Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:02]

GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO TODAY'S WEDNESDAY, APRIL TWENTY EIGHTH MEETING

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

PLANNING COMMISSION, IF WE COULD ALL RISE.

WELL, FIRST, I CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AND THEN IF WE COULD ALL RISE.

AND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE THANK YOU. ROLL CALL OF COMMISSIONERS PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER ACHESON, COMMISSIONER MOBLEY.

HERE. COMMISSIONER ERRECA.

CHAIRMAN SPYCHER. HERE.

YOU HAVE A FULL. WE HAVE A FULL QUORUM.

ONE ABSENCE. COMMISSIONER AGUILERA.

THANK YOU. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

SECOND WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE. CHAIR VOTES AYE.

OPPOSED UNANIMOUS.

IT PASSES NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE PART OF THE MEETING FOR CITIZEN COMMUNICATION. IF ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ON OUR AGENDA TODAY, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO, SEEING NONE, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE CITIZEN COMMUNICATION AND MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

[6.I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. CUP20-002]

NUMBER CUP 20-002.

GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, THIS FIRST ITEM, THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM A IS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP 20-002 MARTINS VIEW JERSEY DAIRY.

THE REQUEST IS TO EXPAND THE HERD SIZE FROM TWELVE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE ANIMALS TO TWENTY FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY ANIMALS, INCLUDING SUPPORT STOCK AT AN EXISTING PERMITTED DAIRY FACILITY AND TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW FREESTYLE BARNS WHICH TOGETHER TOTAL APPROXIMATELY NINETY EIGHT THOUSAND SQUARE FEET AND ONE NEW NINETEEN THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT SHADE BARN.

THE ASSOCIATED CROPLAND WOULD REMAIN UNCHANGED AS THE RESULT OF THE EXPANSION.

SO THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 33, SOUTH OF I BELIEVE IT'S PRONOUNCED BAMBAUER ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY A HALF MILE NORTH OF THE CITY OF GUSTINE.

THE PROJECT SITE IS PLANNED AGRICULTURAL AND IS ZONED A1 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL AND IS SURROUNDED BY ROW CROPS, OTHER AGRICULTURAL USES AND THE OCCASIONAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THIS IMAGE IS THE WINDSHED DIAGRAM FOR THE DAIRY FACILITIES.

SECTION EIGHTEEN SIXTY FOUR POINT ZERO FOUR ZERO OF THE ZONING CODE DEFINES THE WINDSHED AS THE AREA LOCATED WITHIN THIRTEEN HUNDRED TWENTY FEET UPWIND AND TWENTY SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY FEET DOWNWIND OF THE PERIMETER OF AN ANIMAL CONFINEMENT FACILITY.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE FOUR OFFSITE RESIDENCES, LET'S SEE IF I CAN POINT TO THEM.

THERE ARE FOUR OFFSITE RESIDENCES LOCATED WITHIN THE WINDSHED.

HOWEVER, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT WOULD NOT REDUCE THE EXISTING DISTANCES TO THESE RESIDENCES. THIS IS A CLOSE UP OF THE PROJECT.

THIS IS THE PROJECT SITE.

IT'S COMPRISED OF THREE PARCELS.

THE ACTIVE DAIRY FACILITIES ARE LOCATED IN APPROXIMATELY TWENTY TWO ACRES OF A 64 ACRE PARCEL, AND THE REMAINING PARCELS ARE USED FOR DAIRY FEED CROPS AND APPLICATION AREAS.

THIS IS A CLOSE UP OF THE ACTUAL DAIRY FACILITIES, WITH THE PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURES HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.

AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THE NEW STRUCTURES ARE WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING DAIRY FACILITY. SO THE PROPOSED DAIRY OPERATIONS AS MOST DAIRIES.

THIS ONE OPERATES 365 DAYS A YEAR, 24 HOURS A DAY, AND UPON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXPANSION OPERATION, DAYS AND TIMES WILL NOT CHANGE.

CURRENTLY, THE DAIRY HAS A STAFF OF TWELVE EMPLOYEES, SIX PER SHIFT, AND THIS WILL INCREASE TO FOURTEEN WITH SEVEN PER SHIFT.

WITH THE EXPANSION, EXISTING TRIPS ARE ESTIMATED AT THIRTY THREE POINT ONE AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS, WITH APPROXIMATELY SIX AVERAGE DAILY HEAVY TRUCK TRIPS.

AND WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT, THESE WOULD INCREASE TO THIRTY NINE POINT SEVEN AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS, INCLUDING EIGHT POINT SIX AVERAGE DAILY TRUCK TRIPS.

ALL TRIPS WILL CONTINUE TO ACCESS THE SITE VIA SOUTH ROAD.

SO CHAPTER 1860 FOR ANIMAL CONFINEMENT FACILITIES OF THE CODE REQUIRES THE FACILITIES TO

[00:05:08]

PREPARE AND IMPLEMENT WHAT'S CALLED A COMPREHENSIVE NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, OR CNMP.

THIS IS A SYSTEM OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES AND ACTIVITIES WHICH SERVE TO UTILIZE ANIMAL MANURE AS A BENEFICIAL RESOURCE AS OPPOSED TO A WASTE PRODUCT.

THE CNMP ALSO HELPS MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO GROUNDWATER BY BALANCING MANURE, WASTEWATER APPLICATION AND NUTRIENT UPTAKE BY CROPS ON THE APPLICATION AREAS.

THIS PLAN, ALONG WITH THE WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WOULD BE OR WILL BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS AT THE DAIRY.

REGARDING CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING, THE PROJECT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH SEVERAL ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN.

BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT.

I WON'T READ THEM, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, ADDITIONALLY, THE PROJECT HAS BEEN FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING CODE, SPECIFICALLY SECTION EIGHTEEN TEN POINT ZERO TWO ZERO AGRICULTURAL ZONE LAND USE AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AS ANIMAL CONFINEMENT FACILITIES MAY BE PERMITTED IN THE A1 GENERAL, AGRICULTURAL AND A2 EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICTS, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL IN THIS CASE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

AND ADDITIONALLY, THE PROJECT MUST COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 1864 ANIMAL CONFINEMENT FACILITIES, WHICH PROVIDE STANDARDS GOVERNING THE DESIGN CONSTRUCTION OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THESE TYPE OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE COUNTY.

SO AN INITIAL STUDY WAS PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT AND BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THESE FACTORS I WON'T READ THEM ALL, BUT YOU CAN SEE WERE FOUND EITHER TO HAVE NO IMPACT OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

CONTINUING THE FOLLOWING FACTORS WERE FOUND TO HAVE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH A MITIGATION INCORPORATED.

AND BASED ON THAT, AN MND WAS PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT.

SO THE MND FOR THIS PROJECT INCLUDES A TOTAL OF 23 MITIGATION MEASURES.

AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE THEM BROKEN DOWN INTO THE CATEGORIES.

THESE ARE LOCATED IN CHAPTER TWO OF THE MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, WHICH IS INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT THE MITIGATION MEASURES ARE IMPLEMENTED JUST AS A NOTE STAFF MODIFIED TWO OF THE MITIGATION MEASURES HAZ-1A AND AQ-4B TO HELP INCREASE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MEASURE BY CLARIFYING THE TIMING OF IMPLEMENTATION AND TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM STANDARDS TO DOCUMENT NUISANCE COMPLAINTS.

SO THE MND WHAT HAD A PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD.

IT WENT FROM MARCH 15TH THROUGH APRIL 14TH.

THE DOCUMENT WAS MADE AVAILABLE AT THE COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC COUNCIL ON THE DOCUMENTS WEBSITE.

IT WAS ALSO FILED WITH THE STATE CLEARING HOUSE AND A NOTICE OF COMPLETION WAS FILED WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE, WHICH WAS POSTED FOR 30 DAYS.

STAFF RECEIVED ONE COMMENT LETTER FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND CONTROL REGARDING THE PROPOSED MND.

AND IN RESPONSE TO THOSE COMMENTS, LANGUAGE WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDED SPECIFICALLY ON PAGE SEVENTY NINE OF THAT DOCUMENT.

CONTINUING NOTICE THAT TODAY'S PUBLIC HEARING WAS MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROJECT SITE AND ALSO PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED SUN-STAR ON APRIL 16TH.

NO COMMENTS REGARDING THE PUBLIC HEARING WERE RECEIVED PRIOR TO PREPARATION OF THE STAFF REPORT AND WITH THAT STUFF HAS TWO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

FIRST, THAT THE PC APPROVED THE PROJECT BASED ON THE FINDINGS EXCUSE ME.

FIRST, THAT THE PC ADOPT THE PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM AND THAT THE PC APPROVED THE PROJECT BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO COME AND HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS I'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH US, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO. SEEING NONE, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT SORRY. OH, YES, PLEASE COME FORWARD, COME FORWARD TO THE MICROPHONE AND GIVE US YOUR NAME, IF YOU DON'T MIND. THANK YOU.

PUBLIC HEARINGS OPEN AGAIN.

AND IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

[00:10:01]

MY NAME IS KENNETH LOPES, I LIVE ON THE CORNER OF HUNT AND BAMBAUER ROAD, AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, HOW FAR ARE THE ANIMALS GOING TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MY PROPERTY LINES? WILL THEY MOVE ALL THE WAY TOWARD NORTH ON BAMBAUER ROAD? I DON'T SEE A MAP OF THE ACTUAL BUILDINGS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD.

LET'S SEE IF STAFF COULD HELP BRING SOME CLARITY TO THAT.

SO THIS IS THE CLOSE UP OF THE ACTIVE DAIRY FACILITIES AND THE NEW STRUCTURES ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW NORTH HUNT ROAD IS ON THE RIGHT OF THE PROPERTY.

LET ME GO TO THE WINDSHED DIAGRAM.

OH, I GUESS THIS IS A BETTER DIAGRAM.

SO THE EXISTING DAIRY FACILITIES ARE HERE AND THIS IS NOT GOING TO EXPAND THE NEW THE NEW STRUCTURES WILL BE LOCATED IN THIS AREA AS WELL.

FACILITIES. THEY WILL NOT EXPAND BEYOND THIS AREA.

THIS IS SOUTH HUNT ROAD HERE AND BAMBAUER ROAD OVER HERE.

IF I GO TO THE WINDSHED DIAGRAM, LET'S SEE IF IT GO THE OTHER WAY.

IF I GO TO THE WINDSHED DIAGRAM, THIS SHOWS THE EXISTING OFF RESIDENCES.

I DON'T KNOW IF ONE OF THESE ARE YOURS SIR.

THAT'S ONE OF THE VERY CORNER OF BAMBAUER AND HUNT.

THIS ONE RIGHT HERE. YEAH.

SO THE EXISTING FACILITIES IN THE EXPANSION WILL REMAIN IN THIS AREA.

THERE WON'T THERE WON'T BE CORRALS IN AND OUT THERE, BY BAMBAUER ROAD AND STUFF.

NO, SIR. OK.

OK, BECAUSE MY WELL IS RIGHT THERE TOO.

AND I WAS JUST CONCERNED.

OK, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. WOULD ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK ON THIS? SEEING NONE. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION? OK, I'LL MOVE THAT.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND ADOPTS THE PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THE MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15070 DECISION TO PREPARE A NEGATIVE OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. THANK YOU.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND NOW WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE. CHAIR VOTES AYE.

ALL OPPOSED. IT IS UNANIMOUS NOW MOVING FORWARD TO THE PROJECT DETERMINATION.

I MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP 20-002 BASED ON THE FINDINGS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THANK YOU.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE. CHAIR VOTES AYE. ALL OPPOSED.

AGAIN, PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[6.II. MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION No. MS21-005]

NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NUMBER MS21-005.

ALL RIGHT, GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION TODAY, I WILL BE PRESENTING MINOR SUBDIVISION MS 21-005 ON BEHALF OF MOHAN SINGH JOHAL.

THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN REGULAR MINOR SUBDIVISION IN THAT IT'S A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A SIX POINT TWO ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR ONE ACRE PARCELS AND A REMAINDER OF TWO POINT ZERO THREE ACRES.

THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PLEASANT VALLEY DRIVE AND GIANNINI ROAD AND IS DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND ZONED RESIDENTIAL RURAL OR RR. HERE WE SEE A VICINITY MAP OF THE PROJECT SITE, THE PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA IS CHARACTERIZED BY RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE SOUTH AND EAST AND IT IS PRIMARILY BY

[00:15:02]

AGRICULTURAL USES TO THE NORTH AND WEST.

HERE WE SEE A CLOSER AERIAL IMAGE OF THE PROJECT SITE, THE EXISTING RESIDENTS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE IDENTIFIED WITH THE BLUE ARROW.

WHILE THE REST OF THE PARCEL IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.

THE PROPOSED PARCELS AND REMAINDER WILL BE EXCLUSIVELY FOR RESIDENTIAL USES.

AND NO NEW CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN PROPOSED WITH THIS SUBDIVISION AT THIS TIME. THIS IS THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE SUBDIVISION WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PARCEL OUTLINED IN GREEN.

RIGHT HERE AND THE SUBSEQUENT PARCELS OUTLINED IN RED, YELLOW AND BLUE WITH THE REMAINDER PARCEL OUTLINED IN ORANGE HERE.

THE EXISTING THE REMAINDER PARCEL WILL HAVE FRONTAGE ACCESS VIA EITHER PLEASANT VALLEY DRIVE OR G IANNINI ROAD INDICATED BY THE BLACK ARROWS.

THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES REGARDING AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED PARCELS, AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND TITLE 17.

THE PROJECT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS, SPECIFICALLY THOSE RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL RURAL PARCELS AND MINIMUM PARCEL SIZES.

AS THE PARCEL IS ONE IN A RURAL RESIDENTIAL USE AREA TWO NOT CREATING MORE THAN FOUR PARCELS, THREE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN FOUR HAS SERVICES AVAILABLE, AND FIVE WAS NOT PART OF A SUBDIVISION IN THE LAST TWO YEARS AND SIX DOES NOT HAVE A SLOPE GREATER THAN 20 PERCENT.

STAFF HAS FOUND THAT NO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 15 315 MINOR LAND USE DIVISIONS OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.

NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROJECT SITE ON APRIL 28, 2021 AND ESTABLISHED IN AND PUBLISHED IN MERCED SUN-STAR ON THE SAME DATE. AND NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AT THIS TIME.

WITH THAT STAFF HAS TWO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COMMISSION MOTION TO DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND MOTION TO APPROVE MINOR SUBDIVISION MS 21-005. THAT CONCLUDES STAFFS PRESENTATION.

I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. AT THIS POINT, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, SO IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO. IF YOU COULD GIVE US YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, IT WOULD BE GREAT.

THANK YOU. MY NAME IS LANCE ESTES, I LIVE ON APPLE VALLEY COURT WITHIN THREE HUNDRED FEET OF THIS PROJECT.

I THINK THE CONCERN IS WE WANT TO JUST CLARIFY THIS IS GOING TO BE FOR RESIDENTIAL ONLY.

IS THAT IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING? IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. BUT WE CAN LET STAFF BRING SOME CLARITY TO THAT.

BECAUSE I SEE THAT THE TWO, WHAT IS IT THAT TWO POINT ZERO THREE ACRE PARCEL IS ON THE CORNER AND IT LOOKS LIKE A PRIME SITE FOR SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT BE GOOD FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SUCH AS A GAS STATION OR A CONVENIENCE STORE OR AND THAT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE TYPE OF HOMES THAT ARE IN THE BACK THERE.

SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.

YES SIR, SO THE USES ON THESE PARCELS WOULD ACTUALLY ONLY BE RESIDENTIAL USES AND ACTUALLY IN AN AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONED AREA, WE WOULDN'T SUPPORT A GAS STATION OR CONVENIENCE STORE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THEY WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO COME IN AND FILL OUT WHAT THEY CALL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT A LEGALIZED PARCEL.

SO ANYTHING THAT THEY PROPOSE, WE WOULD DEFINITELY REVIEW AND IT WOULD BE SUPPORTED AS A RESIDENTIAL USE ONLY.

AND ON THAT MAP, THERE'S, I BELIEVE, THE GREEN PARCEL YOU HAVE THERE.

THAT'S THAT'S THE RESIDENT AND THE BARN AS IT STANDS TODAY, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR. THAT'S ALL.

THAT'S MY QUESTION. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, LANCE. ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK ON THIS OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

[00:20:10]

GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS ADAM REED, I'M WITH VVH CONSULTING ENGINEERING.

WE PREPARED THE PARCEL MAP ON THIS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. JOHAL AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE.

AND I WOULD CONCUR WITH STAFF THAT THOSE ARE GOING TO BE ALL RESIDENTIAL USES.

NO COMMERCIAL USES WOULD BE PROPOSED OR PERMITTED.

SO ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ADAM? THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM, IF YOU COULD GIVE US YOUR NAME.

PARDON ME. WHEN YOU COME DOWN, GO AHEAD.

I'M SORRY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A CORRECTION, ACTUALLY, THAT THE PUBLIC NOTICE WAS MAILED OUT ON APRIL 16TH.

MY APOLOGIES. I SAID APRIL 20TH.

GO AHEAD. CAN I GET YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? WANDA HOWARD.

AND I BACK.

I'M ONE OF THE LOTS THAT BACK AGAINST THAT PLAN.

AND I'M CONCERNED IT'S GOING TO BE SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTIPLE FAMILY OR DO YOU HAVE A PLAN AT THIS TIME? SO AS.

PARDON. AS MR. REED WAS SAYING SO, HE'S ACTUALLY MAKING THIS TENTATIVE MAP ON BEHALF OF MR. JOHAL, BUT MR. JOHAL IS NOT GOING TO BE THE DEVELOPER AT THIS TIME.

IT IT WOULD BE AT HIS DISCRETION WHETHER HE WANTS TO SELL THE LAND.

YOU KNOW HOW IF HE WANTS TO ACTUALLY BECOME THE DEVELOPER ON THE LAND, THE THE REMAINDER PARCEL IS ACTUALLY AND THE SUBSEQUENT PARCELS ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE CONDITIONED FOR WHAT WE CALL IMPROVEMENTS.

SO STREET LIGHTING, CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK, THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT AS FAR AS WHAT WOULD BE PLACED ON THESE PARCELS, THAT WOULD BE DETERMINED AT A LATER DATE, THERE'S THERE ARE DENSITY LIMITATIONS THAT YOU CAN HAVE FOR EACH PARCEL.

SO FIVE, SIX HOUSES IS NOT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD SUPPORT.

IT'D PROBABLY BE JUST A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT ON EACH PARCEL OR ON THE TWO ACRE PARCELS.

I WOULD SAY PROBABLY A MAXIMUM OF OF THREE ACTUAL LIVABLE DWELLINGS.

SO, YEAH.

I HOPE THAT. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MA'AM? WELL, YES.

OK, AND NO, NO WORRIES.

IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERY BODY IS CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING AN APARTMENT COMPLEX PUT UP IN THERE.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT IT'S INTENDED FOR.

EXACTLY. IT'S SOMETIME YEARS BACK, THERE WAS A MOTION TO INCORPORATE A LOT OF THE FARMLAND IN THAT AREA. AND ON FOUR HUNDRED ACRES, THEY WERE HOPING TO PUT IN SIXTEEN HUNDRED UNITS. AND AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE THERE ON THE TOP OF THAT OR ALL ONE ACRE OR SLIGHTLY OVER ONE ACRE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

AND THAT I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS IS THAT THAT TWO ACRE IS GOING TO BE EITHER A QUAD PLEX OR AN APARTMENT BUILDING OF SOME SORT.

AND I, I THINK I SPEAK FOR EVERYBODY ELSE THAT WE REALLY WOULD HATE TO SEE THAT MAYBE I COULD GET SOME CLARITY FROM STAFF TO YOU SAID THERE COULD BE MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, BUT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO ONE ACRE HOMESITES ON A TWO ACRE PARCEL VERSUS A FOUR PLEX OR TRIPLEX OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE DIFFERENT ZONING.

CORRECT. SO THIS WOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ONLY.

YES, CHAIR. AS IT STANDS, DOES THAT PROVIDE ANY CLARITY LANCE.

THANK YOU. OK. I CAN EXPAND ON THAT IF YOU WANTED TO, BUT IF THAT'S SATISFACTORY, THEN, OK, DOES ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AND LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS.

ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE.

WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THIS BACK TO THE COMMISSION, DOES ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR AGAIN, ADAM, WHO SAID HE'S AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS? IS THERE GOING TO BE SOME KIND OF DESIGNATION ON THERE? I'M JUST CURIOUS AS FAR AS THE RIGHT TO FARM, BECAUSE THERE'S AG LAND AROUND THERE.

AND I'D HATE TO SEE, YOU KNOW, THOSE PEOPLE BE IMPACTED BY POTENTIALLY SOME HOMEOWNER THAT'S THINKING THAT, YOU KNOW, FARMING IS A LITTLE TOO CLOSE.

SO AS FAR AS THE ACTUAL LAND USE, IT WOULD BE ONLY FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.

THERE WOULD BE NO FARMING OR HOW COULD I'M TALKING ABOUT THE GUYS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE

[00:25:02]

BECAUSE THERE'S NO RIGHT THERE.

OH, ARE YOU SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE EXISTING FARMING USES GOING TO DISTURB.

YEAH. THOSE GUYS CAN CONTINUE TO FARM WITHOUT BEING IMPACTED BY, YOU KNOW, THE GUY THAT OWNS THE ORCHARD RIGHT THERE.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

ABSOLUTELY. THERE'S WE HAVE THE AGRICULTURAL BUFFER AREA WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO BE SET BACK TWO HUNDRED FEET FROM AN BUDDING PARCEL FROM ANY OTHER AGRICULTURAL USE.

AS FAR AS THAT GOES, HERE WE GO.

SO YOU HAVE RIGHT HERE, IT LOOKS LIKE SORRY, THIS LOOKS LIKE A SOME LIKE FALLOW LAND OR WE HAVE SOME ROW CROPS HERE.

SO ALL FOR AND FOR THE HOUSES TO BE BUILT, THEY WILL HAVE TO FRONT HERE.

SO GIVEN SET BACKS AND AN ACTUAL BUFFER ZONE IN BETWEEN THESE PARCELS, I BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT OF THE TWO HUNDRED FEET AND IT WOULD NOT ACTUALLY IMPACT ANY CURRENT AGRICULTURAL USES THERE.

SO BUT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALL OBVIOUSLY THAT AS A YOU KNOW, WHETHER MR. JOHAL IS GOING TO BE THE DEVELOPER OR HE'S JUST GOING TO SELL THE LAND, WE'D HAVE TO COME TO AN ACCORDANCE AT A LATER DATE.

SO JUST BRIEFLY OF THE SITE TO YEAH, I JUST I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR HERE.

JUST MAKES SENSE TO ASK THE QUESTION NOW AS OPPOSED TO GET IN A FIGHT LATER.

OH, ABSOLUTELY.

GOOD QUESTION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

SEEING NONE, WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BODY, WHAT IS THE WILL OF THIS GROUP? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15315 MINOR LAND DIVISIONS OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. THANK YOU.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND WE'LL NOW CALL FOR THE VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE. CHAIR VOTES AYE. ALL OPPOSED.

IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

NOW, MOVING ON TO THE PROJECT DETERMINATION.

I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MS21-005 BASED ON THE FINDINGS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THANK YOU.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND CALL FOR THE VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE. CHAIR VOTES AYE.

OPPOSED.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

MOVING ON TO COMMISSIONER ACTION ITEMS. NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU. DIRECTOR'S REPORT.

NOTHING TO REPORT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS.

COMMENTS? SEEING THERE'S NONE. WE'LL MOVE FOR ADJOURNMENT.

THANK YOU ALL.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.