Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ... ... Thank you. Thank you.

That was cool.

good evening everyone it's Wednesday July 19th and this is the Planning Commission meeting and I good evening everyone we're ready to start the meeting okay First of all, I want to thank all of you for being here. All of us on the Planning Commission really appreciate it when we have the public show up. It's part of being American, I guess, and we get to speak our mind. So we really appreciate having you here, and we're going to have a good conversation tonight. So let's do the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ready? Salute.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I also want to welcome Commissioner Holt back. Jamie Holt is back. So we have a full commission again. So it's great to have everyone here. Will you do the roll call? I was just going to say, if you can't hear me, because I do speak softly, so I apologize.

Commissioner Holt.

Present.

Commissioner Giles.

Here.

Commissioner Calandra. Here. Commissioner Shergill.

Present.

Commissioner Diaz. Here. Vice Chair Lide. Present. Chair Bray.

Here. Here. I'll read the procedures. 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 will then be taken, followed by testimony from those in opposition. the applicant will have a right to final rebuttal presentation prior to closing the public hearing. In accordance with section 13 of article two of the planning commission rules and regulations governing the length of public debate, all public testimony from those in support and in opposition to 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 speaker begins. The yellow light will come on with a soft bell ring when one minute is remaining. The speaker should be completing the testimony by the time the red light comes on with a 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 in a derogatory manner shall be deemed irrelevant and will not be considered by the Commission in making its land use demands. excuse me, determinations. If you challenge these land use matters in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in oral or written testimony or before the close of the hearing. And I see some people are standing in the back. If you could try to find a seat down here, there are empty seats. It's a safety rule that everyone needs to be seated and the aisles can't be blocked. So I'd appreciate if you could find a seat. um so we'll start today's meeting with the approval of the agenda are there any changes good evening chair bray members of the planning commission i'm israel trejo with the planning and development department there are no changes to the agenda thank you thank you do any commissioners have a change to the agenda okay um is there a motion to approve the agenda i'll make the motion to approve it second OK, Commissioner Schergel made the motion to approve. Commissioner Lai, do you second it? If you're in favor, say aye. Aye. OK, we'll move on to the consent calendar. We have the commission meetings from August 5. So does anyone have changes? Or does the public have changes to those minutes?

Motion to approve.

Yeah.

Second.

All right. All those in favor? Aye.

Okay. Through the chair of the commission, please let the record know I was not in attendance at the August 5th meeting and would like to abstain.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any reports by commissioners?

Yes, I have a quick say. First of all, we want to welcome our Fresno people. This is people's house, so welcome to the city hall. I just want to request everyone, you know, we have a wonderful app called Fresgo app. You know, I hear people, you know, we always kind of, we have concerns about potholes, landscaping not being, city landscaping not being worked on, water just keeps on running. So please, humble request to everyone, on your iPhones, Androids, please download Fresgo app and please be involved. I mean, if you see anything in your neighborhood that you're not happy about, please make a report. And the city does do a pretty good job. Like within 24 to 48 hours, usually they do come and fix it. Especially those potholes, the landscaping, especially I made a report about our schools, some of the landscaping in getting, you know, the grass not getting cleaned up. So I know in a couple of days they'll clean it because that's how strong the Fresno app is. So we want everyone in Fresno to please, we recommend and request, please do download Fresno app and be involved. So thank you. Thanks so much.

Okay. We have continued. And again, I'm sorry you may not have been here when I said this, but we can't have you standing in the aisles. So if there's not a seat here, there is seating up in the balcony. I'm assuming someone can show you how to get up to the balcony. So...

Chair, it's not open. But there are plenty of seats here. If there's a seat next to you, if you'll raise your hand so that we can have our members of the public in the back not standing in front of the exit doorways. Thank you.

Through the chair? Yes. I just want to let everyone know I'm in physical therapy for lower back issues. And if I stand up, I'm still listening. I just need to stand up periodically. So I apologize if it looks like I'm not paying attention.

Okay, we'll move on to continued matters. First, 7A, ID 26-1092 is gonna be continued to September 2nd. 7B, ID 26-1093 will be continued to September 16th. So we are on now to new matters. ID 26-891 consideration of the SEDA plan. So can I have staff come and make the presentation?

Good evening Chair Bray, members of the Planning Commission, Adrienne Osidore and Gilbert with the Planning and Development Department here to present the Environmental Impact Report and specific plan for the Southeast Development Area. So now we will quickly touch on some background regarding SEDA and two weeks ago staff presented a more expanded version of this presentation and tonight we're going to focus on directions specifically related to SEDA. Portions of the southeast growth area were included in prior general plans, dating back to the first general plan in 1958. In 2002, the southeast growth area was officially added to the city's sphere of influence as identified in LAFCO resolution number USOI-144. SEDA planning work began in 2006. An environmental impact report was also started for this plan. However, the plan was set aside due to the recession. In 2014, the city adopted the current Fresno General Plan. Land use concepts from the draft SEDA-specific plan were incorporated into the General Plan, and the area was renamed the Southeast Development Area. Like the SEGA, the SEDA-specific plan has a total capacity of up to 45,000 dwelling units on approximately 9,000 acres. The general plan identified approximately one-third of those units to be built within its horizon year of 2035, with the remaining build-out to occur after that time. Part of the intent of this general plan is to have areas for growth as well as to emphasize infill. And here we have the SATA-specific plan boundary. The full plan area includes 9,000 acres, generally bound by the Gould Canal on the north, McCall and Highland on the east, Jensen and North on the south, and Temperance and Minnewawa on the west. I do also want to note the area outlined in red, identified as South Sata, is proposed as phase one per city council direction. While the entire planning area includes all 9,000 acres, as established by LAFCO resolution number USOI-144, development will only be permitted in the South Sata areas east of Temperance and south of Jensen at time of plan adoption. And just to touch on South Seda a bit further, South Seda includes two sub areas that we will refer to as South of Jensen and East of Temperance. South of Jensen includes the area generally bound by Minnehwawa on the west, north to the south, Temperance to the east, and Jensen to the north. East of Temperance includes the area generally bound by the Briggs Canal on the north and east, Jensen on the south, and Temperance on the west. As directed by the city council, the south SATA area is proposed as phase one with development prohibited in all other areas until certain thresholds have been met. And we will discuss those thresholds a bit further in the presentation. So now we will discuss how the SEDA specific plan implements the goals and objectives identified in the Fresno general plan. As discussed previously, the current general plan incorporated land use concepts from the previous SEDA plan. The land uses included in the SEDA modified consolidated business park alternative map are very similar and we'll go into more detail on those land uses a bit later. You will notice that the general plan land use map includes trails while the SATA map does not. These were quite controversial in the public engagement process, so the decision was made to conduct a parks and trails master plan as a later implementation step to provide a space for more community dialogue on the location of parks and trails. The proposed SEDA land use map, as directed by the city council, is different from the current general plan land use map in that it includes primarily residential land uses east of Temperance and primarily employment and institutional land uses south of Jensen. This will be discussed further in the presentation. This map shows the different existing neighborhoods and development areas included in the general plan. The various blues in the center with the turquoise blue along the BRT corridors are the existing neighborhoods, while the pink and purple areas around the west and southeast are development or growth areas. SATA includes two development areas, DA4 East and DA3 Southeast. These development areas were established to promote and plan for development in areas within city limits first, prior to permitting development in areas along the sphere of influence boundary. General Plan Table 1-3 identifies housing capacity for the various development areas by 2035. This table identifies 14,900 dwelling units in SEDA by 2035. General Plan Table 1-4 identifies dwelling unit capacity beyond 2035. This table identifies 44,092 dwelling units of capacity in the SEDA. Fresno General Plan Objectives UF-12 and UF-13 call for a balance of infill and growth, stating roughly half of all residential development to be both infill and growth areas. Since 2013, housing development in Fresno has been 74% infill and 26% in growth areas. In addition, General Plan Policy ED-5B requires that annexation to the city pay its fair and proportional share of needed community improvements, and LU 1-1E requires that annexations are revenue neutral and cover all costs for public infrastructure, public utilities, and public services. Fresno Municipal Code section 15-6104 regarding annexation criteria also clarifies revenue neutrality requirements. And now we will discuss the specific plan goals, structure, and chapters. So as set forth in the general plan, the SETA plan in its entirety is designed to accommodate 40,000 to 45,000 dwelling units and 30,000 to 37,000 jobs. The plan includes fiscal responsibility goals to provide self-financing for future development in addition to environmental sustainability, walkable neighborhoods, and integration and preservation of farming and agriculture, to name a few. And again, while the goals identified here and subsequent chapters of the specific plan are included in this presentation, they should be evaluated with the understanding that while the plan as a whole is being presented, development will only be permitted in the south SATA areas east of Temperance and south of Jensen at time of plan adoption. And here we have the chapters of the specific plan, starting with the introduction, urban form, housing choice and affordability, open space, schools and public facilities, community farming and agriculture, greenhouse gas reduction and conservation, economic opportunity, cultural and historic resources, and implementation. During the workshop presentation presented to the Planning Commission on August 5th, staff provided some brief highlights on planned changes and will be providing additional detail this evening on those changes. I also wanted to further clarify for the commission that in response to Commissioner Shergill's question during the workshop presentation regarding if the plan addressed public concerns, my response of yes, absolutely, may have been misunderstood. The word absolutely was used in acknowledgement to the question, not in response to the question. And now, to ensure staff provides the commission with a more detailed overview of those changes that have been made to this specific plan, we'll first start with the urban form chapter. As discussed in the urban form chapter, the SATA achieves its walkability in complete neighborhoods through a hierarchy of town centers. The major one is a regional town center, as shown on the map here, as the large red area just south of State Route 180. The lighter red areas on the map are community town centers and the turquoise blue are the neighborhood town centers. Surrounding those are mixed residential in orange and neighborhood residential in yellow. The lighter beige north of State Route 180 is rural residential and covers the existing rural residential development in the area. The light purple is flexible research and development, and the darker purple is office center. The light blue areas are institutional, and the eastern boundary is the rural cluster residential land use and serves as an agricultural buffer between SATA and the agricultural lands to the east. We will discuss these land uses over the next couple slides. Through council direction, the proposed land use map was revised. The consolidated business park alternative land use map was selected, which redistributes flexible research and development land uses south of Jensen and residential uses east of Temperance. And again, this is an overview of the proposed land use map. However, development is only permitted in the south state areas at time of plan adoption. In response to concerns regarding agricultural operations which could potentially occur adjacent to residential uses, the Fresno County Right to Farm Ordinance was incorporated into previous versions of the specific plan. The Right to Farm Ordinance provides protections for existing farming operations where properties are adjacent to residential uses. Specific Plan Policy UF-1.6 establishes that the city will incorporate the Fresno County Right to Farm Ordinance to protect existing agricultural operations. The Annexed Rural Residential Transitional Overlay as established in FMC Section 15-1606 allows continued rural residential use of properties upon annexation to the city. Any legally established use on a rural residential property at the time can remain in perpetuity. In response to concerns regarding existing rural residential properties and legally established uses occurring on those properties, policy UF-3.3 regarding the annex overlay was added to the specific plan. This policy permits the continued use of legally established uses in Fresno County on annexed rural residential properties. More recently, the policy was further expanded to add clarifications that in the event of a conflict between Fresno County rural residential regulations and the City of Fresno ANX overlay, Fresno County regulations shall supersede. FMC section 15-1607 establishes requirements in suburban residential areas where horses or other equine are permitted. In order to address further concerns regarding animal and specifically horse keeping, specific plan policy UF-3.4, which allows horse keeping in suburban residential areas, has been added to the specific plan. This policy further states that in the event of a conflict between the FMC and Fresno County regulations regarding course keeping on residential uses, Fresno County regulations shall supersede. Regarding concerns on the cost and requirements for hookups to city services, the following policies have been added to the specific plan. Specific plan policy UF-3.5 requires the creation of a community benefit fund which would pay for residential connections to city services. Specific plan policies UF-3.6 through 3.9 establish timing and requirements for connections to city services based on when and if city services are available. When required or needed, property owners will have five years to connect to city services if they are available to serve the property. If city services are not available, property owners can continue use of existing water wells and septic tanks. And I'd also like to touch on existing regulations in the Fresno Municipal Code today that would apply to structures and uses in the SEDA regarding legal nonconforming uses and structures. Fresno Municipal Code Article 4 permits the continued use of structures, site features, lots, and land uses that were created lawfully prior to adoption of the Development Code. This also applies to legally established uses or structures prior to annexation into the city. These uses or structures may be continued indefinitely until such a time the property is redeveloped. So now to touch on the various land uses in SATA. Here we have the town centers. The regional town center will feature region serving retail and office activity, as well as medium and higher density housing. The regional town center is the primary mixed use employment center, retail destination, and host to major cultural attractions in the SATA. Community town centers will support the daily commercial and business needs of the SATA neighborhoods, and neighborhood town centers will accommodate local serving retail civic, and educational uses. Moving into the residential land uses, the mixed residential and neighborhood residential land uses support the town centers and the retail unemployment centers that are located there. These land uses are transit supportive and conducive to creating housing choice and walkable complete communities. There are also two lower density residential uses, rural residential, which applies mostly to the existing rural residential development, and rural cluster, which is within the buffer area along the eastern boundary of the plan area. There are three employment and institutional land uses in the SEDA plan. The office center land use is intended to support office and business related uses in addition to compatible commercial uses such as retail. Flexible research and development land uses are intended to contain advanced manufacturing and green technology uses and institutional land uses are intended to include K through 12 schools and university or state and community college functions while providing a limited but compatible series of commercial uses. Chapter three focuses on housing choice and affordability. Housing policies in the SATA-specific plan call for a diverse range of housing types to further support the goals and policies of the Fresno General Plan housing element. In addition, the mixed-use town center framework and higher densities proposed in the SATA plan facilitate a diversity of housing options. Chapter four of the SEDA plan focuses on open space, schools, and public facilities. Notable policies include a future adoption of a parks and trails master plan to plan the best locations for parks and trails in addition to creating buffers around schools when adjacent to more intense uses. In order to address concerns regarding the existing Lone Star Elementary School located in South Sata and direction received from the city council, the following policies have been added to chapter four of this specific plan. Policies OS-8.3, and OS-8.4 require the placement of loading docks and emission generating equipment away from schools and the installation of solid or vegetative buffers between emission sources and schools. Policy OS-8.5 also establishes requirements for safe routes to schools. Community farming and agriculture are a continued pillar of the SEDA plan. The plan incorporates the Fresno County Right to Farm Ordinance which allows for the continued operations of normal farm activities near or around other uses. In addition, the plan includes a policy to further support properties with Williamson Act contracts and will not facilitate early termination of those contracts. Regarding preservation of existing agricultural lands, and as previously mentioned, the Fresno County right to farm regulations have been added to the specific plan. In addition, policy CF-1.4 regarding Williamson Act contracts was added to establish that the city will not initiate termination of Williamson Act contracts. The SADA plan also incorporates policies that conserve water and energy, such as promoting compact mixed-use land use patterns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, incorporate low-impact development practices, and integrate water supply, treatment, delivery, and planning practices. With the SEDA plan, the city has an opportunity to pursue economic development strategies that synergize new development potential and become a hub for agricultural technology and clean energy. In addition, the SEDA plan is projected to accommodate up to 37,000 jobs and includes a focus on flexible research and development land uses that facilitate uses in industries such as advanced manufacturing and green technology. While the local register does not currently include designated resources in the SEDA, the SEDA plan intends to maintain elements of the area's rich agricultural history to require cultural resource surveys and resource protection measures when new development is proposed. Chapter nine implementation was revised to include thresholds and phasing requirements as provided from the city council direction in December of 2025. The following thresholds and phasing requirements have been added into this specific plan. Starting with the phased approach, development will first occur in the south SEDA areas east of Temperance and south of Jensen. All other areas within the SEDA plan boundary will be identified as future reserve areas. Before development can be permitted in a future reserve area, 75% of the residential land uses in the current phase must be developed and occupied. This shall be measured by 75% of the total acreage dedicated for residential land uses in each phase in addition to the available occupancy rate. Once 75% of the residential is developed and occupied, a new supplemental EIR and financing analysis will be required to analyze future environmental impacts and costs associated with development in the next identified future reserve area. This shall be initiated by and at the responsibility of the City of Fresno. Next will occur selection of boundaries for future reserve areas. This will identify where future development should occur. Following completion of a supplemental EIR and fiscal analysis, the council could schedule a voter referendum to approve the next area ready for development. Remaining implementation measures after plan adoption would be to update the development code to include CEDA specific development standards and requirements, Prepare a SATA parks and trails master plan and construction of upfront infrastructure in South SATA. And now we will move on to the environmental impact report. I do want to note we have our environmental consultant here, Phil Alt from First Carbon Solutions. He is available to answer any technical EIR related questions. The California Environmental Quality Act, otherwise known as CEQA, requires state and local agencies to evaluate and disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project. As required, EIRs evaluate and disclose any impacts the proposed project may have and identify ways to mitigate those potential impacts through what are called mitigation measures. An EIR is required in cases where a project will have a significant or unavoidable impact on the environment. This means that despite feasible mitigation measures, impacts still exceed certain thresholds. There are a variety of environmental impact categories analyzed in EIRs, such as air quality and greenhouse gases, biological resources, transportation, noise, water, cultural and tribal resources, land use, hazardous materials, public services, public utilities, agricultural resources, and aesthetics. These documents are required by CEQA to be circulated to the public and public agencies for review and public comment. In compliance with CEQA, an environmental impact report was prepared for the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan. To provide a bit more context, the SEDA specific plan does not permit a specific development project and rather is a plan for the area. So environmental impacts are analyzed in this document at a higher level. As individual projects are proposed in the SEDA, they will each be required to prepare an environmental analysis that evaluates any potential project level impacts. The state EIR and technical studies identified the following significant and unavoidable impact areas. Aesthetics, light and glare, agricultural resources and forestry resources, air quality and noise. All other impacts were either less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Projects will be required to incorporate the following mitigation measures for air quality. Demonstrate use of super compliant architectural coatings, technical air quality assessments for construction related impacts and related mitigation measures, technical air quality assessments for operational impacts and imposition of related mitigation measures, and submission of a health risk assessment if toxic emissions exceed a threshold within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. Regarding aesthetics, light, and glare, projects will be required to use shields to direct lighting away from sensitive land uses and to use non-reflective building materials. To mitigate project level noise impacts, projects will be required to provide limitations on construction hours, provide project level noise construction analyses near sensitive receptors, and prepare the following plans prior to construction when applicable. Construction noise mitigation, traffic noise reduction, stationary source noise reduction, and construction vibration reduction. And to mitigate for the loss of prime farmland, projects will be required to preserve an equivalent type and quantity of land at a one-to-one ratio through recordation of a conservation easement or other recorded instrument, such as a covenant or deed that restricts the preserved land in perpetuity to agricultural uses. As a requirement of CEQA, an EIR is required to analyze the impacts of a no project alternative to compare the impacts of approving the project versus the impacts of not approving the project. The no project alternative analysis must discuss the existing conditions and what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved based on current plans. If the SATA specific plan is not approved, development could still occur according to general plan land uses as shown on the map here. The current general plan land use would allow for 17,900 homes and 29,000 jobs and does not propose any phasing or threshold requirements in order for development to occur. Development applications would be filed with the county of Fresno. As discussed in the previous slide, the no project alternative is simply the general plan land uses which exist today. it does not mean that no development would occur. As shown here, the consolidated business park alternative was identified as the environmentally superior alternative. This alternative consolidates flexible research and development land uses into the southern portion of the SATA and residential uses east of Temperance. Through council direction, the consolidated business park alternative was selected as the proposed land use map with modifications. The SATA EIR also analyzed the farmland conservation alternative. The farmland conservation alternative conserves a total of 648 acres of farmland in the SATA and would limit uses in the buffer to agricultural uses. As discussed previously, the Consolidated Business Park Environmental Alternative consolidates the flexible research and development uses south of Jensen and redistributes residential uses east of Temperance. In order to address council direction to redistribute office and institutional land uses to buffer the existing Lone Star Elementary School located in South Sata, specifically south of Jensen, the consolidated business park alternative was modified and ultimately selected as the proposed land use map. In addition, the red boundary identifies the South Sata area, which is proposed as phase one. Development is only permitted in the South Sata area at time of plan adoption. And now we will discuss the planning process for the SEDA plan. Since 2021, the city has hosted numerous public outreach events in addition to workshops and presentations to the planning commission and city council. Between 2022 and 2023, eight public meetings were held in addition to stakeholder interviews regarding the specific plan and EIR to provide the public opportunities to gain information regarding the plan and EIR. These meetings garnered a combined attendance upwards of 450 individuals. Most recently, the EIR and specific plan were presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in November and December of 2025, in addition to the workshop presented to the Planning Commission on August 5th of this year. The city did receive public comment during each of the public meetings. Common questions on the specific plan included annexation concerns and land use changes on private property, with environmental related comments focusing on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, availability of water resources, and preservation of agricultural lands. As mentioned, the EIR and specific plan were presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in November and December of 2025. The Planning Commission recommended certification of the EIR and approval of the specific plan with amendments to incorporate EIR alternatives. The City Council referred the item back to staff with policy revisions to provide an updated fiscal analysis, evaluate and select the consolidated business park alternatives with modifications, and to establish thresholds and phasing for future development in the plan area. And as mentioned in more detail previously, the specific plan was revised in response to comments received. Some of these provisions, as we discussed, include selection of the consolidated business park alternative with modifications as the proposed land use map, South's data as phase one, and establish thresholds limiting future development, and policy revisions to establish buffers surrounding Lone Star Elementary, clarify connections to sewer and water, and establish further protections for existing rural residential activities, protections for farming practices, and Williamson Act contracts. After council directed the selection of the consolidated business park alternative as the proposed land use map with modifications, the EIR was reviewed to ensure modifications fell within the scope of the current EIR. The EIR was updated to include minor revisions to incorporate the selected consolidated business park alternative land use map with modifications, which as stated earlier, was identified as the environmentally superior alternative. And again, the following thresholds and phasing requirements have been added as part of the specific plan. Before development can be permitted in a future reserve area, 75% of the residential land uses in the current phase must be developed and occupied. This shall be measured by 75% of the total acreage dedicated for residential land uses in each phase. Once 75% of the residential is developed and occupied, a new supplemental EIR and financing analysis will be required to analyze future environmental impacts and costs associated with development in the next identified future reserve area. This shall be initiated by and at the responsibility of the City of Fresno. This also includes selection of boundaries for future reserve areas. This will identify where future development should occur. Following completion of a supplemental EIR and fiscal analysis for the next development area, the council could schedule a voter referendum to approve the next area ready for development. And as we get into the recommendation, I do want to state staff has made appropriate findings in order to recommend approval of the proposed general plan amendment as referenced in exhibit M of the staff report. And staff is recommending certification of the final environmental impact report for the Southeast Dolman Area Specific Plan, recommending adoption of the findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations prepared pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15091, and recommend adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15097. Staff is also recommending approval of plan amendment application number P23-03090, which proposes to adopt the southeast development area specific plan and accompanying plan land use map. Staff is also recommending approval of plan amendment application number P23-03091, which proposes to update the planned land use map, figure LU-1, the dual designation map, figure LU-2, and text of the Fresno General Plan to incorporate land use changes proposed in the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan. That concludes our presentation for this evening. Thank you.

Do any commissioners have questions for Adrian? Through the chair, though. Pardon?

Through the chair, though. Maybe we might want to get a head count of how many people might want to speak.

I'm going to take care of that. So first of all, I still see some people standing in the back. And there's also empty seats out here. So if you're in a row with an empty seat, could you kind of move to the middle so that they'll make space for the people who are still standing? So I see a couple of places that are empty. So if you wouldn't mind making some room. And then those of you who are in the back, if you could please come down and use those seats or go up into the balcony. We really can't have you standing there. Oh, sorry. I keep forgetting. It's open. Yes, I know that. So due to the fact that we have a great crowd here tonight and a lot of people want to speak and we want you to speak and that we do have to make some kind of recommendation at city council and the meeting can only go till 10 o'clock. I'm going to recommend that we limit the comments to two minutes each just so everybody can get their chance to speak. So we do need to vote on that. So I'm going to make a motion to approve Limit the comments to two minutes for each person. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. All right. So now we'll go out to the public. I have some cards that have been filled out. And then obviously once we go through those, if you so wish to speak, you can come up. So our first, I'm going to name a couple of people at a time so we can kind of move it along a little bit. So our first person is Janelle Cabrera. So Janelle, if you'd like to come up. not okay yes oh you're right sorry okay I apologize so is there anyone here in favor of the project come up sir

All right. Well, good evening, commissioners. My name is Bill Betts, and I am president of Betts Company. We're a manufacturer here celebrating our 158th year in operation, the oldest family business remaining in the state of California. I wanted to speak tonight through the lens of civic stewardship with my involvement in the Fresno Business Council as well. I'm here to advocate for the immediate advancement of the CETA phase one development project, My thesis is simple. Fresno is at a critical crossroads. The current political rhetoric and permitting delays are creating a sentiment that discourages long-term capital investment, driving growth to our neighbors in Visalia and Madera. Our company history is one of migration. starting off in San Francisco, then to San Leandro, and then to Fresno in the 1990s. And at that time, Fresno was hungry for business. We were met with appropriately zoned land and a partnership that would allow us to build two facilities and relocate our entire workforce. If I were making that same relocation decision today, my analysis would look different, because as a business leader, I look at vectors of growth and regional sentiment, and right now, the signal coming from Fresno is one of hesitation and feet dragging. While we have undeveloped land on our own property, I'm frequently asked if I would expand further, and my honest answer right now is I don't know. When the conversation's focused on shutting down development versus orchestrating growth, any rational business person will zoom out and look at the boom happening in Madera and Visalia and say, should I go there? I know that financing questions are in front of you tonight. It seems like those have been addressed. Fiscal responsibility and growth are not in conflict, and I think this plan proves it with phasing thresholds and fiscal analysis required before any future phases. but indefinite delay is not discipline, it is a decision and the costs are real. Because this isn't just about industrial space, it's about people. Too many working families in Southeast Fresno spend hours commuting to jobs, municipalities that were bold enough to build, and by delaying the project.

Please let me run the meeting. Mr. Batch, your time is up. Okay, is there anyone else in favor of the project?

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Pete Weber. I live in Fresno. And I am the founder of the Fresno Bridge Academy. And Fresno Bridge Academy is a program that has helped lift hundreds of families out of poverty in the city of Fresno. And I bring that up because the headquarters of the Fresno Bridge Academy is at the Mosqueda Center on East Butler Avenue, immediately adjacent to the property that is being considered here today. And because of that, most of the clients that we serve, the families that we served, came from that southeast area. And I have to tell you, we had terrific success with people, with those families. But those families ended up having to commute. The wage earners had to commute long distances to get to their jobs because we don't have enough middle-income jobs in southeast Fresno, very high poverty area, very high unemployment rates, very low rate of home ownership. I should add that this makes it critical for us to invest in something like the flexible innovation and R&D, flexible R&D and innovation site. Additionally, The area, southeast Fresno, the homeownership rate is 29%, 20 percentage points below the average in the city of Fresno. So we have to create more housing opportunities for the residents of that area. I've got to tell you, this is about jobs. It's about housing. It's about opportunity. I am proud to live in a city where the mayor of the city has decided to pursue with an

Hey, Mr. Weber, your time's up. Thank you. Is anyone else here to speak in favor?

Well, good evening Planning Commission staff. Appreciate the thoughtful comments. And my name is Ben Granholm on behalf of Invest Fresno. We are a coalition of local businesses, community leaders, and residents dedicated to building a community in Fresno that benefits all residents. I would like to concur with the two previous speakers, Mr. Weber and Mr. Betz, and we would respectfully i'd like to urge the commission to recommend approval of the sata particularly south sata to the city council this evening south sata is the employment and workforce piece to this plan excuse me south sata it's a part that puts jobs and tax revenue generation first that comes back to benefit all the residents throughout the city sequencing south sata first allows the city to develop and determine near-term job creating capacity within the area of the city that is best positioned to support it. The jobs matter beyond the paychecks they provide. Job creating industries generate the sales tax, the property tax, business license revenue that funds the city's general fund and the same fund that pays for public safety parks Infrastructure and other core city services a broader tax base. I don't need to explain this to you From South Sata means that the city can provide additional jobs for residents and grow revenues without raising taxes on the residents themselves With that respectfully request your approval this evening and thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Thank you Is there anyone else here to speak in favor?

Yes, good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners. My name is Charles Rigby, and I am a business development specialist with the Fresno County Economic Development Corporation. Our organization is looking at South Cedar through the straightforward economic development lens, and whether Fresno is planning for the sites, investment, and jobs need to remain competitive over long term. From that perspective, we support advancing the South Cedar specific plan. What stands out is the plan's emphasis on incorporated employment land into the initial Salceda area. Too often, employment sites are treated as something to be added later, after residential growth is already underway. This plan provides an opportunity to plan for jobs from the very beginning. That matters because employers do not make location decisions based on land use designations alone. They need sites that are large enough, appropriately located, properly zoned, and capable of being brought to market. In our business attraction work, one of Fresno's reoccurring challenges is the limited availability of larger sites that are already assembled or can realistically be assembled and configured for major employment uses. Companies evaluating locations need scale, Access and development certainty, a designation of land use map, just simply is not enough. South Cedar gives Fresno an opportunity to plan for those sites earlier and more intentionally. Preserving flexible employment land will strengthen Fresno's ability to compete for business parks, manufacturing, logistics, food and ag technology, and other job generating investments. The plan also establishes a clear expectation that jobs should be a part of the equation from the start. Policy UF 1.2 calls for the maintaining of a target of at least one job for every 1.25 housing units within the plan area. Policy UF 1.3 follows a directing that the city promotes employment generating development that expands Fresno's employment base. That is the right idea and the goal now.

I'm sorry, your time's up. Is anyone else here in favor of the project?

Hello, my name is Samantha Forgey. I'm with the Fresno Chamber of Commerce. We're here today on behalf of the Fresno Chamber to express our strong support for moving forward with the South Stata as the first phase of the development within the Southeast Development Area. Fresno is at an important crossroad in determining how our community will accommodate future growth create good-paying jobs, and provide housing opportunities for the next generation. We at the Chamber believe that South Stata represents an important opportunity to address those needs in a thoughtful, planned, and economically responsible manner. The Southeast Development Area-specific plan provides a long-term framework for approximately 9,000 acres of future development, including housing, employment centers, businesses, schools, parks, and supporting infrastructure. Importantly, the plan recognizes the value of concentrating initial development in the South Stata, where infrastructure investment can provide an appropriate foundation for future growth. From the perspective of the business community, Fresno needs additional land where companies can launch, expand, relocate, and create jobs. We also need a greater variety of housing options for the workforce that supports our growing economy. Without adequate housing and employment opportunities, Fresno risks losing both businesses and talented workers to other communities. South State can help address both challenges while creating an opportunity to plan infrastructure, transportation connections, and community amenities from the beginning rather than attempting to retrofit them after development has occurred. the chamber also recognizes that the growth must be approached responsibly. We support continued collaboration among the city, county, agricultural interests, residents, businesses, and other stakeholders to ensure that development occurs in a manner that protects Fresno's long-term economic interest and quality of life. Fresno cannot afford to simply react to growth. We need to plan for it.

I'm sorry, your time's up. Is there anyone else here that would speak in favor of the project? Okay, so now we'll move on to those in opposition, and I'll go back to Janelle Cabrera if she's here now.

Good afternoon, everybody. I am an intern at BHC, Fresno Building Healthy Communities, and I'm just here to make you guys recognize that there's two things that are becoming an issue. It's the fact that I think we're forgetting that downtown Fresno was once a project to better help with Fresno alone, and it's been forgotten. And now we're planning on going with another project that has exceeded over what Fresno budget can cover in hopes of making more opportunities that, excuse me, that downtown Fresno can also offer. Not only that, with this expansion, it's now gonna make people feel comfortable with the fact that they could have more, a bigger family, more kids, and to which that's a very good thing, but I think we're forgetting the fact that three years ago, our population was half a million, and to which Again, it's a very good thing, but Fresno is reaching its capacity and has been for a very long time. And with this new placement, it's still leaving people in Fresno in the exact same spot, but now adding more to that. So while people are gonna get to experience better jobs, a better place, and better education, we're still leaving behind Fresno citizens and residents with nothing. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, the next person is

So we all appreciate that you all really care about this as we do, but we do ask that you not applaud. And in order to move this along quickly, I'd appreciate it if we could just keep comments and applause and things from the audience down. The next person is Debbie Bigham and then Alan Cederquist, if you want to be ready.

Hello, my name is Debbie Bigham, and I am a resident of the SATA area. The current specific plan states that a community benefit fund be created to help fund the costs of connecting to city water and sewer. Our family has a corner lot, which would double the expense. Because the home is set back from the road, the cumulative cost could be more than the value of the home. We know of others in this same predicament. Unfortunately, the community benefit fund introduced in the specific plan is worded in vague terminology, so it is not legally binding. In other words, it is just rhetoric. This is written to appease us, knowing full well that it could be scrapped at a later date with no intention of being fulfilled. The cost is so prohibitive that the city could never accommodate the need. Yet, you're willing to place a burden on us even though the cost is just as prohibitive to us as individuals. I'm not confident that the SEDA residents will be protected by this Community Benefit Fund. Therefore, I encourage you not to recommend approval of the SEDA project. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd appreciate it if you would not applaud. I would be better if you didn't. So, Mr. Seerquist? And then Kay Bertkin would be next.

Good evening, I am Alan Cederquist, and I brought the 50 reasons to vote no on CETA. But here are just three. Number one is financing. At last count, there was $3 billion in funding shortfall for CETA that was not covered by developer fees. The city's 2025 financing study found that every phase of CETA was not feasible. It failed its own feasibility benchmarks. The city council then ordered a new South CETA financial analysis last December. A council workshop on this analysis has now been postponed until September, and I imagine that this group has not seen that analysis. So it looks like orderly planning in Fresno does not mean that you vote in August and then hide the costs until September. Number two, growth projections. CETA assumes over 117,000 new residents. The California Department of Finance projects only 63,000 new residents. The state uses advanced metrics and analysis of births, deaths, and migration. But the CETA plan is like, well, we've always grown like this. So basically, this is not based on market demand unless CETA comes up with 85,000 imaginary friends. The third is the impact on our schools. Fresno Unified did its own math. Trustees voted four to zero to oppose CETA, warning of up to 11 school closures and a $200 million a year in lost funding. City Planning did not check its homework. as this huge loss of Fresno schools wasn't mentioned anywhere in any of their project analysis. There is nothing wrong with leaving this land rural while Fresno reinvests in the city it already has. City is not inevitable if this group isn't strong enough to recognize the serious flaws.

I'm sorry. Thank you. Your time's up.

Is this working? Yes. My name is Kaye Burtken. I'm with the League of Women Voters of Fresno. There are so many questions to ask and answer around this proposal. We want good planning for Fresno and depend on you to represent us. And we want to be sure you have the evidence that we don't have to justify approval of this EIR and South Seder project plan. Do you feel like you know everything about how this plan will be financed? The public has not seen how the pre-development infrastructure will be paid for beyond developer fees, which leave an unaccounted for shortfall. Where is the money coming from? According to an article this morning in Fresno land, LAFCO apparently has not seen where the money's coming from either. The proposal to impact mitigation measures for South Sata did not appear to have been addressed independently of the other parts of the 9,000 acres. What will be the impacts of this new resident population and its transportation to and from the South Sata homes and to these commercial areas without any of the planned green space, the multimodal transit hubs, and public transit routes that belong to the later phases of SEDA. There doesn't appear to be any consideration in mitigation specific to the area. Do you feel comfortable with the quantity and sort of housing being proposed given that it's not based on current population growth projections? So much of this residential plan seems to be for market rate housing when the need in Fresno is for affordable housing. And have you seen any documentation of demand for the sort of advanced manufacturing and green technology and office development being proposed? Has there been any sort of study? Will the commercial area simply draw businesses away from Fresno's core area, leaving more empty commercial space in our city? Please do not move it forward until you know the... Thank you.

So I can't kick everyone else out. I did hear that comment, but I can call a recess and ask everyone to think about... behaving in a polite manner, so I would appreciate it if you would not applause and call out. Kathy Capels? Yeah. Keith Harrison is next after Kathy Capels. Go ahead.

I am here as a resident of the West Area neighborhood. I live north of Shaw. I've lived there 18 years. We became part of the sphere of influence in the 1980s. And we worked on a plan very much like what we heard tonight. And I'm impressed with this plan. There are things we need from this plan, like the business development. However, when we make a goal to move forward with the next phase of 75% of the housing being built and occupied and no goal about anything else that is needed for families to have those complete communities that we as planners are asked to work on, it is not going to work. And I'm not going to address any of the other issues that other people have raised, but I really would ask the Planning Commission to really think through. It's more than just living in a house. It's having medical care and transportation and groceries, accessible public transportation, especially for people out in those areas. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Harrison? And then after him would be Steve Sachs.

If I were a member of the Planning Commission or the City Council, I would be very cautious about painting myself into a corner and limiting my future options. And although there are good intentions, I am fearful that you are seriously close to doing just that. While I might understand the desire to begin development in the southern areas of SEDA, I would never create some sort of occupancy or residency requirement before expansion from that initial area is allowed. Ask yourselves, what happens if in five to 10 years the southwest area does not develop as hoped, but there is clear demand for housing in other parts of SEDA? You're in a tough spot, and how did you get there? Well, you got there because you allowed and recommended the 75% threshold. This just doesn't seem to be wise policy. If you believe South Sata is where you want to start, that's fine. Go ahead and start there and emphasize it. But why in the world limit your future options? It's impossible to look that far down the road, and this artificial requirement has a significant chance of being a very regrettable decision. While I might go along with some sort of phasing implementation, I would never allow myself to be unnecessarily constrained by this 75% requirement. Staff, which has worked on this for decades, never proposed this, or did they ever recommend it? A solution to a problem that doesn't exist is being created, and we all know that unintended consequences shortly follow. I ask you to thoughtfully reconsider this approach to SEDA adoption, to think carefully about how you might be hog-tying yourself and Fresno's future. This is a big deal. I so urge you to rethink this, and it's very serious.

Thank you. Okay, Steve Sachs, and then Rhonda, forgive me, I think it's Duke? I apologize. Go ahead.

Okay, I'm speaking on behalf of United San Joaquin, a broad-based organization of 18 and counting congregations, unions, and civic institutions representing more than 20,000 people across our region. Over six years, our leaders have held more than 2,000 conversations with residents across this area. We've heard a clear message that is consistent with other successful cities and supported by research from the Urban Institute. People want affordable infill housing in our existing neighborhoods and a thriving Fresno Unified that is supported by the city. We commend recent efforts by the city council and mayor to encourage infill, invest in downtown housing, and improve public transportation. Excuse me. transportation. That is growth that strengthens existing neighborhoods and makes better use of infrastructure taxpayers have already paid for. South Sata takes us in the opposite direction. It risks pulling families and investment away from Fresno Unified, competes with needed infill, and requires costly expansion of infrastructure. and services for the interests of large developers and landowners in areas outside the city. We ask you not to approve SEDA.

Thank you. After Rhonda, thank you. After Rhonda, we have Brett Thompson and Elizabeth Sandberg. Go ahead.

Good evening, Planning Commission. I'm Rhonda Dueck. I'm the Executive Director of the Jackson Community Development Corporation and a resident. I live and work in the historic Huntington-Jackson neighborhood. The bottom line for me regarding SEDA or any land use decision for Fresno is quite simple. Let's look at current realistic projections for population. Realistic costs for supporting the infrastructure of the Fresno we've already built. realistic income projections, preserving agricultural land, and make wise choices for the future of one Fresno. This is not about catering to anyone in elected positions or allowing any developers to influence decisions so they can prosper. Decisions need to be made by people who are looking out for the people of Fresno, all the people. I want to publicly acknowledge Keith Burktold and patient Milrod for their incredible and long-suffering commitment to the truth. The letter the patient submitted to the Planning Commission represents the concerns of many more than are listed. The deep work of analyzing the information has been shared from the city, and clarity on what is missing or incomplete takes incredible skill and commitment, and I for one am incredibly grateful. This letter is actually a gift to you on the Planning Commission, a gift from people who love Fresno, Do you all have a copy of this? Because if not, I brought some for each of you. Okay. So please do not make a decision on SADA proposal until all, I say all of the questions that have been risen by these intelligent people have been thoroughly answered, which clearly cannot happen tonight because there is missing, incomplete, and unsatisfactory data. I'm now going to be quiet for the next few seconds of my time, and I invite you to pull out the letter and take a look at it.

Thank you. Thank you. Brett Thompson. And after Elizabeth would be Helen Remming.

Good evening, my name is Brett Thompson. I speak today in the support of thousands of neighbors who live within the proposed state of boundaries. Neighbors who live within the city of Fresno, all with a goal to protect what is ours. It's our farms, our tax revenue, our neighborhoods. We are not getting honest and transparent planning. The plan, the EIR, and workshop materials all state the SATA plan will be self-funded, self-financed, and pay its own way. Not a single planning document excludes South SATA from being self-financed. Yet, just weeks ago, a ballot measure was proposed to allow city funds to pay for infrastructure to begin building the southern portion of SATA. The lead environmental consultant told commissioners last workshop... that water certainty was established through Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. Not true. I've got the emails right here from them. They'll tell you it's not true. He then doubled down to say that FID established analysis for water certainty to serve SATA. Again, not true. Emails are right here. I've also submitted those to the city clerk's office. The mayor has made claims that Sanger and Clovis will develop South Seda or Seda if Fresno doesn't. It's not true. I have emails from both the mayors of Clovis and Sanger. They have no intentions of developing Seda. Questions to the planning staff. Will you truthfully answer Mr. Shergill's workshop question? Have residents' concerns been addressed? And if all legal uses can remain, how come I can't apply for a permit to deepen or drill a new water well once my well is deemed no longer qualified to keep? Why can't I keep what is mine? Why can't my neighbors keep what is theirs? I urge you guys not to approve this. Do not recommend this plan. Thank you.

Thank you. So we have Elizabeth and then Helen Ramming next.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Elizabeth Sandberg, and I'm a rural homeowner living in the state of Project Footprint, and I've been there since 1988. This is just a brief overview of the comment letter I submitted to the Planning Commission. It was turned in late, but you should have gotten a copy by now. I'm standing here tonight because the proposed Community Benefit Fund, CBF, Added to this plan is a textbook double standard. It is a loophole wrapped in a promise. Look closely at the actual text before you vote. It says this fund would pay for connection fees and would apply to residents. The CBF clause, as written, represents an unenforceable policy aspiration rather than a mandatory municipal obligation. It means a preferred hypothetical scenario. It's a wish list. If the SADA project is recommended as written, The city and future developers don't legally have to put a single dime into the fund. Now look at the blatant hypocrisy in the wording of this exact same document. In policies 3.3 and 3.4, the city used ironclad permanent legal language to protect our land and horsekeeping rights. They explicitly wrote that our county rules shall supersede city codes and continue in perpetuity. They clearly know how to write mandatory bulletproof protections when they want to. The current text only mentions connection fees. It completely ignores service laterals and the massive cost to legally destroy and decommission our existing wells as required by environmental law. If our right to live here is protected in perpetuity, then our protection from the cost of their master plan must be just as mandatory. Do not recommend approval tonight unless you force the city to change the CBF fund to mandatory self-executing language. A complete detailed wording of the amended CBF was included in my comment letter. Please don't pass a vague promise down to the city council and ask us to trust the process. Let's give this fund real teeth tonight or vote.

Thank you. Helen Ramming, and then after that would be David Ramming.

Thank you.

My name is Helen Ramming. and I live in the Sanger School District. I'd like to know what written documentation you have from Sanger that approves and supports the SADA project. Mayor Dyer stated 10,000 units are to be built. What studies show that Sanger can accommodate the growth? The studies of additional schools needed, the studies of the cost of the schools, and the studies of the ability to fund them. What documentation of support do you have from the Sanger School Board and from the Sanger City Council. How many times has Sanger been included in the planning staff's discussions? As a Sanger taxpayer, I cannot even fathom the bill that's gonna be passed on to us for the new schools. As a resident of Sata, we feel like we are being thrown under the bus. We have the most to lose, and yet we have no representation because we're county residents. If this is passed, we will lose prime farmland as no mitigation is in place, which should have been started in 2016. The benefit fund is written for the future. Our understanding is that that is not a legal standing. We will foot the enormous bill for numerous schools. We'll pay for the water and the sewer connections. We lose our wells. We're losing water. We're already having wells go dry. We will pay for the useless wells and the septic tanks to be filled for safety codes. As taxpayers, we will pay for the financial irresponsibility of the city. The planning staff has not taken in our concerns. Adriana stated that she feels, she said absolutely, yeah, but she feels the issues have been addressed, but the residents would not agree. The outcry from the public can attest to that. Many answers have been inadequate, vague, misleading, insufficient, contradictory, or not addressed at all. The outcry from the SEDA residents, as well as the...

I'm sorry, Helen, your time's up. David Ramming and then after that Charles Rigby.

Hello. My name is David Ramming and I'm a property owner and a farmer in the southeast development area. My concern has been and still is that this plan will destroy farmland. We all know that the city is not concerned about preserving farmland as they have not finalized or instituted the one-to-one mitigation stated in the Fresno City General Plan Policy, paragraph RC9B, since 2016. The EIR also states that loss of farmland is unavoidable. This specific plan should not go forward until actual mitigation plans are put in place and fully adopted. Since the city wants to plant houses instead of food crops, you need to consider if their plan is feasible. No physical analysis for the development of the 9,000 acres of SEDA or the 2,000 acres in the south part of SEDA that is labeled phase one have been published. Can you justify and really recommend a plan of such magnitude to the city council without this information on the fiscal analysis? Have you considered if this plan will be able to pay for itself, like it says, and not take money away from maintaining and improving areas already in the city of Fresno without causing additional sprawl? I strongly encourage you not to recommend approval of the SEDA project.

Thank you. Charles Rigby, and then Dr. Mark Marshall.

Madam Chair, Ricky was with the components in the very beginning.

Okay.

Good evening. My name is Mark Marshall, and I have the privilege of serving as the proud superintendent of the Central Unified School District. I'm also a homeowner within the district boundaries. In April, the Central Unified School District Board of Education passed a resolution opposing SATA. As Fresno plans its future growth, we share a common goal with the city, creating vibrant, thriving communities for every student and family across our community. To achieve that vision, Central Unified is advocating for long-term development planning, a concentrated investment in our established neighborhoods, specifically those west of Highway 99. The families in Central Unified Area continue to wait for essential community infrastructure, including complete roads, reliable utilities, parks, and expanded transit access. We encourage the city to, first, partner with our community to create a funded infrastructure investment plan for communities west of Highway 99. Next, prioritize infield development and housing strategies that uplift existing neighborhoods first. Sustainable growth is strongest when we invest where the need is greatest. Thank you for your partnership and dedication to serving all Fresno families.

Thank you. Okay, Nandeep Singh and followed by Viva Islas.

Good evening, Planning Commission. My name is Nandeep Singh. I'm a resident of the city of Fresno. I also serve on the Central Unified Board, as Dr. Marshall just shared as well. My own background is in education, and I want to share why this plan before you this evening deserves three Fs. One is there is fictitious financing. Up to now, you all haven't received it. The community hasn't received it, despite delay, delay, delay. So at some point, Either the finances make sense or it doesn't, but by the fact that they continuously not provide it, it just feels fictitious. Next, fake population growth numbers. The reality is, and I had an opportunity to serve during the 2020 census, so we had an idea of what the future growth of California and really even Fresno and Fresno County was. The numbers that are being projected are way off the mark in terms of what is the reality of what are the numbers that we can expect with this high cost of living and what are our current population growth rates. Next, we have a flailing mayor. We have seen continuous attempts, whether it be third terms or anything, just being thrown at our community, and this just feels one that's being pushed forward and not actually being done in a thoughtful manner. Last, I ask you to fund Fresno. Vote no tonight. Fund West of 99. Fund our historic neighborhoods. Fund our city residents today. Fund Fresnans. Thank you for your service this evening.

Thank you. The next person was Viva, and then followed by Ben Granholm.

You say viva, I say veva, and let's just call the whole thing off. Yes, viva, veva, gracias. So good evening, commissioners. I'm Veva Islas, resident of Fresno and executive director of Cultiva La Salud. I'm also the board president of Fresno Unified School District, proudly representing the students and families of the McLean region. I'm speaking tonight as a representative of the board. In May, the board majority adopted a resolution to oppose Zeta. and I have a copy for each of you tonight of that resolution. So I rise in opposition on behalf of our roughly 68,000 students, 101 school sites, and over 1,000 employees. If SADA is allowed to go forward, numerous negative impacts will arise for Fresno Unified School District neighborhoods within the Fresno Unified boundaries. I'm concerned. SATA poses detriment to our schools, our students, and our teachers. And I'm concerned for them. We are currently already suffering from a decline in attendance and enrollment. SATA would further an enrollment decline, which means that any additional decline in funding means fewer resources. and ultimately less opportunities for our students. Lower quality of education can be expected, and no one should vote to support that. Please remember that public school funding is tied to enrollment numbers and local property taxes. A decrease in enrollment will lead to budget cuts, potentially resulting in larger classroom sizes, cuts to programs, and diminished extracurricular activities. The district would receive zero new property tax or parcel tax from SEDA weakening the district's fiscal position over the long term. Boundary decisions that divert families to a suburban district today, tomorrow or five years from now will result in greater concentration of poverty in our urban core. neglected infrastructure, and abandoned buildings, which discourage investment and economic growth, and increase crime and violence. You will hurt families, students living in the Central and Southeast Fresno families in particular, who cannot...

I'm sorry, your time's up. Ben Granholm, followed by Daniel Granik. Thank you. OK, Mr. Granholm's not here. OK, Daniel Brannock, followed by Pete Weber already went.

Daniel Brannock. Good evening. So I concur with the overwhelming sentiment in this room, and I clap and shout inside my head. I do that anyway, but a little bit extra here, too. I just want to say PC, unfortunately, continues to be treated as a deficient and farcical process. I feel sorry for you up here, because I think it's disrespectful to your role when you get deficient, incomplete information, stuff that's deferred and delayed. I'll have future comments that will be forthcoming, but here are some quick hits on SATA and why I'm opposed to it. To start with, it continues to be a major issue with an accurate, stable, and finite project description. That's a secret requirement. You modify the alternative significantly enough, you being the city, send out an email announcement and new documents, but you haven't recirculated that per the CEQA requirements. That includes posting on CEQANet, which hasn't happened yet for this. It needs to be out for 45 days, too, since we're talking about an EIR. There remains a plethora of analytical deficiencies within the EIR. The most egregious one to me continues to be the transportation analysis. The VMT analysis, totally fundamentally flawed because it only looks at the plan area. It doesn't look at the entire region. That's completely counter to the OPR technical advisory on that issue, every other bit of guidance there. It also doesn't adequately account for the phasing, which again, that as its own thing remains elusive, but it was flawed to begin with and remains that way. There remain unresolved general plan policy requirements, including the development area phasings. And as a last thing, I tuned out a bit during the staff presentation so as not to totally die of cringe, but I noticed some of the visionary pictures in the slide deck and couldn't think about being here almost a year ago when the West Area Plan came. And I had to listen to the planning director, and at least one council member alluded to realistic development expectations. Yet with SATA, there appears to be total carte blanche to fantasize about development possibilities. That double standard is unfair to every existing president. So to conclude my comments for now, SATA, as proposed, remains antithetical to its three so-called interrelated goals of fiscal responsibility, social equity, and environmental sustainability. We have other viable community-backed avenues to achieve what this plan proposes.

I'm sorry, your time's up. Samantha Fargai, I believe it's Fargai, and followed by Kellen Habib. Samantha? Kellen, and followed by Simon Biasel.

Hello, everyone. My name is Kellen Habib. I'm a resident of Fresno. I've lived here for 30 years. I'm 30 years old. I don't have as much wisdom as some of the people behind me, very obviously, but still more than you. I'm sorry. In 2013, Strong Towns, the community advocate and development organization, referenced Fresno as one of the epitomes of urban sprawl and the development costs that are associated with that. We are still following the same exact processes day in and day out. following this proposal will just lock us in to decades more of debt that we are going to have to pay. We're going to not have them anymore as a result of this in terms of the finances that are brought about by the farming components of this area. but we will be dealing with the debt of bonds and all the other associated items that are used to produce this area. Visalia is having to deal with an $84 million fee from the bonds that they're issuing for less than 45,000 feet of water mains. We have quite a few road miles in Fresno already. I think it's just around 1,800. that's less than 10 miles of water mains. We can't afford that, we're not gonna be able to afford that when I'm 60, we're not gonna be able to afford that, I'm probably not gonna live to 90, but we're probably not gonna be able to afford that when I'm 90, we're definitely not gonna be able to afford it in 10 years. I urge you to recommend this for a no vote. Thank you. Thank you.

So Simon would be next, and after Simon is Victoria Young Condon.

Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for your service on this commission, and thank you for the staff for staying late and all your hard work. Thank you for community for showing up and making sure that your voice is heard. I'm going to ask that you do tonight what I think is the most valuable role that you all play, and that is to represent the citizens of our city. You're here, I think, because we as citizens need you to represent us. I'm glad that we had five people representing support of SEDA. I think that's a record for support for SEDA in all the community meetings that I've been to. And that's probably because the people who support SEDA, they don't need to show up to community events like this. They have meetings. They have phone calls. They don't need community forums. We need you. And what we need you to do is represent us. One thing that I noticed is that every individual who is running for city council right now opposes SEDA. And my guess is they, or at least they say they oppose SEDA. And I believe the reason why they say they oppose SEDA is because they know that the people who are voting for them oppose SEDA. And so it would be foolish of these people running for city council to be pro SEDA because they know that people wouldn't vote for them. It's a sign of what we want as a community. And so I'm asking you tonight to be a reflection of our needs and our desires. Thank you.

Thank you. Victoria, and then followed by Alan, Sean, Dayan. I may have that wrong.

Hi, my name is Vicki Young, and unlike anybody else here, I grew up in Los Angeles County. I started my college career over 40 years ago as an agricultural major, and I was witness over the years of the urban sprawl of Los Angeles, and the only place you're going to find agriculture are still on the few campuses that teach it. It's not there anymore. I miss it, but knowing a little bit about agriculture, it's going to lose out to the need of water, and people use less water than agriculture does. The entire county of San Francisco uses less water in a year than the entire San Joaquin Valley does in one day. That's from a book used at Fresno State. The problem with CETA is we don't trust government anymore. The place sounds great. It sounds like a place I'd like to live. But we need more housing for people that can afford lower income housing. I couldn't afford it here anymore. And we need to get rid of our homeless problem and improve our schools before we start spreading out anymore.

Thank you. Alan, followed by Aaron Hightower.

Let me have one moment, please. My name's Aaron Hightower. Is there two of us? Oh, Alan. Brian.

Alan's going, and then Aaron. Aaron.

My name is Alan Sean Bryan. Who did you call, Alan or Aaron?

I said Alan and followed by Aaron Hightower.

All is well. My name is Alan Sean Bryan. I'm majoring in political science at Fresno State. And my fellow neighbors have done an excellent job explaining why supporting this project is anti-progress for the city that we owe so value. I think it's important that we frame what's really going on here. Because we all love this, like I said, little beautiful town of 600K. But anywhere south of Shaw, it's ill-advised to walk alone at night, let alone go out with headphones. And that's insanity. We make so much money in this town, let alone this state, the fourth largest economy in the world. It's unacceptable. We gotta talk about crime and investing inwards before we even consider investing outside of this town that so desperately needs investments and representatives that care. We can adopt things that have worked in other cities, lest we damn our fellow officers and victims of crime and violence to an eternal struggle of governments that never addresses the roots. Crime is the biggest point of contention in this town because half of our discretionary budget is being spent to militarize the police. Shout out to the police union members that I've spoken with personally that endorsed the idea that if we want to reduce crime immediately, we have to light up our town, keep it healthy and bright, have activities lit, put our tax dollars to good use, keep the courts open, late nights, revamp Boys and Girls Club, public outreach, education, health, employment, opportunities, housing resources, and everything that falls under the umbrella of of health and education as priority before we even consider any outside projects because if we don't develop and heal internally, personally or societally, it is no long-term sustainable solution. I appreciate your time.

Thank you. So now we'll do Erin Hightower followed by Ariana Martinez-Lutz.

Howdy. My name's Aaron. I was actually running for District 3 City Council, and I dropped out of the race. I dropped out of the race when I heard a guy saying, oh, I violated PC 311.11, but I still want to run. There's predators. in Fresno. You don't have to look hard. This homeless problem is a criminal piece-up problem. It's not a homeless problem and it's enabled by government funds that are being siphoned off by criminals that sit in positions like you guys sit right here. And the unwilling to work with the federal authorities is an excuse to continue to grift off the tax dollars because there's not enough productive things going on right here in this city that you gotta take from the federal government. It's inexcusable. I'm not going to hear anything about a homeless problem. It's a criminal problem. You need to enforce the misdemeanors. I live by the canal. There's a penal code 374.7. I've never seen it used. Every day, I pick no fewer than 10 items of trash. 721 E La Sierra Drive. Nobody's going to enforce a misdemeanor, certainly not a $1,000 fine and six hours of picking up trash for dropping a gum wrapper, but broken window theory works, and all of you people violating the ethical, responsible position that you were elected for to take money into your hands, you best work with the government, you best become a whistleblower, or you're going to go down. I'm done.

Thank you. Okay, Ariana, followed by Okay, I'm gonna really do this badly. So.

Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry, Arianna. Buenas noches, Commissioners. I just want to thank you all for doing this. I know you are sacrificing time away from your families to be here to represent us. So I just want to name that there's still a lot of unanswered questions like many people have mentioned today. And ultimately, one of Council's biggest priorities is to make budget decisions on behalf of taxpaying residents. And when police department needs to purchase additional vehicles, when Department of Public Works needs to hire a contractor for tree trimming, or when the Parks Department needs to bring forward a contract for a new playground, they have to answer two very basic questions on paper to council. What's the funding source? In other words, where is the money coming from? And what's the dollar amount? We don't have that information here. And at the end of the day, I don't think anybody in this room would sign over purchase of a home if a lender or if a seller were to tell them, sign this contract, we'll tell you how much it is later. So why do we expect residents to do that with our tax paying dollars when we're working hard to provide for our families? A lot of candidates will say that they oppose SEDA, but there are very few that are actually walking the talk. So I'm here because I believe in a future where we can say, let someone else build it, let's buckle down and prioritize the neighborhoods that our families already call home. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, the next person was Sahashawati, followed by Will Upel. And I apologize for my pronunciation.

All righty, hello, Commission. My name is Sahasa Wadisamsakse. To be honest, I am broke, unemployed, and housing unstable, as many of our hearers here are. We are for affordable housing, walkable cities, and the expansion of public services. But tell me this. What good is being created from this when Fresno's lacked and still lacks the infrastructure to support its people who are going through some of the highest rates of unemployment and unstable employment in California, continually put on wait lists to access their basic needs and overall displacement as a result of the urban sprawl that has occurred over the years of the city's history? What good is created from this when the city is constantly screwing over programs that have benefited Fresno residents mentally, physically, and holistically? what good is created from this when we're constantly being told that this will benefit the community, but the community can't even afford to move, let alone barely afford our basic needs. Also, just because you guys have slightly modified the land use map, there's still things you aren't addressing. For the sake of time, there's one thing extremely notable for me, so I'll keep this part short. What the fuck is flexible research and development? You can't even address it from the presentation. That was a bunch of nothing. These are just sane talking points that are being constantly shoved down our throats. Are you guys trying to build a data center without saying shit because everyone already knows how bad of an idea CETA is?

do better and do not go through with ceda thank you thank you um will you pill followed by manuel bonilla thank you council there's been some great arguments tonight the the biggest one is the money if we don't have the money why why are we spending it why are we allocating it for something else I want to present something that hasn't been, or at least I haven't heard it been presented yet. I used to be a realtor. I used to be an appraiser. Roughly every month in the city of Fresno, there are 600 sales. If CETA took all of them, they're not going to take all of them, right? What if they took 10%, which is a huge amount of the number of sales, 60 sales a month, Okay, 45,000 homes, 60 sales a month. Let's do the math on that. 750 months to sell all those homes. That translates to 62 years. Right now, the desire for people to have a home in Fresno is actually declining because our inventory is rising. It's been pretty low for a long time. but now it's actually rising. So I want you guys to think about those numbers. 45,000 homes, 60 a month, 72 years. You think west of 99 was bad? What's this gonna do? Thank you.

Thank you. Manuel, followed by Mariela Fernandez de Vallejo.

All right. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Manuel Bonilla. I'm the president of the Fresno Teachers Association, representing the 4,600 educators, trades professionals, and nurses in Fresno Unified. Earlier, during the environmental impact report, I heard a phrase that started, a significant impact that would cause a substantial adverse effect. To me, that sounds like SEDA's impact, if approved. the impact on our existing communities, leaving them behind, and definitely impact on Fresno Unified with school closures. But I know that school closures gets a lot of the headline, but the harm to our students and our community begins long before school closures even happen. It shows up in larger class sizes, it shows up in fewer counselors, it shows up in fewer nurses, and eventually it shows up in less teachers via layoffs, less nurses for our students, less bus drivers, less custodians, and all the essential supports that our students need. Now, that environmental impact report, quote, finishes with, where feasible mitigation measures are not available to be reduced to a less than significant level. Well, you're lucky because in this case, there are feasible mitigation measures. Voting no. Because strong public schools are a foundation to our stable neighborhoods and to our communities and workforce development, weakening them undermines the very growth we're trying to achieve in this city. Thank you.

Thank you. Mariella, followed by Daniel O'Connell.

Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Mariela Fernandez de Vallejo. Primero que nada, quiero decir que estoy un poco molesta porque no hay traducción al español. Y así, pues como yo, hay varias personas que no nos tradujeron al español, algo tan importante como esto que nos afecta a nosotros. Yo vivo en el sureste de Fresno, en una area que es contaminada de AB 617. Yo no estoy de acuerdo con SEDA porque mi esposo es afectado por la contaminación en donde vivimos. Estamos afectados con los camiones. con la contaminación, con todo lo que lleva el tener ese tipo de infraestructura en nuestra comunidad afecta a los niños, no nada más a los adultos mayores, a los niños, a las personas de la tercera edad. Quieren abrir nuevas escuelas cuando nos están quitando presupuesto en las escuelas, nos están quitando maestros, nos están quitando cosas en las escuelas. Gracias.

excuse me Commissioner Diaz could you Planning Commission I'm Daniel O'Connell hold on just a second Mr. O'Connell Commissioner Laide is gonna translate what the previous person was talking about

So just to translate, she was saying that she's upset because there is no Spanish translator at the moment, and something as important as this should have...

Can you hear me now?

Okay, all right. So she's upset because there's no Spanish translator, that something this important should have a Spanish translator. She lives in an area that is contaminated. Her husband is affected by the contamination. The trucks that contaminate the area are also contaminating the children due to the infrastructure in her community. She's asking, why are we having another school or other schools open when things like teachers and supplies are being taken away from the schools that her children attend?

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. O'Connell, for waiting.

I'm Daniel O'Connell, director of the Central Valley Partnership. We have previously submitted detailed comments on the SEDA EIR with objections that still stand. However, I want to take the opportunity tonight to invite you on an imaginary walk that starts at Warner's Theater, down Fulton to Tioga Sequoia on Inyo. On that walk, you will pass Mariposa Street, the historic heart of the city, and Fresno Street. It's self-designed to be the primary pedestrian mall, not only for our city, but for the region. What you confront on that walk is an anemic, destitute, abandoned area with empty storefronts, largely devoid of economic activity. You would find the same thing on Belmont between Palm and Van Ness, or Stroll Manchester Mall, or basically the entire urban core of the city. I would argue that this is due to the oversupply of land markets open to development. But what is the story we, you, tell ourselves about what is occurring to cause the economic conditions on these business corridors? Plan policy effectively directs future public and private capital, but in our society capital allocation is historically intertwined with racialized discrimination. This plan is functionally how systemic racism happens. Don't be crazy, lazy, or callous to blame the poor for being poor. These problems are structural. Tonight, you witnessed Fresno's united in defense of our city. I am so proud to join them. I'll put those detailed comments through my lawyers in a comment letter in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Vote this down.

Okay. We have Chantel, I think it's Crossland, followed by David Yacoub.

Good evening, everybody. Thank you for your time and having us here this evening. Since the plan was last presented, there were some beautiful new slides and there were some modifications made based on prior feedback, but you can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig. I'm sorry. I live in the heart of CETA. and we have a 45-acre farm. You know, what's gonna happen to that? What are my kids gonna do with that? My son wants to farm like his father did. What's he gonna do? When the city says, oh, you've gotta hook up to our water, how are we gonna irrigate with city water? What's that gonna cost? What is that gonna cost? You talk about... the South Cedar and how nothing can be built until that's built out. Why is there a giant sign advertising a big community development on the corner of DeWolf and 180, which is right next door to our property? What's that all about? Coming soon by cats. What's that all about? Those are my questions.

Thank you. David, followed by Jim Grant.

Hello. My name is David Yacoub. First of all, me personally, I just want you guys to know that you're not my enemy. I'm not here to fight you guys. I'm just hoping that you guys could just hear us out to understand, not to respond and have a ready decision in your head, but just to understand where we're coming from. And it's all coming from the heart. There's just a lot of emotions going on, I can understand. One thing I want to say is, if my wife was here, She would be upset that I would be adding another project to my home project I just have a long list and I did a simple research before coming here. There's about 470 major Projects in Fresno only 270 of them are active not in construction 270 of them are active and then only 86 of those are in construction so we just have way too many projects, way too many honeydew projects that we need to focus on taking care of that before we add another project. By the way, that project, those 470 projects, is 2.56 billion with a B, budget. We need to take care of those projects before we add another millions and millions and millions of dollars of a project. Money does not grow on trees. That's going to come out of our pocket. So just please hear us and understand that there's other projects that need to be completed that haven't even been started yet. So let's just not add another one to it. And that's all I got to say. Thanks. God bless.

Thank you. I believe there's another card in that basket. I think I see one in there. Okay, this is Josh Grant. Jim Grant first?

Pardon? I think you want Jim Grant first. It says Josh.

Josh. You called him after the last speaker, so then, yeah.

So can both of us go in order? However you wanna do it is fine. Thank you very much, Kathy. First of all, I wanna thank everyone who's here tonight, because by coming out tonight, we prove once again, like we've done with the Better Roads, Safe Streets, the idea is democracy. The idea is we hear from the community what it is the community wants. you heard and i'm so glad you're here tonight all of you five people share their concerns for doing something you've also heard and i hope you were really taking notes all the reasons why that proposal which keeps rising up like jason from the dead it comes back like a monster as if this is a good thing but it isn't and you've heard from so many people why it isn't I know growing up what we did in our family even Josh might recognize this You don't go to a dessert until you've had your meal. And what's happened in this city is that we are leaving so much food on the table, so much good things that we know we need, but we are not taking care of. We've left the city itself to rot, and then on some lark, Think that we can pull it out and have some sort of a legacy of having at the last moment Expanded what need not be expanded But what the city needs to do is take care of its inner heart We heard someone tonight and until Jacqueline translated We didn't even know, some of us, what she had said. That indicates what's being left behind when we think.

Thank you.

Thank you. My dad's pretty good. You've had so many folks come up here and give point-by-point breakdowns as to why this doesn't work for Fresno. I've just got one, and that is it is deeply, deeply embarrassing that we are all here tonight. You had five people here declaring themselves in favor of this, and one of them was the literal Chamber of Commerce. How many times can Fresno do this? How many times can we just decide to flee Fresno? How many times can we say, well, we messed this up. Let's move north. 40 years later, let's move east. How many times can we make the explicit decision to abandon Fresno Unified and its teachers and students? How many times can we hand over all of our futures to the same five developers we always do? I am absolutely embarrassed to be here, and hopefully you are too. Planners need to plan and not rubber stamp the mayor's latest development deal. Thank you, and let's all go home.

Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak?

I can't do what these people have done. I'm not that polished. But I'm a 78-year-old man who's lived in this community my whole life. I love you. They've covered it all. What are we doing here? The mayor has some favors he need to pay. And I was a contractor for 30 years, and I worked for some of the biggest people in this country, or in this city. I know how buying influence works. I'm not saying I'm proud of it. I'm saying that's what happens. So here we are, and where do we go from here? I don't know, but I do know this. I know we don't need another Foster Farms. I know we don't need another Chichancey Park with the citizens of Fresno holding the bag. I worked for Children's Hospital for about five years as a respiratory therapist. I don't think we need another Jewel moving on the other side of the river. In fact, I don't think we need Seda. We had a group of young people here. They're the future. I've had my shot. Don't take it away from them. Thank you.

Thank you.

Excuse me. My name is Rob Wade. I can't hardly talk. I'm a Southwest resident. Been living here all my life.

I'm going to give you something.

Just numbers, just stats. The life expectancy in Southwest Fresno is 20 years lesser than it is on the other side of town because we got less green spaces. We got all these factories, Zaki Farms. The park I played on, High Hill Park, is built over a landfill. The park on Jensen is right next to another landfill. Lack of trees, lack of resources. We don't even have, we have one grocery store here. No health care. They just shut down the last Rite Aid. One health place. And where these people want to put this next development for the trucks is right next to the only health care place that we got, which is across the street. Across the street from that is some senior citizen homes right in front of two other schools on the other side of that. That's going to be built right next to where they want to have more industrial traffic coming in. I mean, these people can't even move. They can't live. The life expectancy is already 20 years left. Damn, what they going to do, just kill them? Because they can't go nowhere. They can't afford to go nowhere. We've been here stuck for it seems like forever because I'm in my 50s. It don't look like it, but I'm in my 50s. And I can't breathe. You hear me talking right now. That's because of the pollution and asthma. I go to the doctor once a month to get a respite thing for my asthma. I'm living in southwest Fresno. where there's no investment, no nothing. Everything want to go that way. They want to build all the fancy stuff this side of town, but they want to put the trucks to bring the pollution to our side of town. They want to move the houses, the 45,000 houses that are scheduled to build in Southwest Fresno to another side of town where they could do better and we could get the bullshit. You got to take stuff like this into consideration. People over here dying because we don't have nothing. We don't even have a bank. Not one bank in the whole Southwest Fresno. One grocery store that charges double the amount that they charge for fancy stores.

I'm sorry, your time is up. Is there anyone else?

Good evening. Dylan Savory. I'm the executive director of the four-county union labor council that covers Fresno, Madera, Tulare, and Kings counties based in Fresno. You know, the proponents are, and, you know, the mayor and George Ann keep saying that this is a job creator. And in reality, as you've heard from Fresno Unified and Central Unified, and you haven't heard from our city services tonight who I'm here to represent, this is a job killer. This is going to negatively impact the workers that work for the city of Fresno, the transit workers, the folks that fix our roads, the folks that do all of the services in the city, the folks that teach our schools. This is not going to help anybody. And the real thing I'm here to do is empathize with our city planning staff who are under the gun to make these numbers work over and over and over, even though everybody in this room knows that they do not work. And I'm here to empathize with the planning commissioners. Jerry Dyer and George Ann White are trying to embarrass you all. They are trying to embarrass us. We can all read the same documents that you can read. We know that you know that you don't have the information to make a generational monumental mistake on behalf of the city. We've all read these documents and we empathize here with you. And I know all of you folks were appointed by the mayor. Do not let The city planning staff and the developers, excuse me, the city leaders embarrass you all tonight by forcing you to go on record for some bullshit that doesn't pencil out. So Jerry, we know you're up there. Come out, face the music. Georgeann, come face the people. All of us, none of us wanna be embarrassed. We don't wanna be embarrassed, you don't wanna be embarrassed. We don't wanna tell our kids that we threw away Fresno for giving away billions of money to the developers. Please vote this down.

Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else that would like to speak?

Don't be jealous. My name's Humberto Gomez. I'm actually come from the, I actually live in Parlier. And I wanna thank you guys, the commissioners, because I know you're some of the smartest people here. And I know you guys read the data, you guys read your reports, and I know you guys know more than the mayor and the city council members. And I know you guys are gonna make the decision that is best for the city. I have the privilege and honor that I serve this country, and I know how much of a bad back is, because I'm in pain every day as well. As I stand here, I'm in pain. As I sit there, I'm in pain. But also, I don't want the residents of Fresno to be in pain for their future. I don't want the students of Fresno Unified to be in pain. So I know you guys will be making the best decision. And the folks that are members of the council and everything, I know they know me. I know basically what their motives are and everything. But I'll just tell you this. I know you guys will make the best decision for the future of Fresno. As far as Sanger, I know I was born there when they had a hospital. And I know Sanger can't take the amount of students and all that stuff. Absolutely not. But I know you guys will make the best decision. And don't worry about all the noise. Don't worry about anything. Shut the door. Meditate. And you guys will make the best decision. Because I know some folks here on the commission. And I'll tell you what, I know I trust you and your decision.

Thank you.

Commissioners, Miguel Arias, Councilman for City of Fresno and District 3. I invite you to have drinks in the refrigerator, never mind the signage. You guys all pay for them, so have at it. This is only my second time on this body. Because I take this work seriously and I think you guys have your independent work to do. But I'm not here to convince you based on facts. Those arguments would be for my colleagues on the city council. And I'm also very aware that you're on this dais because one person selected you to be on that dais. And that one person has made his agenda very clear to the public and I'm sure to you. And he's made his expectation of your approval of SEDA very clear too. So I'm not going to waste your time trying to convince you of facts. I urge you to go against that one person. But I do want to clarify the record on a couple things that I think is important. One, I know there's been mention about safeguards phases. You as a commission, nor we as a council have any legal authority to impose and limit any future authority of a city council or planning commission. So there are zero safeguards. Two, the business demand. To my friends in the business community, We have more than a million square feet in my district alone of empty industrial warehouses. They indicate themselves, there's vacant property right next to them. If they chose to open, they can open tomorrow. In my seven and a half years, the city council has never rejected a new business from expanding or opening our city. There are plenty of locations already built, vacant, ready for investment if they chose to invest here. The fact is, It's not about advanced research. It's about data centers. We know it, you know it. There is no other demand. If you wanna talk about a research park, Sacramento has the closest one. 325 acres for research and advancement. Do we need 1,000 acres? It doesn't make any sense. And last.

I'm sorry your time's up. Is there anyone else that would like to speak?

Hello, Chairwoman Bray and members of the Planning Commission. I am Vaughn Garcia-Balanon with the Labor Council. I grew up in the unincorporated area of Lone Star off Jensen and Sunnyside. I went to Lone Star Elementary School of Singer Unified. I first saw who received resources and who was often left behind between Clovis, Singer, and Fresno. And it's always been Fresno. And that wasn't an accident, that was policy. The Sater project repeats the same mistakes. So let me ask you all directly, how can you logically approve this? Let's start with the financial reality. Mayor Dyer promised fiscal reports by spring. It's August, where is that plan? The city has a $1.2 billion maintenance backlog. Dyer claims this project will pay for itself with no financial analysis to prove it. Unless you have substantial evidence on record right now, you cannot logically recommend this. And there's that flexible research and development zone south of Jensen near Lone Star Elementary. You're helping propose a vague R&D zone with no standards. According to a CBS article in San Jose, a retired engineer reviewed plans for a Google facility and said that when you look at the drawings, you can see the building is full of server apps. He was confused because the buildings on the disk drive were listed as research and development. when in reality it had the structure of a data center. The city let them call it a large energy user to bypass environmental review, and that can happen here in Fresno. So commissioners, please don't rubber stamp whatever staff puts in front of you. You stand for us, the public. Please advocate for us. This isn't about growth, it's about greed. Please do not be complicit and reject this plan. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that's not spoken? OK, seeing none, I'm going to take this back to the commission. We are going to take about a 10 or 15 minute break and come back and do our deliberations. So we'll see you in a little bit.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I was supposed to, I apologize, it's late. Does the staff have any answers?

Let's do that when we get back.

Yeah. You already called the recess.

We're good. We'll do the recess.

Yeah, well, I guess he doesn't get to have his two sons. I had a great day.

Thanks for asking. Yeah. I think so.

. . so you . . . Bye. you Thank you. Thank you. Let's pray. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. They came a month ago.

Okay, everyone, we're back. Hello. Hello, we're ready to get started back up again. If you'll please be seated. Okay, we have brought this back to the Commission. We brought this back to the commission now, so are there any comments or motions by the commissioners?

So, Chair, before we get to that, we have some responses that we'd like to provide first. Oh, okay. Yeah, so first we're going to, we've kind of grouped, these into two categories one is related to the EIR and one is related to our policy discussion so first I'm going to ask Phil Ault from First Carbon Solutions to walk through responses related specifically to the EIR and then Adrian and other staff will pick up on policy thank you

Good evening, commissioners. Phil Ault with First Carbon Solutions. I was the director of our team that developed the environmental impact report for the city staff. I'm just going to go through a few of the claims that were raised and just clarify how they were addressed in the environmental impact report. One issue that was raised was that the plan changes would require a recirculated or a supplemental EIR. The refined project that's before you today remains within the nearly 90,000 acre area analyzed in the project EIR. It retains the overall land use, circulation, infrastructure, and build out framework evaluated in the document. future reserve designation the plan that's before you controls when development may proceed rather than adding development beyond the analyzed build out future proposals would remain subject to city review application mitigation and additional seek review where required therefore these changes do not require a recirculated or a supplemental eir claim that the phasing of the project is questionable or not meaningful or unenforceable. The city is considering the project actually proposed for approval, including its phasing framework and future reserve areas. Development in those reserve areas cannot be assumed to occur immediately, and future discretionary actions remain subject to those thresholds that the city's established, including approvals, mitigation measures, and environmental review applicable at that time. The CEQA expressly allows the use of a program EIR for large, long-term planning efforts The EIR analyzed the full bailout of the specific plan as required under CEQA and its maximum environmental impacts while recognizing that development will occur in phases over time. Future development phases and discretionary projects remain subject to additional review to confirm consistency with the EIR and all applicable mitigation measures. There was a question raised about the water supply issue. I just want to clarify that once again. The EIR relies on the water technical study that is included in Appendix F of the EIR, both the draft and the final EIR. The EIR does not merely assume that water will be available. It includes a water technical study that concludes that sufficient water supplies can serve the specific plan with mitigation incorporated. Importantly, the EIR requires the city to evaluate water supply capacity and available water supplies before approving future development. prohibits approval of development that would exceed those supplies unless additional capacity or sources are secured, and requires groundwater recharge and conservation measures to support long-term sustainability. Therefore, the analysis concludes that water supply impacts can be reduced to a less significant level with implementation of these mitigation measures. There was a comment raised about the project descriptions adequacy or being inadequate. The EIR has had a stable project description since the publication of the draft EIR. Extensive technical studies and a comprehensive administrative record have been provided to the Planning Commission. The project description identifies the development program and full build-out assumptions that have formed the basis of the environmental analysis. The record also documents public noticing, circulation, and responses to comments. There was also the claim that the circulation of the document was not properly notified and things like that. And I know the Commission is very well aware that it was properly circulated and available for public review and comments. The attendance of everyone here is, you know, to support that evidence. There was a question regarding the population projections that were used in the environmental impact analysis. The population projections were based on the current general plan, which is the governing document that we have to be analyzing the environmental impact report in accordance with. And so that is what governs this, what we're analyzing. And so, if anything, it's a conservative analysis of a maximum growth capacity, and we have to, under CEQA, analyze what that reasonable impact could be with the highest projected growth amount. And that's what the analysis for the EIR included. And then the last comment was related to the transportation analysis, which the transportation impacts, as you're well aware, were evaluated through a dedicated traffic impact analysis. That's included in the environmental impact report. It assessed existing conditions, future baseline conditions, and future conditions with the project. The EIR identified impacts, incorporated mitigation where required, and evaluated transportation consistency with all applicable CEQA transportation requirements. I'll just keep it short like that. I'm here to answer any specific questions that you have in regards to the environmental impact report or any of these comments I've submitted to you.

Does anyone have any questions for him?

Sorry, I wrote some questions down, but you did answer some, so I'm just going through my list to make sure that they were all answered. And this is only regarding the EIR, correct?

That's correct. That's what I can speak to.

Sorry, give me like a couple. So I guess one of my questions is, do we have any safeguards in place in case the population does not reach what is expected? Say, for example, they start everything, start building, and then the population is not growing as expected. Is there anything in place in preparation for that if that should happen?

It sounds more like a policy question than an EIR question. I can answer you in respect to the environmental impact report. Again, what we've had to analyze is what's a reasonable, feasible, kind of worst-case scenario that could occur and what the environmental impacts are related to that that's associated with the specific plan. And so... If anything, we've overanalyzed it. If that growth doesn't happen, well, then the impacts won't be as severe as what we've analyzed. Does that clarify? Okay.

Does anyone else have a question for him? I do. What do I have?

Thank you for being here. One of the speakers talked about contamination. Can you speak a little bit and elaborate in reference to what she was talking about, that contamination that she was talking about?

Contamination?

Yes.

Commissioner, that was related to a different neighborhood, so in a different location of the city.

Thank you.

Yep. Okay.

Any other questions?

I don't have a question for him, but I do have some questions for the city staff.

Okay.

Whenever we're ready. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

So chair, I'm gonna start with planning staff and then we're gonna work our way to public utility staff and then back to me to answer specific policy questions, go ahead.

Good evening. I just want to answer some policy and plan related questions. So I do want to reiterate, this is a plan. It is not a specific development project. And regarding annexation specifically, adoption of the plan does not effectuate annexation. We heard some comments regarding the policy, regarding the Community Benefit Fund and some requests to alter language to that policy. The Planning Commission could absolutely make a recommendation to the City Council to strengthen the Community Benefit Fund policy language. This policy was direction provided by the city council to consider a community benefit fund. So the planning commission could absolutely provide some revised language to address those concerns. Related to financing, the budget is the responsibility of the council regarding financing plan and fiscal impact questions. I'd be happy to direct those specifically to Director Clark to answer any additional questions you may have.

So do we want to start with financing plan or do we want to have our water DPU questions answered first?

Finance.

So as the commission is aware, so as a policy document, just like the general plan is very specific, there are policies related to growth and that new growth and new development shall pay for itself, right? And so those plans are the operative plan for the city. This plan has to be consistent with that. And the plan is consistent. It goes on to specifically direct that not only would development pay for itself, but that that it would be phased in such a way that new development could not occur until certain additional analyses were completed. So the council in December did make a very large number of recommendations of the kinds of analyses it would like to see and would like to be completed and staff has been working on this a lot since the beginning of the year. And there was a workshop scheduled for the last council meeting. We had hoped to effectuate it by that date. It is not ready yet. We are rescheduled to be at the council with the economic analyses on September 3rd, but the council would need to essentially from that document determine that any specific projects within the plan, so once a project comes forward, that it was consistent with those policies related to financing.

I have a clarification question on that. Through the chair, if I may. Director Clark, just so that I understand because it's been a long time since I've been here. In the past, I don't ever remember us as a body saying, weighing in on whether or not there was funding for the downtown specific plan or whatever. I always remember that being more of the purview of the city council and their ability to control the budget, their ability to work, the city council and the mayor to, to basically say what we're going to prioritize spending on as a city. I recall that our role was more just is what's before us in line with what we've set out as general plan policies and other things that are within the planning realm. Has that changed? Do we have a different authority since when I was last here that we have a bigger role with when it comes to budget or is that still mainly a city council thing?

Thank you, Commissioner Holt. The purview of the planning commission has not changed. In your recommendation to the city council, you are considering whether or not this plan is consistent with the general plan, the goals and the policies of the general plan, if it is consistent with the expectations for future development areas and planning in advance for those future development areas, that is absolutely within the purview of the planning commission. You are correct that the planning commission excuse me the council is ultimately responsible for determining whether or not the project is can be financed if there is a way to finance a project but again this is a plan just like the other plans just like downtown west area southwest are all plans are there any other questions

I DO HAVE A QUESTION. THERE WAS A CONCERN RAISED BY NUMEROUS COMMUNITY MEMBERS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY WE DO HAVE A LOT OF PLANS. WE HAVE WEST SIDE PLAN, WE HAVE WEST OF 99 PLAN, WE HAVE TOWER DISTRICT PLAN. WE GOT SO MANY PLANS. Will this plan affect those plans? Because those plans have already been approved. There is plenty of infrastructure. For example, if you look at West of 99, there is infrastructure there. Now, downtown Fresno is any downtown in a city, that's the heart. People should be looking forward to coming to downtown Fresno. there is a downtown plan. And then we all know the story of a running horse on 180. I was a little child when we were so excited about that. Somebody is going to build a big old golf course there. Now, My question is, the concern from the community, we hear you. First of all, thank you to the wonderful community for showing up because this is your house. Thank you to the wonderful staff and everyone else. And I also want to clarify from the staff, I guess when she said absolutely, she probably said, I will absolutely answer your question. Now, so my question is, will this plan affect the communities of downtown Fresno, west side, west of 99, Tower District? What impact will that bring? This will bring onto the city.

So commissioner, the general plan is very clear that there are many, many areas that the city can grow, right? And many different types of housing, many different types of commercial and employment districts throughout the city. So appropriate distribution and opportunity throughout the community. There is identification of future development areas in the general plan. and a distribution and expectation of demand in those areas. We expect demand to continue in all of our areas. The city's invested over $300 million in infrastructure in downtown, in grant funding, over $100 million in Southwest Fresno and infrastructure, and is continuing to identify infrastructure dollars to reinvest in existing and established neighborhoods. But we also have to plan for future growth and not assume that we live in a walled city where nothing happens around us. and we can force everyone to live here, right? So we have to assume that there will continue to be a demand and growth for multiple areas in Fresno, whether that's existing, we know that there is a lot of demand for existing and established neighborhoods along our BRT corridors in downtown, in the west area, in southwest Fresno, but there's also a demand for growth in southeast Fresno. And we are just planning for the future for that.

You know, I mean, there is plenty of, I mean, we know the story of Manchester Mall. Once it was a vibrant mall. Now they don't even have any stores in there anymore. We do have a lot of land in Fresno. Like, my question is, when we do have a lot of land inward and there is infrastructure, why new need for that when we can't even when we have plenty of like like one of the common we heard we have a lot of acreage available for businesses so businesses so they don't want to come to the west side they don't want to go to west of 99 like is is that's the reason

There, again, there is a lot of demand in our existing and established neighborhoods. There is demand west of the 99, as was identified in the West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan that was adopted last year. Additionally, we continue to see demand throughout Fresno, right? So in all of our development areas and all of our growth areas, we see demand. Just So the EIR contemplates a number of alternatives, right? The no project alternative doesn't mean development won't occur in southeast development area, right? Yes, it's in the city sphere of influence. It will continue to be in the city sphere of influence unless LAFCO decides that we haven't made adequate progress towards the resolution. Development can occur in the county, with the land uses that are currently identified in the general plan. So all the population, the density, the development can still occur without the identified protections that are listed in the specific plan. So there, you know, Is there demand for all of these areas? Yes, we're seeing demand occur all around the city of Fresno. We want to absorb everyone who wants to live here, right? We don't want to shut out anyone who wants to be in Fresno. And so that is really the goal. It is future planning as the general plan identifies all of the development areas for future planning. This is one of them. And it is the next one on the list to be to be adopted. The city has already adopted the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan, the West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan, and this is the next one on the list.

I have some follow-up questions to that, if I may, that are directly along what Director Clark just mentioned. I want to better understand, because I think there's some confusion about alternative one. EIR alternative one. That is we say no, we vote no on SEDA. We vote no on SEDA. Development, as you said, still occurs there. And it says according to the general plan land use. Is that the city's general plan land use or the county's general plan land use?

That would be per the city's general plan land use, but without adopting the plan, we cannot annex areas within the southeast development area.

And that leads to my next question. So if I understand this correctly, in I guess about 2006, LAFCO basically said, we're going to allow you to put this big chunk in the city's sphere of influence, in the area that you might grow to someday. Okay. And we started getting going on this process. And we, Sega, I see Keith. Keith, I see you up there. We did Sega. It was great. I loved it. I thought it looked really good. It had great photos in it. The recession came. And we, I think, rightly said, hold on. Costs a lot of money to do planning. Let's, we got to figure out what we're going to prioritize. Then something really unique, and it's in your staff report, and I don't think it's really been said enough, happened in 2016. And if you could explain that, LAFCO basically came to us and said, I'm paraphrasing, hey, city, you got to figure out what you're going to do with that area. Because if you don't, we may want it back. LAFCO is the agency that is set up by state law that basically says, Who gets what parts of land? Does Fresno get it? Does it stay in the county? Does Clovis get it? Does Madera get it? Does Sanger get it? What entity gets parts of land? And if I'm correct, in 2016, LAFCOS came to us and said, City of Fresno, what are you going to do? It's been 10 years. You've got to figure it out. And at that point, I think the city council, if I'm correct, took a resolution that said, no, no, no. we want to control our destiny here. We're going to start planning again. And so that started this process, took a couple years for us to find money to do it, this process that we're in now. But I want to better understand what LAFCO said in 2016. Did they come to us and say what I just said? Hey, figure out what you're going to do, city, or we might take it back.

No, LAFCO authored a resolution to remove SEDA from the city sphere.

Oh, so they went so far as to say, if you don't do it, we're going to take it away from you. Correct. And if they do take it away from us, who has responsibility for it then?

Well, at that point, it would be dependent on another jurisdiction if they wanted to add it to their sphere or not, or it could develop in the county, correct?

Correct. And at that point, the city of Fresno has no more say-so at all at what happens there, is that correct? Other than we can show up at, XYZ agency and say we agree or not agree.

Correct. We can oppose or support any project at that point, yes.

All right. So I just want to make sure that we're clear that everyone understands that saying no to SEDA does not necessarily say no development. Correct. Correct. Then my second question is that If I'm not mistaken, you can correct me if I'm wrong, there already has been land purchased, significant investment made by Clovis Unified School District to develop in the area that we're calling SATA. Is that correct? Is that part of the record? If it's not, I can say I don't know if that's true. I read that. I don't know.

Sure. In the northern portion of the SATA area, north of McKinley, is the new Bradley Center, which is Clovis Unified's South Clovis High School and middle school and grade school campus.

So they've invested a fair amount of money in assuming there's going to be development around there. Is that correct?

I would say, I can't speak for them, but they have developed a school campus based on assumptions of growth and development in the area.

And that's my understanding as well in what I've heard, but I just wanted to make sure that we all believe that to be true. So just to piggyback on this one more time, I think a lot of folks here actually want alternative three, which is let's keep it farmland. Why didn't we go with that?

Alternative three, so I think EIR alternative three is not let's keep it farmland. So let's talk about what alternative three is. Thank you. So currently, The plan in the buffer, which is the easternmost half mile of the plan area, allows for development to occur at a small scale. So small cluster residential development and associated kinds of uses, right? The alternative three in the EIR says no development can occur in that buffer on agricultural lands. So that's the piece that is that alternative. So instead of being a land, it is not a land use alternative. It is a policy alternative that protects a certain amount of acreage of land in the plan area, but not in the entirety of the area.

All right. All right, I have more questions, but that's all I have for right now.

I have a question regarding the financial analysis. So am I correct in thinking that we don't actually have a financial analysis right now or a transparent way of viewing how this will all be financed?

So again, this is a plan. Infrastructure and financing of that infrastructure would be the responsibility of the city council. They will receive the economic analyses that they requested. We're hoping at the September 3rd city council meeting as a workshop. When then development is determined to move forward, the city council under their budgeting responsibility would determine whether or not how that would be paid for and ensuring that it met the general plan policy in terms of growth has to pay for itself.

So essentially you want us to adopt this and recommend this and certify it without having that information at hand.

The same as the Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan, Southwest Fresno Specific Plan, the West Air Neighborhoods Specific Plan, Tower District Specific Plan, they all have policies that specifically address growth and the responsibility of growth. So as a land use body, you are confirming that new growth must pay for itself as a policy of this document.

In terms of the fiscal part of it, the community benefit fund is a policy, right? That that's going to be part of the plan. So without knowing that that actually has funding, how can we recommend this to the council? Where is it gonna come from? I mean, and the fencing for the property that gets encompassed by a planned development or multifamily, that fencing for that farm that's enclosed, where's that funding gonna come from? There's questions here that I think are policy questions that need to be answered before I can give a recommendation to the council.

Jennifer, correct me if I'm incorrect. Our job here today is to determine if this policy meets the findings and make a recommendation to the city council that we've made the findings and that's all our job is. Is that correct? So...

Excuse me.

We've taken this back to the dais and I appreciate it if you could show us some respect and let us discuss this.

So... So as stated previously, the policy is to create a community benefit fund. That was specifically a motion by the city council to create a fund for hookups. It is the responsibility then of the city council to identify that fund. which will be discussed in the workshop with the city council related to the financing. So I hear what you're saying. And if you would like to strengthen the language, I think one of the public had some really good suggestions related to strengthening the language about the fund and how it would be used. The planning commission could make a recommendation in terms of strengthening that language. How the city pays for... infrastructure, pays for funds, that is the responsibility of the city council. As it relates to responsibility of this body, you have the responsibility to determine whether or not this plan, as a plan, is consistent with the general plan. So your consideration is, does the language in the plan related to growth paying for itself, related to development, needing to meet certain thresholds related to the community benefit fund right is that consistent with the policies and the goals that are in the general plan and so that's the responsibility of of the commission so commissioner calandra i understand that as as a former council person you'd love to see those numbers right but as the planning commission right you're saying you need to create one that's the policy There needs to be one created, right? And so the policy is to create the fund. It's then the responsibility of the council if they allow growth in the area, right? So just because you adopt the plan doesn't mean you allow growth, right? So if you allow growth in the area, then you have to create the fund.

And to take that... you know, a little bit further, the compensation for the loss of prime ag land through a conservation easement, where does that other piece come from? Okay, you're allowing development here, but where's the piece that's going to be put into the conservation easement?

That is a really great question. So the city has actually done a conservation easement, has actually purchased land when it did the solar project at the wastewater treatment plant. It was required under our general plan and under our EIR, we require one-for-one replacement. We were required... to replace that land with a conservation easement. So the city purchased land within the county as permanently protected land. We have to go out and inspect every year. We have to ensure that it is being maintained and that is part of our responsibility. So the way it happens is the development would then purchase an alternative land site that is of the same level. So if it's prime, it has to be prime. If it's site-wide importance, it has to be statewide importance, right? So for each of those levels, it has to be a one-for-one match under our EIR. That is the responsibility of that development. But again, it only occurs if someone chooses to develop that land.

Thank you.

Yep.

So my question is because the council is in charge of the financing and that piece, are we in this position today where we have to either recommend adoption or not recommend adoption because that adoption and approval will then guide them to do that and to find out the financial analysis? Or is there a way that we can make this decision once that financial analysis is completed?

So under the responsibilities of the planning commission, your responsibility is to make a recommendation to the city council. So you can recommend approval, you can recommend approval with modifications, or you can recommend denial. And that is the responsibility of the planning commission under your responsibilities in the administration section of the development code.

Thank you. And you know, I appreciate how hard you guys are working and I appreciate everybody coming here and talking. I think we can practice a little bit of kindness if that's okay, because city staff has been working very, very hard and we all want a better Fresno together, but everybody has different visions. That's why we're here and we're collaborating. So I have noticed a little bit of that and tensions are a little bit higher and I noticed some people are a bit nervous and perhaps can't answer the questions how they would like. So I would just like to encourage kindness. We all have a vision for a better Fresno and it's all of our job in here to find that.

I have a question. Did we have financial analysis for all the other plans? Did the planning commission have financial analysis for all the other plans before they got approved?

No.

Thank you.

Okay.

Commissioner Calandra, your question? Okay.

Yes. I have a question regarding the thresholds for future development. And if this council that's seated now can prohibit future councils from You know, keeping, you know, making promises that a future council can't keep or won't keep is, I mean, do they have that right?

So as a part of the motion last December, there was a very specific language that the council adopted related to selection of the environmentally superior alternative with modifications. So there were additional modifications that were requested. Additionally, phasing and thresholds were adopted as a part of the motion. It is very specific to what needs to happen before the next phase can occur. That is built into the plan. I can't speak for future councils, right? So any plan through the same process can be modified, but as you can tell, it's a long process. and very public process. So a council couldn't just vote on a given Thursday to change that particular policy and that particular section of the plan without doing an amendment to the plan which would require all of the same public noticing and the hearings that you have for this plan.

Are there any further questions or comments?

I have one question. I just want to know when you guys say it'll pay for itself, can you explain just how it will pay for itself and what the plan is? Is it going to pay for itself after a certain amount of months or will it pay for itself prior? Or is that up to council also to determine?

That's a great question. So what What the plan states is that, and the general plan states, that new development has to pay for itself. So that means there is... an evaluation of not only the cost for pre-development of infrastructure, keep in mind that most projects that come before you, 100% of that infrastructure is being completed by the project itself, right? In this particular case, there is some pre-development work that would be necessary. It's not the entire amount, so every project is going to have its own responsibilities related to the water, the streets, the sewer, the intersections, the sidewalks, the lighting, all of that would be the developer's responsibility. If there is a project and other projects across the city have financed various portions or pre-development. So in the west area, the trunk mains were built long before development came about, right? And as development occurred, it paid through impact fees those particular costs. So the initial analysis that the city did, which was much more extensive than any analysis that the city's done in the past, was look at every single cost, regardless of whether that was a developer paid cost or prepaid by the city. And it identified a number of different ways that that could be funded, that pre-development cost could be funded. It could be funded and paid back through impact fees, which is a longer period of time. It could be paid back through property tax or through revenues, which is a shorter payback period of time. It could be paid through a public-private partnership. It could be paid through a number of different mechanisms. And again, that would be up to the city council to determine what was the most, one, if they wanted to finance anything upfront or if it wanted to require development to finance it itself, right? So through a revenue financing mechanism paid for by a specific development rather than pre-funding any infrastructure. So that is absolutely a question that the city council will need to undertake. There are a number of mechanisms that they can choose from and they can discuss and deliberate on.

Okay, and when you say property tax revenue, is that property tax revenue specific to that area or like part of the general fund or?

Yeah, so large developments across the state of California use a property tax financing tool, sometimes known as Melaroose, and those particular properties within that development area then are assessed at a higher rate and pay back that particular cost of infrastructure.

And who pays it back?

the properties within the footprint of the impacted area.

Thanks. Thank you very much. Would that be the new development, their taxes, or would everyone in that area?

It would only apply to new development that was developed for specifically for that project.

So if the development doesn't occur as projected, then would that affect other areas of the city?

So again, it's gonna be dependent on the type of financing that is identified for the area, right? So I can't, you know, I think it would be premature commissioner for us to say the council is going to select a certain kind of infrastructure financing and to have a conversation about that at this time. I think that really needs to take place with the council so that they have that, they can make that determination at that time.

I understand.

Thank you.

I have one more question related to the thresholds and about the voter referendum on when development could occur. And I mean, is that even... I mean, I just can't imagine opening up a decision that is typically the legislative body of this community to voting. Is that going to be staying in the plan? I mean, that is part of the plan?

That is in the implementation chapter of the plan. And it's very specific that the council could schedule a voter referendum. And it has been done in other places in California. It's not uncommon. And certainly something that the council at the time could decide they wanted to do and could say, hey, we've We've hit our thresholds. We've done our future environmental analysis. We've done our fiscal analysis. Let's put it out there and see whether or not we should open up the next area. Absolutely. Any council can schedule a voter referendum if that's what they would like to do.

You know, there's one thing that just kind of keeps on bugging my head right now. It's like There's one comment that really like touched my heart about like West Fresno saying, you know, we only have like one store and life expense, like, you know, 20 years less. I mean, like where is the equity? Like, I'm just kind of scared and we approve this thing. Are they gonna take it away from the developing areas? The areas that were redlined in the history. I mean, that is history. These minority areas were redlined. So I want to make sure, if I want to vote on this, I want to make sure that the West Fresno, Western 99, Tower District, downtown Fresno, especially the minority communities, do not lose out. People are still waiting to get that Polk Avenue fixed, Polk and Shaw Avenue, and we were promised... buy this console, on the record, oh yeah, we got millions of dollars. It is still, I don't want to use the word, but drive over there, you can look at it. So, I mean, it just, my thing is, we have this huge plan, these beautiful pictures. Man, they look so beautiful. I mean, they look amazing. Why can't we have it on this side? Like, why cannot we have it on this side? And all these politicians, I'm going to say it, everybody's like, yeah, no Lucera, no Lucera. I mean, I don't know what their thing is, but they keep on saying that. And then we have all these people showing up and I feel like their questions are not answered. And I'm going to be, personally, I'm going to be guilty if I say yes on this thing, so.

There was one more question that was not addressed that was asked by the public in regard to the research and development and data centers. Is that going to be an allowed use in that area or is that going to require conditional use permits? Has the city set a policy yet on data centers?

That's a Fantastic question. Thank you so much for asking that. So currently, data centers are not a permitted use in the city of Fresno, nor will they be permitted in the flexible research and development area.

Thank you. Thank you.

As I sympathize with everybody's comments, one comment that stuck out to me, well, they all stuck out, but there's 400 construction projects, 270 ongoing. West Fresno is getting a lot of road work done. They got the new college out there. There's a lot of upgrades going around everywhere. So to hear that everybody's being left out, it just, I have a different thought on that, right? So... But that's why we're here to discuss. There's a lot of money going in other areas. I see it. So it just, you know, it gives me some more thought.

Okay. Are there any other comments or questions?

Yeah, I have one comment. Here's a little story, a real story. Clinton Avenue, 99 and Clinton Avenue. That avenue was so messed up. It had so many potholes. True story, seven years ago. This council was about to steal that money. The money was allocated for Clinton Avenue. They were about to take it to somewhere else. Same thing, the community showed up. That money came back. The thing is, we need to be assured that all the development that has been planned, they will go accordingly. That SEDA will not take that money away. SEDA will not take away the resources of the people. Like, F... I mean, if it is ensured that people will not be losing their resources, because in the past, it has been, oh, yeah, you know what? These people don't need the money. Let's take it somewhere else. Because, you know, they don't speak up. Like, they don't care. Yeah, they care. They just don't have time to show up.

On that, sorry. Oh, go ahead. Sorry. That's up to our city council people, right? We need to elect better city council people if that's what you're speaking to. You know, our job is to approve or deny development. That's it. And if we need better city council people, then so be it. But there is a lot of construction work going on. There is a lot of development. I drive around it. I see it all the time. I represent a lot of those people. So if we need better city council people, that's not why we're here tonight, though.

Um... I have just a couple questions, oddly, on the actual plan. First one, I believe that we need to control our own destiny. And I believe that LAFCO has made it very apparent that if we don't have a plan in place, they have basically said, sorry, Fresno, you don't get to control your destiny. That is legally what they wrote in the record. So it's in the record. So if we lose it, it is quite possible that someone else takes it. And we...

Excuse me. Please don't interrupt the conversation on the dais.

So in the 10 plus years that I was on this planning commission. I sat in this room a lot with a lot of passionate people and I will tell you sometimes I got it right, sometimes I got it wrong. Sometimes we are up here legitimately trying to do the right thing and I'm sorry that you don't believe me. I'm sorry you don't but we really are trying to do the right thing for our entire community and I saw Tesoro Viejo get built. I was on this commission when we said no to this before and they built Riverstone. I saw the county build Millerton Newtown. The county. The county's creating towns now. And I think we should actually look at this plan and see whether or not it has merit. And I know some of you disagree with me. I get it. I get it. And I totally respect that. I do. I do. But I don't want you to think. I don't want you to leave here tonight and think by saying no on SEDA, you're not going to have development there. I just want you to know that I don't believe that to be true. I think there is going to be development there because you have a lot of developers. The developers would be here tonight if they thought a vote on this actually mattered. You know, they would. They would be here tonight fighting it. But they know that if we say no, someone else gets it. And that someone else may be a lot less restrictive than we are. One of the things that's interesting here that was my question for Director Clark is we allow nonconforming uses to be continued Indefinitely, is that correct? I don't remember us saying indefinitely before. Usually it's until it changes hands or it moves out of a family. That seems like a big thing that we're saying here.

So article, I believe it's four of the first section of the development code specifically speaks to legal non-conforming uses that are allowed to continue in perpetuity unless it's specific types of uses that are abandoned. But this particular plan, one of the protections that the council was very important to them was to ensure that existing uses in the SATA area could continue and would have additional protection. So ensuring that not only the legal non-conforming use section of the city code, which allows legally established uses in the city to continue, but these are legally established uses in the county area, in the county zoning code, and this county zoning ordinance would continue to trump anything if an area was annexed into the city for this specific area in perpetuity, yes.

My next question about the actual plan, the one area that I'm a little concerned with, and I think it's pretty obvious, I do think we need to control our destiny here, and I am supporting this plan, but the one issue I had was Temperance and Butler. There's an industrial use there that's existing called Lidistry Foods. And we put some medium high density, which I think is appropriate there, kind of to the east and the north. But then we also put some neighborhood residential. And I'm just a little concerned about that neighborhood residential next to that industrial source and wonder if there was a thought behind it.

So, Commissioner, the original proposed land use did identify the area north of Jensen and east of Temperance up to the Briggs Canal as the primary research and development area. But after the recommendation to select the environmentally superior alternative, the consolidated business park alternative. It actually took the flexible research and development and consolidated all of that south of Jensen and west of Temperance into that area and moved any of the commercial residential retail land uses to the north. And so they're in the development code. So when the development code is updated for this particular plan, There will be a whole section in the development code, just like the downtown zones have their own section in the development code. This will have its own section. And there will be an opportunity to talk about what do those buffers look like? What does that transition standard look like? And that will be part of the development code, yes. Perfect. Thank you.

Commissioner Holt kind of reiterated something I've been saying in previous meetings, and it is that school. Clovis School on Leonard is happening. And I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but someone out there knows what's going to happen. They would never put a school there if they didn't think that there were going to be students in that area. They didn't put a school there for kids to come from Easterby Elementary School to go clear out to there. So whatever's happening that we may not know about, there's going to be development there. Some of you know I lived there for 40 years. And as I've said before, it breaks my heart to see that happen to this area. However, in the real world, it's going to happen. I see this plan. with it being phased down in the Jensen area first as the least awful iteration of this. At least it starts there. And I also want to say, was on that original Sega committee. I don't even remember how long ago it was. And you know, it was all gonna go and it was wonderful. And then we had the downturn in the economy and it went away. So there's no way for us to know how soon any of this will happen. Except I think that the area for the industrial development, whatever you want to call it, could happen right away. And I'm going to say another two things that could get me in trouble. I don't think we have an affordable housing crisis. We have a not good enough jobs crisis. That's what's wrong here. We don't have jobs that pay enough money for people to be able to own houses at the reasonable prices that we have in Fresno. I own a recruiting company. I talk to people all the time from the Bay Area or Los Angeles, and they're astonished that they can still get a house for $400,000. So we don't have an affordable housing problem. We have a good jobs problem. And so I see this part of the development as another way for us to get some decent jobs and maybe not be the highest rate of poverty in the United States and maybe be a place where our schools are good because we have families that are raising their children in homes. So anyway, that would be my next comment. If you really mean it that you don't want to see development, you can't say only we don't want development in this area. You need to say we don't want You need, if this is what you really mean, to do a no growth thing for the whole county. That's what you need to do. Because if you do it here, somebody else isn't gonna do it there. And I'm not saying you should, but if that's what you really want, you should start a referendum to make Fresno County a no growth county. And so, I am in favor of this plan because I see it as another opportunity for us to hopefully get some jobs that pay well. And so I want to say... So please don't interrupt me. Okay. So I'm going to make a motion. One second.

Chair, if I could... Recommend an addition to any motion you might make or make a motion. I've drafted some language that I think I'd like to make my motion.

If you'd like to add to it, that's fine. Perfect. So I'm going to make a motion to approve the staff's recommendations. And I'd like to hear what.

And to add that we also move that the planning commission would recommend to city council that they strengthen the SATA community benefit fund provisions to ensure a mandatory self executed, meaningful, dedicated, and ongoing funding mechanism. that directly benefits SATA residents.

Yes.

Second.

Yeah. Is there any way that we can include or guarantee that council won't take any funding or monies away from other programs for this program? We don't have that.

I don't want to be sarcastic. You can't guarantee the council will do anything. So, you know, so, you know, I mean, we could put something in there. But it's no guarantee. And I'm not saying this council. A council can change the whole thing whenever they want to. So I see this as another good chance to get some decent jobs in Fresno.

And just to clarify, Chair Bray, will you include my language in your motion?

Yes, I said I would.

Yes, she said yes, she'd include my language in her motion.

I second the motion with the language included.

Thank you. Can we have a roll call? Before, can we state the motion again so that we're all clear and then afterwards, Commissioner Holt, I'll need your written piece of paper. So what I'm hearing the Planning Commission motion with a second is to recommend to the City Council certification of the final EIR, recommend to the City Council the adoption of the finding of facts and statement of overriding considerations recommend to the city council adoption of the mitigation monitoring reporting program recommend approval of the plan amendment which opposes to adopt the southeast development area specific plan and accompanying land use map recommend approval of the plan amendment application to update the planned land use map with the dual designation map and the text of the fresno general plan to incorporate the land use changes proposed in the southeast development area and to commissioner

to add that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they strengthen the SATA Community Benefit Fund provision to ensure a mandatory, self-executed, meaningful, dedicated, and ongoing funding mechanism that directly benefits existing SATA residents. Okay, thank you. And I forgot, I have a disclosure. I'm so sorry, I should have done this earlier. I just wanted everyone to know that I did meet with Eric Payne and Patience Melrod Monday. There was some discussion about whether or not we could do that, and I believe that we can meet with the public, but I was clear both with them, and I want to be clear with everyone tonight, that they gave me no new information, and that... that we had been directed by city staff that any communication that happens outside of this public hearing cannot weigh on any decision that we might make and that it must be, the decision tonight must be based on written and verbal testimony that is in the public record. So that's just a provision to make sure this is all done out in public. Oh, and I also watched the workshop from your last meeting. Thank you. So all of that,

is my motion. Can we have a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Holt?

Aye.

Commissioner Giles?

Yes.

Commissioner Calandra? Yes. Commissioner Shurgill?

No.

Commissioner Diaz? Yes. Bryce .

Yes.

Chair Bray.

Yes. OK, so the motion passes, and we'll move on to the end of our meeting. So do we have a report by the secretary?

Chair and commission, I would like to let you know that our next meeting on September 2nd, there will be a number of training workshops for the commission. And after the meeting here, I'd like each one of you, I need to collect your badge before we leave today, if you still have one. But that's all I have. Thank you.

Okay, is there any unscheduled oral communications? Okay, we're adjourning the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you.