Here we go again with Modesto trying to annex Salida's land

The land that Modesto's Costco sits on used to be in Salida's tax base. When Modesto annexed it into their city, they agreed to split the sales tax with Stanislaus County 50/50. Can you imagine just how much money Salida would have in tax revenue alone just from Costco? And that doesn't even take into account the other retail stores on that land. Then in 2009, Modesto annexed the land that Kaiser Hospital was built on which removed more tax base from Salida. The loss of tax base has hurt Salida to the point of having to contract out for fire coverage. And the wheels are in motion for it to happen again.

I wrote about the proposed Scannell warehouse project in 2024, but at the time, it was being developed through Stanislaus County. According to a March 5, 2025 article in the Modesto Bee, the developer chose to apply to the city as a "quicker route to get the project approved and built." Why?

Perhaps the developer thinks the project will receive utilities more quickly than they would through the county. But they may have forgotten that every single Measures A & M vote to extend sewer service north of Kiernan into Salida Community Plan area has been voted down by Modesto voters. See the red area on the city's map here.

Another reason to push for a "quicker route" might be the rationale to get it built before anyone notices it and fights it. Many people note the empty Jack Rabbit warehouse on Kiernan and Tully, not to mention the many other warehouses sitting empty in the region. And the commercial environment for another sprawling Scannells warehouse is an unfriendly one at the state and community levels. Legislation was introduced to inhibit new warehouses in California. Scannells has had similar warehouse proposals rejected in other states. Additionally, a new California law slated to begin in 2026 could impact this Scannells project due to neighboring Gregori High School and nearby homes.

You can respond to the Notice of Preparation by March 27, 2025 and watch the March 20th online scoping meeting from 3-4pm. It's also recommended to attend the Salida Municipal Advisory Council meeting on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 at 7pm at the Salida Library Community Room. 

Development in Salida should mean tax revenue for Salida

 (NOTE: These comments were shared during public comment by Katherine Borges at the Tuesday, August 8, 2023 Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors meeting.)

Several years ago during the time I served as Chair of Salida MAC, I asked former Public Works Director, Matt Machado for sidewalks in downtown Salida and his reply was, “If we do it for you, we have to do it for everyone.” I will note here that the Airport and Robertson Road communities are now being given sidewalks by Stanislaus County.

There's a development project currently progressing that is slated to be built on land within the boundaries of the Salida Community Plan. The Scannells warehouse project which would be built on the northwest corner of Kiernan and

Dale. Another project along Pelandale called “Kiernan Business Park South”. Dave Romano is the lead on both projects, and it may have slipped his mind that he signed a development agreement in 2007 for the Salida Community Plan area project which is still in force until 2032.

The Salida Community Plan requires a programmatic EIR and these are my supervisor's comments from the March 2022 Supervisor board meeting regarding the Salida gas station project. To quote Terry: “It's wrong to treat one applicant and all other applicants one way and all the people who've come in here and this one a different way. This initiative requires that a programmatic EIR be prepared prior to the development within the amendment area. It doesn't say “may”. It doesn't say the county has the discretion to ignore this in favor of one developer.” End quote. That needs to apply to Mr. Romano as well.

The development pressure on Salida is strong. There was also a housing developer who was considering a project within SCP lands. The biggest sticking point with developing within the Salida Community Plan has always been the programmatic EIR because at the time the initiative was passed, it was just one developer who was going to oversee the whole project. Dave Romano is not going to want to pay for the whole thing if he's not developing the entire area. So the solution here is for Stanislaus County to do the EIR in-house just like you did for the Crows Landing Industrial Business Park. Remember the “If we do it for you, we have to do it for everyone”?

Additionally, Crows Landing Industrial Park and even Kiernan Business Park South both have Community Services Districts and the county will need to create one for Salida too because if these projects were only county developed, then you would be creating another county island like Beard Industrial Park which will NEVER be annexed into the City of Modesto. Salida deserves the revenue from any development. If Salida had the tax sharing from previous lands like Costco that were annexed out of our districts, then we would have had the funding to keep our fire department. If we had the tax revenue from Costco, we could install our own sidewalks and not have to wait years while the county installs sidewalks everywhere else first. If you want development in Salida, then do the EIR and CSD. It is what the Salida Community Plan calls for and it's the right thing to do for the Community of Salida.

Transparency requests on the Salida Sheriff Substation

Stanislaus Board of Supervisors Public Comment - Tuesday, March 29, 2022

I'm here today because I did not receive a reply to an email that I sent to Tom Boze last week requesting the consultant's report on this project. 

6,000 sq ft od space available
in Salida Library

Having lived in Salida for nearly thirty years, I remember when our sheriff substation was in a modular building in downtown Salida, and then moved into the remodeled Bank of the West building in 2003, which is now La Familia Market. The substation was closed during the recession, a main reason cited was the high cost of rent on the bank building; if I recall correctly, it was $10,000 a month. At the August 2021 Salida MAC meeting, Sheriff Dirkse mentioned the two key options for a substation: the first being the 6,000 sq feet of unused space in the Salida Library building. The remodel of that old Brunners building was $6.3 million back in 2003. Sheriff Dirkse stated that the other site, the Salida Fire Dept Station 12 does not have the square footage needs to occupy further in the future. Sheriff Dirkse stated that the county is in the process of hiring a contractor through GSA to do a site assessment on both facilities. He stated and I quote, “We have to get that estimate before we have an honest conversation.”

Quite frankly, I did not have much of an opinion on where the substation was located until I received an email on March 15, 2022 that reported an arrest for prostitution on March 13, 2022 in the 4900 block of Sisk Road which is the site of two hotels. Further online searching turned up a bust by Turlock PD of a prostitution ring at the same address in February 2021. I asked a sheriff dept employee which hotel had sex trafficking and the reply was, “All of them”. The hotel closest to the library is a 430 foot walk from my house so I have no words for how horrifying what is going on just feet from my neighborhood.

Salida Library
Sheriff Substation April 2022

There's a small substation already built in the Salida Library which even has signage but has never been staffed. Perhaps if it was staffed, THAT could deter human trafficking and prostitution at these two hotels.

Both Sheriff Dirkse and Chief Pat Burns stated at Salida MAC at two different times that the lease for the property would be for 99 years yet this agenda item states only a two-year lease with a further option of two years. This 2-4 year lease was never mentioned at Salida MAC nor was there any presentation given by the General Services Agency comparing the two sites. Where is the contractor's report that Sheriff Dirkse mentioned? It's not attached in this board item. You are using public funds for this and you should be 100% transparent. The Salida Community deserves to know all the aspects of why a leased site is being chosen over a large site already owned by the county? Salida already has a history of having substations closed due to a lease so we should be able to have answers to all of our questions before this item is passed today. The MAC should not be bypassed.

This item should be pulled and a presentation given at Salida MAC by GSA and the Sheriff on why this site was chosen and explain the disparities of the lease terms.

_________________________________________________

Stanislaus Board of Supervisors Public Comment - Tuesday, April 25, 2022

It's been a month since I was here and requested the General Services Agency report on the site locations for the new substation in Salida. I was going to reserve my opinion on a site until I saw the report, and since you are using public monies, I still expect a report to be produced even if you are the ones who put the cart before the horse. I also expect a response as to why both Sheriff Dirkse and Fire Chief Pat Burns said the terms of the lease at the fire station was $1 a year for 99 years but the board item you passed stated $1 a year for 2 years with an option for 4 years. What do you five know about this lease that the public doesn't? What will happen after 2 years? Is the lease going to go up? Is the county buying the land? The county also needs to do better with respect to communication. The dedication of the substation at the fire department was not announced in the Bee nor on any county websites other than a new substation page just two days prior. Notices were not mailed either. Salida MAC did not post it on their page or to Next Door. The only place I saw it posted to and it was after the fact, was Terry's campaign website. Appearances matter so you need to be transparent and produce a General Services Agency report that addresses all of these issues and THE COUNTY needs to improve communication with the community. The onus is on county employees who are paid to be public servants, not the unpaid volunteers who serve on MAC councils. Also want to point out that you need another substation sign or a banner at the back of the fire station that you can view from the freeway ramp. And have the deputies park the car there too. Right now, a little brown sign in the front and hidden cars isn't deterring any criminals from what they don't see.

_________________________________________________

Stanislaus Board of Supervisors Public Comment - Tuesday, May 24, 2022 

I'm back for some updates: foremost, it's been two months now since I've requested the consultant's report that the county paid $25 thousand for. I did receive a “I don't think I can give it to you” or “it might be heavily redacted”. I am requesting the redacted version then. When Sheriff Dirkse visited Salida MAC, his words were “when the report comes in, we'll take a look at it” but he did not say, “But not you Salida.” It is preposterous to think that the county is not going to let Salida see what our substation will look like ahead of it being built. Also, the issue of why the county would choose a site they do not own over a site they do own still needs to be addressed. As I mentioned in my last comments, appearances count and it appears that the county is trying to hide something. Besides not releasing a document that public money was spent to produce, the Salida Fire Dept went through and purged people from their agenda subscription list including a current MAC member and when I inquired to the reason why, I was told that we were purged for being “inactive”. The fire department cancels half their meetings and they were the last entity in Salida to have in-person meetings yet we're the “inactive” ones. Put yourself in my shoes: county won't release substation consultant's report and the fire department purges their agenda subscriber lists – it looks like you're colluding to hide something. So if you're not trying to hide something, you can easily demonstrate your transparency by releasing documents that should be public.

So I formally request that a substation presentation be given at Salida MAC and that Salida MAC be added to the Planning Department distribution list for Early Referral Consultations if it has not already been done. 

Salida Gas Station Shenanigans Recap

My comments to the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, March 15, 2022 during public comment about the Salida Gas Station project. Fortunately, three of the supervisors listened to the residents and voted against the project, albeit for varying reasons. Our own District 3 Supervisor was spot on in his comments (watch the video 4:41 minutes).

"Good evening, I'm presenting a recap of facts you might not have heard -

August 2007 – The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors pulls the Salida Now initiative off of the ballot and passes it by 3 votes thus making it the new Salida Community Plan. One of those votes is cast by Jeff Grover, whose 2^nd cousin owns the land within the map area of the Plan which has brought us here tonight.

July 31, 2012 - At the Hammett Road Interchange meeting held at Salida Library Community Room one of the consultants of the study said, “The
problem is, any significant development around the Hammett Road Interchange causes the Hammett interchange to fail in it's ability to service traffic, so it would need to be improved.”

Sometime between 2013-2017 – Water well #299, (Vizcaya's) is shut down for being over the limit in arsenic.

December 7, 2018 - An email between Stanislaus County Deputy Director,Miguel Galvez, to Stanislaus County Planner, Kristin Doud and copied to Stanislaus County Planning Director, Angela Freitas, Galvez writes: "The Grover family is interested in developing their property by the Hammett Road overcrossing. They would like to develop a service station on the 9.6 ac. parcel (APN 003-014-007), it would be temporary until the property is taken for the development of the new interchange."

May 1, 2019 – Email from Miguel Galvez stating that Baldev Grewal came to the planning counter on April 29, 2019 with a proposal to develop the Grover property and is considering several options: 1. Convenience market with gas station 2. commercial parcel map with speculative highway commercial development on four-five parcels 3. propose a parcel map and develop all the properties in phases, with one property to be developed with a hotel. The email also states that Mr. Grewal wishes to move with the General Plan Amendment ASAP then go for a building permit for the convenience market.

September 11, 2019 – Planning files notice with CEQA, mentions the“drafting error” that was unchallenged when the Initiative was passed and unchallenged in the 12 years since.

November 6, 2019 – The Modesto Bee points out that City of Modesto approved water for the project and nowhere in the documents was it mentioned that there would be a “truck stop” or “travel plaza”.

January 28, 2020 - ”I wouldn't have bought a house there” words spoken by a Stanislaus county employee at Salida MAC when asked if he would want to live near the various developments being planned around Hammett and Pirrone. At least five Vizcaya residents sold their homes before this gas station is built. Some disclosed what was going in to the new owners and some did not.

March 3, 2021 – City of Modesto Associate Engineer sends an email to Miguel Galvez stating that the city has denied water service to Brinca's Lark Landing Project citing insufficient fire flow to serve the property at full build out. They cite the contaminated well serving the Vizcaya neighborhood that was shut down.

March 23, 2021 – The split vote at Salida MAC – a motion is made to vote against the gas station project and the newest MAC member who votes nay on the motion does not disclose that he became employed not even a month prior by the same realty company handling the gas station land. The other person to vote nay on the motion is a Stanislaus County employee and it is brought up at the meeting that the county will receive a 75% discount purchasing land for a new storm drain basin if this project is approved.

May 2021 – Moore Biologics is hired by applicants to do environmental assessment and says there's no evidence of Swainson's Hawk nor burrows for a Burrowing Owl at the site.

Burrow at site

June 5, 2021 – An amateur ornithologist photographed a Swainson's Hawk and a nest within one mile of the site.

July 13, 2021 – I sent the Board of Supervisors a photograph of burrows on the site.

February 15, 2022 – In my comments to the Stanislaus County Planning Commission, I refer to sections of the Salida Community Plan that state it cannot be changed and institutes a Community Facilities District. There may a provision in the plan for piecemeal development but that does not mean the rest of the plan can be cherry-picked. Also want to note that potential natural gas fueling has been added and still no EIR. Planning Commission votes 4-3 to oppose the project. The applicant gets off easy if he only has to pay 7-8 years of Mello Roos taxes.

February 22, 2022 – Salida MAC votes unanimously to oppose the project. After the meeting, the developer says he should just sell the land to Travel America which is a truck stop company bringing us right back to where we began.

To sum up the timeline, I oppose this piecemeal-development-truck-stop-or-gas-station-with-two-types-of-fuel-not-at-other-gas-stations-in-the-county-but-could-wipe-Vizcaya-from-the-map-like-in-San-Bruno-or-the-hydrogen-station-explosion-in-Norway-still-with-no-EIR-for-the-threatened-status-species. The county has gone out of it's way to help this project get approved, whether it's ignoring conflicts of MAC members, not requiring an EIR or other requirements of the Salida Community Plan, bypassing Salida MAC before the Planning Commission, and the list goes on. You have heard many reasons tonight to oppose the project but if you need more then County policy 19 and 20, provide you with the means as well as Board of Supervisors policy 10.46.020."

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?

Why build a gas station just to tear it down? Part 2

Stanislaus County Public Works presented a proposal at the Tuesday, October 26, 2021 Salida Municipal Advisory Council (Salida MAC) for Stanislaus County to purchase 2.2 acres of land for $100K from Grover Family Trust. The reason given for purchasing the land by the county employee is it will be, "...maintained by public works as a storm drain basin but it's not going to be allowed to have something built upon it so that it would ultimately have to be torn down at the taxpayers' cost."

Wait. WHAT?!? You mean like the gas station, storage units and other development planned for the parcels adjacent to Pirrone Court also owned by Grover Family Trust and would be torn down when the Hammett Road overpass is improved?

At the September 2021 Salida MAC meeting, Stanislaus County Planning Department gave an update that the gas station project is on hold while the developer looks for land to mitigate for the threatened status species, Swainson's Hawk, which is currently foraging on the land.

Um....Hello Stanislaus County - how about doing the same for the gas station parcel and leaving it as forage for the hawk for THE VERY SAME FREAKING REASON CITED FOR BUYING THOSE OTHER TWO PARCELS?!?

Updated Nov 2, 2021: The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors approved the purchase of the aforementioned 2.2 acres at their Tuesday, November 2, 2021 meeting. 

READ: Why build a gas station just to tear it down? Part 1

A taxing annexation for Salida

If Stanislaus County succeeds in annexing our homes into taxing districts, tax increases are never going to end. Every so often, they will want to raise taxes as they have already been doing to the people in those taxing districts.

As if 2020 hasn't been a bad enough year already, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors is moving forward with plans to annex all of Salida into taxing districts. They call it a community service "assessment" (CSA) but that's just another word for "tax", and this is why it's subject to a Prop 218 vote. Following are the politics behind this tax and my thoughts on why I am against it.

The first tax to be voted on is known as CSA 4 and applies only to the Bristol Glen (aka Amberwood) neighborhood for their storm drain maintenance. For the CSA 4 tax to apply to all of Salida, Stanislaus LAFCO will have to approve Salida being annexed into Bristol Glen's taxing district and then registered homeowners will vote. The second taxing district that the rest of Salida will be annexed into is CSA 10 which covers park maintenance and the landscaping around the current CSA neighborhoods.

Following are my comments regarding the proposed tax annexation at the August 11, 2020 Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors meeting:

"I would like to request that agenda item C-1 be pulled and the following points are taken into consideration. To quote from page 2:

"In November, staff led a second meeting with the community and explained the rate increase process, benefits and costs, and why the increase was needed for CSA 10. County staff performed an informal poll of those that attended using comment cards. Based on 19 comment cards submitted, 10 were for the increase and 9 were against the increase. However, the most notable of responses, both verbally and written, for that meeting was a request that all of Salida pay for their "fair share" of the storm drain maintenance costs before considering raising the rate for CSA 10."

Let's begin with that quote "fair share". In 2013, I asked Matt Machado (former Director of Stanislaus County Public Works) how the storm drain maintenance in Salida was funded in neighborhoods like mine which are not covered by a CSA and his reply was "the gas tax". And here we are, seven years later and in the intervening time, we've had SB-1 and Measure L which are nice hefty increases to gas tax revenue. As was brought up at the Salida MAC meeting and also in the intervening time, the County decided to raid the CSA to pay for storm drain maintenance in my neighborhood as well as others not in CSA Districts, and this you spin as we are not paying our "fair share"??? That section of the agenda item should be stricken because it is nothing more than a biased opinion to further an agenda. If you don't wish to strike it, you can just as easily add my negative comment from the nine that were opposed so it's a more balanced and fair government document. (The Board of Supervisors adopted neither suggestion and the comment still stands in the document. They approved the tax unanimously to proceed onto the annexation process.)

My County Supervisor once told me that I was smart for not buying a Mello Roos home. (Mello Roos homes in Salida also have CSA taxes). I replied that it isn't because I'm smart, I did it on purpose because I didn't want the added taxes. When the people in CSA and Mello Roos homes purchase those homes, they agree to pay those taxes. They know what they are getting into. When we bought our home 27 years ago, the real estate agent did not say, "Well, you don't have these additional taxes on your home, but just wait, you will in 27 years."

Personally, the amount you want to tax us with isn't a big deal to me. I'm against this tax in principle. The principle being that we DO pay more than our fair share and we did not sign up for this. Another principle is that I think your timing is horrendous because other than the Great Recession, you're going to push a tax during the second biggest economic downturn of the 21st century. While the amount may not be a big deal to me, you are imposing this tax on low-income areas of Salida - the same sections of Salida you use for DUC (Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community) status in grants so that tax may be a big deal to a lot of other people in Salida." (NOTE: Salida as a whole is not a DUC, but the county obtained the storm drain grant for the Historic neighborhoods by grouping them as a DUC.)

I can't combat this tax alone so if you wish to help, e-mail me.

Urban Limit Lines; the politics of invisible lines in the sand

Board members of the Municipal Advisory Councils (MACs) in Salida and Wood Colony, along with members of other local boards like Salida Sanitary District, etc. received letters from the City of Modesto dated June 9, 2020 requesting feedback about their proposed Urban Limit Lines (ULL). So far, the correspondence and social media postings in response to the letter have been a resounding "leave us alone" from Salida and Wood Colony residents.

First, just what is an Urban Limit Line? That's an invisible line in the sand (or in our case, prime agricultural soil called Hanford Sandy Loam) that would prevent the City of Modesto from land-grabbing upon the communities of Salida and Wood Colony. As most local area 

Modesto Bee map 
https://www.modbee.com/article237666634.html

residents know, Salida and Wood Colony have been fighting proposed annexations by Modesto for quite some time now.  Typically, a ULL would be met with open arms by our unincorporated communities for the protection they offer, so why is this one not?

Because the ULL does NOT match up to our communities' boundaries which means that Modesto would still have the opportunity to develop and sprawl into Salida and Wood Colony. 

Politicians in Modesto didn't just wake up one day and decide to implement the ULL, nor did they wake up and decide to go after Salida and Wood Colony once again - they are doing this for two reasons: former Modesto City Councilman, Denny Jackman and landowners in Salida and Wood Colony. 

Denny Jackman is perhaps the most well-known farmland preservationist in our county. He co-authored with former Modesto mayor, Garrad Marsh, Measure E - a county-wide residential ULL that was passed by voters in 2007. Denny then tried to repeat the success with a City of Modesto ULL initiative in 2015 known as Measure I. The Modesto Chamber of Commerce and local unions poured money into an anti-Measure I campaign and the initiative was narrowly defeated.

Denny is not one to give up so easily. To put it bluntly, he is threatening Modesto with another ULL ballot initiative if they did not implement a ULL on their own. The June 9 letter even says this but much more diplomatically: "Mr. Jackman informed the City Council that he intended to proceed with another attempt to impose the same limitations as he had pursued in 2015." But this new ULL is not exactly the same as the one in 2015. The ULL sacrifices much more of Wood Colony. Salida's lines are pretty much the same as 2015 but they do not follow Salida's Community Plan (SCP) boundaries. Why? On both counts: landowners.

Based on social media posts on NextDoor regarding this topic and a recent Wood Colony MAC meeting, it appears that Bill Lyons Jr. is affecting the boundaries in Wood Colony. He is the largest landowner there. For Salida, the main chunks of land cut out of our SCP boundaries is everything south of Kiernan and Joe Gallo's land north of Kiernan. Back during the Measure I initiative, (this was told to me by a Wood Colony friend) Denny ran into Dave Romano (who reps for Joe Gallo) and Dave told him they'd fight the initiative if the land wasn't removed from the ULL. That's why it's not a clean line north of Kiernan (west of Dale), even though all that land has been designated for Salida in the SCP with a Development Agreement signed by Mr. Romano. 

Back to the ULL and my thoughts: the Modesto City Council is in a rock and hard place trying to appease Denny and compromise with powerful families like Lyons and Gallo who want to sell their lands for commercial prices (much higher than ag prices). Additionally, while their lands are in areas designated for Salida and Wood Colony, the land cannot be developed unless City of Modesto agrees to supply water for new development. Historically for Salida, this has meant that Modesto will not supply the water unless they get to annex the land. (That's how Salida lost Costco and Kaiser from it's districts.)

I cannot see the residents of Salida and Wood Colony being on board for something that does not fully protect our communities from annexation. We can let the Modesto City Council know what we think of their invisible lines in the sand, but they don't have a history of listening to us since we are not constituents. However, their past votes have proven to be political campaign ammo and have killed re-election bids so I guess we'll see.

Indentity and transparency for 95368

On Monday, April 20, 2020, Stanislaus County opened it's first free COVID-19 testing site at the Salida Library. Three days later on April 23, I submitted an email request to the county asking for Salida's COVID-19 cases to be broken out of the county numbers just as Alameda County has done for unincorporated Castro Valley. I copied members of Salida MAC on my request and learned they had also requested the same information. (THANK YOU SALIDA MAC!) 

On Monday, April 27, I sent another e-mail request to the county asking for an update and sending a link to a Sacramento Bee article showing that Sacramento breaks their COVID-19 cases down by zip code.

The Modesto Bee Editorial Board joined the call for the breakdown in numbers by zip code in an opinion piece on April 28, which specifically mentioned Salida

"Reporting by ZIP code would greatly increase clarity, for example, in Salida — the county’s largest unincorporated community, and host of the county’s new drive-up testing clinic. With 14,658 people, Salida actually is larger than three of our cities: Waterford (population 8,823), Hughson (7,370) and Newman (11,119). ZIP code-level reporting would do the trick, as Salida has only one ZIP code."

Unfortunately, the county's solution to our request was to break the numbers out by supervisorial district which doesn't tell anything specifically about Salida. That same day, Salida MAC again made the case for the breakdown of Salida's numbers. 

On May 4, the Modesto Bee Op Ed Board announced that the county would soon break down the numbers by zip code. 

"Perhaps people in Modesto soon will know whether their neighborhoods have had COVID clusters. It will be nice seeing 10 different reports for the 10 ZIP codes in Modesto, rather than just one for the entire city.  

The same goes for one-ZIP-code Salida. The unincorporated town has 14,658 residents but no clue whether the coronavirus is active there, despite serving as the county’s only testing site before others were added Monday in Patterson and Keyes.  

On Sunday, Merced County became more transparent by reporting to email alert subscribers its cases in Delhi (population 11,735) and Winton (11,761), both unincorporated like Salida although both are smaller. Salida also has more people that three actual Stanislaus cities: Waterford (population 8,823), Hughson (7,370) and Newman (11,119), all of which have benefited from specific coronavirus reports."

FINALLY! Finally...on Thursday, May 7, 2020, eighteen days after placing the first COVID-19 testing site in Salida, Stanislaus County debuted the COVID-19 numbers by zip code. If the first link doesn't work, click this link and then "Neighborhoods" at the top of the page.

District 3 has 20 cases. Salida has 12 of those cases.

They Know Not What They Do

NOTE: Due to the COVID-19 virus, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors has offered public comment on agenda items to be submitted via email before 5 pm on Monday and the comments will be distributed to the board. This was emailed to the Clerk of the Board at 1:20 pm on Monday, March 16, 2020

Public Comment Agenda Item.6.B.11 - Valley Home MAC

Supervisors,

I read through the agenda item for changing the Valley Home MAC from elected to appointed, and while I understand and sympathize with some of the points you make and the issues surrounding this, I do not agree with the change. As I have shared with you previously, the MACs in Alameda County are all-appointed and the supervisor will only appoint people to the MAC who follow his views. My nickname for the Castro Valley MAC is "The Stepford Wives MAC". And as I said at your January 2019 workshop during public comment, not being able to choose who represents you is about as un-American as you can get.

I also find it ironic and rather contradictory that Supervisor Olsen said at this same January 2019 meeting that she didn't "understand why the people of (another board) couldn't choose who represents them." I agree with her - the board she was referring to should be chosen by election of the people! And the same goes for Valley Home MAC!  (Also, I DO remember the name of the board she mentioned; just choosing not to throw her under a bus by saying it in public comment.)

I know you are dealing with apathy of getting people to serve - but their time is a valuable commodity. Please consider coming into the 21st century and offering a stipend to serve on MAC boards. The Stanislaus County Planning Commission has a small stipend but it's enough that you never once hear a planning commissioner say, "I'm just a volunteer" as MAC members are. Salida Sanitary District also offers a small stipend and they never lack for board members. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Katherine Borges

Salida