[00:00:04]
GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE, TO WELCOME YOU TO THE MERCED COUNTY COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING.
[1. CALL TO ORDER]
WOULD YOU CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER? AND WOULD YOU ALL PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? I 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.
ROLL CALL OF COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER JAWAD.
HERE. COMMISSIONER SPYCHER. HERE. COMMISSIONER ERRECA.
HERE. VICE CHAIRMAN TATUM. CHAIRMAN RAMIREZ. HERE.
MR. CHAIR, YOU HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU. CAN YOU MOVE ON TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES?
[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF PUBLIC COMMENT.IF ANYBODY HAS ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING, I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE.
SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? A FEW. MINUTES. CLOSED SESSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. I WANT TO CITIZENS COMMUNICATION AT THIS TIME.
AND IT'S NOT AN AGENDA. YOU CAN THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
OKAY. SEEING NONE I WILL CLOSE THAT CITIZENS COMMUNICATION.
[6. PUBLIC HEARING(S)]
I'M JUST KIDDING. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING. BEFORE WE BEGIN MY NAME IS TIFFANY HO.SO THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A MINOR SUBDIVISION LOCATED WITHIN THE MERCED RURAL RESIDENTIAL CENTER, IS DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL UNDER THE COUNTY'S GENERAL PLAN AND ZONED R-R RURAL RESIDENTIAL.
THE COMMISSION'S PURVIEW TO EVALUATE IS TO EVALUATE WHETHER THE SUBDIVISION MEETS THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY LOCAL ZONING REGULATIONS, THE COUNTY SUBDIVISION CODE, AS WELL AS THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT.
THE DIVISION DECISION SHOULD BE BASED ON THESE STANDARDS AND NOT ON ANTICIPATED OR SPECULATIVE FUTURE USES, PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE ARE NO CONCURRENT APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED OR UNDER REVIEW FOR SUCH USES.
THANK YOU. TIFFANY. GOOD MORNING, PLANNING COMMISSION AGAIN.
FOR THE APPLICANT, THEOPHILUS NKWOPARA. AGAIN THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 28TH, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY VOTE OF THE COMMISSION BY 3-0, PRIOR TO ANY PRESENTATION OR OPENING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE PROJECT IS A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE AN APPROXIMATELY 5.2 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 PARCELS RESULTING IN APPROXIMATELY PARCEL 1, APPROXIMATELY 1.61 ACRES. PARCEL 2, APPROXIMATELY 1.32 ACRES.
PARCEL 3 APPROXIMATELY 1.23 NET ACRES. AND PARCEL 4 APPROXIMATELY 1.36 NET ACRES.
MOVING FORWARD, WE HAVE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE.
PROJECT SITE IS OUTLINED IN RED AND CONSISTS OF ONE APPROXIMATELY 5.52 ACRE PARCEL.
IT IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LOS OLIVOS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 2 MILES NORTH OF CARDELLO ROAD, IN THE MERCED AREA. THE PROJECT CONTAINS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT THE MOMENT AND AN ACCESSORY STORAGE STRUCTURE IN THE REAR.
CURRENTLY THERE ARE 2 EXISTING DRIVEWAYS ALONG LOS OLIVOS ROAD.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS A MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT MIT YOSEMITE LATERAL THAT BISECTS THE PROPERTY.
THE PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA IS CHARACTERIZED BY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES SUCH AS SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES TO THE NORTH, EAST AND SOUTH, AND VACANT LAND TO THE WEST. MOVING FORWARD, WE HAVE THE PROPOSED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP,
[00:05:08]
WHICH DISPLAYS THE EXISTING THE PROPOSED 4 PARCELS.THE TENTATIVE MAP WAS REVIEWED BY A DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED PARCELS, 2 TO 4, WOULD HAVE ADEQUATE SPACE TO SUPPORT INDIVIDUAL DOMESTIC WELLS AND ONSITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS SHOULD DEVELOPMENT OCCUR.
THE EXHIBIT WAS ALSO REVIEWED BY THE CITY OF MERCED WITH NO CONDITIONS BEING SET.
MOVING FORWARD THE PROJECT IS FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO GENERAL GOAL LU-1 POLICY LU-1.3 WHICH IN RESPECT MENTIONS RURAL RESIDENTIAL CENTERS.
GOAL LU-3 POLICY LU-3.3 WHICH SPEAKS ON RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES AND GOAL H 1 WHICH SPEAKS ON. NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE COUNTY IN GENERAL.
THE PROJECT ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT IN TITLE 17 ADDITIONALLY, THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE GOALS OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE MERCED COUNTY ZONING CODE, MEANING THE MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE R-R RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT AS OUTLINED IN SECTION 18.12.
MOVING FORWARD, WE CAN GO INTO OUR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE PROJECT CAN BE FOUND CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15315, MINOR LAND DIVISION OF THE SECRET GUIDELINES.
OF THESE GUIDELINES PRETTY MUCH OUTLINE 4 ITEMS, WHICH ARE THE FOLLOWING.
THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF A DIVISION OF PROPERTY IN AN URBANIZED AREA, ZONED RESIDENTIAL INTO 4 OR FEWER PARCELS, AND IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING, WITH NO VARIANCES OR EXCEPTIONS REQUIRED.
THE PROPOSED PARCELS MAINTAIN ADEQUATE SPACE TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL DOMESTIC WELLS AND ON SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS, WHICH WOULD ONLY BE SUBJECT TO PERMITS ISSUED BY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION.
MOVING FORWARD, WE CAN GO INTO OUR PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION.
PROJECT WAS INITIALLY PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED COUNTY TIMES AND MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROJECT SITE ON JANUARY 15TH, 2026. AGAIN, THE PROJECT WAS CONTINUED FROM FROM THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION TO THIS FEBRUARY 11TH PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, SO NO ADDITIONAL NOTICE WAS REQUIRED.
PURSUANT TO MERCED COUNTY ZONING CODE, SECTION 18.146.040.
WE'LL DISCUSS THE CONCERNS LISTED IN THOSE COMMENT LETTERS OF OPPOSITION.
THE FOLLOWING SLIDES. THE FIRST CONCERN WE HAD IN IN THE COMMENT LETTERS WAS CONCERN AN INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN THE AREA.
STAFF WOULD JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT PROJECT IS DESIGNATED MERCED COUNTY MERCED RURAL RESIDENTIAL CENTER AND AN AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL IN THE GENERAL PLAN AND IS ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL. DENSITY ALLOWED IN THIS AREA AND IN THIS DESIGNATION IS FOR 1 ACRE PER DWELLING.
IN THIS CASE, THE PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 PARCELS, WHICH THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD RESULT IN PARCEL SIZES THAT COULD FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT AS CONTEMPLATED IN THE GENERAL PLAN.
MOVING FORWARD TO THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS. CONCERN NUMBER TWO WAS A CONCERN ON INFRASTRUCTURE, TRAFFIC AND SAFETY. AGAIN MERCED COUNTY GENERAL PLAN CONTEMPLATED THE DEVELOPMENT OF 1 ACRE, 1 ACRE PARCELS AND ASSOCIATED IMPACTS INCLUDING TRAFFIC IN THE AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND.
[00:10:02]
PARCEL. ISSUANCE OF WELLS. SEPTIC PERMITS ARE STRICTLY CONTINGENT ON PERCOLATION TESTS AND DESIGNS FOR EACH OF THOSE PARCELS.CONCERN FOR IS IS PROPOSED USE OF THE PARCELS.
AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, THE PROJECT BEFORE THE COMMISSION IS A MINOR SUBDIVISION.
THERE ARE NO LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS. NO LAND USE PERMITS ASSOCIATED TO THIS PROJECT IS STRICTLY JUST A MINOR SUBDIVISION WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN DENSITY STANDARD ZONING CODE TITLE 17 AND THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT.
BUT STAFF WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS OF PER ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE BEEN GETTING FOR TRANSITIONAL SUPPORTIVE HOUSING BY STATE LAW, IS PERMITTED THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS AS ANY OTHER HOUSE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
FROM THE TIME STAFF RECEIVED THE LETTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON JANUARY 28TH.
AND WE'RE UNABLE TO VERIFY THE VALIDITY OF THE VIOLATION.
NEXT CONCERN WE RECEIVED WAS A CONCERN ON ADEQUATE NOTICING.
MERCED COUNTY CODE 18.146 .010, SECTION B, SUBSECTION C, AND THEN SUB SUBSECTION 1 AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65091. OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROJECT SITE ARE TO BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST TEN CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING.
MOVING FORWARD WE CAN GO INTO STOPS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROJECT.
FIRST RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE DETERMINATIONS.
STAFF DETERMINES THAT STAFF WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND TO DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15315 MINOR LAND DIVISIONS OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES AND A PROJECT DETERMINATION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF MINOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MS25-017, BASED ON THE FINDINGS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
THANK YOU RICARDO. COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. YOU LISTED SEVERAL OF THE. LET ME TURN THIS THIS WAY.
IT'S AN ARC. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. AND SO THE PARCELS ARE ABOVE THE 1 ACRE STANDARD.
CORRECT. AND WE CAN GO BACK TO THE I THINK YOU PUT UP THERE.
THE SMALLEST ONE WAS LIKE 1.32. YEAH. YEAH. ABOVE ALL 4 PARCELS ARE ABOVE ONE ACRE. CORRECT. OKAY. I THINK YOU DISPUTED THE TRAFFIC AS WELL AS THE ELEVATION AND ETC..
1 QUESTION FOR YOU IN TERMS OF THE WHAT HAPPENS AFTER, THAT'S NOT REALLY OUR CONCERN.
RIGHT NOW IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION IS JUST A MINOR SUBDIVISION.
ALL RIGHT. AND THE PROPOSED USE WOULD BE GOVERNED BY WHAT THE BOARD OF SUPES.
IT'S A RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT. MERCED COUNTY ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DETERMINE THAT.
ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S GOVERNED BY OTHER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? OTHER THAN THIS COMMISSION? YEAH.
OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THEN WE'LL MOVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS PROJECT.
HELLO. HOW'S THAT? HI, MY NAME IS JOHN SWIGERT.
[00:15:05]
I LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WITH MY FAMILY. MY GRANDKIDS PLAY OUT HERE.I'M ALSO THE GENERAL MANAGER OF MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT. SO I WANT TO GIVE YOU 2 COMMENTS.
MY PERSONAL COMMENTS WOULD BE THAT EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT CEQA SHOULDN'T AND COULDN'T BE UNDERTAKEN. IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN ON THAT ROAD, IT'S ALREADY IN KIND OF BAD SHAPE.
IT'S LIKE MR. TOAD'S WILD RIDE DISNEYLAND. AND IF WE PUT MORE HOMES OUT THERE AND MORE TRAFFIC, IT'S GOING TO EXACERBATE THAT SITUATION. IT'S A QUIET, RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND MORE TRAFFIC, AND THERE'S A LOT OF KIDS THAT PLAY OUT THERE, AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FROM HER STATE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS PERSPECTIVE, WE USUALLY SIGN OFF ON THESE TYPES OF THINGS.
OUR FACILITIES HAVE PRECEDENT. THEY'VE BEEN THERE LONGER THAN ANYBODY ELSE.
WE HAVE NOT BEEN CONTACTED ON THIS. WE HAVEN'T SIGNED OFF ON THESE PLANS.
WE PROVIDE WATER SUPPLY TO EASTERN MERCED COUNTY FROM THE MERCED RIVER.
IT'S THE 5TH LARGEST PRODUCTION AG ECONOMY AND THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LIMITATIONS ON THAT ROAD MIGHT BE.
WHAT THE WHAT THE THE LOADS COULD BE. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO WEIGH IN ON THAT AND, AND ENSURE THAT OUR FACILITIES WERE PROTECTED PRIOR TO ANY APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION MAP OR ANYTHING ELSE.
AND FOR THOSE REASONS ALONE, EVEN THOUGH CEQA MAY COME IN HERE AS POTENTIALLY EXEMPT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT CEQA SHOULD NOT BE UNDERTAKEN FOR SOMETHING THAT WE BELIEVE IS A LITTLE MORE THAN JUST A SUBDIVISION MAP, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME POTENTIALLY MOVING INTO, YOU KNOW, 4 OR 5 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH SOME OTHER DWELLINGS BEING ALREADY BUILT BEHIND THE EXISTING RESIDENCE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. HOPE YOU TAKE THESE COMMENTS INTO CONSIDERATION TODAY.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PROJECT? DO YOU WANT ME TO DO THIS? GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JANE ABBOTT.
I LIVE ON LOS OLIVOS ROAD, RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO WHAT THE PROPOSED PROPERTY IS USED FOR.
I'VE BEEN THERE FOR OVER 50 YEARS, AND THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS NOT TO HAVE THIS IN THIS AREA.
AND I THINK ZONING SHOULD NOT DEPEND ON ONE PROPERTY OWNER, BUT THE COLLECTIVE PROPERTY OWNERS AS TO WHAT THE INITIAL INTENT IS. NOW, I KNOW IN THE FUTURE OUR PROPERTIES HAVE AN EASEMENT BY THE COUNTY FOR EXTENDING HATCH ROAD, EXTENDING CARDELLA ROAD, EXTENDING LA LOMA.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE REASONABLE AT THAT TIME TO MAYBE LOOK AT THE WHOLE ZONING ISSUE. INSTEAD OF HAVING EACH PROPERTY OWNER DEVELOP THEIR OWN LAND IN A HELTER SKELTER WAY.
AND I THINK IT'S A WONDERFUL AREA TO LIVE. AND I REALLY HATE TO SEE THE ZONING CHANGE, EVEN THOUGH I REALLY LIKE MY NEIGHBORS, BECAUSE I'M RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO WHAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE.
AND ALSO, I KNOW IT WOULDN'T CHANGE MINE, BUT WE'VE HAD SHEEP, WE'VE HAD COWS, WE'VE HAD HORSES, WE'VE HAD GOATS. I DON'T THINK ANY NEW OWNER WANTS RIGHT BEHIND THEIR FENCE SHEEP, GOATS, HORSES, COWS. IT WOULD BE A COUNTRY ATMOSPHERE WITH ANIMALS, YOU KNOW, SO FORTH.
AND I JUST DON'T SEE THAT THIS PROPOSAL FITS SMOOTHLY WITH THE AREA, EITHER ACROSS THE STREET, SIDE BY SIDE OR WHATEVER, AND I'VE RESPECTED THE ZONING IN THIS AREA FOR ALL THE TIME I'VE BEEN THERE, BECAUSE I TRUST IN ALL OF YOU TO NOT THEN TURN IT OVER INTO SOMETHING ELSE THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN.
[00:20:01]
BUT I KNOW IN THE FUTURE THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.MAYBE, BUT NOT NOW. NOT WHERE IT WOULD BE A HELTER SKELTER AREA.
BUT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY I REALLY OBJECT TO.
AND I JUST HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER THOSE THINGS WHEN YOU DEBATE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE] AND I LIVE ON 2525 LA LOMA ROAD WITH MY WIFE, SARAH.
I'M KIND OF COMING AT THIS AT A DIFFERENT ANGLE. I'VE I'VE GOT A WIFE AND 2 DAUGHTERS.
YOUNG, YOUNG GIRLS IN A GREAT NEIGHBORS, GOOD PEOPLE.
I JUST DON'T WANT THIS GENTLEMAN ON THE GRANT DEED.
IT'S HIS BUSINESS. IS A BUSINESS REGISTERED MY FREEBIES.
AND THEY'RE GOING TO THEY'RE THEY'RE GOING TO PROPOSE TO PUT SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ON THE PROPERTY.
IT'S A LOW DENSITY NEIGHBORHOOD. GOOD PEOPLE, EVERYBODY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD GETS ALONG. WE PROBABLY GOT 13, 14 KIDS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 THAT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND SO THAT'S JUST A AS A FATHER. IT'S JUST NOT IT'S NOT WHAT I WANT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S JUST IT'S INCONGRUENT WITH WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDS FOR.
AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THAT'S PRETTY MUCH MY PERSPECTIVE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? HELLO? YEAH, I'M DON STEWART. I LIVE AT 1963 EAST NORTH BEAR CREEK DRIVE.
BUT I OWN THE PROPERTY ACROSS FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY.
AND MY THING, YOU KNOW, SINCE I WAS A KID, I'D RIDE MY BIKE OUT THERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY HERE IS FAMILIAR WITH THAT, BUT IT'S. IT'S LIKE THE CROWN JEWEL OF MERCED.
SO, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANT TO SCREW IT UP. BUT WHAT I SEE IS DOWN THE ROAD, IF THIS GETS APPROVED, WHICH I GUESS IT CHECKS ALL THE BOXES. BUT I THINK YOU NEED TO ALSO LOOK AT WHAT THE THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE LIVE THERE THINK.
AND OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD SINK THE AREA.
ANYWAY, I THINK IF SOMEBODY SELLS THEIR HOUSE, THEY SHOULD SELL IT TO SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO PUT A HORSE FOR THEIR KID OR FFA ANIMALS OUT THERE, AND NOT FOR SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY.
ANYWAY, I'M A I'M A NO VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON THE PROJECT? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND MOVE ON FOR ACTION ITEM FROM THE COMMISSION.
MAKE A MOTION. MR. CHAIR, BEFORE YOU DO THAT, IS IT PERMISSIBLE TO HAVE TIFFANY MAYBE GO OVER SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT SOME OF THE FOLKS HAVE LISTED? SURE. SHE CAN ANSWER THOSE.
YEAH. ARE THERE ANY PARTICULAR CONCERNS THAT YOU'D LIKE ME TO ADDRESS OR JUST KIND OF AS A WHOLE? I THINK IT GOES TO WHATEVER THE FOLKS HAVE TALKED ABOUT.
SURE, SURE. ADDRESS THOSE. ALL RIGHT. SO THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CONCERNS THAT WERE LISTED IN OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE MATTER OF CEQA. SO YES, THERE ARE EXEMPTIONS, BUT ASSUMPTIONS ARE FREELY HAVE AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE CRITERIA.
IT CAN BE MET UNLESS THERE ARE PARTICULAR EFFECTS.
[00:25:02]
THIS PROJECT WAS REFERRED TO MIT AS PART OF THE PROJECT PROCESS, AND WE DID RECEIVE THEM FROM MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT.COMMENTS ARE ATTACHED. AS ATTACHMENT C TO THE STAFF REPORT AND ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE REQUESTED OF MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON ATTACHMENT B AS FAR AS THE ZONING THIS IS AGAIN ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL.
AND THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING STANDARDS FOR RURAL RESIDENTIAL.
THE PROJECT DOES NOT INVOLVE A ZONING CHANGE.
SO YOU ARE LOOKING AT A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND NOT A ZONING CHANGE.
SO THE CONTEMPLATED USES WOULD BE THE ITEMS THAT ARE CONSISTENT THERE IN THIS CASE HERE, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT USES. WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING THE MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT ZONING.
AS FAR AS THE DENSITY, AGAIN, AS STATED BY PROJECT PLANNER RICARDO MERCADO.
AND IN THIS PRESENTATION, AS WELL AS THE STAFF REPORT, THE DENSITY HERE IS 1 NET ACRE PER DWELLING.
AND THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 5 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 PARCELS.
THE LAND USES WOULD BE EVALUATED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, SHOULD THERE BE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED? THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PERMITTED BY RIGHT ZONING USES AS WELL AS DISCRETIONARY USES.
ANYTHING THAT IS DISCRETIONARY WOULD COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THAT TIME.
AND THEN FINALLY, AS IT RELATES TO TRAFFIC AGAIN, TRAFFIC IS TRIGGERED BY DEVELOPMENT.
AND AT THIS TIME, OUR GENERAL PLAN HAS CONTEMPLATED THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS SHOULD THE ENTIRETY OF THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL CENTER BE DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO THE DENSITY STANDARDS ALLOWED, IF IT WAS ABOVE AND BEYOND PARTICULAR EFFECTS, A ZONE CHANGE, THEN TRAFFIC WOULD BE REEVALUATED AT THAT TIME.
IN THIS CASE, HERE, THE DEVELOPMENT IS BEING PROPOSED CONSISTENT WITH THE DENSITY STANDARDS.
THEREFORE, THE TRAFFIC IS ALL CONTEMPLATED WITH THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OF THE CEQA.
AND I BELIEVE THAT CAPTURES MOST OF THE CONCERNS.
IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE ME TO FOLLOW UP ON, I'M HAPPY TO DO SO.
HOW LONG IS THE ZONING EXISTED THAT'S IN PLACE NOW FOR THIS? SO THE GENERAL PLAN THAT THE COUNTY CURRENTLY HAS, THE 2030 GENERAL PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN 2013, AND I BELIEVE SO, AS LONG AS 2013 IT COULD HAVE BEEN OLDER.
BUT AS FAR AS THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AS IT WAS LAST REEVALUATED WAS IN 2013.
THANK YOU. TIFFANY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND DID WE MISS ANYBODY THAT WANTED TO SPEAK? OKAY. WHY DON'T YOU STEP UP THEN? THANK YOU. AND GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS DAVID. I'M REPRESENTING DOCTOR THEO, THE APPLICANT.
HE HAS SOME COMMENTS TO MAKE. I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE OBJECTIONS OF THIS APPLICATION.
WE ARE DELIGHTED TO LEARN THAT WE LIVE AMONGST NEIGHBORS WHO SHARE OUR VALUES OF FAMILY, OF COMMUNITY, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT. WE LOVE THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY AND CHERISH OUR EVENING WALKS, AS WELL AS OUR CONNECTIONS THAT WE WE HAVE MADE HERE.
WHILE WE RESPECT OUR NEIGHBORS OPINIONS AND HAVE REVIEWED THE CONCERNS RAISED, WE BELIEVE THERE ARE FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF THE PROPOSED SCOPE OF THIS APPLICATION. WE INVESTED IN THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE IT IS IN A COMMUNITY THAT VALUES A PLACE WHERE FAMILIES CAN PUT DOWN ROOTS AND SUPPORT ONE ANOTHER ACROSS GENERATIONS. OUR APPLICATION INTENDS TO CREATE A SPACE THAT ALLOWS OUR FAMILY TO REMAIN TOGETHER, GROW AND DEVELOP A DEEPER SENSE OF COMMUNITY.
WE ARE COMMITTED TO BEING COMPLIANT WITH MOST ZONING STANDARDS.
AND THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME HIS RESPONSES TO SOME OF THE OBJECTIONS.
[00:30:03]
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING THE INTENDED USE AND THE OWNER PROFILE, A FEW NEIGHBORS HAVE SPECULATED THAT THE OWNER INTENDS TO DEVELOP PROGRAM BASED HOUSING OR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND THAT THE INTENDED USE IS UNCLEAR. THESE ARE SPECULATIONS BASED ON THE OWNER'S VOCATION IN HUMANITARIAN SERVICES AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND THEY ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE APPLICATION OR WHERE HE RESIDES.HE BELIEVES THAT HIS JOB DOES NOT ALTER THE THE PROPERTY'S RESIDENTIAL ZONING.
FEARS OF MODULAR HOUSING. TEMPORARY TENANTS, SUBSIDY DEPENDENT AND PROGRAM ORIENTED HOUSING ARE SPECULATED AS SPECULATIVE AND SHOULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR DENYING A COMPLIANT SUBDIVISION.
THIS IS FALSE. THE STRUCTURE IN QUESTION WAS RECENTLY RENOVATED INTO A CLEAN SWIMMING POOL LOUNGE.
IT HAS 2 SOFAS AND A TV, AND IT DOES. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ALLOWANCES FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. IN CONCLUSION, THE PROPOSED MINOR SUBDIVISION COMPLIES WITH ALL ZONING STANDARDS AND DENSITY REQUIREMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS OF MERCED COUNTY. GIVEN VALIDATION OF THE TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSED MAP, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE MINOR SUBDIVISION, AND WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE IN THIS THOUGHTFUL PROCESS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DAVID. SOMEBODY WANTS TO SPEAK.
MY NAME IS SUE THOMPSON. I LIVE AT 2590 LA LOMA ROAD.
I HAVE 2 STATEMENTS AS FAR AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SAYING THAT IT CAN SUPPORT THE WELLS AND THE SEPTIC SYSTEMS. THERE'S MANY NEIGHBORS HERE THAT HAVE LIVED THERE FOR QUITE A WHILE, AND I ASKED THEM, HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE HAD SEPTIC SYSTEM ISSUES? HAS ANYBODY THAT HAS LIVED THERE? HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE HAD TO DRILL A WELL DEEPER IN THE LAST, OH, 5 YEARS? I DON'T THINK IT CAN SUPPORT THIS.
THANK YOU. OKAY. SEEING NO MORE, THEN I WILL OFFICIALLY CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS AND MOVE ON TO SOMEBODY.
WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT THE COMMISSION DETERMINED. THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM VIRAL REVIEW.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 15315. MAYOR LAND DIVISIONS OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
MADE A SECOND. MR. CHAIR, IF I CAN JUMP IN. AND THAT, AS SOME OF US DO LIVE. NOT TO GET ON A SOAPBOX, OBVIOUSLY, BUT SOME OF US DO LIVE IN RURAL AREAS, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE ONLY THING WE'RE DOING TODAY.
IS PERMITTING THE MINOR SUBDIVISION LIKE WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST.
WE'RE NOT HERE TO EVALUATE THEIR SEPTIC OR THEIR WELLS, BECAUSE WE'VE ALL GONE THROUGH THE SORRY, SOME OF US GONE THROUGH THE DEEP. WELL, REDRILLING.
AND THAT AIN'T CHEAP. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR.
SO ON THE MATTER OF AGAIN, A PROJECT COMES BY WHERE IT NEEDS TO HAVE A DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL THAT WOULD COME BACK TO THE BOARD OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN COULD COME TO THE BOARD, DEPENDING ON IF THERE'S A ZONE CHANGE, FOR EXAMPLE.
BUT FOR ANY OTHER SPECULATIVE USES, AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
BUT AT THIS TIME WE ARE NOT EVALUATING THOSE LAND USES.
[00:35:09]
CORRECT. YOU'RE NOT EVALUATING THAT. THAT HAS BEEN EVALUATED BY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FOR STANDARDS REQUIRED BY ALL FOR ALL WELLS AND ONSITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS IN AREAS THAT ARE SUPPORTED BY WELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS. THANK YOU. YOU TOOK ME A SECOND.CAN REQUEST THAT THE APPLICATION BE RECONSIDERED AT ANOTHER MEETING OF THE COMMISSION.
ACCORDING TO OUR ORDINANCE. OKAY. I MEAN, WE DIDN'T GET A SECOND.
I GUESS JUST ADVISE THE APPLICANT CAN RESUBMIT THE APPLICATION.
OKAY, MR. CHAIR, JUMP IN. AND CERTAINLY NOT TO CUT IN FRONT OF YOU, COUNSELOR.
OR THE CHAIR. BUT I THINK WHAT'S HAPPENED NOW, SO EVERYBODY KNOWS IS IT DOES NOT HAVE A SECOND.
SO THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BRING THIS BACK AT A DIFFERENT TIME AND RESUBMIT.
IS THAT CORRECT, COUNCILOR? YES.
OKAY. ANY COMMISSIONER COMMENTS OR ACTION ITEMS? DIRECTOR'S REPORT? NO. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.
OKAY. THIS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED. THANK YOU ALL FOR SHOWING UP.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.