Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the November 6th, 2025, Stanislaus County Planning Commission. I'd like to start off with a few reminders. Please silence your cell phones. During the public hearings, we're happy to accept any comments on the projects, but we ask that you avoid repetition. During a long hearing, it's okay to say that you agree with the previous speaker rather than to repeat what's already been said. May we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Brachetta. Commissioner Callas? Here. Commissioner Campo? Here. Commissioner Huff? Here. Commissioner Murad? Here. Commissioner Willerup?

Here.

Thank you. Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,

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 issue that is not on tonight's agenda? All right, seeing none.

Madam Chair, can we just let the record reflect that Commissioners Maring, Zavala, and Zipzer are absent this evening?

All right, so noted. Do we need a vote for that? No, thank you. Thank you, noted. Is there a motion to accept the minutes from October 16th, 2025?

I'll move. I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposition? All right. Director Freitas, do we have any correspondence? We have none this evening. Thank you. Are there any commissioners that would like to declare a conflict of interest? All right, seeing none.

Okay.

There are no consent items on tonight's agenda. We will move on to non-consent items. Parcel map variance and Williamson Act cancellation, application number PLN 2025-0022, Silva Revocable Trust. May we have a report, please?

Certainly. Good evening, commissioners, members of the public. This is Jeremy Ballard, senior planner, and I will be presenting you the application for the Silva Revocable Trust. This is a request to subdivide a 107-acre parcel into two parcels and a remainder. Proposed parcel one of the parcel map will be below the required 40-acre minimum for a new parcel being created in the A240 zoning district, which will require variance to be granted. Because the proposed parcel one will also be below the 10-acre minimum parcel size required under the Williamson Act, the cancellation of a portion of contract number 1971-364 is included in this request. The project site is located at 20400 Armstrong Road between Pear Avenue and East Marshall Road in the Crows Landing area. The site has a general plan designation of Agriculture and is zoned General Agriculture A240. The site is surrounded by orchards, row crops, and scattered single family dwellings in all directions. The current site is developed with a single family dwelling and an agricultural storage building, which are both located on proposed parcel one. The remaining balance of the site is planted in row crops and is in flood irrigated via surface water from the Patterson Irrigation District. The district's lateral H separates proposed parcel one from the proposed remainder. The site includes irrigation infrastructure consisting of a floodgate at the southwest corner of the proposed remainder parcel and a 10-foot wide irrigation ditch that begins at the irrigation gate and extends east along Pear Avenue and then north along the length of the proposed remainder parcel and proposed parcel two. Another irrigation gate is located on the southwest corner of proposed parcel two with a drainage ditch running along the eastern, excuse me, along the western property line of proposed parcel two. 10-foot wide irrigation and drainage easement runs concurrent with the existing irrigation drainage ditches. So as stated previously, the project is to divide the 107-acre parcel into two parcels, one being 5.32 acres, the second parcel being 44.22 acres, and then the remainder parcel, which will be 5,808 acres. The entire product site is enrolled in Williamson Act Contract 71-0364. If approved, the 5.32 acres will be canceled from the Williamson Act, and the remaining 102.3 acres are proposed to be re-enrolled under a new contract. Proposed Parcel 1 will have access to County-Maintained Armstrong Road and Pear Avenue. Proposed Parcel 2 will have access to County-Maintained Armstrong Road and Alfalfa Avenue. and the remainder will have access to county maintained pair and Alpha Alpha roads. No new development is being proposed as part of this request. Each resulting parcel will utilize individual private domestic well and septic systems for any future residential development.

Okay, one second.

There we go. The site was originally comprised of six lots of the Patterson Colony Subtract No. 2, recorded in 1911, which you can see there outlined in yellow. Proposed Parcel 1 consists of the 5.32 acres originally encompassed by Lot 669, which I've got the arrow pointed there. It's kind of tough to see, but that corner there. However, a subsequent parcel map recorded in 1980 extinguished the Patterson Colony lots, establishing the 107-acre project site and then an adjoining 51-acre parcel that is to the north. As discussed in the Issue Section of the Planning Commission Staff Report, staff is not providing a recommendation of approval or denial for this project. Typically, a variance may be approved in situations where physical characteristics of the property exist that limit the enjoyment of development rights experienced by other properties within the same zoning designation, resulting in unnecessary hardships from provisions of the zoning ordinance. In this particular request, the applicant has submitted findings, a finding statement relative to the proposed variance and why they believe they meet it. That statement states that the request for creation of a 5.32 acre parcel in the A240 zoning district should be approved due to the parcel previously existing as an underlying lot, stating that the lot was inadvertently merged as a result of the parcel map record in the 1980s. Additionally, the findings further state that the Patterson Irrigation District lateral that physically separates the 5.32 acres from the agricultural portion of the parcel is being separated by the lateral, and then that's part of the justification for the variance. In making recommendations on similar variance requests, staff has not considered the existence of an irrigation lateral itself as a physical characteristic warranting a variance unless there's some kind of impediment to accessing around the lateral, such as a long distance required to be traveled to get to the other side. In this case, there is a direct access to all areas of the parcel, including the acreage to the west of the lateral and to the larger portion of the parcels to the north and east that will be taken from multiple county maintained roads. ACCORDINGLY, NO SUCH ACCESS LIMITATIONS DO EXIST ON THIS SITE. IN PAST REQUESTS WHERE DIRECT ACCESS AROUND THE LATERAL IS NOT FEASIBLE, STAFF HAS SUPPORTED THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE. SO ON THE SLIDE YOU CAN SEE SOME SCREEN SHOTS TAKEN FROM GOOGLE MAPS THERE THAT SHOW THE PORTIONS OF PROPOSED PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2 WHICH IS ALONG ARMSTRONG ROAD THERE. SO THE FIRST PICTURE IS LOOKING SOUTHWARD ALONG ARMSTRONG WHICH SHOWS THE NORTHERN END OF THE LATERAL. On the middle picture is looking north on Armstrong, which shows the southern portion of the lateral and that area, that kind of dirt area in the front there, that is the northern end of proposed parcel one. And then the bottom picture is looking at the along Pear Avenue, which is the southwestern tip of the remainder. and shows the irrigation ditch. So it kind of shows the separation, not only the separation of the parcel by the lateral, but also the access points of proposed parcel one and the remainder and proposed parcel two. So getting back to the slide here, as I was saying that, you know, normally staff has supported variances with whether some sort of direct have supported variances where there's a distance that's an issue with accessing the proposed parcel. But in the other instances, you know, if there's the access portion or the distance is minimal, staff has not been in support of that. But this particular parcel does have unique parcelization history based on the Patterson colony lots and then the subsequent 1980s map that extinguished them. Additionally, the project site zoning designation at the time of the parcel map in the 1980s was A210, which would have allowed parcels at 10 acre minimum based on the parcel size at the time of the 1980s map. They would have been able to create up to 16 new parcels. So in both cases, the current request to create The undersized parcel of 5.32 acres and these two conforming parcels, it would create a minimum parcel size which could create a unique circumstance in which staff has not provided a recommendation for approval or denial. Similar to a variance, the findings for a Williams NAC cancellation can also be difficult to make. However, based on the resulting parcel size, if the variance is approved, staff believes the cancellation findings for the 5.32-acre proposed parcel one can be made. No other issues have been identified during the review of this application, and there have been standards conditions of approval been added to address the less significant impacts associated with the parcel map. General plan consistency was evaluated when processing this discretionary request, which included an evaluation of the project site's general plan, land use designation of agriculture, with the exception of, excuse me, with the exception of proposed parcel one, which proposes to cancel its portion of the contract, proposed parcel two and the remainder will be greater than 40 acres in size and have been proposed to be re-enrolled in the new Williamson Act contract after project approval. These two parcels are considered to be prime agricultural land and will continue to be used for agricultural production, which would be consistent with the intent of the general plan agricultural designation. Additionally, proposed parcel two and the remainder parcel would maintain 90% of the parcel in agricultural production as they are both currently used and will continue to be used as row crops, to grow row crops and will maintain their ability to independently irrigate via flood irrigation from the Patterson Irrigation District. Therefore, a no-build restriction on the construction of any future residential development would not be applicable. Then lastly, the project site is located within the review area two of the Crows Landing Airport as established in the county's airport land use compatibility plan. The project was referred to the airport land use commission. A response from the commission secretary stated the project is located outside of the identified safety zones and noise contour areas of the Crows Landing Airport. However, the site is located in the airport influence area and is subject to real estate disclosures and federal aviation height notification requirements. conditions of approval have been added to the project to address these requirements. So zoning and subdivision ordinance was also evaluated. As discussed previously, new parcels in the A240 zoning district must be 40 acres in size unless a variance can be granted. In order to grant the variance, it must be found that there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings. that the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner and will not constitute a special privilege, and that the granting of such application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injuries to the property or improvements in the neighborhood. As discussed in the Issue Section of this report, the applicant's finding statement asserts that the requested 5.32-acre parcel was historically used as a home site since 1925 and that it was inadvertently merged with all other underlying lots. That the physical justification for the variance includes the 5.32 acres being isolated from the balance of the property and that it sits at a higher elevation and has no irrigation infrastructure connected to it. Ultimately, the applicant states that the current proposed application would only be recreating the previously existing home site. So getting back into the variance request and some of the history here. So there are similar variance requests that have been discussed in the staff report before you. I'm going to talk about two of them specifically. The first would be the 2002 variance in parcel application for Alley or Shod which was to create two parcels of 10.8 acres and 5.6 acres. This particular request was made due to an MID lateral that limited access to the eastern portion of the parcel and it required the property owner to use the use of county maintained Blue Gum Avenue to access it. Staff recommended denial of this request, arguing that the distance needed to be traveled to farm the portion east of the ladder did not justify creating two substandard parcels. In June of 2003, the Planning Commission denied the variance request. The decision was appealed to the Board of Supervisors who upheld the Commission's decision denying the request. And so on the pictures here, you can see the parcel, the project site is outlined in red and obviously the canal lateral there separating it there. The request was based on the acreage on either side. So the 10-point acres would be on the west of the lateral and the five would be on the east. And then there's a screenshot of the the access point on the south end of Blue Gum there for the property owner to get to that side of the parcel. The second request was for variance in parcel map application number 2001-27, Bellino Family Farms, which proposed to create two parcels of 30 acres and 7.5 acres, and this was due to an MID canal also, or a lateral limiting access to the southern portion of their parcel. Originally, the southern portion was previously accessed by an MIT bridge over the lateral That bridge was deemed to be hazardous and was to be removed without any replacement. So to travel, to get to the other side they would have to travel multiple county main roads to gain access and that was deemed to be extensive travel along those multiple roadways. Planning staff recommended approval of the request and the Planning Commission granted this variance in March of 2002. So this current project shares similarities with the Ashard request because of the lesser distance of travel for access. However, based on the parcelization history, in addition to the separation of the site by the lateral, it does give some weight to the applicant's request to create a parcel below that minimum size. If the variance is approved, it would essentially reinstate a previous condition enjoyed by that same property owner prior to 1980. So going over to the Williamson Act cancellation portion of this, As required by state law for the cancellation of the Williamson Act contract, the Stanislaus County Assessor determined the current fair market value of the land to be $479,000 and the cancellation fee which is equal to 12.5% of that valuation to be $59,875 for the proposed 5.32 acre parcel. In order for the Williamson Act contract to be cancelled, the Board of Supervisors must hold a public hearing on the request and make several findings, including but not limited to finding that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act and is in the public interest. Specific findings for cancellation that is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act and the public interest are that there is a Notice of Non-Renewal that has been filed. It is not likely to remove adjacent land from agriculture. It will not cause discontiguous patterns of urban development. The cancellation is requested for an alternative use which is consistent with the general plan, that there are public concerns or benefits outweighing the objectives of the Williamson Act, and that there's no approximate non-contracted land which is both available and suitable for use for the proposed contracted land to be put. As detailed in the staff report before you, staff believe the findings for cancellation can be made if the variance and parcel map is approved. Additionally, the proposed parcels meet the subdivision ordinance access and design criteria required for the creation of new parcels. So in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the project was referred to responsible agencies. No significant impacts have been raised and a negative declaration has been prepared for the project. There are standard conditions of approval that have been applied. So in summary, staff has not provided a recommendation for this request. While variances and parcel maps are typically decided by the Planning Commission, the Williamson Act cancellation requires Board Supervisor consideration. Therefore, the Planning Commission will be offering a recommendation to the Board on the entirety of the request. If the Commission should choose to recommend approval, the findings in Exhibit A of the Planning Commission staff report include findings related to the variance, Williamson Act cancellation, environmental determination, parcel map, and approval. And these would be subject to the conditions of approval which are included in Exhibit C of the staff report. And that concludes my presentation. I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you for that report. Any questions from staff? I mean, from the Commission to staff? All right, seeing none, we will go ahead and open it up for public hearing. Is there anyone speaking in opposition of this item this evening? Is there anyone speaking in favor of it? Please come up and identify yourself and where you live, please.

Barbara Silva.

Good evening, my name is Lori Silva and I serve as a land planning consultant representing Barbara Silva on behalf of the George Silva and Barbara Ann Silva Revocable Trust in connection with the parcel map variance application PLN 2025-022. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this item. The variance is fundamentally a request to rectify an administrative error from 1980 that inadvertently merged a longstanding home site, depriving the Silva family of its intended separate status. Allow me to walk you through the key findings that meet every requirement under section 2196050 of the zoning ordinance. First, exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. Lot 669 originates from the 1911 Patterson colony sub-track number two. It is one of six lots on 162.06 acre ranch conveyed by deed to Charles Silva by Patterson Ranch Company in 1924. This deed effectively labeled Lot 669 as a home site as it explicitly prohibited Lot 669 from the same right granted to other lots to access irrigation water from the adjacent canal. A house was built there around 1925 and it has served as a family home site ever since. In 1968, George Silva and his two siblings inherited undivided interest in several different ranches consisting of approximately 500 acres. In 1978, Mid Valley Engineering was hired to separate a 54.44 acre portion of this specific ranch in order to equitably distribute to each sibling their one-third interest of inherited land. A parcel map was recorded, which unexpectedly merged all underlying lots. The map's depiction was misleading. Lot 669 showed a continuous boundary line with no dashed lines or merger symbols like the others, leading the syllabus to believe that lot 669 was still separated. The Silva's never intended for it to be merged. At this time, lot line adjustments were relatively uncommon in Stanislaus County, but would have much better served the Silva's intentions, leaving lot 669 untouched and preserved as a separate parcel. These circumstances are further complicated by unique physical constraints of lot 669. It's isolated by PID lateral H canal, sits at a higher elevation, and it is not agriculturally viable as it has no irrigation access. These are not general conditions in the A240 zoning district. They are specific hardships that strict enforcement would exaggerate, preventing reasonable use of the century-old home site. Second, no privileges, we're not asking for something new. This variance simply restores what existed before the 1980 error. Lot 669 as a standalone home site per the 1911 map and its continuous residential use since 1925. The variance addresses a unique procedural anomaly not experienced by other landowners in the district. Third, consistency with the general plan and zoning ordinance. Our ag element prioritizes preserving farmland while allowing reasonable home sites to support farm families. Lot 669 has done exactly that for 100 years. The remaining parcels will both exceed 40 acres and stay in active agricultural production. No change in the area's rural character, just continued residential support for farming. Fourth, no detriment to public health, safety, or welfare. Lot 669 has operated as a low-impact home site for nearly 100 years, supported by existing access, utilities, and infrastructure. The canal's presence constrains further development, ensuring no strain on public resources or environmental compliance beyond the approved negative declaration. Finally, no negative impact on neighbors. Adjacent ag operations won't even notice a difference. The status quo of one home site amid farmland remains. Values and productivity stay protected with larger parcels fully compliant. In summary, the 1980 parcel map error merged its irreplaceable 5.32 acre home site contrary to my client's expressed intent. Along with the parcel's physical isolation evaluation, excuse me, elevation and lack of irrigation access constitute exceptional circumstances warranting relief. Approval of the variance will remedy the unintended merger and align with the agricultural preservation goals absent any privilege, detriment, or inconsistency. At 83 years old, Barbara has lived in the home on lot 669 since marrying George in the 1960s. They remodeled it together, raised their children in there, and built a lifetime of memories in this rural setting. George is now gone, but Barbara remains. Surrounded by the farmland her family has tended to for over half a century. The Silva family has been exemplary stewards of this land for generations. The 1980 parcel map error erased her home site, Tonight you can restore it along with the estate plan that she and George envisioned long ago. This action honors their legacy and allows Barbara to age in place with dignity. We respectfully ask that you adopt the staff findings and approve the variance. Thank you for consideration. I am available for any questions.

Thank you so much. Is there anything else you would like to add to that?

No, Joseph. You know, we've had it forever and didn't intend it to be divided or undivided. So I thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commission? Or any comments? Thank you so much for being here.

Thank you.

Are there any other comments in favor? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Commission for discussion or a possible motion.

I have one related one comment. We farm in a different county and when in developing a solar site I went to unenroll I think four acres from the Williamson Act and it was a piece that our company purchased at a time when I was would have been six years old and the ground had been acquired in holes, an entire section had been acquired and it was several APNs. Well, I go to unenroll the four acres and the County comes back, not this County and says, well, you don't have a legal lot because the lot was subdivided prior to the map act of 1980, whatever. And anyway, it was like weeks and weeks and months and months. I'm very sympathetic to your situation here. I'm prepared to make a motion to recommend approval to the board of supervisors. Well, why don't I, I can state the motion.

Please do.

I'd like to move that the planning commission recommend approval, uh, of the parcel map variance. When snack cancellation for application number PLN 2025 dash zero zero two, two, and adopt the findings in exhibit eight.

And I will second. Maybe you have a roll call, please.

Commissioner Brachetto. Commissioner Kalas? Aye. Commissioner Campo? Aye. Commissioner Huff? Aye. Commissioner Murad? Aye. Commissioner Willerup?

Aye.

Motion passes 6-0.

All right, moving on. Do we have a report from our director?

Yes. Before I get into my report, I do want to make a correction. I said there was no correspondence, because I'm usually expecting to speak to stuff that was received too late for the agenda. But you actually did have something as part of your agenda, which was the 2006 Planning Commission calendar. So I just wanted to correct that. Well, since you guys last met, on October 21st, Board of Supervisors took action for the second time to continue the public hearing for the West Main Compost Facility. This had been scheduled to be heard on the 21st of October. It's been continued to November 18th at the request of the applicant to allow them some additional time to work with the surrounding neighbors. On the horizon for the Planning Commission, November 20th, we have one rezone and a parcel map in the Modesto area, and currently we don't have anything for the December calendar, either the 5th or the 18th. That could change, but right now it's looking like we don't have anything. And that concludes my report.

All right. Thank you so much. And I just want to make sure everyone has our 2026 planning commission meeting calendar. Everyone got it. All right. Thank you. There's no other matters except I do want to wish our County council a happy birthday. We didn't forget you. Thank you for showing up on your birthday.

I move that we sing happy birthday. And I second.

Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, dear council. Happy birthday to you. Thank you.

All right. Thank you so much. Do you have any comments or are we adjourned?

No, let's please adjourn. All right.

Thank you so much. We are adjourned.