>> GOOD MORNING EVERYONE AND WELCOME TO WEDNESDAY,
[00:00:03]
JUNE 23RD'S REGULAR SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
IF WE COULD ALL HAVE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> THANK YOU. ROLL CALL OF COMMISSIONERS PLEASE.
>> COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE]. HERE.
>> WE HAVE A FULL [INAUDIBLE].
>> THANK YOU. MOVING FORWARD, WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO MOVE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES?
[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
>> I MOVE WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
>> THANK YOU, WE HAVE A MOTION. A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> OPPOSED? NONE. CHAIR VOTES AYE, SO UNANIMOUSLY PASSES.
NOW, WE'LL MOVE ON TO CITIZEN COMMUNICATION.
NOW WOULD BE THE TIME FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO AN ITEM THAT'S NOT ON TODAY'S AGENDA, HERE'S YOUR TIME TO DO SO.
SEEING NONE, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE CITIZEN COMMUNICATION AND MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS.
FIRST ITEM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP21- 008.
[6.I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. CUP21-008]
>> GOOD MORNING CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS.
THIS FIRST ITEM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP21-008 IS FOR APEX ENERGY.
IT'S A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A THREE MEGAWATT BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE FACILITY ON APPROXIMATE, ABOUT AN ACRE OF LAND ON A 16.8 ACRE UNDEVELOPED PARCEL.
THE FACILITY INCLUDES THREE BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEM ENCLOSURES, WHICH MEASURE APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET WIDE BY 23 FEET LONG AND EIGHT FEET TALL, AND OTHER SYSTEM COMPONENTS THAT I'VE OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THE PROJECT WILL ALSO INCLUDE AN ALL WEATHER ACCESS ROAD AND PERIMETER SECURITY FENCING.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PROJECT IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH AUBREY ROAD, APPROXIMATELY A 1/4 MILE NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF, I BELIEVE IT'S CARMELLIA AVENUE AND AUBREY AVENUE IN THE DOS PALOS AREA.
THE PROJECT SITE IS DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL LAND USE AND GENERAL PLAN, AND IS ZONED A-1 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL.
THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY FARMED WITH ROW CROPS AND IS NOT IMPROVED WITH ANY BUILDINGS OR OTHER STRUCTURES.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN WITH THE APPLICANT PROVIDED, IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO SEE BECAUSE THE SCALE OF WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS VERY SMALL.
LET ME SEE IF I CAN POINT OUT.
WHAT I'VE TRIED TO DO IS I'VE TRIED TO HIGHLIGHT THE ACTUAL BATTERY STORAGE UNITS, AND THOSE ARE THESE RECTANGULAR ORANGE STRUCTURES.
THIS WOULD BE A TRANSFORMER, AND THESE ARE THE VARIOUS POWER POLES, METER POLLS, ETC.
HERE. OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS THE ACCESS ROAD.
THE BLUE LINE REPRESENTS THE SECURITY PERIMETER FENCING.
I ASKED THE APPLICANT ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I WAS CONCERNED THAT IT WAS PAVING, BUT THEY ASSURED ME THAT IT'S NOT.
I DON'T KNOW BY THE TEXTURE OF THIS, BUT THIS IS JUST REPRESENTING THE SETBACK FOR SOME REASON.
STAFF DID FIND THE PROJECT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH GOAL AG-3, POLICY AG-311, GOAL LU-2, AND POLICY LU-2.7, AND GOAL IN NR-1 FOR THE REASONS THAT I OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THE PROJECT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING CODE AS ENERGY GENERATION FACILITIES FOR OFFSITE ENERGY USE OR ALLOWED IN AGRICULTURAL ZONES WITH THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
STAFF FOUND THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER SECTION 15303 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
NOTICE THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET AND PUBLISHED IN IN THE MERCED SUN-STAR ON JUNE 11TH.
NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED PART OF THE PREPARATION OF THE STAFF REPORT.
STAFF HAS TWO RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE FIRST, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES, NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES, AND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE THE PROJECT BASED ON
[00:05:02]
THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT IN SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM AT THIS TIME.
>> THANK YOU. AT THIS POINT, WE'LL OPEN UP TIME FOR THE PUBLIC CITIZEN COMMUNICATION [INAUDIBLE] PUBLIC HEARING, EXCUSE ME.
I'M A LITTLE TONGUE-TIED THIS MORNING.
ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK ON THIS OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO.
SEEING NONE, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THIS COUNCIL.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WHAT'S THE WILL OF THIS PLANNING COMMISSION?
>> YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION IF YOU WANT.
>> I'LL MOVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN TERMS THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 CEQA GUIDELINES, NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES BASED ON THE CEQA FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
NOW, WE WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? CHAIR VOTES AYE, PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
THANK YOU. NOW, FOR THE PROJECT DETERMINATION.
>> I MOVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED CONDITIONAL PERMIT NUMBER CUP21-008 BASED ON THE PROJECT FINDINGS AND THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> CHAIR VOTES AYE. OPPOSED? NONE. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU.
NOW, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
[6.II. MAJOR SUBDIVISION No. MAS20-003]
MAJOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MAS20-003.>> THANK YOU, CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS.
AS YOU SAID, THIS IS MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NUMBER MAS20-003, AND ZONE VARIANCE NUMBER ZV21-001.
FOR GATEWAY HOMES, IT'S CALLED QUAIL HOLLOW STATES PHASE 5.
BEAR WITH ME, THIS HAS BEEN A QUITE COMPLICATED PROJECT, SO BEAR WITH ME.
THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION IS A REQUEST TO SUB-DIVIDE AN EXISTING 10.92 ACRE PARCEL INTO 47 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
IT HAS A ZONE VARIANCE ASSOCIATED WITH IT, AND NOT AS A REQUEST TO DEVIATE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK, AND THE MINIMUM OF 100 FOOT PARCEL DEPTH FOR PROPOSED LOTS 41 AND 42.
ADDITIONALLY, THEY'RE REQUESTING TO DEVIATE FROM THE MAXIMUM DEPTH TO WIDTH RATIO OF THREE TO ONE FOR PROPOSED LOT 22.
TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND, THE PROJECT SITE IS ABOUT 11 ACRE PARCEL THAT WAS CREATED AS A REMAINDER OF A PRIOR SUBDIVISION, SPECIFICALLY MAJOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MAS02-011, QUAIL HOLLOW STATES PHASE 4.
THIS PHASE OF THE SUBDIVISION WAS SUBDIVIDED BY ANOTHER BUILDER, AND I'LL COME BACK TO THAT IN A MOMENT.
THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED WINTON URBAN COMMUNITY, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE IN THE GENERAL PLAN AND IS ZONED R1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
THIS IS THE VICINITY MAP, AND I APOLOGIZE NEITHER GOOGLE EARTH OR OUR MAPS HAD THE CORRECT IMAGE.
BUT THE PROJECT SITE IS OUTLINED IN RED.
IT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST WALNUT AVENUE AND CYPRUS AVENUES IN THE COMMUNITY WINTON.
THE PROJECT SITE IS SURROUNDED DESPITE APPEARANCES OF THIS IMAGE BY SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN THE NORTH, THE SOUTH, AND THE WEST.
ALSO THE BNSF RAILROAD HERE IN THE VACANT LAND ON THE EAST.
THAT'S SOME PICTURES OF THE PROJECT SITE.
THIS IS THE VIEW NORTH AT EGRET DRIVE AND FALCON AVENUE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE EXISTING ROAD AND THE BEGINNING OF THE ROAD THERE.
THIS IS THE VIEW NORTH AT EGRET AND MEADOWLARK LANE BASICALLY LOOKING THAT WAY.
CONTINUING, THIS IS A VIEW EAST AND EGRET DRIVE LOOKING TOWARD THE PROJECT SITE.
THIS LAST IMAGE HERE IS BASICALLY A VIEW LOOKING SOUTH EAST ALONG MEADOWLARK AVENUE.
AS I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO DEVIATE FROM SEVERAL THINGS.
THE 15-FOOT REAR SETBACK AND THE MINIMUM 100-FOOT PARCEL DEPTH FOR PROPOSED LOTS 41 AND 42,
[00:10:04]
AND THE MAXIMUM DEPTH TO WIDTH RATIO OF 3:1 FOR PROPOSED LOT 22.TO APPROVE A VARIANCE, FOUR FINDINGS MUST BE MADE.
BASICALLY THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO SHAPE, SIZE, SURROUNDINGS, TOPOGRAPHY, OR PHYSICAL FEATURES THAT DON'T NECESSARILY APPLY TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY; THE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS WOULD DEPRIVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OF PRIVILEGES THAT ARE ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE SAME VICINITY AND IN THE SAME ZONE, THAT APPROVING THE VARIANCE OR MINOR DEVIATION WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME AREA AND ZONE, AND THAT THE VARIANCE OR MINOR DEVIATION WOULD NOT ALLOW USE OR ACTIVITY THAT'S NOT OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE SUBJECT PARCEL.
I'M NOT GOING TO GET [NOISE] INTO ALL OF THE FINDINGS.
THE VARIOUS FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT ILLUSTRATE WHY STAFF BELIEVES THE VARIANCE REQUESTS MEETS THESE REQUIRED FINDINGS.
HOWEVER, I'M GOING TO BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
PROPOSED LOTS 41 AND 42 ARE PHYSICALLY CONSTRAINED BY SEVERAL UNUSUALLY LONG LOTS THAT WERE CREATED DURING PHASE 4 OF THE SUBDIVISION.
ADDITIONALLY, PROPOSED LOT 22 IS IMPACTED BY BOTH THE ANGLE THAT THE BNSF RAILROAD INTERSECTS THE PROJECT SITE IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THAT LOT FRONT ON THE EXTENSION OF EGRET DRIVE.
STAFF HAS OUTLINED THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND WE BELIEVE THAT IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE VARIANCE.
NOW I'M GOING TO CONTINUE WITH THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION.
THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION MAP.
I HAVE OUTLINED THE PROPOSED PARCELS IN YELLOW AND I'VE INDICATED THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SITE LOCATION WITH AN ARROW.
AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE TENTATIVE MAP INCLUDES 47 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THEY VARY IN SIZE FROM AS SMALL AS 6,000 SQUARE FEET TO AS LARGE AS 11,700 SQUARE FEET.
THE PROJECT ALSO CONTINUES THE STREET PATTERN FROM PHASE 4.
AS I SAID, I INDICATED THE PARK SITE WHICH WILL COME UP IN A MOMENT.
THIS IS THE FIRST PROJECT TO BE APPROVED UNDER THE NEW WINTON COMMUNITY PLAN.
STAFF REVIEWED THE PROJECT AGAINST THE PLAN AND FOUND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING GOALS AND POLICIES.
GOAL LU-2 RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL LAND USES, POLICY LU-2.1 A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES, GOAL LU-3 RESIDENTIAL SAFETY, AND GOAL OSC-2 INTEGRATION OF NEW PARKS FOR THE REASONS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
IT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH OUR GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE WINTON COMMUNITY PLAN.
GOAL C-3 ROADWAY CONNECTIONS, GOAL C-5 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES, AND POLICY C-5-3 THE PRIORITIZATION OF SAFE-ROUTES TO SCHOOL.
THOSE ARE ALL EXPLAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT WHY THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THESE.
THE PROJECT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, LAND-USE ELEMENTS, SPECIFICALLY GOAL LU-1 AND POLICY LU-1.10, AND GOAL LU-5.A AND POLICY LU-5.A.2 FOR THE REASONS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
STAFF ALSO FOUND THE PROJECT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS.
ALL OF THE LOTS WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING AND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS EXCEPT FOR THE THREE LOTS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE FOR AND WITH APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE, THOSE LOTS WILL BE FOUND CONSISTENT.
THE PROJECT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT FOR THE FINDINGS THAT WERE OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
NEXT FOR THE CEQA FINDINGS, I'VE OUTLINED THE CEQA FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND BECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST MAJOR PROJECT AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE WINTON COMMUNITY PLAN,
[00:15:02]
THIS PROJECT DOES NOT REQUIRE FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 15183, PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN OR ZONING OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.FOR THE REASONS OUTLINED BELOW AND IN THE STAFF REPORT WHICH I'LL SUMMARIZE HERE, THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WINTON COMMUNITY PLAN WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON MAY 11TH AND BECAME EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 11TH OF THIS YEAR.
NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED ON THE PROJECT SITE OR IN THIS SURROUNDING AREAS SINCE THE BOARD ADOPTED THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND CERTIFIED THE ASSOCIATED FEIR.
THERE ARE NO PROJECT-SPECIFIC SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT SITE THAT WERE NOT ANALYZED IN THE EIR PREPARED FOR THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND THERE'S NO SUBSTANTIAL NEW INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT KNOWN AT THE TIME THAT THE BOARD CERTIFIED THE WINTON COMMUNITY PLAN FINAL EIR.
CONTINUING, THE NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED SUN-STAR AND MAILED TO ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROJECT SITE ON JUNE 11.
STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY WRITTEN OR VERBAL COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE STAFF REPORT.
BEFORE I GET TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS, I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS SOME OF THE REVISED CONDITIONS AND EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A COPY.
AS I SHOWED EARLIER, THERE IS A PARK SITE.
THE PARK SITE WAS CREATED BY THE PREVIOUS SUB-DIVIDER.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE SUBDIVISION WAS APPROVED PRIOR TO THE GREAT RECESSION, I BELIEVE THE PARK SITE WAS NOT BUILT BECAUSE OF THE IMPACTS OF THE GREAT RECESSION.
SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, THE CURRENT APPLICANT PURCHASED THE UNDEVELOPED OR THE SUBDIVIDED LAND THAT WAS REMAINING IN THE REMAINDER AND SOME UNBUILT PARCELS IN PHASE 4.
WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH CONDITION NUMBER 9, WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT AND PUBLIC WORKS TO REVISE THE CONDITION TO BASICALLY READ REGARDING THE PARK SITE IMPROVEMENT THAT THE OWNER APPLICANT CAN EITHER BUILD AT THE PARK SITE OR WORK WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND THE COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO DETERMINE THE NECESSARY AMOUNT OF IN-LIEU FEES TO CONSTRUCT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK.
HOWEVER, WE HAVE AMENDED THE CONDITION TO READ THAT IF THE COUNTY CAN IDENTIFY ANOTHER SOURCE OF FUNDS THAT IS PRIOR FEES PAID BY THE SUB-DIVIDER OF MAS OR MAJOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MAS 02-011 THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY INTENDED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK IN QUAIL HOLLOW STATES, THE AMOUNT OF THE IN-LIEU FEES MAY BE OFFSET.
CONTINUING, CONDITIONS NUMBER 10 AND 13 CLARIFY IF AND WHEN THE CONDITION APPLIES TO THE APPLICANT, SO NOT A MAJOR CHANGE THERE.
CONDITIONS NUMBER 11 AND 12 BASICALLY CLARIFY MAINTENANCE AND INITIAL MAINTENANCE COST.
THEN FINALLY, ATTACHMENT B WHICH SHOULD BE THE FINAL ATTACHMENT IN YOUR COPY WERE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS THAT STAFF RECEIVED JUST THE OTHER DAY.
I'LL CONTINUE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
FOR THE CEQA RECOMMENDATION WE HAVE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS.
EXCUSE ME. FIRST, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NUMBER MAS20-003 REQUIRES NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15183, PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN OR ZONING BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THAT THE COMMISSION FIND THAT ZONE VARIANTS NUMBER ZV21-001 IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15305, MINOR ALTERATIONS IN LAND USE LIMITATIONS OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THEN REGARDING THE PROJECT RECOMMENDATION, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION MAS20-003 AND ZONE VARIANCE APPLICATION ZV21-001
[00:20:04]
BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, INCLUDING ATTACHMENTS A AND B.WITH THAT, I CAN ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. [NOISE] AT THIS POINT, WE WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS PROJECT, NOW WILL BE THE TIME TO DO SO.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
HAWKINS AND ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERING, CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THIS PROJECT.
ALSO STEVE HERE DEVELOPERS IN THE AUDIENCE TOO, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AND THEY'D BE DIRECTED TO HIM AND NOT A WHOLE LOT TO ADD.
I JUST WANTED TO THANK DIANA FOR HER EFFORTS AND HER WILLINGNESS TO COORDINATE AND COMMUNICATE.
WE'RE NOT THRILLED WITH THE SITUATION WITH THE PARK.
WE GOT STUCK WITH THAT IN THAT WE RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR THE PARK AND DON'T OBJECT TO THAT.
JUST BECAUSE OF, LIKE DIANA SAID, WITH THE GREAT RECESSION AND THINGS GETTING FUMBLED AROUND, WE'RE LEFT HOLDING THE BAG A LITTLE BIT ON THE PARK.
WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT THE COUNTY CAN HOPEFULLY IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE THEY'VE FOUND A BOND, POSSIBLY.
BUT HOPEFULLY WE CAN FIND SOME FEES FROM THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER THAT WOULD GO TOWARD THAT AND HELP OFFSET THOSE COSTS.
ONE QUESTION AND DIANA WE DIDN'T REALLY TALK ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY, BUT CONDITION NUMBER 12 TALKS ABOUT A TWO-YEAR MAINTENANCE ON THE PARK.
IS THAT A COUNTY STANDARD? WE WERE JUST TALKING TO SOME LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ENGAGING WITH.
HE THOUGHT THAT SEEMED A LITTLE LONG.
ONE YEAR MAYBE WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE, SO THAT'S REALLY OUR ONLY QUESTION.
IS THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD TO BE PAID FOR THE PARK MAINTENANCE?
>> WHAT I ADDED TO THAT WAS THAT THE ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE COSTS SHOULD BE DETERMINE BY THE PUBLIC'S WORKS DEPARTMENTS.
I BELIEVE THAT ALLOWS THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO REDUCE THAT TIME OR WE CAN AMEND IT TO SAY FOR A MINIMUM OF TIME BASED ON WHAT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SAYS OR HOWEVER, COUNTY COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO AWARD IT.
>> TWO YEARS OF MAINTENANCE THIS SEEMS A LITTLE LONG FOR US, BUT WE WERE HOPING WE COULD GO WITH ONE YEAR MAINTENANCE.
WITH OUR EXPERIENCE THAT SEEMS TO COINCIDE MORE WITH WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST.
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT AMENDMENT THAT WE WOULD MAKE NOW OR WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WE'D HAVE TO TABLE THIS FOR THAT AND BRING IT ALL BACK BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO REWRITE IT.
JEFF, I GUESS YOU COULD SHED SOME LIGHT ON THAT.
>> THE COMMISSION CAN AMEND IT HERE.
IF THE COMMISSION DESIRED TO OR THEY COULD PROVIDE FOR A DETERMINATION MADE BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT DAN HAD MENTIONED WAS IF THE COMMISSION WAS INCLINED SOMETHING ALONG THE EFFECT OF SHALL PROVIDE MAINTENANCE FOR AN AMOUNT OF TIME NOT TO EXCEED TWO YEARS, BUT SUCH TIME AS MAY BE REDUCED TO ONE YEAR AS DETERMINED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
IF THE RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF IS TO HAVE PUBLIC WORKS DETERMINE THE STANDARD AMOUNT OF TIME THAT MAINTENANCE WOULD OCCUR.
>> THAT'S SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE APPROACH MR. HAWKINS.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HERE WANTS TO LOAD YOU GUYS UP WITH MORE PARK MAINTENANCE.
BUT YOU PROBABLY WANT THIS TO MOVE FORWARD AND I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO STOP THE BALL FROM ROLLING.
>> I'M GOING TO PUT THAT BACK IN YOUR COURT IF THAT SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE AND HOPING THE STAFF CAN CRAFT SOMETHING TO MAYBE MEET WHERE WE ALL WANT TO COME TOGETHER ON THIS.
>> SHOULDN'T THERE BE A STANDARD TIME SUBDIVISION THAT'S REQUIRED TO ENGAGE THE LANDSCAPER? [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO COME SPEAK AFTER MR. HAWKINS IS DONE, IF YOU COULD THANK YOU.
>> I CAN VOICE IT. BASICALLY WE'RE JUST SUGGESTING THAT THERE SHOULD BE A COUNTY STANDARD FOR THAT.
[00:25:04]
THAT'S ALL WE'RE SUGGESTING IS THAT IF THAT'S THE COUNTY STANDARD, THAT'S THE COUNTY STANDARD.IT JUST SEEMED A LITTLE BIT ARBITRARY.
BUT I THINK IN THAT SAME VEIN, YOUR SUGGESTION WOULD BE VALID EITHER WAY, THAT A MAXIMUM TWO YEARS TO BE DETERMINED BY PUBLIC WORKSHOP WITH THE CURRENT COUNTY STANDARD.
WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT A TABLE OR ANYTHING FOR THIS.
WE COULD SAY THAT INITIAL PART MAINTENANCE COST THE DEVELOPER SHOULD APPLY PAYMENT FOR THE ESTIMATED COST TO MAINTAIN THE PARK FOR A TIME PERIOD SPECIFIED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IN ADDITION TO THE MAINTENANCE COSTS.
WE COULD ALLOW PUBLIC WORKS TO SPECIFY THE TIME PERIOD, BUT I BELIEVE THE INTENT IS THAT THE PARK IS GOING TO GO INTO A PARK ZONE BENEFIT AND THE MONIES ARE GOING TO COME FORM THE SALE OF THE 47 LOTS.
I'M NOT 100 PERCENT SURE THAT THE ZONE OF BENEFIT FOR THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AREAS FROM THE PREVIOUS PHASES WILL COVER THE PARK BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LANDSCAPE ZONE A BENEFIT AND A PARK ZONE OF BENEFIT.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE'S HERE FROM PUBLIC WORKS.
I'D REQUESTED THEM TO BE HERE.
BUT I THINK THE STAFF'S THOUGHT WAS THAT YOU HAVE TO SELL OFF 47 OF THE HOUSES TO PAY INTO THAT FUND TO MAINTAIN THE PARK.
IT'S GOING TO TAKE TIME FOR THE FUND TO BUILD UP.
BUT WE CAN AMEND THIS SUCH THAT THE TIME FRAME AND THE COST ARE DETERMINED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
>> I'M NOT A COMPLICATED GUY, BUT I MEAN, YOU HAD TO GIVE THE LAND BASICALLY FOR THIS PARK FROM YOUR ELEMENT.
>> THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM.
IT WAS DONE BY THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPER.
THIS PARK IS ACTUALLY OUTSIDE OUR PROJECT AREA.
IT'S ADJACENT TO I MEAN, IT'S BUTTS UP AGAINST IT.
BUT THE PROBLEM HERE, WHY IT'S COMPLICATED IS THIS PART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE ALREADY.
NOW WE'RE COMING IN AND THERE WERE 228 LOTS PRIOR TO THIS IN THE PREVIOUS SUBDIVISION.
NOW THESE 47 LOTS ARE GOING TO CARRY THE BRUNT OF THIS PARK.
>> BASICALLY YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING DO WITH THIS PARK.
[NOISE] IT WAS JUST FORCED ON YOU IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP THESE 47 LOTS.
>> IT WAS ALWAYS PART OF ORIGINAL CONDITION TO THE ORIGINAL MAP AND THEN IT JUST GOT LEFT OUT.
>> THIS PARK CAN BE USED BY ANYBODY IN THE COUNTY?
>> MOST LIKELY TO BE THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
LIKE I SAID, WE'RE NOT OBJECTING TO THE PARK ITSELF.
BUT THAT'S JUST A LITTLE UNDUE BURDEN ON THERE.
>> BASICALLY THE COUNTY IS SAID TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT YOU GUYS HAVE TO PAY TO MAINTAIN THIS PARK THAT YOU REALLY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH.
I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S REASONABLE.
I THINK THAT IT'S THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN THE PARK.
>> JUST TO BE FAIR TO STAFF AT EVERYBODY.
WE HAVE 47 DIVIDED BY 228 PLUS 47.
[LAUGHTER] WE HAVE A PRORATION, WHERE THERE'S A PRORATED SHARE.
I MEAN, WE ARE GOING TO BENEFIT FROM THE PARK, BUT THOSE 228 LOTS ARE ALSO GOING TO BENEFIT AND THAT WAS FOR US.
AS I SAID STAFF, WHEN THE PRESENTATION STARTED, THIS IS A COMPLICATED PROJECT.
WE HAVE AN APPLICANT WHO HAS BOUGHT THE REMAINDER OF A PRIOR SUBDIVISION FROM A PRIOR DEVELOPER.
THE PRIOR DEVELOPER WAS SUPPOSED TO BUILD THE PARK.
I BELIEVE THEY DEDICATED THE PARK.
THERE'S A LOT CREATED FOR THE PARK.
THE PRIOR DEVELOPER APPARENTLY, DURING THE GREAT RECESSION, WAS UNABLE TO COMPLETE THE PARK.
HE THEN SOLD LOTS THAT WERE SUBDIVIDED IN PHASE 4 TO THE CURRENT APPLICANT AND THEY COMPLETED BUILDING THEM OUT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY LOTS, BUT THEY SUBDIVIDED LOTS IN PHASE 4, CORRECT?
>> ONE MINOR CORRECTION AND THAT'S ESSENTIALLY CORRECTING DEVELOPER BACK TO BANK, SOLD TO ANOTHER ENTITY AND THEN PURCHASE THIS PURCHASE LOTS.
[00:30:02]
I'M JUST ADDING TO ITS MORE CONVOLUTED THAN JUST A SIMPLE YEAH. EXACTLY.>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF WE COULD MAYBE TAKE A QUICK DEEP BREATH.
GIVE MR. MAXI AN OPPORTUNITY HE MIGHT HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK THOUGHTS AS TO HOW TO BRING THINGS MAYBE BACK TO CENTER A LITTLE BIT.
>> MORNING MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STEVE MAXI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING FOR THE COUNTY.
JUST TO CLARIFY A HANDFUL OF THINGS.
AS MENTIONED, THIS WAS A REMAINDER PHASE OF A PREVIOUS LARGER SUBDIVISION.
IT STILL CARRIES THE BURDEN OF DEVELOPING THE PARK IN A SENSE THAT PAYING ITS FAIR SHARE OF WHAT THE COST OF THE PARK IS.
YES, THE COUNTY MAY HAVE THE ULTIMATE CHARGE OF MAINTAINING THE PARK OR WHAT WOULD BE THIS CIT OR A DISTRICT THAT WOULD SPECIFICALLY BE TIED TO MAINTENANCE OF THE PARK.
THOSE TYPES OF THINGS ARE SET UP AFTER THE FACT ONCE ALL THE ASSESSMENTS ARE IN PLACE FOR THE NEW LOTS.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S DRIVING THIS TIMELINE PIECE OF THE PARK MAINTENANCE.
WHAT I JUST SPOKE WITH MR. HARRIS, THE DEVELOPER, WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND OR STAFF RECOMMEND TODAY WOULD BE LEAVE THE CONDITION AS WRITTEN AS IT IS.
WE DO KNOW THAT THERE WAS A BOND FOR PREVIOUS PHASES THAT WE ADMITTEDLY, THIS IS STAFF HAS TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF THE BLAME HERE THAT WE ONLY UNCOVERED THAT BOND RECENTLY.
WE'LL WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER WHO WILL COMMIT TO WORKING WITH A DEVELOPER TO IDENTIFY WHAT THAT BOND AMOUNT IS, WHAT THAT BOND MAY BE TIED TO PERFORMANCE WHY SPECIFICALLY? WE AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER BROADWAY FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, WE DON'T WANT TO SETTLE THE DEVELOPER WITH MORE THAN WHAT THEIR FAIR SHARE WOULD BE LEGALLY CAN'T DO THAT.
WE'LL COMMIT TO WORKING WITH THEM TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE ONLY PAYING WITH THEIR FAIR SHARE WOULD REPRESENT AND THAT THE TIMELINE IN THIS WOULD ONLY COVER THE TIME THAT IT TAKES TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE NEW LOTS CAN CATCH UP AND COVER THEIR FAIR SHARE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PARK GOING FORWARD.
>> YEAH, I COULD SEE A PRO-RATA PORTION OF IF THE ORIGINAL THING WAS WHAT, 260 SOMETHING, 278 SLOTS.
THIS IS ONLY GOING TO BE A SMALL PART OF THAT.
I COULD SEE THAT SMALL PART PROPORTION OF THE ESTIMATED COSTS BEING ASSESSED, BUT I THINK A YEAR IS PROBABLY REASONABLE, BUT THAT'S JUST ME MR. VEGAS.
>> DO THESE SOLUTIONS SOUND ACCEPTABLE TO YOU GUYS? I DON'T WANT TO FORCE ANYTHING, A VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH.
I ALSO APPRECIATE THE TIME IS MONEY AND YOU GUYS PROBABLY DON'T WANT TO WAIT TO GET BACK ON AN AGENDA AGAIN SO IT'S NOT [OVERLAPPING] REALLY I APPRECIATE THIS DIALOGUE BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE NOT OBJECTING TO THE PARK.
WE RECOGNIZE IT AS A VALUE TO US TOO, AND WE UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S THERE.
I APPRECIATE THE DIALOGUE TO JUST THAT WE CAN REALLY [NOISE] WORK AS A FAIR STATE TO FIND A FAIR SOLUTION. THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR.
YEAH. I THINK FOR US, WE HAVEN'T BUILT A LOT OF PARKS IN A WHILE.
THIS IS A NEW TERRITORY BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A BIG WALL AND ARE THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN DECIDED? IT'S GOOD WE'RE ALL LEARNING SOMETHING THROUGH THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD.
I'M SURE THAT WE'LL MAKE ADJUSTMENTS.
I AM REALLY JUST WATCHING THIS WHOLE THING UNFOLD I'M REALLY IMPRESSED THE WAY THE COUNTY HAS WORKED WITH THE DEVELOPER TO TRY TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING AND EVERYBODY'S MAKING ADJUSTMENTS RIGHT, AND WE'RE A LITTLE BIT A GIVE-AND-TAKE, BUT THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO ALLOW YOU GUYS AND FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE COMMUNITY TO BUILD THIS PROJECT OUT, TO HAVE A PARK FOR THE RESIDENTS THAT DIDN'T HAVE ONE THAT WE'RE PROBABLY HOPING WHEN THEY BUILT THOSE YEARS AGO THAT WAS COMING.
I'M IMPRESSED WITH ALL THE WORK THAT EVERYBODY'S DONE BEHIND THE SCENES ON THIS AND I WILL SAY MERCED COUNTY, HAVING WORKED WITH OTHER AREAS, I FEEL IS REALLY TRYING TO PARTNER AND NOT MAKING THINGS HARDER FOR YOU, BUT WANTS TO HELP YOU ACCOMPLISH THIS.
WE APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH, TRULY DO.
IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM OR.
I THINK WE'RE GOOD, THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE? SEEING NONE, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC CARRYING BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS.
DO WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR ANYTHING WE'D LIKE TO WORK THROUGH? ARE WE CLEAR ON WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS? WE MIGHT NEED SOME HELP. JEFF.
ALL WE DONE A ONE YEAR THEN IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M HEARING.
MAYBE JEFF, YOU COULD ADD SOME CLARITY TO THEM.
I THINK MR. MAXINE'S LATEST RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR NUMBER 12 TO BE NOT AMENDED AND TO BE PASSED AS IS IT IS UP TO THE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION, OF COURSE, WHETHER THEY WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THAT.
AGAIN, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS.
WHAT'S THE WILL AND DESIRE, THE COMMISSIONERS?
[00:35:01]
IT SOUNDS LIKE MR. MAXINE, THE DEVELOPER, DISCUSSED IT AND BASICALLY TRUST EACH OTHER TO COME UP WITH AN AMIABLE SOLUTION.TO BE CLEAR THE CONDITION WOULD BE AS WRITTEN.
IT WOULD NEED TO BE AMENDED AFTER THE FACT BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, SO IF UN-AMENDED, THIS IS HOW IT WOULD BE PASSED AND READ AND IMPLEMENTED.
THAT'S CORRECT. JUST TO CLARIFY, COUNSELS CLARIFICATION LITTLE FURTHER.
IF LEFT AS WRITTEN, AGAIN, THE STAFF WILL COMMIT TO WORKING WITH A DEVELOPER TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT THEIR PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR.
THE COUNTY WOULD EITHER EXECUTE THE BOND THIS PREVIOUSLY BONDED FOR THOSE LAST PHASES THAT THIS DEVELOPER WAS NOT INVOLVED IN OR WE CALL THEM ON.
BUT LEFT HAS WRITTEN THAT DOES GIVE US ENOUGH WIGGLE ROOM TO WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT COST WOULD BE AND WHAT THAT TIMELINE WOULD LOOK LIKE.
THAT'S WITHIN THE DIRECTOR AND MR. HENDRIX'S PURVIEW AS AS WRITTEN IN CODE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE.
EVERYBODY'S COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? FROM WHAT I HEARD, I THINK EVERYBODY'S COMFORTABLE.
AT THIS POINT, WE WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE.
I'LL MOVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NUMBER MAS 20-003, REQUIRES NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15 183, PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN OR ZONING BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND, WE'LL CALL FOR A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
CHAIR VOTES AYE, POSE NE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO MOTION NUMBER 2.
MOVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FIND ZONE VARIANCE NUMBER ZV 21001, EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15 305 MINOR APPLICATIONS IN LAND USE LIMITATIONS OF THE SQL GUIDELINES BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.
WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. [OVERLAPPING] AYE.
CHAIR VOTES EYE OPPOSED, PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
NOW, MOVING ON, YOU'RE GOING TO GET YOUR MONEY'S WORTH ON THIS.
YES. I MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NUMBER MAS 20 003 AND ZONE VARIANTS APPLICATION NUMBER ZV 21001, BASED ON THE FINDINGS INCLUDING THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE REVISED CONDITIONS OR APPROVAL, INCLUDING ATTACHMENTS A AND B.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.
WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. [OVERLAPPING] CHAIR VOTES AYE OPPOSED, SEEING NONE.
I THINK THAT'S THE END FOR THIS.
PERFECT. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T MISS ANYTHING. THANK YOU GUYS.
MOVING FORWARD NOW ON TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION CUP 21 - 001.
[6.III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 21-010]
[NOISE] GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION TODAY I WILL BE PRESENTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CUP 21 - 010, ON BEHALF OF GURPREET SINGH [NOISE].THIS IS A REQUEST TO OPERATE A SEMI-TRUCK AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES STORAGE FACILITY.
THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF ASHBY ROAD, A QUARTER MILE WEST OF FERNS STREET, AND IS DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL LAND USE AND ZONE C2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL.
[NOISE] HERE'S THE VICINITY MAP OF THE PROJECT SITE.
THE PRODUCT SITE IS SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL ZONING TO THE WEST AND EAST.
THE CALIFORNIA 99 HIGHWAY TO THE SOUTH, AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING TO THE NORTH.
[NOISE] HERE WE SEE A CLOSER AERIAL IMAGE OF THE PROJECT SITE.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT SITE WILL ENCOMPASS BOTH PARCELS AS SHOWN, AND IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO A PREFABRICATED HOME SALES FACILITY AND SURROUNDED BY OTHER VACANT PARCELS AND UNDEVELOPED LAND.
THIS IS THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF GOING WESTWARD ON ASHBY ROAD, THE SITE HAS BEEN CONDITIONED FOR BOTH AESTHETIC AND NUISANCE ABATEMENT THROUGH LANDSCAPING AND
[00:40:02]
SCREENING FROM BOTH THE ROAD FRONTAGE AND THE ADJACENT RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING.HERE'S A PICTURE FROM ASHBY ROAD HEADED WEST AS SHOWN ON THE PREVIOUS TENTATIVE MAP SLIDE.
HERE IS A PICTURE FROM ASHBY ROAD AND LOOKING ON TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SITE WHERE THE SEMI-TRUCKS AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES WILL ENTER.
THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES REGARDING COMMERCIALLY ZONE PARCELS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS, SPECIFICALLY THOSE RELATED TO SITE DESIGN REVIEW AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
WE HAVE A CORRECTION TO THE NOTIFICATION.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT WAS ORIGINALLY NOTICE TO BE EXEMPT FROM SQL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 15332 TO INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS OF THE SQL GUIDELINES.
UPON FURTHER REVIEW WITH COUNTY COUNCIL, THE PROPOSED PROJECT DID NOT MEET ALL THE CRITERIA FOR THAT PARTICULAR EXEMPTION FOR TWO REASONS.
ONE, THE PROJECT IS OUTSIDE OF ANY INCORPORATED CITY LIMITS AND TWO THE PROJECT IS OVER THE FIVE ACRE NET OR GROSS THRESHOLD [NOISE].
HOWEVER, UNDER SECTION 15183, PRODUCTS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN OR ZONING OF THE SQL GUIDELINES.
THE ONE PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT FRANKLIN BEACH WITH COMMUNITY PLAN FOR COMMERCIALLY ZONE PARCELS.
TWO, CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE GENERAL PLAN AND UNDER MERCED COUNTY ZONING.
THREE, CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DENSITY ESTABLISHED BY THE CERTIFIED E-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND FOUR, AN ALLOWABLE USE AS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CUP 21-010 CAN BE FOUND EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW [NOISE].
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS WERE ALSO ADDED LATER AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, "NO VEHICLES SHALL IDLE ON THE PROJECT SITE FOR A DURATION LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WITHIN A ONE HOUR PERIOD.
IDLING OR STORED VEHICLES SHALL NOT USE HORNS, RADIOS, OR OTHER NOISE GENERATING DEVICES UNLESS REQUIRED FOR SAFETY REASONS.
ANY VEHICLE LIGHT SHALL BE USED IN A MANNER AS TO AVOID PROJECTION OF LIGHT ONTO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES", AND TWO, "NO INDIVIDUAL SHALL REMAIN IN VEHICLE FOR OVERNIGHT OCCUPANCY SLEEPER TRUCKS".
NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET ON JUNE 11TH AND PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED SUN-STAR ON THE SAME DATE AND NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED.
WITH THAT, STAFF HAS TWO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COMMISSION, A MOTION THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP21-010 AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. THIS TIME WE WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME AND, SPEAK ON THIS OR HAS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO.
SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION HERE.
WHAT IS THE WILL OR DESIRE OF THIS PLANNING COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM? I GUESS I MISSED A MOTION.
I MOVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15183, PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN OR ZONING OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, NOW WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR? [BACKGROUND] AYE.
CHAIR VOTES, AYE. OPPOSED, NONE.
NOW, MOVING ON TO THE PROJECT DETERMINATION.
I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP 210010, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR? [BACKGROUND] AYE.
CHAIR VOTES, AYE. ALL OPPOSED, NONE.
PASSES AGAIN UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU.
[6.IV. CONVEY AND COMBINE MINOR SUBDIVISION No. MS21-006]
CONVEY AND COMBINE MAJOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER, MS21-006.[00:45:01]
[NOISE] THANK YOU, CHAIRS BY CHAIR.MY NAME IS TIFFANY HILL, I'M WITH THE COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND TODAY I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF PRESENTING MINOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MS21006 FOR BETENCOURT AND FOREBAY FARMS LLC.
THE REQUEST IS TO SECTION OFF A 2.9 ACRE HOMESITE PARCEL AND CONVEY THE REMAINING ACREAGE TO ADJACENT PARCEL TO CREATE A 51.2-ACRE PARCEL.
THEN TO SECTION OFF A 4.1 HOMESITE PARCEL AND CONVEY THE REMAINING ACREAGE TO AN ADJACENT PARCEL.
AS A RESULT, THE PARCEL SIZES WOULD BE HOMESITE PARCEL ONE, ABOUT THREE ACRES, HOMESITE PARCEL TWO ABOUT FOUR ACRES, AND THE REMAINDER PARCEL BEING ABOUT 47 ACRES.
[NOISE] HERE IS THE VICINITY MAP OF THE PROJECT SITE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED.
YOU CAN SEE THAT IT CONSISTS OF THREE PARCELS THAT APPROXIMATELY 54 ACRES IN TOTAL, 19, 19 AND 14.
IT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AMERICAN AVENUE AND GRIFFITH AVENUE IN THE HILMAR AREA.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SURROUNDING LAND USES MAJORITY, ARE CULTURAL USES WITH SOME SCATTERED RURAL RESIDENTIAL USES.
SOME NOTABLE LAND USES WOULD BE, THE DAIRY TO THE NORTH THAT'S OWNED BY FOREBAY FARMS AND THE URBAN COMMUNITY OF HILMAR TO THE WEST.
[NOISE] HERE IS AN AERIAL IMAGERY OF THE PROJECT SITE, YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE THREE EXISTING HOMES ON SITE, AS WELL AS A FEED STORAGE FACILITY AND ROW CROPS.
ALL THE HOMES HAVE THEIR OWN ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND EITHER HAVE A WELL OR SHARED WELL FACILITY.
HERE IS A TENTATIVE MAP THAT IS PROPOSED, IT'S HARD TO SEE THE DETAILS, BUT I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THE MAJOR POINTS.
THE FIRST HOME SITE PARCEL, PARCEL ONE, IS HIGHLIGHTED IN RED.
PARCEL TWO, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE, IS ABOUT FOUR ACRES, AND THE REMAINDER PARCEL, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN, IS APPROXIMATELY 47 ACRES.
HERE IS A PHOTO OF THE PROJECT SITE LOOKING FROM GRIFFITH AVENUE EAST TOWARDS THE PROJECT SITE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE ROW CROPS AS WELL AS A HOME SITE IN THE DISTANCE AND THE FEED STORAGE LOT.
HERE'S A VIEW OF THE PROJECT SITE LOOKING SOUTH FROM AMERICAN AVENUE TOWARDS THE EXISTING HOME AND AG SHOP, WHICH WE'VE SECTIONED OFF INTO PARCEL ONE HOME SITE.
HERE'S THE VIEW LOOKING FROM AMERICAN, NORTH OF THE PROJECT SITE TO THE DARIEN ROW CROPS AND THE ROW CROPS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AGRICULTURE USES IN THE AREA.
HERE'S A VIEW LOOKING FROM GRIFFITH AVENUE FROM THE PROJECT SITE TO ORCHARDS AND SOME RURAL RESIDENCES TOO.
FOR CONSISTENCY, THE PROJECT SITE IS DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL LAND USE AND ZONED A1 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL.
STAFF REVIEWED IT FOR CONSISTENCY WITH OUR GENERAL PLAN, ZONING TITLE 17, SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND THE AG PRESERVE AND FOUND THAT IT WAS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
SPECIFICALLY THOSE GOALS AND POLICIES RELATED TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL USES, LOOKING AG LANDS AND PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE THAT ALLOW HOMESITE PARCELS.
THESE CONSISTENCY REVIEWS AND ANALYSIS IS DETAILED ON PAGE 3 THROUGH 6 OF THE STAFF REPORT.
STAFF FOUND THAT THERE ARE NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 15162 OF CEQA GUIDELINES.
THE ANALYSIS THAT LED TO THIS DETERMINATION CAN BE FOUND IN EXHIBIT C OF THE STAFF REPORT.
TO GIVE THE COMMISSION A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THAT, ESSENTIALLY, THE PROGRAM EIR THAT WAS REPAIRED FOR THE 2030 MERCED COUNTY GENERAL PLAN DID ANALYZE IMPACTS OF AGRICULTURE SUBDIVISIONS AND FOUND THEY'D BE A LESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WHEN NO NEW RESIDENCES ARE PROPOSED.
NO NEW RESIDENCES ARE BEING PROPOSED FOR THIS AGRICULTURAL SUBDIVISION AND A NOTE WILL BE PLACED ON THE MAP THAT STATES THAT THE RIGHT TO BUILD A HOME HAS BEEN WAIVED, AND THAT NEW HOMES WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL TO BE BUILT.
"NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROJECT SITE AND PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED SUN STAR ON JUNE 11TH, 2021".
AS OF TODAY, NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED.
GIVEN INFORMATION PRESENTED TODAY AND DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, STAFF HAS TWO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COMMISSION.
FIRST, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION DETERMINE THAT
[00:50:03]
NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 15162, AND THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVE MINOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MS 21006.THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, STAFF CAN ANSWER THEM.
THANK YOU. THIS TIME WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS OR ASK QUESTIONS FOR STAFF NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, THAT WOULD BE GREAT, THANK YOU.
NORMAN ISLANDER REPRESENTING FOREBAY FARMS. NO, I JUST WANT TO SAY REAL QUICKLY, WE AGREE WITH STAFF'S PRESENTATION, THIS HAS BEEN A GOOD PROCESS.
I JUST WANT TO SAY IN GENERAL, I DO A LOT OF PROJECTS UP AND DOWN THE VALLEY NOT ONLY IS YOUR STAFF GOOD TO WORK WITH, WHAT YOU GUYS DID EARLIER WITH STEVE HEIR WAS REALLY A TESTAMENT TO THE GREAT WAY YOU GUYS DO BUSINESS HERE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR BEING IN PERSON BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE ARE IN PERSON NOWADAYS.
SO WE HAVE NO QUESTIONS, NO ISSUES.
JUST WANT TO SAY WE SUPPORT THE STAFF AND SUPPORT YOUR PROCESS DOING A GOOD JOB, THANK YOU.
NORMAN, WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M LOOKING AT JACK, WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE.
WHY DON'T I MAKE A MOTION? I'LL MOVE THAT WE DETERMINE NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 15162, SUBSEQUENT EIRS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES BASED ON THE ANALYSIS AND THE 2030 MERCED COUNTY GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND THE ATTACHED CEQA GUIDELINES, SECTION 15162 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR? [BACKGROUND] AYE.
CHAIR VOTES, AYE. OPPOSE NAY, PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE PROJECT DETERMINATION.
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE MINOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MS 21006 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 AGAIN, CALL FOR THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR? [BACKGROUND] AYE.
CHAIR VOTES AYE. OPPOSED? SEEING NONE THAT ALSO PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
AT THIS POINT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER ACTION ITEMS. NOTHING ADDITIONAL, SIR.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS? SEEING NONE, I'LL MOVE FOR ADJOURNMENT. THANK YOU ALL.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.