And we come back and we give a report that we wanna park. We have over 14 k units that we're we we're behind.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Affordable housing, we are so far behind. We're lacking funding. We're losing funding for us to be making this decision or for the city or the planning committee to push this forward to the city to make a decision. I think we need to think about the day and age that we're in right now. I think we need to really think about the affordable housing that we need at 30% or less. We have a 48% rise in homelessness. We've received over $700,000,000, and it's a shame on the city of Fresno that we have wasted $700,000,000. And we have a 48% rise in homelessness. Now I'm very credible.

Maybe they'll tell you this is the wrong numbers, but bring your numbers. I'll bring mine. We'll compare them, and I would love to sit down about and debate this if you want to. But I'm telling you the truth. Pull the numbers. If we had 4,326 people on the streets last year and we have more today, think about how much housing we need. So if we keep on building businesses and parks, where are these people? Because I wasn't there. I didn't get to be a part of it. So I'd love to pick the ratio. How many of us community members versus how many of them were staff? I think you need to start all over. We need to put a pause on this. I don't think building into the Southeast District Plan we need housing, you guys. I'm sorry.

We do need jobs, but we need housing. We can't keep on building businesses in parks when we we're gonna have us, me, the in house. I'm gonna be at the park. Build more parks because we need more parks because I'll be there. Because if you don't build housing for me, we're gonna be in the parks. So if you don't want us in the parks and you want kids in the parks, build housing. Let's start there first. Let's start with housing. We have to do it. And I wanna be part of the community that makes these decisions and be at these meetings. I think it's very unfair. Seriously, pull the ratio, and you guys will see there's probably, like, 70% staff and 30% community.

Thank you. Do we have any other individuals who like to speak in opposition? Please state your name, address, and you have

three minutes. Don't think I have to state my name. That's not part of the rules. Do you wanna ask counsel?

Counsel, she need to state her name? I know they don't need to state their address. How about their name?

You you should let her speak even if she doesn't wanna give her name.

That's fine.

Exactly. I don't think anybody here is maybe her, but you guys probably did not attend law school. And so a lot of these things that you're doing oh, and a second ago when you asked people to come up in support or opposition, you did not time this guy that was in support. So I have a problem with that. And, also, I have a problem with you guys not nope nobody really asking questions. It's probably, like, a lot of money spent. And so why are you guys on this board if you're gonna ask questions, questions that need to be asked? There's always amendments to this. It's like a lot going on here. I'm not even sure you understand. This happened handed was handed to you, what, two weeks ago? Maybe. And so they threw it off to you. You guys seen, obviously, the pushback December 18 when the whole and they snuck it they they split it to you guys. Okay?

There's something wrong with this, and nobody here is gonna tell you the legal ramifications for going continue with this. There is no rush. You guys haven't done a lot of things that got brought up here to do. You guys do not check these well, I'm not gonna stay thrown on you guys. But these contracts are not being checked for what they when they basically, when they apply for them.

So a lot of this stuff's not being done. And, yeah, it's just kinda wrong. You got a team of people probably here already answered this question. You know, the office of attorney general, 2015, 2017, 2000 there's plenty of times where just stuff like this has been processed without there's lot of rules, there's a lot a lot of people here in public involvement. And I think if people would've knew, they would've showed up. And there is no rush. Even her herself said for the environmental review, whatever, they don't even have that. So it's that they want you to pass it today and then say, oh, while we're gonna fix do the environment. No. Why don't you do that first?

And that's when you're gonna have to give us notification, proper notification. So there's no reason. And if you guys do pass this, then there's something really wrong. So there is no rush to do this. There is no rush. You guys have all these other plans, all these other contractors. Yeah.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Just to make a note, I did give the gentleman three minutes. He just didn't take three minutes.

Okay. You stated that, did he?

I did. I did. Thank you. You can go ahead and rewatch this on YouTube and okay. Thank you. Do we have any other individuals who like to speak in opposition? You're supposed

to speak a lot more

Thank you. But thank you. Thank you. But the meeting is going through. Appreciate it. Can you please let's go ahead. And you know what? If they wanna continue with this, then we're gonna have security come in and remove them. Okay? Alright.

We got

we got

a lot.

Alright. Do we have any other individuals who'd to speak in opposition? I see none. Does the staff need some time to go ahead and review some of these questions and alright. So we do have some concerns right here.

First off, we have the individual who like to discuss what would happen to their property if it does get rezoned, if they're gonna be grandfathered in. Next one's going to be in regards to meetings. If there's a sign in sheet that's gonna show the staff ratio versus the people in attendance. And then if you can emphasize the fact that this is actually in regards to low income housing, is it gonna increase, or is it gonna decrease? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, chair Bing. Sophia Pagalatis with the Planning and Development Department. So regarding the property owner who first stepped forward in support at 2148 Chestnut, I believe. We we did meet with that property owner, and we did explain that the business that he has on-site would be grandfathered in. But we are happy to meet with him again and make sure that he is able to follow the remaining steps in the process.

And chair, I would like to note, he stated that he had, a garden center nursery garden center. Is that correct? A nursery garden center is not a permitted use in the Ozone District. It is conditionally permitted in the Industrial Light District, and it is permitted by right in NMX, CMX, and RMX. So he would be it would not be a legal nonconforming use. It would be a legal use if if it is a garden center.

Let's see. So continuing on thank you, director. The out public outreach and number of participants in the public meetings

My apologies. But can we please we have excuse me. We have someone speaking right now. I think they're being very respectful of your time when you spoke too. Please. Please. We're trying to continue this meeting. So look.

I'm in a public setting. I'm whispering.

Well, they're being respectful of you when you guys spoke. Correct? Were they? I think you guys are interrupting right now. Okay.

Alright. You know what? Is there any way can we get can we get security to come in, please? Please? Please. Yeah.

This is a public forum.

Yeah. What we're gonna do is you know, it's 06:45 right now. Let's go ahead and call a five minute break. Okay. Alright.

Mister Vang will be getting phone calls.

Do that on police

or cops. City attorney or our phone.

You think for any little thing to kick people out, you can't. You need to learn the brown act.

So here we have mister

meeting. We're gonna restart this meeting. I want if we can be respectful of each other. They were being respectful of you guys too when you guys did speak. Okay? So let's go ahead and resume the meeting. But if there are interruptions, then I will have you removed. Okay? So this is a warning. Alright?

Let's go ahead.

Testing. Yes. Chervain, continuing on the questions from members of the public. There was a question about where and when the meetings occurred. They occurred primarily the outreach between 2018 and 2021.

They were mostly at the Mosqueda Center, but they rotated to various locations. Just respondents to a survey alone were estimated at 600 survey responses. And I'm going to estimate another 400 participants at all the other events and meetings that occurred. I don't have that on one single sign in sheet. I would have to compile information from the files. But that's my estimate of the level of participation that occurred. Were there other questions, Chair? Or

Would that document, that sign in sheet, would that be accessible to any of the public if they want access to it?

Certainly. The

other question's going to be in regards to concern for low income housing. How do we go ahead and make sure that there's gonna be affordable housing?

I'll I'll just repeat a few things that I mentioned in the presentation. One is that the overall capacity of the plan area with the proposed plan amendments increases by 2,938 units. So the plan is really all about housing. And all of the proposed land use changes except the one on the fairgrounds are going to residential or to a higher density residential. So this all of the land use changes are increasing residential.

Now with regard to the housing element sites in particular, there are three housing element sites in the project area that are affected by the land use changes. And those changes result in an increase in low income housing element sites up to, I believe it was four ninety eight units. Let me get my page here.

Four eighty

nine, I believe. Sorry about that. You've got it. Four eighty nine. Yes. So the plan, and as far as it is able to lay the framework and the groundwork for the kind of development that's needed in the area and for housing of all incomes and types, including for low income housing, is doing what we've mentioned in order to support that goal.

Great. Is there any way you can exchange your contact information with those individuals who do have any questions or they want additional information like for example to sign in sheet too? Of course. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any questions or comments from the commission? Commissioner Sherga?

I just have a question about we have this one person here. He said they have a business, like a gardening business. So if they want to continue that, are they grandfathered in for that?

Say that again, if they wanted to

If they want to continue gardening, they had the gardening business. Yes. So they wanna continue doing that.

Yes.

If this plan is passed, can they still do it?

Yes. Yes. Our development code is very permissive when it comes to continuation of legal nonconforming uses as long as they were legal at the time that they were established. It could continue in perpetuity.

So Phil, would that continue even if it's like a change of ownership? If it's a change of ownership? Yes.

It would continue even so.

Perfect.

And with this plan, I think you presented it, but how many more homes are we adding into Fresno with this plan? Are we adding more

homes? We

the plan provides almost 3,000 units, 2,938 units of additional capacity. The plan itself doesn't build any homes. We rely on both the city and the private sector to get that done.

It does bring in give builders or business people more opportunity to build more Yes. Okay.

Thank you. Any other questions?

I have two questions. I just want to confirm, I know Mr. Puschel said that his clients would like their land to be designated for urban neighborhood. Was this a conversation that you had and agreed to?

Yes. Yes. Mister Pushel has been and the property owners, we've met with both of them, and they are in agreement with the proposed urban neighborhood designation on their property.

Okay. Just wanted to confirm. And then my last question would be in terms of the report that you said we would be waiting on, could you further elaborate on that and just explain why that would or wouldn't be detrimental to what we're deciding today?

Yes. So what I mentioned was that whenever there are additional land use change requests that come after the plan has been published, when it's in the legislative process, we consider impact to housing capacity, which we've discussed. And we consider whether or not those land use changes are within the scope of the environmental document. And our consultant is still analyzing that. But I would just point out that all of the property owners, all five who expressed opposition to the change simply want to retain what is currently in the general plan.

So they're not requesting something different. But with that, I will it'll be up to the planning commission to indicate if they wish to entertain any of those.

So so chair, in other words

She's referring to the findings.

The environmental document that you have in front of you evaluates the plan as it is. Mhmm. If you choose to make changes to accept one of these requests, those are the things that are still in environmental review.

So so for

example couldn't make or the the the city council couldn't make a final determination until it's determined that those would those modifications to the plan as it is today are within the scope of the environmental document. So the environmental document is complete based on the plan as it is. These are based on land use request change requests.

Gotcha. So for example, if we went ahead and if there was a recommendation to have these exhibit m, all of the findings be considered, they would have to do the additional research. Correct?

Correct. If so if you were to accept one or all of the rec all of the requests in that before the council could take action on any of those chain you can make that recommendation today, but they can't take a final action on that until they've determined it's within the scope. If it's not within the scope, there's a number of things that they could do. They can accept all but that particular one that's not within the scope. They could recommend that it come at a later time after additional evaluation was completed.

They could pause the whole plan until additional information is completed, but there has been strong push to bring this back in front of the planning commission. As you know, you heard this several years ago, and it was put on hold. So bringing it back to to the commission allows for this additional dialogue and for the council to have that that conversation.

Perfect. Make a recommendation to approve staff's recommendations to take it on to the city council but leave an option for those properties to retain their current designation once the environmental impact is done.

So, again, the the planning commission can can make a number of recommendations. You can recommend, in favor as is, right, as has been presented today. You can, recommend, denial in in its entirety or you can recommend a combination. Right? So you could recommend support of the plan and the environmental document and the additional documents that are within the package with a consideration of certain modifications including, but not limited to, the the property owner requests.

The council if you do that, the council couldn't act on those additional changes if they wanted to. They can consider it, but they couldn't act on them until those that environmental is completed. And we do anticipate that'll will be completed prior to the city council meeting. We do.

Perfect. Because what we're doing is we're making a recommendation to the city council, ultimately. Okay. Any additional questions or comments from the commission? Thank you. Appreciate it. Alright. So we'll bring it back to the commission. Do we have any additional questions, comments, or motion from the commission?

Well, I'm trying trying to make the right motion. I I'd like to make a motion to move this forward to the city council, but leave an option or however you would say it that these requests from the property owners be granted as long as they meet the environmental assessment, the additional environmental assessment that needs to be done. Does that work? Okay.

Alright. So we okay. So we have a motion made by vice chair Bray. We have a second by commissioner Calandra. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. Motion's approved. Next, we're gonna go to new matters. This is item ID two six one four zero.

It's a workshop regarding substantial evidence. Carrie, Can you put the Go ahead. Thank you.

Good evening again, chair, members of Planning Commission. Israel Trejo with the Planning and Development Department. So tonight, you have a workshop, on substantial evidence. I will be giving the first half of the presentation, and my colleague Phil C. Crest, will give the second half of the presentation.

So, substantial evidence, is what we're gonna be, speaking to tonight, and that, phrase or that term is thrown around a lot, here at Planning Commission. So we did wanna provide a workshop, on substantial evidence. So we have some goals for this presentation tonight. One of those is to equip the planning commission, with the legal framework necessary to make, defensible decisions that survive, judicial scrutiny. So the projects that you receive here at the planning commission come with findings, and those findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Now if the the planning commission decides to to approve a project or or deny a project contrary to the recommendation of city staff, as provided in the staff report, the planning commission, will need to make, findings, and those findings must be made by substantial evidence. That's very important when it goes to, so if if the position or the decision is challenged and it goes to the appeal court, one of the things that the court is going to look at it look at is that the findings were supported by substantial evidence. Also going to, define, what substantial evidence is, we have two definitions, two slides, which I'll get into later relative to the definition of substantial evidence. Also applying substantial evidence, when is it applied? So the projects that you see, we apply substantial evidence in two two locations.

One is the findings, which you're very familiar with, and also the environmental assessments. The conclusions, within the environmental assessments must be, supported by substantial evidence and gonna go walk through a one of the study areas of an initial study later on in this presentation. And the outcome, obviously is, as kind of outlined in the first goal is that we wanna make sure that the the planning commission, makes, decisions that are based. The findings contain substantial evidence just in case it is appealed to the appellate court that, again, one of the things that the court looks at is that the findings were supported by substantial evidence. So this definition came from a online legal dictionary, and I'll kinda just read it of what the definition of substantial evidence is.

So evidence that is more than just marginal or minimal and would be adequate from a reasonable person's point of view to uphold a decision. So substantial evidence can be a a number of things, including professional testimony. So you'll hear oftentimes presentations here. There'll be testimony given by staff of the the the planning department as well as public utilities and the public works department. That testimony would be considered a professional professional testimony, professional opinion, and that can be considered substantial evidence.

Also, our development code. So if a project complies with the development code, that is considered substantial evidence. Also, So staff, when when we work on a project, we go out and, you know, observe a site. However, we don't live there. And so, you know, we can have a neighbor that lives near the site, and they can, you know, testify to things such as smell or it it floods, you know, in a certain way, that can be considered substantial evidence.

Also, we have professional reports that are provided by, engineers or or an architect relative to transportation, like a traffic impact study or a sound study, those studies are considered substantial evidence. So next, this, definition of substantial evidence comes straight out of the SQL guidelines, SQL section one five three eight four. And so substantial evidence gonna just quickly, paraphrase the the definition of substantial evidence as defined within CEQUA. So substantial evidence as as used in the CEQUA guidelines means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion even though even though other conclusions might also be reached. So this probably can be best explained.

So it's similar to the the definition I I mentioned earlier, but probably be best explained through an example, which I'll go through later. So what is not substantial evidence? So this is still reading from section SQL section one five three eight four of the SQL guidelines. So substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, or narrative evidence, which is clearly clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or not caused by physical impacts on the environment does not does not constitute substantial evidence. So oftentimes, you'll hear maybe opponents of a project may say, there's not enough open space or there's not enough parking.

That alone is not substantial evidence. That would need to be substantiated by, you know, conflict with the code. So when we bring projects, part of our findings is that enough parking. There's enough open space. So so if if someone, you know, opposes a project and they say there's not enough parking or not enough open space, again, that needs to be substantiated. It's not enough just to testify to that. Yes. Please.

Yeah. Go ahead. You wanna go ahead turn on your microphone, please? That

whole parking thing, I mean, when is the code itself enough of a substantiated evidence, or is can you bring in saying that, well, at peak times, the park you know, cars go into the neighborhood, and that's a problem. So does that become enough of a an argument or of a fact that could become substantiated?

So, commissioner Klein, I'm gonna answer best what what I think you're asking. So I I think you're asking different questions potentially, but I think one of the questions you're asking if is if there's enough parking. So if there's enough if if we approve a project and it meets the parking requirements, yes, that's of the development code, then, yes, that's substantial evidence that that project meets the code.

Even though there is evidence that it doesn't. Like, when the neighborhood is impacted and there is not enough parking and it goes in flows into the neighborhood, How do you, you know, balance that?

Or is there a like, if there's a let's say there's a traffic study showing that the traffic is a lot more during x amount of time, is that gonna be substantial evidence help support increasing parking?

So I'm gonna attempt to answer this and may ask for miss Thomas' assistance in this. But so so you can have evidence that leads to, you know, both sides of the argument. You substantial evidence can lead towards there is enough barking. However, there are other issues. So you weigh the totality of of the issue. I'm not sure if Heather may wanna add to that.

No. I would agree with that. Yeah.

So and and, chair, one of the things that, when we bring a project to you, it is a new project. So existing condition is what we consider baseline. So, will this new project create new impact? So there's two things. There's CEQUA, and then there's the findings in the development code. Right? So you're gonna look at two things. So, will this new project, have an impact on the environment? That's question one. And question two is, does it meet the findings in the development code?

One of them is, does it have the minimum required parking? Does it have the minimum required trees or setbacks? Those are all things that you go through. It meets the code. Right?

But then, typically, there's another finding in terms of the goals of the general plan or health and welfare and that kind of thing. So that's where you would say, okay. So the existing baseline condition is that there is, a parking problem. So, this project itself, if it was a standalone somewhere else, right, it meets all of the requirements. But the project may not, may you may not, as the commission, be able to make the findings because the baseline, there's already a problem.

Right? So don't add a new project into an area where there's already a problem. But you would need to have evidence. Right? So we have witnesses. We have testimony that from this time to this time every day, there's there's nowhere to park. Or every night on garbage night, I can't put up my garbage bins. Right? So but that you would need to use that evidence to make which finding it was appropriate to. It's not gonna be, does it meet the code?

And it's not gonna be a CEQA issue because parking's not a CEQA issue. Right? It's it's gonna have to be a finding that is related to to either a general plan goal or a health and welfare welfare goal or something else. You're gonna have to tie those pieces together just like you would when you were making a legal argument for or against a topic. Does that make sense?

That's helpful. Yes. I have a

question also. So say, for example, there is an issue. Does the city, based on testimony of people that know about this parking this hypothetical parking situation, Say there is a business that is not zoned or there is some type of building that's not to code and the the parking is coming from that business or that structure. Does the city then investigate, or is it up to people to come to the city to let them know what the situation is and why it's congested?

So that that would be a code complaint, and that's what Fresco is for. Right? So to submit a a complaint about a specific issue that's completely unrelated to the project. So you cannot make a decision on whether or not a project belongs based on someone else not following the rules.

Okay. So, essentially, we if somebody's coming to bring their testimony, they can't just complain. They have to also if they know of the situation, go to Fresco and identify it.

Right. So there's a number of ways. Right? 311, they can submit online. They can submit through Fresco of a business that may not be operating legally that may have other code issues. Certainly, they can submit those those kinds of complaints. And but, again, there you I don't wanna get too deep, but there has to be a nexus. So there has to be a connection between the decision you make and the project, the legal basis of law, because as you know, land use is a right. Right? So when you own a piece of property, you have certain rights that go with that piece of property.

And as long as you are complying with the code, it you need to be able to find substantial evidence related to that particular project, not somebody else in the neighborhood who doesn't follow the rules. You need to be able to tie that substantial evidence to that project specifically.

Yep. Alright. It's a great discussion. So, moving on. So just to finish the, the definition of substantial evidence within the SQL guidelines, as kind of what we're discussing now, so substantial evidence, shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, an expert opinion supported by facts.

Before I pass it on to Phil, just wanted to, excuse me, I just wanted to quickly go through the one of the sections of an environmental initial study. There are 21 study areas within initial study, and those are, you know, always included in your planning commission reports. So I just took the first one and just gonna kinda walk through the first study area within initial study, aesthetics, and kinda just kind of explain how we make conclusions based on substantial evidence. So aesthetics is the first study area within initial study. And the first question is, would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

So a scenic vista is defined within our master environmental impact report. I believe there are five or six different locations with this within the city of Fresno that can be considered a scenic vista. I think most of them are off the bluffs. I know there's one in on one of the tall buildings in Downtown Fresno. So let's say there was a project that was built within the the height limitations of the development code, and someone complains, hey.

They're blocking my view of the the foothills or blocking my view of, I don't know, a tree or something like that, we would not consider that an impact on a scenic vista because that that view is not considered a scenic vista within a definition of the master environmental impact report. Moving on to the next kinda study area is would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a state scenic highway? So, obviously, we can't just put the the answer no. It doesn't do that. We have to have substantial evidence.

And what is that? There's a a website that Caltrans has that shows all the different state scenic highways. And if the project is not within that area, then it obviously does not affect that. Last section we'd like to go over is would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? So, again, we can't just say, no. It doesn't. We have to answer that question with substantial evidence. And some of the evidence could be the project complies with the light requirements of the development code. That would be one answer. Or we also can another answer that we we put from time to time is that the project is consistent with existing develop in the area development in the area.

That concludes my my part of the presentation. I'm gonna pass it to Phil. Maybe we can take questions after Phil's portion. Thank you.

Good evening chair of vein commissioners, Philip Segres, planning and development department. So the next several slides will provide a basic, an overview of the some of the basics for making findings based on substantial evidence as it relates to development code findings as well as, CEQUA findings. So, what counts as, evidence? Evidence includes facts, expert opinion supported by facts, as well as reasonable assumptions that are based on facts. And and, again, some of the information in these slides, we kinda just talked about based on some of the questions that we just, that were just asked.

And so what is not evidence? Pure argument, speculation, that's some I cannot say that. Obst substantiated opinion or social economic impacts that don't cause physical, environmental changes. So again, purely speculative things. A project might result in, increased crime or decrease in property value.

If it's not, provided, supported by substantiated facts, then it is not evidence. And, when considering findings and substantial evidence, need to consider the whole record. So as commissioners, you must look at the entire record that's provided within the staff report. That's gonna be the staff report as well as all the attachments that are provided that includes the studies, environmental assessment, and associated studies with those, public comments that are provided well as department memos, conditions that are provided in the conditions of approval as well, and again, the technical studies. And so when making findings, you need to ensure that the findings link evidence to the ultimate decision, basically connecting the dots.

You need to be able to point to the specific reason for why you're making a decision. And when it comes to modifying staff findings, again, we staff will include findings within the staff report, but, if modifying maybe, changing the decision to deny an application, You need to be able to point to specific evidence that's within the record to support that change. That could be a neighbor's factual testimony about a site or testimony from staff from another department. So, you know, again, the example Israel mentioned, it could be about a particular, property or an intersection that, during winter months, there might be significant or frequent flooding at that intersection, and there's not, sufficient drainage at the site or testimony from city staff about the traffic impacts in the surrounding neighborhood and whether or not the current road system can accommodate a project. Personal observations by residents can be substantial evidence.

An example of that could be, and I just mentioned that, an example of flooding at an intersection. However, public, testimony generally, that based on general fears are typically considered speculative. Again, the prior example is that a project would result in, increased calls for service, if the or or decrease in property value. If there's not a study or, you know, any evidence to really support that, it's speculative, you shouldn't consider that. And to provide a a hypothetical scenario as an example, so let's say the planning commission denies application that proposes to build a a recycling facility.

And the reasons for that denial are the site concerns about increased traffic congestion, and a strain on public utilities. Making that decision, the commission's decision would be based on traffic studies, sewer water studies that are provided in the staff report, as well as testimony from city planners and traffic engineers, and possibly public comments from residents. And, after the planning commission, let's say denies the application based on on those, the developer could appeal that decision, to the appellate court or probably city council afterwards, but they could appeal that to the appellate court. And so oops. And so in reviewing the decision, an appellate court would apply the substantial evidence standard.

They would examine the record, everything that's within that record, the studies, the staff report, the findings, to see if there's enough credible traffic studies, expert opinions that were provided, and any other information that was presented to reasonably conclude that the permit should be denied due to the identified concerns. And so if there is sufficient evidence in the record to support those findings, then the appeal courts would generally uphold that denial. And even if there were also some evidence, that supporting the developer's position that the project shouldn't be denied. Oh, no. And so the next two slides will go over findings.

When we take an application, the staff, we review, analyze the project to make sure that it complies with all the development code standards, as well as, do the environmental assessment to make sure the project won't result in any significant environmental impacts. And and this must be, in in making the findings, the findings must be supported by the substantial evidence in the record. And I kinda mentioned it earlier, the record includes the application that was submitted, all of the exhibits, the operational statement, and also correspondence between city staff and the applicant, as well as when it gets to the to planning commission or city council, that would be the complete staff report that we present. And not just the the the report memo, but also the technical studies, consultant reports that go along with that and the environmental assessment, public comments that we receive that, you know, when we send out a public hearing notice, we might get public comments in response to that. So that'll be included in the in the report and in part of the record.

Any written testimony letters that are received, again, are compiled and included with your staff report. And then as well as, you know, does the project comply with any general or specific plans? And all of that is generally included in this findings that staff makes. And this next slide is overview of the findings for a conditional use permit. And, you know, might sound like repeat, we have given the planning commission a workshop on findings.

And so these are the the findings that you are required to make for a conditional use permit. The first is, that a proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this code and all other chapters in the municipal code. So staff would prepare findings and demonstrate, yes, the property is zoned, neighborhood mixed use, and the that use is permitted in that zone district based on the development code. And they would provide citations on, you know, does it comply it complies with, density, height, setbacks, etcetera, landscaping. We we demonstrate based on all the evidence in the record, the plans, etcetera, it complies with the code.

If it doesn't, then we can't make that finding. But again, we would cite point two where does it not meet those findings. If it's could be an example would be alcohol related conditional use permit that, you know, the code requires them not to be located near sensitive uses. For proposed off sale alcohol establishment is within close proximity, we would include that information. It's within a 100 feet of a sensitive use.

Doesn't comply, and therefore, this finding cannot be made. And there, we're including that evidence. We're connecting the dots. Same thing goes for the remaining findings that the project is consistent with the general plan and any other applicable plans will include, policies that, demonstrate how the project does, is consistent with those plans. And then how the use would be substantially that the use will not be substantially adverse to the public health, safety, or welfare.

Given we generally will rely on, comments from other departments, agencies, other areas within the Development Code and the General Plan that speak to that. But again, I don't want to go into detail on all these specific findings we've haven't given there, but again, we include the evidence in the record in the staff report. And so the last couple of slides will just kind of go over some of the best practices to consider when considering substantial evidence, when you're making findings or maybe modifying those findings. Get to the last. And so you wanna be sure to stay in the record.

So this means avoid ex parte communications, maybe amongst other commissioners or with project proponents or using outside research that's not shared in the staff report or during the public hearing. You'd want to avoid findings that are based on personal feelings or public sentiment, and those appear opinions can carry weight if they are supported by a factual basis. And be sure that the findings you make are based on fact, and so all modified findings must be supported by substantial evidence and found in the record such as the application, the technical reports, staff analysis, or expert testimony. And avoid predetermined opinions. If you might have a predetermined opinion, or fixed opinion that's not susceptible to change, it's based on evidence in the record or presented at the public hearing, then any resulting findings, can be seen as an impermissible bias leading to the decision being set aside.

So, if you just have a fixed bias about a particular use, let's use the off sale of alcohol uses again, you don't like that type of use because that's just your internal opinion. You shouldn't base your decision based on that. And be sure to state the findings in the motion. So it's really important to articulate your findings at the time the motion is made. That'll help ensure your findings are captured in the official meeting minutes.

Additionally, when voting or making motions, you wanna clearly state which facts or expert opinions lead to your conclusions, such as maybe a police report that is includes calls for service at a particular site. Oh, this is what you know, this project could result in increased calls of service. It we have the report. We have testimony from maybe p police officer that might be in attendance at that meeting. And, you know, if the commission needs more information in order to make a modified finding, don't rush, or make a flawed decision, that's not based on supported facts or evidence.

You really wanna get that evidence in the record. So as much as, you know, we like to move projects along and meet timelines for developers and there's a lot of pressure pressure on you making the decision, the important is that you're making a decision that's based on fact and based on evidence in the record. So if you feel that there isn't evidence in the record, don't don't rush that decision in there and make sure that your finding is sound. And then show your work, and consider writing your findings out. Just make it clear, before if you're gonna make a proposed finding, before you actually say it into the record, write it out, make sure that we have it, and and that way it's spoken clearly, kinda going back to articulating it well.

And then and then just one last thing, when you receive receive staff report, you know, really kind of read through staff's findings and understanding what those findings are. And it really helps when if the Planning Commission wants to uphold or even amend findings that you understand those findings and which findings you're gonna amend and and and you can point to the evidence and clearly state why you're amending or changing those findings. And again, these are just basic best practices to consider when considering projects and making findings or modifying findings that are based on substantial evidence. And that completes our presentation.

Alright. Do we have any questions or comments for staff? Is there any way are we able to get the PowerPoint presentation? Yeah. Is that possible too? Absolutely. Okay. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it.

You. Do

we have any reports from secretary?

I do not have a report tonight.

Alright. Do we have any unscheduled oral communications? Please state your name, address, and you have three minutes.

Yes. I would like to receive the rules, please. Because I asked for the rules so they wouldn't be broken. It'd be nice if you guys put them up at the front, put them outside, did stuff like that. But I think just because you're in that seat that you should use self control on trying to control everybody else when they're whispering.

So whispering to somebody in this chamber, it happens all the time. I just want you to make sure that this is gonna go on record. Because if I show up every single time and anybody speaks out here without you shutting them up and calling the police, then you're gonna be using discrimination against me because it bothered you. I have been going here for ten years. Okay, mister Bang? Ten years. You've been sitting up there for a while now. K? I looked you up. You've been up there for a while.

There's no reason you should be asking the questions you're asking today. It kinda scares me. For as long as you've been up there, you should know some of this stuff already. But when you try to shut up the public in a public building, what do you think that does when people are watching this? They're gonna watch too. I'm gonna make sure that this part gets played out there because you can't keep on silencing the public in a public space. Now if I was being disruptive and yelling and all that stuff and cackling and all that, I understand. But I was having a conversation with her. I was trying to whisper, there's nobody else in this damn chambers. It's empty.

This is a shame. Shame on you for sitting up there and not bringing more people in here because this is supposed to be an important meeting. So it really upsets me that you think you're gonna control me in this type of environment. So next time you call the police on me, make sure you do it with what your intentions are. Because it's unfair for me to sit up here and speak to whoever I want to.

I I can talk to anybody I want to. You don't have control over my fucking mouth or anything I fucking say. I can say what I wanna say. This is a public setting. So if you want me to treat you with respect, next time somebody's whispering in the chambers, don't try and take control over them and shut them up, and then think you're gonna intimidate them with the police. Come on, dude. I've been coming here for ten years. You should've looked me up before you did that because you would've known I was gonna come up here for unscheduled communication and say something. Yes. We're gonna sit up here for the whole time. Where's my time at? I don't even see the clock up there. How do I know my time is actually my time? We have a clock up there. I need my clock because there's nowhere up there showing me my time.

So you guys can be just controlling it like you want, and you can go ahead and shut me off when you want. Where's my time clock at? We have it at every city city council meeting, every single one. So that way we can tell that you're not messing with us. So where's the clock? Seconds remaining. I don't have my clock.

You have the bell.

I don't have a clock. Doesn't tell me. There's a green, yellow, and a red. There's, like, no

Alright. Thank you. Do we have the next individual who'd like to speak? Please. Do we have the next individual who'd like to speak? Yes.

Can I have the rules, please?

Asking for the rules.

We have the next individual who'd like to speak? Go ahead and preach up go ahead and approach the podium. Please state your name, address, and you have three minutes.

My name is Brunette, and I'm with. I have a problem with I have to be honest with you. We've been here quite a few times and telling you guys about the community meetings. Miguel showed up last month at the last minute with a roundabout on Powell And Martin Luther King. They said that the community he had a community meeting. We confronted him. No. He didn't. This was a last minute meeting. They received federal funds already before they came to the community with a roundabout.

We don't run a roundabout. They didn't even have a meeting. And the money the guy stood up and said he was from planning. See, this is a continuation thing that they're doing in Southwest Fresno. They do whatever they wanna do, and it doesn't matter what the community says. Then he had the audacity to say it was from twenty years ago. How did they continue to do this even with the Southwest Fresno specific plan? This was back in 1969. How do you push forward stuff like that and don't let the community know? I sit here and listen how they said that they put out flyers to people that's in Southeast.

They didn't do that with Southwest. We didn't get any flyers. They're constantly asking us what it is they can do to accommodate us, but you can't send out flyers. That doesn't make any sense. And we continue to come here, and we tell you guys, and then you allow somebody to tell you that you can pass it and then let the city council decide it.

We want all of it stopped here. If you're sitting in a position to whereas you can stop things from moving forward to the city council because everybody votes from District 1 to District 7 on what goes on in Southwest Fresno, and we do not have a say. So we are asking you guys to stop that. We're not asking for a roundabout. We never did, never will, and they're receiving federal dollars. And we are going to pursue it as a lawsuit against the city because they're doing things that's illegal. You do not get federal funds and then come to the community. That's not how that works.

Alright. Thank you. Do we have the next individual? Please state your name, address, and you have three minutes.

Hi. I don't think I have to state anything really. But and I don't yeah. As a board chairman, you should know that, but you don't. And all you have these funds also that get run through here, federal funding, just FYI, goes by a lot more stricter. And so all these amendments made, they come back and jump around. Don't let this anybody else come here in their presentation and tell you you have to vote on something or make you feel pressured. Because if you are, you need to go somewhere else. I'm serious. If you have any common sense and you see right through this, it's a bunch of the connect the dots connect the dots, yeah, just to make it work. Lot of this is, like, the what is it? The impact reports. Yeah. That's the whole thing. What are they missing?

That's a thing. That's part of the public notification they don't wanna give because if they did the e whatever the evaluation, again, they'd have to show proof that they gave the public notice, and they just one thing to another. So, yeah, there's gonna be some lawsuits, and it's not gonna go on for too much longer. And so let me see. I got another two minutes. Let's see. Just wanna make sure I say everything. Yeah. Let me see. Yeah. So don't let anybody scare you with lawsuits because if anything, we're we're gonna be the ones bringing them. You don't have to pass anything.

Alright. Do we have any other unscheduled oral communications? Alright. I see none. It's currently 07:38. Meet is adjourned. Thank you.