REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 5, 2025
FROM: JENNIFER K. CLARK, Planning Director
Planning and Development Department
THROUGH: PHILLIP SIEGRIST, Planning Manager
Planning and Development Department
BY: JOHN GEORGE, Planner III
Planning and Development Department
SUBJECT
Title
Consideration of an appeal regarding the denial of Variance Application No. P24-01598 requesting a variance from the maximum allowable height for a flagpole located at 3028 South Cherry Avenue on the southeast corner of East North and South Cherry Avenues. (Council District 3) - Planning and Development Department.
1. DENY the Appellant’s appeal and UPHOLD the action of the Planning and Development Department Director to deny Variance Application No. P24-01598 requesting the granting of a variance from the maximum allowable flagpole height.
Body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Variance Application No. P24-01598 was filed by Jaspal Sidhu of ACE Engineering, on behalf of Gurdwara Nanaksar Sahib, and pertains to an existing 25-foot-tall flagpole located at the religious assembly facility located on the southeast corner of East North and South Cherry Avenues. The applicant is requesting to relocate the existing 25-foot-tall flagpole and replace it with a 75-foot-tall flagpole at a new location on the project site.
The project was reviewed for conformance with the required findings to approve a variance in accordance with Section 15-5506 of the Fresno Municipal Code (FMC). The required Findings (a), (b), and (d) could not be made and on December 23, 2024, the Director of Planning and Development denied the Variance application.
On December 30, 2024, the Director’s decision to deny the request was appealed by Jaspal S. Sidhu (Exhibit I). The appeal of the Director’s decision must now be considered by the Planning Commission.
Staff recommends upholding the Director’s denial based on substantial evidence detailed in this staff report that Variance Application No. P24-01598 does not meet the required findings of the FMC as they relate to the granting of a Variance.
BACKGROUND
Gurdwara Nanaksar Sahib is an existing Sikh religious assembly facility located on a ±5.54-acre site at the southeast corner of East North and South Cherry Avenues. The subject property is currently developed with a religious facility, dining hall, guest house and a 25-foot-tall flagpole, which are oriented along the South Cherry Avenue frontage. The flagpole is used to hoist the Nishan Sahib, a triangular flag that represents the Sikh faith and people and which is raised outside of places of assembly and worship in Sikhism.
Previously approved Conditional Use Permit Application No. C-13-088 authorized an expansion of the existing religious facility which included the construction of a new ±43,745 square-foot assembly facility. The approval also included the relocation of the existing 25-foot-tall flagpole to be adjacent to the new facility building. The new religious assembly building is currently being constructed.
The applicant is now requesting to increase the height of the 25-foot-tall flagpole to 75 feet. Pursuant to Section 15-2611-F.2 of the FMC, the maximum height of a flagpole is 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant filed Variance Application No. P24-01598 to grant relief from the strict application of the FMC and is requesting an increase to the maximum allowable height of a flagpole.
Variances can only be granted if the Planning and Development Department determines that a project, as modified with the variance request, conforms to the established criteria and the required findings can be made pursuant to Section 15-5506 of the FMC. Staff was unable to make required Findings (a), (b), and (d), as noted below. On December 23, 2024, the Director of Planning and Development denied the Variance application.
Public Notice and Input
Council District 3 Project Review Committee
On October 22, 2024, the Council District 3 Project Review Committee reviewed the project and provided no recommendations.
Public Notice
On October 4, 2024, the Planning and Development Department mailed a Notice of Intent to Take Action (Exhibit G), to surrounding property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject site in accordance with Sections 15-5505 and 15-5007 of the FMC. One letter was received in response to the notice. The letter indicated that there was a concern that the 75-foot-tall flagpole would be a distraction and potentially hazardous.
Director Action
On December 23, 2024, the Planning and Development Department Director denied Variance Application No. P24-01598 (Exhibit H).
On December 27, 2024, the Director’s decision to deny the request was appealed by Jaspal S. Sidhu of ACE Engineering (Exhibit I). Therefore, the subject appeal of the application has been scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission.
Notice of Planning Commission Hearing
In accordance with Section 15-5007 of the FMC, the Planning and Development Department mailed notices of this Planning Commission hearing to surrounding property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property on February 21, 2025 (Exhibit J).
ANALYSIS OF THE APPEAL
Appeal Letter dated December 27, 2024
Claim:
The 75-foot height of the flagpole is mandatory for all Sikh Temples. To make the Nishan Sahib height more prominent, it should be sufficient from the intersection signifying the presence of the Sikh Temple in the neighborhood.
Staff Response:
The Fresno Municipal Code does not identify a flagpole height for any specific use, including a Community and Religious Assembly, beyond the maximum height of 25 feet in Section 15-2611-F.2. The site has an existing Nishan Sahib located atop a 25-foot-tall flagpole. Other uses, including Community and Religious Assembly uses, have not been granted variances for flagpoles exceeding 25 feet.
FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE FINDINGS
The required findings for a Variance under Section 15-5506 of the FMC are as follows:
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the vicinity and identical zoning classification, and that the granting of a Variance will not constitute a granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on the property in the vicinity and identical zone classifications.
Finding A cannot be made. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not also apply to the adjacent properties, or that warrant relief from the strict application of the property development standards for development of the subject property. The adjacent properties are all designated under the same zoning classification and are subject to the same property development standards and regulations of the development code. The circumstances and conditions of the subject property are similar to, if not the same as, all other adjacent properties, which were able to meet the requirements of the development code. Furthermore, the granting of the variance would constitute the granting of special privilege.
B. The granting of the application is necessary to prevent a physical hardship which is not of the applicant's own actions or the actions of a predecessor in interest;
Finding B cannot be made. The granting of the variance is not necessary to prevent physical hardship which is not of the applicant’s own actions or the actions of a predecessor in interest. As demonstrated in Finding A, there are no physical hardships, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions present for the subject property that are not present on other parcels in the vicinity, or that would preclude development of the subject property with a 25-foot-tall flagpole. The subject parcel and other parcels in the vicinity are larger lots with adequate width and depth and are not prevented from meeting the required height for a flagpole. The subject property includes an existing religious building that is located approximately 195 feet from the back of sidewalk along East North Avenue. The proposed location of the flagpole, as depicted on the proposed site plan, is in front of the existing religious building. There is ample room for the flagpole to be located in front of the existing religious building and there is no existing structure on the subject property that would visually block the proposed flagpole if it were consistent with the maximum height requirements.
C. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, nor the preservation and conservation of open space lands;
Finding C can be made. The granting of the application will not be detrimental to immediately adjacent properties or improvements in the vicinity. The flagpole to be constructed is proposed to be 75 feet and would likely not result in significant impacts on the viewsheds and aesthetics enjoyed by neighboring properties. Finally, the flagpole, as proposed, does not appear to be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the surrounding properties.
D. The granting of the Variance will be consistent with the general purposes and objectives of this Code, any applicable operative plan, the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (as may be amended) adopted by the Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 21670-21679.5, and of the General Plan.
Finding D cannot be made. The granting of the variance would not be consistent with the general purposes and objectives of the development code. The intent of the prevailing height requirement is to ensure the established area pattern is respected by requiring new flagpoles to match the flagpoles of existing parcels along the same street frontage. The granting of the Variance request would disrupt the established pattern of development and would not be harmonious with the existing area.
The subject property is not located within the area of influence of the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Based upon analysis of the application, Staff concludes that the required findings made by the Director to deny the special permit under Section 15-5506 of the FMC (A, B, and D) are appropriate.
If the Planning Commission decides to grant approval of the variance request, the Commission must find that there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to make all the findings mentioned above and amend them to allow a 75-foot-tall flagpole.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15270(a), CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Therefore, no environmental findings are necessary to adopt a staff recommendation for denial of Variance Application No. P24-01598, to allow a 75-foot-tall flagpole.
However, should the Planning Commission make the required findings in accordance with Section 15-5506 of the FMC and grant approval of the request to construct an over height flagpole, then adoption of a Section 15311/Class 11 (Accessory Structures) Categorical Exemption, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, is considered appropriate. The attached Categorical Exemption was prepared for Environmental Assessment No. P24-01598, dated March 5, 2025 (Exhibit L) may be adopted by the Planning Commission if the required findings are made as set forth above.
CONCLUSION
The appropriateness of the proposed project has been examined with respect to its consistency with goals and policies of the Fresno General Plan and compliance with specific provisions of the FMC; the projects compliance with the requirements of Section 15-5506 of the FMC (Variance Permit Application Findings). The Director was unable to make the required findings. Therefore, in accordance with Chapter 15, Article 55, Section 15-5506 of the FMC, the project cannot be approved.
If the Planning Commission decides to grant approval of the appeal, the Commission must find that there is substantial evidence in the administrative record that the project conforms to all of the criteria to approve a Variance request and make the required findings of Section 15-5506 of the FMC. Should the Planning Commission make the required findings, approval of the Variance application shall be subject to the applicant’s compliance with the Draft Conditions of Approval (Exhibit K).
Action by the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council in accordance with Section 15-5017 of the FMC.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Vicinity Map
Exhibit B - Aerial Photo
Exhibit C - Project Information Tables
Exhibit D - Project Operational Statement
Exhibit E - Project Site Plan
Exhibit F - Project Elevations
Exhibit G - Notice of Intent to Take Action
Exhibit H - Denial Letter
Exhibit I - Appeal Letter
Exhibit J - Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit K - Draft Conditions of Approval for P24-01598
Exhibit L - Draft Environmental Assessment for P24-01598
Supplemental Exhibit M - Comments Received from Public