Stanislaus County leaders decide Salida project dispute on a 3-1 vote Tuesday night
Stanislaus County supervisors voted Tuesday night to reject a service station and mini-storage project that had stirred debate in Salida.
The 3-1 vote went against the Cal Sierra Financial proposal, which also included a drive-through restaurant and retail shops close to homes on Pirrone Road near the Hammett Road and Highway 99 interchange on the northern edge of Stanislaus County.
Board Chairman Terry Withrow and supervisors Channce Condit and Vito Chiesa cast votes against the highway commercial project, but Chiesa stressed he would consider if it came back with reduced hours of operation.
Supervisor Buck Condit supported the highway commercial development, saying it was consistent with the longstanding zoning.
Supervisor Mani Grewal, who has a business interest in the vicinity of the property, did not participate because of a potential conflict of interest.
It was a victory for residents of the unincorporated community who complain that land use decisions affecting them are decided by county board members who don’t live in Salida, a town of 14,000 residents. And it was a blow for developers who invested money in plans and studies for a property that has been zoned for highway commercial services since 1988.
Major revisions to an original application, biological surveys and other paperwork resulted in a 651-page county staff report for Tuesday’s hearing.
“If the board feels it is necessary to not approve the project, you need to let us know what would be an allowable development plan on this site,” said John Anderson, planning consultant for Cal Sierra.
Tom Nevis of Cal Sierra said county leaders should consider the signal they’re sending to local developers in voting against the project.
An original plan for a truck plaza, for fueling tractor-trailer rigs at the 9.6-acre site, ran into a firestorm of criticism in 2019. Cal Sierra proposed a downscaled plan for a 24-hour service station and convenience market, a drive-through restaurant and mini-storage units, but it failed to win over residents in the Vizcaya neighborhood to the south.
The county Planning Commission voted 4-2 against the development when it reviewed revisions to the proposal on Feb. 17. The Salida Municipal Advisory Council had another look at the revisions last month and voted 5-0 in opposition. The advisory panel vote was 2-2 after a review of the plans in March 2021.
The Municipal Advisory Council gives the Salida community a chance to weigh in on development projects.
Neighborhood opposes plans
“The majority of my neighborhood is against this project,” said John Martin, a Vizcaya neighborhood resident and MAC member.
Martin said the gas stations and fast-food outlets at the Pelandale Avenue and Highway 99 interchange have attracted homeless people squatting in trailers. He said residents don’t want the same to happen at the freeway interchange on the north side of Salida.
“We like our small town,” Martin said. “We need development that will provide good-paying jobs. This proposed development will not provide that.”
Most of the community’s concerns were raised at previous meetings regarding the Cal Sierra proposal. Those concerns included light pollution, traffic, safety, crime, disturbance of wildlife and potential conflicts with a future expansion of the Hammett Road and Highway 99 interchange.
Residents speaking at Tuesday’s hearing summed up their issues, saying the project is not in harmony with the community and is not the right fit. Nice restaurants, more homes or continued farming of the 9.6-acre Pirrone Road site might be acceptable to residents, various speakers said.
Anderson, the consultant for Cal Sierra, said the fuel pumps for the proposed station were 457 feet from the closest homes. The plans also called for security guards around the clock. Along with gasoline and diesel, the service station might have offered electric vehicle charging and hydrogen fuel for hybrid cars.
Chairman questions staff interpretation
Withrow disagreed with a county staff interpretation that the Cal Sierra development did not require a full environmental impact study. He referred to a section of the Salida Community Plan, approved in 2007, that ensures an applicant provides for an environmental impact report prior to development.
“On this one, I think we dropped the ball,” Withrow said.
The development might have gone before the Board of Supervisors earlier but it was delayed last year when the state Department of Fish and Wildlife required surveys for Swainson’s hawk and other species because the site is near the Stanislaus River.
Cal Sierra agreed to purchase credits from a resource conservation bank to mitigate the loss of foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk.
This story was originally published March 16, 2022 at 8:34 AM.
