DATE: November 17, 2026
TO: Board of Supervisors
SUBMITTED BY: Steven E. White, Director
Department of Public Works and Planning
SUBJECT: Amendment Application No. 3844 and Initial Study Application No. 8026 (Applicant/Appellant: James N. Clark)
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
TITLE
1. Consider appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Amendment Application No. 3844 to rezone a 12.8-acre portion of a 15.02-acre parcel from the AL-20 (Limited Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District to the R-1-B(c) (Single-Family Residential, 12,500 square foot minimum parcel size, conditional) Zone District; and
2. If the Appeal is granted and the Planning Commission’s denial of Amendment Application No. 3844 is overturned:
a. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project based on Initial Study No. 8026, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for Amendment Application No. 3844;
b. Find that the proposed rezone of 12.8 acres from the AL-20 (Limited Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District to the R-1-B(c) (Single-Family Residential, 12,500 square foot minimum parcel size, conditional) Zone District is consistent with the Fresno County General Plan and County-adopted Shaver Lake Community Plan and meets the required findings as specified in Section 872.6.060 of the Fresno County Zoning Ordinance;
c. Include an additional condition requiring the Applicant to enter into an agreement indemnifying the County for all legal costs associated with the approval of Amendment Application No. 3844;
d. Adopt Ordinance pertaining to Amendment Application No. 3844 thereby rezoning the subject 12.8-acre portion of the site from the AL-20 (Limited Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size) to the R-1-B(c) (Single-Family Residential, 12,500 square-foot minimum parcel size, conditional) Zone District; and
e. Designate County Counsel to prepare a fair and adequate summary of the proposed Ordinance and direct the Clerk of the Board to post and publish the required summary in accordance with Government Code, Section 25124(b)(1).
The subject parcel is located on north side of Dorabella Road, and west side of north Aspen Road approximately 150 feet east of State Route 168 within the unincorporated community of Shaver Lake. (APN: 120-260-14) (Sup. Dist. 5).
REPORT
There is no Net County Cost (NCC) associated with the recommended actions. This item comes before your Board on appeal following a technical denial by the Planning Commission (3 to 3, with two Commissioners absent and one Commission vacancy) of Amendment Application No. 3844, which proposes rezoning approximately 12.8 acres in the unincorporated community of Shaver Lake from Limited Agricultural to Single-Family Residential. If the appeal is granted, your Board would consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the proposed rezoning, subject to conditions. A summary of the Planning Commission’s action is included as Attachment A. The Planning Commission Staff Report is included as Attachment B. This item pertains to a location in District 5.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
If your Board is unable to find the proposed Amendment Application No. 3844 consistent with the Fresno County General Plan or County-adopted Shaver Lake Community Plan for granting the Amendment Application, you may make a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no NCC associated with the recommended actions. Pursuant to the County’s Master Schedule of Fees, the Applicant paid $12,390, in land use processing fees for the subject application. The Applicant/Appellant paid $555 to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision.
DISCUSSION:
A rezoning is a legislative act requiring final approval by your Board if recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. As this is a denial, the Applicant appealed the decision to the Board of Supervisors. Final action by your Board is also required for adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared based on Initial Study (IS) No. 8026. If approved, the rezoning would become effective 30 days after adoption. A copy of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for IS No. 8026 is included as Attachment C.
The Applicant proposes to rezone an approximately 12.8-acre portion of an existing 15.02-acre parcel from the AL-20 (Limited Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District to the R-1B(c) (Single-Family Residential, 12,500 square-foot minimum parcel size, Conditional) Zone District. The rezoning would be conditioned to require the shared use of an existing well and additional conditions restricting further subdivision until such time as a connection to community water is available and the availability of additional community sewer capacity.
The subject parcel is located on the north side of Dorabella Road and west side of Aspen Road, east of State Route 168, within the unincorporated community of Shaver Lake. The existing C-4 (Central Trading) zoning on the remainder would remain unchanged. The proposal would facilitate future division into three two-acre parcels and a remainder parcel, with shared use of up to three connections of an existing well and conditions restricting further subdivision beyond these limits until community water service and additional sewer capacity are available.
On April 23, 2026, the Planning Commission considered the rezoning. During the hearing, the Applicant’s representative described the shared well system and proposed access from Dorabella and Aspen Roads, including potential internal access from Dorabella Road as an alternative. The Applicant also presented a copy of the Fresno County Water and Natural Resources Division’s response to the hydrogeological study prepared for the application (Attachment D). Four individuals spoke in opposition to the proposal, raising concerns regarding water availability, drought, neighboring wells, private-road access and maintenance, fire protection, and future subdivision. Letters received in opposition are included as Attachment E. The letters expressed concern with various issues including site access and traffic, water supply, type of future housing, and the use of remaining acreage, particularly in regards to campsites or high density or transient uses.
After receiving staff’s presentation and considering public testimony, a motion to recommend denial was made based on concerns regarding consistency with the General Plan’s water-supply requirements, including the adequacy of the water supply to meet the highest demand during future drought conditions. The motion failed (3 to 3, with two Commissioners absent and one Commission vacancy), resulting in a technical denial. A summary of the Planning Commission’s action is included as Attachment A.
On May 8, 2026, the Applicant filed an appeal, citing staff’s recommendation for approval, asserting that the opposition lacked factual support, and noting that only six Commissioners were present at the hearing (Attachment F).
Pursuant to Fresno County Zoning Ordinance Section 872.6.060.B, approval of a rezoning is based upon the Board’s determination of the following Findings as recommended by Department staff and noted below:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan.
The rezoning is consistent with Shaver Lake Community Plan Policies 609-01:4.01(b), 609-01:4.01(c), 609-01:4.01(e(2), and 609-01:4.01(h) as the project proposes single-family residential development consistent with the Mountain Residential designation, the proposed low-density residential use is compatible with the existing development pattern, and the proposal is subject to mitigation measures and conditions of approval limiting development until community sewer and water services are available. Specifically, related to Community Plan Policy 609-01:4.01(h), the provisions of this policy support allowing large-lot development (two acres or larger) as an acceptable alternative when community systems are not viable. Further, the proposal is consistent with the General Plan Policy PF-C.16 based on the results of a hydrogeologic study prepared which determined that the existing on-site well is capable of adequately serving the proposed parcels and use of a shared well would not result in significant impacts to nearby wells or groundwater resources.
2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the County.
No concerns were received from reviewing agencies and departments to indicate that the proposal would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or actions of the General Plan. The proposed R-1-B(c) zoning would allow large lot development on a 12.8-acre portion of the 15.02-acre parcel with a shared well which was evaluated and determined to be adequate through a hydrogeologic study. A biological survey was completed by Colibri Ecological Consulting and project mitigation measures address potential impacts to cultural and biological resources, and project Conditions of Approval limit immediate development to no more than four parcels with a minimum parcel size of two acres.
3. If applicable, the affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities (e.g., fire protection, Sheriff protection, potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.), to ensure that the requested zoning designation and the proposed or anticipated uses and/or development will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.
The 12.8-acre area to be rezoned is adequately sized and configured to accommodate parcelization with the limitations imposed on the project through Conditions of Approval which limits parcel size and the number of parcels to be created. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) reviewed the proposal and did not express concerns based on the limited volume of traffic the proposal generated, and Department staff determined the existing well is adequate as a proposed shared well. Site access and individual parcel configuration would be evaluated and determined through a subsequent parcel map, and prior to the issuance of construction permits, assurance shall be provided that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project through the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility serving the area.
If your Board determines that the required Findings can be made, including consistency with the County’s General Plan and County-adopted Shaver Lake Community Plan, a motion to uphold the appeal and approve Amendment Application No. 3844, subject to the Mitigation Measures, Conditions of Approval, and Project Notes listed in Exhibit 1 of Attachment B, would be appropriate. Approval would also require adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment C) prepared based on IS No. 8026, adoption of the proposed Ordinance, and direction to County Counsel to prepare a fair and adequate summary of the Ordinance and to the Clerk of the Board to post and publish required summary.
Staff recommends that if your Board approves the request, the following indemnification be included in your motion:
The Applicant shall enter into an agreement indemnifying the County for all legal costs associated with its approval of Amendment Application No. 3844 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 the litigation period has expired, in which case the requirements for the indemnification agreement and security shall be considered null and void.
If your Board determines that the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the County’s General Plan and County-adopted Shaver Lake Community Plan, a motion to deny the appeal and deny Amendment Application No. 3844 would be appropriate, citing the reasons for denial and the proposal’s inconsistency with those plans.
ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED AND/OR ON FILE:
Attachments A - F
Ordinance
On file with Clerk - Ordinance Summary
CAO ANALYST:
Maria Valencia