[1. CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:03] GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. I'D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYONE TO THE MERCED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER? WOULD YOU PLEASE JOIN ME FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU. ROLL CALL OF COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER JAWAD. HERE. COMMISSIONER SPYCHER. HERE. COMMISSIONER ERRECA. HERE. VICE CHAIRMAN TATUM. HERE THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. [4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES] LIKE THIS TIME TO OPEN UP THE FLOOR. IF ANYBODY HAS ANY COMMENTS ON OUR MINUTES FOR OUR LAST MEETING. IF NOT, I'LL CLOSE THAT AND ASK FOR A MOTION. MOVE TO APPROVE. SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. SO MOVED. NOW WE MOVE ON TO THE CITIZENS COMMUNICATION. SO AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP CITIZENS COMMUNICATION. AT THIS TIME, IF ANYBODY HAS ANYTHING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ABOUT, THAT'S ON THAT'S IN THE SCOPE OF OUR JURISDICTION AND THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA. NOW IS THE TIME THAT YOU WANT TO COME UP AND SPEAK TO IT. I SEE NO ONE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC CITIZEN'S COMMUNICATION AND MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. [6. PUBLIC HEARING(S)] ALL RIGHT. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A ZONE VARIANCE ZV26-003. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS ANA BROWNING AND THE FIRST PROJECT BEFORE YOU IS ZONE VARIANCE NUMBER ZV26-003. FOR THE APPLICANT ROBERT BENSON. THE PROJECT IS A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SIDE STREET SETBACK FOR THE R-R RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO 15FT, WHERE 50FT IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A 1440 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR STORAGE. DUE TO THE CURRENT PARCEL CONFIGURATION AND WELL AND SEPTIC SETBACKS AND REPLACEMENT AREA REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED IN THE LOCAL AGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN. THE AVAILABLE AREA ON THE PARCEL TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS LIMITED. HERE IS TABLE 2-4 OF CHAPTER 18.12 OF THE ZONING CODE CIRCLED IN RED. YOU CAN SEE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO VARY FROM THE SIDE FACING STREET SETBACK BY 35FT. THE PROPOSED SIDE STREET SETBACK FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WOULD BE 15FT. HERE IS THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE. THE SITE IS OUTLINED IN RED AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH PRINCE WILLIAM COURT AND WEST QUEEN ELIZABETH DRIVE IN THE MCSWAIN RURAL RESIDENTIAL CENTER. THE SURROUNDING AREA IS MADE UP OF SIMILAR AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL USES, SUCH AS RURAL RESIDENCES WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. IN THIS NEXT SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THE SITE CURRENTLY CONSISTS OF A 2800 SQUARE FOOT HOME, A 1736 SQUARE FOOT POOL HOUSE, AND A POOL. THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN, WOULD BE PLACED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. ACCORDING TO OUR CURRENT STANDARDS, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WOULD NEED TO BE 50FT FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE ON BOTH PRINCE WILLIAM'S COURT AND QUEEN ELIZABETH DRIVE. THE PARCEL IS PROVIDED WATER FROM A DOMESTIC WELL LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. WASTEWATER IS MAINTAINED BY A 1500 GALLON SEPTIC SYSTEM LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERN END OF THE PROPERTY. ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 9.54 OF THE COUNTY CODE, ANY NEW ON SITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS MUST MEET A MINIMUM USABLE DISPOSAL AREA, ALSO KNOWN AS THE REPLACEMENT AREA. THIS AREA IS REQUIRED TO BE DESIGNATED EXCUSE ME, AS THE REPLACEMENT AREA TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT SPACE TO INSTALL A NEW DRAIN FIELD IF THE PRIMARY ONE FAILS. IN THIS CASE, THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT AREA NEEDS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 260FT LONG AND IS LOCATED AND LOCATED AT LEAST 10-FEET AWAY FROM THE EXISTING POOL. IT IS IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE PLAN AS REPLACEMENT LEACH FIELD IN WHITE ON THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE ONLY AREA THAT CAN BE DESIGNATED REPLACEMENT AREA BECAUSE IT IS UNPAVED OUTSIDE OF THE 100-FOOT RADIUS OF ANY WELLS AND AT LEAST 10-FEET AWAY FROM THE POOL. BASED ON THE SITE MAP, THE PROPOSED AREA FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS THE ONLY AVAILABLE SPACE TO PUT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHOUT INFRINGING ON ANY WELL AND SEPTIC REQUIREMENTS OR OTHER SETBACKS IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE. THE PROJECT SITE IS DESIGNATED MCSWAIN RURAL RESIDENTIAL CENTER AND AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE IN THE GENERAL PLAN. THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE MERCED COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, GOAL LU-2 AND POLICY LU-2.3 RELATING TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL CENTERS AND LIMITING THEIR USES TO STRICT, [00:05:07] STRICTLY RESIDENTIAL USES. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROJECT WOULD MEET ALL OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE R-R RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT, SUCH AS HEIGHT, FRONT, SIDE, INTERIOR AND REAR SETBACKS, AND MAXIMUM STRUCTURE COVERAGE. THE PROJECT WOULD ALSO MEET ALL STANDARDS IN CHAPTER 18.32 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE HAS BEEN FOUND TO MEET ALL STANDARDS WITHIN CHAPTER 13.24 WHEN IT RELATES TO SITE TRIANGLES. PURSUANT TO MERCED COUNTY ZONING CODE, SECTION 18.126.050 AND GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 65906, A VARIANCE MAY ONLY BE APPROVED AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES THE FOLLOWING REQUIRED FINDINGS. THESE CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE 7 OF THE STAFF REPORT. TO QUICKLY SUMMARIZE, THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE PROPERTY. THE PROJECT SITE ABUTS TWO COUNTY RIGHT OF WAYS PRINCE WILLIAM'S COURT AND QUEEN ELIZABETH DRIVE. UNLIKE INTERIOR PARCELS WITH THE SAME ZONING WHERE THE SETBACK IS FIVE FEET FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, THIS PARCEL IS A CORNER LOT AND THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WOULD NEED TO BE 50FT FROM BOTH RIGHT OF WAYS. ADDITIONALLY, DUE TO WELL AND SEPTIC REQUIREMENTS PER THE LAMP, THE PARCEL MUST ALSO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE EXISTING WELL SEPTIC SYSTEM AND THE REPLACEMENT AREA. 2. STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING CODE WOULD LEAVE THE APPLICANT WITH NO FEASIBLE LOCATION FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH CURRENT AND ANY FUTURE UTILITIES. INTERIOR PARCELS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE ABLE TO SET BACK ACCESSORY STRUCTURES 5-FEET FROM THEIR PROPERTY LINE, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CONSTRAINED FROM DUAL FRONT SETBACKS. STRICT COMPLIANCE WOULD DENY THE PROPERTY OWNER THEIR RIGHT TO BUILD A SECOND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, AS PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE ZONING CODE. 3. APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. THE VARIANCE WOULD MERELY REDUCE THE SIDE STREET SETBACK FROM 50FT TO 15FT FOR A SINGLE NON-HABITABLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT IS ALREADY A PERMITTED USE UNDER THE ZONING CODE. AND FINALLY, 4. THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS A STORAGE BUILDING, WHICH IS A USE EXPRESSLY ALLOWED IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE UNDER CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE MERCED COUNTY ZONING CODE. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT INTRODUCE ANY NEW USES. INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BEYOND WHAT IS ALREADY PERMITTED IN THE ZONING CODE, OR CHANGE THE PERMITTED INTENSITY OF THE SITE. STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT MAY BE FOUND CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15303, NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES AND 15305 MINOR LAND ALTERATIONS IN LAND USE. LIMITATIONS OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. THE PROJECT PROPOSES TO VARY FROM THE SETBACK FOR THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE BY 35FT TO CONSTRUCT THE 1,440 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR STORAGE. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS MINOR AND ACCESSORY TO THE PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL USE ON SITE, AND WILL NOT BE USED FOR LIVING PURPOSES. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY CHANGES TO LAND USE OR DENSITY. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE, GIVEN THAT IT MEETS CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SUCH AS HEIGHT, AND DOES NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM STRUCTURE COVERAGE. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WOULD NOT IMPEDE ANY NEEDED WELL AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, PER THE LOCAL AGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN. THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD STILL ALLOW FOR ADEQUATE REPLACEMENT AREA SHOULD THE SEPTIC AND LEACH LINES FAIL. FINALLY, THE STRUCTURE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE PROJECT SITE OR THE SURROUNDING AREA. NOTICE OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING WAS PUBLISHED IN MERCED COUNTY TIMES AND MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROJECT SITE ON APRIL 30TH, 2026. NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED. GIVEN ALL THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TODAY, STAFF HAS TWO RECOMMENDATIONS. DETERMINE THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15303, NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES AND 15305 MINOR ALTERATIONS IN LAND USE LIMITATIONS. AND FINALLY, APPROVE ZONE VARIANCE NUMBER ZV-26003. BASED ON THE FINDINGS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THIS CONCLUDES STAFFS PRESENTATION. I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONERS, I HAVE A QUESTION [INAUDIBLE]. I HAD A QUICK QUESTION. DOES. IS STAFF REQUIRED TO LOOK AT ANY ELEVATIONS FOR THIS, FOR THIS STORAGE UNIT OR DOES THAT IS THAT OUT OF OUT OF THEIR DECISION MAKING? WE DID SEE ELEVATIONS AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. YES. THEY WERE SUBMITTED TO US. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN I'M NOT SURE IF I, IF IT WAS MENTIONED, I, AND I MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT. SO HOW FAR IS A SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO GET TO? SO THEY ARE PROPOSING TO BE A SETBACK 15FT FROM THE, WHAT WOULD BE THE SIDE STREET SETBACK. AND JUST ONE LAST QUESTION. NORMALLY, IF IT WASN'T A CORNER LOT, WHAT WOULD THE SETBACK REQUIRED? FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IF IT WAS NOT A CORNER LOT, THE SIDE SETBACK WOULD BE 5-FEET. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYMORE? NO? OKAY, SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. [00:10:03] AT THIS TIME, IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE STEP FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. HELLO. THANK YOU I WENT AND TALKED TO ALL MY NEIGHBORS TO SEE IF THEY WERE GOING TO BE OKAY WITH ME PUTTING A STORAGE THING THERE. MOSTLY I NEED IT BECAUSE I OPERATE FOUR BUSINESSES HERE DOWNTOWN, A COUPLE RESTAURANTS, MY TATTOO SHOP, AND THEN THE BUILDING THAT I OWN DOWNTOWN. SO WE GOT A LOT OF OVERFLOW AND I GOT A LOT OF TOOLS TO MAINTENANCE ALL THESE PLACES. SO IT'S REALLY WHAT I NEED IT FOR. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO GIVE YOU GUYS THESE NEIGHBOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORMS THAT I HAD EVERYBODY FILL OUT OR IF IT REALLY MATTERS OR NOT. SO KIND OF UP TO YOU GUYS. THIS PERTAIN TO THIS SPECIFIC ITEM? YEAH. I MEAN, I JUST WENT AND ASKED ALL MY NEIGHBORS AND HAD THEM SIGN A PAPER SAYING IF THEY CARED OR DIDN'T CARE THAT I BUILT A ACCESSORY. OH, OKAY GOTCHA. I THINK THAT'S BRILLIANT, BY THE WAY. [LAUGHTER]. AND, AND IF YOU'RE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH IN THOSE LETTERS, THAT'S A REALLY GUTSY MOVE. SO I, I BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE TELLING US THE TRUTH. YOU'LL TALK TO THEM INSTEAD OF PAYING ALL THIS MONEY FOR A VARIANCE AND THEN TRYING TO GET PERMITS AND THEN SOMEONE THROW A FIT. RIGHT? SO. WELL THANK YOU SO MUCH. KIND OF TORE MY ROTATOR CUFF THE OTHER DAY, SO [LAUGHTER]. YEAH. ANY OTHER LIKE SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CALL FOR A MOTION. SMALL STRUCTURES AND 15305 THE. MR. CHAIR, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO DETERMINE THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303, NEW CONSTRUCTIONS OR CONVERSIONS OF SMALL STRUCTURES AND 15305 MINOR ALTERATIONS IN LAND USE LIMITATIONS. SECOND. OKAY. SECOND. ALL THOSE. MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION MOVED. WE NEED. WE NEED YOUR VOICE ON THE RECORDING D. NOT A PROBLEM. I KNEW WHAT IT WAS. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION FOR THE PROJECT DETERMINATION TO APPROVE ZONE VARIANCE NUMBER ZV26-003. BASED ON THE FINDINGS, INCLUDING THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. A MOTION. SECOND. THAT A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION MOVED. ON TO SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA. ZCTA26-001. JUST THAT THE POWERPOINT. PUT IT UP HERE FOR YOU. THAT'S NOT IT OH, THANK YOU FOR THAT. BACK TO THE VERY BEGINNING HERE. THERE WE GO. IT IS NOT MOVING. THERE YOU GO THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. MY NAME IS MARK HAMILTON. I'M ONE OF THE PLANNERS WITH THE CAMERA SAID THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER, MEMBERS COMMISSION AND STAFF. BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING IS ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ZCTA26-001. IT IS TO AMEND MULTIPLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT STATE AND HOUSING LAWS, AS WELL AS OTHER UPDATES WE'VE DISCOVERED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, IF NOT PAST YEAR. THERE ARE BASICALLY EITHER WEREN'T IN COMPLIANCE OR JUST BECOME OUTDATED JUST OVER THE YEARS WITH OTHER DIFFERENT AGENCIES. [00:15:02] SO INCLUSIONS INCLUDED ADDITIONAL DWELLINGS IN VARIOUS SECTIONS. THE INCORPORATION OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITH CURRENT MARKET TRENDS RECENTLY ADOPTED HOUSING LAWS LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE. SOME OTHER CLARIFICATION AND WE FOUND SOME INTERESTING THINGS WITH OUR ZONING CODE WHERE ONE SECTION WOULD RECOMMEND A CERTAIN COMPONENT OR A USE PERMIT OR ANOTHER SECTION WOULD BASICALLY YOU COULDN'T APPLY FOR, EVEN THOUGH ANOTHER SECTION SAID YOU COULD. SO WE WERE TRYING TO BRING A LOT OF OUR CODES, BASICALLY THOSE IDIOSYNCRASIES INTO CONFORMANCE AND WOULD WORK WITH EACH OTHER VERSUS AGAINST EACH OTHER. AND SO SOME OF THOSE THINGS WERE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS, ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL STANDARDS, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. THEY HAD RECENTLY. RECENTLY, THE STATE HAD RECENTLY ADOPTED PARAMETERS FOR ARTISAN FOODS, WHICH IS BASICALLY HANDMADE FOODS. THAT'S SOMETHING NEW THAT I LEARNED THIS PAST YEAR, BUT IT'S A PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT. BUT IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAD TO ADD INCLUDED. IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAD TO INCLUDE THAT IN OUR ZONING CODE TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO WERE COMING TO OUR FRONT COUNTER COULD THEN SEE THAT THEY COULD APPLY FOR ARTISAN FOOD. AND SO I ALWAYS HAVE TO ASK US IF THEY COULD OR NOT. IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE KIND OF CONTEXTS. THE AMENDMENTS INCLUDE BASICALLY THE INCLUDES AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18.10 WHICH IS RESIDENT AGRICULTURAL ZONES. THE 18.12, WHICH IS OUR RESIDENTIAL ZONES. 18.14 FOR OUR COMMERCIAL ZONES. AND ALL THESE ALL HAVE EITHER RESIDENTIAL USES THAT'S PERMITTED OR THEY HAVE OTHER COMPONENTS THAT NEED TO BE UPDATED WITH A HELIPORT INCLUSION THAT WASN'T BEFORE, IN OUR ZONING CODE ANYONE WAS THE. JUST SEE, BECAUSE SOME AGRICULTURAL ZONES HAVE RESIDENTIAL PERMITTED BY RIGHT AND DUE TO CURRENT HOUSING LAWS. AND THIS IS ALSO IN THE COMMERCIAL AS WELL DUE TO COMMERCIAL CURRENT HOUSING LAWS. WHENEVER A HOUSING USE IS PERMITTED, WE HAVE TO ALLOW FOR SECONDARY UNITS. WE ALSO HAD UPDATES WITH OUR SECONDARY DWELLINGS BECAUSE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SECONDARY DWELLING AND AN ADU. AND WE TRY TO PROVIDE, WE TRY TO PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE CLARITY IN THE DIFFERENTIAL ASPECTS OF THAT. LET'S SEE HERE THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS WHERE WE FOUND THE INCONSISTENCIES THE COTTAGE FOOD, WHICH IS THE ARTESIAN FOOD, ESSENTIALLY. HOUSING ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS, SIGN REGULATIONS MINOR TECHNICAL CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT. I MENTIONED THE ORDINANCES. LET'S SEE THE CLARIFICATIONS SECTION. THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION WITH THE 100 FEET, SO WE PROVIDED A CLARITY IN THE 99 OR 100FT AND A LITTLE MORE CLARITY IN THAT SENSE, BECAUSE A STAFF AT THE FRONT COUNTER WITH 100FT COMPONENT, WE ARE ALWAYS GETTING CALLS FROM WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES ASKING US WHICH ONE IS IT? AND WE WOULD GET THOSE CALLS. AND SO WE HAD TO FIND A WAY TO PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE CLARITY FOR THOSE CALLERS WHEN THEY ARE REVIEWING OUR CODE. I DID PROVIDE ON YOUR DAIS THE HIGHLIGHTS. SO I DID WANT TO PROVIDE YOU GUYS. I KNOW IT'S KIND OF SMALL TEXT ON THE SCREEN, BUT I DID PROVIDE YOU WITH A DOCUMENT ON THE DAIS THAT KIND OF ALLOWS YOU TO KIND OF LOOK AT THE SYNOPSIS, IF YOU WILL, OF ALL THE PROPOSED CHANGES. AND THIS IS BASICALLY KIND OF A BREAKDOWN OF EITHER ADDING, SUBTRACTING, PROVIDING DIRECTION OR CLARITY, IF YOU WILL, FOR OUR ZONING CODE UPDATES. I WAS KIND OF. APPROVES TO THOSE THE MERCED COUNTY TIMES. THE WESTSIDE EXPRESS WAS ON APRIL 29TH AND THE MERCED COUNTY TIMES WAS ON APRIL 30TH. DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BEING COUNTYWIDE, THERE WASN'T A DIRECT LOCATION TO PROPERTY OWNERS DIRECTLY, BUT IT WAS BASICALLY A BLANKETED NOTICE TO THE ENTIRE COUNTY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE WEST AND THE EAST SIDE. WE DID NOT RECEIVE WRITTEN OR VERBAL COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE PUBLISHING OF OUR STAFF REPORT, BUT WE DID RECEIVE A COMMENT LETTER DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD, WHICH IS YESTERDAY FROM CAL H. CALVARY GROUP, WHICH WE DID PROVIDE A COPY OF THAT LETTER FOR YOU ON THE DAIS. AND WE DID PROVIDE COPIES TO THE COMMUNITY. AND WE DID HAVE, AND I ACTUALLY DID HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT. AND WE WILL PROVIDE OUR SYNOPSIS OF OUR COMMENTS LATER ON THE PRESENTATION. THE. THESE ARE THE SOME OF THE PROPOSED FINDINGS. SO BASICALLY STAFF HAS FOUND THE PROJECT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR GENERAL PLAN. BASICALLY IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT, BEING WITH LAND USE ELEMENTS AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF OUR GENERAL PLAN. WE ALSO FOUND THE PROJECT WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO ANY PUBLIC INTEREST. IT IS JUST MORE OF THE TO BRING THE ZONING CODE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT LAWS. [00:20:02] CURRENT SCOPE OR PROVISIONS OF DIFFERENT AGENCIES THAT WE WORK WITH BEING A, B, C OR HEALTH AND OUR HEALTH DIVISION. BUT IT'S ALSO TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR CODE IS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH OUR HOUSING ELEMENT AND WITH STATE HOUSING LAWS. BUT WE, WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR ZONING CODE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH HCD AND THE, OUR DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT THAT WE ARE PROPOSING THAT WILL HOPEFULLY BE PRESENTED TO YOU SHORTLY. AND MAKE SURE THAT WAS ALL IN COMPLIANCE AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE BASICALLY TRYING TO BE AS PROACTIVE AS WE COULD WITH OUR ZONING CODE UPDATES AS WE COULD WITH OUR HOUSING ELEMENT, AND IT WOULD BE KIND OF BROUGHT WITH EACH OTHER. THESE WERE THE CEQA FINDINGS. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAWS. CORRECT CLERICAL ERRORS AND CONSISTENCIES. ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE WHAT THIS IS TRYING TO GET AT IS BASICALLY DEMONSTRATING THAT THIS IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW, THAT THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS ARE NOT ACTUALLY CLASSIFIED AS A PROJECT PER CEQA STATE LAW OR CEQA LAW, AND THAT THE PROJECT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED EXEMPT. AND JUST BASED UPON THESE CORRECTIONS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TODAY, THESE AMENDMENTS WE'RE PROPOSING TODAY. THE MOTION BEFORE YOU IS TO RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO FIND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT EXEMPT FROM REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS. SECTION 15061 THE COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION. SECTION 15378(B)(5), WHICH IS THE DEFINITION OF A PROJECT WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO SAY THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY A PROJECT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT PROPOSE ANY DEVELOPMENT, DOESN'T PROPOSE ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION. IT DOESN'T PROPOSE ANY NEW USES THAT ARE NOT ALREADY BEING CONSIDERED WITHIN OUR ZONING CODE. IT JUST MAINLY JUST PROVIDES CORRECTIONS AND UPDATES AND CLARIFICATIONS FOR OUR CURRENT USES. SECONDLY, THE PROJECT DETERMINATION WOULD BE IS TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ADOPT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ZCTA26-001 AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE TITLE 18 ZONING CODE. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE COUNCIL OR THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MARK? YEAH, JUST THIS LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED, WHICH IS ALWAYS FRUSTRATING THE DAY BEFORE, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW, HAVE TIME TO PROCESS IT BEFORE FROM THE CALHDF BUT THEY BRING UP A LOT OF CONCERNS ON THE ADU ORDINANCES AND STUFF. HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THAT LETTER AND DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS ANY OF THAT OR? YES. WELL THANK YOU FOR THAT. YES. STAFF DID REVIEW THIS LETTER. WE DID GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT AND COMPARE IT WITH WHAT WE DID PROPOSE IN OUR ZONING CODE UPDATE. STAFF IS ACTUALLY IS IN COMPLIANCE IS SUPPORT OF THE COMMENT LETTER. AND WE ARE LOOKING TO INCORPORATE THOSE COMMENTS. THEY DID MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS WHERE I ADMIT WE DID MISS THAT SECTION OR OTHER SECTION WHERE WE'RE THANKFUL THAT THEY DID FIND THAT TO MAKE SURE WE CAN GET THAT CORRECTED BEFORE IT MOVES ON TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. SO WE WOULD ASK THE COMMISSION TO INCLUDE IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION THAT THAT STAFF TO INCORPORATE THOSE COMMENTS INTO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. SO WE CAN MOTION. MOTION? OH. I'M SORRY. I ALWAYS DO THAT. I WAS OPEN, YOU KNOW, OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT. IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME, PLEASE STEP FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. OKAY. SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT. NOW WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE MOTION. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ONE THING FOR YOU TO MAKE THE MOTION IS I DID THE INCLUSION OF THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES DESCRIBED IN THE CALHFA SHOULD BE UNDER THE PROJECT DETERMINATION, NOT UNDER THE CEQA. I. WHEN I MADE MY PRESENTATION THIS MORNING, I WAS KIND OF QUICK TO GET THAT ADDITION IN THERE THAT I PUT UNDER THE WRONG SECTION. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS CLEAR. WHEN YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT THAT RECOMMENDATION. IF I CAN, I THINK WE, AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ARE NOT ADOPTING THE LETTER THAT THE WHOMEVER SENT TO US. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THEY WILL INCORPORATE THEIR COMMENTS INTO THE NEW ZONING TEXT CHANGES. IF I CAN MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION. YEAH. THANK YOU. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FIND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT FOR SECTION 15061, SECTION 15378 (B)(5), SECTION 15162 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES BASED ON THE 2019 ADDENDUM TO THE [00:25:05] 2030 MERCED COUNTY OF FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. INCLUSION OF THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES AS DESCRIBED WITHIN THE COMMENT LETTER RECEIVED FROM CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND ON MAY 12TH, 2026. SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MAYBE ONE OPPOSED MOTION MOVED. JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE A CLARIFICATION ON THE BOTTOM BULLET. I THINK MARK HAMILTON WAS POINTING OUT THAT THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE PROJECT DETERMINATION. IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT IS CORRECT. I ACCIDENTALLY PUT THAT IN THE WRONG SECTION IN MY. BECAUSE YOU MAY NEED TO DO AN AMENDED MOTION. COUNCIL. DO YOU KNOW? WHERE THEY WERE AT? DO I JUST REPEAT THE MOTION AND EXCLUDE THE LAST BULLET POINT? THAT WOULD WORK SO I'LL MOTION TO RECOMMEND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FIND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061 (B)(3), SECTION 15378 (B)(5), SECTION 15162 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES BASED ON THE 2019 ADDENDUM TO THE 2030 MERCED COUNTY FINAL PROGRAM, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. THAT IS FOR THAT MOTION. AND I'LL SECOND THAT. MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSED. TO THE PROJECT DETERMINATION. MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT NUMBER ZCTA26-001 AND AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 18 OF THE MERCED COUNTY CODE. SECOND. ACTUALLY, CAN WE GET A MOTION POTENTIALLY AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE INCLUSION OF THE CHANGES? DO YOU WANT TO AMEND TO INCLUDE THE LAST BULLET POINT? YEAH. SO. I'LL ALSO ADD TO THAT MOTION TO ADD THE INCLUSION OF THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES AS DESCRIBED WITHIN THE COMMENT LETTER RECEIVED FROM CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND ON MAY 12TH, 2026. SECOND. A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSED. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR THOSE AMENDED MOTIONS. [7. COMMISSION ACTION ITEM(S)] MAY 19TH, 2026 AT 1:30 P.M. HERE AT 2222 M STREET, 3RD FLOOR, HERE IN MERCED. DIRECTOR'S REPORT. NONE COMMISSIONERS REPORTS. COMMENTS. NONE. OKAY, SO WE WILL ADJOURN. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.