DATE: August 25, 2026
TO: Board of Supervisors
SUBMITTED BY: Steven E. White, Director
Department of Public Works and Planning
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission’s denial of Unclassified Conditional Use Permit No. 3778 and Variance No. 4158 (Appellant: Hunter C. Castro, Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Applicant: Gurjant Singh Khosa)
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
TITLE
Consider appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Initial Study No. 8517, Unclassified Conditional Use Permit No. 3778, and Variance Application No. 4158, which propose to allow the operation of a special event facility, and grant a Variance to allow a mapping procedure to create two substandard-sized parcels from the existing 10.39-acre subject parcel.
If the appeal is upheld and the Planning Commission’s denial of Unclassified Conditional Use Permit No. 3778 and Variance Application No. 4158 is overturned:
a. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program based on Initial Study No. 8517 with the recommended Conditions of Approval; and
b. Make the required findings specified in Zoning Ordinance Chapter 842.5 for approval of Unclassified Conditional Use Permit No. 3778; and make the required findings specified in Zoning Ordinance Chapter 860.5 for a Variance; and
c. Adopt a Resolution approving Unclassified Conditional Use Permit No. 3778 and Variance Application No. 4158 with Department staff’s recommended modifications to the Initial Study No. 8517 to acknowledge the need to obtain a public water system permit from the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water, and additional recommended conditions of approval requiring the Applicant to obtain this permit within 180 days, and a second condition to enter into an Indemnification Agreement for all legal costs associated with approval of the subject applications.
REPORT
There is no Net County Cost associated with the recommended actions. The request before your Board is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s June 18, 2026 denial (5-0) with three Commissioners absent and one abstaining. The appeal seeks authorization to operate an existing special event facility and approval of a Variance to allow a subsequent mapping procedure to create two substandard-sized parcels from the existing 10.39-acre parcel. Should your Board uphold the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s denial, your Board would need to act to adopt the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration, make the required findings for both a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use and Variance to allow the creation of two substandard-sized parcels, and adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use permit and Variance Application with additional conditions as recommended by staff. A copy of the Planning Commission’s actions on this project is included as Attachment A and a copy of the June 18, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report is included as Attachment B. This item pertains to a location in District 4.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
If your Board is unable to make the required Findings for granting Unclassified Conditional Use Permit (UCUP) No. 3778 and Variance Application (VA) No. 4158, your Board may make a motion to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the project.
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 $22,713 in fees for processing the UCUP, VA, and Initial Study (IS), as well as one revision to the UCUP Application. The Appellant paid $555 in fees to appeal the Planning Commission’s denial.
DISCUSSION:
The project proposes to authorize operation of an existing unpermitted special event facility, with a VA to allow a reduction in the minimum parcel size in the AE-20 Zone District, to facilitate a mapping procedure to create two substandard-sized parcels (a five-acre and a 5.39-acre parcel), from an existing 10.39-acre parcel. According to the Applicant, the Variance has been requested to separate the event facility from an existing single-family residence that is the Applicant’s personal residence.
Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 842.5, to approve a UCUP, the following Findings must be made:
Finding 1: That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping and other features required by this Division, to adjust said use with land and uses in the neighborhood.
Finding 2: That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
Finding 3: That the proposed use will have no adverse impact on abutting property and the surrounding neighborhood or the allowed use thereof.
Finding 4: The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan.
Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 860.5, to grant a Variance, the following Findings must be made:
Finding 1: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved which do not apply generally to other property in the vicinity having the identical zoning classification; and
Finding 2: Such Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the vicinity having the identical zoning classification; and
Finding 3: The granting of a Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvement in the vicinity in which the property is located; and
Finding 4: The granting of such Variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan.
This item was originally heard at the June 26, 2025 Planning Commission hearing, at which after considering the Staff Report, staff’s presentation, and testimony from the Applicant, the Applicant’s representative, and members of the Public, the Planning Commission made a motion to continue the item to allow the Applicant to refine and revise certain details regarding the operation. Both staff and the Applicant agreed that further refinement of the operational statement was necessary to clarify the hours of operation, including vendor setup and post-event cleanup; the maximum number of events per week, and the maximum number of guests per event. Additional modifications were necessary to include the use of an existing barn for indoor events.
Prior to the rescheduled March 12, 2026, Planning Commission hearing staff received comments from the City of Fowler in response to the notice of public hearing. In its March 10, 2026 letter, the City expressed concerns about noise, in particular that the proposal did not meet the City’s noise standards in its General Plan, and that the City had not been consulted on the traffic study prior to its completion and had not been provided a copy of the project’s IS. Based on these comments from the City of Fowler, Department staff requested that the Planning Commission continue the item to address the City’s concerns.
Following this second continuance, the City provided additional comments on its review of the traffic analysis and IS. Department staff received these comments on April 2, 2026 and provided a response on May 22, 2026, wherein, the County maintained that jurisdictional standards dictate that the project is legally subject to the land use authority and adopted noise standards of Fresno County, and that the County had already addressed the identified noise impact through project mitigation measures.
Another concern cited by the City of Fowler was that the event facility did not have adequate parking area to prevent queuing in the public right-of-way. In its response, the County provided the justification for the parking standards applied to the project, clarifying that the facility provided for overflow parking on its west side, and that the traffic study’s assumption with respect to vehicle occupancy at 1.5 persons was somewhat conservative, and that an assumption of 2.0-2.5 persons per vehicle substantially reduces the number of parking spaces needed to accommodate parking demand given a maximally attended event, which would bring the number of actual parking spaces provided on the site in line with these assumptions. Furthermore, the project would have to obtain County approval of an operational traffic management plan to account for any potential exceedance of parking capacity for a particular event.
The City expressed its opposition to the Variance request to divide the existing 10.39-acre parcel into two smaller parcels. County staff maintains that the VA meets the strict intent of the Variance process, and if approved, would allow the owner to separate the proposed uses between commercial and residential, while preserving the underlying property rights of the owner, and the legal division of the property would be affected through the required parcel map process. A copy of the County’s June 5, 2026, response to the City of Fowler staff is included as Attachment E.
At its continued June 18, 2026 hearing, the Planning Commission considered Department staff’s presentation and heard testimony from County Code Enforcement staff, the Applicant and their representative, and individuals in opposition to the proposal. Code Enforcement had been requested to speak and present the Planning Commission with the status of their ongoing enforcement action. The Applicant and their representative stated that the modifications made to the operational statement addressed the concerns raised during the hearing.
Those in opposition to the proposal cited concerns with excessively loud music and bright lights during events. It should be noted that at this hearing, representatives from the City of Fowler did not provide any testimony regarding the Project or Department staff’s prior responses.
Following testimony and discussion by the Planning Commission, a motion was made to deny the applications due to an inability to make any of the required Findings for the UCUP nor the required Findings for the Variance. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with three Planning Commissioners absent, and one abstaining.
An appeal was filed on June 24, 2026, by an attorney representing the Applicant. The appeal letter asserted that the land use applications satisfied all necessary requirements for the UCUP and VA to be granted, and that County staff having made a recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval supported this assertion. Additionally, the Appellant stated in the appeal that all concerns and objections raised during the hearing were misplaced, outdated and fully resolved by the Appellant’s application materials and provided technical studies. The Appellant objected to the Planning Commission’s assertion that the Appellant failed to sufficiently address the concerns previously raised during the June 26, 2025 hearing and the appeal outlined how, in the opinion of the Appellant, the Findings for both the UCUP and the VA could be made.
If your Board is able to make the required Findings for granting UCUP No. 3778 and VA No. 4158 and overturn the Planning Commission’s denial, it would be appropriate to make a motion to adopt the proposed Resolution on file with the Clerk, and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project based on IS No. 8517 with modifications as recommended by staff and noted in Attachment D addressing the need for a Public Water System Permit, and stating the basis of approval and the ability to make the required findings for both the UCUP and the Variance. Your Board should then make a motion to approve UCUP No. 3778 and VA No. 4158, subject to the Mitigation Measures, Conditions of Approval and project notes included as Attachment F with the additional conditions as recommended by staff below.
Staff recommends that if your Board approves the Project, the following conditions for obtaining a permit to operate a public water system from the State Water Resources Control Board, Drinking Water Division, and an indemnification be included in your motion:
• Within 30 days of project approval, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the County that the process for obtaining a Transient Non-Community Public Water System Permit (Permit) has been initiated. Within 180 days of approval, the Applicant shall provide evidence that the Permit has been obtained through the State or that the Permit application is in good standing and nearing approval. Permit requirements are listed in Mandatory Project Notes Nos. 1 through 4.
• The Applicant shall enter into an agreement indemnifying the County for all legal costs associated with its approval of Unclassified Conditional Use Permit No. 3778 and Variance No. 4158 and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration based on Initial Study No. 8517 and provide security in an amount determined by the County for any such legal costs incurred. The agreement and payment of security shall be due unless that litigation period has expired, in which case the requirements for the indemnification agreement and security shall be considered null and void.
If your Board is unable to make the required Findings for granting approval of UCUP No. 3778, and for granting VA No. 4158, it would be appropriate to make a motion stating the reasons the Findings cannot be made and deny the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission’s denial decision on the subject applications.
ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED AND/OR ON FILE:
Attachments A - F
On file with Clerk - Resolution
CAO ANALYST:
Maria Valencia