Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The PFS 9.5, once again, design integration into surroundings with colors, existing structures, screening, disguising, landscaping, same matter and we can discuss that further as you like. PFS 9.6 facility colocation requiring colocation to the greatest extent feasible. The applicant said that other structures were not available for one reason or another, be it that they are already in use or they're structurally unsound for the use of colocation. But it can be at least be said that this tower allows more colocation and detailed

And

overview for the the next point is is chapter 7.11 of county code wireless communications facility standards, and which has several visions governing governing this use, including setback from residences. This tower does propose at least 500 feet from residents in the area. And minimization of visual impacts, again, something we'll likely discuss, but just what I said before that there is limited opportunity to conceal this kind of facility. And then CEQA, California Environmental Quality Act. How does this fit in with CEQA?

Well, case law, according to courts, calls this a utility extension, and so it does not need the detailed environmental review of some projects would have under CEQUA. We received public comment. Actually, I have a letter here, and I'll hand this to you. So one comment prior to this meeting, a letter that brought up the topic of aesthetics, finding the tower design preferring a design other than this design, finding this one very clean and very bare, and finding it to be in contrast with the character of the area alleging that the photo simulations are misleading as to what the effect of this installation would be. And also this disagreement with the applicants claim that the wireless service in the area at the moment is poor.

So that's there for your reference and consideration. So staff recommends that the planning commission report, review the resolution, which includes findings for CEQA and and use permit, and staff recommends adopting the resolutions the resolution making the findings and approving the use permit. I can take questions. Thanks, Michael. Questions from the commission before we, I presume the applicant will want or his representative will want to make presentation as well? I should mention there is a visual presentation that Okay.

There questions that Michael can handle before we move into that from the commission? No. Okay. Alright. Then, let's go ahead and ask the applicant or their representative. I'm sorry? Okay. Okay.

Good evening. My name is Kevin Gallagher. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, the Towers of California LLC. They're an infrastructure that work with carriers like Verizon to make build to suit facilities. So the facility is being designed to Verizon specifications and all of the data I'm going to be showing you on the need for the site and the coverage will will be engineered so that other carriers to co locate.

They can also go there as is it will just be for Verizon customers except in the instance of 911 calls which go to the nearest facility regardless of who your carrier is. So I will kind of skip through this. I hope I won't be the first person that you cut short, sir. A lot of this is duplicated by what staff have already told you, so I'll skip through a lot of these slides. But the general area, yes, it's on a large 28 acre agricultural parcel.

It's about 3.4 miles north of Hollister. It's a corridor where one, there's a lot of commuters, and there's also a lot of residences, particularly to the north. This is an area that's very difficult to serve because you have areas that are not really particularly densely developed, but each parcel you have parcels of several acres that all have single family residences on. So you have a pretty broad area that needs service that has a lot of subscribers, but you can't easily put down a facility anywhere without being sense going able

sense sense to get And

other locations. So I'll get a you a little more information on that, the arrows, right? Okay, so we already went over what the facility looks like. I will note that these bits down here would be where a future co locator could go. The gear up top and what was in the photo simulations would be Verizon's equipment. I will note the top of the facility right here is 77 feet, 82 if you count the little lightning rod at the top, which doesn't really show up from a distance too

to

right right direction direction right

we're we're see the the

that they can kind of blend with. If there aren't, the silhouette kind of stands out against the horizon. So we can certainly do it that way. What we would we'd be open to it if that's what the commission thought would be the best idea. What we would need to do to do that was the the way a monopine works is that it needs to be tapered at the top. If you keep the height exactly the same, it essentially it's conical. It looks like a toilet brush. So if you did want us to go the monopine route, we would

go

And

we'll

we'll next to

branches so that we wouldn't be counting from that. And that would give enough space to kinda taper upwards. I would argue in this case that it would be more visible because in The Sims, you know, you're gonna see it more of a distance where it's something that's kind of you want us to paint it like a flat gray, for example, that can blend with the sky pretty well. You don't really notice it's there. The actual height to put it in perspective of the standard public utility poles along the road are, like, about 30 feet. So this is about three times the height of one of those, but it's also about 500 feet set back from the road. All right. Okay, so in terms of the location, the need, I've kind of talked about that already. But this is the area, can you oh, you can actually see that. All right, well, I'll just point.

The area north of there is sort of what I'm talking about, this broad area. When we kind of get to the maps, you'll see that those are the areas that have not only just outdoor coverage, but marginal coverage, coverage that's not reliable. So our goal here is to one, provide coverage to those areas and then also offload a site called Hollister Airport, which is a couple miles over to the west that is back slide. And then the And And And do do particular site. And it's situated so that it can deal with both problems.

So here's the area we're talking about. I'll just actually kind of go back here. We can see the area to the north. Here's the facility. You can see all of those gray areas to the right. Red is reliable outdoor coverage only. Yellow is reliable in vehicle coverage. Green is reliable in building coverage. And the gray is marginal. So you see lots of areas that are developed that have homes that have poor coverage.

This site is designed to fill that. Hollister Airport, the site I was talking about is the one right up there. About a little over I am blanking on how far away it is exactly. Would guess about a couple miles, but a little over two miles, yeah. Okay, so this is what we're talking about with Hollister Airport. This actual data as to how this site is doing. Both the green and the red are showing. And what you see here is this is 12AM, 12PM, 12AM. Each up and down is a day. So you'll notice at nighttime, nobody's really using it.

We got plenty of capacity. During the daytime, we're hitting up towards 80, which is the red line. That's the time when call quality and throughput really starts to go down and you start having issues. Alrighty. So this will improve coverage in the areas where we showed you on the map, but if you're also served by the Hollister site, your service will also improve because some of the load that's going through there will now be going through this one. Okay. In terms of alternatives, we did try to do a colocation here. That's what's preferred under the county. Unfortunately, there are no viable colocations. We've got existing Verizon sites to the south that you kind of see on the map. There's another one just upside to the west. The existing sites in slide. And

to able do.

First

the

next next opportunities then I'll with we did have a handful of other locations that we did consider. For all of them, we need a willing property owner. It needs to be buildable, and it needs to obviously fit the code. We had a few other sites that did have interested owners, but that were more intrusive, didn't fit the coverage, or could not comply with the 500 foot setback. Happy to answer questions on those.

Very briefly, we do comply with the RF guidelines, the FCC safety guidelines by a wide margin. We include the report always just to investigate that. It's at 10%. 10% meaning 99 means you're still complying, so we're at a 10%. Similarly, it complies with the county noise limits. The noisiest thing with it would be the generator, but that complies by a wide margin just because of how far it is from residences. The nearest residences is about 600 feet away across Fallon Road. And it would only be pleased the 19. Quarter

we've

We've already really gone through the photos. I'm happy to answer questions on these. As far as the distance, are 1,300, fifteen hundred and nineteen hundred feet away. These are the views that we had and how far off they are. The way these are done is the gentleman takes a photo from Egypt from the location from that vantage point.

And then he creates a three d model of the area of the terrain and all of that. And then builds within that model, he builds a model of the facility and then places it within there, verifies it, superimposes it back on the photo. So it's a very rigorous the math is done by the computer so that it is accurate and proportionate to how it will look from various locations. And we've kind of already gone through these, so I labor it. And then staff did also go through these.

We're happy to talk about design and all of that. I do have a few requests on condition of approvals. We don't wish to be difficult here but we're going to be a bit difficult here. One of the requests from public works and I talked with I don't know if Eddie is here today. I called and asked about it and just to let him know that we are request that two COAs be removed.

And for us, this is a fairly serious item that this would be something that if the commission was not willing to do this, we would actually ask for a continuance so that we could provide more information on it. What it asks is that we widen Ballon Road and then dedicate along Fairview Road along the entire frontage of both and that is over 2,000 feet of roadway. Just the 10 foot widening assuming the county wouldn't want us to be replacing asphalt or whatnot. That would be 120 to 150,000 which would be about a quarter of the budget of the project which is disproportionate given the impact. We would also say that there's excuse me, the awkward part is when I'm getting my mouth all dry.

The other issue is that there's not a nexus between these requirements and the project. If we were proposing to put in 300 homes at the edge of this road, at the end of this road, obviously there would be a nexus. There would be an increase in the use of the road as a result of the project. In this instance, it's going to be visited once it's built, it's going to visited every other month by a cell tech. They generally are in a car or a pickup truck depending on the terrain they run through the checklist. So absent an excess, we would say, one, it's disproportionate and two, there's not an excess. So it would legally, it would be a taking. It good

that's

be able to raise these concerns with the project. Question. The other one, and I also I spoke with Hollister Fire the other day, and it's about a specific condition that requires 100 feet of defensible space around the tower itself. This is not a normal requirement for cell towers. I haven't seen it before.

I've been doing this for about nine years now. And so even with more strict stuff. That said, we take stuff in the fire department very seriously. So we looked into it. So I did ask Hollister and they said it came from public resource code section 4,291, which falls under areas that are in the SRA, the state responsibility area that CAL FIRE is technically responsible for, which have kind of these more rigorous setbacks.

But it's not intended for these sorts of buildings. There's an exception in there that enables CAL FIRE to waive that. So actually called up, Lewis Perez, just the other day. I don't have anything in writing that I can provide to you guys, but so which is why I'm gonna make the ask that I am. And that is that they would normally waive these things for cell facilities because the exterior, as is noted in a different subsection right here, subsection C1, the structures with exteriors constructed of non flammable materials are exempt.

So what I would ask for would be to just cut that specific maintain 100 feet of defensible space and just replace it with comply with all applicable fire regulations. I'm not asking you to give us an out on any kind of fire rules. We just believe right now as drafted, this requires more than is actually required under the law. So if Cal Fire comes back and says, no, we want that here, we reviewed it. Or if the build, if the fire department says it during the building permit process, know, we can have, they can still require, you know, they can make whatever requirements are necessary for fire safety.

So happy to answer your questions on that as well. And finally, a very minor one. There was some wording in one of the conditions of approval referring to Retention Pond. I did speak with Public Works and they said, yeah, this is an example. It's the area of the footprint 40 by 40 is much too small to need a retention pond.

So we would just ask that we'd be held to the regulations. This one we're much less concerned about because we know the intent, we know the drafting, but we're just asking for that edit there. But just to make sure that there's no obligation to build a big retention pond because obviously it's working, it's ag land, and we don't want to take land out of production without good cost. So with that, I'm sorry, I loaded up a lot in the end there and I got into the weeds, but I'm happy to answer questions. And if I can reserve any time, just to if there are concerns that are raised from the public or from anybody else, I'm happy to do that.

Okay. Thank you.

All right.

Questions from commission for the

applicant. Yeah. I'd how close are you gonna allow the farmer to farm up alongside of your tower? I'm worried about that for the for your fire stuff. I know I know the area. How close are gonna you allow that farmer to come up to your to your your fence? Here. That'd be for fire safety right there.

Sure. What we've got Now what

are you gonna do on the inside of the fence to maintain it clean? To maintain the fence? Inside. You're gonna put a fence around it, I assume. Right? Yeah. The 40 chain link fence around the around the facility,

all four sides. So all of the gear is actually the tower is dead center in a 40 by 40 foot compound. Is there own.

Is, is, the

the

generator and the building cabinet.

Permeable belt down before you put the gravel? The weeds come through that?

I'm not a construction guy, but that's something there. If we want to have that included in plan check that that's be done as part of the building permit, we would certainly do that. Okay. And then the

other thing within one way is 10,000 feet, the other way is about 8,000 feet. And these towers look like water tanks. Why can't we have one look like a water tank? You're going be in the exact same general area and they're aesthetically better than your monopole, why don't you consider putting a water tank out there? So it looks like a water tank, I should say. Yeah. The issue with water tank tank sites is that you can't really co locate on them.

They're very purpose built. You get this this structure. And I've seen them around. We've done them before. But the reason we caution against them is that once you build it, somebody else cannot easily collocate it. So if you have a few years from now, have AT and T comes in or T Mobile or someone else, they're probably dealing with the exact same gap. They can't go in the water tank too well because of structural reasons, because of how they these bespoke things are made. You need to be able there's two issues with antennas with water tanks. Haven't deal with them. One is a cylinder.

So these things do have heat. So you need to cool it. So there's limits as to how much you can get in there. Two, you need to have a lot of separation so you don't have interference. You can again, this is doable, but it's something that limits how many carriers you can get on there. With a monopine or a monopole, we can get three character carriers on one facility easily. With a tank, if someone else comes in, they can they can use it. For example, one of these presentations, if you say, why aren't you collocating on that? They can then give you a presentation on why it's not feasible to do because of the design is not co locatable. So that does that answer

your question, sir? It answered my question, but it's not answering my question at the same time. But what about a windmill? A nice looking windmill tower. There's one in Gilroy that's beautiful, and it looks really, really cool. Why why don't you consider something like that?

I'm not familiar with the Gilroy one. Are we talking like a a lattice with a windmill thing up top?

No. Just don't. It looks like a real true windmill. It's got the four four legs. It's got four legs. It looks just like an old fashioned windmill that we out in the middle of the countryside pumping water. Have you ever thought about that? In this case, when we

get into stuff that's very bespoke, a lot of it's not commercially feasible in areas that don't have a ton of folks. I know that's not the most convincing answer, but if we're trying to serve a broad area, a sparse area, sometimes those things are difficult. So that's why with these delving, we go with mono trees. I know it's cheaper to

build this than to do that. I get it. Thank you.

Other questions from the commission? I have one. More of an observation. The first one is an observation. It's a bit confusing that in some of the materials that we were provided, the project is being referred to as Spring Grove. And I guess that was one of the sites that you initially looked at and maybe that had been the plan and then this became the alternative at some point? No,

more of an issue of it's difficult to make a large organization move. When these projects are drawn up, the first step is an engineer looks at where the holes in the networks are and they come up with they have to come up with a name. So if there's some street in the area, they grab it. Sometimes it's nearby, sometimes it's not. So I wasn't involved that early, so I can't tell you exactly where the name comes But yeah, it's just the name.

Okay, well, that's really minor. Then the next question I had is the photos, the three d simulations. In particular, view three was taken from some, I don't know, more than a thousand feet away. And, the road directly in front of the tower gets a lot closer to the tower than where that third Yeah. Viewpoint was taken from. Not take a photo from there? You would like the photo there, we

can send the photographer out and get a new one. That's not an issue. If there are for these sorts of questions like that and on the designs as well, if you need more information to make a decision, we are happy to ask for a continuance and provide additional simulations and additional materials. That's not a problem.

Okay. And the last question I had was I think something that's going to be perhaps answerable by county council and or the applicant and or some combination thereof. You cite a particular state law with regards to notification of changes to the general plan, changes to zoning ordinances, changes to various and sundry things that could affect the project, and the fact that the county will be required to notify you of those things periodically. I do note in my research that periodically has been interpreted to be in every as little as six weeks. We would be sending you some sort of report.

I'm not sure if is is the county prepared to well, if if it's a legal requirement, it's it's immaterial whether we're prepared to do that or not. But is the county able to do that? Number one. And number two, is that a legal requirement? And number three, it said that we could charge a reasonable fee for for providing these documents. I I don't know how we settle on what such a reasonable fee would be. Anyway, anybody who cares to chime in on that, feel free.

If I may to Absolutely. You're referring to government code section six five nine four five, which is referenced there, and it's just referring to the time of filing for an application for a development permit with the city or county. The city or county shall inform the applicant that they may make a written request to receive notice from the city or county, and the aspects as far as the fee are also included and provided for there. The specific amounts can be set by fee schedule by the county, which I believe we have set up as far as with pages and and notices required. As far as capacity, I defer to Ebrahim. Yeah.

Yeah. If it's required by law, we'll do our best to, like I said, but

So would we have to in in interpretation of this law, would would we be required to as as often as every six weeks provide a document stating that nothing has changed with regards to that could affect this project or?

So the applicant specifies in their request the type of proposed action they're requesting notice on. And as far as it being that detailed, I don't know that that's, the applicant is willing to speak to that.

Can speak to that. Include this in every application and the purpose of it is it's not an ongoing item. If we submit an an application in and the code is updated a month end and we're ordering stuff and preparing that we just be notified by the so it's when the whole thing is done, then it's not indefinite. It's just if the code changed last week, I would have and then

Okay. Because

And everybody does it anyway, but Well, the the

reason is why I that normally, or at least in my experience, when an applicant wants to lock in the current ordinances and general plan and be assured that they could develop under those ordinances and general plan, you know, zoning, whatever, that usually results in the negotiation of a development agreement between the applicant and the county and the provision of some sort of consideration to the county in return for that development agreement. Has there been any thought to pursuing a development agreement in in lieu of this requirement that the county notify you of such changes? I mean, it seems like to me, it seems like that would provide you more assurance that that nothing would change out from under you. But No.

We we wouldn't need that level of assurance just because again, when the site is approved or denied, however it goes or continued, once that happens, we don't have that concern anymore. Like once there's a permit or once it's on air, it's no longer, if it was was built and the code changed subsequently and I don't wanna tell me if I'm wrong and tell me to stop talking if I'm incorrect, but it would be an existing non conforming use and they would have certain rights under the existing permit. So that's really just during the application stage. If there are code changes underway that will impact it, we just always ask that we be provided. Yeah, no intent for any long term burden on the county.

All right, thank you. Other questions from commissioners or the applicant? I don't have questions, but the the current drawing is rather hideous. I can think of only one other cell tower in the county that is equally as horrible to look at. So my suggestion would be that it not look like an industrial tower. And I can appreciate your point

of view, but unless you live here, sir, sorry. I live here, and it's disgusting. You all control the aesthetics, so we are happy to do a mono treat. If you need additional information, again, we'd be happy to take a continuance and provide that.

What's what's mister Bonapult, what are your thoughts?

My thought is what's best for the county, and I like the monopole because even in an open space, I think, even driving across country, I

see

monopoles. But it's a tough location. Monopole would be my thought, but I think that if there was some other design, water tower or whatever it was that we could accept that would One

thing I just want to interject is let's be careful not to get ahead of the public comment because we do want to take that into consideration first before we

I don't have a problem with the design as it is. Okay.

And it looks like Commissioner Scagliotti has something to ask.

Yes. I have something more of a statement, I guess. I was speaking with someone who's been in the cell business for, he told me like forty years and he designed stuff and he's moved on to different things now. He said you can make that tower look like anything you want. You can make it look like a valley oak. You can make it look like a black walnut. You can make it look like anything you want if you wanna spend the money to do it right. So take that under a little bit consideration because I asked them, I said, does it have to look like a hideous tree? No. Does it have to look like a hideous pole? No. They can design them to look like anything they want. So let's take that under a little bit consideration, please. Thank you. Have you heard of that?

That's

news to me. We can do, in terms of trees, the most common ones we do are pines

because they're cheap and easy and fast. And one other reason,

I say that I do not wish to just to provide the information that I have as I understand it. One One of the reasons with pines that we do provide pines is that the silhouette of a pine is narrower than a silhouette of an oak. An oak of a greater height tends to be much broader in terms of how broad the trees are. These are essentially plastic kind of a reinforced type of plastic on the branches. So there are limits as to how far you can make them out without that stuff breaking. That said, we do, yes, we do broadleaf trees. We can design them that way. We can design different shapes and silhouettes. We can get sims providing some alternate designs. Like, these are all things that we can do.

This is not a situation where you need to take my word for it and take action today. That's not what I'm asking you gentlemen to do at all. If you are not satisfied with the package that we've provided, like I said, we are happy to take its continuance, get more information, and come back to you. It's not an issue at all.

Okay. Thanks. Other questions from the commission before we open for public comment? Okay. Let's go ahead and open for public comment. Stephanie, if you can read the rules. Thank you.

If you wish to comment on this item, please provide a speaker card to the clerk. Through Zoom, please press the raise hand icon or star nine. Do I have anyone interested in speaking in this on this item? Oh, Larry on Zoom. You have been allowed to unmute yourself. You will have three minutes.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, I certainly don't need three minutes to make a comment. I did submit, a letter previous to the meeting. Hoping you have a chance to look at it. One of the issues I raised apparently has been utterly and completely out of character with the area you see along the orchard not too long ago.

Now it's row crop with eight car orchard across the road. And this is going to

comment?

I have no more hands via Zoom, and I have no public speaker cards in chambers.

Thank you. Public comment is coerced. Bringing it back to the commission for discussion and potential action. Anybody?

I'll, sure. Go first. So as long as fire signs up by not having to do the 100 foot defensible cheap. You please come up to the podium and comment on that?

Good evening. Charlie Bedolla with fire department, your fire marshal. I won't make an exception on that. Public resource, applies to structures or buildings. This is a structure. Do they have gas? Do they have fuel? Do they have a generator? Is there electrical? So they're gonna need to maintain that. The 100 they'll get the 100 feet of defensible space through the ag fields. I understand that. But they're gonna have to ensure that their facility is taken care of. And I'm I'll use the the WUI standard too, and I'll break that in there too. But I'm not gonna take it out.

It's gonna stay in there because it does apply towards structure. So and I do do it at every one of these that we do in here. And if I go out there and they do it, then we will. We get calls for roadside hazards. That that timer is not for you. Woah. Get calls all the time for nuisances. And for the county code 106, it just takes the common citizen to say that's a fire hazard, and I have to act on it. So I will act on it and I will, pursue whatever needs to be done if it's not maintained. And then if it does catch on fire, it is electrical, it does have gas, which way is the wind blowing?

You all know which way it goes. Mhmm. We don't wanna lose it up the hills up in that area either. And everyone's the cattle and the ranches that are alongside with the homes too. So we do it in there. We say maintain it. And that's all we ask. So the 100 feet, they'll get it with ag field, but maintaining their own on bare ground. We don't want, like, the solar fields where they're letting it grow underneath or everything. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. And then I have a few more. If you come up to the podium, sir, you can respond. I mean, to the chair.

Yeah, no, I did not realize the agricultural fields were being counted. Our understanding of that was that it would be requiring to take land out of cultivation. So reduces the concern

a good deal.

Don't go too far. I have so my other questions were about the road dedication. That's not your land as Verizon. So is the landowner saying that they don't want to dedicate the roads or is that coming from Verizon? That is coming from Verizon. I have not I've spoken with

the landowner on this. Verizon would be the one bearing all the costs associated with the project, road.

So I'm talking about the dedication of the land.

Oh, the dedication of the land? You know what? I have not made the specific ask of the property owners to whether they would be okay with the dedication, so I I can't answer that.

I've never seen it before, but I thought, oh, wow. We're getting a a sweetener, but then you you dashed my hopes. Sorry. Because the road improvements apparently are also not part of this. Then the the only other thing was I would love to see what different designs you can come with up with other than a monopine. I mean, other and other than the industrial look. That Okay. Industrial is definitely not acceptable to me, and the monopine is not much better. But if you can come up with something else, I'd love to see it. Other looks.

Alrighty. And I I would like to see a photo from that location on I guess it's Fairview that is closest to the tower, the public road. Fallon. Fallon. Fallon. Sorry. The the the location on Fallon, which is closest

Closest to the

Point to point closest to the tower. Yeah. We can do that. How what what what kind

of time frame are we looking at for continuous work Yeah. Good good question.

If if we were to continue this, how long would it take to get this information put together, including, you know, potential potential redesign as well as getting another photo taken and I

would need to confer with engineer. I would prefer to do it to a date uncertain today, and then it would need to be renoticed. But applicant bears the cost to that, obviously. And because I would I would need to get more information to answer all these questions. Wouldn't be comfortable saying.

Okay. Enough.

That makes it easy. Fair enough.

Is there an appetite among the Okay.

I'll make a motion to second

able

that.

We I go to the next item. Half Yes. I have think some to comments for staff. The last hearing that we had for cell tower, I asked for information and as of yet, haven't received it. And those questions were how many towers were in the county and how many of those towers had colocation. And also for a number of years, we've been asking about updating the ordinance in general. And I could my memory is not what it used to be, but I thought last year, Ariel said that the board had provided funding to update the ordinance. And I'd like to know where we are with that because every month that goes by, we're getting more cell towers, and I'm tired of looking at monopoles. And I'd like to see if there's anything that we can do if we have the votes. Votes.

Abraham, can if you allow me to do that, I'm Esperanza Collio. I'm the county executive officer. I had the pleasure to talk to some of you today and we are scheduling a meeting with the board, a joint meeting with the board of supervisors in which you will have an opportunity to discuss with them your concerns about changes that you would like to make to the process. I think it's important for them to hear your voice directly. This is gonna happen at 11:00 and the meeting for, I think it's a twelfth.

I think I say May 12. Yeah. So, I will like invite you to maybe start putting together some ideas. We can schedule a meeting myself with maybe two of you to discuss those items so the staff will get ready to respond to those questions when we have this joint meeting and so they can get direction from the board if that is okay with

you. Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Okay. I guess we're ready to move on to the hippo harvest item. So, item 7.2, approved county planning file, p o N 25009, growing, packing, and

shipping leafy greens. And I will turn it over to Abraham. Thank you, chair Wei and members of board. Good afternoon. Abraham Caro, director of planning and building services, County Of San Juanito.

In August 2025, the, board of supervisors adopted a contract between the county of San Juanito and EMC planning group to prepare the environmental work or pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for Hippo harvest. And that is an application that consists of a proposed 45,000 square foot central processing building and 28 acres of greenhouses for ag processing. In January 2026, that took an item to the board for a contract amendment for some minor modifications that were being looked at. And during that time, from August to November, as you all know, we went from having a planning department of five planners to one. And so with the okay of we actually allow we actually also, with that minor amendment, that contract amendment, asked, EMC to, include as part of the contract amendment additional work to, have the process of the application throughout the public hearing.

So, the board of supervisors looked at that contract amendment in January and they approved it and so therefore, we have Troy Lawson from EMC Planning Group who is here who's gonna be presenting the the project. And we also have Shoshana Lutz online. She is a senior planner from EMC as well. And we've been meeting and discussing this project all along. And we also have acting public groups administrator, Themes Katara here in the audience as well to address any utilities or traffic road matters as well.

So with that, I will present Troy Lawson, associate planner with EMC, to come provide us with the staff report. Thank you.

Good evening Chair and Commissioners. My name is Troy Lawson with EMC Planning, and joining us virtually is Shoshana Lutz, also with EMC Planning. So tonight's project is 2,370 Shore Road. We were we are gonna discuss the location, applicant, a little bit about the project and infrastructure, the consistency, and CEQA. So it's at 2370 Shore Road, approximately three miles Northwest of Hollister on the intersection of Shore Road and Fraser Lake Road on two parcels.

The project site currently consists of row crops and a single family residence, foreign and appurtenances. And those row crops grown include chicory, sunflowers, celery, brussels sprouts, fennel, and pepper varieties. The applicant is Hippo Harvest. They are a grower, packer, and shipper of leafy greens. They grow USDA certified organic produce in hydroponic greenhouses known as poop houses that use mobile robots as tractors.

Partners with outdoor local growers, to combine indoor and outdoor production. So the project description, the project would consist of the demolition of the existing residents' barn and impertinences. And at full build out, it would construct a 45,000 square foot central processing building, with a maximum height of 23 feet and 30 acres of hoop house greenhouse structures measuring approximately three and a half to 31 and a half feet wide, a 147 feet long, and twenty one and three quarters feet high. Approximately 25 acres of the existing row crops on the northern portion of the project site would remain. The project would also include three one megawatt combined heat and power microturbine generator units to generate electrical power.

These burn natural gas to produce heat and energy, and the units would operate for thirteen hours each day for six days a the

of with lot

of working the team. Project. Would be people during those phases. Phase And one would have 10 employees per shift with two shifts per day, so a total of 20 employees. Phase two would add 10 additional employees per shift, and then full build out would have a total of 60 employees per day, so two shifts per day, 30 employees per shift.

The project would operate from 6AM to 8PM Monday through Saturday, and the shift times would follow a 6AM to 02:30 and 11:30AM to 8PM schedule. Regarding infrastructure improvements for the project, it would utilize a private groundwater well and an existing, groundwater well and construct new water lines. It's estimated to result in an 80 acre feet per year reduction in water demand compared to the existing conditions, the farming, and the residents. It would require a public water system once the employee count reaches 25, employees. Phase one would have 20 employees total.

And so in phase two, when it goes over, over the 25 employee limit, the state water resources control board's division of drinking water, would project would construct a private septic wastewater system and leach field located to the north of the greenhouses. Stormwater infrastructure would include drainage channels, detention ponds, and or swales. The project is is designed to retain stormwater on the project site to the greatest extent feasible through the use of permeable drainage features like French drains. The electricity would be provided with, an existing power well, connecting to an existing line, and then, it would also construct solar panels between the rows of the greenhouses for additional power generation. And then the central processing building in the center would use electricity for energy but would not include natural gas.

Regarding natural gas, it would connect to an existing existing PG and E natural gas service line, and the natural gas would power those three one megawatt combined generator units and would provide electrical power and heat to the greenhouses and other facility operations. And an emergency diesel generator would also be located in case of any issues and is assumed to operate fifty hours per year just to make sure that it operates in those emergencies. So there are four project phases. Each project phase adds a little bit more development, particularly with greenhouses and employees. First phase just is four acres of green slide.

Seeing that in slide. So, one is we're a the employees and additional parking spaces, the septic and leach field. And then phase three and four would add the 20,000 square foot addition to the central processing building, additional acres of greenhouse farming, parking, and employees and a detention pond. So this is the site plan at full build out. The central processing building is in the center with hoop house greenhouses surrounding it.

There's detention ponds on the north of the greenhouses and along the west and east sides of the property. This is the site plan with phasing. The phase one, it's in pink. You can see it's kind of on the the western and southern side, with some greenhouses and detention ponds. Phase two is in the green where it expands a bit, adds a lot more greenhouses.

Phase three is in blue, a bit to the Northeast and some of the central Processing Building. And the phase four is in the orange in the Southwest and also the detention pond in the sorry, Southeast and detention pond in the Northeast. Here's some site photos of the current site. So this is from Shore Road facing the existing residence. I believe this is north.

That would be demolished. It's a single family residence and a bar a couple barns in that view. This is on the project site facing one of those existing barns. This is from the northern corner of the project site facing south, so you can see it's relatively flat and, you know, developing agricultural uses. And this is from the northern boundary of the project site facing west, similarly flat topography and agriculture.

And lastly, this is the western portion of the project facing northeast and northwest. Regarding land use consistency, the site is designated agriculture in the general plan and has a agricultural productive zoning district. The project is consistent with the intent of both designations, because it is an agricultural use and agricultural supporting industrial use on currently, agricultural land. With regards to agricultural sustainability and energy efficiency and lower impact agricultural practices, the hoop house greenhouse structures, the mobile robots used as tractors, and the solar panels, and the combined heat and power units would add extra efficiency both for, you know, water resources and energy resources. Continuing on some of those policies, agricultural supports services, the processing facility would be processing and packaging those leafy greens produced on-site in those greenhouses and transportation through trucking, and this would support commercial agricultural operations.

And the project would, like I said, retain approximately 25 acres of the existing row crops on the northern portion of the site. Regarding CEQA, we prepared an initial study and mitigated negative declaration for the project. It has the potential to result in significant adverse impacts, but mitigation measures identified in that initial study would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The applicant did submit changes to the project plans after the initial study and mitigated negative declaration was circulated for public review. The changes included a reduction of the number of employees in each phase, increasing two acres of greenhouses and a seven foot reduction in the height of the central processing facility and the change in a number of and location of detention ponds.

And so we evaluated the environmental impacts associated with And one of the changes in the detention ponds would result in the elimination of an impact to a potential wetland in the north on the north boundary of the project site. And otherwise, the project would not result in any changes to the environmental impacts we presented in the initial study and mitigated negative declaration. So we determined that the public review draft of the initial study and mitigated negative declaration is still adequate and recirculation

for

the CEQA guidelines would not be required. We also prepared a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for those impacts and the mitigation measures. And as stated, they would reduce it to a less than significant level. And they were identified associated with air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and hazards and hazardous materials. I can, you know, let Abraham maybe speak further on this, but recommending reviewing the staff report, the draft resolution and findings, receiving public comment and adoption of the resolution, the approval of the conditional use permits and the conditions, and adopting the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation and monitoring report program.

I am available to answer any questions regarding the environmental document.

Thank you. Before we move on to questions, I should have stated at the outset for the record that I did have a fairly brief conversation on Friday with Michael Brigantino and two of the applicant representatives. Didn't make any commitments, didn't discuss it with any of my fellow commissioners. So just for the record.

And I would also make like to make that same statement that I as he just made, I spoke to some of the representatives.

Okay. Sorry. Go ahead.

And I also spoke with Michael Brigantino and told him I would discuss it tonight on the dais, not with anybody else off to the side. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks. Questions from the commission for well, in this case, staff representative

Mister chair. Well, I just want to also say that the applicant is

here as well in case they have. Okay. All right. Well, we'll have them if they have a presentation, we'll we'll let them go as well. But first, if

there are any questions for the staff, quote unquote. Yeah. Does that cover traffic? Yes. Okay. Is the existing site closing down?

There's an existing site that you referenced employees Is at that shutting down? I think that would be a question for the applicant, but I do know that the applicant has stated that the employees would carpool for this February.

That's what I'm trying to understand. So are there are these gonna be the same employees that work at

the existing site and they're going to carpool or is this just some sort of an assumption? I'm very curious. I don't know any information about a closing of the site. This would be just kind of evaluated strictly new construction.

It it looks like the applicant is champing at the bit to to say something. Oh oh, apparently. Okay. Yeah.

So I'd like an answer to that question at the at the podium, please, so it's on the public record. About

the Pascadero site?

I don't I don't know if it named a site, but it there was something about the employees. A third of them were gonna commute because they're doing it at the existing site, and I'm wondering what the correlation is. Unless that existing site's closing. How do you know who's gonna carpool? That's my question. Yes. Before you before you talk,

can you identify yourself, please? Yes.

I'm I'm Eitan. I'm CEO at Hippo Harvest. Thank you so much for having me here. I'm really excited about the project in San Bernardino County and really just appreciated the help from the planning department, public works, everyone on this. To your question about sort of the sites that we have.

So we a current site in Pescadero, California. It's kind of our proof of concept and research and development site. Work will continue at that site at least for the foreseeable future while we commission and build Hollister. We expect that there will employees, myself driving down every now and then, but the large majority of the employees for Hollister will be hired locally. I don't think it will make sense for the staff that we have from Pescadero when talk about kind of like our general operations staff to do that.

Okay, that answered the question. I was confused as to

why you were referencing an existing site. I was confused by that. I think we just were saying in our report, we had proved out sort of the robotic tractor technology that we had in Pescadero and then we were seeking to replicate it in Hollister. It wasn't meant to tie the sites together. Okay. Thank you.

And I have more questions for Steph. I can step down. Thank you. Okay, so that took care of one. So there is that standard, the carpooling that a third of the employees at a site carpool? I mean, I'm curious what the science is behind that.

Based on the traffic report that we worked with Hexagon Transportation Consultants and based on what the applicant gave us based on that data.

Okay. So why were the initial number

of employees reduced? What triggered that? I'm extremely curious. What impact was trying to be avoided or what mitigation? What cost? There must have been a reason. I don't have an answer as to why. Okay. You know, I just evaluated the information that was given to us. Okay. Then that will be for the applicant to answer, please.

So as overall, we looked at the labor numbers that we had at Pescadero and the acreage that we were building. It was just an adjustment to final estimates for what

the labor we thought. Okay. So it had nothing to do with mitigation or anything like that? Not to my knowledge. Okay. I read it wrong. Okay. Thank you. And then back to staff,

I guess. We'll call you staff. Are there any thresholds for the number of vehicle trips that would trigger improvements to county roads? That would be a a question that I believe the engineer, county engineer could provide, but, it was, a 110 trip threshold for it for VMT, vehicles miles traveled, and the transportation assessment believed it would be a total of 102 daily trips. That includes trucks and employee vehicles.

And so regarding VMT, it would be lower. And then for site access evaluation for queuing or truck turning issues, the transportation sub consultant determined that there would not be any issues related to queuing or trucking.

Okay. That's what I'm trying to get to. I'm a very curious little creature. And I'm wondering if nobody carpools, does that trigger some sort of improvement to the driveway? And that's why we came up with this number that a third of the people will carpool because I don't think it's very realistic. But, Deans, if you could answer if there's a certain threshold of the number of trips that would require a road improvement to our county roads, such as turn lanes or acceleration lanes, if you could please come to the podium.

Yes. Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Dean Scapata, interim public works administrator. It's actually just based on the traffic study because there are different uses of uses of cars that, you know, you will be doing if there are used trucks and or passenger cars, then it will be the traffic engineers based on the report that would recommend whether there will be turn lanes that will be required, like right turn lanes or left turn lanes that would trigger that. But based on the traffic report they have submitted, for phase one, I believe there's no there's no trigger for for the.

But we have a I'm also just kind of, like, noticed that the public works comments did not make it

in

the resolution that, you know, I I read in the report. So we had discussed this with previous management, previous administrator, and the applicants. And we had laid out public comments, which I'm not sure if can you confirm if it is on the report? No, because I have public comments, which I did not see in the board resolution I mean, in the in the planning PC resolution right now. So I I printed out my comments, and I can read it to Yes, please.

It's supposedly should be included. So in you know, because the project will be phased, so I'll just go straight to the main point about the roadway improvements. So on phase one, we have proposed conditions that prior to issuance of occupancy permit or permit to operate business for phase one, applicants shall construct projects, driveway per county standards, driveway detail. Now, and and again, I mentioned because phase wider than what exists right now. And then all other important improvements will be deferred for the future phases of the project.

And then for phase two, so prior to issuance of occupancy permit for to operate business for phase two. Similar to what we did on a project in Shoe Road, yes. So we are required to contribute 50,000 towards frontage improvements of Shur Road for phase two. So and, we had a precedence project on Tobias. We only require 50,000 for that project.

So that's what we are also proposing in this one. And all other required improvements will be deferred for the future phases of the project. And then for phase three, prior to issue as of occupancy permit to operate business for phase three, applicants shall be required to widen and improve half of 32 feet AC on 42 feet roadbed along the entire property frontage of Fraser Lake Road. And then all other required improvements will be deferred for future phases, which is phase four. Prior to issue once of occupancy permit for the phase four, the applicant shall be required to contribute 100,000 towards the design, construction, design and construction of future runabout.

There's a plan of having runabout on road and Fraser Lake Road. So we are requiring them to contribute for for that, design and construction. So and I apologize. I forgot to mention that, yes, we are also required to dedicate right of way dedications on both Shoe Road and Fraser Lake Fraser Lake Road. For Shoe Road to complete the 110 foot right away, at Actually, it's half of the 110 foot right away to their side.

Sioux Road is, you know the general plan, it's classified as an arterial road with a 110 foot right away. So they are also required to do that. And also on Fraser Lake Road, you just have to confirm or dedicate a 60 foot to make a 60 foot right of way for the full right of way of Fraser Lake Road. So those are the conditions that public works proposes for this project, despite of what the traffic condition says I mean, traffic study says.

Thank you.

So that access Yeah.

I have a well, I have a question. I have a question. Either one. It doesn't matter to me. I it goes to staff, basically. We're not asking these guys for anything more than $50,000 to to do on phase one. In the meantime, over here, I'm looking for a guy to put up a cell tower. They want road improvements. Well, that doesn't make any sense to me. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. Let I I don't this is for staff. This is for staff. Yeah.

It doesn't make sense. You're asking for for one car for for every other month, the man said, and we're gonna have these guys here are gonna have forty, fifty cars a day probably on a busy two lane road, and we're not gonna require anything but more than $50,000. We're not gonna require them to put in a full turn lane, right and left.

Okay. I can't figure out what's And I will comment on before you go too far on a precedent that the planning commission set. We were struggling to get a number out of the previous public works administrator, so that number was basically pulled out of the air, and as it turned out, it was a bargain. It was a fifth of the cost that it should have been. So the $50,000 does not exist. That was a mistake that we made once, and we're not gonna repeat it. At least I'm not willing to repeat it. So we have to, contemplate what we're doing going forward. That is not a precedent. We're not the supreme court.

We can change what we do a lot more easily, just for the record. Yeah. I was I was stunned that there weren't any away dedications or road improvements. There's per the traffic study that's quoted in here, there's almost 9,000 vehicles a day, and it says, oh, well, there were two accidents. Well, that just went up to three, and it didn't turn out too well.

So I think that we really need to consider what we're doing, especially on a commuter route, putting big trucks in more traffic, especially during those hours. It's a recipe for tragedy, and I think we can do better. Whether as the county or as an applicant, we need to be thinking about what we're doing. The ponds, we have repeatedly failed to contain the water on projects, and plastic, as far as I know, doesn't absorb the water. So I think those ponds need to be deeper if we can't make them bigger because of whatever little creatures over there.

I think they need to be deeper to hold the water instead of having it flow down the side of the road. I have if if we're gonna move forward with this thing, the landscaping plan, it says the plan should be approved by the RMA. No, thank you. I think I'd rather have the planning commission take a look at it. We've had a lot of issues in the past and present, I think. And yep.

Then

I will wait until after public comment. That's fine. Fine. Then proceed. So

anybody else has questions for staff or for the applicant before the if the applicant is a yes, commission's got a

little Has anyone done a water perk test out there for these ponds and these new septic systems? I didn't see anything when I was reading through the packet. I didn't notice anywhere any perk tests have been done for water percolation out there for these septic systems that you're gonna do. I haven't seen any of that. Thank you.

I

can try to find more information on a water percolation test. We did look at San Bernardino County Water District's annual groundwater documents for the county and the agricultural water management plan. And I can I can do some further research and and work with Abraham to try to Wouldn't that be environmental health?

I believe the answer to that is yes. We we did do water tests. We can make that available. It should be available as part of what we've submitted. I can't speak to why it's not in the materials you received.

I don't have a dedicated presentation, but I'd just like to say a few things. First off, we're really excited about the projects in San Benito County, continuing the rich agricultural history of the county, working with growers in the county, bringing business to the county. And we've wanted to work, you know, very closely with everyone and making sure that the project has the appropriate support. That's why we've worked with the Department of Public Works. That's why we've worked with the planning department. So I just wanna express that, you know, we do wanna be collaborative and we try to be collaborative in the process. Thank you. Thank you.

I have no public speaker cards, and I have no hands via Zoom.

I'm sorry. I I thought it I I apologize. I thought I thought it was on. I lost track of how many times I had clicked it. Anyway, so public comment is closed and bringing it back to the commission for discussion and possible action.

I have a couple more questions. The greenhouses, what are they made out of? What kind of material are you making the greenhouses out of? What kind of base are you putting between the greenhouses for weed abatement or what are you gonna put between the greenhouses? What's it gonna be? Yeah. So the green houses are kind of

like your standard prefab double poly hoop houses that we're Metal? Going to Yeah. Metal frame, kind of what you see is sort of all over the place. In between the greenhouses, I don't off the top of my head know what we'll do. We will have an interest in weed abatement. We don't want pests in our greenhouse. So we will be maintaining it. As to like the very specific strategy, I don't know off the top of my head, but I can tell you we have a vested interest in not having that. Okay.

The other question is you're gonna destroy the two houses to the Southeast Corner, right? Yes. I believe it's There's one house in two bars. Okay. That's the Southeast Corner. What are you gonna do to mitigate the noise for the people that live right next door there? Cause there's two homes that are right next door to where that house is. What are you going to do to mitigate the noise for those people?

I think, we will follow all the best practices and guidelines for construction. I'm not a construction person. We'll be working with a general contractor and construction crew that's mindful. I'm confident that there's also regulations around this that we must follow, but I don't, off the top of my

head, know what they are.

I actually had a question that dovetails on that, if you don't mind. Okay. One one of those structures, I believe, at least one of those structures, if I'm not mistaken, is more than a 100 years old? Yes. I believe that is. And I think under our ordinances, you need to provide a rationale for demolishing it as opposed to incorporating it into your project in some fashion. It's possible that it's in there and I just missed it. Do you know if the rationale is included or why this couldn't why these structures couldn't be incorporated into the project?

I don't know if the rationale is included in the proposal, but I can speak to it a bit now. You know, we we had an inspection done of the house. It's in really rough shape generally. There's a lot of termite damage. There's a lot of foundational damage. Like the house is it's just a very old house. It's in bad shape. And the house doesn't incorporate into the operations that we're going to have. So maintaining the house, making the house sort of livable is actually difficult task.

Aside from being 100 years old, is there any historical value to this house?

I can't speak to that, but

I would maybe you can tell us a little bit about the AMR system. That's interesting to me.

Absolutely. So I guess the way that we grow is we use mobile robots. They look a little bit like oversized Roombas and we kind of turn them into tractors. So we take these robots from the warehouse and logistics industry, and we're bringing them into farming. And they do a lot of things around the farm. They water the crops. They help move crops around. They collect data about the crops. They can do UVC treatments of it. They can spray the crops.

It's kind of like a little automated tractor that sort of goes around. And so the farms are a really cool way to kind of like bring agriculture sort of forward. And we partner with a lot of outdoor growers. So one of the things that's unique about how we grow is transition season can be tough in leafy greens when you're on the edge of it moving from Yuma back to sort of Salinas Valley, Hollister area. And so a lot of times what we'll do is we'll start transitioning the crops that are particularly tricky into greenhouses during the times when they have the most stress outdoors. We actually do hybrid supplies. So we mix with outdoor growers. So it's kind of like trying to find a way to blend the old with the new and what we do.

And do these products have any longer shelf life being that they're in such a contained area? What are the benefits to do it indoors as opposed to out? So I guess

there are number a of benefits. The first one is on water use. You use between five to 10% of the water that you would use for the equivalent outdoor production. It's just a much more water efficient way of growing. But you're also growing in a protected environment, which means that the microbial load on sort of the crops when you harvest them is lower.

And then also because they're grown clean, you don't have to wash, which on something tender like a leafy green can be destructive from a shelf life perspective. And so you have a product that reduces shrink in the marketplace. There are also other ways you can use the products that are really interesting. When you're outdoors and you have high percentage of damage and you want to bring that down, it may be very hard to do that because you might not have any lots that are sort of below your threshold. But this can be a very pure product that you can mix in. There are lots of benefits around, there's no pesticide drift. You use like very, very few pesticides. You can use UBC. It's contained. There's no fertilizer runoff. You know? There there are a lot of benefits to it.

UBC ultraviolet, is it? Yeah. It's a Okay. Light, you

know, to kill mildew, essentially. Yeah. Also, like a quick plug for a tour. If anyone does wanna come up to Pescadero and actually see it in action, I I'm very happy to show folks.

I think I have two questions, and I guess they're for staff. Okay. Let's see. I think it's true. I think I know the answer to this question, but I wanna verify. What we're being asked to approve tonight is not just phase one. Correct? If we if we approve this, we're basically saying you have the authority to construct this project according to the phases that that you've outlined for us. Correct?

That is correct, Jeremy.

So we should not look at this as just approving phase one. Okay. Thank you. And the last question, I again, I think I know the answer, but in case it's a person with a similar name and not the person in question, the letter of support from Victor Tafoya, that is our Victor Tafoya?

Sure way. He actually started working on this project when he was a planner with the county. Then I got turned over from staff. But yes, that is him.

Yes. Okay. Thanks. And I think I cut off commissioner Ringhaven. I think you you maybe weren't done. I think I'm fine. Thank you. Okay. And perhaps others?

Okay. I think I got most of my questions out there. I'm very, very concerned about the wastewater, very concerned about that, and I'm very concerned about the traffic impact. I don't think it was done with a brand new type of traffic study. I think they just pulled some old numbers. There there was just an accident out there yesterday. There have been 2,000 homes built south of the where the project wants to be, and those commuters use it every day. And another thing is too is we've made other people to put turn lanes in, and I'm the type of person that is very consistent consistent on what I do. And if we don't do this now and have this done now, we will not be consistent. And I'm having an issue with that.

Thank you. One maybe comment related to what you're saying.

We did recommend a turn lane that's in sort of the original proposal that we worked through with Public Works. I think Public Works decided the expansion on the frontage would be more appropriate. Sir, I have

a question for you. You said that would you're willing to put

a turn lane in here, and public works said no? Just yes or no answer, please. We when when we said we would make a commitment towards something, we we don't care what the commitment goes towards. We're just using public works recommendations. We've the handout I can give you a handout if you like.

I do think though, that $50,000 is a seems like a really the road improvement seems like they're getting up really easily.

Well, that was an issue we had with the previous thank you. Public works director. Well, this would have been helpful to have.

Yeah. Did I hear that these comments from public works are not part of the If we approved it, it wouldn't have been. Yeah, exactly. So the resolution as presented to us tonight for consideration does not include these conditions?

For our public works administrator, he would recommend that they be included because they they are not. Is that correct? Seems

So it's correct that they are not included. Okay. Well well, if that's the case, then then I'm certainly not prepared to just rubber stamp this resolution tonight. I think the the only two options that I would would be comfortable with would be either continuing or denying for tonight. I don't know how others feel about this, but please feel free to try. I feel like maybe a continuance would be the that's just my thought so we can

And last question. Be okay.

Go ahead. With regards to the I mean, these were kind of what, you know, Hippo Harvest had agreed to with regard to the road. I think that they would probably be fine with adding these, you know, if that meant getting approval tonight. Am I

speaking correctly? Yeah. I mean, we were under the assumption that these were included in the resolution. I mean, we've been working with public works on this for quite some time, trying to be really thoughtful about at least what they think is required for the project. So we'd, of course, be happy to include these. And I

guess the reason that I'm asking is because we are this isn't there the property isn't owned by them yet and we are under contract. So we do have time constraints, but if the continuance is the only option, but I think maybe we could do subject to adding road improvements to the resolution. Is that something you guys could do?

Well, there's more in here than just the road improvements. There's geotechnical report, drainage and erosion control, traffic, and we already talked about it.

Sorry. I mean, it's you're asking us to read this real quick and and there's some other questions.

I think tonight is gonna work. I think we need to see the language spelled out more clearly of what the dedications are and and what phases the improvements are gonna be made and what improvements are. Giving us this five minutes before we're supposed to vote isn't the best option. It's not the applicant's fault. This is staff's fault. Yep. Square ly. If I may comment now. Am I clear to comment on anything I'd like? Or is there a reason that I can't comment about any of this? We're we're done, right, with public comments so I can go?

Okay. Good afternoon. Yeah. I'm so sorry. I apologize for intervening. I'd I'd I wanna ensure that we've been all of us with everybody on the table. We have a former director, Polyvoice Director, and we have a new public works director. I'm not saying one or the other one is wrong. But I believe you have the option to make this project more transparent to continue the project. So that way you address all your concerns.

All your concerns are addressed. I know the applicant is more than willing to commit to the changes that they want to continue with the project. I think it's a good project but I think for the sake of having all the information and the resolution spell spell out well completely did and address. So, you're concerned so you can continue the project. It's better than denying the project. I think it's for the benefit of the applicant and the benefit of the the staff and and and the planning commission. I think that will be the best way to do it.

I concur. But I'd like to if I may spell out my issues that I have. So under the conditions of approval, number five, periodic review. Toward the end, it says, any expansion of this use beyond what is currently proposed must first be reviewed by the planning director and if necessary, shall require further use permit review by the planning commission. Think it should just say any expansion of this use beyond what is currently proposed shall require further use permit review by the planning commission. I would

say that maybe in consideration of the code where if there are minor modifications to conditions that are within the permission of the planning director, the code does provide for that for minor modifications.

For That's not what this says. This just says any expansion of the use beyond what is currently proposed, which scares me because we've had some things approved by the planning department that shouldn't have been approved, in my opinion, and I don't wanna keep going down that road. That's that's my concern with this language. It's obviously up to the will of the commission how far they wanna go, but I would like to see that language the from must first be reviewed by the planning director and, if necessary, removed those words from number five. Number 12, back to the landscaping plan.

I would like to see it reviewed and approved by the planning commission because, again, I have concerns about what's gonna be done and what's gonna block the neighbors from noise and light and any other issues. It's an interesting department, and I think there needs to be a little more caretaken with what happens. The improvement plans, I guess that includes the roads, which we don't know exactly what's happening, are supposed to be approved by the county engineer. I would really like to see that spelled out as what is going to be improved, the width, the length, all that good stuff, because there's 9,000 people a day that commute on there, and they're not the best drivers as we find out, unfortunately, on a weekly basis. So I really wanna see what those improvements are gonna look like.

Again, the $50,000 is not a precedent that needs to be followed at all. That was a mistake that was made in haste due to some issues we had and will not be repeated in my opinion. I would like to see the language spelled out for the right of way dedication and road improvements. And I am, again, very concerned about the drainage and stormwater runoff. Everyone knows out there that there's it's practically artesian, especially certain times of the year, and I don't wanna see us flooding Fraser Lake if because the ponds are too small.

It's a battle we've had with the former planning director or not planning director, building director. No. What was he? RMA. Steve. And I just don't want runoff, and and plastic is gonna create runoff. And if, you know, you say French drains and little ponds, but all the experts that I've seen before that calculate stuff, everything floods around it, and it's not right. It's not a not being a good neighbor. So I just wanna make sure that we don't repeat once again, flooding out people that are our neighbors or the roads for that matter. And I think that covers it.

Oh, A condition about best efforts to collect sales tax. I would imagine it would cost a couple of dollars to build the hoop houses and buy the plastic and build your structure, and county would appreciate the sales tax revenue from those construction materials. In the past, when we've approved something, we've used specific language that something to the effect that the applicant will use best efforts to make sure the sales taxes are collected and remitted to San Bernardino County, and I would like to see that included in the next draft as long as you agree to that. It's not mandatory, but it's your best efforts, and, hopefully, you do your best to do it. And that is all I have.

Buying locally? Well, if you can't buy it locally, transfer the sales tax base to San Bernardino County so that we can get it because

If you could buy it locally, that'd be preferred.

I mean, we hope we to work with local contractors. We've been working with a lot of folks already planning for the project. The one thing while I'm talking is that, like Michael mentioned, we are under a bit of time pressure in that we are only under contract Benito County or not. We've been under contract for A year and a half. A year and a half.

I mean, we've really been working hard with the county. And I don't want to come here and make this anyone else's problem. It's ours. It puts us in a difficult position. We may just lose the property in the timeframe for this. So I don't know if there are ways to do conditional approvals or pending something, but I and I don't mean to make this your problem. It's just also that we we lose the property at the end of this month.

I have a follow-up question. How long have you been working on this project with the county?

We've been working on this project with the county for more than a year and a half because we'd started working with the county before we even selected the site. We worked with Victor before he left the county doing GIS surveys, really trying to find the right place to do it. I feel we've really tried to do everything right. I can understand that there are certain things that aren't perfect here, but we've tried to do our level best by involving every department. We've talked to fire, we've talked to public works, we've talked to the planning commission, county, everyone as much as we could for a long, long time. I

have a question. Ken,

I want

you to give me an honest answer. Yes, sir. Do you think that staff did due diligence to get this through fast enough that you didn't get under a gun for a one night stand like this for us to approve a project this big? I want an awesome answer. Do you feel that staff did due diligence to get this done for you?

I think everyone has been working hard with us. I think that there have also been things that have happened that have been outside of anyone's control in the process. It's hard for me to comment. I feel like everyone in the county, including including you all, have been good faith partners to us, and I'm nothing but grateful. And I wish I wasn't standing here with this with this deadline. I I really do. That's what I can say.

Do you understand where we're coming from? This is the first time we've seen this and a lot of this stuff on here that we don't agree with. I'm

not trying to take away from that. I'm just also in my own position.

I understand. We were under

the impression that you guys had all do

And

we'll

then

to

or right of way improvements that we can attach to this thing tonight if we were to move forward and not continue it?

Those are standard conditions that we have from our public works administrator. The the including the phasing. Before phase two, this will

be done. Before phase three, this will be done. Is that language somewhere where we can see it or read it or both? I mean, we can't move forward with with vague thoughts because because we know how that has worked in the past.

Yes. It it is the paper that you have as Department of Public Works' comments which lays out what what we should do in each phase.

Well, the again, the phase two, the the $50,000 is a joke. As we discovered with the last approval, that covered a fifth of it, and the taxpayers covered the other four fifths, and that is not gonna happen again. So there's some work to be done.

If if we wanted to move forward, I I think we could probably alter that number easily enough.

And then phase four, a $100,000 toward the design and construction of a future roundabout at shore in really? We're gonna put a a roundabout at shore in Fraser Lake because they work so well? I that's one's that beyond our scope. That's some some of them

do. The the turbo roundabout are not clean enough.

But 80 miles an hour through a roundabout. They go over the top instead

of around it. We may not like them, but they're they're coming everywhere.

I would also point out too that they are improving the whole frontage along Fraser Lake during phase three. So there is significant road improvements which is phased. They're adding the applicant shall be required to widen and improve 32 foot AC on 42 foot roadbed along the entire frontage on Fraser Lake Road property. So there are significant road improvements that are And taking

I'd like to see the same language for Shore Road.

I have a question maybe for staff on the retention on the water retention ponds. We had talked about calculations before where there was going to be a 100 storm or a five year storm. So I'm curious which and then talking with Steve, I think there was some consternation about the five year storm and the calculations to come up with it. So what did we use here? Do we use the calculations for the 100 or the five hundred year storm?

That's something that our public works administrator can but we also have the engineer.

Hi. My name is TJ Kelly. I'm the engineer for the project. So the storms are designed to San Bernardino County standards, which is a hundred year storm coming in, but a ten year pre developed storm coming out. So there's a big difference between the hundred year after the development and the ten year before the development.

So it works as flood control. There's always going to be less water leaving than what is coming in. The ponds are rather big, the biggest ponds that I've ever designed. And, we can't go deeper because of the high groundwater. So they're they're maximum depth, and I made the size big enough to meet the requirements. And we're actually releasing less water than we're allowed to just because I can't get it off the site. There isn't, a storm drain that I can connect to to get the water off the site. Whatever comes out is just what the numbers say.

Okay.

Discussion. If if there's a will of the planning commission to approve this this evening, it's gonna be a quite a feat to get all the language in there because it's not concise as it should be in the conditions of approval.

And I will say that the commission can always move to have the resolution come back for that final signature or delegate it to the chair to approve that language, but you can have a a list of the different requirements to modify on the resolution.

So it could still be approved tonight and just give the chair the authority to make sure that it's done according to the wishes of the planning commission? Precisely. You have a you have a

big job. Well, that that presupposes approval, which which we haven't voted on yet. But Nope. Yeah. We could also schedule well, there'd be no point to that. I'm I was just blue skying. We could also schedule a special meeting to have it come back to us, but there there there's little point in that if all we're doing is verifying language. Mhmm. I don't know. Go ahead, please. I have

a question for the applicant. You say you're under a timeline for prop for purchasing the property. Yes. I personally don't think there's anybody behind you to buy that piece of property right now. Be surprised if there is. So do you think you can get an extension? Go go to the property owner and ask send your realtor to the to the Yeah. So owner and ask for an extension? Yes. And tell him why. Tell him the county staff made great mistakes that we cannot improve this in one night and see if they'll give you a sixty or ninety day extension. We have already gone for multiple extensions to the property owner.

The last one was around making sure that we had time for CEQA to come through because the timeline for CEQA got delayed. In the last extension with the property owner, it was expensive for us. It was not something that came easily. Like we really are in a position where I can't speak for negotiations with the property owner have led me to believe that they are also frustrated that it has taken a year and a half to sell their property and they're sort of telling us to I got the point. Yeah. I mean, this

is a big deal and it's it's this is the first time we've had you here. So I'm a little

I There's no there's no guarantee that this the seller gives us more time. I mean, they could, but but I would say I would lean towards, you know, this being probably the third or fourth extension. We have significant nonrefundable money, so it's they're gonna have to make a decision if we can't get, get, you know, an extension. And I would also, you know, look at this project as overall it's a net benefit to the county. It's bringing jobs, you know, it's bringing road improvements.

It is has a lot of positive because if they don't buy it, none of these road improvements get done. So I would look at it as more of a overall net positive. Maybe it's not perfect and maybe there's a way to work out some of the language that we can still work with our timelines. But there's no guarantee if we don't get it today. I mean, we can try to get an extension, but if we don't get the extension and the project goes away, that's kind of out of our control. That's up to the property owner. He could say, no, I'm giving not you more time. I'm done. Okay. I'm gonna take

your money and run. We won't allow a second, and then they we can discuss it before there's a second and go from there.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I think we're in a position to entertain emotion. So we're this brutal, but I'm gonna give

her a shot. So I moved to approve with some changes to the conditions of approval, the first of which being item number five, periodic review. The last sentence, any expansion of this use beyond what is currently proposed, I would like to strike, must first be reviewed by the the planning director and, if necessary, so that any any use beyond what is proposed goes to the planning commission. Item number 12, the landscaping plan. Very concerned about that as well.

I would like to see the planning commission review and approve it. We've already talked about those. So then the language as far as dedication, this is gonna be fun. From the memo, right of way dedication slash confirmation, applicant shall provide confirmation whether a 100 foot 10 right of way already exists on Shore Road. Otherwise, applicants shall be required to dedicate half of the 110 foot right of way along property frontage on Shore Road.

Number two, applicants shall provide confirmation whether a 60 foot right of way already exists on Fraser Lake Road. Otherwise, applicant shall be required to dedicate half of the 60 foot right of way along the property frontage on Fraser Lake Road. Number three, applicant shall also be required to dedicate the right of way area to accommodate the planned roundabout at Shore Road and Fraser Lake. Area of dedication shall be approved by the public works department. Along with this, the dedication for items number one and item number two above shall be required at phase one of the project.

The dedication for item number three shall be required when the roundabout is being designed by the county or during phase four of the project, whichever is sooner. Improvements. Phase one. Number one, prior to the issuance of the occupancy permit or permit to operate business for phase one, applicants shall construct the project's driveway per county standards, driveway detail. Detail.

Number two, all additional required approvals will be deferred for the future phases of the project. Then according to phase two, we're gonna have to I'm gonna have to ask Deems for that language. As far as the improvements for Shore Road, the $50,000 is not sufficient. We want the applicant to whatever the the the half of the the roadway is for sure, we want the applicant to complete that improvement. So so I'm I'm sorry.

I just need to clarify. In terms of your motion, how would we Well, that's that's what I'm

gonna ask Dean. What what's what's the half of the roadway? How many feet is that for Shore?

Is it the same? The ultimate right of way of Shore Road is 110 feet. So Okay. That will be a four lane road. Now currently, it's only a two lane road. Now what if you would like, we can change instead of collecting 50,000 contribution, we can change it into

And president the from business for phase three applicant shall be required to widen and improve half of 32 foot AC on 42 foot roadbed along the entire property fringe frontage of Fraser Lake. But I'd like to get those numbers for sure because I'm I the

That will be what I would recommend is for them to just build another lane to accommodate the turn lanes. Because, again, future ultimate build out for Shoe Road is different from Fraser Lake Road. It's 110 feet, so that's I think, I don't have it on top of my head, but it's in the county code. It's, I think, 96 feet

width of pavement. So it's huge. But we need specificity for the conditions of approval. So we're gonna say a turn lane of how many feet, how many width, and what's

the length of build the turn lanes. They they can build the turn lanes instead instead of just contribute 50,000. We we we can ask them to build the turn lanes themselves. Yep. At what point do

they build the turn lanes? Phase one? Well, no. That's that's phase two. Two.

Is that enough specificity that you build turn lanes per county code?

Do you agree with that?

I think the challenge for me on the spot is just that I don't know how much it will cost. We can give more money to the projects. Like it's not that. It's just that if with the rest of the project we have a budget, we've gone through the whole process. It's been essentially bid out. So I know how much it costs. With this, I just need to have at least a general sense of what it costs or at least like up to some limit language. You all say that it should be less than five times, so less than $250,000 based on what was done before. That typically I the cost that

believe it was. What was the cost of the turn lane for the Tobias project? Ballpark, I thought it was like $2.50 or 180 or somewhere in there.

And to be honest, I don't have that number because, again, that that turn lane was incorporated into the project that we had for the whole stretch of Chill Road. So the the exact number of just to build the turn lane is I I don't have that specific number. So what what If we yeah.

If we so if we say we're willing to do up to a 150, does that work for this?

As long as that builds a turn lane, that's the And I would

also like it to build the turn lane, but it's the it's the same.

We got a little glitch there in the get up and go. Okay. Is there a there a higher number? Because I wanna see the turn lane built and not just a contribution because the rate the county moves You

you threw out the one eighty number. We'll do one eighty.

Teams, will that get some pavement put down for

a turn lane? Here's the scenario. If if we accept the money, then it's it's it's on us to build the turn lanes. We we have

a quote for $1.77. Oh, yeah. So you're pretty good at the 20.

Okay. If we Okay. If we let them build the turn lane, the county don't have to worry about how much we spend actually.

Well, yeah. But if if it's left to the county, there probably will never be a turn lane just like there's no turn on Las Vibris. That's what frightens me. The county's follow through is not the best. Yeah. And

so what what I'm willing to do is we we have a quote that says it's a 180 that matches your recollection of what it is. We are willing to commit a 180. It's hard for me to commit Sure. Getting the county to do so.

Okay. Yeah. This is my eighth year. I'm ready to pull my hair out. Okay.

So back to phase two. Prior to the issuance of the occupancy permit or permit to operate business for phase two, applicant shall be required to contribute a $180,000 toward turn lanes on Shore Road. Item number two of phase two, all additional required improvements will be deferred to the future phases of the project. And then for phase three, prior to the issuance of occupancy permit or permit to operate business for phase three, applicants shall be required to widen and improve half of the 32 foot AC on 42 foot roadbed along the entirety of property frontage on Fraser Lake Road. Item number two, all additional required improvements will be deferred for the future phases of the project.

Phase four: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit or permit to operate business for Phase four, applicants shall be required to contribute $100,000 toward the design and construction of the future roundabout at the intersection of Shore Road and Fraser Lake Road. Applicants shall be required to hire and retain a traffic engineer to biannually monitor actual traffic impacts operations for every phase, Phase I to IV of the project, which shall then determine and provide recommendations for mitigation measures or safety improvements when they are found warranted for the project. Any proposed project site improvements not related to the required roadway improvements shall be built outside of the required width of the right of way dedication for both roads. Design of improvements shall comply with county code improvement standards. I think that

cover

covers everything, right, that we need to deal with? All the other stuff is just kinda standard as far as geotechnical drainage and erosion and the encroachment?

And and it it will be incorporated incorporated into the conditions of approval. Yeah.

I think that's a standard set, though.

Right? Yeah.

All the other language that's part of this memo? Yes. So Geotechnical drainage and erosion and encroachment permit, that's all standard stuff, right?

So

Those are standard conditions.

Okay. Okay. Before anybody seconds this, though, I I do have some a couple of questions. Yep. I believe that we also are are asked to approve the mitigated negative declaration and approve the mitigation plan. So, is that going to be incorporated into the into the resolution or are those separate items that we need to vote on first? I guess that's more a question for go ahead. Please. Yeah. There it's part

of the resolution. There's no separate resolution for this.

Okay. Okay. Then in that case, I guess I'm willing I Go ahead. Sorry.

I have one more thing. The the the language did you find that Rebecca, did you find that language regarding the best efforts to collect and remit sales taxes for construction materials? Because that's a big one. We need every dollar we can get. As you've seen, what's happened?

Yes. We can compose that language to ensure it's compliant. Okay. And it is now included in

your motion. Okay. And part of this motion that I'm making, beautiful motion, is that we leave details to the chair to approve when he signs it to make sure that what is written follows the rule of the planning commission because this is such a unique situation. And that is my motion. Okay. Is there includes the negative deck

and all that good stuff. Is there a second? A second. Okay. Thank you. Can we have a roll call, please?

You got it. Vincent Ringhaden, District 1. Richard Way, District 2. Yes. Robert Scaglotti, District 3.

Yes.

And Robert Gibson, district four?

Yes.

That is a four o in favor.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you, guys.

Appreciate it. And I'd like

a tour once it's built. You are more than welcome to tour. I want you guys to Escudero site. I do have one thing to say. Adhere to what we just did. Please. We're tired of

the eyesores in our community. I want this to be pristine. I want people from all over the country to come and look at this in San Diego County and saying they did it. Right. Maybe there's something even though we've made our decision, maybe there's something you can say about the technology and where you think it's going and how you think this will affect this county and being some of the leading technology in farming.

Yeah, I mean, want to do this right. We've been working hard to do this right. We're really proud of what we built. I'm excited to show any of you all around our Pescadero site when you have a chance and then in Hollister when we build it. I do think that what we're doing in conjunction with outdoor growers, kind of finding new ways to extend growing seasons in different regions is really innovative and interesting and solves some of the challenges that we have.

I'm really excited about the county. Excited to bring this to a rich agricultural area and take land that I hear tell has like not so good topsoil and actually make it really productive. We've been trying to do it right to your point and thoughtful about site selection, where we locate it, what we do. And yeah, I'm really, really excited. I think we can bring kind of like the next wave of farming, make San Benino County part of that.

And y'all are welcome anytime. And I really do appreciate the flexibility of the commission and sort of the unique situation that we're in. It really does mean a lot. And maybe when you're finished building, you can have tours for the public. Oh, tours for the public anytime, really. I love showing it off. Absolutely.

Okay. Thank Okay. I would just piggyback.

It is a very exciting project and the technology is it's a really cool thing to bring to San Diego County. I think it'll be overall net positive for our county. Maybe we can get

the manufacturing of those things here. Okay.

Before we move on to 7.3, which I think we can dispense with fairly quickly. But I don't think that's going to be true of eight point one. Would anybody well, I would like a brief recess, perhaps ten minutes. Okay. Thank you.

We are recessed until 08:20 by the clock on the wall there. Thank you much. So I don't know. County council?

Yes. The government code does require a notice of twenty days prior to a public hearing on zoning amendments to our code. And in this instance, going back to the record upon review in advance of this hearing, it was noted that it was slightly shorter than twenty days. So it will require to be properly noticed before taking action on the item and introducing the ordinance.

Okay. Thanks. Go ahead. Through the chair, I have a question. So we can't take action, but can we discuss the substance of it?

Yes. This was properly agendized for this meeting and can be discussed. Okay. However, as I mentioned, the only caveat is the actual introduction of the ordinance will need to happen at a later notice hearing.

Okay. Okay. Good. Good. Alright.

Mister chair. Good. I just would like to add also that I contacted the stakeholders as well and they were all okay with the continuance. I just let him know about about it. One mister Haywood actually said it would have better. It was his wife's birthday today, and so he he worked out better for him, but

Well, my my issue would be if if there's, you know, public comment and if there are people that came tonight or are on Zoom tonight to comment on it, then maybe wouldn't be available on the continuing stage. So other than that,

I mean, yeah, go ahead. Yeah.

And that and that was a just that, you know, like mister Haywood indicated, is there any reason why I should I should be there because he he had other plans and I told him that this is the this was the the legal requirement regarding the statutory for the for the for the ordinance to basically continue it. So. Right. They they might, I mean, they, if they were here, they would probably wanna be able to comment on these. Sure. As well, but, they were under the impression that was gonna get continued.

So, is there, I take it then that there isn't really a staff report on what these changes are that you want to go through tonight?

We didn't touch some of the changes but but under the impression that this was gonna get continues, the stakeholders decided that they weren't gonna be present because they did they do have comments and they did wanted to be here to to comment but if you would to for staff to go over some of these, we would be happy to do so.

Yeah. Do that. But I I would just like to through the chair, I'd like to it looks like everything was deleted. Yep. That's what I read. I was like, so there's no more ordinance. Basically got the whole thing was deleted, and that was my only comment for this evening that I hope it's not completely deleted, but there certainly wasn't a need to, over be overburdens like we were before. Somewhere in a happy medium, hopefully.

That's my Go ahead. Yeah. I agree with commissioner Gibson. All of sudden, I'm looking here. I've looked at it Sunday. I'm looking again now, and, like, we don't have an ordinance. Yeah. I I agree. Like, a happy medium that we should come up with here.

Can certainly do that. Mister chair, members of the commission. We can come back and during this continuation, we could look at some of these and and see what we can bring back. But the main reason of why the majority of these were basically strike is because the health and safety code and and state code and federal code already cover pretty much all of the ordinance. Oh.

And so so similar to the building code to where our San Diego County code just makes reference to the to the California building code. This is this is part of it but not to say that that we're just not putting them into the code. We actually we actually are planning on having a a pamphlet that basically addresses all of the concerns that we have. So they can let us know particularly what they're proposing. Because some of these conditions or not conditions but ordinances are are very specific.

For example, 70 foot setback, very specific. It could be that there's an ag used right next door to it and 70 foot may not be enough. It could be that based on the the it's gonna put it on the applicant to show us how they're gonna be able to meet the requirements. If there's a house within, you know, 70 feet, how they're not gonna be a nuisance to odor or or noise and it could be that 70 feet may be good. It could be it could be less the 32 feet if it's an ag district or it could be that they may need to put more of a setback.

So, we're gonna put it on the applicant to show us if through through the hobby kennels that are administrative or conditional use permit kennels to show you as a commission how are they going to meet those requirements. So that that's the basis of it. But we can go over it and and you know through these if you have any questions or concerns to kind of come to a happy medium and even though these are covered to the state and federal, still bring some and actually include some in the governance. We're more than happy to do so. I talked to the stakeholders.

But the the majority, they they prefer to have them deleted but I did talk to you for example the ones that have the business and I went out there and I know that some of you went out there as well and they would be okay to include some of them as well. They they it it it for them it was okay. So, I think if if you do determine to continue it which we recommend because of the law, it gives us this time to kind of try to come to the happy medium that you're asking.

If you mitigate it like if they wanna put it in agricultural area because of food safety concerns, it will that be something that we're gonna leave in there or how we're handle that, Abraham? Yeah, that that's a good question. That that is part of the, for example, that

setback example that I provided, that will put it on the applicant to show us how they're going to be able to be that good neighbor and be able to meet the requirements to not be a nuisance to the to the neighbors whether it be ag, whether it be a house that's within a a setback and we've been working with legal on this to make sure to see if if we we need to put something in in the actual language or not and just keep it as is but still require as part of that pamphlet that they provide us with with that with that language. And that will that's what's been discussed with the stakeholders in in multiple times as well. Okay. Additional questions from the

commission for action, possible action, motions. I

I move to continue until our regularly scheduled meeting of 05/20/2026.

Thank you. Is there a second for that? Second. Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries four zero. Thank you. Chair, I

just wanted to mention I met with the Kennel folks, and I didn't disclose that. Okay. Thank you.

Myself also, Ken. Sure. Oh, okay.

Thank you. I don't talk to anybody.

You're not gonna put it. Yeah. Nor have I, although I would have, had I been available on the day that he initially went there. We not have been three. We would have only been two at that point. Anyway, moving on to item 8.1. This is the continuation of the compliance review for Panoptic Solar Farm. And I guess we'll have a presentation from staff.

Thank you, mister chair. We have Chief Vadoya also here and we also have vice president of asset management from RWE, Clean Energy's Shannon Amanet on Zoom who will also provide us with information pertaining to this item and their interaction with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, CTFW, since their last request back in February to continue the item and they were talking about a month but the commission thought it was more fitting to to do two months and so I know that Shannon and Chikudoya have been talking and so I'm not sure if if would be Shannon if if we could unmute her to start and then I know that she indicated that she was also gonna be addressing the commission today.

Shannon, you're a panelist. You should have the ability to unmute yourself.

Can you hear me? Yes. Excellent. Thank you for having us tonight. I know that we've had to continue this a couple of times because we wanna come back with a more substantial update.

As far as the the project, we have continued continued to work with CDFW, and we filed an ITP amendment number four, requesting that we can use mechanical measures such as mowing and the use of herbicide at the site. We've also, like, hired external consultants to help us with, you know, the discussions with CDFW, and we had our first meeting this past Monday and just kinda talked through their thoughts on the initial review. And so we're proceeding forward with them, and they still have a period of time in which they can come back with additional comments. But so far, it's been a productive discussion, and we're proceeding forward with trying to get the project down to earth. Separately, I wanted to highlight some of the other items that we talked about, I think, last time.

So let me go through my list here. We in in order to strengthen our relationship with the community recently, we have joined the San Diego Chamber of Commerce. So and we've also posted a position with the county. We're looking for, some site staff. So we're hoping to also, strengthen that relationship there.

And we've been working with Hollister Fire, and he actually came out and did, a training with the site staff. And that was extremely helpful and it worked really well. And I know Charlie was gonna discuss that a bit more. And let me see. I know you had

Thanks. Alright. And, it looks like, Charlie wants to say something as well.

Yeah. I'm up here. Charlie with the fire department or fire marshal, and and we have been, working in partnership with them. So, it's actually good that they did come up because now we've established a good working relationship with them. They did go down there. We did teach live fire fire extinguishing with water and and dry cam over there. We have been working on them since the last time on the weed. So they have been, doing their due diligence to maintain that, and it's been well under control than it was before, and they're doing better on that. We did sign the MOU on the fire response plan, with them. So that's already secured, and we're working on the weed management plan.

And that's just like a, how to say it's a fluid, continuous improvement on it as well as the, I have their EAP done. We they completed that for us, and we're gonna improve that for the fire response plan too with them on that. So we got that all going on. And right now, they're good with fire departments. And I'm actually going down there Monday to to reevaluate the work they've done too. They've continued. I just it's kind of the pits because it the

one the the commission one one for either fire or the applicant? I have no questions at

this time. I'll wait till after public comment.

I wondered there was some talk about, maybe I misunderstood, the fishing game had an issue, wanted to leave some grass under there for some species. And

I'll just talk on it real quick. I mean, while we're out there, they have biologists that are out there. So as they're doing their Weetabahemen, they're telling them, you can't mow here because there's a critter here. They're covering up the the rabbit the foxholes. There was a bald eagle's nest out there, so they're like, you gotta go around that part on that stuff. So they're they're doing some good on that. They're doing some good on that. And then they do have dedicated area that they don't even touch at all on some parts of the area that they're not touching. But for the most part, they're getting all the stuff that we require.

And you're saying so for the most part that you've they've done their weed abatement and and it's would you would you say there's two inches of growth or three inches for? It's a little more,

but they're getting it. They're getting it. The roadway, I told them, get the perimeter first, get the perimeter, and then let's start hitting those arrays. So they started on the westerly part, the one ports town, and they started working their way down. So I got a picture of that. And I'm gonna go check the progress on Monday because they got a little more taken care of. So when I checked it about a a month ago, month and a half ago, they had good progress, but it rained. So it it's a full time job for them over there. And they do have full time staff for that.

Maybe just a question for staff that when we have these projects that come, is there not language that says there should be some underliner as the other commission to prevent the weeds from the beginning? Maybe in the future we can have that written into the language that that it must be done because here you have a fire issue.

I I could speak on that. Okay. It's in the fire code. It's in the fire code regardless. So I wasn't part of it when it started coming and they came up there. But since 2017, I've been there. We've been pretty consistent on everything. And we know we're we know the fire code, and we'll make sure that's one of the Conditions. One of the conditions that they maintain it. If you go all up and down five, it goes all through those. So we'll make sure that they get that. That's just a condition of approval. Absolutely. You have to fulfill the barcode.

And through the chair, the additional issue was the location. There are so many little endangered species that this project probably shouldn't have been approved at this site. And that's the bigger issue is we have to pay attention to what we're doing as a body, and that was a failure many years ago. So that's why you can't cover it because of all the little creatures. It should just should not

have been That was found out during the environmental impact Yes. They did. We knew that somebody knew that.

Sometimes there's the fox, there's the badgers, there's they have a whole list of items.

Yes. We have it was with San Benito County had partnered with the original owner of the project. And I think they were all kind of sued from environmental groups concerned with the project and the side of it. And so ultimately what happened in 2017 was a settlement agreement that San Diego County, CFW, project ended up doing is splitting the project in half and moving half of it out of the area. And then they purchased 26,000 acres of mitigation land and donated it back to the DFW and then they also did an endowment fund where they also paid to take care of all of the land that's there.

And then part of the agreement there was that we would have biologists on-site, right, and just making sure that if there are endangered species there that we are cognizant of that. And this kind of was one of the, I think, trailblazers in California of trying to find a way to have environmental with renewables and work together.

Thanks. Alright. I guess might be time to open up for public comment. Is there a public comment via Zoom, I guess? I don't think there's anybody in chambers. I have no hands via Zoom. I'm sorry. No hands? Okay. Thank you. Alright. Then, bringing it back to the commission for discussion and possible action.

I I have one comment, I guess. Shouldn't there be resolution that we find this in compliance and it's not there?

Yes, the the resolution was attached at the last planning commission meeting. I don't see it in in this one but it's basically indicating that it's a substantial compliance if you would like to vote in that direction. There's not one that says that it's not, but if you feel that it's not, then we would take the measures and take it to the board.

I will commend you that you've made some big big changes in the past however many months we've been going at this eight months or so. I am relatively pleased. The proof in the pudding will be whether or not there are any fires going forward, and hopefully, this will stop any fires from occurring. If there are additional fires, I guess we're gonna have to take an another look when it's time to do this again next year. And I will leave a motion until other planning commissioners share their comments or whatever.

I would, tend to agree with commissioner Gibson. I'm impressed with the, the progress that's been made. Certainly, there's more to be done, but it seems like a good faith effort.

I concur. I think if Charlie's happy, we should be happy. Yeah. That's

I was if if if you're happy with the of the progress that they've made, my concern is still that there's fires at all, that there's a spark at all, that the maintenance maybe needs to be looked at so that doesn't have even if there was grass or something underneath there. And I don't

wanna speak for them, but they have what these are called owls that they've installed throughout the facility. So before, when we get fires, it would be the Cal Fire cameras up on the hill saying, hey, we see all the smoke coming. By the time we get there, it's already ten, twenty acres. But now they're they've installed them on the facility that they'll be able to stop spot the smoke a lot quicker, if I if I if I remember that correctly.

That's great. Yes. Oh, it is? Okay. So through the Yes.

There's, I believe, 10 cameras installed so that it also it kind of alerts everyone that's on the distribution anytime it believes that there's smoke.

And through the chair, think part of the correspondence from the company was they spent, is it $2,000,000 and a lot of man hours to go through and fireproof the equipment that was part of the packet. I think So that's fantastic. It took a while, but I think you're getting there. Thank

you.

So, I guess I would entertain a motion. Okay.

I'm I move that we adopt a resolution finding this project in compliance with their, development agreement.

Is there a second for that? Second. Okay. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries four zero. Moving on to future agenda items, item nine.

Well, if I may. Absolutely. Future agenda item would be the telecommunications ordinance, ASAP, along with the rest of the zoning. It's difficult when people ask you questions, and I'm thinking that we have approved something a year and a half ago. And then, oh, no. That's right. Really nothing was approved. So it'd be nice to catch up to what all the the two years of work that we put into it, and get it finalized so that I can remember where we are because I'm not an encyclopedia of the county code as it stands. That's it for future items. Other

folks' future agenda? I don't have any. Okay. Alright. And then, commissioner announcements.

Yep. There we go. So I'd like to thank you for all the work that you've done, especially now during the times of short staffing. However, there is an ongoing issue. For years, we've been asking to get the packet in a more timely fashion.

We changed our rules last year or the year before to to get the packet on Wednesdays, and it rarely happens. It it might happen when the packet's 50 pages or a 100 pages, but when we really need the time, it's Friday, and, we're essentially volunteers and weekends. There's other things going on. We have family and whatnot too. So I would suggest, this isn't on staff, not you're doing, but the director of planning and building.

If you have internal policies that there are deadlines from applicants or staff to get paperwork in so that this packet can be completed. Move it a week or two, whatever it takes because if we have to start continuing items at a protest, it serves nobody. So I would appreciate that if you can fix your internal policies ASAP, preferably before the next meeting, I would be very thankful.

We'll do everything we can. Commissioner Gibson, thank you.

Concur I

with commissioner Gibson and commissioner Scagliotti. The amount of time that we have to review the packet for what amounts to a volunteer position, I mean, we do get a very small stipend for this but yeah, it's it's not sufficient. It's it's really asking a lot of us.

Especially when we get one like tonight, that the whole project that was way loose in the sense that there was nothing nailed down to it. There was a lot of vagueness to the whole thing. And at least we had it sooner. Even it even should have come to us maybe last meeting as a start. Okay, guys.

This is what we have coming at us. Let's open it up. Let's look at it. Because that tonight, I really didn't wanna approve it, but we had no choice because the man has obligations to a purchase. And if if I may just add that the role that we play is important even if some people don't think we should exist. And we need we need time in order to understand the projects and the conditions of approval and all that stuff. And if we don't have the proper time, we're not serving the community that we're here appointed to to serve. And that's that's our biggest failure, and it's out of our control and we're relying on you. So, please make sure it gets fixed. Thank you.

Through the chair. Yes, I definitely would wanna make sure that you get it even in advance of a week that we're we're hoping to. You know, I can tell you, staff is doing, we're doing our best. I mean, we're not just, you know, eight to five. We're working eight to midnight, eight to three in the morning. I mean, we are working. We we need we need the help. So but but no excuses. We're we're doing our best and we would try to get it as soon as we can. And hopefully even prior to to the Fridays.

And we would we we do kindly ask whenever we can make it on the Wednesday but but that Wednesday before but we will definitely always try to keep that in mind because we we understand it is a volunteer position. Small stipend, you know, but it is a very important position. You you you do a lot. You you have the discretionary authority for a lot that goes on in this county and we do our best to try to provide the facts to you and we would try to continue to do that with the amazing amazing team that we

have limited, but We understand now that you're very short staffed. Some of us have been up here for several years now, and it's been happening continuously. Right now, I understand. If we get it an hour before meeting, I am I'll understand. But But before, even before when you full staffed, it was happening. We

appreciate that your your staff shortage and that I understand you're you're working your tail off. But for those of us who are slower readers to get a huge package, it it it requires a lot of time. So, but thank you for what you're doing.

Appreciate it very much. Definitely appreciate the dedication. Yes, absolutely. We appreciate the dedication.

It means a lot.

Thank you. It's frustrating for us. Additional commissioner announcements? Hearing none, I guess I would entertain a motion. There you go. I'll move to adjourn. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, we are adjourned at 08:47. Thank you very

much. Thank you very much.