DATE: September 22, 2026
TO: Board of Supervisors
SUBMITTED BY: Steven E. White, Director
Department of Public Works and Planning
SUBJECT: Amendment Application No. 3878 and Initial Study Application No. 8664 (Applicant: Joseph Kalpakoff)
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
TITLE
1. Consider and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared for Amendment Application No. 3878 based on Initial Study No. 8664; and
2. Find that the proposed rezone of the subject 7.79-acre parcel, from the AL-20 (Limited Agricultural; 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District to the M-1(c) (Light Manufacturing, Conditional) Zone District is consistent with the County’s General Plan and the County adopted Edison Community Plan; and
3. Adopt an Ordinance pertaining to Amendment Application No. 3878 thereby rezoning the subject 7.79-acre parcel; and
4. Designate County Counsel to prepare a fair and adequate summary of the proposed Ordinance and direct the Clerk of the Board to post and publish the required summary in accordance with Government Code section 25124(b)(1).
The subject parcel is located on the northeast corner of Valentine Avenue and W. Whitesbridge Road on the south side of State Route 180 (APN: 326-150-21) (116 N. Valentine Avenue) (Sup. Dist. 1).
REPORT
There is no Net County Cost associated with the recommended actions. This item comes before your Board with a unanimous recommendation for approval from the Planning Commission (8 to 0, with one Commission vacancy) to rezone a 7.79-acre parcel from the AL-20 (limited Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District to the M-1(c) (Light Manufacturing, Conditional) Zone District. The proposed rezone would allow development of limited industrial uses consistent with the County-adopted Edison Community Plan including offices and a vehicle service campus. As a legislative action, this application requires final action from your Board. A summary of the Planning Commission’s action is included as Attachment A. This item pertains to a location in District 1.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
If your Board determines that the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the General Plan and County-adopted Edison Community Plan, a motion to deny Amendment Application No. 3878 would be appropriate.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no Net County Cost associated with the recommended actions. Pursuant to the County’s Master Schedule of Fees, the Applicant paid $11,494 in land use processing fees for the subject application.
DISCUSSION:
A rezoning is a legislative act requiring final approval by your Board. Final action by your Board is also required for adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared based on Initial Study No. 8664. Vacation Application No. V26-01 is being processed concurrently through the General Vacation process and will require separate Board action by Resolution of Vacation. If approved, the rezoning would become effective 30 days after adoption of the Ordinance.
The Applicant proposes to rezone one 7.79-acre parcel from the AL-20 (Limited Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District to the M-1(c) (Light Manufacturing, Conditional) Zone District. The subject parcel is located at the northeast corner of W. Whitesbridge and N. Valentine Avenues, within the City of Fresno’s Sphere of Influence, and is designated Limited Industrial Reserve in the County-adopted Edison Community Plan. The Applicant proposes to develop a corporate office and vehicle service campus consisting of offices, enclosed vehicle maintenance, fueling, truck washing, fleet parking, and related support uses for Mid Valley Disposal. The facility would not operate as a materials transfer station. The project also includes the proposed vacation of the portion of Valentine Avenue north of W. Whitesbridge Avenue, with the former alignment retained as private site access.
On August 27, 2026, the Planning Commission considered the rezoning. During the hearing, the Applicant and the Applicant’s representative stated that the project would consolidate a portion of Mid Valley Disposal’s existing operations, would not operate until City water service is extended to the site, and would include separate passenger and commercial vehicle access, roadway widening and turning improvements, and hooded exterior lighting. One individual spoke in opposition to the proposal and raised concerns regarding the timing of public notice, truck traffic, air quality, water supply, and potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The Applicant responded to the concerns raised and stated that they would meet with neighboring residents. No additional public testimony or correspondence in opposition or support was received. After receiving staff’s presentation and considering public testimony, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (8 to 0) to forward to your Board a recommendation to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the proposed rezone, subject to the recommended Mitigation Measures, Conditions of Approval, and Project Notes listed in Exhibit B of Attachment A.
Pursuant to Fresno County Zoning Ordinance Section 872.6.060.B, approval of a rezoning is based upon the Board’s determination that the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan; that it would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the County; and that, as applicable, the affected site is physically suitable for the requested zoning and anticipated development in terms of its design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, access, public services, and utilities.
If your Board concurs with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and determines that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the County’s General Plan and County-adopted Edison Community Plan, it would be appropriate to make a motion finding that Amendment Application No. 3878 is consistent with the General Plan and County-adopted Edison Community Plan, adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment C), prepared based on Initial Study No. 8664, adopt the proposed Ordinance, and direct Clerk of the Board to post and publish a summary of the proposed Ordinance.
If your Board determines that the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the County’s General Plan and County-adopted Edison Community Plan, then denial of Amendment Application No. 3878 would be appropriate, citing the reasons for denial and the proposal’s inconsistency with the General Plan and County-adopted Edison Community Plan.
ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED AND/OR ON FILE:
Attachments A - C
Ordinance
On file with Clerk - Ordinance Summary
CAO ANALYST:
Maria Valencia