Apr 26, 2023 Planning Meetings

OKAY. GOOD MORNING.

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:02]

CAN WE PLEASE HAVE EVERYBODY STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

OKAY. CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE? . WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.

OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, ITEM FOUR APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

HERE WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.

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

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED.

OKAY. ITEM FIVE IS CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS.

THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TO ANYTHING UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY.

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

OKAY. NOT SEEING ANY.

I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GO TO OUR FIRST ITEM.

[6.I. Agenda Item A. Conditional Use Permit- CUP22-016-PARREIRA ALMOND PROCESSING]

COULD YOU START WORKING? JUST.

OKAY. IT IS A REQUEST TO BUILD A NEW 101,235 SQUARE FOOT ALMOND STORAGE WAREHOUSE AT AN EXISTING ALMOND STORAGE PROCESSING FACILITY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH ORTIGALITA ROAD, A QUARTER MILE SOUTH OF WEST CHARLESTON ROAD IN THE LOS BANOS AREA IDENTIFIED AS APN 088-101-007, 008 AND 009 DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL LAND USE IN THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONED A-1 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL.

HERE IS THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE.

THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY ORCHARDS ALL AROUND THE FACILITY.

THIS IS A PROPOSED SITE MAP DISPLAYING THE PROPOSED STORAGE WAREHOUSE IN THE MIDDLE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT SITE.

THERE IS CURRENTLY A PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.

A PORTION IS TO BE RELOCATED AND INSTALLED AS ROOF MOUNTED SOLAR TO EXISTING BUILDINGS WITHIN THE FACILITY.

THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES REGARDING THE FACILITATION AND PRESERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL USES.

THE PROJECT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE MERCED COUNTY ZONING CODE AND IS DESIGNATED GENERAL AGRICULTURAL.

AN INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT AND CIRCULATED FOR 30 DAYS FROM MARCH 21ST, 2023, TO APRIL 20TH, 2023. A COMMENT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, OUTLINING VARIOUS REGULATIONS THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT.

THE LETTER HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPLICANT AND IS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

FOR THE RECORD, THE PUBLIC NOTICE SAYS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, BUT THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT AND THE NOTICE OF INTENT DOES SAY NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IF IT COMPLIES WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS.

NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED COUNTY TIMES ON APRIL 13TH, 2023, AND MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROJECT SITE ON APRIL 14TH, 2023.

NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC.

STAFF HAS TWO RECOMMENDATIONS.

ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTION 1507 FOR CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF THE GUIDELINES AND ADOPT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CP 22 016.

BASED ON THE FINDINGS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

THAT NOW CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.

I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

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

I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.

ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TO 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 ON THIS ITEM AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.

[00:05:04]

SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

CHAIR ALSO VOTES. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. THANK YOU.

ALSO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE PROJECT.

DETERMINATION APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CP 20 2-016.

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

HERE WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

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

OUR NEXT ITEM, I BELIEVE, HAS BEEN PULLED FOR TODAY AND WE

[6.II. VI. ITEM B. MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. MS23-001-JR DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES]

IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TOWARDS THIS ITEM, THEY CAN DO SO NOW.

AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

FIRST. SO THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN ERRECA.

THIS IS TIFFANY HO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING.

AS I'M AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS ITEM, WHICH IS THE SUBDIVISION FOR J.R.

DEVELOPMENT, IS BEING PULLED AND WILL BE RE NOTICED.

BUT THE STAFF DOES RECOMMEND THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN TO TAKE ANY COMMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.

AND WE DID RECEIVE ONE COMMENT LETTER FOR THIS ITEM AS WELL THAT WILL BE PUTTING IT INTO THE BASKET FOR HERE.

THANK YOU. HEY, WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TOWARDS THIS ITEM? OKAY. NOT SEEING ANY.

I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

OH, I'M SORRY.

MY NAME IS JAIME KING AND I'M A HOMEOWNER WITHIN 300FT OF THE 11 ACRES THAT ARE IN THE BACK, WHICH WAS PROPOSED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO I KNOW SOME OF THE CONCERNS IS THAT WE'RE CHANGING IT FROM LIKE TWO PARCELS TO THREE.

WE WERE HOPING TO FIND OUT WHAT THE PLAN IS FOR THE 9.75 ACRES AND IF THERE IS ONE LIKE IS THIS THE FIRST STEP OF BIGGER PLANS OR BIGGER STEPS? WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PLAN IS.

OKAY. AND THEN DO WE KNOW WHEN IT WILL BE ON THE AGENDA AGAIN OR WHEN WE'LL HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON WHAT THE 9.75 ACRES WILL BE USED FOR. LET'S GO AND LET YOU FINISH YOUR COMMENTS AND THEN WE'LL HAVE STAFF COME UP AND MAYBE GIVE A COUPLE RESPONSES SO IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE.

SO WE'LL KIND OF DO IT THAT WAY.

SO KEEP GOING WITH YOUR COMMENTS.

OKAY. AND THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TRY TO RESPOND AS BEST WE CAN SHORTLY THEREAFTER.

ANOTHER ONE, ANOTHER CONCERN WAS NOISE ORDINANCE, BECAUSE I KNOW PART OF THE ONE OF THE PARCELS IS GOING TO BE AN EVENT CENTER, SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE A BIGGER AREA.

WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW LIKE THE TIME FRAME OF WHEN MUSIC AND EVERYTHING WILL BE SHUT DOWN AND THEN ALSO THE WATER SITUATION BECAUSE WE KNOW OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WILL FLOOD.

AND THEN FROM WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD IS THAT THE WATER THEN GOES INTO THAT AREA, WHICH IS THE 9.75 ACRES FOR LIKE THE RUNOFF.

AND THAT WAS LIKE ONE OF OUR CONCERNS.

DO I GO BACK DOWN? SIT DOWN, MA'AM, UNLESS YOU HAVE MORE COMMENTS.

NOPE, I'M GOOD. GOTCHA.

SO MAYBE IF I CAN, MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST REAL QUICK, MAYBE ASK MAYBE THE PLANNING STAFF TO GIVE A PROBABLY WON'T BE.

WE'RE GOING TO DO PROBABLY A COUPLE OF THINGS.

ONE, WE COULD PROBABLY GIVE YOU A ROUGH IDEA AS TO WHEN WE ANTICIPATE THIS COMING BACK TO THE COMMISSION.

THAT'S PROBABLY ONE.

AND THEN TWO, A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU JUST EXPRESSED WOULD BE, I'M ASSUMING WOULD BE A PART OF A MORE COMPREHENSIVE PRESENTATION.

BUT MAYBE, TIFFANY, CAN YOU OR THE OR OUR PLANNER MAYBE GIVE A QUICK SYNOPSIS IF YOU CAN.

THANK YOU. TIFFANY HO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING.

AND SO THIS ITEM WILL LIKELY BE BACK AT THE COMMISSION ON MAY 25TH.

SO THAT IS OFFICIALLY ON THE RECORD.

WE WILL BE NOTICING FOR THAT.

AT THAT TIME, WE WILL HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT WILL KIND OF DESCRIBE WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT IS AND HOW IT IS CONSISTENT WITH ANY GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, ZONING POLICIES AND WHATNOT. IN THE MEANTIME, IF THERE ARE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

SO WE DID HEAR NOISE, WATER AND FLOODING.

WE DO HAVE THE PROJECT PLANNER, BRIAN GUERRERO IN THE AUDIENCE AND HE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH ANY OF THE AUDIENCE MEMBERS WHO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT.

[00:10:02]

THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK? OKAY. NOT SEEING ANY.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE.

ONE QUESTION. OH, I'M SORRY.

GOOD MORNING, RICK MUMMERT, BENCHMARK ENGINEERING.

ARE YOU CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING OR YOU'RE CONTINUING IT TO THE NEXT MAY 25TH MEETING? I BELIEVE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, I THINK THE APPROACH THAT WE'RE TAKING IS WE'RE GOING TO BE RE NOTICING.

AND SO AS A PART OF THAT PROCESS.

CORRECT. AND THAT'S WHY THE CHAIRMAN JUST CLOSED THAT PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL DO IT RIGHT AGAIN.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

OKAY, LET'S SEE.

[6.II.i. VI. ITEM C. EXTENSION APPLICATION NO. EXT23-001 TO MAJOR SUBDIVISION NO. MAS04-014-OMNI FINANCIAL, LLC "LAKE VIEW PROPERTIES"]

GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.

THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS EXTENSION APPLICATION NUMBER 23-001.

THE FIFTH EXTENSION TO MAJOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MS 04-014, ALSO KNOWN AS LAKEVIEW PROPERTIES FOR OMNI FINANCIAL, LLC.

SO THIS IS A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR THAT MAJOR SUBDIVISION BY 12 MONTHS FROM MAY 21ST, 2023 TO MAY 21ST, 2024.

THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 58 ACRE PARCEL INTO 35 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, A NINE ACRE PASSIVE RECREATION AREA AND AN EIGHT ACRE REMAINDER PARCEL.

THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EAST MERCED FALLS ROAD AND NORTH LA GRANGE ROAD IN SNELLING, IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 043020053. THE PROJECT SITE IS DESIGNATED RESIDENTIAL AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAND USES IN THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONED R1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND C TWO GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

HERE IS THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE.

THE SITE IS SURROUNDED PRIMARILY BY VACANT LAND CONTAINING MINE TAILINGS, AS WELL AS THE MERCED RIVER TO THE SOUTH AND A VINEYARD AND WOODLANDS TO THE EAST.

EXCUSE ME, TO THE WEST.

MY APOLOGIES. THESE ARE THE SITE PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED FACILITY, ALSO AVAILABLE AS ATTACHMENT B IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE SITE PLAN PROPOSES 35 ROUGHLY ONE ACRE RESIDENTIAL LOTS ALONG MERCED FALLS ROAD.

THIS WOULD BE THE FIFTH EXTENSION FOR THE APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE SUBDIVISION AFTER FIRST BEING APPROVED BY THE BOARD.

THE APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP WAS GRANTED FIVE STATUTORY EXTENSIONS, THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED.

FURTHER EXTENSIONS, INCLUDING THIS REQUEST, WOULD REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

THE PROJECT INVOLVES AN EXTENSION OF THE EXPIRATION DATE OF AN APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP IN THE SNELLING AREA THAT WAS FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL.

THERE HAVE BEEN NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE LAKEVIEW PROPERTIES PROJECT, PROJECT, SITE OR SURROUNDING AREA SINCE THE MAPS WERE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, NOR ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROJECT AS A RESULT OF THE EXTENSION REQUEST.

THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON MAY 21ST, 2013 AND ON DECEMBER 10TH, 2013. THE CURRENT 2030 MERCED COUNTY GENERAL PLAN WAS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

NO ASPECT OF THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN WOULD RENDER THE PROJECT INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.

THE PROJECT INVOLVES LAND PRIMARILY ZONED R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND SOME C TWO GENERAL COMMERCIAL ON THE WESTERN EDGE OF THE PROJECT SITE.

AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL, THE PROJECT WAS DETERMINED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE.

SINCE THAT TIME, THERE HAVE BEEN NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT, PROJECT SITE OR SURROUNDING AREA.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROJECT AS A RESULT OF THE REQUEST OR TO THE PARDON ME, THERE HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN CHANGES TO THE ZONING CODE IN THE INTERVENING YEARS THAT WOULD RENDER THE PROJECT INCONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING CODE.

AS PART OF THE PROJECT.

[00:15:01]

SINCE THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTER OF THE SITE OR THE SURROUNDING AREA.

NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROJECT SITE ON APRIL 14TH, 2023, AND PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED COUNTY TIMES ON APRIL 13TH, 2023.

NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED.

STAFF HAS TWO RECOMMENDATIONS.

FIRST, MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD FIND THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15162 SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS OF THE GUIDELINES AND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF EXCUSE ME, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR EXTENSION PERMIT.

EXT 230012 MAJOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MRS 04-014.

THAT NOW CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

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

I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.

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

MAY 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 EITHER DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.

I'LL MOVE THAT. THE BOARD RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DETERMINED THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE APPLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 15 162 SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

SECOND. OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE SEQUA.

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

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED.

OKAY, I'LL MOVE ON. THE PROJECT THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVE EXTENSION APPLICATION NUMBER EXT 23 0012 MS 04014. BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF IDENTIFYING THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE ORIGINAL 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. ONWARD TO ITEM D.

[6.II.i.1. VI. ITEM D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP22-011-DOS PALOS CLEAN POWER LLC-DOS PALOS CLEAN POWER PROJECT]

WE HAVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER CUP 20 2-011.

THE DOS PALOS CLEAN POWER PROJECT FOR THE EPONYMOUS DOS PALOS CLEAN POWER LLC.

THIS PROJECT IS A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A THREE MEGAWATT ALTERNATING CURRENT PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR ENERGY FACILITY, A 600 SQUARE FOOT CONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD WITH AN ESTIMATED 4.4MW DIRECT CURRENT AND ITS ASSOCIATED INVERTERS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING FENCING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING ACCESS ROAD AND DRIVEWAY APPROACHES WITHIN AN 11.3 ACRE PORTION OF A 39 ACRE PARCEL.

THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH HIGHWAY 33, APPROXIMATELY 2000FT NORTH OF WEST CAMELLIA AVENUE IN THE DOS PALOS AREA OF UNINCORPORATED MERCED COUNTY, IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 089020049. THE PROJECT SITE IS DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL LAND USE IN THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONED A-1 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL.

HERE'S THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE.

THE SITE SURROUNDED BY LAND USED FOR ROW CROPS AND SCATTERED RURAL RESIDENCES.

THESE ARE THE PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED FACILITY ALSO AVAILABLE AS ATTACHMENT B IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE PROJECT SITE TAKES UP APPROXIMATELY 8.5 ACRES OF THIS 36.9 ACRE PARCEL.

THE SECTIONS OF THE GENERAL PLAN THAT ARE RELEVANT TO THE PROJECT ARE AS FOLLOWS.

GOAL TWO AIMS TO PRESERVE, PROMOTE AND EXPAND THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY IN MERCED COUNTY AND WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS GOAL.

POLICY 2.5 ALLOWS FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION ON AGRICULTURAL LAND, SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS.

[00:20:01]

AG 3.11 ENCOURAGES THE INSTALLATION OF SOLAR FACILITIES IN AG LAND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CRITERIA.

THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN A TAX BURDEN TO THE COUNTY AND WOULD NOT RESULT IN A WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT CANCELLATION OR PERMANENT TRANSFER OF WATER RIGHTS ON ENGLAND.

BIOLOGICAL AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE MITIGATION WILL AGAIN BE DISCUSSED DURING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PORTION OF THIS PRESENTATION.

FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE ZONING CODE.

THE PROJECT SITE IS ZONED A ONE OBVIOUSLY MEANT FOR INVOLVING MORE INTENSIVE FARMING OPERATIONS.

AND PER THE ZONING CODE, SOLAR FACILITIES ARE ALLOWED ON LAND ZONED A ONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS REGARDING SETBACKS, SCREENING AND OTHER STANDARDS RELEVANT TO THE A ONE ZONE.

THE PROJECT WAS REVIEWED IN' A PREPARED INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ATTACHMENT D AND THE STAFF REPORT AND MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN PREPARED.

THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED COUNTY TIMES ON MARCH 23RD, 2023, AND MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROJECT SITE ON MARCH 24TH, 2023.

THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WAS MARCH 24TH THROUGH APRIL 24TH, 2023.

THE PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN ATTACHMENT E AND COMPLIANCE WITH THEM IS A SUGGESTED CONDITION OF APPROVAL IN ATTACHMENT A.

NOTABLY MITIGATION MEASURE AG ONE REQUIRES AG MITIGATION DUE TO THE PROJECT TAKING POTENTIALLY PRODUCTIVE FARMLAND OUT OF PRODUCTION FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD. THIS GENERALLY INVOLVES PAYMENT INTO A TRUST TO TAKE EQUIVALENT AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF AG LAND WITH SIMILAR FEATURES, IN THIS CASE PRIME FARMLAND, AND PUT IT INTO A PERMANENT CONSERVATION TRUST.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR AIR QUALITY, CULTURAL RESOURCES AND NOISE INCLUDE STANDARD BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR MITIGATING CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS, INCLUDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING CODE, INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR MITIGATING DUST, EMISSIONS, NOISE AND OTHER POLLUTANTS THAT CAN RESULT FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INCLUDE STANDARD SURVEYS FOR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES, INCLUDING NESTING BIRDS, THE SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX SWAINSON'S HAWK AND THE BURROWING OWL.

AND CONTINGENCY MEASURES SHOULD THESE ORGANISMS BE FOUND ON THE PROPERTY.

STAFF RECEIVED ONE COMMENT LETTER REGARDING THIS AND FROM CDPH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE.

A TRUSTEE AGENCY FOR THE PROJECT ON MONDAY, APRIL 24TH.

THE LETTER RAISED CONCERNS PRIMARILY ABOUT MITIGATING FOR THE CROTCH BUMBLEBEE AND FOR DIFFERENT BAT SPECIES THAT ARE THOUGHT TO LIVE IN THE AREA.

THEIR CONCERN WAS THAT THE BATS COULD POTENTIALLY BE LIVING IN A CURRENTLY VACANT RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY.

THE LETTER PROVIDED SUGGESTS ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES WHICH STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDER ADOPTING AS PART OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OR MMRP FOR THE PROJECT.

THEIR LETTER IS AVAILABLE AS EXHIBIT A PROVIDED TO THE DAIS AS WELL AS DISTRIBUTED TO ATTENDEES.

THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO PROVIDED A RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER, WHICH IS EXHIBIT C AMONG THOSE DISTRIBUTED DOCUMENTS.

THE LETTER WAS WRITTEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT BY THE CERTIFIED BIOLOGIST THAT HAS IMPLEMENTED SWAINSON'S HAWK SURVEYS AT THE PROJECT SITE FOR EACH OF THE SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES OR, IN THE CASE OF THE BATS, MULTIPLE SPECIES GROUPED TOGETHER.

THE LETTER DESCRIBES THE HABITAT EXPECTED FOR THESE SPECIES AND DESCRIBES HOW DURING ALREADY COMPLETED SURVEYS, NO SUCH HABITAT WAS FOUND AT THE PROJECT SITE.

IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MMRP AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.

NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROJECT SITE ON APRIL 14TH, 2023, AND PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED COUNTY TIMES ONE DAY EARLIER ON

[00:25:03]

ONE RESIDENT OF THE DOS PALOS AREA CAME TO THE COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO VOICE THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT FOR REASONS OF ESTHETICS AND DEGRADATION OF AG LAND.

ESTHETICS ARE OBVIOUSLY MORE SUBJECTIVE, BUT AS FAR AS OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS THAT WE DO HAVE, WE CAN SAY THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SCREENING AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE MERCED COUNTY ZONING CODE.

AND AS MENTIONED DURING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SECTION, THE LAND THAT IS BEING TAKEN OUT OF PRODUCTION IS BEING MITIGATED FOR.

STAFF HAS THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SECRET REVIEW SUBJECT TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSION.

FIRST, A MOTION TO ADOPT THE SEQUA FINDINGS FOR THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH ALL MITIGATION MEASURES SUGGESTED BY CDPH.

OR A MOTION TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS FOR THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH THE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE CROTCH BUMBLEBEE INCORPORATED.

THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BEING THAT THIS SECOND ONE ONLY INCLUDES THE MEASURES FOR THAT BEE, NOT THE OTHER SPECIES MENTIONED IN CDPH LETTER.

AND FINALLY, STAFF HAS THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION TO A MOTION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER CP 20 2-011 THAT NOW CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER, 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 TO THIS ITEM.

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

GOOD MORNING. I'M JOE CASTILLO.

I'M FROM DOS PALOS.

THE ADDRESS ON MY PROPERTY IS 19417 ELGIN.

DOS PALOS.

I AM JUST NORTH OF THE PROJECT PROPOSED HERE.

I DO HAVE SOME LITERATURE HERE ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON SOLAR POWER.

HOW CAN I GET THIS TO YOU? JUST SEND IT TO ME.

OKAY, I'LL PUT IT THERE.

SO I'M A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF DOS PALOS.

I'VE BEEN THERE ALL MY LIFE.

I'M IN A FARMING COMMUNITY.

I'M A FARMER MYSELF.

AND THE WAY THIS PROCESS STARTED WAS THAT NOTICED SOME EQUIPMENT ON THAT PROPERTY THAT'S PROPOSED TO DEVELOP THAT SOLAR SYSTEM THERE.

SO THEN I DECIDED, WELL, LET ME LOOK INTO WHAT'S GOING ON.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S EQUIPMENT WORKING ON THE GROUND.

SO I CAME HERE AND I'M THE DOS PALOS RESIDENT THAT WAS THEY CAME HERE TO THE COUNTY BUILDING TO INVESTIGATE OR GET SOME KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE PROJECT WAS THAT WAS GOING ON.

AND THAT'S WHAT THEY TOLD ME, THAT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO A SOLAR SYSTEM THERE.

SO CAMERON JUST TOLD ME THAT I ASKED CAMERON, GO, IS IT A DONE DEAL OR WHAT? BECAUSE THE EQUIPMENT IS OUT THERE WORKING ALREADY ON THE GROUND.

USUALLY YOU DON'T DO THAT BEFORE IT'S ADOPTED OR PASSED.

AND HE SAID, NO, IT'S NOT A DONE DEAL YET.

I GO, OKAY, WELL, I GOT SOME CONCERNS THEN.

SO MY CONCERNS ARE THAT THIS IS AGRICULTURAL LAND.

IT'S A PRODUCTIVE LAND THERE THAT PRODUCES REALLY GOOD CROPS AND EVERYTHING.

WE HAVE GREAT CANTALOUPE CROPS HERE THAT GROW COTTON CORN.

IT'S ALL AG PRODUCTIVE WHERE IT'S IT SUPPORTS ALL THE FOOD AND NUTRIENTS FOR YOUR DAIRIES.

THE PEOPLE WE FEED.

THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY IS VERY IMPORTANT.

I THINK THIS IS A SMALL AREA WHERE THIS LITTLE PIECE IS APPROVED AND THEN WE SET A PRECEDENCE OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.

ONCE YOU PASS THIS, THAT MEANS ANYBODY ELSE IS GOING TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD A SOLAR SYSTEM PROPOSED ON THAT MAIN ROAD THAT GOES INTO DOS PALOS OR REMEMBER, WE'RE ONLY A HALF A MILE AWAY FROM TOWN.

THAT IS NOT GOOD.

OUR PEOPLE IN DOS PALOS DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON BECAUSE OF THIS POLICY OF 300FT AWAY, DOS PALOS RESIDENTS ARE NOT AWARE THERE'S NO DOS PALOS RESIDENTS HERE.

WHERE ARE THE AT? NOBODY CAN VOICE THEIR OPINION OUT HERE.

LUCKILY, I'M NEXT DOOR AND I'M SEEING WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS.

SO THE TRANSPARENCY IS NOT THERE.

SO THEN I'M THINKING, WHAT IS THIS EQUIPMENT DOING HERE? IS THIS ALREADY A DONE DEAL OR WHAT? THAT EQUIPMENT SHOULD NOT EVEN BE THERE TO START UP WITH.

BUT I BELIEVE THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING SO WISE IN OUR AREA, DON'T PUT IT HALF A MILE AWAY FROM TOWN.

[00:30:11]

OH. SO, ANYWAY.

SO REALLY, I'M REALLY PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS.

SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT AND LIKE I SAID, THERE'S NOTHING OUT THERE THAT HAS NO WATER RIGHTS.

SO THIS PUT THOSE SOLAR SYSTEM WHERE THERE'S NO WATER RIGHTS AND BE PRODUCTIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE IT'S NOT AFFECTING OUR FARM GROUND, OUR FARMING OPERATIONS.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. CASTILLO. WE HAVE A TIME LIMIT FOR EVERYBODY, SO.

YOU CAN TAKE THEM. HELLO, MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE] I'M ALSO PART OF 19417 ELGIN AND DOS PALOS, AND I'LL JUST TAKE OVER WHERE MY HUSBAND WAS AT.

AND THIS LAND IS HAS GOT WATER RIGHTS.

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION DISTRICT HAS SOME OF THE BEST WATER RIGHTS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND THAT LAND HAS THOSE WATER RIGHTS.

SO IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM THAT AREA.

AND I'LL PIGGYBACK ON WHAT HE SAID.

THERE'S A LOT OF AREAS IN DOS PALOS THAT DO NOT HAVE WATER RIGHTS.

IF THIS PLACE GOES THERE, IT'S A WIN WIN FOR THEM.

IT'S A WIN WIN FOR THE PERSON WHO OWNS THAT LAND BECAUSE PV SOLAR DOES NOT REQUIRE WATER AND IF THEY NEED ANY WATER SOURCE, I'VE SEEN IT OUT IN THE COUNTRYSIDES HERE. GET THE WATER TANKS, HAVE THE WATER BROUGHT IN.

I MEAN, THOSE ARE EASY FIXES.

INSTEAD OF TAKING AWAY FROM RICH FARMLAND IN THIS AREA, WE ALREADY HAVE THE FARMERS THAT ARE GETTING SMALLER AND SMALLER.

WHY TAKE AWAY TO MAKE THE FARMERS NON-EXISTENT? I'M NOT SURE OF THIS COMPANY THAT'S DOING THIS, BUT MOST OF YOU THAT LIVE IN THIS AREA, YOU KNOW THAT THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY IS ALL FARMLAND AND IT'S RICH FARMLAND.

WE FEED NOT ONLY THE STATE, THE COUNTRY, BUT ALSO THE WORLD.

SO THAT HAS TO REALLY BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WITH THIS SOLAR.

THEY'LL COME AND GO.

BUT WHAT ARE THE LONG TERM EFFECTS OF THE LAND AROUND THERE? YOU REALLY HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

ARE THERE 35, 40 YEAR STUDIES THAT SHOW WHAT THESE PV SOLAR PANELS WILL DO TO THE LAND? NOW WE HAVE PISTACHIOS RIGHT NEXT DOOR.

HOW IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT US IN THE YEARS TO COME? BECAUSE PISTACHIOS ARE FOR A LIFETIME.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

WAS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? GOOD MORNING COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS BO KARIYA.

I'M AN ATTORNEY HERE IN MERCED ON BEHALF OF A FELLOW LOCAL LANDOWNER NEIGHBOR THAT RECEIVED THE REPORT.

I'VE ONLY BEEN ON THE CASE VERY LITTLE TIME, BUT I HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS ALL HAVE A COPY.

IT'S PRETTY HEFTY.

AND RIGHT AWAY IN THE BACKGROUND SECTION, THERE'S A MISTRUTH THAT YOU ALL NEED TO BE AWARE OF.

THE SECOND SENTENCE STATES THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE IS CURRENTLY FALLOW, AND THAT'S ACTUALLY PATENTLY LIE.

THERE'S A CROP OF WHEAT RIGHT NOW IN THE FIELD.

SO RIGHT AWAY, THE REPORT STARTS OFF WITH MISINFORMATION FOR YOU ALL.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE REPORT, THERE'S A PICTURE IN ONE OF THE EXHIBITS OF THE GROUND BEING PULLED WITH BEDS FOR COTTON.

SO THIS GROUND HAS BEEN FARMED FOR DECADES.

IT IS, AS THEY ADMIT, THE PRIME ONE, A TYPE FARMLAND WITH SUPREME WATER RIGHTS.

AND I DO SEE THAT THERE'S A MITIGATION OF A PROPOSED LAND TRUST OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THE EXHIBIT E, BUT THERE'S NO REFERENCE OF WHERE THAT LAND IS GOING TO BE.

WE WOULD HOPE THAT YOU GUYS COULD PUT PAUSE IF NOT DENY THIS IN ITS ENTIRETY, AT LEAST PAUSE IT FOR 30 TO 60 DAYS FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND VETTING. WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING IN SOME LAND USE COUNSEL WHO CAN LOOK AT THIS CLOSER, MAYBE A FEW DIFFERENT REPORTS AND REALLY DIG INTO HOW IT IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO MITIGATE THE LOSS OF THIS AG LAND.

THERE'S JUST NO EXPLANATION IN THIS REPORT OF WHAT THE PLAN IS OTHER THAN TO OBTAIN ACRES THROUGH A LAND TRUST. THAT'S OUR MAIN ISSUE.

I MEAN, THE OTHER COMMENTS PUT BY MR. CASTILLO ARE ACCURATE.

IT'S RIGHT ON THE MAIN DRAG INTO TOWN.

[00:35:02]

WE NEVER RECEIVED THE INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAYS IT WAS CIRCULATED WITH SURROUNDING STAKEHOLDERS ON PAGE SIX, BUT WE NEVER RECEIVED IT.

SO WE NEED MORE TIME.

AND WE JUST ASK THIS COMMISSION TO REALLY CONSIDER THOUGHTFULLY REMOVING PRIME AG LAND OUT OF PRODUCTION.

THERE'S GOD'S NOT MAKING ANY MORE.

IT'S HERE.

THERE IS, AS MR. CASTILLO STATED, BARREN, FALLOW LAND WITH NO WATER RIGHTS, VERY CLOSE BY, WITHIN A HALF MILE TO THREE QUARTERS OF A MILE THAT COULD BE USED FOR THIS PROJECT.

AND I'LL JUST NOTE A SIMPLE SEARCH ONLINE OF DOS PALOS SOLAR PROJECT CLEAN POWER, LLC STATES THIS PROJECT IS FOR LOS BANOS HOMES, NOT DOS PALOS.

SO MAYBE THERE'S SOME LAND. OKAY.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

IS ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TOWARDS THIS PROJECT? OKAY. NOT SEEING ANY.

I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.

IT'S JUST THOUGHTS ON WHAT WAS SAID.

AS THE OTHER GENTLEMAN. I'M A FARMER.

THAT'S WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING.

SO THIS ISN'T THE FIRST PROJECT WE'VE HAD BEFORE US FOR SOLAR PROJECTS.

AND I HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, TAKING GOOD PRODUCTIVE LAND AND USING IT FOR THIS TYPE OF A USE.

AND THE REALITY IS THE ZONING ALLOWS FOR IT.

SO REALLY OUR HANDS ARE TIED FOR WHAT ZONING ALLOWS FOR A CONDITION OR HOW TO USE THE GROUND IF THE ZONING DOESN'T HAVE ANY REQUIREMENTS IN MY KNOWLEDGE, IF IT HAS WATER RIGHTS, WHICH ACTUALLY MAKES REALLY GOOD SENSE TO USE PROJECTS, THAT PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY WATER RIGHTS OR THESE TYPE OF PROJECTS.

BUT AT THIS TIME THAT'S NOT PART OF THE ZONING.

SO REALLY, IF WE HAVE TO UPHOLD THE ZONING STANDARD, THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE USE OF THAT PROPERTY ZONING.

MR. CHAIRMAN, MAYBE IF I COULD MAYBE PIGGYBACK ON ON THE COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS, MAYBE ASK TIFFANY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE UNDERLYING WATER RIGHTS DON'T GO AWAY.

I THINK THEY STAY WITH THE PROPERTY.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT MAY PERHAPS MS. HO CAN COME UP AND GIVE A LITTLE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT TO MR. SPICER'S COMMENTS AS WELL AS TO COMMENTS RECEIVED.

BUT AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S AN ACCURATE PORTRAYAL, THAT THE UNDERLYING WATER RIGHTS STICK WITH THE PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS CHOOSING TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT WITH THIS PROPERTY.

AND SO WE HAVE A PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE AS WELL, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS.

TIFFANY. MORE.

YEAH, IT IS.

GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. TIFFANY HO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING.

AS CAMERON STATED IN HIS WONDERFUL PRESENTATION, THE GENERAL PLAN POLICY SAYS THAT WE DO ALLOW FOR SOLAR FACILITIES ON AG LAND AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T KIND OF IMPACT AG RESOURCES, WHICH HERE WE'RE DOING A MITIGATION POLICY WHERE THEY WOULD PAY INTO A TRUST THAT WOULD MITIGATE FARMLAND THAT IS LIKE FOR LIKE SO ESSENTIALLY ONE ACRE OF FARMLAND THAT IS BEING TAKEN OUT OF PRODUCTION.

IF IT'S DESIGNATED PRIME FARMLAND BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, THAT SAME TYPE OF FARMLAND, PRIME FARMLAND ELSEWHERE WILL BE ALSO PUT INTO A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. SO THAT'S ONE THING I WANT TO CLARIFY IN MERCED COUNTY CORRECT.

THANK YOU. AND THEN NUMBER TWO, AS FOR THAT GENERAL PLAN POLICY, IT ALSO STATES THAT IT CANNOT ALLOW FOR A PERMANENT TRANSFER OF ANY WATER RIGHTS.

SO HERE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS PARTICIPATING IN A LEASE WITH THE FOR THE SOLAR FACILITY TO DEVELOP A SOLAR FACILITY ON THEIR SITE. AND THEY ALSO AGREE THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY TRANSFER OR PERMANENT REMOVAL OR TRANSFER OF WATER RIGHTS TO FROM THIS PROPERTY TO ANOTHER AREA OUT OF THE COUNTY.

IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT I CAN BUILD ON THAT TO? OKAY. THANK YOU.

OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMISSION? IF NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? JUST IF I MAY JUST REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT YOU HAVE AN EITHER OR OPTION FOR THE SEQUA.

AND JUST TO KEEP THAT IN MIND THAT YOU'VE BEEN PRESENTED WITH TWO OPTIONS.

SO YOU DO NEED TO SELECT WHICH ONE.

SHOULD SOMEONE DECIDE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SEQUA ON THIS ITEM? YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO KEEP THE LAND AND IN PRODUCTION.

[00:40:01]

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE SHACKLED, IF YOU WILL, TO THE LAW AND WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT ON ANOTHER PIECE OF LAND BUT WE CAN'T DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE LAW.

SO I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

THE FIRST ONE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15 ZERO SEVEN FOR CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF THE SEQUA GUIDELINES BASED ON THE FINDINGS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ADOPTS THE MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, INCLUDING ALL MEASURES AND CDFW'S LETTER DATED APRIL 24, 2023, ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT A AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. SECOND.

OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

CHAIR VOTES. AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIED.

PROJECT AND I MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP 22 011.

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

SECOND. OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. CHAIR ALSO VOTES? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED.[INAUDIBLE] . JUST HELP THE CHAIRMAN REAL QUICK.

THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION NUMBER AA 072.

[6.II.i.1.1. VI. ITEM E. ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION NO. AA22-072/SITE PLAN & DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION NO. SPR22-008-TBS CONSTRUCTION]

IS GOING TO BE MAKING THAT PRESENTATION.

FOR THE FINAL PROJECT THAT I WILL BE PRESENTING TODAY.

WE HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER A, A 20 2-072 AND SITE PLAN DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION NUMBER SPR 20 2-008 FOR TBS CONSTRUCTION.

THIS PROJECT IS A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH AND CONSTRUCT A MINI STORAGE FACILITY TO INCLUDE TEN STORAGE BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 52,600FT². THE MINI STORAGE UNITS WILL BE 9.5FT IN HEIGHT, AND FOUR OF THE BUILDINGS WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 3800FT² IN AREA.

EACH FIVE OF THE BUILDINGS WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 6400FT² IN AREA EACH AND THE LAST BUILDING WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 5400FT² IN AREA AND INCORPORATES A 250 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING FOR THE EXPECTED ONE EMPLOYEE NEEDED TO OPERATE THE SITE.

THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST GIRARD AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 100FT WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAST GIRARD AVENUE AND SOUTH HENRY STREET IN THE VICINITY OF THE CITY OF MERCED.

IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 259150037.

THE PROJECT SITE IS DESIGNATED INDUSTRIAL RESERVE LAND USE IN THE 2030 MERCED COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AND IS ZONED M TWO GENERAL MANUFACTURING. HERE'S THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE.

THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY LAND USED FOR ROW CROPS AND ORCHARD WAREHOUSES AND INDUSTRIAL STORAGE.

THE SITE ITSELF IS CURRENTLY USED AS A CONSTRUCTION YARD.

THE AREA OF THE PROJECT SITE TO BE DEVELOPED IS HIGHLIGHTED IN TEAL ON THIS SLIDE.

THESE ARE THE SITE PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED FACILITY, ALSO AVAILABLE AS ATTACHMENT B IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE PROJECT SITE TAKES UP APPROXIMATELY 5.7 ACRES OF AN 11.4 ACRE PARCEL.

THE FACILITY WOULD INCLUDE TEN MINI STORAGE BUILDINGS WITH A 250 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE WITHIN BUILDING F.

THE PROPOSED FACILITY INCLUDES LANDSCAPING DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE FORM OF A DRAINAGE BASIN AND STORM DRAINS CONNECTED TO THE CITY OF MERCED'S SEWER SYSTEM.

DRIVEWAYS FRONTING ONTO EAST GIRARD AVENUE AND PAVEMENT THROUGHOUT THE SITE.

ALSO INCLUDED IN ATTACHMENT B, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE ELEVATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES, WHICH WOULD BE 9.5FT IN HEIGHT.

THE SECTIONS OF THE GENERAL PLAN THAT ARE RELEVANT TO THE PROJECT ARE AS FOLLOWS.

[00:45:04]

GOAL SEVEN SPECIFIES WELL COORDINATED AND PROPERLY SERVICED PROJECTS WITHIN CITY SPHERES OF INFLUENCE.

POLICY 7.1 AIMS TO DRIVE URBAN DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS ALREADY URBANIZED AREAS TO MINIMIZE CONVERSION OF PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. FINALLY, POLICY.

EXCUSE ME.

LU 7.11 PRESCRIBES THE REFERRAL OF ALL DISCRETIONARY PERMIT APPLICATIONS WITHIN A CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE TO THAT CITY.

GOAL. LU TEN CREATES THE OVERARCHING GOAL OF INTER-JURISDICTIONAL COOPERATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THESE GOALS AND POLICIES.

THE PROJECT WAS REFERRED TO THE CITY OF MERCEDES PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED.

THE MERCED COUNTY ZONING CODE ALLOWS BY RIGHT MINI STORAGE FACILITIES IN THE M2 ZONE.

HOWEVER, DUE TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROJECT PER THE 2030 GENERAL PLAN EIR, THE NEED FOR AN INITIAL STUDY HAS WAS TRIGGERED. IMPACTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL RESERVE LAND USE DESIGNATION WERE STUDIED IN THIS INITIAL STUDY DUE TO THE SCALE OF ENGINEERED STRUCTURES, NEW CONSTRUCTION AND PROMINENCE FROM PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

A SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW WAS REQUIRED.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS REGARDING SETBACKS, SCREENING AND OTHER STANDARDS RELEVANT TO THE M2 ZONE.

NO SIGNS ARE PROPOSED AND ANY ADDITIONAL SIGNS WOULD REQUIRE A SIGN PERMIT.

FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

THE PROJECT WAS REVIEWED IN A PREPARED INITIAL STUDY.

NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISEND ATTACHMENT D IN THE STAFF REPORT WHERE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED COUNTY TIMES ON MARCH 23RD, 2023, AND MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROJECT SITE ON MARCH 24TH, 2023.

THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WAS MARCH 24TH THROUGH APRIL 24TH, 2023.

NO COMMENTS ON THE IS AND WERE RECEIVED.

THE PROJECT WAS REFERRED TO THE MERCED COUNTY BUILDINGS, ROADS, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND FIRE DIVISIONS, AS WELL AS THE CITY OF MERCED.

DURING THE SEQUEL REVIEW, THE ESSENDI WAS REFERRED TO THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BOARD, NUMBER FIVE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES.

A COMMENT LETTER WAS RECEIVED FROM THE MERCED COUNTY BUILDINGS DIVISION ADVISING THE NECESSARY STEPS TO OBTAIN BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE SITE SHOULD IT BE APPROVED.

NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED FROM STATE AGENCIES.

NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROJECT SITE ON APRIL 14TH, 2023, AND PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED COUNTY TIMES ON APRIL 13TH, 2023.

STAFF HAS TWO RECOMMENDATIONS.

FIRST, MOTION TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS FOR THE ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MOTION TO APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT.

APPLICATION NUMBER AA 20 2-072 IN SITE PLAN DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION NUMBER SPR 20 2-008.

THIS NOW CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

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

I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.

ANYBODY LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? CAN DO SO NOW. AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

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

I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTION 1507 FOR CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF THE GUIDELINES BASED ON THE FINDINGS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE SEQUA.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ALSO VOTES.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIED.

AND THEN MOVING ON TO THE PROJECT DETERMINATION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE.

ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER AA 22-07 TO SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION NUMBER SPR 20 2-008.

[00:50:03]

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

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? CHAIR ALSO VOTES? AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED.

OKAY. ONWARD TO NUMBER SEVEN COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS. NOTHING ADDITIONAL, SIR.

DIRECTOR'S REPORT AND NOTHING AT THIS TIME.

AND ANY COMMISSIONERS COMMENT? I HAVE ONE AND IT'S AND I TRULY DON'T KNOW.

[9. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENT]

BUT JUST AS THESE SOLAR PROJECTS KEEP COMING UP AND WE'RE GOING FORWARD, IS THERE ANY AVENUE WE COULD HAVE CHANGES TO THE ZONING CODE THAT THAT TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION? YOU KNOW, WATER AND BY WATER, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS DISTRICT WATER.

SO, YOU KNOW, LOTS OF PARCELS HAVE NO DISTRICT WATER.

THEIR MAYBE THEY RELY ON RAIN AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO WHEN YOU TAKE SOMETHING THAT HAS DISTRICT WATER OUT OF PRODUCTION, IT'S A VALUABLE PIECE OF PROPERTY OR SOIL TYPES, YOU KNOW, VERSUS IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED GOING FORWARD? I MEAN, I KNOW WE HAVE THE RULES WE HAVE NOW, BUT AS WE GO FORWARD IN MORE OF THESE PROJECTS COME FORWARD, IT'D BE GREAT TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE OPTIONS IN THAT SENSE.

JACK. MR. SPYCHER. THROUGH THE CHAIR.

MAYBE IF YOU COULD GIVE US MAYBE AS A AS A STAFF, A LITTLE TIME TO KIND OF DIGEST THAT AND MAYBE COME BACK TO YOU MAYBE WITH SOME POTENTIAL OPTIONS PROSPECTIVELY.

I APPRECIATE THAT OPPORTUNITY AND I CAN WORK WITH WITH TIFFANY TO KIND OF GET THAT DONE.

THANK YOU. YES, SIR.

OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS COMMENT? NOT HEARING ANY. WE WILL ADJOURN.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.