OK, THE LITTLE BOX ON MY COMPUTER SAYS 9:01 SO WE CAN START.
[00:00:06]
HOW ABOUT A CALL TO ORDER, PLEASE.[I. CALL TO ORDER]
AND I JUST DID THAT. ROLL CALL OF COMMISSIONERS PLEASE.OKAY WE WILL GO AHEAD AND START.
PARDON. [LAUGHTER] YOU ARE HERE I CAN SEE.
HERE. AND MR. AGUILERA IS CURRENTLY NOT PRESENT, BUT WE DO EXPECT THAT HE WILL BE HOPEFULLY HERE DURING THIS MEETING. OKAY, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT ONE SET OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST THE 12TH OF 2020. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS? OTHERWISE, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
FORGET THAT 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.
NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO FORGET THAT.
SO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES WERE BACK TO AUGUST 12, 2020.
[III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
AND A SECOND.AND GOT A MOTION AND I NEED A SECOND.
I CAN'T BECAUSE I WASN'T HERE.
SECOND. YOU'RE SECOND. OKAY, SO I GOT A MOTION A SECOND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM AUGUST THE 12TH 2020.
AYE. CHAIR VOTES AYE AND SO THAT'S PAST.
FOR THE RECORD WE WILL REFLECT THAT MR. ACHESON DID ABSTAIN.
OK, AND NOW CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS.
IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA THAT IS IN THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IF THERE'S ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO ADDRESS SOMETHING, LET THEM COME FORWARD, STATE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NONE I'LL CLOSE THE CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS AND JUMP INTO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
AND WE START OFF WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 19001 [INAUDIBLE].
[V A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. CUP20-008 - CLAY BERLIER]
TO ESTABLISH AN INDOOR EQUIPMENT STORAGE.GOOD MORNING CHAIR COMMISSIONERS.
THE FIRST ITEM, IS YOU SAID, IT'S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
IT IS A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH AN INDOOR EQUIPMENT STORAGE FACILITY FOR A CONCRETE FINISHING BUSINESS. IT WILL CONSIST OF A SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING WITH AN ATTACHED TWELVE HUNDRED AND FIFTY SQUARE FOOT OFFICE.
SIX TRUCKS WILL BE STORED IN THE SHOP BUILDING AND APPROXIMATELY TWENTY SIX PEOPLE WILL WORK AT THE BUSINESS.
18 EMPLOYEES WORK OFF THE SITE ALL DAY AND EIGHT WORK IN THE OFFICE.
PROPOSED HOURS OF OPERATION ARE EIGHT A.M.
THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED TO OCCUPY THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3045 NORTH GIANNINI ROAD IT'S APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FEET NORTH OF ATWATER-JORDAN ROAD IN THE ATWATER AREA.
ATWATER CITY LIMIT IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
THE PROPERTY IS IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 058330-014 AND IT'S DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL BY THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONED A1 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL.
THE PROPERTY IS ALSO LOCATED IN ATWATER SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, AND THE APPLICANT IS WORKING WITH THE CITY OF ATWATER TO OBTAIN LAFCO APPROVAL FOR OUT OF SERVICE, OUT OF BOUNDARY REQUEST TO PROVIDE WATER SERVICE TO THE PROPERTY.
THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE SITE PLAN.
IT SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY, LET ME GO BACKWARDS.
THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN UNDEVELOPED AT THIS TIME, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CONCENTRATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER.
THESE NEXT TWO SLIDE SHOW THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS OF THE PROJECT.
THE FIRST SLIDE IS SHOWING OR THE TOP ELEVATION IS SHOWING WHAT IS FACING AVIATOR DRIVE.
AND AS A CONDITION OF THE APPROVAL THE PROJECT WILL NEED TO OBTAIN SITE PLAN AND DESIGN
[00:05:08]
REVIEW APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE BUILDING.SEE IF I'M GOING THE RIGHT WAY.
THESE ARE THE EAST AN THE WEST ELEVATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE SITE PHOTOS.
THIS IS LOOKING NORTHWEST FROM GIANNINI ROAD.
AS YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE PROPERTIES UNDEVELOPED NOW.
THIS IS LOOKING ACROSS FROM AT THE PROJECT SITE FROM AVIATOR DRIVE AND THIS IS LOOKING ACROSS FROM THE PROJECT SITE PROPERTIES LOCATED IN ATWATER.
SO YOU CAN SEE IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL AREA.
THESE ARE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE LOCATED SOUTH OF THE PROJECT SITE ALONG ATWATER JORDAN ROAD. STAFF FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFICALLY GOAL AG1 AG1.1 AG2 AND AG 2.1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
STAFF ALSO FOUND THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE A1 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING.
REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE PROJECT CAN BE FOUND EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW UNDER SECTION ONE FIVE THREE ZERO THREE C NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES AND SECTION ONE FIVE ONE EIGHT THREE PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH COMMUNITY PLAN OR ZONING OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THREE HUNDRED FEET OF THE PROJECT AND PUBLISHED IN THE MERCED SUN-STAR ON AUGUST 28TH.
NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE PREPARATION OF THE STAFF REPORT, AND BASED ON THAT STAFF HAS TWO RECOMMENDATIONS.
FIRST, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT CAN BE FOUND EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 C NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES AND SECTION 15183 PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH A COMMUNITY PLAN OR ZONING OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES AND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE CUP20-008 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN THE STAFF REPORT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
OKAY WITH THAT I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS PROJECT, COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
AND SEEING NONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR MOTION FOR A DISCUSSION OR ON THE CEQA.
OK, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW UNDER SECTION ONE FIVE THREE ZERO THREE NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES, CLASS THREE C AND SECTION ONE FIVE ONE SIX THREE PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN OR ZONING OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES BASED ON THE CEQA FINDING IN THE STAFF REPORT. SECOND.
I DID GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE.
MY NAME IS LISA WOODS AND I OWN THE PROPERTY AT 6422 ATWATER JORDAN ROAD, WHICH IS IN 300 FEET OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE ONE LINE.
MY FAMILY HAS BEEN IN THAT AREA FOR GENERATIONS AND WE WELCOME DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.
HOWEVER, WE WANT THE AREA TO REMAIN PRISTINE.
AND THERE WAS ONE LINE THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENT WOULD BE WAIVED.
IF SOMEONE COULD SHARE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS FAR AS THE EXTENT OF WAIVING THAT ENVIRONMENTAL.
YOU MEAN WHAT EXACTLY THAT MEANS? WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT MEAN? CAN STAFF ANSWER THAT QUESTION? I'LL JUST. CERTAINLY, CERTAIN PROJECTS UNDER CEQA CAN BE FOUND EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW BASED ON THEIR CATEGORIES, AND STAFF FOUND THAT THIS PROJECT FELL UNDER TWO SECTIONS OF THE CEQA CODE WHERE IT WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW.
[00:10:03]
AND THAT'S WHAT STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING.BUT FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, I THINK TO ANSWER THE LADY'S QUESTION.
SHE'S NOT TALKING ABOUT MASSIVE POLLUTION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
I MEAN, IT JUST THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE REVIEWED IN A FORMAL SENSE BY THE CEQA PEOPLE.
THAT'S CORRECT. MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STEVE MAXEY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR THE COUNTY.
TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AND TO ELABORATE ON WHAT MS. LOWRANCE SHARED.
ALONG WITH THE PROJECT, MEETING ALL THE CRITERIA THAT'S SET FORTH IN CEQA STAFF ALSO HAS TO REVIEW THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, WHAT'S PROPOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION, WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO BE FOLLOWING OTHER RULES RELATED TO AIR QUALITY, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO HANDLE ANY AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO RECEIVE WATER TO THE PROPERTY, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO HANDLE ANY WASTE WATER, THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND IN REVIEW OF ALL THAT WE'VE FOUND THAT THERE'S NO POTENTIAL FOR IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL EXEMPTION THAT'S LISTED BEFORE YOU. THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.
OK, BUT THERE'S NO PERMISSION TO VIOLATE CLEAN WATER ACTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THE PROJECT WOULD OPERATE WITHIN ALL THE BOUNDS OF ANY LAW THAT'S OUT THERE SPEAKERS]. OK, THANK YOU.
MA'AM DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? AND WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR WE HAD THE MOTION ON THE CEQA AND WE HAD THE SECOND.
SO [INAUDIBLE] ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
AYE. AND CHAIR VOTES AYE. OPPOSED.
OK, AND NOW ON THE PROJECT, PLEASE.
OK, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP 20-008 BASED ON THE PROJECT FINDINGS IN STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. SECOND. OKAY YOU GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE PROJECT DETERMINATION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
OPPOSED. OK, AND THIS PROJECT PASSES.
[V B. MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION No. MS20-006 – AMANDA BALLENGER / MIKE BETTENCOURT]
GOING ONTO LETTER B MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICANT NUMBER MS20-006 AMANDA BALLENGER AND MIKE BETTENCOURT.ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
TODAY, AS WAS JUST STATED, I'LL BE PRESENTING MINOR SUBDIVISION NO.
MS20-006 FOR AMANDA BALLENGER AND MIKE BETTENCOURT.
THE REQUEST IS TO CREATE A 2.48 ACRE HOMESITE PARCEL FROM AN EXISTING 20 ACRE PARCEL AND COMBINE THE REMAINDER WITH AN ABUTTING PARCEL, CREATING A SEPARATE THIRTY SEVEN POINT FIVE TWO ACRE PARCEL.
THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ABOUT A QUARTER MILE EAST OF SHAFFER ROAD AND A HALF MILE NORTH OF PRINCETON ROAD IN THE WINTON AREA.
THE PROPERTY'S DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL LAND USE AND IS OWNED A1.
HERE WE HAVE THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE, THE PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA CAN BE CHARACTERIZED BY ROW CROPS, AGRICULTURAL FACILITIES AND OCCASIONAL RESIDENCES.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE MERCED RIVER IS LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE.
HERE WE HAVE A CLOSER AERIAL IMAGE OF THE PROJECT SITE.
THE HOMESITE PARCEL WILL CONSIST OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IDENTIFIED HERE WITH THE BLUE ARROW. WHILE THE ABUTTING PARCEL WILL ABSORB THE REMAINDER OF THAT EXISTING PARCEL.
AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND OTHER EXISTING LAND USES IN THE AREA WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED.
HERE WE HAVE THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE SUBDIVISION WITH THE PROPOSED HOMESITE PARCEL OUTLINED IN BLUE.
THE 200 FOOT AGRICULTURAL SETBACK REQUIRED BY THE ZONING CODE HAS BEEN INCORPORATED WHERE NECESSARY, SPECIFICALLY TO THE SOUTH AND WEST OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTS ON THE HOMESITE PARCEL. THIS IMAGE WAS TAKEN FROM SHAFFER ROAD, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THE PROJECT SITE IN THE HOMESITE PARCEL, ARE LOCATED ABOUT A QUARTER MILE EAST OF SHAFFER.
THE ROAD SCENE HERE PROVIDES A HOMESITE AND COMBINED PARCELS WITH ACCESS TO PRINCETON ROAD. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, GOALS AND POLICIES REGARDING AGRICULTURALLY ZONED PARCELS AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND TITLE 17.
THE PROJECT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS.
I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT ALTHOUGH THE HOMESITE PARCEL DOES NOT HAVE ONE HUNDRED FIFTY FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE AS CONDITIONED IN THE ZONING CODE FOR HOMESITE PARCELS, THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THAT ZONING CODE PROVISION AND THAT THERE'S EXISTING ACCESS TO THE HOMESITE VIA AN EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT IN THE EXISTING
[00:15:03]
RESIDENCES AT THE PROJECT SITE ARE CLUSTERED AS ENCOURAGED BY THE GENERAL PLAN.STAFF HAS FOUND THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION ONE FIVE ONE SIX TWO SUBSEQUENT EIR'S AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES, THE ANALYSIS THAT HELPED MAKE THIS DETERMINATION CAN BE FOUND IN THE CEQA FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS PROVIDED AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE STAFF REPORT.
NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROJECT SITE ON AUGUST 28TH AND PUBLISHED IN THE SUN-STAR ON THE SAME DATE.
AND AS OF CURRENTLY, NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON THIS PROJECT.
WITH THAT STAFF HAS TWO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COMMISSION MOTION TO DETERMINE NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED AND MOTION TO APPROVE MINOR SUBDIVISION NO.
MS20-006, THAT NOW CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION, AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU MAY HAVE ANY.
OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
OK, THANK YOU. AND I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF ANYBODY WANTS TO COMMENT AND I DON'T SEE ANYBODY.
SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM AND COME BACK FOR DISCUSSION OR A MOTION ON THE CEQA. YEAH, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINE THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION ONE FIVE ONE SIX TWO SUBSEQUENT EIR'S AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS OF CEQA GUIDELINES BASED ON THAT ANALYSIS IN THE 2030 MERCED COUNTY GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THE ATTACHED CEQA SECTION ONE FIVE ONE SIX TWO FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS.
SECOND. OKAY GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE CEQA.
I'D ALSO MAKE THE MOTION THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE MINOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER MS 20-006, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
SECOND. GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE PROJECT DETERMINATION.
AYE. CHAIR VOTES AYE. OPPOSED.
OKAY COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS. NOTHING ADDITIONAL, SIR. DIRECTORS REPORT.
[VIII. DIRECTOR’S REPORT]
JUST A QUICK NOTE TO SAY THANKS TO THE FOUR OF YOU FOR OBVIOUSLY TAKING TIME OUT OF YOUR SCHEDULES TODAY TO BE HERE.MAYBE JUST A QUICK THOUGHT, MAYBE SAY PRAYERS FOR THOSE WHO ARE CURRENTLY FIGHTING THE FIRES. IT'S IMPACTED MANY FOLKS FROM OBVIOUSLY THIS AREA WHO HAVE PROPERTY IN NEARBY [INAUDIBLE] AREAS.
AND JUST TO KEEP OUR FIRST RESPONDERS AND FIRE FOLKS IN YOUR THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS IN DAYS AHEAD. NO, I KEEP WAITING FOR LOCUSTS AND FROGS OR WHATEVER IT IS.
NOTHING. OK, THEN WE'RE ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.