DATE: September 22, 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 Variance Application No. 4202 (Appellant/Owner: Trinidad Macias; Applicant: Elvia Lopez, CVEAS)
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
TITLE
Consider appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Variance Application No. 4202 proposing to allow the creation of a two-acre parcel and an 18-acre parcel from an existing 20-acre parcel in the AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District, and
If your Board chooses to grant the Appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of Variance Application No. 4202, it would be appropriate to:
1. Make the required Findings specified in Section 860.5.060.D for approval of a variance stating the basis for making the four required findings; and
2. Approve Variance Application No. 4202, with the Conditions of Approval, as recommended by Department staff.
The subject parcel is located on the east side of Cove Rd., approximately 1.35-miles from the nearest city limits of the City of Orange Cove (APN: 373-061-19) (Sup. Dist. 4).
REPORT
There is no Net County Cost associated with the recommended action. This item comes before your Board on appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial (5 to 0, with four commissioners absent) at its April 23, 2026 hearing. The application proposed to create a two-acre parcel and an 18-acre parcel in the AE-20 Zone District. The Zoning Ordinance requires your Board to determine, independently from the decision of the Planning Commission, whether the application should be approved, approved with stated conditions, or denied. A copy of the Planning Commission’s action is included as Attachment A. This item pertains to a location in District 4.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
If your Board is unable to make the required Findings for granting approval of Variance Application (VA) No. 4202, your Board may deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no Net County Cost associated with the recommended action. Pursuant to the County’s Master Schedule of Fees, the Applicant/Owner has paid $7,029 in land use processing fees to the County for the processing of the Variance request. The Appellant paid $555 in fees to appeal the Planning Commission’s denial.
DISCUSSION:
The proposal is to allow the creation of a two-acre parcel and an 18-acre parcel from an existing 20-acre parcel located in the AE-20 Zone District. If approved, a mapping procedure will follow. The Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment B) dated April 23, 2026, includes background information about the proposal.
Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Article 5, Chapter 860.5, the following four Findings must be made:
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
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.
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.
4. The granting of such a Variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan.
At its April 23, 2026 hearing, the Planning Commission considered the Department’s staff Report (Attachment B), staff’s presentation, and testimony from the Applicant/Owner’s representative. It should be noted that staff, in its report to the Planning Commission, was unable to recommend making Finding Nos.1, 2 and 4 required for approval of a Variance.
Following staff’s presentation, the Applicant’s representative provided statements in support of making Findings Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (Attachment A).
After the Planning Commission considered public testimony from the Applicants and the Public, a motion was made to adopt staff’s recommendation to deny VA No. 4202 based on the inability to make the required findings.
On April 28, 2026, the Owner filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny VA No. 4202. The stated basis for the appeal is the Applicant’s desire to sell a two-acre portion of the existing 20-acre parcel containing a residence that was partially damaged by fire while occupied by tenants (Attachment C). While the situation is unfortunate, staff does not believe it is a legitimate basis to approve a Variance Application, as was addressed in the Department’s Staff Report (Attachment B).
If your Board is able to make the required Findings for granting approval of VA No. 4202, then it would be appropriate to make a motion to approve the Variance Application (stating in your motion the manner in which the four required Findings can be made) with the approval subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval (Attachment D) and any additional conditions your Board determines appropriate.
Staff also notes that should the Variance be approved; the Variance will expire two years from the date of your Board’s approval unless a mapping application to create the parcels is filed. Where circumstances beyond the control of the Applicant cause delays, the Applicant may file a time extension to be presented to the Planning Commission.
If your Board is unable to make the required Findings for approval of VA No. 4202, a motion to deny the appeal and deny the Variance would be appropriate.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
It has been determined pursuant to Article 5: Review for Exemption, Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA guidelines: The activity is covered by the common-sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED AND/OR ON FILE:
Attachments A - D
CAO ANALYST:
Maria Valencia