[00:00:03] HELLO. WELCOME TO THE REGULAR SCHEDULED MAY 14TH, 2026 MEETING OF THE SHASTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. [CALL TO ORDER] THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO WELCOMES YOU TO PARTICIPATE IN ITS REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS, WHICH ARE SCHEDULED THE SECOND THURSDAY OF EACH MONTH AT 2:00. TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY DIRECTLY ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY AGENDA, ITEM OR REGULAR CALENDAR BEFORE OR DURING THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION OF ITS ITEM. IN ADDITION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROVIDES THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WITH A PUBLIC OPEN TIME PERIOD, COMMENT OPEN TIME PERIOD WHERE THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY AGENDA ITEM. WHERE AM I AT? YEAH, SORRY. 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 AND AND OR QUESTIONS, IF DEEMED NECESSARY, FOR THE SUBJECT MATTER, TO THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT FOR FOLLOW UP AND TO SCHEDULE THE MATTER ON A SUBSEQUENT COMMISSION AGENDA. THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION ON ANY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM MAY BE APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT THE END OF THE REGULAR AGENDA. I GUESS NOW I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. SCOTT, WOULD YOU MIND DOING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? I PLEDGE. 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. SCOTT. NOW, I GUESS WE'LL DO ROLL CALL. MR. JIM CHAPIN HERE. TIM MCLEAN. HERE. STEVE KERNS. HERE. SCOTT PEWITT AND GABE ROSS. I'M HERE. LIO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOUR STAFF? TO MY RIGHT IS ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL KUSH [INAUDIBLE]. ACROSS THE DAIS FROM ME IS PLANNING MANAGER TARA PETTY. TO HER LEFT IS RECORDING SECRETARY TRACY HUFF. IN THE AUDIENCE. WE HAVE DIRECTOR OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SEAN EWING. WE ALSO HAVE ASSISTANT PLANNER MARCO DOMINGUEZ. WE HAVE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST KEN HENDERSON. ALSO WITH US TODAY IS SUPERVISING ENGINEER WILLIAM MILLER. I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL OF OUR STAFF TODAY. THANK YOU. NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPEN TIME. DURING THE OPEN TIME PERIOD, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA. AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE IT AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT. [PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT ] OKAY. LIO SALAZAR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR. I DON'T HAVE A LOT TO REPORT TODAY, BUT I WOULD REPORT OUT TO YOU THAT THE USE PERMIT 24-0009RCPA SOLAR 14 LLC IN MANTON HAS RECEIVED A CHALLENGE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR THAT PROJECT. SO I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW, AND THEN THAT WILL BE MOVING ITS WAY THROUGH THAT PROCESS. THANK YOU NEIL. OKAY, SO MOVING ON TO THE REGULAR CALENDAR, WE HAVE THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES. [R1 Approval of Minutes] SO I'M GOING TO READ THIS. AND THEN I THINK STEVE HAS SOMETHING TO SAY. CORRECT. YEAH. OKAY. SO STAFF HAS PREPARED REVISED MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 22ND, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND PREPARED MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 1226 FOR APPROVAL. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES FROM THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE JANUARY 22ND MINUTES? YEAH. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. I HAD SOME EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE JANUARY 22ND MINUTES. I'VE ALWAYS BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT APPROVED MINUTES WOULD GO TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. AND I MET WITH SEAN AND PATRICIA AND LIO. AND THEY INFORMED ME THAT THAT WASN'T NECESSARILY THE CASE. THAT NON-APPROVED MINUTES, DRAFT MINUTES COULD BE FORWARDED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, WHICH IN THIS CASE [00:05:06] HAPPENED. AND THAT I GUESS TOLD ME A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE MINUTES ON A FAIRLY, I THINK, CONTROVERSIAL AND AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. AND SO WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY WAY OF KNOWING WHAT, HOW WE WOULD BE REPRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND WHAT OUR DISCUSSION WAS. AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HERE WHAT THIS COMMISSION THINKS ABOUT ANYTHING, WE CONSIDER THAT THAT'S OUR JOB. AND WE PUT IN, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF A LOT OF TIME TO REVIEW THINGS. AND SO I, IT'S MY OPINION THAT THAT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN, THAT SOMETHING SHOULD NOT GO TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS UNTIL WE HAVE APPROVED MINUTES, THAT THEY CAN LOOK AT AND HAVE A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S GOING ON. AND IT BASICALLY TO ME MAKES THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 22ND A MOOT POINT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SENT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND THEY HAVE BASICALLY APPROVED THE PROJECT. AND SO I DON'T SEE ANY REASON THAT THESE MINUTES NEED TO BE APPROVED, NOT APPROVED. IT'S A MOOT POINT. SO ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT MENTION YOU KNOW, TO THIS COMMISSION. SO AS A FOLLOW UP TO THAT, I HAVE A QUESTION. I MEAN, NOW THAT IT'S BEEN CHALLENGED, THE THE PROJECT HAS BEEN CONTINUED AS TO WHETHER IT WILL ULTIMATELY BE APPROVED OR NOT. SO IT WOULD SEEM THAT THESE MINUTES WOULD BE A PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD MOVING FORWARD. SO I WOULD THINK WE WOULD WANT TO APPROVE THEM AND THERE IS RATIONALE FOR APPROVING THEM. BUT I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION FOR STAFF. I THINK WE SHOULD. I AGREE WITH STEVE KERNS ON HIS ISSUE, BUT THE MINUTES HAVE BEEN REVISED AND I THINK THEY FAIRLY WELL DEPICT WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AND A LOT BETTER THAN THE FIRST MINUTES. AND IT DOES. IT DOES SEEM LIKE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE APPROVED MINUTES THAT ARE ACCURATE AND CURRENT BEFORE THEY MAKE A DECISION THAT IF THAT MIGHT HAVE CHANGED THEIR DECISION, WE DON'T KNOW. BUT IT'S KIND OF MOOT NOW BECAUSE IT'S IT'S BEING LEGALLY CHALLENGED. SO WE, I THINK WE DO HAVE TO HAVE THE REVISED MINUTES IN THE RECORD, BUT I AGREE WITH. MR. KERNS OR COMMISSIONER KERNS, I SHOULD SAY, IF I DON'T REALLY THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO SEND REVISE DRAFT MINUTES TO THE BOARD IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE MAKING AN IMPORTANT DECISION ON A ON A PROJECT THAT'S CONTROVERSIAL. GOT ANYTHING TO ADD? LIO, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT YOU'D LIKE TO. JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, THEY AREN'T NECESSARILY APPROVING THE PROJECT. THEY'RE REVEALING OR REVIEWING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THEY BELIEVE THAT IT WAS MADE CORRECTLY. SO THAT'S, THAT'S THEIR DECISION. IN THAT REGARD, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION. BUT THEY'VE ALREADY VOTED ON IT. IT'S PRETTY MUCH YES, THEY HAVE. THEY UPHELD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING THE APPEAL. AND THAT STARTED THEN A STATUTE OF YOUR LIMITATIONS FOR A CHALLENGE TO BE FILED, AND IT HAS SINCE BEEN FILED. SO I THINK AT THIS TIME, THE ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER IS, ARE THE REVISED MINUTES FAIRLY ADEQUATE OR ACCURATE OR ADEQUATE THAT WE CAN REVIEW APPROVE THEM NOW OR NOT? YEAH. YEAH. I THINK THEY'RE FAIRLY ACCURATE AND REFLECT THE CONVERSATION WE HAD AT OUR JANUARY 22ND MEETING. I THINK AND SEAN, YOU'RE IN THE AUDIENCE, SO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. AT OUR MEETING, I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY ONE OF THE REASONS THAT STAFF DID THAT WAS TO EXPEDIATE THE PROCESS. AND YOU MIGHT CLARIFY THAT I DON'T WANT TO MISSPEAK FOR YOU, BUT YES. SEAN EWING, DIRECTOR OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FOR THE RECORD. THAT'S CORRECT. BECAUSE USUALLY WHEN WE RECEIVE AN APPEAL TO A DECISION, WE TRY TO GET THAT BEFORE THE BOARD AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. SO FOR EXAMPLE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE THAT TO THE BOARD IF WE WERE WAIT TO WAIT FOR APPROVED MINUTES. [00:10:04] WE STILL WOULDN'T HAVE THAT, THAT APPEAL BEFORE THE BOARD. AND AND IT'S MORE A MATTER OF TIMELINESS AND PROVIDING DRAFT MINUTES IS STANDARD. WHAT I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD, AM I ON OKAY, I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, IS, IS IT IMPORTANT TO EXPEDIATE SOMETHING OR IS IT MORE IMPORTANT TO HAVE ACCURATE REFLECTION OF WHERE THIS, THIS, THE, THE WAY THAT WE LOOK AT IT IS WE LOOK AT SHASTA COUNTY CODE AND SHASTA COUNTY CODE SAYS PROVIDE MINUTES. BUT WE ALSO HAVE THAT DUTY TO PROVIDE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL AS AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE. AND THAT. AND THAT'S WHERE WE WE TOOK IT. IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD HAVE APPROVED THE MINUTES THAT WE HAD BROUGHT BEFORE THEM, THEN THE BOARD WOULD HAVE SEEN APPROVED MINUTES, ADOPTED MINUTES. BUT SINCE THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN, WE DIDN'T WANT TO DELAY THE THE APPEAL. AND AT THAT POINT, WE REVISED THE MINUTES AS AS REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO SO THE MINUTES BEFORE YOU ARE IN FACT THE ONES THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BASE THEIR DECISION ON. WELL, THEY HAD THE REVISED MINUTES. THAT'S CORRECT. WELL, THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE DIDN'T I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? I GUESS AT THIS TIME WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE JANUARY 22ND, 2026 MINUTES. DOES ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THIS ONE JUST FOR THE JANUARY 22ND, 2026 MINUTES. MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REVISED MINUTES FOR JANUARY 22ND. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY. NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND I GUESS MOVE ON TO THE MARCH 12TH, 2026 MINUTES. DO WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN HERE ON THIS? I THINK SO, YES. YES. OKAY. DOES ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE MARCH 12TH MINUTES ON THE COMMISSION? NO. AND WE WILL OPEN IT UP FOR A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. TIME AGAIN FOR THE MARCH 12TH, 2026 MINUTES. DOES ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THAT AND I CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE MINUTES OF MARCH 12TH. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR MARCH 12TH. I'LL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY. NOW, IS THERE ANYBODY THAT HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST [R2 Use Permit 25-0002 (Towers of California)] FOR MOVING ON TO R2? NO. NOPE. NO. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN. COMMISSIONERS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. MY NAME IS MARCO DOMINGUEZ, ASSISTANT PLANNER FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. ITEM R2 IS USE PERMIT 252 FOR A NEW WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY SUBMITTED BY THE TOWERS OF CALIFORNIA, LLC. THE APPROXIMATE 10 ACRE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 6765 OAK STREET IN ANDERSON, CALIFORNIA, APPROXIMATELY 3 MILES NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF OAK STREET AND HAWTHORNE AVENUE. [00:15:02] THIS AERIAL IMAGE SHOWS THE PROJECT SITE. THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. SURROUNDING LAND USES CONSIST PRIMARILY OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIALLY DEVELOPED PARCELS. THE PARCELS IN THE PARCELS IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL A OR R. A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION. AND IS IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL. COMBINED WITH MOBILE HOME OR RRT ZONE DISTRICT. NEW COMMERCIAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ARE ALLOWED IN THE ZONE DISTRICT SUBJECT TO CONFORMANCE WITH THE STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES SPECIFIED IN SHASTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 1788 282 AND WITH APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT. POLICE PROTECTION IS PROVIDED BY THE SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE. FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY THE HAPPY VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT. PG&E DOES PROVIDE ELECTRIC SERVICES TO THE AREA, AND ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY IS FROM THE PROPOSED GRAVEL DRIVEWAY OFF OF OAK STREET, SHOWN IN RIGHT ABOVE. NO WATER, WASTE, SEWER OR NATURAL GAS SERVICES ARE REQUIRED OR BEING PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT. HERE'S AN IMAGE OF THE OVERALL SITE PLAN BEING PROPOSED. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 130 FOOT TALL TOWER WITH ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT, A 50 BY 50 FOOT GRADED GROUND LEASE AREA, AND AN APPROXIMATELY 1000 FOOT GRAVEL ACCESS DRIVEWAY WITH A TURNAROUND AND A 12 FOOT WIDE GATE WITH A KNOX BOX FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS. HERE'S AN IMAGE OF THE ENLARGED SITE PLAN SHOWING THE PARCEL BOUNDARIES. THE 130 FOOT TALL MONOPLANE TOWER IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 161FT FROM THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE, SHOWN IN RED, AND THE PROPOSED 50 BY 50 FOOT LEASE AREA IS TO BE LOCATED IN AN EXISTING CLEARING THAT IS 60FT FROM THE NORTHWEST EDGE OF THE OF THE POND SHOWN IN BLUE. HERE'S A MORE DETAILED IMAGE OF THE GROUND LEASE AREA AND LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. IMPROVEMENTS INSIDE THE LEASE AREA INCLUDE. 1 130 KILOWATT BACKUP GENERATOR WITH A 216 GALLON DIESEL FUEL TANK. ONE EQUIPMENT CANOPY. 3 GROUND EQUIPMENT CABINETS LOCATED UNDER THE CABINET CANOPY. SPACES FOR FUTURE CO-LOCATION. AND OTHER ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT. IMPROVEMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE LEASE AREA INCLUDE A PG&E TRANSFORMER AND UTILITY CONNECTIONS TO SERVE THE FACILITY, INCLUDING POWER AND FIBER OPTIC CABLES. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE TOWER WOULD BE DESIGNED AS A MONOPOLE AND WOULD HAVE THE STEALTH APPEARANCE. BRANCHES WOULD BEGIN AT 100. EXCUSE ME, WOULD BEGIN AT 15FT AND WOULD SHIELD THE PROPOSED ANTENNA ARRAY AND FUTURE ANTENNA CO-LOCATION ARRAYS. THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO REQUESTED AN EXCEPTION FROM THE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY LANDSCAPING STANDARDS, AND IS PROPOSING FAUX IVY VINES SHOWN IN GREEN ABOVE, ATTACHED TO A 6 FOOT TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT ENCLOSES THE LEASE AREA. THE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED ON THE TOWER INCLUDE 3, 4 SECTOR ANTENNA AMOUNTS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE 12 ANTENNAS, 2 FUTURE CO-LOCATIONS FOR OTHER CARRIERS, 12 REMOTE RADIO UNITS, AND 1 MICROWAVE ANTENNA. THE JUSTIFICATION LETTER STATES THAT THE HEIGHT NECESSARY TO MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR OPTIMAL FUNCTION IS DETERMINED BY THE MINIMUM HEIGHT REQUIRED TO SATISFACTORILY FILL THE GAP IN COVERAGE BASED ON THEIR COVERAGE GOALS AND ON SIGNAL STRENGTH, WHICH WEAKENS AS CINE TRAVELS OVER DISTANCE. THE FOLLOWING SLIDES ARE PHOTO SIMULATIONS OF EXISTING VIEWS OUTLINED IN RED AND THE PROJECT AND PROPOSED VIEWS OUTLINED IN BLUE. OF THE PROJECT SITE FROM FOUR PUBLIC VANTAGE POINTS, INCLUDING THE 1ST LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM OAK STREET. THE 2ND LOOKING DIRECTLY EAST FROM OAK STREET. THE 3RD LOOKING SOUTHEAST FROM OAK STREET. AND THE 4TH LOOKING DIRECTLY SOUTH FROM ACERO DRIVE. AN INITIAL STUDY WAS PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED. MITIGATION MEASURES WERE PROPOSED TO AVOID POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO NESTING BIRDS AND RAPTORS, BATS AND SPECIAL STATUS BEES. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NESTING BIRDS AND OR RAPTORS SPECIAL STATUS BAT SPECIES AND THE CROTCH'S BUMBLEBEE FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING TREE REMOVAL AND GRADING AND TRENCHING, WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE INITIAL STUDY. [00:20:04] MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION MEASURES TO AVOID POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO THESE SPECIES ARE INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. NO UNUSUAL ISSUES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT TO DATE. NO PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. STAFF RECEIVED A COMMENT LETTER FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PROJECT MATTERS RELATED TO THE RESOURCES UNDER THEIR TRUST. THE TOPIC ITEMS ARE LISTED ON THIS SLIDE, AND STAFF'S FULL RESPONSES TO THEIR COMMENTS ARE IN THE MEMO. YOU'VE RECEIVED. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE AMENDED TO INCLUDE A CONDITION REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN COVERAGE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, SECTION 1602. IN THE EVENT, THE PROJECT WILL DIVERT OR OBSTRUCT ANY WATERS OF THE STATE. THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT THE SECRET DETERMINATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED FINDINGS LISTED IN RESOLUTION 2026 009 AND APPROVE USE PERMIT 252. BASED ON THE RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION 2026 009, AS AMENDED. THIS. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANKS, MARK. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION. IS THE ROAD THAT GOES INTO THE TOWER DEVELOPMENT? IS IT EXISTING OR IS IT GOING TO BE A NEW ROAD? IT'S CURRENTLY IT'S EXISTING. BUT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS ON IT, WHICH INCLUDES GRAVELING AND INSTALLING GRAVEL. SO IT'LL BE SURFACED. WHAT WAS THAT? IT'LL BE A SURFACED ROAD. IT'LL BE A ROAD USED TO ACCESS THE LEASE AREA. AND I THINK I READ IN THERE THAT THERE'S SOME PLACE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT A CULVERT UNDER IT FOR DRAINAGE. THE THE DITCH. THAT IS CORRECT. SO THEY ARE PROPOSING A CULVERT AT THE ACCESS POINT OFF OF OAK STREET. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. I HAVE ONE QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO OAKS DO YOU KNOW WHAT SPECIES OF OAKS ARE OUT THERE? OAKS. YES I DO ACTUALLY. BLUE PINE. IT'S IN HERE. SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. I HAVE IT IN HERE ONCE I. YEAH. I LOOKED AND I DIDN'T SEE IT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE BLUE OAK. THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. THAT'S WHAT I THINK. SO. WHICH. IN THE MEMORANDUM WE RECEIVED, I GOT MINE YESTERDAY IN RESPONSE TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME'S QUESTION ABOUT OAKS. IT SAYS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF OAK TREES AND ASSOCIATED CANOPY CURRENTLY EXIST ON THE PARCEL, THE PROPOSED REMOVAL OF THESE OAKS WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE CANOPY COVERAGE OR ABUNDANCE OF OAKS NEGATIVELY IMPACT NATURAL REGENERATION, IMPEDE UTILIZATION OF HABITAT, OR CAUSE FRAGMENTATION OR LOSS OF CONNECTIVITY IN THE OAK WOODLAND HABITAT. MY QUESTION BEING IS HOW? HOW WAS THAT DETERMINED? SORRY, SIR, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? ARE YOU READING FROM THE. I WANT YOU TO REPEAT IT. ARE YOU ARE YOU ARE YOU READING FROM THE LETTER THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE? YES. I THINK HE WAS READING FROM THE RESPONSE FROM THE COUNTY. YEAH, IT'S IN THE IT'S IN THE MEMORANDUM THAT WE RECEIVED VIA EMAIL. YEAH. YESTERDAY, I THINK. AND IT'S STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THE FISH AND GAME CONCERNED ABOUT PARDON ME, OAK MITIGATION. SO MY ONLY QUESTION IS YOU'RE MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT YOU DON'T NEED ANY MITIGATION BASED ON THAT. AND SO I'M JUST ASKING, HOW WAS THAT DETERMINATION MADE? WELL, IT WAS DETERMINED. IT WAS THERE WERE SEVERAL THINGS THAT WE LOOKED INTO. 1 BEING THE EFFECT OF THE CANOPY OF THE OAK WOODLANDS THAT ARE THERE. WE, WE DETERMINED THAT THERE WASN'T GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH THE REMOVAL OF THESE 11 OAK TREES THAT WERE ALONG THE WELL. IN TOTAL, THERE ARE 16 BUT THERE'S 11 THAT ARE ALONG THE EXISTING ROAD THAT WERE NECESSARY FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS. [00:25:02] THAT'S ONE OF THE, YOU KNOW, I GUESS, FACTORS THAT WE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION. SO TREE COVERAGE. YEAH. WAS THE PRIMARY. OKAY. I MEAN, LIO SALAZAR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR. I MEAN, YOU COULD PUT UP AN AERIAL IMAGE, AERIAL IMAGE OF THE PROPERTY TO, YOU KNOW, REVISIT HOW MUCH CANOPY EXISTS WITHIN THIS PROPERTY AND ITS CONNECTION TO THE WOODLANDS TO THE EAST. SO THE. YOU CAN SEE ALONG THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE THE WESTERN PART OF THE PARCEL. THAT'S WHERE THE ROAD IS GOING TO BE. AND I MEAN, YOU CAN SEE HOW MUCH, HOW MANY OAKS ARE THERE. IT'S VERY MINIMAL. SO THE IMPROVED ACCESS DRIVEWAY IS GOING TO BE NOT AFFECTING TOO MUCH. THE EXISTING, THE PROPOSED LEASE AREA IS PROPOSED IN AN EXISTING OPEN AREA. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THEY TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN LOOKING FOR AN ADEQUATE LOCATION. YEAH. BASICALLY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS BASICALLY FROM THE END OF THE CURRENT ROAD OUT TO THE PROJECT SITE IS WHERE AND THEN A COUPLE TREES AROUND THE PROJECT SITE THERE. YES. YEAH. JUST, YOU KNOW SO THERE'S 11 ALONG THE, THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY OR EXISTING DRIVEWAY WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. AND THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL 5 THAT WILL BE REMOVED AROUND THE LEASE AREA. SO THERE'S. TARA PETTY PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING MANAGER COMMISSIONER KERNS WE TYPICALLY, WHEN THERE'S NOT A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT DONE FOR A PROJECT AND THERE'S GOING TO BE TREES TO BE REMOVED. STAFF TYPICALLY USES THE OAK WOODLAND DECISION MATRIX. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT AGENCY THAT COMES FROM. UC DAVIS. THE UC DAVIS PUBLICATION DECISION MATRIX. AND IT GOES THROUGH AN EXERCISE. I'M SURE YOU'VE SEEN IT. GOES THROUGH AN EXERCISE OF WHAT THE STATUS QUO OF THE OAK WOODLANDS ARE RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF HEALTH AND ABILITY TO REGENERATE. AND THEN IT TAKES YOU WALKS YOU SORT OF THROUGH SOME SCENARIOS THAT YOU CAN FIT YOUR PROJECT INTO. AND IT, I WON'T SAY IT SPITS OUT SORT OF A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, BUT IT RELIES HEAVILY ON. THE, THE, THE EXISTING COVERAGE, THE EXISTING INTACT AMOUNT OF INTACT WOODLANDS AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF WHERE YOUR TREES, WHERE THE PROPOSED TREES ARE GOING TO BE REMOVED AND WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE MOVEMENT OF WILDLIFE NATURAL REGENERATION. AND STAFF THOUGHT THAT BECAUSE THE TREES WERE ALONG A LINE THAT'S ALREADY DISTURBED BY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. IT'S NOT ACTUALLY INCREASING THE EDGE HABITAT AT ALL. AND THEN REMOVING 5 TREES AROUND AN EXISTING CLEARING ON THE FAR EDGE OF THE POND. THERE'S STILL AN ABUNDANCE OF AREA FOR CRITTERS, ANIMALS, WHATEVER TO GET THROUGH. IT'S NOT REALLY OPENING ANYTHING OR CREATING ANY TYPE OF DISCONTINUITY BETWEEN THE OAK TREES THAT ARE THERE. SO THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT WE USE. AND THAT'S WHAT MARCO USED TO GENERATE THE INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. I THINK THAT I THINK THAT ANSWERS HIS QUESTION. HE WANTS TO KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS WAS TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. AND YOU JUST EXPLAINED IT. YES. YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT. YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE THING ABOUT IMPEDIALIZATION THE ABUNDANCE OF OAK TREES AND, YOU KNOW, THOSE KIND OF THINGS ARE SPECIES SPECIFIC ISSUES. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE STATEMENTS LIKE THAT, WE NEED TO ADDRESS, OKAY, THE SPECIES THAT WOULD BE OUT THERE WON'T BE IMPACTED BY THE REMOVAL OF THESE TREES BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE, YOU KNOW, SPOTTED OWLS CAN BE REAL SENSITIVE TO THAT KIND OF ISSUE. THERE'S NO SPOTTED OWLS HERE. SO THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. BUT YOU KNOW, YOU GET THE DRIFT OF THAT KIND OF THING. AND ALSO LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOME BAD STUFF, BUT THERE'S NOT AN ACOUSTICAL SURVEYS AREN'T RECOMMENDED. SO YOU COULD HAVE A BAT HIBERNACULUM THERE IN AN OLD TREE, WHICH WOULD NOT CONFORM WITH THIS STATEMENT IF YOU TOOK IT OUT. [00:30:07] THAT'S THE POINT, YOU KNOW. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS KIND OF STATEMENT, THEN WE NEED TO ADDRESS THOSE KIND OF ISSUES. YOU GET IT. I KNOW YOU GET IT. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A SHOWSTOPPER, BUT I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT KIND OF CONSIDERATION WHEN WE DO THIS. ALL RIGHT. THANKS. LIO SALAZAR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS A MITIGATION MEASURE REGARDING TREE REMOVAL AND HOW IT MIGHT RELATE TO IMPACTS ON BATS, INCLUDING BAT HIBERNACULA THAT MIGHT BE PRESENT, AND IT SEEKS TO AVOID THOSE IMPACTS. MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. THIS IS AN EASY ONE. DID YOU HAVE ANY OPPOSITION LETTERS OF OPPOSITION FROM ANY OF THE LANDOWNERS, ADJACENT LANDOWNERS OR ANYTHING? NONE. NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? NOPE. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT. IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS. IF YOU DO, COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS NICHOLAS. I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU, MR. DOMINGUEZ, FOR THAT VERY THOROUGH PRESENTATION. SO, AS MR. DOMINGUEZ WAS SAYING ABOUT THE PROJECT. WE'RE PROPOSING A 130 FOOT TALL PINE ENCLOSED WITHIN A 50 BY 50 FENCED LEASE AREA. AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SITE OR ITS EQUIPMENT IF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY. AND THEN ONE MORE COMMENT THE COUNTY STAFF COMMENTS ABOUT THE, OR THE FINDINGS ABOUT THE TREES ARE IN LINE WITH THE STATE'S RECOMMENDATIONS. SO WHATEVER METHOD METHODOLOGIES THE STATE USED WHEN PROVIDING COMMENT TO OUR PROJECT, THEY'RE CONSISTENT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT HEARING AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT CALIFORNIA. I'M SORRY. CEQA DETERMINATION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. I NEED TO READ ALL THAT. NO. ALL RIGHT. SO AT THIS TIME WE NEED SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO I MOVE APPROVAL PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS GOOD. ON TO R3. IS THERE ANYBODY NEEDS TO EXCUSE HIMSELF FOR THAT? [R3 Zone Amendment 26-0001 (Johnson)] WHAT HAPPENED? MARK, I'M GOING TO SHUT YOURS DOWN. I DIDN'T THINK THE MIC WAS WORKING. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN. COMMISSIONERS, MEMBERS OF THE WELL, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING MANAGER FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. R3 IS A REQUEST FROM THE BRIAN AND JENNIFER JOHNSON FAMILY TRUST FOR APPROVAL OF ZONE AMENDMENT 26-0001. PROJECT SITES IN THE BELLA VISTA AREA. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 0.5 MILES SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD OREGON TRAIL AND COLLEGE VIEW DRIVE. THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR A ZONE AMENDMENT ZONE AMENDMENT NUMBER 23-2, AS WELL AS PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT NUMBER 23-3 ON MARCH 3RD, 2023. AND THAT WAS TO CHANGE THE EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURAL COMBINED WITH AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE ZONE DISTRICT TO THE LIMITED AGRICULTURAL ZONE DISTRICT FOR A [00:35:04] 4 ACRE PORTION OF AN 88.9 ACRE PARCEL. TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RESULTING PARCEL SIZES PROPOSED UNDER THE PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION. SO ON OCTOBER 17TH, 2023, FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION 2023-016, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONDUCTED A PUBLIC HEARING, FOUND THE PROJECT TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA, ADOPTED THE NECESSARY FINDINGS AND BY A5-0 VOTE, APPROVED THE ZONE AMENDMENT AND ASSOCIATED PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT, AND THEY ENACTED ORDINANCE 378-2073. SO PURSUANT TO SECTION 3 OF THAT ORDINANCE THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE OPERATIVE ONLY UPON TIMELY PAYMENT OF THE COUNTY CLERK'S DOCUMENT HANDLING FEE FOR POSTING A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION, AS WELL AS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE FILING FEES WITHIN 30 CALENDAR CALENDAR DAYS OF THE PASSAGE OF THE ORDINANCE AND SUBJECT TO RECORDATION OF THE PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT. THE SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE FURTHER STATES THAT IF ANY ONE OR MORE OF THESE CONDITIONS IS NOT TIMELY COMPLETED, THEN THE ORDINANCE SHALL HAVE NO FORCE OR EFFECT. THE RECORDS SHOW THAT THE APPLICANT FAILED TO REMIT PAYMENT OF THE REQUIRED FILING FEES WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE PASSAGE OF THE ORDINANCE, AND AS A RESULT, THE ORDINANCE. 378-2073. IT'S NOT OPERATIVE AND HAS NO FORCE OR EFFECT, AND IS EFFECTIVELY DORMANT UNTIL REPEALED OR AMENDED. THE PLA REMAINS IN APPROVED STATUS. THE APPLICANTS WISH TO RECORD IT. HOWEVER, THE PLA CANNOT BE EFFECTIVELY RECORDED UNTIL THE FILING FEES ARE PAID BECAUSE PAYMENT OF THE FEES AND RECORDING OF THE PLA TOGETHER MAKE THE ZONING THE ZONING UNDERLYING THE PLA APPROVAL OPERATIVE. APPLICANTS REQUESTING TO AMEND SECTION 3 OF THE ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE TIME FRAME WITHIN WHICH PAYMENT OF THE REQUIRED FILING FEES MAY BE PAID. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3 WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO PAY THE FILING FEES. MOVE FORWARD WITH RECORDING OF THE PLA AND THEREBY MAKING THE DORMANT ORDINANCE OPERATIVE. THE TIME FRAME TO PAY THE FILING FEES UNDER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD BE EXTENDED TO JULY 23RD, 2027. THAT'S THE CURRENT EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE PLA APPROVAL, AND THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE SHOWN HERE IN STRIKEOUT. UNDERLINE. CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE. ZONE AMENDMENT 26-0001 HAS BEEN DETERMINED NOT TO BE SUBJECT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061 B3, AND TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15 301. EACH EXEMPTION STANDS AS A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT BASIS FOR DETERMINING THAT THE PROJECT'S EXEMPT AND NO UNUSUAL ISSUES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROJECT. ALSO, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS TO DATE. SO WITH THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCT AND SUBSEQUENTLY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS SPECIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. I KNOW THIS ONE IS KIND OF STRANGE. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE SEEING THIS. AGAIN, WE HAVE TO GIVE AN EXTENSION TO IT OR. WHAT. I MEAN, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY TAKING THE ZONE AMENDMENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN, BECAUSE THE ONE THAT YOU ORIGINALLY APPROVED, RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL WAS APPROVED, BUT IT'S NOT OPERATIVE. SO WE, WE'RE, WE'RE BASICALLY BACK TO SQUARE ONE. SO IT HAS TO ALSO GO TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. IT WILL SUBSEQUENTLY GO TO THE BOARD. SO YOUR RECOMMENDATION TODAY WOULD BE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. OKAY. I WILL SAY WE DID CHARGE THE APPLICANT AT A PROFESSIONAL HOURLY RATE AS OPPOSED TO HAVING THEM PAY FOR A FULL ZONE AMENDMENT FILING FEE AGAIN. GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION. SO ARE THEY RUNNING IT BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS OR IS THIS. I MEAN, IT THE WAY I WAS READING IT WAS, OOPS, WE DIDN'T PAY. SO NOW WE'RE CHANGING THE RULE SO THAT WE CAN PAY LATER THAN WE WERE SUPPOSED TO PAY TO KICK START IT. THAT WE ARE, WE ARE CHANGING THE WHAT DO YOU MEAN? CONDITION, YOU KNOW, PAY WITHIN 30 DAYS. THE APPLICANT IS TO PAY WITHIN. THEY DID NOT DO THAT. CORRECT. SO THEY'VE REQUESTED TO AMEND THAT ORDINANCE. THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. SO THERE ARE THERE ARE THEY AMENDING THE ORDINANCE FOR ANY AND ALL PROJECTS MOVING FORWARD? NO. RIGHT. THE ORDINANCE SPECIFIC TO THEM THEIR PROJECT. CORRECT. RIGHT. OKAY. WHY DID THEY GET THEMSELVES IN THIS SITUATION? [00:40:01] I MEAN, I'M ASSUMING THEY'RE GOING TO THEY WANT TO PAY IT. THEY JUST THEY NEED A LITTLE TIME OR SOMETHING. RIGHT. I MEAN, THAT'S. LIO SALAZAR. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR. I MEAN, I THINK SOMETIMES PEOPLE JUST OVERLOOK THE FACT AND THE DAY PASSES. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN OFTEN, BUT IT HAS HAPPENED PREVIOUSLY. WE DO MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO COMMUNICATE TO THEM THAT IT NEEDS TO BE PAID WITHIN THAT AMOUNT OF TIME. I THINK WE TELL THEM WHAT. TRACY. LIKE 3 TIMES MAYBE WITH A LETTER. SO WHATEVER REASON THEY DIDN'T PAY ON THIS ONE. AND IT IS AN UNUSUAL SITUATION YOU PROBABLY YOU HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE WHERE THIS ORDINANCE, YOU HAD RECOMMENDED IT FOR APPROVAL. IT WAS ADOPTED. IT EXISTS. IT JUST CAN'T BE, AS I SAID, MADE OPERATIVE. IT'S JUST HANGING OUT THERE UNTIL IT'S REPEALED OR, OR AMENDED. IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO JUST AMEND IT. SO HAVE THEY PAID AT THIS TIME OR NOT? THEY THOSE FEES ARE NOT DUE UNTIL AFTER THE BOARD HEARING. WE HAVE ADJUSTED OUR PROCESS TO INFORM APPLICANTS MORE THAN ONCE. HOPEFULLY AVOID THIS IN THE FUTURE. I LOVE SEEING YOU FOLKS, BUT COMING BACK FOR THE SAME PROJECT TWICE. NOT MY FAVORITE THING IN THE IN THE WORLD. BUT WE'RE ALWAYS HAPPY TO SEE YOU. WELL, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE STAFF. I HAVE TO DO THE. I KNOW THERE'S NOBODY HERE, BUT I DON'T HAVE TO DO THE. YES. OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO PUBLIC HERE. BUT GO AHEAD. I KNOW. SO AT THIS TIME WE WILL DO THAT. IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THAT AND MOVE ON TO A MOTION. OKAY. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM R3. I'LL SECOND IT. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ALL RIGHT. MEETING ADJOURNED. WE'RE. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.