Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Five, Stanislaus County there we go. 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 do ask that you avoid repetition. During a long hearing, it's okay to just say that you agree with the previous speaker rather than to repeat what's already been said. Can we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Perketto.

Here.

Commissioner Callis.

Here.

Commissioner Campo. Here. Commissioner Huff. Here. Commissioner Maraud. Here. Commissioner Willerup.

Here.

Here. Let the record reflect that commissioners Marring, Cibolo, and Zipzer are absent this evening. 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.

Moving on to the Citizens Forum. The Citizens Forum is a 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 issues that are not on tonight's agenda? Seeing none, moving on to the minutes. Is there a motion to accept and a second to accept the minutes from 05/01/2025?

I'll move to accept the minutes of 05/01/2025.

Will. I

will second that.

May we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Briquetto.

Aye.

Commissioner Callis.

Aye.

Commissioner Campo. Aye. Commissioner Huff.

Aye.

Commissioner Maraud. Aye. Commissioner Willerup. Aye. Motion passes. Six zero.

Do we have any correspondence from director Fredus?

Yes. You have two items of correspondence to replace before you too late for the agenda. They are two Emails received on 06/02/2025 from Marilyn Silva regarding use permit 202112 West Main Compost, which was denied by the Planning Commission on April 17 and has an appeal, of that denial scheduled to be considered by the board on August 5. Thank you.

Do we have any conflicts of interest within the commission?

I do. Conflict of interest with use permit number PLN20Nineteen-seventy5, Mass Rock Farms due to business relations.

Okay. So that being noted.

Let the record reflect that that was commissioner Berketto who had a conflict with Mazarock Farms, please.

Alright.

And we could also let it be known that Commissioner Burkado is leaving the chambers.

Thank you. So noted. So, moving on to consent items. Consent items are items on tonight's agenda designated by an asterisk next to the item requiring a Planning Commission public hearing, but which following an initial evaluation by staff have been found to be consistent with existing county policy and the county general plan and are therefore recommended for routine approval. If you want a particular item removed from consent, please speak up and advise the chair.

That item will then be withdrawn from consent and reviewed in detail as scheduled. The remaining consent items for which there are no voice objections will be handled by a single action of the Commission. Does anyone wish to discuss any of the consent items? All right. Seeing none. All right. Can we do the first one

motion for us to make for the consent item?

Well, we do have a conflict of interest only on one. Can we do that one and then have commissioner come back for the rest?

You you you technically could. But with the group that you have here, it might be cleaner just because to accept all the consent items as one body, and then that way you won't have to go back and forth on any of them. You can just approve them as is.

Okay. So I just don't wanna take disenfranchise him from voting on something else that he doesn't have a conflict with.

Well, I can I can go briefly speak to him and and, I guess, let him choose then so that way he makes an informed decision?

I think we should give him that opportunity just to make sure that he is not disenfranchised from voting on something that he can.

Of course. I'll be right

back. Alright. Thank you, counsel.

Yeah.

You. Yeah. It's a good call. I think he stepped up prematurely.

I do believe we can still continue with the item that he does have a conflict with, and to make sure that the commission, is okay with that and it is, part of the vote.

So I advised, commissioner Ricardo of his options, and he opted to allow the remaining body to go ahead and vote on all the consent items as one package.

Thank you, council. Parcel map application number PLN2024Dash0130 Albertini. Item B, use permit application number PLN 2019 Dash 0075 Dash Mass Rock Farms. And item C, time extension for vesting tentative subdivision map. Item number PLN2020One-one-one-HoffmanRanch.

Madam chair, I'll make a motion to approve the consent items, all three

of them.

Is there a second?

I'll second. All right.

Can we just clarify who we

want that second to be? Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Campos. Commissioner Campos. All in favor?

Aye. Any objections? All right, thank you. So moved. Moving on to non consent items.

Madam Chair, can we pause so that I can, let commissioner Berquetto come back in?

Absolutely. Yes. He does need to come back.

Please let the record reflect that 06/2007 and commissioner Burketto is back at the dais. Thank you.

You're welcome back.

Thank you.

Moving on to non consent items. Use permit application number PLN2019Dash0132. La Favorita radio station. May we have a staff report, please?

Yes, madam chair. Good evening, commissioners, members of the public. Jeremy Ballard, senior planner, will be presenting the instrument for La Favorita radio station. So this is a request to amend the development plan of an existing radio broadcasting facility within plan development '28 to allow for 7,410 square feet of new building space and permitting an existing electronic reader board sign that was installed without land use or building permits. The request is this request is being continued from the 05/15/2025 planning commission meeting due to the lack of quam on that night.

The product site is located at 4043 Gear Road on the Southwest Corner of Gear Road and East Service Roads in the Houston area. The project site is located within the Lathco adopted sphere of influence of the city of Houston. Set is a general plan designation of planned development and is zoned P D 28, which was adopted to allow for an existing agricultural chemical business and a radio broadcasting facility. The project site is surrounded, by orchards and a nut hauling facility to the North and Northeast. There are ranchettes and a produce market to the South and Southeast.

The agricultural chemical company within P D 28 is to the West. A trucking repair business to the Southwest, and there is a vacant lot to the South. The truck repair business and the vacant land are located within, P D 313, which is expired and is now limited to these existing uses that are on-site. South of the the project site and south of Vicar Road and the Santa Fe Avenue intersection is the Sierra Grain facility, which is a part of P D 237. That's kind of way down here.

You can see down at the bottom, just a little corner piece of it, but a little bit further to the south. The project site has been developed with a 4,500 square foot commercial building for the purposes of radio broadcasting. It includes office space. The site has also developed a 403 foot tall radio transmission antenna, a 775 square foot detached storage building, and a 25 space paved parking lot with seven freestanding light poles, 20 feet in height. The remainder of the property has been planted in row crops.

The project proposes to expand the facility by constructing a 1,250 square foot addition to the existing storage building, constructing two twenty two hundred square foot carports with roof mounted solar over existing areas of the parking lot, Installation of a six 1,600 square foot manufactured home for the use of a caretaker for the site. And then lastly, permit the electronic reader board sign, which you could see there at the the frontage Long Gear Road. There'll be no changes to the hours of operation, number of employees. The the facility will run the same just with these additions. So as stated before, the electronic reader board was installed without the required land use or building permits.

It's of a pylon design with an overall height of seven feet, nine inches and is 10 feet seven inches wide. The LED screen is 44 square feet in total. One second. Looks like it froze in here. There we go.

So here's a picture of the existing site that's looking North Long Gear Road. The electronic reader board sign is capable of text and images, and it's proposed to advertise both station identification, but also third party advertising. The property was cited in January 2019, and an application was submitted in response in December 2019. During the processing of the application, the reader board has been turned off, so it's been kind of sitting there for quite a while. As discussed in the issue section of the report, planning staff has recommended approval of the project with the exception of the electronic reader board as the county's zoning zoning ordinance does not permit them.

Being that the project site is located in the LAVCO adopted sphere of influence for the city of Houston, The county's sphere of influence policy would require written support from a city to approve approve a project, but it also does not preclude the county in denying a project that has city support. City initially did not support the electronic reader board portion of the project due to their municipal code not allowing electronic signs or any off-site advertising similar to to the county. However, after discussions with the applicant, the city amended their position supporting an electronic reader board provided it is removed or replaced within an allowable sign upon annexation of the property into the city. The removal or replacement would not include any compensation for the property owner. The city requested a condition of approval requiring agreement be reached before issuance of it of any permit for the sign if the project is approved.

So, specifically, the county's zoning zoning ordinance does not permit any sign that's flashing, moving, animated, or bears advertising messages. Typically, on-site informational signage is restricted to six feet in height and no larger, than 12 square feet in size for the messaging portion. In the industrial and commercial and highway frontage zoning districts, there are some allowances for development of billboards for off-site advertising. Those sites are usually located within urbanized areas and within spheres of influence of a city. However, the planned development zoning district does allow for unique standards for development.

Currently, p d 28 permits for signage approved by the planning director with only one site one sign so far permitted over the years for a three foot by 11 foot sign. Historically, the planning commission has approved, two electronic signs under different circumstances. The first instance was with the Fruit Yard, Restaurant And Amphitheater, which proposed to replace an existing 36 foot tall pylon sign, with a sign of similar height that included an 82 square foot electronic reader board portion. And if you could look at the picture there, that kind of Pepsi logo is where the the reader board portion was at. Planning staff was not in support of the electronic portion of the sign due to the site being located outside of a city sphere of influence, and it was not located within an urbanized area.

However, the planning commission did approve that sign request along with the project. Second instance was for Outfront Media located just west of State Route 99 on Emerald Avenue located in the city of Modesto's sphere of influence. This request was to replace an existing 35 foot tall billboard with a 60 foot tall electronic billboard, which was supported by the city of Modesto. The city support included conditions of approval related to the sign's operation and providing one public messaging slot to be shared by the city and county. The planning commission approved the request as well, and you've probably seen that sign as you've driven down 99.

So if the commission were to decide to approve the project, including the sign, staff has included conditions of approval relative to the sign's operation and permitting. Conditions of approval seven through 13 include standards for the sign's brightness, message duration, and use of audio. It also includes a condition to remove any existing freestanding signage and provide a public messaging slot for the city and county to share. Condition of approval number 14 requires that no permits for any of the proposed development as part of the project are issued until the electronic reader board is either removed or permitted or it obtains permits that legalize its placement. And then lastly, condition of approval number 26 requires the formal agreement between the city and the applicant for removal of the proposed sign upon annexation prior issuance of any permit for the sign itself.

If the planning commission were to concur with staff and approve the project without allowing the electronic reader board, we suggest that conditions approved for number seven through 13 and numbers 26 be stricken from the project. So general plan consistency was evaluated when pro propeller excuse me, processing this discretionary project request, and that included evaluation of the project's general plan land use designation of plan development, the county sphere of influence policy, and the agricultural buffer policy. Staff's evaluation found the project to be consistent with all three areas. Staff has also determined that the proposed expansion of the radio broadcasting facility would not change the character or nature of planned development '28. Thus, the use permit and not a rezone would be the most appropriate venue for the this proposed project.

Staff has found that the conditions with the conditions of approval previously discussed in place, the the commission could make the findings for a use permit approval. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the project was referred to responsible agencies, and no significant impacts have been raised. A negative declaration has been prepared for the project and standard conditions of approved have been applied. So to conclude, staff recommends that the planning commissioner approve the project with the exception of the electronic reader board. If the commission should choose to approve the the project in its entirety, staff recommends the commission include all findings outlined in exhibit a of the staff report subject to the condition's approval included in exhibit c.

If the planning commission were to concur with staff and approve the project but deny the use of electronic reader board, staff recommends utilizing the the same findings in in exhibit a, but strikeout conditions numbers seven through 13 and number 26, which were just related to the permitting of the sign. So that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions from commissioners to Jeremy? Jeremy,

what's the rationale behind not having these type of signs outside the security influence? Just curiosity's sake. It's a safety issue. Is it just a urbanization? We're trying to keep things mellow out in the ag area and residential area.

I think primarily, I mean, when the the the ordinance was adopted, Angela can correct me when I'm if I'm wrong, but, you know, the electronic signs were not as standard as were today. And so I think a lot of it was related to safety issues, also distraction driver distraction and just cluttering of bright and, you know, different types of signs.

Thank you.

Quick question. What about the signs that we see that are fruit signs or just, you know, when you approach a fruit stand

Mhmm.

And are temporary, they're seasonal, They have nothing to do with

Correct. So the the produce market and and produce stands do have different signage requirements, some of which are, I believe, temporary in nature. Okay.

I have a question too, Madam Jeremy, if we decide to approve the project without the signage, can the applicant come back and apply for based on whether the applicant can can meet all of the requirements?

If I'm understanding the question correctly, so if the project was approved, but the reader board was denied

Mhmm.

I believe based on the county code, he would be able to reapply within a certain time frame that's allowed by code, at which point it if it was applied as a use permit, it would kind of fall under the same issues that we are we're facing today, if it was a different type of application like a rezone. I mean, essentially, it have the same really the same considerations, and we would really rely, based on the county's past with electronic signs as well as the sphere sphere of influence policy.

And then a follow-up question to that. The the applicant had the sign installed back in 02/2019. Had the sign been in operation?

So my understanding was this the sign was installed, I believe, late two thousand eighteen, early twenty nineteen. That's when it was first cited. It went he the applicant went through a period of time with code enforcement in term terms of getting things into compliance as well as applying for the project. My understanding is during the duration of the processing of the use permit, the sign has been just turned off. It's still there, but he hasn't been using it for advertising or anything since.

Thank you. Mhmm.

I have a couple questions on the sign operation. So it's you have mentioned a level of three tenths foot candles above ambient light. How how do we come up with that number?

So as as you as I said, the county does not have an ordinance for electronic signage. We did look at other jurisdictions to kind of utilize that. Specifically, we looked at the Outfront Media use permit, had an operation operating an agreement with the city of Modesto, which used similar standards. And as I understand it, talking with sign companies within the county that operate within the county, they are those are pretty standard measurements and requirements. Okay. Alright.

And then, also, I noticed that there is something that says, the electronic reader should contain a default mechanism that causes the sign to revert immediately to a black screen if the sign malfunctions. Is that something that's standard on signs? Or

Yeah. I asked about that as well. Yeah. So it's essentially if it glitches and it's freezing, instead of just kind of repeating the message over and over again or whatever the malfunction may be, go to a blue screen. The idea is that it's it's programmed that it goes to black screen so it doesn't as it become a distraction. Gotcha.

Jeremy, did I miss something regarding the providing a public message slot for the city and county to share? That's part of the if this was approved, that the city of Houston would want that. Is it how how's that working going?

So similar to the out front media, there was a a requirement for the public slot messaging or the public messaging slot, to be shared by the city and county, which was then utilized for this project as well. So the city and the county would essentially share one of the slots that are available within that that reader board.

And this radio station operates as a public radio station providing music, information, news, etcetera.

I believe And

also follow the emergency broadcast requirements as well. I would

Yeah. I would imagine so. Yeah.

Alright. Is anyone here tonight from that organization, do know?

No. Believe the owner operator is

here. As soon as we turn it over to a public hearing, any other questions from the commission? All right. Thank you, Jeremy. We will now open the public hearing.

Do we have anyone in opposition of this project, of this item? Seeing none, do we have anyone speaking on behalf of this application? Identify Thank

you. Chairperson, my name is Nelson Gomez. I'm the owner of the property at 4043 Gear Road, Houston. I have been at that location since January 1997. We've operated a Spanish language radio broadcasting company.

We have radio stations throughout Central And Northern California. That's our main operation facility and we have been there for twenty seven and a half years. We have, we have, we agree with the conditions and the staff report, except for the fact that we believe that we should be permitted to have a electronic reader board for various reasons. Number one is the Planning Commission has already allowed both within the sphere of influence and outside the sphere of influence has allowed reader boards in the last few years. Second is that the ordinance of the county is very limited as staff has indicated.

It was obviously passed at a time when, electronic reader boards were not really in use and the county, board supervisors has not elected to amend the municipal code or that code in order to be able to permit those kinds of electronic reader boards as most of the cities within the county have done so. The conditions that staff has indicated in number seven through 13 are those conditions similar if not equal to those particular conditions that are set by the City of Modesto for their electronic reader board boards. We agree to comply with items seven through 13 in order to be able to have the electronic reader board be functioning at the same in the same manner and the same way in which electronic reader boards are within the city of Modesto. Modesto. Furthermore, an another thing is that we have the consent of the city of Houston for us to be able to have an electronic reader board.

We've agreed with the city of Houston that in the event that this property is ever annexed to the City of Houston that we would in at that time either modify the sign or take it down if there is no electronic reader board ordinance at that time but if there's one we may be able to comply with that and then proceed to continue the operation of that particular reader board. I believe that that's the only issue that staff has and primarily as staff has indicated it wasn't a situation dealing primarily with the fact that this particular, ordinance that the county has doesn't permit this staff to recommend that particular usage to be to be done. However, you have the discretion of being able to do so without the ordinance being in place as you have done so in a couple of times. I think there was a question if we could, if you could approve the project without the reader board, and then I could come back for that particular application. I think that the condition I I think that that would not be possible until the Board of Supervisors changes the ordinance.

In other words, if we were if you were to approve the project without the reader board electronic reader board today, and if I went came back in a year from now and the ordinance hasn't changed, the position of staff would be exactly the same, and so we would be in exactly the same position that we would be today until the Board of Supervisors decides to go ahead and amend that particular part of the ordinance. So in essence, we think that you should consider the overall project with all of the components and that we ask that you, approve it tonight. My only recourse if you deny it obviously, is to appeal it to the Board of Supervisors and have them decide, the matter. I would rather not do so and I'm, as I'm saying today, we are willing to comply with all of the requirements that staff has in fact, proposed. We've talked to TID with regards to those kind of issues.

We've talked to the City of Houston. We've talked to all the parties. Mr. Ballard and I have spoken many times on this matter. Some of the problems why this is delayed so long is because the City of Houston was having a problem trying to get back to us and being able to reach an agreement.

We finally did so and so that's why we're here today. Ever since yes we initially put up the sign it was inside of our property line we believe that we it would replace the sign that was already in place at that time When we were made aware that that was not the case, that we would have to be able to apply for change or condition use permit in order to have the reader board, we agreed to turn the sign off and we it's been off since 2019 so we've tried to comply with the rules and try to be patient and try to wait until the time is right for this matter to come to you so we asked for you tonight to approve the particular project and to be able to allow us to proceed with those changes to our property that we've been there for twenty seven and a half years. I don't if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them.

Mister Gomez, the sign is that bringing benefit to the local citizens? Is it advertising? Is it educational? Is it safety and security? What are you putting on the sign?

Okay. The sign would would help in all of those and then some more. First of all, would you regards to information, we have agreed that we would have one slot in the sign to be able to promote county and city of Houston news to the citizenry, such as information of all different kinds for the citizens of that area. Second, if a school district wanted to promote any kind of things such as you know graduation or football games or something the City of Houston would come to us we would be more than happy to be able to announce that on that reader board as well. We also believe that, that particular reader board can also, if it becomes such, we could also provide advertising for some surrounding businesses that might want to be able to let the people know what their services or products are that they have for sale.

Thank you.

Would the sign operate twenty four hours a day?

The sign would operate twenty four hours a day however as staff has recommended and we agree there would be some limitations on the nighttime, usage so that it doesn't create a distraction or some kind of additional, other kind of, situation that would impair the traffic that, goes up and down, Gear Road.

And when the sign was in operation were there any complaints from your neighbors?

We did not receive a single complaint from anyone. It was a very short period of time but we did not receive any.

You have any interest from advertisers that they wanted No, to no.

I think that there's an interest because in the last twenty seven and a half years that we've been there we've seen an increase in the traffic through Gear Road. It is is the main, artery between, Turlock and, the hills, Oak Oakdale, Waterford, and so forth. So we think that there would be an interest in some of the people to be able to advertise. The advertising would be in compliance with what the requirements are from staff. There would be at least eight seconds between each of the pictures that would be on the electronic reader board and then they would be very fast would move on to the next one so that there would be no distraction to

the

motorist. It'll be similar to what you see in Modesto or what you see in the highway, something like that. But it would be a minimum of eight seconds. I believe that the maximum that they, they use by Caltrans is twenty seconds, but it's somewhere between eight seconds and twenty seconds.

How many, advertisements are in a rotation?

There Do you get like

hundreds of them or is

it just like 20? There would be no limit because you would program it. It's kind of like a computer. You program, how many you have. But it is our intention not to be able to have a huge number of, advertisers or other kinds of messages on the board, probably would say at maximum maybe 10 or 20.

Thank you.

A follow-up question when you have to I guess through an MOU, I guess that would be a question for staff to how much of county or city public information material would also be displayed on your sign? That could be beneficial.

So generally, and similar to, I think, with the out front media, the yes, the the condition the operating agreement with the city would include formalized that as well as conditions of approval here. Generally, it's just one slot of 10 to 20 that would be cycling through that the county and the city would share. So what we do with Out Front Media is we coordinated with their particular representative. And when there's a basically, we would provide them with the the content we would want to see when during a given period of time because, obviously, that message would change, and then they would just kind of one cycle would be the counties, and the second cycle would be the cities and vice versa. And so it's just kind of shared like that.

I I wanna let the commission know that I'm familiar with this electronic reader board situation because, I am the president of a nonprofit organization called South Modesto Businesses United and South Modesto Businesses United operates, electronic reader board at the corner of Hatch Road and Crows Landing Road. We've been operating one there since 2014 and as such I'm very aware of how that is going. We provide information for the City Of Modesto, County, other non profit organizations on the West Side schools and so forth we would be willing to do that just as well for the Houston area that we would be in that area and I think it's extremely beneficial it has been extremely beneficial for the citizens of the South Modesto community in that particular reader board and we would be able to willing to do the same. We have absolutely no problems with being able to provide one or more of the slots to the local community so that information that they would like to be able to disseminate to the general population can be can come out and can be seen by the folks that go up and down Gibral.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

So a question that would be for staff as well is that because there is no ordinance right now for this approval that's being requested, Would that be an MOU situation or is it something that How can this be worked out if let's say as a discussion we were to have it after public hearing is closed. We'll get to that later. But just to make sure that if there's anything you would like to add to that, as far as what the next step would be.

So What the next oh, sorry. So as a planned development zoning district, as I mentioned earlier, it can have unique development standards. So if the commission were to approve this amendment to that that zoning district, it essentially would formalize allowing the electronic reader board specifically for this planned development zoning district. In terms of the operating conditions, there'll be the conditions of approval that are laid out generally seven through 13, and then the the, agreement with the city of Houston in terms of removal of the the sign once it's annexed. So those are kind of the two things plus the approval tonight that would govern the use of the property or the sign.

There's also an additional benefit to the county and that is that I have agreed to, you know, to grant additional 17 and a half feet of the roadway for the right of way. So for the actual expansion of Gear Road. So in essence, the current amount of, space that I of the right of way is 50 feet, but we would go to 67 and a half feet, I believe, that side. So we're willing to do that as well to to give, expand the right of way of Gear Road at that location so that there would be, the county would have, the right to expand that roadway at some time by an extra 17 and a half feet.

Does that interfere with the sign placement currently?

Pardon me?

That 60 feet, does that interfere with the sign placement currently?

Is it

That Right away that you're giving to the county, does that is that outside of it, that sign?

It it would be within the ultimate right away. But there is also a condition of approval that needs to be the sign will be need to be relocated. So once Right. The building permits come in, we'll then general basically meet the the required setback standards from that.

And and we've we've agreed to remove the sign or move it further in so that it would be it would not be in the right of way, so that that it would not be a a problem, and, we will do so that with the different county departments to be able to get the correct building permits and so forth for that particular situation to happen.

The sign on Hatch and what was the road? The sign that you

Crow's Landing.

Crow's Landing? Mhmm. That one was permitted Yeah. In back in the day. This one was installed.

That was, on property that was owned by TID, it was approved by the city of Modesto. That was within the city of Modesto.

Then this one was installed in 2019 without permits. Is that what I'm understanding here?

Yeah. That was So at this location.

Correct. So this one has been non operational since 2019, and you were the one that actuated the installation of this? You approved this Yeah. In '19?

When we when we approved the electronic sign in 2019, we were not aware of the ordinance of the county at this location. We had done it inside of our property line. As when that was pointed out to us that that would meet that particular requirement, we agreed to turn the sign off and to be able to wait for not to do anything else to the sign in any way, shape, or form until this matter would come to the proper county authorities

in

order to be able to decide what it is that we were going to be able to do.

The mobile home, is that going to be for That'll be for That's not installed right now? There's no other

No sir.

There there is there is no living dwelling unit on the property at all at this time. Okay.

That's all I have.

Other comments I or

appreciate the time you've given me. And if you have any other questions, we'll be happy to answer them. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Gomez. Are there any other comments from the public in favor of this project? All right, seeing none. Bringing it back to the commission for discussion, or possibly a motion.

I would be in favor of this because the operator's been maintaining business more than twenty five years. He's key safety in our community. It's important we have local radio stations and the ability to have him with a billboard provide information to the public safety, because a lot of us using satellite radio out there did not get any local information. If there was an issue, I'm gonna turn to a local station for that, whether it's Spanish or English or otherwise. I would be in favor of this going forward.

I'd echo that. I'd be in favor of approving the sign as part of this application. Likewise.

Same here.

Oh, wonderful. Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to amend the development plan and plan development to allow for the use permit of PLN2019Dash0132 with the findings in, I guess, approval condition seven through 13. Is that correct?

It'd be in the findings within exhibit A with the conditions of approval as outlined in exhibit C.

Stellar. Thank you, Jeremy. I make that motion. I'll second.

Can we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Perketto?

Aye.

Commissioner Callis?

Aye.

Commissioner Campo? Aye. Commissioner Huff. Aye. Commissioner Mora. Aye. Commissioner Willerop.

Yes.

Motion passes six zero. All right.

Thank you.

All right, moving on to the next item. Use permit application number PLN2025Dash0021 Keyes CommunityCenter. May we have a staff report, please?

Good evening, chair, commissioners, and members of the public. Emily DeAnda, associate planner with the Stanislaus County Planning Department, here to present the use permit for Keyes Community Center. This is a request to renovate an existing 6,000 square foot commute county operated community center and to resurface a parking lot on a 4.4 acre parcel. The community center is considered a legal nonconforming use. Pursuant to chapter 21.8, nonconforming uses of the county code, a use permit is required for the renovation because the renovation value exceeds 15% of the appraised value of the building and parking lot.

Authorization for this project to proceed was approved by the board of supervisors on 10/01/2024 and is part of the county's capital improvement plans. The project site is located at 5518 And 5506 Ginny Avenue between Lucinda Avenue and Noons Road in the community of Keyes. It has a general plan designation of urban transition, a community designation of medium high density residential, and a zoning designation of general agriculture with a 10 acre minimum. The site is surrounded by single family dwellings in all directions, A vacant lot to the north, a dual use drainage basin is to the East, and Hatch Park on the same parcel is to the South. The vacant lot to the north is currently being developed for a water treatment facility and well site for the Quays Community Service District.

The project site is currently improved with the community center, a paved parking lot with 31 parking spaces, a storage container, baseball field, and grassy parkland. The project site has access to county maintained Ginny Avenue and is served by the Keyes Community Service District for public water sewer services. Construction of the existing facility began in 1968 when the property was zoned in the Recreational Zoning District and was completed in 1975 when construction of the use was subject to only obtaining a building permit. The community center is now considered to be a legal nonconforming use as it was permitted during a time during the time it was constructed, but does not confirm with the current zoning of the general agricultural Zoning District, which it is now under. As previously mentioned, the proposed project is a renovation of the community center and parking lot.

This facility is operated by the county. Under this request, interior and exterior renovations are proposed for the existing building. The existing parking lot will be resurfaced and restrained. A new trash enclosure is proposed to the Northwest of the community center, and a concrete walkway to wrap around the building is also proposed as part of this request. An existing storage container is located on the Northeast corner of the property and is currently used as storage space for the programs that are held on-site, which include exercise classes, the police activities league or PAL program, and previous other community events, as well as their library is currently housed there.

This these uses will continue to be utilized under this request. The community center is located on the same parcel as the three and a half acre Hatch Park, which is developed with a baseball field and grassy parkland area, as you can see in the aerial. Interior renovations will consist of demolishing the existing restrooms, flooring, and remodeling the interior layout to include a library area, multipurpose room, game room, break room, and storage space within the existing footprint of the building. Exterior renovations will consist of replacing an exterior stairwell and updating the facade treatment of the building. No issues have been identified during the review of this request.

However, a comment from the Department of Environmental Resources was received requiring that verification be received from the applicable waste disposal company about regarding the placement of the trash enclosure. In this case, that would be Bertolotti disposal. The project was referred to Bertolotti, and no concerns were or comments were received. The parking lot configuration and location of the trash enclosure will allow for the trucks to enter and exit the site with the waste without having to back out into the public roadway. The project was evaluated for consistency with the urban transition general plan land use element designation as well as the medium high density community plan designation.

The project was referred to the Keyes MAC for review per the sphere of influence of the general plan as the project is located within the MAC's boundaries, and it will be served with water and service services by the Keyes CSD. No comments for the project or a request for a presentation were received from either the Keyes MAC or the CSD. The land use element and zoning ordinance recognized nonconforming uses as an integral part of the county's economy and should be allowed to continue, be replaced, or expanded. There's no indication that this project as proposed in condition will be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing in the area or the county in general. The project will allow community activities and library services to continue to be offered at the Keyes Community Center and will improve the level of public services provided to that community.

If approved, the use will remain subject to the nonconforming uses zoning ordinance. Staff's review found the project to be consistent with the general plan, community plan, and zoning ordinance. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project was circulated to interested parties and responsible agencies for review and comment, and no significant issues were raised. Staff has prepared a notice of exemption for the project, which declares that the project is exempt from CEQA on the basis of CEQA guideline section one five three zero one for existing facilities and section one five three one one accessory structures for the trash enclosure and parking lot. Conditions of approval have been applied to the project, which can be found on exhibit c of the staff report.

To conclude, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the project as proposed in the Planning Commission staff report, including all of the findings on exhibit a and project approval. So that concludes my presentation. Staff is available to answer any questions.

Thank you for that report. Any questions from the commission?

Can I ask how much this is gonna cost the Santa Claus County taxpayers?

I believe the board report had it over 700,000. And we have Teresa, Vanderveen from General Service Agency.

Hi, Teresa.

Hi, commissioners. Yes. I can ask answer that. The project is

in Can you please

identify yourself? I'm sorry.

Theresa Van Der Vein. I am the, senior capital capital facilities manager for the General Services Agency of Stanislaus County, and the project is estimated to cost $4,000,000. We have set aside, the library has set aside 2,000,000 for this, and GSA has set aside another 2,000,000 to cover the community center and upgrades needed to the building. The building is, of course, about 60 years old now and is in need of certain upgrades to its structure and its access. So to answer your question, total project cost, 4,000,000.

So as we discussed with the with retrofitting of the library months ago or last year, is it cheaper to demo than it is to retrofit at this point?

To so this is about, $650 a square foot. And to replace the building with a new, typically costs the county over a thousand dollars a square foot. So it is cheaper to retrofit a building.

Thank you. Mhmm.

Follow-up question for you. Who would be actually managing and running this community center? Which department? Or is it a collaborative effort with different agencies?

The parcel is, owned by is technically run by the Parks Department. They contract to the Police Activities League to manage programs in the community center. And then, of course, the library portion would be run and programmed by the library department.

Thank you. Mhmm.

Was there a reason why there, you're not pursuing a zoning change so you don't get drugged through this process again when you didn't wanna re renovate it later?

That was discussed, given that the area that's still in the ag zoning and this parcel are all in public facilities, we could have gone that route, but this was just as an expedient a way to get there.

All right.

Any other questions for staff and for our I guess you would be considered the applicant here.

Yes.

We did skip to opening our public hearing. Any other questions from the commission? So we will officially open it to the public to make sure to see if there's anyone in opposition of this application? Seeing none, is there anyone to speak on behalf or in favor of this application? Seeing none, and we already heard from, our representative for this application, bringing it back to the commission for any discussion or a motion.

I'll move that we approve application PLN twenty twenty five-twenty one, and adopt the findings in exhibit A, and conditions of approval in exhibit C.

I second that.

Can we have a roll call, please?

So that was a motion by Commissioner Callis, second by Commissioner Huff, thank you. Commissioner Borcheto?

Aye.

Commissioner Callis?

Aye.

Commissioner Campo? Aye. Commissioner Huff? Aye. Commissioner Morad? Aye. Commissioner Willeropp?

Yes.

Motion passes six zero. Perfect.

Moving on to other matters, assignment of the nuisance abatement board members. We do have current members, Commissioners Callis and Willerp. And we would like to thank you for your service and ask you if you would like to continue.

Sure. No problem, madam.

Alright, thank you. So appointed. We do have an alternate member, Commissioner Mehring, who is not here. So we assume he will remain to be our alternate And in his if there's nothing else from our staff or director, I believe we are adjourned.