[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:02]
TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY AGENDA ITEM ON THE REGULAR CALENDAR BEFORE DOING THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION OF THE ITEM. IN ADDITION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROVIDES THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENT, OPEN TIME PERIOD WHERE THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY AGENDA ITEM AND MAY ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA THAT IS WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PURSUANT TO THE BROWN ACT COMMISSION, ACTION OR DISCUSSION CANNOT BE TAKEN ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS, BUT THE COMMISSION MAY BRIEFLY RESPOND TO STATEMENTS OR QUESTIONS AND, IF DEEMED NECESSARY, REFER THE SUBJECT MATTER TO THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT FOR FOLLOW UP AND OR SCHEDULE A MATTER FOR SUBSEQUENT COMMISSION AGENDA.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON ANY NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM MAY BE APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT THE END OF THE REGULAR AGENDA. SO I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER NOW.
TIM, WOULD YOU MIND DOING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? SURE. PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
THANK YOU. TIM. WE'LL DO ROLL CALL NOW. SCOTT.
IS IT PEWID. STEVE KERNS. HERE. TIM MCLEAN. HERE.
JAMES CHAPIN. HERE. GABE ROSS, I'M HERE. SEAN AM I ASKED, WOULD YOU LIKE TO.
LIO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOUR STAFF? CERTAINLY.
LEO SALAZAR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE TODAY TO MY RIGHT ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNCIL TRICIA WEBER.
IN THE AUDIENCE TODAY JOINING US, WE HAVE SEAN EWING, DIRECTOR OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.
JEFF POWELL, SHASTA COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL, AND FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, WILLIAM MILLER, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER, AND DON RENZ, PRINCIPAL ENGINEER.
I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL STAFF IN ATTENDANCE. THANK YOU.
LIO. OPEN UP IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT NOW. ALL RIGHT.
DID I MISS SOMETHING? OKAY. I'M AT THIS TIME.
I'D LIKE TO OPEN THIS UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OPEN TIME PERIOD, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA THAT IS WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF THERE'S ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO TALK. DO I CLOSE IT NOW? OKAY. SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT HEARING AND GO TO LIO FOR THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
[PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT]
LIO SALAZAR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR. THIS IS A NEW CHANGE AMONGST A COUPLE OF TODAY, YOU'LL BE SEEING ME SITTING IN THIS SEAT GOING FORWARD. THE PURPOSE OF THAT IS JUST TO INCREASE OUR CAPACITY WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TO, YOU KNOW, BE RESPONSIVE TO ALL OUR OUR RESPONSIBILITIES.I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK DON WALGAMUTH, WHO'S NOT IN ATTENDANCE TODAY FOR HIS APPROXIMATELY 4 YEARS OF SERVICE, INCLUDING HIS 1ST MEETING BEING THE FOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT.
SO YEAH, START BIG WITH THAT 1. SOME OTHER NEWS.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT 24-009 HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND THAT WILL BE HEARD BY THEM ON MARCH 24TH OF 2026.
THAT COMPLETES MY REPORT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
OKAY. THANK YOU. I GUESS WE'LL MOVE ON TO R.1, THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
[R1 Approval of Minutes]
SHOULD I READ ALL THAT? I REALLY NEED TO WRITE.FIRST OF ALL, I GUESS. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS I KNOW? YES.
[00:05:09]
DISCUSSION BACK IN JANUARY AND I'LL DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO ON THE MINUTES ON PAGE 03, IF YOU HAVE THOSE SECOND PARAGRAPH, IT SAYS SEVERAL LINES DOWN.AND THEN THE LAST PARAGRAPH IT SAYS THAT THE STAFF CLARIFIED UNDER CEQA IMPACTS ARE MEASURED AGAINST BASELINE CONDITIONS WITH NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE INITIAL STUDY, THE DIFFICULTY WAS THAT WE HAD 3 PROFESSIONALS.
EXPERT WITNESSES TESTIFY THAT THAT WAS INCORRECT.
AND 1 WAS A CERTIFIED BOTANIST WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
THE OTHER 2 WERE BIOLOGICAL PROFESSORS FROM DIFFERENT 2 DIFFERENT UNIVERSITIES.
AND IF YOU REMEMBER BACK TO THE JONES HIGH PLAINS SHOOTING ISSUE THAT WE APPROVED WAS APPEALED AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED. AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WENT BEFORE THE JUDGE AND THE JUDGE RULED THAT WHEN YOU HAVE CONFLICTING, CONFLICTING EXPERT WITNESSES, THEN IT AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGERS AN EIR PROCESS.
AND WE BROUGHT THAT UP AT OUR LAST COMMISSION MEETING AND YET THAT IS NOT IN THE MINUTES.
AND I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE IN THE MINUTES. THERE'S A GENERAL STATEMENT, SOMEWHERE DOWN HERE AND I CAN'T PUT MY FINGER ON IT RIGHT AT THE MOMENT, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO BE SPECIFIC THAT THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT ASPECT THAT THIS COMMISSION BROUGHT UP AND DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY THAT IF IT IS APPEALED. THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REALLY NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS VERY KIND OF CASE CAME UP BEFORE AND A JUDGE RULED AGAINST THE COUNTY. AND SO I THINK THAT ISSUE NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED IN THE MINUTES RIGHT HERE.
SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONERS BROUGHT UP THE POSSIBILITY OR THE CONCEPT THAT CEQA WAS NOT CORRECTLY APPLIED BECAUSE WE HAD EXPERT WITNESSES CONFLICTING WITH OTHER EXPERT WITNESSES.
AND WE HAVE A RULING FROM THE JUDGE AGAINST THE COUNTY SAYING THAT AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGERS AN EIR AND I READ AT OUR LAST MEETING, I READ SPECIFICALLY WHAT THAT JUDGE SAID, AND I'M NOT AN EXPERT, BUT I'M JUST GOING BACK TO WHAT A JUDGE IN THIS COUNTY HAS ALREADY.
AND THAT'S WHY I AT LEAST VOTED AGAINST IT WASN'T SO MUCH THE PROJECT.
IT WAS THAT IT WAS. WE HAD EXPERT WITNESSES ON BOTH SIDES.
AND ACCORDING TO A JUDGE RULING THAT TRIGGERS AN EIR.
LIO, DO I REFER TO YOU ON THAT? I CAN COMMENT ON THAT AS FAR AS THIS ISSUE IS CONCERNED.
SO THERE ALSO HAS TO BE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF A FAIR ARGUMENT IN THE RECORD BY AN EXPERT TO, YOU KNOW, AUTOMATICALLY REQUIRE ANY EIR. AND ULTIMATELY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE ESSENTIALLY QUASI JUDICIAL BODY THAT'S REVIEWING THAT DETERMINATION AND MAKING A DECISION, WHICH THE DECISION WAS TO ADOPT THE DOCUMENT AS FAR AS ADDRESSING, YOU KNOW, YOUR CONCERNS IN THE MINUTES WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, MAKING SOME AMENDMENTS. WE'D HAVE TO BRING THOSE BACK TO YOU.
WELL, I'M NOT, I'M NOT ARGUING PRO OR CON ON THAT POINT.
I'M JUST SAYING WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION. AND I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE REFLECTED IN THE MINUTES.
WOULD THAT BE POSSIBLE? IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO REVIEW IT AND MAKE SOME AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT THAT DRAFT WOULD LIKELY BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD WITH THEIR STAFF REPORT ON THE APPEAL BEFORE THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND BRING IT UP AT THE NEXT MEETING. I. DEFER TO TRICIA PROCEDURALLY ABOUT HOW TO ADDRESS THIS.
[00:10:04]
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. FOR THIS MATTER TO BE TO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE TO ADOPT THE MINUTES.SO THIS CAN BE REVIEWED AND ADOPTED LATER TIME BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
COMMISSIONER KERNS WAS ASKING TO HAVE HIS COMMENTS IN THE MINUTES FROM LAST TIME.
AND LIO MENTIONED THAT THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED.
OKAY, LEO, CAN WE JUST PUT A NOTE IN THERE TO MAYBE LISTEN TO WHAT STEVE HAD SAID AT THAT MEETING? YEAH, I'LL TAKE THAT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND REVISIT THE MINUTES AND BRING THEM BACK AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.
SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT WAS PROVIDED. WOULD THAT BE SATISFACTORY? AND I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE LETTERS FROM THE PERSONS YOU MENTIONED, INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY PUT FORWARD IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE AND WHETHER THEY FELT IT WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. THOSE LETTERS ARE INCLUDED IN ALL OF THE RECORD THAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD.
I'LL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. I ALSO RECOMMEND TAKING PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MINUTES.
OKAY. IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE MINUTES? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THAT. THANK YOU. MOVING ON.
[R2 Zone Amendment 25-0002 and Tract Map 25-0001 (Zinco Holdings, LLC)]
DOES ANYBODY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR R2? NO. NOPE. NOPE. DID I SKIP SOMETHING? YEAH. ACTUALLY, I HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH R.2 AND NH.1 IN THAT OUR FIRM HAS DONE ENVIRONMENTAL WORK FOR BOTH THOSE PROJECT PROPONENTS.SO I'LL BE EXCUSING MYSELF AND ANXIOUSLY AWAITING YOUR DETERMINATIONS IN THE HALL.
[LAUGHTER] OKAY. AFTER HE LEAVES.
IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS YET? NOPE. LOOKS LIKE TARA WILL BE HERE. THAT'S ME.
THERE WE GO. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN. COMMISSIONERS, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
TARA PETTY, PLANNING DIVISION MANAGER WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. ITEM R2 IS A COMBINED PROJECT FOR ZONE AMENDMENT 25-0002 AND TRACK MAP 25-0001. PROJECT SITES IN APPROXIMATELY 1 AND A HALF ACRE PARCEL IN THE KESWICK AREA.
SO THE PROJECT'S A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM INTERIM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND TO SUBDIVIDE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO 6 PARCELS OF VARYING SIZES 6333FT², 6687FT², 8361FT², 7881FT², 7940FT², AND THE LARGEST BEING 14,192FT². HERE'S AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE PROJECT SITE.
PARCELS DEVELOPED WITH APPROXIMATELY 1200 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH 496 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE, AS WELL AS A 996 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WITH A 370 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE.
TOPOGRAPHY ON THE SITE IS PREDOMINANTLY FLAT.
SURROUNDING LAND USES ARE GENERALLY RESIDENTIALLY DEVELOPED PARCELS.
THE PROPOSED ZONE AMENDMENT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT ZONING TO THE EAST AND WEST, AND THE PROPOSED TRACK MAP WOULD RESULT IN PARCELS THAT ARE SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO THE APPROXIMATELY ONE QUARTER ACRE PARCELS IN THE ADJACENT SUBDIVISION TO THE WEST.
[00:15:01]
THE LOTS WOULD BE ACCESSED FROM A NEW 32 FOOT WIDE MINOR LOCAL URBAN ROAD THAT WILL CONNECT WITH KESWICK DAM ROAD.POLICE PROTECTIONS PROVIDED BY THE SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY THE SHASTA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT, ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS BY PG&E WASTE MANAGEMENT PROVIDE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICE TO THE AREA. SEWER AND WATER WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF REDDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ISSUED WILL SERVE LETTER.
THE PARCELS IN A SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL GENERAL PLAN USE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND IT'S IN THE INTERIM RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT IN THIS DISTRICT IS APPLIED TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL OR SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS ON AN INTERIM BASIS, WHERE IT'S APPARENT THAT MORE INTENSIVE URBAN OR SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT IS IMMINENT OR WHERE WILL OCCUR WHEN URBAN SERVICES BECOME AVAILABLE.
APPLICANTS REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE CURRENT ZONING TO 1 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR R-1, THAT WOULD BE TO FACILITATE THE PROPOSED 6 LOT SUBDIVISION AT A 4 UNIT PER ACRE DENSITY. PURPOSE OF R-1 ZONED DISTRICT IS TO PROVIDE FOR FULLY SERVICED URBAN SIZE LOTS.
USE EXCLUSIVELY FOR SINGLE FAMILY OR ONE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND SELECTED RELATED USES.
R.1 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT SR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION.
THIS IS THE EXHIBIT FOR THE PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACK MAP, THE PROJECT WOULD INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1223 SQUARE FOOT STORMWATER DETENTION BASIN BASIN THAT'S SHOWN HERE IN BLUE. THAT BASIN HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER RETENTION AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE COUNTY'S MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SERVICE OR SEWER SYSTEM PERMIT MS4 PERMIT. THE PROJECT ALSO INVOLVES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MINOR LOCAL URBAN ROAD WITH CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALKS. THAT'S SHOWN HERE IN GRAY.
THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ALONG KESWICK KESWICK DAM ROAD FRONTAGE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO AN ARTERIAL 76 STANDARD, INCLUDING 38FT OF PAVING, CONSTRUCTION OF CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK, AND INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES TO SERVE THE PROPOSED LOTS.
SO THE CITY OF REDDING PROVIDED WRITTEN COMMENTS DURING EARLY REFERRAL THAT PROJECTS THAT THE PROJECT FALLS WITHIN A PRIMARY GROWTH AREA IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY'S 2045 GENERAL PLAN. AND ASSUMING THAT THE PROPERTY COULD BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, THEY RECOMMENDED MAP REVISIONS THAT WOULD BRING THE RESULTING PARCELS INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LOT, AREA AND DENSITY OF THE APPLICABLE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THEIR 2045 GENERAL PLAN.
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION DOESN'T NECESSARILY CONFORM TO THE CITY OF WRITING GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS, BUT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHASTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN. SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION, AND IT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE R-1 ZONE DISTRICT, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER APPLICABLE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THE CITY OF REDDING DID ISSUE A WILL SERVE LETTER FOR SEWER AND WATER SERVICE, AND THE LETTER DID NOT REQUIRE CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN OR ANNEXATION AS A CONDITION FOR SERVICES. SOME TRANSPORTATION NOISE WAS A FACTOR FOR THIS PROJECT.
GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT ESTABLISHED TRANSPORTATION NOISE CONTOURS TO PROTECT NEW NOISE SENSITIVE LAND USES, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL LAND USE, FROM HARMFUL EFFECTS OF ELEVATED TRANSPORTATION NOISE.
THE BLUE AND ORANGE LINES ON THIS SLIDE REPRESENT THE 65 DBA AND 60 DBA PREDICTED.
PREDICTED NOISE CONTOURS FOR KESWICK DAM ROAD FOR THE YEAR 2020.
GENERAL PLAN SPECIFIES THAT THE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE NOISE EXPOSURE FOR RESIDENTIAL USES FROM TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES IS 60 DBA FOR OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREAS AND 45 DBA FOR INTERIOR SPACES. SO THE ENTIRE PROJECT FALLS WITHIN THE 65 AND 60 DBA NOISE OR NOISE CONTOUR LINES. THE EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT AT THE SITE RANGES FROM 56 DBA TO 69 DBA, ACCORDING TO AN ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS COMPLETED FOR THE PROJECT.
AS A RESULT, THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE EXTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE FROM TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES FOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL USES OF THE LOTS SPECIFIED IN THE GENERAL PLAN WOULD BE EXCEEDED. THE ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS. THEY FURTHER DETERMINED THAT IF A 2 STORY HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED ON LOT 6, WHICH IS THE BOTTOM EAST SIDE, THERE THE INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS WITH THE WINDOWS CLOSED ARE EXPECTED TO EXCEED THE 45 DBA LIMIT INSIDE THE SECOND FLOOR.
[00:20:04]
ROOMS FACING THE ROAD. THE GENERAL PLAN DOES ALLOW FOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS UP TO 65 DBA, WHERE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO REDUCE NOISE IN OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREAS TO 60 OR LESS USING BEST AVAILABLE NOISE REDUCTION MEASURES, AND PROVIDED THAT AVAILABLE NOISE EXTERIOR AVAILABLE.THE ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION OF A 6 FOOT TALL SOLID FENCE ALONG THE SOUTH AND EAST PROPERTY LINES OF THE PROJECT SITE TO REDUCE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS AT ALL OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREAS BELOW THAT 65 DBA NOISE LIMIT AND THE PROPOSED SOLID FENCING IS SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE IN BROWN.
THOSE MEASURES ARE ALL INCORPORATED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ENSURE THE IMPACTS FROM TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES ALONG KESWICK DAM ROAD WOULD CONFORM TO THE NOISE THRESHOLDS IN THE GENERAL PLAN. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR THE PROJECT AS A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE INITIAL STUDY INCLUDED IMPACTS TO NESTING, MIGRATORY BIRDS AND RAPTORS, AND FROM WILDLIFE ENTRAPMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES, AND THOSE ARE INCORPORATED IN THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE TENTATIVE TRACK MAP. BASED ON INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE APPLICANT AND DATA AVAILABLE TO STAFF.
RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES. STAFF'S DETERMINATION AS THE PROJECT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING PLAN AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCT SUBSEQUENTLY CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS SPECIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND THAT IS CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION FOR THIS ITEM, R.2.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU FOLKS MAY HAVE.
IT'S SOLID WOOD FENCING, 6 FOOT SOLID WOOD FENCING.
OKAY. NOT NOT CONCRETE BLOCK OR ANYTHING. JUST WOOD.
OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN THIS UP R.2 TO FOR PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS BEHALF? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
LET'S MOVE ON TO COMMISSION. RIGHT.
NOBODY ELSE IS TALKING, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE.
MOTION PASSES. OKAY. MOVING ON TO NON HEARING ITEMS NH1.
[NH-1 Determination of Similar Use 25-0001 (Davis)]
IS THAT AGAIN? YES. ME AGAIN. ALL RIGHT. I'M GETTING OLD.I CAN'T SEE WITHOUT GLASSES ANYMORE. IT'S RIDICULOUS.
YEAH. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON ONCE AGAIN, CHAIRMAN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. FOR THE RECORD.
SARAH PETTY, PLANNING DIVISION MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. THIS IS ITEM NH-1.
IT'S AN APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION OF SIMILAR USE.
NUMBER 25-0001. PROJECT SITE INCLUDES AN APPROXIMATELY 4.62 ACRE PROPERTY AND A 5.87 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9472 CEDAR LANE IN PALO CEDRO.
THE APPLICANTS REQUESTED A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE OR RV PARK IS SIMILAR TO A USE OR USES ALLOWED IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL OR C.2 ZONE DISTRICT, AND SPECIFICALLY WHETHER AN RV PARK WITH 64 SPACES, CLUBHOUSE AND A POOL IS SIMILAR TO A HOTEL OR MOTEL, WHICH ARE PERMITTED IN THE C.2 ZONE DISTRICT WITH APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT.
ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY IS FROM, WHAT IS IT, CEDAR LANE.
[00:25:08]
POTABLE WATER AND SEWER IS PROVIDED BY COUNTY SERVICE AREA 8.ELECTRIC SERVICES PROVIDED BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PROVIDES SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICE TO THE AREA, POLICE PROTECTIONS PROVIDED BY SHASTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION IS PROVIDED BY SHASTA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT. PROJECT SITE IS IN THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A RANGE OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES.
IT IS IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL C2 ZONE DISTRICT.
THE C2 ZONE DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY PERMITS A HOTEL OR MOTEL FOR TRAVEL AND OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS FOR TRAVELERS, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE CAMPGROUNDS AS PERMISSIBLE TRAVEL AND OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATION WITHIN THE ZONE DISTRICTS.
FOR CLARITY, SHASTA COUNTY CODE DEFINES CAMPGROUNDS AS LAND OR PREMISES USED OR INTENDED TO BE USED, LET OR RENTED FOR OCCUPANCY BY CAMPERS TRAVELING BY AUTOMOBILE OR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, OR FOR OCCUPANCY BY TENTS OR SIMILAR QUARTERS.
RV PARKS ARE CONSIDERED CAMPGROUNDS BASED ON THIS DEFINITION.
TABLE 8 PROVIDES DESCRIPTIONS AND LOCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL COMMERCIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES.
THE C.2 ZONING DISTRICT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL CATEGORY IN THE TABLE.
RETAIL COMMERCIAL CATEGORY PROVIDES FOR A WIDE RANGE OF FACILITIES FOR THE SALE OF GOODS AND PROVISION OF PERSONAL SERVICES, PRIMARILY CONDUCTED WITHIN A BUILDING, AND IS BROADENED TO INCLUDE RETAIL USES CONDUCTED OUTDOORS, SUCH AS BOAT OR AUTO SALES WHEN APPLIED TO TOWN CENTERS.
IT'S APPARENT FROM THE DESCRIPTION OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL CATEGORY THAT USES PERMITTED IN THE C.2 ZONE DISTRICT, INCLUDING HOTELS AND MOTELS ARE PRIMARILY CONDUCTED INDOORS, AND THEY PROVIDE FOR CONVENIENCE AND ENJOYMENT OF COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL TOWN CENTERS.
TABLE 8 IDENTIFIES THE COMMERCIAL, RECREATION, HIGHWAY, COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE COMMERCIAL CATEGORIES AS APPROPRIATE FOR CAMPGROUNDS, AND SPECIFIES THAT CAMPGROUNDS ARE APPROPRIATELY LOCATED WHERE ENJOYMENT OF THE OUTDOORS AND OR CONVENIENCE FOR TRAVELERS IS ACHIEVABLE.
AND IF WITHIN A RURAL COMMUNITY CENTER IN THE MIXED USE ZONE DISTRICT.
THOSE DESCRIPTIONS AND LOCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS ARE HIGHLIGHTED ON THIS SLIDE.
THE ZONING PROVISIONS FOR C-2, C-H, C-R AND MU WERE SETTLED UPON AND ADOPTED TO IMPLEMENT THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN, AND IT IS THEREFORE EVIDENT THAT ALLOWANCE OF HOTELS AND CAMPGROUNDS IN THE MU, C-R AND C-H ZONE DISTRICTS, AND THE ALLOWANCE OF HOTELS. BUT EXCLUSION OF CAMPGROUNDS FROM THE C-2 ZONE DISTRICT WAS NOT ONLY INTENTIONAL, BUT IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. BASED ON PLANNING PRINCIPLES, THE INTENTIONAL EXCLUSION OF CAMPGROUNDS FROM THE C-2 ZONE DISTRICT AT THE TIME THE GENERAL PLAN WAS ADOPTED WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BASED ON CONSIDERATION OF THE CHARACTER AND IMPACT OF THE USE. SO IN THAT RESPECT, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT CAMPGROUNDS ARE NOT SIMILAR IN CHARACTER AND IMPACT TO A HOTEL OR MOTEL.
WHEN THE GENERAL PLAN AND C-2 ZONE DISTRICT WERE ADOPTED.
OUR DIRECTOR REVIEWED THE DEFINITION OF A CAMPGROUND AND ALL APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING PLAN AND DETERMINED THAT AN RV PARK IS NOT SIMILAR TO A HOTEL OR MOTEL BECAUSE IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE C2 DOMAIN DISTRICT AND THE DESCRIPTION OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES DESCRIBED IN THE GENERAL PLAN, AND ALSO BECAUSE CAMPGROUNDS ARE EXPLICITLY PROVIDED FOR IN THE C-H, C-R AND MU ZONE DISTRICTS AND EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED FROM C-2.
ISSUE 1 THE DETERMINATION WAS ISSUED WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE OR OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
EXCUSE ME. THE DIRECTOR COMPLETED THE WRITTEN DETERMINATION OF SIMILAR USE.
JANUARY 9TH, 2026. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SHASTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 1794 030.
[00:30:02]
THE POST OFFICE SENT CONFIRMATION OF STAFF THROUGH EMAIL THAT THE CERTIFIED LETTER WAS AVAILABLE FOR PICKUP BY THE APPLICANT ON THE 13TH OF JANUARY, STAFF RECEIVED CONFIRMATION VIA EMAIL FROM THE POST OFFICE THAT THE APPLICANT PICKED UP THE CERTIFIED LETTER ON JANUARY 15TH.THIS IS STANDARD PRACTICE FOR MAILING DETERMINATIONS MADE BY THE DIRECTOR VIA CERTIFIED MAIL.
RATHER, COUNTY CODE SPECIFIES THAT ANY DETERMINATION, INTERPRETATION OR VERIFICATION MADE IN WRITING BY THE DIRECTOR MAY BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNTY ZONING PLAN, SPECIFICALLY SECTION 1794 060.
THE DIRECTOR MADE ERRORS IN HIS INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE GOVERNING ZONING PROVISIONS.
THE DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION THAT AN RV PARK IS NOT SIMILAR TO A HOTEL OR MOTEL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING PLAN, A DETERMINATION THAT A CAMPGROUND IS. A DETERMINATION THAT A CAMPGROUND IS SIMILAR TO A HOTEL OR MOTEL, WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING PLAN, AND WOULD HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL CENTERS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY, WHEREIN A COUNTY INITIATED GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ALLOW CAMPGROUNDS WITH APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT.
ALL ON ALL LANDS IN THE C-2 DISTRICT. SO PROCEDURALLY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNTY CODE SECTION 1794 060, PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL HEAR THE HEAR THE APPEAL, GIVING THE APPLICANT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND PRESENT EVIDENCE TODAY.
IN CONSIDERING THE APPEAL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE, BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, WHETHER THE DIRECTOR EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY, WHETHER HE FAIRLY CONSIDERED THE REQUESTED DETERMINATION OF SIMILAR USE, OR WHETHER HE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT.
EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN PRESENTED TO STAFF TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE DIRECTOR EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY, UNFAIRLY CONSIDERED THE APPLICANT'S DSU REQUEST AND OR ABUSED HIS DISCRETION TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT IN MAKING A DETERMINATION FOR THE DSU 25-1.
DETERMINATION OF SIMILAR USE OR APPEAL THEREOF IS NOT A PROJECT UNDER CEQA, AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE APPELLANT AND AVAILABLE DATA, STAFF'S DETERMINATION IS THAT THE DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION OF SIMILAR USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING PLAN.
THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU FOLKS MAY HAVE.
DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? LET'S GET TO SHUT THIS DOWN, IS IT NOT? HEARING ITEM GET OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. SURE.
JUST GIVE THE. SORRY. GO AHEAD. LEAH. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR LIO SALAZAR.
ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR NH DASH ONE.
IS THERE ANYBODY HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS BEHALF? GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JOSH MILLER. I AM REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF THE PROJECT.
AND SO I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS OUR POSITION.
WE DON'T AGREE WITH THE DETERMINATION BASED ON CALLING THE PROJECT A CAMPGROUND.
RV PARKS ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH CAMPGROUNDS.
TODAY THEY ARE ACTUALLY CONSIDERED A SORRY. EXCUSE ME.
HERE. THEY ARE A HOSPITALITY USE SIMILAR TO A HOTEL.
THAT'S HOW PEOPLE DESIGN THEM HOW PEOPLE USE THEM.
SO WE FEEL THAT THE CAMPGROUND DESIGNATION OR DEFINITION DOES NOT FIT RV PARK.
AND PART OF THAT IS I BELIEVE THE CAMPGROUND DEFINITION WAS ADOPTED INTO THE GENERAL PLAN IN 1984
[00:35:04]
AND I BELIEVE THAT DEFINITION AND APPLICATION TO THIS PROJECT IS, IS ANTIQUATED, NOT CORRECT.WE, WE RV PARKS ARE NOT CAMPGROUNDS AND RESPECT THAT THEY DO NOT ALLOW TENT CAMPING.
AND THEY ARE, THEY'RE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE HOTEL THAN A CAMPGROUND TODAY.
OKAY. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM? THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT TIME AND MOVE ON TO THE COMMISSION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO. APPROVE THE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND UPHOLD THE DECISION THAT THE DETERMINATION THAT. THAT IT'S NOT SIMILAR TO A HOTEL, THAT IT IS MORE SIMILAR TO A CAMPING AREA. I'LL SECOND THAT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE WE VOTE. I AGREE WITH WHAT JOSH MENTIONED, THAT WHEN I FIRST SAW THAT THEY WERE COMPARING AN RV PARK TO A CAMPGROUND, I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED BECAUSE IT DIDN'T SEEM APPROPRIATE UNTIL I READ THE DEFINITION AND I AGREE THAT 1984 IS, YOU KNOW, A FEW MORE THAN A FEW YEARS AGO.
BUT GIVEN, GIVEN THE CODES THAT WE HAVE, THAT THIS IS WHAT'S ON THE BOOKS THAT IT MENTIONS OCCUPANCY BY CAMPERS TRAVELING BY AUTOMOBILE OR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE.
I DO THINK THAT THIS DEFINITION IS CLEARLY CLOSER TO AN RV PARK AS COMPARED TO A HOTEL OR MOTEL.
SO THAT'S WHY I SECONDED MR. CHAPIN'S MOTION.
PUBLIC COMMENT. SIMPLE. WHAT IF STAFF, CAN YOU COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE? SORRY, I NEED TO REOPEN IT. OKAY, HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
SO AT THIS TIME, WE'LL REOPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
OKAY, SO WHAT IF STAFF CONDITION NO CAMPING ALLOWED, RV ONLY.
CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE? VINCENZO COLETTI.
THANK YOU. I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT COULD BE A CONDITION WHERE THEY CONDITION THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO TENT CAMPING, PERIOD. YOU HAVE TO BE IN A LUXURY RV OF SOME SORT TO BE AT THIS FACILITY.
TO ME, THAT DOESN'T CHANGE IT, BECAUSE THE DEFINITION OF A CAMPGROUND IS FOR OCCUPANCY BY CAMPERS TRAVELING BY AUTOMOBILE OR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE. BUT TENT CAMPING. IS IT ALLOWED AT THE ONE IN RED BLUFF? I'M JUST CURIOUS, I DON'T KNOW. I KNOW A LOT OF THE RV PARKS AROUND.
THEY ALLOW TENT CAMPING TOO. SO IF STAFF WERE TO CONSIDER.
OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW THIS RV PARK TO COME IN.
THEY'RE ALL IN THERE. I MEAN, WE HAVE BEAUTIFUL MOTORHOMES.
I MEAN, WE ALL GO AROUND THE PLACE $150,000 MOTORHOME.
IT'S NO TENT, WE'RE NOT CAMPING, PITCHING, DOING A FIRE.
CAMPING ISN'T THE ISSUE, THE ISSUE IS THE WAY THE DEFINITION IS WRITTEN IN THE IN THE ZONING LAWS IS IT SAYS RVS AND TENT CAMPING. SO RVS. WELL, MAYBE THAT'D BE SOMETHING YOU GUYS CONSIDER CHANGING.
WELL, IT SHOULD POSSIBLY SHOULD BE CHANGED, BUT THAT THAT WILL TAKE TIME.
OKAY, SO IT COULD BE A CONDITION IN THE FUTURE OR STAFF MAKE A CONDITION THAT NO TENT CAMPING.
WE MIGHT ALLOW IT. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING FURTHER.
OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF A POTENTIAL REZONE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS PROJECT TO A MIXED USE? IT'S JUST MAKING ME WONDER HOW TO USE THE BUTTONS. THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING. THANK YOU.
[00:40:02]
TRACY. YES, THERE WAS PREVIOUS DISCUSSION. APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HAD EMAILED ME.I BELIEVE IT WAS SEPTEMBER AND ASKED THE VERY QUESTION.
I PROVIDED AN ANSWER HAD SOME DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH, SO I GAVE HIM A PATH FORWARD, THE SAME AS WE'VE BEEN TELLING THEM. SO THAT WOULD BE A REZONE TO MIXED USE.
SO THERE IS A PATH, YOU KNOW, TO THIS PROJECT FOR THIS PROJECT TO BE CONSIDERED UNLIKE A USE PERMIT, IT'S THROUGH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, WHICH IS GENERALLY APPROPRIATE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING POLICIES IN THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S A LEGISLATIVE DECISION THAT RESTS WITH THE BOARD.
SO THERE IS A PATH FOR THE APPLICANT TO HAVE IT CONSIDERED.
SO TO CLARIFY. SO THAT WOULD BE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION.
BUT SO WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS THAT THE SUPERVISORS LOOK TO ACTUALLY MODIFY THE CURRENT CODES OR ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THEY LOOK AT THIS PROJECT SPECIFICALLY TO SEE IF, I MEAN, THE APPLICANT COULD APPEAL? CAN THEY APPEAL THIS DECISION, OR IS THIS THE END OF THE LINE FOR A DETERMINATION OF SIMILAR USE? CAN THEY APPEAL TO THE BOARD AND THE BOARD OVERRIDE IN THEIR FAVOR? ANY DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN BE APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'D BE MAKING THE SAME PRESENTATION.
AND, YOU KNOW, 1 OF THE ISSUES AND, YOU KNOW, MAKING A FINDING THAT'S YOU KNOW, IN CONFLICT WITH THE DIRECTOR MADE IS NOW WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE THAT PROJECT STILL REMAINS INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.
NO, I WOULDN'T BE SUGGESTING THAT. OKAY, THAT'S.
I'M NOT I'M NOT NOT OUTSIDE OF SOME LARGER YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT COULD REQUEST THE GENERAL PLAN AND REZONE, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THE PATH FORWARD, RIGHT.
RIGHT. IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.
AND THEY THEY WOULD NEED APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT AS WELL.
OKAY. THE MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT IS CONSISTENT WITH 2 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS.
YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, NOW I'M CLEAR. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY ELSE WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS BEFORE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT HEARING OR COMMENT TIME? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE IT AGAIN. WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.
YOU JUST NEED TO REOPEN THAT TO CALL FOR A DECISION.
YEAH. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ALL RIGHT. SO. YOU WANT ME TO GO GET STEVE? OH, YEAH. STEVE. WE'VE GIVEN. THANK YOU.
YOU ALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HAVE A WONDERFUL AFTERNOON.
[NH-2 Extension of Time 25-0002 (Bar Over Heart Enterprises, LLC)]
MOVING ON TO NH-2. IS THAT YOU, LIO? THAT'S ME.LET'S START FROM THE BEGINNING HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR.
[00:45:04]
COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. I'M LIO SALAZAR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. ITEM NH-2 IS A REQUEST FOR BAR OVER ART ENTERPRISES, LLC FOR APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR USE PERMIT 22-0002.BARAKAT ENTERPRISES LLC HAS REQUESTED APPROVAL OF A TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE USE PERMIT.
THE USE PERMIT WAS PROPOSED TO FACILITATE APPROVAL OF A 5 MEGAWATT BIOENERGY FACILITY AND WAS PROPOSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE REZONING THAT WOULD FACILITATE APPROVAL OF AN ASSOCIATED WOOD PROCESSING FACILITY UNDER THE USE PERMIT PROPOSAL.
ON SEPTEMBER 28TH OF 2023, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVE THE USE PERMIT AND ZONE AMENDMENT, WHICH IT SUBSEQUENTLY DID. ON DECEMBER 5TH OF 2023.
THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROJECT SITE. THE SITE IS PREDOMINANTLY IN THE INDUSTRIAL GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION, WITH A PORTION OF IT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER BEING IN THE AGRICULTURAL CROPS FULL TIME DESIGNATION.
AND HERE, CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. THE SITE IS PREDOMINANTLY IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICT AND THE SMALL PORTION THAT IS IN THE FULL TIME AGRICULTURAL CROPS DESIGNATION IS ZONED UNCLASSIFIED.
SO CONDITION 3 OF THE EXHIBIT A TO THE USE PERMIT OR THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, STATES THAT THE USE PERMIT SHALL BECOME AUTOMATICALLY REVOKED WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION BY SHASTA COUNTY. IF THE ACTIVITY ARE USED FOR WHICH THE USE PERMIT WAS GRANTED AS NOT ACTIVELY AND SUBSTANTIALLY COMMENCED WITHIN 2 YEARS OF THE DATE OF APPROVAL.
THE ZONING CODE ALSO STATES AN EXTENSION TIME SHALL BE APPROVED AT. THE PERMIT SHOWS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE EXTENSION AND REASONABLE CAUSE EXISTS IF THE APPLICANT SHOWS THAT CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND HIS CONTROL HAVE PREVENTED HIM FROM TAKING SUFFICIENT ACTION.
THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF TIME WOULD EXTEND THE USE PERMIT TERMINATION DATE TO DECEMBER 5TH OF 2027, AND THIS WOULD ENSURE THAT THE USE PERMIT APPROVAL REMAINS VALID DESPITE THE USE NOT HAVING BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY COMMENCED.
THE APPLICANT APPLICANT IS CONTINUING TO PURSUE AN ECONOMICALLY VIABLE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR, OR CAL ISO. THERE WAS, AS YOU MAY RECALL, A SIMILAR PROJECT APPROVED IN THE BURN AREA AT THE HAT CREEK CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PROPERTY THAT RECENTLY WENT INTO OPERATION IN 2025.
AND THE AMENDMENT TO THEIR EXISTING USE PERMIT FOR THAT FACILITY WAS APPROVED IN 2016.
SO THESE PROJECTS CAN TAKE SOME TIME. AND YOU MIGHT WONDER WHY THEY GO FOR THEIR USE PERMIT EARLY.
IT'S BECAUSE THEY NEED TO GET IN LINE FOR THESE APPROVALS AND AND NEGOTIATIONS.
THERE HAVE BEEN NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT, AND THERE IS NO NEW INFORMATION OR SUBSTANTIAL OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE SHOWING UNANALYZED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. THEREFORE, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES.
[00:50:10]
SPECIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND WHILE THE ZONING CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM, IT IS RECOMMENDED THE CHAIR PROVIDE ANY INTERESTED PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION IF THEY WISH.THAT COMPLETES MY PRESENTATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, LET ME KNOW. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU LIO. SO AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
IF THERE'S ANYBODY HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME. SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE. OH, SORRY. GOOD AFTERNOON.
AND I'M HERE TO JUST ALSO JUST BACK WHAT LIO SALAZAR HAD PRESENTED TO YOU.
I THINK HE PRESENTED IT VERY WELL AND COVERED ALL THE ISSUES.
BUT I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, IF YOU HAVE ANY OF, OF OTHER DETAILS FOR THAT REQUEST.
I JUST HAVE ONE. DOUG YOU MENTIONED YOU'RE HAVING DIFFICULTY WITH PG&E AND YOU'RE PURSUING THE CAISO INTERCONNECTION. IS THAT LOOKING LIKE IT'S GOING TO WORK OUT FOR YOU? WELL THAT IS A PATH THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE FOR A COUPLE REASONS.
BUT WE, WE DID SPEND WE MADE 3 ATTEMPTS TO GET AN INTERCONNECTION AT THIS SITE, WHICH WAS A VERY STRANGE BUT UNIQUE SITUATION BECAUSE WE WERE BALANCING BETWEEN ELECTRIC BIO ENERGY AND OUR PROJECT WHERE WE WERE IN FRONT AND WE WERE BEHIND THEM AND IN FRONT, SO WE COULD SEE ALL DIFFERENT ANGLES.
AND IT HIT THE BUDGET, WHICH IS OUR BUDGET IS AROUND $1 MILLION AND THEIRS WAS LESS.
OUR FIRST ONE CAME IN AT I THINK AROUND 3 MILLION.
WE WENT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. THEN IT CAME IN AT 4.2, CAME BACK IN THE DRAWING BOARD.
IT FINISHED IN NOVEMBER, MIDDLE OF NOVEMBER OF 2024 AT 7.2 PG&E IS NOT A PROJECT KILLER IS WHAT THEY TOLD US THERE FOR US. THEY TOLD YOU NO.
SO WE SEE THAT DIFFERENTLY. WITH MY INVOLVEMENT WITH OTHER PROJECTS IN THE OTHER ADJACENT COUNTIES, I DO KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MORE ABOUT THE UTILITIES AND THE PROCESS OF GETTING INTERCONNECTION AT THE SAME TIME.
SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED SINCE THEN, BUT GOING THROUGH THE CAISO PROCEDURE TAKES SOME TIME, BUT THAT'S WE ARE ENGAGED. YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THAT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? NO. GOOD LUCK.
I NEED IT. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND SEND IT BACK TO YOU. WELL, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY, AS I SAID BEFORE, WHEN THIS CAME BEFORE US A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA IN SHASTA COUNTY NEEDS THESE KIND OF FACILITIES BADLY TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE WOODY MATERIAL IN IN THE FOREST.
AND SO I FULLY AGREE WITH VOTING FOR A 2 YEAR ADDITIONAL TIME ON NH-2.
I'LL MAKE, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO AGREE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND I'LL SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT.
LOOKS LIKE THAT'S IT. RIGHT. MEETING ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.