How will the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors vote on piecemeal development in Salida?

On Thursday, February 17, 2022, the Stanislaus County Planning Commission voted 4-2 to deny the proposed Salida gas station project. The primary reason cited was the planning department had bypassed the Salida Municipal Advisory Council (Salida MAC) when the project had changed in several ways. The project went back to Salida MAC and was voted against (5-0) on Tuesday, February 22, 2022. It now proceeds to the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 6:30 pm. 

Now that the project title has changed to recognize this would be the first development project of the Salida Community Plan (SCP), I don't think the county realizes how encumbered this project will be by the SCP. The SCP was passed as an initiative; the county does NOT get to cherry-pick what they abide by in it. My comments below to the Planning Commission mention several of these articles in the initiative. 

Good evening Planning Commissioners,

As reflected in the project title change, the county has now acknowledged that this project has become the very first development project under the updated Salida Community Plan, SCP for short. Our community plan was a 2007 initiative that Salida voters were supposed to get to vote on, but it was pulled off the ballot and passed by three county supervisors, including our supervisor at the time, Jeff Grover. If you ask anyone who lived in Salida in 2007 who planned to vote on the initiative, most will express resentment that their vote was taken away from them, including other residents right here in this room.

I was one of them. I barely paid any attention to local politics until Modesto moved to annex Salida in 2012. But I did plan to vote no on the SCP – Salida Now as it was called then, because 2007 was the start of the recession and I had neighbors who couldn't sell their homes so why did we need a development plan that included 5,000 new homes to compete against?

In about 2014, I printed off and read the entire SCP, and I have now come to appreciate certain aspects of it. For instance, page 4 of Exhibit B item E states “Ensuring that the Salida Community Plan Amendment Area is in HARMONY with existing communities.”

I met with Baldev “Paul” Grewal on April 3, 2021 and I gave him a list of 4 things that would help his project: 1. Will the gas station close at night? He asked me if the pumps could stay on and I said he needed to ask the neighborhood. 2. Safety – crime, gas, hydrogen. - Now I don't know why this project was approved when the project next to it was denied based on not having enough water for fire suppression because Vizcaya's well is shut down for being over the limit in arsenic. There's much more about water supply requirements in the SCP ordinance but that's for county counsel and staff to review as reading and adhering to the SCP is way above what they pay you to be here tonight. As for hydrogen, there has not been any communication or community education on the safety of hydrogen fuel. The closest hydrogen station to us is at Harris Ranch so there's nothing in this county to base experience or policy on. And as for crime, the security detail proposed in the project is for the storage units and not for the 24-hour convenience store. Third – a Community Facilities District which the Salida Community Plan states on Article II, Section 2.09 “Funding Districts. Prior to the recordation of any final map, the Applicant filing such map shall petition County to form (or annex into, as applicable) community facilities districts or other such financing districts solely burdening the applicable portion of the Project Site." But I do not see any mention of this CFD in the Planning document that is part of this passed initiative. And lastly, I asked Paul to put it in writing which obviously, none of it is, or it would be in the Conditions for Approval. So I feel this lack of harmony shown towards Vizcaya and the Community of Salida is setting this project up to be another Larsa Hall or Fruit Yard. The County is a complaint driven system after all, and it would be so much easier if the applicant would meet with the community BEFORE one spade of dirt is overturned since they will be suffering the ramifications of this destined to be torn down gas station.

This plan should have gone back to Salida MAC after planning dept changed the title because these and other questions as pertains to the plan should be addressed ahead of time. The two previous MAC members who had conflicts – one a real estate agent that works for the company representing the land, and the other who works for the county which stands to benefit from a 200% discount on a drainage basin, should have conflicted themselves out. The county employee has since resigned from MAC and two seats were filled in January. If it had gone back to MAC now, then a legitimate vote could have been taken and not this nonsense of split votes by conflicted members. One of you even cited that the MAC vote weighs heavily on their decision about the project, so I hope you will take these biased machinations into consideration because the request was denied that the project be taken back to the MAC BEFORE the planning commission meeting. It is now slated to go to MAC next week, so any vote they make will not be heard tonight by you. What should have happened is it went to the MAC next week, then went to Planning Commission's March 3^rd meeting. Because when it comes down to it, who stands to gain the most from this project besides the landowners? The county does. The county gets their discount basin and the county gets the tax revenue from the development. And the county has scheduled the votes in their favor for you to not to consider an un-conflicted MAC vote.

The SCP has a provision for the Board of Supervisors to consider a range of land uses intended to allow flexibility, but that loophole does NOT preclude the applicants from the SCP fee in Exhibit A page 10 section 21.66.110 nor the aforementioned CFD. In fact, Exhibit B item 17A states “adopting this Ordinance without alteration.” and just below that in Section B item 1. “This initiative will protect the quality of life of the County's citizens by Discouraging sprawl by locating a mix of land uses adjacent to existing communities.” And in Exhibit B, section D “Approval of this initiative does not constitute a part of, or encourage, piecemeal conversion of a larger agricultural area to non-agricultural uses.” Simply put, I ask you to put yourself in the shoes of residents of the Vizcaya neighborhood. Would you want a gas station less than 500 feet from your un-gated neighborhood? Would you want flammable materials less than 500 ft from your house when water suppression could be an issue because your well is shut down? I was reminded of this again when American Recycling burned this week and they had water suppression issues. How does anything about this gas station improve the quality of life and harmony of the community?