Documented by Kristina Mansfield
Here’s what you need to know
- The Fresno County Planning Commission approved (4-2) a conditional use permit allowing for the installation of an unmanned wireless telecommunication tower in Laton despite heavy opposition from the community and the applicant, Verizon Wireless, failing to follow through on promises made to the commission during last month’s meeting.
- The commission voted to recommend (4-2) that the Board of Supervisors deny a proposed amendment that would allow affordable housing developments with at least 50% lower-income units to qualify for a 25% local density bonus as a matter of right. It would have granted an additional density bonus above and beyond the state-mandated 10% density bonus put into effect in 2020.
- The Planning Commission voted to recommend (6-1) that the Board of Supervisors deny a general plan amendment, which would have allowed a density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre, expand the Del Rey Community Plan to encompass an 18-acre parcel and rezone and re-designate seven specified parcels within the county-adopted Bullard, Caruthers, Clovis, Del Rey, Fresno High-Roeding and Riverdale Community Plans.
Follow-up questions
- Why is the Laton Lions Club willing to overlook the issues identified by community members and move forward with the project?
- City planner Yvette Quiroga said the department lost a large majority of its parcels at the last minute, causing substantial delays to the county’s Housing Element planning process. What happened?
- What legal remedies do residents have when the city and county may not be taking appropriate steps to safeguard the area’s natural resources on their behalf?
- Of all of the available parcels in Fresno County, why did staff suggest building an affordable housing project in one of the most architecturally beautiful neighborhoods in the city?
The Scene
The regular meeting of the Fresno County Planning Commission took place Nov. 16, 2023, at 8:45 a.m. in the Board of Supervisors Chambers at the Hall of Records (Room 301, 2281 Tulare St.). Meetings usually occur on the second and fourth Thursdays of the month and are listening only (via Microsoft Teams; Meeting ID: 263 527 497 600
Passcode: gGxaFs). If you wish to participate in the meeting, you must attend in person.
Agendas, reports and presentations are available on the Planning Commission website. Printed reports are also made available on the table near the room entrance.
The Fresno County Planning Commission is an advisory committee consisting of seven members appointed by the mayor and City Council. They have jurisdiction, powers and duties to do all things related to local and area planning as may be conferred on it by the government code, or which has been delegated to it by the Board of Supervisors. This can include reviewing and approving applications for land subdivisions, variances and conditional use permits, as well as making recommendations to the Fresno Board of Supervisors on issues concerning zoning and the county’s general plan.
CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
Chairman Ken Abrahamian called the meeting to order at 8:45 a.m. After a brief introduction, Hill led the Pledge of Allegiance.. Almost 100 people attended the meeting.
Planning commissioners in attendance:
Chairman Ken Abrahamian, District 1
Vice Chair Glenda Hill, at large
John Arabian, District 5
Esther Carver, District 3
Kuldip Chatha, District 4
Lisa Woolf, at large
James Quist, at large
Blake Zante, at large
Also present at the meeting were Supervising Engineer for Fresno County Public Works and Planning Joseph Harrell, Deputy County Counsel Alison Samarin and Department of Public Works and Planning Principal Planner Chris Motta.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine in nature and not likely to require discussion. There were no consent agenda items to discuss.
REGULAR AGENDA
Item 1 – Public presentations
This portion of the meeting is reserved for anyone desiring to address the Planning Commission on any matter within the commission’s jurisdiction and not on the agenda.
- Radley Reep said he attended a Planning Commission meeting in September where a staff member advised the commission they would have the general plan completed and ready for amendment and revision by the end of October. He said members of the public are trying to determine if they should make plans to review it this year or in January 2024. He also said that the general plan that is being revised does not have a fiscal analysis with it to show that there’s money to implement it. “The current general plan hasn’t worked well because of a lack of funding and I don’t want to see the county pass another plan that’s not going to work.”
Item 2 – UNCLASSIFIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3769 and INITIAL STUDY NO. 8429 filed by LEESA GENDEL, SAC WIRELESS
The commission approved (4-2) Conditional Use Permit 3769 and Initial Study No. 8429 allowing for the installation of an unmanned freestanding 80-foot-tall monopine-style co-locatable wireless telecommunications facility on an 8.58-acre parcel within the R-E (Recreational) Zone District in the unincorporated community of Laton. The parcel (APN: 057-090-34) is located at 6345 Nares Ave. on the southwest corner of Nares and Pico avenues. It is in Supervisorial District 4. Arabian moved to approve; Carver and Zante voted no. The motion carried (4-2).
The item was continued from the Oct. 12, 2023 meeting to allow Verizon more time to gather feedback from the community. Planner Elliot Racusin found the applicant met all five conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report.
Abrahamian asked for more information about the community meeting and responses. Racusin said they have received six letters of support and one continued item of opposition. Abrahamian asked if the applicant did what they said they would do at the last meeting. “It was advised by the Planning Commission for the applicant to conduct a meeting, and they did so,” Racusin said. Racusin did not disclose at this time that Verizon had actually failed to secure support from the school district, in writing, per the commission’s prior request.
Next Abrahamian asked if there were any letters from organizations in Laton. Racusin said they received notice from the school district that they were in support, but it was a phone call rather than a physical document.
Quist asked who the party was from the school district. Racusin clarified that it was not that the school took action, but rather an individual from that district showing support.
Wolf asked if they got the letter of support from the superintendent. Racusin said they had not. “Did we get anything from the education department in Laton,” she asked again. Racusin said they had not, and said the applicant can speak on whether anyone from the school district attended the meeting.
Hill asked about a letter from the former superintendent, Victor Villar, and said he attended the meeting but wasn’t able to stay for its entirety. Villar is a Kerman planning commissioner.
Michelle Fernandes, SAC Wireless and Walter Kohls, Verizon Wireless RF Engineer, presented to the commission next. Chatha left the meeting during the presentation and did not return.
Fernandes gave a brief overview of the project timeline and said that since it complies with FCC guidelines, a denial on the project based on RF exposure is preempted by federal law. She also said that the project is compliant with Fresno County’s development standards, and that there’s room for other providers to co-locate in the future. Fernandes then addressed some of the concerns raised at the Oct. 12 meeting.
“During the Oct. 12 meeting, one resident had an issue with the noticing given to Laton residents,” she said. For the Nov. 12 community meeting at the Laton Lions Hall to discuss the project, notices were sent to all residents within 600 ft. of the parent parcel in English and Spanish. “We sent 475 notices in the local utility bills and more than 500 emails were sent out from parents from the school district, and the community meeting was discussed at church.”
Four posters were put up with event information surrounding the parent parcel. Twenty-nine people attended the two-hour meeting, she said, and provided images of the meeting and the event invites.
Woolf asked when the notices were mailed out. Fernandes said they were sent Oct. 27, two weeks before the community meeting. She said the posters were put up on the same day.
Next, Woolf asked why there was no information from the superintendent of Laton School District. “The current superintendent of Laton isn’t the same superintendent that originally reached out to Verizon in 2019,” Fernandes explained. When Woolf pressed for why Verizon hadn’t received a letter of support from the current superintendent, Fernandes said she believes the school district doesn’t want to support the project in writing if there is any opposition at all.
Fernandes said the current superintendent, an IT person, and another school board member were in attendance at the community meeting to ask their own questions about the project and that they told her the school district had not reached out to Verizon with a request to bring the project to Laton in order to increase wireless connectivity to students in the area and wanted to know who did. However, she said they do support the Laton Lions Club decision to do whatever they want to do on their property. Woolf said that she specifically asked to hear from the superintendent and that it is too bad that they do not have it, in writing, again.
Quist asked if the signs posted in the community were in English and Spanish. Fernandes said they were only posted in English. The item was continued to allow for re-noticing as the initial fliers sent out were only in English and Laton is a predominantly Spanish-speaking community.
Fernandes said the superintendent told her that 500 emails were sent about the meeting. She did not have copies of the emails sent because Verizon did not send them,
Woolf and Abrahamian each questioned the integrity of the investigation into proposed alternate locations for the tower. Woolf said half of the candidates listed as potentials had no landlord feedback and asked why they were even included on the report. Fernandes said it is to maintain an active history of all of the candidates that were reached out to in the region. Woolf said it sounded like they didn’t try very hard. Abrahamian asked if representatives of any parcels that did meet the coverage objectives were contacted. Fernandes said that a few parcels on the list were contacted but the landlords were not responsive, and after sending a few emails and making a few calls they had to move on to another candidate.
Fatima Jacobo, a resident of Laton, was the first member of the public to give a comment in opposition of the project. She said she attended the Nov. 12 community meeting and also received the emails sent from the school about it. Jacobo said the emails from the school about the meeting were only sent on Nov. 10, and again on Sunday morning around 11 a.m. The meeting started just a few hours later at 2 p.m.
Jacobo said many people were unable to attend the meeting as it was scheduled for a Sunday and that in their community, the seasons are changing and unemployment is going up. She said a better turnout would have been if the meeting was scheduled for a Saturday, when people work half days.
Next, Jacobo commented on the tower’s proposed service area. She said while at the meeting she was told that most of the children being served actually live in Hardwick — which is in Kings County — and not Laton. She asked the commission to reconsider the item.
Jacobo said she spoke directly with representatives from the school district who attended the meeting. She said they confirmed that no request came from the school or its IT Department to Verizon asking them to look into improving the district’s internet service and that there have been no reports of any of the students within district limits struggling with internet services. Woolf questioned why no one from the school district was there to give comments either in support or opposition.
Tom Hernandez, a resident of Laton, took issue with the proposed placement of the tower, and said there’s always going to be that one child who’s going to try and get to the top. He also took issue with the way Verizon gave residents notice of the meeting. “Verizon is a multi-million dollar corporation. The notice sent in the water bill wasn’t enough, it’s not like an electric bill, it’s a set flat rate so I never open it,” he said. “I don’t know why Verizon couldn’t send it to each member in the community in their own envelope….” He added that it’s fairly difficult to get mail in the town as the post office opens at 8 a.m. and closes at 4 p.m.
Hernandez summarized his concerns and said Verizon didn’t do what they said they would do in terms of notifying the entire town, and questioned the claims Verizon has made regarding communications with the school district.
Woolf then asked whether there was anyone from the Laton Lions Club present and asked the speaker if he knew whether the former superintendent was a member. She questioned why no one from the Lions Club was at the meeting in support of the project.
Hernandez said he didn’t know, but added that by the end of the meeting, people got up and left because they were upset. He said he felt nothing was accomplished at the meeting and it was a lost cause.
Rosemary Hernandez-Chan, a resident of Laton, spoke next in opposition to the tower. She was in attendance at Sunday’s meeting and said she spoke to the superintendent. Hernandez-Chan said that her interpretation of the superintendent’s comments were that while she supports the Laton Lions Club as an organization, she was not indicating that she supports the application for the cell phone tower and that’s why there is no letter of support from the school district or the superintendent.
Hernandez went on to describe Laton as a wildlife sanctuary and said that because of the project, recently a condor nest was chopped down. “People live hand-to-mouth, paycheck to paycheck, but this is our treasure. This is what we have all around us: the rivers and the trees, and we shouldn’t have to sacrifice what we have for people driving through the town. We don’t own boats and we don’t own mountain homes. We can’t afford to go to Disneyland. They [Verizon] said that they are doing this for our schools, and that’s not true.”
Lastly, she said the community should know how much the Laton Lions Club is standing to financially gain from the partnership. Hernandez also pointed out a potential out-of-town alternate location site listed on Verizon’s own list and suggested they simply put more effort into making the project happen there.
Abrahamian asked if the question of local oak trees was addressed during the meeting. They were not.
Fernandes, along with Walter Kohls, Verizon Wireless RF engineer, again appeared to address items brought up by the opposition. Together they repeated back the same information presented at the previous meeting and claimed Verizon went above and beyond the county code in its outreach efforts.
Jacobo again countered, and said the entire project stemmed from a huge miscommunication, and that the Laton Lions Club believed the school had reached out to Verizon first, which isn’t true. She said that there has been plenty of time to get the community involved since 2019 and within a couple of months in 2023 Verizon is trying to overwhelm the community with information.
Woolf said that they’ve done the best they can and that the system had worked. “I wish more people had walked into the room, but we’re thinking that it’s just OK with a lot of people,” she said of the cell phone tower, ignoring that the public comments given by other residents provided the missing context for why the room was so empty: that the majority of the people of Laton don’t have the time, money and resources required to get into Fresno on a Thursday morning to chat about a cell phone tower with the commissioners, they can’t afford to miss work and Verizon had given them notice about the potential cell phone tower at first only in English and they don’t speak that language and therefore did not know about the cell phone tower or the community meetings until it was much too late. “I think every person or student in that area deserves access to the latest technology so they can compete with every other student in the state,” Woolf said.
With that, Abrahamian brought the item back to the commission for a vote. Arabian said they asked Verizon to reach out to the public, and they did. “I don’t know if we can ever get to a point where everyone is happy,” he said.
Woolf thanked the people from Laton that came out for the community event and named Hernandez-Chan as being instrumental in making sure the event even took place. “At least 29 residents and the supervisors got to a meeting,” she said. “They had the ability to reach out to us after the meeting and they didn’t, which is interesting. They could have written something, and they didn’t. It’s so easy.”
Woolf went on to say that they’ve done the best they could and when people don’t show up or attempt to communicate with the commission they assume they’re in support or “are just OK with it.”
It’s unclear why Woolf put the onus on the school board to take on the workload required to disentangle itself from a murky business deal whereby representatives from a private business — in this case, Verizon — misrepresented to an entire community that it had its full support both in 2019 and again in 2023 on a private business deal simply positioned as “beneficial” to the rural community.
Woolf did not question the applicant further on on why Verizon had intimated to the commission that it had the current and superintendent’s support, why they did not have letters of support in writing from local organizations or why they failed to follow through on the community outreach they agreed to in advance of the Nov. 12 meeting.
The services provided by the tower are not in demand by those in the area and will serve mainly those in Kings County, and will have a negative impact on the area’s oak trees and natural habitat. Verizon told the commission the tower needed to be built to help children in the area that attend Laton School District have faster internet speeds, and that the school reached out to them asking for help with their connectivity problem. They also said they researched 20 alternate location sites in the area and that from those, the Laton Lions Club was the best and only option. Many sites had no feedback listed, and both the commission and residents questioned the intensity of the outreach efforts.
Verizon will pay the Laton Lions Club a fee to rent the land where the tower will be installed. That money will only benefit the Laton Lions Club, and it is up to their discretion how to spend it. No one from the Laton Lions Club appeared at the meeting in support of the project, although its sponsorship coordinator, Bethany Avila, wrote an email about the community meeting. It did not indicate any type of integrated partnership and read as an announcement to its members that a third party had booked an event in its meeting room and as part of that agreement, the Lions Club is inviting its members to attend. The email did not say they sought out Verizon support or had worked with the school district to bring increased wireless connectivity to the school-age children of Laton.
Arabian made a motion to approve. Carver and Zante voted no. The motion passed 4-2.
Item 3 – AMENDMENT TO TEXT APPLICATION NO. 384 FILED BY THE COUNTY OF FRESNO
Yvette Quiroga, principal planner, and Derek Chambers, planner, presented an amendment to text application 384. The proposed amendment would provide a 25% local density bonus for affordable housing developments with at least 50% lower-income units. You can read the full proposed text of the ordinance here.
“Items three and four are in response to the State of California’s requirements to ensure the county can meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements for the sixth cycle Housing Element,” said Quiroga. “The bonus density is necessary to demonstrate to the state the county has enough parcels zoned to build its 1,350 low- and very-low housing units allocated to the county and increases the development capacity assumptions for the sixth cycle housing element.”
Planning commissioners voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors deny a proposed amendment that would allow affordable housing developments with at least 50% lower-income units to qualify for a 25% local density bonus as a matter of right. It would have granted an additional density bonus above and beyond the current state-mandated 10% density bonus put into effect in 2020.
Carver said the local density bonus is a great way to get housing into the county that serves a mix of incomes without creating communities that are all one income-level. She questioned whether staff is matching the changes in zoning in higher-density areas to match for the required infrastructure such as adequate green space and parking.
Abrahanian questioned why the amendment wasn’t directed toward the cities or other urban populations that might have the infrastructure needed to support high-rises or higher-density properties.
Quiroga said those same arguments were made during the RHNA meetings with the rest of the partner cities and that Clovis and Fresno, specifically, took on a larger number of units than mandated
“The actual number of units that the county of Fresno would have been allocated was more than double the 2,350 that they received,” she said. She said the other cities, especially Clovis and Fresno, took on a larger number of units and that the additional land the county is looking at is within the sphere of influence of the cities and is closer to the urbanized areas to preserve the agricultural land.
Hill asks about kickbacks and whether the affordable housing developments finished to-date have been two-story or three-story. Quiroga said only one has been completed and it is two-story. Hill asked if the fire departments can accommodate three-story structures and Quirogra said it depends on where these proposed developments are built and what equipment the fire stations have.
Arabian said he feels the state is cramming this down their throats. “I think it stinks. I know we have to adhere to what they do, but explain why we are going above and beyond what they mandate?”
Quiroga explained to the commissioner that included in the sixth cycle housing element, which has been available for anyone to read, review and provide comment on for months, is a zoning program that requires the county to provide the state suggestions for ways it can facilitate the building of affordable housing.
Changes to zoning ordinances, like the one proposed, are one example of this, she said, and by passing it before the new housing element takes effect, the county can count 25 units per parcel vs. 20 in determining whether it is meeting RHNA obligations. She said should the amendment not pass, each parcel that needs to be rezoned to meet RHNA obligations under the Sixth Cycle Housing Element will need to be brought before the commission individually during the next 12-18 months and will be automatically zoned at 20 units per parcel.
Abrahanian said staff simply doesn’t know where or if the available parcels are in the county and questioned why the commission was presented the item so close to the Dec. 31 housing element deadline in the first place.
Quiroga said that Fresno County’s Fifth Cycle Housing Element ends Dec. 31, and that none of the cities or counties in Fresno will have a compliant, certified, adopted Sixth Cycle Housing Element by the deadline.
She said that even if both items on the day’s agenda pass, the county would still have less than half of the units that they need to meet its RHNA obligation. This is because the county is working from a larger list of unusable parcels than usable ones, and, at the last minute, “lost a large majority of our parcels.”
Abrahanian opened the meeting to public comment next.
Radley Reep, a resident of Fresno, pointed out an error in the numbering of the zoning ordinance and said it should be folded into the current housing element’s environmental impact report because it could potentially impact density.
Quiroga said the Council of Government (CoG) has taken the lead on the housing element except for Clovis and Fresno County. Each city and county must do their own EIR. Fresno County is not conducting a separate EIR and will instead include its housing element as an addendum to the 2000 report.
Marco Mastro, a resident of Fresno, asked what qualifies a parcel as adequate vs. inadequate without an EIR assessment in place. He also said that he read an article about Huntington Beach suing the state over RHNA and asked why vote now when there is current litigation.
Cary Cruz, a Clovis resident, spoke next. “I live in a not affluent area, but it’s not at the poverty level, and I don’t want to subject myself or my neighbors to that [poverty.]” He also said that, as presented, the current R-2 zoning just sounded inconvenient to staff.
Martin Geres, also a resident of Fresno, said he was surprised about the limit on the size of the potential parcels and asked why they can’t be larger than 10 acres to be considered and asked if 100-acre-size parcels had been looked at.
Raquel Riedel, Fresno resident, said regardless of how the commission votes, the county will not be in compliance with the housing element because they fall short of the required units. She asked for additional studies on the impacts of the increased density zoning.
Abrahanian brought the item back to the commission for discussion. Carver reminded the commissioners that the proposed amendment only gives the option for people who want to build affordable housing the option and that individual EIRs must be completed prior to construction beginning on any potential development in the future.
Carter moved to approve. Arabian, Woolf, Zante, Hill and Abrahanian voted no. The motion was denied 4-2. The room erupted into applause.
Item 4 – GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 570 and AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 3860 FILED BY THE COUNTY OF FRESNO
Yvette Quiroga, principal planner, and Derek Chambers, planner, presented an item that proposed to amend the medium high density residential land-use designation in the county-adopted Bullard, Caruthers, Clovis, Del Rey, Fresno High-Roeding and Riverdale Community Plans.
The Planning Commission voted to recommend (6-1) that the Board of Supervisors deny General Plan Amendment No. 570 and Amendment Application No. 3860, which would allow a density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre, expand the Del Rey Community Plan to encompass an 18-acre parcel and rezone and re-designate seven specified parcels within the above community plans.
As part of the proposed amendment the Board of Supervisors would also accept the addendum to the environmental impact report that was certified with the adoption of the general plan in October 2000 as a current supporting document, even though it is more than two decades old.
Thirteen members of the public spoke in opposition to the item, all echoing the sentiments of previous commenters. You can listen to a recording of each of their comments here.
On rebuttal, Quiroga said that the city of Fresno opposed several parcels in the department’s original plan and, as they have first right of refusal in their sphere of influence, had to remove the parcels from the county housing element plan.
Woolf said the commission is an advisory group. She requested that each additional future parcel recommended for rezone be reviewed separately on its own merit, on its own separate agenda item.
Abrahanian moved the item back to the commission. The commission voted to deny the recommendation (6-1); Carter was the dissent. Items three and four will both be heard by the Board of Supervisors at its next meeting.
Item 5 – INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEM
There were none. Abrahanian adjourned the meeting at 12:42 p.m. The next scheduled meeting of the Fresno County Planning Commission is Dec. 12.
If you believe anything in these notes is inaccurate, please email us at fresnodocs@fresnoland.org with “Correction Request” in the subject line.
