1 INTRODUCTION

The Fresno General Plan¹ articulates a vision for the city and presents a set of policies and implementation actions to achieve that vision. The Plan capitalizes on opportunities inherent in Fresno’s assets and regional location—on its human and natural resources; its economic resources, and proud history. The Plan draws from the ideas and visions of the many citizens, business owners, elected officials, and City staff who participated in the planning process, under the leadership provided by the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee (GPCC), the Planning Commission, the Mayor, and the City Council.

1.1 CONTEXT

The City of Fresno¹ last comprehensively updated its General Plan in 2002. Since then, the city has undergone a significant demographic and urban transformation. The legal environment governing land use, environmental preservation, housing, and other planning issues has also changed. A major, comprehensive revision of the General Plan is therefore necessary to eliminate any obsolete elements and policies, ensure legal conformity, and address new challenges, such as the need to prudently manage growth and enhance the city’s economy.

The Fresno General Plan is forward-looking, comprehensive, and long-range. It supports the community’s vision to preserve the desirable qualities that make the city of Fresno an ideal place to live, work, and play. The Plan recommends strategies to address prevalent existing conditions and trends that impede achieving and maintaining greater human, community, environmental, and economic health and prosperity. The Plan envisions Fresno as a vibrant, growing city, infused with a sense of heritage and community.

The primary purpose of a general plan is to outline a long-range vision for the physical development of the city that reflects the aspirations of the community. Since economic, social, transportation, environmental, public facilities and services, and other outcomes are interrelated with land use and development and are important to the community, the Plan includes applicable policies related to these complementary areas as well. The Plan presents a blueprint to guide economic development initiatives, as well as needed investments in improvements to increase competitiveness and promote economic growth. Planning and investment partnerships among landowners, developers, public agencies, and institutions will ensure effective and collaborative planning, efficient processing, shared public facilities and services financing. Under this Plan, the City will become a role model for Central Valley communities for growth management planning, regional cooperation, resilient urban development, economic vitality, revitalization of Downtown and established neighborhoods, resource efficiency, and environmental quality. The Plan also addresses a number of important community concerns, including:

• High concentrated poverty, high unemployment, and extreme disparities in quality-of-life circumstances and opportunities in different parts of the city;

• Neglected and disinvested established neighborhoods and Downtown Planning Area;

• Poor air quality, and environmental and community health issues;
• Residential growth patterns that negatively impact natural resources and deplete strategic farmland; and
• Fiscal instability related to the city’s existing spread-out urban form and land use inefficiencies.

Overarching Principles of Resilience

The theme of resilience runs throughout the Plan and its strategies to address the city’s challenges and capitalize on its opportunities and assets. There are five principles of resilience that guide the intent and demonstrate the interrelationships among Plan goals, objectives, and implementing policies. These principles serve as an overarching framework for a healthy and prosperous Fresno.

1. Quality-of-Life and Basic Services in All Neighborhoods;
2. A Prosperous City - Centered on a Vibrant Downtown;
3. Ample Industrial and Employment Land Ready for Job Creation;
4. Care for the Built and Natural Environment; and
5. Fiscally Responsible and Sustainable Land Use Policies and Practices.

The Plan describes a balanced city with an appropriate proportion of its growth and reinvestment focused in the central core, Downtown, established neighborhoods, and along Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors. A successful and vibrant Downtown is necessary to attract investment needed for infill development and rehabilitation of established neighborhoods, which are priorities for the Plan. Balancing a vibrant Downtown will be self-sufficient suburban Development Areas. This will result in a city with a revitalized Downtown and established neighborhoods and with livable new suburban neighborhoods supporting one another. The Plan contemplates subsequent adoption of community and Specific Plans to further refine and guide development in the Downtown Planning Area.

The Plan is not merely a compendium of ideas and wish lists. While it is general and long-range in scope, the Plan is also comprehensive with many near-term actions. It lays out policies and implementation strategies from the date of adoption to 2035 and beyond. The defined policies, figures, standards, guidelines and actions to be undertaken by the City focus on what is concrete and achievable in order to accommodate the future population. Broad objectives such as “economic development,” “quality of life,” and “neighborhood character” are meaningful only if translated into actions that are tangible and can be implemented. State law requires that many City

regulations, requirements, and actions be consistent with the Plan. Therefore, regular ongoing use and updating of the Plan is essential.¹

⬚ figure

Santa Fe Depot, pictured above, is the railroad station in the Downtown that is used by Amtrak California for its San Joaquin passenger train service. The historic renovated station is a local icon for the Fresno community. Photo: Joe Moore

Goals of the General Plan

The update process that created this General Plan was initiated to take a comprehensive look at where the city is, where it would like to be by General Plan Horizon (2035), and by General Plan Buildout beyond 2035 (see description for both on page 1-19). Some areas of Fresno may change very little in this timeframe, and others may change dramatically. This Plan focuses on current community needs, neighborhood character, economic development challenges and opportunities, mixed-use and infill development strategies, development considerations outside the current city limits, and the fiscal resources and management strategies needed to attain the City’s goals. Many of the existing community conditions are displayed in a series of figures at the end of this element, including Figure 1-4: Existing Land Use and a number of figures that show the geographic distribution of the city’s existing demographic conditions. Lastly, the Plan responds to residents’ preferences about where different land uses such as

housing, shopping, industry, parks and recreation, and public facilities should be located and how City resources should be used to achieve the Plan's goals.

Key themes of the Plan include the strengthening of existing centers of activity and commercial corridors in the city, as well as expansion of the city's industrial capacity, retail base, and new residential neighborhoods. Thus, this Plan has been prepared to do the following:

• Establish a long-range vision that reflects the aspirations of the community and outlines steps to achieve this vision;
• Establish long-range land use development policies that will guide development decision-making by City departments by providing a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with the outcomes envisioned in the Fresno General Plan policies;
• Reflect the City's current planning, resource conservation, and economic development efforts;
• Guide development in a manner that improves the quality of life for the whole community and meets future land needs based on the projected population and job growth;
• Allow the City, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will preserve and enhance community character and environmental resources, promote resiliency, and minimize hazards; and
• Provide the basis for establishing detailed plans and implementation programs, such as the zoning and subdivision regulations, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and the Capital Improvement Program.

The Plan establishes 17 goals for the City. The introduction to each element of the Plan highlights which of these goals it supports:

1. Increase opportunity, economic development, business and job creation. Use urban form, land use, and Development Code policies to streamline permit approval, promote local educational excellence and workforce relevance, significantly increase business development and expansion, retain and attract talented people, create jobs and sustained economic growth, strategically locate employment lands and facilities, and avoid over-saturation of a single type of housing, retail or employment.

2. Support a successful and competitive Downtown. Emphasize infill development and a revitalized central core area as the primary activity center for Fresno and the region by locating substantial growth in the

Downtown, and along the corridors leading to the Downtown. Use vision-based policies in a development code specific to the Downtown, when adopted, to ensure the creation of a unique sense of place in the central core.

3. Emphasize conservation, successful adaptation to climate and changing resource conditions, and performance effectiveness in the use of energy, water, land, buildings, natural resources, and fiscal resources required for the long-term sustainability of Fresno.

4. Emphasize achieving healthy air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

5. Support agriculture and food production as an integral industry.

   Emphasize the economic and cultural role of Fresno as a center of agriculture and food production systems by conserving farmland through a focus on developing vacant and underutilized land within the established Sphere of Influence of the City, limiting any further urban boundary expansion, and developing urban agriculture within the city and designated growth areas.

6. Protect, preserve, and enhance natural, historic, and cultural resources.

   Emphasize the continued protection of important natural, historic and cultural resources in the future development of Fresno. This includes both designated historic structures and neighborhoods, but also “urban artifacts” and neighborhoods that create the character of Fresno.

7. Provide for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, housing types (including affordable housing), residential densities, job opportunities, recreation, open space, and educational venues that appeal to a broad range of people throughout the city.

8. Develop Complete Neighborhoods and districts with an efficient and diverse mix of residential densities, building types, and affordability which are designed to be healthy, attractive, and centered by schools, parks, and public and commercial services to provide a sense of place and that provide as many services as possible within walking distance.

   Intentionally plan for Complete Neighborhoods as an outcome and not a collection of subdivisions which do not result in Complete Neighborhoods.

9. Promote a city of healthy communities and improve quality of life in established neighborhoods.

   Emphasize supporting established neighborhoods in Fresno with safe, well maintained, and accessible streets, public utilities, education and job training, proximity to jobs, retail services, health care, affordable housing, youth development opportunities, open space and parks, transportation options, and opportunities for home grown businesses.

10. Emphasize increased land use intensity and mixed-use development at densities supportive of greater use of transit in Fresno.

Greater densities can be achieved through encouragement, infrastructure and incentives for infill and revitalization along major corridors and in Activity Centers.

11. Emphasize and plan for all modes of travel on local and Major Streets in Fresno.

Facilitate travel by walking, biking, transit, and motor vehicle with interconnected and linked neighborhoods, districts, major campuses and public facilities, shopping centers and other service centers, and regional transportation such as air, rail, bus and highways.

12. Resolve existing public infrastructure and service deficiencies, make full use of existing infrastructure, and invest in improvements to increase competitiveness and promote economic growth.

Emphasize the fair and necessary costs of maintaining sustainable water, sewer, streets, and other public infrastructure and service systems in rates, fees, financing and public investments to implement the General Plan. Adequately address accumulated deferred maintenance, aging infrastructure, risks to service continuity, desired standards of service to meet quality-of-life goals, and required infrastructure to support growth, economic competitiveness and business development.

13. Emphasize the City as a role model for good growth management planning, efficient processing and permit streamlining, effective urban development policies, environmental quality, and a strong economy. Work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and institutions to further these values throughout the region.

Positively influence the same attributes in other jurisdictions of the San Joaquin Valley—and thus the potential for regional sustainability—and improve the standing and credibility of the City to pursue appropriate State, LAFCO, and other regional policies that would curb sprawl and prevent new unincorporated community development which compete with and threaten the success of sustainable policies and development practices in Fresno.

14. Provide a network of well-maintained parks, open spaces, athletic facilities, and walking and biking trails connecting the city's districts and neighborhoods to attract and retain a broad range of individuals, benefit the health of residents, and provide the level of public amenities required to encourage and support development of higher density urban living and transit use.

15. Improve Fresno's visual image and enhance its form and function through urban design strategies and effective maintenance.

16. Protect and improve public health and safety.

17. Recognize, respect, and plan for Fresno's cultural, social, and ethnic diversity, and foster an informed and engaged citizenry.

Emphasize shared community values and genuine engagement with and across different neighborhoods, communities, institutions, businesses and sectors to solve difficult problems and achieve shared goals for the success of Fresno and all its residents.

Key Planning and Design Features

Some of the key planning and design features in this General Plan include:

• Economic Development, Downtown Revitalization, and Neighborhood Revitalization through new initiatives, policies and programs designed to meet the city’s most pressing needs.

• Updated Urban Form based upon a revitalized Downtown and established neighborhoods, enhanced corridors with BRT and vibrant Activity Centers supported by concept planned new neighborhoods.

• Maximization of Urban and Fiscal Efficiency through a new balance and integration of infill, rehabilitation, and growth area development that will benefit the city as a whole, compared to the historical near monolithic 100 percent of investment in outlying growth areas only.

• Minimization of Farmland Conversion by avoiding premature and inefficient farmland conversion, focusing development within a defined planning boundary, and seeking long-term preservation of farmland acreage.

• Complete Neighborhoods developed around parks and schools within walking distance with a mix of densities, building types, incomes, opportunities, and commercial services.

• Complete Streets, Connector Streets, Safer Routes to School, and Multi-Modal Connectivity by emphasizing neighborhood and street design that allows and encourages walking, biking, transit, and auto options.

• Measurable Results achieved by integrating design and implementing policies to produce measurable benefits related to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles traveled, public health and household costs, consumption of water, energy, and land, and costs for infrastructure, operations, maintenance.

Relation of the General Plan to the Master EIR

The Fresno General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) will provide an analysis of the environmental impacts for the General Plan, and other projects as

required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). After certification of the MEIR, the document may be used to provide the environmental analysis for individual planning approvals that implement the Plan when those “subsequent projects” are within the scope of the MEIR. CEQA Guidelines §15177 allows for limited environmental review when the lead agency determines that a subsequent project is within the scope of the MEIR. This provides for streamlining the CEQA process, saving time and money.

Under CEQA, the MEIR can provide streamlining opportunities for a variety of projects ranging from individual parcels, tract maps, and BRT Corridor to community, Specific, neighborhood and Concept Plans. A MEIR may be used for more than five years after it has been certified if it is either updated or if the City can make certain findings.

General Plan Requirements

State law requires each California municipality to prepare a general plan, which is a comprehensive, long-term vision “for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning.” State requirements call for general plans that “comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency.”

A city’s general plan has been described as its constitution for all future development—the framework within which decisions on how to grow, provide public services and facilities, and protect and enhance the environment must be made. California’s tradition of allowing local authority over land use decisions means that the State’s cities have considerable flexibility in preparing their general plans.

While allowing considerable flexibility, State planning laws do establish some requirements for the issues that general plans must address. The California Government Code (Section 65300) establishes both the content of general plans and rules for their adoption and subsequent amendment. Together, State law and judicial decisions establish three overall guidelines for general plans:

• The General Plan Must Be Comprehensive. This requirement has two aspects. First, the general plan must be geographically comprehensive. That is, it must apply throughout the entire incorporated area and it should include other areas that a jurisdiction determines bears a relation to its planning, as well as the equal context of the general plan. Second, the general plan must address the full range of relevant issues that affect the jurisdiction's physical development (California Government Code Section 65301(c)).
• The General Plan Must Be Internally Consistent. This requirement means that the general plan must fully integrate its separate parts and relate them to each other

without conflict. “Horizontal,” or internal, consistency applies both to figures and diagrams as well as general plan text. It also applies to data and analysis, as well as policies. All adopted elements of the general plan, whether required by State law or not, have equal legal weight. None may supersede another, so the general plan must balance and reconcile policies so there are no conflicts among the provisions of each element.

• The General Plan Must Be Long-Range. Because anticipated development will affect the jurisdiction and the people who live or work there for years to come, State law requires every general plan to take a long-term perspective. Time frames for effective planning may vary between elements.

Consistency Requirements within the General Plan

State law requires general plans to include seven elements. This General Plan includes the seven required elements: Land Use, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, Safety, Noise, and Housing. The seventh required element, the Housing Element, which was adopted by the City in 2008 and certified by the State in 2009, will be updated in 2015. This Plan includes a Housing Element Consistency chapter that addresses consistency of the General Plan with the previously adopted Housing Element. Thus, all of the mandatory elements required by State law are included in this Plan.¹

This Plan also includes optional elements² that address local concerns: Economic Development and Fiscal Sustainability, Public Utilities and Services, Historic and Cultural Resources, Healthy Communities, and Implementation. Upon adoption of the Plan, these optional elements have equal weight under State law. Table 1-1 outlines how the required elements and optional elements correspond with this Plan.

Environmental Justice

While environmental justice is not a mandatory element in a general plan, there is a strong case for its inclusion, as State law now requires general plans to include consideration of environmental justice in preparing policies and implementation programs, and in creating the physical framework for development. The issues of environmental justice that the general plan can address include procedural inequities and geographic inequities.

Several new policies, distributed throughout this General Plan, are included to address environmental justice.

1.2 PLANNING CONTEXT

History of Fresno

Figure I-1: Historic Growth Patterns illustrates Fresno’s historic rate and pattern of growth. The city of Fresno’s story begins in 1871, when the Central Pacific Railroad was selecting station sites along the Central Pacific’s line through California’s San Joaquin Valley. In the midst of an otherwise dry prairie, Fresno was founded in 1872 with the establishment of the Fresno station. Since the railroad followed the lay of the San Joaquin Valley from northwest to southeast, the original surveyors of Fresno laid out the town’s parent grid to match the railroad tracks. Only when Fresno’s original diagonal grid met the north to south grid of the outlying agricultural colonies in the 1880s would the city adjust its streets to match the existing rural roads. This distinctive 45-degree adjustment at the edge of the original downtown core is shared by many San Joaquin Valley cities today.

In 1885, Fresno was incorporated with a land area of three square miles and a population of approximately 4,000. Today, the original townsite is home to the largest concentration of historic structures and landmarks in Central California. A number of mid-rise buildings were erected in the Central Business District between 1915 and 1925, followed by a second building wave in the 1960s, giving Downtown the most distinctive skyline in the region.

Unlike the early 1890s, when it was estimated that roughly 40 percent of the city's population lived southwest of Downtown, the dominant development pattern in the post WWII era has been to extend to the north and to a lesser degree to the east. This development was partially spurred by the extended streetcar system, the rise of the automobile, relatively cheap and abundant supply of land, evolving retail trends, and federal programs that enabled people to purchase single-family homes.

In 1957, a California Department of Highways plan called for construction of State Routes 99, 41, and 180 to form a freeway loop around Downtown, redirecting traffic around the City's core rather than through it. The construction of the freeway loop system has had a devastating impact on the Downtown and its surrounding neighborhoods. Formerly unified neighborhoods were cut in two by freeways without surface crossings. Facilitated by the freeways, the City continued to stretch onto inexpensive land to the north and east, aiding the flight of people and businesses away from the center of the city.

Regional Location

The city of Fresno, located in the Central Valley, covers an area of 113 square miles. Most of the remaining land uses surrounding the city are rural residential and agricultural in nature, although the city of Clovis is adjacent to the northeast edge of Fresno. With a 2010 population of 495,000, Fresno is the largest city in Fresno County and fifth largest in California. Figure 1-2 shows the regional location.

State Route 99 runs northwest-southeast on the western edge of the city, connecting it with Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, Bakersfield, and Los Angeles. It is designated as a High Emphasis Focus Route on the Caltrans Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan. State Route 41 runs north-south through the heart of the city, connecting it with Yosemite National Park. State Route 168 links the Downtown to Clovis, and State Route 180 runs east-west to both agricultural communities and Kings Canyon National Park.

The northern border of the city is largely defined by the San Joaquin River, which flows on to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and San Francisco Bay. No major rivers or creeks run through the city, although many irrigation canals cross Fresno.

Planning Area

The City's Planning Area is the geographic area for which the General Plan establishes policies about future urban growth, long-term agricultural activity, and natural resource conservation. The boundary of the Planning Area was determined by City staff, and initiated by City Council, in response to State law requiring each City to include in its General Plan all territory within the boundaries of the incorporated area as well as "any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning" (California Government Code Section 65300).

The Planning Area includes the area within the City Limits, the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), and land to the north adjacent to the SOI that serves as a logical boundary along Willow Avenue and east of the San Joaquin River, as well as land to the southwest of the SOI dedicated to the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF). The area to the north has open space and low density residential land use designations consistent with the rural residential and open space properties that exist there now.

Sphere of Influence (SOI)

The SOI is a boundary that encompasses lands that are expected to ultimately be annexed by the City, although until annexed it falls under the jurisdiction of the County of Fresno. The City's SOI is determined by the Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), which is an entity empowered to review and approve proposed boundary changes and annexations by incorporated municipalities. The City's SOI comprises all land within the City Limits (excluding the RWRF), as well as County Islands (unincorporated land entirely surrounded by the city) and land beyond the outer City Limits on all sides (see Figure 1-2). The SOI encompasses 157 square miles in total, of which 44 square miles is unincorporated land.

⬚ figure

Much of the city is surrounded by agricultural and rural residential land uses, and to the east, the Sierra Nevada Mountains serve as a beautiful backdrop, as shown in this picture (looking east). Photo: Heather Heinks

Figure I-1 : Historic Growth Patterns

Historic Growth Patterns

[ ] 1895-1945 [ ] 1946-2011

---- Planning Area Boundary —— Sphere of Influence ------- City Limits [ ] Fresno County

⬚ figure

Source: City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department, 2010.

Figure I-2: Existing Regional Setting

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

Planning Area Boundary

Sphere of Influence

Fresno City Limits

Clovis Sphere of Influence

County Line

Other Cities

Source: City of Fresno, 2014.

Public Participation Process

The General Plan update study and formulation process was initiated by City planning staff in the summer of 2010. In order for the Plan to accurately address community needs and values, a comprehensive public process of obtaining the input of residents, businesses, and property owners, as well as City officials was initiated. The General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee (GPCC) provided leadership throughout this process, which involved the sharing of information and ideas between elected and appointed officials, City staff, the planning consultants, and residents. The following methods were used over the course of the Plan update to ensure the community's full participation:

• Stakeholder Interviews. Over 160 interviews were conducted with City officials and representatives of various community stakeholders and organizations.

• Stakeholder Outreach. Outreach included neighborhood meetings, focus groups and other agencies. City staff was invited to make over 100 presentations before neighborhood associations, as well as business, educational, social, and non-profit segments of the community to discuss the Fresno General Plan and the Alternatives Report.

• Community Workshops. Over 20 public workshops were held on various topics including visioning and guiding principles, economic development, urban form, healthy communities, transportation, resource conservation, and the Fresno General Plan conceptual alternative scenarios.

• General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. The GPCC served as a "sounding board" for ideas and alternatives during the update process, formulating consensus and providing direction for City staff and consultant team work. The GPCC also heard public comment and participated with invited speakers in discussions on a range of planning topics. Moreover, GPCC members attended public workshops to facilitate dialogue and understand community concerns. The GPCC held 24 meetings throughout the process through May 2012.

• Planning Commission of the City of Fresno and City Council of the City of Fresno. City staff appeared at more than 10 Planning Commission and City Council meetings that included discussion items on the Fresno General Plan with specific issues requiring policy direction. These meetings were also open to the public.

• Other City Commissions and Committees. Other City commissions and advisory committees also met periodically to discuss issues and concerns pertaining to the Fresno General Plan and provide comments on documents prepared.

• Newsletter and Survey. The City published a newsletter in English and Spanish to introduce the planning process and provide details on means of participation. The newsletter was distributed in August 2011. The City also conducted a telephone survey on issues and priorities for the Fresno General Plan.

• Fresno General Plan Website. A website was created for the Fresno General Plan process, linked to the main City website. All meeting agendas, staff reports, workshop summaries, planning documents, and figures created during the update process were posted on the site.
• Fresno General Plan Mailing List. Those who requested to receive information and notices were placed on the Fresno General Plan email distribution list.
• Availability of Documents. Copies of the results from GPCC, Planning Commission and City Council meetings, workshops, and presentations were made available on the Fresno General Plan website and at City Hall.

Planning Process

The planning process for the General Plan update consisted of an initial phase of information gathering and correspondence that resulted in a Map Atlas of Existing Conditions Report and a Service Provider Summaries report, followed by an in-depth exploration of targeted issues and potential policy initiatives via a series of working papers reviewed with the GPCC and at public workshops. These findings, along with the GPCC's visioning process setting goals for the Plan, culminated in the alternatives phase.

Alternatives

The alternatives process explored four fundamentally different approaches to accommodate projected population and job growth while meeting the proposed vision for Fresno. The Alternatives Report for the General Plan Citizens Committee, issued in March 2012, reviewed the four options, which differed by the type, density, mix, and location of future growth. The report evaluated the alternative scenarios against one another in terms of their relative (1) ability to meet housing and job demand, (2) provision of parks and open space, (3) impact on transportation and mobility, and (4) adherence to the proposed goals. A Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Concept Alternatives was prepared that assessed the comparative fiscal impacts of four alternative scenarios, and a RapidFire scenario impact assessment was also conducted that compared alternatives in terms of relative greenhouse gas emissions; household costs; land consumption; vehicle miles traveled per capita and fuel use; public health; building energy, water consumed, and related costs; and cumulative infrastructure and operations and maintenance costs. These reports were reviewed in numerous public outreach meetings, at a community workshop, and at public hearings by the GPCC, Planning Commission, and City Council.

Alternative A with Modifications

The City Council endorsed Alternative A with modifications. Alternative A focused on rebuilding the primary corridors as a series of neighborhood and regional mixed-use

centers surrounded by higher density housing, with roughly half of future housing in the City Limits and roughly half in growth areas on the urban edge. The Council’s modified Alternative A shifted more development to single-family housing and with more focus on growth west and southwest of State Route 99, but maintained a strong commitment to Downtown and major corridor revitalization, Complete Neighborhoods, and more compact development.

1.3 DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PLAN – DWELLINGS, POPULATION, AND JOBS

General Plan Horizon and General Plan Buildout

The “General Plan Horizon” will occur in the year 2035. Complete development under the General Plan past the horizon year of 2035 is referred to as “General Plan Buildout.” Designation of a site for a certain use does not necessarily mean that the site will be built/redeveloped with the designated use by Plan Horizon in 2035.

The City Council called for no expansion of the City’s SOI under the General Plan Horizon. It elected not to expand the SOI in part to fully develop Development Areas west and southwest of State Route 99, and to plan for the phased development of the Southeast Development Area (SEDA), formerly known as Southeast Growth Area (SEGA), which requires its development through adoption of a Specific Plan that includes comprehensive provision of public infrastructure. Portions of SEDA are anticipated to develop by 2035, with General Plan Buildout not occurring until 2050 or beyond.

The preservation of the SOI boundary for the General Plan not only serves to promote the successful development of SEDA, which will be built out over the longer term, but also will increase the opportunity to focus needed resources in Downtown and established neighborhoods, benefitting current home and property owners. Ultimately, it will lead to thoughtfully conceived and quality development in all Development Areas. In addition, the strategic investment upgrades to the City’s surface water treatment facilities and distribution system, as well as the City’s wastewater reclamation facilities and distribution system needed to serve the greater development capacities called for by this Plan can only be justified by a fixed SOI boundary over the planning period as noted by goals, objectives and policies in this Plan.

Two levels of development under the Plan are described below and analyzed in the accompanying MEIR:

• General Plan Horizon (2035). The General Plan has a horizon year of 2035, which means that figures for growth in residential units, non-residential square footage,

population, and jobs under the Plan are estimated through 2035. The Plan guides future development to Established Neighborhoods and Development Areas (see Figure 1-3: Residential Capacity Allocation) that include both sites within the current city limits and sites within the growth areas that require future annexation to the city, consistent with the adopted Alternative A modified, and as described in the Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element. Even with complete development under this Plan Horizon of 2035, it is anticipated that some areas in the City's SOI will remain undeveloped.

• General Plan Buildout (beyond 2035). After the 2035 horizon year, it is anticipated that the city will continue to develop beyond the General Plan Horizon. It will grow into the remaining portions of the SOI that were not developed during the horizon of the General Plan. Full Buildout of this SOI is anticipated to occur well after 2035, under the land uses, policies, and plans of this General Plan and as shown in Figure LU-1: Land Use Diagram.

The reason that two scenarios are contemplated and discussed is because the General Plan Land Use Diagram designates land uses for the entire SOI, and it is unlikely that all the vacant and underutilized land available to develop on within the City's SOI will be developed on by the year 2035, which is the extent of this General Plan, and so additional consideration must be given to the remaining vacant and underutilized land that will be available to build on after the year 2035. This Plan has been analyzed and presented under the General Plan Horizon development level. However, the MEIR analyzes the environmental impacts of the General Plan under the Buildout of the SOI, so the complete buildout figures of the SOI were used, as opposed to the figures for the horizon year of the Plan. Figures for both the Plan and the subsequent SOI development are presented on the following pages.

Residential Development

Table 1-2 provides the existing and additional housing units expected under the General Plan Horizon and the General Plan Buildout. As shown, approximately 191,000 units currently exist in the SOI. The Plan is intended to accommodate an additional 76,000 units. In total, General Plan Horizon will result in an estimated 267,000 housing units in the SOI by 2035. Around 32,000 of these new units would be located in the existing city limits, including Downtown (see Table 1-3). After the 2035 horizon of the General Plan, development will continue to occur in the SOI raising the estimated number of residential units to be built to 145,000. Complete Buildout will result in approximately 336,000 in the SOI. Around 55,610 of these new units would be located in the existing city limits, including Downtown (see Table 1-4).

Table 1-3 details the General Plan residential buildout capacity by housing type (multi-family and townhouse, or single-family) and location (inside City Limits or requiring annexation), as shown in Figure 1-3.

TABLE 1 2: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY UNDER HORIZON AND BUILDOUT¹

TABLE 1 3¹: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY² UNDER GENERAL PLAN HORIZON

Source: City of Fresno and Dyett & Bhatia, 2014.

Figure I-3: Residential Capacity Allocation

Established Neighborhoods Downtown Planning Area BRT Corridors Outside Downtown Planning Area Established Neighborhoods South of Shaw Established Neighborhoods North of Shaw South Industrial Area

Development Areas DA-1 North DA-1 South DA-2 North DA-2 South DA-3 Southeast DA-4 East DA-4 West

⬚ figure

Source: City of Fresno Note: The Corridor along Shaw Avenue is to be supported by enhanced bus service.

Table 1-4 presents residential dwelling unit capacity by Development Area in General Plan Buildout, which is beyond 2035. An additional 55,610 residential units are projected to develop in the City Limits, while 89,764 units are projected to develop in Growth Areas requiring annexation, for an additional 145,374 residential units in the SOI at the end of General Plan Buildout. The analysis relied on vacant land sites available for all areas of the SOI, except for the BRT corridors which relied on a residential capacity analysis of existing commercial built land on BRT corridors, and the Downtown Planning Area which is based on projections.

TABLE 1 4¹: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY UNDER BUILDOUT (BEYOND 2035)

Source: City of Fresno.

Horizon and Buildout Population

The existing and estimated future population figures are presented in Table 1-5 for both the General Plan Horizon and General Plan Buildout.¹

The city’s population of 495,000 in 2010 represents a 16 percent increase over its 2000 population of 428,000—an annual growth rate of 1.25 percent. The entire SOI had a 2010 population of 545,000, so around 50,000 people live in unincorporated land within the SOI. The General Plan Horizon will accommodate a population of approximately 226,000 new residents by 2035 within the SOI, resulting in a total

population of 771,000 and an average annual growth rate of 1.24 percent. Meanwhile, General Plan Buildout anticipates an additional 425,000 new residents over the existing population by an unspecified date within the SOI, resulting in a total population of 970,000.

TABLE 1 5¹: POPULATION ESTIMATE UNDER HORIZON AND BUILDOUT

Source: City of Fresno.

Non-Residential Development

The amount of new non-residential development expected under General Plan Horizon and General Plan Buildout are detailed in Table 1-6. Under the General Plan Horizon, an estimated 55,000,000 square feet of non-residential use capacity is calculated as possible by 2035, while nearly 104,000,000 square feet of non-residential use capacity above current levels (approximately 49,000,000 square feet more than the 2035 horizon) is anticipated under General Plan Buildout. The new space is fairly evenly split between retail, office, and other uses (industrial, research and development, flex space, etc.).¹

TABLE 1 6¹: ADDITIONAL ESTIMATED NON RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA UNDER HORIZON AND BUILDOUT

Source: City of Fresno and Dyett & Bhatia, 2014.

Horizon and Buildout Employment and Jobs/Resident Balance

A city's ratio of jobs/employed residents would be 1:1 if the number of jobs in the city equaled the number of employed residents. In theory, such a balance would eliminate the need for commuting outside of the city for employment opportunities. More realistically, a balance means that in-commuting and out-commuting are matched, leading to efficient use of the transportation system, particularly during peak hours.

At the Horizon Year of 2035, the General Plan can accommodate 0.48 jobs per new resident, roughly equivalent to the current percentage of the city's population in the labor force (46 percent according to the 2010 US Census). Therefore, at General Plan Horizon, the SOI could accommodate approximately a total of 108,000 new jobs above current levels based on 0.48 jobs per 226,000 new residents anticipated by 2035 (see Table 1-5 for population). These new jobs would be roughly broken down into:

• Retail = 50,000 new jobs
• Office = 32,500 new jobs
• Other = 25,500 new jobs

At General Plan Buildout, well after 2035, it is estimated that there would be 0.45 jobs per new resident, roughly equivalent to the current percentage of the city's population in the labor force (46 percent according to the 2010 US Census). At General Plan Buildout, the SOI could accommodate approximately a total of 189,500 new jobs above current levels based on 0.45 jobs per 425,000 new residents anticipated (see Table 1-5 for population). These new jobs would be roughly broken down into:

• Retail = 87,700 new jobs
• Office = 57,000 new jobs
• Other = 44,700 new jobs

1.4 PLAN ORGANIZATION

General Plan Structure

The General Plan is organized into the following elements:

• Introduction. This introductory element includes General Plan goals, State requirements, and requirements for administration of the Plan. In addition, the projected development under General Plan Horizon and General Plan Buildout are summarized, and overarching themes of the Plan are presented.

• Economic Development and Fiscal Sustainability. This element addresses strategies for the City to boost the strength and range of existing businesses, expand

economic opportunities for current and future residents, and ensure the long-term ability of the City to deliver a high level of public services.

• Urban Form, Land Use and Design. This element provides the physical framework for development in the city. It establishes policies related to the location and intensity of new development, citywide land use and growth management policies.
• Mobility and Transportation. This element includes policies, programs, and standards to maintain efficient circulation for vehicles and alternative modes of transportation. It creates a framework for provision of Complete Streets; identifies future street and bikeway improvements; and addresses trails, parking, public transit, goods movement, and long-term plans for the municipal airport.
• Parks, Open Space, and Schools. This element provides an inventory of existing and planned parks, recreation facilities, other open space, and public schools, and defines policies and standards relating to these services and amenities. This element also outlines policies relating to the preservation of open space and natural resources.
• Public Utilities and Services. The element addresses the provision of police, fire, wastewater treatment, drinking water, drainage, and solid waste disposal services.
• Resource Conservation and Resilience. This element provides strategies for improving critical environmental conditions regarding air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, ensuring long-term water and energy supplies, and strengthening the city for potential future changes in resource supply and climate change. The element complies with the requirements of AB 170¹ for jurisdictions in the San Joaquin Valley to amend their general plans to include goals, data and analysis, policies and feasible implementation strategies designed to improve air quality.
• Historic and Cultural Resources. This element provides policy guidance to protect, preserve, and celebrate the city’s history and its architectural and cultural heritage.
• Noise and Safety. This element addresses the risks posed by geologic hazards, wildland fire, hazardous materials, and flooding. It also discusses emergency response, safety service response standards, and evacuation routes. The element also includes policies and standards to limit the impacts of noise sources throughout the city. Future noise contours are illustrated in order to facilitate administration of noise policies and standards.
• Healthy Communities. This element focuses specifically on subjects not fully discussed in other elements, in particular the relationships between the built, natural, and social environments, community health and wellness outcomes, youth leadership and community engagement, healthy food access, community gardens and urban agriculture.

• Housing Element Consistency. This chapter provides information regarding the consistency between the General Plan and the adopted Housing Element, including a matrix showing how the General Plan consistently implements the requirements of the Housing Element.
• Implementation. The Implementation element provides an implementation and monitoring program for this General Plan.

Structure of the Elements

Each element of the General Plan typically contains:

• Introduction to provide a short overview of the element;
• Goals of the General Plan supported by the particular element;
• General background information and supporting narrative to provide context;
• Objectives that provide intermediate steps toward attaining the goals;
• Policies to guide decision making and commitment to particular actions to implement the objectives, which may include existing programs or call for the establishment of new ones; and
• Commentary or Policy Guidance to further discuss and clarify certain policies.

The Housing Element Consistency chapter varies somewhat from this format by focusing on how the General Plan’s goals, objectives and policies are consistent with the existing Housing Element, which has already been adopted and is incorporated into this Plan. The Implementation Element also has a different format to show how each policy has an implementation measure, including an action, procedure or program or technique that carries out the policy.

Together, the goals, objectives and policies articulate a vision for Fresno that the Plan seeks to achieve. They also provide protection for the city’s resources by establishing planning requirements, programs, standards, and criteria for project review.

Understanding the Plan

To help understand how this Plan is intended to be applied, consider the following when reading this document:

• Mandatory and Flexible Directives: Terms in goals, objectives, policies and implementation measures such as “shall,” “must,” and “require” signify an unequivocal directive, which shall be narrowly construed. Any other language such as “may” or “should” signifies a less rigid directive, to be implemented in the

absence of compelling or contravening considerations. Unless clearly identified as an unequivocal directive, terms should be interpreted to be a flexible directive.

• Consistency: Goals, objectives, policies and implementation measures should not be interpreted so broadly or narrowly such that they become inconsistent with one another or the law. One way to do this when reviewing the Plan is to mentally add “as otherwise consistent with the Plan and as authorized by law” to every policy or other item.

• Priorities: Some objectives, policies, etc., may identify certain items as being a priority or prioritized, and sometimes multiple priorities are identified for the same subject matter. A “priority” in an unequivocal directive means the topic must be considered, along with any other priorities for the same subject matter, before a decision is reached. It does not require precedent over another item or priority for the same subject matter.

• Commentary: The commentary in italics following certain goals, objectives and policies is not part of the goal, objective or policy itself, but is instead advisory and informational narrative intended to further discuss and clarify the goal to help guide the objectives of the General Plan. The same applies to commentary in italics following certain objectives and policies, which is not part of the objective or policy, is instead advisory and informational narrative intended to help guide the understanding and relevancy of the General Plan.

• Narrative: Any discussion that is not a goal, objective, policy or implementation measure is considered to be narrative. Narrative includes background information, pictures, illustrations, italicized commentary and other discussion to provide basic context. Often the narrative may contain illustrations or discussions generally explaining certain principles or concepts. These are not requirements of the General Plan, unless otherwise the items are independently required by a goal, objective, policy or implementation measure.¹ Other than the discussion in this “Understanding the Plan” section, narrative cannot be used to vary, expand or restrict any goal, objective, policy or implementation measure.

• Glossary: The Glossary defines terms and phrases. The narrative can potentially expand the context of terms and phrases to the extent the narrative is not inconsistent or acts to otherwise vary, expand, or restrict any goal, objective, policy or implementation measure.

• Language of Approximation: Terms such as “about,” “approximately” or “roughly” are intended to be utilized flexibly, and should not be read to either represent a

specific amount or to mandate ratios or a particular margin of variation. Further, such terms should not be read to imply a specific timeline requirement for implementation of goals and objectives. Rather, all goals and objectives are generally expected to be complete at or near the close of the General Plan Horizon in 2035.

• Titles: Titles have sometimes been provided for programs, regulations, ordinances or other items anticipated to be approved at some future date. These titles are for informational purposes only, and a different title may be used if the program or ordinance otherwise meets the underlying intent of the goal, objective, policy or implementation measure.

• Reasonableness: The Plan should be read to provide the City with the greatest discretion as to what is reasonable or appropriate under applicable law. For example, if a policy requires the City to take action “as resources are available,” the City is solely responsible for determining what is reasonably available. In making this determination, the City may look at a variety of factors including this Plan and public health, welfare and safety.

Administration of the Plan

The General Plan is intended to be a dynamic document. As such, it may be subject to more site-specific and comprehensive amendments over time, including mandatory amendments to update the Housing Element as required by law, amendments that may be needed to conform to State or federal law passed after adoption, or to eliminate or modify policies that may become obsolete or unrealistic over time due to changed conditions, such as the completion of a task or project, development on a site, or adoption of an ordinance or plan.

Annual Report

It is good planning practice to provide an annual report to the local legislative body on the status of the General Plan and progress in its implementation. This report provides an opportunity to investigate and make recommendations to the legislative body regarding reasonable and practical means for implementing the Plan, so that it will serve as an effective guide for orderly growth and development, preservation and conservation of open-space land and natural resources, and the efficient expenditure of public funds relating to the subjects addressed in the Plan. The report should include a summary of all Plan amendments adopted during the preceding year, as well as a work program for the upcoming year. The work program should outline upcoming projects and any Plan issues that need to be addressed.

All cities must submit an annual progress report to the State on Housing Element implementation, which must include an analysis of the progress in meeting the city's

share of regional housing needs and local efforts to remove governmental constraints to maintenance, improvement, and development of workforce housing (California Government Code Sections 65583, 65584). City staff will continue to submit the Housing Element report to the State annually.

1.5 PLANNING FACTOR FIGURES

On the following pages are figures (Figures 1-4 through 1-14) showing key planning factors that guided policy development for this General Plan, including existing land use, socioeconomic factors, and housing ownership.

Figure I-4: Existing Land Use

Rural Residential Single Family Residential Multiple Family Residential Commercial & Office Public/Institutional Industrial Parks Golf Course Open Space/Agriculture Vacant

--- Planning Area Boundary --- Sphere of Influence ....... City Limits ------- SEDA Boundary

⬚ figure

Source: City of Fresno, DARM Dept., 2010; Primary Land Use, Fresno County, 2010.

This page intentionally left blank.

⬚ figure

Figure I-5: Age - Population under 17 years Old

Percent under age 17 by Census Tract ☐ 0-20 ☐ 21-31 ☐ 32-41 ☐ 42-51

---- Planning Area Boundary — Sphere of Influence ....... City Limits

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 2008-2012

⬚ figure

Figure I-6: Ethnicity - Hispanic and White by Census Tract

Percent White by Census Tract ☐ 0.6-20 ☐ 20.1-40 ☐ 40.1-60 ☐ 60.1-80 ☐ 80.1-100

Percent Hispanic or Latino by Census Tract // 0-20 /// 20.1-40 //// 40.1-60 ///// 60.1-80 ////// 80.1-100

---- Planning Area Boundary — Sphere of Influence ....... City Limits

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 2008-2012

⬚ figure

Figure I-7: Ethnicity - Asian, and African American by Census Tract

Percent Asian by Census Tract ☐ 0-20 ☐ 20.1-40 ☐ 40.1-60

Percent Black or African American by Census Tract ☐ 0-20 ☐ 20.1-40 ☐ 40.1-60

---- Planning Area Boundary — Sphere of Influence ....... City Limits

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 2008-2012

⬚ figure

Figure I-8: Language: Spanish Only in Home

Percent by Census Tract ☐ 0-20 ☐ 21-31

---- Planning Area Boundary — Sphere of Influence ....... City Limits

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 2008-2012

⬚ figure

Figure I-9: Linguistically Isolated English Proficiency in the Home

Limited English in Home Percent by Census Tract ☐ 0-20 ☐ 21-40 ☐ 41-60

Includes population 5 years and older: Speak Spanish: Speak English "not well" and Speak Spanish: Speak English "not at all"

---- Planning Area Boundary — Sphere of Influence ....... City Limits

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 2008-2012

This page intentionally left blank.

Figure I-10: Family Income less than $25,000

Percent by Census Tract [ ] 0-20 [ ] 20-40 [ ] 40-60 [ ] 60-80 [ ] more than 80

---- Planning Area Boundary — Sphere of Influence ....... City Limits

⬚ figure

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 2008-2012

Figure I-13: Educational Attainment Level Population over 25 Years Old

Do Not Have High School Diploma Percent by Census Tract [ ] 0-20 [ ] 20.1-40 Have Post-Secondary Degree Percent by Census Tract [ ] 0-20 [ ] 20.1-40

---- Planning Area Boundary — Sphere of Influence ....... City Limits

⬚ figure

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 2008-2012

Figure I-11: Households below Poverty

Percent by Census Tract [ ] 0-20 [ ] 20.1-40 [ ] 40.1-60 [ ] 60.1-80 [ ] 80.1-100

---- Planning Area Boundary — Sphere of Influence ....... City Limits

⬚ figure

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 2008-2012

Figure I-14: Renter and Owner Occupied Housing

Renter Occupied Housing Percent by Census Tract (greater than 20% of homes are rental) [ ] 20.1-40 [ ] 40.1-60 [ ] 60.1-80 [ ] 80.1-100 Owner Occupied Housing Percent by Census Tract (less than 20% of homes are rental) [ ] 80.1-90 [ ] 90.1-95 [ ] 95.1-100

---- Planning Area Boundary — Sphere of Influence ....... City Limits

⬚ figure

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 2008-2012

Figure I-12: Unemployed Population over 16 Years Old

Percent by Census Tract [ ] 0-5 [ ] 5.1-10 [ ] 10.1-15 [ ] 15.1-25 [ ] 25.1-50

---- Planning Area Boundary — Sphere of Influence ....... City Limits

⬚ figure

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 2008-2012

This page intentionally left blank.