Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. 6PM, and I call this, regular scheduled meeting of the San Benito County Planning Commission to order. As you can see, we have quite an agenda tonight. We did skip the July meeting, which in retrospect may not have been the best idea, but regardless, we did what we did. And so with that, let's proceed with the pledge of allegiance led by commissioner Ray Having, please.

Thank you. And could we have the roll call, please?

Absolutely. Don't mind me. I'm a little out of breath. Vincent Ringhaden, District 1. Present. Richard Way, District 2. Present. Robert Scagliotti, District 3.

Present.

Robert Gibson, District 4. Present. Bobby Thomason, District 5. Present. All commissioners are present.

Thank you. And we have, department announcements, which is going to include project applications. And I just want to mention for the sake of the public that you're going to hear about some applications that involve the so called builder's remedy. And I know there's been a lot of talk in the press as well as on social media about Builders Remedy and what it is and what it isn't. And, just to by point of clarification, basically, it allows a builder to get around certain zoning regulations.

It it is not a blanket build anything wherever you want. And these applications, even if they're under the builder's remedy, are still subject to CEQA. They're still subject to the whole EIR process if an EIR is required. So it's not total carte blanche. So just keep that in mind as you hear about these applications. So please proceed. Thank you.

Thank you, chair, for the introduction. Goodspeed, principal planner for the county. I will be going through the recent planning applications. Some are new discretionary applications, and some include, preliminary applications. The first one is a minor subdivision.

The proposed project, is county file PLN 20 50045. The APN is 022250007. The name of the application is Brigatino Minor Subdivision. Proposed project is to subdivide into three lots. Lot 1 would be 5.1 acres, lot two would be 5.11 acres, and Lot 3 would be 25.73 acres.

The following application is a preliminary, application for builders' remedy. It is county file PLN 250054McDowell at 9644 Beta Belle Road. The proposed project plans to use Builders Remedy to provide 280 multifamily units and one community building on approximately 23.02 acres of existing undeveloped land. 45 of the units will be dedicated to very low income housing, and 12 of the units will be dedicated for low income housing. The development review committee was scheduled, on last Thursday, the fourteenth, and we are wrapping up the county's comment letter back to the applicant, and should have that within the week.

The next application, county file PLN 250064 located at 3586 Airline Highway. The proposed project it was submitted back on July 26, and the proposed project proposes constructing 88 townhome units and seven single family homes totaling 95 residential units. The townhomes will be built across multiple parcels in two phases: Phase one, including 76 units and Phase two, adding 12 more townhomes, along with single family homes. The development will also include new private streets, open space parcels, and associated site infrastructure. The following major subdivision application, county filed PLN twenty five zero zero five eight, called the ranch located at 3219 Old San Juan Highway Hollister Highway.

The subdivision was, submitted on 07/25/2025. It was previously a preliminary application under Builders Remedy. This is a Builders Remedy full project is now now the the

project.

Project average size of around 18,056 to square feet. It's located approximately seven miles southwest of the Halschutz Municipal Airport. The following conditional use permit county file PLN twenty five zero zero six seven, Aluminum Hybrid LLC, located at San Felipe Road. The project, was submitted on 08/06/2025. It is a 945 acre solar and battery storage facility in San Benito County, generating up to a 110 megawatts of power with eight hours of storage.

It will operate daily during daylight, employ about 10 full time and five part time workers, and include on-site operations, and buildings. Hazardous materials will be managed per regulations, and after about forty years, the equipment will be removed and the site restored. And that concludes, the, recent, and discretionary and preliminary applications for this evening. Thank you. Thanks. I'm told that we have some public comment comment on the, applications.

Yes. Lauren Cyphers, please approach the podium. You'll have three minutes.

Good evening, commissioners and county staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this matter. My name is Laren Seifers. I'm one of the developers of the Allium Solar and Storage Project. This project represents a smart approach to land use, especially as the county faces growing pressure from residential and commercial development.

It's not a choice between solar panels and crops or productive ag land. This land was strategically selected for its limited reporting progress. Agricultural potential, with much of it being unsuitable for traditional farming because of either parasitic weeds or poor soils. The project is designed for minimal water needs using less than 2% of the water required by a comparable almond orchard. We anticipate 150 to 200 local union construction jobs plus ongoing operational roles.

The project will generate millions of dollars in property and sales tax revenue for San Bernardino County over its lifetime, all while placing little to no new burden on your public services and not generating any increase in long term traffic or population. Because the land is leased at the end of the project's life, the site will be fully restored for agricultural use. California has deployed nearly 16,000 megawatts of energy storage, including two fourteen utility scale facilities. While a few incidents of overheating or thermal runaway have occurred in California since 2021, they represent rarities and have resulted in no direct injuries or damage to structures beyond the storage facilities themselves. These numbers demonstrate that communities and utilities statewide are confidently and safely integrating these systems using modern safety standards.

Good solar and energy storage projects like Allium are critical for the stability of the California electrical grid and to meet both state and county goals for greenhouse gas emission reduction. The Allium Solar and Storage Project is a good project cited on the right piece of land and is expecting to provide significant economic and community benefits over its lifetime without putting strain on local services. Thank you.

Thank you. I do note that this is not on our oh. Zoom has no audio. Okay. One moment.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. Can can anybody on Zoom hear us at this point?

Yeah.

Yeah. Can Raise raise your hand on Zoom if you can hear us. Somebody on Zoom, raise your hand. Somebody on Zoom who cannot lipread, raise your hand. Yeah. If you can type into chat that we're going to continue the meeting without you can't? No. Oh, okay. Alright. Well, we're just going to have to proceed, unfortunately.

And I do note with respect to the Allium project that since that is not on the agenda for discussion today, we are not able to discuss it amongst ourselves or comment upon the comments that were just made by the applicant, but it will come back to us for an agenda item at some point, I presume. Not really. It's not on the agenda for tonight. So but how well, actually, I take it back. We're about to move into the public comments segment of tonight's agenda during which the public will be able to comment on things that are within the purview of the Planning Commission but are not on tonight's agenda.

And therefore, this would be one of those things. So yes, you will have the opportunity to comment on it in that regard. So, yes, you may. So, yes, please. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, from a procedural standpoint, I guess it's six zero one and half a dozen in the other. So, yeah. Yeah. Sure. Please please go ahead. Yeah. So, yeah, if if let's go ahead and just open up general public comment. And so if you have a comment on on items that are within the purview of the planning commission but not on tonight's agenda, hopefully, you've already provided your comment card to the, clerk.

If not, then do so at this point, and, you'll be provided with, three minutes to, address the commission. Sorry? Yes, please.

Alright. Maureen Nelson, just go ahead and approach the podium. You'll have three minutes.

Good evening, commissioners, staff. Thank you for the opportunity. So I just had to get up here and comment about this solar farm. Although I think that clean energy is wonderful, and I think we need to look at ways at reducing what we're consuming. I have just some nitpicky things.

When you start comparing the amount of water to an almond orchard, almond orchards are the most consuming of water use in the agricultural field. We do not have almond orchards in San Benito County. So although I appreciate that comparison, it's fictitious for what we're doing here. Compare it to the water usage of our agricultural, our housing, make it conducive to us, not almond orchards that are down in Southern California. So that's number one.

Let's talk about the recent fires at Moss Landing. They didn't know how to put the fires out. The fire department didn't know how to put the fires out with the chemicals that are there. This is an issue. This is a real problem. So if we're looking at battery storage, we're looking at that. We really need to make sure that the infrastructure, the knowledge, the opportunities to abate issues are readily available. We don't wanna be sitting there going, what do we do now? Oh my goodness. We can't put water on it.

That does nothing. We can't put people near near it. It's toxic. We need to think about this thoroughly before we start looking at this very large scale. The next question I'd have is, would those energy resources be brought into San Benito or San Benito County residents, businesses for usage of energy here, or will it be like the others that we have that go out of county?

We just have the environmental impacts of them. These are just things that I'd like to have a question about and hope that we all look at that a little closer. It's a great idea. It's wonderful to look at environmental avenues and other resources, but let's thoroughly think it out so that we know what the potential issues may be and risks to our county. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Pedro Ibarra, please approach the podium. Podium. You'll have three minutes.

Good afternoon. My name is Pedro Ibarra. The reason why I'm here is because we own about a 160 acres in front of Fraser Air Park on Fraser Lake Road, and we applied for a cannabis application. And the public works division is requesting a 100 excuse me, 60 foot wide from our property, which is approximately 1,680 feet, a little bit of a quarter mile, to designate to wind the road so our app cannabis application application can be approved. But it also says that the commission, this pending commission, can also defer or waive their requirement. And I'm just here to address it. Hopefully, we

could waive it, the requirement to allow our application to proceed to the next step if it's okay. I I think the process to do that, we we can't do that from the podium. Right? I mean, we we have to do that more formally.

Correct. Correct. Yeah. You can't do it at this stage. This is just general public comment. You'd have to wait until your project actually came before this body.

I do apologize. I'm gonna step in here because I'm the planner on this project. It will not come before this potty. It is a ministerial project because it is a. I see. Okay. By it is a an approved use in his zoning district.

If condition is to be amended, you can bring it to the planning commission.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Is there additional general public comment?

There is. I no have more public comment cards in chambers, and I have no hands via Zoom.

Okay. Thank you. That brings us to our consent agenda, which consists of approving the certificate of posting and approving the draft planning commission minutes from the meeting of June 18, which hopefully we've all had a chance to review. Is there a motion to approve? Well, first of all, does anybody want to pull anything from the consent agenda, either a commissioner or perhaps a member of the public? No? Okay. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

No. Okay. The consent agenda is approved five to zero. Moving on into the, public hearing, item 7.1. Hold the public hearing. Consider adopting a resolution regarding the Russell Minor subdivision at Comstock Road. Apparently, there was a request for bonding for construction and improvements. The state law no longer allows bonding, and the proposal is to have an escrow account in lieu of bonding. And I guess we're gonna hear about that now. So please proceed. Thank you.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. Jonathan Levis, associate planner, San Diego County. And this evening, I'll be presenting PLN250043, an amendment to PLN two two zero zero zero four, minor subdivision at 1175 Comstock Road, which was approved on 08/21/2024. Just to recap, this site is approximately eight miles northeast of Downtown Hollister within the unincorporated San Fernando County. It's positioned around one mile to the east of the intersection of Fairview Road and Comstock Road.

The project is located in a rural area surrounded mostly by agricultural land uses and some rural housing in the vicinity. The approved project subdivided an existing 38.93 acres, into four lots of three five acre parcels and a 23.57, acre parcel. There were three new dwelling units proposed on the five acre lots. This image shows the project site facing east from the southern boundary of Parcel 4. This image shows the project site entrance from Comstock Road at the north end of Parcel 1.

The purpose for this amendment is that the original conditions of approval number 25, 26, and 33 required a surety bond for necessary improvements. Due to changes in industry practices and financial regulations, individual applicants can no longer secure surety bonds. So the proposed change will align with current financial standards as is legally permissible under government code 66,499. And the use of an escrow account maintains financial accountability and enforcement capability for the county, providing a practical compliance path for applicants. The project itself remains unchanged in design, density, layout, or scope of improvements.

So this slide shows the changes to condition 25. The red highlighted text indicates, top the existing text to be changed, and the changes proposed are in the red text under the amended condition section. I'll give you guys a second to look at those. Okay. And this slide, again, this is changes to condition 26 and the red highlighted text is the text to be changed and the proposed changes are in the red text under the amended condition section.

Okay, and this is condition 33. And again, red text is the existing text to be changed and the changes proposed are in the red text under the amended condition. Okay. Staff recommends that the planning commission review the staff report and resolution, conduct a public hearing, consider any testimony, and approve the amendments to conditions of approval numbers 25, 26, and 33 as set forth in the amended resolution.

Any questions? Questions for Jonathan?

Okay. Are there questions or issues from the public comment on this item?

Yes. Matt Kelly, please approach the podium. You have three minutes.

Good evening, mister

chair, commissioners, staff. I'm Matt Kelly, engineer for the applicant, and I really don't have much to say. I think it's pretty clear what he's asking for, and we appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional public comment?

I have no more public comment in chambers, and I don't

have any hands on Zoom. Okay. Discussion within the commission.

I did have one item on our page 39, which is part of the resolution. If we were to approve this, there is a typo, I believe. It says that whereas on on August 8, we held a duly notice public meeting. I believe it should say on August 20, we held a duly notice public hearing. So if we were to, vote on this, I think we should vote on it with the correction to the typo, if that's okay with everybody. So moved. Okay. Is there a second for that? Second. Okay. Do we I I guess we should do a roll call on this. Can we do a roll call?

Absolutely. Vincent Ringhaden? Yes. Richard Way? Yes. Robert Scaliotti?

Yes.

Robert Gibson?

Yes.

Bobby Thomason? That's a five o in favor.

Thank you. So motion passes. And moving on to item 7.2. Sorry. I'm a little scatterbrained tonight. Don't say it. Seven point two, hold a public hearing to consider adopting a resolution to approve siler tentative maps subdividing 100 acres into two parcels of 20 And 79. Rounding here, at 7265 Fairview Road. And can we have the staff report on that, please?

Good evening, chair and commissioners. Jonathan Levis, associate planner. I'll be presenting PLN250016, minor subdivision at 9265 Fairview Road. So our discussion tonight is gonna cover the project location, conditions, description, CEQUA, land consistency, and then staff recommendations. So the site is approximately seven miles north of Downtown Hollister, about a half mile west of the intersection of Fairview Road and Highway 156.

It's located in a rural area surrounded by mostly agricultural land uses and some rural residences. And then the subdivision proposes dividing the existing 100 acre parcel into two lots of 79.3 acres and 20.16 acres with a 0.43 acre road dedication. The applicant also proposes to deed restrict parcel one so that it cannot be, so that it can be a permanent agricultural preserve or be restricted to only agricultural use in perpetuity. The image on screen shows an overview of the parcel map as submitted. Site has two residences, two ADUs, accessory buildings for agriculture, septic systems, and two wells for domestic water and blue valve as well.

The image on screen shows a close-up of Parcel 2 with the main residence and ADU shown in the Northwest corner of the parcel. And this slide shows a close-up of Parcel 1, which has a main residence, ADU, and accessory structures for agriculture, and this is the parcel that will also be de restricted as an agricultural preserve and or use agenda that will stay with the land. This image shows the project site looking north towards Pacheco Creek from the middle of Parcel 2. This image shows the project site facing east towards the Diablo Range from the middle of Parcel 2. This image shows the project site looking west towards Dunville from the middle of Parcel 2.

And this image shows the project site looking southwest towards Hollister from the middle of Parcel 2. And then, this is a a general plan zoning and, for under the general plan. Sorry. So the purpose of that is for the designation is to uphold agricultural productivity, particularly on prime farmland encompassing various productive land types such as crops, vineyards, and grazing areas. This designation permits agricultural support uses, essential facilities, and one primary resident unit per lot, all in aid of preserving, agricultural viability.

The intent of the AP zoning is to facilitate diverse agricultural activities as articulated in the general plan, which includes supporting agricultural related activities like vineyards, wineries, and associated uses. Additionally, it allows for limited low density residential development while prioritizing the preservation of prime farmland. This project is consistent with both its general plan and zoning designations. Some general plan policies of note that this project is consistent with are: General plan policy LU 3.2. This is agricultural integrity and flexibility.

This policy directs the county to protect the integrity of existing agricultural resources and provide both flexibility and economic viability for farming and ranching operations. The project proposes large lots of 20.16 acres and 79.3 acres, respectively, which still allow for the existing agricultural operations to continue. Furthermore, the site remains commercially viable for existing agriculture while retaining enough lot area to qualify as an agricultural preserve under San Bernardino County code chapter 19.01, and it would meet the Winsen Act standards for property tax benefits, though the property is not actually in the Winsen Act. And then as stated earlier, this proposal, primarily revolves around delineating new property boundaries and does not include plans for new construction. The current zoning regulations already allow for nearly the same level of land use as what could occur with or without the subdivision.

It is also worth noting that Parcel 1 will be deed restricted to remain as an agricultural preserve or only agricultural use, permanently. The project qualifies for an exemption, under the California Environmental Quality Act based on state CEQA guidelines section 15,061. It assures that the proposed subdivision will not significantly impact the environment, no ground disturbance or construction activities are proposed, and the project will not disrupt ecologically sensitive areas. The existing zoning regulations already permit similar land use activities. The project additionally qualifies for a CEQA Class I categorical exemption as it involves maintenance, repair, or minor alteration of existing infrastructure without expanding current use.

Additionally, the project qualifies for Class IV categorical exemption as required improvements will occur on slopes less than 10% with no impact on trees, fault zones, or protected wetlands. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the staff report, review the attached draft resolution conditions of approval, receive public comment, adopt the resolution, including findings to approve minor subdivision parcel map PLN 250016, subject to the conditions of approval found in the resolution. Questions?

Staff? Alright.

Let's open up for public comments. Is there a public comment on this issue?

Yes. Matt Kelly, please approach the podium. You'll have three minutes.

Oh, yeah. If if he's the applicant, he can have more than three minutes.

Thank you. I am, Matt Kelly, and I'm here today as the engineer representing mister and missus Seiler. I want to start by thanking Jonathan for his hard work on this project and for his insightful presentation. Everybody to know I will miss him dear ly. As he just told me, he's leaving the county to go to Gilroy for very good reasons.

My comments today focus on the application of the nexus law to the proposed conditions. As you may know, nexus law is foundational in land use and development practices, ensuring fairness and preventing abuse of power. It requires a clear and justifiable connection between development projects projects and any imposed fees or conditions. This principle is rooted in landmark US Supreme Court cases such as Nolan versus California Coastal Commission 1987, which ruled against conditioning a permit without a direct connection to harm caused by the development, and Dolan versus City of Tigard 1994, which required an individualized determination that conditions are related in nature and extent to the proposed impact. California has adopted this law in its constitution found in government code title VII, planning and land use.

On behalf of the Silers, I respectfully request that the commission waive conditions 27 through 38. We believe there is no reasonable relationship between these conditions and the project currently before you. Furthermore, I must express my disagreement if the commission considers deferring these conditions. Deferral implies that the conditions are not warranted at this time but might be in the future. However, there is no evidence connection to its impacts.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Mister and missus Seiler, also present, and would like to address the commission. Thank

Good evening. I'm Barbara Siler, and I'm requesting this split mainly because for two reasons. Oh, dear. Two reasons. We're getting older, and I'd like to give that 20 acres, 20 plus acres to our daughter so she will not be impacted with taxes at the end.

So we thought it's time to give the parcel to her that has the house on so that we can all enjoy life without, you know, stressing that, you know, when they inherit, the children inherited, or as as her daughter inherits it, that she would have to sell the property in order to pay the taxes. So that's why we decided to do it early and move on with our life. At 82, it's time to move on. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Sorry, chair. I don't have any comment cards or hands via Zoom.

Okay. Thank you. Alright. Let's see. Discussion within the So public comments closed. Yeah. And so public comments closed then.

Yeah. Discussion with the commission. So are is the applicant gonna do a nexus study then? And and it almost acts like the applicant was asking to do a nexus study in order to avoid conditions named. I believe, and Matt could speak more to that, but I believe they were more referring to

the fact that they were saying that given the scope of the project that the nexus doesn't exist, I suppose, but would be willing to

do that, but I'll I think that's probably for the applicant to answer. Okay. Maybe I misunderstood. To clarify,

we are not asking for a study. Jonathan made it clear there are no impacts created by this project. In fact, it qualifies for multiple CECOA exemptions. So we're not asking for a study, we're merely making a stand, so to speak. Okay, thank you.

Then I have a question for staff, if I may. The restriction, the language of the restriction, what does it mean? Because to me, it means nothing.

Can it be subdivided, that parcel to 70 acres? So the the way that it's written right now, it would just be that it could only be for agricultural use and only as preserve, only those two options. So in other words, even if somebody wanted to subdivide it, it still would have to be used at for agriculture. Well, being that we get a lot

of staff reports that say five acres is still viable ag, that means it could be a bunch of five acre ranchettes, so it's useless. And what

and if the and through the chair, if the commission would like to add that to that, we can definitely do that as well. Well, I mean, it's I don't know who's came up with

the language. Hopefully, it wasn't staff, but to me, it's empty. So you might as well not even have it if that's the case.

Well, I had concern when I when I read that too because it it would it was phrased as agricultural use or preserve, and I would rather it it had been more specific. But, yeah, you raise a good point. It's a little makes me a little queasy.

I'm sort of okay with it, but I'd be more comfortable if it was more explicit. Chair? Yes, please. Being an agriculture, I'd love to see that property stay at a 100 acres and egg because I know exactly where you are. That's a good piece of land. We I'd like to see this rewritten to where you guarantee that it will stay perpetually in egg. This is very open on this on my page 83 number 11. I'd like to see where you it's you where you say it stay in a perpetually. But that's please. I don't know how you can do that, but it's it's gotta be there's somewhere in the deed you can do that. I know there is.

Yes. That would be in in in it to when we give it to the daughter, that it will that was my grandfather's property.

And Was your grandpa mister Titus?

That was my yeah. Was my grandpa, and Titus lived there. And and it's gonna be in the family. And I we're just basically doing it for Tax preparation. You know? Yeah. For tax reasons. And, also, we wanna make sure that she has a place without getting hit with, you know, a lot of taxes at the end. But she's got three children that are just into horses and just really gonna that's, you know, kind of passing down the heritage. But, yes, it will see informing. Good.

I want it worded. It's it's very vague right here on this number 11 where you say you're gonna keep in the perpetual ag. It's very vague. I'd like to see it worded where it's gonna be more stringent where it can't be broken into five acre parcels. I don't know how to do that. I don't know how the wording needs to be, but I know what you're trying to do and I understand that. But the way this is written here, at some point down the road, it could be.

So if staff were to write it a little bit different.

It'd be good. Maybe he could come up with some suggestions and then see if the applicant's willing

to Otherwise, I'm good with it. I'm good with what you're doing. That's great.

Yeah. I I have some some qualms about just blanket removing these conditions of approval '27 through '38. Even if they don't apply, this sets a really, really dangerous precedent for other applicants. Know, a lot of these are are boilerplate that we include in in everything that comes through us. And the next applicant is gonna say, well, you removed it for for these folks.

Why won't you remove it for us as well? And I I just don't think we can just set a precedent of, you know, saying, well, it doesn't apply in this case. Therefore, we just remove them on on the fly. I think we really need a study to say, you know, this this doesn't apply in this case and here's why. Yep. I don't think we can just remove them tonight just because the applicant states that they don't apply even if it seems clear that they don't. Seems is the operative word here. That's just my take on it. I'm struggling with the same issue.

And What's the best position to be in is if there was an easement to sort of put that in place too.

I'm sorry. Say that again?

An easement. To do that via the easement. Open space easement? Right. So that it would be separately recorded and so it'd be in the record that way. You're talking about the 100 acre parcel? Yes. The well, the 70 So

how wanna you keep it as ag. Right. Okay. 79.3. Would the applicant be willing to put it in an open space easement or an ag easement rather so that it can't be further subdivided and turned into Denville?

I mean, was that the point wasn't that the point of this easement? So let's make it actually function.

That that that really kind of is. It sounds like to me, it sounds like it's it's a really wholesome thing. They wanna Yeah.

They wanna I just wanna make sure it

does what it's supposed to. They wanna do the right thing. It's just how we get

it worded. So, yeah. We wanna do the right thing, just get it worded. I mean, that's a lot of stuff.

Okay. Silers are okay with the concept of the open space easement to prevent further subdivision of the property. Yeah.

Okay, great. We can tailor that to however the we can add language however you guys would like.

I'm I'm good with that. I'd probably be okay with removing the dedication of Parkland also. Yes. Yeah.

Is there somebody we can this '27 through whatever '38 he asked for that we can do it for future? So we would like an easement or is there somewhere we can without removing it and say they don't have to do it at this time or something? There's just something we can do for that? Because if they leave it like it is, they don't need to do all the solar stuff. You can, but

I believe the applicant didn't want it to be conditioned in that way so that it would trigger later.

Was it '27 to '33 or '38? Yeah. Oh, okay. That's off.

They're all related to the widening of the road, construction, underground utilities, yeah, improvements, which are not justified in this project. Yeah. Yeah. There's no intensification of use. There's no new homes. Well, isn't today. It's not going to change.

Well, if they come back to to do anything Some of

the issues, you know, that's

not development. Would make them do those things.

But he's he's even he's even objecting to deferred to to making them deferred. That that's part of

the trade off of the ag easement where they can't acre parcel, then they will face some improvements off of that.

But why not have them deferred improvements, I guess? I guess, what's the harm in making them deferred? How is that different from saying when you come back to us, we'll add these in? Guess I'm struggling with what's the difference legally, what's the difference between leaving them in as deferred and saying, when you come back to us, we're going to put these on your new conditional use permit. What is the legal difference? Is there a difference?

Sure. May I say something? Since we're going to since we're willing to put that 70 something acres in Yeah. Open open space or agriculture, whatever you wanna call it. Ag easement. Ag easement. Yeah. It's basically gonna make 27 through 38 a moot point. Yeah. Is it? Yeah. Because they they can't do anything. The minute they do that Yeah. They can't do anything. So it doesn't matter Yeah. With all the stuff that we're saying here. So I my recommendation, we just Yep. I hate to do this because I don't like doing this, but remove it. Yeah. It's a trade off. It's a trade off because they she just gave us the

land that day forever. We can do that, but let's add a let's add a whereas to the to the resolution. Let's add a whereas that says, whereas the applicant has agreed to dedicate a an easement for I forget what the word is, but whereas the applicant has agreed to And this so that it makes it clear to any future applicant that that's the reason that we aren't doing Agree to that. That way,

I agree. 100% of that.

Can add that in as part of it. But anytime one of these demonstrations is recorded, they would have to come back to, like, a board and have it removed and have they have to be approved to

be removed. Okay. So Okay. Then I I would agree with that and we'll leave the final language up to the chair so that we don't have to bring this back at some point in the future. And then also add the whereas with the reasoning why we're striking '27 through '38 is because of that trade off because they traded with us. Okay.

Yeah. Just to make it clear that that, you know, if if another applicant comes to us, they're not gonna get that same dispensation and here's why.

Yeah. They're all able to read

the same thing. Yeah. Yeah.

That sounds good to me. So shall we vote on

the Just to clarify, do we wanna specify what kinds of activities, ag activities would be allowed within that space?

Or it's an easy to do that Isn't that defined? So

easements are done on a one off scenario and so they're usually defined within that easement. You could simply say anything allowed in ag zoning, could be, allowed on the parcel still. It's just no future subdivisions. So we just wanna be clear what's gonna be in that recorded easement. Can they come and build a barn in ten years? We want to make sure that's it's spelled out.

If they want to turn it into a horse rescue, go ahead.

Okay. So the recommendation that I'm hearing is that any allowed use in the ag zoning would be still permitted to do. You'd have to follow whatever discretionary requirements, you know, for privacy. Yeah, I think so.

And

the applicant's flexible, we should be flexible also. Yeah. Agree. Yes.

So do we need to take

a vote? Yep. Yeah. Yeah. So I guess, do we have enough wording that Yeah.

Before that, let's clarify with staff whether they're sure that we have what we want here before we

So we wanna do ag preserve, and we want only uses allowed in ag to be allowed in perpetuity with that runs with the land and then have restriction officially recorded with the county and all that. And the only way for them to remove it or subdivide would be to come back to Correct. Like board of supervisors or something like that.

Correct? And the removal of the conditions that were requested to be removed and the addition of the whereas and the resolution that explains why we're removing them. Yep. Perfect. Got that. Okay. Yep. And So do we have a motion to that effect? So moved. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Can we have a roll call, please?

You got it. Vincent Ringhaden? Richard Way? Yes. Roberts Scaliotti?

Yes.

Robert Gibson?

Yes.

Bobby Thomason? Yes. It is a five o in favor of the amended changes. Thank you very much. Okay.

So that takes care of item 7.2. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to item 7.3. Hold a public hearing regarding the oh, this is a continuation of forgive me. Is it Nino or Nino? I'm not sure. It's Nino. A tentative map subdividing a two thirty four point eight acre parcel. I'll just let you proceed with this one since it's a continuation. So please explain. Thank you. Okay.

Alright. So I will give the up I did update a memo. I think you got it earlier. And I apologize to that. I didn't get to speak with them yet, but I will speak with them after.

We're recommending the, staff is recommending the planning commission continue, the consideration of PLN 250035, minor subdivision at 111 Bass Road to a date uncertain. We have I mean, updated water testing is needed, from the applicant regarding water supply and pump testing results. Once these tests are submitted by the applicant, environmental health staff can then update their comments accordingly. Continuing this item will allow time for, staff and the applicant to provide the required submittals so Environmental Health can give their, comments on this. And, also, additionally, we found out that there is also, it will need a sequel initial study due to the presence of critical habitat for tiger salamander in combination with, known cultural resources and wetlands.

Present.

Questions for staff on this? Public comment on this item? Discussion among commission. Is there a motion to continue this item?

Move to continue to a date uncertain.

Is there a second? Second. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? No. Okay. Item is continued to a date uncertain. Thank you very much.

Moving on to item 7.4. This is review and adopt the attached resolution that recommends the Board of Supervisors add local tenant preference to title 21. Disclosure on this one, I participated in one ad hoc meeting with supervisors Zanger and Velasquez in I think it was late July. They requested my presence in that one in addition to a couple other people on staff and one person from our county council's office. In any event, please proceed with the presentation on that. Thank you.

Okay. Hi, commissioners. Stephanie Rex, senior planner. Instead of doing another presentation, as you've seen this multiple times, there was just a few minor amendments that were made, so I'm gonna review those for you right now. C MAP, if you can please pull the screen up. Thank you. Okay. So we're gonna scroll down to our first red line here tonight. The scope. Originally, this said the project, would this would apply for any projects that had four or more units.

We amended that to be five or more units because at five at five is when you hit a major subdivision. So we didn't want this to affect any minor subdivisions. So it was updated to, projects of five or more for the scope applicability. And then we're gonna move down into our preferences here. We added a few preferences.

So in, through some of our meetings with the school district, we decided it would be a great idea to add a preference here specifically for school district employees to help them out. So, this is for any school district employee in the entirety of the county of San Benito, so any school district that is in existence here. And then, you guys, the planning commission, requested to add seniors to the preference. So seniors have been added, and it's a San Bernardino County senior that is 62 years of age or older or 55 years of age older who reside in the senior citizen housing development, and this is, the definition by state law. And then, because you suggested seniors, I thought it would be a great idea to add individuals with disabilities because they typically go hand in hand.

Our, aging and disability resource center serves both individual populations. So we added, another preference here for individuals with disabilities, and that is defined in our county code. And then we're gonna scroll down. So I'm gonna stop here at limitations for a second. During our last meeting, we discussed exploring an exemption for school districts.

We met with the school district twice, and they're here tonight, they will speak to this. And so they're in agreeance with our preference for school district employees. They're in agreeance with the removal of the one year durational preference. However, the exemption for school districts is per state law, and state laws can be amended and these things. So it's a moot point to include it here because they would only be allowed based on state law anyways.

So, to to, like, take out any redundancy or, extra explanation, we actually didn't include it here, and we do have the support of the school district, and they can comment as well when I'm done. And that's that's it. Those were all the amendments requested. Do you have any questions for me?

Thank you.

Not at this time. Okay. Alright. Public

comment comment on this issue? Sean?

I apologize for my.

Good at to see you, chair Wei and commissioners. Thank you very much. So Shout is the facility dog for the high school. She sees sees students all day, and then I have the honor of taking her home with me. So we have the ability to support our students with anxiety and depression, many of our students with emotional needs.

And she's doing a fantastic job with the 3,400 students. So but I do wanna compliment the staff. We had some fantastic meetings and partnership meetings regarding affordable workforce housing projects, which if the commission is aware, both Monterey County, Santa Cruz County, Santa Clara County, all the way up the Peninsula. Most school districts in those counties are looking at projects and or projects underway, including LA Unified, San Diego, San Francisco, to name the few districts. So we're looking at a project right now.

We've been working with folks at the capital, and I wanna compliment the staff and yourselves for the local tenant preference as well as the school district employee exemption. I think we can all agree on common ground that affordability for housing is one of the state's greatest crisis right now. So we're trying to amend that so that we have a local workforce that can live and work in our community. So if there are any questions for Sean tonight, I wanted to, again, thank you and and compliment you on your actions.

Jeff, do you have anything you want? Okay. Any questions from the commission? No?

Thank you, Yair. Okay. Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Changes, and thank you for working with the district. I would like to see seniors get an extra point or two. I think they're a very vulnerable population. A lot of them are are surviving on Social Security, and I think if anyone deserves an extra point or two, it would be seniors.

I I agree with that. I mean, we we have a lot of seniors, and not all of them have the .com benefits. So

It's true. What are your thoughts on an extra

point or two extra I mean, Sean said, I thought last time that we we have to be careful of how we do this in the point system. Yeah.

I would be careful. That said, I don't know of any restrictions that would make it so you can another point as

I sit here. As you said, give an additional point or whatever, half point, whatever you I would think, to start with, I'd

be comfortable with one extra point and see how it goes. If need be, we could come back and add another point. It's a prudent approach. Okay.

So I think then what we can do is in two places, so under preference nine for seniors, I can add a sentence that says this preference shall count for two points. Sure. And, in the section where we talk about, I believe it's implementation, each preference shall constitute one point. I'll put in, ever seniors will receive two points. Sure.

That works. Okay. Okay. With with the changes noted, I move to approve.

Second. Shall we have a roll call then? Stephanie, shall we have

a roll

I'm doing too many things. Sorry. Sorry. Vincent Ringhaden?

Yes. I

Bobby Thomason? Yes. Richard Way? Yes. Robert Gibson?

Yes.

Robert Scaliotti?

Yes. Okay. Proof five zero. Thank you very much. Moving on to item seven seven point five, I believe. Yes. 7.5. This is the changes to title 25 in its entirety, which is the zoning ordinance. Full disclosure here, I had a conversation earlier today with Bass Williams, former supervisor from Santa Barbara County, former legislator in the California State Assembly. And I also had a conversation with Seth Capron, and I've also read the letters from both Seth and Leslie.

All all of these conversations and letters were regarding the battery storage implications of the changes to the to the proposed changes to the to the zoning regulations, which basically would preclude battery storage in the county except under very specific regulations. In any event, please proceed with the with the presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, chair, fellow commissioners, and members of the public. As I go through this presentation today on our zoning code, I am going to go through the changes since June 4. And so some of the information hasn't changed, and so I'll be moving quickly through some of those slides that there are no changes. Under 2,501 public hearing procedures and noticing the since June, additional changes include revising to read that the county shall also be posted on the county website and that the project's site be by the county, not the applicant, because that's how it is done operationally in a location that is readable from the public right of way and shall include the following. And then the addition of d as follows reads that if the application includes legislative action, then notice shall be posted at the project site by the applicant in a location that is readable from the public right of way and notice sent to local agency, affected agencies.

There were no changes since June on appeals and expansions of non conforming use of structures and sites moving forward. The changes under twenty five zero two, currently, crowing foul permits, include that under c three now reads as follows. If evidence of illegal activity is found, such as cockfighting, expedited administrative abatement may occur pursuant to section 103.014. In addition, under F-two now reads as hours of confinement, crowing foul must be kept inside an enclosed structure with a roof between 8PM and 6AM. Under six-three modified from should to shall, updated J exemptions, to read as follows: The following are exempt from provisions of this article.

These exceptions shall not apply to cockfighting regulations identified in I above under any circumstances. There were no changes to twenty five zero two development plan review thresholds. This one's gonna be a little lengthy, so I'm just gonna prep you. Under land use tables, a few notes to consider. We went back looking at the EV charging and how many many should be allowed and review of legislation under AB twelve thirty six, which requires counties to, implement streamlining permitting for electric vehicle charging stations, and specifically under paragraph b one, it states that a city, county, or city and county shall administratively approve an application to install electric vehicle charging stations throughout the issuance of building permit or some similar nondiscretionary permits.

And it goes on to, read more. Additionally, AB nine seventy was codified under government code section six five eight five zero point seven one and builds on the prior section by adding specific timelines to the review period based on the size of addition, we went to look at battery storage and how much battery, storage should be, included. And in looking at several different jurisdictions, the proposed is in front of you, for consideration that this excludes individual backup storage systems with a capacity of less than 600 kilowatts per hour. Backup storage systems between 600 kilowatts per hour and two megawatts require minor development plan review. A b five four six, also streamlines permitting, for advanced energy storage, allows electronic submissions, and requires online availability of permitting information, for reference.

Under renewable energy facilities, there for reference, there's no broad state law requiring all renewable facilities be allowed by Wright, but there are targeted streamlining provisions for consideration. AB 21 A8, small residential rooftop solar, that's codified in government code section sixty five thousand eight fifty point five requires expedited streamlined, permitting process for small residential rooftop solar. In addition, there are a few major, legislative drivers for renewable and carbon free electricity in California. These include SP 100 from in 2018. This landmark bill sets the goal of achieving a 100% clean electricity by 2045.

It requires the California Energy increased the state's renewable energy procurement goal to 50% by 2030 with interim targets and requirements for long term contracts, SB ten twenty. From 2022, this act sets interim targets for zero carbon electricity aiming for 90% by 2035, 95% by February by 2045. AB two zero five allows for state approval process for, CEC certification, which would replace the county's role in large part. The CEC would still consult the county and would attempt to incorporate county rules, but to the extent that those rules do not exist or are an impediment to putting the solar farm in place or, they would be ignored. Moving on to, land useables in residential zones.

It was requested at the last meeting to we went back to the ad hoc to review the development standards under RM. The following changes were made that developments with five or more lots must include mixed use elements, which may include but are not limited to apartments, condominiums, duets, duplexes, a commercial component making up of at least 5% of the project, the requirement for a commercial component may be waived under the following conditions. So for projects between five to 20 units, the Planning Commission may approve a waiver. For projects more than 20 units, the waiver must be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Waiver request must be submitted before the start of CEQA review process.

This is to ensure that you have the full project description, in moving the project forward. In addition, staff had received, questions about possible changes, or looking at transitional housing, or why transitional housing, was included, and, traditional housing is required to be same as residential housing under government code section 65,583. So that is just the explanation of why it is permitted under the different zoning districts. The change under planned unit development, there was no changes continuing on under twenty five zero seven general development and design standards under twenty five zero seven zero zero two d one e corrected the word tracked, and then updated the section f to be consistent with the land use tables as I previously, presented. H, all new housing structures shall be built to comply with the moving provisions of the California Building Code, which require the use of fire resistant materials and construction techniques for structures, located throughout the unincorporated county, non Justin designated high risk wildfire zones.

I, all new housing structures shall include battery energy storage systems. J, all new housing structures shall be built with gray water systems and meet all the requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code, CalGreen. K, all new housing structures shall follow the California building code for electric vehicle charging station requirements. L, all fences shall be finished. Block walls.

M, a paved sidewalk shall be required along the side yard, extending at a minimum to the garage side door. There were no changes under twenty five zero seven general development standards, to the non residential architectural and design standards that was previously presented in June. So I'm just going to continue past these slides. The changes under 2,507 general development design standards, for cannabis under the cannabis screening and fencing corrected the word scrap and removed section d. There were no changes under twenty five zero eight for ADU since June.

Under twenty five zero eight mobile home and recreational vehicles, it's been requested to look at dry RV park parking. Staff did reach out, to environmental health, and, the following changes were included. RV park shall comply with all applicable state and local health and safety requirements. This may include facilities such as public restroom showers and laundry facilities. All recreational vehicle spaces shall be provided with individual connections or a destiny dump station to an adequate wastewater disposal system, potable water, electrical hookups, and individual closed trash containers or common closed trash container as approved by the county.

Dyerbie Park shall not be located in a hundred year floodplain. The insurance said if it wasn't individual connections that there was a dump station at the site to make sure that there wasn't any, dumping off-site in places, you know, around the county. So it's just ensuring that there is a place for them to go even if it's not an individual hookups was the recommendation before you for consideration. Under twenty five zero eight pet shops, commercial kennels, hobby kennels, we corrected the word covering. There were no changes under twenty five zero eight animal keeping, and number small farm animals, small livestock, and dog and cats.

Under there were no changes, under twenty five zero eight renewable energy facilities since June. There were no changes to twenty five zero eight movable tiny homes since June. There were no changes to twenty five zero eight short term rental since June. We there was a request to, look at the surveillance requirements under twenty five zero eight commercial sports shooting and indoor shooting ranges. Staff went back and rereviewed state law code two six eight zero six mandates, since 01/01/2024, that all licensed firearm dealers must install and maintain digital video and audio surveillance systems on their premises.

We use this criteria for, the code even if maybe they're not selling as a dealer, but, use the same standard, applying. It included, the penal code includes, items such as continuous operation. System must record twenty four hours a day. Audio and video recording, it must record both audio indoors and video clearly capturing images and sounds. It, talks about camera placement and where they should be placed.

Frame rate must be 15 frames per second. Storage duration must be for at least a year. Security, shall include a failure notification mechanism and secure storage to prevent tampering or unauthorized access and access, control, including law enforcement with proper authorization, and that the backup is for, thirty days. And it's twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. And so the following up updates were made, to run, twenty four seven, and that those stored images would be not for thirty days, but for one year, and that, if damaged, the surveillance must be repaired or replaced within, seven calendar days.

So those are, what you see before you. There were no changes to glossary. It's the same in snow cleanup, and, staff recommends that the planning commission, tonight can either include adopting the resolution with the with the proposed draft ordinance, as recommended, or you do have the option to adopt it with any additional recommended amendments, or you do have the option to continue the item, but, to pursue pursue or make any additional amendments or changes. That concludes my presentation for the evening. I'm happy to take any questions at this time.

Thanks. Before we open up for public comment, are there questions from the commission for staff? No. No.

Okay. Public comments then.

Okay. We're gonna move through the speaker cards I have from in chambers, and then I'm gonna go to my hands on Zoom. Let's start with Laren Ciphers.

K.

Commissioners, the proposed exclusion of solar and storage is a counterproductive policy for San Benito County. I wanna be clear that it is our strong preference to work directly and collaboratively with the county to ensure that our project is a good fit for the community. That said, if this exclusion ordinance is approved, the project would have to seek approval through the state's assembly bill two zero five process. What this means is that there's one state approval which would replace the need for a county conditional use permit and that a project can be improved even if it conflicts with local zoning ordinances. With this state led process, the county's role shifts from being the decision maker to just a commenting agency, effectively removing county control.

The California Energy Commission or the CEC as the decision maker here has a mission to get more renewable electrons and storage onto the grid. So, ultimately, if a solid project like Allium is brought to their desk, through the a b two zero five process, the CEC would likely be inclined to approve this project. However, I see the a b two zero five process as a lose lose scenario for both of us. It's a loss for the county as it removes your direct jurisdictional authority over local land use and the ability to shape projects through your own conditions of approval. Instead, having that important decisions made in Sacramento.

And it's a loss for me as a developer because it's less collaborative, it's way more onerous, it's more costly, and it's a one size fits all approach. Additionally, this proposed exclusion directly contradicts the goals of the comprehensive climate action plan, which is on this very same agenda. Your action plan calls for new electrical infrastructure to improve grid resiliency and even encourages solar and battery storage installation on homes and businesses beyond what the state requires. Utility scale projects like Allium use very similar technology, to the residential systems, but are subject to far more robust formal permitting processes, environmental review, and rigorous safety codes. So the Allium project could help achieve your goals in this climate action plan, while the exclusion would undermine those goals.

I urge you to reject the proposed exclusion of solar and storage, keeping the permitting process local so that you retain control over projects and their conditions of approval. And a decision of this magnitude at least deserves more research and should be delayed if not outright rejected tonight. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Mike Nicholas, please approach the podium. You'll have three minutes.

Good evening, chair, commissions, commissioners, and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I wanna introduce myself. My name is Michael Nicholas. I'm a retired captain and assistant fire marshal from Kern County Fire Department, where I ran and pioneered our battery energy storage program.

We currently have the largest single active battery energy storage project in the world at 3.2 gigawatt hours supporting Edwards Air Force Base. Since retiring, I've been brought on to help the projects like Alliums and also working in conjunction with jurisdictions like San Diego County, helping develop their ordinances. I've been brought up to speak at the California Energy Commission Roundtable post Moss Landing to be a subject matter expert there. Working also with Mike Novo with Monterey County Housing and Development who has asked myself and chief Joel Mendoza to be speaking to the California County Planning Directors Association to help in the process. Also working with the governor's office and business of business and economic development along with California Public Utility Commission to help develop their battery energy storage ordinance.

That's gonna be a model ordinance used for jurisdictions to be able to base their permitting process on. So I had the unenviable task of trying to swallow an elephant whole when this dropped in my lap and it was a brand new storage. I think I'm an excellent representative because I came from knowing nothing about this industry to a vertical climb over the past six years to become fluent in a language with a safety first emphasis. I also sit on NFPA 55 commission, which we are currently working on getting our next 2026 edition out, which the California fire code will end up heard somebody bring up Moss Landing earlier, hot topic across the industry, no mistakes. So the biggest difference and pivot that we're seeing within the industry is going from containerized, which is what we're predominantly now instead of any building based.

So a container has one to five megawatts of power. Moss Landing's phase that was involved was 300 megawatts with an 85% loss around two fifty megawatts. So for comparative purposes, one enclosure is 1% to 2% of what was lost at Moss Landing. LEM also has a 1,500 foot setback from major roadways and occupied structures as well as a 300 foot setback from buildable property lines, which is really important when we're looking at setbacks. Another big co development that's happening is that we're having large scale fire tests, which are designed to demonstrate that the enclosure involved in a fire won't propagate to an adjacent enclosure, so that we show up as first responders and we have a finite fire area that we're dealing with, which is a single enclosure instead of a building's worth of enclosure or a building worth of batteries.

In Kern County, we set up our incident command post at 300 feet away. Thank you for the opportunity. And

I wanted to

make myself available if there's any questions.

Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you.

Okay. Moving on. Sofia Shwitzky. I hope I did that justice.

Good evening, chairway and commissioners. My name is Sofia Schwarzky, and I'm here on behalf of Central Coast Community Energy, the public agency that procures power for 1,200,000 people across five counties, including around around 60,000 San Benito County residents. 3CE is on a pathway to deliver 100% clean and renewable energy. It is our responsibility to buy reliable, affordable, and renewable energy on behalf of our customers. Because of this responsibility, we are concerned by the title 25 zoning amendments.

Firstly, the amendments are inconsistent with San Benito County's general plan policies. The county has a principle to strive to increase the supply of locally procured renewable energy in order to promote energy independence and efficiency under policy NCR 6.1. While batteries are not explicitly named, they are essential to meeting our renewable goals. In addition, direct benefits to community members. They store clean energy when it's least expensive and release it when demand costs are high, helping keep energy affordable for families and businesses.

They strengthen grid reliability during times of grid stress. They also support economic and workforce development by creating local jobs and contributing local tax revenue. And importantly, according to the Electric Power Research Institute, battery failure rates have dropped ninety eight percent since 2018, even as global deployment of the technology has increased by 25000%. New energy storage facilities are now subject to updated fire code and building code, and the industry has adopted different battery technology that is far less prone to thermal runaway. In our experience working with renewable energy developers, developers, the proposed title 25 zoning amendments would give away your local control.

By creating a de facto ban, energy developers will be encouraged to use the state's a b two zero five process and alternative permitting pathway without local decision making. Three CE respectfully act asks the commission to please consider the broader consequences of prohibiting utility scale batteries for energy reliability, economic opportunity. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Jason Noble.

Good evening. Just wanted to share a few concerns with some of the language I've reviewed regarding 25 o three development standard requirements for five or more lots created at least 5% mixed use. That's point 25% of a lot where there are five lots. Would that mean you round up to one full lot if you're working with less than 20 units in a subdivision? The threshold for obligating a subdivision to mixed use commercial seems unrealistic and a little heavy handed.

Does it really seem appropriate to put a Starbucks in a five lot subdivision or even a 20 lot subdivision? Regarding waiver considerations also seems to be adding approval layers, which add time, cost, and are unnecessary if don't you require commercial on too small of a scale. There are more appropriate locations for commercial. The thought of bringing in a request for a waiver before CEPA even begins seems equally unrealistic to expect planning have

very

company. For

strong

for for the point o seven, d one e, not repeating an elevation until the tenth unit is being constructed seems like a bad idea. I'm all forgetting us better built homes and better looking homes here, but the small subdivision builder who's often a local guy, adding the additional cost to do so many elevations does not seem right. Could making color a determining factor or number less than every 10 accommodate the the ordinance? E one I, battery energy storage systems. I know a guy who was making a good living selling solar.

At least he was until the battery component was mandated. People stopped buying solar because the battery component was so expensive. If you think builders are gonna throw it in, they're not. Most of all, if not all, the larger track builders make the buy make it the buyer's problem to pay for it or lease the solar. When people ask why homes are so expensive, we can we can point to this. Shouldn't this be an option to an owner rather than a mandate? D one l, all fences should be finished block wall. So if I build an ADU, block wall. If I'm building a home on acreage, block wall. Personally, we have no crawl fencing, barbed wire, and grapestake.

We would prefer to see what's going on on the other side of the fence. Even in the subdivision, you're adding significant cost to the building of the home by requiring block wall block wall. D one m says paved walkway, not concrete, not all weather surface. Why is paving asphalt the needed surface in this section? Regarding 6E corner lots, why duets or duplexes? Why not single family residents with a junior ADU or an ADU? What's intent of this? Ultimately, adding I was getting to the good part

too. Seth Capron.

Good evening, commissioners. Commissioners. I strongly urge you to remove the ban on energy, clean energy storage from the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance and replace that with a requirement for conditional use permits. I served six years on the Community Advisory Council at 3CE, a couple of years as chair. I got a chance to learn a lot about our journey to electrify our energy economy and achieve carbon free energy.

3CE's goal is 100% clean energy by 2030, and we are 3CE. San Bernardino County, Hollister, San Juan are all members of 3CE working together to achieve these goals. We've been moving rapidly toward those goals, partnering with solar developers and creating new solar, wind and geothermal projects. When new solar and wind projects are built, they always include energy storage. It's not economical to build a solar project without energy storage because the electrons aren't worth very much in the afternoon when the sun's out.

They're worth a lot in the evening. And that's because that's when we need the power on the grid. And that's where we can reduce the use of fossil energy production. So if local jurisdictions say no to clean energy storage, they would be giving up on our statewide and regional efforts to turn the corner on climate change in time to invert avert a total climate disaster. And these climate goals are baked into our climate action plan that you'll be reviewing later tonight.

As was mentioned earlier, it actually says that the county should work directly with three CE opportunities to develop new renewable energy and storage projects within San Benito County. When I served on the 3CE advisory board, I was a big proponent for trying to develop renewable energy projects locally. Most of the projects we've built have been over in the Central Valley because it's been less expensive to do that. But there's big advantages to doing it locally. You look at your PG and E bill and the distribution and transmission costs are two thirds of your bill.

We can eliminate those long transmission lines and takes a lot of years to get transmission lines built. So if we want to ramp up our use of renewable energy, we can do it more quickly with local generation. The proposed ban is clearly a reaction to what happened at Moss Landing and the battery fire there. I understand that concern. I live close to Moss Landing out in Aromas. I left home for three days when that fire was burning. And, as was mentioned earlier, that's older technology that isn't in use today. Thank you very much.

Carson Clower.

Good evening, Commission. My name is Carson Clower. I am am k two solutions. I'm a lobbyist, so just kinda get that out there. I don't have any contracts with people who'd be affected by what I'm gonna talk about, so just to kinda be clear.

Like I said in June, I I have some major concerns about requiring commercial in residential mix. I'd I'd like to see some sort of discussion about getting rid of single family residential in general. I'm not gonna make a point one way or another on that, but I think think a giant decision like that deserves a few minutes of discussion from, the commission or the board or the public. But if you do do that and then you require that land and also the residential multiple land to be conditioned with 5% commercial, which it's to me, it's still not clear what that even means. I don't think it makes sense in any regard.

But, let's say you have a project that's a couple acres, which is possible at the at those densities. You're gonna end up with maybe a 6,000 square foot lot that's commercial. Smaller, maybe 4,000 depending on how you decide what the square footage is. Is it is it pre subdivision? Subdivision?

Is it after you take out the road dedications for the subdivision? There's all these questions that could be flushed out, but I think the point of this is to have something in the code that a bad actor on either the commission or the board of supervisors could point to and say, hey. You're not meeting that, and we're not gonna give you a waiver. Waivers do not make sense as a process. So not only you're have bad code, you're gonna have bad process.

A five lot subdivision, the idea of having commercial in it just doesn't make sense. But then they have to come to you and waste your time to get a waiver every time somebody's gonna submit an application for it. It this is something that's being kind of thrown in there that will come through with the other 40 or 50 changes that are happening that is a massive massive change. And I think code overhauls are great. It's a lot easier to do it that way than to go one by one and spend time and three minutes from everybody's day on it.

But for me, personally, you have a bunch of stuff that seems fairly good. There's some stuff about the battery storage that I have no background in, so I'm not gonna comment on it. But this is much more impactful than I think anybody's really talking about. Most of residential developments can't support commercial financially. It doesn't work. And most residential developments aren't compatible with commercial uses. So the idea that you're gonna have a small project that's gonna have one store out on Southside Road, and then someone's gonna build that, and then you're gonna rent it for $1,400 a month. It's just not gonna happen. So, hopefully, there's some discussion around that. I appreciate you. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. We're gonna move over to Zoom. Eric, you unmute yourself. Uh-oh. I see that you're talking, but we can't hear anything. Hang on.

Try talking now.

Oops. Unfortunately, we're not getting any audio from Zoom. Let's pause for one second and see if CMAP can figure this out.

While we're while we're waiting, I will just say that I've had the same conversations that had with Seth and the other gentleman who I'm forgetting his name, and I also read the letters that were submitted to the planning commission regarding the battery storage. Anyone else wanna confess your sins?

At this moment, I have no sins to confess. Thank you.

I doubt that very much.

Unfortunately, mister Wake, you are right.

Eric, are you still trying to speak? Okay. Here's a quick workaround. I can give my county cell phone number if you would like to call in. You may call me, and we could take your public comment that way. For all of those listening via Zoom, my phone number is 837187960. (831) 718-7960. Eric, if you would please give me a call first.

And she'll be changing that right after this meeting.

Is this Eric? You are on the line.

Let me turn my audio down on my computer.

Okay. You'll have three minutes. I'll let you know when it's up.

Thank you so much. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Eric, Viehlm and I'm speaking on behalf of the CCA Workforce and Environmental Justice Alliance. And this evening, I urge you to reject the county wide ban on clean energy storage. Battery storage isn't just about climate.

It's about keeping the lights on. California now has more than 15,000 megawatts of storage online, powering millions of homes after sunset. By 2045, the state will need more than three times that to ensure reliability. Let me be clear, today's battery systems are not of of

California,

gas monitoring, and emergency access. Local fire officials reviewed California, detailed emergency response plans before projects can operate. And this spring, the CPUC strengthened statewide rules, so every project must have approved emergency and maintenance plans. The result? Safer designs, better chemistries like lithium ion phosphate, and stronger oversight.

The tools exist to manage risk responsibly. A ban would throw away jobs, tax revenue, and the reliability benefits that should come to San Benito residents. We need storage to prevent blackouts, support renewables, and lower long term costs. Please reject this ban and instead direct staff to enforce today's modern codes. Let's build a safer, cleaner, more reliable energy future together. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. And goodbye. Okay. Leslie Austin, you're gonna be next. Would you please give me a phone call? Okay. Hello. Is this Leslie? Hi. Can you hear me okay? I can. You will have three minutes.

Very much. Good evening, commissioners. Leslie Austin here. I live in Aromas about 15 miles from Moss Landing. When that fire broke up earlier this year, it was really hard not to see how much it shook people. And I wanna thank the staff and this commission in advance for taking safety seriously. That really has to be the starting point in any conversation about clean energy storage, especially now. But to be clear, banning clean energy storage won't make San Benito safer. The Sierra Club's national team has emphasized that while fires are rare, storage projects should meet clear safety standards and responsible oversight. The the takeaway is simple.

Adopt safety protections for storage that give communities real confidence and are straightforward enough to keep projects moving. And here's the catch. A ban doesn't actually stop projects. Control here, a ban ironically gives it away. There is a better way.

Sandino can put a permitting framework in place that fits different land uses. That means safeguards like setbacks, fire preplanned so fire fighters know exactly what to do, siting on fallow or non prime soils instead of prime productive farmland, and making sure the public has a voice. That's how you hold projects accountable without creating unnecessary reliable in the state. Clean energy storage is what keeps irrigation pumps and cold storage running on farms, keeps schools open as cooling centers for kids, keeps fire stations powered during outages. If any county needs this, it's ours.

These projects also bring, as you heard earlier, economic benefits, tax revenue for public services, lease income for landowners, and good local jobs. A ban just throws those benefits away while leaving us more dependent on fossil fuels. Other agricultural counties, Ventura, Sonoma, Napa, Fresno, Kings County, they've all faced the same choice, and all of them have chose regulations with conditions, not bans. San Benito should do the same. Tonight, you can set San Benito on the path to resilience. I urge you to reject the ban, keep decisions local, protect prime farmland, and build the resilience this community needs. Thank you.

Thank you, Leslie. Goodbye.

Thank you.

Okay. Next, we're gonna have Tim Frank. Tim, please give me a call. Hello. Is this Tim?

Yes. It is.

Okay. You will have three minutes.

Perfect. Thank you very much. And because a lot of what I was planning to say has already been said, I think I may be able to keep it quite short. But I'm too frank and I'm with the Center for sustainable neighborhoods. Projects that help build sustainable neighborhoods that that help neighborhoods great places to live work and play.

To make them resilient to make them responsible in the face of climate change. And we think that one of the to sustainability is a sustainable energy supply and for neighborhoods in San Bernardino County. One of keys of that is a previous speaker noted is actually making sure that there's energy supplies that are local that that because you're at the end of the line. Providing the local energy storage will actually make it possible to build local clean energy capacity that also is good for climate so we think that this is a win win win if you do it right but the key here is to retain local that's what will allow you to look at the details as noted before things like the setbacks but also we would like to encourage you to think about making sure storage projects are built workers and ideally with skilled local workers that can help jobs for your local workforce. And we think that obvious choice tonight is to retain your own capacity your decision making capacity by rejecting the ban and and instead pointing towards a local renewal a local approval process.

So thank you very much.

Thank you, Tim. Goodbye. Okay. Nancy, you're next. Would you please give me a call?

Hello. Is this Nancy? This is Nancy. You'll have three minutes.

Sounds good. Okay. Thank you so much. Hello, everyone. This is Nancy Falstic. I'm the executive director of Regeneration Paraguaro Valley Climate Action. We're based here in Watsonville. We do work closely with government agencies and community based organizations in San Benito County through the Monterey Bay Area Climate Justice Collaborative, which we are managing, and also on some regional projects. And our staff come from, and we work closely with farm worker and immigrant families who are already living with the daily impacts of climate change here in the Central Coast. Like others, I'm calling to urge you to reject a blanket ban.

I do support regulation of battery energy storage systems, but I believe that we need the backup energy, both to keep power on and to reduce dependencies on fossil fuels. I've been learning more recently about the plants that are called peaker plants that come on, when the demand increases, and those are gas plants that are both expensive and really dirty, and they tend to be located in low income communities. So the pollution from those plants is directly impacting people who are are already disproportionately experiencing the effects of climate change. And again, fossil fuels and climate changes don't stay within jurisdictional boundaries. So I think what happens in San Benito County does affect the rest of us in the Monterey Bay.

And I want wanna urge you to reject the ban. Thank you.

Thank you, Nancy. Goodbye. Okay. That is the end of public comment.

Okay. Thank you. Public comment is closed. Discussion then within the commission? I think I'll try to go closer to last because I have a lot of questions. I have a number of comments as well.

Sorry to staff in advance. I appreciate all your work, but there's more work to do. I have

a a couple of comments Please. Of mine. I I'm I'm definitely not for a band of the storage plants. I think that the Moss Landing plants scared the heck out of everybody, but I also think that as a retired electrician, there's a lot of safety safety built built into into NFPA 70, and I realize this is a couple years old. If they follow this and use the monitoring systems, thermal monitoring systems, and this can be done safely.

That's my thought. There's a lot of new technology. Moss Moss Landing was old and should have never been online in my opinion because of the technology and the thermal runaway was obviously not monitored and in control. Gosh, I could go on for a while, but I'll stop there for now.

Okay. Other thoughts?

Bobby? Anything from you? Okay. So, let's start whacking. I appreciate all the public comment. I'm gonna try to go in order. Appeals error bookmark not defined?

It's not doing it on our end when so I think it's something with peak. The word document doesn't have whoever that is.

Okay. Will that get fixed at some point, though?

It's it's the word document doesn't show that error.

It's I I think it's something when uploaded to peak. Okay. Then go into page one ninety, the tables. We have the nonresidential structures being commercial, office, institutional. We also have the agricultural, industrial.

What if we bump bump those numbers up some more? I would like to have a discussion about bumping that up so that we can be more business friendly, oddly enough, in this county. I think we thought we were bold a year or two ago whenever we bumped them up, but when you really think about 50,000 square feet, that's not anything. So I'd like to have a discussion with the commission about changing changing those numbers. Obviously, everything's had can probably come back in two months or perhaps longer.

So we have some time. I don't know if we wanna set up an ad hoc with a single commissioner what we're gonna do to try to expedite it. But for this page, is there any willingness from the commission to increase these these numbers as far as the amount and type of review that they need? Because building a barn, 50,000 square feet isn't much.

Well, see, that's the thing. It it it really does depend in in my opinion, I I shouldn't be talking first, but in in my opinion that won't stop me. In my opinion, there is a difference between, as you say, a barn where I would not have a problem with increasing these numbers and a structure other than that, you know, an office or some or something like that, where I would have a problem with increasing these numbers. So we would I I think I would want to have some delineation between some discrimination between those types of usage is if we were to increase these numbers somewhat. Okay.

Is there anyone else that wants to at least look into it and perhaps direct staff to look into further delineations? I do.

I do too. Okay. So there's a consensus to

When we get to the commission's recommendation, if you're gonna you can establish an ad hoc as a commission. It just can't be more than two members total. And so if that was gonna be part of the motion later, if you could include that. Thank you. Okay. We're gonna have

a long motion because I have a lot of issues. Page one ninety three under modifications. I just it's a question or a comment. I don't know. Changes to an approved at the bottom, changes to an approved major or minor development plan review, which are in the director's discretion, not major, may be approved by the director.

That's kind of a lot of leeway, isn't it, without involving the planning commission again? Because if the director could overstep what they should be doing, where does that leave the planning commission with its review? It seems like it gets sidestepped. Is there any refinement to that language that would have a little more control over the director?

One One thing you consider in that section or close to that section, it talks about that however a project was entitled, so if that was at the director's authority to be entitled, then that would be how a modification, could be done. Or if it was approved as a conditional use permit, at a planning commission level, then, it, you know, it would be at at that level that a modification we've done so we could tune that language to be how it's entitled. Okay. I'd like

to get consensus before I move on from the planning commission whether or not we not give the director wide discretion on making changes because we run into Yeah. I I historically. I don't

think it should be the the director's opinion. I don't think it should entirely be the director's opinion. Nothing against the director. It just it just shouldn't be entirely a matter of opinion. I wholly agree. I agree.

Page 198 under f, conditions of approval. In approving a conditional use permit, the director may impose reasonable conditions or restrictions. Directors don't approve conditional use permits. Correct? Am I missing I was confused by that. Isn't that the planning commission?

Administrative CUPs? Yes. So we can we can update that language. Okay. I was I was just confused.

Next page, one ninety nine, reapplication for denied conditional use permit. I there was some language on one seventy three that I thought we might stick in there. It was the it was all the red line on item number seven, denial by the approving body. Would it make sense to stick that language in that section?

That or reference the previous section.

Oh, I would either way, I would like to I

think that Yeah. The the problem that I have with repeating language is if you repeat it in multiple places, then it tends to get out of sync over time. So it's better, in my opinion, to have a reference. Okay. Then I would like to reference if I have a consensus of the commission to reference under m reference one

well, the language is on our page one seventy three number seven, denial by approving body.

I agree.

So you would reference on end you would reference

That language.

Page 173 number seven.

Well, it it wouldn't be page one seventy three. It be the pages? Yes. It would reference that. Okay. In the tables, I guess it could be on page two thirty two. I couldn't find an ag tech or ag manufacturing column that's in allowed use on ag. Two thirty two. I mean, if if we're trying to embrace our ag sector, I think allowing the the manufacturer or whatever of such technology, I think it would benefit us because right now, we don't embrace a lot. So I think that we should add a column for whatever you wanna call it, ag tech or ag manufacturing as an allowed use to try to encourage to bring such jobs to our county?

Hopefully, sales tax wouldn't hurt either.

Yes. And that is consistent with the general plan. There's a policy related to industrial uses for ag. So it's an allowed use? So can we add the table to make it the general plan policy. I forget the exact language, but it would be consistent. So that would not be a problem to Okay.

If there's consensus from the planning commission. Okay. Page two thirty six of the packet, renewable energy generation on ag. It says aloud. Along with the the the bottom of the table, along with the batteries, I think I'd I don't wanna ban anything, but I'd like to have some oversight over it as a CUP or something. I don't think prime farmland or or, farmland of local importance should be destroyed for the sake of saving the earth.

Think we need to to put a

little more thought into it.

Yeah. So we can look at adding into I believe it's 2,507 secondtion. There's a renewable energy sections. We could add additional development standards in there,

and we can work on developing those. Leslie's letter, that's part of the public record. And I like her building the CUP framework, citing the various safety rules that would prevent another Vistra, disallowing it on prime farmland and all add farmland of local importance, the protections for noise, traffic, etcetera. The gentleman on the Zoom, his his suggestion about using skilled local labor, I think that's fantastic. And if it has to be through an ordinance, I'd like to see some taxation on the generation and storage.

I'd also like to see some sort of standard reimbursement for fires since our existing solar farm is probably costing us more than we're we're getting in the long run with the fires that continue to happen. And it also is like to see a local preference for the use of the juice if that's possible. Page 238, since Carson and Jason are here. The minimum lot size, it's still in there as one sixty, forty, five and five. I think with the the board and their new committee that they created with the realtors and developers and those that are on all sides of that fence, I think they're gonna take a look at it.

So I don't know if we should be sending these numbers through to the board about the new Right.

They're they're they're gonna make changes to that for sure.

We already covered transitional housing. I I asked about it because there was a uproar in Monterey, but, apparently, the state doesn't allow us to have any control over that. So if there is ever is an issue, I hope the county explains to the people that that's the state, and they know best. That covered that. The net next section or the next page.

Going back to Jason's concerns, I had the same ones. Page two ninety six. All new housing structures shall include battery energy storage. Housing the cost of housing in California is insane, and adding another 40 or $50,000 doesn't make sense to me. That's a lovely idea, but I don't think it's practical because a developer is not gonna absorb the cost. It's just not gonna happen.

I I think that that number is really high. We didn't pay anywhere near that for our battery storage. Granted, we have a really small house but I I I admit there is a cost but I don't I don't think it's that high.

I just have a concern mandating it. Even if it's $10.00, I don't think it's up to the county or the state to tell somebody that they have to

have it. Probably not there to mandate it, I think. No. You I would We have a solar system in our house, but I didn't I chose not to have the battery storage for a lot of reasons. Yeah. So I think mandating it is

a mistake. Yep. And then So that's I. And then going to the next page, j. What does that entail, and what does that cost, and what does the benefit? I I have concerns about all these things. J, also, k. As long as it's not a mandate, I guess that's kosher. L, all fences shall be blocked. I think that's ridiculous. And I also have issues with mandating a sidewalk on the side yard. I don't think so. I don't know what who came up with it or why, but I would disagree with the premise.

It's within your discretion to remove Yep. Any any of those items. I think is there a consensus to remove

all those that mandate anything? Yes.

Yes.

Yes. So do you do you know which was I? It's I just assumed strike them all, really.

I

j k. L m Yep. H and I. All billing Yeah.

You show them the blueberry. Anything that's in red as far as I'm Yeah.

Actually, you you make it easier.

Strike it all. Oh, yes. Strike it all.

Because you're gonna have to follow the laws. If the laws say you're gonna have to do something, you're gonna have to do it, but we don't need to add to the burden. We already do enough.

I I would support removing the all fences shall be finished block walls, removing the paved sidewalk. I would not support removing the battery storage. I would not support removing the gray water. I would not support removing the electric vehicle charging stations. I just wanna go on record for that. I realize I'm in the I'm in the minority. Okay.

Thank you, sir. County, whether it's the ad hoc or staff work with developers or people that are in the know to figure out what number would be appropriate before we start requiring the 5% commercial. Because like the like the public speaker said, it doesn't make sense at five.

I was totally blown away by that.

So we'll probably continue this thing until at least October so there's time to work with Jason and Carson and whoever else would be

members. You can have additional members, but you can, you know, have meetings with individuals as needed. If that is the framework. And I'm almost there.

Page three eighteen. You you had one that I missed. There's this chart that says an uncovered patio required interior side yard setback, four and a half feet. But then you put a if you cover it, it's only three feet. I was just curious. That seemed backward to me. That if you're gonna have a roof on your deck, it should be further away from the side yard. But I was just questioning that.

I need to go back and double check building code on that, but if we're continuing, I think Okay.

It just to make sense to me, but I'm not an engineer. And then there was one big thing going to the ADUs, and I will provide you with the time on the last meeting. So at the the meeting in June, at two hours forty six minutes and some odd seconds, we got consensus to change under a for impact fees for ADUs. We had consensus of the commission, I think it was four out of the four that were present, to change. No county impact fees shall be charged for an ADU that is less than 1,200 square feet in size.

And under b, we put 12 o one, and it wasn't changed.

All of these. Like like, we can correct that.

So I'd like to make sure that that's corrected, please. And that's all that I cover. I think I covered everything for now unless I missed something. I hope not. Jason, throw something at me

if I missed something. If you don't mind, I have a question regarding Sure. The By all means. Is that okay?

By all means. What's the what did you say the standoff was on a

secondary building? Four feet? Is that what you So

what I'm recollecting off the top of my head, but I I didn't wanna confirm is with building code setbacks, generally, there's a five foot setback. It can go down as far as three, but then, with fire and I'm not the, fire marshal, you have to increase, the fire rating of And the so I have to I honestly have to go look at that section and double check the building code. Just can't remember off the top of my head.

But roughly, so the primary structure, the secondary structure, you're saying you think it's four feet?

Generally, have a five foot setback. I

know

that there's cases where you can go down as low as three feet, but then there's additional requirements required. So I just have to go look back at it. I apologize I don't have it.

No worries. Is that unique to our county? I thought the building code said 10 feet setback on the secondary structure.

I I can look. I can go back and look. Okay.

If you if you don't mind and and Absolutely.

Don't I don't have the whole building code memorized. My apologies. You should by now. Oh, that was surprising.

Sorry. One more thing that I neglected to put on my packet. Page one ninety nine, expiration. No automatic expiration for a conditional use permit is imposed by the code. Is that standard? Because it seems like if you're gonna approve something and it sits for ten years, maybe conditions have changed, whether it's in the out outside community or something. I would be curious if it would be prudent to put an expiration if they don't use it either.

Yeah. So previously, our code had a one year expiration, but you consistently had applicants not being able to finance or do what they needed in one year. And so I believe it was in 2022 we removed it, that specific one year. But we can add in a timeframe or put a one year and then require that they need to provide some sort of

documentation needing additional time. Maybe five years. If you can't accomplish it in five years, maybe it goes away. I don't want to be business unfriendly, but I also don't want to leave things out there. You can't have

an open ended. It was one year, if I if I'm correct.

Yes. It was. Now to say open

ended seems like jumping full in. Maybe there's something in between five years I'm okay with. Yeah. Depends on that. And then there's also extensions. Right? You can get an extension. There's no fee for that, is there?

No, and we could also include something where the applicant's required to do like an annual check-in. I'm good with that, annual check-in.

But are you also good with a five year expiration if nothing has come of it? Yes. Okay. Yeah. So there seems to be That's something

we could add. I'd I'd even go a shorter time.

Well, is there an appetite to go less than five? I don't wanna go too short because I don't wanna be anti business.

Well, five years

of death, we need be able afford Sorry. Go ahead. I'm sorry. No. Go ahead. I think five is very generous. Five years. If you can't get it together in

five

five

years, I think then we should move on. Five years will be the yearly renewal. Five years was an annual check. Should do it in

the fifth year if you're out. That's a good add though.

Another thing is you could build in that they could extend it, but they need to maybe come back through and request basically a modification. So going back to like our modification section of the code, and so kind of building it in, okay, it expires in five years, but you know, if you come back to Planning Commission and request that extension. No, I don't wanna quite go that far. I'm just providing all No.

We're wonderful, but we're not that wonderful. Okay. I'm done for now. Thank you.

Okay. So the the only issues I had really are are around the battery storage as as other people have mentioned. And I've I've, you know, I've heard all the arguments, and most of the people that we've heard tonight, which is not necessarily representative of the community as a whole, but most of the people that we heard tonight seem to be opposed to the outright ban on a number of of grounds, both in terms of just the inadvisability of it from a technical standpoint and on the grounds of the fact that the applicants are going to be able to evade it, evade is the wrong word, but get around it by going directly to the state anyway, and therefore, we're going to lose local control. And based upon those couple of things, I'm inclined to at least, as a minimum, we need more input from the public as well as from staff regarding what other counties have done and, what is the state of the science and what other options are there for us besides an outright ban. So personally, I'd be inclined defer this, to continue this particular item to a date certain.

I'm personally not going to be here for the September meeting. I would be okay with having this heard in September in my absence, but I would also be okay with having it deferred until the October meeting. I don't I don't know that there's urgency around this if if we choose to continue it. It's possible also that there is no no appetite within the commission for continuing it, but either way is fine with me. That's just my initial take on it.

Oh, the other the other point that I wanted to make is we we wanna be careful to divorce this discussion from the particular applicant whose preliminary application came before us tonight in during the initial discussion. Because even if you are violently opposed to that particular application for whatever reason, this doesn't directly affect how you should feel about the particulars of the title that we're reviewing tonight. Right? Because Because this this this title, this zoning title 25 affects all the applicants. So keep that in mind when you're thinking about how you wanna vote on this.

So I guess that's that's really all I have to say about this particular issue. So having said that, I guess, is there a well, I I forgot one more thing.

Go ahead, please. I'd like to address nuclear. Oh, yes, please. Japan has come up with some things that'll fit in a cargo container, and I think for whether it's AI or cold storage or whatever, I think we need to at least take a look at it and address it and not ignore any option other than maybe windmills. Those

things

are hideous. But I think we need to explore all options because I don't think in state the of California we should go through rolling brownouts or blackouts. It's just not acceptable. I agree 100%. He took my thunder because I was gonna be next out of my list.

Nuclear, check into it.

Got it. And I don't know if there's a if we needed to form an ad hoc, if anybody wants to

get your thoughts. Okay. So so tell me again in 25 words or less or however many it takes. The the give me the the purpose and nature of the ad hoc.

Well, the the the ad hoc would be more for energy, whether it's renew renewable and or nuclear, just to work with staff and stakeholders and whomever just to try to button it down so we don't bring back something that looks like a denial and get everybody fired up again. Right. I don't I don't like bringing ordinances that upset people unnecessarily. Right.

Addition, I believe previously you had stated to also look at the 5% commercial component aspect.

Yeah, because that's what I thought you were heading towards with the ad hoc, and that's why I was a little bit confused because, Sid, you do want you don't want a separate ad hoc Oh, commotion. God, You want one ad hoc.

We'll wrap all that in it too. Yeah. Whoever wants to volunteer, Bobby.

I'm very interested in the in the in the energy, so in the in the commercial aspect. But, you know, being the chair, I'm I'm not really I mean, I'd be more interested in stepping back and letting others participate in the ad hocs unless there's no appetite for participation. But it sounds like you definitely have an

appetite I for would prefer not, but

I would like somebody to do it. I'd have to check my schedule, but I'd be willing to participate in that.

Both Both of you. No.

I don't think that can be the case, though. Can you have

You can have two. You just can't have more than two members. Otherwise, then it require it triggers Brown Act Committee.

Sure. I mean, it's up to you to determine Yeah. Who's on an ad hoc. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Well, let's let's go ahead and create an ad hoc for studying the energy issues as well as the commercial in 5%. Five well, the 5% commercial rule or whatever whatever percentage it turns out being. And initially, shall shall we appoint you or do you want to wait until you can confirm availability? I I really need to wait to confirm to my availability. Okay. Well

then Sorry. Through the

Yes. Chair, just to clarify, when we do ad hocs, we ask for your schedule to schedule a meeting, and so it would be worked around your schedule.

I I'm willing to do it.

Okay. Well, then let's create an ad hoc. Let's appoint Commissioner Ringhaden and also Commissioner Way. Alright. My cell, I'll be in. Alright. Commissioner Ringhaden and Commissioner Wei to the ad hoc. Thank you. Alright. And is there a motion then to continue this item to a date, sir? I'd like to make

a motion to continue this item. To With all the changes noted.

I I recommend since we do have to schedule ad hoc meetings, maybe the October. Okay.

So the motion is to continue this to the October regular meeting?

So, unfortunately, I will be out of the country in October. We

can create a special meeting and and, check-in with the commissioner's schedules for, maybe in the month of October, a

special meeting. Okay. So to continue it to a special meeting during the month of October? Correct. Okay. Is there a second to that? Second. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries five-zero. Thank you. Moving on to the regular agenda item eight. Before we move into item eight, it is now eight fourteen. Does anybody want a brief break before we move into the break of our agenda? Yes. Okay. Let's take a ten minute recess. Thank you very much.

We are in recess. Okay, folks. 10 has has gone by rather quickly. So let's reconvene. Let's get this show back on the road here.

We are reconvened at 08:25, and let's proceed with our regular agenda. Regular agenda item 8.1, resource management agency received presentation on nonprofit affordable housing and farm worker housing development and participate in discussion with nonprofit affordable housing developers. Thank you.

Is my mic not on? Okay. Hi. Again, Stephanie Recht, senior planner. I'm here to provide you with the presentation that was given to the board on in May, I believe.

And with me today, I will have through my phone, Jeffrey Morgan, president and CEO with CHISPA, and Felix Aiyang, the VP of business development for Penn. So they will be supporting in this presentation today, and they will call me when it's ready for their turn. Okay. So first, we will start with an overview of the California Department of Housing and Community Development, Community Development Block disaster recovery, otherwise known as the CDBG Doctor. So this grant was allocated to California for three federally declared disasters, which covers the the San Diego County, and was, for the flood that occurred back in March in of 2023, and others include, floods that occurred in San Diego and the in for the Hoopa Valley Valley tribe.

But a total of $416,000,000 was allocated for these eligible communities. HCD conducted an extensive amount of engagement with local government partners. They held minimum of three rounds of meetings to explain the program, provide data exchange, and receive recommendation. They mentioned, that, they were appreciative of Enrique, Areola and Ramon's contribution to this process. HCD coordinated with state level agencies who are mandated to do this as part of the CDBGR, Doctor implementation and planning.

They are also connected with local nonprofits, including disaster case managers, to determine what the unmet recovery needs from the disasters, that still exist in these communities. Unfortunately, through the process that identified, there's a need of 1,500,000,000.0 for unmet recovery, and they only have 416,000,000 for support. So the public, input, proposed, for these recovery programs, created an action plan that went to a thirty day public comment period that ended in the April. So they identified housing program as the largest need, and there are three components to this program. They allocated a 155,600,000.0 to construct new deed restricted affordable rental housing, 52,800,000.0 to rehabilitate or reconstruct owner occupied homes that were owned and occupied as the primary residence at the time of the disaster, and 14,600,000.0 for first time homebuyer down payment assistance programs that will renters to become homeowners and potentially move out of higher risk area into a lower risk profile area.

So they allocated 142,400,000.0 for infrastructure, 200 and sorry. 22,500,000.0 for the Hoopa Valley and Tooele River tribes, and 7,500,000.0 for an insurance resiliency pilot program as this is a topic in many communities. So next are specifics for San Benito County. With regard to multifamily rental housing construction dollars, this will be administered regional set asides where developers will apply to HCD for funding. San Mendo County is part of a regional set aside with Tulare and Tuolumne for 20,600,000.0.

Projects within these counties will compete against each other, and you can see what the other regional set asides are. Projects that would be eligible include supportive housing projects, senior housing projects, among others, and these are federal dollars, and there are enhanced requirements around the documentation of residency, but these are meant to serve some of the populations discussed. Regarding the infrastructure program, San Benito County received an allocation of 11,440,000.00 for infrastructure projects. San Benito would submit projects to HCD where they will review, alignment and eligibility with project and federal requirements including NEPA, but it would be the county that selects the projects for submission. These projects can include infrastructure, roads, utilities, connection to housing, any project that is a public facility on public land, and that can enhance or support, community development or reduce impact for future natural disasters.

Okay. So regarding the insurance resiliency pilot program, insurance is a big topic. It's a regulated market that HCD does not have the ability to influence, but they are trying to identify pilot projects that can help fill insurance gaps primarily for low to moderate income communities, LMI communities as they're referred to. These are a few pilot, there are a few pilot insurance projects that would scale up with other local governments to, for instance, provide insurance payments at the time of disaster without filling out paperwork, it would be basically a trigger payment policy. They have also proposed investing and reducing risks for LMI communities and quantifying the reduction to show insurance companies, and get rates for reductions in those areas.

So that's an overview of the CDBG grant. Sunny Flores, the director with CDC, CSDC could not be here with us today, so I'm gonna present his slides. So one of our local nonprofit developers is Community Services Development Corporation. CSDC is a five zero one c three nonprofit corporation that has been operating in San Bernardino County since 1984. CSDC was started as a nonprofit with members of the Board of Supervisors from 1984 as they saw a need for affordable housing in the county and wanted to meet those needs.

Over time, CSDC's boards have changed, but the purpose has not. They only serve San Bernardino County, and their purpose is to provide affordable housing to low and moderate income residents. They the primary, they pry they primarily meet the need for low to moderate income through for sale self help development. They meet the need through very low through affordable rentals and the need through extremely low through section eight rentals. They also have an MOU with a private developer to qualify and select moderate income homebuyers for workforce housing units.

So CSDC has always been a partner to San Benito County through different programs. They manage the emergency housing through the use of emergency services grants in partnership with community services and workforce development, CSWD, and health and human services, HHSA. They currently manage temporary housing for very low income, which provides two year rentals in two to three bedroom family units located above the migrant center and leased from the county. Since 2015, they provide lease management for the Helping Hands program with CSWD and HHSA funded through the continuum of care, the COC, to house homeless and disabled individuals. They also partnered with the county to complete Riverview 1 and Riverview 2.

Riverview 1 consisted of 56 units, half moderate for sale, half self help for low and very low. Riverview 2 consisted of 24 self help units for low and very low. They had over 700 applicants apply in this lottery, but only 24 local and qualified residents were selected. So in working with the county, they have been successful in partnering on a grant in receiving home funds to provide 1,000,000 in first time homebuyer assistance for that Riverview 2 self help project. Through the use of the home funds, the county funded the purchase of homes at Toro Plaza, for CSDC to operate as affordable housing, for which CSDC has loans that they pay back to the county.

They work with behavioral health through the bridge housing program to lease units to their clients. They believe that in moving forward, it is important to partner with the county, and would be happy to work with staff to identify projects in the pipeline and any available funding. CSDC would like to continue discussions with the county and work to partner on affordable housing support programs. Okay. So we're gonna move into Buena Vista. Jeffrey, if you could please give give me a call now. It's Chispa. Hi, Jeffrey. Is that you?

Yes. That's me. How are you doing today?

We're doing good. We can hear you.

Great. Great. Okay. So I just muted everything on the other line. So my name is Chef Morgan. It's I represent CHISA. We've been serving San Donito, Santa Cruz, and Monterey County for forty five years. We built 2,500 units of housing in the area and of those 1,000 of them were for sale homes self help housing and USDA five zero two loan housing for farm workers. In addition to that, we built rental housing. And you see some of the examples of that here.

Two examples are Buena Vista, which is our multifamily housing community, which you see as 41, one, two, and three bedroom units that was completed in 2017 using, tax credits so that the Low Income Housing Tax Credit latest budget should build up to an additional million units in The U. S. Through something that was called the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act. And we've worked with a lot of different kinds of sources. You'll see Mental Health Services Act, so we're helping some folks that have mental health issues.

And also, we do a lot of work around sustainability with solar panels, etcetera. Next slide. And this is a one, the the other the

to

year.

Do do And we're

slide. And Sunrise And is our senior community. So every now and then, I'll be coming down your way to go to a holiday party with some of our residents. We have very active with just with not just the seniors, but with families. We have roughly 50 different service partnerships that are tailored for each community.

So for example, we'll have after school programs, financial literacy. Literacy. We'll also work with Meals on Wheels and other programs to keep our residents independent and thriving. Next slide. And this is just a little bit more of some of the construction work that we've had underway.

So it's a privilege to continue to serve. I just wanted to say that we'd be happy to invite any of you to join me. You can get ahold of me. I'm at gmorganchispahousing.org. If anyone is interested in taking a tour of one of the communities with me or talking about some of the other opportunities that we've looked at in San Benito County, I'd be happy to talk to you. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Jeffrey. Okay. Now we're gonna move over to MidPen. Felix, if you could please give me a call. Hello, Felix. Hi. We can hear you.

Excellent. Thank you. Hi. My name is Felix Au Young. I'm the vice president of business development at MidPen Housing. I know you have a long agenda tonight, I'll keep this short. You may have heard of MidPen. We are a large regional nonprofit affordable housing developer developer and property management company. We have been around since 1970, so fifty five years. Over that time, we've built 137 communities and 10,000 homes in 12 Bay Area counties, including one community in San Benito County, as well as a number of properties in Santa Cruz and moderate nearby Santa Cruz and moderate counties.

We have a pretty robust record of getting 26 projects fully financed since 2020. And as Jeff mentioned earlier, primarily we're going through the low capacity tax credit program. The state has the backbone of that financing. Next slide, please. So for us, we have our own in house property management company.

There are four core values that we hold for our management, being good neighbors, enhancing residents' lives, implementing sustainable operations and maintenance, which include actually solar panels and reducing our utility costs, and then serving diverse populations and meeting their needs. Next slide please. We also have our own in house resident services program that are divided into suite divisions depending on the population that we serve. So at our family properties, we offer family related services, including after school programs for kids. At senior properties, we focus more on health and well-being.

And then our special needs properties, we connect permanent supportive residents with the services that they need to stabilize their lives, improve on their well-being. Next slide, please. And I just I think I don't want to go through this slide, but I want to say that we've partnered with many public jurisdictions, and each case is unique, but we are transparent and collaborative, and we will try and brainstorm and problem solve for the situation that the jurisdiction might be in. In this particular case in Sunnyvale, Sunnyvale is out of public lands and needed more lands to develop affordable housing for their community. And the Penn was able to collaborate with them to really go after a site on the market and quickly kicked down that site and then worked with the city to essentially eventually have that purchase price be transferred back to the tenant and then having the city actually own the site and then ground leasing it back to the tenant for mill.

So there's a lot of trust in the way we work with public jurisdictions. And just to say that, if you have an idea, would love to hear it and see if we can be a part of helping you with executing that vision. Jeff and I are both gonna be here for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Felix. I will call you back when there's more questions. Okay, so finally, I'm just gonna cover a few of the wonderful things that community services and workforce development, otherwise known as CSWD, does for the county. So they believe there is power in establishing positive relationships with local, state, and federal partners. For the last thirty years, Health and Human Services, HHSA, and CSWD, which is a part of HHSA, has secured over $30,000,000 for different programs serving the community.

Some of these partnerships are and received over $4,000,000 in the early two thousands from HCD for the farm worker housing program. They built, beds for 272 seasonal farm workers. They also partnered on a project for migrant housing, including 67 homes and wraparound services for 250 individuals. What you see here are general expenditures for these and other programs across the 20 twenty four calendar year. Other programs include, the tenant based rental assistance, otherwise known as TBRA, hotel vouchers, home key grant for the 11 supportive housing units at the migrant center, the home resource center, and the transitional housing program.

So, again, CSWD believes in the power of partnerships or they would not be able to successfully implement these programs.

I just have a question on that slide. Are the transitional housing, the tiny homes, are those occupied? They

are not. They're still under development and per the state rules, they all have to be complete and approved before final occupancy will be issued. So they're still working through some of their building permit items.

Okay. Thank you.

Oh, and that's the end of my presentation. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I can get Jeffrey and Felix back on the phone if you have any direct questions for them. Great.

Thank you.

Other questions? I I you said that you won't get occupancy until a 100% is done?

Just for the migrant center units, the tiny homes because those were funded through a state home key grant, and there are specific requirements that you have to follow through that grant. So they're gonna be for, I believe, transitional housing. I know HHSA is trying to also implement, permanent supportive housing housing there. That would be a slight change to the contract with HCD, and I think they're working through that. But we cannot house people in any of the units until the entirety of the project is complete. And those are those are part of the rules written to the Home Heat grant that we received. Thank you. You're welcome.

Other questions from the commission? No. Public comments on

this There is Daniel, are you still with us? Come on up. You'll have three minutes.

Good evening, everyone. I'm Daniel Alvarez. I'm an organizer on the local four zero five. I just got transferred to this area, so I'll be coming to your meetings. One of the biggest challenge for many of us, Casa Carpenters, is the commute. Right? A lot of members from here from Hollister Drive all the way to San Francisco, Oakland, and the whole Bay Area. You know how traffic is. It takes a lot of time for their families. They spend a lot of time stacking traffic.

That also also makes the traffic even worse for everybody. So getting a responsible contractor building these projects will help not just the community, but the traffic for everybody and the quality of life for every and their whole family as well. Apprenticeship programs. We support apprenticeship programs because that will bring the next generation of carpenters on on the trades to keep the trades going. Otherwise, who's gonna build all these communities? Right? Fair wages. We don't wanna you know how expensive everything is. Everything is really expensive right now, and we just support livable wage. And that will be it pretty much.

We just want a responsible contractor to go to these communities, and have a good night.

Thank you. Thank you.

That was my only, public speaker card, and there's no hands via Zoom. Okay. Is there

this one is for Fairview Corners, and I'm hoping that you guys are going to walk us through this because this is a ten plus year old development agreement. So thank you.

Chair Wei, commissioners, staff, and members of the public, good evening. My name is Jacqueline Chan. I am a project manager and board planner at Doctor Horton. We are the land developer and homebuilder for this project. So, yes, this is agreement.

So a little bit background on this. In October 2024, our land bank, Four Star, where D. R. Horcheng, we purchased Phase one of the Fairview Corners property from the original entitlers of Fairview Corners. As a result, we partially assumed this development agreement as it pertains to Phase one of this of which includes the development of 74 single family homes.

So what I'm speaking on would be in the within the scope of that phase one of development which 74 single family homes that we've assumed that portion of the development agreement for. So for the purposes of this presentation, focus on to demonstrate compliance, I'll focus on the items under Section two of the development agreement, which outlines owners' obligations for this. And so I'll kind of walk through that and available for questions at the end. So this is a snapshot of where our land development is underrate currently. This is only showing phase one with 74 lots located at 511 Fairview Road.

And under the first section of owners' obligations, development of their project, and project phasing. Here are some key dates of subsequent approvals for the development agreement. In July 2018, the vesting tentative map was approved. In September 2024, the improvement plans of this phase one has been approved in accordance with the condition of approvals and a specific plan. So it includes infrastructure that's needed to support just the phase one lots.

So that's, you know, all your sewer, storm, detention basement basins and facilities. And in December 2024, the final map was approved and recorded for phase one of Fairview Corners to subdivide a property into 74 residential lots, common area parcels, which includes basins and common areas, and the remainder parcel that would be phase two of Fairview Corners development. Development. So in section two point three and two point four, kind of lumping these together as it pertains to open space requirements, satisfaction of park obligations, public trail network, and other recreational facilities. As part of the project requirements, we include pedestrian walkway paths, on-site active parks with play equipment, play lawn, and benches in accordance with park requirements in this section.

These plans has also been reviewed by county staff before we are beginning construction. Sections two point five and two point six, coordination of road improvements and other infrastructure. 2.6 is design of project infrastructure. As I mentioned, phase one improvement plans have been approved and land development is currently underway. The project is conditioned with off-site improvements, including frontage improvements on Fairview Road.

So you're looking at left your left side of frontage improvements on Fairview Road, as well as the widening of Cielo Vista Road. These are near completion, and we're continuing coordinate with Galvin College, which is to the south, to just minimize impacts on their campus. So don't have pictures for these points, but 2.7, projects affordable housing obligations. We intend to satisfy the obligations through the construction of on-site dwelling units. So we've provided a development plan to show that these units do fit on the subdivided lots to review, and that will be how we're intending to satisfy the affordable housing obligations that's specific to this development agreement.

With 2.8, there's a section on outreach to local subcontractors. Since I provided this presentation, we've already advertised a request for proposals from local subcontractors on Benito Link for vertical constructions. We are in the process of reviewing bid proposals. And then 2.9 covers any reimbursements or credits as a part of improvements. To date, there have been no reimbursements for the improvements that we are we are constructing.

We have entered into a subdivision improvement agreement with the county for, all of our off-site obligations. And in track, of course, the off-site subdivision improvement agreement includes work associated with Fairview Road frontage and Cielo Vista Road. And then two point one zero is speaking to habitat conservation. This development agreement is covered under number six of the conditions approvals. In a little bit more detail, that condition requires mitigation as described by the Fairview Corner specific plan final EIR.

As part of those measures, the project has obtained an incidental take authorization from both the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. As part of that, the Mariposa Peak Conservation Preserve has been acquired and fully funded to preserve a three twenty nine acre mitigation area for California tiger salamanders. So this is as concise as possible how we have throughout the original entitlers have demonstrated compliance through going through the TandemMap process, the improvement plans, checks with public works, and a record of the final map, which was a really good consent item during that time. And as far as the other obligations that pertain to the home building and the actual construction themselves, we're continuing to comply with all of the conditions of approvals per the tentative map and our plan to build these accessory dwelling units as part of the affordable housing obligations. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Are there questions from the commission? I won't say it's a question.

It's more of a statement. You got this development agreement as a great deal for the developer. The county doesn't get really much of anything. It was a it was a good score. Whoever approved this was asleep at the wheel. Usually, we give the developer the we freeze the rules for the developer, we also freeze the impact fees essentially. Usually, we get something exchange, and we didn't. It's not your fault, obviously, but whoever approved this didn't do a very good job for the residents. That's all I have for now.

Other questions from the commission?

On your ADUs, what size of a lot is that? You said that that would the ADUs would satisfy or would fit on to a lot or whatever? Is it like two per large family home? Or how does that all Yeah, I can

speak to that. So the ADUs, these are attached ADUs. So kind of yes, like having so it would be part of our production homes, which will have a kitchenette and then a separate entrance, a living space and a bedroom that is part of the house. So it will be one house that fits on a subdivided lot. I hope that answers your question. Yeah.

So it'd be like if my daughter bought one, I would I would be able

to buy a home. Is that what you're saying? No. It's it's still legally on one fee parcel, but then the home itself has a a separate entrance and a kitchenette. But it's and

it's under the same roof as the single family. Correct.

Maybe I didn't because I I really only had an opportunity to scan. This is there's a lot of paper here. I think I read that there was a formula to compute whether the affordable housing would be provided by means of secondary dwelling units, which I think means ADUs, or whether they would be provided in a more traditional way. And And I guess the fact that I'm assuming, and I guess I shouldn't assume, that the fact that you're intending to provide these by means of ADUs means that you've examined that formula and concluded that the ADUs are an appropriate and legal way to proceed under the circumstances. That correct?

Correct.

I think during our feasibility process of this project, we've conferred with staff to verify that we are on the same understanding that what our proposed plan will satisfy this section of the DA, which is 1010% of the 189 units units of the entirety of the of the subdivision. And so for phase one, seventy eight units, there'll be eight. So we will be providing at least eight of these units that that will be satisfied through providing. Okay. I I I know that that's an option in the county. I know that

the county intends to, you know, enable people to use ADUs to to provide the affordable housing component of certain projects. And I'm not a huge fan of it, but it is an option, and and you are entitled to make to make use of it. So, yeah, okay. Thank you. That's all the questions I had. I guess we should

open it up. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Clear. I'm so to be clear, commissioner Wei can buy can buy a home, and I can buy the ADU because affordable housing or you have to go into how does it make it affordable housing? I guess is what my question is.

You rent it.

How it makes it affordable housing there's an ADU attached?

It's a rental.

I would rent it to you.

And because it's small, it's about 500 square feet. It's the rent shouldn't be much, hopefully, in theory. Okay.

Yeah. I could I could rent it to you. Okay.

It's California. Come on now.

I understand your question, though. Yes.

Yeah. Go go ahead, please.

On the local contractors, there is there a percentage of people that you have to get from the local contractors or construction companies, or you don't have to get anybody from San Benito County if you don't want to?

No. The development agreement doesn't specify that. But so for us to do that, our our means of complying is to advertise. Just

and that's it. Just like Santana Ranch. You just have to offer them. If nobody takes

it, You can't force them. Like you said, we really won this one, didn't we? Yeah. Well, as you said earlier, they they got a really good deal. Mhmm. And hopefully, moving forward, we want you to have we want you to build and get a good deal, but we want a good deal for the people in the community as well. And so that's, I think, moving forward, something we have to really be careful about. The agreements that we make have to be able to, for example, go up with the cost index and all these other things. We can't look back and say, wow, what a great deal they got. And we took it on the chin.

Do have one note for staff. There were conditions of approval. There's it's on the video that there were certain lots on the perimeter. I don't know if it was phase one and or phase two that were single story.

Correct. It is in phase two, and those are part of the record, and we've worked with County Council on that aspect.

Just making sure those don't slip through the chasms.

Planning. Nothing gets missed, right?

Yeah. Thank you.

Okay. Shall we open up for public comment?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Seth, just approach the podium. Thank

you. I just wanted to follow-up briefly on the questions that the commissioners had about ADUs. And as commissioner Gibson said, compared to maybe what's happening now, were a lot of strong conditions put on this project. But I'm concerned about ADUs that there's no obligation to rent them. So in this case, it's part of the house.

Someone could punch a door through and just make it part of the house, and it wouldn't serve affordable housing at all. And there isn't any obligation if they do rent them to lower income families. It's true that they're small, but the way our real estate market is, it doesn't mean they're going to be cheap or necessarily affordable to low income families. So I'm glad that the commission and the board are moving towards some more realistic ways of if we're gonna allow ADUs to meet affordability requirements that we make sure that they really end up being rented to affordable. Thank you. Thank you.

I have no more public cards or hands via Zoom. Okay.

I discussion within the commission.

I just wanted to thank you for being patient with us. It's been a long hearing.

Is your mic

on? I don't know what what the parameters or what the rules would be about knocking down a adding a door and taking away that. And then as pointed out, you don't have to rent it. You could just so there's some concerns.

Well, at the time this was approved, the board had just rescinded all the rules. Yeah. I saw that. This is basically the the old the Wild West at the time this was approved. So we can't really hold