[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:03]
CAN WE PLEASE HAVE EVERYBODY STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
OKAY. CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL OF COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER AGUILERA.
HERE. AND COMMISSIONER SPYCHER DID EXCUSE HIMSELF.
[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
ITEM FOUR APPROVAL OF MINUTES.WE HAVE SOME MINUTES PRESENTED.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES? A MOTION AND A SECOND.
OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? CHAIR ALSO VOTES, AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. OKAY.
ITEM FIVE, CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS.
THIS IS THE POINT IN OUR MEETING WHERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY CAN DO SO NOW. AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
I WILL CLOSE IT AS COMMUNICATIONS AND GO TO OUR PUBLIC HEARING.
[6. PUBLIC HEARING(S)]
ITEM SIX.THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS ZONE VARIANCE NUMBER ZV23-001 AND MINOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MS 23-005 FOR ROMERO/SOUSA.
THE REQUEST IS TO SUBDIVIDE FOUR PARCELS TOTALING 28.67 ACRES INTO FOUR PARCELS.
PARCEL 3 1.15 ACRES AND PARCEL FOUR OF 1.01 ACRES.
THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST SANTA RITA GRADE ROAD, 1940FT EAST OF SOUTH SAN JUAN ROAD IN THE DOS PALOS AREA. IT'S DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL LAND USE IN THE GENERAL PLAN AND IS ZONED A-1 GENERAL AGRICULTURE.
THE PROJECT SITE IS SURROUNDED BY ORCHARDS AND A SOLAR FARM TO THE WEST.
AND THIS IS A CLOSER LOOK AT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION CLOSER TO THE EXISTING HOME SITES.
PURSUANT TO THE MERCED COUNTY ZONING CODE, SECTION 18126.050 AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65906, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUST MAKE ALL THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE.
NUMBER ONE, THERE IS A PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHIC FEATURE THAT PROHIBITS THE EXPANSION OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS BEFORE THE BEYOND THE EXISTING BOUNDARIES, INCLUDING THE WATERWAYS WHICH BOND PARCEL TWO AND THE SOLAR FACILITY, AND ON AGRICULTURAL USE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY.
ADDITIONALLY, THE AREA WHICH IS DEVELOPED WITH EXISTING RURAL RESIDENCES IS BOUNDED BY WATERWAYS AND EXISTING ROADS AND IS TOO SMALL FOR EFFECTIVE FARMING. THE EXISTING CANAL THAT RUNS AROUND THE PROPOSED PARCEL TWO, AND DIVIDES IT FROM THE PROPOSED PARCEL ONE, THREE AND FOUR OF THE PROJECT SITE DOES NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY UNDER THE SAME ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
[00:05:03]
STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS WOULD DEPRIVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OF PRIVILEGES ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY, AND UNDER IDENTICAL ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS BECAUSE THE WATERWAYS BOUNDING THE EXISTING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT LIMITS THE ABILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO RETAIN THEIR HOME AND SELL OR CONVEY THE REMAINING ACREAGE TO THE ADJACENT FARMING OPERATIONS.APPROVING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT CONSTITUTE OR GRANT FOR SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, INCONSISTENT WITH THE LIMITATIONS ON OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SITUATED BECAUSE THE PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT CHANGE THE USE OF THE LAND, PARCEL TWO WOULD CONTINUE TO BE FARMED AND NO NEW RESIDENCES ARE PROPOSED.
THE PROPOSED INVOLVES THE CREATION OF PROPERTY BOUNDARIES TO REFLECT CURRENT OWNERSHIP OF FAMILY MEMBERS, AND PARCEL THAT IS ACTIVELY FARMED, WHICH ARE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT USES.
THE PROJECT SITE POSES UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE THERE IS A PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHIC FEATURE THAT PROHIBITS THE EXPANSION OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS BEYOND THE EXISTING BOUNDARIES, INCLUDING THE WATERWAYS WHICH BOUND PARCEL TWO AND THE SOLAR FACILITY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY.
THE EXISTING CANAL THAT RUNS AROUND THE PROPOSED PARCEL TWO AND DIVIDES IT FROM PROPOSED PARCEL ONE, PARCEL THREE AND FOUR LIMITS THE ABILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO RETAIN THEIR HOME AND SELL OR CONVEY THE REMAINING ACREAGE TO ADJACENT FARMING OPERATIONS.
THE PROPOSED INVOLVES THE CREATION OF PROPERTY BOUNDARIES TO REFLECT CURRENT OWNERSHIP FOR THE FAMILY MEMBERS, AND A PARCEL THAT IS ACTIVELY FARMED, WHICH ARE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT USES.
HERE IS AN AERIAL CLEARLY DISPLAYING THE EXISTING CANAL THAT RUNS AROUND PROPOSED PARCEL TWO, AND DIVIDES IT FROM PROPOSED PARCEL ONE, THREE AND FOUR. THE PROJECT DOES NOT PROPOSE THE BUILDING OF NEW RESIDENCES.
THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 15162.
SUBSEQUENT EIRS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
NOTICE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PUBLIC HEARING WAS PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED COUNTY TIMES ON NOVEMBER 2ND, 2023, AND MAILED TO ALL OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROJECT SITE, ON NOVEMBER 3RD, 2023.
NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC.
STAFF HAS TWO RECOMMENDATIONS.
SUBSEQUENT EIRS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES BASED ON THE ANALYSIS IN THE 2013 MERCED COUNTY GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THE ATTACHED CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS.
AND TO APPROVE ZONE VARIANCE NUMBER ZV23-001 AND MINOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MS23-005 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
THAT NOW CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY NOT HEARING ANY.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.
ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TO THIS ITEM CAN DO SO NOW.
AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
MY NAME IS MANUELA SOUSA, 8530 SANTA RITA GRADE.
MY SISTER, WENDY ROMERO, KIND OF GIVE YOU A HISTORY.
MY DAD OWNED THE PROPERTY HE PASSED IN 2017.
LEFT THE PROPERTY IN HIS WILL IN A WAY THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WORKING WITH.
SO WE CAME TO THE COUNTY OF MERCED IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR AND SAID, WHAT CAN WE DO? HE WANTS US TO SPLIT THIS THIS WAY.
IT WAS LEFT IN THE WILL. WHAT CAN WE DO? WE TURNED IN SEVERAL MAPS TO THE COUNTY, AND THE COUNTY SAID YOU KNOW, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THIS.
[00:10:02]
NO, YOU CAN'T DO THIS. YES, YOU CAN DO THIS.AT THE END SEPTEMBER-ISH, WE FINALLY CAME TO AN AGREEMENT.
IT SEEMED LIKE EVERYTHING WAS DONE.
THERE WAS SOME CHANGE IN STAFF IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SO IT GOT DROPPED.
WE DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING FOR SEVERAL WEEKS.
THEY TOLD US IT'S GOING THE ONE ACRE.
I THINK IT'S THE PARCEL FOUR WAS LESS THAN AN ACRE.
IT DID GO ON THE STAFF REPORT.
IT WENT OUT. IT WENT OUT ON THE WEBSITE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE RULE SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE UNDER AN ACRE.
MY ENGINEER HAS A NEW MAP PROPOSED THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT TO YOU.
I WAS TOLD THAT YOU CAN'T SET PRECEDENTS, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT TOTALLY.
BUT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S GOING TO COME ON A WHEEL WHERE WE HAVE TO GIVE A LIFE ESTATE TO MY MOM THAT THAT PARCEL FOUR ON PARCEL THREE, THE SHED THAT WAS BEING PROPOSED THERE WAS LEFT IN THE WILL TO BE ATTACHED TO PARCEL THREE.
THERE'S A CELL TOWER ON THERE THAT WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING.
AND ON TOP OF THAT, MY DAD LEFT IN THE WILL THAT WE HAD TO PAY OUT MY OLDER SISTER.
AND THEN IF NOT, THEN I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU. CAN I HAND IT TO SOMEONE OR WHAT DO I DO? YOU JUST LEAVE IT UP THERE.
LEAVE IT HERE? PLACE IT ON THERE.
OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO COME FORWARD? OKAY NOT SEEING ANY, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR EITHER DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.
SPEAK TO THAT MAP? OH, SURE. MR. CHAIR, JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE REST OF THE COMMISSION HERE.
SO THIS IS JUST GOING TO GIVE ME A THUMBS UP THUMBS DOWN.
GARTH, IS THIS THE SAME MAP THAT WE LOOKED AT YESTERDAY? YEAH. SO STAFF'S ALREADY TAKEN A LOOK AT THAT MAP.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND THE COMMISSION APPROVING, SOMETHING THAT WOULD CONFLICT WITH REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR THE VARIANCE IN THIS CASE.
CERTAINLY NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'D WANT TO DO ON THE FLY HERE.
WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF IS THE MAP AS IT'S PRESENTED WITH MS. RENTERIA'S STAFF REPORT.
OKAY, SO OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS THE ONE THAT'S PRESENTED WITH THE STAFF REPORT.
CORRECT. AND I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
IS THE APPLICANT SAYING THAT THIS MAP IS NO LONGER SOMETHING THAT'S VIABLE? WELL, IT IS, BUT IF YOU LOOK WHERE IT SAYS PARCEL THREE TO THE RIGHT, THERE'S A SHED AND IT HAS A THING.
WELL, THAT WAS LEFT IN THE WILL TO BE ATTACHED TO PARCEL THREE.
SO NOW PARCEL FOUR IS THE LIFE ESTATE OF MY MOM'S THAT SHE WOULD HAVE THAT LIFE ESTATE THERE.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, DO ANYTHING THAT'S NOT LEGAL OR WHATEVER.
BUT WHEN WE CAME TO THE COUNTY, WE WERE TOLD WE COULD DO IT.
OTHERWISE I WOULDN'T HAVE HIRED AN ENGINEER AND DONE IT.
WE WOULD HAVE LEFT IT THE WAY IT IS.
AND NOW I'M, YOU KNOW, SO MUCH MONEY IN AND I HAVE TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT.
SO, YES. THIS IS WHAT YOU GUYS PROPOSED TO US THE LAST THING.
IF THAT'S ALL WE CAN DO. I GUESS THAT'S ALL WE CAN DO.
BUT ORIGINALLY THAT SHED WAS POPPED OFF AND IT WAS APPROVED.
WELL, THAT SEEMS APPROVED BECAUSE YOU GUYS DIDN'T APPROVE IT.
STAFF HAD SENT THAT OUT SAYING THAT THIS WAS WHAT IT WAS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, IT WAS ON YOUR WEBSITE.
JUST TO CLARIFY THAT PIECE OF IT.
[00:15:01]
WE DIDN'T HAVE AN UPDATED MAP FROM THE ENGINEER AT THAT POINT.AND THIS MAP IS AGAIN WHAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THERE'S JUST A DIFFERENT EXHIBIT ATTACHED TO THE MAP OR TO THAT STAFF REPORT AT THAT TIME.
OTHERWISE I MEAN TABLE THE ITEM.
WE CAN PICK IT UP DOWN THE ROAD.
ONCE THE APPLICANT COMES TO A DECISION ON WHAT THEY'D LIKE TO DO, I DON'T.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S IN THE APPLICANT'S HANDS KIND OF 11TH HOUR HERE.
WE'VE DONE FIVE MAPS AND YOU GUYS HAVE.
THUMBS DOWN. SHOULD WE SHOULD.
I WOULD RECOMMEND THE COMMISSION TAKE ACTION ON THIS MAP AS IT'S PROVIDED HERE.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION OR ANY COMMISSION DISCUSSION? CAN I MAKE A MOTION AS CHAIR.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 15162 SUBSEQUENT EIRS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES BASED ON THE ANALYSIS IN THE 2030 MERCED COUNTY GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THE ATTACHED CEQA GUIDELINES, SECTION 15162 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? CHAIR ALSO VOTES AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED.
WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE PROJECT.
BASED ON THE FINDINGS IDENTIFIED AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. CHAIR ALSO VOTES AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. OKAY.
[7. COMMISSION ACTION ITEM(S)]
ITEM SEVEN COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS. YEAH. MR. CHAIR, AT THIS TIME, JUST CONSIDER THE APPOINTING THE CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS CALENDAR YEAR AND THROUGH OCTOBER OF 2025.THIS IS THE TYPICAL ROTATION THAT WE DO EVERY YEAR.
SO, MR. ERRECA, WE'D RECOMMEND AT THIS TIME THAT JUST KEEPING WITH THE STANDARD ROTATION, WE'LL SAY COMMISSIONER MOBLEY WOULD BE RECOMMENDED AS CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER SPYCHER WOULD BE RECOMMENDED AS VICE CHAIR AGAIN THROUGH OCTOBER OF 2025.
AND WE'LL LEAVE THAT TO THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION TODAY.
LOOKS LIKE WE GET TO VOTE ON THE TWO THAT ARE NOT HERE.
OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.
CHAIR ALSO VOTES, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED.
OKAY. ITEM EIGHT. DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU.
ITEM NINE. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENT.
THANK STAFF FOR ALL THEIR HARD WORK.
WITH THAT, I WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING.
THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.