Apr 12, 2023 Planning Meetings

[6.I. ITEM VI. A CONITIONAL USE PERMIT No. CUP21-0018 - SELECT HARVEST]

[00:02:10]

THE SPACE REPLACEMENT PARKING AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

OVER A SPAN OF FIVE YEARS, THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST HARDING ROAD AND NORTH SYCAMORE STREET IN THE TURLOCK AREA.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE PROJECTS HIGHLIGHTED IN RED WITH THE VICINITY HIGHLIGHTED AS WELL.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PROJECT SITE IS SURROUNDED BY AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND OTHER AG INDUSTRY.

HERE IS A CLOSE UP IMAGE OF THE PROJECT SITE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SITE IS MOSTLY COMPOSED OF RELATED AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS, WITH SOME OF THE SITE ALSO DEVELOPED WITH ORCHARDS. HERE IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.

WITH ALL OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE BEING DEVELOPED OVER THE SPAN OF FIVE YEARS, INCLUDING EMPLOYEE HOUSING, WAREHOUSING, CHEMICAL STORAGE BUILDINGS AND A PARKING LOT.

STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS PROJECT FOR CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE STANDARDS, GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE.

THE PROJECT SITE IS DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL AND CAN BE FOUND CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, INCLUDING GOAL TWO AND GOAL AG ONE.

THESE ARE GOALS THAT ESSENTIALLY ARE MEANT TO PROMOTE PRESERVE AG INDUSTRY BY ENCOURAGING EXPANSION OF COMMERCIAL, AGRICULTURAL AND ATTRACTING NEW AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT FACILITIES.

THE PROJECT SITE IS ZONED A ONE GENERAL AGRICULTURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING FACILITIES ARE ALLOWED UNDER AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION BECAUSE THIS PROJECT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED AS A CFP.

CP 3570.

THIS IS CONSIDERED A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO THE ORIGINAL PERMIT, WHICH ESSENTIALLY MEANS THAT THE ORIGINAL PERMITTING AUTHORITY HAS TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATION, WHICH IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO WE'VE PROCESSED IT AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SINCE THE ORIGINAL WAS SOLD.

AFTER REVIEW WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THE PROJECT CAN BE FOUND CONSISTENT WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING LANDSCAPING OFF STREET PARKING AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

THIS PROJECT WAS ANALYZED UNDER INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREPARED.

THIS NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS CIRCULATED FEBRUARY 16TH TO MARCH 30TH AND IT IDENTIFIED A FEW DIFFERENT TYPES OF AREAS THAT WOULD REQUIRE MITIGATION, INCLUDING AIR QUALITY, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, CULTURAL RESOURCES, GEOLOGY AND SOILS, HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, TRIBAL RESOURCES AND MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.

AT THE END OF THE CIRCULATION PERIOD, WE DID RECEIVE TWO STANDARD LETTERS FROM THE CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD AND THE SAN JOAQUIN AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT THAT OUTLINED A FEW OF THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO RECEIVE AFTER THE PROJECT IS APPROVED IF THE PROJECT IS APPROVED.

[00:05:08]

NOTICE OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING WAS PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED SUN-STAR ON MARCH 30TH AND MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROJECT SITE ON MARCH 31ST.

ONE COMMENT LETTER WAS RECEIVED AFTER THE STAFF REPORT WAS CIRCULATED.

THIS COMMENT LETTER DID NOT STATE THAT THERE WAS ANY OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT AND THAT THE LETTER WRITER HOPES THAT THE OPERATORS CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM TO ADDRESS ANY NOISE CONCERNS AS THEY ARISE WITH THE EXPANSION.

IN CONCLUSION, THIS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND OF THE PRESENTATION STAFF HAS TWO RECOMMENDATIONS.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THE MITIGATION MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AS WELL AS APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP21-018.

THIS CONCLUDES STAFFS PRESENTATION.

IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, STAFF CAN ANSWER THEM.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? OKAY. NOT HEARING ANY.

I WILL OPEN. EXCUSE ME.

OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM.

ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ABOUT THIS ITEM.

CAN DO SO NOW. AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

OKAY. NOT SEEING ANY. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.

WELL, OBVIOUSLY, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE I MEAN, NOT CONCERNED, BUT THE THE ONE LANDOWNER THAT HAD THE THE ONE OBSERVATION ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS AND NOISE AND ALL THAT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT THE COMPANY IS WILLING TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS OR WHATEVER TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE NOT OVERLY LOUD, WHICH I APPRECIATE.

BUT ARE THERE OTHER CONCERNS WITH THAT? I MEAN, IS THE OWNER SATISFIED WITH HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BUSINESS? IT SEEMS SO.

NOBODY SAID ANYTHING.

SO YEAH, THAT'S THE ONLY OBSERVATION I WOULD MAKE IS I JUST APPRECIATE THE BUSINESSES CONSIDERATION OF THE LANDOWNERS AROUND THERE AND BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR.

OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? DO WE HAVE MOTION FOR THE CEQA? OKAY, I'LL MOVE THAT.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15 ZERO SEVEN FOR CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION.

ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF THE SECRET GUIDELINES.

SECOND. OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE CEQA.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. CHAIR ALSO VOTES.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. NOW FOR THE PROJECT.

AND I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 20 1-018 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

SECOND. OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE PROJECT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. CHAIR ALSO VOTES.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED.

OKAY.

[6.I.i. ITEM VI. B CONITIONAL USE PERMIT No. CUP20-005 - AZEVEDO DAIRY #4]

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP20=005.

OKAY. GOOD MORNING.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN ERRECA AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

BRIAN GUERRERO, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COORDINATOR FOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING IS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP20-005.

THE AZEVEDO NUMBER FOUR DAIRY EXPANSION PROJECT.

IN THE APPLICANT IS ANTONIO AZEVEDO.

THE REQUEST IS TO MODIFY THE EXISTING FACILITY TO ALLOW AN INCREASE TO THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS HOUSED FROM 1730 TO 4000 ANIMALS.

THIS WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY COMBINING THE EXISTING DAIRY FACILITY WITH THE EXISTING HEIFER FACILITY TO THE EAST.

THE PROJECT ALSO PROPOSES THREE NEW SHADE BARNS, NEW FEED AND MANURE STORAGE AREAS, A MECHANICAL SEPARATOR, AND TWO NEW WASTEWATER STORAGE PONDS.

THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED WEST OF HIGHWAY 59 IN THE EL NIDO AREA, HIGHLIGHTED HERE IN RED.

LOOKING AT THE AERIAL, WE CAN SEE THE SITE CONSISTS OF THE EXISTING DAIRY FACILITY AND HEIFER FACILITIES IN YELLOW AND THE OVERALL SITE IN RED.

[00:10:07]

HERE WE CAN SEE THE SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

THE AREA OF ACTIVITY WHERE CONSTRUCTION WILL OCCUR IS OUTLINED IN RED AND TAKING A CLOSER LOOK AT THE AREA OF PROPOSED STRUCTURES, WE CAN SEE THE TWO PROPOSED SHADE BARNS IN BLUE.

THE MANURE STORAGE AREA IN GREEN.

THE FEED STORE STORAGE AREA IN YELLOW, THE MECHANICAL SEPARATOR IN PURPLE AND THE TWO WASTEWATER STORAGE PONDS IN RED.

LET'S SEE. WITH APPROVAL AT FULL BUILD OUT, THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WILL INCREASE FROM EIGHT TO APPROXIMATELY 15 AT EXCUSE ME, MOSTLY AUTO AND LIGHT TRUCK TRIPS.

SOME HEAVY TRUCKS FOR COMMODITY AND SOLID MANURE.

TRANSPORT WILL BE SLIGHTLY INCREASED AT FULL BUILD OUT AND NO CHANGE TO THE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, WHICH INCLUDES FLUSH AND SCRAPE SYSTEMS. WASTEWATER WILL BE APPLIED TO THE LAND APPLICATION AREA AND SOLID MANURE IS GOING TO BE REMOVED AND EXPORTED TO LAND APPLICATION AREAS OFF SITE.

IN TERMS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.

STAFF HAS PROVIDED AN ANALYSIS IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE PROJECT SITE IS DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL LAND USE DESIGNATION.

THE PROJECT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE, AGRICULTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN WITH MITIGATION, THE NATURAL RESOURCES, AIR QUALITY WATER ELEMENT AND RECREATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT CAN BE FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT AS WELL WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.

THE PROJECT SITE IS ZONED A-1 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL CONFINEMENT FACILITIES AND THEIR EXPANSIONS MAY BE APPROVED IN ALL AGRICULTURAL ZONES, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION.

THIS PROJECT CAN ALSO BE FOUND CONSISTENT WITH CHAPTER 18.64 OF THE ANIMAL CONFINEMENT ORDINANCE.

IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS PREPARED AND CIRCULATED.

THE 30 DAY PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD WAS BETWEEN AUGUST 31ST, 2021, AND OCTOBER 15TH, 2021.

STAFF RECEIVED TWO LETTERS IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT EIR.

THEY WERE STANDARD FORM LETTERS FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, WHICH HAD RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROTOCOL SURVEYS FOR SWAINSON'S HAWK, TRI-COLORED BLACKBIRD, AND THE BURROWING OWL, AS WELL AS A COMMENT LETTER FROM THE NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION, WHICH JUST REQUESTED CONSULTATION WITH THE NAHC IN AVOIDING ANY DISTURBANCE OF CULTURAL REMAINS.

STAFF HAS PROVIDED THE COMMISSION WITH A MITIGATION AND MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM.

STAFF HAS DETERMINED THERE'S A TOTAL OF 34 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THESE ELEMENTS LISTED HERE THAT WOULD APPLY FOR THE PROJECT IN TERMS OF PUBLIC COMMENT. NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION WAS PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED COUNTY TIMES ON MARCH 30TH AND MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT ON MARCH 31ST, 2023.

STAFF DID RECEIVE ONE COMMENT VIA EMAIL ON MONDAY, APRIL 10TH, 2023.

THE COMMENTER EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPING A HOUSE WITHIN 1000FT OF AN EXISTING DAIRY AND WAS DENIED THE PROPOSED LOCATION DUE TO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH SMELL, NOISE, INSECT NUISANCES, ET CETERA AT PRE ADOPTION OF THE ANIMAL CONFINEMENT ORDINANCE.

THIS WAS CIRCA SOMEWHERE AROUND 2004.

THE ADOPTED ANIMAL CONFINEMENT ORDINANCE NOW ALLOWS LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, EXCEPTIONS FOR NEW HOMES WITHIN 1000FT OF AN EXISTING DAIRY, AS WELL AS EXPANDING A DAIRY TOWARDS EXISTING HOMES WITHIN 1000FT.

THIS EXEMPTION EXCEPTION GRANTS THE EXPANSION OF A DAIRY TOWARDS EXISTING HOMES WITHIN 1000FT, OR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME WITHIN 1000FT, SO LONG AS WRITTEN PERMISSION IS OBTAINED OR GRANTED.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS PROJECT DOES NOT ENCROACH WITHIN 1000FT OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE.

THIS SHOULD BE CLARIFIED AS THE WIND SHED AND THEREFORE DOES NOT NEED WRITTEN PERMISSION TO EXPAND PER THE ANIMAL CONFINEMENT ORDINANCE.

THE COMMENTER ALSO EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT SMELL, DUST, TRAFFIC FLIES.

ET CETERA. THE PROPOSED MMP ADDRESSES SOME OF THESE CONCERNS IN THE FORMS OF MITIGATION MEASURES, SUCH AS DUST CONTROL PLAN, ODOR CONTROL PLAN, ESTABLISHING A POINT OF CONTACT FOR NUISANCE COMPLAINTS AS WELL AS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR FLY IN NUISANCE AND VECTOR CONTROL PLANS.

WITH THIS INFORMATION, STAFF HAS TWO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS MORNING.

THE FIRST IS THE SECRET DETERMINATION AND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFIES THE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTS THE FINDINGS OF FACT STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR CUP20-005.

[00:15:06]

AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION STAFF AS WELL AS OUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS AND THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER/REPRESENTATIVE ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY, NOT HEARING ANY.

I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM.

ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TOWARDS THIS ITEM.

CAN DO SO. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

GOOD MORNING. I WAS THE AUTHOR OF THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT IN WANTING TO DENY THIS REQUEST.

I THINK YOU CAN READ THROUGH THE LETTER WHEN WE PROPOSE TO BUILD OUR HOUSE IN 2004.

IF YOU CAN SWITCH TO THAT MAP FOR ME, I THINK THAT'D BE NICE.

YOU MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED THE WRITE UP, BUT THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE TOP PART OF THE PAGE, WAS THAT SKINNY PIECE JUST TO I GUESS WOULD BE TO THE EAST AND TO THE NORTH OF THEIR DAIRY.

THAT'S WHERE WE PROPOSE TO PUT OUR BUILDING OF OUR HOUSE.

AND WHEN WE DID THAT, IT WOULD BE THE LEAST INTRUSIVE TO US FARMING THERE.

BUT INSTEAD THE COUNTY DENIED THAT.

SO WE HAD TO MOVE TO ANOTHER LOCATION.

AND NOW YOU CAN SEE WE TOOK OUT LIKE 4 OR 5 ACRES OF THAT TO THE EAST, I GUESS IT'D BE TO THE WEST AND TO THE NORTH.

AND YOU CAN SEE IT KIND OF DISRUPTED THE FLOW OF THE WHOLE OPERATION, TOOK OUT SOME STUFF.

WE HAVE SOME SHORT ROADS AND LONG ROADS.

THE POINT OF THAT WAS WE WERE DECLINING WHERE WE WANTED ORIGINALLY APPLY BECAUSE OF THE SMELL AND BECAUSE OF THE FLIES AND BEING DOWNWIND OF A DAIRY.

SO WE MOVED TO THAT SIDE.

WE WOULD CONTINUE.

WE'RE PRO AG, WE'RE FARMERS OURSELVES, YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND.

BUT FOR THEM TO BUILD A DAIRY OR SOME OF THIS STUFF CLOSER TO OUR HOUSE IS JUST GOING TO.

SAME REASONS WE GOT DENIED IS GOING TO BE CAUSING US TO HAVE THE SMELL AND THE NOISE AND THE COMMODITY TRUCKS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

AND IN ONE OF YOUR MITIGATION THINGS WAS IT SOUNDED LIKE TO ME THERE WASN'T GOING TO BE A LOT OF TRUCKS AND TRAFFIC.

BUT IF THEY'RE DOING A BIG COMMODITY BARN THERE, WE ALL KNOW THE TRUCKS ARE COMING UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD.

AND AS HE FARMS HIS DAIRIES AND THE GENERAL AREA, HIS SETBACKS AND HIS EASEMENTS AREN'T RESPECTED.

HE'S LOADING TRUCKS AND MILK TRUCKS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROADS.

HE'S UNLOADING COMMODITY TRUCKS AND MIDDLE OF THE ROAD.

AND I JUST ASSUME THAT'S GOING TO CONTINUE JUST DOWN THE STREET FROM US AS WELL IF THIS IS APPROVED.

SO THOSE ARE OUR COMMENTS AND CONCERNS, AND I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE A FEW MORE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NANCY SILVA. WE HAVE THREE PARCELS THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THIS PLAN.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM FOR HIM TO EXPAND TO THE EAST OF HIS DAIRY.

NOW WE HAVE A HOUSE ACROSS ON VINEYARD.

BUT I WOULD ASK, HAS ANYONE EVEN BEEN OUT THERE TO LOOK AT THE ROAD? AT BEST, IT'S ONE LANE.

IT'S NOT EVEN A FULL LANE.

AND RIGHT NOW, HIS TRUCKS ARE ALL PARKED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD TO PICK UP THE MILK, BRING FEED, WHATEVER.

AND IF HE BUILDS A COMMODITY BARN THERE, IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE THE ONE THAT HE HAS DOWN ON WEST EL NIDO ROAD ON THE WAY TO NEWHALL, WHERE YOU HAVE TO DRIVE THROUGH MANURE TO EVEN GET TO OUR OTHER PROPERTY AT THE NEWHALL RANCH.

AND I WOULD ASK SOMEONE TO PLEASE GO OUT AND TAKE PICTURES OF THIS ROAD.

AND WHAT IS THE COUNTY PLAN TO DO ABOUT THAT? AND THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING, PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS SARAH MIDAS WITH LEADERSHIP COUNCIL.

I'M HERE TODAY TO URGE YOU TO REJECT CUP20-005 DUE TO THE LEGAL DEFICIENCIES WITHIN THE SEQUEL REVIEW ON THIS PROJECT AND THE SEVERE IMPACTS IT WOULD BRING ONTO THE ENVIRONMENT.

SO TO START, THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS NOT BEEN PUBLICLY RELEASED, SO THE WEBSITE CURRENTLY FOR MERCED COUNTY ONLY INCLUDES THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THIS PROJECT, NO FINAL EIR HAS BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLIC REVIEW.

FURTHERMORE, TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, NEITHER MERCED COUNTY NOR MERCED PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED OR CERTIFIED THE FINAL EIR FOR THIS PROJECT, WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE CALIFORNIA

[00:20:04]

SECONDLY, THE THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ANALYSIS REALLY USES A SHAKY METHODOLOGY METHODOLOGY TO DRAW A FALSE CONCLUSION ABOUT THE IMPACTS RELATING OR PERTAINING TO THE DAIRY.

SO BASICALLY THE THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CONCLUDED THAT THERE WERE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROJECT WOULD PROPOSE AN ADDITIONAL 2270 COWS.

DAIRY COWS, AS YOU ALL KNOW, PRODUCE METHANE, WHICH IS A POTENT CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSING GREENHOUSE GAS, WHICH CAUSES IT OBVIOUSLY IN TWO WAYS THROUGH BELCHING AS WELL AS THROUGH COW MANURE.

ONE GROWN COW, ONE GROWN DAIRY COW PRODUCES ON AVERAGE APPROXIMATELY 120 POUNDS OF MANURE PER DAY, OR 43,800 POUNDS OF MANURE PER YEAR.

SO THE RESULT OF ADDING 2270 COWS TO THE DAIRY, THEREFORE IS A CLEAR, SIGNIFICANT INCREASE TO METHANE EMISSIONS.

THAT SAID, THE EIR FOR THE EXPANSION CONCLUDED THAT THE PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

IT USES AN INACCURATE METHODOLOGY KNOWN AS A PARTIAL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT FOR CALCULATING THE PROJECT EMISSIONS THAT OVERESTIMATE EMISSION REDUCTIONS.

AN ANALYSIS OF DIRECT EMISSIONS PROVIDES A MORE ACCURATE ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS FROM A DAIRY.

THIRDLY, THE PROJECT WOULD ALSO HAVE SEVERE AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO GROUNDWATER AND AIR QUALITY.

WE ARE ALSO URGING PLANNING COMMISSION TO REJECT THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BECAUSE THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE NOX AMMONIA. PM 2.5 EMISSIONS WAS WHICH CAUSED SERIOUS PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEMS. THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY IS STILL A NON-ANIMATE WITH FEDERAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND RANKS WORST IN THE NATION FOR PM 2.5 EMISSIONS.

DAIRIES ULTIMATELY INCREASE THAT EMISSION LOCALLY AND REGIONALLY BECAUSE OF THE CHEMICAL REACTION BETWEEN THERE. THANK YOU.

ZAIBATSU'S ENGINEERING IN OAKDALE, CALIFORNIA, WHERE THE ENGINEER OF RECORD REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT ON THIS PROJECT.

THANK YOU FOR HEARING THIS APPLICATION THIS MORNING.

I'D LIKE TO THANK THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SHOWED UP THIS MORNING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS PROJECT.

I THINK THAT'S THAT'S THE GREAT PART OF THIS PROCESS, IS THAT EVERYBODY GETS A TURN.

AND AND I APPRECIATE THEIR COMMENTARY THIS MORNING.

I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS AGAINST NOT TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE, BUT JUST TO PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION THAT MIGHT LEAVE AT LEAST SOME OF THE CONCERNS.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT NOW FOR APPROXIMATELY FOUR YEARS, AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK GOING INTO ALL THE VARIOUS CALCULATIONS, WHETHER IT BE WASTEWATER, AIR QUALITY IMPACTS, ET CETERA.

AND I THINK I COULD OFFER AT LEAST SOME INFORMATION IN RESPONSE IN RESPONSE TO THE FIRST GENTLEMAN'S COMMENTS ABOUT CONCERNS ABOUT AIR POLLUTION, SMELL FLIES, DUST, TRUCK TRAFFIC, ETCETERA.

THOSE ARE ALL VALID CONCERNS.

THE ONE POINT OF INFORMATION I'D LIKE TO OFFER IS THERE'S DISCUSSION IN THE LETTER OF HOMES BEING DOWNWIND OF A DAIRY.

AND JUST TO CLARIFY MY UNDERSTANDING AND PERHAPS MR. KLAUSNER OR MR. GUERRERO COULD CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE PREVAILING WINDS IN THIS AREA ARE NORTHWEST TO SOUTHEAST.

AND I DON'T SEE ANY HOMES SOUTHEAST OF THE EXISTING DAIRY OR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.

SO I DON'T THINK THERE'LL BE ANY ADDITIONAL IMPACTS FROM BEING DOWNWIND, IF SOMEBODY CAN CORRECT ME ON THAT.

BUT I THINK THAT'S THE CASE.

THAT'S CORRECT. IN REGARDS TO TWO OTHER FORMS OF POLLUTION, LIKE SMELLS, FLIES, DUST, ET CETERA.

THIS EXPANSION, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, DOES NOT INVOLVE MUCH CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE OF THE EXISTING DAIRY FOOTPRINT.

MR. GUERRERO, WOULD YOU PUT THE SITE PLAN BACK UP ON.

THERE YOU GO. IN FACT, THE THE THE MAJORITY OF NEW CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE OF THE EXISTING DAIRY FOOTPRINT AREA WILL BE THE TWO NEW WASTEWATER PONDS.

BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, WE'LL ACTUALLY BE ADDING A SIGNIFICANTLY MORE ROOF AREA AND CONCRETE AREA TO THE PRODUCTION AREA.

AND THOSE THINGS REDUCE AIR POLLUTION SIGNIFICANTLY BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE TAKING CORRAL SPACE OUT AND THAT'S A TREND IN THE DAIRY FOR TWO REASONS.

NUMBER ONE, TO COMBAT AIR POLLUTION, BUT ALSO BECAUSE WE'VE LEARNED OVER THE YEARS COWS AREN'T HORSES AND THEY JUST DON'T REQUIRE A LOT OF ROOM.

[00:25:07]

SO THIS IS FOLLOWING THAT TREND AND ADDING MORE ROOF REDUCING CORRAL SPACE AND THEN ADDING CONCRETE IN THE FEED STORAGE AREA AND IN THE SEPARATOR PAD AREA SO YOU WON'T HAVE FEED TRUCKS AND LOADING EQUIPMENT RUNNING OVER DIRT.

THEY'LL BE OPERATING ON CONCRETE, THUS REDUCING THE DUST EVEN FURTHER.

THE ADDITION OF A MANURE SEPARATOR, TAKING MANURE OUT OF THE WASTE STREAM AND ALLOWING IT TO BE MORE MANAGED, NOT GOING INTO THE WASTEWATER PONDS WHERE THEY CAN CONTRIBUTE TO NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON GROUNDWATER QUALITY.

LASTLY, AND THIS IS GOING TO ADDRESS THE LAST YOUNG LADY'S CONCERN TO SOME DEGREE.

THIS IS PROPOSING TWO NEW WASTEWATER PONDS WHICH WILL BE SYNTHETICALLY LINED, AND UNDER CURRENT REGULATIONS THEY'LL HAVE TO BE DOUBLE LINED WITH SOMETHING LIKE A HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE LINER OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, FURTHER REDUCING IMPACTS TO GROUNDWATER QUALITY.

RIGHT NOW, THE EXISTING PONDS ARE EARTHEN, AND IF THIS PROJECT DOES NOT GO FORWARD UNDER EXISTING REGULATIONS, THEY WOULD THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO REMAIN AS SUCH.

SO THESE ARE ALL HUGE IMPROVEMENTS TO AIR AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY THAT WILL OCCUR WITH THIS PROJECT.

IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THAT WORK THAT'S GONE INTO THE DESIGN, THE APPLICATION FOR THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT HAS GONE THROUGH THEIR AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS PROCESS.

THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN DEEMED COMPLETE IF AND WHEN THE COUNTY ISSUES THIS NEW USE PERMIT, THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT WILL PROCEED WITH ISSUING THEIR NEW PERMIT, WHICH, AS MR. GUERRERO ALLUDED TO EARLIER, WILL INCLUDE THEIR OWN SET OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND PRACTICES THAT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED, IMPLEMENTED TO FURTHER REDUCE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS.

THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION BY ONE OF THE COMMENTERS ABOUT THE ADDITION OF A COMMODITY BARN.

JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE IS NO COMMODITY BARN PROPOSED WITH THIS SITE PLAN.

UM, THERE WAS MENTION OF LEGAL DEFICIENCIES IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THE FAILURE TO POST THE FINAL EIR MR. GUERRERO OR SOMEBODY ELSE.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE FINAL IRR WILL NOT BE POSTED UNTIL IT'S ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION.

IS THAT CORRECT? IN JUST IN REGARDS TO THE POSTING OF A FINAL, I, ARE THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO POST A FINAL OR PROVIDE A REVIEW OF THE FINAL.

AND AS FAR AS CERTIFICATION OF IT, THAT'S WHAT THIS BODY IS DOING AT THIS TIME IS CONSIDERING THE CERTIFICATION OF IT.

OKAY. OKAY. SO SO SO I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THERE'S NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO POST A FINAL EIR AT THIS STAGE IN THE PROCESS.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

WE ARE CONSIDERING ADOPTING AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL AT THIS TIME.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

THERE WAS SOME COMMENT ABOUT FALSE CONCLUSIONS OF THE AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AND SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE METHODOLOGY.

I WOULD JUST ASK THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THOSE KIND OF CLAIMS AT THIS PODIUM THAT YOU QUANTIFY THOSE THOSE CLAIMS AND THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT GROUNDWATER IMPACTS.

I THINK I'VE I'VE DEMONSTRATED THAT THAT THIS PROJECT WILL ACTUALLY REDUCE GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPACTS.

SO I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER POSITIVE BENEFIT.

SO WE APPRECIATE YOU RESPONDING TO THE CONCERNS, BUT WE'RE GOING HAVE TO WRAP IT UP BECAUSE YOUR TIME HAS ALREADY EXPIRED.

SO THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT I ALSO WOULD APPRECIATE BEING ALLOWED TO GO OVER THE TIME JUST A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE AS I MENTIONED, WE'VE BEEN WORKING FOR YEARS ON THIS PROJECT AND WE'VE GOT FIVE MORE COMING BEHIND IT, SO I'M GOING TO TAKE AN EXTRA MINUTE.

I'D LIKE TO BE ALLOWED THAT.

THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TOWARDS THIS ITEM? OKAY. NOT SEEING ANY. I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR EITHER DISCUSSION OR MOTION.

JUST ON DISCUSSION PURPOSES, I'M ABLE TO GET ANY PROJECTS.

NOT IMPOSSIBLE, BUT VERY DIFFICULT TO GET A LARGE PROCESS PROJECT LIKE THIS THROUGH.

AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT'S GONE IN AND WHAT IT DOES TO HELP OUR DAIRY INDUSTRY TO EXPAND WHEN PEOPLE ARE PULLING OUT OF CALIFORNIA LIKE CRAZY.

THE ONLY CONCERN THAT RANG TRUE WITH ME, AND NOT THAT OTHERS DIDN'T HAVE ANY VALIDITY, BUT AS NEIGHBORS WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT LOADING

[00:30:04]

WELL. SO, I MEAN, IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THAT OR NOT, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY NOT.

THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THAT.

THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE LOADING STUFF ACTUALLY ON THE ROAD.

THEY SHOULD BE DOING THAT OFF THEIR PROPERTY.

AND SO IF THERE ARE ISSUES WHERE THE APPLICANT IS DOING SOMETHING THAT IS IMPACTING THE NEIGHBORS, THEY CAN ALWAYS CONTACT OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT AND WE CAN ALWAYS GO OUT THERE AND MAKE SURE THAT THESE APPLICANTS ARE ACTUALLY OPERATING WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THEIR APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE STANDARDS THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE FOLLOWING. DO THEY HAVE ADEQUATE SPACE ON THEIR PROPERTY TO LOAD SO THEY'RE NOT USING THE ROAD? I THINK AS PART OF THIS DAIRY FACILITY EXPANSION, THIS PROVIDES THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE PROPOSAL PROVIDES BETTER EFFICIENCIES FOR HOW THEY'RE OPERATING.

AND SO I WOULD SAY THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO KIND OF MANEUVER SOME THINGS AROUND SO THAT THEY'D BE ABLE TO AVOID HAVING TO DO THOSE THINGS IN THE FUTURE.

ENCOURAGEMENT TO THE APPLICANT WOULD JUST BE TO TO MAKE SURE TO ADDRESS THE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS WITH THAT GOING FORWARD, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY HAVE A WAY TO LOOK FOR NO. SO COMMISSIONER SPYCHER TIFFANY HO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, AS THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE MENTIONED, THIS PROJECT DOES INCLUDE SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL CONCRETE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE SITE WILL BE LOADING AND UNLOADING THESE MATERIALS RELATED TO THE DAIRY.

MR. CHAIRMAN, IT MIGHT BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT MAYBE TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL CONTEXT.

AGAIN, THAT'S A GREAT, GREAT COMMENT AND A GREAT AREA OF CONCERN.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, THE YELLOW AREA THERE, THE FEED STORAGE AREA, THAT'S ABOUT THREE ACRES OF CONCRETE STORAGE AREA PROPOSED TO TO MITIGATE THAT EXACT PROBLEM.

THERE'S GOING TO BE PLENTY OF ROOM, NOT JUST FOR FEED STORAGE, BUT FOR TRUCKS TO TO LOOP IN AND OUT WITHOUT HAVING TO BACK IN OR OUT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

SO THAT WAS PART OF THE INTENT OF THAT ASPECT OF THE DESIGN.

THANK YOU. ARE WE ALLOWED TO MAKE? OKAY. SO SORRY.

NOT AT THIS TIME. ANY MORE DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMISSION? OKAY. WELL, HERE.

ANY DO WE HAVE MOTION? I GAVE IT UP ON THE SCREEN.

SORRY. I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFIES THAT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTS THE FINDINGS AND FACTS, STATEMENTS AND OVERRIDING CONCERNS AND MITIGATING MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR CONDITIONAL USE.

PERMIT NUMBER CP 20005 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE REPORT.

SECOND. OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE SEQUEL.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. CHAIR ALSO VOTES AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED.

NOW FOR THE PROJECT.

ALSO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP 20005.

BASED ON THE FINDINGS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE PROJECT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

THE CHAIR ALSO VOTES AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED.

OKAY, WE HAVE THE NEXT ITEM IS MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED THRESHOLDS AND GUIDELINES.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

[6.I.ii. ITEM VI. C MERCEC COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED THRESHOLDS AND GUIDELINES]

MILES TRAVELED THRESHOLDS AND GUIDELINES TO GIVE SOME BACKGROUND.

EFFECTIVE JULY 1ST, 2020, SENATE BILL 743 REPLACED THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AS A METRIC FOR EVALUATING TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS WITH VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED.

LEVEL OF SERVICE WAS ESSENTIALLY HOW WE MEASURED AUTOMOBILE DELAYS AT INTERSECTIONS AND ROAD SEGMENTS, AND THOSE THAT HAD HIGHER

[00:35:10]

VMT VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED REPLACES THIS AS A WAY TO SUPPORT THE STATE'S GOALS IN REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ALSO RELATES TO THEIR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY STRATEGY IN ABSENCE OF A VMT THRESHOLD THAT JURISDICTIONS HAVE ADOPTED.

THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH PUBLISHED A TECHNICAL ADVISORY WHICH PROVIDED SOME GUIDELINES AS HOW TO ADDRESS VMT, AS WELL AS PRELIMINARY THRESHOLDS WHICH JURISDICTIONS CAN USE TO SCREEN OUT PROJECTS REQUIRING VMT ANALYSIS.

IN NOVEMBER 2022, THE MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS, OR MKC, ADOPTED ITS OWN VMT MODEL AND THRESHOLDS AND IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES, WHICH REALLY ADJUST THE TARGETS TO ALIGN TO THE STATE'S GOALS FOR THE REGION VERSUS THE STATE'S GOAL FOR THE STATE.

THIS MEANS THAT THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY INTO SCREENING FOR VMT ANALYSIS.

THAT SAID, THE COUNTY CANNOT USE THOSE THRESHOLDS UNLESS ADOPTED BY THE BY THE JURISDICTION ITSELF.

NOW, EVEN THOUGH IF WE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WERE TO ADOPT THE VMT THRESHOLDS, WE WOULD STILL USE LEVEL OF SERVICE TO DETERMINE CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND TO HELP FIGURE OUT IMPACTS TO ROADS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL FOR THIS PROJECT.

IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD RECOMMEND THE BOARD ADOPT, THIS VMT THRESHOLD WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AS IT IS A REGULATORY ACTION OR AN ACTION BY A REGULATORY AGENCY FOR THE PROTECTION OF GOVERNMENT.

IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT.

SO COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION AND IT'S NOT CONSIDERED A PROJECT AS IT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE OR PROHIBIT DEVELOPMENT AND DOES NOT CAUSE A DIRECT OR INDIRECT PHYSICAL CHANGE.

IT'S MERELY A METRIC FOR EVALUATING TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS IF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WERE TO COME.

IN CONCLUSION, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THREE RECOMMENDATIONS AS TOWARDS THIS ACTION.

THE FIRST IS TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE GUIDELINES.

AND THEN SECOND, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FIND THE THRESHOLDS AND GUIDELINES TO BE EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. AND FINALLY, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE THRESHOLDS TO COMPLY WITH SENATE BILL SEVEN AND 43, AND THEN THE NEW PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.

IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, STAFF CAN ANSWER THEM AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU. SO ANY ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? OKAY, NOT HEARING ANY.

I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.

ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TO THIS ITEM CAN DO SO NOW.

AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

NOT SEEING ANY. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.

OKAY. I'LL MOVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

WAIVE THE READING OF THE MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED THRESHOLDS AND GUIDELINES.

SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. CHAIR ALSO VOTES? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED.

OKAY. AND I'LL MOVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

RECOMMEND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FIND THE THRESHOLDS AND GUIDELINES TO BE EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PURSUANT TO CONDITIONS 15 308 ACTIONS BY REGULATORY AGENCIES FOR PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

15 061B3 COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION AND 1530 78B NOT A PROJECT OF THE GUIDELINES.

SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE SECRET DETERMINATION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. CHAIR ALSO VOTES.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. OKAY.

AND I FURTHER MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE THRESHOLDS AND GUIDELINES TO COMPLY WITH SENATE BILL 743 AND NEW PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE PROJECT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

CHAIR ALSO VOTES AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED.

OKAY. ON TO ITEM SEVEN COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS. NOTHING ADDITIONAL, SIR.

DIRECTOR'S REPORT. JUST VERY BRIEFLY, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR THE WORK THAT THEY CONTINUE TO DO AND SAY THANK YOU TO OUR CONSULTANTS FOR ACTUALLY BEING HERE TODAY AS

[8. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

SO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO TO TO OUR PARTNERS THERE.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU.

OKAY. ANY COMMISSIONERS COMMENT? OKAY. NOT HEARING ANY. I WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.