[VI. A. Stormwater Basin Annexation to the City of Los Banos - LAFCO File No. 0707: Involving annexation of new stormwater ponds and related municipal facilities operated by the City of Los Banos for surface and stormwater capture, as well as incidental groundwater recharge. The property consists of 187.4 acres of land located on the east side of the San Luis Canal and west of Santa Fe Grade, approximately one-half mile south of Henry Miller Road (Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 082-020-024, 424-010-004 and 073-220-14). The actions requested are to make an environmental determination that the Commission has reviewed and considered the “City of Los Banos Basins and Storm Water Capture Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration” prepared by the City of Los Banos, and approve, modify or deny the annexation.]

AND THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING IS THE STORMWATER BASIN ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF LOS BANOS, ITS LAFCO FILE NUMBER 707. AND MR. NICHOLSON, YOU WANT TO DO THE PRESENTATION? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YES, I HAVE A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION FOR THIS.

SO AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS IS THE STORMWATER POND ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF LOS BANOS CITY OWNED PROPERTY.

JUST KIND OF A CLEANUP ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.

THEY ALREADY OWN THE LAND. SO IT'S TO PUT IT IN THE CITY LIMITS.

LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET IT TO. THERE WE GO. SO THE PROPERTY IS 187.4 ACRES.

AND AGAIN, IT'S PUTTING PROPERTY INTO THE CITY LIMITS AS A PROPOSAL.

AND THE PONDS ARE FOR BOTH FLOOD PROTECTION AND GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND OTHER RELATED WATER BENEFITS FOR THE WEST SIDE. I HAVE A MAP COMING UP WITH THE PROPERTIES ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SAN LUIS CANAL AND WEST TO SANTA FE GRADE, WHICH RUNS PARALLEL TO THE LARGE FEDERALLY OWNED SAN LUIS DRAIN ON THE NORTHEASTERN AND THE AREAS ON THE NORTHEASTERN SIDE OF THE CITY.

AND FOR THIS SLIDE, THERE'S A LITTLE TAG ON THERE ABOUT PROJECT SITE, BUT IT'S WAY UP IN THE NORTHEAST WHERE THAT RED BAND IS AT THE VERY TOP, BELOW THE GRAY, WHICH WAS THE OLD RIGHT OF WAY OF 152.

IT'S THE PROPERTY RIGHT TO THE EAST OF THAT. AND HERE'S AN AERIAL OF THE AREA WITH THE PONDS, THE NEW PONDS IDENTIFIED IN BLACK AND THE CITY LIMITS IS A RED DASHED LINE.

AND THE KIND OF SILVERY AREA TO THE EAST IS CITY SEWER PONDS.

SO THIS AREA IS TUCKED IN BETWEEN THE CITY LIMITS AND MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL, EXISTING PROJECTS.

AND THEN THE CITY LIMITS ON THE EAST ARE THE SEWER PONDS.

THERE'S ACTUALLY A LITTLE CONNECTION THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE SEWER PONDS, AND IT'S A 250 FOOT STRIP OF LAND THAT'S IN THE CITY LIMITS THAT MADE A PHYSICAL TIE TO THE CITY FOR THE SEWER PONDS.

AND THIS IS JUST A BLOW UP OF ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS FROM THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY SHOWING A CLOSE UP OF THE PONDS, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE. AND THERE'S THAT ANGLE LINE COMING ACROSS, AND THAT'S THE SEWER OUTFALL LINE FROM THE CITY LEADING OVER TO THE SEWER PONDS, CUTTING ACROSS THE CITY LIMITS AGAIN, ARE ON THE WEST, AND THEY KIND OF CUT THROUGH THE CENTER AND THEY GO TO THE EAST SIDE.

THAT CROSSHATCH AREA IS IN THE CITY LIMITS ALREADY FOR THE SEWER PONDS.

AND THEN THIS IS JUST TECHNICALLY THE MAP, WHICH IS HARD TO READ ON THE POWERPOINT, BUT IT'S THE ACTUAL ENGINEERS DRAWING OF THE ANNEXATION WITH THE CORRESPONDING LITTLE LEGAL DESCRIPTION. WHILE I HAVE THE MAPS UP, ONE OF THE ISSUES OR THE.

[00:05:07]

AS FAR AS STAFF, THE ONLY ISSUE THAT CAME UP WAS THAT THE EASTERN BOUNDARY FOLLOWING SANTA FE GRADE, THE CITY HAS PROPOSED THAT IT BE THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROAD BE USED AS THE BOUNDARY.

WE GOT CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD TAKE THE WHOLE ROAD, NOT JUST LEAVE A STRIP.

AND ON THE SOUTHERN AREA NEXT TO THE SEWER PONDS.

THIS THE SEWER PONDS INCLUDE THE EASTERN 30FT OF SANTA FE GRADE ALREADY.

SO IF WE LEAVE OUT THIS WESTERN 30FT, THEN THE CITY WILL EXIST ON BOTH SIDES OF A 30 FOOT STRIP OF COUNTY FOR THE ROAD. NOW ROAD MAINTENANCE IS REALLY THE ISSUE.

PROBABLY WHY IT WAS NOT INCLUDED, BUT NORMALLY ANNEXATIONS INCLUDE FULL ROADS FOR MOST.

DEFINITELY FOR CITY ANNEXATIONS AND MOST URBAN ANNEXATIONS FOR SERVICE DISTRICTS.

SO WE HAVE THE FACTORS FOR EVALUATION THAT WE USE WHICH ARE FOCUSED ON THE STATE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE [INAUDIBLE] ACT. AND THE FIRST ONE IS THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE REORGANIZATION BOUNDARIES AND POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES.

SO AGAIN, THE TERRITORIES CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS, AND I DID MENTION IT AS A 250 FOOT STRIP OF CITY PROPERTY AND CITY LIMITS THAT GOES THROUGH THE POND AREA. SO IT'S KIND OF SPLIT BY THE CITY ALREADY.

AND THE LAST POINT THERE AGAIN IS ABOUT THIS ROAD STRIP OF SANTA FE GRADE BY EITHER USING THE CENTER LINE AND LEAVING 30FT IN THE COUNTY AND 30FT IN THE CITY OR ANNEXING THE ENTIRE ROAD AND STAFF IS SUPPORTING WHAT THE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS HAD RECOMMENDED, JUST TO HAVE A LOGICAL BOUNDARY THAT IT'S ALL IN ONE JURISDICTION AND NOT HAVE A STRIP OF COUNTY SURROUNDED BY THE CITY.

SO JUST, WITHOUT READING ALL THIS, THAT'S REALLY THE SUMMARY OF IT.

AND YEAH, IT WAS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS JUST ARGUED AND THE COPY OF THEIR EMAIL IS IN THE PACKET THAT IT'S MORE FOR AVOID SPLIT ROADWAY MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY. AND ALSO IF THERE'S ANY ISSUES, LIKE IF THERE WAS AN ACCIDENT OR SOMETHING TO FIGURE OUT WITH THE CAUSE IN THE CITY SIDE OR THE COUNTY SIDE. AND SO IT CREATES MORE HEADACHES IN THE LONG RUN.

IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN, IT IS WITHIN THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AREA, AND THE CITY HAS DESIGNATED THE PROPERTY AS CIVIC INSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC USE. AND THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION SHOWS A PUBLIC FACILITY PF DESIGNATION.

AND THEY'VE PRE ZONED THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT.

OR THE ZONING IS THE PF ZONING. IN TERMS OF PUBLIC SERVICES, THIS IS UNIQUE.

IT'S NOT LIKE A DEVELOPMENT WHERE IT NEEDS SEWER AND WATER AND ROADS AND OTHER OTHER SCHOOLS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

IT'S A PUBLIC FACILITY. SO IT'S ACTUALLY A PART OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE CITY AND KNEADING THE PONDS THAT THEY'RE INSTALLING. RIGHT NOW TO BE IN THE CITY LIMITS IS THE DESIRE.

DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE CITY OWNS IT, BUT IT MAKES MORE SENSE.

THERE'S NO TAX. THE CITY OWNS IT. SO THERE'S NO PROPERTY TAX COLLECTED.

SO IT'S MORE OF A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE OF PUTTING IT IN THE CITY LIMITS.

THE CITY HAS FULL CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY. AND YEAH, THE ANNEXATION IS HELPING IMPLEMENT THE CITY OF LOS BANOS BASINS AND STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, WHICH WAS TO SOLVE HISTORIC FLOODING PROBLEMS IN THE CITY AND ACTUALLY WORKING WITH AG DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE THE BENEFICIAL REUSE OF THAT WATER IN THE REGION.

SO IN TERMS OF OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURE, THERE IS FARMLAND ON THE AREA THAT'S GOING TO BE USED FOR THE PONDS.

AND IT IS. I GUESS IT WAS DESIGNATED PRIME FARMLAND, BUT THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CONCLUDED IT WOULD NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.

AND JUST QUOTING THE DOCUMENT, THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE CONVERSION IS TO SUPPORT ONGOING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS BY UTILIZING STORMWATER THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE UNAVAILABLE TO THE SERVICE AREA AND BY ENHANCING GROUNDWATER RECHARGE.

SO IN A SENSE, THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO HELP THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY BY IMPROVING FLOOD PROTECTION AND THEN ALSO REUSING THAT WATER FOR BENEFITS FOR GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND RELATED AG AND HABITAT USE WITH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE GRASSLANDS FOR HABITAT USE. SO IT'S KIND OF A WASH, SO TO SPEAK, ON THE IMPACT.

[00:10:04]

AND YEAH, THE CITY INDICATED THAT THE PONDS ARE SPECIFICALLY LOCATED IN THIS AREA TO TIE INTO EXISTING CANALS AND DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THAT THE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN FOR THE AREA SUPPORTS THE GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND FLOOD WATER CAPTURE PROJECT.

SO THEY'RE COORDINATING THIS EFFORT WITH THE WATER GOALS OF THE WEST SIDE.

AND IT'S ALSO NOT IN THE WILLIAMSON ACT AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE.

SO WE DON'T HAVE AN IMPACT IN THAT REGARD. IN TERMS OF CORRESPONDENCE, AGAIN, I JUST READ THE COUNTY SURVEYOR'S OFFICE HAD SOME MINOR CORRECTIONS TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION. AND WE DID NOT ASK THE CITY TO REVISE THAT BECAUSE OF THE ISSUE OVER THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY, WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE THE FULL ROAD OR ONLY A 30 FOOT HALF WIDTH.

BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND THE MAP HAS TO REFLECT THE CORRECT DECISION.

SO WE'RE WAITING FOR THE RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION MEETING TODAY TO HAVE THE OTHER REVISIONS MADE FOR THE SURVEYORS.

ANOTHER UNIQUE THING IS, USUALLY ON THE WEST SIDE, WHEN PROPERTY IS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY.

IF IT'S IN CCID, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, THE DISTRICT WANTS THAT LAND DETACHED.

AND THEY MOVED THE WATER RIGHTS TIED TO THAT PROPERTY TO OTHER LAND.

AND IN THIS CASE, THIS AREA IS NOT WITHIN CCID.

SO JUST MENTIONING THAT IT'S UNUSUAL. THAT'S USUALLY A TOPIC THAT COMES UP.

AND IN THIS CASE, IT'S NOT IN CCID. AND THEN THERE WAS A LETTER FROM AL BUENROSTRO, SUPERVISING ENGINEER FROM PUBLIC WORKS, AGAIN SUPPORTING THE FULL RIGHT OF WAY.

AND GIVEN THE ARGUMENTS WHY, THAT'S IMPORTANT.

WE ALSO GOT A LATE CORRESPONDENCE. AND UNFORTUNATELY I PASSED OUT ALL THE COPIES.

SO DANIELLE, DO YOU STILL HAVE A COPY OF THAT EMAIL? OR.

YEAH. I GOT AN EMAIL LAST EVENING FROM PING YU, WHO'S A NEIGHBORING LANDOWNER ON 829 PLACE ROAD.

AND THEY SAID IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THIS ANNEXATION PROPOSAL.

AND THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE PONDS ON THEIR PROPERTY AND TALK ABOUT POTENTIAL INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND WORRIES ABOUT GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE, HYDROLOGICAL CONTROLS, FUGITIVE DEATH SUPPRESSION, VECTOR CONTROL AND PERIMETER SECURITY AND FENCING FOR SAFETY.

SO THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES. WHAT I MENTIONED IS THIS IS A CITY PROJECT.

IT'S ON CITY OWNED LAND. IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

IT IS IS A CONVENIENCE FOR THE CITY. IT HAS NO BEARING ON THE CITY OPERATING THEIR OWN FACILITIES.

SO FOR LAFCO'S PERSPECTIVE, THESE ARE ISSUES FOR THE CITY TO ADDRESS WITH THE NEIGHBORING OWNER AND WHETHER IT SHOULD BE ANNEXED OR NOT, THESE ISSUES ABOUT ARE THERE OFFSITE IMPACTS? NOT ONLY SHOULD THEY BE ADDRESSED DURING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CITY, WHICH WAS A VERY DETAILED INITIAL STUDY DOCUMENT.

THIS IS A COPY OF ALL THE RESEARCH. BUT AGAIN, IT'S OPERATED AS A MUNICIPAL FACILITY BY THE CITY.

SO AGAIN, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE RECEIVE THIS INPUT.

AND OF COURSE WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING OPPORTUNITY TODAY, BUT THE IMPACTS ARE BETWEEN THE CITY AND NEIGHBORING LANDOWNERS AND WHETHER IT'S IN THE CITY LIMITS OR NOT HAS NO BEARING ON THAT. LAFCO HAS NO CONTROL OVER HOW THE CITY OPERATES THESE PONDS.

AND SO THERE WAS NO OTHER CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED ON THAT.

IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. AGAIN, THE CITY DID DO AN INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN HIS ROLE AS LEAD AGENCY.

AND THE PROJECT WAS CALLED THE CITY OF LOS BANOS BASINS AND STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT.

AND THE CITY APPROVED THAT IN 2024. AND AGAIN, THE PROJECT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED THAT BASED ON THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THEIR MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAMS, THAT THE PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTIPLE MITIGATION MEASURES.

AND I THINK THEY ADOPTED THIS THROUGH RESOLUTION 6885 BACK IN FEBRUARY 19TH OF 2025.

AND AGAIN, WITH THIS TYPE OF FACILITY, NONE OF THESE MITIGATION MEASURES ARE UNDER LAFCO'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ADOPT OR MONITOR.

[00:15:08]

SO BASED ON THAT SUMMARY IN YOUR STAFF REPORT IN YOUR PACKET, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE COMMISSION MAKE AN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING AND DETERMINATION THAT'S REFERENCED IN PAGE SEVEN, SECTION III.A OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT ON PAGE 4.

MAKE THE SEVEN DETERMINATIONS IN SECTION III.B ON THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT ON PAGES 4 AND 5.

ASSIGN THE ANNEXATION, THE SHORT FORM DESIGNATION.

STORMWATER POND ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF LOS BANOS THEN APPROVE THE ANNEXATION WITH NO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. SO. YEAH.

BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION NOW TO CLEAR MY MIND.

THIS BUSINESS ABOUT THE ROAD. AND IF THE COMMISSION VOTES TO APPROVE THIS TODAY, THEN THE OTHER HALF OF THE ROAD IS GOING TO BE DETERMINED AT A LATER DATE BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY, THEN IS THAT WHAT'S.

THIS IS PART OF YOUR DECISION. WOULD YOU SUPPORT INCLUDING THE FULL RIGHT OF WAY OF THE ROAD, WHICH IS WHAT THE COUNTY WANTS, OR JUST ANNEXING HALF THE ROAD WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THIS STORMWATER POND AREA? COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL HAS A COMMENT AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING.

YEAH. THANK YOU. AND THAT THAT THAT WAS THE SAME QUESTION I WAS GOING TO HAVE.

AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD DO THE FULL ROAD INTO IT.

I MEAN, THE CITY OF LOS BANOS AND THE COUNTY ARE GETTING ALONG VERY WELL.

ELECTIONS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE CHANGE. AND I THINK IF WE DO THAT DETERMINATION AHEAD OF TIME NOW, IT PUTS A FULL RESPONSIBILITY. I MEAN, WE HAVE PROJECTS GOING WITH THE CITY OF MERCED NOW THAT WE WORK VERY WELL TOGETHER.

LOS BANOS VERY WELL, BUT WHO KNOWS IN YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.

SO I THINK THAT WE SHOULD MAKE THAT DETERMINATION GOING FORWARD.

OKAY. IT'S 10:28. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.

IF ANYONE HAS ANY COMMENTS OR WOULD LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING, NOW IS YOUR TIME TO COME UP.

STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND WHAT YOUR CONCERN IS.

ANYONE? OH, IF YOU WANT TO LOWER THE. IT'S OKAY. WAIT A MINUTE.

OH, IT'S GOT TO BE OVER HERE. SHE GOT IT. YOU'RE ON, STACY.

ALL RIGHT, STACY SOUZA ELMS, CITY OF LOS BANOS COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.

AND I RESIDE IN THE CITY OF LOS BANOS. JUST FIRST OFF, THANK YOU TO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NICHOLSON FOR THE REPORT, AND THE SUPPORT. AND JUST WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A WHILE AND HIS GUIDANCE, WE REALLY APPRECIATE HIS HELP.

AND JUST SOME POINTS OF CLARIFICATION. SO THE CITY IS WORKING WITH OUR SURVEYOR TO MAKE THE CORRECTIONS THAT THE COUNTY SURVEYOR HAS PROVIDED.

SO WE'RE ABSOLUTELY GOING TO MAKE THOSE CORRECTIONS AND THEN PROVIDE THAT TO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NICHOLSON.

AND THEN REGARDING THE COMMENT ON GROUNDWATER, THE EMAIL THAT WAS RECEIVED.

SO GROUNDWATER STORAGE AND RECHARGE IS ACTUALLY FULLY DOCUMENTED WITHIN THE ADOPTED GSP, WHICH IS THE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN.

IT IDENTIFIES THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT FOR GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY WITHIN THE GSP.

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE IS TO PREVENT SUBSIDENCE.

SO FOR THE CONCERN REGARDING INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND POTENTIALLY WHAT IT'S ALLUDING TO, IS SUBSIDENCE. THIS WOULD PREVENT SUBSIDENCE FROM HAPPENING AND ACTUALLY WILL HELP THE AQUIFER AND THE WATER TABLE.

IT'S A PROJECT IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE GRASSLANDS WATER DISTRICT, AND IT'S A SOLUTION TO HELP NOT JUST STORE WATER IN BASINS, WHICH THE CITY HAS OTHER BASINS WITH SUBDIVISIONS.

THIS ONE IS DESIGNED TO ALSO RECHARGE THE AQUIFER.

DUST SUPPRESSION IS ADDRESSED THROUGH OUR APPROVED STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN, WHICH THERE IS REQUIREMENTS FOR DUST CONTROL

[00:20:07]

AND POLLUTANTS. ANY AIR POLLUTANTS THAT EXCAVATION OR CONSTRUCTION IS CREATING.

SO I'LL HAVE OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JUST CLARIFY AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE PROVIDING THE CORRECT DUST CONTROL. REGARDING MOSQUITOES. SO SPECIFICALLY FOR PLACE ROAD.

THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED WITHIN THE MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT AND THAT'S COVERED WITH THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE DISTRICT.

WE WERE NOT ANTICIPATING AND WE HAD, AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NICHOLSON STATED, WE HAVE A VERY EXTENSIVE AND THOROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT. WE'RE NOT ANTICIPATING ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OR BIOLOGICAL IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, MOSQUITOES. BUT WE CAN WORK VERY CLOSELY AND WE DO WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH THE MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT.

AND THEN THE COMMENT REGARDING PERIMETER FENCING.

THIS PROJECT IS SURROUNDED BY TWO CANALS ON BOTH SIDES.

AND SO IT'S ISOLATED FROM PUBLIC ACCESS. SO WE DON'T FEEL THAT THAT IS NECESSARY, AS THE TWO CANALS ALREADY PREVENT PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE STORM BASINS. AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE THAT I MAY NOT HAVE PROVIDED CLARITY. WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO ANNEXING THIS PROPERTY INTO THE CITY BECAUSE IT IS CITY OWNED LAND AND IT IS A CLEANUP. AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NICHOLSON STATED, FOR US, IT IS A CLEANUP ITEM THE WAY THAT THE CITY LIMITS AND YOU COULD SEE IN THOSE GRAPHICS, THOSE EXHIBITS, IT JOGS OVER TO THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.

AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO CLEAN UP SOME OF THAT CITY LIMIT AND USE THIS PROJECT AS A NATURAL BOUNDARY.

AND THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS. HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HER? OKAY. THANK YOU. NEXT, COME AND STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE.

YES. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS PING YU. THE EMAIL YOU RECEIVED WAS FROM ME LAST NIGHT.

AND I AM THE HOMEOWNER AT 829 PLACE ROAD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ADDRESSING SOME ISSUES THAT I BROUGHT UP, BUT ONE OF MY QUESTION IS.

OKAY, TALK INTO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE. ONE OF THE QUESTION IS THAT WHAT KIND OF ENGINEERING CLAY WILL YOU USE TO BLOCK THE WATER FROM SEEPING INTO THE PLACE ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD? IS THERE ANY INFORMATION ON THAT? WE HAVE NONE. DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT CAN GIVE HER? IT REALLY DOESN'T AFFECT US. BUT GO AHEAD AND GIVE IT TO HER.

AND WHATEVER YOU. IF IT NEEDS SEALING, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEAL IT WITH AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, THAT'S AVAILABLE TO HER.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DRAINAGE, THE SEEPAGE BASINS AND NOT.

THIS IS DESIGNED FOR THE WATER TO GO INTO THE GROUND.

EXACTLY. BUT WATER WILL GO HORIZONTAL. WELL, IT DOES, BUT I MEAN, THAT'S.

SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED THIS QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ON YOUR LAND THAT'S GOING TO GET RUINED IF THE WATER GOES UNDER? OH THAT. WELL IF IF THERE IS A SEEPAGE THEN IT COULD POTENTIALLY DESTABILIZE THE SOIL.

AND THIS HAPPENED IN TRACY, IN SAN DIEGO, IN SAN LEANDRO, ONE OF THOSE BASIN THAT BROKE OR JUST WATER GOING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WOULD RUIN THE FOUNDATION OF THE.

I SEE. THE HOUSE. OKAY. SO ALL RIGHT, THAT'S SOMETHING FOR YOU TO WORK OUT WITH THE CITY, THEN.

OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND ANOTHER THING IS THAT THE AIR QUALITY.

SO I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW LONG THIS PROJECT WILL BE GOING FOR.

AND SINCE WE'RE VERY CLOSE TO THE PROJECT AND IF THERE IS A WIND, WE'RE GOING TO GET A LOT OF DUST.

[00:25:05]

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE AIR QUALITY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, YOU MEAN? RIGHT. SO YEAH. HOW LONG IS THIS PROJECT TAKING? ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A PLAN TO SUPPRESS THE DUST? IS THERE ANY MECHANISM TO SUPPRESS THE DUST? DO YOU HAVE LIKE, WATER? YOU SPRAY WATER TO SUPPRESS DUST.

MY EMAIL THEN I WILL NOT REITERATE ALL THE THINGS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR SENDING IT TO US. THANK YOU.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE THE HARD COPY OF MY LETTER TO YOU.

IS THAT OKAY? LEAVE IT WITH THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:37.

RETURN IT TO THE COMMISSION FOR THEIR PLEASURE.

MR. CHAIR? YES. SO I DO APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERNS.

I'M THE MAYOR OF LOS BANOS, SO I REALLY DO APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERNS.

AND WE HAVE TALKED IN. STAFF HAS TALKED A LOT ABOUT THOSE ISSUES.

AND I THINK YOUR CONCERNS ARE VALID. AND THEY'RE BEING REALIZED AS WE GO ALONG.

THE CONSTRUCTION IS ALMOST OVER AND IT IS DESIGNED FOR THE WATER TO GO STRAIGHT DOWN.

AND ALSO THERE'S A CANAL THERE THAT ACTUALLY BETWEEN THE BASIN AND YOUR HOMES THAT WILL ALSO PROTECT IT. THIS ALSO WILL WORK GOOD BECAUSE DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS, IF THERE'S WATER STILL IN THERE, WE CAN PUMP IT BACK INTO THE CANAL FOR IRRIGATION.

SO THAT'S PART OF THAT PROJECT. AND I AM IN AGREEMENT THAT THE WHOLE ROAD SHOULD BE TAKEN IN.

THAT DOES MAKE SENSE. SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS CONSIDERED WITH THE CHANGES THAT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HAS PUT IN AND THE COUNTY.

I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. OKAY. SO YOUR MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE PROJECT, TO APPROVE THE ANNEXATION WITH THE STIPULATIONS AND THE DETERMINATIONS. AND THAT INCLUDES THE ROAD? YEAH. THE 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY. ALL RIGHT. FOR CLARIFICATION, IT ALSO INCLUDES THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION.

YES, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER AMABILE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCDONALD, THAT WE APPROVE THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF LOS BANOS.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE.

OPPOSED? MOTION IS CARRIED. OKAY. THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS THE DUNI

[VI. B. Thias Duni Reorganization Involving the Central California Irrigation District (CCID) – LAFCO File No. 0709: Involving the detachment of a 28.89 acre parcel from CCID and the annexation of a 28.89 acre portion of a larger parcel to CCID. The detachment parcel is located on the north side of Ingomar Grade, approximately one-half half mile south of Henry Miller Road, in the Ingomar area (Assessor’s Parcel Number 081-210-028), and the annexation area is located approximately 150 feet to the east consisting of a 28.89 acre portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number 081-210-025. The actions requested are to make an environmental determination that LAFCO can rely on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared and adopted by CCID for the reorganization project which concluded that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and approve, modify or deny the reorganization.]

REORGANIZATION INVOLVING THE CCID, LAFCO FILE NUMBER 709.

AND IT INVOLVES DETACHING 28.89 ACRES FROM CCID AND ANNEXING ANOTHER 28.89 ACRES, WHICH I UNDERSTAND IS ADJACENT. SO MR. NICHOLSON, YOU'RE ON.

GETTING THE POWERPOINT UP. I CAN'T HAVE TO CLOSE THAT. THERE WE GO.

OKAY, GREAT. YEAH. SO THIS PROJECT IS A FAIRLY TYPICAL APPLICATION WE GET FROM THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CCID, TO TRANSFER WATER WITHIN THEIR DISTRICT FROM.

WATER FROM WITHIN THE DISTRICT TO OTHER LAND THAT NEEDS TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE DISTRICT TO THEY DON'T WANT TO MOVE WATER OUTSIDE THEIR DISTRICT.

SO THE REQUEST IS FOR A 28.89 ACRE PARCEL OF WATER RIGHTS TO

[00:30:05]

MOVE THE WATER RIGHTS TO LAND THIS VERY CLOSE BY, LIKE 150FT AWAY AND MOVE IT THAT SAME ACREAGE OF RIGHTS TO A PARCEL OF 65 ACRES. AND THE WHOLE PURPOSE IT'S UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP, IS TO IMPROVE THE IRRIGATION WATER AVAILABILITY AND USE ON THE PROPERTY.

THIS AERIAL SHOWS THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY OF THE DETACHMENT AREA IS KIND OF HIGHLIGHTED IN A PEACH COLOR AND IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE.

WELL THERE'S A LITTLE SEPARATION BETWEEN, BUT IT'S NEXT TO THE AREA IN GREEN, WHICH IS ANNEXATION PROPERTY.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE FARMING IS ALL FAIRLY UNIFORM IN THE AREA, BUT THE ACTUAL IRRIGATION OF THE FIELDS WHERE THE GREEN ANNEXATION AREA IS, IS IRRIGATED WITH LAND TO THE EAST AND SOUTH, WHICH IS ALREADY WITHIN THE CCID BOUNDARY.

SO THIS WOULD ALLOW THE FIELD TO HAVE THE RIGHTS TO USE FULL CCID CLASS ONE WATER AND THE OTHER PROPERTY THAT THE PARCEL WAS BEING REMOVED WOULD GET EXCESS WATER FROM CCID AS CLASS TWO WHEN IT'S AVAILABLE.

BUT THEY ALSO HAVE A WELL ON THAT PROPERTY THAT THEY COULD USE IF NEEDED, IF CCID WASN'T AVAILABLE.

AND THIS IS JUST A CLOSE UP OF THE ASSESSOR'S MAP BOOK PAGE SHOWING THE ANNEXATION AREA WITH THE KIND OF THE BLUE LINES SHOWING THE CENTRAL PART OF THE 20, BASICALLY 29 ACRE AREA AND THEN TO THE, TO THE LEFT AND TO THE NORTH IS PART OF THE PARCEL THAT IS NOT BEING ANNEXED. AND I HAVE ANOTHER MAP FOR THAT.

AND THEN TO THE SOUTH AGAIN, THERE'S LITTLE RED BOXES, YOU CAN'T REALLY READ IT, BUT IT'S, IT'S SHOWING THE CCID BOUNDARY, THE CURRENT BOUNDARIES TO THE SOUTH.

SO THIS AREA IS THE AREA BEING ANNEXED IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE DISTRICT.

CASSIDY, AS THE LEAD AGENCY PREPARED AN ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DETERMINED THERE WAS GOING TO BE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FROM THE REORGANIZATION.

AND THEY ADOPTED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION BACK IN NOVEMBER OF 2025.

AND FOR OUR ROLE ON LAFCO, ALL THE COMMISSION HAS TO DO IS MAKE A FINDING THAT IT'S REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THAT THERE ARE NO MITIGATION MEASURES UNDER LAFCO RESPONSIBILITY TO ADOPT. AND AGAIN, WE'RE LAFCO ROLE IS RESPONSIBLE AGENCY, AND WE CAN USE THAT DOCUMENT PREPARED BY CASSIDY AS THE LEAD AGENCY. AND IT'S IN YOUR PACKET SO THAT THE FACTORS FOR REVIEW OF PROPOSALS ARE UNDER SECTION FIVE, SIX, SIX, SIX, EIGHT OF THE CORTEZ ACT AND THE GOVERNMENT CODE.

AND AS LAFCO POLICY, WE'VE REDUCED THE THOROUGHNESS OF OUR REVIEW.

WE LOOK AT ALL THE FACTORS, BUT WE'VE WE'VE SCALED BACK THE DETAIL REVIEW FOR THOSE.

FOR RURAL, LIKE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT OR RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ANNEXATIONS.

SO WE DON'T GET INTO SEWER AND WATER ISSUES AND THINGS THAT AREN'T RELEVANT. SO THE FIRST ONE IS THE EFFECT OF THE ON THE DISTRICT SERVICE LEVEL.

AND AGAIN, THIS, THIS REORGANIZATION IS, IS DETACHING AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF WATER RIGHTS AND THEN ANNEXING IT TO THE DISTRICT, JUST MOVING IT OVER TO ADJACENT LAND, WHICH IS PART OF A LARGER FIELD.

AND IT'S WITHIN, IT'S CONTIGUOUS TO BOUNDARY.

SO THEY WANT TO KEEP THAT IRRIGATION WATER WITHIN THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY, THE CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND DISTRICT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. SO BOTH PROJECTS ARE WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO, YOU FOR ANNEXATION, AND THEN BOTH PROPERTIES ARE DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL LAND USE.

THE COUNTY'S GENERAL PLAN AND THEIR ZONED A-1 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL ALSO THEN CONFORMITY OF LINES OF ASSESSMENT AND CREATION OF LOGICAL BOUNDARIES.

THE BOUNDARY DOESN'T CONFORM TO THE LINES OF ASSESSMENT.

WE'RE SPLITTING. THERE'S LIKE A KIND OF A CRESCENT SHAPED PARCEL AND THEY'RE PUTTING THE WATER RIGHTS IN THE MIDDLE OF IT, BUT IT'S BECAUSE OF HOW IT'S FARMED BASED BASICALLY ON THE FIELDS ON THE GROUND. SO THEY'RE MAKING IT LOGICAL FOR THE CURRENT FARMING PRACTICE.

AND THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE WILL ASSIGN KIND OF A UNIQUE SOLUTION FOR THIS BY, BY HAVING THIS ON THIS AERIAL, THE AREA IN GREEN, WHICH WILL BE IN CCID WILL GET A NEW ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER.

AND THE AREAS IN RED, WHICH WERE PART OF THE ORIGINAL PARCEL WILL SHARE ANOTHER ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER.

SO THEY'RE NOT TOUCHING EACH OTHER, BUT THEY SINCE IT CAME FROM THE SAME AREA AND HAS THE SAME ASSESSMENT.

[00:35:02]

THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE WILL JUST SHARE SHARE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER FOR THOSE.

SHOOT THOSE TWO AREAS AND PUT A TIE ON THE ASSESSOR'S PAGE JUST TO SHOW A TIE SYMBOL TO TIE THEM TOGETHER.

AND OTHERWISE. YEAH, FARMING PRACTICES CONTINUE.

HISTORICALLY THIS IS ALL ABOUT WATER RIGHTS. SO REGARDING MAINTENANCE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS CASSIDY, THIS JUST BRINGS BACK SOME MEMORIES FOR THE COMMISSION. BUT IT, IT WAS A CONTROVERSIAL SOMEWHAT ISSUE OF TEN YEARS AGO, EIGHT YEARS AGO WITH KATY WATER TRANSFERS. AND THEY HAD A LIST OF FIVE CONDITIONS AND THE COMMISSION DIDN'T LIKE ALL THOSE.

SO WE ENDED UP ADOPTING THREE OF THEM. AND SINCE THEN, CASSIDY ACTUALLY HAS SEVEN CONDITIONS.

AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH GEARED TO PROTECTING KIDS WATER INTERESTS.

THEY, THEY MAY BE SOMEWHAT BURDENSOME ON THE LANDOWNER, BUT THE KIDS GOALS ARE TO PROTECT THEIR WATER RIGHTS TO NOT HAVE WATER BEING TRANSFERRED AWAY. SO I IN THIS REPORT, I RECOMMENDED THE SAME THREE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE USED IN THE PAST AND COMMUNICATED WITH, WITH THE DISTRICT. WE HAVE MARIA ZACCARIA HERE AND SHE'S TALKED IT OVER WITH THEIR MANAGER THAT IF LAFCO JUST STICKS WITH THE THREE, THEY'RE FINE. THEY CAN IMPOSE THE OTHER CONDITIONS AS THE DISTRICT.

BUT THERE THE GOAL BEHIND IT IS THAT THEY DON'T WANT PEOPLE GETTING MOVING WATER AND THEN THEY MOVE WATER TO THE BAY AREA, OR THEY MOVE WATER TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OR SOMEWHERE ELSE THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO.

THEY DON'T ALLOW IT ANYWAY. SO THEY, THEY WANT TO PUT IT IN THE RECORD AND HAVE THE LANDOWNERS, IF YOU'RE ANNEXING, YOU'RE GETTING TIED TIED TO THESE RULES. SO THE MAIN, THE MAIN THING HERE IS, IS UNDER NUMBER TWO, THAT IT SAYS THE.

INITIALLY THE PROPERTY SHALL RECEIVE THE RIGHT TO USE CARRY WATER ONLY ON LAND WITHIN THE DISTRICT.

HOWEVER. HOWEVER, AFTER FIVE YEARS, LANDOWNER MAY TRANSFER THE WATER OUT OF THE DISTRICT ON QUALIFYING PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITH CSID POLICIES.

AND AS THIS PROPOSAL IS, YOU'RE TRANSFERRING WATER AND THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE YOU ANNEX IT SO YOU'RE NOT REALLY TRANSFERRING WATER SOMEWHERE ELSE.

YOU'RE GOING TO BE IN THE DISTRICT BY THE TIME YOU'RE THROUGH, IF LAFCO APPROVES IT, OF COURSE.

AND THEN SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INTERESTS IT'S AGAIN, THE CLASS ONE IRRIGATION WATER RIGHTS, WHICH ARE THEIR BEST WATER RIGHTS IS WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE TRANSFER TO MOVE THAT TO THE ADJACENT LAND, WHICH IS ALREADY IN CLASS ONE WATER RIGHTS AND THEN THE PARCEL AREA BEING DETACHED WILL HAVE WHAT'S CONSIDERED CLASS TWO.

IT'LL BE OUT OF THE DISTRICT, BUT WHEN THE WATER IS AVAILABLE, YOU CAN BUY THAT AT A HIGHER RATE AND THEN IT CAN BE CUT OFF EASILY. BUT THAT PROPERTY, THEY DO HAVE A WELL AGAIN IRRIGATION WELL. SO IF THEY DON'T GET WATER IT WON'T GO OUT OF FARMING.

THE AREA IS DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL, SO IT WON'T BE SLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT.

AND THAT'S NUMBER SIX. YEAH. IT WON'T LEAD TO URBANIZATION.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS ALL FOR FARMING. NOT NOT IN ANTICIPATION OF DEVELOPMENT.

I THOUGHT IT WAS ABOUT A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ANYHOW.

YES. IT'S NOT NOT INSIDE THE SPHERE. AND THERE'S NO NO NO COUNTY URBAN DESIGNATION IN THE AREA.

SO WITH THAT I'D MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMMISSION MAKE THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ON PAGE FIVE OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT, MAKE THE SEVEN PROJECT DETERMINATIONS ON PAGES FIVE AND SIX.

ASSIGN THE REORGANIZATION, THE TITLE, THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVING THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, AND THEN APPROVE THE ORGANIZATION, WHICH IS FILE 0709, SUBJECT TO THE THREE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED, THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT AND THE COMPLETE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ELECTION NOTICE OR HEARING.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT AT 1050.

ANYONE CARE TO COME AND COMMENT ON THAT? STATE YOUR NAME.

TITLE, PLEASE. GOOD MORNING. I'M MARIA SEQUEIRA AND I AM WITH CSID.

I'M THEIR ASSESSOR AND 1335 WAS I STREET IN LOS BANOS.

I PREPARED THIS PACKAGE WITH THE HELP OF. AND SO MUCH WONDERFUL INFORMATION FROM MR. NICHOLSON AND IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO ASK.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER WHAT I CAN. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MARIA. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT.

I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 1051 1052.

WE'LL CALL IT AND RETURN IT TO THE TO THE COMMISSION FOR QUESTIONS AND ACTION.

I GOT SOME. I GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS. I'M GOING TO I'LL START WITH THAT.

YEAH. YOU KNOW, ALL THAT LAND IN THE MAP IS BEING FARMED RIGHT NOW, CORRECT? CORRECT. IT'S ALL GETTING WATER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

[00:40:05]

CORRECT. IT IS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WENT WHY, BUT THEY JUST.

THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS. BUT. BUT WHY DO THEY WANT TO SWITCH IT FROM ONE FIELD TO THE OTHER WHEN ITS INTENTION IS TO PUT WATER ON IT ANYHOW? CAN YOU ANSWER THAT? I CAN ANSWER YOU THAT IF YOU NOTICE, TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE GREEN AREA THAT'S IN DISTRICT, THE GREEN SIDE IS CLASS TWO. WHEN WE HAVE WHEN WE ARE IN A CRITICAL WATER YEAR, CLASS TWO LANDS CANNOT GET WATER. I UNDERSTAND THAT. SO WHAT HAPPENS IS WE REQUIRE OUR FARMERS TO PULL A CANAL TO DIVIDE UP THE LAND.

THE PIECE TO THE WEST SIDE OF THAT GREEN IS CLASS TWO.

THE PIECE THAT'S KIND OF A CORAL RED THAT'S CURRENTLY IN DISTRICT WOULD BECOME CLASS TWO WHEN THIS HAPPENS.

THAT'S THE ONE THAT HAS THE WELL ON IT. THAT'S THE ONE THAT HAS THE WELL ON IT. SO IF IT'S CRITICAL WATER YEAR, WE'RE GOING TO ASK THEM TO PULL A DITCH RIGHT THERE WITH THE GREEN LINE.

IS THAT ON THAT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THAT PARCEL WHERE HE CAN CONTINUE FARMING IT WITH HIS WELL AND FOR OUR IRRIGATION PURPOSE. IT'S ALL GOING ON.

THE ONE THAT'S GETTING ANNEXED. IT'S GOING TO BE IN DISTRICT, AND IT MAKES IT MUCH EASIER TO KEEP TRACK OF THE WATER.

THE LAND THAT'S GETTING ANNEXED HAS NO ACCESS TO THAT.

WELL. IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

AND IT MAKES IT MUCH EASIER THIS WAY TO KEEP TRACK OF THE WATER.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND MAKES IT EASIER FOR THE FARMER AS WELL TO IRRIGATE IT.

WHO'S FARMING THAT LAND? CAN YOU SAY RIGHT THERE.

YOU ARE. OKAY. MR. DOONEY. NO, I'M MICHAEL VOSS.

HE'S LEASING THE LAND. MICHAEL VOSS. MICHAEL! WHAT? THAT'S A VASE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

ANYBODY ELSE? NO. I DO REMEMBER THESE CONVERSATIONS TEN YEARS AGO, AND I WAS JUST SHARING WITH BOB IF WE REMEMBER THOSE DISCUSSIONS, BECAUSE I REMEMBER SCOTTY AND JERRY WERE VERY MAD AT ME BECAUSE I HAD A REALLY GOOD ARGUMENT AND PRESENTED IT WELL, AND THEY THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO FLIP UP ON IT, BUT IT ALL WORKED OUT EXACTLY THE WAY WE WANTED IT.

SO I JUST, I JUST THOSE WERE GREAT. THAT WAS A GREAT MEETING.

ACTUALLY, MY BIG DEAL WITH THEM WAS WHEN YOU ANNEX, IF YOU IF YOU HAVE A BIG PIECE OF ANNEX AND YOU'RE GOING TO DEVELOP ON HALF OF IT, RIGHT. YOU. WHY GIVE AWAY THE OTHER HALF OF THE WATER TILL YOU TILL IT ACTUALLY GETS DEVELOPED? THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MY ARGUMENT ALL THE TIME. RIGHT.

SO I JUST REMEMBER THOSE WERE THAT WAS A THAT WAS A LAFCO IS USUALLY PRETTY EASY.

YEAH. THAT ONE WAS A VERY FUN MEETING. ANYBODY ELSE WHO WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS ANNEXATION? MIKE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING. NO, I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE AND I LIKE THINGS THAT MAKE SENSE.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, THEN WHY ARE YOU IN GOVERNMENT? YEAH. WHY AM I IN GOVERNMENT THEN? YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

GOOD QUESTION. SOUNDS LIKE THAT WAS A MOTION. NO, WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I'LL MOVE TO GO AHEAD AND. LET'S SEE. EXCEPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION.

FOR THE REORGANIZATION AND ACCEPT THE ANNEXATION.

OKAY. AND THAT INCLUDES THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS AND ALL THE STATED, INCLUDING THE THREE THAT LAFCO REQUIRES? AND IF THEY WANT TO ADD MORE, THEN THEY CAN? OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ARE YOU [INAUDIBLE]'S SON? YOU ARE? OKAY. I DO.

YEAH, I DO. YEAH, I HEARD YOU GUYS JUST GOT OUT OF THE DAIRY BUSINESS.

GOOD.

YOU'RE NOT ON TIME ANYMORE.

THAT'S IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS.

GENERAL BUSINESS. YEAH. GENERAL BUSINESS. AND IT'S APPOINTING VOTING DELEGATES AND.

[VII. A. Appointment of Voting Delegate and Alternate Voting Delegate and Nominations for Candidates for the 2026 Board of Directors election at the annual California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions (CALAFCO) conference in Sacramento from October 21-23, 2026.]

VOTING AND ALTERNATE DELEGATES FOR THE LAFCO CONFERENCE, WHICH IS GOING TO BE OCTOBER 21ST TO 23RD.

WHO WANTS TO BE? I'M NOT GOING TO BE IN THE COUNTRY, SO.

WHAT? AGAIN? NO, I HAVEN'T GONE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.

SO. WHO WANTS TO BE. WHO'S GOING TO THE CONFERENCE AND WHO WANTS TO BE THE VOTING DELEGATES?

[00:45:04]

IT'S IN SACRAMENTO. SACRAMENTO? YEAH. IT'S AT THE SHERATON THIS YEAR INSTEAD OF THE HYATT.

YOU'RE GOING TO GO. JOSH. OKAY, GREAT. YOU WANT TO BE THE VOTING DELEGATE THEN? SURE. OKAY. YEAH. AND THE ALTERNATES ARE YOU GOING WHEN IS IT? OCTOBER 21ST, 21ST TO 23RD. I DON'T KNOW IF SCOTTY WITH HIS INTENTIONS ARE EITHER, YOU KNOW, ALREADY BE THERE FOR CRC. YOU KNOW, TECHNICALLY, IF YOU'RE NOT HERE FOR A MEETING, THEN YOU GET NOMINATED TO BE THE VOTING DELEGATE.

SO I THINK WE CAN VOTE FOR SCOTTY. BUT SCOTTY AND I, MEETINGS HAVE BEEN FALLING.

AND SO I DO HAVE MARCI RC THAT WEDNESDAY. AND SCOTTY PROBABLY HAS HIS THURSDAY FOR C-SEC MEETING.

THAT'S TODAY. YEAH. THAT STARTS ON THURSDAY, RIGHT? YEAH. HIS IS ON THURSDAY. AND THIS ONE STARTS ON A THURSDAY.

THURSDAY IS THE BUSINESS MEETING THAT YOU'D BE VOTING AT.

YEAH. SO OKAY. YOU HAVE TO BE THERE THURSDAY.