What’s at stake?
The South Central Specific Plan, already five years in the works, got rejected by Fresno City Council on Thursday.
The Fresno City Council unanimously rejected a new land-use policy for heavily-industrialized south Fresno, rejecting a plan that drew the ire of both environmental advocates and business interests.
The move hits the reset button on work to reach a compromise between the business community and residents burdened by heavy-polluting industries in south Fresno – a process that’s already taken over five years.
Multiple council members said they’re hoping staff will return with a more business-friendly version of the plan.
Specifically, some councilmembers asked that the plan avoid going further than the restrictions that a new state law, Assembly Bill 98, imposes on new industrial development.
“This is going in the wrong direction for our city,” said Councilmember Tyler Maxwell.
“I think we need to protect that industry,” he added, “and I think we need to make it easier to do business for a lot of these folks.”
Environmental advocates have their own priorities going forward, including boosting protections for Orange Center Elementary, a school located within the plan area.
“This is not just about money,” said Phoebe Seaton, co-executive director of Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability. “This is about health and well-being.”
What happened with the South Central Specific Plan?
The South Central Specific Plan creates a road map for land use in south Fresno, an area of the city that’s been largely zoned for industrial use since the 1950s, city staff said.
Currently, nearly half of the land in the plan area is used for industrial purposes – with 42% of it zoned heavy industrial and 7% light industrial. The rest of the land is largely vacant or agricultural.
No one voiced support for the proposed plan Thursday, which would reduce industrial land use in the area by 17%.
Over a dozen members of Fresno’s business and manufacturing community spoke in opposition to the plan during public comments, saying it would make Fresno less competitive in attracting economic investment.
“The plan as proposed, we believe, is not feasible,” said Ethan Smith of Invest Fresno, “and would, in essence, put the city of Fresno at a distinct disadvantage going forward.”
Some councilmembers echoed these worries.
“We keep pushing people away to Visalia and Bakersfield and Madera,” said Councilmember Mike Karbassi, “and other communities that say, ‘We will take your money. We will take your jobs.’”
Several environmental advocates and residents from south central Fresno also objected to the plan Thursday, but for completely different reasons.
They said the plan didn’t go far enough to curb industrial development in the part of town where studies have indicated proximity to truck routes has increased the risk of infant mortality and preterm births.
Advocates said they also want to see stricter buffers for sensitive sites in the plan area, including Orange Center Elementary and approximately 400 homes.
While multiple councilmembers objected to the plan’s restrictions on industry, Councilmember Miguel Arias – who represents part of the plan area on the council, alongside outgoing Councilmember Luis Chavez – shared residents’ environmental concerns.
“What hasn’t changed in the last five years,” Arias said, “is that if you live in south Fresno, your life expectancy is 20 years less than if you live in north Fresno.”
Councilmember Nelson Esparza recused himself from Thursday’s vote on the South Central Specific Plan at the prompting of the City Attorney’s Office, saying he received a campaign contribution this year from someone who gave public comment opposing the plan Thursday.
The councilmember announced in August he plans to run for Anna Caballero’s seat on the State Senate when she terms out in 2026.
After the vote, in a text, Esparza didn’t respond to a question about who the commenter was but added that “upon further review,” he had “confused one person from another.”
“The conflict disclosure was simply made out of an abundance of caution,” he said.
“To the best of my knowledge, I have in fact NOT received any contributions this year from anyone who came to advocate on the land use policy today.”
As for what’s next for the South Central Specific Plan, the council intends to create an ad-hoc subcommittee to work with staff and stakeholders on a new version – which will require the council to pass a resolution in a subsequent meeting.
In a text message Thursday, Arias said he doesn’t expect that resolution to come before the council until early 2025.
Sidewalk vending ordinance passes, will take effect January 2025
After weeks of back-and-forth, the City Council also gave its final stamp of approval Thursday to a new package of regulations on where sidewalk vendors can operate in Fresno.
The new ordinance passed through its second required vote Thursday, 5-2, without further discussion from the council.
Councilmembers Maxwell and Esparza voted against the ordinance, as they had on the first vote on the new law.
Prior to the council’s vote, Arias said he and Chavez hammered out final revisions to the hotly contested ordinance in an over three-hour meeting with the Mobile Food Vendors Association.
He stressed that the final version of the ordinance added clarifying language to ensure eloteros and paleteros can make sales in residential areas.
“It also allows the mobile food vendors and a business to partner together,” Arias added, “regardless of whether the business has an operational kitchen, and ensures the vendors that none of their personal information will be shared with any type of law enforcement agency. It is simply to process a potential citation or a warning.”
Despite these concessions, the Mobile Food Vendor Association released a statement Thursday stating it still opposes the ordinance.
“While changes were made based on MFVA advocacy, the Association does not support this policy,” the association said in the news release.
It called on the city to closely monitor enforcement of the ordinance to ensure fairness and provide educational resources on the regulations in multiple languages to ensure the largely Spanish-speaking vendors understand the new law.
Arias also noted that the city received a letter from the California Restaurant Association Wednesday, a copy of which was provided to Fresnoland. In the letter, the association opposed the ordinance, saying the fines were too low.
“We believe that (the ordinance) significantly weakens an already limited enforcement mechanism,” the letter reads, “by reducing fines to an amount that fails to act as a deterrent for non-compliance.”
Despite that, the ordinance that passed Thursday maintains a fee structure ranging from $25 to $100 – down from $100-$500 in a previous draft of the ordinance.
“I stand by the reduction in fines that we have included,” Arias said, “to ensure that we are fair and equitable with vendors, based on what they sell, and not overly punishing them for mistakes that they make.”
The ordinance will take effect in January 2025, though monetary citations won’t start for most vendors until July.
