Madera County Board upholds planning commission, denies appeal for proposed Avenue 14 outdoor event venue

The Madera County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 3 denied an appeal of the Planning Commission’s October decision to refuse a conditional use permit for a proposed outdoor event venue on Avenue 14, upholding the Planning Commission’s finding that the project is incompatible with the O’Neill’s area plan and surrounding agricultural‑residential character.

Planning staff told the board the property’s general plan and O’Neill’s area plan designate the site for resource conservation and public lands and that the proposed facility — including a main building, dining kitchen and a 95,000‑square‑foot stage and terrace — would allow events up to 200 guests on weekends with operational hours proposed through 10 p.m. Staff recommended denial, citing potential traffic, noise, dust, light intrusion and emergency‑response concerns for adjacent residences, and noted the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the CUP on Oct. 1.

During the public hearing, more than a dozen neighbors and property owners testified that unauthorized events had already taken place at the site, that evening music and vehicle noise continued well past 10 p.m., that bright lighting and dust disturbed sleep and that the proximity of the stage and event activities to at least seven adjacent residences would be incompatible with “resource conservation” land use. Several speakers described prior grading activity at the site and asked whether a grading permit had been issued; staff said no grading permit record was found and said enforcement and permitting questions would be pursued separately.

The applicant’s representative said independent traffic and acoustical studies were prepared and that the applicant was willing to follow consultants’ recommendations and conditions to mitigate impacts. Planning staff and several supervisors noted those studies’ recommendations but stressed that the site’s area‑plan designation and the character of the neighborhood weighed against approval. Board members repeatedly cited unpermitted events and ongoing enforcement concerns as a factor in their decision: several supervisors said operating before securing a permit showed lack of compliance that would make future enforcement difficult.

A motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial passed on a roll‑call vote of 4‑0; Supervisor Gonzales was absent. The board action was recorded as adoption of a resolution denying the appeal of Conditional Use Permit 2021‑021 and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2024‑09.

Planning staff said that if the applicant wishes to revise the proposal they may do so through the regular application process; staff additionally said they would continue enforcement work on any unpermitted activity at the site.

Details: The Planning Commission originally denied the CUP on Oct. 1 by a 5‑0 vote; the board’s denial of the appeal leaves the Planning Commission decision in place. The board directed staff to continue enforcement on unpermitted activity and to verify whether grading permits or other authorizations were required and obtained.