The City of Fresno Planning Commission voted on October XX, 2025 to recommend that the City Council certify the environmental impact report and adopt the Tower District Specific Plan update and the companion design standards and guidelines, according to staff presentations and public testimony at the meeting.

Sophia Pagalatis of the Planning and Development Department told the commission the update, which replaces the 1991 Tower District Specific Plan and the 2005 design guidelines, reflects a 3½‑year outreach effort and integrates new policy priorities such as transportation, recreation and housing while maintaining an emphasis on neighborhood conservation and historic preservation. "The Tower District is indeed a special place distinguished by its vibrant and diverse community," Pagalatis said during her presentation.

Why it matters: Staff estimated the plan would add roughly 500 units of housing capacity across the plan area through rezones and overlays while changing land‑use designations on about 138 acres of the 1,869‑acre study area. The staff report and final EIR identify the primary significant and unavoidable impact as a shortfall in parkland relative to city standards; staff recommended that the commission forward the plan with a statement of overriding considerations describing public benefits that outweigh that impact.

Major elements and implementation
Staff described seven guiding principles emphasizing livability, social diversity, historic preservation, multimodal circulation, recreational opportunity and climate resilience. The update also renames and retools the Tower District design documents as objective "design standards and guidelines" to comply with state law and to provide clearer review standards for qualifying housing projects. Pagalatis said the plan carries forward existing conservation areas, proposes new study areas and emphasizes conserving public‑right‑of‑way assets such as historic hitching posts and the pineapple lamps that contribute to neighborhood identity.

Outreach and evidence base
Planning staff reported sustained public engagement: two community workshops that together drew about 330 participants, 682 online survey responses, tabling at neighborhood events and a project website. Pagalatis said the outreach approach was recognized with an award from a California planning professional association. The final EIR was circulated for public comment in August–September 2025; staff reported receiving 13 formal comments on the draft EIR and additional comments on the plan and guidelines.

Selected land‑use adjustments and EIR scope
Staff detailed several parcel‑level change requests. They described one technical correction that removes nearly 2 acres acquired for public right‑of‑way (a loss of an estimated 94 units of theoretical capacity), a council‑directed correction to reclassify a 0.58‑acre parcel from medium‑density residential to neighborhood mixed use (an estimated gain of 30 units), a request to keep a gas station parcel as general commercial consistent with existing development, and a late submittal from a property owner seeking to retain community commercial on McKinley and Palm (an estimated loss of 29 units). Planning staff and the EIR consultant stated these adjustments can be accommodated within the EIR scope.

Public testimony: support and concerns
Supporters included local business representatives and long‑term neighborhood volunteers. Casey Austin Tibbetts, an owner at Producers Dairy and consultant, thanked staff for outreach and noted Producers employs about 300 workers who contribute to daily walk‑in activity in the District. Chris Johnson, chair of the Tower District Implementation Committee, described a multi‑year, award‑winning outreach process and urged approval. Several residents in historic neighborhoods, including Janine Raymond of the Wilson Island Historic District, praised the strengthened design guidelines as a tool for preserving older homes.

Concerns raised by speakers included: property‑owner objections to downzoning or reclassification that might restrict existing commercial uses; requests for more, larger parks; questions about the EIR’s noise monitoring locations; and calls for clearer implementation metrics and a consolidated implementation/design review body. Marco Zamora, a property owner near Belmont and Palm, opposed the proposed change on his parcels, saying prior zoning downgrades had limited allowable uses and asking that his site remain general commercial. Kyle Lopez Schmidt, executive director of the South Tower Community Land Trust, urged bolder park identification and said the plan does not deliver the scale of parkland the trust seeks.

Staff response and clarifications
After a short recess, staff replied to public concerns. Pagalatis explained that an EIR evaluates the change a project would cause, not existing conditions, which is why noise monitors were located where the plan proposes the greatest change (major corridors). Staff also said that future discretionary projects within the plan area would require project‑level noise studies and that industrial zones were intentionally omitted from a prohibition on road closures because freight access is necessary. The planning team confirmed that the Producers/"Cheese" building remains zoned industrial to allow broadcast facilities and antennas described by applicants.

Commission action and next steps
A commissioner moved to forward the staff recommendation to City Council, including the land‑use change requests presented at the hearing (including the late request and the property owner request described at the meeting); Vice Chair Bray seconded the motion. Chair Vang called the voice vote and the motion carried; the item will proceed to the City Council for final decisions and any text, map or exhibit updates the Planning and Development Director is authorized to make. (The motion and vote were taken by voice at the meeting; the official record forwarded to council will include the adopted motion language and any conditions.)

What the staff packet documents show
The staff packet includes the draft and final EIR documents, exhibit D with proposed edits to the plan and design standards and guidelines, the outreach summaries and the implementation matrix. Staff recommended City Council certification of the EIR, adoption of the specific plan and design standards and guidelines, and corresponding general plan and zoning amendments to implement the proposals.

Next procedural steps for the public
The Planning Commission’s recommendation moves the matter to the City Council, which will consider certification of the EIR and adoption of the plan and related ordinances. Staff also reminded the public of related hearings, including a forthcoming Southeast Development Area specific plan workshop at City Council.