THE PLANNING COMMISSION WELCOMES YOU TO COUNCIL CHAMBERS,

LOCATED AT CITY HALL, 2600 FRESNO STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – Any interested person may appear at the public hearing

and present written testimony or speak in favor or against the matters scheduled on

the agenda. Public participation during Fresno City Planning Commission meetings is

always encouraged and can occur in one of the two following ways:

1. Participate In Person: Council Chambers, City Hall, 2nd Floor, 2600 Fresno

Street, Fresno, CA 93721

a. To speak during a Commission meeting in person: You may approach

the speaker podium upon the Chair’s call for public comment.

2. Participate Remotely via Zoom:

https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_I18M0bh8TbSGAo27i5ze1Q

a. The above link will allow you to register in advance for remote participation

in the meeting via the Zoom platform. After registering, you will receive

a confirmation email containing additional details about joining the meeting.

b. To speak during a Commission meeting while attending remotely in the

Zoom application, click on the icon labeled “Participants” at the bottom of

the screen. Then select “Raise Hand” at the bottom of the Participants

window. Your digital hand will now be raised. You will be asked to

“unmute” when your name is called to speak. You will not be visible via

video and there will be no opportunity to share your screen.

All public speakers will have up to 3 minutes to address the Commission pursuant to

Rule No. 13 of the Planning Commission Bylaws of the City of Fresno (available in the

City Clerk’s Office).

SUBMIT DOCUMENTS / WRITTEN COMMENTS –

1. E-mail – Agenda related documents and comments can be e-mailed to

PublicCommentsPlanning@fresno.gov. Unless otherwise required by law to be

accepted by the City at or prior to a Commission meeting or hearing, no

documents shall be accepted for Commission review unless they are submitted

to the Planning and Development Department at least 24 hours prior to the

commencement of the Commission meeting at which the associated agenda

item is to be heard.

a. Attendees may also email comments to be read during the meeting.

Please include the agenda date and item number you wish to speak

on in the subject line of your email. Include your name and address for

the record, at the top of the body of your email.

b. Emails will be a maximum of 450 words.

c. All comments received at least 24 hours prior will be distributed to the

Planning Commission prior and during the meeting and will be a part of the

official record.

VIEWING PLANNING MEETINGS (non-participatory) – For your convenience,

there are ways to view Planning Commission meetings live:

1. Community Media Access Collaborative website: https://cmac.tv/

2. Cable Television: Comcast Channel 96 and AT&T Channel 99

Should any of these viewing methods listed above experience technical

difficulties, the Commission meeting will continue uninterrupted. Commission

meetings will only be paused to address verifiable technical difficulties for all

users participating via Zoom or in the Chambers.

The City of Fresno’s goal is to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA). Anyone requiring reasonable ADA accommodations, including sign

language interpreters, or other reasonable accommodations such as language

translation, should contact the office of the City Clerk at (559) 621-7650 or

clerk@fresno.gov. To help ensure availability of these services, you are advised

to make your request a minimum of 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.

I. ROLL CALL

Chair Vang called meeting to order at 6:01pm

Also present were Jennifer Clark, Israel Trejo, Rob Holt, Diego St. Clair,

Janice Monroe, Kari Camino, David Densley, Kristi Costa (CAO), Heather

Thomas (CAO), Harmanjit Dhaliwal (DPW), Dejan Pavic (DPU), & Jennifer

Ruiz (CMO).

Camino made an announcement about translation services that were

available both online and in person.

Present 5 -

Chairperson Peter Vang, Commissioner David Criner , Vice

Chair Brad Hardie, Commissioner Kathy Bray, and

Commissioner Monica Diaz

Absent 2 -

Commissioner Haley M. Wagner, and Commissioner

Jacqueline G. Lyday

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

6:03pm

III. PROCEDURES - PROCEDIMIENTOS - KEV SAB LAJ

6:03pm

Chair Vang read procedures aloud.

IV. AGENDA APPROVAL

6:05pm

Trejo reported no changes to the agenda.

On motion of Commissioner Diaz, seconded by Commissioner Criner

,the AGENDA was APPROVED. The motion carried by the following

vote:

Aye: 5 -

Chairperson Vang, Commissioner Criner , Vice Chair Hardie,

Commissioner Bray, and Commissioner Diaz

Absent: 2 - Commissioner Wagner, and Commissioner Lyday

V. CONSENT CALENDAR

6:06pm

On motion of Commissioner Criner , seconded by Commissioner

Bray,the CONSENT CALENDAR was APPROVED. The motion carried

by the following vote:

Aye: 5 -

Chairperson Vang, Commissioner Criner , Vice Chair Hardie,

Commissioner Bray, and Commissioner Diaz

Absent: 2 - Commissioner Wagner, and Commissioner Lyday

February 21, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes

V-A

V-B

ID 24-321

ID 24-392

March 6, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes

VI. REPORTS BY COMMISSIONERS

6:06pm

None

VII. CONTINUED MATTERS

N/A

VIII. NEW MATTERS

Consideration

Rezone

Application

No.

P23-02992 and

VIII-A

ID 24-399

Environmental Assessment No. P23-02992 relative to property generally

located between North Friant Road, East Copper Avenue, North Willow

Avenue and the East Silaxo Road (Council District 6).

1. RECOMMEND ADOPTION (to the City Council) Environmental

Assessment No. P23-02992, dated March 13, 2024, an Addendum to

the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) State Clearinghouse

(SCH) No. 2000021003 for the proposed project pursuant to the

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2. RECOMMEND APPROVAL (to the City Council) of Rezone

Application No. P23-02992 proposing to amend the Official Zone

Map to reclassify: ± 35.59 acres of property from the RS-3/UGM/cz

(Single-Family

Management/conditions of zoning) zone district to RS-3/UGM/cz

(Single-Family Residential, Low Density/Urban Growth

Residential,

Low

Density/Urban

Growth

Management/conditions of zoning) zone district, ± 0.93 acres of

property from the RM-2/UGM/cz (Multi-Family Residential, Urban

Neighborhood/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning) zone

district

RM-2/UGM/cz

(Multi-Family

Residential,

Urban

Neighborhood/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning) zone

district, ± 7.23 acres of property from the RS-5/UGM/cz (Single

Family

Management/conditions of zoning) zone district to RS-5/UGM/cz

(Single Family Residential, Medium Density/Urban Growth

Residential,

Medium

Density/Urban

Growth

Management/conditions of zoning) zone district, ± 0.79 acre of

property from the RS-4/UGM/cz (Single Family Residential, Medium

Low Density/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning) zone

district to RS-4/UGM/cz (Single Family Residential, Medium Low

Density/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning) zone

district, ± 2.68 acres of property from the CC/UGM/cz (Community

Commercial/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning) zone

district to CC/UGM/cz (Community Commercial/Urban Growth

Management/conditions of zoning) zone district, ± 2.07 acres of

property from the RS-4/UGM/cz (Single Family Residential, Medium

Low Density/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning) zone

district to RS-4/UGM/cz (Single Family Residential, Medium Low

Density/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning) zone

district, ± 1.17 acres of property from the RS-3/UGM/cz (Single

Fami l y

Management/conditions of zoning) zone district to RS-3/UGM/cz

(Single Family Residential, Low Density/Urban Growth

R e s i d e n t i a l ,

L o w

D e n s i t y / U r b a n

G r o w t h

Management/conditions of zoning) zone district, ± 8.17 acres of

property from the RM-2/UGM/cz (Multi-Family Residential, Urban

Neighborhood/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning) zone

district

RM-2/UGM/cz

(Multi-Family

Residential,

Urban

Neighborhood/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning) zone

district, ± 2.68 acres of property from the RS-4/UGM/cz (Single

Family

Residential,

Medium

Low

Density

/Urban

Growth

Management/conditions of zoning) zone district to RS-4/UGM/cz

(Single Family Residential, Medium Low Density /Urban Growth

Management/conditions of zoning) zone district, and ± 4.53 acres of

property from the RS-3/UGM/cz (Single Family Residential, Low

Density /Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning) zone

district to RS-3/UGM/cz (Single Family Residential, Low Density

/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning) zone district.

6:06pm

Commissioner Bray recused herself from the item due to potential business

conflict.

Trejo began his presentation by explaining there were no changes in Land

Use, but instead a change in the conditions of zoning. He then made a

presentation on the location, history of Copper River Ranch, conditions of

zoning (existing versus proposed), District 6 Plan Review Committee

feedback, and Staff's recommendations.

Gary McDonald (applicant) provided a brief background on the project and

thanked Staff. He was available for comments or questions.

No Public Comment was given.

On motion of Commissioner Diaz, seconded by Vice Chair Hardie, that

the above Action Item be APPROVED. The motion carried by the

following vote:

Aye: 4 -

Chairperson Vang, Commissioner Criner , Vice Chair Hardie,

and Commissioner Diaz

Absent: 2 - Commissioner Wagner, and Commissioner Lyday

Recused: 1 - Commissioner Bray

Consideration of an appeal filed regarding Cannabis Conditional Use

VIII-B

ID 24-400

Permit Application No. P23-03086 and related Environmental Assessment

for property located at 4555 East Kings Canyon Road on the northeast

corner of East Kings Canyon Road and South Jackson Avenue (Council

District 5).

APPROVE

Environmental

Assessment

No.

P23-03086

dated

November 9, 2023, a determination that the proposed project is exempt

from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines through

Section 15301/Class 1 Categorical Exemption.

DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the action of the Planning and

Development Department Director in the approval of Cannabis Conditional

Use Permit Application No. P23-03086 authorizing the establishment of a

cannabis retail business in an approximately 2,100 square foot existing

commercial building, subject to the following:

Development shall take place

in accordance with the Conditions of Approval for Cannabis

Conditional Use Permit Application No. P23-03086 dated

January 9, 2024.

6:16pm

Vang made an announcement that those who need translation services will

be given extra time to speak.

Holt made a presentation about the cannabis application process, existing

Cannabis Conditional Use Permit approvals in Council District 5, proximity

to schools, appeal process, and opposition's issues with the project and

corresponding Staff responses. He then talked about the subject location,

Land Use, proposed business details (including security, operation, and

plans), Fresno Municipal Code Findings, and Staff recommendations.

Commissioners asked Staff about relocating as a result of proximity to a

new school and the potential risk as a result of the neighboring Fairgrounds.

David Densley (Cannabis team) elaborated on the definition of Youth Center

according to the Code.

Jessica Reuven, Rita Tsalyuk, & Kirill Merkuluv were present on behalf of

the applicant team. Reuven made a presentation on the company

background, protocols, location, proposed improvements, neighborhood

compatibility/nuissance, and community benefits offered.

Commissioners asked several questions to clarify security protocols and

any special plans for when events are being held at the Fairgrounds. Trejo

noted there were limited studies on traffic/accidents that could be

comparable and that the results were inconclusive at this time. Tsalyuk also

explained consumption will not be allowed on site or in public, elaborating

on protocols.

Hardie also asked about the timeline of construction, to which the

applicant's team explained their interest in immediate construction and

opening for business.

Hardie left the room from 6:54-6:56pm.

Public Comment

There was one member of the public that spoke in favor of the project, citing

benefits to the neighborhood & investment in the community.

No one spoke in opposition to the project.

After deliberation on security concerns, particularly when events are held at

the Fairgrounds, Chair Vang motioned to amend Staff's recommendation

due to the Health, Safety, & Welfare Finding. The motion included the

stipulated condition that the applicant add an additional security guard

during the two week Fresno Fair and a week for Hmong New Year (totaling

3 weeks per year).

On motion of Chairperson Vang, seconded by Commissioner Diaz,