[00:00:01]
GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO TODAY'S MERCED COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. WE'RE GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. IF WE COULD ALL JOIN IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
THANK YOU. AND MOVING ON ROLL CALL OF COMMISSIONERS.
MR. CHAIR, YOU HAVE A QUORUM. EXCELLENT. MOVING ON.
[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THE MINUTES AND CALL FOR APPROVAL OF MINUTES.HAS EVERYBODY OR ANYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES AND LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? I JUST NEED TO INTERJECT.
EXCUSE ME. THAT I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER TATUM.
GREAT. OKAY, WONDERFUL. SO, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. AND THEN ABSTAINED.
PASSES. THANK YOU. NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO CITIZEN COMMUNICATION.
[5. CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS]
AT THIS POINT, PART OF THE MEETING, IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ON TODAY'S AGENDA, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO. WITH THAT, THERE IS A THREE MINUTE LIMIT.AND IF YOU COULD GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
SAHOTA AND I'M HERE TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE USE OF MY 10.6 ACRE PROPERTY AT 10445 VINSON ROAD IN DELHI FOR SECURE MONTHLY PARKING.
I UNDERSTAND THAT CURRENTLY THE COUNTY ORDINANCES DO NOT EXPLICITLY ALLOW THIS USE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT AN EXCEPTION, AN AMENDMENT OR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO WIDEN AN EXCEPTION OR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SHOULD BE GRANTED CONSIDERING THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS, THE COMMUNITY NEEDS, AND THE LOGISTICAL ADVANTAGES OF THIS PROPOSAL.
SO RIGHT NOW, I'M SURE YOU GUYS ARE AWARE THERE'S A SHORTAGE OF TRUCK PARKING IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY.
SO THIS PROJECT AND IT CAN BE TEMPORARY UNTIL THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THAT AREA IS IMPLEMENTED, WHICH HAS BEEN 20 YEARS AND NOTHING HAS HAPPENED.
SO, YOU KNOW, A 5 TO 7 YEAR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE GREAT FOR THE COUNTY AS WELL.
AND BASICALLY, THAT'S A THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.
IT'S JUST WE JUST WANT IT TEMPORARY USE UNTIL THE MASTER PLAN IS IMPLEMENTED.
THIS PROPERTY IS WELL SUITED FOR THE GIVEN USE.
AS YOU WILL SEE ON THE MAP, IT'S RIGHT OFF OF SHANKS ROAD 99.
AND ALSO, THE COUNTY HAS A DISCRETION TO EVALUATE THE PROPOSAL ON ITS MERITS IN COMMUNITY IMPACT RATHER THAN ADHERE TO STRICT, OUTDATED ZONING RULES. WITH THAT, THAT'S IT. AND I LEFT SOME PACKETS HERE FOR YOU GUYS TO TAKE A LOOK AT.
YEAH, I'M WORKING ON THAT, SO I NEED A LITTLE BIT OF HELP WITH THAT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NOW CLOSING. OR IS ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO COME SPEAK? SEEING NONE, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE CITIZEN COMMUNICATION AND MOVE ON TO AH PUBLIC HEARINGS.
[6. PUBLIC HEARING(S)]
FIRST ONE IS EXTENSION APPLICATION NUMBER EXT 24014.THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN, SPYCHER AND COMMISSIONERS.
[00:05:03]
AND GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS ETHAN HERR, AND I'M A PLANNER WITH THE MERCED COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION.THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS EXTENSION APPLICATION NUMBER EXT 24014 TO MAJOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MAS21-005 FOR THE APPLICANT, MOHAN JOHAL. THE PROJECT IS A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE APPROVED TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MAS 21005 BY TWO YEARS FROM FEBRUARY 23RD, 2025 TO FEBRUARY 23RD, 2027. MAS21-005 WAS APPROVED ON FEBRUARY 23RD, 2022 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SUBDIVIDE THREE PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 18 ACRES INTO 16 RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
ON AUGUST 28TH, 2024, THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE EXTENSION APPLICATION NUMBER EXT 24004 TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP FOR MAS 21005 FROM FEBRUARY 23RD, 2024 TO FEBRUARY 23RD, 2025.
IF APPROVED, EXTENSION APPLICATION NUMBER EXT 24014 WOULD BE THE SECOND DISCRETIONARY EXTENSION OF THE APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, AND THE MAP WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL DISCRETIONARY EXTENSIONS UP TO THREE YEARS.
APPROXIMATELY 700FT EAST OF QUINLEY AVENUE IN THE MCSWAIN RURAL RESIDENTIAL CENTER.
THE PROJECT. THE PROJECT SITE IS LARGELY VACANT, VACANT, WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE, AND THE SURROUNDING AREA IS CHARACTERIZED BY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.
ADDITIONALLY, EACH PARCEL WOULD BE SERVED BY INDIVIDUAL WELLS AND ON SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS. REGARDING CONSISTENCY WITH REGULATIONS, THE PROJECT SITE IS DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE IN THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONED RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL. THERE HAVE BEEN NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT, PROJECT, SITE OR SURROUNDING AREAS SINCE THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 23RD, 2022. THAT WOULD RENDER THE PROJECT INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OR ZONING CODE.
THE PROJECT REMAINS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES, ZONING CODE REGULATIONS, AND APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND TITLE 17.
ON FEBRUARY 23RD, 2022, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT MAJOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MAS21005.
DID NOT REQUIRE FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 15183.
PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH A COMMUNITY PLAN, GENERAL PLAN, OR ZONING OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT SECTION 15183 WOULD BE WOULD STILL APPLY TO THE CURRENT EXTENSION APPLICATION, AND NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED, AS THERE HAVE BEEN NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT SITE OR SURROUNDING AREA. NOTICE OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING WAS PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED COUNTY TIMES ON FEBRUARY 13TH, 2025, AND MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS OF RECORD WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROJECT SITE ON FEBRUARY 14TH, 2025. NO WRITTEN COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC.
WITH THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THIS PRESENTATION.
STAFF HAS TWO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COMMISSION.
DETERMINE THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 15183.
24-014 BASED ON THE FINDINGS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. DOES ANY MEMBER OF THIS COMMISSION HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[00:10:06]
NOW WOULD BE YOUR TIME. SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.WHAT'S THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DETERMINE THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 15183 PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN, GENERAL PLAN, OR ZONING OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. SECOND.
THE MOTION. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? NAY, NONE. SO THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE PROJECT. DETERMINATION.
MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION. APPLICATION NUMBER.
EXTENSION 24-014. BASED ON THE FINDINGS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
IN A SECOND. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? THAT ALSO PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
THANK YOU. CHAIRPERSON SPYCHER. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS.
ALSO KNOWN AS THE LIBERTY PACKING WAREHOUSE PROJECT FOR THE APPLICANT LIBERTY PACKING COMPANY, LLC. THE PROJECT IS A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 400,000 SQUARE FOOT UNREFRIGERATED WAREHOUSE WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF AN EXISTING TOMATO PROCESSING FACILITY TO STORE FINISHED TOMATO PRODUCTS.
THE PROJECT WOULD ALSO INVOLVE A CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW LOADING DOCK TO BE ATTACHED TO THIS WAREHOUSE FOR RAILCARS ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING, ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING RAIL SPUR. THERE WILL BE NO OPERATIONAL CHANGES IN TERMS OF INCREASE OF EMPLOYEES OR BUSINESS OUTPUT WITH THIS PROJECT.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT IS REALLY TO ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR SHIPPING THIS FINISHED STORAGE FINISHED PRODUCTS TO MODESTO AND THEREBY ELIMINATING FUTURE TRUCK TRIPS FROM 12 TO 18 TRUCK TRIPS DAILY, OR 700 TRUCK TRIPS ANNUALLY.
THIS SLIDE HERE SHOWS THE PROJECT SITE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED WITH THE VICINITY IN THE AREA.
THE SURROUNDING AREA CONSISTS OF FALLOW LAND AND WETLANDS.
THIS SLIDE HERE SHOWS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, WITH THE PROPOSED WAREHOUSE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
THIS SLIDE HERE SHOWS A MORE CLOSE UP VIEW OF THE TOMATOES PACKING FACILITY RIGHT NOW.
AGAIN, THE NORTHERN AREA IS WHERE MOST OF THE STORAGE BUILDINGS ARE BUILT, AND THEN THE THIS OTHER AREA BELOW THE RAIL SPUR IS WHERE A LOT OF THAT OPEN STORAGE AREA IS. AND ALSO THE YELLOW AREA REPRESENTS THE AREA WHERE THE PROPOSED WAREHOUSE WOULD BE BUILT.
WE DID EVALUATE IT FOR CONSISTENCY WITH OUR GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, AS WELL AS APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE, AND FOUND THAT THE PROJECT COULD BE FOUND CONSISTENT WITH MULTIPLE GOALS AND POLICIES OF OUR GENERAL PLAN, INCLUDING THOSE THAT RELATE TO SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL USES ENHANCING AND SUPPORTING HIGH VALUE AGRICULTURAL AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES.
AND REALLY, THE PROJECT WOULD EXPAND THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY OPERATIONS, SUPPORT TOMATO GROWING OPERATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY, AND REDUCE TRUCK TRIPS TO CREATE MORE EFFICIENCIES IN EXISTING OPERATIONS.
BUT BECAUSE THIS HAS A LONG HISTORY OF BEING PERMITTED AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND IT'S CONSIDERED A MAJOR MODIFICATION, WE ARE PROCESSING IT AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER OUR ZONING CODE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
[00:15:04]
DECLARATION. THAT PROJECT INCLUDED EXPANDING A GRANDFATHERED PROCESSING PLANT WITH MULTIPLE BUILDINGS THAT WERE MADE FOR PACKING, FILLING, AND STORAGE. THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL RAIL SPURS, AND SO ON.IN 2023, WE APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 22-014 TO CREATE FURTHER STORAGE, PACKING BUILDINGS AND A LOADING STATION, AND THAT WAS EVALUATED UNDER AN ADDENDUM WHICH SAID THAT NONE OF THE CRITERIA THAT ARE NEEDED FOR A SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS REQUIRED.
AND SO THEN FURTHER WITH THIS PROJECT, BECAUSE IT IS KIND OF SMALLER IN SCALE BUT STILL NOT MEETING OUR EXEMPTIONS, WE PREPARED ANOTHER ADDENDUM TO EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT THOSE CONDITIONS STILL EXIST.
THERE WOULDN'T BE A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE SEVERITY OF PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED IMPACTS.
AND THEN THOSE CONDITIONS TO REQUIRE AMEND PER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT EXISTED.
NOTICE OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING WAS MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT ON FEBRUARY 14TH, 2025, AND IT WAS ALSO PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED SUN-STAR ON FEBRUARY 16TH.
AS OF TODAY, NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, GIVEN ALL THE INFORMATION THAT'S DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUMMARIZED IN TODAY'S MEETING, I HAVE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE FIRST IS TO ADOPT ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO TO THE INITIAL STUDY, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR MAJOR MODIFICATION MM13-017 AND THE REVISED MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO SECTION 15164, ADDENDUM TO AN EIR OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES, AND THEN SECOND FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP-008.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, STAFF IS AVAILABLE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, WE ARE GOING TO OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS.
IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK ON THIS, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME.
SEEING NONE WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
OKAY. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO TO THE INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FROM MAJOR MODIFICATION NUMBER 13017 AND THE REVISED MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO SECTION 15164, ADDENDUM TO AN EIR OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. I'LL SECOND.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE PROJECT.
SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND. A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY ALSO.
THANK YOU. NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP 22-015.
THANK YOU AGAIN. JUST FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS TIFFANY HO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, AND I AM PRESENTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP 22-015, ALSO KNOWN AS THE ZETA SOLAR AND BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT FOR THE APPLICANT, LONG ROAD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, ALSO KNOWN AS ZETA SOLAR LLC.
THE REQUEST IS TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, MAINTAIN AND DECOMMISSION A 75 MEGAWATT PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR POWER GENERATION FACILITY WITH A BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM COMPONENT THAT HAS A CAPACITY OF UP TO EIGHT HOURS OF 75MW OF AC.
THE PROJECT WILL ALSO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ON SITE PROJECT SUBSTATION, AS WELL AS AN ADDITIONAL 1700 FOOT GENERATION TIE OR GEN TIE LINE TO DELIVER POWER FROM THE PROJECT TO THE PACIFIC AND GAS AND ELECTRIC EXISTING MERCY SPRING SUBSTATION, LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF THE PROJECT SITE. THIS SLIDE HERE SHOWS THE PROJECT SITE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED AND THE VICINITY.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED QUITE FAR TOWARDS THE COUNTY LINE.
[00:20:06]
HERE'S A LITTLE EXCERPT THAT KIND OF HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSE UP VIEW OF THE PROJECT SITE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND FALLOW, ALTHOUGH THERE IS A SOLAR FACILITY LOCATED TO THE NORTH.AND HERE'S THE PROJECT SITE AGAIN, A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSE UP VIEW.
SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE SURROUNDING AREA INCLUDES FOOTHILLS TO THE WEST AND THEN SOME AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS TO THE EAST, BUT THE SITE ITSELF IS VACANT DUE TO RESTRICTIVE IRRIGATION COVENANT THERE THAT PREVENTS THEM TO USE WATER FOR THE SITE.
THIS SLIDE HERE SHOWS THE PROJECT SITE PLAN THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, WITH THE SOLAR COMPONENT TAKING UP MOST OF THE PROJECT SITE WITH THE SMALL SUBSTATION AND BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM AREA CONTAINING ABOUT 3% OF THE PROJECT SITE, AND THEN THE GENTI LINE GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE MERCY SUBSTATION.
THE PROJECT SITE IS DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL IN THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONED A2 EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURAL, AND WE EVALUATED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH OUR POLICIES AS WELL AS THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE.
WHEN IT COMES TO OUR GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, OUR GENERAL PLAN DOES ENCOURAGE RURAL ENERGY PRODUCTION, SOLAR, WIND, AND PERFECTION FACILITIES AS LONG AS THEY DON'T CONFLICT WITH PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND AS EXPLAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND MENTIONED BEFORE IN THIS PRESENTATION, THAT THE PROJECT SITE DOESN'T HAVE PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL VALUE BECAUSE OF A RESTRICTIVE IRRIGATION EASEMENT.
AND IT DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN THAT THERE WASN'T FOUND TO BE SUITABLE HABITAT.
AND THAT HAS BEEN CONFERRED WITH THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND WILDLIFE AND MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED TO ENSURE THAT THERE WON'T BE ANY OTHER FURTHER IMPACTS TO THAT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT.
THE PROJECT IS CONSIDERED AN ENERGY GENERATION FACILITY, WIND FARM, BIOMASS FUEL MANUFACTURING FOR OFF SITE ENERGY USE, AND THAT IS PERMITTED WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL FROM THE COUNTY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
THE PROJECT WAS EVALUATED WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
FOLLOWING THE END OF THAT NOTICE OF PREPARATION, WE ALSO HELD A SCOPING MEETING ON MARCH 12TH, 2024 TO GATHER ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT MIGHT HAVE COMMENTS ON THE PROJECT.
AND WHEN THAT IMPACT REPORT WAS COMPLETED AND AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW, WE PUBLISHED A NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY ON OCTOBER 4TH, 2024 FOR A 45 DAY PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD. THE ANALYSIS OF THE DRAFT IMPACT REPORT DID FIND THAT THERE WOULD BE 19 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, BUT ALL OF THEM COULD BE MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS.
ALL OF THE NOTICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS WERE POSTED ON THE COUNTY'S WEBSITE, AS WELL AS WITH THE COUNTY CLERK AND THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, AND MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROJECT SITE, AS REQUIRED BY OUR LEGAL STANDARDS, AND SENT TO ANY INTERESTED PARTIES WHO HAD REQUESTED NOTICES PRIOR THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.
ONCE THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD WAS CLOSED, WE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF COMMENT LETTERS, AND THOSE COMMENT LETTERS WERE ADDRESSED IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THAT WAS CIRCULATED BACK TO THOSE COMMENTERS WITH THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 14TH, 2025. WITH ALL THAT SAID STAFF ALSO RECOGNIZES THAT THE STAFF REPORT INCLUDES A SOLAR BENEFITS AGREEMENT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO EXTRACT OR RETRACT FROM THE STAFF REPORT.
SO IT'S NOT NECESSARY FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OF THE PROJECT.
THAT SAID, IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC OR THE COMMISSIONERS ARE INTERESTED IN THE PROJECT'S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW BY REQUEST AT OUR OFFICES HERE AT THE MAIN ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, 2222 M STREET, SECOND FLOOR, AT THE COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
OUR HOURS OF MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, 8:30 TO 4:30 P.M.
[00:25:05]
ALSO PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC AND THEN HIGHLIGHTED HERE IN OUR PRESENTATION.SO THAT WILL BE THE STRIKEOUT OF CONDITION NUMBER TWO, BECAUSE THAT IS GOING TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH CONDITION NUMBER THREE WHICH WILL BECOME NEW CONDITION NUMBER TWO. AND THEN ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXPIRATION CHANGING THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PERFORMANCE BOND FROM BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE TO OCCUPANCY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND THEN ALSO STRIKING OUT THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE PARENT COMPANIES.
INCLUSION IN THE AGREEMENT, AS ZETA SOLAR HAS PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEFEND THIS PROJECT AS REQUIRED BY THE INDEMNITY AGREEMENT. GIVEN ALL THE INFORMATION DETAILED IN STAFF'S PRESENTATION STAFF'S STAFF REPORT AND SUMMARIZED IN TODAY'S PRESENTATION, STAFF HAS TWO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE FIRST IS TO CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPT THE CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE MITIGATION AND MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM, AND THEN TWO TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CP 22-015.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE APPLICANT'S TEAM IS AVAILABLE IN THE AUDIENCE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ON PROJECT SPECIFICS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. DO ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, WE WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
NOW WOULD BE YOUR TIME TO COME UP AND SPEAK. JUST A REMINDER, THERE'S A THREE MINUTE LIMIT.
AND IF YOU COULD GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JULIE CREIGHTON, RESIDENT OF LOS BANOS, MERCED COUNTY.
I HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD TO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY, I DON'T RECALL SEEING A PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLISHED AS THERE WAS WITH THE LIBERTY PACKING PROJECT IN REGARDS TO THIS PROJECT. SO YOU ALL HAVE MY EMAIL ADDRESS, SO IF YOU CAN LET ME KNOW WHEN THAT WAS PUBLISHED PUBLICLY, SUCH AS MAYBE THE WEST SIDE EXPRESS OR THE MERCED COUNTY TIMES.
IF YOU CAN GET BACK TO ME AND LET ME KNOW, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. LET ME START WITH AN EXCERPT FROM A WHITE PAPER ENTITLED THE HIDDEN RISKS BEHIND THE GROWING CAPACITY AND UNREGULATED GROWTH OF BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS. THE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE INDUSTRY IS BRAND NEW AND GROWING QUICKLY.
THE INDUSTRY HAS EXPLOITED THIS DEFICIT AND AGGRESSIVELY DOWNPLAYED THE RISKS, MINIMIZING CONCERNS BY USING TECHNICAL JARGON, MISLEADING STATISTICS, IN EMPLOYING INDUSTRY FRIENDLY CONSULTANTS WHO ESSENTIALLY WIELD THEIR EXPERTISE AS A TOOL TO GET THESE PROJECTS QUICKLY APPROVED WITHOUT PUSHBACK.
IT'S TIME TO STOP AND SCRUTINIZE THE RISKS INVOLVED IN THESE INSTALLATIONS.
THIS ENABLES DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE NOT SOLELY FOR THE MASSIVE PROFITS OF AN OVERLY AMBITIOUS INDUSTRY, BUT ON INDEPENDENT FACTS, PUBLIC INPUT AND REVIEW BY ALL OF THOSE WHO ARE IMPACTED BY THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS.
MERCED COUNTY PLANNING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IS ADEQUATELY INFORMED THE PUBLIC OF THE RISKS OF THIS ZETA PROJECT, ESPECIALLY RESIDENTS IN LOS BANOS, THAT MAY BE IMPACTED IF A FIRE OR OTHER SUCH EMERGENCY OCCURS AT THE PROPOSED BASE FACILITY SITE.
A 300 FOOT NOTICE REQUIREMENT IS INADEQUATE AND DOWNRIGHT RIDICULOUS.
THERE IS NO WAY THAT THIS WOULD ENCOMPASS THE AREA THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED IF A LITHIUM BATTERY FIRE, BATTERY FIRE, OR ANY OTHER EMERGENCY AT THIS FACILITY OCCURS.
WITH THE SHORTAGE OF COUNTY FIRE PERSONNEL, STATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN CLOSED, AND INADEQUATE FUNDING FOR OUR COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENTS, THIS IS A TERRIBLE RISK TO TAKE. THE JANUARY 16TH FIRE AT THE VISTRA BESS FACILITY AND THE ONGOING CHEMICAL FALLOUT IN MOSS LANDING AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS SHOULD BE A WAKE UP CALL TO THE DECISION MAKERS TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS PROJECT.
WITH SO MANY CITIZENS PUSHING BACK AS RECKLESS AND WITHOUT REGARD.
WE, YOU MAY ONLY SEE A FEW FACES HERE TODAY IN OPPOSITION TO THE ZETA BESS FACES REPRESENT MANY WHO WERE UNABLE TO ATTEND TODAY AND ARE IN STAUNCH OPPOSITION OF THE BESS FACILITY IN OUR AREA AND THE LACK OF INFORMATION AND NOTICE OF THIS PROJECT.
[00:30:07]
THANKS. THANK YOU. JULIE. IF ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO COME SPEAK.MY NAME IS KATHY BALLARD. I'M A RESIDENT OF LOS BANOS.
ALSO I WROTE UP SOMETHING WITH THE RECENT FIRES AND SAFETY, BUT JULIE HAD MENTIONED MOST OF IT.
IT HAS BECOME EVIDENT THAT ANY BEST PROJECT NEEDS TO BE PLACED ON HOLD UNTIL PROPER SAFEGUARDS CAN BE FOUND FOR WORKERS, RESIDENTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT. DESPITE PROMISES OF A SAFE AND ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY WAY TO STORE EXCESS ENERGY.
IT HAS BEEN SHOWN THAT LITHIUM ION BATTERY ARRAYS ARE NOT CURRENTLY SAFE.
A LITHIUM ION BATTERY FIRE IS NOT CONTAINED SIMPLY BY DOUSING IT WITH WATER LIKE A TYPICAL FIRE.
I'M GOING TO LEAVE THIS HERE FOR YOU BECAUSE I, YOU GUYS HAVE THREE MINUTES.
THE IT'S AN EXCERPT FROM THE ACS PUBLICATION, AND IT'S WHAT I'M GIVING YOU TODAY.
AFTER THIS FIRE, SCIENTISTS HAVE FOUND SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN HEAVY METALS IN SOIL SAMPLES WHEN COMPARED TO SAMPLES TAKEN FROM A SIMILAR AREA BEFORE THE FIRE. SHOULD THIS TYPE OF DISASTER HAPPEN IN MERCED COUNTY, IT WILL HAVE A LASTING IMPACT ON RESIDENTS, WILDLIFE, WILDLIFE, WATER SUPPLY AND AGRICULTURE FOR DECADES.
TO STRESS, I AM NOT WISHING TO HOLD UP THE SOLAR ARRAY BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE.
I JUST THINK IT'S GOING TOO FAST, AND IT'S NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION DAMAGES THAT MIGHT BE DONE.
I KNOW WE LEARN BY MISTAKES, BUT THERE'S HUGE MISTAKES THAT COULD BE MADE IN REGARDS TO THIS.
I ALSO WANTED TO COMMENT SINCE I GAVE THAT TO YOU, I HAVE A FEW MORE MINUTES.
IN YOUR REPORTING OF WHAT WAS NOTIFIED TO THE PUBLIC, IF IT'S JUST MERCED COUNTY THAT WHERE YOU PRINT THIS? I DON'T DO FACEBOOK. I DON'T DO YOUR WEBSITE UNLESS SOMEBODY TELLS ME ABOUT IT.
I DON'T READ YOUR NEWSPAPERS. HOW DOES A CITY, LOS BANOS, GET NOTIFIED WHEN WITHIN 300FT? I THINK THERE MIGHT BE A RED HAWK. THAT'S ABOUT IT.
AND I WENT, OH, AND THEY MENTIONED AT ONE OF THEIR MEETINGS THAT WE WERE GETTING ONE.
THANK YOU, CATHY. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK AT THIS TIME? MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS MARY HENNESSY AND I TOO AM A RESIDENT OF LOS BANOS UNTIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20TH. FEBRUARY 11TH, 2025. THE CITIZENS OF LOS BANOS HAD NO IDEA WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS PLANNING TO APPROVE.
THAT SIMPLY CANNOT HAPPEN WHILE THIS PROJECT IS NINE MILES SOUTH OF LOS BANOS.
ANY KIND OF DISASTER, SUCH AS THE RECENT MOSS LANDING FIRE, COULD PROBABLY CAUSE SUCH DETRIMENTAL SHORT AND LONG TERM EFFECTS ON PEOPLE, ANIMALS AND THE ENVIRONMENT AS THOSE NOW BEING EXPERIENCED BY THE RESIDENTS OF MOSS LANDING AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
WE ALSO DISCOVERED THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER, ATK, DOES NOT HAVE A VALID BUSINESS LICENSE AS REQUIRED FOR DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THAT BUSINESS LICENSE EXPIRED MARCH 31ST, 2024, ALMOST A YEAR AGO, AND THIS INFORMATION WAS TAKEN FROM THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE WEBSITE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN DISCOVERED THAT THE OWNER'S DAUGHTER, ELENA KOUNALAKIS,
[00:35:01]
AND I APOLOGIZE IF I MISPRONOUNCE IT, IS OUR CURRENT LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.CONFLICT OF INTEREST AT ITS FINEST. THE CITIZENS OF LOS BANOS ASK, NO WE IMPLORE THIS COMMISSION TO NOT APPROVE THIS PROJECT AND TO MOVE, TO APPROVE, TO DISAPPROVE IT IN ITS ENTIRETY.
SOME OF THOSE ARE LOCATED IN KERN COUNTY. COLTON, ESCONDIDO, VACAVILLE, LEMOORE, HANFORD, AND FIREBALL. HANFORD AND FIREBALL ARE ALSO SMALL COMMUNITIES.
ONE WEEK AFTER THE DEVASTATING FIRE IN MOSS LANDING, ASSEMBLY MEMBER DON ADDIS OF MORROW BAY INTRODUCED ASSEMBLY BILL 303, ALSO KNOWN AS THE BATTERY ENERGY SAFETY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, WHICH WOULD IMPACT THE DEVELOPMENT OF LARGE SCALE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECTS. IT IS INTENDED TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, IMPROVE THE SAFETY STANDARDS AND RESTORE LOCAL OVERSIGHT. I'M SURE THE PLANNING COMMISSION KNOWS THE DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS AND SENSITIVE RECEPTORS.
AGAIN, THE CITIZENS OF PARIS IMPLORE YOU TO DENY THIS PROJECT IN ITS ENTIRETY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND JUST HEARING A THEME. SO THANK YOU. A THEME ABOUT PUBLIC NOTICING.
MAYBE STAFF COULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU GUYS SO YOU KNOW YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO KEEP ASKING IT.
SO JUST TO KIND OF PUT IT FOR THE RECORD, THAT NOTICE OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING, PER OUR LEGAL STANDARD, WAS MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROJECT SITE ON FEBRUARY 14TH, 2025, AS WELL AS PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED SUN-STAR ON FEBRUARY 16TH, 2025. WE DID RECEIVE FOUR THREE COMMENTS. REALLY FOUR COMMENTS TWO FROM ONE MERCED COUNTY RESIDENT, ONE FROM SAN LUIS WATER DISTRICT THAT TALKED ABOUT THE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT, POTABLE WATER AND EASEMENTS.
AND THEN FOR THE MERCED COUNTY RESIDENTS, WE ALSO PROVIDED SOME RESPONSE IN TERMS OF FIRE SAFETY, BIOLOGICAL AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. REALLY, OUR EIR COVERS A HOST OF THOSE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.
SO I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF HAVE THAT THERE FOR THE RECORD.
AND JUST FOR CLARITY, ANY PROJECT THAT COMES BEFORE US MEETS THESE STANDARDS, RIGHT? THERE'S NOT A SECOND SET OF STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS OR ANYTHING ELSE.
NO MATTER WHAT THE PROJECT IS, THIS IS JUST THE COUNTY STANDARD.
CORRECT. SO ALL THE PUBLIC NOTICE HEARINGS WHEN IT COMES TO A PUBLIC HEARING FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, WOULD BE MAILING TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT AND THEN PUBLICATION WITHIN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION, EITHER USUALLY IN MERCED, SUN-STAR OR MERCED COUNTY TIMES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I'M NOT EXPECTING YOU GUYS TO ENJOY THAT ANSWER, BUT AT LEAST MAYBE IT GIVES IT SOME CLARITY THAT THAT'S KIND OF THE TEMPLATE THAT'S USED ON ALL PROJECTS. ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO COME SPEAK NOW WOULD BE A GREAT TIME.
GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU FOR HAVING THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
MY NAME IS REFUGIO RAMOS, A RESIDENT OF LOS BANOS, AND AGAIN, I'M IN OPPOSITION TO THIS POWER PLANT.
THIS BESS, AS WE KNOW FROM THE FIRE IN MOSS LANDING, THE LONG TERM AND SHORT TERM EFFECTS TO THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF PEOPLE, THE ENVIRONMENT AND OUR ECOSYSTEM.
WE STILL DON'T KNOW. THE EFFECTS OF THIS FIRE SUPPOSEDLY WAS EXTINGUISHED, BUT IT REIGNITED AGAIN.
THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF ISSUES THAT WE HAVE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAVE.
THIS FACILITY BEING SO CLOSE TO HIGHWAY FIVE COULD HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON A MAJOR CORRIDOR PROVIDING SERVICES, PRODUCT AND COMMERCE, ET CETERA. WE DON'T KNOW THE EFFECTS TO THE FIRST RESPONDERS.
AS YOU KNOW, SANTA CLARA, EXCUSE ME. MERCED COUNTY CUT BACK ON EMERGENCY PERSONNEL.
[00:40:05]
FIREFIGHTERS. LOS BANOS IS SHORT ONE FULL FIRE STATION.AND THE FIREMEN FIREFIGHTERS THAT GO WITH THAT FIRE STATION.
AND IT HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS. AND AS DO YOU PROBABLY THE CLOSEST LARGEST MUNICIPALITY TO THIS STATION, IT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE THE BURDEN OF RESPONDING TO THESE TO PUT OUT ANY EMERGENCY OR FIRE WOULD LEAVE OUR CITY, OUR RESIDENTS, IN DIRE WITH LACK OF FIRE RESPONSE IN CASE OF ANOTHER FIRE OR AN EMERGENCY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.
YET WE'RE PUSHING AHEAD WITH NOT EVEN KNOWING BEST PRACTICES, MITIGATION EFFORTS.
DO WE HAVE PROPER FIRE SUPPRESSION. OBVIOUSLY THEY DIDN'T.
WHAT ARE WE DOING ABOUT THAT? WE DON'T HAVE THE REPORT YET, SO HOW CAN WE PUSH THROUGH KNOWING THAT THIS IS UNSAFE NOT ONLY FOR THE FIRST RESPONDERS, BUT FOR THE HEALTH OF THE PERSONNEL, THE RESIDENTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT? AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION, AND WE'RE PROCEEDING WITHOUT PROPER CAUTION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WOULD ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK AT THIS TIME? OKAY. HI, FOLKS. MY NAME IS LARYN CIPHERS. I'M ONE OF THE DEVELOPERS FOR THIS PROJECT. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT FIRE SAFETY. CLEARLY, THAT'S THE MAIN CONCERN, AND UNDERSTANDABLY SO.
SOUNDS LIKE THE MOSS LANDING BATTERY FIRE IS TOP OF MIND FOR FOLKS, BUT I WANT TO DESCRIBE THE WAYS THAT MOSS LANDING IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE TODAY. SO THE FIRST DIFFERENCE IS SAFETY CODES.
MOSS LANDING WAS BUILT PRE SAFETY CODE ADOPTION.
THOSE CODES ARE UL9540 AND NFPA855. THOSE ARE NOW SEEN AS THE GOLD STANDARD FOR BATTERY SAFETY AND INSTALLATION. THEY REGULATE THINGS LIKE SYSTEM SPACING, PROPER EQUIPMENT TESTING AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE COORDINATION.
AND ZETA WOULD ABSOLUTELY COMPLY WITH ALL OF THESE CODES.
IN FACT, IT'S CONSIDERED TO BE IN A REMOTE LOCATION PER NFPA 855.
THE SECOND DIFFERENCE IS TECHNOLOGY, SPECIFICALLY THE CHEMICAL MAKEUP OF OUR BATTERIES.
SO, MOSS LANDING WAS BUILT WITH NMC BATTERIES, NICKEL, MANGANESE, COBALT.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS THE NMC BATTERIES CATCH FIRE AT MUCH, MUCH LOWER TEMPERATURES.
THE THIRD DIFFERENCE IS SPACING. SO BEYOND US USING THE GOLD STANDARD OF SAFETY CODE, BEYOND US HAVING BATTERIES IN CHEMISTRY THAT IS FAR SAFER AND BEYOND US USING THESE LARGE SETBACKS FROM PROPERTY LINES AND MAJOR ROADWAYS, WHAT STANDS OUT TO ME THE MOST AS A NON-SCIENTIST WHEN I TALK TO MY BATTERY TEAM IS OUR BATTERY SPACING. SO OUR BATTERIES AND THE CONFIGURATION OF OUR WHOLE SYSTEM UNDERGOES LARGE SCALE FIRE TESTING FROM A NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED LABORATORY. THAT LAB DOES A MOCK INSTALLATION OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM.
AND WHAT THEY DO IS THEY LIGHT ONE OF THE MIDDLE BATTERY UNITS ON FIRE AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THAT THAT BATTERY, THAT FIRE DOES NOT PROPAGATE TO THE REST OF THE SYSTEM.
IT DESTROYS THAT TWO MEGAWATT BATTERY, BUT NOTHING ELSE.
AND SO THEN THAT LAB SENDS US INSTALLATION MANUALS THAT TELL US HOW TO EXACTLY CONFIGURE AND SPACE OUR BATTERIES BASED ON THAT LARGE FIRE SCALE TESTING. MOSS LANDING WAS NOT BUILT WITH SAFE SPACING.
IT WAS NOT BUILT WITH THIS LARGE SCALE FIRE TESTING.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE FIRE SAFETY BARRIERS BETWEEN THEIR BATTERY RACKS.
OUR BATTERIES HAVE FIRE BARRIERS BUILT INTO THEIR CONTAINERS, AND WE ALWAYS ON THE SIDE OF BEING MORE CONSERVATIVE IN TERMS OF SPACING, EVEN MORE THAN THE VENDORS OF THE BATTERIES RECOMMEND WE DO.
WHAT I'M SAYING HERE IS WE DO NOT PUSH THE LIMITS AT ALL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I HOPE SOME OF MY COMMENTS ADDRESS SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS.
THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. NOT AT ALL. I'VE BEEN OUT THERE ALREADY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE WHO HASN'T SPOKEN ON THIS LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF IT AND MOVE ON TO
[00:45:02]
THE COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT STAFF COMMENTS AMONG YOURSELF? I ALSO, TIFFANY, IF YOU COULD GO OVER A COUPLE MORE NOTICING ISSUES THAT I RAISED.SO AS PART OF OUR STANDARD PROCESS AND PROCEDURE, WHENEVER WE RECEIVE PROJECTS THAT MIGHT TOUCH OTHER JURISDICTIONS, OR THERE MIGHT BE A JURISDICTION THAT HOLDS SOME TYPE OF RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PROJECT, SUCH AS ISSUING A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AS WITH THE WATER RESOURCES BOARD OR WITH AIR DISTRICT, WE DO SEND OUT REFERRALS AND NOTICES TO THOSE AGENCIES.
SO WE DID AT THE START OF THE PROJECT, SEND OUT NOTICES TO THE CITY OF LOS BANOS IN CASE THEY HAD ANY COMMENTS OR CONCERNS WITH THE PROJECT, AS WELL AS ANY KIND OF REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY MAY ALSO WANT TO SEE.
AND THEN AS FOR THE SCOPING MEETING THE NOTICES FOR THOSE WERE PUBLISHED SIMILARLY TO HOW WE'VE DONE ALL OF OUR NOTICES OF PREPARATION AVAILABILITY, WHERE WE MAILED OUT THIS TIME TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS.
ALL OF OUR RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES, ALL OF OUR INTERESTED PARTIES.
AND THEN AS WELL AS PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER AND POST IT WITH OUR CLERK AND IT WAS HELD IN PERSON AND THEN ALSO VIRTUALLY HERE AT THE OFFICE. SO FOR THOSE WHO ARE LOCATED IN THE CITY OF LOS BANOS OR ANYONE NOT LOCATED IN THE CITY OF MERCED.
THEY WERE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT THAT MEETING. THANK YOU.
ANY COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
BUT THE ONE THING THAT I WILL SAY IS THESE PROJECTS AS THEY COME UP, ONE FRUSTRATION I HAVE IS THAT WHEN THEY COME UP THAT THEY'RE IN VERY GOOD, FERTILE FARM GROUND. AND THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN THIS PROJECT.
ALSO, JUST TO MENTION, I KNOW THERE'S FRUSTRATIONS WITH THE PROJECT.
IF I'M CORRECT THOUGH. I MEAN, THE STATE IS PUSHING THESE PROJECTS AND ENCOURAGING THEM.
AND BATTERY STORAGE IS A BIG PART OF THIS. AM I CORRECT IN THAT? THIS IS A BIG PUSH FROM THE STATE FOR THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS , AND THEY WANT THE BATTERY ELEMENT WITH IT, BECAUSE IN THE OLD DAYS THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE BATTERY STORAGE WASN'T THE ISSUE. THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S SOMETHING NEW NOW.
IS THAT A QUESTION FOR STAFF? YES. OKAY. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.
YES. SO THE STATE IS REALLY ENCOURAGING THE PROJECTS SUCH AS SOLAR WITH THE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE COMPONENT, BECAUSE WITH A LOT OF THE SOLAR PRODUCTION PROJECTS, THERE'S NOWHERE TO STORE IT AFTER YOU KNOW, NIGHTTIME HOURS WHEN THE SUN IS DOWN. SO, WE'VE ACTUALLY SEEN A LOT OF STREAMLINED POLICIES AND PROCESSES, INCLUDING A STATE AGENCY THAT, SHOULD APPLICANTS DESIRE, GO THROUGH THEIR PERMITTING INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH THE LOCAL JURISDICTION AND GETTING THEIR PERMITS THAT WAY. AND THEY WOULD ALSO HANDLE THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
SO IN THIS CASE WE WERE ACTUALLY HANDLING IT.
BUT IN CASES WHERE A JURISDICTION MAY NOT HAVE THE BANDWIDTH OR THE APPLICANT WANTS TO STREAMLINE THINGS WITH THE STATE, THEY COULD ACTUALLY PURSUE IT WITH THE STATE. THANK YOU.
MAYBE THAT GIVES SOME CLARITY FOR YOU GUYS. SO BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS.
WHAT'S THE WILL? WE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO GO FORWARD.
WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
AYE. OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW MOVING ON.
OKAY, I'LL MAKE A MOTION ON THE PROJECT THAT WE APPROVE.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY ALSO.
[00:50:06]
THANK YOU. NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP 21-011, SILVA DAIRY FARM.ALL RIGHT. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS TIFFANY HO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING.
AND I AM PRESENTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP 21-011.
THE PROJECT IS ALSO KNOWN AS SILVA DAIRY FARMS EXPANSION.
AND THE APPLICANT IS SILVA DAIRY FARMS. THE REQUEST IS TO MERGE TWO EXISTING DAIRY FACILITIES INTO ONE PERMIT AND EXPAND THAT CONSOLIDATED FACILITY TO INCREASE THE HERD SIZE FROM AROUND 3000 ANIMALS TO ABOUT 7300 ANIMALS, INCLUDING 4000 MILK COWS, 500 DRY COWS AND 2800 SUPPORT STOCK.
THE EXPANSION WOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NUMBER OF SUPPORT BUILDINGS AND FEATURES AT THE DAIRY FACILITY, INCLUDING FREESTALL BARNS, LOAFING BARNS, A COMMODITY BARN, A MILKING PARLOR EXPANSION SHOP, AND MANURE STORAGE CALF AREA. IT WILL ALSO INCLUDE THE DEMOLITION OF SOME EXISTING STRUCTURES TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THIS NEW CONSTRUCTION, AS, AS WELL AS THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW REPLACEMENT WELL, NEW POND AND A CONVERSION OF APPROXIMATELY SEVEN ACRES OF CROPLAND.
APPLICATION AREA. WITH THIS EXPANDED FACILITY, THE PROJECT ANTICIPATES INCREASING EMPLOYMENT FROM 19 EMPLOYEES TO 25 AND THEN INCREASING DAILY TRIPS FROM 12 POINT BY 12.6 DAILY TRIPS, ALSO ACCOUNTING FOR 6.6 HEAVY TRUCK TRIPS PER DAY.
THIS SLIDE HERE SHOWS THE PROJECT SITE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED, WITH THE VICINITY TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN AN AGRICULTURAL AREA, MOSTLY ROW CROPS OR SOME SCATTERED RURAL RESIDENCES.
SO THIS IS THE AREA THAT THEY EITHER OWN OR LEASE THAT THEY APPLY SOLID WASTE MANURE AND PROCESS WATER TO KIND OF MANAGE THEIR WASTEWATER. THIS SLIDE HERE SHOWS THE TWO FACILITIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE CONSOLIDATED UNDER ONE PERMIT. THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDES THE SOUTH FACILITY, WHICH IS LOCATED SOUTH OF EDMINSTER ROAD AND STATE ROUTE 140, AND THAT'S WHERE THE MAIN FACILITY IS. AND THEN THE NORTH FACILITY IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 140 AND EDMINSTER ROAD.
BOTH FACILITIES HAVE A NUMBER OF MILKING PARLORS, ANIMAL SHEDS, CORRALS, BARNS COMMODITY BARNS, AS WELL AS ON SITE RESIDENCES. THE SITE PLAN HERE REPRESENTS THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION FOR THE NORTH FACILITY, INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FREESTALL BARN, DRY MANURE STORAGE AND CALF AREA.
AND THEN SOME LOAFING BARNS AS WELL. AND THEN IT'S ORIENTED WITH THE NORTH SHOWING TO THE LEFT SIDE, WHICH IS KIND OF WEST. BUT THAT'S THE NORTH ARROW.
THIS SLIDE HERE SHOWS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE SOUTH FACILITY.
FOR THE CONSISTENCY WITH OUR GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, WE LISTED THAT IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH A NUMBER OF OUR AGRICULTURAL ELEMENTS AND LAND USE POLICY ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES WHEN IT COMES TO EXPANDING AG OPERATIONS IN THE COUNTY, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT HAS SUCH AN IMPACT ON OUR AG INDUSTRY.
DAIRY BEING NUMBER ONE OF OUR COMMODITY HERE IN THE COUNTY.
AND THEN I ALSO INCLUDED SOME OTHER GOALS AND POLICIES AS IT RELATES TO WATER QUALITY AND AIR QUALITY, AS THAT'S BEEN A TOPIC OF CONTROVERSY IN THE PAST.
AND WE DID FIND THAT THE PROJECT WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR AIR QUALITY GOALS AND POLICIES.
THE PROJECT IS CONSIDERED AN ANIMAL CONFINEMENT FACILITY, WHICH CAN BE PERMITTED WITH APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SO THAT THAT IS A KIND OF TEARING OFF OF WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
THE PROJECT WAS EVALUATED WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND WE KICKED THAT OFF WITH A NOTICE OF PREPARATION THAT WAS CIRCULATED TO THE PUBLIC ON AUGUST 9TH FOR A 30 DAY PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD IN 2022.
[00:55:04]
THAT WAS CIRCULATED ON JULY 24TH 2024 FOR 45 DAY PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD.ALL THESE NOTICES WERE PUBLISHED ON OUR COUNTY WEBSITE, MAILED WITH TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROJECT SITE, SENT TO INTERESTED PARTIES, AND THEN POSTED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK AND THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE.
ONCE WE RECEIVED COMMENTS ON THOSE PROJECTS, A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS PREPARED AND THEN SENT OUT TO THOSE COMMENTERS, ALONG WITH A NOTICE OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 14TH, 2025.
THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DID FIND THAT THERE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS RELATED TO AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, WATER QUALITY, AND THEN CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO THOSE IMPACTS ABOVE.
THE REASON WHY THEY WERE FOUND UNAVOIDABLE WAS BECAUSE THE MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WE IDENTIFIED WERE REALLY VOLUNTARY IN NATURE, OR WERE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE COUNTY TO IMPLEMENT.
SO FOR THE AIR QUALITY, THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT TO ENTER AN AGREEMENT WITH THE OR ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO ENTER AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT.
THAT IS A VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT, AND SO WE CANNOT REQUIRE THAT IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION.
BOTH OF OUR GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AS WELL AS THE AIR DISTRICT POLICIES.
SO THAT IS WHY WE CALL IT A MITIGATION MEASURE.
BUT IT'S IT WOULD NOT REDUCE THOSE TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IF THEY DON'T ENTER IT RIGHT.
FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THE PROJECT IS SEEKING TO ENTER INTO A DAIRY DIGESTER CLUSTER PROJECT THAT'S GOING TO BE PERMITTED SEPARATELY FROM THIS PROJECT, IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE APPLIED FOR BY A DIFFERENT APPLICANT.
AND ALL THOSE IMPLEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION WILL BE WITH THAT PROJECT.
AND SO SINCE IT'S BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPLICANT AND IT'S NOT DEPENDENT ON THE PROJECT, IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE DAIRY DIGESTER FOR SUCCESS, IT'S CONSIDERED A SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT. AND THEN FOR WATER QUALITY, MOST OF THAT THAT PERMITTING FALLS WITHIN THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD.
SO WE DON'T HAVE AGENCY OVER THAT. SO WE CONSIDER IT A SIGNIFICANT, UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT.
TO NOTE FOR THE FOR THE RECORD THAT WHEN A SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT IS IDENTIFIED, THE LOCAL AGENCY, IN THIS CASE THE COUNTY OF MERCED, MAY APPROVE A PROJECT.
AS LONG AS WE FIND THAT THE BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT OUTWEIGH THE IMPACTS.
AND AS A REMINDER FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, THE PURPOSE OF CEQA IS TO INFORM DECISION MAKERS, IDENTIFY WAYS THOSE IMPACTS CAN BE AVOIDED OR SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED, OR PREVENT SIGNIFICANT AND AVOIDABLE IMPACTS WITH ADOPTION OF THESE MITIGATION MEASURES, AND THEN DISCLOSE THE PUBLIC WHY A PROJECT IS APPROVED IF THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS.
SO WE DID PREPARE OUR FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT OUTLINE WHY THE PROJECT HAS BENEFITS IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS. AND REALLY, THAT'S THE PRESERVATION OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE IN THE COUNTY, THE PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE AREAS AND CONVERSION FROM TO NONAGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT, PROMOTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTY, AND THEN CONSISTENCY WITH OUR GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND RIGHT TO FARM ORDINANCE.
NOTICE OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING WAS MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROJECT SITE ON FEBRUARY 14TH, AND PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED SUN-STAR ON FEBRUARY 16TH.
THE FIRST IS TO CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND THE MITIGATION AND MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECT, AND THEN TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CP 21 011.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
WE ALSO HAVE THE CONSULTANT THAT PREPARED THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS IN THE AUDIENCE.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE CEQA REVIEW.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE CONSULTANT? SEEING NONE, WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SEEING NONE, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND WHAT IS THE WILL OF THIS COMMISSION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
MOTION TO CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPT THE CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND THE MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I HAVE A SECOND.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
OPPOSED? NAY. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW, MOVING ON TO THE PROJECT.
DETERMINATION. A MOTION APPROVE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP 21-011.
[01:00:03]
BASED ON THE FINDINGS FOUND IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.THANK YOU. MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
AYE. OPPOSED? THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY ALSO. AND JUST AS A SIDE NOTE, WE WANT TO THANK YOU FOR INVESTING IN YOUR DAIRY IN MERCED COUNTY, BECAUSE I KNOW DAIRY IS A PRETTY TOUGH BUSINESS RIGHT NOW.
SO WE APPRECIATE YOU GUYS GROWING HERE WITH US? NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER ACTION ITEMS. SEEING NONE, DIRECTORS REPORT. GOOD MORNING. I FIRST WOULD LIKE I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME OUR
[8. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]
TWO NEW COMMISSIONERS, MR. D TATUM AND MR. MO JAWAD.STAFF IS VERY EXCITED TO HAVE YOU PART OF THIS COMMISSION AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU BOTH. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK FERNANDO AGUILAR FOR HIS TIME AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER AND JACK MOBLEY FOR HIS OVER 20 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THIS COMMISSION, AND WE I WOULD BE HE WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED IF I DID NOT MENTION THAT JACK DOES HOLD THE RECORD FOR THE QUICKEST MEETING AT SEVEN MINUTES AND 15 SECONDS.
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS.
SEEING NONE, WE'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING. THANK YOU EVERYBODY.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.