Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you, County Council. I accept.

Thank you.

Alright, everyone. Welcome to the 05/07/2026 Stanislaus County Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to start off with a few reminders. Please silence your cell phones during the public hearings. We're happy to accept any comments on the projects, but we ask that you avoid repetition. During a long hearing, it's okay just to say that you agree with the previous speakers rather than to repeat what's already been said. Can we have a roll call, please?

Okay. Commissioner Buscetto?

Here.

Commissioner Campos? Commissioner Chima?

Here.

Commissioner Huck?

Here.

Commissioner Moran? Here. Commissioner Willara?

Here.

Thank you. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Citizens Forum is the time for the public to speak on issues that are not on tonight's agenda. However, the commission cannot take action on these items. Is there anyone that would like to speak on any issue that's not on tonight's agenda?

Seeing none, may I have a

motion for the minutes for 04/16/2026 meeting?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of 04/16/2026.

I will second that.

Okay. All favor?

Aye. Aye.

All opposition? All right. Correspondence. Director Fredus, do we have any correspondence tonight?

Yes. You have one item of correspondence that was too late for the agenda. It is the Lavign Act form that was received on 05/01/2026 via email from Timothy Bird the from Timothy Bird regarding the non consent item 7A, the variance application number PLHH20202, Bird.

Have the commissioners have an opportunity to read what's been submitted before us?

Yes.

All right. Thank you. Moving on. Are there any commissioners that would like to declare a conflict of interest? Alright. Seeing none. We'll move on to consent items. There are no consent items on tonight's agenda. We will move on to our first

item.

Item a, variance application number PLN2024Dash0072Bird. May we have a report, please?

Yes. Good evening, commissioners. Christie Dowd here to present to you variance number PLN2024Dash0072Bird. This is a request to allow a 40.49 acre parcel to be adjusted to 29.55 acres in size in the general agriculture a two forty zoning district. And the variance is required to adjust the parcel to a size less than 40 acres.

The project site is located at 17300 Yosemite Boulevard between Reservoir Road and Deinstag Road in the Waterford area. The Modesto Reservoir and State Route 132 Yosemite Boulevard are located to the North and Tuolumne River to the East and West. The site has a general plan designation of agriculture and a zoning designation of general agriculture a two forty with a 40 acre minimum. Irrigated orchards and scattered single family dwellings surround the site on all sides. The project site is made up of one legal parcel, 40.49 acres in size, but made up of two separate assessor parcel numbers, which are bisected by the Tuolumne River, with a 10.1 acre portion identified as APN 008 Dash 005 Dash 032 located South of the Tuolumne River, and then a 29.55 acre portion identified as APN 008 Dash 005 Dash 031 located North of the Tuolumne River.

The northern portion of the project site is planted in wheat and has road access to Yosemite Boulevard, and the southern portion has access to Denton Road via access easements that run through the parcel. The requested variance is needed in order to allow for the processing of a lot line adjustment, which is a separate request from this project, requesting to adjust four parcels from 75.62, 81.7, 41.8, and 40.49, which is a subject parcel. Two, fifty point nine four acres, a 117.24 acres, 41.88 acres, and then the subject 29.55 acres, which is north of Tuolumne. All four parcels included in the proposed lot line adjustment are enrolled in the same Williams snack contract and will remain enrolled after the lot line adjustment is completed. The project site is identified as Parcel 44 on the proposed lot line adjustment.

And if approved, the newly configured 29.55 acre parcel will be located entirely north of the river and will have access to Yosemite maintain access to Yosemite Boulevard, while the remaining portion will be situated entirely to the south of the river. Three of the parcels involved in the lot line adjustment, including the project site, have land use entitlements under use permits number 1211 and 755, which have permitted gravel mining operations and are included under mine ID number 91Dash50Dash0006. The portion of the project site that is included in this mine ID is not actively mined and has been reclaimed. General plan and zoning consistency must be evaluated when processing all discretionary projects, including the project site's general plan land use designation of agriculture. Consistency with the agricultural element standards for outline adjustments on parcels enrolled in a Williams NAC contract, and consistency with the site zoning designation of general agriculture.

This project is a request for a variance parcel to be adjusted to a size less than 40 acres, which is the minimum parcel size for the a two four forty zoning district. In order to approve a variance, the commission must find that because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning district will deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Also, that the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity, and that the granting of such application will not materially, adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing in the neighborhood or properties surrounding the neighborhood. Staff, as outlined in your staff report, does believe that the variance findings can be made based on the physical separation of Toiloomy River of the existing parcel, qualifying a special circumstance unique to the parcel warranting approval of a variance. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQUA, an initial study was circulated to interested parties and responsible agencies for review and comment.

A negative declaration has been prepared for approval, and conditions of approval reflecting referral responses have been placed on the project. So to conclude, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve variance application number PLN2024Dash0072Bird subject to conditions of approval included in exhibit c of the staff report and make the findings included in exhibit a, which includes findings regarding the environmental determination, variance findings, and a finding of project approval. And that concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you for that report. Before we continue for the record, I'd like to make sure that

we recognize Commissioner Campo joined us at 06:10. Thank you. You're welcome. Are there any questions from the commission of staff to clarify the proposal?

I have a couple questions. I'm very familiar with this area. I spent a lot of time up in this particular area. Where is the I know 07:11 material is. Can you go back to the previous slide? So near Timberidge property, there should also be Reed facility as well, a Reed gravel plant for George Reed, and also for Tyker. Is that not correct? Is that below this? Is that west of this?

It could be in the general area. This this slide is only representing the parcels that are included in mine ID number six.

Okay. Great. Perfect. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? All right. We'll go ahead and open public hearing. For anyone in opposition of this proposal, please approach the podium. Seeing none, is there anyone in favor of this proposal? Please come up and identify yourself.

Good evening, Chair Morad and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tim Bird. I agree with staff's recommended conditions of approval. And if you have any questions, I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions on behalf of the Commission? I think the report was pretty self explanatory for the variance. Are there any questions that, all right.

Seeing Okay.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you. We will close the public hearing, bring it back to the Commission for discussion or a possible motion.

I would agree with our planning commission in regards to moving forward on this. I would be an approval of this. I'm willing to make a motion at this time.

Do we have a second?

I've made a motion. Yeah, just making comments. Happy to make a motion to approve the variance application number PLN20202 for Beard.

Commissioner Willropp, is your motion included?

Including the findings in the actions, yes.

In the In

the actions. Exhibit D, yes. Thank you.

I will second that.

All right, can we have a roll call on that?

Commissioner Campos. Aye. Commissioner Chima.

Aye.

Commissioner Heff.

Aye.

Okay, the motion passes. Six zero.

We always get

to vote on it?

Yes, ma'am.

Oh, I'm so sorry. Commissioner Morad. Aye.

Aye.

And Commissioner Heff.

Aye. Already said aye. Burketto I think is what you're missing.

Commissioner Borchetta.

Aye.

Okay, the motion passes, six Commissioner Yes. Motion passes, six

zero. Okay, we're okay with that. Kelly, okay. Wonderful. Motion passes. Moving on. Item b, parcel map and variance application number PLN2025DashO214DashRoseNMormonPartnership. Can we have a staff report, please?

Good evening, commissioners, member of the members of the public. I'm Marcus Reddix, assistant planner. I'm here tonight to present parcel map and variance application number PLN2025Dash0124, Rose and Marmon partnership. So this project is a request subdivided 15.07 acre parcel into a 2.47 acre parcel and a 12.6 acre remainder in the general agriculture a two ten zoning district. A variance is required to create a parcel less than the 10 acre minimum size required for the zoning district.

Project site is located at 7524 Gilbert Road between Valley Home Road, State Route 120, and Rodden Road in the Oakdale area. The site has a general plan designation of agriculture and a zoning designation of general agriculture a two ten. The project site is surrounded by irrigated orchards and scattered single family dwellings in all directions, a church to the Northwest, State Route 120, a cheese factory, commercial uses, the Stansaus River, and the city of Oakdale to the South. Project site is currently improved with a single family dwelling, three storage sheds, row crops, a produce stand, and a storm drainage basin. The proposed remainder is currently planted in row crops and improved with a produce stand, two storage sheds, and a drains basin specifically, and proposed parcel one would then contain the single family dwelling in one of the storage sheds.

No construction is proposed as part of this request, and the site is located in the local agency formation commission. LAFCO adopted sphere of influence for city of Oakdale. Once again, the project proposes to create a 2.47 acre parcel and a 12.6 acre remainder. If approved, proposed parcel one will contain the dwelling and one detached shed, and then the proposed remainder will is currently planted row crops again and will contain the existing produce stand to sheds in the drainage basin. As previously mentioned, the variance is needed for this request to allow the creation of a parcel below the 10 acre minimum parcel size required in the 8210 Zoning District.

While variance findings are generally difficult to make, planning staff believes that there are specific circumstances that support the making of those findings in this case. Those include the county's development of a drainage basin on the proposed remainder, the parcellation history and pattern in this area, and the agricultural viability of the project site. With the county's development of the drainage basin, as mentioned in 2023 to deal with historical flooding issues along Gilbert Road, access between proposed parcel one and the proposed remainder has been restricted. And the following slides contain a few site photographs showing the basin and how this is restricted access. So first, this is just an aerial view of the drainage basin, and I kinda tried to highlight 120, but that's the specific road shown there.

And then the boundary lines for proposed parcel one as opposed to the remainder for a bit of clarity. Then moving on to a few of site photographs. This was a photograph from a site visit on April 28 just to kinda show a better view of the storm drains basin. This was taken from the state run State Route 120 frontage looking northeast toward the drainage basin right there kind of in the foreground and then towards proposed parcel one further off in the back. And this is a slightly more zoomed in photograph of the same view facing northeast towards the basin and proposed parcel one.

And this is another photograph taken alongside the drainage basin looking east towards, again, the basin in proposed parcel one further off in the background there. Getting into the issues further, the project site was initially created with the recording of a tentative map in 1990 under the same property ownership by tentative map application number 90Dash02 and variance 89Dash17, the Gilbert Road subdivision. The map created five parcels ranging from 1.37 acres to five acres in size and one additional parcel, 20.679 acres approximately in size for a total of six, again, all in the a two ten zoning district. Staff recommended approval of the project at that time based on the poor soil capability of the site, similar sizes of surrounding parcels in the area along Gilbert Road, and the fact that the site comprised six existing parcels, four of which already fell below the 10 acre minimum for the zoning district. And again, a tentative map and variance from the 10 acre minimum parcel size were pursued because requirements at that time for lot land adjustments in the A2 zoning district, which are still in place, would have required the parcels to be adjusted for agricultural purposes.

And again, this one wasn't seen as a viable agricultural parcel. Staff concurred with the applicant's determination at that time that the site's poor soils were not capable of sustaining a viable agricultural commodity and believed the variance for the creation of the ranched shed parcels was warranted in this case. The project was ultimately approved by the commission on 02/01/1990. Then the next slide just shows a view of that parcel map or that tentative map that was recorded, showing six acre six legal parcels created, including the project site under the current request, which was a portion of Lots 1 And 3 there. Then moving a bit forward, the project site was then adjusted in 1991 via a lot line adjustment to 23.64 acres in size.

And a 1993 parcel map then created two parcels, roughly four and four point one one acres in size and a 15.53 acre remainder. And then 2,001 lot line adjustment on that remainder parcel brought the parcel up to its current configuration, the project site under this request. As contained in the staff report, approval of the current request would be consistent with previous development in the area and on this specific parcel. And this just shows the 1993 parcel map that was recorded showing the remainder there, showing the roughly the current property line dimensions. It was adjusted again with the lot line adjustment, but then the two parcels that were split off as well.

And then moving on to the agricultural viability of the parcel as discussed previously. When the initial tentative map from the Gilbrook Road subdivision was approved in 1990, staff believed that the site's poor soils were not capable of sustaining viable agricultural commodity as discussed previously. Although the project site is currently farmed, irrigation water is provided to be an off-site well on an adjacent parcel, and the site is not served by OID at this time. Previous correspondence from OID indicated that its property owners wanted to connect OID service now or in the future. They just work with them to start services according to their connection policies.

And if the planning commission approves the subject variance request, the proposed parcels would be consistent with previous development in the surrounding area, including previous configurations of the subject parcel and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. As such, planning staff is recommending approval of the variance request in this case. General plan consistency must be always evaluated when processing any discretionary projects, including the site's general plan line land use designation of agriculture and consistency with the overall land use element. And, again, as mentioned previously, the site's located in the LAVCO adopted sphere of influence for the city of Oakdale, and per the general plan's sphere of influence policy was referred to the city of Oakdale for comment. They responded with no comments on the project.

Consistency with the subdivision ordinance was also evaluated, and staff believes that the pros parcels meet the subdivision ordinances, access, and design criteria required for creation of new parcels. And finally, zoning ordinance consistency was also evaluated for the project with, again, the variance being required in this case. Oh, that shows the wrong parcel size. It would be eight two ten with parcel being 10 acres in size. And then getting into the variance findings, again, like with the previous presentation, in order to grant the variance, it must be found that there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings in the area, that the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner and will not constitute a grant of special privilege.

And finally, that the granting of such application variance will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons riding or working in the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or interest of property or improvements in that neighborhood. And, PlanExact believes that these findings can be made in this case and is recommending approval of variance request. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an initial study was circulated to interested parties and responsible agencies for review and comments. Negative A declaration has been prepared for approval, and standard conditions approval reflecting referral responses have been placed on the project. To conclude, staff recommends that the planning commission approve parcel map and variance application number PLN2025Dash0124, Rose and Marmon partnership, subject to the conditions of approval, including exhibit c of the staff report, and make the findings included in exhibit a, including findings regarding the environmental determination, parcel map and variance findings, and project approval.

That concludes my presentation. And now staff will be able available for any questions.

Thank you for that report. Any questions for any clarification of staff report?

Did you say the drainage patient was on parcel number one or the remainder?

The remainder.

I can pull up the map again too. Okay.

Alright. I must have missed out here. Okay. And there's there's like a drainage ditch that goes from Gilbert Road splitting APN 0060830737 and the adjacent parcel O06083043. And then that drainage ditch continues on and basically isn't isn't easily passable.

Correct. Yeah. The the parcel has multiple existing easements on it related to primarily storm drainage and access between the parcels. With the subject request, the primary one is the easement going let me try to get to the laser pointer. The easement going along here for access to the storm drainage basin and then how the dish kinda continues along here, separating proposed parcel one from the remainder. But you are correct in mentioning the other drainage basin or the easement there for storm drainage.

Okay. Just making sure there has there's a path for water to get through with the yeah. Yeah. Alright.

Any other questions or comments? All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and open to public hearing. Is there anyone present who would like to speak in opposition of this proposal? Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor? Please come up to the podium and introduce yourself, sir.

Thank you, Chairman Moran, members of the Planning Commission, Dave Romano. On behalf of mister Rose and mister Marmon, they're in the audience with me today. It's pleasure to represent them in this project. On their behalf, I wanna thank staff for their hard work on this. We also wanna thank the county for working with us to solve this drainage problem. There was a serious drainage problem on Gilbert Road, there was an opportunity here to work with them to create a storm drain basin that benefits all who live in the area. We also want to thank our neighbor neighbors who we've discussed this with and the city of Oakdale. This is in their sphere of influence, and they don't have any issues with this. So it's a simple project. I think it's pretty straightforward.

Your staff's done a good job in providing you some images and show you how it's a unique piece of property. So with that, we have no concerns with any of the conditions of approval. We agree with staff recommendation and we would ask for your approval.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioner to Mr. Romano?

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this proposal? All right. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Commission. Any comments, discussion, or emotion?

I will. I would like to motion to approve PLN2025Dash0124. Rose Marmon partnership. With the

conditions. Exhibit c. Conditions.

Commissioner Burkett, you mean also making the findings and taking the actions incorporated by reference as set forth in exhibit A? Yes. I'm sure you have a motion.

Alright. Thank you. Can we have a roll call please?

Thank you.

I need

a second.

We do need a second. Yes. Commissioner We'll second that motion.

Okay. Commissioner Campo. Aye. Commissioner Chima.

Aye.

Commissioner Huff.

Aye.

Commissioner Morad. Aye. Commissioner Willara? Aye. Commissioner Borchado? Aye. Okay, motion passes six-zero.

All right, thank you so much. Do we have a report from Planning Director Angelo?

Yes, before I go there, just want to

clarify, No other matters to Absolutely. We do not.

For my report on April 28, the Board of Supervisors took action to set a public hearing for May 19 to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval for the rezone application for Modesto Toyota. And on May 5, the board took action to set a public hearing for May 19 to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the use permit application for Madrigal. On the horizon for the Planning Commission, May 21, we have application in the Houston area. And for June 4, we have two use permit applications one in the Modesto area and one in the Houston area. And I just want to kind of, as a side note, say that I do think this has been officially verified that tonight was the first time that we have had two variance applications on the same agenda with two staff recommendations of approval that were approved.

Very Congratulations to staff.

All right, thank you so much. No additional matters. We are adjourned. And thank you for