Tulare County Planning Commission approves zone variance and tentative parcel map near Avenue 422

The Tulare County Planning Commission on Jan. 28 unanimously approved a zone variance (PZV25-050) and a tentative parcel map (PPM25-049) for a property located on the south side of Avenue 422, west of the Alta Irrigation Canal.

Planner Nabi Umankar, of the Tulare County Resource Management Agency, told commissioners the applicants, property owners Goralape Manuel and Roman Guzman with agent J. Frank Gomez, seek to divide the subject parcel under a variance to the AE-20 zoning minimum. Umankar said staff concluded the request meets the four mandatory findings for a variance and recommended approval. "Staff recommend approval of the zone variants," the planner stated.

In describing the site, staff said the parcel (recorded as parcel number 0.025-050-029) currently contains agricultural uses, a shed and a barn and is designated Valley Agriculture under the Bridal Valley Lands Plan. Staff noted the property is not in a Williamson Act contract. According to the record summary, the county found the site is not adjacent to any endangered-species locations listed in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and that Federal Emergency Management Agency maps place the site in shaded Zone X, where construction typically requires no special flood mitigation.

Agent J. Frank Gomez said he "concur[s] with our staff report" and was available to answer questions. Commissioners asked about access and road-surface conditions for the new parcel; staff confirmed Parcel 1 will take direct access from Avenue 422 while Parcel 2 will rely on an 18-foot private access easement and said conditioned road improvements will be required.

Commissioner Gil Aguilar moved to approve the CEQA "common-sense" exemption and conditionally approve zone variance PZV25-050; the motion carried 7-0. Aguilar then moved to approve the CEQA exemption and conditionally approve tentative parcel map PPM25-049 with a waiver of a final map; Commissioner Aaron Brown seconded and the motion carried 7-0.

The planning record identifies applicants and agents, the variance and tentative-map file numbers, and the staff findings that supported approval. The transcript lists parcel sizes in a way that appears inconsistent (the staff presentation reported a division into parcels described as "14.89 acre" and "4.86 acre" while also saying the original parcel is 10 acres); that sizing is marked in the record as inconsistent and not specified for final acreage in the planning action. The commission did not attach additional conditions beyond the standard road and permitting requirements described in staff materials.

The approvals on Jan. 28 conclude the local planning commission review for these entitlements; any subsequent map-recording, final map waiver processing or Board of Supervisors action (if required by county practice) would follow standard county procedures.