[00:00:02] ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING. WELCOME TO MERCED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. [1. CALL TO ORDER] I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. WOULD EVERYONE PLEASE JOIN ME FOR 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, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER JAWAD. HERE. VICE CHAIRMAN TATUM. HERE. CHAIRMAN RAMIREZ. HERE. AND COMMISSIONER SPYCHER DID EXCUSE HIMSELF. AND MR. CHAIR, YOU HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ON TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC. IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE MINUTES FOR OUR LAST MEETING, PLEASE STEP FORWARD STATE YOUR NAME. [4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES] SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT. SO MOVED. CITIZENS COMMUNICATION. LIKE TO OPEN UP CITIZENS COMMUNICATION AT THIS TIME. IF ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION OVER, THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA. WILL YOU PLEASE STEP FORWARD? HEARING NONE, I WILL CLOSE CITIZENS COMMUNICATION AND OPEN UP A PUBLIC HEARING. [6. PUBLIC HEARING(S)] OUR FIRST ITEM IS NUMBER ZV26-001. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. BEFORE THIS MORNING IS ZONING VARIANCE ZV26-001 AND MINOR SUBDIVISION MS26-001 FOR EVIDENCE. RAQUEL BETTENCOURT. BEFORE THIS MORNING IS A REQUEST AND A PARTIAL WAIVER REQUEST. THE EXISTING PARCEL IS APPROXIMATELY 9.9 ACRES. THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS TO DO A VARIANCE DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE PARCEL IS A PARCEL AS SUBSTANDARD PER ZONING CODE. THE PARCEL SIZE IS 20 ACRES, AND THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 9.9. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE ALSO THE REQUEST IS TO DEVIATE FROM THE PARCEL MAP WAIVER. THE PARCEL MAP ASPECT. TYPICALLY A PARCEL MAP FINANCIAL REQUEST IS 5 ACRES IN SIZE. THIS REQUEST IS 7.9 ACRES, WHICH WOULD LEAVE A 2 NET ACRE REMAINDER PARCEL. THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS. BASICALLY THERE'S 2 EXISTING RESIDENCES. BOTH RESIDENCES SHARE WELL, THE EACH HOME HAS ITS OWN SEPTIC SYSTEM AS REQUIRED BY CODE. THE PROPERTY DID RECEIVE THE APPROVAL FOR A 3RD RESIDENCE. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS PARCEL FINANCIAL PARCEL WAIVER REQUEST WOULD APPROVE IS THE FINANCING TO CONSTRUCT THE 3RD UNIT. THERE IS AN EXISTING SHOP AND A BARN ON THE SITE. THE MAJORITY OF THE PARCEL IS USED FOR FARMING VARIOUS FARMING PRACTICES. THE [INAUDIBLE] PARCEL IS HAS ACCESS THROUGH WILLIAMS AVENUE. IT'S ABOUT A QUARTER MILE WEST OF LANDER AVENUE. IN THE AREA. THE BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST STEMS FROM ZONING CODE SECTION 1810030, WHICH ALLOWS A PARCEL TO BE USED AS A SECURITY INSTRUMENT FOR FOR FOR FINANCING. THIS IS NOT TECHNICALLY A LEGAL PARCEL, NOR IS IT CREATE A LEGAL PARCEL. THIS IS BASICALLY BASICALLY JUST BEING USED FOR FINANCIAL PURPOSES. BASICALLY THE IDEA IS THAT THE HOMEOWNER COULD USE THE FINANCING OF THIS PARCEL TO ALLOW FOR FINANCING OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE. THE LENDER WOULD THEN PLACE A PROMISSORY NOTE ON THE PARCEL THAT SECURES THE LAND AS BASICALLY IT'S BASICALLY SECURES THE LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION. SO IN THE EVENT THAT THE PROPERTY WERE TO BE FORECLOSED ON, IT GOES INTO SAY A DEFAULT DOESN'T PAY THEIR TAXES. THEN THE, THE 7.9 ACRE PARCEL IN THIS CASE WOULD THEN BE CREATED, WOULD THEN BE CREATED INTO A LEGAL PARCEL, AND THE 2 ACRE PARCEL WOULD BECOME ITS OWN SEPARATE LEGAL PARCEL. DUE TO FINANCIAL HARDSHIP THAT WAS PLACED ON THE TO THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. WHEN THE. WHEN THE PARCEL IS USED FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, THE PARCEL SIZE SHALL. PER ZONING CODE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 5 ACRES. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE. AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS A 20 ACRE PARCEL. THIS IS A 9.9 ACRE PARCEL WHICH IS BELOW THAT STANDARD. THE PROPERTY OWNER SAID THIS WOULD BE USED FOR A FAMILY MEMBER IN THE HOUSE, IN THE HOUSEHOLD. ALSO THAT THE 2 ACRE PARCEL WOULD BE WOULD BE STANDARD, WOULD BE ALLOW FOR A SEPTIC SYSTEM AS HEALTH CARE STANDARDS, [00:05:06] WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR ITS OWN SEPTIC AND FOR ITS OWN. WELL, IN THE EVENT THAT THERE'S A FORECLOSURE OR SOME KIND OF NOTICE OF DEFAULT THAT WAS HAVING TO GO FORWARD. THIS IS THE VICINITY LOCATION. AS I MENTIONED, IT'S ALONG WILLIAMS AVENUE TO THE EAST, ACTUALLY TO THE EAST OF LANDER AVENUE, POSSIBLY A QUARTER MILE, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE HERE. IT'S PREDOMINATELY SURROUNDED BY AGRICULTURAL USES. VARIOUS FARMING PRACTICES THAT ARE OCCURRING WOULD BE ORCHARDS OR ROW CROPS. THERE IS SOME DEVELOPMENT NEARBY THE PROPERTY SITE. BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THOUGH, IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY SURROUNDED BY AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES IN THE NEIGHBORING AREA. THIS IS EXISTING PARCEL AS IT EXISTS TODAY. AS YOU CAN SEE THAT THE 2 RESIDENCES ON THE SITE WITH THE BARN IN THE SHOP. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CREATE THIS 7.9 ACRES, WHICH IS THE MAJORITY OF THE AREA. AS YOU CAN SEE IN RED, WHICH IS THE 7.9 ACRES THAT WE USE FOR FINANCING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 3RD HOUSE ON THE UNIT. THE 2 POINT, THE 2 ACRE SITE IS WHEN IT'S IN AMBER THERE THAT YOU CAN SEE. THAT'S THE REMAINDER THAT WON'T BE UTILIZED, IF YOU WILL, FOR THE FOR THE SECURITY OF THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN. THIS IS THE THE AREA RIGHT HERE. THIS IS THE ACTUAL SITE PLAN CREATED BY THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEERING STAFF. THAT KIND OF SHOWS THE AREA OF FINANCING, WHICH IS IN RED AND THE OUTLINED 2 ACRE PARCEL. THAT BASICALLY WOULD BE NOT UTILIZED FOR SECURING THE FINANCE WOULD NOT BE UTILIZED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LOAN. HOWEVER, IT LOOKS LIKE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE ACTUALLY IS GOING TO OCCUR WITHIN THE 2 ACRE PARCEL. SO IT'S JUST KIND OF A UNIQUE STANCE HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO USE A 7.9 ACRES FOR FINANCING THE CONSTRUCTION HOME, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THE CONSTRUCTION HOME WITHIN THE TWO ACRE PARCEL THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE FINANCIAL AREA, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE IN THIS CASE. THE GENERAL PLAN AS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FOR LAND USE, LAND USE POLICY 22.3. THE PARCEL DOES MEET EXISTING STANDARDS. HOWEVER THIS PARCEL WAS CREATED A MINIMUM STANDARDS SUBSTANDARD PARCEL SIZE 9.9 ACRES. HOWEVER THAT IS AN EXISTING PARCEL. AND THAT BASICALLY THAT'S HOW IT WAS CREATED FOR WHATEVER MECHANISM IN THE PAST, THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE AN OPTION TO CREATE SECURITY PARCELS TO FINANCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOMES PER OUR ZONING CODE. THAT IS THEIR RIGHT. AND THAT IS ACTUALLY PER OUR EXISTING ZONING CODE AS IT EXISTS TODAY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE SECURITY OF THIS PARCEL. AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE VARIANCE IS RELATED TO INCREASE IT FROM THE 5 ACRES, WHICH IS IN OUR CODE, TO 7.9 ACRES TO ALLOW FOR THAT FINANCING. THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. SO THE PROPOSAL CONFORMS TO ALL ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AND NO VARIANCE OR DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARDS OR IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS ARE NECESSARY. THE DIVISION COMPLIES WITH OR CAN MEET ALL ROAD DRAINAGE, WATERWAY AVAILABILITY, SANITARY AND FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES NEEDED THROUGH FORMAL AGREEMENTS OR PAYMENTS OF REQUIRED FEES. ALSO, THE CONSTRUCTION HOME WOULD MEET CURRENT BUILDING PERMIT STANDARDS. THE ADEQUATE LEGAL PUBLIC ACCESS EXISTS FOR EVERY LOT IN THIS DIVISION. BASICALLY FOR THE 2, THEY BOTH WOULD HAVE ACCESS OFF OF WILLIAMS WAY OR WILLIAMS AVENUE. THAT THE DIVISION HAS NO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OR OUTSTANDING ISSUES. AND THAT THE PARCEL COULD BE CONSIDERED EXEMPT FOR CEQA AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DIRECTION THAT, THAT NO TAX LIENS ARE OUTSTANDING ON THE PROPERTY AND WHERE NECESSARY, FORMAL AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND FEES HAVE BEEN PAID. FOR VACATION SCHOOL FEES. THERE ARE THE PROJECT SITE, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES IN SIZE AND IT'S CONSIDERED A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING PARCEL FOR MERCED COUNTY ZONING CODE. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROJECT REQUEST CREATES A SECURITY PARCEL FINANCIAL TO FINANCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE THI3RD RESIDENCE. AS I'VE BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION BASICALLY, AGAIN, ALSO STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE PARCEL SIZE REQUIREMENT AND ON THE FIVE ACRE MAXIMUM FOR PARCELS. AGAIN THAT'S WHAT THE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED FOR. THESE ARE SOME OF THE VARIANCE FINDINGS THAT THE COMMISSION WILL NEED TO MAKE TO APPROVE THIS PARCEL MAP WOULD REQUEST AND THE ZONING VARIANCE AGAIN THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS, OTHER REQUIRED FINDINGS WOULD BE APPROVING THE VARIANCE OR DEVIATION WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A GRANT OR SPECIAL PRIVILEGES, AND THAT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE OR DEVIATION WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR A USE OR ACTIVITY THAT IS NOT OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE [00:10:08] SUBJECT PARCEL. THE PROJECT FACILITATES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3RD RESIDENCE. I THINK I'VE MENTIONED A FEW TIMES NOW. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE REDUNDANCY. BUT THE APPLICANT DID RECEIVE APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE BUILDING DIVISION. THIS IS JUST BASICALLY TO FINANCE THE FINANCE, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE, THE THIRD RESIDENCE ON SITE. WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL OUT 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT. ONE IS CONDITION 6 AND THE OTHER IS CONDITION 7 BEING CONDITION 7 STATING THAT UPON THE PROMISSORY NOTE AND REMOVAL OF THE RECORD TO TRUST THE SECURITY PARCEL SHALL BE DISSOLVED. AND THIS IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT AN ACTUAL LEGAL PARCEL THAT THEY ARE CREATING. THIS IS JUST A AN AREA OF LAND WITH AN EXISTING PARCEL THAT'S BEEN USED FOR FINANCIAL PURPOSES, AND ALSO THE NOTE SHOW PLACE ON THE MAP STATING THAT IN THE EVENT OF A FORECLOSURE TRUSTEE SALE OR OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH DISCHARGE THE LIEN OF THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT, A NEW WELL SHALL BE DRILLED TO SERVE THE PARCEL. MAP OF FINANCIAL PARCEL AND IT'S SUBJECT TO ALL COUNTY PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ALL AND ANY NEW RESIDENCES WILL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER POLICY AG 3.12 OR AS OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY THE COUNTY TO THE CURRENT POLICIES IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF REQUEST. THESE ARE BASICALLY PUT IN PLACE TO REITERATE THAT THE PARCEL IS NOT A SEPARATELY, NOT A SEPARATE PARCEL. THIS IS JUST BEING USED TO HELP FINANCE THE CONSTRUCTION ALONE. THE REASON WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS CURB THE ABILITY TO CREATE A SEPARATE OR 2 LEGAL PARCELS WITH THE CREATION OF THIS FINANCIAL PARCEL MAP. STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO SECTION 15 303 FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES. BASICALLY, THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENCE ON THIS PROPERTY IS CONSIDERED EXEMPT PER THE CALIFORNIA STATE LAW. AND PER CEQA GUIDELINES THE, THERE WAS A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE COUNTY TIMES ON JUNE 25TH, 2026. NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY STAFF AS OF TODAY. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COMMISSION IS TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. AND ALSO A MOTION TO CONSIDER ZONING VARIANCE ZV26-001 AND MARSHALL DIVISION MS26-001. BASED UPON THE FINDINGS, INCLUDING THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S, STAFF AT THIS TIME. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? THANK YOU MARK. COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS? JOE. JUST A QUESTION. I THOUGHT I HAD IT FIGURED OUT BUT MAYBE I DON'T. SO I THINK WHAT'S HAPPENING IS YOU'RE USING. A FICTITIOUS PARCEL, IF YOU WILL, AS COLLATERAL IS IF THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND. THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. AND SO IF IN FACT IT'S FORECLOSED UPON, THEN YOU ARE CREATING A SUBSTANDARD PARCEL. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO YOU WOULD HAVE A 2 AND A 7 OR WHATEVER IT IS OUT THERE. OKAY. GO AHEAD STEVE. I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS ACTUALLY. SO FOR THE NEW RESIDENTS, ARE YOU NOT REQUIRING A NEW WELL AT THIS TIME? PER ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS, THEY CAN CONNECT UP TO 4 HOUSES PER WELLS PER EACH. WELL. AND BECAUSE THE BECAUSE IT'S A FINANCIAL PARCEL, IT'S NOT AN ILLEGAL PARCEL. THEY CAN HAVE THE EACH HOUSE CONNECTED TO THE WELL. HOWEVER, THOUGH IF THE THE PARCEL WERE TO BE FORECLOSED UPON, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO DRILL A NEW WELL, BECAUSE THAT CANNOT CROSS PROPERTY LINES. SO THE ONE THAT'S BEING USED JUST TO LEAN TO GET AN ADDITIONAL LOAN. WHAT WHAT WOULD STOP THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO SELL IT? BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE AN APN CORRECT. THEY WOULD HAVE AN OPINION. THAT IS CORRECT. HOWEVER, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE CONNECTED TOGETHER. THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE IS SUPPOSED TO PLACE A NOTE ON THE MAP THAT REFLECTS THAT, THAT THESE ARE CONTIGUOUS PARCELS. BUT AGAIN YOUR ARE CORRECT. SO TECHNICALLY IT COULD BE SOLD OFF. THEY ARE. THAT'S WHAT THE DEED IS SUPPOSED TO SAY, THAT IT CANNOT BE A SELLABLE PARCEL AND IT ONLY CAN BE. IT ONLY CAN BE SOLD OFF IF, IF THERE'S A FORECLOSURE OR SOME KIND OF JUDICIAL HEARING THAT SEVERS THIS AREA FROM THE FINANCED AREA. SO YOU HAD IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THAT ONE WHERE THERE WAS A, A YELLOW LINE THAT. OKAY, SO THEY'RE GOING TO NEED, ARE THEY PUTTING AN EASEMENT IN PLACE TO ACCESS? [00:15:04] SO HOW, HOW'S THAT? HOW IT'S GOING TO BE ACCESSED RIGHT OUTSIDE OF THE YELLOW LINES. SO THEY ARE SHOWING THAT ON THIS MAP HERE, THE ARCHITECT THAT THERE'LL BE A DRIVEWAY THAT COULD CONNECT INTO WILLIAMS AVENUE, A NEW A SEPARATE DRIVEWAY. CORRECT. IF THAT WAS IF THAT WAS NEEDED. SO RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE IT'S A FINANCIAL PARCEL, THEY WON'T NEED THAT NEW DRIVEWAY. BUT HOWEVER, IF THERE WERE TO BE A FORECLOSURE OR SOME KIND OF JUDICIAL HEARING, THAT WOULD BREAK UP THE PARCEL, THEN THEY WOULD THEN HAVE ACCESS OFF OF WILLIAMS AVENUE THEIR OWN ACCESS WAY, IF YOU WILL. OKAY. MY, MY LAST QUESTION WAS IN THE, IN THE CURRENT ZONING FOR THAT AREA, IT DOES NOT ALLOW BECAUSE THIS PARCEL AS A WHOLE IS 9.7 ACRES. RIGHT. AND THEN CURRENTLY IT WOULD NOT. IT'S KIND OF GRANDFATHERED IN. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S CONSIDERED A NON-CONFORMING, NON-CONFORMING LEGAL PARCEL. SO BUT AND THE STAFF FOUND THAT IT WOULD BE ALL RIGHT TO TO SLICE IT EVEN INTO SMALLER PIECES. ACTUALLY STAFF DID NOT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. WE ARE ACTUALLY LOOKING TO YOUR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. STAFF IS ACTUALLY STAYING NEUTRAL IN THIS WITH THIS APPLICATION. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS, I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS. WOULD YOU STEP FORWARD? STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. YOU HAVE 3 MINUTES. OKAY. SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT TO THE COUNCIL FOR COMMISSIONERS FOR APPROVAL. I'M NOT GOING TO LET IT DIE FOR A SECOND, MR. CHAIR. BUT WHAT I'VE SEEN OVER THE COURSE OF TIME, IT SEEMS AS IF WE DON'T HAVE SAFEGUARDS IN. AND IT'S NOT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STAFF, BUT IF IT'S NOT PLACED ON THE ASSESSOR'S MAP, THEN WE HAVE CREATED 2 PARCELS THAT CAN BE SOLD AND WE'RE JUST OPENING OURSELVES UP FOR MORE. IT'S MY OPINION AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE. I'LL SECOND. SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. AND I CAN CONTINUE. AND STAFF HAD NO RECOMMENDATION ON THIS AT ALL. THAT'S CORRECT. WE DID NOT MAKE RECOMMENDATION. WE ARE JUST ASKING. WE REMAIN NEUTRAL AND LET THE COMMISSION TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION EITHER FOR OR AGAINST. AND IF I CAN CONTINUE. HAVE THERE BEEN. THANK YOU COUNSELOR. YOU COULD SEE MY EYES FLIPPING UP. HAVE THERE BEEN OTHER INSTANCES WHERE THIS PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ALLOWED FINANCIAL PARCELS THAT WERE SUBSTANDARD? JUST CURIOSITY. I DON'T HAVE A LIST OF THEM, BUT WE HAVE PROCESSED A COUPLE OF THEM OVER THE YEARS. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT THESE HAVE BEEN. CONSIDERED SINCE THE CODE WENT INTO PLACE AND I. IF I MAY, MISTER CHAIR, AND I WOULDN'T MIND HAVING THIS BROUGHT BACK WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO USE YOUR COUNTY COUNCIL TERMS. FOR A REREVIEW, IF YOU CAN PROVIDE US WITH THOSE INSTANCES WHERE THIS HAS BEEN OR THEY'VE BEEN APPROVED BEFORE. IF I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH A COMMENT CHAIR IF THAT'S FINE. MY BIGGEST THING IS, IS IT'S ALREADY SMALLER THAN WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS FOR, BUT YET WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT INTO EVEN 2 SMALLER PARCELS. AND, AND IF THEY CAME BACK WITH A LIST OF PROPERTIES WHERE THEY HAVE ALLOWED FOR FINANCIAL PARCELS TO BE CREATED, WHERE THEY ALSO CAUSING THIS KIND OF SCENARIO WHERE THEY'RE SMALLER THAN WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS FOR. ALLOW THAT TO BE ATTACHED TO THE MOTION AS WELL. OKAY. OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WELL THANK YOU. GOT COUNCIL WANTS TO SPEAK. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY BECAUSE WHEN YOU MADE THE I. IS THERE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR? RIGHT. THERE WAS MA'AM. OH, SORRY. IT'S NOT BEEN SECONDED THOUGH. RIGHT. SO JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THERE THERE'S TYPICALLY WHEN WE DO THESE IT'S THE MOTION AND THE PROJECT MOTION. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DON'T HAVE A SECOND ON EITHER. BUT I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU TO CLARIFY ON WHICH ONE YOU WERE DOING THE MOTION ON, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ALSO ARE CONSIDERING POSSIBLY REFERRING THIS BACK TO STAFF FOR [00:20:01] FURTHER INFORMATION. SO I WILL I WILL LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM COUNCIL. WELCOME. BACK. IT'S OKAY TO BRING IT BACK. SO YOU'RE JUST ASKING THAT THIS BE BROUGHT BACK WITH MOTION WOULD BE AND I THINK MORE AND I'VE GOT THESE WRAPPED UP TOGETHER, WHICH IS I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH BRINGING IT BACK. IN OTHER WORDS, MAKING THE MOTION, NOT NECESSARILY TO DENY THE PROJECT, BUT TO BRING IT BACK WITH CLARIFICATIONS AS TO THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT. IT'S SUCH A DIRECTION TO STAFF. OKAY. DID YOU WANT TO ADD ON TO THAT? YEAH. I'LL I GUESS BECAUSE I, I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND YOU'RE SENDING IT BACK TO STAFF TO, TO GET TO KNOW HOW MANY TIMES THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. BUT MY, MY CONCERN IS, IS AGAIN, IS THE SIZE OF THE CURRENT PARCEL, RIGHT? SO IF IT'S BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, WAS IT THE SAME SCENARIO WHERE THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS FOR LARGER PARCELS, BUT WE'RE CONTINUE TO SPLIT IT INTO SMALLER ONES THAN WHAT THE CURRENT SIZE EVEN DOESN'T ALLOW FOR. HOW TO RETAIN THAT AS CONGLOMERATE. OKAY. SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT. I'LL JUST TURN IT BACK OVER TO STAFF. THANK YOU. GOOD. OKAY. SO MOVE ON TO. THE SECOND ITEM IS MS26-004. THANK YOU AND GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ANAMARIE PISA AND THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU IS MINOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MS26-004 FOR THE APPLICANT'S RAUL CASTORENA AND CRISPIN CASTORENA. THE PROJECT IS A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.49 ACRE HOME SITE PARCEL FROM AN EXISTING 33.8 ACRE PARCEL, RESULTING IN PARCEL 1 HOME SITE, 2.49 ACRES AND THE REMAINDER PARCEL 31.27 NET ACRES. NO NEW CONSTRUCTION OR RESIDENCE IS BEING PROPOSED, AND THE PARCEL IS DESIGNATED. AGRICULTURAL LAND USE IN THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONED A-1 GENERAL AGRICULTURE. THIS IS THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE OUTLINED IN RED. IT CONSISTS OF ONE PARCEL OF 33.8 ACRES AND IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SOUTH AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 177FT FROM CORTEZ AVENUE IN THE DELHI AREA. THE PROJECT SITE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA IS GENERALLY FLAT IN TOPOGRAPHY AND CONSISTS OF AGRICULTURAL USES SUCH AS ROW CROPS, RURAL RESIDENTS AND ORCHARDS. THIS IS A MUCH CLOSER VIEW OF THE PROJECT SITE OUTLINED IN RED. CURRENTLY, THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE IS DEVELOPED FOR AGRICULTURAL USE, SUCH AS ROW CROPS. IN ADDITION, THERE IS AN AGRICULTURAL WELL LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PARCEL. THERE IS ALSO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RURAL RESIDENCE THAT IS SERVICED BY ITS OWN DOMESTIC WELL AND SEPTIC SYSTEM, AS WELL AS 2 SHEDS, A SHOP, A STORAGE TRAILER AND 2 MOBILE HOMES. ONE OF THE MOBILE HOMES HAS ALREADY BEEN PARTIALLY DEMOLISHED, AND ACCESS TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS VIA A DRIVEWAY LOCATED OFF SOUTH AVENUE. THIS IS A TENTATIVE MAP THAT DISPLAYS THE HOME SITE PARCEL ONE, OUTLINED IN RED 2.49 NET ACRES, AND THE PROPOSED REMAINDER PARCEL OUTLINED IN BLUE OF 31.27 NET ACRES. PARCEL ONE WOULD MAINTAIN THE HOME SITE WITH ITS SEPTIC SYSTEM AND PRIVATE DOMESTIC WELL, AS WELL AS THE DETACHED RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SUCH AS THE SHED STORAGE TRAILER AND SHOP. THE 2 MOBILE HOMES AND THE STORAGE TRAILER DO NOT HAVE BUILDING PERMITS, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE STRUCTURES PRIOR TO THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL MAP. IN ORDER TO KEEP THE STRUCTURES ON PARCEL 1, IF THE PROPERTY OWNER DECIDES TO REMOVE THE STRUCTURES FROM THE SITE. A DEMOLITION PERMIT FROM BUILDINGS AND SAFETY DIVISION FROM MERCED COUNTY WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL MAP. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REFLECTING THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT AND PARCEL 1 WOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE STREET FRONTAGE AND DRIVEWAY ACCESS ONTO SOUTH [00:25:01] AVENUE. THE REMAINDER PARCEL WOULD MAINTAIN THE AGRICULTURAL WELL AND CONTINUE TO BE USED FOR ROW CROP USAGE AND CONTINUE TO HAVE ACCESS TO SOUTH AVENUE. IN TERMS OF CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL REGULATIONS, THE PROJECT SITE IS DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL LAND USE IN THE GENERAL PLAN. THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES. GOAL A, G-2 AND POLICIES LU-2.3. LU-2.4. IN COMPLIANCE WITH POLICY AG 2.12. STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THE FINAL MAP, INCLUDING NOTE STATING THAT ANY NEW RESIDENCES WILL REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM THE COUNTY. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROJECT IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE MERCED COUNTY ZONING CODE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE FOR PROPOSED PARCEL 1, WHICH IS THE HOME SITE. HOWEVER, PURSUANT TO SECTION 18 1030, SECTION F 5 OF THE ZONING CODE, THE PROPOSED HOME SITE PARCEL MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS. BOTH PARCELS WOULD MEET THE 200 FOOT AGRICULTURAL BUFFER, WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 200FT FROM ANY EXISTING HABITABLE STRUCTURES TO ANY ABUTTING PARCELS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. THIS POLICY IS OUTLINED IN SECTION 18 1030, SECTION E OF THE MERCED COUNTY ZONING CODE, AND MINIMIZES THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND FARMING MAY HAVE ON ANY NEARBY OR PROPOSED RESIDENTS. STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 15162, SUBSEQUENT EIRS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE 2030 MERCED COUNTY GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND THE ATTACHED CEQA GUIDELINES. SECTION 15162. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS THE 2030 MERCED COUNTY GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM EIR CONTAINED AN EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM SUBDIVISIONS LOCATED IN AGRICULTURAL AREAS OF THE COUNTY. THE DRAFT AND FINAL PROGRAM, EIR CONCLUDED THAT THE IMPACT FROM AGRICULTURAL SUBDIVISIONS WAS LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WHEN NEW. WHEN NO NEW RESIDENTS WERE PROPOSED. FURTHER ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT THIS DETERMINATION CAN BE FOUND IN ATTACHMENT C OF THE STAFF REPORT. NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED COUNTY TIMES AND MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROJECT SITE ON JUNE 25TH, 2026. NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY STAFF. STAFF HAS 2 RECOMMENDATIONS. DETERMINE NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 1516, TWO SUBSEQUENT YEARS 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. SECOND, APPROVE MINOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MS26-004. BASED ON THE FINDINGS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THIS NOW CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATIONS. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? NONE. OKAY, SO I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE STEP FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE 3 MINUTES. SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE ON TO THE MOTION. I'LL MOTION TO DETERMINE. NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 15162 SUBSEQUENT 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 TAX CEQA GUIDELINES. SECTION 15162 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS. AND I'LL SECOND A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SO MOVED ON TO PROJECT DETERMINATION. I WILL MOTION TO MINOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MS26-004. BASED ON THE FINDINGS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SO MOVED. THANK YOU. GENTLEMEN. DIRECTOR'S REPORT. NOTHING TO REPORT, SIR. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS. HEARING NONE, I WILL ADJOURN. THANK YOU EVERYONE. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.