Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the August 2025 Stanselaus County Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to start off with a few reminders. Please silence your cell phones during the public hearings. We're happy to accept any comments on the projects, but we do ask that you avoid repetition. During a long hearing, it's okay just to say that you agree with the previous speakers rather than repeat what's already been said. Can we have a roll call please?

Commissioner Bricchetta? Here. Commissioner Campo? Here. Commissioner Huff? Here. Commissioner Mari? Here. Commissioner Morat? Here. Commissioner Zipser?

Here.

Let the record reflect that commissioners Callis, Cibola, and Bloreb are absent this evening And I believe we don't need a motion for that, but it is noted. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. The Citizens Forum is a time for the public to speak on issues that are not on tonight's agenda. However, the commission cannot take action on these items. Is there anyone that would like to speak on any issue that's not on tonight's agenda?

Alright, seeing none. Moving on to minutes. Is there a motion to accept and a second to accept the minutes for 07/17/2025?

Move to approve.

There a second? So that's a motion

by commissioner Zipser, second by commissioner Huff?

Yes.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

No opposition? Okay. Alright. Is there any correspondence? Director Fredus?

Yes. You have one item of correspondence. It was too late for the agenda that has been placed before you this evening. It is an email that was received on August 18 from Beverly Jones regarding use permit application number 202297, Pernsteiner and Sun Fabricators.

Thank you. Are there any commissioners that would like to declare a conflict of interest at this time? Alright. Seeing none. Alright.

Consent items. Consent items are items on tonight's agenda designated by an asterisk next to the item requiring a Planning Commission public hearing, but which following an initial evaluation by staff have been found to be consistent with existing county policy and the county general plan and are therefore recommended for routine approval. If you want a particular item removed from consent, please speak up and advise the chair. That item will then be withdrawn from consent and reviewed in detail as scheduled. The remaining consent items for which there are no voice objection objections will be handled by a single action of the commission.

Does anyone wish to discuss any of the consent items?

Move to approve the consent items.

Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. Alright. Now, non consent items. Oh, all in favor? Aye. No objections? Thank you. Moving on to non consent items. Use permit application number PLN2022Dash0097. Pernsteiner and Sons Fabrication Incorporated. May we have a report, please?

Certainly. Good evening, chair. Commissioners, Jeremy Ballard, senior planner, and I will be presenting the use permit for Pernstein and Sons Fabrication. This is a request to permit an agricultural require, excuse me, repair business within a 6,600 square foot warehouse on a 19 acre parcel in the general agricultural zoning district. Project site is located at 712 West Harding Road between South Walnut and Lander Avenue, which is also known as State Route 165 in the Turlock area.

Site has a general plan designation of agriculture and is zoned a two forty. Surrounding land uses include irrigated orchards, row crops, and scattered ranchettes in all directions. City Of Turlock and State Route Route 99 is located approximately point six miles to the Northeast, and the county of Merced is approximately point five miles to the south of the site. Site itself has been improved with a single family dwelling and multiple, barns and accessory structures. The primary, location for proposed activity will take place within a 6,600 square foot storage building located at the back of of the 1.3 acre developed area of the site.

The remaining balance of the site was previously planted in orchard and then followed until planting row crops two years ago, which will continue on. As discussed in the staff report, there are multiple unpermitted structures that are located on the property in two including two structures converted into residential living space. The site is served by a private well and septic system. Access to county maintained West Harding Road is provided via an existing 16 foot wide driveway. As illustrated by the applicant site plan, they have requested to operate the equipment repair business utilizing the agricultural storage building to make repairs to a mix of agricultural equipment, including tractors, mowers, discs, spreaders, shakers, pickers, and elevators.

Storage building will include administrative office, also installed without permits as you see on the right there. The facility welds and fabricates parts as needed, utilizing various fabricating machines to create custom shafts, hydraulic cylinders, and pins. Approximately 80% of the work is completed on-site with the remaining 20% done off off-site at a customer's property. The service area consists mostly of Merced County with some clients within the Newman area of Stanislaus County. Business expects to be to primarily serve production agriculture operations.

However, they have stated that a portion of their clientele will include ancillary agriculture industries such as ag equipment operations, packing companies, and hay haulers. The applicant states that they have a second location within the city limits of Newman used to weld and fabricate for residential, commercial, and industrial clients. Storage storage of supplies will take place within an approximately 3,200 square foot metal warehouse building. The project site will include a total of nine gravel parking spaces for passenger vehicles and a gravel area surrounding the developed footprint, which will also serve as a staging area for equipment that is awaiting repair of parts. The hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 7AM to 03:30PM, with three employees on a maximum shift with one shift per day, an estimated two daily customers, whether they'd picking up or dropping off, and then one trip truck trip for the delivery of supplies per week, and with one one truck trip for gas delivery every other week.

The property was first cited by the county's department, environmental resource resources code enforcement division for non permitted use on 12/09/2021. Proposed business, began operating out of the project site in 2014, and then with the the Neumann location becoming online in approximately 2021. So the 600 six six thousand six hundred square foot building to be utilized for project activities was originally permitted as an ag storage building in 2013. In addition to the previously mentioned unpermitted structures, tenant improvements, including the interior office, and then installation of fabrication machines were made to the building without building permits. So as you can see here with the the the photos from the the building, on the left hand side, you'll see more of the, some welding equipment as well as some of the fabrication machines that have been installed.

And then on the right hand side is kind of the primary area of activity for repairing of of, equipment such as tractors. And then here on the left hand side is just a picture of the that same storage building from the the driveway location looking southward. And then, again, on the right hand side is the interior more primarily focused on the the office that has been installed. So two issues have been identified in the review of this project. The first is findings for approval of a tier two use permit, which requires the planning commission to find that the establishment is primarily providing direct services to farmers and are designed to serve the immediate surrounding area as opposed to having a widespread service area.

As discussed in the issues and zoning consistency section of the staff report, staff did not provide a recommendation for this project. So as stated previously, the proposed repairs include a mix of agricultural equipment, tractors, mowers, discs. They'll the facility will weld and fabricate parts as needed. Per the application, the business expects to primarily serve production agriculture. And as I said before, they have over a third of their clientele clientele will include ancillary agricultural industries, such as the equipment and packing companies and hay haulers.

The applicant has identified a service area consistently mostly of Merced County with with parts of the Newman area of Stanislaus County. Given the site's approximate location to Merced County and the nature of its client base, the project does appear to meet the criteria for serving the immediately surrounding area as opposed to have a widespread having a widespread service area. With respect to its clients, it's not clear what the project whether the project would meet the criteria primarily providing agricultural services to farmers, while the business also serves a nonagricultural component starting in 2021 when the company purchased the location in city Of Neumann, the applicant has stated that this component of the business was never operated from the project site. The county zoning ordinance does not define how much of a business client must be agricultural, just that the establishment be primarily engaged in the provisions of services to farmers. Given the businesses businesses mix of clients and that the use is already operating without required land use entitlements and building permits, staff is seeking guidance from the planning commission rather than recommending the approval or denial.

So the additional issue that was discussed in the staff report includes the multiple structures improvements that were not permitted with the building permit. Each unpermitted structure will need to go through the appropriate permitting process as allowable under the A 2 Zoning district. Based on the project site size, the parcel would be allowed to maintain a single family dwelling, one accessory dwelling unit, and one junior accessory dwelling unit. Any residential units not pre permitted by the A 2 Zoning district will be required to be demolished or returned back into the accessory structures. A condition of approval has been added to the project requiring that all required building permits, residential and nonresidential, needed to bring the property into compliance be applied for within six months, issued within twelve months, and be final within eighteen months of project approval.

The condition provides some flexibility to extend the different areas if the applicant can demonstrate that progress towards permitting can be shown any delays are outside of their control. If the timelines of this condition cannot be met, the use permit will be expired and the operation will be subject to enforcement. And so in the pictures here, on the left hand side is a I believe a previous previous agricultural storage building that was turned into an apartment. And then on the right hand side is a similarly, I believe, a shed that was converted into a little apartment. So general plan and zoning ordinance ordinance consistency was evaluated for the project.

The general plan consistency evaluation included the project site's general plan, land use, destination of agriculture. The this analysis also included the objectives one point two and one point five of goal one of the county's agricultural element, which includes encouragement of vertical integration of agriculture by organizing uses, requiring use permits into three tiers based on types of use and the relationship to agriculture, specifically tier two uses, including agriculturally related commercial industrial uses such as this ag service establishment and ag processing plants and facilities, as well as the objectives also discussed the criteria of serving ag directly in the limited service area. In regards to the agricultural buffer policy, staff found the project would would not exceed the required excuse me. It would exceed the required 150 foot buffer of the element for low people intensive uses on the side. The project was referred to the Stanselaus County agricultural commissioner, and no comments have been received to date.

Staff believes that the proposed use can be found to be consistent with the general plan if the planning commission can make the necessary finance to approve the request as a whole. And as stated previously, proposed use can be permitted in the a two zoning district, provided the tier two use permit is first obtained. The findings for that include the regard the clientele served in the service area involved with that operation. Given that the planning commission has had differing views on what defines primarily engaging in the provision of agricultural services to farmers or appropriate service area for these ag service stab service establishments, staff found that it would be difficult to evaluate. And so, like I said, we've we've come here without a recommendation to to to seek the planning commission's opinion.

So in the past, the planning commission, when staff did not provide a recommendation, there's this history here on the left hand side, the more recent decisions versus use permit PLN twenty twenty two for FM ingredients and FM ingredients, which proposed to operate an animal feed and mineral blending business with a primary with the primary issue of that particular use permit being the service area was was was very large. The planning commission did approve, this use permit in September 2022. And there was the use permit, for bent lines design and fabrication, which proposed to operate in an agricultural equipment repair business with part fabrication, with the primary issue being that the not a 100% of the clientele was was serving, ag directly. The planning commission did approve of this use permit in May 2023. And then lastly was the use permit for London Tractor and Trailer, which proposed to establish a farm equipment and trailer repair business with the primary issue related to the business not directly serving production agriculture.

The the planning commission approved the of this use permit in November 2024. While no staff recommendation has been provided, staff does believe that the planning commission were to find the project consistent with the standards of the agricultural service establishment, the project could be meet all other use permit findings for approval. So on August 18, staff received a letter of opposition from an adjacent property owner. The letter stated that West Harding Road was not intended for heavy load bearing vehicles. It is narrow, and the project would further deteriorate the road condition.

Also, the project would generate additional traffic, competing deliveries, and emergency vehicles, that the project would negatively impact property values, and that it would that would generate safety concerns on Harding Road and Lander Avenue. Speaking to the property owner's concerns, the applicant has stated that generally most equipment is brought on-site by a flat foot flat flatbed trailer pulled on a pickup truck or, in some cases, drove on-site in the equipment itself. In cases of supplies deliveries, it's anticipated most will come from passenger type vehicles with the occasional box truck. As detailed in the staff report, the estimated vehicle trips and deliveries for this project will be minimal. The applicant has also stated that most of their clients come off of Lander Avenue with the occasional from Walnut Road that's west of the site.

Currently, the road width is around 20 feet of pavement for both west and eastbound lanes. Condition of approval number 16 will require development of a driveway that meets rural commercial standards, which will include a paved apron connecting it to Harding Road As the vehicles have not been have have not been indicated, the project will generate any impediments to using Harding Road based on its current paved width. Additionally, condition of approval number 14 would prohibit use of the right of way for loading and unloading of vehicles. And the pictures here are obviously looking west down Harding. There's the center of the driver right there in the middle, and then to the right is obviously looking eastbound.

And on the top right corner, that is the county standard apron driveway apron for a use of this nature. And that's what they'll be required to install as part of the conditions of approval. So prior to tonight's public hearing, staff received an inquiry from a planning commissioner regarding the typical right of way with at Harding Road, what type of future expansion could be expected on Harding Road, and what would be typical of previous dedication requirements of adjacent property owners. Staff confirmed with the county's public works that there are no immediate future plans to continue to build out of Harding Road by the county. Also, being that Lander is a state highway, any future expansions or improvements to that road would be completed by Caltrans unless required by some sort of future project that warranted warranted those types of improvements.

As far as far as dedication, along West Harding Road, there have been a handful of properties to the west that have dedicated a total of 60 feet with some sporadic dedication of 50 feet wide, mostly associated with the previous parcel split. In some cases, there have been little to no dedication of future right of way. Additionally, as Harding abuts a canal, all required right of way will come from these properties that front the south side of Harding Road. The project's requirement of condition of approval number 18 includes that dedication will match this 60 foot wide dedication to the parcels that are that have already taken place to the parcels of the west. This condition will also include any future removal or relocation of any improvements within the ultimate right of way at the request of public works.

So pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, initial study was circulated to interested parties and responsible agencies for review and comment. Negative declaration has been prepared for approval, and then conditions of approval reflecting referral responses have been placed on the project. So to conclude, staff has not provided a recommendation of approval or denial for the planning commission. If the planning commission should choose to approve the project, exhibit a of the staff report includes all required findings for approval, including findings regarding environmental review, use permit findings, and project approval. And that concludes my presentation. I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you, Jeremy, for that report. Have one question that is actually connected to the email that we received. Has the commission found time to review it in full? It was just presented to us. Okay. Very good. So my question comes for impeding emergency responders' access to residents. Do we have any data on that, or is that something Public Works can answer?

I believe Public Works would have looked at that as part of the the original project referral as well as the environmental review that they did not indicate that was gonna be any type of concern.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the commission to Jeremy and staff?

Jeremy, what's the timeline on? So there's some non permitted use on the property. What's what's the timeline for them? Let's say it was approved. What would be the timeline that they would have to bring that into compliance?

So there's, yeah, there's the non permitted use, which we're here tonight for for the the actual land use determination for the use permit. And then there's non permitted structures not related to this their residential nature. In any event, the condition of approval that we place on the project for all unpermitted structures or improvements have to they have to submit a building permit to us within sixteen six months of tonight if approved, and then have that permit be issued within twelve months, and then all the work completed within essentially eight month eighteen months of this project approval. So it's there's a lot of work, and that's a pretty tight timeline.

How did you come up with the timeline?

We've used it in past projects as a way to ensure that there's a continual movement of activity to to ensure compliance. Ultimately, the eighteen months lines up with the county's ordinance as well.

Do you think that the condition nineteen and twenty prior to the issuance of any building permits will affect the so this has to do with the water and sewage. How how fast does the Department of Environmental Resources do their review? Because if that's required before they

That would apply for permit. Sure. Generally speaking, these these requirements for the the on-site wastewater treatment system, the septic systems, are taking place during the actual permit review process. So those will be handled within that twelve month twelve month period. So they usually review them concurrently. Gotcha.

Are there any code enforcement violations?

The property still has an own open code enforcement case, which did not has not proceeded since they've been through this process. They do, have an unpaid fine of $300 that will need to need to be completed as

well. Thank you.

There Jeremy, the the unpermitted uses right now would not require commission review?

The the unpermitted okay. So, again, just to just to make sure I'm I'm clear. The unpermitted uses are are the what is being reviewed as part of the use permit. So the unpermitted land use of the fabrication business the equipment repair business. Excuse me. The other aspects of the unpermitted activities were permitting of dwelling units that are covered on the county's code so that the planning commission necessarily wouldn't have discretion in that matter. But we've like I said, we've added conditions approval to ensure those are all completed prior to the if the use permit is approved prior to those permits being.

Thank you. Any other questions for Jeremy? Alright. We will close and open the public hearing. Is there anyone in opposition to this application that would like to speak? All right. Seeing none, is there anyone in favor of this application that would like to speak? Please come up and identify yourself, sir.

So I'm Jesse Bernstein, the owner of the Bernstein's Sons Fabrication. I don't know if there's any. We've been in business for a little while. You know, we're small. We do a lot of stuff, like I said, for agriculture. We purchased that business in Newman in 2021 from it used to be TNR Enterprises. I don't if anybody knows Newman, but he moved to Tennessee, but we purchased from him. And then we do agriculture and some commercial stuff there. You know I mean? But and we bought the property in, I think, was 2012 or '14.

Couple of them buildings were already on the site. You know I mean? So I don't know what some of them, you know I mean, were, but, you know, because I know that barn that's there, that's I don't know. We bought it from a guy, I never been up there. I don't even know what it looks like up there, so I couldn't even tell you since 02/2012. But, anyways, yeah, I don't if there's any questions you guys have for me. I I'd be more than happy to answer them, so I appreciate you guys' time.

Do you live on-site on that site?

No. No? No. We live in Hilmar.

Okay.

The reason for purchasing that property or if if you were already operating business in Newman?

No. We weren't at the time.

No. At in 2021, that's when you when you when you purchased the business in Neumann. Correct?

No. We started business in 1995.

Oh, okay. In Neumann?

My garage.

Okay. Alright.

Just tell you the truth. We started me and my brother did from Wisconsin. Did

you run out

of space? Did you grow? Did your business grow to where you needed, you know, more space to continue to to service whoever, you know, your your customers are?

Yes. That's what happened. Yes. We started, like I said, small out of our garage, and then we just kinda

came through. Did it just maybe cross your mind that you might wanna consider whether this was permitted in the county or not? Did you look into maybe getting some kind of

license? I didn't know. Yeah. I mean, we have a business license. You know I mean?

But But

in Newman?

Yes. But we have one in I don't if we have one here or not. I don't if we ever had one here, but no. We didn't. But, yeah, we do. But we didn't know yeah. I mean, at the time, you know, as we started from the bottom up. I mean, we came a long ways or tried to anyways to help a lot of farmers, weld, and do repairs for them. So

Tell us a little bit more about your business. Is it you said mostly repairs that you do? Yes. That's ag related?

Yes. Yeah. A lot of agricultural repairs. Like, shaker equipment, like, today. One of the guys shaker broke down, and he bring it to us, and he was happy we could get it fixed and up and running right away. So, yeah, we try to do things when harvest time comes. We're kinda busy now. You know? Won't be ever slow. You know, like I said, wintertime, we're not that busy. And, you know, spring, we do little stuff for choppers and people that do planting and stuff like that. So

Mhmm. You comfortable with the timeline that's offered from staff about being in compliance with this use permit?

I think so. I think we can do that. Yes. I think we can make the deadline.

Thank you. Any other questions from the commission? Thank you, sir.

Yes. Thank you very much.

Anyone else to speak in favor of this application? If none, I'll take it back to the commission for discussion and a possible motion.

Well, I can say as a farmer, I rely on the businesses. I don't personally deal with mister Percenter, but I deal with businesses like this all the time. And they kinda need to be in the country. Like, we we drops you know, drive our equipment in there, and the guy repairs it, he's out of there. And it's I I guess I would be for this business. I I I really rely on these kind of businesses to keep my operation going.

Thank you. Is that a motion?

I might get some of the other councils. No. I'm not. I'll just say,

I mean, it's clearly an ag service establishment. That's what what its full intention is. And I agree with Commissioner Mori. These are definitely needed. It is under a tier two use for the county, and I think it does qualify under all those findings. So I'm gonna be in favor of it.

Hey, Jeremy. Yes, sir. So on this parcel, you said there's a

couple of buildings that will have

to be demolished in order to meet the standards to move forward with it if approved by us. Correct?

There will likely be the the two residential structures that did not have permit. They're the code only allows one accessory dwelling unit, one junior dwelling accessory unit in addition to the already existing single family dwelling. So there will need to be a choice to meet that to meet that requirement.

So he'll to make the choice if he really wants to pursue this at that point to do that.

I mean, correct. And there's still code enforcement case is still open.

So

And everything will have to be fulfilled before this is actually approved and permitted and done. So regardless of how we vote today, he is gonna have to go through all that work and still do it. So it's gonna be back to a normal operating business per county code by the time he's done. There's no skipping out on anything. It's not my understanding.

Generally, one way or the other, yes. Yeah. Mhmm.

That's all I got.

Hence, the timeline and that that is established to make sure that there is time for you to work with them and to make sure they are in compliance. And that was my question back. Any other comments or discussions?

Yeah. Just tagging onto that. It could be it doesn't necessarily have to be demolished, I think. It could be converted back

to To what the original permitted structure was Yes.

Which yeah. Which is it's Conforming back to the code to where it should be. Right?

Yeah. So, basically, you demolish all the furnishings

and the what makes

it a house and turn it back into a barn or a shed.

That's what it was before.

Or what it was before. Yeah. I'd say I'm in favor of this given what I've heard so far.

Any other discussion or comments? All right. Do we have a motion?

I'll go ahead

and make the motion. I move to approve permitting the agriculture equipment business PLN202297.

Is there a second?

I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

Yes.

Commissioner Mike, does your motion include making all the findings and taking the actions in Exhibit A?

That's right.

Thank you, counsel. And is there a second?

Second.

Alright. Can we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Perketo?

Aye.

Commissioner Campo? Aye. Commissioner Huff?

Aye.

Commissioner Mari?

Aye.

Commissioner Morat? Aye. Commissioner Zipser?

Aye.

Motion passes six zero.

Thank you.

Alright. Moving on to use permit application number PON2025Dash0011CocoaCreek. And may we have a report, please?

Good evening. Emily DeAnda, associate planner, here to present use permit application number PLN2025Dash0011CocoaCreek. This is a request for a tier two use permit to establish a biogas pipeline injection site on a 307 acre parcel in the general agricultural zoning district. Biogas from an on-site anaerobic dairy digester and two off-site digesters will be injected into a PG and E natural gas pipeline on the site.

The use of a covered digester

and equipment associated with the resulting biogas would be considered an accessory use if it was only serving Cocoa Creek dairy. However, due to the proposed operation serving as a hub for biogas to be injected into the PG and E pipeline from other dairies, a use permit is required. The project site is located at 3426 South Commons Road and 0 Faith Home Roads between West Harding And Bradbury Roads in the Turlock area. The project site has a general plan designation of agriculture and a zoning designation of general agriculture with a 40 acre minimum or a two forty. Surrounding land uses include a fertilizer storage and manufacturing facility to the North, a dairy facility and ranchettes with single family dwellings in the city of Turlock to the East, production ag in the county of Merced to the South, and production ag and dairy facilities to the West.

The project site is comprised of one legal parcel currently being assessed under two separate assessor parcel numbers and is planted in forage crops and improved with two lagoons for liquid manure waste storage and anaerobic digester, which is currently being constructed under a building permit.

The use of the project site

for wastewater and nutrient management is currently associated with the Cocoa Creek Dairy Facility located across South Commons Road to the east at 333303 South Washington Road. Anaerobic digesters are used by the dairies to break down manure waste and produce methane biogas in compliance with their nutrient and waste management plans, which are prepared in accordance with the state regional water quality control board. The project proposes to operate as an injection hub for resulting biogas from the on-site digester and two off-site digesters that are located in Merced County at Blue Sky Dairy in Atwater and Kern County at JDS Ranch in Wasco. Biogas from the off-site digesters will be trucked to the project site, and biogas from the on-site dairy will be piped. The project proposes to install equipment within a 2.2 acre area on the northeast portion of the project site to transfer the biogas coming from the off-site locations as well as clean, compress, and prepare the biogas to be injected into the existing PG and E pipeline for use as natural gas for domestic use.

No methane gas will be stored on-site as part of this request. Here's a close-up of the equipment area. The existing dairy employees will operate and maintain the transfer process for the biogas, and no additional employees are anticipated as part of this request. The applicant anticipates three to six truck trips per day associated with the project to transfer biogas, which will occur seven days a week between the hours of 6AM and 8PM. A 159 square foot enclosed operations container is also proposed for the project, which will house electrical equipment and will be used to maintain and operate the injection hub.

This is the first request considered by Santa Claus County for the installation of a biogas injection point to serve multiple dairies. However, the planning commission has approved two use permit requests for individual digesters to operate as digester hubs as agricultural service establishments for dairies in the past for Amedis and MD digester. Additionally, environmental documents, encroachment permitting, and building permits for digesters and associated equipment and pipelines to clean, compress, and inject resulting biogas for individual dairies have been previously processed by the county. While unique in nature, no particular issues have been identified as part of this request. General plan consistency must be evaluated when processing all discretionary projects project requests, including the project site's general plan land use designation of agriculture, consistency with the land use in ag elements, and with the ag buffer standard.

The ag element encourages vertical integration of agriculture by organizing uses requiring use permits into three tiers. Tier two uses include ag related commercial and industrial uses such as ag service establishments and processing facilities. As a tier two low people intensive use, the project would not be subject to ag buffers unless the planning commission determines that it's a people intent intensive use. While the biogas injection hub is not explicitly identified as a tier two use, staff has determined that it it is a mix of an ag service establishment and an ag processing facility. The zoning ordinance recognizes ag service establishments and processing facilities as a tier two use when they are designed to aid production agriculture and serve the immediately surrounding area as opposed to having a widespread service area.

Additionally, to control the scale and intensity of processing facilities, the county implies limitation limitations on the number of employees and requires at least 50% of the product to be processed originating on-site. The injection hub will serve the on-site dairy as well as the two off-site dairies, which were located in Merced and Kern Counties, and the existing employees of Cocoa Creek would be involved in the operation. While the location of the dairies being served by the proposed facility is wide spread and less than 50% of the methane injected will be coming from on-site, the spread out nature of the dairy industry lends itself to a larger service area to generate a viable customer base. The project site is currently enrolled under William Snap contract number 76Dash2290. Within the A 2 zoning district, the county has determined that these tier two uses shall be evaluated on a case by case basis by the planning commission to determine whether they are consistent with the principal's compatibility with the Williamson Act.

Based on specific features and design of this project, it does not appear that the this project will impact long term productive agricultural capability of surrounding contracted lands or result in the removal of adjacent contracted land from agricultural use. Staff believes the establishment as proposed will not be substantially detrimental to or in conflict with ag use of other property in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the health, safety, property, or improvements, and the general welfare of persons within the surrounding area of use and the county as a whole. The proposed use will not create a concentration of commercial or industrial uses in the vicinity. Staff's evaluation of the project found it to be in conformance with both the general plan and the zoning ordinance. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project was circulated to interested parties and responsible agencies for review and comment, and no significant impacts were identified.

Based on the comments, a negative declaration has been prepared for this project. For the current request, conditions of approval have been applied, which can be found in exhibit c of the staff report. And to conclude, as previously discussed, staff recommends that the required findings can be met as listed in exhibit a of the staff report and recommends that the Planning Commission approve use permit application number PLN2025Dash0011CocoaCreek subject to the conditions of approval as listed in exhibit c of the staff report. That concludes my presentation, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you for that report. Questions?

Did you say 36 truck trips, or did you say three two six?

Three two six. Okay. Sorry.

Any questions for staff? All right. We will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition of this use permit application? Please come forward. Seeing none, is there anyone in favor of this use permit application?

Please come up.

Yes. Please identify yourself. Thank you.

Hi. I'm Anna Reville. I'm director of our permitting and compliance at Moss Energy Works. We're the developer for this project. I wanna just say thank you for taking the time tonight to hear about our project and offer any questions to be answered if you have any.

Is this project does this have a grant from the city of California to aid in this project by chance?

Yes. It does, actually. It has a CDFW or CDF Day. Yeah. It has a dairy digester research program grant, which is about half the funding of the project. This specific part of the project isn't part of the grant. This is the truck offloading only, but the digester itself does have the grant.

How does the grant approve the location? How did you actually happen to pick this site?

I'm sorry. Can you clarify?

I said, how do you pick the sites where the grant actually approves? How did you come up with this location?

This dairy in particular? Well, basically, we just we're have a sales team, and they go out, and they sign up a dairy with us. And either before or in the very beginning of after they've signed up with us, then we start applying for grants. So sometimes even before the dairy signs up with us, we'll go ahead and try to get them a grant so that we can, one, use it as a way to convince them to sign up with us if we have Mhmm. Obtained the grant for them. But most of the time, it's after the dairy is signed. We work together to get the grant.

So as a developer, you said, is what your role is, how many other of these projects have you done, and have they been successful?

Yes. So we're actually a developer and operator. So we after we develop a site, we never walk away from it. We run it indefinitely. We have around 60 digesters now in California and around a 100 nationwide. We're the leading digester developer operator. We do all the permits, design, engineering. We also get environmental credits for the dairies. We do all their financing. So, yeah, we've been pretty successful in this area. We helped Aemetis actually develop two in Stanislaus County three or four years ago, and then they kind of started developing their own digesters, but they're still an industry ally of ours. So I've been in this room before, having this exact same type of project uproot.

I do remember you. We have had different discussions, I think. My last question is, have you been in contact with neighboring parties, and have you heard from them?

Besides the public notice that goes out as a part of this condition approval, no, not directly. But we work really closely with the dairy owner, and he owns a lot of the the adjacent land. Okay. And then also, he has relationships with his neighbors. So there's a lot of small things that come up throughout. This is just one part of the permit, but we are working with him on his water usage, how we're gonna actually bring the trucks in and out of his dairy, his his neighbors. And and he has been super cooperative, and we usually hear if if they're having problems with with the people around them, and we try to help them solve those problems. And I haven't heard of anything of that nature.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission?

How did so there was a customer identified in Wasko, but you mentioned that you run 60 different facilities. There's none that are closer?

So most of our facilities, our business model is a cluster of dairy. So you have maybe 10 dairies, 15 dairies in one area. They all connect by pipeline to a centralized facility. But every now and then, you have these kind of one off sites that are out in the middle of nowhere that still have plenty of, like, a really big amount of cows, and they want to be they want a digester, basically, but we we can't get a pipeline to them. And so Blue Sky Dairy and JDS Ranch, the one you're referring to, are some of those, where they're 50 miles from our clusters of dairies around the state.

And so, therefore, we can still clean it, and then we transport clean gas up and to the an injection point. So the injection point is really the hardest part to secure because we have to reach with work with PG and E. They have to build an entire injection site along their main pipeline running through the state. And so we can't just, like, do those all over the place, which is why we centralize the locations. But these trucking sites get to benefit from that work we do with PG and E and just drive it and inject into the into the pipeline there. Does that answer your question?

I was just sort of. Other than the the distance, like, that I was a little bit surprised that this is

the closest one to, like, Wasco.

Oh, yeah. It it is. So right now, they actually inject at another site. They inject at an ethanol plant, I believe. And, one, we don't own that ethanol plant, so there's a lot of costs associated with being allowed to inject there. Mhmm. And two, it's it's kind of a split between the distance of the ethanol plant in here. And so Moss Energy Works is gonna own, like, part of this project. We're gonna profit share with the dairy. And so we all the dairy also would benefit from having more gas come to their site. So we said, well, let's stop essentially paying this third party to off take our gas. Let's do it ourselves even if it's a little bit further of a drive.

Gotcha. Alright.

Alright. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you so much.

Yes. You're welcome. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this use permit application? Seeing none, we will bring it back to the commission for discussion or follow-up questions and perhaps a potential motion.

Well, I just I think this is so critical for the dairy business, and and it's been very successful with the medicine. And I think this is the wave of the future. And I congratulate the folks, you folks, and also owners of the dairy for pursuing and continuing because I know what a rough business that is. It's very low margins, especially in today's world, and they're fighting a lot of different obstacles with regulations. And this is nothing but a good benefit for our environment.

And I think it's a booster shot for agriculture. So I'm 100% in favor of this.

All right. Thank you. Any other comments?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Well, there's was that

a question?

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Did that include making the findings and taking actions in exhibit A? It did.

Took the words right out of my mouth, Gancellor. So we have a motion and a second. Can we

have a

Sorry, didn't catch the second. Who was the second?

Who was the second? Oh, I thought you second.

Oh, I will. I'll second.

Oh, okay. Alright. So we do have a second.

Okay. So that's a motion by commissioner Burketto and a second by commissioner Zipser? Correct. Commissioner Burketto?

Aye.

Commissioner Campo? Aye. Commissioner Huff?

Aye.

Commissioner Mari?

Aye.

Commissioner Morad? Aye. Commissioner Zipschir?

Aye.

Motion passes, six zero. Thank you. So moved. To moving on to report from the planning director. Angela?

Yes. Since the planning commission last met, the board of supervisors did meet on July 22, but there were no planning commission items. On August 5, they did set the public hearing for September 9 to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval for the West Dallas Lost Irrigation District project. They also, at the August 5 meeting, continued the public hearing of the, West Main composting project to October 21, and that was at the request of the applicant. The planning commission had recommended denial of that project, so that will be back to the board on October 21.

The board on August 19, this last Tuesday, continued the public hearing and approved the general plan amendments and rezone applications for Athwal properties and Petar trucking. You may remember that these were the two, large trucking facility projects that came before the planning commission in November 2024. At that time, the planning commission had recommended approval for Athwal, but denial for Qatar. Those projects had gone to the board of supervisors in December, and they were continued, at the request of the applicants to allow the county to form an ad hoc committee to look at the broader issue of truck parking in the ag area that we have been, encountering. That prod that process has been ongoing, and thank you to commissioner Morad who sits on the ad hoc committee.

Having enough information now and a framework of where we think that is going to be going, the board was comfortable enough in making the decision. And, again, this last Tuesday, they approved both projects. The ordinance amendment and general plan amendment that will address the the broader issue of both the 12 and under trucks and the 13 and overs will be coming to the planning commission. At this time, we believe it will be before you the second meeting in October. Other items on the horizon for the planning commission.

Right now in September, we don't have any items. I would still keep those dates, you know, clear because you never know something could come up, but we're thinking we're not going to meet in September. On October 2, we will come back, and there will be one use permit in the Turlock area. And we will have the six cycle housing element update and implementation package before you. So please do set some time out to read those documents because they're gonna be a little lengthier than your normal documents that you get. That concludes my report.

Alright. Thank you. I also would like to thank staff for working with us, especially Kristen for the ad hoc meeting. A lot of work goes into it. You just report it takes you a couple of minutes, but a lot of time and effort goes into it. So hats off to you guys as well. Seeing no additional matters for discussion, we are adjourned. Thank you.