Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

I'm gonna go ahead and call this Stanislaus County Board of Supervisor meeting to order. The date is December 16. The time is 06:33. If I could ask everyone to please stand for the pledge of allegiance and then remain standing where deacon Greg Mastol from Saint Paul's Episcopal Church will be giving us an invocation.

Good evening. Thanks for inviting me here. For many people today, democracy is what happens during the modern spectacle of election day. But I have found in my more experienced years of life that the work of democracy is what happens across the country in meetings just like this one, the board of supervisors of Stanislaus County, with citizens who step up to serve the needs of the surrounding communities in this valley of blessings. For all of you and for all who serve, I offer this prayer.

Holy one, creator of everyone and everything, I ask that you bestow your blessings on these servants of the people, that you guide them in their deliberations and grant them patience and perseverance in seeking the common good. I ask too for your blessings on our law enforcement community and our firefighters, on our nurses and doctors, and on all who serve the people in the communities around us. And finally, I ask for your blessings on all who serve in the military, and may you continue to bless this country. I ask all of this in Jesus' name, amen. And happy holidays to everyone.

Thank you very much. Thank you, deacon. So as you may or may not know, this is not my regular chair. I am a fill in tonight, so I will try and run an efficient meeting, but I get a little bit of grace tonight if I don't get everything right. Okay. So now we're gonna move on to a presentation. It is regarding the unmet transit needs analysis from Stancog, and Cassandra Barrientos will be presenting. Good evening.

Good evening. My name is Cassandra Barrientos, and I'm an associate transportation planner at the Sanisol Council of Governments. I wanna thank you all for your time today to allow me to present on the unmet transit needs process under the Transportation Development Act. An unmet transportation need is defined as a transportation option that people would use, but is currently not available to them because it does not exist. We're really looking for the mobility gaps here in the county and trying to understand how we can address them by adding additional services, additional stops to routes, and things of that sort.

On November 12, we officially kicked off our public comment period, and it will go on through January 22. Sorry. Bear with me. So the unmet transit needs process is a year yearly requirement under the Transportation Development Act, and STANCOG is responsible for the administration of the State Transportation Development Act funds, which is split into two different sources of money. The local transportation fund, which comes from a quarter cent sales tax, and the state transit assistance fund, comes from a gas and diesel tax.

For the process, are specific requirements that have to go under the unmet transit needs process which involves doing public outreach in our local community, hosting one public hearing, which will be held at the stand cog policy board meeting on January 21 at 6PM. Once we've received all the comments after January 22, we will work on an analysis report and categorize them into three different categories that I will go into in a future slide. And finally, we'll present that report to our policy board for approval. And once we gain that approval, it will go to and be submitted to Caltrans. So annually, we will identify the transit needs in the jurisdictions that may be reasonable to meet by establishing or contracting for new public transportation or specialized services or by expanding existing services.

The three categories that comments will fall into are there are no unmet transit needs. Two, there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet. And three, there are unmet transit needs, including needs that are reasonable to meet. So some of the outreach efforts that we've done is we've launched a survey that's available both in English and Spanish. We've created flyers and social media posts, we've created a media kit to distribute to our partners.

We've also worked with the transit agencies in the area such as standard TA, Turlock transit, and move to help spread the word and awareness of the ongoing survey. And we also are attending various meetings throughout the region to present on this same topic. So some of the presentations that we've held, we launched on November 12 at our Social Services Transportation Advisory Council. We presented at the StanRTA Board of Directors meeting and the series in Oakdale City Council meeting. And then we will have our public hearing on January 21 at the StanCOG policy board meeting.

This is a flyer that some of you guys have in front of you today. It's just a quick reference to define what a transit need is. If people aren't aware, it's not just to get you to school, it's also to get you to your medical appointments and really fulfill those gaps and to get you to where you need to go. And on the right, we have a QR code that will lead you to our survey that's available in English and Spanish, as well as an email if you would prefer to do that. And the other forms that you can contact us and submit a comment is by giving us a phone call or mailing us in a comment or visiting our social media and website for more information. Again, my name is Cassandra Bargantos, and I want to thank you for your time to allow me to present on the unmet needs process.

Cassandra, we typically have a very difficult time of actually getting people to comment. And I know you you try because I see the list of meetings, you go to councils, and you meet with the committees. Have you had good success this year, or is it still

It's still not as much as I would want it to be. I think I'm trying to understand how I can target an audience that isn't just current transportation riders, but outside of that who aren't using it, and then trying to understand why there might be that gap in in that service. Yeah.

We we typically all receive comments when someone thinks there needs to be another bus stop or something, and it's really good. Stan RTA has been very responsive

Mhmm.

Throughout the year, and that's very helpful when you come to these about what are the unmet transit needs. Any idea what the definition of reasonable is because we've gone through that before because If you start another bus line, you have to take away from somewhere else, right? Is that

Yeah. So don't want

to put you on the spot. I just know that Jean's Jean's the master, but I it's it's a balancing act. Right? There's a a finite amount of money, and any money that you put into an unmet need typically will have to come out of some other buckets. So it has to be a higher and better or more important need.

Correct, yes.

Okay. Any questions for Cassandra? All right. You very much for coming in and sharing.

All right.

Thank you for having

me. Thanks, Gene. Okay. We'll move on from the presentation. This will be the public comment period. Do we have to acknowledge any written comments? I don't see any written comments. And this is the open public comment period. It's an opportunity for anyone to speak who's in attendance on items that are not on today's agenda. Please state your name for the record. Direct all comments toward the dais. And so it's fair for every speaker, please keep your comments to five minute time limit. First speaker card I have is Deanna Washington.

Good evening. Tonight I come to you in absolute frustration. There's a lot of things that happen in our county and our city that seem like we're running around like dogs chasing our tails. And I'd like us to get an understanding as to how we can change that. I expect decency and honesty.

That's the kind of person I am. So yesterday, I come home from work, and I see billowing smoke at the back of my property fence line. That means the neighbor on the Spencer side is burning. My handyman, who was there to meet me for work, went back there to see that someone is indeed burning refuse. Now, I did call downtown when they cut all this refuse down months ago, and they pushed it all the way to the back of my fence.

Made me a little nervous. I kind of puckered. I have to tell you why it made me nervous. Years ago, the man on the corner at 716, Spencer, he had a fire. It damaged four properties and the mess that came from it listen, I'm the one who takes the insurance money and I actually fix things.

I am surrounded by people who don't fix things, do not care about their stuff. But that's not going to limit me about what I'm going to do. I'm going to continue to be the good neighbor. I'm going to continue to be the one that fixes my property and expects goodness and expects to be a good neighbor, expects to watch out in our community. What bothered me is that I was told to to call, San Joaquin Air Quality Control.

I did that. I filed my complaint. They sent an inspector immediately. But when the inspector calls me back and says, they won't let me onto the property, he said, I thought there was an alley. The alley that should have been there, the alley that my grandfather originally put there, was taken five houses from the California side in on the Spencer side.

They were allowed to confiscate the alley. So, from the Truman side, the alley is open, but from the California side, five houses in, not open because they were allowed to confiscate what's not theirs. Now, I'm currently working on that situation with Mr. Withrow. However, this inspector says no alley, so I can't go through the alley and look.

And technically, he can't come from through my property and look over the fence. So I called the police. The police said they're gonna send out the fire department because technically, they can't burn. It is only for farmers. You can only get a permit for farmers.

So why in God's name are people in the neighborhood now burning? So, okay, another broken rule that not getting seen to. So then the fire department calls to say they can't send out anyone because now it is the air quality controls department. So that's what I mean by the dog chasing its tail. So I started out with air quality control, couldn't get any satisfaction there, don't even know if they were sighted.

I guess they couldn't be sighted if they couldn't go back there and see. Meanwhile, I see smoke. I see smoke for a long time into the darkness. Then I turn around and my frustration hits an all time high because my worry is that if that fire doesn't get put out properly, if an ember floats and touches that other stuff because there is stuff on their side that can turn like that. If I should have a fire again that's going to burn up my property, burn up my fencing.

Thank God for that vinyl fencing. It burned down and not out. Thank God I was home that day years ago. This time, it might not be I might not be so lucky. So I need someone that knows something down here that can tell me what the rules are. And then how do we have accountability in our neighborhood? Because right is right, and wrong is wrong. And I don't think that I should be the one to suffer all the time and open up my pocketbook for everybody in the neighborhood. So I want to hear from somebody. Thank you.

So, Deanna, quickly, I'm on the air board. I serve as a one of the Stanislaus County's two members along with Rosa Scoutier Braden, Modesto City Councilwoman. And if you leave the address of the where the complaint was with the clerk right over here, I will follow-up to see if there was a citation. Didn't they could issue a citation without someone being present. That's the on the air quality side now.

And also I I

understand and

we appreciate frustrations if you're dealing with multiple agencies. There may or may not be an actual code enforcement issue that's occurred here, but regardless of whether there is or is not, our our director of the department is back there. He will at least, come alongside you and try to help navigate which agencies are involved here and just make sure we're having clear communication against everyone so that you're not having two agencies point at each other anymore. So that's the very minimum we could do to help you with that, in addition to what supervisor Kiesa just mentioned. Mister Costly, he's right back there for you, and friendly face in the back, and he'll help you.

Okay. Thank you so much. Merry

Christmas, Deanna. Next up, we have Milt Treeweiler. Evening, Milt. Good evening,

chair, board, staff, and community members. Milt Treeweiler, I'm a lifetime Stanislaus County resident. This is the end of the year and a time to reflect on who we are and how we are. The biggest challenge for every one of us is to remember that not one of us is perfect. It would be nice if we could all be open minded and objective or at least strive to be that way. You have many decisions to make, and that's a hard job. It's important to think of how these decisions will affect our children and descendants. We are adults and parents, and we have an obligation to plan for our children and descendants' welfare. Our world population today is 8,300,000,000 people. It will be 10,000,000,000 by the end of the century.

If we fail to make the best decisions, it will have a major impact on the future. Let us all try to do the best job we can in the coming year and future years for all the residents of Stanislaus County. Happy holidays. Thank you very much, Milt. Okay. Those are

the only speaker cards I have. Anyone else that wants to come? Please come forward. Kelly?

Good evening. Good evening, chair and honorable members of the board of supervisors. My name is Kelly Coelho. I sit on the Veterans Advisory Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to address you guys this evening regarding a proposed veterans housing and veteran owned business project intended to serve the long term needs and veterans of veterans in Stanislaus County.

I speak to you today not only in a professional capacity, but also from lived experience. At one point in my life, I experienced homelessness. It was not visible and it was not something I shared publicly. That experience gave me a a profound understanding of how easily stability can be lost, being a single mom living paycheck to paycheck, joining the military to provide a better life for my family and children, and how critical it is to provide environments where individuals can regain dignity, security, and direction. This understanding is especially important when we discuss veterans.

Many veterans struggle during the transition out of military service. They are conditioned to remain resilient, to internalize hardship, and to avoid burdening others, and that's a fact. As a result, veterans often conceal emotional distress until it reaches a critical point. Oftentimes, one taking its own life. Creating housing that is not not only safe, but intentionally designed to support transition and stability is is very essential here in Stanislaus County.

During a particularly difficult period in my life, I want to thank supervisor Chance Condit. Demonstrated compassion and care when at a time where very few of the challenges I was facing, nobody knew about. That experience reflects the type of leadership that reinforces trust in public institution. And it reminds individuals that they are not invisible. It is that same spirit that the project has been developed.

We are proposing the first mixed use veterans housing project in Modesto located outside the downtown corridor. This will be a gated community consisting of 15 total residential units designed with both functionality and long term sustainability in mind. The unit composition includes eight two bedroom, two bath units, approximately 1,100 square feet, each with an in unit washer and dryer. Also, a seven one bedroom, one bath unit, approximately 950 square feet, each with an in unit washer and dryer as well. This project will operate under a no maintenance model for the first ten years.

Minimizing long term costs and ensuring consistent property standards without additional strains on residents or county resources. In addition to housing, this development emphasizes economic stability. Veterans will have access to employment opportunities, workforce development, and pathways to establish and operate veteran owned businesses right here in Stanislaus County. This approach supports independence and long term self sufficiency. To ensure efficiency and implementation, we have identified a few real estate agents who will represent both the buyer and the seller within the same organization allowing for a streamlined and transparent acquisition process.

This proposal aligns with the county's broader goals of reducing veteran homelessness, supporting responsible development and investing in sustainable solutions. It is intended to serve as a model for how we can support veterans not only with housing, but with structure, opportunity, and respect. This project will work in collaboration with the Stanislaus County Housing Authority, screening and managing this project. Thank you for your time. I welcome your guidance and look forward to working collaboratively to advance this project for the benefit for the veterans right here in San Jose County. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Kelly?

Good evening, Supervisors. Kevin McLarty, District three, and good evening to my particular supervisor, Jerry Withrow. And anyway, I have two items I want to discuss tonight. One has to do with the proposed overnight camping at Tuolumne River Regional Park. I used to work for state parks and we had two different kinds of fees that we charged, one for overnight camping and another one for day use.

Now, I want to caution you supervisors to be careful about charging for day use because then you're changing the purpose of the park. The park then becomes kind of like a state park. It's no longer a city park or a regional park that people can just go to. And I think that living in an urban environment and with all the stress and roads and everything that people need to be able to just go to a park. Just have that freedom to just get out of the car and walk and be among the trees and take a breath of fresh air and smell the flowers and just unwind and not be encumbered with having to pay a fee.

And also, fees tend to go up. And I noticed that in my time at state parks, the fees were going up. They creep up, you know, like bridge fares, and then they never go back down again. And then it becomes to the point that it's prohibitive, you know, for certain people who can't go to it anymore. So I think that we need to be careful about that.

The other thing I wanted to ask about is who approved the the courtroom, the courthouse, the new courthouse? I mean, now that it's virtually done, I see a box. It's like a a box from Walmart. You know, a a perfectly shaped box with no dimensions, no angles, just a box. I'm just wondering, are aesthetics something that are considered when approving something like this, or are you only looking at functionality?

Because I think that this is going to have a detrimental effect on the entire downtown Modesto. I think it's demoralizing to have this building that just looks like it came out of a quite to frankly, it looks like it came out of a prison yard and was implanted here. It is so uncreative. And I'm just wondering how how in the world does something like that get built without apparently any oversight as to aesthetics and beauty and having that, you know, angular windows and angles around the corner or whatever to make the building look multidimensional, isn't that considered at all when approving something like this? And I'd kind of like to know what the process is.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Kevin. I'm sure you're going to get a resounding we agree with you. And we didn't have anything to do with the design standards, state of California, all the way around. And I'm sure it's a money saving, right, because it came in over budget. But don't disagree with you. Okay. Anyone else for public comment? All right. Seeing none, we will move on to the consent calendar. There are two items that are going to be pulled on the consent calendar, D1 and seven-two.

Yes. D one is on the consent calendar. Item 7.2 is one of the discussion items. The Levine Act prohibits contributions to campaign exceeding $500. When that does when that does happen, the public official is required to not participate in the decision of of the item coming before them.

We have two of those items, item d one and and item 7.2. Chance conduct is will step aside on item d one, and Manny will step aside on item, 7.2. Did either wanna add anything to

that? No. Okay. Okay. And before the board takes action on the consent calendar, does anyone in the audience wish to provide public comment on any matter on the consent calendar? Alright. Seeing none, I will first, we'll go to the consent calendar minus d one and seven two, and then we'll take those or set set d one, excluding d one.

Motion to approve all items other than d one.

Second.

Okay. We have a first and second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries four zero. On to item

Motion to approve item d one.

Hold on.

Okay. Motion to approve item d one.

Second.

I got a first and a second. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries three zero. I don't know why I kept saying Okay. We're now moving on to item seven one. Yeah. Seven one. Seven one?

Yeah. Committed on seven two.

K. This is a public hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation approval of the general plan amendment application PLN twenty twenty five zero zero seven zero. Kristen.

Good evening, supervisors. County council Bo, CEO Hayes. My name is Kristen Anaya, senior planner here to present, the proposed general plan amendment request for the highway commercial plan development and use designation. And so this is a request to amend the text of the county's general plan, specifically the highway commercial plan development land use designation of the land use element to provide new requirements for large scale truck parking facilities, which require a rezone or general plan amendment to permit. And so the existing allowance to conduct truck parking specifically in our general agriculture or a two zoning district was established by the board of supervisors in 2012.

And it created essentially two pathways to operate these types of truck parking facilities that are not directly related to agricultural businesses. And so the first option was to allow a resident on an A2 zone parcel to obtain a home occupation business license, which would allow them to park three trucks and three trailers provided they're an on-site resident. And then on November 18, under a separate board action, this allowance has since been reduced to a one truck allowance. The second option that exists allows a property owner to park up to 12 trucks on a parcel provided they reside on the parcel and obtain a use permit applicate or a use permit from the planning commission. The board has also approved amendments to the requirements associated with the truck parking use permits in November as well.

And in instances where a proposed facility exceeds the number of allowed trucks, typically 13 or more, or does not meet all of the applicable criteria, a request can be considered under a general plan amendment or rezone application to change the designation from a two to plan development. The subject request addresses this latter pathway for these larger scale truck parking facilities. So I'll try to briefly cover the background which kind of led to this this application being submitted to you to before you tonight. So in response to an intensification and complaints and code enforcement cases tied to a rise in unpermitted truck parking facilities and agricultural land in 2022, the county initiated a process in 2024 following a direction by the board of supervisors to study issues surrounding truck parking. And so guided by an ad hoc committee formed for this topic, recommendations were developed not just for truck parking, which could be allowed on a two zone land under a use permit or home occupation business license, as I mentioned, but also for large scale truck parking facilities which needed rezone or general plan amendment to entitle the use.

And so this could include land that's not that is not being re designated or rezoned from agricultural, but from another designation to to a plan development. So this process kicked off in January, which led to an intense public outreach process to local agencies, concerned residents, members of the public, the trucking industry, realtors, and adjacent jurisdictions to kind of help understand this issue and issues tied to truck parking and ag zones. And so during this process, draft recommendations were developed, which were presented at several committees, the general plan update committee, ag advisory board, and to the public several times for feedback. And so the timeline there is kind of on the screen. Major issues identified during this process were tied to approved and unpermitted sites aesthetic and site maintenance, obtaining regulatory compliance for storing and reporting hazardous materials, concerns related to agricultural land conversion, access and road infrastructure requirements, a need for stronger clarity to the development of parking areas, Williamsonat compatibility, and maintaining ongoing compliance with codes and enforcement.

And, ultimately, the recommendations developed by the planning department and the ad hoc committee involved a two part action. So the first was approved by the board in November, which was a request to amend the zoning ordinance to update requirements for smaller scale facilities allowed under a use permit for the parking of 12 trucks or for a home occupation business license for one truck in the a two zone. The second action, which is the current request, is a general plan amendment application to establish policies and parameters governing the development of larger scale trip parking facilities for 13 or more trucks requiring a general plan amendment or rezone. So the current highway commercial plan development designation or HCPD designation is presently utilized for parcels immediately adjacent to freeway interchanges for uses which serve the traveling public. Truck parking is considered a compatible use of its designation when operated in conjunction with a truck stop.

The proposed changes to the general plan text include calling out truck parking as its own standalone use rather than implicitly allowed as part of a truck's brought and proposes new specific policies applicable to those truck parking facilities. The proposed amendments set a policy direction of establishing the HCPD designation as the appropriate land use designation for all requests for truck parking facilities which require a rezone and or truck general plan amendment, and it expands the designation when used for this use to parcels within a half mile of the interstate or state highway. The proposed amendments also establish new criteria to limit the scale and intensity of such facilities. So specifically, the parcels that develop with larger scale truck parking facilities under the proposed amended HCPD designation must be no more than 10 acres in size under the proposed amendments. They may not also or not require a Williams net cancellation to approve.

And facilities must provide permanent restrooms, incorporate high quality landscape and screen screening treatments, and support the parking of no more than 80 trucks in a 160 trailers. Additionally, in alignment with the changes to the zoning ordinance for use permit requests for facilities of 12 trucks and under, new truck parking requests subject to the HGPD designation cannot create a concentration of more than two truck parking facilities on a two or PD zone land in a one mile radius of any property in the county. So visualized, a large scale truck parking facilities would under this designation would be situated within a half mile of state routes. And this Slide 99 is used as an example with the blue hatched line denoted at a half mile distance from State Route 99. And then the concentration is created when any property in the county has more than two truck parking facilities within a mile of them, which is denoted by that tan buffer.

And so if there's an existing truck parking facility in blue there and a new proposed site in red, in this scenario, just as an example, there would not be more than two truck parking facilities in any one mile radius, and the proposed facility would be determined not to create a concentration. And as a measure as another visual example, in this scenario, you have two existing truck parking facilities in blue and a third in red proposed. In this case, that scenario would be a concentration and would be determined not to be consistent with the county general plan and therefore denied. And so the general plan update committee was presented these recommendations on 08/07/2025, and they made a motion to support the draft amendments. However, in light of discussion and public comment during that meeting, the committee supported draft amendments, provided the proposed HCDBPD amendment include a concentration criteria that was shared in the previous slide.

On September 8, the ag advisory board was also prevented the final recommendations and ultimately voted to support the draft amendments provided that the code enforcement action continue forward on unpermitted truck parking facilities in the county. Since that meeting, the county's nuisance abatement hearing board and board of supervisors have made a motion on a number of unpermitted or non compliant truck parking facilities as part of ongoing code enforcement efforts to address this. And so staff has reviewed this project for consistency with the general plan, including the land use elements, sphere of influence policies, goals and policies addressing compatibility between uses and accommodation of citing of industries with unique requirements, the agricultural elements, agricultural buffer policies, and policies regarding the Williamson Act. Staff found the proposed general plan amendment to be internally consistent across the elements within the general plan. The project has also been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the common sense exemption.

Accordingly, a notice of exemption has been prepared for approval as the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The project was considered at the 10/16/2025 planning commission meeting. No one spoke during public comment. And ultimately, on a vote of seven to zero, the planning commission recommended that the board of supervisors approve the general plan amendment application to the board of supervisors. So exhibit a of attachment one of the board report provides an overview of all of the findings required for project approval, which includes findings regarding the project CEQA exemption, general plan consistence consistency, and project approval. And that concludes my presentation, and staff is available for questions.

Any questions for Kristen or Angela? Nope. Okay. Seeing no questions, we're gonna go ahead and open the public hearing, acknowledge any written comments of which we don't have any, and, open up the public comment period.

Yes, Milton Treewater. This is a disaster for our children and descendants. This is exactly what we don't wanna do. We are setting up the cancer that's going to kill our farmland in Stanislaus County. This is a cancer. It starts here. It starts there. It starts with churches. It starts with schools, and now you've added trucking facilities into it just to destroy the farmland in Stanislaus County. This is terrible.

I can't even believe this is being proposed. I mean, it's it's just not the thing to do. And I urge every one of you to vote against this because this is not what's good for our children and our descendants. We cannot have this going on. We are destroying the best farmland. It doesn't start as a big thing. It starts as a small thing. It's like cancer. It masticizes. You have cancer somewhere in your body, and it spreads out. Well, we have cancer in Stanislaus County, and it was just contained within the cities. Now it's spreading out. It's masticizing. So who you know, it's just gonna continue to go. We're gonna completely destroy the farmland in Stanislaus County unless we stop this idiocy.

This is not what we need or what we want in Stanislaus County. And I'm sorry. Anyone who votes for this, I can't support you in any election at all because this is not what we should be doing in Stanislaus County. This is not what we should be doing for our children and our descendants. This is wrong. This is bad. This is the exact thing we don't wanna do when we have the best farmland in the world. There is no better farmland in this like this. I've told you that over and over again. I proved that to you.

I will continue to do that until I can't walk into this room because someone has gotta stand up for our children and our descendants. I'm asking each and every one of you, board members, to stand up for your children and descendants and vote against this. This is not what we need in Stanislaus County. Please think about it. Think about it. Don't destroy the best farmland in the world so someone can make a buck. It's just cancer masticizing in our county. It must be stopped. Thank you. Thank you, Milt.

Other folks? Okay. I'm going close the public hearing. Bring it back for comments. And or motion.

So I'm just gonna, if I could, just address. Yeah. Just real quick. Just to address Melt's concern.

If I

could, Melt very much appreciate all you do and appreciate very

much

the farmland and everything you stand for. I think we all agree with you here. I think the whole purpose of this was to protect the farmland. What was going on out there right now prior to us, you know, addressing this and and and all the effort that everybody made was that these truck places were in truck parking were ending up all over out there in our agriculture area. And that's what brought on this whole issue. And on all the time that was involved, this went on. The history there we showed of of the committees and the meetings and the stakeholder meetings and hard work. I know Vito worked on it very hard in Carmen Morad. Carmen Morad. Moret.

I gotta taste Carmen Moret. Worked very hard on this. And it was just for that reason, Milk. It's because these truck parking places were showing up all over in our county in the middle of agriculture. And it was interfering with agriculture in those areas and the people that lived out there.

And so because of that, we came and came to put this together after a lot of work and time to find a spot. Okay. We're gonna pull these out of our agriculture and put them to next to the freeways, basically, So that that's where they stay. So so anyway, I just wanna I felt very good about it until Milt came up. It but but but I think this is this is exactly what we're trying to address, Milt, is your concerns and these being out there and and interfering with our agriculture industry and and being on our on good farmland and and and making it a mess out there. And so we're bringing them back right next to the freeways for the most part. And and I'm gonna let Vito correct me if I'm wrong there.

Yeah. And and so 26 trucking outfits in my district are on a code enforcement action out in the unincorporated area. And they'll tell you everything you need to know. We we're stopping the concentration of that. We're stopping the proliferation of it. It is being allowed to some degree, but we're talking about trucks. Milt, you talk a lot about building up rather than out. It's very difficult to stack trucks on top of each other. It's not going to be the same thing. They're going to take up so much space.

We're a society where we want things delivered every single day. We we're a society that moves goods and services. We want fresh fruits and vegetables, whether you're living in LA or whether you're living in Wyoming. And so we moved that by truck and or rail and or by plane. It's most expensive.

So I I think that I would agree with you, Terry, that there was an attempt by Carmen and myself and staff to do just that, to stop the proliferation of of this and to protect farm, ag farm ground. You could force all of these into town, but then town will expand because they take up large plots. There's not 10 acre parcels of land hanging around in the city of Turlock and or, the community of Keys that are available. So, this was our best attempt. I think we did really well.

Again, the planning commission, I thought, really looked into this really well. Carmen did great work. And Kristen and and Angela, thank you very much for your help in this, trying to get this through. Is is it a perfect document? I I don't know because it was so complicated. One of the more complicated things I've ever worked on. I think I said that before at our last meeting. And and will changes need to be made? Maybe so. But we'll see. We're trying to stop the concentration issue. And so I will again be supportive of this. You cannot make another comment, Mel. Thank you, though.

Yeah. Would just chime in, Mr. Chair. I think this is a win win for both industries, both the ag industry as well as the trucking industry. I think brings somewhat of a balance. So I will be supporting as well.

Okay. Alright. If there's no other comments, no other I did close the public comment and brought it back to us. I'll entertain a motion.

I move to approve. Second.

Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries four zero. Thank you. Okay. Item seven two. Did you wanna ask? Step inside.

Yep. Just note it.

Supervisor Graywall will be stepping aside on 07/2002. For the record, it will be known that supervisor Graywell has left the room. Okay. We're good? Yeah.

Okay. So good evening, chair Kiesa, board members, CEO Hayes, county council Boes, Jeremy Ballard, senior planner. I'll be here to present you the rezone a parcel map application for power play. This is a request to rezone a parcel from Plan Development 25 to a new plan development to include a 60,834 square foot indoor roller hockey facility as a permitted use along with the uses all already allowed under p d 25. The project also requested to divide the site into eight parcels.

The development plan also includes construction of seven light industrial commercial buildings that will total 62,000 square feet in size, and these, buildings will be used for, uses that are already allowed under their current, plan development 25 zoning district. Project site is located at 711 Bangs Avenue and 455 North Star Way between Galaxy Way and Bangs Avenue in the city of Minnesota sphere of influence. The project site is a general plan designation of plan development and a zoning designation of planned development 25, which allowed for light industrial and other low traffic generating commercial uses. The project set is surrounded by light industrial warehouses and commercial uses to the north, east, and south, orchards, the Union Pacific rail line, industrial development, and a church to the West. Also to note that the area to the West of the project site bordered by Pelendale, Telly, and Kiernan have been annexed into the city of Modesto.

The project site itself, which fronts Banks Avenue in North Star Way, was previously occupied by Indelux, an aluminum extrusion, anodizing, and painting facility in the seventies till it was closed in the in the early two thousands. In 2009, the United States EPA and California Department of Toxic Substances Control conducted a cleanup of the site to abate toxic liquids left after the aluminum facility's closure, and that cleanup was completed in 2015. If approved, the resulting eight parcels will range in size from point five acres to 3.84 acres in size and be developed to single commercial building each. With the exception of the roller hockey facility, the buildings will range in size from 7,000 to 12,000 square feet in size and be utilized for light industrial, low traffic generating commercial uses such as office or warehouse space. Hours of operation for the light industrial commercial buildings are anticipated to be 8AM to 5PM, Monday through Friday.

The site will also be, developed with a 364 paved parking lot that will include security lighting and four chair driveways onto Bangs Avenue. Easements for reciprocal access, parking utility, and drainage will be included for each parcel, and storm drainer will be handled via horizontal drainage system. Landscaping will consist of shrubs, a variety of shade, and accent trees, low and lying plants, and they will be installed along the perimeter of the site and within the interior of the parking lot itself. The site will be served by the city of Minnesota for water and sewer services. There's an existing water line along Bangs Avenue, which will be extended northward up North Star Way to service the resulting development, and there's an extension of a sewer line by the city of Modesto, which will bring a new sewer line west along Bangs Avenue with the applicant extending along North Star for its use.

If the sewer line extension is not completed at the time of development, the site will utilize septic facilities. The roller hockey facility will consist of two separate rinks with locker rooms, private party rooms, restrooms, pro shop, offices, kitchen, dining area, rental kiosk, and equipment storage. The rinks will be open to the public, but will also include youth and adult league play. Proposed hours of operation for the rink will be 5PM to 10PM, Monday through Friday, and 10AM to 10PM, Saturday and Sunday. And here's a elevation of photo simulation of the the roller hockey facility.

This is looking through the parking lot towards the front of that that building itself. So as part of the environmental review referral, a comment letter was received from Caltrans requesting the traffic impact analysis be completed for the project based on potential impacts to State Route 108 To 19. After discussion between planning and Caltrans staff regarding the project site's current allowable uses, the daily customers anticipate for the roller hockey facility and offsetting hours between the hockey facility and the permitted uses. A successive letter was received from Caltrans for sending their previous request for traffic impact analysis. No other issues were identified during the review of the project and development standards associated have been placed on this project.

The project was evaluated for consistency with the general plan, including the land use plans, plan development designations, fear of influence policies. The analysis found that the proposed project plan development zoning would be consistent with the general plan designation and that based on the city of Minnesota's written support and application of their standards, sphere of influence policies would have been met. Development standards consistent with the city of Minnesota standards for landscaping parking lighting frontage improvements, Utility connection and signage have been applied to the project. Additionally while located in the spirit of influence the City Modesto site is also located within the Slide Of Fire Protection District. Fire protection standards from both the city of Modesto and slide fire will be required to be met by the project.

Additionally, site will be required to to pay slide fire impact fees and annex into the fire community facilities district. Ultimately staffs review from the project to consistent with both counties general plan and zoning ordinance. So pursuant to California environmental quality act initial study was circulated interested parties and responsible agencies for viewing comment. As a project says currently allowable light industrial low traffic jank generating commercial uses will be retained within the new plan development zone. Environmental review analyzed the impacts of the roller hockey facility.

Based on the on the analysis, a negative declaration has been prepared for approval and development standards reflecting referral responses that have been placed on the project. So the planning commission held the public hearing for this project on 11/20/2025. No one spoke in opposition, and three people associated with the project spoke in favor. They discussed project design, construction time frames, and past experiences in operating a roller hockey rink in Ripon. Ultimately, the planning commission recommended the board of supervisors approve the project on a vote of five to zero.

The planning commission's recommendation of approval to the board included the required findings located in the staff recommendations one through six before this evening. Those findings are a compromise consisted of a finance regarding the environmental review, proposed rezone, the parcel map, and project permits project approval. So with that, that concludes our presentation, and I can't be to answer any questions.

And do we have any questions? No. Okay. Questions for Jeremy? Okay. We're going to open the public hearing, acknowledge any written comments, which we don't have any. We're going to go ahead and open public comment period. Does anyone wish to comment?

Yes. I have a question. The city of Modesto just annexed, some some property, just to the north of the city of Modesto. This is not that property. This is another section closer to series. Correct? I mean, closer to Salida. Correct?

Closer to McHenry.

Closer to McHenry. Yeah.

So this is just West of McHenry. So you can see the 108 sign right there. So this is Bangs Avenue.

That's McHenry. It's kind of where the auto row is, auto

Yeah.

All the car dealerships.

Back behind that. But it is not within

Better map.

Find the back Modesto. Okay. Now this is the city of Modesto's. This is their sphere of influence, and the site is outside of their sphere of influence. I can see that. So that

It's in their sphere of influence. The site is

I mean, it's in okay. The green is their sphere of influence. Okay.

It goes to Kiernan Clarabelle, their sphere.

Right. I see that.

Back in the day, milk, this was a big what's it called? Andalux. Is that what it's called?

Well, I'm just looking again at farmland. I would say something like this would be okay if we stopped right there at their sphere of influence and never be go went beyond that point. In other words, all the farmland, which we know from the past because we had, people speaking about this in the city of Modesto for a long time. Warren or, Kennedy. Lance Kennedy.

That is the best area. And if you look on any agricultural land map, you will see that that is the best area of land. I'm talking about just to the north of the sphere of city of Modesto's influence. That is the very best land right there. It has the ability to recharge the aquifer with irrigation.

And we've got to stop. That's a good place to stop. You're doing all these things for the trucking people. Now they can still go in those areas. They could go to the north of of or is that Bangs? The one?

The South of it is Bangs. Yeah.

The South is Bangs. Okay. So now they will be able to go to the North, and they're going to be the cancer cells that spread this out, just like the Gloria High School is one of the cancer cells. That's exactly how it happens. You cannot let this continue to happen. If you do, you are killing the future for our children and our descendants. We're gonna have 10,000,000,000 people at the end of this century. 10,000,000,000 people on this planet. They're gonna need food. And you're covering up the best farmland in the world because we not only have the farmland, we have the water to irrigate it with MID and TID irrigation district.

Right now, Don Pedro Dam is 77% of capacity. Right now, after a full summer of irrigation. When are you gonna stop this? You're not stopping it. You're just perpetuating it. You're not trying to stop it. You're just letting it be perpetuated. You cannot do that. You've gotta thank your children and your descendants. This is not the thing you want to do. If you want a legacy, this is not your legacy. Oh, we destroyed the best farmland in the world. That's my legacy. I was on the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors when we destroyed the best farmland in the world. Is that what you want for a legacy?

I have told you before that South Of Stanislaus County, they are taking out of production almost a million acres of farmland. They don't have the water. We do have the water. And that's what we have to do. Keep this farmland that has the water, the land, and the climate. Thank you. Thank

you, Bill. Welcome. Good

evening, Chairman and Commissioners. Barrett Lapomey with Red Ink Architects, architect for the project. We're very excited to bring this proposal to you today for your approval and we thank the Stanislaus County planning staff and all the associated agencies for their work along this. Just here excited about the project. We are happy to answer any questions if there are any on the project. Thank you. Thank you, Barrett.

Any questions? No? Good.

Else?

All right. I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the Board for comments and or a motion.

I'm just going to relive

a little bit. Back when was

in MCPA, when the Cindelux was there, it was a giant warehouse. I mean, just unbelievable spot there, manufacturing going on. And I had to go out there and observe inventory and an audit that we did there. And then fast forward back when what year did you say? 2012?

Early two thousand. Yeah. '15. Company

went broke. Everything place was just empty. And it was unbelievable. The whole building just disappeared. It was parted out. People just started to show up and take parts of the building away to the point where it was down to just nothing. Yeah. And then it became kind of this toxic mess we kind of thought there. So so anyway, just a little history there for those that weren't involved in it. And yeah, that's where I cut my teeth on inventory observation. But yeah, I think this is a great project. Much better than the complex of the industrial kind of stuff that was going on there before. And hopefully it won't end up the same way that building did. So, we're looking forward to this.

That was one of the unfortunate results of bankruptcy. Yeah. And the automatic stay.

And we couldn't figure out how to stop the building coming up.

There was nothing we could do because of the automatic stay.

Yeah. It was amazing. So, anyway, I support this project.

Yeah. No. I I think this is a very exciting project. It's a dynamic project. And most importantly, it's gonna provide a much needed outlet for our young people in Santa Claus County and also provide an attraction. So I wholeheartedly support this endeavor. Is that a motion? That's a motion. That's a motion. And

a second.

Alright. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries three-zero. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We're gonna move on to item seven three, public hearing. Consider approval of substantial amendment number one to the Status House Home Consortium annual action plan. Anna San Nicolas, any answer presenting?

Good evening. I'm Anna Stan Nicholas, deputy director with the Planning and Community Development. Before you today, you have excuse me substantial amendment number one for the Stanislaus Home Consortium annual action plans fiscal year twenty three, twenty four, and twenty five. So a little brief background here. The county is lead for the home consortium, which consists of all the cities except Modesto, for housing money, which comes under the Home Investment Partnership Act program.

And then there have been county members for community development block grant. So lead since 2001 and then 2023 for the HOME Consortium. So what we're asking for today is to help reprogram funding. So for the past three years, we've been saving up money to be able to do an RFP, a request for proposal that we'll speak about in another item in just a second. So the county has been dividing up their allocations for home evenly between mostly their two main programs, affordable housing program and the housing rehab program.

And then we have to set aside about 10% of our funding for what they call a CHOTO, so a Community Housing Development Organization. And so that's one of the HUD requirements. So what we're proposing is to move funding from the housing rehab for the three years, 'twenty three, 'twenty four, and 'twenty five, into the affordable housing program in order to prioritize some housing development projects. And we ask to move CHOTO funding into the housing rehab program so we can continue the investment in that program. So the county did our public process.

So we opened it up to the public for review on the November 14 through December 15. We posted it on our website. We did send out to our email SERV. We posted in Modesto B. We also met with our partner cities on December 11, and we had two community meetings in December, and we're having our public hearing as required by HUD today to make this adjustment.

So staff recommends the following in this public hearing, to again decrease funding for the housing rehab program for the three fiscal years, and in turn, increasing funding for the consortium's affordable housing program for the three years, and then to reprogram CHOTO funding to continue investment, again, in our rehab program. Along with that, we're asking for authorization to authorize the Director of Planning and Community Development to take necessary actions to implement the substantial amendment, incorporate any comments received, which there were none during this comment period, and to have staff submit the amendment to HUD and make any technical edits that may be needed without changing the overall funding or the programs themselves. Any questions on this item?

Any questions, Steph, Anna? Okay. Seeing none, we'll open the public hearing. There are no written comments and an opportunity for anyone to speak on this item. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board.

Motion approved.

Second. Move a motion and we have a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries four zero. Thank you. On to item seven no, eight. I'm sorry. Discussion item eight, approval to award up to $2.927362, 2,927,000 in home investment partnership program funds and up to 1,300,000 in permanent local housing allocation or PLHA. Anna?

Okay. So before you again, we have affordable housing affordable rental housing development funding recommendations for the programs of HOME and PLHA. So before you, you have the three years' worth of allocation that was put into a housing RFP request for proposal. It was conducted in September by the county. It was a competitive process to solicit projects for new construction of affordable rental units or rehab and preservation of affordable housing units.

So we had a valuation committee help us along with our housing consultant for technical advice and guidance on how to meet make sure we meet our home and PLHA program requirements. So up until the last forty eight hours, we had placed most of our guidance and our ranking for this RFP on the following deadlines and commitments. So HOME usually has two years to commit their funding, and so we were focusing on prioritizing to fund at least one, hopefully two programs or projects with the home funding. But the guidance that we received from HUD and has been concurred with outside legal counsel is that 12/31/2025 commitment deadline has been suspended. So with that being, we need to adjust our staff recommendations, which we will go into in a little bit.

But again, our commitment deadline for home is now different. With that Nana,

that doesn't change the the projects you're recommending. Correct?

Correct. The proposals would be all the same. The only difference would be, some of the guidance to move forward.

Okay. And timeline. Yeah.

It's just unfortunate we, given the shutdown with the federal government and just some of the guidance that they themselves say, is misleading that's posted on their website. It was kinda difficult to to to nail down the some the changes with the expiration date. A lot of this is tied back to COVID and a lot of waivers that got issued and so we did get clarity within the last forty eight hours. So, we are making some changes but the projects themselves stay the same. We still think that they're viable projects.

With the request for proposal that we put out, we got five projects. I'm just going to go over them here quickly. The first one and these are in alphabetical based on the proposer that submitted them. So we got one from Great Valley Housing Corporation for the Las Palmas Senior Complex in the city of Paterson. This is an existing 24 unit senior housing development that was seeking 406,000 for rehabilitation, including HVAC, dry rot, and exterior paint.

The second one that we received was from Stanislaus Equity Partners, STEP, the Lucky House Village in the city of Riverbank. This was on between Patterson Road and Ward Avenue. It's on a 2.25 acre site, and the site is approved for up to 40 of 40 units. They were proposing to do phase one, which would have been 12 units of affordable rental housing. The third project is was proposed by the Stanislaus Regional Housing Authority on Abbey Street in the community of Empire.

And so just under an acre site that has four existing units, and they would be acquiring it to develop an additional five units of affordable rental housing at a request for funding of 2,300,000 of both home and PLHA funding. The fourth project was also from Stanselas Regional Housing Authority for the Valley Manor project in the city of Newman. This would be funding for the replacement of 48 HVAC units and the rehab of 46 balconies in an existing facility. Requesting 1,300,000 of PLHA funding and this was the only project that actually qualified for PLHA funding based on the city of Newman having a certified housing element. The fifth project was the Stanselas was also Stanselas Regional Housing Authority, the Park Street Cottages Project in the city of Turlock.

Again, site just under one acre that's developed with the existing four units, and they would develop up to an additional eight units of affordable rental housing, with a request for 3,100,000 in home and PLHA funding. This next slide kind of breaks down the five projects, showing the type of projects. Again, two rehab projects, three new development projects, Turlock, Newman, Empire, Patterson, and Riverbank with the total number of units. The cost per unit for the new construction would range from 260,000 to 334,000 per unit and rehab ranging from 16,000 to 54,000 per per unit. The last two columns are the scores that the projects received, from the evaluation committee as the final assessments of the request for proposals were done with the number one project being the Park Street Cottages project in Turlock.

The number two, the Valley Manor project in Newman, and the third one being the Abbey Street project in Empire. And those are the three that we are proposing for funding.

Yeah. So the recommendations before you for the funding with HOME and PLHA, The first one, Park Street, number one, like Angela said, 1,600,000. This is a partial award. We can only fund them with HOME funding, again, because the City Of Turlock does not have a housing element that's certified. Valley Manor project for $1,300,000 This is the full award with PLHA funding only.

And then the Abbey Street project for $1,200,000 a partial award with home funding only. So with this additional time that we have been given by HUD, In order to move forward on these projects, we're asking for the following recommendations. To approve the proposed funding for all three projects, Slight adjustment, then we'll go into the next slide, but originally was to approve an increase in the allocation of home funds to the Abbey Street project. And this was in case the Park Street project didn't come to fruition, we wanted to have that available to be able to fund, Abbey Street, with additional funding. And then to authorize the director of planning to negotiate and execute any necessary documents, make any necessary technical adjustments as requested by the state or by HUD.

Now the update to the staff recommendations is to request to delete staff recommendation number four, which is to approve the increase in the allocation for the Abbey Street project. And then our other update is that we're asking is to direct staff to complete the NEPA environmental review for the home funded projects and to give us until 06/30/2026 to help us with the negotiation and the execution of program agreements. And I just

wanted to add in there that just with these changes, and you know, we wish we weren't making these changes last minute, but in some ways it gives us a little bit better flexibility. We are still staff is still very, very committed to the recommendations that we brought before you with regards to which projects to fund. Two of them are partial funding. We are hoping, and we think there is, good opportunity to to partner with the city of Turlock that has the old home consortium funds. They have about I think it's 4,600,000 available.

All three of these projects, the two that are partially funded, located within areas that could use that funding. We've already started those conversations, and we will be meeting with them to see if we can move some of that funding into both the Parks project and the Abbey project. And ultimately, we'd actually like to look at all five of them because they are they are all five good projects that we got. They're just in different stages, and we couldn't select them all.

There's there's still $1,800,000 of PLHA funds not allocated. Right?

So the year three PLHA funds, when the board programmed the first five years of PLHA funding, it was set aside for permanent supportive housing. One of the five projects did have a permanent supportive housing component to it, but it's located in a jurisdiction that does not have a certified housing element, so we cannot use it there. So we will be looking for alternatives to use the year three funding, and we are only recommending the allocation of the year four and five.

Okay. Okay. And and is there the Turlock, the consortium, when they were in charge of the consortium, the 4,000,000 plus dollars, is there a time on when that money needs to be allocated?

We have had our concerns that they were under a deadline. We now think that given the latest guidance that we've received from HUD that their funding also has suspended as far as the commitment deadline. There are expenditure deadlines. And we yes. We have been having those conversations.

Okay. I look forward to it. Yeah.

Just real quick, Angela. There we go. So this change in the the it was a home 2023 allocation change in that commitment date. It didn't affect at all. If you'd have known that before, it wouldn't affect your rankings at all. Is that what you're you guys are saying?

No. I I don't believe that it would have affected the rankings at all. Because we weren't looking at where the money we were looking at the best project, and then we were fitting them we were fitting the funding to the to the project.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you.

Any other questions? Just clarification. I mean, obviously, Las Palmas has been a top priority of mine and as vocalized by myself and

the mayor

of Paterson. When would we be eligible to possibly pursue pursue that endeavor again?

Well, PLHA funding, we're expecting that the state is going to release new guidelines sometime here in the near future for the next five rounds, and that would be subject to city of Paterson coming into compliance with their housing element, which I know that they have, you know, released it. And they are moving forward with that to to get it certified. With regards to home, home funds right now are kinda tied up with some of the federal issues that are going on. So we hope that we are gonna have, you know, an allocation that would be equal to the last allocation that we got to about 7.6 sorry, 1.6, 1,700,000, but we don't know yet. But I think we just keep working with them.

Again, city of Turlock has has funding out there. They also have ARPA funding, ARPA home funding, which has kind of a different requirement in terms of how they can use it. So our efforts with Turlock will be looking for all angles to optimize the funding that we have to make these projects work.

Well, just if we could just keep our foot foot on the gas in respect to that measure, that'd be much appreciated. I I do believe that that project is viable. Obviously, housing is in need. And I do see it as a low hanging fruit project as well. So thank you again for the efforts and thank you for the report tonight.

Thank you much. No other comments? Go ahead and open the public hearing. Anyone wish to comment? Evening.

Good evening, chairman and supervisors. My name is Kim Ryan. I'm with the Stanislaus Regional Housing Authority. I'm deputy director. And I just wanted to come up here and say good evening and and thank the staff for all the hard work they did on this RFP and the help that they provided us as well. And appreciate you guys. If you guys approve and move forward, this is really going to give us a lot of leverage to go after additional funding and also get these projects going. Appreciate it. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Kim. Kevin, you're up.

Hi. Once again, Kevin McLarty in District 3. I have several questions. I

want

to know is there going to be oversight to make sure that these developments do not deteriorate over the next few years and decades as so often happens in low income housing developments. Also, will there be sidewalks on the streets in these subdivisions because so many county streets don't have sidewalks? How many people per square mile are projected for these projects? And will there be green zones and or parks for relief from urban stress for the residents in these projects? And if not, then how will this need be met for the residents of these developments?

And then finally, do you anticipate that there will be a sheriff's substation located in one of these one or more of these subdivisions to prevent to help prevent it from become to help prevent them from becoming drug zones and crime ridden neighborhoods and so forth. So, you know, as we so often know that prevention is the best cure. So I'm wondering if these things have been anticipated and where we go from here. Thank you.

I'll give Angela your first shot.

So if I can, these are these are infill projects, so they're going into areas that are already developed and they're all relatively smaller small scale with exception of the ones being rehabbed, but they're already there. For the new ones, if they're they do not have sidewalks, they will have to meet, you know, county or city standards for whatever improvements are required. They are in areas that, you know, also have existing park amenities and they will have to pay whatever CF public facility fees and capital facility fees that the city or county require that would cover parks and police sheriff.

Yeah. And I look at them. The applications were in the city of Turlock, in the city of Newman, in the city of Paterson, in the city of Riverbank. Only Abbey Street and Empire is not incorporated area. And I don't believe there's currently sidewalks all the way down Abbey. There is

They'll have to do some sidewalk, but, yeah, there is not sidewalk all along Abbey. Yeah.

I'll just add, Stanislaus Regional Housing Authority, Jim, can attest to this, is very good at maintaining their properties and keeping them in a good shape.

I also, I would be remiss to not take this opportunity that staff is very, excited about Abby because Abby is in an area that this board may recall last week. You approved a number of rezones out there, and we're hoping this really is kind of a synergy project that kind of ends up developing a few of the adjacent parcels along with the county's old library site that is out there. That would give us the opportunity to really extend sidewalk into this neighborhood.

Yeah. Thank you very much. Okay. Seeing no other public comments, we're going to close the public hearing. Bring it back to the board for comments and or motion.

I move to approve staff recommendations as amended by staff. Second.

We have a motion and we have a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries four zero. Thank you very much, staff. Great work. On to item nine, board of supervisor reports. Any board of supervisor reports?

Just Merry Christmas. We're be our last meeting of the year.

Christmas. Oh,

yeah. On December 17 eighteenth, supervisor Winthrow and I used utilized our community benefit funds to provide jackets to children in our district. So I will be delivering jackets at Orville Wright Elementary and supervisor Whitrobe. Franklin And Robertson Road.

Robertson Road. Franklin And Robertson Road.

And how many total jackets is it?

It's like Over 2,000 jackets.

Over 2,000 jackets. Pretty amazing.

And I'd I'd I'd I'd would be remiss if I didn't give credit to Noble Outfitters who sold or gave the jackets at cost. So they cost us somewhere around 14 to $15.

Yeah. Amazing. Today, was at Children and Families Commission, and they were just bringing in box after box, like, maybe a 100 or a 150 boxes of of jackets. So pretty amazing stuff. Thank you. Okay. And then we're board of supervisor reports on to legislative fiscal management report. CEO Hayes.

Yeah. Just a a quick update and note. We are required to read into the public record when we employ a new executive with the county or somebody at the executive level. And I wanna recognize that earlier on tonight's consent calendar, the board did approve the appointment of Mary Hartsfield as the new Stanseless County clerk of the board effective January 5, 2026. We're very, very excited to have miss Hartsfield joining our team.

I do need to recognize that as part of her compensation package, she will receive approximately 160,000 per year as well as management level benefits here in Stanislaus County. But finally, I also need to recognize the two ladies that we have right here. Miss Noemi Leon has served as our interim clerk of the board for about the last six months with the very strong support leadership of Kelly Rodriguez here, our assistant clerk of the board. And they've just done a tremendous job stepping in to fill some big shoes there. We appreciate you both, and we look forward to you onboarding our new clerk of the board starting next year.

That's

it. Thank you very much. Alright. If there's nothing else for the good of the order, this meeting is adjourned.