Documented by Kristina Mansfield
Here’s what you need to know
- The Fresno County Planning Commission denied (5-0) a conditional use permit filed by CV Alliance, LLC that would have allowed a high-intensity park with related improvement for weddings, receptions, birthdays, anniversaries and similar special outdoor events on a 3.3-acre parcel on Shields and Hayes avenues.
- Denied (5-0) a variance application filed by James Maxey proposing to allow the creation of two substandard parcels – a 7.64-acre parcel and a 13.87-acre parcel – from an existing 21.51-acre parcel, and waive developmental standards to allow for 12-foot side yard setbacks where 20-foot side yard setbacks are required within the AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural, 20-acre minimum) Zone District. The applicant’s intent was to create a working half-farm, half-nursery on the parcel, located near Sanger.
- Approved (5-0) amending a conditional use permit to allow the installation and operation of two hydrogen fuel dispensers in conjunction with an approved hydrogen production facility on an approximately 1.25-acre portion of a 324.66-acre parcel in the AE-20 Zone District.
- Voted against staff recommendations to approve (5-0) a variance application filed by Neng Vane and Blia Vue proposing the reduction of the minimum parcel size requirement in the AE-20 Zone District to allow creation of an 2.24-acre parcel, a 2.79-acre parcel, a 13.53-acre parcel, a 1.0-acre parcel and a 2.39-acre parcel from an existing 21.95-acre piece of land.
Follow-up questions
- When will CV Alliance open its event venue?
- What is the city of Fresno doing to address the residents’ allegations about street racing and increased accidents at the intersection of Hayes and Shields avenues? Is there any available data to confirm or deny any increase or decrease of incidents in this area compared to other known street-racing areas of interest in town?
- When does the hydrogen production facility open?
The Scene
The regular meeting of the Fresno County Planning Commission took place in the Board of Supervisors Chambers on the 3rd Floor of the Fresno County Hall of Records (2281 Tulare St.) at 8:45 a.m. on Dec. 14, 2023.
According to its website, the Fresno Planning Commission has jurisdiction, powers and duties to do all things related to local and area planning as conferred on it by the government code, or which has been delegated to it by the Board of Supervisors.
The commission’s duties include considering and approving applications for land subdivisions, variances and conditional use permits, as well as making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on issues concerning zoning and the County’s General Plan. It is an advisory committee consisting of seven members appointed by the mayor and City Council.
You can listen to the meeting via Microsoft Teams or just dial in and listen on your phone. Find detailed instructions on how to do so here. Meeting agendas can be found online here and are also made available in print on the table near the room entrance.
CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
Chair Ken Abrahamian called the meeting to order at 8:45 a.m. After a brief introduction and explanation of the regular agenda process and mandatory procedural requirements, Abrahamian led the Pledge of Allegiance and took the roll. Thirty-one people attended the meeting in person.
The Fresno County Planning Commissioners in attendance were:
Chairman Ken Abrahamian, District 1
Commissioner Esther Carver, District 3
Commissioner James Quist, at large
Vice Chair Glenda Hill, at large
Commissioner Blake Zante, at large
Commissioners Jon Arabian (District 5), Kuldip Chatha (District 4) and Lisa Woolf (at large) were absent.
CONSENT AGENDA Items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine in nature and not likely to require discussion. Unless a member of the public, commissioner or staff member calls an item out for discussion, all of the agenda items placed in this section pass with one motion.
- There were no consent agenda items to discuss.
PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS, Item 1 This section of the meeting is set aside for any member of the public to address the Planning Commission on any matter not listed on the agenda but within its jurisdiction.
- There were no public presentations.
Item 2 The Fresno County Planning Commission made a motion to deny (5-0) without prejudice Unclassified Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 3751 and Initial Study 8286 filed by CV Alliance, LLC that would allow a high-intensity park with related improvement for weddings, receptions, birthdays, anniversaries and similar special outdoor events appropriate and incidental to parks on an approximately 3.3-acre portion of a 17.65-acre parcel in the RR (Rural Residential) Zone District. The parcel (APN: 512-160-20) is located at 6338 W. Shields Ave. in Fresno and is in Supervisorial District 1.
Several residents commented on the project.
Dale Yandell, a resident at 3145 N. Hayes Ave., lives a quarter-mile east of the project, and spoke in opposition. He said one party was so loud that he still couldn’t hear his television even when the windows were shut, and that the music goes until 10:30 p.m. at night.
Tim Brodehl, a resident at 2737 N. Hayes Ave., also spoke in opposition. He said the neighborhood is filled with 2.5-acre plots, and that he is within earshot of what is going on because it’s normally quiet. “We pay our taxes,” he said, “and we put up the American flag, and we accept other people having parties. But if it’s going to be 60 times a year … it’s really not fair to do that.”
Yvonne Lopez, a resident at 6399 W. Shields Ave., said the noise from the events is disruptive to her children who go to school in the area, and cited an event in which the music was so loud that her neighbor’s pictures fell off their walls. She also said she tried to get in touch with the applicant, and there was no response.
Larry Sanchez, a resident at 6399 W. Shields Avehe picks up the alcohol bottles and cans resulting from gatherings, and said that there are some very fast cars involved in street racing in his neighborhood.
Applicant Paul Brar, 5550 W. Spruce Ave., said that while he doesn’t believe it’s their kids throwing the beer cans, he is concerned about the sound issues and would like to revisit mitigating sound at the building for the neighbors.
“We’re here to let everyone know we’d like to conduct a business and figure out how we can make it better,” Brar said. “Most of the lights on the outside of the property are all solar lights. I don’t believe those lights are lighting up the neighborhood. If there’s issues with those, they can be turned off.”
He continued, saying that the traffic accidents and increased street racing on Hayes and Shields avenues have nothing to do with the youth living at their property.
“We want to do it right, and we want to get the approval. And one of the things it seems like is that we need to put a building to contain the music,” he said.
Carver asked if the applicant is willing to pause the process and come back with a new application with the building. “There is opposition here, it doesn’t seem like [this project is] the best use for this. I’m wondering if you’re willing to put a pause on this and bring it back.”
Brar agreed, and said they would come back to the commission in three months. Abrahamian brought the item back to the board to vote. The commission voted to deny (5-0) the application without prejudice.
Item 3 The commission denied (5-0) Variance Application 4153 and Environmental Review 8430 filed by James Maxey, CEO, proposing to allow for the creation of two substandard parcels – a 7.64-acre parcel and a 13.87-acre parcel – from an existing 21.51-acre parcel and waive developmental standards to allow for 12-foot side yard setbacks where 20-foot side yard setbacks is required within the AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural, 20-acre minimum) Zone District.
The parcel (APN: 314-120-52) is located at 10386 E. Kings Canyon Road, and is in Supervisorial District 5, approximately 1.7-miles from the city of Sanger. Applicant Maxey explained to the commission that the land was not being used for agriculture when it was purchased, and it had gone through bankruptcy, and said that they turned the other parcel back into ag land by planting almond trees. “We’ve had trouble finding people to lease that piece of property, and we want it to become viable,” he said.
Abrahamian said he understands what Maxey is trying to accomplish with the property, but that he has problems with the applicant not meeting the requirements for all of the findings needed to grant the application other than just the financial advantage.
Maxey said they were denied farm and production credit for the almonds.
Carver said the issue is that once they split it, by right, you can have two homes per parcel and that allows more density in the future. “We can appreciate that your intention is to put it back into agriculture, but when we look at these [staff] findings, it is objective to the general plan.”
The board then unanimously voted to deny the application before moving on to the next item on the agenda.
Item 4 The commission approved (5-0) Unclassified CUP 3775, filed by H2B2 USA, LLC, proposing to amend Unclassified CUP 3691 and 3760 to allow the installation and operation of two hydrogen fuel dispensers in conjunction with an approved hydrogen production facility, on an approximately 1.25-acre portion of a 324.66-acre parcel in the AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District.
The project site (APN: 015-100-20S) is located on the south side of State Route 180 (W. Whitesbridge Avenue) approximately 1.5 miles west of its nearest intersection with South James Road, and approximately 7.4 miles east of the nearest limits of the city of Mendota. It is in Supervisorial District 1.
Jeremy Shaw, with public works and planning, made the presentation. He said the application essentially amends a previously approved CUP, and that the hydrogen production facility is wanting to add two hydrogen fuel dispensers to its lineup. No letters or calls were received in support or opposition to the project. The item passed 5-0.
Item 5 The commission voted against staff recommendations to approve (5-0) Variance Application 4136 filed by Neng Vane and Blia Vue proposing the reduction of the minimum parcel size requirement in the AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District to allow creation of a 2.24-acre parcel, a 2.79-acre parcel, a 13.53-acre parcel, a 1-acre parcel and a 2.39-acre parcel from an existing 21.95-acre parcel; and waive the required 165-foot-wide road frontage requirement for the 2.39 acre parcel, and the 1-acre parcel in the AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural) Zone District for parcels less than 5 acres in size.
The parcel (APN: 309-210-48 and 309-210-47) is located at 9522 and 9520 E. McKinley Ave., and is in Supervisorial District 5.
Joe Guagliardo, who spoke on behalf of the applicant, said the proposal is an attempt to formalize the property lines among several family members and other homeowners in the area. He took exception to the staff report and its findings, which recommended denying the application.
“While I’m not one to offhandedly dismiss general plan programs and policies, they are color on paper,” he said. “The reality of that actually coming to fruition within one generation is somewhat questionable.”
Staff had argued that a variance had been approved in 1984 and not followed through, then the property had changed hands, contributing to the confusion. Guagliargo argued that this created different property rights for different owners in the same area, and urged the commission to reconsider the application.
Abrahamian said looking at the proposal on paper, he was leaning toward denial, but after reviewing materials and hearing testimony from the applicants he would support approving the application.
“This is a sticky situation because the county wants to keep ag land, ag land,” said Carver. “Which plan are we considering? We do have circumstances here that would keep family together, keep ag land, and legalize this very odd little lot that obviously needs to be legalized because of the different ownership there.”
The commission voted to approve (5-0) the application.
Item 6 There were no information or discussion items from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 11:12 p.m.
The next scheduled meetings of the Fresno County Planning Commission are Jan. 11 and Jan. 25.
If you believe anything in these notes is inaccurate, please email us at fresnodocs@fresnoland.org with “Correction Request” in the subject line.
