San Joaquin County Planning Commission denies request to split 10-acre Tracy parcel into two 5-acre lots

The San Joaquin County Planning Commission denied a request to subdivide a 10-acre parcel in Tracy into two 5-acre parcels and to grant a variance reducing the AG-40 zone minimum from 40 acres to 5 acres. The motion to deny variance PA 2400078 and minor subdivision PA 2400079 passed by a 3-2 vote; commissioners Midgley, Milas and Roostaler voted yes, while Commissioners Sengham and Hernandez voted no.

County staff recommended denial, saying the application could not satisfy the required variance findings (findings 1 and 3) or the minor subdivision findings (findings 1 and 2). Stephanie Stowers, principal planner, told the commission the parcel was created by a 1913 Tracy Garden Farm map and was recognized with a certificate of compliance in 1988, but that the parcel does not meet the AG-40 40-acre minimum and staff could not make the findings required for subdivision or variance under the development title and general plan.

The applicant’s representative, Anjali Sarai, spoke for the Sarai family, saying the property has been in the family for 29 years and that the proposed split would allow two brothers to continue living on the family homestead rather than selling. John Glick of Corteroli and Associates, the applicant’s land use consultant, argued the county’s later rezoning (from EA-10 to AG-40) created a special circumstance that should allow the variance, and he disputed staff’s characterization that surrounding parcels were created consistent with later zoning. Glick cited the 1913 subdivision map as evidence that the prior parcel pattern predated the AG-40 minimum.

Public comment included two speakers in favor. Donna Barbera Diaz, a homeowner at the San Joaquin River Club, said the area is residential in character, that heirs and descendants of former farm owners want smaller parcels, and that she had not observed opposition from neighbors or from the irrigation district. Staff confirmed that the county circulated the application to affected agencies and received only routine comments; no agency responses constituted a major objection, staff said. Environmental health and public works comments would become conditions of approval if the commission chose to approve the project.

Commission discussion noted the tension between family property interests and county-wide zoning standards. Some commissioners expressed sympathy for the family’s circumstances but said approving a variance where required findings cannot be made would create an unfair exception and could invite many similar requests.

The motion to deny was made and seconded on the record; the commission chair announced that the applicants may appeal the denial to the Board of Supervisors.