[00:00:02]
[CALL TO ORDER]
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WELCOMES YOU TO PARTICIPATE IN ITS REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS, WHICH ARE SCHEDULED THE SECOND THURSDAY OF EACH MONTH AT 2 P.M.THERE IS ALSO A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, OPEN TIME COMMENTS ON ANY AGENDA ITEM ON MATTERS WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA. UNDER THE BROWN ACT, THE COMMISSION CANNOT TAKE ACTION ON NON AGENDA ITEMS, BUT MAY BRIEFLY RESPOND TO AND REFER TO MATTERS FOR FOLLOW UP ON FUTURE AGENDAS.
PLEASE STAND. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START WITH ROLL CALL.
AND TO MY FAR-RIGHT, CHAIRMAN JAMES CHAPIN. I'M HERE.
THANK YOU. TO MY LEFT, TIM MACLEAN. TO MY RIGHT, STEVE KERNS.
GABE ROSS IS ABSENT TODAY. MYSELF, DONN WALGAMUTH AND STAFF.
WE GOT SEAN EWING IF, AND ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL, PATRICIA WEBER.
AND SEAN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOUR STAFF, PLEASE.
WE HAVE LIO SALAZAR, PLANNING DIVISION MANAGER.
ELIZABETH TOWERS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER. MARCO DOMINGUEZ, ASSISTANT PLANNER.
KEN HENDERSON, SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST.
JEFF POWELL, SHASTA COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL. WILLIAM MILLER, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER.
TRACIE HUFF, RECORDING SECRETARY. AND RYAN STOCKTON, ASSISTANT PLANNING.
THANK YOU. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. OKAY. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
OPEN TIME. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN UP A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS. ANY MATTER NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER, YOU CAN COME UP AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
[PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT]
AND DO YOU HAVE A PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT SEAN? OKAY. THE FIRST ITEM IS THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED JANUARY 8TH MEETING WILL BE CANCELED, AND WE WILL BE SCHEDULING A SPECIAL MEETING FOR THURSDAY, JANUARY 22ND.UNFORTUNATELY, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO HAVE IT FULLY CIRCULATED FOR REVIEW.
SO WE'RE SHOOTING FOR THE JANUARY MEETING. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE AN EV CHARGING STATION, A STREAMLINED PERMITTING PROCESS THAT REQUIRES SOME ORDINANCE UPDATES THAT WE'RE ALSO WORKING ON TO HOPEFULLY HAVE BEFORE YOU IN JANUARY.
AND THEN THE LAST ITEM IS, I'D LIKE TO ANNOUNCE THAT LIO SALAZAR HAS BEEN OFFERED AND HAS ACCEPTED THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF A BIG THING FOR US.
AND I WANTED TO CONGRATULATE LIO. EXCELLENT. CONGRATULATIONS.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT WAS ALL. I HAVE A QUESTION.
OKAY. YEAH. WE TALKED BRIEFLY BEFORE THE MEETING ABOUT THE UPCOMING YES. THANK YOU. YES. MEETING COMING UP. I BELIEVE IT'S NEXT FRIDAY.
I'M WONDERING IF YOU MIGHT BRIEF THE OUR COMMISSIONON WHO'S GOING DOWN.
YOU KNOW, FROM YOUR STAFF OR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
I KNOW I'M GOING. POSSIBLY. MR. CHAPIN'S GOING YES, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT SPEAKING TO THAT. THAT IS CORRECT.
THE FOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT WILL BE HEARD BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 19TH, I BELIEVE, IS THE MEETING. I DON'T HAVE IN FRONT OF ME THE EXACT TIME, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT CHAIRMAN CRYE IS GOING TO BE ATTENDING AND CEO RICKERT WILL BE ATTENDING.
IT'S ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT CHAIR CRYE IS LIKELY TO SPEAK.
[00:05:04]
OTHER THAN THAT, I'M NOT CERTAIN WHO WILL BE ATTENDING FROM THE COUNTY BEYOND THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN INSTRUCTED SO FAR.OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. OF COURSE, THANK YOU. OKAY.
[R1 Approval of Minutes]
STAFF HAS PREPARED MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 13TH MEETING.ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS ON THAT AT THIS TIME? IT LOOKS ACCURATE MR. CHAIRMAN, SO I'LL RECOMMEND.
WELL, I'M GOING TO HOLD ON JUST A SECOND. OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC. OKAY.
OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE MINUTES.
IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ON LAST MONTH'S MEETING.
THANK YOU, JIM. I'LL SECOND THAT. THANK YOU, STEVE.
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND START WITH R2, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE PRESENTED BY ELIZABETH. I'M SORRY. ARE THERE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS OR DOES ANYBODY NEED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM THIS ITEM? NO. NO. NONE. THANK YOU, ELIZABETH.
HANG ON. I KNOW THE PROCESS. YES. YES. YES, YES.
OKAY. OKAY. NOW. SORRY, GUYS. JUST SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.
[R2 Use Permit 24-0004 (Verizon Wireless)]
ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER AND TURN IT BACK OVER TO ELIZABETH.AGENDA ITEM R2 IS USE PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER 24-0004, FOR A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY, TOWER AND IN FACILITY. THE APPROXIMATELY FIVE-ACRE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 32656 STATE HIGHWAY 299 EAST IN MONTGOMERY CREEK, CALIFORNIA, APPROXIMATELY A HALF MILE EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MOOSE CAMP ROAD AND HIGHWAY 299. THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE PROJECT SITE SHOWING THE EXISTING CONDITIONS.
THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
AND SURROUNDING LAND USES CONSIST PRIMARILY OF OPEN SPACE AND HEAVILY WOODED FORESTS, WITH ONE SMALL RESIDENTIAL LOT TO THE WEST OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, WHICH IS DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL USES. THE PARCEL IS DESIGNATED IN THE TIMBERLAND OR T, GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION, AND THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE TIMBER PRODUCTION OR TP ZONE DISTRICT.
NEW COMMERCIAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ARE ALLOWED IN THIS ZONE DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO CONFORMANCE WITH THE STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES SPECIFIED IN SHASTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 17.88.282 AND WITH APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT.
A 129 FOOT TALL MONOPLANE TOWER, ONE CARRIER ANTENNA ARRAY, AND ANCILLARY ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT FOR VERIZON WIRELESS TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE PROPOSED TOWER AND ADDITIONAL CO-LOCATIONS WILL BE PERMITTED AT THE PROJECT SITE WITH APPROVAL OF A ZONING PERMIT.
[00:10:07]
6 LTE ANTENNAS, AND TWO MICROWAVE ANTENNAS, THREE GROUND BASED EQUIPMENT CABINETS, AND ENCLOSED 30-KILOWATT BACKUP DIESEL GENERATOR WITH A 210-GALLON DIESEL FUEL TANK, A UTILITY TRANSFORMER, AND OTHER ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT.IMPROVEMENTS OUTSIDE THE LEASED AREA INCLUDE A 60-FOOT OR 68-FOOT UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC UTILITY LINE TO AN EXISTING PG&E UTILITY, A 235-FOOT UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC LINE TO A NEW POINT OF CONNECTION ALONG HIGHWAY 299, AND A 296-FOOT LONG, ALL WEATHER, GRAVEL ACCESS DRIVEWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT, INCLUDING REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING BRIDGE CROSSING OVER A PERENNIAL CREEK THAT FLOWS INTO HATCHETT CREEK. POLICE PROTECTION FOR THE PROJECT WILL BE PROVIDED BY SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S, AND FIRE PROTECTION WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE SHASTA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT.
AND ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY WILL BE FROM A PROPOSED GRAVEL DRIVEWAY, AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY IN AN ENCROACHMENT FROM STATE HIGHWAY 299, NO WATER, SEWER OR NATURAL GAS SERVICES WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE OVERALL SITE PLAN FOR THE PROJECT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED.
AND HERE IS A ZOOMED IN SITE PLAN SHOWING THE PARCEL BOUNDARIES TO THE EAST, WEST AND SOUTH.
THE 129-FOOT-TALL PINE IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED 131FT FROM THE NEAREST PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS TO THE WEST AND HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ON THE SLIDE. AND HERE IS A DETAILED VIEW OF THE GROUND LEASE AREA AND LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.
BRANCHES WOULD BEGIN AT 20FT FROM THE BASE OF THE TOWER, AND WOULD SHOW THE PROPOSED ANTENNA AND FUTURE ANTENNA LOCATIONS FROM VIEW. AND FOR CELL TOWER, SHASTA COUNTY CODE REQUIRES THAT TOWERS ARE ONLY TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE DISTRICT IF THERE'S A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE HEIGHT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED.
THESE COVERAGE MAPS WERE PROVIDED TO DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR A PROPOSED FOR THE PROPOSED 129-FOOT-TALL ANTENNA HEIGHT, ALONG WITH A JUSTIFICATION LETTER. SO THESE TWO SHOW THE COVERAGE CURRENTLY AND THEN THE COVERAGE WITH THE PROPOSED TOWER, ON THE SECOND PORTION OF THE SLIDE. THE JUSTIFICATION LETTER STATES THE HEIGHT IS NECESSARY TO MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS FOR OPTIMAL FUNCTIONING BASED ON AVOIDING LINE OF SIGHT OBSTRUCTIONS FROM TREES IN THE VICINITY, AND DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE SIGNAL STRENGTH WEAKENS OVER DISTANCE.
THIS IS THE FIRST PUBLIC VANTAGE POINT LOOKING NORTHWEST FROM HIGHWAY 299 EAST.
EXCUSE ME. THE SECOND LOOKING NORTH OR SORRY, I BELIEVE THE FIRST WAS NORTHWEST.
THIS IS THE SECOND LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM HIGHWAY 299.
AND THEN THIS IS THE THIRD LOOKING ALMOST DIRECTLY NORTH FROM HIGHWAY 299, AT THE PROJECT SITE.
AN INITIAL STUDY WAS PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT, AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED.
MITIGATION MEASURES. MEASURES WERE PROPOSED TO AVOID POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO NESTING BIRDS, RAPTORS, BATS, AND SPECIAL STATUS BEES. NO UNUSUAL ISSUES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT, AND TO DATE, NO PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.
AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS SPECIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAVE.
THANK YOU. THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME FOR STAFF? YEAH, YEAH. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. COULD YOU BACK YOUR SLIDES UP TO THE PICTURE OF THE MONO PINE? WELL, BACK UP ONE MORE.
GO FORWARD. OH, SORRY. THE PHOTO SIMULATIONS? KEEP GOING ON YOUR. I THINK IT'S THE NEXT ONE.
THIS NEXT ONE? YES. THAT ONE. I THINK THIS ILLUSTRATES ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE, THOSE TREES WERE PLANTED. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE SECOND GROWTH TREES AND THEY'RE PLANTED APPROXIMATELY 30 YEARS AGO.
AND MR. CHAPIN AND I WERE TALKING THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR HEIGHT YET OF HOW TALL THEY'RE GOING TO BE.
AND MAYBE, JIM, YOU WANT TO CHIME IN ON THIS, BUT MY CONCERN BEING THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP GROWING.
[00:15:06]
AND IF I LOOK AT THE SCHEMATIC ON PAGE FIVE HERE, THIS ONE IT BASICALLY IT SEEMS TO INDICATE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THE TREE HEIGHT RIGHT NOW IS APPROXIMATELY 55FT, AND THEY'VE GOT A HEIGHT TOWER OF 129. BUT THOSE TREES ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GROW.SO, MY CONCERN IS YOU KNOW, IS THIS A REALISTIC EXPECTATION THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE COVERAGE DOWN THE ROAD? DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT, JIM? WELL, ALL I CAN ADD IS THAT YEAH, THE TREES WILL CONTINUE TO GROW.
AND THEY, DEPENDING ON WHEN THEY HARVEST THEM, THEY COULD BE 150 TO 180FT TALL 30 YEARS FROM NOW. SO I ASSUME THAT THE VERIZON OR WHOEVER DESIGNS THE TOWER HAS TAKEN THAT INTO ACCOUNT.
DO THEY JUST ADD ON TO THE TOWER OR WHAT DO THEY DO IF THEY WERE TO DO THAT? IT WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE USE PERMIT.
SO IT WOULD BE COMING BACK BEFORE YOU. BECAUSE IT'S GOING IN AT THE MAX HEIGHT NOW, RIGHT? CORRECT, I BELIEVE. IS THERE A SECTION OF THE CODE THAT ALLOWS FOR MINOR MODIFICATIONS BASED ON HEIGHT? I'M NOT, I CAN'T QUITE RECALL. YEAH. THERE ARE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL LAW REGARDING WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES, THAT THERE'S NOT A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN HEIGHT THAN IT COULD BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY, BUT I THINK THAT'S PRETTY LIMITED. IT WOULDN'T BE THAT MUCH TALLER UNDER THOSE PROVISIONS.
AND SO IF IT EXCEEDED THOSE REQUIREMENTS, THEN IT WOULD COME BACK AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE PERMIT.
I SEE. OKAY. I DO BELIEVE THE APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVES IN THE ROOM TODAY, SO I'M SURE THEY COULD SPEAK TO SOME OF THOSE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS REGARDING WHAT THEIR CONSIDERATIONS ARE WHEN THEY SITE AND WHAT THE FUTURE LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF COVERAGE.
I HAVE A QUESTION, ELIZABETH. IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE AERIAL PHOTOS THAT THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL LOT AND THERE'S SOME HOMES OR BUILDINGS THERE ARE THERE, PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE OR IS IT JUST A SUMMER HOME OR DO YOU KNOW? WE I BELIEVE THAT THEY LIVE THERE. WE DIDN'T GET THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL.
AS FAR AS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S OUR FULL-TIME RESIDENTS, BUT THERE IS A RESIDENCE ON SITE.
LET ME GO BACK TO THE. SO THE. SORRY, THIS IS.
THE PEOPLE THAT OWN THE PARCEL THAT HAVE THE RESIDENTS ON SITE, I ASSUME ARE THE, THE LESSEE, THE ONES THAT LEASED IT TO THE, TO VERIZON. SO THEY'RE WELL AWARE OF IT AND THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT APPARENTLY.
OKAY. CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE OPEN UP PUBLIC? YEAH. OKAY. LIV, ANOTHER CONCERN I'VE HAD, I, YOU KNOW, MOST OF YOU KNOW, I WAS ON THE FOUNTAIN FIRE.
AND WHEN I WAS THERE, I OBSERVED A LOT OF AIR ATTACK ACTIVITY AROUND HIGHWAY 299 BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO HOLD THAT FIRE FROM, YOU KNOW, GOING ON OVER TOWARD BERNIE. AND MY CONCERN IS, HAVE WE DONE ANY EVALUATION OF IF WE PUT IN ANOTHER TOWER THERE, THE IMPACT IT COULD HAVE ON AERIAL ATTACK IF WE GET A FIRE IN THAT AREA? YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN THAT IN THE ANALYSIS.
AND, YOU KNOW, THIS COMMISSIONAND OUR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS WORKED REALLY HARD TO DEFEAT THE FOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT BECAUSE OF THE IMPAIRMENT TO AIR ATTACK. ONE OF THE REASONS UP THERE, SO THAT'S A REAL CONCERN OF MINE, THAT I'M NOT AGAINST THE PROJECT, BUT I AM CONCERNED THAT WE DON'T WANT TO PUT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO IMPAIR AERIAL ATTACK.
I MEAN, IT WAS REVIEWED BY CAL FIRE. THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSED TOWER.
AS FAR AS, I'M NOT SURE HOW TALL THE WINDMILLS WERE, BUT ARE, YOU KNOW, ARE THEY IS THESE.
YEAH. AND IMPACT. YEAH, THAT IS CORRECT. I MEAN, THE EXCUSE ME, THE FOUNTAIN WIND TOWERS WERE SIGNIFICANTLY TALLER AT 129FT. OBVIOUSLY, THEIR OBJECTIVE IS TO BE ABOVE THE HEIGHT OF THE SURROUNDING VEGETATION. SO THOSE PINE TREES, JIM COULD PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, TALK TO US ABOUT HOW TALL THOSE TYPICALLY WOULD BE, BUT I WOULD ASSUME THEY'D BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 90 TO 125, 130FT AT MATURITY, MAYBE TALLER.
[00:20:04]
I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT IS. IT COULD BE A LITTLE, THEY COULD BE A LITTLE TALLER.THEY COULD BE UP TO 140 OR 150FT TALL AT MATURITY, DEPEND ON HOW OLD THEY ARE.
YEAH. SO THE TOWER WOULD NOT BE SIGNIFICANTLY TALLER THAN THE TREES AT FULL MATURITY SURROUNDING IT.
YEAH, I THINK WE COULD MAKE THAT STATEMENT. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE ISN'T A SPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF HOW YOU KNOW, FIREFIGHTING APPARATUS, AERIAL FIREFIGHTING WOULD, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER THIS, WHETHER IT'S AN OBSTRUCTION. IT'S REALLY UNLIKELY TO BE AN OBSTRUCTION UNDER FAA REGULATIONS, BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN, YOU KNOW, WHAT CONSIDERATIONS MIGHT BE YOU KNOW, IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION FOR AERIAL FIREFIGHTING, SO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME BEFORE WE OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? NO. OKAY. SO AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR R2.
IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COME ON UP AND STATE YOUR NAME. PLEASE.
OKAY. THAT'S IT. THAT'LL WORK. [INAUDIBLE]. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THIS IS THE SURVEY WHICH IS ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW.
AND THIS DOES A GOOD JOB OF EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T HAVE TOPO THE FULL PROPERTY, IT DOES A GOOD JOB OF REPRESENTING THE SITE LOCATION VERSUS THE TERRAIN THAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DENSE TREES THAT ARE NORTH OF THE SITE LOCATION, THEY'RE ON A HILLSIDE.
TO THE QUESTION REGARDING THAT RESIDENCE, YES, THE, THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER LIVES ON SITE, THIS IS THEIR PROPERTY. WE PICKED THIS SPOT WITH THEM WITH RELATIONSHIP TO HOW THEY USE THEIR PROPERTY, WHERE THEIR HOUSE IS. EVERYTHING GENERALLY EAST OF THE CREEK IS WHERE THEY HAVE MOST OF THEIR ACTIVITY.
THIS IS AT THE NORTH END. THE SITE LOCATION IS AT THE NORTH END OF A FIELD THAT THEY USE FOR AS A LARGE GARDEN AND SOME OTHER CROPS THAT THEY DO ONCE IN A WHILE, WHICH WAS HOW THE BRIDGE GOT THERE, WAS SO THEY COULD GET THEIR TRACTOR ACROSS TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
GENERAL LAY OF THE LAND ON THE SOUTH HALF IS GENERALLY OPEN, MEANING THE TREES.
THERE ARE SOME TREES, BUT IT'S NOT WHAT YOU WOULD CALL DENSELY FORESTED, MEANING JUST SOLID TREES.
THE NORTHERN HALF, AS THE SURVEY SHOWS, IS THAT IS ALSO WHERE THE CREEK COMES DOWN THE HILL.
TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE STEEPNESS OF IT, THEY HAVE A WATER SYSTEM WITH A TANK UP ON THE HILL THAT TAKES WATER OUT OF THE CREEK INTO THE TANK, THEN FLOWS DOWN A PIPE TO THE HOUSE, AND THEY HAVE ENOUGH HEAD PRESSURE FROM THAT TANK ON THE HILL ON THEIR PROPERTY TO PROVIDE WATER WITHOUT ANY PUMPS, SO THAT HILL RISES PRETTY FAST ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
IT'S A PUBLIC VIEW, BUT IT'S NOT A PUBLIC VIEW THAT MANY PEOPLE WILL SEE BECAUSE THAT IS A HIGHWAY.
THERE'S NOTHING ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THERE'S NO ACCESS OFF THE HIGHWAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE. SO THAT WOULD BE SOMEBODY EITHER STOPPED IN TRAFFIC FOR SOME REASON, LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW TO THEIR LEFT OR RIGHT, OR MAYBE SOMEBODY WALKING DOWN THE HIGHWAY.
THE TREES TO THE BACKGROUND RISE UP BEHIND THE TREES ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT A SOLID, DENSE SPOT. WE LOCATED THE POLE WHERE THE SIGNAL COULD GET OUT BETWEEN THE LARGER TREES.
SO AS THOSE TREES ON THE HILL GROW, THOSE ARE TO THE NORTH OF IT.
THAT'S NOT WHERE THE ANTENNAS ARE POINTED. THAT'S NOT GOING TO IMPACT COVERAGE TO THE HIGHWAY.
AND THEN THE TREES ON THE SOUTH SIDE ARE NOT A SOLID OBSTRUCTION FROM THE ANTENNAS.
[00:25:03]
WE ALSO LOOKED AT THAT AS SOMETHING THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO ANY GRADING TO FLATTEN OUT A PAD TO GET UP HIGHER ELEVATION OR ANYTHING.SO ALL OF THAT WENT INTO THE SITE OF THE LOCATION.
STAFF DID MENTION A FEDERAL LAW THAT COULD ALLOW FOR HEIGHT INCREASES.
MINOR MODIFICATION, AS THEY MENTIONED, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A CHANGE IN THE ENVIRONMENT THAT WOULD AFFECT THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE SITE, THE FUNCTION OF THE SITE IF THEY EVER ROSE, GOT DENSE ENOUGH FAR OFF IN THE FUTURE WE'D COME IN AND APPLY FOR A PERMIT TO EXTEND THE TOWER. THE TOWER IS ALREADY ENGINEERED TO BE EXTENDABLE IN THAT EVENT.
WE'VE LEARNED QUITE A WHILE AGO THAT GOING WITH JUST A SET HEIGHT VERSUS PUTTING A FLANGE ON TOP WHERE WE COULD EXTEND A TOWER IS A GOOD IDEA FOR FUTURE USES. THINGS THAT HAPPEN THAT YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW ABOUT TODAY.
SO THAT IS A POSSIBILITY IN THE FUTURE IF THE TREES EVER GOT HIGHER.
WITH REGARD TO AERIAL ATTACK FOR FIRE PREVENTION.
WE ARE WAY UNDER THE DECK, AS YOU WOULD CALL IT, WITH REGARD TO IT'S REALLY 200FT, AND I KNOW THAT THE FIRE GUYS ARE GOING TO GO AT WHATEVER HEIGHT THEY NEED TO GO AT, BUT THAT'S GENERALLY THE OBSERVED FLOOR FOR FLIGHT OVER ANYTHING.
THIS IS WELL UNDER THAT. BUT THAT DENSE TREE FOREST THAT'S IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THE SITE AND THE RISE OF THE ELEVATION, I WOULD SUSPECT IT WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE WITH SOMEBODY TRYING TO FLY THAT CLOSE TO THE HILL, AND THERE'D BE NO NEED TO COME DOWN. THE HOPE, YOU KNOW, DOWN THE HILL TO THE SOUTH TOWARDS IT.
THEY WOULDN'T BE OVER THAT PORTION OF LAND DUE TO THE TERRAIN.
I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOT ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM? I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION.
OKAY, GREAT. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSIONON THIS ITEM? WITH THAT, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND TURN IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
YEAH. MR. CHAIRMAN, I APPRECIATE WHAT THE GENTLEMAN WAS SHARING ABOUT THE ATTACK AND EVERYTHING.
MY OBSERVATIONS DURING THE FOUNTAIN FIRE WAS THERE'S A LOT OF HELICOPTER ACTIVITY IN THAT AREA WAS A FIXED WING AIRCRAFT BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO HOLD THAT FIRE AT THAT LINE. AND I WOULD STILL BE MORE COMFORTABLE IF WE DELAYED THIS DECISION UNTIL WE COULD GET A PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE, OR FROM CDF OR FIRE MARSHALS. A LITTLE MORE DEFINITIVE DEFINITION ON WHAT THIS PROJECT WOULD DO WITH RESPECT TO PUTTING UP A GOOD DEFENSIVE FRONT AROUND HIGHWAY 299. OKAY.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. SO I'M ASSUMING FIRE REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION.
THE APPLICATION WAS FORWARDED TO THE SHASTA COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL, WHO IS IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.
OKAY. ASK HIM TO COME UP. YEAH, THE LAST TIME I SPOKE WITH THE UNIT CHIEF AND THE OPERATIONS CHIEF WAS MAYBE THREE YEARS AGO IN REGARD TO CELL TOWERS AND AERIAL FIREFIGHTING.
SINCE THEN, THERE HAS BEEN A NUMBER OF FATALITIES.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANY KIND OF OBSTRUCTIONS CONTRIBUTED TO THOSE FATALITIES, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO BRING IT UP WITH THEM AGAIN, IF YOU'D LIKE. TALK TO THE OPERATIONS CHIEFS AND SEE WHAT THEY THINK, IF THEY HAVE ANY CONCERNS.
I HAVE A QUESTION. ARE YOU THE INDIVIDUAL THAT REVIEWS THE APPLICATIONS OR DID SOMEBODY ELSE LOOK AT THIS ONE? I DID. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND IT MET ALL THE STANDARDS FOR YOUR GUYS'S.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU APPROVED IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KERNS, MY OBSERVATION, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE TREES GROWING UP AS TALL AS THE CELL TOWER, AS A OBSTACLE FOR BLOCKING THE CELL TOWER.
THOSE TREES WOULD ALSO INHIBIT THE FIRE FIGHTING SUPPRESSION, IF THAT WAS TO TAKE PLACE.
[00:30:02]
I DON'T I DON'T SEE IT BEING AN ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING FORESTED STRUCTURE AS IT IS, AND THE TREES BEING CLOSE TO THE SAME HEIGHT.THAT ARE BEHIND IT. I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I THINK THAT THE TREES ARE GOING TO WIND UP BEING TALLER THAN THE TOWER BEFORE VERY, VERY LONG. AND THE OTHER THING IS THAT IT'S JUST A SINGLE TOWER.
IF IT WAS A ROW OF TOWERS, LIKE A WIND ENERGY PROJECT OR AND IT WAS A LOT TALLER, LIKE 600FT TALL, I'D BE CONCERNED. BUT A SINGLE TOWER, 129FT TALL, I DON'T THINK WOULD BE A PROBLEM.
OKAY, I TEND TO AGREE, AND FIRE DID REVIEW IT AND THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT.
AND LIKE YOU SAY, JIM, THE TREES ARE GOING TO BE TALLER EVENTUALLY THAN THIS TOWER.
AND WITH THE TERRAIN, I DON'T SEE IT AS AN OBSTACLE.
THAT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE TURN IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION? SEEING NONE, I WILL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE R2 AND UNDER AS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. CHAIR WALGAMUTH I'D RECOMMEND A ROLL CALL.
VOTE, PLEASE. I WILL, I HAVEN'T HAD GOTTEN A SECOND YET.
I'LL SECOND. OKAY. SECOND. SO WITH THAT, A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.
ALL IN FAVOR, STARTING WITH JIM. AYE. STEVE. NO.
MYSELF, AYE. AYE. AYE. SO THAT MOTION CARRIES AND R2 IS APPROVED.
THANK YOU. THAT WE WILL HEAD TO R3, ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS OR ANY
[R3 Administrative Permit 24-0005 (Nash)]
RECUSALS. YES, I HAVE A CONFLICT ON THIS ONE BECAUSE OF BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS.THANK YOU. AND THAT'S OUR LAST ITEM. SO WE WILL SEE YOU NEXT MONTH.
THANK YOU, SIR. REST OF THE DAY. MERRY CHRISTMAS.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND, MARCO, YOU'RE UP.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN. COMMISSIONERS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
MY NAME IS MARCO DOMINGUEZ, ASSISTANT PLANNER FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.
ITEM R3 IS AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT 24 FIVE FOR AN ASSEMBLAGE OF PEOPLE, CONSISTING OF A HAUNTED HOUSE EVENT. THIS EVENT IS TO TAKE PLACE ON OCTOBER 23RD THROUGH OCTOBER 25TH AND OCTOBER 30TH, 2025, AND THEREAFTER AFTER ANNUALLY EVERY THURSDAY, FRIDAY AND SATURDAY OF OCTOBER FOR A THREE YEAR TERM FROM 2026 TO 2028.
THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 0.5 MILES SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD OREGON TRAIL AND LOIS LANE.
THIS AERIAL IMAGE SHOWS THE PROPERTY AND THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE HAUNTED HOUSE SITE, EXHIBIT A, AND THE PARKING AREA, EXHIBIT B. ADJACENT PARCELS AND PARCELS IN THE VICINITY ARE DEVELOPED WITH ONE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
THE HAUNTED HOUSE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT A SHOWS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDES A HAUNTED HOUSE PATHWAY, AN ALTERNATE PATH, TEMPORARY BUILDINGS, AND PERMANENT STRUCTURES.
THE ALTERNATE PATH ALSO SERVES AS AN EMERGENCY PATH.
THE PATHWAY IN ORANGE SHOWN ABOVE, WOULD DIRECT CUSTOMERS THROUGH BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES,
[00:35:01]
INCLUDING TEMPORARY STRUCTURES SHOWN IN YELLOW AND THE PERMANENT BUILDING SHOWN IN GREEN, WHICH IS OTHERWISE USED FOR AGRICULTURAL STORAGE.THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO OPERATE IN THIS MANNER, INCLUDING TEMPORARILY USING THE AGRICULTURAL STORAGE BUILDING DURING THE EVENT, SO LONG AS THE PROPER PERMITS TO USE THESE STRUCTURES TEMPORARILY FOR THE EVENT ARE OBTAINED FROM THE BUILDING AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS.
THIS ALTERNATE PATH IN RED BYPASSES THE PERMANENT STRUCTURE IN GREEN ENTIRELY.
THE PATH ABOVE SIMPLY GIVES THE APPLICANT THE OPTION TO OPERATE WITHOUT USING THE PERMIT.
THE PERMANENT STRUCTURE WHICH SIMPLIFIES BUILDING FIRE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EVENT.
THESE ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TYPE OF LIGHTING FIXTURES TO BE USED.
ON AUGUST 9TH, 2024, OUR OFFICE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE HAUNTED HOUSE EVENT.
AFTER BEING NOTIFIED, PROPERTY OWNER ROBERT NASH APPLIED FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT AS AN ASSEMBLAGE OF PEOPLE, AND ON SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2024, IN A COURT, EXCUSE ME, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SHASTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 17.88.
070. SHASTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 17.88070 ALLOWS FOR TEMPORARY OR INTERMITTENT OR INTERMITTENT ASSEMBLAGES OF PEOPLE WHICH ARE PERMISSIBLE IN MOST ZONE DISTRICTS, INCLUDING EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURAL, WITH APPROVAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT BY THE DIRECTOR OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AFTER PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND PROVIDED, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT ALL APPLICABLE CRITERIA HAS BEEN MET.
THIS SLIDE LISTS THE CRITERIA THAT MUST BE MET FOR APPROVAL.
I'M GOING TO LEAVE THIS UP FOR A COUPLE SECONDS WHILE YOU GUYS TAKE A LOOK.
AND ON SEPTEMBER 7TH, 2024, WAS DETERMINED INCOMPLETE AS AN UPDATED SITE PLAN WAS STILL REQUIRED TO ACCURATELY DEPICT TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENTS IN EXISTING PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS TO BE USED TEMPORARILY FOR THE PROPOSED EVENT.
AFTER SUBMITTING VARIOUS SITE PLANS OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A REVISED SITE PLAN ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2024, OR EXCUSE ME, 2025 THAT INCLUDES AN ALTERNATE PATH WHICH CAN BE USED TO CONDUCT THE EVENT IN A MANNER THAT WOULD NOT INVOLVE THE TEMPORARY USE OF THE UNPERMITTED BUILDING AND ADJACENT EXISTING FARMING SHED. THE SUBMISSION OF THIS SITE PLAN SATISFY THE REQUEST FOR CLARIFYING INFORMATION IN FULL, AND THE APPLICATION WAS DETERMINED COMPLETE ON OCTOBER 4TH, 2025.
A LEGAL NOTICE WAS THEN PREPARED TO INDICATE THAT THE DIRECTOR OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT HAD DETERMINED THAT THE APPLICATION MET ALL APPLICABLE CRITERIA FOR AN ASSEMBLAGE OF PEOPLE, AND THAT THE DIRECTOR INTENDED TO APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT 24 FIVE ON OCTOBER 21ST, 2025.
THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE LEGAL NOTICE.
APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT WAS A STEP TOWARDS COMPLIANCE, AS IT WOULD ALLOW INTERMITTENT CONDUCT OF THE HAUNTED HOUSE EVENT, PROVIDED ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATION ARE MET.
[00:40:06]
EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE EVENT, AND TEMPORARILY OCCUPYING OR USING LEGALLY EXISTING BUILDINGS.PURSUANT TO SHASTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 17.92.050.D.3, THE DIRECTOR OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MAY REFER AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DUE TO THE PROJECT, THE EXISTENCE OF A POLICY QUESTION, OR BECAUSE THE DECISION OF APPROVE, TO APPROVE OR DENY THE PERMIT APPLICATION WOULD REQUIRE THE EXERCISE OF SUBSTANTIAL DISCRETION.
SUCH REFERRAL WAS DEEMED NOT WARRANTED BECAUSE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WAS SIMILAR IN NATURE TO OTHER REQUESTS RECEIVED AND APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FOR SIMILAR ASSEMBLAGES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY. THIS INCLUDES ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPROVALS FOR A MUD RUN AND A BULL RIDING EVENT.
THEREFORE, THE DIRECTOR APPROVED THE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT 24-0005.
AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE APPEALS HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THE DIRECTOR OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY OR ABUSED HIS DISCRETION TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT IN APPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT 24-0005, OR TO SUPPORT THAT THE PROPOSED USE DOES NOT MEET ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED USE.
SO NOW I'M GOING TO BE GOING OVER SOME OF THE ISSUES AND OUR RESPONSE TO THOSE ISSUES.
SO ISSUE NUMBER 1, PAPERWORK PROVIDED THE COUNTY STAFF IS FRAUDULENT.
THERE IS CURRENT USE OF THE AG BUILDING AS AN INDOOR HAUNT.
PLANS SHOW OUTSIDE HAUNT ONLY WHILE THE INDOOR HAUNT IS CURRENTLY BEING USED.
SHOWS CHARACTER OF APPLICATION TO BE DECEITFUL.
THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE BUILDING HAS BEEN USED AS PART OF THE HAUNTED HOUSE EVENT IN PAST YEARS.
THIS WOULD INCLUDE OBTAINING THE APPLICABLE PERMITS TO TEMPORARILY OCCUPY OR USE OR USE LEGALLY EXISTING BUILDINGS AND OR STRUCTURES THAT ARE ACCESSORY TO THE RESIDENTIAL AND OR AGRICULTURAL USE OF THE PROPERTY DURING THE HAUNTED HOUSE EVENT.
HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED AN ALTERNATE PATH THAT COULD BE USED TO HOLD THE EVENT WITHOUT THE USE OF THE EXISTING AGRICULTURAL STORAGE BUILDING. IF THE APPEAL IS DENIED AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPROVED, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO OPERATE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT, USING EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS TEMPORARILY WITHOUT THE REQUIRED BUILDING AND OR OPERATIONAL PERMITS WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT, WHICH WOULD SUBJECT THE APPLICANT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, REVOCATION OF THE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT, AND OR RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF ANY FUTURE APPLICATION AFTER THE TERM OF THE SUBJECT ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT HAS ENDED.
OUR RESPONSE TO ISSUE NUMBER 2 IS, CONDITION NO.
ZONING STANDARDS FOR ASSEMBLAGES OF PEOPLE DO NOT SPECIFY AS TO THE NUMBER OF PERSONS PER EVENT DAY.
OUR RESPONSE TO ISSUE NUMBER 3 IS, WE BELIEVE WE HAVE ANSWERED THIS ISSUE IN RESPONSE NUMBER ONE.
OUR RESPONSE TO ISSUE NUMBER 4 IS, THE APPELLANT ASSERTS THAT THE EXISTING BRIDGE UTILIZED FOR ACCESS TO THE PROPOSED PARKING AREA IS NON ENGINEERED AND QUESTIONS WHETHER IT CAN SUPPORT FIRE ENGINES.
NO EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF THIS ASSERTION.
THIS ROAD SHALL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE FINAL INSPECTION OF THE SHASTA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT".
ZONING STANDARDS FOR ASSEMBLAGES OF PEOPLE DO NOT SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR LIGHTING.
[00:45:02]
LIGHTING NEEDS FOR AN ASSEMBLAGE OF PEOPLE VARY BY THE TYPE OF ASSEMBLAGE, TIME OF DAY, ETC.CONDITION NO. 5 OF THE STATEMENT OF CONDITIONS FOR ADMC24-0005 STATES, "ALL LIGHTING, EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR SHALL BE DESIGNED AND LOCATED AS SO AS TO CONFINE DIRECT LIGHTING TO THE PREMISES. A LIGHT SOURCE SHALL NOT SHINE UPON OR ILLUMINATE DIRECTLY ON ANY SURFACE OTHER THAN THE AREA REQUIRED TO BE LIGHTED.
NO LIGHTING SHALL BE OF THE TYPE OR IN A LOCATION SUCH THAT CONSTITUTES A HAZARD TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, EITHER ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OR ON ABUTTING STREETS".
THIS CONDITION OF APPROVAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SHASTA COUNTY ZONING CODE STANDARDS FOR OUTDOOR LIGHTING, WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO PARKING AREA LIGHTING PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER LIGHTING UTILIZED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE EVENT.
MOST OF THE ABOVE WOULD BE ADDRESSED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL IF REQUIRED PERMITS WERE APPLIED FOR.
OUR RESPONSE TO THIS ISSUE IS, CONDITION NO. 7 IN THE STATEMENT OF CONDITIONS FOR ADMC24-0005 STATES, "GUESTS SHALL BE LIMITED TO 700 PEOPLE PER DAY OF OPERATION.
SEE ALSO THE RESPONSE TO ISSUE NUMBER ONE THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED".
ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS SPECIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
DENY THE APPEAL. FIND THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND AFFIRM APPROVAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT, SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MARCO, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. SO THE. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF A NEW ACCESS ROAD INTO THE FACILITY BEFORE THEY CAN OPERATE. I BELIEVE I ADDRESSED THAT IN ONE OF THESE SLIDES, EXCUSE ME.
THAT DOESN'T CROSS THE BRIDGE, OR. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
YES. LOOKING FOR THE SLIDE THERE? I BELIEVE THAT WAS.
ONE SECOND. YES. SO THIS MAY HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE FIRE REQUIREMENTS, WAS IT? YES. COMMISSIONER CHAPIN, THE ACCESS IS EXISTING.
YOU KNOW, FROM OLD OREGON TRAIL THROUGH THERE TEMPORARY PARKING AREA.
THE ASSERTION WAS THAT THERE'S A NON ENGINEERED BRIDGE THAT MAY NOT SUPPORT FIRE ENGINES.
OUR POINT WOULD BE THAT THAT WASN'T SUBSTANTIATED WITH EVIDENCE IN THE APPEAL.
WE HAVE LOOKED INTO THAT BRIDGE. WE BELIEVE IT WAS ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO THE REQUIREMENT OF A BUILDING PERMIT, WHICH WAS ABOUT 1964, HERE IN SHASTA COUNTY. SO WE'VE SEEN AERIAL AERIAL IMAGERY FROM PRIOR TO THAT DATE WHERE THE BRIDGE IS THERE.
SO, IN SHORT, IT'S AN EXISTING ACCESS EXISTING BRIDGE.
AND THE CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT DO REQUIRE THAT ACCESS MEET FIRE SAFETY STANDARDS.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE FIRE MARSHAL IS READY TO HELP ANSWER THIS QUESTION AS WELL.
SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO HIM. OKAY. THANK YOU.
SO FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS ROADS AREN'T REQUIRED FOR AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS.
RIGHT. SO WHEN THOSE BUILDINGS WERE CONSTRUCTED, THE BRIDGE DIDN'T HAVE TO BE ENGINEERED.
SURE. MAYBE IT WAS ENGINEERED, MAYBE IT WASN'T, WE DON'T KNOW. BUT WHEN THEY CONVERT THOSE TO SOME KIND OF AGRITOURISM USE OR ENTERTAINMENT USE FOR THOSE BUILDINGS, THAT'S WHEN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS ROADS HAVE TO BE IN.
AND THEN THEN WE WOULD CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED, SHOWING THAT THE BRIDGE IS CAPABLE OF SUPPLYING A 75,000 POUND LIVE LOAD FOR APPARATUS.
SO TO ANSWER MY QUESTION, I THINK YOU SAID THAT THE ACCESS ROAD IS EXISTING, BUT YOU'RE NOT SURE WHETHER THE BRIDGE IS ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE ACCESS BY THE FIRE TRUCKS. WELL, THERE'S A DRIVABLE PATH EXISTING.
YEAH. NOT A FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS ROAD. I STILL HAVEN'T GOT AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION.
CAN FIRE APPARATUS REACH ALL THE BUILDINGS AS IT IS NOW.
[00:50:03]
THEY MAY OR MAY NOT, BUT IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT CURRENTLY UNDER THE COUNTY CODE TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO.OH, IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT. OKAY. AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS.
OKAY. SO THEY'RE, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE GOING TO BE USED FOR SOME OTHER USE, IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT.
IT'LL BE ADDRESSED IN THE FUTURE THEN IS THE ANSWER.
IF THEY IF THEY INTEND TO CHANGE THOSE BUILDINGS TO TO HOUSE THE PUBLIC FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES.
SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER BUILDINGS BESIDES THE AGRICULTURAL BUILDING? THE BARN OR WHATEVER IT IS OUT THERE? IS THAT THE ONLY BUILDING? TO MY KNOWLEDGE, IT'S ONLY AGRICULTURE USE OUT THERE CURRENTLY.
RIGHT. OKAY. I DON'T, I GUESS I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION.
LIO, CAN YOU HELP ME OUT? ANY. SO, CAN I HELP YOU OUT ANY, OTHER THAN TO SAY WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN STATED IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BRIDGE IS THE ROUTE IS EXISTING.
THE BRIDGE EXISTS. IT WAS BUILT BEFORE PERMITS WERE REQUIRED.
AND IT WOULD HAVE TO MEET APPLICABLE STANDARDS.
SO DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE TO SHOW THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS TO GET FIRE EQUIPMENT ACROSS? WHO DECIDES THAT? YEAH. WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THE BRIDGE IN THE FUTURE.
I'D PROBABLY CONFER WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ON WHAT? WHAT THEY THINK. AND IF THERE'S A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE THE BRIDGE SHOULD BE ENGINEERED OR REVIEWED BY A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, THEN THAT DETERMINED WE'D MAKE THAT DETERMINATION WHEN THEY SUBMITTED FOR CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS TO CHANGE THE ANY EXISTING BUILDINGS ON SITE. OKAY. SO I'LL JUST CHIME IN AGAIN.
SO I THINK YOUR QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, IS VERIFICATION OF ITS ABILITY TO CARRY THAT LOAD REQUIRED TO CONDUCT THE TEMPORARY EVENT. BUT AGAIN, ACCESS IS A STANDARD THAT IS IMPLEMENTED AND ENFORCED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
SO I WOULD STILL HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE THE FIRE MARSHAL ANSWER THAT QUESTION SPECIFICALLY.
OKAY. I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. I GUESS IT'S SIMILAR.
ARE THERE GOING TO BE NEW BUILDINGS, TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT, BUILT FOR THIS EVENT PERMIT OR JUST THE EXISTING BUILDINGS? I'M NOT SURE. ANYBODY KNOW? SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION? ARE THERE GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY BUILDINGS LIKE RESTROOMS OR GIFT SHOPS OR SOMETHING? NO GIFT SHOPS. RESTROOMS, WELL NO, BECAUSE THEY NEED TO MEET WHATEVER STANDARD WE PROVIDED FOR OR WHATEVER EHD HAS PROVIDED AS A STANDARD FOR THEM TO MEET, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS HAVING PORTABLE RESTROOMS. SO THEY'LL HAVE PORTABLE RESTROOMS. I BELIEVE SO.
OKAY. I BELIEVE IT'S ANTICIPATED THAT THEY WOULD THERE MAY BE SOME TEMPORARY BUILDING PERMITS REQUIRED FOR SOME OF THE PROPS AND ELECTRICAL OR ANYTHING THAT MIGHT TRIGGER A BUILDING PERMIT.
WE MAY BE IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY'RE APPLYING FOR A TEMPORARY PERMIT.
SO THE ANSWER IS YES, THERE MAY BE TEMPORARY PERMITS AND I WOULD ANTICIPATE SOME.
TIM, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT JIM WAS SAYING.
SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE TRIGGER FOR THE NEED FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS AND ENSURING THAT THIS BRIDGE IS ADEQUATE WOULD BE A CONDITION OF THIS PERMIT THAT'S BEING APPLIED FOR, IS THAT CORRECT? OR A CONDITION OF POSSIBLY FUTURE PERMITS THAT ARE A PART OF IT FOR THE TEMPORARY STRUCTURES OR THE TEMPORARY USE OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE BEYOND AN AG USE? SUFFICIENT FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS IS A CONDITION OF THIS PROJECT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT. OKAY. SO THAT CONDITION IS ALREADY PLACED ON IT.
I THINK THE REAL QUESTION IS THE ADEQUACY OF WHAT'S EXISTING.
AND SO AT THE POINT IN WHICH THE FIRE MARSHAL WOULD BE OUT THERE REVIEWING THE PROJECT OR ANY POTENTIAL TEMPORARY PERMITS, THAT'S WHEN HE WOULD BE, I ASSUME HE WOULD BE MAKING HIS ASSESSMENT TO DETERMINE IF HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT'S INADEQUATE.
I REALLY CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT AT THIS POINT, BUT THAT'S WHAT I FORESEE.
[00:55:01]
OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.SEEING NONE, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR R3.
HI THERE, I'M GREG HAWES. SO FIRST OFF BOB AND I HAVE BEEN FRIENDS FOR A LONG TIME.
THIS ISN'T ANYTHING DIRECTED TO HIM. WE LOVE THE RANCH, I'VE.
HE'S A CUSTOMER OF OURS. I'VE BEEN TO THEIR PLACE.
IT JUST SOLELY HAS TO DO WITH THE COUNTY AND BEING HELD TO DIFFERENT STANDARDS.
SO THAT ONE SLIDE YOU HAD UP THAT 17.88.070. THE SECOND ITEM ON THERE IS ASSEMBLAGE OF PEOPLE ASSEMBLAGE. THE PERMITS THAT WE'RE DOING HERE DOES NOT WORK FOR A PERMANENT STRUCTURE.
SO WE HAD A VERY SIMILAR BECAUSE WE'RE THE TWO BOTH FARMS HAVE BEEN AROUND SINCE THE 1850S, 1860S, AND WE GOT RED TAG FROM THE COUNTY WHEN WE TRIED TO USE AN AG BUILDING THAT WAS A TYPE U, WHICH THIS WOULD BE AN AG BUILDING, TYPE U TO GET IT TO AN A FOR ASSEMBLAGE OF PEOPLE.
SO I'VE DEALT WITH SEAN, I'VE DEALT WITH EVERYBODY HERE.
I DO HAVE SOME NOTES. I'D LIKE TO AT LEAST TURN IN FOR THE RECORD.
AND AGAIN, I'M NOT ASKING FOR YOU GUYS TO DENY THIS BECAUSE, WE DON'T WANT TO.
JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, I SPENT PROBABLY $30,000 WITH OUR ENGINEER.
SATISFYING JEFF POWELL HERE, TO GET A FIRE OPERATION OR THE HAUNT OPERATIONAL PERMIT.
IN AROUND 2017, ANOTHER WHOLE BUNCH OF LAWS CAME INTO EFFECT, AND IT ADDRESSES EGRESS, EGRESS AND FIRE AND ELECTRICAL. AND JEFF WON'T EVEN TAKE THIS UNTIL ALL OF OUR PERMITS ARE SATISFIED.
SO I JUST DON'T SEE HOW THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT IS A WORKABLE SOLUTION.
IT'S LIKE A IT GOES IN A CIRCLE. IT'S A IT'S AN AG BUILDING SET UP FOR HAUNT.
IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT WORKS. SO ANYWAY, THAT'S THE MAIN THING. I KNOW THERE'S MORE, BUT CAN I OFFER THESE FOR DOWN THE ROAD? I MADE SIX COPIES OF EACH. RELATED TO YOUR HISTORICAL APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT OR TO TODAY'S HEARING? I COULDN'T QUITE HEAR THE FIRST PART. DO THOSE DOCUMENTS RELATE TO TODAY'S HEARING OR YOUR HISTORICAL APPLICATION? SO THIS ONE I JUST TURNED IN RIGHT NOW. ARE. WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS AS FAR AS TO OPERATE OUR HAUNT, AND NASH'S HAS BEEN ABLE TO OPERATE WITHOUT THAT, AND WE COULD LOOK AT NUMBERS BACK AND FORTH.
I THINK NASH IS PROBABLY AS MUCH OR MORE THAN US FOR THE HAUNT, FOR HIS PEOPLE.
SO I THINK IF WE'RE HELD TO THAT STANDARD, THEY SHOULD BE HELD TO THAT STANDARD.
TO BE CLEAR, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE STICKING TO TODAY'S AGENDA.
WE'RE HEARING TODAY'S MATTER, NOT MR. HAWES MATTER.
CORRECT. THANK YOU. YEAH. IT'S JUST THE. WHY.
WHY DO WE HAVE TO DO WHAT THEY DON'T? I GUESS IS THE QUESTION.
THERE'S A COUPLE OTHERS. THANK YOU.
I'M BOB NASH. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU GUYS COMMISSION AND THE STAFF TODAY.
PROBABLY THE ONE THING I WANT TO MAYBE SHED SOME LIGHT ON IS THE BRIDGE QUESTION.
THE BRIDGE IS, WAS INSTALLED A REALLY LONG TIME AGO.
NOT BEFORE. I WAS THERE, THOUGH I DID SEE IT GET INSTALLED.
THE BRIDGE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS A FORMER RAIL CAR.
IT'S PRETTY STRONG. WE'VE HAD MANY, MANY OVERLOADED TRUCKS OVER THAT BRIDGE, AND IT DOESN'T MOVE.
THE ABUTMENTS FOR THE BRIDGE ARE REINFORCED CONCRETE, BUT THE EXTENT OF THE ENGINEERING, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS IT WAS DONE BY RANCHERS IN THE EARLY 1960S.
[01:00:02]
SO, YOU KNOW, THAT MIGHT HAVE TO BE RE-ENGINEERED.IT HAS BEEN INSPECTED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, AND THAT WAS AT THE REQUEST OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT TAKE SCHOOL BUSSES OVER THAT, AND IT WAS DONE TO THEIR SATISFACTION. IT WAS A CALTRANS STYLE INSPECTION, SO IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND EASY TO READ.
AND THAT CAN BE PROVIDED TO STAFF IF THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT THAT WHEN THE TIME COMES.
BUT THE BRIDGE IS VERY STABLE STRUCTURALLY, VERY SOUND.
AND SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN ACTUAL PROBLEM.
SO, IT PROBABLY, I WOULD EXPECT THAT IT WOULD MEET FIRE CODE, BUT WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE IT WASN'T NECESSARILY PUT IN WITH THAT IN MIND. THE OVERFLOW PARKING IS JUST OPEN FIELD PARKING IT'S TEMPORARY, ONCE THE PARKING IS DONE, THEN IT GOES BACK TO CROP PRODUCTION.
LIGHTING, I THINK THAT WAS ADDRESSED BY STAFF.
AND OF COURSE THERE'S ALWAYS OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE LIGHTING, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT IS A HAUNT.
AND LIGHTING OVER THE YEARS HAS BEEN GRADUALLY UPGRADED.
AND I THINK THERE'S PLANS TO UPGRADE SOME PARTS OF IT AGAIN.
MR. NASH, I HAVE A QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'VE GOT THAT ONE AGRICULTURAL BUILDING OUT THERE, AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO USE THAT, OR YOU ARE GOING TO USE IT.
AND THAT PART WAS IS MORE RECENT AND THAT HAS NOT BEEN PERMITTED AS IS NEEDED, AND SO THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. WE'VE APPLIED FOR A PERMIT. WE'VE HAD THE ENGINEERING DONE.
SO THERE MAY BE MORE TO DO YET. BUT THE PARTS THAT THE ENGINEER RECOMMENDED, YOU KNOW, ARE OBVIOUSLY THINGS THAT WILL NEED TO BE DONE REGARDLESS, SO WE'RE STARTING ON THAT ALREADY. NOW, ARE THERE GOING TO BE ANY ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS, EITHER TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT? NO, NOTHING OTHER THAN PROPS FOR THE FOR THE HAUNT WHICH ARE TEMPORARY AND TYPICALLY DON'T COME TO THE TO THE LEVEL OF BEING CONSIDERED A BUILDING. BUT SOMETIMES THOSE PROPS CAN COME INTO QUESTION WHETHER IT'S A BUILDING OR JUST A PROP.
SO, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE GOT TO DEBATE WITH THE STAFF AND FIND A WAY THROUGH THAT.
AND ONE MORE QUESTION. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO USE FOR RESTROOMS? JUST PORTA POTTIES OR WHAT? WE USE PORTA POTTIES. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY.
THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
THIS HAS BEEN OBVIOUSLY OPERATING FOR A WHILE.
YES. AND YOU CAME TO THE COUNTY TO GET THE PERMIT? FOR THE ADMINISTRATION PERMIT. RIGHT. CORRECT.
AND YOU'RE AGREEING AS WE GO FORWARD TO BRING EVERYTHING UP TO CODE AS THAT PERMIT REQUIRES.
THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH.
ONE OTHER ITEM THAT I DIDN'T MENTION IS, IS WE HAVE A FULL SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE.
WE HAVE SUBSTANTIAL FIRE FLOWS IN EXCESS OF 1200 GALLONS A MINUTE.
UNDER PRESSURE, WE'RE HOOKED UP TO THE BELLA VISTA WATER DISTRICT.
GREAT. THANK YOU. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND TURN IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION.
JIM, DO YOU GOT ANYTHING ELSE? NO, I, IT'S ANSWERED ALL MY QUESTIONS.
[01:05:10]
PERMIT SEEMS TO COVER ALL THE BASES. SO, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.THANK YOU. TIM. YEAH I AGREE. IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS THE PROCESS TO ENSURE THAT THINGS ARE BEING DONE APPROPRIATELY OUT THERE AND THE CONDITIONS, AND IT ALLOWS THE COUNTY TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO MAKE SURE HE'S, EVERYTHING'S COMPLIANT.
COMPLIANT? YEAH. GREAT. THANK YOU. I WILL GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MAKE A MOTION. TIM. SORRY. TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.
GOT IT. I MOVE APPROVAL PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM R3.
I'LL SECOND. SECOND THE MOTION. THANK YOU. AND ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. OKAY. MOTION IS APPROVED. THANK YOU.
AND WITH THAT, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THE MEETING. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.