[0:00] And I'm going to call the planning commission meeting of February 26, 2026, to order. Click, may I have a roll call please? Yes, good morning.

[0:11] Commissioner Wyatt? Here, Commissioner Vicana? Here. Commissioner Shaw? Here, Commissioner Avlett? Here. And Charlie Berman? Here.

[0:20] At this time, I'd ask that we all rise for the flag salute, please.

[0:23] And

[0:34] to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice are all.

[0:41] Thank you.

[0:52] I don't know if I've ever had this many people during my 10 years of planning commissioner in the audience.

[0:59] I'd like to just remind us all of protocols and public participation guidelines before we begin the process.

[1:06] As speakers are asked to address the commission as a whole, not individual commissioners, so please direct all comments to the commission.

[1:17] Please direct all comments actually to me, but on behalf of the commission, so don't throw anything at me if you're going to throw anything, throw five things.

[1:27] Personal attacks, disruptive behavior, or comments outside the scope of the item are not permitted.

[1:33] For each hearing item staff will present first, followed by the applicant or agent presentation.

[1:40] Public comment will then be taken.

[1:43] After public comment is closed, commissioners may ask questions of staff, or the applicant will deliberate before taking action.

[1:52] Individual speakers are limited to three minutes, organized groups, so a group representing a single item are limited to five minutes, applicant or agent presentations are limited to 12 minutes, unless otherwise noted, we appreciate everyone's cooperation, we appreciate everyone's participation and game on, let's start this meeting.

[2:15] The first thing is public comment for items that are not on the agenda.

[2:20] I have one speaker slip from Greg Grohl, if you'd like to come forward.

[2:26] If you would like to pull public comment slips there in the back or on the side, you can hand them to the clerk.

[2:32] Thank you, good morning, Greg.

[2:33] Thank you very much, my name is Greg Gray-Wall, I live in the Creston area.

[2:37] And I just wanted to introduce myself to the board because I haven't been down here since this board has been put together.

[2:42] I'll be speaking later on item number four, and I have lived up in that area on my ranch for 24 years.

[2:52] I'm a retired LA city fireman at 30 years.

[2:55] I've been on every advisory committee and board that deals with the water resources over the Paso Basin.

[3:03] I was a supervisor Arnold's representative for eight years, and I represent the cattleman's association of slow on property rights.

[3:11] and water rights. So, thank you very much.

[3:15] Thank you.

[3:18] Any other public comment for items that are not on the agenda today?

[3:24] All right.

[3:28] All last staff to provide updates regarding future planning, commission dates,

[3:32] upcoming proposals, and actions taken at recent Board of Supervisors meetings,

[3:37] as well as any other items of commission business.

[3:42] Good morning, Chair Lieberman and commissioners, Eric Hughes.

[3:45] There is a manager of current planning here to provide the commission with an update on

[3:48] recent Board of Supervisor Actions of Commission Interest and a preview of your upcoming schedule.

[3:54] But before I get started on that, I did just want to remind the public and the applicants that

[3:59] there is an active fishing campaign impersonating county planning department and planning

[4:04] commission personnel where they are requesting payment of approval fees via a wire transfer.

[4:12] Just please remember the county does not request wire payments. Any official emails will come

[4:17] from a county email address, which is at CO.solo.ca.us. If you do receive a message like that,

[4:28] please do not send funds. Instead, you can forward the email to planning staff and we can forward

[4:33] it onto the district attorney, or you can send it directly to Eric Vitale in the district attorney's

[4:38] office at e-vitali at co.solo.ca.us and just to confirm Eric Vitali's last name is

[4:51] e and then v-i-t-a-l-e. So that's e-vitali at co.solo.ca.us. With that, I'm going to move on

[5:03] as far as board updates. There are no board updates since the last meeting. And then moving

[5:09] Moving on to your upcoming schedule.

[5:10] The next regularly scheduled planning commission meeting is March 12th.

[5:15] We have three items on that day.

[5:16] The first is a continued hearing from January 22nd, 2026 to consider a request by Bonair

[5:22] Investments for a minor use permit, also development permit, CDRC 2023-0032, and Vesting

[5:29] tentative parcel map to construct an operated 12-unit hotel.

[5:33] The proposed project is located at 1319, Van Buren Drive, in the community of Los

[5:39] Osos and the commercial retail land use category within the Estero Planning Area in Coastal

[5:43] Zone.

[5:44] The next is a hearing to consider a request by APC Towers for conditional use permit to

[5:49] allow the construction of a telecommunications and public utility facility.

[5:53] Project is located in the residential rural land use category, located at 1389, Don Road,

[5:59] within the South County sub-area of the South County planning area.

[6:03] Third item is a hearing to consider request by Dirk Winner for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a six unit hotel, known as the temple to the hotel.

[6:13] It's a vacant property located on the east side of North Main Street, North Main Street, between Creekside Ranch and River Run Road, approximately 0.4 miles south of Highway 101.

[6:24] One, the project is located in the unincorporated community of Templeton within the commercial retail land use category.

[6:33] That is it for March 12th, and then I'll just preview of March 26th.

[6:37] We have two items scheduled, the first is a request by Buona for

[6:43] Tuna, LLC, for our variants to allow for a 1,199 square foot two store single family residents and

[6:52] an attached accessory dwelling unit and other infrastructure associated with the residents.

[6:58] The project is in the resident single-family land use category located at 2720 Richard Avenue in the community of Cayucos.

[7:06] Second item is a hearing to consider requests by Santa Margarita Ranch, LLC for a vesting tentative track to subdivide an existing eight acre parcel into six parcels for the purpose of sale and development.

[7:18] And this project is located in the residential suburban land use category located at 2, 2, 9, 3, 7 I street in Santa Margarita.

[7:26] That concludes staff's updates and available for questions, thank you.

[7:30] Any questions to staff on the updates?

[7:35] Okay, any commission updates that you'd like to share.

[7:46] Okay, moving along, the next item will be our consent agenda from the meeting of January 8th.

[7:52] Is

[7:55] the commission have any discussion or items you'd like to pull for separate consideration?

[8:02] Seeing none.

[8:03] I'll move to approve the consent agenda.

[8:06] I'll second.

[8:08] I'd like to see if there's any interest in public comment before we do that, would anyone like to address us on the consent agenda?

[8:17] Seeing none.

[8:18] I'll move to approve.

[8:20] I'll second.

[8:20] Mr. Chairman.

[8:22] Commissioner Shaw?

[8:24] Yes.

[8:25] Commissioner Vickana?

[8:25] Yes.

[8:26] Commissioner Wyatt?

[8:26] Yes.

[8:27] Commissioner Avala?

[8:28] Yes.

[8:28] And Chair Lee Brumann?

[8:29] Yes.

[8:29] Thank you.

[8:39] All right.

[8:39] We're going to begin our hearings clerk.

[8:40] If you could introduce the next item, please.

[8:43] Sure.

[8:43] Our first hearing is a hearing to continue or excuse me,

[8:46] a hearing, a continued hearing from the January 22nd,

[8:49] 2026, planning commission meeting to consider a request

[8:53] by David Crabtree for a phase tentative track map,

[8:56] Also known as Rivers Edge and conditional use permit to subdivide a 43.26 gross acre parcel into a cluster subdivision planned unit development consisting of 181 residential parcels of varying sizes, configurations and housing types, approximately 3.8 acres of commercial development to utility parcels and approximately 13 acres of park and open space for a total of 190 parcels along with various onsite.

[9:25] and offsite improvements.

[9:27] These are county file number N-SUV 2022-0047, track map 3207, and this is in Supervisorial District 1.

[9:40] Thank you.

[9:43] Eric Hays planning and building, presenting this item.

[9:46] We have Senior Planner Eric Talley, and in support, we have Supervising Planner Shale Crew.

[9:50] and then also supporting myself, Eric Hughes, Deputy Director Mark Larue, and then we have Elizabeth Kavanaugh from Parks as well.

[9:59] Thank you.

[10:03] Good morning, commissioners. My name is Eric Talley, Senior Planner, Planning and Building.

[10:07] Before you was the continued item from the January 22nd, 2026 planning commission hearing.

[10:14] Again for David, Mr. David Crabtree, also known for Rivers Edge.

[10:20] This is a phase-vesting, tentative track map and conditional use permit, NSUB 2022-0047.

[10:30] The project overview is a phase-mixed use development on 43.26 acres.

[10:36] It consists of a total of 190 lots, which consists of 181 residential lots, varying housing

[10:45] types, including 10% de-restricted moderate income affordable housing.

[10:50] The project includes five open space recreation lots, approximately 12 to 13 acres, three

[10:58] utility lots, and one commercial lot of approximately four acres.

[11:04] The project also consists of the old Paso Airport Loop Trail, which will be public in nature,

[11:11] including various on- and off-site improvements.

[11:15] What you see before you is the current project description.

[11:18] This has not changed since the continued hearing.

[11:25] This is where we're located in the community of San Miguel

[11:27] on the east side of the Salinas River.

[11:31] We're located just off of North River Road on Indian Valley Road.

[11:36] The

[11:40] parcel is zoned multiple use code, which is single residential single family and commercial service.

[11:47] But it's surrounded by agriculture.

[11:51] Agriculturely designated parcels.

[11:54] And to note, it is within the San Miguel URL.

[12:01] The parcel is currently vacant, except for a

[12:06] the dilapidated airplane hanger, this used to be an air field.

[12:16] This is the current proposed

[12:18] phasing plan. As you can see here, it's divided up into four phases. The fourth phase on

[12:25] the southern end is the commercial parcel, and throughout, as you can see, is multiple housing

[12:33] types and lot sizes.

[12:37] This is the currently presented map that was revised since the previous planning commission hearing.

[12:48] Phase 1 is located toward the top of the screen against the Salinas River Bluff.

[12:55] and there's multiple open spaces, and there's three lots for wells, as you can see

[13:05] here.

[13:11] This is phase 1 and 2.

[13:15] Phase 1 includes 15 foot common area easements, which

[13:20] will primarily serve pedestrian access,

[13:25] and here is a zoomed-in view of the

[13:29] commercial lot or phase 4.

[13:34] This is conceptual elevation in housing types. There's more than this,

[13:38] but this is just to show as an example of what the developers proposing.

[13:46] This conceptual landscape

[13:47] plan on this landscape plan is the proposed conceptual old Paso airport loop trail shown in red.

[13:56] It will loop around the perimeter of the development. What you're seeing here is the

[14:02] trail as it is proposed along the bluff.

[14:11] The project resembles conceptual mixed use development for this site in the San Miguel

[14:16] Community Plan update from 2016.

[14:21] The San Miguel Community Plan update envisioned this type of development almost exactly as it

[14:30] shown here. These are examples and so we were able to find it consistent with the San

[14:38] Miguel Community Plan.

[14:42] Key environmental components that were analyzed are

[14:44] archaeological, biological, geological, soil contamination and traffic and transportation.

[14:51] All that was analyzed and the project was then found consistent with the San Miguel Community

[14:55] plan adopted EIR.

[15:01] This is a quick summary of the project revision since the January 22nd, 2026 planning commission hearing. Number one, the Indian Valley Road. Title 21 adjustment amended, what amendment was requested. Phase one, there was a reduction of six pocket village lots from 63 to 57, in addition of one zero lot line lot, so from 25 to 26. And so phase one now,

[15:30] Now includes 83 total lots before it was 88 and 115 foot pedestrian access easement

[15:39] has been reduced to 10 feet and another was eliminated.

[15:44] Phase no changes to Phase 2, Phase 3 elimination of small lots from 6 to 0 and a net reduction

[15:53] of one single family lot from 45 to 44 in addition of 12 pocket village lots so from 0 to 12.

[16:03] Phase 3 now includes 56 total lots whereas before it was 51. Total open space now is 13 acres before

[16:12] it was 12 and all this is reflective on the new map.

[16:20] And I'm just going to read this into the record.

[16:22] The amended title 21, adjustment request, the county code, section 21.03.0104a, improvement of streets, urban streets section A2D for Indian Valley Road to allow the modification of 8-foot paved shoulder to 2-foot paved shoulder, 12-foot continuous center lane, turn lane along entire frontage to 10-foot turn lanes at project entrances and with 5-foot sidewalk.

[16:55] staffs recommending to find the project consistent with the San Miguel Community Plan update certified EIR pursuant to the sequel guideline section 15183 in staffs recommending approval of the track map and conditional use permit and SUB 2022 0047 based on the findings listed in exhibit A and revised conditions listed in exhibit B and we are here for any questions you may have.

[17:23] Thank you for the presentation.

[17:25] Commissioner, is there any initial questions of staff?

[17:29] I just have a couple.

[17:30] I just wanted to take us back to the last hearing and remember what was reflected because

[17:37] we did require a certain number of ADUs, so that's now reflected.

[17:42] Okay, so what we will be approving that.

[17:44] And then I think we also wanted, we all agreed that the trail should be made within a certain

[17:51] amount of time.

[17:52] So that's in there now. Okay, and then the changes to all the lots are because of that left hand turn lane that, okay, so that's why, okay.

[18:05] Just one just taking us back to January. And I just want to we went over this for a long time. So just want to make sure that was all in there.

[18:15] We got a long letter last night just about water supply and wastewater treatment.

[18:22] Could you just give us a few words on why you recommend approval and why the water is sufficient by law?

[18:32] Sure, I can speak briefly and then probably turn it over to county council.

[18:38] We do have the San Miguel Community Services District issued.

[18:44] they're will serve letter, they did their due diligence in their research and

[18:49] issued the will serve letter accordingly.

[18:54] And I think we have Kelly Dobs here from the San Miguel CST to speak on that.

[19:00] And if Ben Doher, anything you would like to add to that?

[19:04] Real quick, Eric Hughes planning a building.

[19:06] I do just want to add that the San Miguel Community Plan Environmental Impact Report didn't anticipate development on this site.

[19:12] It did look at the water use accordingly with the San Miguel, you know, CSD, wastewater treatment, and the water use essentially was the future water use of the community as part of the community plan was analyzed.

[19:26] Again, this project is consistent with that proposed build out development.

[19:30] And therefore, you know, was already reviewed and from an environmental standpoint was determined not to have a significant impact.

[19:41] I think we're going to hear some public comment on this so I may save my comments on kind

[19:46] of the legal issues and specifically in terms of the 2019 decision that was referenced

[19:52] throughout the correspondence that we received until after public comment.

[19:56] I can comment on that in more detail at that point.

[19:58] Okay.

[19:59] Thank you.

[19:59] That was all I had.

[20:01] I have a question.

[20:02] Just follow up when Eric was talking about.

[20:04] How long ago was it established that this was the planning for this was going to be there

[20:08] was it two years ago, five years ago?

[20:10] 20 years ago for the water?

[20:12] The community plan was in 2000, I think 2015 or 16.

[20:19] Thanks.

[20:21] Anyone to my right?

[20:23] One question at this point.

[20:25] We did have some comment about halting development

[20:29] after phase one if the wastewater treatment

[20:32] plant upgrades aren't completed.

[20:35] So I just wanted to make sure our conditional language

[20:39] reflects that intent.

[20:40] And that was our intent and the comments asked that question.

[20:45] So, do we have that adequately incorporated there?

[20:50] We do and I can pull that up if you give me a moment.

[20:53] Okay, okay, well, we'll get to other things while you do that.

[20:56] Just wanting to confirm that was the intent at the last meeting and we think is in there.

[21:02] Thanks.

[21:06] Okay, so staff will look that up.

[21:09] I'm going to invite the applicant or agent to come forward if you have any information to present.

[21:16] Good morning.

[21:22] Am I on?

[21:24] Okay.

[21:25] Good morning, commissioners.

[21:27] Pamela Jardini with planning solutions, and I'm representing the applicant, David Crap Tree.

[21:32] And we went over quite a bit of this at the last hearing.

[21:36] So I have a very short presentation, and then I'll answer some of the questions that came up.

[21:43] You can have to put it up just to show you these are the lots that were impacted by the widening

[21:51] of Indian Valley Road which we agreed with public works go ahead and widen it to their standard.

[21:59] So those were the lots that we lost and then this is the lot area that was changed.

[22:05] Do we remove these lots and replace them with the pocket village type of subdivision?

[22:15] So those lots, then we were able to take the pocket village subdivision lots that you saw

[22:21] that were removed and moved them over here. And then also we added two single family residences

[22:27] is off of G Street to accommodate the loss in lots and we added one zero lot line or common

[22:36] lot parcel two and that's why we had to lose one of the pedestrian accesses through this

[22:45] common lot parcels so that we had enough room to fit another lot in here. So those are the changes

[22:52] just so that you could visualize them.

[22:54] I have a couple other things.

[22:57] Regarding condition of approval 1A under public works,

[23:02] I did talk to J.R. and County Council

[23:06] just briefly this morning

[23:07] and there appeared to be okay with

[23:11] to add at the very end of the condition faced if possible.

[23:17] And so in other words, we would do possibly,

[23:19] believe this is not set phase so that Indian Valley Road is improved the commercial section

[23:27] and phase one when phase one goes in and then Indian Valley Road would be improved when phase three

[23:34] goes in and in phase one it would provide those left hand turn lanes into the commercial area even

[23:40] though it's not developed until phase four but it would provide the left hand turn lanes into phase one

[23:46] and phase two at that time. Also, along Indian Valley Road, the council and S wanted to continue

[23:57] the airport loop trail, so the development of Indian Valley Road per the public work standards

[24:03] does include in the loop trail along Indian Valley Road, so that is continued.

[24:10] And as far as halting phase one, I'm not positive, but I think I know what Commissioner

[24:19] Wyatt meant.

[24:21] So there were some concerns about the development of the San Miguel Community Service District's

[24:29] wastewater treatment plant, and that they have room for phase one, but phase two and three

[24:34] would be dependent upon their improvement there.

[24:38] And Kelly Dobbs is here today to speak on that.

[24:43] My understanding is that it is moving forward and that I believe what we ended up with was that was talked about as far as requesting the map to have additional extension should it be required.

[25:00] and I believe county council, I may hopefully state them correctly, that if the community service

[25:08] districts sewer plant isn't able to take it within our time frame, it's kind of considered

[25:15] a moratorium and that then our map would be continued because it'd be a moratorium.

[25:21] So it appears at this moment in time that the sewer treatment plant will be upgraded in

[25:28] time and we should be able to move forward as planned.

[25:33] And then as far as the water issue, I will leave that to county council and Kelly Dodds

[25:38] because they're the experts and not me.

[25:41] So and I'm here if you have any other questions.

[25:46] Thank you, any initial questions for the representative before we go to public comment?

[25:51] Sure.

[25:51] One more.

[25:52] Just something we, I don't, we call we discussed it our last hearing, but I did notice that

[25:58] roughly $3 million contribution toward the wastewater treatment plant upgrades were suggested

[26:06] by the regional board and the letter from Bishop.

[26:12] Is that ringing any bells or aligned with

[26:15] what the applicants are thinking? Maybe that's something from Mr. Dodds, too.

[26:19] I believe Mr. Dodds could address that, basically, as the lots get developed, they will have to pay fees into San Miguel Community Service District.

[26:33] And I just remembered one other thing.

[26:35] We talked about the intersection, and it is under condition 1J that we're just adding striping there.

[26:45] And that word striping was added to clarify that we had talked that we had left Indian Valley Road in that intersection to be

[26:54] Disgusted it today's hearing so both of those issues are resolved with public works.

[26:59] Okay, and you're saying one J is in there the way you want it or it needs some revision. No, it's in there stating with the striping

[27:06] So it's correct. Okay. Okay.

[27:09] I have a question so the three million dollars you're talking about is that above and beyond the connection fee?

[27:13] The standard connection fees are that you're saying the connection fees are going to total into $3 million.

[27:19] You know what, off the top of my head, I don't remember how that's stated.

[27:24] Do you have that, yeah, neither-

[27:27] I can try to pull up that letter fast.

[27:30] Sure, and see.

[27:36] So why don't we come back to that?

[27:40] And if there's no other questions of the representative, thank you.

[27:44] And we're going to move on to public comment.

[27:47] I have two speaker slips.

[27:49] If you'd like to comment on this item, this first hearing item, please fill out a slip and hand it to the clerk.

[27:54] The first speaker slip I have is Kelly Dodds.

[27:59] If you'd like to come forward with the Senate Gail CSD.

[28:09] Good morning, commissioners.

[28:11] My name is Kelly Dodds, I'm the general manager for the San Miguel Community Service District.

[28:16] And I was asked through an email from Mr. Tully to comment on the treatment plant.

[28:22] and the progress on that treatment plant in relation to this project.

[28:28] So as of right now, we are currently working on a final agreement with the state for funding for our treatment plant, thankfully, after 10 years we're finally getting there.

[28:38] The $44 million that's projected to be, that's the projected cost for that treatment plant is being funded in full through grant through the DFA.

[28:50] and we expect to have that within the next three to four months.

[28:55] Obviously, we can't guarantee you three to four months,

[28:57] but that's the projected timeline that we've been given.

[29:05] The as stated earlier, our current treatment plant can accommodate

[29:11] the capacity of the initial phase one homes.

[29:16] That will take us to roughly 60 to 70% on average,

[29:20] which in discussion with the water board is acceptable to them.

[29:25] Again, phase two and three would not be accepted into our system

[29:29] until the treatment plant is expanded.

[29:32] And that also has been negotiated and worked out with the water board.

[29:36] So the letter that Miss White has is most likely referring to that.

[29:44] If we receive our grant agreement by June or July of this year,

[29:49] We'll be immediately going out to bid for that project and

[29:54] Assuming that we award a contract within the 3rd or 4th quarter of this year

[30:00] We anticipate being able to complete the project by the middle or end of 2028.

[30:08] There's a lot of different parts to that treatment plant, so not all of them are related to treatment. Some of them are just reconstruction of the existing plant. So actual capacity could be available in advance of that, but that's the total of our expected timeline.

[30:35] The other question I was asked was basically whether what would happen if we do

[30:39] not receive the grant agreement for the grant. If for some reason our grant is denied which is

[30:48] unlikely at this point but still is a possibility. The treatment plant would not move forward as it is.

[30:55] We would be seeking alternate funding. The district does have funds to do to perform part of the work

[31:01] but not all of the work. So it would be a decision at that time whether we would wait for a

[31:09] additional grant funding or pursue some sort of loan funding.

[31:13] It is a project that does have to move forward in a timely fashion, but the community does

[31:18] not have the funds for a $44 million loan at the moment.

[31:23] So we are working diligently with the state to receive that grant funding that was approved

[31:28] through their use plan, and again, that should be approved by the end of June.

[31:34] And

[31:37] I think that answers most of the questions or all the questions that I was asked in regard

[31:45] to the $3 million this way it brought up, I believe that those are connection fees.

[31:52] I don't recall an agreement for an additional contribution.

[31:59] So as all development within our district, they all pay into the water and sewer systems

[32:04] through connection fees. I believe that the connection fees for this project for the wastewater side are roughly $3 million.

[32:14] They do get adjusted annually, so it may be slightly more than that by the time it's done.

[32:20] But that was a discussion that we had had with the water board on whether those fees could be applied to the treatment plant in which case they would be in the for our case.

[32:31] Just following up on that, I did pull up the letter for Mr. Bishop at the Central Coast Water Board, and indeed he is suggesting that's roughly 3 million in connection fees, which I hear you confirming would be your rough guess right now of what those may look like.

[32:48] Yes, that's correct. Thank you. And so unless you have any other questions, that was all ahead for you.

[32:56] I have one. Well, it's not a question, but I just want to say I'm thrilled to hear that one looks

[33:02] like it's coming through. We understood the need for this and at the recent permitting hearing,

[33:07] and so thrilled to hear the money may be behind it. Yes, we were very excited to finally get to this

[33:13] point. So, that is my question. If the grant doesn't come through the plan is to get

[33:21] a loan, but you don't anticipate the loan being approved, so your ways out from having

[33:28] your facility upgraded at that point. I mean, there's no rules. The backup plans

[33:35] the loan but there's really no shot at probably getting a loan so they're your ways out.

[33:43] So yes and no so the loan would be a significant burden for the community. It is a project.

[33:51] This expansion is something that has to occur so it would happen in the near future

[33:56] regardless of whether it's grant funded or loan funded. Our goal is to be able to grant fund it

[34:01] But as stated numerous times, but we do have the ability to secure a loan and getting

[34:09] the loan itself would not be a problem.

[34:11] It would be what that cost actually translates to as far as what our consumers are paying.

[34:18] So it is a possibility, but it is, and we are working on that angle, but we are not going

[34:24] to heavily pursue that until we know for sure that that is our only option.

[34:33] Thank you very much.

[34:34] Thank you.

[34:35] We may call on you when we get to deliberations.

[34:38] I will be here.

[34:39] Thank you.

[34:41] Next speaker is Greg Graywell.

[34:51] Thank you, board commissioners.

[34:52] My name is Greg Graywell.

[34:56] This is the Paso Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

[35:02] This is one of eight annual reports that's already been done at $100,000 a pop.

[35:08] There's one underway right now for this year that we just passed.

[35:14] This project is inconsistent with both of these.

[35:19] Inconsistent in the fact that looking back at 2016 community plan,

[35:26] the GSA's and the groundwater sustainability work didn't start till 2017.

[35:32] And Sam Miguel is a GSA and was part of that group so they know what's in this plan.

[35:39] I'm going to go to a legal document, it's a court order.

[35:45] So, in September of 2018, we had a 14 day trial in the state of California.

[35:51] First jury trial on a groundwater issue.

[35:54] After that trial, it was found that one of three periods of time that the defendants were granted a certain amount of groundwater from the Pasal Basin.

[36:04] Six months after that was a quantification hearing, that quantification gave them the amounts that they were allowed to draw from the basin if the basin does not have surplus water and the priority right goes to the other landowners in the unincorporated area.

[36:20] Three months after the quantification trial was this corridor that was signed in June of 2019, which gives San Miguel 177 acre feet of water if there is no surplus water.

[36:32] The groups known as the GSAs, the county being part of that group, is saying that the base and is overdraft.

[36:44] And by saying that means there's no surplus water.

[36:48] The main thing in this groundwater plan that everybody agreed to do, that the state approved, is to reduce pumping.

[36:57] How do you approve a plan to expand pumping?

[37:01] And tell the priority right owners that live over the land that they have to stop doing something but you can build a community.

[37:09] That's unacceptable, so it doesn't meet any of the requirements with SIGMA, and this needs to be put on hold until the so many other things are done to where it's ready to move forward.

[37:22] I have nothing against what the pictures look like other than they don't have the water.

[37:28] Sam Miguel is 100% dependent on basin water.

[37:33] These wells are over the basin.

[37:35] They need to find a supplemental source, a deal with Nazi menor or something else because

[37:41] they do not have water to grow.

[37:43] They handcuffed themselves when they filed prescription against the landowners and lost.

[37:49] The more current times the court found there was no problem.

[37:52] So if they're going to agree that there's a problem in the basin, they're going to take taxpayer

[37:56] They're grant dollars to claim that they need that grant money because there's a problem in the basin.

[38:02] They can't later on say, well, there's no problem now, we want to build this project.

[38:07] And thank you for the taxpayers grant money, but we're going to go forward until they create another problem.

[38:12] There's been over 400 shallow wells replaced in the basin because of problems.

[38:18] Thank you very much.

[38:21] If

[38:25] you could fill out a speaker slip and hand it to the clerk, please.

[38:32] I think, I

[38:37] think I can read your writing.

[38:41] I'd like to call Phil Kegliero,

[38:49] please sir, we have other public comment, thank you.

[38:54] Good morning.

[38:55] Good morning.

[38:56] My name is Phil Kegliero.

[38:57] I live on Bender King and Road, which Indian Valley feeds into, so I'm just a few miles down

[39:01] the road.

[39:02] And I also, in property, probably within less than a quarter mile of this project has a crow

[39:06] flies anyway. I think my biggest overall issue with it is just the sheer size of it.

[39:13] Don't hold me to these numbers, but it's got to be a 20% bump in Samuel's population

[39:18] in one project. Samuel CSD has been underserving the community and the community has been suffering

[39:23] for years as it is. They do not have enough water storage per resident. I know several houses

[39:30] personally that have had to add booster pumps to their house because the water pressure is so

[39:33] low provided by the CST that don't have enough water pressure. So if we're going to get a grant

[39:37] to solve these problems, why don't we see if we get the grant before we even look at a new

[39:43] project of any size? Because this just seems like a crazy size to add to a community that's already

[39:49] been suffering under these conditions. I mean there's tons of traffic as a huge impact. There's a

[39:58] on both sides of all the entrance to this, so it seems like a dangerous spot to put minimum 360 new cars to per residents.

[40:08] Water sewer, I mean, Greg just touched on a bunch of those topics as well, emergency services, I think is another issue.

[40:15] But I just think mainly, you know, if it was a 30 home subdivision, sounds good. No problem. I think we could handle that.

[40:24] 182, I think it's really irresponsible, and especially before any grant.

[40:29] Well, whether it's grant money or before any sewer and water projects are upgraded.

[40:33] They should be upgraded first, so thank you.

[40:38] Thank you, sir.

[40:40] John, Kaguyo.

[40:51] Good morning, thank you for having me.

[40:53] I'm a farmer, I'm kind of representing to myself, and then I also farm the Tantial Panky Ranch,

[40:59] which borders the property on three sides.

[41:02] So it's below the river, the backside and on the upper side.

[41:06] The road, they ask me to speak for them.

[41:09] They already have a problem with trespassing, garbage,

[41:13] everything else is dumped on their property constantly.

[41:17] And the river, the trail system they're talking about,

[41:20] it really doesn't exist yet.

[41:21] All the trails are on their property that are illegal trails,

[41:25] trespassing trails, so how is that going to be addressed?

[41:29] And and prevented from being on their property and then the garbage and everything else that comes along with it.

[41:36] I mean, we've literally hauled up dump trailers of garbage that, you know, sofas and refrigerators and everything else that gets dumped, you know, but some of the other key problems, you know, are water, you know, there's a more torium in this county, we're not allowed to expand our farming operations because of the water that's restricted.

[41:58] And the wells that were drilled on this property have never been used.

[42:01] There was a domestic well, I've been, I'm four generations, so I've been here a long time.

[42:06] And I've farm the tan hill property for 30 years.

[42:10] None of that is established water.

[42:12] There was a domestic well that would be the only thing that would be called established water there.

[42:17] And like you said, we had other projects, we have some other projects that I know of and

[42:24] that have been denied are quit basically, there was a 33-38 subdivision on Magdalena.

[42:32] Well that was required to put a 500,000 gallon storage tank on that to do those 38 homes.

[42:39] How is the expansion of water services for this project?

[42:45] Is there extra storage put into place?

[42:47] You know, there were underserved at that project.

[42:50] So how have a sudden now, with an additional 20% population,

[42:55] are we covering the water?

[42:58] And then, you know, sewer is underserved, too.

[43:00] You know, as has been talked about.

[43:03] And then, you know, traffic is another thing.

[43:05] You know, we have a lot of heavy duty farm equipment

[43:07] going up and down that road.

[43:09] It's a blind hump.

[43:10] It's a very difficult corner.

[43:12] We constantly have trouble with traffic there

[43:14] as it is with farming equipment.

[43:16] and so forth, and even though farm equipment has a right away, that doesn't mean that city folks understand it, you know.

[43:25] But like I said, it's an awful big chunk to put into a completely rule surrounded by a culture area, you know.

[43:35] I think, and it's difficult getting supplies across that, you know, we have 12 psi up on the bluffs of water pressure now.

[43:45] So it's under served pressure, like you said, you have to have booster pumps.

[43:49] How's that, what does the resolve to all those problems?

[43:51] Thank you for your time.

[43:55] Thank you, sir.

[43:56] Okay, next speaker slip is Marie Pal, if you can afford, please.

[44:13] I'm actually a temple resident, but I also own a property, a residence in the Paso Basin, in a small hollow area.

[44:22] And I'm a Paso Basin well owner.

[44:24] So a couple things, one is, I didn't see, and it might be in there, there was a late legal letter that was submitted late last night from the law firm in President of this representing a couple of neighboring property owners, so I just want to make sure that's on the record.

[44:48] So real quick, Ms. Wyatt mentioned these water board letters.

[44:53] Those letters are outdated.

[44:56] They were done in April and May of 2020.

[45:00] In 2024, I called the felt Mr. Bishop who had done those two days ago. He was no longer involved. They got me to the current board member that's handling the water board rep. And I had a great conversation with her. Basically, if you look at that letter, you'll see it talks about a $30 million cost, this part of the outdating. And now it's $44.

[45:27] And there's other issues but that letter also if everybody saw it and what I pass out to everybody it's they're copied in that package is recommending they recommended the phase one to go forward, but they also recommended that the commission not approve this project at this time because of the same issues with the sewage and so forth.

[45:55] So, that's one issue.

[45:58] The other one is, I can't believe that a current

[46:01] CEQA environmental study was not done.

[46:06] The county's, we're lying on guideline,

[46:11] CEQA guideline 15183.

[46:14] 15183 is only good if there hasn't been any significant changes.

[46:20] and the county is reliant on the 2016 community plan and it's EIR that was done probably before 2016 as to being supporting.

[46:35] And that plan, and I haven't seen the EIR I've searched for but I haven't found it, but I assume that they did not anticipate one is the court order, the 2019 court order.

[46:48] And secondly, all of the regulations that are now involved with this pastoral base and groundwater pumping through the DWR, the state, and sigma.

[47:01] So I believe that the county's position and not doing a current EIR is invalid and needs to be done.

[47:12] I'm really shocked that it hasn't been done.

[47:15] So the other issue I want to mention is on the limit, the court order limit, the limit is 177 acre feet a year for the entire San Miguel district.

[47:29] The records show, their own reporting records show, from 2020, the order was in 2019.

[47:36] So, from 2020 to 2025, they've been delivering through their potable water system between 260 and 300 acre feet.

[47:48] And because of the base and sigma actions, it triggered that court order.

[47:56] So they have been in violation since 2020.

[47:59] And what bottom line is there's no water available in accordance with that order for this project and also, you know, the county claims they followed, they followed the plan.

[48:15] If you go through that plan from 2016, you will see recommendations about needing to get supplemental water sources and so on.

[48:25] So they've been around for 9-10 years and they basically have done nothing, nothing to resolve these sorts of problems.

[48:34] So thank you for your time.

[48:36] Thank you, Mr. Pell.

[48:39] Are there any other folks interested in speaking on a item that haven't turned to speaker slip in yet?

[48:46] All right, seeing none, I'm going to close public comment.

[48:53] Yes, staff, if you have any responses to any of the public comment, I assume County Council will weigh in on this 2019 matter, do you want to comment?

[49:10] Please, big favor, can you come forward to the podium, lectern, and then fill out a speaker slip, you pick.

[49:24] Okay, I just was listening just for fun.

[49:28] They went to your name for the record, please.

[49:29] Amber, it's called.

[49:31] Thank you.

[49:31] Hi, would there be a balancing of the money going out to the person that's wanting the

[49:37] property to build this thing, that some of the money be allotted to help this infrastructure

[49:42] of these people that are complaining about the right to balance it out.

[49:46] That's a lot of money.

[49:47] I just want to all go to their property or if they could help the community as well.

[49:50] I mean, I know there's no brainer question, but I just thought I didn't hear it.

[49:52] come up so I thought I'd ask.

[49:55] Great. We'll get staff to respond to that if you just fill out your slip and thank you so much for coming forward.

[50:00] Where's the slip?

[50:02] All right. I'm closing, closing, public comment.

[50:05] Okay. Staff, I'm sorry.

[50:08] You had to pull both of them.

[50:08] For staff, could we, it came up twice.

[50:11] So maybe touch upon the supplemental water that was talked about.

[50:16] Is that's probably going to be?

[50:17] Yeah. Yeah, 2018.

[50:18] Yes, you

[50:26] promised.

[50:26] I will start it off here.

[50:28] So, Bendoarth County Council.

[50:30] So, I will start off by addressing the 2019 court order that we've heard reference to.

[50:37] And so, I was not involved in that litigation, but another attorney in my office was and was intimately involved in the litigation.

[50:45] And really, what the 2019 order was, it was not a full adjudication of the basin.

[50:51] It was limited to the parties that were involved, and it defined their rights at a specific time in history.

[50:59] So it was a snapshot in time that said, at this point, the parties have established the historical use at this level, and

[51:09] they have the right to use to do that.

[51:11] But it doesn't really go beyond just that limited snapshot.

[51:14] It didn't move on to another phase, which would be a full adjudication of the basin,

[51:19] which would define all the user's rights and actually place limitations on each individual

[51:25] user's ability to draw water from the basin.

[51:28] So that wasn't part of this litigation.

[51:32] So it really doesn't have much of an impact on kind of the CSD's right to draw water from

[51:42] the base at this point, and

[51:48] that's kind of, I think that's the extent of my comments,

[51:50] but really the import of that case is not what I think we've referred today in public comment.

[52:01] Okay, he says me first here. So following up, that would suggest then that we don't need to know

[52:10] that current use, I mean that that litigation wouldn't require current use to be maintained at

[52:16] 170. That's correct. That's correct. Whatever it is now isn't governed by that agreement.

[52:23] No, that's been characterized. Correct. Okay. And then what about kind of tying in the

[52:31] questions that are kind of mixed in and related as far as the 2016 sort of environmental review

[52:38] that was done as part of the community plan and how that's relevant to us in this current day versus

[52:44] is not sure. Good enough.

[52:46] Yeah, sure. And so the comments that we heard were that I would characterize the comments

[52:50] as not necessarily changes to the environment, but changes to the regulatory framework.

[52:56] So since 2016, we've seen sigma and the GSA, GSP, ground water sustainability plan come

[53:04] online, and those have changed how the basin is managed. They haven't necessarily changed

[53:11] the underlying condition of the basin.

[53:15] So I think in 2016, the EIR study,

[53:21] the condition of the basin identified where it was from an environmental perspective.

[53:25] So the question is, has that changed to the point that today would trigger,

[53:31] has it changed the significant amount that would trigger the need to do a supplemental EIR?

[53:36] So that's kind of the question today.

[53:38] and obviously planning staff did that evaluation and decided that no, it did not, there were no

[53:44] new significant environmental impacts that were not examined in 2016 that would trigger the need

[53:50] to do a supplemental EIR. Okay, because I'm hearing a clear distinction between environmental

[53:55] condition and sort of regulatory framework and the change in regulatory framework wouldn't necessarily

[54:03] necessarily a trigger that needs to do a supplementally IR.

[54:07] And then just in terms of the ground water sustainability agencies and the ground water

[54:13] sustainability plan, at this point they are just in the very early stages of actually

[54:18] adopting implementation measures to try to bring the basin into balance and at this point

[54:24] those measures are voluntary and they're trying to seek voluntary compliance from underlying

[54:30] and users to kind of bring the basin into balance.

[54:33] So there aren't any, they're not forcing people to reduce pumping at this point.

[54:40] So I guess my point is at this point, I wouldn't say that the groundwater sustainability

[54:44] agencies, the groundwater sustainability plan really has much of an impact on San Miguel's

[54:50] ability to continue to pump water.

[54:52] Even if we could reasonably foresee some kind of upcoming requirements to reduce.

[55:00] I mean, at this point, because there are none, we don't need to take that in the consideration.

[55:07] Even though it is a reasonable expectation that that's coming, as I believe.

[55:13] I mean, there's no concrete information out there that that is going to be happening,

[55:20] or what that might look like if it were put into place.

[55:24] So I don't think we have, I don't think there's sufficient information at this point for you to take that into consideration and making the decision on that.

[55:31] Thank you, that's it for me.

[55:35] So I guess I'm going to expand a little bit more on that.

[55:37] So that 2019 decision, that was just a quiet title just basically gave the prescribed rights that who has the right to the water.

[55:45] Those numbers that were referred to, that was not adjudicated.

[55:49] So those numbers don't actually apply to that decision.

[55:53] Yes, so that's a good way of, it's, yeah, it's a quiet title action.

[55:57] And it said that at this point in time, these numbers are represented what those various entities use was.

[56:05] And what they, they've established the right to use that, that, those, that number of acre feet at that, at that point of time.

[56:11] But it didn't say that they are limited to that use going forward.

[56:15] But those numbers are relevant if the water is found insufficient at some point in the future.

[56:22] Those numbers could theoretically come into play, is that correct?

[56:27] No.

[56:28] So that would still have to be adjudicated?

[56:30] Yes.

[56:30] Okay.

[56:31] So those were just the numbers that you used to give the prescribed rates?

[56:34] Yes.

[56:34] Okay.

[56:36] Is there, what point is there, is there some sort of a trigger if that it would end up

[56:41] going back to the adjudication, I guess.

[56:43] There would be, yeah, I think there would be, there would need to be additional litigation

[56:48] to do that.

[56:50] And at this point, where we have the groundwater-society of the early agencies that have taken over

[56:54] management of the basin, I would anticipate that that would be the mechanism that the

[57:01] basin would be managed versus through litigation, but that's just kind of speculation on my point.

[57:09] So that's what that's the county's opinion and what they took from that so there is no supplemental water they never they never track that down or try to locate because their view is there's enough water.

[57:21] Is that correct? I'm not I don't have the actual information on that but that is my understanding that there is no supplemental water.

[57:29] Thank

[57:33] you, staff.

[57:34] I'm sorry.

[57:36] There's more question.

[57:37] And we can come back to what I just want to get.

[57:38] It's probably for the applicant if there's any.

[57:41] Is there recycled water?

[57:43] And on this is for the landscaping things like that.

[57:47] I don't know if CSD has that available.

[57:50] Hi, Pamela Jardini again with answering your question.

[57:56] Obviously,

[57:57] The San Miguel Community Service District issued us a will sort of letter for water and waste water, and that those letters would not be issued if they hadn't gone, gone through their county council and made sure that there is water available for the project and waste water available for the project.

[58:18] Again, the waste water, the $44 million grant is, as you heard from Kelly Dobs, moving forward,

[58:27] we will be adding to the contribution per connection fees every time a lot has developed

[58:37] to the young ladies' comment about, you know, a developer's contribution.

[58:42] They pay for water and sewer usage.

[58:45] there is water available for this project and the CCSD, or

[58:54] San Miguel SM, CSD would not be able to provide a will serve letter if there wasn't water available.

[59:02] Okay, but there's no recycled water planned at this time for use of the landscape.

[59:08] I know that per the county's land use ordinance that the like open space areas that are going to be would be probably recycled water people try to use recycled water or limit their landscaping around their homes per the ordinance at the county's land use ordinance.

[59:28] And so those would be implemented that way.

[59:30] I

[59:36] just want to follow up also on one of the public comments about trails and just the fact that what if people don't stick to the trail or they're dumping trash or what's going on now, I mean, who would be in this maybe you or staff, who would be the proper authorities to be in charge of that?

[59:56] The loop trail is open to the public.

[1:00:00] As a requirement of the community plan, and the loop trail is totally on our property. It does not extend off our property. Elizabeth Kavanaugh could answer the question if it's supposed to be connected. But I believe she said that the trail, the basic trail was on the other side of the river. So, the maintenance, if it would probably fall.

[1:00:29] all on the right property owners nearby, I mean, it is a little bit disconnected from

[1:00:36] the community. My guess is most of the people who live in the subdivision would be the

[1:00:41] ones using it, since there's not a pedestrian trail across the North River Bridge to connect

[1:00:48] the two.

[1:00:49] Okay. All right, thank you. And I don't know if staff can weigh in, but when we heard this

[1:00:54] issue with trails and people, trust me. I mean, who's the proper person to call? I've been

[1:00:59] I just don't know when, who's the right person right now?

[1:01:03] Like who would you call?

[1:01:04] Eric, he's planning a building of B County Code Enforcement.

[1:01:07] Okay.

[1:01:09] Okay.

[1:01:10] Thank you.

[1:01:11] Okay.

[1:01:11] Are there any other questions or?

[1:01:14] Yeah, actually, there was a couple questions about the water pressure and the water infrastructure.

[1:01:19] And I don't know if this is something for Kelly.

[1:01:22] Yeah, that would be great.

[1:01:23] I'd love to hear about that.

[1:01:25] But, and then also, I just do want to acknowledge the inconsistency because if somebody wanted to plan a vineyard on this property over five acres, they would not be allowed and we are basically allowing a huge use of water on this and so it does, you know, kind of bring up something that, you know, I'd love to discuss a little bit maybe, but anyway, just throwing that out there, but I'd love to hear about the water.

[1:01:47] Okay.

[1:01:50] Thank you.

[1:01:55] And while you're walking up here, my fading memory, I believe when you came here to

[1:02:02] talk about the plan expansion, to us we talked about recycled water.

[1:02:06] And I don't know why I'm thinking of the color purple as a future opportunity, so if you

[1:02:11] could include that as well.

[1:02:13] Appreciate it.

[1:02:13] Of course.

[1:02:14] Again, Kelly Dodds, General Manager for the Samgill Community Service District.

[1:02:19] So I guess we could start with the water pressure, the district does provide

[1:02:23] potable water to the community on both sides of the river.

[1:02:27] And we provide water at or above the minimum standards set by the count,

[1:02:31] or set by the state, which is 20 PSI.

[1:02:35] And we have several areas within our community that are right at 20 PSI

[1:02:41] or a little bit above that because of their elevation.

[1:02:45] Those areas have been subject to those pressures well before I was involved with the district

[1:02:51] and probably well before the district was even a glimmer in anybody's eye.

[1:02:59] We are currently working and hopefully we'll be approved at our board being tonight a contract

[1:03:05] to develop a booster station for the entirety of the terrace to increase pressures and increase

[1:03:12] fire flows for the entirety of the terrace, which it actually would not affect this particular

[1:03:18] development, but it will resolve issues for the remainder of the terrace area.

[1:03:26] So that, again, should be approved tonight for the design which should be done by the end

[1:03:34] of the year hopefully, and hopefully we can move right into construction. It is a supported

[1:03:38] project by our board so it's it shouldn't have too much trouble getting getting pushed along.

[1:03:45] In regard of the recycled water, the treatment plant will provide or will develop recycled water

[1:03:52] and will be able to use recycled water throughout the community. It was not a direct

[1:03:58] requirement for this particular project because at the time we did not have an ability to provide

[1:04:05] cycle water. If recycled water is extended across the bridge then most likely at that time

[1:04:12] it would be brought over to this project or any neighboring projects for use for landscaping.

[1:04:20] But at the current time we're not requiring it as part of this project but it is something

[1:04:23] that could be available in the future.

[1:04:28] I was going to say one other question on the some of the

[1:04:31] correspondence we received there were some questions about the current state of the waste water pond

[1:04:36] and that there were some issues that, you know, it wasn't working properly and it had to be spread to another field, I believe through surface application.

[1:04:44] Is there any, can you talk about that? And because obviously if we don't move to the, you know, you get the grant and you don't move to the improved wastewater facility,

[1:04:51] we'll still be using what's existing is the existing sufficient for this part of the development.

[1:04:57] So, the issue that we're having at the waste water treatment plant is related to percolation.

[1:05:02] The treatment process is still working as it was designed in early 2000.

[1:05:09] It does have some shortfalls, which we don't have time to go into those right now,

[1:05:14] but it is producing effluent at the quality that it was designed to provide it at.

[1:05:19] We do have issues with our new permit because of the permit limitations being reduced.

[1:05:24] that that treatment has caused other problems.

[1:05:27] But the current problem that we're having

[1:05:29] at the treatment plant and that has been put out

[1:05:32] on social media and sent out to probably all you guys

[1:05:35] and our board is that we are having a problem

[1:05:40] with percolation and the way our plant works

[1:05:43] as we go through four treatment ponds

[1:05:44] and then it goes into three percolation ponds.

[1:05:48] Those percolation ponds generally would be cycled

[1:05:50] from month to month between them.

[1:05:52] They would percolate into the ground.

[1:05:53] we'd move on to the next one, percolate, percolate, percolate.

[1:05:57] Roughly the end of 2023, early 24, we saw a decline in percolation,

[1:06:06] and that slowly got worse and worse. Right now we are percolating in our percolation ponds,

[1:06:12] but we're using a spray field on our property that we own next to the treatment plant

[1:06:16] to percolate into the ground through essentially virgin ground over there.

[1:06:22] And we are currently working with engineers to try to figure out what the actual problem is,

[1:06:27] why there's a hydraulic block below the percolation ponds.

[1:06:32] And once that's resolved, then either will be constructing new percolation ponds

[1:06:38] or constructing some alternate means of disposal.

[1:06:43] And that's not reliant on the grant at all, that that is just part of ongoing business.

[1:06:48] Yeah, correct. That is an ongoing issue that would be, that has to be resolved, whether we do anything else with the plant or not.

[1:06:55] So that will be moving forward regardless.

[1:06:59] And so following up on that, the current spraying method, disposal method is working.

[1:07:05] And you've got it managed. Maybe it's not ideal.

[1:07:08] You're managing the water you have.

[1:07:11] That is correct.

[1:07:12] Where the current spray fill that we're using is, we are working with the water board

[1:07:18] to create a permanent permit for it.

[1:07:22] We are having a temporary permit right now with it.

[1:07:25] With the water board, it is working.

[1:07:26] It actually works better than our percolation ponds have ever worked.

[1:07:31] So it may be something that is incorporated into the future as part of disposal for the

[1:07:36] future treatment plant as well.

[1:07:37] Okay. And then finally the other note we questioned we heard here today was about water storage. So to the degree that effects pressure fire safety is adequate on this site or inadequate.

[1:07:54] So though the elevation of this particular site is considerably lower than the majority of the terrace where the majority of the low pressure instances occur.

[1:08:04] and the terrace itself has a small storage tank which is planned to be removed and rebuilt.

[1:08:11] I don't have a time frame for that. The district as a whole has a deficiency in

[1:08:17] fire water storage based on NFPA and state standards. However, we don't have the funds to build

[1:08:27] additional storage at this point. Part of the, or the next phase of the booster station that I

[1:08:32] discussed earlier, is to build two storage tanks next to the booster station, so we would

[1:08:39] have an additional 500,000 gallons at that site, which would feed the booster station

[1:08:43] and ensure that there was adequate water for fire and domestic use for the entirety of

[1:08:50] terrorists, which would include this project.

[1:08:54] So following up on that, then understanding a current deficiency there, do you anticipate

[1:09:01] that your current development hookup fees, what we've heard may be roughly $3 million from

[1:09:07] this project, contributes to that existing deficiency to bring it up to date, or do you need to

[1:09:17] review your development fees and maybe consider the kind of hookup fees to get that incorporated?

[1:09:25] So the $3 million that was mentioned earlier was the wastewater connection fees.

[1:09:30] there would be obviously connection fees for water as well. So they're separate, separate

[1:09:34] entities, separate fees. And those fees would likely be placed towards construction of additional

[1:09:42] water storage. We also have additional grants and other mechanisms to fund the treatment,

[1:09:49] or not the treatment, but the additional water storage tanks that I mentioned a minute ago.

[1:09:58] They're a little bit farther out. We did just recently purchased the property to put them on, along with the booster station. So we are moving forward with that.

[1:10:09] But again, it's a sort of a phase project. First phase is to build the booster station and then then move into construction of the water tanks, which in itself is also phased into two different tanks.

[1:10:24] one 250,000 gallons a piece, so we've designed the project so that we can actually, you know,

[1:10:32] effectively actually get it done. And we haven't created this monster of a project that can't be

[1:10:37] funded. Okay, so I'm hearing you say your water connection fees anticipated from this project would

[1:10:44] help fund that not add to an existing deficiency. Yeah, the connection fees from this project

[1:10:51] or any other project that's developed on the Terrace would go into fixing the deficiency on the Terrace.

[1:11:00] Connection fees that are received throughout the district would also augment our storage for

[1:11:05] the entirety of the district, not just the Terrace.

[1:11:08] Thank you.

[1:11:10] Oh, for me.

[1:11:12] If I could just take a quick pause because I failed all of us and ask if anyone had any export take

[1:11:20] communications on this item.

[1:11:22] Now that we're three quarters of the way through it.

[1:11:26] Yeah, actually, I'm prior to the previous hearing.

[1:11:29] I did speak with applicant and the agent at the property.

[1:11:32] I spoke with Greg Grohl previously, Murray Powell.

[1:11:36] And then I also reached out to Blaine,

[1:11:38] really the director of the GSA.

[1:11:40] Thank you, anyone else?

[1:11:43] Okay.

[1:11:44] Thank you for the reminder.

[1:11:45] It's prominently displayed in front of me now.

[1:11:50] Okay.

[1:11:53] So the minimum water pressure that we have to provide is 20 PSI, there is a requirement.

[1:12:03] 2, 2, 0 not 1, 2, 0, 2, 0 for it.

[1:12:08] There is a requirement for large increases to our system, so if you, I don't remember the

[1:12:16] exact percentage, but this particular project would be subject to the higher minimum pressure,

[1:12:21] which is 40 PSI, however, because they are at a lower elevation, they already meet that.

[1:12:26] Okay, and then the other question is, or comment was, so right now, there's not enough capacity

[1:12:35] for fire. You don't have enough reserve fire water currently in the district, is that what

[1:12:40] I'm hearing that you're, so we, so we have the way the system of the district is designed

[1:12:48] as we are on one pressure zone with one system essentially fed, the system's backfed by wells,

[1:12:56] but it's gravity fed from tanks. We have one large tank on the west side that feeds everything,

[1:13:03] and we have one small tank on the terrace, which has been there for a long time. It's useful,

[1:13:08] but it's not really, we'll just ignore it for now, I guess, but the, so as far as firewater

[1:13:15] storage goes, we have an adequate amount for the district. We do not, we are

[1:13:21] deficient if you look at NFPA standards or at state standards for

[1:13:25] what fire water storage for the types of structures we have and the size of

[1:13:30] our community. The district isn't at risk of running out of water if we have a

[1:13:37] significant fire within the district, but if you look on paper we're deficient.

[1:13:44] That's part of what would be addressed with our future tanks is to get us closer to that amount.

[1:13:50] But as right now, that project's not funded, correct?

[1:13:55] For the tanks and the booster pump?

[1:13:57] Correct, it's not funded yet.

[1:14:03] And you, Cal Fire would have signed off on this as well already.

[1:14:08] I'm assuming.

[1:14:08] So Sam Miguel has our own fire department, so Sam Miguel fire department has been in, has reviewed these projects or this project and has provided any income or any comments that would have been required.

[1:14:23] As far as I'm aware, the requirements have been addressed.

[1:14:28] Okay,

[1:14:38] and then one of the questions, so the new plant when it expands is going to have the capability to produce and recycle water, but this project right now is public, we're not requiring any recycle water.

[1:14:51] So they're not going to be supply lines to this project for future hookups, and if they, even though you're going to provide it in the future, it won't be a supply line there.

[1:15:12] So, although recycle water was anticipated as part of the expansion of the treatment plant, we were not clear on when what that timeline was in the beginning of this project. And there is no existing recycled water throughout town.

[1:15:27] So any recycled water that this project would use would be brought from the treatment plant on the other side of the river.

[1:15:35] There's no immediate plans to install recycled water to the community due to the high cost of doing so.

[1:15:43] In the future, if we bring recycled water across the river, then we would most likely incorporate that into this project.

[1:15:52] but yes, you're correct, they would have to bring lines back into this development to wherever their landscape meters are and connect those, right?

[1:16:03] Is it, would you be able to use a recycle water to re-inject back into the aquifer when you guys build a plan or do you plan? Is that part, I can't remember if that was part of your plan?

[1:16:11] That is actually one of the possible uses of the recycle water is either to

[1:16:18] Percolate it into a ground into the ground at a location that's

[1:16:21] Suitable for percolation in the groundwater and to recharge the basin or to direct inject it and direct injection requires a lot more

[1:16:29] Infrastructure and is considerably more costly

[1:16:34] But that is one of the one of the possible projects to deal with the the effluent and

[1:16:40] And to also augment our groundwater.

[1:16:44] Okay.

[1:16:45] Probably should be using geotagism and get back in one way or the other.

[1:16:49] Yeah.

[1:16:51] That's all I have.

[1:16:53] So far.

[1:16:56] Let it qualify.

[1:16:58] Miriam anything?

[1:16:59] Yeah.

[1:17:00] I'm good now too.

[1:17:01] Thank you.

[1:17:02] Don't run away.

[1:17:05] Staff, was there anything else you wanted to address from the public comment?

[1:17:09] We had one question at the beginning about the relation of the timing of the phases.

[1:17:15] of the map and the available services. I think it was Commissioner Shaw's questions.

[1:17:19] I just wanted to clarify, we do have condition number 27 that requires the will serve documentation

[1:17:26] for water and sewer to be provided prior to recording the map for each phase. So of course,

[1:17:33] that's how we make sure services are available before the parcels are legally created.

[1:17:38] But there was also a lot of discussion at the last meeting about extending the term of the map.

[1:17:44] So it wouldn't expire and we had the opinion of county council that for the subdivision map act and county code we can't write anything in there that would extend the term of the map.

[1:17:58] I know there was some discussion about if there was a moratorium in place, maybe some other legislation kicks in, but at this time with what we have, we're not able to write in anything to extend the term of the map with these conditions.

[1:18:13] So, I just wanted to make sure we're clear there.

[1:18:17] Thank you.

[1:18:20] Okay.

[1:18:21] So, we're an interesting point.

[1:18:23] It's 10-20 nearly.

[1:18:25] We're scheduled to take a short recess at 10-30.

[1:18:28] But since we're about to enter into deliberations,

[1:18:31] I just wanted to propose to the commission that maybe we do 10 minutes.

[1:18:35] We come back at 10-30 or so if that works.

[1:18:39] Okay.

[1:18:40] So folks, we're going to take a brief recess.

[1:18:42] It will reconvene at 10-30.

[1:18:44] So, about 10 minutes. Thank you.

[1:18:58] All right, everyone. Thank you for your patience. We're going to reconvene the Planning Commission meeting on this first hearing item.

[1:19:05] I believe we're at the point for Commissioner deliberations. Would you like to start being D1?

[1:19:13] So, I think I'm going to just kind of lead with the fact that we need housing.

[1:19:18] And so, I think I'm looking at this project through that lens.

[1:19:22] There's obviously a bit of concern, I think, with the consistency that we're showing where we're denying some projects, because of lack of water, but then looking at this point where it's 180 homes, and so that it's something that I definitely am wrestling with.

[1:19:39] We do have a wheel serve letter from Sammy Gell, and so I'm relying on the fact that they're saying they have the available water.

[1:19:50] I'm relying on the county council saying that the decision was basically just giving the rights to the overliers, but not saying how much that was.

[1:20:02] And so I am definitely supportive in willing to make a motion to basically move forward with this project, but that's kind of where I'm coming out with this.

[1:20:10] So I'd love to hear other commissioner's thoughts as well.

[1:20:13] Well,

[1:20:15] I appreciate that and agree also recognizing that housing is so much needed.

[1:20:22] The part of it where we may deny or I may vote to deny housing in other areas is that

[1:20:29] it's different here is this project very much aligns with the community plan.

[1:20:34] This is a zone that's been designated for residential and commercial, which we're now allowing

[1:20:41] in encouraging housing to go into. So sometimes we see some other proposals where that zone and

[1:20:47] that community vision doesn't necessarily align. So given that that community vision has been

[1:20:53] clearly expressed for this location for a decade, I'm not troubled by approving this. I like that

[1:21:00] the phasing is here and that the phase one has the smaller, more affordable by design homes.

[1:21:07] I'm very pleased to see that we have conditioning that at least 10% of these homes will be conditioned

[1:21:14] as permanently moderate, affordable.

[1:21:17] So we don't see that in all of the projects that we get.

[1:21:20] So I would have loved to see some lower income affordability targets as we discussed.

[1:21:26] Hopefully we can hit those with the ADU requirement and thanks to the applicant for being willing

[1:21:31] to put that in.

[1:21:32] That's been contentious in some other projects.

[1:21:35] and so that adds some potentially smaller JA to use and aid to use in that may hit our lower income affordability targets.

[1:21:44] It's relatively near the town center and at a moderate density.

[1:21:49] So given those items, I'm very comfortable voting to approve this today.

[1:21:55] On the water, I do understand the community concerns.

[1:21:59] I do understand that the Basin is in overdraft and there are some issues that will have to,

[1:22:04] You know, get reconciled down the line.

[1:22:07] We're going to be talking a lot about water every day.

[1:22:10] We do this and it is a huge concern.

[1:22:13] So I do sympathize with the community members' concerns,

[1:22:16] particularly the agricultural productionists who've spoken here today

[1:22:21] and have some concerns about their ability to continue viability

[1:22:26] with their agricultural production.

[1:22:28] I think we may need to reconcile some of that.

[1:22:31] But long those lines, town use, residential use is really a relatively minimal use compared

[1:22:38] to Ag use.

[1:22:40] It's going to come up in the next hearing, but I was talking to a brancher recently

[1:22:45] and his use for some tree production, crop production is very similar to much of the whole

[1:22:53] town of Cambria's use.

[1:22:55] And so we are going to have to kind of balance some of that over time.

[1:22:59] So that's a head in front of us, it'll be messy, but comfortable with this today.

[1:23:07] Thank you, Commissioner Shaw.

[1:23:10] Yeah, not much more to add, I echo their comments, I agree.

[1:23:15] I don't think it's our place to relitigate the groundwater basin issues here today.

[1:23:22] We have to go with what our attorney and our staff is telling us and

[1:23:28] the will serve letter and the community plan and yeah, I'm supportive and supportive of

[1:23:35] housing. Thank you.

[1:23:38] Mr. Rebels.

[1:23:41] So one comment on the the AG versus residential, the water use, it's kind of tight. It's self-fulfilling

[1:23:49] when we use all the water for houses and there's no food being grown. It'll kind of cancel itself

[1:23:54] out. So we don't have to worry about that.

[1:24:01] the project is clean. I mean, it's a decent project. It's within everything I'm not going

[1:24:07] to read or read with. I'm Alex said, but the bottom line is frustrating because I feel

[1:24:14] like the county selectively uses water when we can and can't approve a project. We tried

[1:24:21] I just split a lot for a guy here a couple of months ago that had four, four lots he wanted split and he said no, there's not enough water and now we're going to build 181 houses enough water, you know, the water doesn't know if we're putting in low income houses or not.

[1:24:34] Just those were putting in houses.

[1:24:36] So that part's frustrating to me and I understand what everybody's saying about the water.

[1:24:41] It's a, it seems like it's used when it needs to be used, whichever way it wants to go.

[1:24:47] But with that said, the project, it's a clean project, it meets everything, it needs to meet.

[1:24:53] There's a will serve letter, sounds like the fire signed off, which was two of my concerns.

[1:25:00] That's all I really have to say on it.

[1:25:02] That's my opinion.

[1:25:04] Thank you.

[1:25:05] And I believe everything up here has been well stated and

[1:25:09] shared, it is frustrating, but I think, you know, acting within our lane of what our

[1:25:16] authority is, we have, we'll serve from the CSD. We also know that of something really

[1:25:23] unfortunate that happened in that grant and come through. Phase one would be self-limiting

[1:25:28] development of this housing tract. And other than that, I believe it's a clean project.

[1:25:34] And there's a lot of other conversations that need to be had outside of this room.

[1:25:39] So would someone like to make a motion?

[1:25:43] Commissioner?

[1:25:44] Before you make a motion, I had one more comment.

[1:25:47] Did you have one staff?

[1:25:51] Sorry.

[1:25:52] Oh, I just before a motion is made, I had one more comment.

[1:25:55] I was very pleased to see that our hanging item from the last meeting got handled as far as the road improvements.

[1:26:03] And so thanks to public work staff for working that out and to the applicant.

[1:26:08] Although I wasn't pleased to see that the shoulder on Indian Valley was reduced to two feet.

[1:26:15] As a cyclist who kind of relies on those shoulders, that wasn't the way I wanted that to go.

[1:26:21] But I'm glad that got worked out to, you know, that the lots could be maintained and the number of homes.

[1:26:28] So it worked out okay that we could keep that number of homes and meet county standards.

[1:26:36] I guess the pathway there will be a bikeable, I presume, as part of the loop trail.

[1:26:42] So that may meet the need adequately.

[1:26:44] But as a cyclist who doesn't always want to bump on a kind of sidewalk up curbs and

[1:26:48] around, that can be a bit challenging.

[1:26:51] That's all.

[1:26:52] Thank you, staff, are you going to bring up three visions?

[1:26:55] Thank you.

[1:26:56] Thank you.

[1:27:02] Yes, thank you.

[1:27:03] We have additional condition amendment requested by the applicant and reviewed by Public Works

[1:27:09] that we wanted to show you.

[1:27:11] This is the only one that wasn't in the memo that you received prior to the hearing.

[1:27:21] So as it states, number one, this is the Public Works Condition Road and Streets are to be constructed

[1:27:27] to the following standards unless already constructed and acceptable or design exceptions

[1:27:33] are approved by the Public Works Department in accordance with Section 1.2 of the public improvement standards.

[1:27:39] Indian Valley Road shall be widened to complete the project frontage of a modified A2D urban street section with 11 or 12 foot travel lane as determined by public works.

[1:27:53] 10 foot turn lanes, two foot paved shoulder, and a five foot sidewalk fronting the property within a dedicated right away easement of sufficient width.

[1:28:02] to contain all elements of the roadway prism as recommended by Rivers Edge, San Miguel, traffic and circulation study review prepared by CCTC, data July 14, 2025, as phased as, oh, and phased as applicable.

[1:28:21] Thank you.

[1:28:24] All right. With that, Eric, would you mind bringing up the recommendation, please?

[1:28:45] All right.

[1:28:46] We are pursuant to secret guidelines section 15183 and to approve track map and conditional use permit and SUV 2022-00047 based on the findings listed in Exhibit A and the revised condition listed in Exhibit B.

[1:29:03] I'll second that.

[1:29:05] Thank you, Clerk.

[1:29:07] Commissioner Viecona?

[1:29:08] Yes.

[1:29:09] Commissioner Wyatt?

[1:29:10] Yes.

[1:29:10] Mr. Shaw?

[1:29:11] Yes.

[1:29:11] Mr. Ava?

[1:29:12] Yes.

[1:29:13] And Chair Lee were in.

[1:29:14] Yes.

[1:29:15] That concludes this item.

[1:29:16] I thank everyone who has come for this item for their focus, their attention, and their participation.

[1:29:23] Give you a moment before we move to the next item.

[1:30:03] Okay. Clerk, would you introduce the next item, please? Yes. Hearing item number five is a hearing to consider a request by vertical bridge, Verizon, and T-Mobile for a conditional use permit and variance to allow for the construction of a telecommunications facility and public utility facility. This is county file number N-DRC-2024-0046 and this is in Supervisorial District 1. Thank you. Commissioners, any expert take communications to disclose?

[1:30:33] close. I've got it. All right, staff can introduce the project team, please.

[1:30:39] Yes, Eric Hughes, planning and building, presenting the item. We have Planner Blake

[1:30:43] Molly. And in support, we have super rising, super rising Planner Kerry Brown, myself Eric

[1:30:48] Hughes, and Deputy Director Markler.

[1:30:52] And JR.

[1:30:54] Hi, good morning, commission. I'm going to request a quick recess to get their correct presentation.

[1:31:00] We've had a lot of revisions made, so I could have 10 minutes to run across the street and

[1:31:05] We can come back to be great.

[1:31:08] Oh.

[1:31:10] Could we do a switch up?

[1:31:12] Yeah, certainly, Chair.

[1:31:13] To keep us moving, is it possible we could take item six while you

[1:31:19] or collect what you need?

[1:31:22] Or should that have been an agenda review?

[1:31:24] I think we need to go with the recess.

[1:31:30] All right, three minutes.

[1:34:53] Good morning Chairperson Lieberman and members of the commission.

[1:34:55] My name is Blake Molly.

[1:34:56] I'm a project manager with the Planning and Building Department.

[1:34:59] Today, I'll be presenting a request by Vertical Bridge, Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile for

[1:35:06] a variance in conditional use permit, county file number N-DRC-2024-0046 for a wireless

[1:35:19] communications facility.

[1:35:23] The proposed facilities and unmanned wireless communications installation originally designed

[1:35:29] defined as a originally designed and evaluated as a 65-foot tall monopole.

[1:35:38] The applicant has actually resubmitted with a 69-foot tall faux monopine, and that is

[1:35:45] a preferred design.

[1:35:48] As a better integrates with the surrounding environment, Memo was submitted to the commission

[1:35:53] to propose the faux monopine for your consideration.

[1:35:57] This wireless facility consists of 19 panel antennas, 18 remote radio units,

[1:36:04] three service lights, and associated equipment cabinets and hardware,

[1:36:09] all located within a 1600 square foot lease area, and surrounded by a six foot tall fence.

[1:36:17] Additionally, this request includes the improvement of an approximately 5,275 foot long access road,

[1:36:24] and grading on slopes and access of 30%. Both towers will feature the same equipment and lease area.

[1:36:38] The proposed project is located approximately half a mile south of the village of Heritage Ranch.

[1:36:44] I would like to mention that the nearest residence to the project is approximately 1,972 feet north of the project site.

[1:36:57] The parcel is located within the rural land use category with the access road going through zoning designations of residential single family and open space.

[1:37:15] Here we have an aerial image of the parcel. Please note the approximate project area is near the northernmost portion of the westernmost parcel.

[1:37:26] In this, you'll see the project site outline and yellow with the access road identified with the yellow dashed lines.

[1:37:40] In this slide, we're looking at the proposed site plan with the lease area outlined in red.

[1:37:50] In this slide, it illustrates the eastern elevation of the proposed monopole design.

[1:37:59] And this is the eastern elevation with the monopine design.

[1:38:04] here's

[1:38:10] the southern elevation of the monopole design,

[1:38:18] and here's the same southern elevation with the monopine design.

[1:38:29] Here's an expanded view of the proposed equipment area. Please note the location of the proposed 1600-square-foot-least area outlining red with the tower outlining green and the equipment areas outlining blue.

[1:38:46] In

[1:38:52] this photo simulation, you're looking at the monopole design as viewed from a heritage

[1:38:57] road looking southwest.

[1:39:02] And here's the same simulation but with the monopine design.

[1:39:12] Here's the proposed monopole facility seen from water view drive looking south.

[1:39:19] And here's the same visual simulation with the monopine design.

[1:39:25] And

[1:39:30] finally, this is our last set of visual simulations.

[1:39:34] This is from Black Horse Lane, and this is the monopole design,

[1:39:41] and this is the same simulation with the monopine.

[1:39:49] In this slide, we see two T-mobile propagation maps.

[1:39:53] The dark green color represents good coverage inside a commercial building.

[1:39:58] The bright green represents good coverage in a building.

[1:40:01] yellow represents good coverage in a vehicle with gray representing good coverage when outside.

[1:40:08] The map on the left illustrates the current and existing coverage within the area with the map on the right

[1:40:15] depicting the project coverage if the proposed facility is approved and constructed.

[1:40:26] In this slide, we see two propagation maps for Verizon Wireless coverage at 700 megahertz.

[1:40:32] The green represents good coverage in a building, yellow represents good coverage in a vehicle,

[1:40:39] and the red represents good coverage went on the street or outside.

[1:40:44] The map on the left shows the existing coverage, and the map on the right shows the proposed

[1:40:49] coverage.

[1:40:55] And here is another Verizon propagation map that they proposed for 2100 megahertz.

[1:41:02] The map on the left is current, and the map on the right is proposed.

[1:41:06] Under

[1:41:12] the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, the county is not permitted to consider the effects of radio frequency emissions when evaluating a communications facility.

[1:41:24] However, staff does verify that the radio frequency emissions meet the applicable FCC standards for public exposure.

[1:41:31] This facility has been deemed to comply with these FCC standards.

[1:41:35] words.

[1:41:38] I'd like to bring to the attention of the commission that the applicant has proposed

[1:41:43] some revised conditions of approval.

[1:41:48] Staff has reviewed this revision with council and

[1:41:53] supports the proposed revision. Another change the conditions has been made here and we

[1:42:02] support that, which is striking condition number 15, the one seen on your screen entirely.

[1:42:08] Staff supports that revision.

[1:42:16] The project is exempt under CEQA, and a notice of exemption has been prepared and is included

[1:42:21] in the staff report.

[1:42:22] Staff is recommending approval of the variance and conditional use permit based on the findings

[1:42:27] listed in Exhibit A, and the revised conditions listed in Exhibit B.

[1:42:35] that concludes staff's presentation. We're here to answer any questions you may have also with us on behalf of vertical bridge Verizon NT mobile is Melissa Keith with assurance development and she has a presentation and can also answer any questions you should have. Thanks.

[1:42:52] Thank you very much. Any initial questions for staff before we invite you to the application?

[1:42:57] I just have one quick one. Whose idea was it to switch to the monopine versus monocle?

[1:43:03] Was that due to community feedback or?

[1:43:06] Yeah, initially the project application was submitted showing the monopole design.

[1:43:13] As we got through the staff report and review of the project,

[1:43:19] It was made to our, brought to our attention that the property owner had requested that the design be a monopine.

[1:43:28] And assurance development, vertical bridge, Verizon and T-Mobile are all in agreement that that would be the best design.

[1:43:36] Okay, thank you.

[1:43:39] So that kind of piggybacked on this, so we're just looking at a monopine.

[1:43:44] You were showing us the monopulges for reference?

[1:43:47] Yeah, we showed the mono poll since that was in the original staff report that was provided to you guys.

[1:43:57] The new mono pine is what the applicant is requesting and has prefers.

[1:44:06] It's up to you guys' discretion to determine which design you would prefer.

[1:44:12] but the monopine is the preferred design as proposed by the applicant.

[1:44:19] Okay, and then on 15, just clarity, we're striking the whole thing.

[1:44:23] Or just what you had read line.

[1:44:25] Originally, it was going to be just the read line revision but following some correspondence

[1:44:33] that we had with our legal council, the entire condition being struck from the staff report

[1:44:38] makes the most sense.

[1:44:39] Thanks.

[1:44:41] Any other questions to my right?

[1:44:44] All right, I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward.

[1:44:58] Good morning, everybody.

[1:45:00] Thank you for taking the time to listen to our case. Thank you. I did bring copies, five copies of my PowerPoint, although Blake has covered a lot of the territory that I was planning to cover, but I'll still hand it out.

[1:45:30] So I'm going to start with reading a brief statement, and then I will go into my PowerPoint in just a moment here. So again, good morning to all the members of the Planning Commission.

[1:45:42] I'd like to thank you for taking the time to review our project and consider it for approval today.

[1:45:48] My name is Melissa Keith, and I am here to speak on behalf of Vertical Bridge.

[1:45:53] It's our company that develops infrastructure for wireless carriers.

[1:45:58] Vertical Bridge is

[1:45:59] proposing to install a new 69-foot monopine

[1:46:05] located in the

[1:46:07] Nascimento sub-area of the North County, the site was chosen based off of coverage needs and feasibility which would properly address the poor coverage located in this area of the county.

[1:46:27] The site is intentionally designed as a tree, because we believe that this would blend in with the surrounding environment.

[1:46:39] Our proposed tower installation is designed to positively contribute to the quality of the county's overall infrastructure.

[1:46:48] And we'll also ensure that coverage services are adequately met for day-to-day use and for any natural or man-made emergencies.

[1:46:56] And so now I will go ahead and start my presentation here, sorry, the PowerPoint specifically.

[1:47:07] So like I said, I'm representing Vertical Bridge, however, I'm directly with Assurance

[1:47:13] Development.

[1:47:19] And as Blake mentioned, initially this was processed as a monopole, but now we are proposing

[1:47:25] seeing a 69-foot monopine for the sake of screening purposes, and because that is the landlord's preference.

[1:47:32] The facility will allow two mobile and Verizon wireless to fill a service need by providing wireless coverage to this area of the county.

[1:47:40] The facility will allow a two mobile and Verizon wireless to provide more reliable wireless services and

[1:47:46] improved access to additional wireless services for the benefit of residents, businesses, visitors, and first responders.

[1:47:53] and the facility has been designed to support additional wireless providers without the need for a new freestanding facility in the area, so it is designed for future co-location as well.

[1:48:05] Just some information regarding the future of wireless where it currently stands and where the trend is expected to go.

[1:48:14] The demand for wireless is expected to grow 20% by the per year through 2028.

[1:48:21] 98, 97% of Americans have a cell phone, an 85% on a smartphone, 72% of households rely

[1:48:32] on wireless as their only means of telephone communication.

[1:48:36] Over 81% of children live in wireless only households, over 85% of renters live in wireless

[1:48:43] only households, and 240 million calls are made to 911 in the US each year, and in many

[1:48:49] areas 80% or more are from wireless devices. These are the same coverage maps that you had

[1:48:57] just seen with Blake's presentation. So this is Team Mobile's cover to the left is what it

[1:49:04] currently looks like to the right is what the coverage would look like after the tower would be

[1:49:11] installed. And as you can see, it would be a very significant improvement here. There's a lot of

[1:49:17] greater to the left, which shows that there is very little to no coverage currently.

[1:49:24] And we've been told by local residents actually that Wi-Fi is relied on quite heavily to

[1:49:31] get any coverage here.

[1:49:33] So this will definitely improve that for the community and for safety purposes as well.

[1:49:39] This is the Verizon coverage maps.

[1:49:43] same thing here. This shows the significant improvement between the before and after.

[1:49:49] The proposed facility along with some of the access path.

[1:49:56] This just shows sheet Ellis one of our plans which shows the access path and then the leading to the site.

[1:50:07] This is currently our proposed design, so the monopine, like I said, is the current design

[1:50:14] and I know this is a little redundant in the past, because the previous presentation showed this.

[1:50:19] And these are the sims showing the monopine view,

[1:50:24] and then the sims showing the monopole views.

[1:50:30] So the requested action here.

[1:50:32] So, county staff recommends approval of the proposed telecom facility subject to the conditions which we are on board with and the telecom facility will fill a significant gap in team mobile and Verizon wireless is coverage in the service area.

[1:50:50] The project will comply with FCC regulations for radio frequency emissions and alternative sites where they're really assessed and disqualified based on the foregoing applicants, respectfully request approval today.

[1:51:06] And again, thank you all for your time and to staff for working with us in developing this project.

[1:51:13] Excellent. Thank you. Any questions for the representative?

[1:51:17] All right. Thanks very much.

[1:51:19] Thank you.

[1:51:25] At this time, we would open public comment. I currently don't have any speaker request slips for this item

[1:51:32] Is there anyone wishing to talk about the cellular site?

[1:51:35] Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and close public comment

[1:51:42] Yeah

[1:51:44] Sure

[1:51:45] Unless there's further questions. Okay, so I'll go ahead and then make the emotion to approve conditional use permit NDRC

[1:51:52] be 2022-2004-00046, based on the finance listed in exhibit A, and do I need to put the revised conditions and the revised conditions listed in the exhibit fee.

[1:52:06] We shall we put that in the slide?

[1:52:08] Yeah, that would be great.

[1:52:09] Yep.

[1:52:20] While those conditions are being pulled up here, Q's kind of planning, I do want to note that it is initially used permit and variance.

[1:52:27] That's being approved here today.

[1:52:40] Second.

[1:52:41] Anyone?

[1:52:41] Sure.

[1:52:43] I'll second.

[1:52:46] Yeah.

[1:52:46] We're going to read that in the record.

[1:52:49] Cool.

[1:52:50] So what's being struck from the conditions of approval is condition number 15 prior to

[1:52:56] final inspection.

[1:52:57] The applicant shall install RF exposure signage in compliance with applicable FCC regulations

[1:53:03] and ANSIC 95.2 standards on the fencing and antennas.

[1:53:09] The sign shall direct unauthorized personnel to remain outside restricted areas.

[1:53:15] Advise workers to deactivate the facility prior to performing work within seven feet of the antennas.

[1:53:20] And shall include facility contact information as required by federal law.

[1:53:24] Thanks.

[1:53:28] And revise condition number one.

[1:53:33] And that is the design, stating that the equipment will be located on a 69 foot tall model pine.

[1:53:43] Thanks.

[1:53:43] Yes.

[1:53:51] Thank you.

[1:53:52] Clerk.

[1:53:56] Commissioner Villacana.

[1:53:58] Yes.

[1:53:58] Commissioner Shaw.

[1:53:59] Yes.

[1:53:59] Commissioner Wyatt.

[1:54:00] Yes.

[1:54:01] Commissioner Ava.

[1:54:01] Yes.

[1:54:02] And Charlie Berman.

[1:54:03] Yes.

[1:54:03] Thank you.

[1:54:11] All right.

[1:54:12] This brings us to the next hearing item.

[1:54:15] Clerk, if you could introduce it, please.

[1:54:20] Yes.

[1:54:21] Hearing item number six is a hearing to consider a request by the Nipomo New Beginnings Community

[1:54:26] Church of Nazarene for a conditional new use permit to allow a religious facility on a parcel

[1:54:31] less than 20,000 square feet in size.

[1:54:34] This is county file n-DRC 2022-0014,

[1:54:40] and this is in Supervisorial District 4.

[1:54:44] Thank you very much.

[1:54:46] Any expertly communications to disclose?

[1:54:51] All right, deferred to staff for a presentation.

[1:54:54] Yes, Eric Hughes planning and building presenting today.

[1:54:57] We have a planner Lane Sutherland

[1:54:59] and then in support myself, Eric Hughes,

[1:55:02] is Mark LeRude W. Director and I don't want to forget Public Works J.R. Beard and County Council

[1:55:08] Beddor, thank you.

[1:55:15] Hello.

[1:55:16] Good morning, Madam Clerk and members of the Commission.

[1:55:19] My name is Lane Sutherland, Project Planner.

[1:55:22] Today, I will be presenting a conditional use permit request submitted by Nipomo New Beginnings

[1:55:26] Community Church of the Nazarene for the establishment of a religious facility on a parcel that is

[1:55:32] less than 20,000 square feet in size.

[1:55:34] The proposed project includes demolition of an existing 2057 square foot structure, known as Building B,

[1:55:42] and interior and exterior renovations to an existing 1943 square foot building A.

[1:55:49] The project will also include on- and off-site improvements to ensure compliance with parking, utilities, access, and circulation requirements.

[1:55:57] shown here is the vicinity map with the project parcel outlined in red. The project site is located

[1:56:05] north east of Highway 101 near the intersection of West Teft Street and North Thompson Avenue.

[1:56:11] Primary access to the site will be taken directly from North Thompson Avenue.

[1:56:18] Next we have the land use category map which highlights the zoning and surrounding land uses of

[1:56:23] the project site. The project site is within a commercial retail land use category and is located

[1:56:28] entirely within the Nipomo Urban Reserve Line and the Nipomo Central Business District.

[1:56:34] Surrounding land uses include commercial retail zoning, immediately adjacent to the north,

[1:56:39] south, and west, and residential multi-family zoning to the east, which is buffered by the project

[1:56:45] from the project site by an intervening alleyway at the rear.

[1:56:51] This slide represents an aerial image

[1:56:53] of the project site and its surrounding area. The next slide will show a zoomed inversion of

[1:56:58] of the same image.

[1:57:01] So the site is accessed from North Thompson Avenue

[1:57:03] where an existing driveway provides entry.

[1:57:06] Currently the parking area is unpaved

[1:57:08] and lacks designated spaces,

[1:57:11] which will be addressed as part of the proposed improvements.

[1:57:14] There are two existing buildings again.

[1:57:16] Building A is located in the Northwest portion of the site

[1:57:18] and will be demolished and building A situated

[1:57:22] in the southeast portion of the site will remain.

[1:57:28] Here we have the site plan is provided by the applicant.

[1:57:30] Please note for this image, Thompson Avenue and the site access are on the left side of the site plan there.

[1:57:37] The proposed parking layout will provide a total of 23 spaces including two accessible spaces.

[1:57:43] Frontage improvements along Thompson Avenue will complete the project side with curb, gutter, and sidewalk.

[1:57:50] And landscaping will enhance the visual character of the site.

[1:57:55] The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan which incorporates key design elements and

[1:58:00] compliance with local guidelines and standards.

[1:58:04] Street trees have been strategically placed to screen the parking lot,

[1:58:07] trash enclosure area, and building A, improving aesthetics along North Thompson Avenue.

[1:58:13] The proposed landscaping is designed to meet the county's general landscaping standards under chapter 22.16 of the inland land use ordinance.

[1:58:21] And the NAPOMO Mesa water conservation area landscape standards.

[1:58:25] At the time of building permit review, the final landscape plans will be required to demonstrate full compliance with these regulations.

[1:58:34] As shown previously on the landscaping plan and in this parking plan here, the project

[1:58:39] includes 23 on-site parking stalls.

[1:58:42] Additionally, there is at least one planted tree at an interval of at least every three

[1:58:46] parking spaces, aligning with the old town Nippomo design guidelines to enhance visual appeal

[1:58:51] and soften the built environment.

[1:58:58] This slide presents the proposed floor plan for building A. Several interior modifications

[1:59:03] are planned, including revisions of the interior walls, doors, and windows to optimize the layout.

[1:59:09] Key improvements include construction of a new stage with an ADA compliant ramp for accessibility,

[1:59:15] a slightly expanded office space to better serve operational needs,

[1:59:19] two ADA compliant restrooms to accommodate facility users,

[1:59:23] and a flexible seating arrangement using folding chairs, allowing for adaptability and space usage

[1:59:28] without any permanent fixed seating.

[1:59:31] This

[1:59:35] slide presents the building elevations for the proposed project.

[1:59:39] As condition, the project will require compliance with the architectural design guidelines outlined

[1:59:43] in the old town NAPOMO design plan.

[1:59:45] These guidelines ensure that the project maintains compatibility with the surrounding area

[1:59:49] and enhances the community's visual character.

[1:59:52] As a condition of approval, these design guidelines will be reviewed during the building permit

[1:59:56] review process to confirm compliance with all applicable design standards.

[2:00:00] Public

[2:00:04] improvements along Thompson Avenue frontage will complete the existing sidewalk profile to public improvement standards for an urban street section. New driveway will, well, the existing driveway will be enhanced and will be installed with necessary pedestrian easements conditioned by the public works department.

[2:00:26] An adjustment of the minimum site area standards required by Landish ordinance section 22.30.400 religious facilities is justified.

[2:00:34] because the project site has adequate space to accommodate the proposed use.

[2:00:39] The existing building is well suited for the intended purpose.

[2:00:42] Parking arrangements, one sure that parking needs are met without impacting the surrounding area.

[2:00:47] And these conditions make the standard minimum site area of 20,000 square feet unnecessary in this case.

[2:00:52] As the proposed site and vicinity can effectively support the use without negative impacts to the community.

[2:01:00] The project is located in the South County Advisory Council area.

[2:01:03] The project was recommended for approval by the South County Advisory Council Land use committee and it was placed on the May 20, 2024 consent agenda.

[2:01:12] The full council subsequently unanimously voted or recommended approval of the project.

[2:01:18] The project was also referred to the Old Town Nipomo Association.

[2:01:22] The Old Town Nipomo Association reviewed the project at a meeting on March 3, 2023, but did not provide comments or a formal response.

[2:01:30] I

[2:01:35] should restate that I have March 3rd here, but February 7th and February 19th, where the dates, the old tenant boomer associated with the project.

[2:01:46] During the project referral period, planning staff received responses from the Public Works Department, County Fire Division, Building Division, Stormwater Division, and the NAPOMO Community Services District.

[2:01:56] Their responses have been included as recommended conditions of approval as appropriate.

[2:02:00] The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and staff recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit N-DRC 2022-00014 based on the findings listed in exhibit A and the conditions listed in exhibit B.

[2:02:20] That concludes staff's presentation. I'm available for any questions. Also available today are the applicant's team Mike Nickerson and Mark Bala Des.

[2:02:28] Thank you very much.

[2:02:30] Commission, any initial questions for staff?

[2:02:36] One question for staff.

[2:02:38] Thank you for the report.

[2:02:40] What prompts bringing this to us here today?

[2:02:44] Why do we need this exemption for a small religious meeting facility?

[2:02:50] Yes, happy to answer that.

[2:02:52] Our land use ordinance requires that for a religious facility use,

[2:02:56] it requires a minimum site area of 20,000 square feet.

[2:02:59] This site is under 20,000 square feet, so it requires conditional use permit approval to allow the use on the site.

[2:03:06] Right, I get that, but what's the underlying thinking there that prompts some need for this exemption that we have to go through this.

[2:03:17] And this has been on our docket and delayed.

[2:03:19] And I'm just this may be something we want to discuss by way of cleanup when it comes to it thinking ahead of things that we don't need to be taking a lot of time on that discussion for later, but help us understand what we're doing here. Why?

[2:03:36] Eric Hughes, County Planning and Building, and most simplest terms, it's part of the community plan that was prepared long ago and was a requirement, unfortunately I cannot speak to the reasoning and thought process at the time.

[2:03:50] In general, just thinking about a site and a bill, amount of people that would be visiting the site, generally you would, with a church, I think you'd need a larger site for parking and facilities, noting that all churches are different.

[2:04:03] but that would be my guess as to the thinking at the time, but I can't say for sure.

[2:04:09] Thank you. I have a couple questions. When we first saw this a year ago, I was kind of thinking

[2:04:17] this was just improvements to the church that's already there. So this is going to be a church next

[2:04:21] to a church, right? Correct. There is an existing church on the corner of the intersection there.

[2:04:28] And is there any like no relation prohibition?

[2:04:32] I mean, how many churches can be in a row?

[2:04:35] It just seems weird.

[2:04:37] I don't believe there's a prohibition on the amount of churches or vicinity to one another.

[2:04:42] I thought it was the anyway.

[2:04:45] Is there anything in the lit?

[2:04:49] I'm only asking this because I live in a row of ground and I go to the downtown row of ground

[2:04:55] knew very often. And there was a land use decision years ago. There was already a church

[2:05:01] in the downtown to allow that church to have another church in the downtown.

[2:05:06] And they did put conditions on that you need to be lively during the week. You need to have

[2:05:11] something for the community during the week. You need to have an after-school program because

[2:05:15] what happens is when your whole downtown becomes churches, it's like dead except on Sundays.

[2:05:22] And it's not healthy for cities, so I was just wondering, are there any additional requirements that they need to have some community outreach or something?

[2:05:35] In our standard regarding religious facilities, the only standard given is the 20,000 square foot minimum site area.

[2:05:42] I will say the applicant provided a list of the activities they foresee.

[2:05:46] And there's, you know, a dozen or more things that are throughout the week with small groups, youth group type activities or music activities to allow the community to come throughout the week, not just on Sundays.

[2:06:00] But they're not conditioned or responsible to carry forward with those.

[2:06:04] Okay. All right. Thank you. Those were my two questions.

[2:06:07] Okay, great, I'd like to, did you just make comment, I actually happen to know the applicant and I think their church is a pretty lively church, I think it's a Catholic church on the corner, but I think it'd be pretty active and I'm sure Mark would agree if there's two churches next together, but I can't get enough Jesus, you know, right Mark?

[2:06:31] Thank you for that.

[2:06:34] I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward for a presentation and maybe address those activities.

[2:06:40] Is there a presentation from the applicant?

[2:06:47] Only if he's comfortable speaking.

[2:07:01] Good morning.

[2:07:03] Some of the activities that we have done and want to continue on depending on if we have the people that can lead them.

[2:07:10] Exercise class, obviously I don't go to that yet.

[2:07:15] And whatever we do out of there, we always want it to be free for the community.

[2:07:20] So sewing class, crochet class, counseling.

[2:07:27] We have open time for the youth and guitar class.

[2:07:35] So just some of those activities that we have had.

[2:07:41] And there's probably a list of about, you know, 30 or so that either we've had, we have, or we're like to have, but all you can do is all you can do.

[2:07:52] Appreciate that. Would you mind stating your name for the record, please?

[2:07:55] Sure. Mark Valadez. Excellent. Thank you. Appreciate it.

[2:08:03] That's it. That's it. Okay. I'll go out and run away until we're done.

[2:08:15] Well, I didn't ask for public comment.

[2:08:18] Is there any public comment on the site of my don't have any speaker slips anyone interested in speaking on this item?

[2:08:25] Going, going, gone.

[2:08:28] Closing public comment,

[2:08:32] deliberation would you like to start being in district four?

[2:08:36] Sure. I really appreciate the updates on the activities. I think churches are great land use,

[2:08:46] but I just think of trying to establish a downtown and people there and people walking around,

[2:08:51] and I love another place to go out to dinner and downtown Rio Grande. So, you know, it's competing

[2:08:58] interests. So I really appreciate that you are going to plan to be lively and have things going on

[2:09:04] and have the community in, because I'm very familiar with that area, and we need that.

[2:09:09] So, yeah, I'm in support.

[2:09:12] Great.

[2:09:13] Any next?

[2:09:15] Next.

[2:09:16] Okay.

[2:09:17] So, I'm also in support.

[2:09:19] And I would just have us ask staff to look at updates that come along,

[2:09:25] and opportunities, not to require a project like this to come to us.

[2:09:29] and to remove that, consider removal of that minimum size

[2:09:34] because I don't see it as necessary.

[2:09:37] There are a lot of very small faith groups that meet

[2:09:40] and that don't need a lot of space.

[2:09:42] I live next to a church, my own a church,

[2:09:45] and to your point about lively use,

[2:09:48] it's fascinating to me because we're quite glad

[2:09:50] when they're not there a lot as the direct neighbors.

[2:09:53] So, it can go both ways.

[2:09:55] So, I love hearing your point there that that can be

[2:09:57] kind of a problem that way because we can experience it as direct to neighbors the other way.

[2:10:03] In any case, I don't think the size is relevant.

[2:10:05] I think this is a very small project that could have gone through without the time and

[2:10:09] rigmarole and expense to come here.

[2:10:11] I would have liked to help them move that along.

[2:10:13] So if there's some way we can accomplish that in the future as the department, I'd like to see that move forward.

[2:10:20] Thanks.

[2:10:21] Thank you.

[2:10:22] I can crew with a comment about streamlining when possible.

[2:10:24] Any other comments or would someone like to make a motion?

[2:10:32] I'll make the motion if I can get my

[2:10:37] iPad on the right page.

[2:10:41] Oh, okay, cool.

[2:10:42] That will bring it up.

[2:10:45] Well, I see.

[2:10:46] Here's, I move to approve conditional use permit.

[2:10:50] Oh, okay.

[2:10:51] Yes.

[2:10:52] And DRC, 2022, 0014 based on the findings listed in Exhibit A.

[2:10:58] And conditions listed in Exhibit B.

[2:11:01] I'll second.

[2:11:02] Okay, move a motion in a second.

[2:11:04] Clerk?

[2:11:05] Commissioner Shaw?

[2:11:06] Yes.

[2:11:07] Commissioner Avala?

[2:11:08] Yes.

[2:11:09] Commissioner Wyatt?

[2:11:10] Yes.

[2:11:10] Commissioner Rihacana?

[2:11:11] Yes.

[2:11:12] And Chair Lieberman?

[2:11:12] Yes.

[2:11:13] Thank you very much.

[2:11:19] You have staff a moment to rotate chairs.

[2:11:34] Clerk, would you mind introducing the next hearing item, please?

[2:11:37] Yes.

[2:11:38] The next hearing is a hearing to consider a request by Robert Maranay for a conditional use permit

[2:11:43] to allow for the construction of two separate three-story multi-family residential buildings,

[2:11:47] means totally in 15,525 square feet, and consisting of 38 market rate units.

[2:11:54] This is county file number N-DRC 2024-00307, and this is in support of a Zorio District 4.

[2:12:07] Thank you very much.

[2:12:10] Any ex partake communications by commissioners?

[2:12:14] Okay, very good.

[2:12:16] Are you going to introduce the staff team, please?

[2:12:18] Yes, Eric Hughes planning and building presenting today, we have Senior Planner Elizabeth Rano, and in support of Super Rising Planner Kerry Brown.

[2:12:27] Thank you.

[2:12:28] Good morning, Chair and members of the planning commission.

[2:12:31] My name is Elizabeth Rano, Senior Planner with planning and building.

[2:12:35] Before you today is requested by Robert Maranite for a conditional use permit, NDRC 2020400037 Hill Street Housing.

[2:12:44] The applicant is requesting a approval to construct two separate three-storey multi-family residential buildings,

[2:12:52] totaling 15,525 square feet, consisting of 38 market rate residential units,

[2:13:00] which include 18 one-bedding units and 22-bedding units. The project also includes on-site

[2:13:07] I have memories and improvements.

[2:13:12] Here's the considering map.

[2:13:13] The parcel is highlighted here in yellow.

[2:13:17] The project is located at by 49 Hilstery,

[2:13:21] about 320 feet west of Highway 101,

[2:13:24] in the community of Nipoma.

[2:13:30] The project site has a designation,

[2:13:32] 90th designation of commercial retail,

[2:13:35] and it's surrounded by commercial retail to the north,

[2:13:39] commercial retail to the east, commercial retail to the south with residential multi-family

[2:13:47] and residential multi-family and commercial retail to the west.

[2:13:55] Here's a arrow view of the site.

[2:13:59] The project will be accessed by Hill Street here to the north.

[2:14:06] The project is also located in the central business district as shown here in the dotted

[2:14:10] purple line.

[2:14:12] In a small section of the north side of the project falls within the west half quarter design plan about a hundred feet from the front setback.

[2:14:24] Here's the applicant's side plan.

[2:14:27] Here on top you have a rendering of what the project will look like.

[2:14:31] The project design includes a contemporary agrarian design that reflects the historical themes of the community of Nipomo.

[2:14:38] And down here below is more like a floor planned overall site plan.

[2:14:43] Again, here's the two buildings, one here adjacent to Hillstreet and the other towards

[2:14:52] the end.

[2:14:53] And then the middle is where the memories will be located.

[2:14:57] And then you have parking, open.

[2:15:05] This

[2:15:11] is another kind of overall site plan. The top illustrates the first floor. As you can see in the purple. The purple means it's a one better unit and adjacent to that is the car part. And then here the bottom is the second and third floor floor plan, which will be compromised of two bit of new units.

[2:15:35] Here

[2:15:38] we have the elevations, here on top is the south elevation,

[2:15:45] and here on the bottom is the north elevation.

[2:15:52] Then we have the west elevation here, and the east elevation here.

[2:16:00] And then here we have the, I'm wondering of the amenities proposed.

[2:16:06] All residents will have access to the amenities which include picnic tables, barbecue pits,

[2:16:12] It's a cover area seeding, a fire pit, and a playground for children from the ages 2 to 12 to play in.

[2:16:27] Here we have a schematic of the monument sign.

[2:16:30] This will be located at the entrance of the apartment complex, and then here to your right is the material and color examples.

[2:16:39] The

[2:16:46] project was reviewed by South County Advisory Committee.

[2:16:52] They reviewed the project on September 23rd, 2024.

[2:16:56] At that meeting, the applicant presented a revised project that didn't include a playground for children to play in.

[2:17:05] The South County Advisory Committee approved the project with the provision that the player area will children be included as part of the project.

[2:17:13] and the project has been revised accordingly.

[2:17:20] The applicant is requesting a modification for the fencing and

[2:17:26] for the our fencing standards to have some of the fencing around the property

[2:17:32] be higher than six feet and six actions due to the topography on site.

[2:17:39] The project proposes three areas to be about seven feet and

[2:17:44] approximately 11 feet in height.

[2:17:46] And right here to your left,

[2:17:48] you can see some rendering of what that will look like.

[2:17:51] There's only about three areas on the property

[2:17:53] that will have higher,

[2:17:56] that would exceed the height limit for the fancy standards.

[2:18:00] Then here we have a little bit of a closer view

[2:18:03] of rendering of what the fancy will look like.

[2:18:13] The applicant is also requesting a building standard exception

[2:18:16] for the small portion of the front setback

[2:18:18] that falls under the West-Tef corridor design plan to allow a 30 foot setback where a zero setback

[2:18:25] is required. Setf has concluded that the project satisfies the design criteria to support the setback

[2:18:31] exception. Oh, I do have a typo here on my screen. It should be 30, not 35.

[2:18:44] The applicant is also

[2:18:46] requesting a parking modification. The proposed project includes 60 parking spaces while the ordinance

[2:18:52] requirements requires the applicant to provide 61 spaces.

[2:18:56] However, a waiver of one parking spaces warranted given that the project is within the central

[2:19:03] business district, and it is due to its proximity to commercial uses.

[2:19:09] Staff does not foresee traffic safety problems to result from the proposed modification to the

[2:19:15] parking standards.

[2:19:20] With that, staff recommends that you find the project statutory is sent from CQA, pursuing

[2:19:25] going to the public resource code section 21-08-0.66, housing development projects, and

[2:19:32] approved the conditional use permit, NDRC 234-0037, based on the finance listed in exhibit A,

[2:19:40] and conditions listed in exhibit B. This concludes my presentation, and I'm available for questions.

[2:19:47] The applicant is also here with our presentation as well.

[2:19:51] Thank you.

[2:19:51] Very good. Thank you. Any initial questions from commission to staff before we bring the applicant just want to confirm what I think I heard that we're asking for a one parking space reduction from the requirement just one is one. Yeah, thank you.

[2:20:08] All right.

[2:20:10] One question.

[2:20:11] Okay.

[2:20:12] I didn't see anything in here.

[2:20:14] It sounds like these are all going to be market rate.

[2:20:16] I mean, is there any predictability on that?

[2:20:20] Like, it's just, I wish some of it were affordable or staff.

[2:20:25] Elizabeth Martin with planning and building.

[2:20:27] Yes.

[2:20:28] So, you know, we did discuss that with the applicant.

[2:20:33] However, I think that he will be able to explain a little bit better

[2:20:37] than I can, so I'll let him explain that.

[2:20:39] Thank you.

[2:20:41] It's just confirming before the applicant comes up, these are rental apartments, these

[2:20:46] are not for sale condominiums.

[2:20:49] Yes, that's correct, so would be units for rent.

[2:20:53] Okay.

[2:20:53] Yeah.

[2:20:53] Thank you.

[2:20:54] All right.

[2:20:55] Thanks, staff.

[2:20:56] The applicant would like to come forward.

[2:20:59] Got

[2:21:05] to start the show down here.

[2:21:18] All right.

[2:21:18] Good morning, commission members.

[2:21:19] C.J. Horseman, Hab Design Group, representing the applicant, and yeah, this is a project

[2:21:26] we've been excited about. We've been working on it for I think two to three years now,

[2:21:31] and I'm excited to introduce you to it. Elizabeth did a great job with kind of a lot of

[2:21:35] the details, but I have a few points I wanted to emphasize as we get into it.

[2:21:41] This kind of, here's a kind of an overall exhibit. This is very similar to the presentation

[2:21:46] I gave it the South County Advisory Committee, but our site's this really narrow strip adjacent

[2:21:52] to the Mesa Trails project, which is going to be another large housing project with affordable

[2:21:57] housing and market rate mixture. We're in that commercial zoning there, but with the kind of

[2:22:04] step up or the kind of step up zoning that we're looking at to the existing zoning directly adjacent

[2:22:12] to our site. We found it appropriate to look at a residential project here. We're close to all

[2:22:17] those goods and services which were developed across Hill Street and our site is tricky.

[2:22:24] It gets the hill for Hill Street and there's a little bump in the back so some of those things

[2:22:29] come up as well. Here's another kind of rendering just for site orientation adjacent to that Mesa

[2:22:38] a trail development. We put in the massing for the, they aren't those yellow buildings,

[2:22:42] they look a lot better than that. But just for scale of context, our site and design is

[2:22:49] kind of appropriately scaled with that project. So again, here's kind of a graphic here.

[2:22:57] Our narrow site consists of two buildings and some common there between the two.

[2:23:02] The site steps as it hill street there on the left side of the screen as it steps up.

[2:23:08] the hill building B is kind of at the top,

[2:23:10] building A's at the bottom, and then Mesa trails

[2:23:13] is to the top of the page and kind of goes down into the hill

[2:23:16] as well as it heads towards Highway 101.

[2:23:19] We wanted to orient the site with a couple considerations

[2:23:23] to the residents and Elizabeth covered one of those.

[2:23:25] The design standard would want this building to be

[2:23:29] right up on the front edge of Hill Street on the left side.

[2:23:32] We didn't really think that was best use for residential.

[2:23:35] That would be more if you had a business component

[2:23:37] or something up front, so we wanted to pool the building back and increase our front set back to 30 feet from Hill Street, and we also wanted to get the buildings as far from the noise of the highways possible, so pulling those to the south end of the site there as well.

[2:23:53] Some highlights of the architectural character, you have a gradient style, massing and design language, private yards on the ground floor, private decks on the upper floors to provide open space for every residents.

[2:24:07] So, you know, it's a taller building, it steps up the hill, so we needed to break that

[2:24:11] massing up with these gable ends and really provide some architectural interest.

[2:24:17] When we went to South County Advisory Committee, we got the feedback that this was feeling

[2:24:21] appropriate for the community as far as the design.

[2:24:25] Getting into the density and concession discussion, so with any housing project, this is where

[2:24:30] we start.

[2:24:30] We start with test fitting.

[2:24:32] What can fit on the site, what's appropriate for the site.

[2:24:35] So, we had these before we came to application and when we were starting to test fit this site given our narrow profile, the amount of site frontage that is required for access and parking really pushes us into a buildable area.

[2:24:49] That's fairly narrow to the backside. So, when we start talking about concessions and going for more units, which is what you do for affordable housing, the only way we could really accomplish that on this site is to build up.

[2:25:01] So rather than a three-story profile looking at a four-story, once you get into construction

[2:25:05] on that, you're looking, you're moving from a type five standard construction to then

[2:25:11] a podium with a type five over it.

[2:25:14] That increases the cost to develop these units per door, which makes the project a little

[2:25:20] bit unfeasible from whether this will be built, it's not being proposed by like a housing

[2:25:26] authority or something like that.

[2:25:28] So this is a private development.

[2:25:29] And then it includes some complications on the site with retaining and stuff.

[2:25:35] So feedback we got on the massing of a four-story building or more, we're not great working with staff.

[2:25:42] We kind of talked this through because more than it's and affordability is great, but in this site just we're very tight there.

[2:25:50] And we're also adjacent to a large affordable housing development to the north.

[2:25:55] So that came up during SDRC as well with the concerns that the concessions, which often is parking, so we'll get pushed out to the street for that project are we coming in and with a project that's going to have same problems and push parking on the streets.

[2:26:12] So all these factors weighing in to our decision to continue this market rate and not ask for any except for one parking space design exceptions.

[2:26:21] to get more density or to do an affordable housing project as well.

[2:26:27] So what you end up with is 38 units,

[2:26:29] kind of almost as close to ride up the fairway as you can get a housing project in the county,

[2:26:35] with a couple little concessions here and there.

[2:26:39] There's like three overlapping design standards that I'll talk to the site.

[2:26:43] So you have the county standards, the community standards in the west half corridor.

[2:26:46] So we're navigating that tight area, the bottom line is we got 38 units in 60s parking spaces

[2:26:54] and we had CAC was very supportive of the project as proposed.

[2:27:00] Elizabeth touched on this but we brought back in that playground element.

[2:27:03] There was some concern feedback from the community that due to the, you know,

[2:27:08] parks in the community needing some improvement.

[2:27:11] Having an onsite area for the kids of the play would be very beneficial.

[2:27:14] So we're happy to bring that back into the project there.

[2:27:18] I'm available as well as representative from Property Management as well for questions, but I appreciate your time.

[2:27:25] Thank you.

[2:27:26] Thank you very much.

[2:27:27] Any questions regarding the presentation?

[2:27:30] One question on parking.

[2:27:32] I see you have some garages and some surface parking.

[2:27:37] I'm just curious how you're allocating the garage parking in the surface parking.

[2:27:43] Yeah, you have to look at the application. But there's a requirement for some of those spaces to be guest spaces. I think eight of those spaces are guests. Those would be surface spaces.

[2:27:53] And then each unit, it's like 1.5 parking spaces per unit. That'll be something with property management have to work out.

[2:28:00] Obviously each unit at least gets one. Maybe the two the two bedroom units get to and there's a mixture within there.

[2:28:06] Right? As far as half spaces, you know, just how that works and covered garage versus surface.

[2:28:15] So it's not substantial to this project or support for the project, but I was kind of curious whether there would be a potential extra charge or some optionality on the garage provided to pick the garage parking versus this uncovered.

[2:28:31] Yeah. Definitely. Yeah, because I'm not sure how much we're seeing that in the county. So some curiosity is there that we could be.

[2:28:41] So for me.

[2:28:42] Just watch it for the red light. Thank you.

[2:28:44] I just had one question.

[2:28:47] What is market rate? You know, you won't, you don't know when exactly you'll build, but like what would it be today for like one bedroom, two bedroom in this area? What would you charge?

[2:28:58] That's something that I don't have current data on necessarily.

[2:29:04] Is that something Mary, you're looking at, do you have anything on there?

[2:29:09] Yeah.

[2:29:10] If you'd like.

[2:29:11] Yeah.

[2:29:11] This is Mary, along with the property management.

[2:29:15] So she might be able to speak that a little bit more.

[2:29:16] Mary, come on.

[2:29:20] Good morning, members of the commission.

[2:29:22] My name is Mary Wong, representing the applicant, Robert, Mary and I.

[2:29:26] Okay, so the question was on market rate, so we started looking into that and what we're

[2:29:32] seeing is probably in the mid to low $3 a foot.

[2:29:42] This is a project that will be professionally managed, so we're consulting with these

[2:29:49] parties who are more familiar with what's going on in the market and this is what we've been

[2:29:54] informed today.

[2:29:55] Okay, and what just remind me like what's a um

[2:30:00] One bedroom. Square footage wise. To one bedroom, it's about 530 to two bedrooms are about 830 square feet. Okay, I just and I won't hold you to that number. Anything I think is just important for people to hear. That, you know, these are one and two bedroom apartments, maybe young person starting out, maybe a single parent and we're talking 1600 a month for a one bedroom and 2500.

[2:30:30] I just think it's important for the public to know that, especially those of us who bought our homes a long time ago.

[2:30:36] What's going on for the young people, or just people trying to break in the market, but thank you.

[2:30:42] Thank you.

[2:30:47] Okay, don't have any speaker slips for public comment.

[2:30:50] Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on the item and sold closing public comment?

[2:31:01] So we're going to start commission deliberation, go ahead.

[2:31:04] I'm ready to make a motion whenever.

[2:31:08] She's ready, okay, me too, but just want to say this is a case where we've got a commercial retail site in the downtown core.

[2:31:18] And this is just what we've expressed we want to see with opportunities for housing here and fairly dense housing.

[2:31:26] It was very helpful to understand kind of the thinking on adding units and getting some

[2:31:31] of those affordable for some of the density bonus allowances and the challenges you

[2:31:37] face and trade-offs there.

[2:31:39] So would have left to see that if we could have, but understand that added cost for the

[2:31:43] extra stories and the challenges then with community support that can erode when that gets too

[2:31:50] tall and too dense.

[2:31:51] So I think you've hit a nice balance here, thrilled to support it, and I hope we're going to see more.

[2:31:57] Very good. Would you like to make a motion?

[2:32:00] Sure, I'll make a motion that we approve conditional use permit and DRC 2024, 0-0-0-3-7, based on the findings listed in exhibit A and conditions listed in exhibit B.

[2:32:11] And I'll second the motion.

[2:32:13] Very good.

[2:32:14] Clerk.

[2:32:15] Commissioner Shaw?

[2:32:17] Yes.

[2:32:17] Commissioner Avala?

[2:32:18] Yes.

[2:32:18] Commissioner White, Commissioner Recona, and Chair Lieberman.

[2:32:22] Yes, thank you.

[2:32:26] Okay, that concludes that item.

[2:32:29] It looks like we have two items remaining.

[2:32:33] We're scheduled to break for lunch for commission and staff from 12 to 130.

[2:32:39] I'd like to propose that we break now and come back at 115.

[2:32:46] I don't know, I'd vote for a shorter lunch if other listeners are amenable, that we would be okay with 1230 if other commissioners are to come back to it.

[2:32:55] Good.

[2:32:55] All right, folks, thank you for your patience.

[2:32:57] We will be back at 1230.

[2:33:04] Okay.

[2:33:06] We are.

[2:33:07] Okay.

[2:33:09] We've got a little excited there.

[2:33:13] All right, we're picking up hearing item 8.

[2:33:17] Can you introduce the item, please?

[2:33:18] Yes, that is a hearing to consider a request by the Cambria Community Services District

[2:33:23] for a development plan and coastal development permit to allow for the continued operation

[2:33:28] of the water reclamation facility previously approved to operate on an emergency basis pursuant

[2:33:34] to the emergency coastal development permit.

[2:33:37] That file number is ZON 2013-00589 and the land use application county file number is

[2:33:47] with DRC 2013-001112, and the project is in Supervisorial District 2.

[2:33:56] Thank you very much.

[2:33:59] How about disclosure of expartee communications?

[2:34:03] Let's start to my left.

[2:34:05] I did go out and get a site with the applicants.

[2:34:10] Yes, I had a Zoom with the head of the CSD.

[2:34:16] Yep, got a few.

[2:34:20] I've spoken by phone multiple times with Tina and Dickison and including 223 and 224.

[2:34:28] I had an on-site meeting there with Commissioner Avala on Friday the 13th with Mass View, Trish

[2:34:34] then Eric, Madden, Jim from CCSD and Ryan Moroney, Coastal Commission staff.

[2:34:40] So, I've also spoken with other community residents, Chris and Mark Landgren, my sister Amy Wyatt and brother-in-law Kalm Eisner, and up Creek, Nager, or John Crowther.

[2:34:54] That was quite a bit.

[2:34:57] This has come up a little bit, yeah.

[2:35:03] Yes, I met with Mr. McEleney with the Cambridge CSD on Friday the 20th and that's the extent of my communications.

[2:35:12] So thanks, everyone, for that.

[2:35:14] Staff, would you like to introduce the project team?

[2:35:18] Yes, good afternoon, Eric Hughes, current planning, presenting this item.

[2:35:24] We have Senior Planner, Jeremy Freund, and support.

[2:35:26] We have Supervising Planner, Shell Crew, myself, Eric Hughes, Deputy Director, Mark LaRue,

[2:35:31] and of course, Public Works and County Council, and I would just note that the applicant

[2:35:35] also has a team here as well.

[2:35:37] Thank you.

[2:35:39] Thank you.

[2:35:39] Good

[2:35:43] afternoon, Chairman Lehman and members of the commission.

[2:35:47] My name is Jeremy Frind, the project manager of the county.

[2:35:50] And this afternoon, I'll be presenting an overview of the proposed project.

[2:35:55] This project has been a long-term making back in January of 2014.

[2:36:01] The state declared emergency drought.

[2:36:04] Cambria CSD followed up in March of 2014, their own declared emergency stage three.

[2:36:10] Subsequently, it was determined in May of 2014 that they applied for a emergency coastal

[2:36:17] development permit for the construction of the emergency water services project.

[2:36:26] Upon a review and submittal approval of that permit, they subsequently applied for the

[2:36:32] the coastal development permit and development plan in 2014, construction started in 2014

[2:36:40] and completed in 2016. During that process the initial review and development of the subsequent

[2:36:49] environmental impact report was reviewed and adopted and certified by the district in July

[2:36:56] of 2017. A subsequent addendum EIR was reviewed and approved by the Districts Board July of 2025.

[2:37:16] As mentioned before, this project started out as an emergency water supply project known as EWSP.

[2:37:24] The project components included the advanced water treatment plant, insulation of new pipelines,

[2:37:30] mine's modification on an existing reservoir from an affluent storage basin to a brine

[2:37:36] evaporation pond, construction of four monitoring and recharge wells, installation of various

[2:37:42] electrical facilities, and improvement to an existing project access road.

[2:37:53] Since then, the construction, there have been modifications to the EWSP, and it's been converted

[2:38:00] to what's now called the water reclamation facility, WRF.

[2:38:03] those modifications include the removal facilities from the Van Gordon Reservoir,

[2:38:10] installation of the ZLD facility, which is called the Zero Liquid Discharge Facility,

[2:38:18] an extension of a discharge pipeline, construction of driveway improvements,

[2:38:25] additionally, as a summary of the impact of the site to serve area between the already built facility

[2:38:34] and proposed changes would be a total disturbance of 4.17 acres and a community

[2:38:40] leading in approximately 500 cubic yards a cut and fill. The project also,

[2:38:45] as modified as proposing to be operation up to 24 hours a day, five days a week,

[2:38:51] for seven months, during the prolonged dry season. And there'll be further discussion

[2:38:58] and information regarding what defined dry season is.

[2:39:06] The proposed project is located

[2:39:08] located at 990, San Simeon Creek Road, approximately 0.65 miles north of the Cambria Urban Reserve Line.

[2:39:15] And approximately 1.23 miles south of the San Simeon Urban Reserve Line.

[2:39:22] Look, it's additionally located east of Highway 1, and shown on the map here, the project

[2:39:29] is located adjacent to the San Simeon State Park and Campgrounds.

[2:39:35] The

[2:39:42] property is located within the agricultural land use category and is located within the coastal zone.

[2:39:51] The project is also surrounded by recreational zone to the east, west and south of the project and there's also additional agricultural zone to the north.

[2:40:02] This

[2:40:06] is an arrow of the existing site, as mentioned previously the project is surrounded

[2:40:12] by recreational uses and agricultural uses.

[2:40:18] The project site is approximately 95 acres.

[2:40:27] The original project, emergency permit project, included the following project components

[2:40:35] that's previously discussed and shown on this aerial.

[2:40:38] We have the advance wire treatment plant installation of various pipelines that connect between the plant and the pond and discharge locations construction of four monitoring and recharge well,

[2:40:54] monitoring wells and recharge wells, the utilities as well as improvements to the access road.

[2:40:59] So

[2:41:01] the WRF project now does include these, as I mentioned before, modifications to the emergency water project.

[2:41:13] And those, again, are identified as removal of facilities within the pond,

[2:41:19] proposed installation of the ZLD facility, extension of a discharge pipeline and

[2:41:27] further improvements of the frontage driveway.

[2:41:30] The

[2:41:37] project, as conditioned, complies with all applicable regulations and standards and

[2:41:41] no variances have been requested required.

[2:41:44] The project is consistent with the county's plans and policies, meets all required findings,

[2:41:49] and has undergone sufficient environmental review, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

[2:41:54] The project complies with CZLEO standards regarding sensitive resource areas and

[2:42:01] ESHA. ESHA includes wetlands, marine, terrestrial, habitat protection, streams, and riparian vegetation.

[2:42:10] The project has been conditioned to avoid or mitigate impacts to SRAs and ESHA habitats.

[2:42:19] Based on the required mitigation monitoring plan and the implementation of the adaptive

[2:42:25] of management plan known as AMP, the project complies with the CZL standards.

[2:42:32] Project also complies with CZL site design standards for setbacks,

[2:42:38] height, outdoor lighting, and aesthetics, as well as approved grading and drainage analysis.

[2:42:48] The project does fall within the North Coast area plan.

[2:42:54] The project complies with Narcos area plan, community wide standards, which include circulation, site design, near sensitive resource areas.

[2:43:03] Project is conditioned to avoid and minimize impacts to resources by the implementation of the mitigation monitoring reporting plan, as well as the adaptive management plan.

[2:43:14] As

[2:43:18] further information, the project does comply with the local coastal plan,

[2:43:22] regarding recreation and visitor serving and visual and scenic resources.

[2:43:28] As condition, the project will meet and comply with those policies.

[2:43:34] The project is located near recreational areas and will not have impacts to existing recreational and visitor serving facilities.

[2:43:42] The project does provide necessary screening and

[2:43:48] fencing, as well as lighting standards and aesthetics to

[2:43:54] comply with all medications and impacts.

[2:43:59] The project avoids, regarding an environmentally sensitive

[2:44:03] habitat, the project avoids impacts to Esha as conditioned.

[2:44:09] And as mentioned, the compliance with the environmental

[2:44:13] the Manual Review, the Medigation Monitoring Reporting Plan, and the AMP Project component.

[2:44:24] In regards to public works facilities, the UWRF would initially serve and satisfy the existing connections and meet current active users.

[2:44:42] The project was referred to public and state agencies, and the project was conditioned to comply with their standards.

[2:44:48] The project was reviewed by the North Coast Advisory Council who

[2:44:53] review and supported the project. The project did get referred to.

[2:45:00] Coastal Commission, as well as other state agencies, the regional water control, water quality control board, and their conditions have been included into the conditions of approval.

[2:45:21] Prior to the hearing, public comment letters were received, which are attached to the hearing agenda. In summary, six of the letters express concern and or opposition, while 18 letters express support.

[2:45:33] The supportive commenters emphasize water reliability, drought resilience, environmental protection through managed groundwater levels, and to utilize the already built facility.

[2:45:47] The critical comments, the critical commenters focused on items regarding additional information regarding the ZLD project.

[2:45:59] CEQA, adequacy, hydrologic uncertainties, and ESHA impacts.

[2:46:08] The items of concern have been reviewed and it is the staff's position that the project

[2:46:16] as conditioned sufficiently addresses the public comments and is consistent with the county's

[2:46:22] plans and policies.

[2:46:29] During our review, there were staff recommended additional changes to the conditions of approval.

[2:46:38] There were minor revisions to condition 14 and condition 23, which we're referring to a outdated regulatory permit number, as well as a correction to the CZLUL ordinance.

[2:46:56] We

[2:46:59] also reviewed and identified that there would be a new condition, which would be, sorry, there would be four new conditions, which three have been provided to as a staff memo to be that have been addressed, but on the screen in front of you, the new one plus the other three are going to be identified the new condition in regards to open space easement agreement that is a requirement.

[2:47:28] And we'll be a requirement for any impacts to environmental biological impacts.

[2:47:38] Second, there is under the journal category, the condition regarding maintaining compliance

[2:47:45] with all regulatory agencies regarding regional or

[2:47:50] colloidal control board, APCD, environmental health, and the county planning department.

[2:47:55] The

[2:47:59] additional new conditions regarding regulatory compliance is condition 41 and 42.

[2:48:06] Again, that has to do with compliance with regional audit quality control board waste discharge permits as well as identifying compliance with regional audit quality control board's compliance permitting criteria for the outfall extension.

[2:48:21] The

[2:48:32] proposed condition 42 is a recommended revision to now, will be considered condition 46.

[2:48:41] It's a condition that was applied and provided by the applicant to address the district's current water shortage emergency stages and what is considered a prolonged dry season.

[2:48:54] So in front of you is what the revised condition is and I just highlighted what the primary

[2:49:05] that the bigger issue of change is is further defining what a prolonged dry season is as

[2:49:11] well as what this emergency stages are.

[2:49:22] In summary, the project as condition complies with all applicable regulations and standards.

[2:49:27] The project does not require any exceptions, modifications, waivers, or variances.

[2:49:32] And therefore, staff recommends the Plan Commission find the project is consistent with the 2025 Addendum to the 2017 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Cambria Water Reclamation Facility.

[2:49:48] We're assuming two sections, 15162 and 15164 of the California Biomodel Quality Act, and approve the development plan and

[2:50:03] the coastal development permit, DRC 2013-001112, based on the findings listed in the exhibit A and

[2:50:11] the modified conditions of approval and exhibit B as modified.

[2:50:20] This concludes staff's presentation.

[2:50:22] We have the applicant and their project team here to present and address any additional questions.

[2:50:29] Thank you very much.

[2:50:31] Commissioners, any initial questions of staff before we invite the applicant's team?

[2:50:39] I'm going to hold off on my specific questions until after we hear from the applicant.

[2:50:44] But just to let the applicant know, I've got general questions.

[2:50:48] And the public, they'll be looking for some way and on as the public comes up around the pond and how that gets changed.

[2:50:57] The brain disposal, growth inducing potential, general impacts and

[2:51:03] mitigations, and particularly looking for some creative mitigations that we may be able to add on here.

[2:51:09] Economic, social, environmental impacts, and more in obligations.

[2:51:16] All right then, thank you.

[2:51:18] At this time, I'd like to invite the CSD project team to come forward and share some information with us.

[2:52:07] All

[2:52:27] right.

[2:52:29] Good afternoon commissioners.

[2:52:30] Thank you for your time, for the opportunity to present before you this afternoon.

[2:52:34] My name is Matthew McLean, I'm the general manager of the Cambridge Community Service District.

[2:52:38] The Water Reclamation Facility, otherwise known as the WRF, has been under review for many years and

[2:52:43] over the past three years in particular, the district has worked closely with county planning

[2:52:47] staff and regulatory agencies to bring the project to this point.

[2:52:52] County staff has provided direction, and the district has responded through additional

[2:52:56] engineering, environmental studies, and operational refinements.

[2:53:00] This is included in-stream flow analysis, biological assessments, ground water evaluation, and

[2:53:06] continued collaboration to ensure the project before you reflects both environmental protection

[2:53:11] and community needs.

[2:53:12] The project you are considering today is a result of that collaborative process.

[2:53:19] Cambridge's water supply is always dependent on the sand and cement creek and

[2:53:22] Santa Rosa Creek groundwater basin since 1977 and beyond.

[2:53:26] These are small coastal aquifers that have historically experienced natural cycles of drought.

[2:53:32] Reduced recharge and seasonal cessation of surface flow, meaning these creeks run dry.

[2:53:37] These conditions are part of the watershed's natural hydrology,

[2:53:40] because the aquifers directly connected to these seasonal systems.

[2:53:43] drought conditions can lead to declining groundwater levels and increased vulnerability to see water intrusion.

[2:53:50] The WRF was developed in response to that reality, not to increase demand, but

[2:53:55] to help the community responsibly manage those natural drought cycles while protecting our basin.

[2:54:05] Cambridge has been dealing with water supply limitations for decades.

[2:54:08] As early as the 1990s, the district closed the residential wait list and began exploring alternative water sources,

[2:54:13] recognizing the limits of a small coastal aquifer dependent on seasonal rainfall.

[2:54:19] In the early 2000s, the district formally declared a water shortage emergency and

[2:54:23] began long-term planning efforts, including our Water Master Plan and environmental review work.

[2:54:30] By 2013 and 2014, the California experience won the driest periods on record.

[2:54:36] The governor declared a statewide emergency, environmental review procedures were temporary suspended, and

[2:54:41] And the district authorized the Emergency Water Supply Project, now known as the WRF.

[2:54:47] To prevent the community from running out of water.

[2:54:50] The facility became operational in 2015, and as an emergency response to those conditions.

[2:54:56] Since

[2:55:00] that time, the project has transitioned from an emergency response tool to a long-term water management tool.

[2:55:06] In 2017, the storm water intrusion into the Vaporation Pond prompted the regional water control board to direct the ponds closure,

[2:55:13] which began the process of modifying operations and hauling brine became the only option for brine disposal.

[2:55:19] A picture of that pond will be displayed later on our presentation.

[2:55:23] Between 2018 and 2023, the board directed staff to update the coastal development permit application and

[2:55:29] have district re-engaged county staff and coastal commission to address outstanding issues and

[2:55:33] align the project with current regulatory expectations.

[2:55:37] Over the past three years, CCSD staff have responded to multiple information requests,

[2:55:41] completed additional technical studies, including the in-stream flow analysis and biological assessments,

[2:55:47] and refined the project description based on agency feedback.

[2:55:50] In 2025, the county accepted those responses as complete, bringing us to today's hearing.

[2:55:56] So after more than a decade of operating in his emergency facility, the question before you this afternoon is not why the facility was built,

[2:56:03] but how it operates today, and how it could be responsibly managed moving forward.

[2:56:11] The WRF is an advanced groundwater treatment and recharge system designed to improve the

[2:56:16] reliability and stability of the coastal aquifer during drought conditions.

[2:56:20] The facility extracts brackish groundwater, which is pulled from deep within the aquifer

[2:56:25] and has a higher salt content than fresh water, treats it with advanced membrane treatment

[2:56:30] process and reverse osmosis, and re-injects that high-quality water back into the aquifer

[2:56:35] through injection wells.

[2:56:36] The purpose of re-injection is to maintain groundwater elevations and preserve the hydraulic

[2:56:40] gradient that protects our freshwater basin from saltwater intrusion and water quality

[2:56:46] degradation.

[2:56:48] So simply put, the treated groundwater levels stay, excuse me, the treated waters return

[2:56:53] to the ground to maintain groundwater levels.

[2:56:55] When groundwater levels stay healthy, it keeps the ocean water from moving inland and protects

[2:57:01] the quality of the freshwater that our community relies on.

[2:57:05] With that, I'm going to turn it over to our utilities manager, Mr. Jim Green.

[2:57:12] Thank you, Jim Green, Kimberly C.S.D.

[2:57:20] The illustration up above here is showing the importance of what the actual facility does there.

[2:57:27] The hydraulic gradient between SS4 and 9P7 is orientated towards the active production area of the well field.

[2:57:34] By re-injecting treated water up gradient, we are creating a controlled localized recharge mound that promotes subsurface flow

[2:57:41] low back towards the extraction wells.

[2:57:44] During drought conditions, when natural recharges reduced,

[2:57:48] the induced gradients helps retain water within the

[2:57:51] Wellsfields capture zone, rather than allow it to migrate

[2:57:54] down gradient out of the system.

[2:57:56] In effect, the re-injection leverages the existing gradient

[2:57:59] between SS-4 and 97 to stabilize ground water levels

[2:58:03] and improve drought resilience by actively recycling

[2:58:06] treated water back into the aquifer.

[2:58:08] In simple terms, the facility is putting highly treated water back into the aquifer to actively replenish local groundwater, stabilize water levels, and strengthen the basin's reliability during dry periods of prolonged drought.

[2:58:29] And this is just an overview of our processing and different infrastructure.

[2:58:40] Currently, the facility operates under an emergency coastal development permit that limits operation to the most severe stages of water shortage.

[2:58:47] This means the facility can only be used once emergency conditions already exist.

[2:58:52] The permit before you allows the district to operate practically on a limited basis

[2:58:55] and monitor basis to prevent those emergency conditions from occurring.

[2:59:00] In a small coastal aquifer, waiting till groundwater levels have already declined,

[2:59:03] increases the risk of hydraulic imbalance and sea water intrusion.

[2:59:07] Peractive operation allows the district to maintain aquifer stability and protect the water quality while remaining subject to monitoring and adaptive management requirements.

[2:59:14] The instrument flow work evaluated whether the district operations affect habitat conditions

[2:59:21] within sand, sand, and creek, van Gordon Creek and the lagoon.

[2:59:24] The studies confirmed that these creeks are naturally intermittent systems, surface flows

[2:59:28] commonly declined during late summer and fall, and in many years portions of the creek naturally

[2:59:33] go subsurface as groundwater recharge diminishes, meaning they run dry.

[2:59:38] Seasonal cessation of surface flow is therefore a normal hydraulic condition in this watershed.

[2:59:42] For their technical review, clarified that previous analysis studies and concerns about

[2:59:47] the creeks assumed year-round flow conditions did not fully account for intermittent stream

[2:59:51] behavior.

[2:59:53] The subsequent analysis demonstrated that observed seasonal drying is primarily driven by

[2:59:57] rainfall variability and basin hydrology.

[3:00:00] Rather than operational impacts. The project concludes monitoring adaptive management to allow operations to be adjusted if these environmental conditions approach thresholds of concern.

[3:00:11] From biological standpoint, the monitoring shows that San Seaman Creek is functioning as expected for an intermittent coastal stream. As a season, excuse me, the dry season progresses, flows naturally decrease and water concentrates into deeper pools. This seasonal contraction of habitat is a normal and documented condition within this watershed.

[3:00:31] What is most important is what the

[3:00:32] a biological indicators show.

[3:00:34] Recent monitoring documented the California Redlegged Frogs

[3:00:37] present in meaningful numbers,

[3:00:39] along with abundant three spine stickled back

[3:00:41] throughout the remaining pools,

[3:00:42] and high numbers of tidewater goby

[3:00:45] in the lower reach near the lagoon.

[3:00:48] Additional species observed included searing tree frogs,

[3:00:51] southwestern pond turtle,

[3:00:52] and a variety of waiting birds utilizing the creek corridor.

[3:00:56] The continued presence and active use of habitat

[3:00:58] by sensitive species such as the California Redlegged Frog,

[3:01:01] drug and tied water gooby are among the strongest indicators that the system remains healthy

[3:01:06] and functioning.

[3:01:10] The conditions currently observed in the creek including smaller wetter areas and wildlife

[3:01:13] concentrating into persistent pools have also documented, has also been documented during

[3:01:19] dry periods when the WRF is not operating.

[3:01:21] This indicates that current conditions are primarily driven by seasonal rainfall patterns and

[3:01:26] the natural hydrology of this intermittent system rather than groundwater extraction.

[3:01:30] In summary, while habitat area, while the habitat area naturally contracts during the dry season,

[3:01:36] the biological monitoring demonstrates that sand-seven creek continues to support abundant native species,

[3:01:42] and remains within its normal range of seasonal conditions.

[3:01:45] The project includes monitoring and adaptive management to allow operations to be adjusted

[3:01:49] if environmental conditions approach thresholds of concern.

[3:01:55] The staff report evaluates the WRF for consistency with the local coastal program protections

[3:02:01] for habitats, wet land, streams, and sensitive resources.

[3:02:04] This is not a new development, but a continued operation of an existing facility

[3:02:07] in previously disturbed areas.

[3:02:10] With mitigation measures and adaptive management,

[3:02:12] the project avoids new habitat impacts

[3:02:14] and protects the lagoon, the creek, riparian areas,

[3:02:17] and dependent species, while maintaining water reliability

[3:02:21] for the existing community.

[3:02:25] When we refer to production, we mean capability

[3:02:27] rather than continuous operations.

[3:02:30] The facility is designed to produce water when needed

[3:02:32] to maintain groundwater elevations and preserve the freshwater gradient within the basin.

[3:02:37] In practical terms, the facility helps maintain balance with the aquifer, protecting

[3:02:40] the ground, drought impacts, sea water intrusion, and long-term degradation of water quality

[3:02:45] while serving the existing community.

[3:02:51] Brand management has been evaluated through multiple options, including some discussions

[3:02:55] most recently with the county of San Luis Obispo and Lafko regarding discharging brine through

[3:02:59] an existing sensing and outfall, where evaluating zero liquid discharge technology, and continuing

[3:03:04] to truck Brian and South County Sanitation District.

[3:03:07] Right now, trucking remains the current implemented option, while long-term compliance alternatives

[3:03:11] continue to be evaluated.

[3:03:15] The G word, it is important to clarify that the district does not regulate growth.

[3:03:20] The County of San Luis Obispoot through the local coastal program and growth management

[3:03:24] ordinance determines the appropriate growth level within Cambria.

[3:03:29] The district itself develops and manages water resources, and the county evaluates those

[3:03:34] resources and determines growth accordingly.

[3:03:37] The WIF does not create new growth capacity.

[3:03:40] It improves reliability for our existing community while remaining consistent with coastal habitat

[3:03:45] protections.

[3:03:47] And that is our decommissioned Brian Pond that we are no able longer to use and I'm sure we'll

[3:03:53] talk about that later in terms of mitigation.

[3:04:01] And in closing, commissioners, the WIF exists because Cambridge faced a real water emergency.

[3:04:06] The project before you represents transition from emergency response to a long-term management

[3:04:11] tool.

[3:04:12] Over many years, the district has continued to respond to questions, refine the project

[3:04:16] and invest in science necessary to make informed decisions at a significant financial cost.

[3:04:21] The facility is designed to operate within the natural variability of this watershed while

[3:04:26] protecting environmental resources and the community's water supply.

[3:04:29] We respectfully ask for you to support the Dobrieth so we can move forward as a preventive

[3:04:35] ground water management tool, one that protects the aquifer supports environmental resources

[3:04:39] and helps ensure Cambria does not return to emergency conditions in the future.

[3:04:44] Thank you for your time, and my staff is here, as well as myself to answer any questions.

[3:04:49] Thank you for the presentation, you were over by one second and I want that back.

[3:04:57] If you could stay put for a moment, I anticipate some questions.

[3:05:02] Commissioner White, did you want to start with questions now or would you let me move forward

[3:05:06] with public comment.

[3:05:07] I can't ask us, get a few questions out there before public comment.

[3:05:14] I'll withhold some, but I thought it may be helpful just to kind of try to understand

[3:05:21] the framing here in the historical context with a few general questions as before public

[3:05:27] comment.

[3:05:28] And so it's come up again in the last days.

[3:05:32] is this general question I've been hearing since something like 1996, you know, why not

[3:05:39] just put in a reservoir?

[3:05:41] That's a great question, Commissioner.

[3:05:44] And we evaluated that in 2013.

[3:05:46] And some of those numbers have been back in 2013, we're $70 million plus in addition

[3:05:51] to heavy regulatory complications with that.

[3:05:55] And so the district chose back then to look at the water reclamation facility above a reservoir.

[3:06:00] So, various reservoir placements were considered then, as they were in the late 90s and ruled out for various price and environmental challenges.

[3:06:11] Correct.

[3:06:12] Okay, because I think people, I came in thinking that was a no-brainer too.

[3:06:17] And so, I think there are lots of complications that we maybe don't always think of there.

[3:06:21] Okay, so I just wanted to make sure multiple reservoir options were considered then at the time this was put forward.

[3:06:31] Yes, Commissioner, those were looked at, again prior to my tenure, but they were looked at.

[3:06:36] Okay, thanks for that.

[3:06:38] And then as far as the general setting and need, can you help us understand current usage and kind of what this will allow?

[3:06:48] I've heard some questions around current usage and historic usage, you know, maybe current

[3:06:55] usage is around 500 acre feet, and once maybe 800 acre feet were being used, and just again

[3:07:05] that sort of setting for the need, if maybe 10, 17 acre feet are actually allowed to be pumped

[3:07:11] now, why the need for this thing?

[3:07:14] That's a good question.

[3:07:15] So, once we had that significant drought in 2016, 14, 15, 16, the district went in heavy

[3:07:24] on conservation measures.

[3:07:25] The community understood conservation.

[3:07:27] We implemented retrofit programs.

[3:07:30] So a lot of our community, whether it's through minor use permits or remiles within the

[3:07:33] district, have slowly started to retrofit homes and then natural conservation.

[3:07:38] So we saw the usage of peak usage of 8 to 900 acre feet a year being used.

[3:07:42] and now we're down in the fives, five fifties.

[3:07:45] And I think that's through conservation itself.

[3:07:48] Part of the reason for the water reclamation facility

[3:07:50] is we still hit dry seasons within that San Simeon Creek

[3:07:54] and we have to balance two very sensitive aquifers.

[3:07:59] We talk about the Santa Rosa Creek.

[3:08:01] The district is limited to about 155 acre feet

[3:08:04] from the Santa Rosa's at specific times of the year.

[3:08:08] And the only, and per the Coastal Commission

[3:08:09] and that water permit, we really shouldn't be pulling

[3:08:12] from the Santa Rosa's unless we cannot use San Simeon safely.

[3:08:17] And that's the problem with what we're doing right now in terms of San Simeon and not being

[3:08:20] able to operate the Water Relic Reclamation Facility is that during those dry periods

[3:08:24] with San Simeons, we'll lose that hydraulic gradient and then we have to move to the Santa

[3:08:29] Rosa's.

[3:08:30] So it's more of a water portfolio and a stability tool, and that's the best way I can answer

[3:08:37] that.

[3:08:37] But that's helpful because I think it's confusing to people as far as the allowance and the allotment and the actual use

[3:08:45] In how the dry periods kind of hit that and the balancing between draw from two two creeks

[3:08:51] and so a little bit of

[3:08:56] Detail on growth inducing potential

[3:08:59] We I heard you say county dictates that that's not a services district purview

[3:09:05] But help us all understand current service, wait list, and new growth a little better.

[3:09:13] I might see it in a simplified version, kind of those three parts,

[3:09:18] current service requirements, a wait list that's out there, and

[3:09:23] that potential for brand new growth.

[3:09:28] Really putting it to me.

[3:09:30] This is general setting, general setting.

[3:09:33] So ultimately the district is under a water moratorium, an emergency code 350 in which we have suspended all new intent to serve letters.

[3:09:42] We currently have and I'll have to look at Jim in terms of 665 on the wait list and

[3:09:49] existing connections is 4,434, so those are existing connections.

[3:09:56] We do have an existing commitment list which are some lots that have a meter in it.

[3:10:03] or already assigned a meter and then we have affordable housing commitments and I think we have

[3:10:08] a total of 30, 36 total in terms of existing commitments and again some of that is affordable housing.

[3:10:16] So ultimately we have a wait list of that 600 plus we have some existing commitments and then we

[3:10:23] have our current existing users. And I think it may be helpful to describe the wait list a bit.

[3:10:29] I know the Cambrian's present are pretty familiar with that list, but maybe some people aren't, maybe some of the commissioners of what is the wait list, those 660-ish parcels on the wait list?

[3:10:44] They are just that commissioner. They are a 600 plus parcels that are empty, that are waiting in line for an intent to serve letter and a water meter to hope to build a home in Cambria.

[3:10:54] And how long have they been waiting in line?

[3:10:59] It varies between if those parcels have been sold to one another, but essentially, we're looking at 20 plus years of a moratorium and those that have been waiting to build.

[3:11:09] Are there any parcels on the wait list that have come onto it after the moratorium in 2001, or is the entire wait list kind of pre.

[3:11:19] The list, I, what I guess I'm not sure of and don't remember now is when the list stopped.

[3:11:26] I know there's a county list and a CCSD list, which adds to some complications, but as far

[3:11:31] as your list, I'm just, haven't most of those 600 been on the list since 2001 or since

[3:11:40] before 2001?

[3:11:43] Commissioners, I can answer that question.

[3:11:44] I'm Tristan Reaper, a management analyst with the Cambridge Community Services District.

[3:11:50] So the wait list was closed in 1990 in conjunction with the Sandless Walsh

[3:11:55] of County Growth Management Ordinance, the residential wait list, the multifamily,

[3:12:00] and commercial are still open, and affordable housing are also still open.

[3:12:04] Okay, but so what I'm hearing you say, Mr. Reaper, is that those some portion of those 660

[3:12:13] parcels on the wait list have been there since 1990 or before, so we're not

[3:12:18] talking 20 years or whatever the math is at 35 years. That's correct. They've

[3:12:24] been paying properties tax and waiting. Okay, I mean so that comes into it and we

[3:12:28] had quite a bit of letter correspondence kind of asking about this, where the

[3:12:33] wait list stands. So when we get to discussion that's definitely of something we'll

[3:12:39] be discussing is kind of how we're treating that weight list in this or not in this.

[3:12:44] Thanks for the clarification I appreciate it because I think that's an important component

[3:12:48] that I'm not quite sure we're clear enough on yet.

[3:12:51] So we'll want to go there and then tell us a little bit just in a general way because

[3:12:57] it comes up and I'm still not quite clear on the triggers for when this thing kicks in

[3:13:04] And I know staff attempted to clarify that last night late, but my brain was off.

[3:13:09] So I think that's something I'm going to want to look at more later.

[3:13:12] But those triggers, which we don't have to get into right now, but we will.

[3:13:17] But explain the use period to us.

[3:13:20] Your calculations on what has been seven months, five days a week, times 24 hours a day.

[3:13:28] I don't understand how you've gotten to that general parameter of use for this thing.

[3:13:36] That would be under our current scenario of development.

[3:13:40] What our maximum use period is for this?

[3:13:44] Where'd that come from? I kind of get dry season.

[3:13:47] But if I did the math on the May the October, that's only six months of youth,

[3:13:53] or I did poor math on the fly, but could you explain that how we got there?

[3:14:00] So overall as a district we want to open up that envelope for the largest potential

[3:14:06] or operating period we might have to run it. So in reality for us to operate it six or seven

[3:14:12] months we would have to be in a year after year after year drought in order to really need to

[3:14:18] operate it in those terms and that length financially. I don't even know if that's possible given

[3:14:27] our current Brian disposal issues, but in terms of a permit and our operating parameters,

[3:14:32] we want to have the widest window we can. That's essentially it. Ultimately, and I'll let my

[3:14:37] utilities manage to speak to it, but we really want to only operate it proactively to produce just

[3:14:44] enough water to keep the aquifer healthy and keep operating in that fashion.

[3:14:48] When we look at those large operating parameters, this is some of the worst-case scenarios that

[3:14:53] Cambria will see in terms of large droughts, lasting persistent droughts that would force us

[3:15:00] I'm going to send to those operational parameters. I hope that makes sense. Yeah, it does. And I think that's some of the language that we're going to attempt to be clarifying in the staff's recommended changes. So I don't think we need to get into that anymore. Maybe tell after we hear public comment, then we can get a better idea of what makes sense there that doesn't quite know. And that does get into segue, though, in the cost that relates to the

[3:15:29] of use of this thing. I think we can all agree it's going to be expensive water.

[3:15:37] So, you want to just do you have some rough numbers for us? I know without a

[3:15:42] brine disposal cost and looking into the future, it's hard to say.

[3:15:47] But is there some rough comparison between what we might guess for a standard

[3:15:52] heard acre foot of the well water pumped and then acre foot of this water, just what we're

[3:15:59] looking at in differential.

[3:16:01] To be honest, Commissioner, that's going to be difficult to estimate based on operating

[3:16:06] parameters and ultimate need of the district.

[3:16:10] Additionally, we're looking at multiple brine disposal resolutions.

[3:16:14] So the brine disposal itself is one of the most costly aspects of this project.

[3:16:17] If we continue to truck Brian down the South County sanitation at let's just average it at $3,000 a trip

[3:16:24] And you're doing that five times a day at peak operation

[3:16:27] It becomes self-limiting in our ability to operate the WRF in terms of how much it's gonna cost and if you want to transfer that to acre-feet per you know cost of acre

[3:16:36] foot of water

[3:16:37] Would be difficult

[3:16:39] However, if that transportation is cut in half because we were able to go and and call it to another approved facility

[3:16:45] that's closer, that's closer, or we take a look at zero liquid discharge and some of the success that's had.

[3:16:52] And you balance that test of what it costs for ZLD and potentially for operations at the cost of fully hauling it all the way down the South County.

[3:17:01] So in short, I can't give you a number on what the average acre of foot of water would cost because the verabilities are vast.

[3:17:09] I knew that but it was worth a try. It was worth a try. Tell us a little though about something that came up.

[3:17:18] There's a question of comparative cost which I think given what you've just said you can't answer either.

[3:17:23] Between this facility and other similar facilities that was asked by the advisory council.

[3:17:29] But help explain the people here that there is a current fund balance, which is something

[3:17:35] you explained to Mike and I on the tour of the site that I think isn't necessarily clear

[3:17:40] to people, as far as some balance already being there to fund operations one day.

[3:17:46] Absolutely.

[3:17:47] It's a good question.

[3:17:48] In a sensitive question with our community, since they have been paying for this facility

[3:17:52] for the better part of a decade, there are rates assigned, fixed rates for the WRF that

[3:17:58] our community has been paying for a decade plus.

[3:18:01] Those go into our annual budget.

[3:18:03] We have an operating budget of about $1.3 to $1.4 million

[3:18:06] for the operation of the WRF.

[3:18:09] 200 to 250K of that is for the actual operations.

[3:18:14] The rest of it could be hauling staff time.

[3:18:17] There are personnel assigned to the WRF.

[3:18:20] And then we have a healthy reserves

[3:18:21] of approximately $2.1 million and reserves.

[3:18:25] service. So when we are not operating the WRF, we usually end the year in a surplus,

[3:18:31] and that surplus gets moved over into reserves. Essentially, there's a fixed rate for

[3:18:35] this facility, so it can operate. It just hasn't operated. So in general, we have healthy

[3:18:41] reserves, and we do have an operating budget. If it was to be activated and turned on, you

[3:18:47] know, those rates and fees should cover its operation. Again, we have to work as a board

[3:18:53] and staff to address the brine disposal issue,

[3:18:56] because it is costly.

[3:18:58] And our staff is looking at grants all the time,

[3:19:00] we're working with the Army Corps of Engineers,

[3:19:02] potentially, that could fund something like the ZLD.

[3:19:06] But I mean, that's how we operate the WRF or lack thereof.

[3:19:10] Okay, that's helpful.

[3:19:11] And that's just kind of segues.

[3:19:14] So that's, there's some money in the funds.

[3:19:16] So for those worried about kind of immediate operations cost,

[3:19:20] you know, some of that's already paid forward.

[3:19:24] And then help us understand how much is already in place as far as cost portionment between

[3:19:34] these sort of existing residences, the commercial users, the way it lists potentially if we're

[3:19:42] allowing, I'm going to assume for the moment we may be allowing, we list use there that

[3:19:47] would pay new connection fees? Is there enough system in place or would you say

[3:19:53] adequate system that kind of balances those costs and impacts or is that work

[3:19:58] ahead? As far as you know fees for youths and new hook up fees and as a

[3:20:06] business maybe our business meter should be paying significantly more than a

[3:20:11] residential meter. Would you say that's moderately well in place already or

[3:20:16] a lot at work ahead.

[3:20:18] I'm trying to decipher your question just a little bit,

[3:20:20] so I'm trying to think if I understand what you're asking.

[3:20:23] So we do have rate studies,

[3:20:25] and we're going through a current rate study,

[3:20:27] an updated fee study,

[3:20:28] to analyze our current fees and rates

[3:20:30] to see if they are adequate for existing services

[3:20:33] and infrastructure.

[3:20:35] And so we do have different rates

[3:20:36] that are applied to different types of water usage,

[3:20:39] whether it's commercial or residential,

[3:20:41] and but currently the WRF fees are fixed,

[3:20:43] I believe, for both residential and commercial, however, we're looking at that in terms of the fee up day and a rate study.

[3:20:51] Okay, yeah, and so that's something maybe we can discuss a little more after hearing from the public because it's come up in correspondence, and of course, as a big part of this for all the decades as far as who pays what for what.

[3:21:03] And so I know that's a huge concern of the community, so it'll be important to get into a little more.

[3:21:08] Before we take public comment, I just had one more kind of realm of questions, because

[3:21:14] I know it's a huge portion of the concern here on uncertainty is regarding brine disposal,

[3:21:21] which you referenced.

[3:21:23] And so maybe it would help to know what you're looking at there.

[3:21:27] And we talked about some options on the tour that Mike and I were privy to.

[3:21:32] That staff said, for example, they've just found out because there's a lot of new information

[3:21:37] an opportunity as far as Brian disposal.

[3:21:41] So it may help for the public to be a prize of that information, or some of that before

[3:21:46] we hear public comment, and then we can get into some more details or issues after we hear

[3:21:50] from the public.

[3:21:52] Absolutely, Commissioner White.

[3:21:54] Yeah, so I'm assuming I know where this is going, and I'm talking discussion with San

[3:21:58] Simeon.

[3:21:59] So if most of you might know that San Simeon is going through the dissolution process, the

[3:22:04] The County San Luis Obispo staff have reached out to Cambridge Community Service District

[3:22:10] to see if there's some coordination assistance that could happen there, even as much as

[3:22:16] potentially having an interconnect tie into our wastewater plant to allow us to treat

[3:22:22] their wastewater and potentially allow them to close their wastewater plant, which per

[3:22:28] the Coastal Commission needs to be decommissioned in the next five years.

[3:22:30] So we've had some of those in-depth conversations and our board has looked at and told us there's the strategic plan, a staff to analyze those opportunities with San Simeon and one of those opportunities, potentially as gaining access to their pre- Coastal Development Permit Outfall that's been grandfathered in and there's an opportunity potentially for our district to haul the brine to San Simeon if we had some sort of an agreement and their board authorized it, which would be a shorter trip and a lot cheaper.

[3:23:00] We also are looking at zero-liquid discharge in which we had a very successful pilot project

[3:23:05] which basically was able to take the 13% of the water we couldn't recover from our WRF

[3:23:15] processes, put it through zero-liquid discharge, they were able to recover 99% of the water out

[3:23:21] of that, which basically leaves a hyper-concentrated Brian Concentrate, that let's say if we did

[3:23:29] a hundred trips a month hauling without the ZLD process down to South County sanitation.

[3:23:36] If ZLD was in place, it would reduce it down to eight.

[3:23:40] So that's a significantly less trips.

[3:23:43] The cost for ZLD, we've been waiting for a report and Mr. Clark Easter is here from Global

[3:23:48] water innovations and he will speak at a higher level than I do but I can say based on his analysis

[3:23:55] that operating cost for brine disposal is about $750 a day. If we were operating it five days

[3:24:01] a week 24 hours a day that's a weekly cost of $3750, $3,750 and we're ranging anywhere between 16,000

[3:24:10] and $20,000 a month for the brine processing disposal hauling. If you take into consideration

[3:24:17] South County Sanitation at trucking at $3,000 a trip times five, times five days a week,

[3:24:23] times a month, you're looking at $200,000. So it's significantly more expensive and self-limiting.

[3:24:30] Okay, so just to stop you there because I'm not sure I kept track. So I'm hearing that the rough

[3:24:37] monthly cost for the current hall of Brian South County is at full use would equate to around 200,000 a month and the rough estimate that's come in on the ZLD may equate to 20,000 a month.

[3:24:55] Correct.

[3:24:55] So that would be a 10% kind of option, 20,000 versus 200,000 would cut that disposal cost by 90%.

[3:25:05] It would, there's capital costs that you have to take in consideration, which, you know, there's a low lying estimate right now that we were given about 3.5 million for the for the apparatus itself.

[3:25:15] And then we would see grant funding again, working with the Army Corps of Engineers to see if we could fund it through through that grant process.

[3:25:21] So okay, and I know we'll get into that more after public comment, but I just thought it was useful to kind of lay those scenarios out since that's been a real concern and we're going to hear more about it. I'll, I'll just bet so that's very helpful.

[3:25:32] So, again, kind of just to summarize what I think I heard, there's a baseline allowance or potential capacity to take Brian to South County.

[3:25:43] There's an option for ZLD, and there's a potential option on the table that could be trucking to Sam Seaman's outfall pipe.

[3:25:51] And those would be sort of the three options on the table that you're considering.

[3:25:55] Yes, and our board will have to consider all of those.

[3:25:57] Again, when we talk about these options, ZLD has not been purchased, yes, procured, brought

[3:26:03] to our board of directors for approval.

[3:26:05] This is more of a high level strategy that the board set us told us to go out and do,

[3:26:10] which, through our strategic plan, was solve the brine concentrate disposal issue.

[3:26:15] And these are the methods in which we're looking at to do that.

[3:26:18] Once we have these options in place, and if they're solidified and we bring them forward

[3:26:22] to the board, then the board will make that decision.

[3:26:24] I just want to follow up from a district perspective, our board is very aware of our finances

[3:26:30] and what self limits ourselves. You know, from a land use perspective, I'm not sure, you know,

[3:26:36] this would be, I know that there's concern about it publicly, but we're coming here from a land

[3:26:41] use permitting perspective, not looking at our district and how we manage our finances, you know,

[3:26:46] at this, at this level. I do understand that there's an economic justice commitment to this,

[3:26:52] and some residents can be locked out. So it does become, I think, important with their

[3:26:56] purview. Okay, two more questions on the brine. We really need to get to public comment.

[3:27:01] Uh-huh, just two more on the brine, because it's helpful that have already come up in letters. So,

[3:27:09] are there, what's in the brine? Can you just give us some idea of components? It ties in with comments

[3:27:17] Since we've received from Cambria Green Space and others that there has been some,

[3:27:24] that South County Sanitation has turned away, brine trucks that have tried to drop brine off there.

[3:27:31] And so, I'm just as far as, that's the baseline kind of option on the table that we assume has been approved.

[3:27:38] And if there's some reason that that's not working, we ought to know about it.

[3:27:42] Yeah, I know where that comments coming from and I'm pretty sure I can address that pretty quickly or Jim you want to touch base on it.

[3:27:52] Thanks Commissioner White, so I think that's been grossly mischaracterized.

[3:27:55] We had some aged and old brine that was in there for a prior pilot run.

[3:28:01] We took a sample analysis for NTU which is turbidity at the top of that sample of the tank that was turned in and analyzed when the brine truck came to pump and haul that was pumped from the bottom.

[3:28:13] Um, there's a 75 NTU max threshold at South County,

[3:28:18] San Luis Obispo, um, our brine was 76 NTUs.

[3:28:23] So it was turned away on the spot there.

[3:28:25] That was not brine that was generated at the moment

[3:28:27] for that pilot.

[3:28:28] Again, it was older brine that had sat there.

[3:28:30] So it had some biological activity on it,

[3:28:33] which caused the higher ratio or higher threshold

[3:28:35] of NTU at that time.

[3:28:37] This is not a product of fresh brine that would come

[3:28:40] from the production of the WRF.

[3:28:42] Again, this is just an older used brine that just sat there for too long, that we should have hauled off.

[3:28:49] So we still have that on hand here.

[3:28:51] It's been filtered and watered down and we will continue to haul that off.

[3:28:56] With San Luis, our south San Luis Vistproc County's disposal area.

[3:29:00] Okay, so I'm hearing that was a one off situation with sitting and it wouldn't have to sit or you wouldn't anticipate that being a recurring problem.

[3:29:09] So with the sort of fresher, more freshly created brine, there wouldn't be a problem like that,

[3:29:16] so you would have the option to get it accepted at South County.

[3:29:20] Right. Historically, we've, we've hauled these pilot runs of brine to South San Luis Bispo before,

[3:29:25] and we've always met their thresholds or been underneath their thresholds for disposal.

[3:29:30] Okay, and just while you're up then maybe you can just give us this sort of simple

[3:29:38] I've heard silica salts.

[3:29:42] Correct.

[3:29:43] Yes.

[3:29:43] What else?

[3:29:45] Rough, kind of.

[3:29:46] Because it's brackish water, and it's our, where we discharge our treated wastewater.

[3:29:51] There's some, like, coliform bacteria, and there as well, very small levels.

[3:29:56] So yeah, bacteria, coliform bacteria.

[3:30:00] The area, high levels of salinity, like in the 20,000 parts per million, location, and then some silica and some sands. Okay, that's hopeful, just to understand kind of what is this brine stuff. Yeah, okay, thanks. That's all for now. Thank you.

[3:30:17] That's just Commissioner Avela.

[3:30:18] One quick question, which Ann already kind of asked it,

[3:30:21] but I'm going to try a different angle for Matt.

[3:30:24] Matt, I said, we'll quit.

[3:30:25] Yeah.

[3:30:26] We'll tell you to sit down.

[3:30:30] Sorry, chief.

[3:30:31] I mean, can we ask the same question?

[3:30:33] I'm going to try different angles.

[3:30:34] So on the occasional use in the dry times

[3:30:37] that you're expecting to use this plant,

[3:30:40] you've already been collecting through the rates

[3:30:44] money as if it's operating.

[3:30:45] So do you anticipate any increased costs to what it's going to cost you when you do go online with this in the future or are you anticipating it's going to be about the same thing that you've been collecting for the occasional use?

[3:30:58] Commissioner Everett, are you talking about the rates that they pay?

[3:31:02] I anticipate rates to go up just in general in our district.

[3:31:06] That's part of the problems of being a small,

[3:31:08] unincorporated community service district in which revenue challenges are widespread.

[3:31:14] And so when we look at a no growth model within our community,

[3:31:17] there's no new streams of revenue coming in in terms of new construction.

[3:31:24] So as our infrastructure ages and inflation keeps going up,

[3:31:29] we'll look at rate increases for the WRF and rates across the board.

[3:31:33] I don't think those rates are going to be increased based on WRF usage.

[3:31:39] I think some of that's already calculated into our existing rates.

[3:31:41] But there will be percentage raises on those rates eventually.

[3:31:45] And that's due to the just the aging infrastructure or for operating the new plan or a combination.

[3:31:53] It would be a combination of both because if you take a look at O&M or operation of maintenance of the plant,

[3:31:57] those costs have gone up inherently so that'll be integrated into any type of

[3:32:01] re-increase that our district has to do in the near future.

[3:32:08] I'd try for a different angle.

[3:32:11] All right. Thank you, sir. Okay.

[3:32:14] So before we open public comment, a couple of things. Just chairs prerogative,

[3:32:19] is it want to be really clear as setting expectations of the

[3:32:22] communities to what we are, what we can rule on

[3:32:25] and what we can't rule on at this body. And we are truly land use.

[3:32:31] advisers to the Board of Supervisors, so when it comes to rates and costs and all those things, that's a CSD.

[3:32:36] Matter that I strongly encourage you to engage in.

[3:32:40] We do have 12 speaker slips in my hand currently and it's three minutes a piece.

[3:32:45] We're looking at a little or half an hour, so I'm going to start calling names and just ask you to be respectful of the three minute time limit.

[3:32:53] Let's start with Mr. Clyde Warren.

[3:32:55] Again,

[3:32:58] I could do that.

[3:33:02] And thank you for the suggestion and efficiency and perhaps Christine Heinrichs can stand

[3:33:11] at this lectern and we'll go to you next.

[3:33:14] Thank you, commissioners.

[3:33:15] My name's Clyde Warren.

[3:33:17] I'm the neighbor to the district and some of my concerns, the one concern I have, I'm

[3:33:29] And anyway, there's flooding nonsense in the creek road, and I am requesting that

[3:33:35] you consider modifications to the proposed community services district's pond area.

[3:33:41] My property is adjacent to the site.

[3:33:45] I submitted a packet to you about my concerns and solutions that feel would work.

[3:33:51] The issue is the barrier surrounding the pond and the block flow of water run off in the

[3:33:58] costs flooding in the road. This road is used by residents, businesses,

[3:34:05] egg workers, emergency vehicles and must remain open. In 2017, the storm water run

[3:34:15] off naturally flowed across the road into the district's pond. This caused the

[3:34:19] district to have emergency response to stop that flow. The CCSD is planning on

[3:34:27] removing the laner, which will allow percolation and rain water to recharge the ground water.

[3:34:33] But the barriers to the pond need to be addressed. Currently, the fence vegetation clogged

[3:34:38] the area, causing the flood. CCSD currently has no maintenance program to address this claim.

[3:34:45] If the pond is functioning properly, the pond creates wildlife for birds and other animals

[3:34:50] It provides water for fire suppression, which they don't have.

[3:34:56] I believe that it can be achieved by placing conditions on the permit to require removal

[3:35:01] of the liner and removal of these barriers and mentally maintenance and ponds around

[3:35:07] in vegetation.

[3:35:08] It can be turned into a great wildlife ground water recharge and besides having a fire protection

[3:35:16] that they don't have.

[3:36:14] Well, while she's doing this, could you help me understand, I missed your last sentence.

[3:36:19] And were you saying that this pond would function better without a liner?

[3:36:24] Oh, yeah.

[3:36:25] Okay, just to make sure I heard you right while we're getting the presentation up.

[3:36:30] Yeah, they're going to take it out anyway, so let's take something negative and make it positive,

[3:36:37] okay, and there it goes.

[3:36:40] Okay, on this picture here shows the watershed outlined in yellow, and that all filters down to it crosses the road right where the pond is, and that's where it naturally crosses, and

[3:36:51] And that's when it flooded the pond the first time in 2017.

[3:36:58] And then on, so we got that source of water that's coming down there next picture.

[3:37:11] And this picture here, this is the flood of 23.

[3:37:14] And you can see where the power poles in the distance that's where it crosses the road.

[3:37:19] And so it can't go anywhere, so it just flooded the whole road.

[3:37:24] And in the county had to put up a road close sign, first time ever, but we can't use our road.

[3:37:29] Let me go on the next one.

[3:37:31] And then this one here is just a couple of weeks ago.

[3:37:34] There was, in a 24-hour period, there's like 0.63 inches of rain,

[3:37:40] because state parks has a weather station on their cross-offense.

[3:37:44] And it flooded the road with just that little bit of rain after the grounds already saturated.

[3:37:51] And then the wildlife pond, you could turn it into wildlife pond.

[3:37:55] This is mine. This is small, but the ducts and everything uses it.

[3:38:00] I mean, we've had mount lines kill deer there and condors come in and beat on them.

[3:38:06] So that can be, there's a way to do that.

[3:38:10] And then there's a way to do it so the helicopters got access.

[3:38:15] They use my pond with a snorkel effect, which you can use on a shell upon.

[3:38:22] that the bucket helicopters would need something bigger and it could be designed, you know,

[3:38:28] and I would have a pilot designed where that has built, you know, because you could put

[3:38:35] a mounds in the middle of it for the wildlife and because they need two leaves and willows protection

[3:38:40] from the hawks and owls and stuff like that. So that is my presentation, I just would like to see

[3:38:48] That incorporated to a wildlife habitat.

[3:38:50] Thank you.

[3:38:51] Good

[3:39:01] evening, Mike.

[3:39:01] It's a cool feature.

[3:39:05] All right, Christine, good afternoon.

[3:39:09] And thank, I said here all morning

[3:39:11] and I have to thank all of you

[3:39:13] for your patience and diligence

[3:39:15] in dealing with these issues.

[3:39:16] And thank you, Commissioner Wyatt, for your questioning.

[3:39:21] Oh, man, you have this.

[3:39:23] Thank you for holding a hearing on this.

[3:39:24] This is actually the first formal public hearing

[3:39:28] that's been held on this project in all these years.

[3:39:33] Before I get to my written comments, which I have submitted and at length, so I hope you've observed those.

[3:39:40] Before I get to those, let me raise questions about the two issues that were added to the conditions of approval yesterday.

[3:39:47] No one has had time to evaluate them and they include unexplained terms such as the waste discharge permits and the outfall extension permit.

[3:39:56] If the Planning Commission knows what these refer to, please let us know.

[3:40:02] And that area of Canberra is within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, which oversees

[3:40:08] any discharge into creeks that enter empty into the ocean.

[3:40:13] So that's another organization that would need to be consulted about this.

[3:40:17] Please add those points to the ones raised in my written comments.

[3:40:21] The lack of any reports or plans for a zero liquid discharge facility, I think the map

[3:40:27] that was produced with the little cloud circle, that just doesn't seem to rise to the level

[3:40:34] of technical decision-making for the commission.

[3:40:40] The inadequacy of the biological reports, these reports, if you look at them, they actually

[3:40:45] require the monitoring level that they are at is two visits of two to three hours every

[3:40:52] three months and the fact that they don't see any steelhead that they don't see a lot

[3:40:57] of things is not really surprising because they're hardly ever out there and I don't think

[3:41:02] that those that amount of oversight is adequate to to address the baseline levels of these

[3:41:09] threatened species. Of course, the cost, thank you for bringing that up.

[3:41:16] The emission of limits on new connections and the conditions of approval that are specified

[3:41:21] in the staff report, which says existing commitments do not include those properties on the CCSD

[3:41:29] water and sewer waiting list. I mean, we're talking about a district that doesn't have enough

[3:41:33] water now. I mean the idea of opening this to adding new connections is it's just counterintuitive,

[3:41:40] it just doesn't make any sense. It also, the language in the staff report also says the project

[3:41:47] is not designed for expansion, is not growth inducing. It's primarily designed to meet the current

[3:41:54] demands of the community and ensure a reliable water supply that does not include adding new connections.

[3:42:03] The mention of grandfathered connections, the Coastal Commission has been very clear.

[3:42:09] Many times in the past there was no such thing as any grandfathered connection existing

[3:42:16] anymore.

[3:42:17] That was way back 2001, and that's done.

[3:42:22] I think it would be good to consider the amount of energy that's going to be required to run

[3:42:26] this, and that figured into the cost as well as the idea of a carbon footprint for Cambria,

[3:42:32] which is a small community and really needs to be considering what is it, what is it's real carbon footprint?

[3:42:40] This is, you know, we're in the 21st century here.

[3:42:43] Christine, could I ask for you to kind of-

[3:42:45] Oh, sure, I'm sorry.

[3:42:46] Okay, thank you.

[3:42:47] Thanks, appreciate it.

[3:42:50] Mark's up and if Mike Lyons could start making his way down, that would be great.

[3:42:55] Good afternoon.

[3:42:56] Good afternoon, commissioners.

[3:42:58] My name is Mark Rochefort, my wife and I have owned a home in Cambria since 1987 and we call Cambria our permanent residence since 2013.

[3:43:12] I am here to wholeheartedly endorse the application of the CCSD for the permit, the coastal development permit and coastal plan for the water reclamation facility.

[3:43:27] It is a facility that will allow our district and staff a very responsible and prudent group I might add to have the latitude to operate this facility during the seven warmest months of the year.

[3:43:45] It does, I want to emphasize something at this point that I think bears repeating, although it's evident.

[3:43:51] This permit does not enlarge, extend, or otherwise alter the allocation of water to Cambria.

[3:44:02] The allocation of Cambria's water comes from the State Department of Water Resources.

[3:44:07] They and they alone can determine and have periodically over the last several years, decades,

[3:44:14] through careful analysis and research, what the Cambria community can and cannot take from its two aquifers,

[3:44:28] San Simeon, Santa Rosa Creek, I think that's important and maybe gets lost in all of the technology here.

[3:44:36] This basically allows us to use the water from our resources that are already allocated to our town,

[3:44:46] because Mother Nature does not allocate rain or water resources to us.

[3:44:53] She does so very plentifully in the winter and not so much in the summer.

[3:44:57] And that's what this play

[3:45:00] And, and project will do. What the permit will allow is it will allow our board and very capable staff to manage through the water reclamation facility, the existing water allocation during dry months and avoid water shortages and the enormous anxiety, displacement, and suffering caused by such shortages. At the same time,

[3:45:29] I'm operating the WRF to manage the San Simeon Creek.

[3:45:34] We'll manage the San Simeon Creek aquifer.

[3:45:37] Strengthen it, prevent saltwater in curation and benefit the environment.

[3:45:44] This is a win, win project.

[3:45:47] Its local government standing up to the responsibilities to its constituency and to the environment and doing the right thing.

[3:45:57] Thank you all for your time.

[3:45:58] Thank the staff for their years of work on this.

[3:46:02] I appreciate it very much, and thank you for your service to the county.

[3:46:07] Thank you, sir.

[3:46:08] So we're going to go to Mike Lyne's and John Lynn, if you could make your way down.

[3:46:11] You'll be next.

[3:46:12] Good afternoon, sir.

[3:46:14] Good afternoon, thank you, thank you, commissioners.

[3:46:17] The writer John Dunne once said, no man is an island.

[3:46:22] But he wrote that in a prose essay titled Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, which

[3:46:31] seems quite appropriate in this case that we're considering the WRF.

[3:46:37] No man is an island, may or may not apply to people, but it sure does apply to Cambria.

[3:46:45] And by that I mean not the people, not only the people who live there, but the Flora and

[3:46:50] fauna as well as the agricultural interests.

[3:46:53] We have a closed system of water resources, and we're completely dependent upon rainfall

[3:47:01] and the storage we can manage in our two very shallow aquifers.

[3:47:06] In case of emergencies, fire, severe drought, and other drains on those aquifers, who are

[3:47:16] we going to ask for help?

[3:47:19] there's nobody but us. There's no dam, there's no lake, there's no pipeline. We can only expect to

[3:47:30] rely on what we have planned with your help. Please note we've done the best we can with the

[3:47:36] resources we have and we have made significant reductions in our water use per person.

[3:47:48] The

[3:47:48] measures by means of voting for rate increases for our water systems and reclamation systems.

[3:47:57] So that's the equivalent of a vote, which is way more important than a lot of opinions

[3:48:02] that we may express here today.

[3:48:04] All we ask is that you allow us since we have planned for this project, we have built the

[3:48:14] We have maintained it with the help of yourselves and our excellent staff and we would like to have you consider allowing us to control it as we need.

[3:48:25] Thank you.

[3:48:25] Thank you, sir.

[3:48:27] All right.

[3:48:28] We can be moving to John Lynn followed by Karen Dean, if you would like to make your way down.

[3:48:33] Good afternoon.

[3:48:34] Thank you.

[3:48:35] I'm John Lynn.

[3:48:37] I'm a business owner and Cambria.

[3:48:39] I've been there for almost 50 years.

[3:48:44] There's been a lot said, and a lot of you are aware of Camry's water woes, so I'm not going

[3:48:50] to belabor that in the interest of time, I'd like to just echo what Mark Roachford said.

[3:48:57] I think the staff report, as it was delineated, really wowed me, and I thought, wow, a lot

[3:49:05] has gone into this already.

[3:49:07] I think all I can ask is that your group, I just want to encourage passage of what you have in front of you as the staff has delineated it and I don't really need to go beyond that.

[3:49:22] I think you know what to do. Thank you.

[3:49:27] Thank you, sir.

[3:49:28] So we're going to be going to Karen Dean followed by Dennis Dudsick, if you'd like to make

[3:49:35] you way down.

[3:49:36] Good afternoon.

[3:49:36] Good afternoon, conditioners.

[3:49:38] Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you regarding this very important project.

[3:49:43] My name is Karen Dean.

[3:49:45] I'm currently the Vice President of the Cambridge SCSD Board of Directors.

[3:49:49] I have also served as a Board appointed member of an ad hoc committee working with CCSD and

[3:49:54] staff and consultants on the WRF CDP project description.

[3:49:59] I am a member of the Cambridge community and I have been a

[3:50:02] Cambridge homeowner since 1994.

[3:50:05] I am speaking before you today on my own behalf and not on

[3:50:09] behalf of the Board of Directors as a whole.

[3:50:12] I would like to address some of the key reasons the approval of

[3:50:15] this CDP is so important to the Cambridge community.

[3:50:19] The WRF is important to assure reliability.

[3:50:26] Cambria relies 100% on groundwater from two seasonal creek basins.

[3:50:31] We have no imported water or reservoirs.

[3:50:34] With climate change droughts are longer and more severe than decades ago.

[3:50:39] When it doesn't rain, conservation alone cannot create supply, but smart reuse can.

[3:50:45] The WRF allows us to recycle treated water back into the basin instead of losing it.

[3:50:52] Reinjection of treated water helps stabilize groundwater levels during the dry periods.

[3:50:58] The WRF supports basin protection and environmental stewardship.

[3:51:03] Reinjection of the treated water helps preserve the groundwater gradient that protects against seawater intrusion.

[3:51:09] Recovery from seawater intrusion would be extremely costly or impossible.

[3:51:17] This project has undergone years of technical review, environmental and habitat studies,

[3:51:23] and regulatory oversight.

[3:51:26] Keeping our water local and protecting our groundwater basins is responsible environmental

[3:51:32] management.

[3:51:34] The WRF is beneficial for public safety and fire protection.

[3:51:38] Cambria is a wildland urban interface community, water infrastructure is directly tied to

[3:51:45] fire protection as stable groundwater levels are needed to support fire's flow capacity.

[3:51:53] This is fiscal responsibility the district has invested years of planning and millions

[3:51:59] in studies and pilots for the WRF, walking away from this project now waste those years

[3:52:05] of investment and the ratepayers' monies.

[3:52:09] This project strengthens our water security, protects our groundwater basins, supports

[3:52:15] public safety, and is about long-term water resilience for Cambria.

[3:52:20] The WRF has been built, the system works, Cambria needs the ability to operate the facility

[3:52:27] as necessary to protect our groundwater basin and supplement our water supply.

[3:52:33] It has been a long uphill battle to get to this point, and thanks to our current general manager, Matthew McLean, and his team's efforts over the past three years.

[3:52:42] Along, can I finish the sentence?

[3:52:45] Go.

[3:52:47] That's going to be two seconds, but go ahead.

[3:52:50] Okay.

[3:52:51] And his team's efforts over the past three years, along with the CCSD board and community support.

[3:52:56] This WRF Project CDP is finally before you, the planning commissioners, to request your approval for this project that is so important for our community's water supply.

[3:53:08] Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak.

[3:53:10] Thank you, so Dennis, that's it will be next and Harry Farmer, if you are available, please make your way down.

[3:53:17] Good afternoon.

[3:53:18] Good afternoon, thank you commissioners.

[3:53:20] My name is Dennis Dujick, my wife and I live in Cambria, and I serve as the president of our 44-unit mobile homeowners chapter of the Golden State mobile homeowners league there in town.

[3:53:34] I'm a licensed mechanical engineer in California with extensive experience supporting the development of renewable energy projects for California municipal utilities, including more than 40 years of related sequa experience.

[3:53:49] experience. I've studied and have become familiar with the CCSD's WRF, attended and participated

[3:53:57] in related CCSD resources and infrastructure committee meetings and other meetings. Reviewed

[3:54:03] this project description, staff report, revised conditions of approval, public comments submitted

[3:54:10] for this item and posted, and based on this review in my experience, in the need for this project,

[3:54:17] And on behalf of my community, I fully support the staff's recommendation to approve the recommended action and environmental determination.

[3:54:28] Thank you.

[3:54:30] Thank you, sir.

[3:54:33] So we're going to move to Harry Farmer and Tom Gray, if you'd like to make your way down, you'll be next, good afternoon.

[3:54:39] Good afternoon, commissioners and staff, my name's Harry Farmer, and this can be November, I'll be blessed to call Canberra home for 40 years.

[3:54:47] First, I want to thank the commissioners and the staff for the work they've done and for Commissioner Wyatt and Mr.

[3:54:55] Avala for their questions.

[3:54:58] By the way, I'm presently serving my third elected four-year term on the Cambria Community Services Board of Directors.

[3:55:04] I'm currently serving as Board President.

[3:55:06] I'm not here, of course, representing the Board.

[3:55:08] I'm here representing the folks who elected me.

[3:55:11] By the way, in the most recent Kennedy election in 2020, one of the main points of my candidacy

[3:55:17] was only operating with that time was the sustainable water facility and emergencies.

[3:55:23] So which to read quickly from the application here.

[3:55:26] The CDP allows for the continued operation of this CCSD water reclamation facility previously

[3:55:34] approved to operate on an emergency basis pursuant to the emergency coastal development permit

[3:55:39] and issued May 15th, 2014, nearly 12 years ago.

[3:55:44] I want to make a couple of important points.

[3:55:46] First off, the original permit said,

[3:55:49] for emergencies, for existing customers only, and not for growth.

[3:55:54] Also, as you're already aware of, this facility is in a 92-acre eschis zone,

[3:55:59] an environmentally sensitive habitat area.

[3:56:02] One of our major obligations on this planet is for us as humans to create as much harmony as possible

[3:56:08] and how we live with the natural environment

[3:56:09] and the creatures who live there.

[3:56:12] I want to basically, I want to briefly mention

[3:56:14] two unenforced and problematic situations

[3:56:16] that occurred early with this facility.

[3:56:19] The via-apperation pond that was going to take care

[3:56:21] of the brine waste and turned out to be poorly designed

[3:56:24] and effective as never usable.

[3:56:28] And also, the original EIR was so flawed

[3:56:32] that you needed a subsequent EIR in 2017.

[3:56:36] So no matter how little or how much the WRF has operated,

[3:56:39] Brian Waste disposal has always going to be a problem.

[3:56:43] Whether or not we implement the Ciro Electric Discharge Facility or the CLD,

[3:56:48] which right now is only a pilot project here and elsewhere,

[3:56:52] so we don't know about its effectiveness at this point.

[3:56:56] And almost 12 years since the plant was built,

[3:56:58] it was only briefly operated back in 2015 and 2016 to make sure it functioned well.

[3:57:03] During this period, residents and businesses of Cambria continue to be conservation-minded

[3:57:09] and their water usage.

[3:57:11] And this multi-name facility, the Emergency Water Supply Project, the Advanced Water

[3:57:15] Treatment Plant, the Sustainable Water Facility and on-the-water reclamation facility has

[3:57:19] not been needed.

[3:57:21] In conclusion, please once again consider this facility is in a 92-acre Eschazon and the

[3:57:27] the original permit wording for emergency use, for existing customers only, and not for growth.

[3:57:34] Thank you so much for your time, and all the best in your deliberation on this important matter.

[3:57:38] And I also want to thank the previous commenters and public comment.

[3:57:44] Thank you so much.

[3:57:45] And one more thing, I have no problem with the approval of the coastal development permit just under the conditions that I've indicated.

[3:57:53] Thank you so much.

[3:57:53] Thank you, sir.

[3:57:55] So we're going to go to Tom Gray and if Christina Galloway would like to start making your

[3:58:00] way down here.

[3:58:01] Good afternoon.

[3:58:01] Thank you, Commissioner Lieberman.

[3:58:03] Thank you to the commission and to Commissioner Wyatt for all the very good questions, because

[3:58:07] I think we illuminate a lot of issues just to that process that the public has been concerned

[3:58:11] about.

[3:58:12] My name is Tom Gray.

[3:58:13] I'm a resident of Camrya.

[3:58:16] I've been here, one property here for 20 years, I've lived here full time for about 17 years.

[3:58:20] I also am a member of the Cambridge Community Services Board of Directors, and I am speaking

[3:58:25] today only in my capacity as a private citizen, though I do need to note on the record

[3:58:31] that the Board is various votes on this project, and on the strategic plan that includes

[3:58:36] this project, this application of the CDP has been firmly in favor of it for many years.

[3:58:43] I'm talking about many years, I go back, I remember when this, that emergency permit was given to us in 2014 and it's been a long journey but in some ways we were told at the very start that we had to get a permit, ultimately permanent permit, a CDP for non emergency use and that was one of the conditions of the permit that we were given back in 2014.

[3:59:08] So here we are last, it's taken a bit of time, but I think we're better late than never.

[3:59:13] I just want to add a little bit to the excellent comments that have been made by the people here, and also our staff who's done a wonderful job presenting this.

[3:59:24] Just to keep home in on the key issues, we've mentioned several times of management, the point of this permit application is not so much to change the

[3:59:37] The Deborah F from what it has been all along, there's some peripheral improvements included in that.

[3:59:42] Obviously, having to do with Brian and Spholes and some other issues, but it's the same facility essentially as was permitted in 2014.

[3:59:48] The key difference is how it's to be used and what kind of management is to be used for.

[3:59:55] It was approved pretty much explicitly as a crisis management tool.

[4:00:00] And this CDP that we seek and has been supported by the staff of the county is for a different kind of management. I would call it responsible preventive management. And there's a huge difference on in the aquifer that we use. Under emergency management, you basically have to wait until things get really bad, not just bad in, you know, in the terms of shortage of water, but also danger to the environment and to the aquifer itself before you can even start the project.

[4:00:29] running. This is why it has been run since 2015. Under responsible preventive

[4:00:36] management you give our staff a responsible staff and with biological monitoring

[4:00:42] to make sure everything is going properly the ability to for for tell or for just

[4:00:48] to prevent crisis in the aquifer and crisis in the town. So this that's the big

[4:00:54] object to me that we're looking for. Don't wait for things to get really bad

[4:00:59] before we can make it so we can act to prevent these things becoming really bad.

[4:01:05] Thank you very much for your time and I give a next speaker up, right?

[4:01:14] Okay.

[4:01:22] Hi. Thank you for having me and letting me speak. I'm Christina Galloway.

[4:01:27] I chair our North Coast Advisory Council, who has recommended approval of this project,

[4:01:33] this permit and I don't think anybody could say it better than Karen Dean just did so I won't take

[4:01:40] up too much time but as a member of the public who you know often has to work collaboratively with

[4:01:46] local governments I just really really really appreciate the experience of working with the

[4:01:54] community services district and staff and I think that it's a testament to the responsibility that

[4:02:01] But this project that sat around for so long is before you today, you know, when we review

[4:02:07] land use stuff as like an advisory council, we're always told to be reasonable in your

[4:02:13] recommendations.

[4:02:15] And so I would just ask that you all be reasonable in your recommendations today and support

[4:02:22] pushing this project forward.

[4:02:23] I think that that somebody said taking a negative and making it a positive, and I think

[4:02:30] that that's what today signifies and you know sustainability for Cambria and yeah I think that's

[4:02:39] really all just really grateful to be living in a district where you know people could sit around

[4:02:43] if they wanted to and collect their checks and instead they chose to move something forward that

[4:02:48] didn't have movement before so yeah thank you thank you Jim Townsend will be next and the last speaker

[4:02:56] or slip I have is for Robert Dott, that wiler.

[4:03:00] Sorry.

[4:03:01] Go ahead, sir.

[4:03:02] Good afternoon.

[4:03:03] My name is Jim Townsend.

[4:03:04] I'm a resident of Cambria, and I appreciate the opportunity

[4:03:07] to expand on the written comment I previously submitted.

[4:03:11] The CCSD's Water Treatment Project,

[4:03:13] currently called the WRF, called other things in the past,

[4:03:17] has really been a nightmare for the residents,

[4:03:18] and especially the ratepayers of Cambria,

[4:03:21] badly conceived and poorly executed.

[4:03:23] One need to look no further than the fact

[4:03:25] that it's taken 10 years to complete a CDP permit to demonstrate that fact there.

[4:03:32] While there's been plenty of blame to go them around, it's important to note that the CCS

[4:03:36] board and staff has turned over several times during this process and the current leadership

[4:03:41] and management cannot be held responsible for the mess they inherited.

[4:03:45] But in the words of the great late Molly Ivans, when you're in a hole, you stop digging.

[4:03:50] We have no idea what the facility will cost to operate.

[4:03:53] Studies have shown that RO treated water is up to 10 times as expensive as well water.

[4:03:58] We can assume that it takes a lot of our electricity to push that water through those tiny

[4:04:02] RO membranes and pump it up to the injection well.

[4:04:07] Also that we can recover approximately 60% of that expensive treated water.

[4:04:12] And the cost of electricity continues to increase.

[4:04:15] I understand that finances is not under the purview of this commission, but environmental

[4:04:19] justice certainly should be.

[4:04:21] The reality, though, is that we spent millions on this project and we're not getting that money back, millions in debt for the project remain.

[4:04:29] The facility, therefore, should be permitted only for its intended use as promised to the ratepayers, drought protection for existing users.

[4:04:37] The only reason I can see for anyone objecting to that restriction being codified in the conditions of approval is that they hope to use the facility for some other purpose.

[4:04:45] And until the facility has demonstrated a track record of producing high-quality,

[4:04:50] reasonable price waters for existing users, that should not be allowed.

[4:04:54] Thanks very much.

[4:04:57] Thank you, sir.

[4:04:59] Mr. Detweather, good afternoon.

[4:05:02] I'm Bob Detweller.

[4:05:03] My wife and I have lived in Cambria since 1998.

[4:05:11] And I'm getting old and looking back on the experience, I really love it.

[4:05:16] My family loves Korea, but I've had two, well, two really unpleasant activities,

[4:05:28] especially as I do near the end of my age and pass on the opportunity to live there to my

[4:05:35] children and grandchildren. I've always been frightened by two things, and they get worse.

[4:05:41] We are very vulnerable to fire in our community.

[4:05:48] And it's getting worse because there are changes in the environment.

[4:05:53] And we're not keeping up with it.

[4:05:56] It is something I'm fearful of and I think my neighbors are fearful of it.

[4:06:01] And similarly, there's always been a water shortage.

[4:06:05] Now frankly, I've enjoyed my life there.

[4:06:07] But the water shortage can't be ignored indefinitely.

[4:06:13] There is climate change.

[4:06:16] We have, we are one of the few communities in the state that doesn't have to have a hooked

[4:06:22] up permanent sustainable system, we have to move on it.

[4:06:27] I can't say anything beyond what my colleagues have offered about why we should do this.

[4:06:33] Let me thank the community service district in Canberra, those who are making the effort.

[4:06:43] And let me thank the county and you.

[4:06:48] We need this.

[4:06:50] We have a little jam on that community.

[4:06:55] The threat to our economy, to our health, the threat from fire, the threat from the

[4:07:04] continued to continue to lurch from one activity to another without doing real progress.

[4:07:12] So one sentence, thank you for the progress that you have made possible for this one improvement.

[4:07:20] It's not going to make all of our problems, but it's the best move forward in the time that I've lived here.

[4:07:27] Thank you.

[4:07:27] Thank you, sir.

[4:07:30] That completes all of the speaker slips I have.

[4:07:33] Anyone else for public comment before we move on?

[4:07:39] Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment and return to staff and

[4:07:44] ask if they have any information to share based on the comments we received.

[4:07:54] Yes, thank you.

[4:07:55] To address a couple of comments, I encourage to the comment we're going, the discharge extension,

[4:08:04] The discharge that's a question already exists and was actually reviewed

[4:08:11] of our mentally and the SEIR, but the extension of the discharge part was not placed and

[4:08:18] the identified of our own review.

[4:08:22] And so this is extension of our even reviewed and they're just the district is looking to extend

[4:08:27] it to where it was already environmentally looked at.

[4:08:32] Second, the removal of the pond liner,

[4:08:39] environmentally it was looked at and that it was looking to be a condition of an analysis that the pond,

[4:08:49] the vendor reservoir would be restored back to their original connections.

[4:08:57] And

[4:09:00] I think those are the biggest items that identified that there are questions on.

[4:09:05] Thank you, I appreciate that.

[4:09:07] Eric Kusek, planning building, just wanted to other, there was a comment about the conditions of approval, the regional water board.

[4:09:14] And I just want to note that those conditions are simply stating the applicant has to comply with the regional water quality control boards.

[4:09:20] You know, permitting requirements in that they must obtain any applicable permits from them.

[4:09:24] So I just wanted to clarify that for the record, thank you.

[4:09:28] I just had one follow-up, all the photos of the road flooding, JR, is this something you're working on?

[4:09:37] Or is there any remedy for this?

[4:09:42] Chair, beard public work, so actually this was just brought to my attention this afternoon.

[4:09:47] So, yes, for as a grading permit application, I mean, how this would be handled as if there was a grading permit application submitted to the planning building department.

[4:09:55] And then my team would review that, but, you know, at that time, when this was installed, you know, as part of that original emergency permit, I'm not aware of anything kind of predates me unfortunately.

[4:10:09] So, but if a grading permit application were submitted to planning and building route it to us, we would evaluate it at that time, but kind of water under the bridge at this point.

[4:10:21] Well, for the road.

[4:10:23] So public.

[4:10:24] If I may, Eric Hughes, planning, building, just that the overall kind of the GR is point

[4:10:29] for the grading permit being reviewed, the project is not expected, you know, as part

[4:10:34] of the environmental analysis, right, it's not expected to exacerbate flooding and, of

[4:10:41] course, when those plans to come in, again, they are reviewed to make sure the drainage isn't

[4:10:46] being changed, or if it is that it's being handled accordingly, but it did not anticipate

[4:10:50] it back.

[4:10:51] Okay.

[4:10:52] Well, I did have some follow-up questions on the road flooding.

[4:10:55] I'm 2023 was an exceptional year with some high water marks that's been referenced, but

[4:11:02] we're talking about grading downslope from the flooding.

[4:11:06] And we usually talk about issues associated with exacerbating flooding that are upslope

[4:11:12] issues exacerbating.

[4:11:14] So I'm not quite clear on the case, Mr. Warren has made for how our downslope activities

[4:11:21] are exacerbating that road issue.

[4:11:25] So that would be something to look at.

[4:11:27] I guess an associated question is there's been some claim that the site flooded.

[4:11:33] The facility site flooded, maybe that same year, is that the case, or I haven't heard

[4:11:39] that confirmed.

[4:11:39] I heard that in a few instances, but it wasn't clear.

[4:11:45] Commissioner White, I'll defer to the applicant.

[4:11:47] Thanks, Mr. Hease.

[4:11:52] Here did not title 27 requirements, there's nothing can get out and

[4:11:57] nothing can come into it.

[4:11:58] So that was simply storm flow coming into that which proceeded the decommissioning of that facility at that time.

[4:12:04] It had about, it's a 9 million gallon storage pond and I think at that time,

[4:12:09] Pre-ding that 2017 storm had about six and a half million gallons in it.

[4:12:14] Even with that additional storm intrusion into the pond, it did not overflow at that point.

[4:12:20] But again, it was that storm water entered the pond, which led to the decommissioning of that title 27 pond.

[4:12:26] Okay, so that was related, but not necessarily related or causation for the road flooding.

[4:12:33] I wouldn't agree with that.

[4:12:36] but I think we usually have more issues

[4:12:38] from the upslope contributions

[4:12:40] than the downslope ones would be a rough guess.

[4:12:44] Right, the van gold reservoir is actually never overflowed

[4:12:47] at least in my time here, which has been eight years.

[4:12:50] And I think we've had 300 or 200 year floods

[4:12:53] during that period, so.

[4:12:54] Okay, and then what about the facility site flooding

[4:12:57] or issues related to that site and more facilities

[4:13:01] on that site, if say there was a ZLD plant added?

[4:13:04] Yeah, the actual facility itself, the WRF at $9.90 in the equic road is outside of the

[4:13:11] 100-year floodplain and has never experienced any flooding issues or haunting issues there.

[4:13:17] It's also where our percolation ponds for our treated wastewater effluent is discharged

[4:13:23] too.

[4:13:23] So we've never had any flooding or issues at either location.

[4:13:29] Okay, and then if I may follow up, did you have another one there that I'm interrupting?

[4:13:32] No, or shall it, am I okay continuing on that thread because I'm that was related oh you do go ahead because mine sort of sideways

[4:13:41] Well, just kind of the pond. I'm just not clarifying so it is going to remain lined or it is going to be

[4:13:47] The line is being removed

[4:13:50] The liner would be removed. That's part of the application right now. Yes

[4:13:55] I also defer to

[4:13:59] So these are great questions about the pond and I want to give some background, Matthew McLean, General Manager for the district.

[4:14:05] So when we started pushing this forward as staff towards the stage that we're at today, we started early conversations with the Coastal Commission.

[4:14:16] When we talk about mitigation, we talk about ESHA, we talk about those types of things, we started engaging coastal staff about what supposed impacts we've had on the area.

[4:14:26] And there's been arguments about pre-disturbed ash, unmapped ash, it's a rather convoluted topic.

[4:14:32] And some of those early conversations, the Coastal Commission, was very favorable of returning

[4:14:37] that pawn to its natural pre-disturbed state, which was the Van Gordon reservoir.

[4:14:43] And so, from a district perspective, we know that we have to eventually come to the Coastal

[4:14:48] Commission.

[4:14:48] I think we all know this is coming to the Coastal Commission.

[4:14:51] And so, we started engaging those conversations to basically say to the Coastal Commission,

[4:14:55] what do you want, you know, what do you want us to offer out to offset some of these issues?

[4:15:00] And one of those was the removal of that pond liner and returning it back to Asha. And I know the commission, you know, in conversations with the commissioners, and even amongst our staff, there is a lot of interest in leaving the liner and using it for stormwater storage for fire protection, or even potentially in the future amending our permit to allow for off-stream storage, which is going to be a longer permitting process. But ultimately, from a staff perspective, we've come to grips with, we're going to do what we're conditioned.

[4:15:29] to do, which is if we're able to keep it as a storage for stormwater, for fire protection,

[4:15:36] we would love to do that if we were able to satisfy coastal commissions needs when we get

[4:15:40] there in terms of offering up some other form of mitigation. So the district is in favor of leaving it

[4:15:46] for fire protection. Our conversations led us to believe early on that that wasn't going to be an

[4:15:52] option. Hope that makes sense.

[4:15:54] Yeah. What year was the, what year was it lined?

[4:15:59] 2014. Okay, and then um, and the decommissioned in 2017.

[4:16:05] And what's co and coastal commission just so clear they're somewhat in favor of it

[4:16:10] staying lined? No, they like it restored. And again, this was some conversations with coastal

[4:16:16] staff that have since retired. And we've engaged new or coastal staff in our area, specifically

[4:16:22] Lee, Mr. Moroni, who is at the site with you, Commissioner.

[4:16:27] And he says that the commission currently is sensitive to fire protection in California.

[4:16:33] And that that potentially could be an option that we could use it for stormwater storage, for fire protection.

[4:16:39] We would just have to find some other way in terms of offering up some other mitigation down range.

[4:16:44] Okay, and that's why I ask because that's what I thought I understood as well.

[4:16:49] And that's something maybe we can discuss when we get to kind of discussion of trade

[4:16:55] offs or conditions, but so along those lines on the pond, there's the issue of potential

[4:17:02] lined or unlined and the various potentials for use for fire suppression water and potentially

[4:17:08] other storage uses on the table.

[4:17:12] And then Mr. Warren has brought up an issue about percolation there and kind of protecting

[4:17:16] his well-right interest, so I'm not sure he completely understood that, but it sounded like taking out the liner would better protect kind of the interests of that nearby well and the nearby agricultural use rights.

[4:17:32] Can you give us a little more sense of that or whether you think that's a valid characterization or not?

[4:17:37] I'll probably turn that over to my staff, but I think we're in disagreement there in terms of our effect on his water rights specifically with that pond.

[4:17:45] I think the other aspect of that is if you remove that liner, and we hit dry season,

[4:17:52] we don't believe that that would be able to store much water, because it will eventually

[4:17:56] leach into the ground, and especially during the dry times.

[4:17:59] So we would almost need that liner in there.

[4:18:02] I can turn it over to...

[4:18:05] Okay, and just before you do that though, so what I'm hearing you say is, if we hit dry

[4:18:09] times and there's no liner percolation, there isn't going to help anybody, because it's

[4:18:15] It's just going to seep through, so we have no fire protection, no help for Mr. Warren effectively.

[4:18:20] Or may it be a little residual wildlife mushy zone?

[4:18:27] I may be, maybe not depending on how dry, how long.

[4:18:30] That's correct, that's our position commissioner.

[4:18:31] Okay, thank you, that's helpful to understand.

[4:18:38] I've got a bunch, so you want me to carry on, or you add more on the pond?

[4:18:44] I have some of my questions here.

[4:18:45] You know, you go ahead, you might answer some of mine.

[4:18:47] Okay, all right then, then I'll carry on with them.

[4:18:51] So this is maybe for staff, but we've had several questions in our written correspondence.

[4:18:57] I thought maybe more would come up here today in the hearing, but help us understand the

[4:19:02] EIR, the environmental impact report work, and the supplemental EIR, the SEIR, and certification

[4:19:09] of those.

[4:19:10] We're not certifying those here today.

[4:19:14] We are referencing them.

[4:19:16] Who certified those?

[4:19:18] Eric Hughes planning building.

[4:19:20] So the Cambria CST is actually its own lead agency.

[4:19:24] And so they are responsible for preparing their own environmental document.

[4:19:28] In this case, the county is a responsible agency because we're issuing a conditional development

[4:19:34] permit.

[4:19:35] And so they're ultimately responsible for preparing it.

[4:19:38] We have reviewed it and I would note during the preparation, right, we have the ability to review it, comment, make sure that the environmental analysis covers the issues that we would look at typically not only from a sequel perspective but also counting policies and making sure that those have been addressed.

[4:19:58] And so that EIR is certified by their board, and then as a responsible agency, we make

[4:20:05] our own CEQA findings in the record, and then ultimately find the project consistent

[4:20:10] with that analysis.

[4:20:12] Okay.

[4:20:13] Thank you.

[4:20:13] That's helpful, because we're often the ones certifying that environmental review work, and

[4:20:19] that's not happening today.

[4:20:20] So thank you really appreciate that description.

[4:20:22] And then along those lines, that review has various mitigation options and we'll get

[4:20:29] into a few more of these in relation to the Coastal Commission letter from Jackson, as far

[4:20:37] as those go.

[4:20:38] But will you help us understand Mr. Hughes maybe a little more about the mitigation options

[4:20:44] available?

[4:20:45] We've certainly just been talking about the pond remediation as one of the mitigations.

[4:20:50] And so some of those are on the table, you know, depending on which way we go with the

[4:20:55] pond remediation or potential for other beneficial uses.

[4:21:00] How much do we have to know at this point?

[4:21:02] I'm not certifying the IR, but what mitigations may be on the table?

[4:21:09] You know, there could be some other mitigations that aren't already in here.

[4:21:14] For example, on site, we discussed so important for the public to know.

[4:21:17] So the district owns roughly 95 acres here, much of that is, much are all of that is Esha.

[4:21:25] And so there could be some potential for some further conservation easements on that

[4:21:29] property that aren't currently on the table.

[4:21:33] If somehow there is some collaboration with San Simian Services District and the potential

[4:21:40] for some piping or activities there, we discussed with Mr. Moroney from the Coastal Commission.

[4:21:46] We could see some potential where we could, in theory, have some piping from this Sam Simian road site up to the Sam Simian district site.

[4:21:57] And we could potentially put a bike path or some public recreational use area on top of those pipes as mitigation.

[4:22:05] And so none of these are in the reports before us.

[4:22:09] So knowing this goes to coastal commission ahead.

[4:22:13] How much of that needs to be in the record, now, or are we to be weighing in on those potentials for the future?

[4:22:25] Eric, he's planning a building.

[4:22:27] So I think I've maybe distinguished the difference between condition and mitigation.

[4:22:33] I'll be first to admit, I don't know all the mitigation measures.

[4:22:38] And I would rely partly on the applicant's equal team as far as all the specific mitigations.

[4:22:43] but I will say that the impacts or the mitigations that have been applied to this project and adopted as part of our conditions of approval mitigate the impact, particularly as it relates to Esha.

[4:22:56] And so if there were additional measures that this commission chose to implement and request for the applicant and they ultimately accepted, I would look at them maybe more as not a mitigation to an impact, but some type of condition that's being imposed on the project.

[4:23:12] for some purpose.

[4:23:14] Ultimately, in looking at the IAR and the mitigations,

[4:23:17] we found that those mitigations were adequate for the purposes

[4:23:20] of mitigating whatever the particular impact was.

[4:23:23] But again, I think we're getting more into requests

[4:23:27] of the commission that would be more conditions

[4:23:29] and again, stay away from the mitigation.

[4:23:31] It's not mitigating the impact per se.

[4:23:33] Okay, well, well, let's just take a specific example here

[4:23:37] of what we may opt to do.

[4:23:38] For example, if we found that the beneficial use of maintaining the current ponds line was a worthwhile endeavor and we didn't want to condition the removal of that liner, but that is now a mitigation under the environmental work.

[4:24:00] I'm one would assume we would want to have in hand or some ideas for other mitigations that would replace that such as the consideration of conservation easement on some other portion of that 95-acre parcel.

[4:24:20] If we were taking that one mitigation off the table, I think it would behooves us to have some others in mind.

[4:24:26] But the mitigation was only a recommendation, correct?

[4:24:32] The pond line here is a recommendation to mitigate to remove.

[4:24:36] Well, I think that was listed in the environmental work as a mitigation.

[4:24:41] I'd have to look at that, Commissioner White, in terms of in the ER, if that was listed as mitigation.

[4:24:47] I know that we've already offered up acreage as a part of the conservation easement, which Mr.

[4:24:52] is not the document. That's not the pawn itself, but we put that in the project description

[4:24:59] to remove the liner and restore it as a precursor to what we thought the coastal commission

[4:25:04] would want. I don't know if that was necessarily a mitigation piece of this permitting process

[4:25:10] or in the environmental work, but I could double check with myself.

[4:25:13] Okay, so maybe that's something we could circle back to. Should we choose to go there? I'm still

[4:25:17] sort of were in questions before we get to discussion, but it seemed to me some possibility

[4:25:23] that leaving that line are maybe more in the community's interest than removing it.

[4:25:28] So I will go there, but maybe staff can look and I see Brandy over there, maybe has some

[4:25:33] answers, somebody may as far as conditions versus mitigations and how much we need to get

[4:25:40] into it at this point.

[4:25:41] right. Lots of other questions here. Help us understand AMP, management plan, adaptive

[4:25:49] management plan, and some questions there in the Jackson letter. But just again, what is

[4:25:58] our adaptive management plan? And what is it doing?

[4:26:01] That's a great question, Commissioner. I do have our biologist, Kevin Merck.

[4:26:04] Great, great, because I didn't quite get it.

[4:26:07] And then I do have Brandon Cummings from SWCA, SWCA, who did our policy consistency analysis,

[4:26:13] which addressed all of Mr. Jackson's comments from the Coastal Commission.

[4:26:17] So that's a part of the submission that we gave to Mr. Foyne.

[4:26:20] Okay, that's great, because we'll want to go over that, because I think that's really important knowing this goes there.

[4:26:26] Commissioner Kevin Merck, biologist helping the district.

[4:26:30] The Adaptive Management Plan is a tool of mechanism to help monitors select metrics along the creek corridor

[4:26:36] or when the plant is in fact running to determine

[4:26:39] if draw down of the creek is happening too quickly.

[4:26:43] So it's really just a series of protocols.

[4:26:46] The baseline monitoring has been conducted

[4:26:48] over the last several years.

[4:26:50] Once the worth is in operation,

[4:26:52] then we continue to do the monitoring

[4:26:55] just to go to the select sampling points

[4:26:57] and determine if worth operations

[4:27:00] are drawing down the water too quickly.

[4:27:03] Okay, so that's, oh, um, you're looking at some of those sort of test wells and then going to those and looking at water levels.

[4:27:12] There are those test wells that are being monitored, but we are as biologists and really looking at the amp.

[4:27:18] There's a number of factors in the amp, but for the biology, we are looking at things in Van Gordon Creek and Santa Rosa Creek.

[4:27:25] in that's a health of wildlife and repair and vegetation and other factors than just a water level.

[4:27:33] Correct.

[4:27:34] The factor.

[4:27:35] Okay, so that gets into the question then about baseline studies and in-stream flow studies

[4:27:41] that's been asked multiple times.

[4:27:44] So from your perspective, do we have adequate in-stream flow baseline data?

[4:27:49] I guess we sure do.

[4:27:50] We have gotten so much field work done and, of course, other colleagues who are out there doing protocol level, red-legged frog surveys, we're doing the amp monitoring on a quarterly basis.

[4:28:02] And then we also have other scientists out there doing the in-stream flow studies and looking at fisheries.

[4:28:09] Okay, so you're prepared to respond to the Jackson Coastal Commission letter.

[4:28:14] whether that's adequate and infatic, yes.

[4:28:18] Okay, and then along the lines of the questions from the Coastal Commission,

[4:28:23] help us understand Jackson's proposed 140 GPM to the San Seeming Creek Lagoon,

[4:28:31] versus this project's proposed 100 GPM into the Lagoon.

[4:28:36] There's a fair discrepancy there.

[4:28:38] I would have to say I'm not the project hydrologist, but my understanding is 100 gallons per minute minimum, and the hydrology team that's been working on this has been pretty impressive in all the effort that they've put towards this and looking at what it would take to maintain the lagoon.

[4:28:56] And so I'd have to defer that to our hydrology experts, but our understanding is that the minimum of 100 gallons per minute could be put into the lagoon in order to ensure resources such as trout, gobies, red-legged frogs are maintained and enhanced their habitat is enhanced.

[4:29:16] Okay, so other staff confirming this as 100 as a minimum, I didn't hear that on site and I don't see that reflected in the documents that we could be looking at a higher amount which seems to be what coastal suggests they'll want to see.

[4:29:35] Like I said, I'm not the project hydrology.

[4:29:37] Right, so I'll go, I mean, that kind of gets them, thank you for that.

[4:29:42] Are you prepared to talk about the, nobody wants to hear this, but Coastal asks that so

[4:29:53] it's going to come up.

[4:29:54] Coastal has a very interesting calculation for Esha mitigation, for the six acres of

[4:30:00] All ready, disturbed, suggesting a 4-to-1 ratio times the 10 years already in operation. So, would you like to respond to that suggestion? No, you wouldn't. Of course, you wouldn't. That was amongst the dumbest questions of the day, but why not? Oh, I see, Mr. McLean is going to take that one on, sir. Thank you. I'm not sure I'm going to give a much better answer.

[4:30:27] I'm a firefighter that retired. No offense.

[4:30:31] I'm a firefighter that moved into this position, so it's not my expertise, but I can tell you some of the frustrations that from a district level we've had with the Coastal Commission because I don't know what that number means.

[4:30:41] I've asked that, and I can't get to the bottom of it, so we'll work with the Coastal Commission when we get there.

[4:30:48] I mean, if we talk about 10 years, at a four by one mitigation radio ratio that turns into 100 acre years, I don't know what that means, and I only know we have 95 acres.

[4:30:57] Okay. I was just checking because that math didn't work in my mind either, so that's

[4:31:02] one of the challenges ahead. I think addressing that impact over some number of past years

[4:31:07] and how the heck you're going to handle that one as you go forward.

[4:31:11] What about the sense, and I'm not sure who gets this one, but the sense and question of

[4:31:17] total draw with the pedodi and the Warren allocations. And if that tips you over some threshold

[4:31:24] in the problem zone with those other allocations

[4:31:29] from the nearby wells of those two agricultural journalists.

[4:31:33] We do have a hydrology study in which we don't have an impact on.

[4:31:38] Okay, so you've done the study is showing that total draw

[4:31:42] with those allocations.

[4:31:46] If I may, Commissioner.

[4:31:49] The CCCC's responsibility under the 2007 Warren settlement

[4:31:53] was that we provide him 183 and a half acre feet of non-potable water, and there's a 21 and a half of potable water.

[4:32:03] It doesn't specify where that water has to come from.

[4:32:06] And so right now he draws it from a well that's close to 9 p7, the social water for the WRF.

[4:32:12] However, we do not have to supply him water from that well.

[4:32:15] We just have to supply him a certain volume and pressure at a meter located at the edge of the sensing and creek road.

[4:32:21] Okay. So, you have some options then for how that works and is expressed concerns with

[4:32:27] that specific well in P7. Our ideal breaker there.

[4:32:32] Correct. We actually own that well as R well. He has controls that operate the well, but

[4:32:38] it's ultimately R well in any maintenance that goes on into it. Is it relative to the

[4:32:41] our responsibility?

[4:32:42] Okay. So, you can do some workarounds if there is a Cona depression or some issue related

[4:32:47] to that specific well and his rights there.

[4:32:50] Okay, thank you.

[4:32:50] That's helpful to understand.

[4:32:52] What about who wants campground impacts brought up by Jackson's letter

[4:32:56] and the Coastal Commission is going to be looking at.

[4:32:59] They have a real interest in visitor serving, recreational uses.

[4:33:05] So I believe those were visual impacts related to campground visuals.

[4:33:11] And was that related to the facility or to the liner at the pond?

[4:33:17] It was more related to the way that the evaporation pond was built at that time.

[4:33:24] So we had four, five large blowers and the sound enclosures around those that were constructed.

[4:33:32] And that was the visual impact. Those blowers have now been removed.

[4:33:35] Okay.

[4:33:35] And as a part of our transition into the new way that we deal with the brand disposal

[4:33:40] issue and specifically that pawn, those sound enclosures are going to be removed.

[4:33:44] And that should address the visual impacts.

[4:33:46] Okay.

[4:33:46] So you think that's handled there.

[4:33:48] Great.

[4:33:48] Okay.

[4:33:49] Well, that sounds like the general questions that I saw in that letter reference.

[4:33:55] So that's helpful to understand.

[4:33:58] So one related one that I'm still confused on going a little bit backwards is what we're

[4:34:04] permitting because I'm hearing different numbers as far as gallon per minute allowances.

[4:34:10] So what I've understood is 425 gallons per minute, five days a week up to seven months

[4:34:16] a year pumping for community use, plus something for the lagoon.

[4:34:23] And I thought that something was a hundred, but now I'm hearing that something is a minimum

[4:34:27] of a hundred, maybe a hundred and forty, what the commission seems to want.

[4:34:31] So, help us understand if we're permitting some amount of pumping, and in gallons per minute, five days a year up to seven months a year, five days a week up to seven months a year.

[4:34:44] What number of gallons per minute are we allowing production of?

[4:34:49] Thank you, Commissioner.

[4:34:50] I will say that that's variable as is with the lagoon discharge, but I'll turn it over to our utilities manager Jim Green who can answer that.

[4:34:57] Okay, because I think that may be helpful to make sure we are very clear on our conditions for what we mean.

[4:35:03] Absolutely, Commissioner Jim Green, CCSD.

[4:35:07] We did two tracer studies.

[4:35:09] There's a residence time that we have to have from our re-injection well to see in Simeon well number two.

[4:35:13] That's a 60-day duration that we have to have.

[4:35:16] We achieved that tracer study duration in that gallon per minute that was established at that time to meet that 60-day residency time is 425 gallons.

[4:35:27] a minute. The other question, I think I'll address right now, is the 100 or versus

[4:35:33] 140, our adapted management plan should speak to that. If we're flowing mitigation water

[4:35:38] at a rate, discharge of 400 gallons a minute, and it's not meeting the needs of the lagoon

[4:35:45] and the impacts are worsening, then we can certainly raise that to 140. We can go above that

[4:35:50] as well. The 9P7 well pump will pump a million gallons a day, which is about 600, and

[4:35:56] But 36 gallons per minute, we have that constrained to 525 for 100 gallons, a minute going to mitigation water, and then that 425 going to treatment which is then re-injected at that discharge rate.

[4:36:11] So I guess we're talking about two things there, and I thought I was confused, then I realized I'm a little more confused.

[4:36:17] We're talking about what the RO plant pumps out, and what the well pumps up 60 days or more later.

[4:36:26] right so that that pumping rate or the RO processing rate or that re-injecture rates all kind of the same thing

[4:36:32] that's a 425 gallon per minute permit restriction. Okay, so that's a 425 hard total but then the actual pumping rate

[4:36:43] 60 days plus later would be could be 425 plus whatever it needs to be because the pump can do you're saying a thousand gallons a minute?

[4:36:55] We have that additional free board on top of that to establish at a hundred gallons

[4:37:01] a minute or 140 gallons a minute or even in excess of that if the lagoon impacts would

[4:37:06] require that.

[4:37:07] Okay.

[4:37:07] So this permit isn't really dealing with what the well pumps up.

[4:37:13] This permit is dealing with the 425 gallons a minute that the RO treatment rate could do.

[4:37:22] Okay. Thank you. So that's written the way you mean it. And I just didn't understand. That's helpful to understand because the two parts in the 60 day later pumping the brain also has the delay on that.

[4:37:34] So that would the Coastal Commission questions. We saw in a letter from Swartz a question about the perk pond with only 300 gallons per minute coming in and 525 going out.

[4:37:47] Could you help us understand that one, or what?

[4:37:50] I've seen this community members math before, I'm not sure I follow it.

[4:37:54] So I'm not sure I'm able to answer that question.

[4:37:57] The numbers in the facts that I've told you are that 425 re-injection rate with that 100 or 100 plus for mitigation water, those are the simple math right there.

[4:38:06] I'm not sure to the 611 or what he's speaking.

[4:38:09] When we've had some dialogue with the community member and he hasn't been able to establish that, this is kind of a magical algorithm

[4:38:16] of them that we're not, that we've vetted and we can't really comprehend either.

[4:38:20] Okay, okay, thank you. And so, there's, I guess I, I guess my last realm of questions

[4:38:30] really are on the storage pond and so we can understand potential there a little better

[4:38:36] because I really see this potential for beneficial uses. And there are so few, I mean, see

[4:38:43] back to the why can't we just do a reservoir? We have a pond here and we're talking about tearing it

[4:38:47] down and for 30 years I've been listening to people say why can't we build a reservoir? We really

[4:38:52] can't but we have one and we're talking about tearing it out. So that just seems really crazy.

[4:39:00] So if we were to allow some flexibility in that or change the conditioning that wouldn't require

[4:39:07] make some recommendation that wouldn't require tearing out the liner, would you be opposed to that?

[4:39:16] I think it's something we're going to have to deal with at the Coastal Commission level in terms of other mitigation.

[4:39:23] Understood, but we see real trade-offs there in other needs and uses.

[4:39:29] So if we put that condition there and it went to Coastal Commission, that caused an extra layer.

[4:39:36] No, good hand.

[4:39:38] Commissioner-

[4:39:38] Yes.

[4:39:39] Commissioner's, Eric, he's planning a building, so I did get a chance to review.

[4:39:43] So it's not a condition that the pawn liner be removed, as far as it was part of the applicant's proposal, and it was kind of a larger, and the larger context of helping to mitigate environmental impacts.

[4:39:55] But looking at the original subsequent environmental impact report, it, again, the mitigation measures that have been imposed already been imposed,

[4:40:04] were to mitigate these offsets to the impact that have occurred.

[4:40:10] Removing the pawn liner in a nutshell is an added bonus.

[4:40:15] But the original supplemental EIR does acknowledge that there may be a need for

[4:40:20] habitat enhancement offsite somewhere else to kind of make up the difference.

[4:40:25] And so I think removing the pawn liner would really make it a wetland in the

[4:40:31] In essence, put it back to Esha as it was, so I think adding a condition, you know, whatever the commission decides, wouldn't change the decision and the findings that are made here today. I don't think it would require the project to come back because again, we're not amending any conditions or mitigations that were imposed to mitigate an impact. So really, this is, you know, yeah, it wouldn't have an effect on the environmental review. So thank you.

[4:40:59] Okay, so we want to have some potential discretion to make make a recommendation or take out any conditioning to remove that liner

[4:41:07] What I'm hearing I just they make suggestion because I see the fire chiefs here

[4:41:13] And I'd like to maybe get his input on what that would mean to the community to have that water

[4:41:18] Reservoir full because we heard a couple people talk about fire issues and it being kind of a standalone place and

[4:41:25] And there was a picture of a helicopter dip in water out of a ray once, so is this beneficial

[4:41:32] to lead the liner and have the water reserved in the dry season for your fire service?

[4:41:37] Good afternoon.

[4:41:38] I'm Mike Berkey, the fire chief with the Cambria Fire Department.

[4:41:41] Absolutely.

[4:41:42] There is no doubt that that's going to be beneficial to our, and that's why I kind of felt

[4:41:47] silly coming up here and speaking, I'm listening to all the comments that have been made.

[4:41:51] And they've already made all of the points that I would have made, which is, yeah, we're

[4:41:57] in a high fire danger area, and if we're talking about water, I don't want to remind

[4:42:05] the community that just recently of last year, palisades had what they had happened to them,

[4:42:13] which was a massive decrease in pressure in their fire hydrants.

[4:42:17] And the water supply down there was a huge issue.

[4:42:20] That was brought to our attention immediately.

[4:42:22] So moving forward with this, it's a no-brainer on fire protection services, and especially

[4:42:28] for having that liner and having the pond available, absolutely.

[4:42:35] That's the base of it, that's 100% necessary.

[4:42:39] Yeah, that seems like what we're just saying is already there, and then there's going to be

[4:42:44] a fire issue at some point, maybe hopefully a long time down the road, but at least you

[4:42:50] We have some way to try to battle it with some water.

[4:42:54] I agree.

[4:42:55] Thank you.

[4:42:56] So can I jump in real quick?

[4:42:58] Because I want to ask a clarifying question.

[4:43:01] Is there currently a condition in this project to remove the pond liner?

[4:43:07] Or is it a recommendation to potentially gain favor with coastal commission staff to restore some habitat?

[4:43:15] The reason I'm asking is if it's not a condition.

[4:43:19] I don't want to draw attention to it knowing that

[4:43:24] Cambridge has other avenues to provide that offset, right?

[4:43:30] So, I guess the question is, is it currently a condition to remove the liner?

[4:43:34] From a CCSD perspective commissioner?

[4:43:37] It's not a condition for us.

[4:43:39] It's what we put in our project description, because that project description was also being shared with the Coastal Commission to say, what do you think about this?

[4:43:48] What do you think about that because we knew we're going to and so some of those things that they stated where they'd like to see restored

[4:43:53] We said, okay, we'll put it in the projects. So it's a pitch. Not a pitch, right. Well, it's because the new coastal

[4:44:01] Representative was agreeable because you know part of their job to protect coastal make sure it doesn't burn down

[4:44:08] You know say he liked the idea of not having to place burn down because then they really got environmental problems

[4:44:13] all right so he was he was liking the idea of having the water reserve there for fire season.

[4:44:18] You think you can just travel yes he was open to it he thinks the commission would be open to it

[4:44:22] we just have to look at other avenues to appease the coastal commission so from a CCSD perspective

[4:44:26] we would be happy to keep the pond liner in and use it for stormwater storage and staff would work

[4:44:33] long range about potentially off-storage off-stream storage so we have to go through a bunch of

[4:44:39] permitting with that, but that's something we definitely look at if we were able to keep

[4:44:43] it long-range.

[4:44:45] And for some mitigation, I would be obviously not nearly enough about a biologist left

[4:44:50] who's still here, but you know, you could, you know, what about going around and lining

[4:44:56] the ponds to it, look better also, but, you know, put trees...

[4:45:00] I wish his native plants all back around it. For one, it would hide it, kind of shield it. So it's kind of hidden back in there and then it would create some habitat. It's definitely an option. Some sort of a minor mitigation. Definitely, that was along the lines of my thinking. It is visually unattractive and visible from some distances around, not from the highway, the sort of scenic view corridor, but from some other locations.

[4:45:27] So there may be some kind of middle ground there where it could still hold a lot of water but maybe not have the liner all visible all the way up to the top.

[4:45:36] So that's something maybe we can get a staff recommendation on when we get there of kind of how to incorporate that comment in or potentially modify the project description which does include removing this liner and what would be the best way to go there if we choose to go there.

[4:45:54] you'll be glad to know. Those are all of my questions.

[4:45:59] You know, I'm going to bet you a nickel. It's not the end of you.

[4:46:04] We'll see. We'll see.

[4:46:06] What's that?

[4:46:06] So I got a couple more. So yeah, I kind of knocked out my list

[4:46:10] for you guys here.

[4:46:14] So there's some talk about the existing system only serving

[4:46:20] the existing residences there.

[4:46:22] So my question is, is the moratorium began in 98, is that correct?

[4:46:29] 2,000, 2,000, so if you were on the list in 2,000 and you owned, I'm sorry, not on the list, if you were a property owner in 2,000 but you hadn't applied to build your house yet, maybe you're dealing with an architect designing your property all that, and then the moratorium starts, you're not getting your house built, so because they didn't get there, they weren't in the process of probably getting under a permit at that point.

[4:46:53] So my question, are they considered part of the community or they boxed out?

[4:46:57] You know, I mean, if there are all these existing infill lots and you own a lot there,

[4:47:01] and you've owned it for 20-something years, like we were saying pay-and-tax as a property tax and things,

[4:47:05] are you not part of that this community or are you on the outside until we let you back in?

[4:47:11] I can feel my program manager breathing on my neck because I know he probably has an answer,

[4:47:15] but I'll give it a shot.

[4:47:16] Commissioner Avvoy, what I believe you're speaking about is grandfathered meters, those that were,

[4:47:20] Or, let's say in the shoot, a premoratorium, we would consider those grandfather and my team will correct me if I'm wrong.

[4:47:27] We've seen some of those grandfathered meters in the past who were given from a district perspective, an intent to serve letter.

[4:47:35] Those were appealed to the Coastal Commission and denied.

[4:47:38] Those were subsequently litigated at the court level and those were overturned and we actually have some of those grandfathered meters that are now implying for minor use permits to build.

[4:47:49] And I believe one of them came before our North Coast Advisory Committee recently.

[4:47:54] So some of those are actually in those grandfathered realms are going to start moving forward after some of that litigation resolved.

[4:48:04] Well, how many lots, how many lots in Cambria are in fill lots?

[4:48:09] Like how many are vacant lots just saying there are some of the owns current, you guys have that number?

[4:48:15] Like is it 100 lots?

[4:48:16] There's 600 people on the list.

[4:48:17] but is there only 300 in-fill lots or is it 600 in-fill lots?

[4:48:21] I think we're close to 600, there we go.

[4:48:24] So I guess that was my question.

[4:48:25] Are they part of the community or are they not part of the community?

[4:48:27] Because they own the lots there seems like they should be part of it.

[4:48:30] Even it's, you know, kind of, I don't, we're kicking them out,

[4:48:34] but just because they weren't there on the day they cut the water off, you know.

[4:48:38] So are they going to be part of the existing system?

[4:48:41] So are we going to, you know, with the county, or the city,

[4:48:44] or the CSD serve them with the water, or are we not going to serve with water because they're not part of the existing?

[4:48:51] I'm going to try to answer that the best, the way I think I understand you're asking.

[4:48:55] We have those that were pre-moratorium, that's not the entire list of the 650 on the list.

[4:49:02] Once the moratorium hit, and then those people started purchasing lots,

[4:49:05] those are the ones that are not a part of this existing user system.

[4:49:09] So we have our existing commitments, our existing users, and those existing commitments are a fraction.

[4:49:16] I think we're talking 40s and 50s in terms of 36, 36 existing commitments that have not been issued intent to serve letters.

[4:49:27] And then there's the existing customer base.

[4:49:29] Then there is the wait list, which is the 600 plus.

[4:49:32] Well, I guess when I'm getting that overall is, if it goes online, you're getting water,

[4:49:39] all the water, you're not going to let a 181 house subdivision come in and get built.

[4:49:43] It's, you folks on the bill finishing out the lots that are in town, those are part of

[4:49:47] the community.

[4:49:48] That's what I guess I'm asking, or is, so when people are talking about growth, there's

[4:49:53] no new growth, but is that going to be considered new growth, or how do we view that?

[4:49:57] The wait list, they're there, they own the lots, they've been there, they just been waiting

[4:50:00] for this, something happened, get water.

[4:50:03] Currently the way the project description is written, when we talk about existing users

[4:50:08] and existing commitments, those that are on the wait list, that community, that pocket

[4:50:13] of community that you're talking about, the 600 plus lots are not a part of this and would

[4:50:18] not be able to build until the district ended its moratorium because it found some way

[4:50:24] to augment or replenish its water, which we have not done.

[4:50:28] We do not have a new source of water and so we cannot currently as a board as a district

[4:50:34] lift the moratorium to say we can sustain that wait list, which is a 600 plus.

[4:50:40] So the theme of it is is they are not a part of this, I hate to say they're not a part of

[4:50:45] our community, but as far as this project goes and as far as the ability to build, they're

[4:50:50] not incorporated into that.

[4:50:55] And then the other question is on the, the actual plant itself, so from what I'm hearing it hasn't, it only ran back in 2015 and then you guys probably exercise it, I'm sure you have a cycle you gotta run through.

[4:51:11] And it was, remind us of the cost of it again, for the total cost of the plant.

[4:51:16] Yeah, it was alone for $4.12 million.

[4:51:21] Right.

[4:51:21] It's been interesting on that.

[4:51:22] There's been obviously maintenance.

[4:51:25] Well, so I guess my question is,

[4:51:28] what's the downstream damage of it?

[4:51:30] So you got $12 million invested plus the loan.

[4:51:34] It's siten idle.

[4:51:35] It's getting exercise here and there.

[4:51:36] So if we end up in a drought in seven years from now,

[4:51:40] and then there is no water.

[4:51:41] You get emergency use.

[4:51:42] How much is it going to be ready to go even though you're exercise or are you going to start running it and you've got these problems because things at night all coastal weather rush you got these different things so how much damage you guys got any idea of what was occurring as it just sits there stagnant.

[4:51:58] I can let my utilities managers speak to it better, but again, we have an operating budget for this of $1.3 million every single year, and so that includes ongoing maintenance,

[4:52:09] the test cycles that we have for it, so we would continue to operate it and maintain it for when it would be activated in that drought condition.

[4:52:20] But yeah, it takes a beating out in that weather and, you know, it needs to run much like a diesel truck, you know, and it needs to operate for a certain period, you know, to stay healthy.

[4:52:30] Now, I don't mean that we're going to turn it on just to turn it on, but, you know, it would operate.

[4:52:36] It will operate when we needed to, but that's because we're doing the ongoing maintenance.

[4:52:41] We won't let it just go to waste out there, but it would be a tragedy to not be able to use it.

[4:52:48] Okay, so we're just having to sit the way it is, it's fine, it's not seen in the list.

[4:52:53] I mean, do you have anything add?

[4:52:55] Okay.

[4:52:57] Okay.

[4:52:58] I just want to do a quick pulse check.

[4:53:00] We've been at this for a little more than two hours.

[4:53:06] I just want to float something on the commission and maybe I said float because it might be time

[4:53:10] for a recess.

[4:53:11] But it sounds as though talking about supporting a reservoir, the pond, for fire protection,

[4:53:25] but encouraging offsets elsewhere is something that it sounds as though it could be supported

[4:53:32] up here.

[4:53:33] Is, are we at an opportunity at a point where we can come up with a motion to at least vote

[4:53:42] We move on, are we close?

[4:53:45] Well, as far as the full project or that item, which are you talking about?

[4:53:49] I'm talking about the full item with potentially adding some language in there about the pond.

[4:53:55] I think we might be relatively close, but maybe we would want a short break first.

[4:54:00] Not so close, we may not want a little break first.

[4:54:05] If that's what you're asking.

[4:54:07] Yeah, I know we have another big item after this.

[4:54:10] So why don't we schedule for a recess at three o'clock?

[4:54:13] Why don't we go right now?

[4:54:15] Can we do 10 minutes?

[4:54:16] Yep.

[4:54:17] Okay.

[4:54:19] So we're back at three?

[4:54:21] Or one, you're gonna have to oh one.

[4:54:28] Back at three.

[4:54:39] Well, I want to thank the clerk for coming over

[4:54:41] and striking the gavel and not hitting me on the hand with it.

[4:54:47] She's rough.

[4:54:48] Thank you folks.

[4:54:49] We're going to reconvene.

[4:54:50] Thank you for your patience, that was a needed break.

[4:54:55] So I believe we're back, and I believe, I'm going to gather the clerks of those.

[4:55:03] I believe we're ready to enter deliberations.

[4:55:07] And before I turn it over to the district representative, I was just hopeful we can have a conversation

[4:55:14] about it sounds like there's something in the project description that I would like to ask staff to read to us about the pond and mitigation because I think it'll help us frame potentially where we want to go.

[4:55:30] So staff, good afternoon again. In the project description there's language about the pond liner being removed. Would you mind sharing that with us?

[4:55:41] Yes, and if we turn on the screen,

[4:55:46] we do have in front of you is the revised condition approval that was submitted on the staff memo.

[4:55:54] So under the approved development, about seven bolts down, it says removal of evaporation pawn lining and five mechanical spray.

[4:56:07] Okay, zoom.

[4:56:09] One, two, three, four.

[4:56:13] Five bullets.

[4:56:14] Two, four, five.

[4:56:22] So, it states removal of an operation pawnlining and five mechanical spray evaporators from the van Gordon Resort.

[4:56:29] That's in the, in a sense, project description approval section.

[4:56:33] It's not listed as a condition of approval down further.

[4:56:39] So, if I could ask the Cambria team to come forward and before I turn it over to

[4:56:48] Ann to represent the district, this bullet, I

[4:56:57] believe it's reasonable to assume that we

[4:56:59] support the fire protection efforts of the community and could we revise that to say, talk

[4:57:05] about removing the sprayers or evaporators and chair me when you get a hide stuff.

[4:57:13] Well, that that's no different than when we have a cell site we're looking at.

[4:57:18] For example, it's 25 feet out of guys front window. That's part of the project and we

[4:57:24] asked them to move it further up. I mean, it wasn't a previous condition. It's just part of the

[4:57:31] a project that we can discuss.

[4:57:35] Okay, so maybe if you could leave that up,

[4:57:37] that would be great.

[4:57:38] Leave this up on the screen for a little bit.

[4:57:41] Mr. McLean, do you have comments on this,

[4:57:46] assuming we were supportive of your fire chief in my past history?

[4:57:51] To provide you as much fire suppression water as possible?

[4:57:56] Absolutely, absolutely.

[4:57:57] I think that we could change that line to the removal

[4:58:00] We'll have the five mechanical spray evaporators from the van Gordon-Rezvoire.

[4:58:05] And we might want to add, if it's not in there and I don't see it, the sounding closures.

[4:58:09] That may be a different line that I'm not seeing.

[4:58:12] I just see him.

[4:58:13] Here with that.

[4:58:14] Full-edge.

[4:58:15] Full-edge adds him full-edge around the perimeter.

[4:58:18] Full-edge?

[4:58:19] Well, I just didn't hear you the last sentence.

[4:58:21] That was my comment.

[4:58:22] Just remove that.

[4:58:23] Just keep the five mechanical.

[4:58:25] Okay.

[4:58:26] Keep evaporators on the list.

[4:58:28] Just remove the five mechanical evaporate spray evaporators and sound enclosures.

[4:58:33] Okay.

[4:58:34] Could I just ask a clarifying question on this, so what's going to happen at Coastal Commission?

[4:58:41] Then they're going to say, we don't like that, then what happens?

[4:58:44] Because I just don't want to hold this up any longer, it's been over a decade.

[4:58:49] Commissioner Shaw, I can put you at ease that it doesn't matter what we do here.

[4:58:55] Perfect.

[4:58:59] Because ultimately they're the gatekeeper when we get.

[4:59:02] It's somewhat true, but when we were out there in our meeting,

[4:59:06] the Coastal Commission representative was there.

[4:59:07] And he was, I want to say in favor of, but he was very much listening to the fire suppression,

[4:59:15] because they like say they don't want the place to turn to much of charcoal.

[4:59:20] Yeah, he opened the door.

[4:59:21] I just, from my experience and staff experience and our district council's experience is we want that door open and I think they open that door a little bit.

[4:59:32] It's really when you get to the commission that where the rubber meets the road so to say and we'll have those discussions and we're hopeful as a district with other acreage that we have to offer up and other mitigation measures that we potentially offer up that we would be able to keep that that pond liner in and use it for storage so we're excited about that change to the project in general.

[4:59:50] and we will have to deal with the Coastal Commission when we get there.

[4:59:55] But the relationship between the CCSD and the Coastal Commission has gotten a lot of

[5:00:00] Not better, I'll say in the last three years, because we started to open up that dialogue. And we understand their concerns, they understand our concerns. And so I'm hopeful we can get there and work something out. Yeah, he just wanted some other mitigation, so they're going to have to, before they go to co-small come up with some other offset of mitigation. Okay, well, thank you. Thank you, and I'd like to turn it back to Commissioner Wyatt, for sure. Okay, well, yeah, since we're here. I'm sorry. I apologize, Mr. Freund, would you mind putting those back up again?

[5:00:29] And the bullet point below the removal of the leachate collections and removal system,

[5:00:34] that is actually below the liner and would have been part of the restoring it back to ashes.

[5:00:39] So we're going to have to strike that line as well because it doesn't make sense to me with the leachate system, which is below the liner.

[5:00:46] Thank you.

[5:00:46] Thank you for that.

[5:00:48] All right.

[5:00:48] Are we comfortable with both of those removals?

[5:00:51] Yeah, but I just have no question.

[5:00:52] What is that?

[5:00:55] I would like to know what that is.

[5:00:56] No, the one we're striking.

[5:01:01] Jim Ring CCSD, it's just plumbing that is able to pump and remove that.

[5:01:07] It was the plumbing that imported it into the pond, and then it's the plumbing that went to the evaporators which sprayed the bribe.

[5:01:16] Thank you.

[5:01:21] Okay, through time to charge.

[5:01:22] Well, okay, but we're striking that from the project list.

[5:01:26] Okay, I see because the sprayers would be going away.

[5:01:32] All right, I've got it.

[5:01:33] Okay, so a couple of items here, first of all,

[5:01:37] I'd like us to get a sense on.

[5:01:41] Oh, it's still printing.

[5:01:44] That

[5:01:55] could be a place to-

[5:01:57] Real time change.

[5:01:58] Install, ask for installation of native plantings,

[5:02:02] or would that be a whole different bullet point?

[5:02:14] I guess that's a question to the applicant, to what degree, having that kind of intent

[5:02:20] for some kind of wildlife mitigations and less visual impact with some kind of plantings

[5:02:31] along the rim, where now that line is very unattractive and doesn't offer any kind of wildlife

[5:02:42] I think there's definitely from a district standpoint, we can work with our consultants, I believe Brandi probably could help us out with that in terms of the right vegetation and things that we could put in there for the visual aesthetics.

[5:02:54] Okay, I'm not sure we need to really get to that now unless commissioners would like, I think you've got our intent there or some idea of how we may like to see that go.

[5:03:04] So screening, native, vegetative screening that you want in there.

[5:03:10] Are you saying you want to see that in there, Chair?

[5:03:17] You're lettering something.

[5:03:18] No, what it means.

[5:03:20] Yeah, welcome to me.

[5:03:22] No, I think I've heard the commission talk about supporting the CSD's efforts for

[5:03:29] fire protection water, but masking the pond liner with either vegetation or

[5:03:35] or something else, correct?

[5:03:40] That's our intent.

[5:03:41] I'm just not sure how much of that has to be in the language here

[5:03:45] because this is exactly what they're doing.

[5:03:48] All right. I'm okay for you.

[5:03:49] Jeff, I want to help us here.

[5:03:51] I'm going to offer a some suggestion.

[5:03:54] A way out.

[5:03:56] Mm-hmm.

[5:04:00] I mean, I'm not saying it has to be on there.

[5:04:03] I'm just suggesting it because if we're going to leave the line

[5:04:05] or it's not going to be native, at least we made it look a little, you know, it's not

[5:04:09] going to do it.

[5:04:10] It's going to add a little bit of habitat back, that's all, but if you don't read it, I'm

[5:04:13] just trying to be sensitive to the hour.

[5:04:17] I've heard mentioned a few times.

[5:04:20] I just, I, I already have a condition we're going to check that out and confirm.

[5:04:25] Okay.

[5:04:25] So that's something, maybe, maybe staff can check on or kind of put on the list to think

[5:04:30] about when we can come back to how that may read.

[5:04:33] If we want to add something in there and applicant's amenable to that kind of some kind of language of

[5:04:39] vegetative screening

[5:04:41] Added to the top toward the top of the pond. Absolutely commensurate. Okay, and so

[5:04:47] The other item that I'm hearing different thoughts on and want to clarify where we want to go is on

[5:04:54] Kind of the wording and the intent of existing commitment

[5:04:58] Again, we've talked about that kind of existing base of roughly 4,000 hookups, the kind of

[5:05:05] existing commitment of 40-ish beyond what's already being served in the wait list of some

[5:05:13] 665 parcels.

[5:05:15] And so if I had my way, that existing commitment would include the wait list.

[5:05:21] Those parcels that have been waiting for now, what we've established is something of 35 years or more and have some legal case, I think, for being restless and paying property taxes and moratoriums are generally put in place to be emergency mechanisms, not long-term hard stops.

[5:05:43] Yeah, since 2001 here at 25 years of moratorium, I think we're past our kind of temporary requirement and really creating some challenges.

[5:05:57] That said, as we've heard described, the wording here does exclude the wait list from the existing commitment definition.

[5:06:10] And so, I don't know where other commissioners feel on this, but is it somewhere you want to go to look at that definition of a potential to include provision for this waitlist or maybe to the applicant first, whether that somewhere you would want to go or not?

[5:06:29] No, I don't, I don't think that's appropriate.

[5:06:32] I think we really need to just stick with the issues at hand because that needs to be

[5:06:39] a whole separate hearing with like the entire town.

[5:06:43] And I don't know what the entire town come in here.

[5:06:45] So I think that we really need to just drill down and vote.

[5:06:52] Okay, I'm comfortable on that and wanted to see so I'm seeing other nods.

[5:06:57] So just to clarify, as we have this project before us, existing commitment does not consider the way list as a part of it, and we're not looking at kind of allowing any development there.

[5:07:12] Yeah, okay. I'm getting a rough nod for that. Okay. And then I think I think I think we've expressed this clearly enough, but that option for some kind of enhanced and alternative mitigations and it sounds like the district is thinking of those both for the upon liner in exchange for that and other mitigations that the commission maybe wanting to see.

[5:07:36] So an approval now allows some flexibility for enhanced mitigations.

[5:07:43] Our approval wouldn't diminish that opportunity, correct?

[5:07:52] I'm sorry, can you repeat that one more time?

[5:07:53] Just the question, there has been lots of public comment and written correspondence on the

[5:08:00] adequacy of the kind of environmental mitigations and we have some here in front of us are

[5:08:08] incorporated in this environmental work but there could be others that the Coastal Commission

[5:08:15] could want to see or other opportunities for environmental mitigations. I mean by not

[5:08:20] discussing those are getting further into that today, we're not precluding options in the future,

[5:08:27] are we? Eric, he's planning a building. No, the Coastal Commission ultimately has their own

[5:08:33] process and their decision would be subject to their own environmental review and they

[5:08:38] could impose conditions as well, but it would not in theory impact our own.

[5:08:44] Okay, thank you. That's helpful because I really do recognize the many suggestions we've

[5:08:49] received for various types of mitigation from kind of pumping some of this water upstream,

[5:08:56] even on Santa Rosa Creek and kind of replenishing the supplies there and

[5:09:02] the potential upstream additions and a lot of things that maybe we haven't

[5:09:07] considered or may come up with looking at San Simeon districts operations in

[5:09:15] some kind of synergy there that hasn't been previously considered. So I think

[5:09:20] there are a lot of potential good options there that can be taken up in the

[5:09:24] future. So the other thing I want to look at carefully here is the trigger for use and staff

[5:09:31] presented us that language last night and there have been some questions on that of how that reads

[5:09:37] and if that's what we mean and what that means and so we could just pull that language up and

[5:09:43] I'll look at it that it'd be hopeful.

[5:09:53] In the revised conditions that you've referred to and just

[5:09:59] Just in particular, that kind of triggered language.

[5:10:02] Okay, so that's 46.

[5:10:04] Correct. Prevised 42 now, 46.

[5:10:07] Okay, so May 2, October, May, June, July, August, September, October.

[5:10:15] I mean, I'm just reading six months there, and I thought our permit was for seven.

[5:10:19] So do we have an inconsistency there, or am I missing something?

[5:10:27] May, June, July, August, September, October, that's six months in this.

[5:10:31] Yes, and we're permitting for seven months, I think we've got a month missing, do we?

[5:10:41] It would be.

[5:10:49] Well, that's why I just wanted to go over these a little more carefully, and I couldn't do it last night.

[5:10:57] Yeah, I think we need to add another month in there if we're going for seven allowed on the permit.

[5:11:02] We need to pick April or November, and I would say that would be November.

[5:11:08] But you would might want to add.

[5:11:11] Thank you, Commissioner.

[5:11:12] November would be more beneficial to the district.

[5:11:14] I believe so.

[5:11:15] Typically when we get to our drier seasons.

[5:11:16] Uh-huh.

[5:11:17] So we might look at making that November.

[5:11:19] Subject to implementation.

[5:11:25] Yes, sir.

[5:11:26] Okay.

[5:11:27] So let's look at.

[5:11:29] Okay.

[5:11:30] You're getting that in.

[5:11:40] Okay.

[5:11:41] So I'm looking at now a definition of a quote prolonged dry season.

[5:11:46] Shall mean any period occurring between May and November,

[5:11:50] during which either of the following conditions exist.

[5:11:53] Blow average precipitation has occurred or is projected.

[5:12:04] Or a stage three, that's something.

[5:12:06] Help us on the emergency condition language

[5:12:11] because we've got here a quote prolonged dry season

[5:12:14] and a definition and we've got a stage three condition

[5:12:18] and I know the condition definitions

[5:12:20] of recently changed or I thought I understood that.

[5:12:23] So, what help us understand our trigger there in terms of stage three condition?

[5:12:30] Absolutely, so every year, the district, it was required by the Department of Water Resources.

[5:12:35] We'd probably do it either way.

[5:12:37] It wasn't required on April 1st, we look at all the metrics, how much rain has fallen,

[5:12:44] when did it fall, how hard did it fall in terms of, or the season.

[5:12:48] We look at the groundwater levels in our well fields, we look at the groundwater levels

[5:12:51] in the monitoring wells throughout both aquifers and when we make a determination as to how

[5:12:58] we, what kind of hydrologic industry we have, what kind of water supply we have for the

[5:13:02] next whole year.

[5:13:06] And so that's typically when we would recommend moving up a stage, until then I'll talk about

[5:13:13] that.

[5:13:13] So there's six stages of water shortage, one is our baseline.

[5:13:18] line, six would be our exceptional or extreme emergency, and then three is kind of where

[5:13:28] we really have to start paying attention to conservation and paying attention to our

[5:13:32] aqua letters.

[5:13:33] Okay.

[5:13:34] Ask a question while he's there.

[5:13:37] What if this is working in practice, and then it's fine with the environment and you work

[5:13:46] out a way to get rid of the brine and you want to run this more because what I worry about

[5:13:52] is seawater intrusion. I mean, yes, aquifer can be up and down, but what if you find out?

[5:13:58] I mean, this is a pretty exact science, but you're getting some seawater intrusion and you want

[5:14:02] to run it more. What's the process? Do you come back to us? Do you what happens?

[5:14:09] We would, I think we would work with our with our ground water consultant to figure out how we can

[5:14:14] and best use this resource to help mitigate

[5:14:17] that discovery, see what or choose and should that happen.

[5:14:19] And if you read down Commissioner Shaw to the bottom of this,

[5:14:23] that's why it's important to go over in addition.

[5:14:25] This may operate at any time of the year

[5:14:27] during any formally declared stage five,

[5:14:30] emergency or stage six, exceptional.

[5:14:33] Yeah, I saw that, but it's just, I mean,

[5:14:36] this is a huge asset at a huge cost.

[5:14:38] I mean, if you can run it and you're determining

[5:14:43] it's not hurting the environment, it should run, you know, once you start seeing it in practice. So

[5:14:50] well, I mean, that's why this, this kind of trigger is important and this, this because these

[5:14:57] these conditions have just come in, not every...

[5:15:02] I agree at some level, yes. But this is expensive water. What's the process? If you wanted to run it more, would you come back to us? Or what would happen? Well, I think, Commissioner Shaw, it's conditioned now to where we wouldn't have to come back to you. So when we talk about that time frame that you're giving us, that's a broad swath in order to operate it.

[5:15:28] And under very extreme conditions,

[5:15:30] would we have to operate outside of that window?

[5:15:33] And so to your question about seawater intrusion,

[5:15:35] we shift to the Santa Rosa's when we can't effectively pump

[5:15:38] from the sunscreens because of that salt water gradient

[5:15:41] where the mounting effect is getting a little too close.

[5:15:44] And so we'll stop pumping from the same same ends

[5:15:46] and we shift over the Santa Rosa's,

[5:15:48] which the Coastal Commission does not like.

[5:15:50] But it's one of those rare exceptions within that permit.

[5:15:53] So by allowing us to operate this early in the season,

[5:15:56] then we protect that grid.

[5:15:58] And so we would start the operating of it through the analysis,

[5:16:02] through that stage three phase, where we've identified, hey,

[5:16:05] we need to start operating it at a conservative level.

[5:16:08] The district doesn't want to operate it full throttle five days a week if we don't need to.

[5:16:12] And I think utilities manager, Mr. Green could say, we're only looking for about 50 acre feet,

[5:16:18] 50 to 100 annually just to give us that buffer.

[5:16:22] It's not trying to produce the max acre foot per year if we don't need it.

[5:16:26] because again, if the creek is flowing,

[5:16:27] then there's no reason to inject.

[5:16:30] And typically our creeks are flowing

[5:16:31] for a healthy period of the year.

[5:16:33] It's that narrow window when it's not.

[5:16:35] And then we start worrying about draw down

[5:16:37] and see what aren't true,

[5:16:38] and which this is a mechanism to address that.

[5:16:41] Okay, sounds good.

[5:16:42] And this is where we do just get into that conceivable

[5:16:47] potential to fuel growth.

[5:16:49] If there is this in place that there could be some argument

[5:16:53] that it ought to be run more

[5:16:54] and serve the wait list and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

[5:16:57] I mean, so that's the messiness of it that we're not.

[5:17:00] Well, that's the allowing for it hearing.

[5:17:02] I mean, I would discourage cities from,

[5:17:05] let's not protect our groundwater

[5:17:07] because we're afraid of building.

[5:17:10] I mean, that's, I don't think that's a good practice.

[5:17:15] I think if you can, I'm saying 10 years down the line,

[5:17:19] if it becomes very efficient to run this,

[5:17:22] who knows what the technology will bring.

[5:17:26] And again, it's a separate hearing about growth.

[5:17:29] That's a separate.

[5:17:30] Agreed.

[5:17:31] Agreed.

[5:17:31] That's just the sort of fear out there

[5:17:33] and the realistic potential that's driving it.

[5:17:37] So as we look at the conditions,

[5:17:39] the triggers here,

[5:17:40] below average precipitation

[5:17:42] on a Stage 3 condition

[5:17:46] would allow this to be used.

[5:17:47] So that's pretty liberal.

[5:17:49] that's at below average precipitation, that's not a strong drought or a severe anything.

[5:17:57] So I'm comfortable with that, looking more closely or other commissioners comfortable

[5:18:01] with that, then making sure that seven month use allowances in there, and then that would

[5:18:08] allow it to be used all the time in the severe stage five or stage six conditions.

[5:18:14] So members of the public are kind of clear on that and have an opportunity to see our thought process there.

[5:18:20] So if we're okay with that, then I just have a couple more questions before getting into some final comments.

[5:18:31] I've had some more discussion here with Mr. Warren at the break about baseline studies for

[5:18:37] Sam Gordon, excuse me, Van Gordon Creek, and how robust they are.

[5:18:43] We talked about baseline studies and data being there for San Simeon Creek.

[5:18:49] But is it your belief, then, that you have adequate kind of baseline to protect the

[5:18:54] Repairian and the water supply, then, in the very different Van Gordon Creek corridor?

[5:19:00] Thank you, Commissioner White.

[5:19:01] We do.

[5:19:02] So, initially, we completed the first iteration of the

[5:19:05] in-stream flow study for Santa Rosa, excuse me,

[5:19:08] San Simeon Creek, and some of the feedback from the

[5:19:10] attack committee and the coastal commission was,

[5:19:12] well, what about Vanguard?

[5:19:13] So, we spent another $80,000 to include Van Gordon

[5:19:16] into the in-stream flow study, which was given to county staff

[5:19:19] that analyzes both Van Gordon Creek and the San Simeon Creek,

[5:19:22] and there's found to be quite healthy.

[5:19:25] Okay, so you're comfortable with that baseline data

[5:19:29] than that you can verify compared to that.

[5:19:34] Okay, that's helpful for me.

[5:19:35] Those were the issues on my list.

[5:19:37] And with that, I'm very happy to move toward a motion here

[5:19:41] to approve this project.

[5:19:43] The community of Cambria has been struggling with water

[5:19:46] alternatives as we have well heard for a very long time.

[5:19:51] There is a severe water threat with a limited kind of

[5:19:54] options there. And so this has been in the works for a long time, which we all know.

[5:20:02] There will be a significant process ahead. As we've heard, we can expect this will be

[5:20:07] appealed to the supervisors and go to coastal, so there will be plenty more opportunities

[5:20:13] to add mitigations and deal with issues as it continues through the process. I do see the

[5:20:21] need to find kind of reasonable cost sharing between the multiple users knowing this will

[5:20:26] be very expensive, wherever the exact numbers come in, and how the kind of existing residents

[5:20:33] have to pay, along with commercial, that maybe in a different category, I need to step up.

[5:20:39] Those of us with commercial meters pay a little more. And how that goes, I don't think that will

[5:20:45] be a really easy process, but it sounds like the district is already undertaking that with a new

[5:20:50] rate study in mind that may reflect some of these realities. As I mentioned, I am concerned

[5:20:58] about the wait list of some 665 users that this doesn't solve problems for that have

[5:21:06] been waiting a very long time. And I'd like to see and look forward to seeing some kind

[5:21:15] of work with the SAMSIMian District to solve some of their issues.

[5:21:19] That potential for possible brine disposal through their outfall could be a very feasible

[5:21:26] one, but potentially lower cost also, hoping with some synergy to solve their wastewater

[5:21:32] treatment issues that are coming up looming really soon, that maybe the Cambria plant can

[5:21:37] And serve some of those needs and the bike path over some pipes would be fabulous from my perspective.

[5:21:48] So with that, if staff will please put up those recommended decision.

[5:21:57] And then we had some changes, then some revised findings.

[5:22:04] So did we read those into the record adequately?

[5:22:08] Do you have your staff recommendation up for me that I didn't write down with the changes?

[5:22:14] Do you want us to read the change conditions into the record, or do you feel like you've

[5:22:19] done that adequately, 26, 31, 41, 2, 4?

[5:22:23] I think we have one.

[5:22:24] You haven't seen it, it was not in the record, and that is if you'd like to add the language

[5:22:30] to the landscaping conditions, so we do have that on the screen now.

[5:22:33] Okay.

[5:22:33] Great.

[5:22:34] I believe everything else has been viewed.

[5:22:37] What was that, Commissioner Apple?

[5:22:38] I think we decided not to do that at this time.

[5:22:41] We're gonna let it.

[5:22:42] Let's see what staff has.

[5:22:44] They've got something in here.

[5:22:45] So I think we are all amenable to that as was the applicant.

[5:22:52] Hey.

[5:22:55] Good.

[5:22:57] Yeah.

[5:22:59] Support the plan.

[5:23:01] I'll second that.

[5:23:03] Two seconds.

[5:23:04] Okay, so everybody's comfortable with that language.

[5:23:07] Okay.

[5:23:08] Okay.

[5:23:08] And if you want to put up your staff recommendation approval,

[5:23:13] I'll somebody's got it up.

[5:23:15] Okay, so with that, I'm pleased to move that we find this project consistent with the 2025

[5:23:22] Addendum to the 2017 SCIR for the Cambria Water Reclamation Facility,

[5:23:29] SCH number 201-406-1073, pursuant to sections 151-62 and 151-64 of CEQA, and we approve DPCDP-DRC-2013-00112, based on the findings listed in Exhibit A and the revised conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B.

[5:23:55] We have a motion in a second, clerk.

[5:24:00] Commissioner Wyatt?

[5:24:01] Yes.

[5:24:02] Commissioner Abla?

[5:24:03] Yes.

[5:24:03] Commissioner Villacana?

[5:24:04] Yes.

[5:24:04] Commissioner Shaw?

[5:24:06] Yes, I just had one comment.

[5:24:08] I want to thank everyone for their work and for coming out and I just really appreciated all

[5:24:13] the emails from the community too and I think the community as a whole does see what an asset

[5:24:19] this is.

[5:24:20] I started looking at these systems in 2017 when we were in South County looking at the central

[5:24:27] coast blue project and that could have been a huge protection of from seawater intrusion and

[5:24:34] it managed to die in the court of public opinion and prices going up. So the fact that you have this,

[5:24:41] Yes, it's a huge asset and I really am happy for your community.

[5:24:47] So I vote yes, and Chair Lieberman.

[5:24:53] Yes, motion carries.

[5:24:55] Thank you so much everyone for your engagement, your patience.

[5:25:02] And we will give you a moment to move on before we go to our next hearing item.

[5:25:08] If

[5:25:18] you hold on, Jair, figure out where I saved that too, sorry.

[5:25:22] Here, Mike's.

[5:25:35] Daniela, I'm not going to be here for that second meeting, but we're

[5:25:43] going to mark it in

[5:25:43] the mirror.

[5:25:46] Long time coming.

[5:25:47] Speed.

[5:25:48] You know?

[5:25:48] Yes, probably.

[5:25:49] No, they're not.

[5:25:50] Yeah.

[5:25:52] Yeah.

[5:25:53] Bye.

[5:25:55] Oh, I'm looking.

[5:25:58] So they're already doing this without approval.

[5:26:04] Yeah.

[5:26:13] I know we are going to need some chocolate to get us through today.

[5:26:17] Anybody need chocolate to keep going?

[5:26:24] Thank you.

[5:26:26] Yeah.

[5:26:27] Definitely.

[5:26:28] All right.

[5:26:29] I think he

[5:26:35] has five, two.

[5:26:37] Thank you.

[5:28:32] We are reconvening

[5:28:34] For our last hearing item, clerk, would you mind introducing the item?

[5:28:40] Yes, our final hearing item is a hearing to consider a request by Richard Nolan for a conditional use permit to allow for up to 25 temporary outdoor events per year with amplified sound with the maximum of 150 guests per event for a period of 20 years and to waive the secondary access requirement.

[5:28:59] Excuse me, this is county file number N-DRZ-2024-0042 and this is located in Supervisorial District 3.

[5:29:10] Thank you very much.

[5:29:14] Why don't we disclose any export take communications, we'll start down here.

[5:29:21] I talked to the applicants representative on the project, Kirkton's holding.

[5:29:27] Okay, nothing.

[5:29:30] Excuse me, yeah, a few conversations.

[5:29:33] I had a site tour with Anne and Jamie from Kirk on 223.

[5:29:39] We discussed this sort of history of our events ordinance from the early 2000s and some other things that will come up in the hearing.

[5:29:47] I'll be sure to bring up.

[5:29:48] I mentioned this item at one of our friends of the Bob Jones trail meetings.

[5:29:53] No discussion took place on the item that I attended.

[5:29:57] and I did discuss this one.

[5:30:00] By phone with Baron Canyon on neighbors, Pat Hood, Diane Gregory, Bill Chadwick, and John Sexton. Very good. Again, you had none. Okay. I met with Ian McCarville, the applicants representative on February 20th, and I met with Bill Chadwick on the 23rd from the Baron Canyon Ranch Homeowners Association. So, thank you for that.

[5:30:28] Would you introduce our staff presentation team, please?

[5:30:30] Yes, good afternoon, Eric Hughes, planning and building, presenting this item.

[5:30:34] We have Senior Planner, Eric Tolly.

[5:30:36] In support, we have Super Rising Planner, Cheryl Kuh, myself Eric Hughes, Deputy Director

[5:30:40] Mark LaRue.

[5:30:41] We also have staff from our building.

[5:30:43] We have building and good enforcement staff here as well.

[5:30:45] And then, Public Works and County Council, thank you.

[5:30:52] Good afternoon, commissioners.

[5:30:53] Hello again, Eric Tolly, Senior Planner, Planning and Building.

[5:30:57] Before you is the case or the project for Daniel and Lindsay Nolan, it's for a conditional

[5:31:03] use permit NDRC 2024-0042. Project is a conditional use permit for temporary

[5:31:11] events, which consists of 25 outdoor events per year with on-site parking, with

[5:31:17] amplified sound, maximum of 150 guests per event. For a period of 20 years, the

[5:31:23] applicant is requesting to waive the secondary access requirement.

[5:31:29] This is where

[5:31:30] relocated, relocated just east of Highway 101 in the Avala, Avala area near

[5:31:37] Squire Canyon. We are located within the agricultural land use category

[5:31:44] surrounded by residential rural and residential suburban.

[5:31:51] This is the

[5:31:52] aerial picture of the property.

[5:31:59] This is the site plan of the current operations

[5:32:01] out there. We've got two parking areas, area one and area two. The purple area shows the outdoor event area.

[5:32:10] And the brown linear line is the primary ingress and egress.

[5:32:20] This is a elevation of the event, the main event venue, excuse me.

[5:32:26] This is where it's completely operating outdoors, and this is where the events are held.

[5:32:32] So,

[5:32:36] the project is a staff's recommending denial based on general planning consistency specifically with the agricultural element of the county general plan and specifically with the agricultural element that's ag policy six.

[5:32:50] Ag policy six states allow it allows limited visitor serving an incidental retail use in facilities and agricultural areas that are beneficial to the agricultural industry such uses shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the primary agricultural use of the site.

[5:33:07] A primary agricultural use could not be verified by the county department of agriculture.

[5:33:12] And speaking of the County Department of Agriculture, we do have a representative here that I think Mr. Eric Hughes left out accidentally for any questions you may have.

[5:33:26] Along those same lines, agricultural element, the resolution 2009-329, which states the review authority in consultation with the County Department of Agriculture, shall continue to make a determination of what constitutes primary agricultural use and allowable.

[5:33:42] secondary and incidental uses on a case-by-case basis.

[5:33:47] Staff's stance on that is the resolution 2009-329 does not address agriculture designated

[5:33:55] parcels without an existing agricultural use.

[5:34:00] Next up is Ag Policy 31 that's embedded within the agricultural element, Ag Policy 31 states.

[5:34:07] It encourages recreational uses on privately owned lands, on a case-by-case basis where such uses are compatible with an on- and off-site agriculture and with scenic and environmentally resource sensitive resources.

[5:34:21] Staff considers temporary events to be public assembly in nature, not recreationally, not recreational, excuse me, and act policy six is the gatekeeper policy for visitor serving uses on ag properties.

[5:34:35] These primary on-site agricultural operation is required in other words.

[5:34:42] Staff's received an abundant amount of correspondence.

[5:34:47] Those opposed include the Avala Valley Advisory Council or AVAC.

[5:34:55] I also received 31 individual emails from community members citing summarized concerns including

[5:35:04] wild fire risk, water and sewage capacity, insufficient parking, amplified sound, traffic

[5:35:11] and emergency ingress and egress, and the disregard for previous code violations.

[5:35:16] In support, I have 11 individuals and charity organizations summarized in their letters,

[5:35:23] is the economic benefit to the county, the preservation of rural surroundings, charitable

[5:35:30] nature of the operators, the safety practices of the operators, and the professional management of the operators as well.

[5:35:38] Additionally, the applicant submitted a memo in response to the staff report in the staff recommendation of denial last night or yesterday.

[5:35:47] Discussing the application of Ag Policy 6 and the October 6, 2009 Board of Supervisors discussion of criteria to evaluate temporary events on agricultural

[5:36:00] On that date, the Board of Supervisors adopted resolution number 2009-329, which states that determination of what constitutes a primary agricultural use and what qualifies as an allowable secondary and incidental use should be made on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the agriculture department in response staff would like to confirm that planning has worked with the Ag Department to evaluate this proposal with respect to

[5:36:29] to the circumstances of this case.

[5:36:32] The reference resolution did not prohibit consideration of the agricultural liaison advisory

[5:36:38] board or a lab criteria, but reaffirm that decisions should be made on a case-by-case

[5:36:44] basis.

[5:36:45] The subject property differs from other projects mentioned by the board members on that date,

[5:36:51] on that Board of Supervisors date, including the property's location, agricultural history,

[5:36:56] and proposal for temporary events as a primary use.

[5:37:03] So, staff's recommendation is to deny the request

[5:37:07] for a conditional use permit and DRCE 2024,

[5:37:11] 0,00042, based on the findings in the exhibit A,

[5:37:17] and again, primarily because of the inconsistency

[5:37:19] with the county's general plan.

[5:37:21] Staff, as Eric Hughes had pointed out,

[5:37:24] is here for any questions or comments you may have.

[5:37:29] Thank you very much. Any initial questions to staff?

[5:37:36] I do.

[5:37:39] So just to dumb it down for me, to boil down to the bottom line based on 2009 and

[5:37:45] 11 and ag policy 6. The consensus opinion from the board was we were to evaluate these projects

[5:37:53] on a case-by-case basis, correct? That is correct. Yeah. And yeah, I think more

[5:38:01] More context could be given by Mr. E and Landruth with the agricultural department.

[5:38:06] But yes, okay, I'm going to hold you in queue.

[5:38:11] Thank you.

[5:38:13] There's no more questions of staff at this time.

[5:38:15] I'm going to invite Jamie Jones.

[5:38:17] I think I have one, sorry.

[5:38:18] Go ahead.

[5:38:19] So, the Zoned Ag Land and the counties found that it's not being used for ag land or ag purposes?

[5:38:27] That's correct, it is zoned agriculture, and it is currently not, does not have a verifiable

[5:38:35] ag, primary ag operation on it, in order to allow visitor serving uses, which is stated

[5:38:42] in ag policy six, such as temporary events.

[5:38:47] I'm going to come back to that.

[5:38:49] Very good.

[5:38:50] Okay, so we're going to allow the applicants representative to make a presentation.

[5:38:55] Good afternoon.

[5:38:56] Good afternoon, Chair Lieberman, members of the Commission.

[5:39:00] My name is Jamie Jones.

[5:39:01] Kirk and Solzine here representing the Nolan family.

[5:39:05] And I'm going to be spending a lot of my time revisiting some history and

[5:39:08] talking about policy and the policy specific to Ag policy six.

[5:39:14] So as we talked about, this is an application for a conditional use permit for

[5:39:18] up to 25 events a year, no more than 150 attendees on a 22 acre property that's

[5:39:25] currently developed with two primary dwellings,

[5:39:28] farms for quarters, and some other uses on the site.

[5:39:32] Here's an overall site plan that does show the event area,

[5:39:37] kind of in that light purplish book end by the two primary dwellings.

[5:39:43] There is existing agriculture on the site.

[5:39:46] There's two acres of irrigated horse pasture.

[5:39:49] This is a tricky site.

[5:39:50] There's quite a bit of slope.

[5:39:52] It's a 36% slope.

[5:39:53] There's dense native oak trees on the site and the sites comprise mostly of non-prime soils.

[5:40:01] So there is, and to the point of agricultural use, the area that is available to be utilized for AG is utilized for AG with irrigated pasture.

[5:40:10] So the core issue here today is really about AG policy 6.

[5:40:16] And the staff denial, I know they're looking at this in a case-by-case basis, but really

[5:40:22] the staff denial is predicated on the ALAB criteria, and whether or not there's a primary

[5:40:27] agricultural use on the site.

[5:40:29] And the determination was no agricultural use, no temporary events, that's just not allowed.

[5:40:36] And we've seen the Department of Agriculture rely on this ALAB criteria for the last eight

[5:40:42] years pretty heavily.

[5:40:44] And we've always said, you know, the board policy back in 2009 wasn't to utilize this

[5:40:50] ALAB criteria.

[5:40:51] It was really to look at these as a case-by-case basis.

[5:40:55] And so whenever the board in 2009 heard this interpretation and adopted the policy document,

[5:41:01] they rejected the ALAB criteria.

[5:41:04] I'll get into that in a minute.

[5:41:05] But that was a recommendation from Planning Commission to utilize the ALAB criteria.

[5:41:09] They said, no, let's look at this on a case-by-case basis.

[5:41:12] And that was the direction from the board.

[5:41:14] So I think the question here before you today is whether or not this project is being evaluated

[5:41:19] correctly under the correct standard.

[5:41:23] We don't think it is.

[5:41:25] So a little history on the 2009 Request for Interpretation.

[5:41:30] This was done by the Ag Tourism Coalition.

[5:41:34] It sounds like they might support events, right, but they really didn't.

[5:41:37] This was a group out in the Adelaide.

[5:41:39] And they had it, they did request for interpretation to ask about specifics on the land use ordinance, Title 22, but then also have some questions about what is Ag Policy 6?

[5:41:53] How do we look at primary agricultural use requirements? And what can you really do for secondary and incidental uses? How should it be applied?

[5:42:02] And we had some different recommendations that came forward as part of that.

[5:42:06] The Planning Department, they said, let's do business as usual in granted back in 2009.

[5:42:13] Let's look at these projects in a case-by-case basis.

[5:42:16] There wasn't a formula utilized at that time.

[5:42:19] Every project was treated different.

[5:42:21] Some properties had AG.

[5:42:22] Some properties didn't.

[5:42:24] They didn't say, oh, you can only do this much visitor service use.

[5:42:27] They really just looked at sites based on the site character, neighborhood character, and

[5:42:32] the scale.

[5:42:33] So, this went to the Planning Commission.

[5:42:34] Planning Commission does what planning commissions do, and they made a different recommendation.

[5:42:39] And the recommendation that the Planning Commission made in their draft resolution to

[5:42:43] the board was that that shall use the ALAB criteria.

[5:42:48] And they also said there's a percentage-based formula allowed for the visitor serving use.

[5:42:54] 5% of the total agricultural use on the site could be devoted to the visitor use.

[5:43:01] And then they also shifted the kind of the who should be in charge.

[5:43:06] They said that the Ag Department should be making a determination on Ag Policy 6 and

[5:43:11] utilizing the ALAB criteria and it shouldn't be the planning department.

[5:43:15] The business as usual from the planning department review was that planning department would be

[5:43:20] the decision making or recommendation authority planning an Ag didn't always agree.

[5:43:25] So Ag might have an opinion on what they thought should be on the site in the planning department,

[5:43:32] would be looking at more global, what do our other general plan policies say,

[5:43:37] and could sometimes make a different determination.

[5:43:40] And that was just how things were done.

[5:43:43] So then we get to the Board of Supervisors and the Board and their discussions.

[5:43:47] They said, you know what, we don't want to rely on a formula.

[5:43:49] They knew the ALAB criteria was, it was actually created for a different purpose.

[5:43:55] The ALAB criteria was created whenever, during this time, sorry, all the background.

[5:44:01] But the county was actually looking at adopting a real special event ordinance.

[5:44:06] So how can we do special events, not temporary events, that special events in our county.

[5:44:13] And that ALAB criteria was developed in anticipation of being performance standards for

[5:44:19] or the special event ordinance.

[5:44:20] That special event ordinance was never adopted.

[5:44:23] So, that ALAB criteria board said that was for something else.

[5:44:27] We want to keep looking at projects on a case-by-case basis

[5:44:30] in regards to ag policy six.

[5:44:32] And we do want to allow for in certain instances temporary events

[5:44:36] where there is no ag.

[5:44:38] And as part of their resolution,

[5:44:41] they also reinstated the planning department

[5:44:43] as the review authority.

[5:44:45] So they said, no, we need to look at this

[5:44:46] in more of the bigger picture in the planning department

[5:44:49] should be the one making the decision.

[5:44:51] And they adopted this resolution.

[5:44:53] And as I stated, the deliberations specifically addressed

[5:44:56] agricultural parcels that do not have existing act,

[5:44:59] I know that...

[5:45:00] The Planning Department and their staff report said the resolution didn't, but part of the

[5:45:04] deliberation that got to the case-by-case recommendation included specifically allowance

[5:45:10] for parcels that don't have ag to also have temporary events.

[5:45:15] And so I'll turn to about some of the things that have come up with about whether AgZone

[5:45:21] Land doesn't have ag to be excluded from temporary events. I think that there are valid reasons

[5:45:27] why certain agglents are not an act of production, and I think if an overly narrow interpretation

[5:45:34] that creates restrictions, I'm not sure it's going to serve the larger purpose.

[5:45:39] Now we're going to find ways to accommodate, as opposed to regulate, over-regulate, and

[5:45:46] so flexibility needs to be a part of that.

[5:45:52] I want to talk about the partial that has no agricultural use, no production agricultural

[5:45:58] use at this point.

[5:45:59] Well those are special cases and I think you take each one of those and see whether it

[5:46:04] makes sense to apply egg policy six.

[5:46:06] You look at, just take for instance the agricultural barn.

[5:46:10] I don't want to get too deeply down into that because we're not reviewing that project.

[5:46:14] But that's on the urban fringe, on an arterial, a busy street, in a visible location.

[5:46:19] That's a very different situation from a parcel with no egg, this 15 mile alley

[5:46:30] maintained

[5:46:30] road for half.

[5:46:33] And then lastly, this is can we grip and kind of pulling it all together as

[5:46:36] number three? Number three of the on page C223 speaks to continuing to have the

[5:46:43] the applicable review authority make a determination of what constitutes primary

[5:46:48] agriculture used and allowable second and incidental use is on a case by case

[5:46:53] basis in conjunction with the Ag Department. That is Ag Policy 6. It doesn't say

[5:47:00] correct policy 6 but those are the words of Act Policy 6 and that is the current practice.

[5:47:08] It isn't practice that planning staff does not believe Act Policy 6 is applicable.

[5:47:14] Our concern was the heart and staff's rules that where there is no agriculture on site

[5:47:19] there can be no temporary event when you have the unique circumstances like the octagon barn

[5:47:27] or other circumstances, I can't think about the top of my head

[5:47:30] that you would want the flexibility to address.

[5:47:35] So thank you for listening to those SNPs.

[5:47:37] I think it's important, you know, is we, you know, years have passed,

[5:47:41] but we always go back and revisit the hearings

[5:47:43] and say, what do we talk about?

[5:47:45] And not everything can be scripted into the resolution.

[5:47:49] So going back and reviewing what the board was talking about at the time

[5:47:51] is important, so thank you for letting me share that with you today.

[5:47:55] So, you know, to tear off of that in 2012, there was a CUP that was approved for temporary

[5:48:01] events for the octagon barn.

[5:48:02] It's a Foreaker parcels-owned ag, and there was no ag use at the time, no ag use today.

[5:48:08] And, you know, that was three years following whenever this ordinance was adopted.

[5:48:12] That a little bit more intense use than what we're proposing, you know, four times events

[5:48:17] on a quarter of the size of the parcel.

[5:48:19] But it does, you know, it's directly, it's a little bit north of this property.

[5:48:27] So if we look at kind of the reset, and this is a big thing for us, because this isn't

[5:48:33] just happening.

[5:48:33] It's just not this narrow view on this project.

[5:48:36] This is happening for a lot of projects that we work on.

[5:48:39] And we feel that the, whether it's changeover in staff or people not going back and looking

[5:48:43] at the hearing as we, we feel like the implementation of Ag Policy 6 is kind of marked over the

[5:48:48] It's especially as we've had turnover, you know, having new staff members come in and maybe people not understanding the legislative history of the policies that we're working within.

[5:48:59] So looking at the no one property, and again, we're just talking about the the ag policy six today.

[5:49:05] We know we don't have the project in front of you for review.

[5:49:07] It's about general plan consistency and can we find this project consistent with ag policy six?

[5:49:13] And so, as part of that, you know, the no one property, it's an undersized ag parcel.

[5:49:18] You know, we're going to the case by case review. It's unique. It's got unique existing structures. We talked about this.

[5:49:25] There's proliferation of agricultural event barns in our county. I think we counted. There's three castles.

[5:49:32] This property, we've got Hearst Castle. And then we also have the newly branded Anderson out on Highway 46.

[5:49:40] We're using existing grounds, so we're not looking at converting ag, it's using existing facilities that are there, everything's outside.

[5:49:49] We are in close proximity to Highway 101 with access from a county maintained road.

[5:49:54] The Ag Department in the referral process has limited capacity for production ag.

[5:50:01] Probably doesn't meet the purpose and character statement for ag, so we know we're not impacting ag.

[5:50:06] and the area that is suitable for farming on the property,

[5:50:10] the small use two acres,

[5:50:11] but that is utilized for irrigated ag.

[5:50:13] So we're doing as much ag on the property that we can.

[5:50:17] And then I think it just looks, it's into scale.

[5:50:21] You know, we're looking at these temporary events

[5:50:23] are intermittent.

[5:50:24] It's not a permanent public assembly use.

[5:50:26] I do disagree with staff

[5:50:27] that temporary events aren't public assembly.

[5:50:30] Public assembly is 365 days a year

[5:50:33] in a permanent facility that was built to accommodate that use.

[5:50:38] We're looking at temporary events, 6% of the year, 25 times the year, with only 150 people.

[5:50:45] We think in this instance, we can look at Ag Policy 6 on a case-by-case basis and

[5:50:50] find the project consistent with the general plan.

[5:50:54] And if your commission can make that determination, at least on the general plan consistency basis,

[5:51:00] then we would ask that you send it back to the department.

[5:51:04] They can continue reviewing our application because they've stopped.

[5:51:08] They haven't finished reviewing our application.

[5:51:10] We've submitted a lot of information, but we're not done yet.

[5:51:14] And we think through that process, we can address a lot of the items

[5:51:17] you're probably going to hear during public comment.

[5:51:20] Concerns about noise, evacuation, fire access, duration,

[5:51:26] condition compliance, those sorts of things are the things

[5:51:29] is that we have been addressing in the background

[5:51:31] on our application, but we don't have the opportunity

[5:51:33] to share them with you today

[5:51:34] because today we're just talking about policy.

[5:51:37] So that concludes my comments.

[5:51:39] And I'm available for questions.

[5:51:41] I will have to, the property owner had to excuse himself

[5:51:45] for a family emergency.

[5:51:47] So you're stuck with Ian and Ida.

[5:51:49] Hopefully, field your questions.

[5:51:51] Thank you.

[5:51:53] Thank you very much.

[5:51:54] Any initial questions for the representative?

[5:51:57] I have one just on the last kind of what you said and I want to make sure staff agrees

[5:52:04] with that representation.

[5:52:07] So what you're saying is today you only want us to decide if this could possibly go

[5:52:18] through either with if we decide this irrigated pasture is an agricultural use and or if

[5:52:27] we say actually looking back at the footage and agricultural uses not necessary, you just

[5:52:33] want us to decide today if this could keep being assessed.

[5:52:38] We are not deciding on a case-by-case basis if this is not a case that should have a permit.

[5:52:44] Is that what the page everyone's on right now?

[5:52:48] Or say that's the page I'm on.

[5:52:51] And we have a recommendation of denial because basically we can't open the door to continue

[5:52:56] the application because the department has determined that we're inconsistent with the general plan.

[5:53:02] So we had been working our way through the application process through many

[5:53:05] couple different information hold in providing information. We even talked about this Ag

[5:53:11] Policy 6 discussion in our submittal and march ish and then we got a call, I think this October,

[5:53:19] September October, saying, we're just going to take you for denial because of the Ag Policy 6 issue

[5:53:26] because, and forgive me, we read 472 pages,

[5:53:31] and this was the last 72, right?

[5:53:33] So, but as I was reading it, to me,

[5:53:36] it was more of a recommendation of denial

[5:53:39] because of all the events that had already been leading up

[5:53:42] and the sheriff writing a long thing

[5:53:44] about the father or the bride saying to turn up the music

[5:53:47] and there's no one available on the weekend.

[5:53:50] And so it was my impression we were assessing based on that.

[5:53:54] So I just want to know from someone, anyone, what am I deciding today?

[5:53:59] Yes, the lawyers.

[5:54:00] Yeah, and Dorothy County Council.

[5:54:02] So the code enforcement and everything that happened before is really not relevant

[5:54:07] to the discussion today.

[5:54:09] Okay.

[5:54:09] Today, so if you look at the findings, the only finding that we're looking at for denial

[5:54:13] is based on Ag Policy 6.

[5:54:15] Okay.

[5:54:16] So your view, the scope of your review is really limited to deciding on the

[5:54:20] the applicability of AgPolicy 6.

[5:54:23] If you agree with staff that it is applicable,

[5:54:26] then that supports the Nile.

[5:54:28] If you disagree, then that supports,

[5:54:30] not recommending that this move forward

[5:54:32] through the normal process,

[5:54:33] in which case it would come back to your commission,

[5:54:36] like with conditions and everything that you would see

[5:54:38] with the project has gone through that process.

[5:54:40] All right, that is super helpful.

[5:54:42] Thank you.

[5:54:44] So just to clarify, that is the big one.

[5:54:49] That's how I understood it, too, right?

[5:54:55] Okay. Thank you. I know you're going to be here.

[5:54:58] I'd like to call our representative from the Ag Department forward.

[5:55:02] You can take the shortcut right there.

[5:55:09] How's it going?

[5:55:11] Super stoked to be here.

[5:55:13] That talks surf to me.

[5:55:17] I'm sorry. Please, please share your name and your title at the Ag Department.

[5:55:22] Ian Landruth with the Ag Commissioners Office.

[5:55:25] Very good, thanks Ian.

[5:55:27] Staff at a presentation, we just said,

[5:55:29] the applicant presentation, can you comment

[5:55:31] on AgPolicy's six and how you use it

[5:55:34] to help guide you to these decisions?

[5:55:36] Absolutely, so it'll be, I guess,

[5:55:40] in preface with the applicant's team,

[5:55:42] I would agree with the presentation.

[5:55:44] There's just some slight nuances

[5:55:46] to kind of get us to where we are today.

[5:55:48] So there is the ALAM criteria that the Ag Department developed in conjunction with ALAM as part of the events and the appeal hearing that was discussed.

[5:56:02] Not necessarily because the special events ordinance never happened.

[5:56:06] Our department viewed that as a very consistent way of applying that policy from our point of view and internalize that into its policies.

[5:56:14] one, and we are dealing with visitor-serving uses at sites that are owned agriculture.

[5:56:22] So with AgPolacy 6, as part of that board resolution, as you just saw today, which I watched

[5:56:29] this well prior to come into this meeting, it was determined that there is going to be

[5:56:34] unique scenarios where you're not able to have Ag on a site, or for instance with the

[5:56:42] octagon barn it is so small that production ag is infusible. A little bit of nuance there is

[5:56:49] the site itself I believe was 1.74 acres in size zone to ag. The adjacent parcel that was

[5:56:55] also included as part of that project was zone commercial services so already out of the ag

[5:57:00] land use designation so ag is no longer intended to be the primary use of that site. However it was

[5:57:07] as farmed dry farm grain on that site.

[5:57:10] So the most notable comment from our department at the time

[5:57:13] was that at least four acres of prime soil would be converted.

[5:57:17] But that was viewed as an incremental

[5:57:19] or limited conversion of ag resources.

[5:57:22] There was still concern because there

[5:57:24] was active agriculture on that parcel.

[5:57:27] And so in spirit there, we recommended adding fencing

[5:57:30] to deter trespassing onto that property.

[5:57:33] That was still an active production.

[5:57:35] So today we're looking at a site that we reviewed and did identify there was limited ag capability on the site.

[5:57:43] I would clarify from that policy interpretation document that we do use.

[5:57:49] We do not consider irrigated pasture used for grazing of horses to be an agricultural use or a crop production.

[5:57:57] Typically, it would need to be grazed by livestock.

[5:57:59] So for the production of food and fiber.

[5:58:01] However,

[5:58:03] in that regard, the site is 22.2 acres in size, it is very steep, it has a wood

[5:58:10] loom that is dense on the site.

[5:58:12] There is a area of prime soil, but with the subsequent development on the site, that

[5:58:17] has reduced it to about approximately 0.5 acres of prime soil that you could farm on.

[5:58:23] Again, not large enough to be able to have a viable ag operation at the site.

[5:58:31] So based off of that, and in spirit with the board resolution, that is why we are here

[5:58:37] today because it is for your review authority to make that unique circumstance determination

[5:58:44] on whether or not Ag Policy 6 would apply.

[5:58:48] Very good, thank you.

[5:58:50] So just to clarify, cattle, if they were grazing cattle on the 20 acre site, then it would

[5:58:57] count towards, if the, if the pasture was utilized for cattle grazing, that would go into

[5:59:03] that calculation for an agricultural use because it can be a proportional combination of

[5:59:08] those uses.

[5:59:09] I'm not sure if you have seen those recently, but it would go towards that overall ag use.

[5:59:15] and so your recommendation would be different in that case wouldn't like it.

[5:59:20] Yes, then we would start looking at is there sufficient ag on the site.

[5:59:26] So one of the criteria would be five acres of irrigated vine or tree crop,

[5:59:31] 10 acres of irrigated row crop, 40 acres of irrigated pasture and so on.

[5:59:39] And so yes, if the two acres was also utilized for cattle grazing,

[5:59:44] That would be considered, but it probably wouldn't meet the combination just because for cattle grazing it would be 320 acres utilized for cattle grazing based off of that interpretation document.

[5:59:58] But the site is very small.

[6:00:00] I would note that parcel that's under 20 acres in size would typically be considered a substandard ag size parcel.

[6:00:09] Could I ask a question?

[6:00:12] So what is your recommendation then because you're saying this is not technically big enough to be an ag parcel, especially with the steep slope. So is this one of those unique situations in your opinion?

[6:00:31] So for us as a referral agency, we analyze the policy the way that we do and present that to the planning department and subsequently the review authority.

[6:00:45] So in the past and still to come in the future, planning may disagree with our assessment.

[6:00:52] But that is why you saw the board resolution the way it was recorded is because there's going to be unique circumstances where it doesn't fit.

[6:01:01] But that doesn't change how we apply our criteria consistently.

[6:01:05] So I can't outright be like, let's approve it, we're in support of it.

[6:01:11] But in our initial referral response, that's why we identified the limited ad capability to provide that breadcrumb, if you will, to show that.

[6:01:20] That, you know, there was some issue with it.

[6:01:23] Okay, thank you.

[6:01:25] You're welcome.

[6:01:28] So, so much, we're talking about irrigated horse pastures, is there horses, is there horses

[6:01:36] on the facility or is it just a, or they just have an irrigated pasture?

[6:01:41] They, they have two horses there, and it puts off when we're on the site.

[6:01:45] And, yeah, and two navfakers, that'd be probably about right for two.

[6:01:48] So the, I guess one question is if somebody had, you know, a 300 acre horse ranch, that's not considered ag, but if they had two acres of wine grapes, that would be ag.

[6:02:01] Correct. So for the department, we do not typically consider horses to be horse keeping, riding, training, events, exhibitions,

[6:02:14] questions, personal breeding for personal use to be an agricultural use.

[6:02:20] If it's ranch or draft horses or a commercial breeding program where that's the primary

[6:02:26] use of the site, that is where we would consider it more of an agricultural use.

[6:02:32] But if it's an equestrian facility where it's riding schools and academies and people are

[6:02:37] being invited to ride or view exhibits, then we would not consider that an agricultural

[6:02:41] use.

[6:02:41] We consider that a visitor serving, yes.

[6:02:43] Okay, and then Jamie, if you had a commercial, I'm sorry, yeah, commercial zone property, industrial property or residential, would you allow to have two horses on that property, or do you have to go to an ag property to have horses on residential property, you can have horses, and some commercial you can, but I don't know off the top, but I think it goes to, okay, so if we put a cow,

[6:03:11] out on the two acres of irrigated pasture.

[6:03:18] Okay, all of a sudden, my pastures ag.

[6:03:20] I mean, it's an irrigated pasture

[6:03:24] that's qualified for purposes of Williams Act.

[6:03:26] If we, you know, for purposes of subdivision.

[6:03:29] So this is a whole another,

[6:03:30] I could talk about this all day long.

[6:03:32] Our horses ag, horses are an ag.

[6:03:35] So they get into the visitor serving component.

[6:03:37] So whenever we're working on temporary events,

[6:03:39] Now, all of a sudden, based on this ALAB criteria, where you can only have 5% of the agricultural

[6:03:45] youths devoted to visitor-serving youths, if you have 20 acres of lavender that you can't

[6:03:51] do with your horses.

[6:03:53] It was questioned in the answer room.

[6:03:54] Okay.

[6:03:54] Sorry.

[6:03:56] It shows that it's a bigger picture discussion.

[6:03:59] There's a lot to talk about.

[6:04:03] I think that's all I got now until we do.

[6:04:05] Okay.

[6:04:05] Thank you.

[6:04:06] I have one more question for staff.

[6:04:10] We saw the octagon barn in the applicant's presentation.

[6:04:15] Can staff tell me how that approval maybe is different than what's before us today?

[6:04:24] I heard about a commercial component.

[6:04:27] Can you walk us through that, please?

[6:04:29] Yeah, and reading through that staff report, that property is the only one I'm aware of where

[6:04:38] there was an approval for something like this without an existing agricultural use as a primary

[6:04:45] use. However, on that property, there was a historic agricultural use that was a smaller parcel.

[6:04:52] It was, I think, an acre, a little over an acre.

[6:04:56] And it was bordered by commercial property and it had easy access.

[6:05:03] It was on the urban fringe.

[6:05:05] And what was proposed as part of that application was for an agricultural museum.

[6:05:11] Events were proposed to take place in existing agricultural buildings.

[6:05:16] So it seemed like there was a feeling that that was more

[6:05:22] agricultural-y aligned events were a secondary use.

[6:05:27] That's how they were described anyway.

[6:05:29] Secondary to the agricultural museum and activities.

[6:05:33] I'd just like to chime in there because I was part of that

[6:05:36] development team at the Lansing Conservancy.

[6:05:39] So I spent a lot of years working on that project.

[6:05:41] and indeed, kind of agreeing with what Ms. Kuse said, but there are other differences there that makes that an exceptional parcel, and not the norm, and why it's not the same.

[6:05:55] That was also a nonprofit organization that came in and spent millions of dollars to restore some historically significant structures.

[6:06:04] So they weren't building, well, a new auxiliary structure was built to bathrooms and one other building.

[6:06:13] But the primary uses of those were the use is within restored historic structures.

[6:06:20] So that's a very different and exceptional case that I don't think is at all comparative to the one we're looking at today.

[6:06:27] There were a lot of differences there that made that exceptional, where we're looking at a commercial venture in newer constructed, non-historic buildings.

[6:06:39] I think that makes a poor comparison.

[6:06:42] Thank you for your institutional knowledge.

[6:06:44] Yeah, and I know you would have been through the sausage factory here in the late 2000s when we were debating this and how temporary events came into this and special events.

[6:06:56] on Ag Land and it really just got dropped because it was so messy.

[6:07:02] It was very difficult and I joke I kind of black that period out of my memory.

[6:07:07] It was very difficult to try to parse out all of these interpretations like you've heard from Ms. Jones as far as,

[6:07:15] we've heard from staff today as far as your recreation, public assembly,

[6:07:20] when temporary isn't temporary at what point and all of that.

[6:07:24] So, I think a lot of those questions are still outstanding and not determined and I just have us be kind of wary of the one octagon barn kind of exception being used as a kind of case representing the norm.

[6:07:43] Okay.

[6:07:46] Thank you. So before I open public communications, I just want to just, Council, you can help me articulate this perhaps better is, we've seen a lot of correspondence about fire threat and traffic mitigation and amplify noise and drunk guests and things of that nature.

[6:08:10] but, Council, can you help us as we open communication frame what that driving lane looks

[6:08:17] like as far as our consideration today?

[6:08:19] Sure.

[6:08:20] Yeah.

[6:08:20] Bendora County Council.

[6:08:21] So a lot of that is irrelevant to today's discussion, which is really just focused on

[6:08:26] the narrow issue of Ag Policy 6, like I said before.

[6:08:29] If this project were to come before you at a later date as a fully foreign project, at

[6:08:35] At that point, you would be considering those issues.

[6:08:39] And then just in terms of like pass code enforcement cases, that case has been resolved

[6:08:45] in terms of events.

[6:08:46] So that case is no longer ongoing, to the extent that it was, this is the avenue to resolve

[6:08:53] it is getting a permit.

[6:08:55] So they're going through the appropriate process to resolve that code enforcement case.

[6:09:00] But yeah, just short answers today, that's really not kind of relevant to your consideration.

[6:09:07] Okay, thank you.

[6:09:08] So as I call you to come forward, if you could just frame your comments knowing that, but

[6:09:13] I also don't want to quash your opinion that you want to share with us.

[6:09:19] Chair, could we just ask council one more question before we get the public comment?

[6:09:23] You know why wife always calls me we may inform it so as far as pathways toward legalization

[6:09:35] and how we got here today spent some time talking to the applicants representative on the site

[6:09:40] about how we got here today in this kind of uncomfortable position of a staff request for denial

[6:09:49] that we don't see very often, and the challenge of this for the applicants and for us and staff and everyone.

[6:09:57] And so it may be helpful to frame this in terms of just options for other pathways.

[6:10:03] And maybe I'll just try to share it as I heard it and Council could confirm.

[6:10:09] But as I understood it from reading the staff report and talking to the applicants' agents,

[6:10:13] The applicants had intended to go through a pathway of a general plant change to change

[6:10:19] the zone on this parcel to accomplish several things to allow for some B and B use, the

[6:10:25] events use, and potentially a lot of it.

[6:10:29] And so, you know, during the course of this attempt, they decided that the events use was

[6:10:36] their primary intent and that this could be a pathway to get there for the temporary

[6:10:43] events use. So in my characterizing our conversation accurately, right? Okay, so just want to confirm

[6:10:49] that that other pathway would be available for this and some other potential uses if we didn't

[6:10:56] go this one. So it's not like this is the only remedy. Yeah, that's correct. So yeah, the alternative,

[6:11:01] of an alternative path would be to go through the general plan amendment process, which would recategorize this land to a different land use designation, in which case, Ag Policy 6 wouldn't be applicable.

[6:11:12] Thank you.

[6:11:14] I get it. Sorry.

[6:11:16] If we are basically saying that this doesn't qualify under Ag Policy 6, is this appealable to the board, or does this mean that the project is dead at the point?

[6:11:23] No, this is appealable to the board to go.

[6:11:28] Okay, so I'm going to go ahead and open public comment.

[6:11:31] I will call the first two people, so you know who's on deck.

[6:11:36] The first speaker is a representative of a group, so we're going to award them five minutes.

[6:11:44] This is Lynn, excuse me, is it Mack or Wack Castello?

[6:11:50] I'm sorry, I'm not very good with cursive, so if you'd like to come forward, and then following Lynn will be Joanne Miller.

[6:11:58] Thank

[6:12:01] you and good afternoon commissioners.

[6:12:04] My name is Lynn Mack Custello, and I'm here on behalf of the property owners in the Indian

[6:12:11] nog subdivision.

[6:12:13] My husband and I, Joe, bought our home at 6155, Almeridge Way, approximately nine years

[6:12:21] ago.

[6:12:23] Now, as I believe, we're just our flipper.

[6:12:46] Okay, thank you.

[6:12:47] just

[6:12:51] a moment.

[6:12:55] Can I recover that time? All right. Okay, so you can see here, as soon as

[6:13:03] I figure out how to operate this.

[6:13:14] Okay, thank you. And again, which button?

[6:13:22] There we go.

[6:13:23] So as you can see here, that is our property and is located approximately, are directly above

[6:13:29] of the subject property as the canyons turn.

[6:13:33] Now, my remarks here today, and I ask for you,

[6:13:36] a thank you for not quashing all comment,

[6:13:40] but I wanted you to keep two words in mind,

[6:13:42] for seeability and risks,

[6:13:45] because when you apply simple math to this proposal,

[6:13:48] it does not add up.

[6:13:50] Now, let me provide some additional context.

[6:13:53] Joan, I also own a home in Pacific Palisades.

[6:13:57] On January 7th last year, that community of 29,000 people was devastated in the Palisades

[6:14:04] fire.

[6:14:06] Over 7,000 homes, schools, churches, businesses are gone.

[6:14:14] Twelve people lost their lives because they could not evacuate.

[6:14:19] This was the fire that couldn't happen.

[6:14:21] There are lessons here from that fire and they directly relate to your interest in adhering

[6:14:27] to state and local laws regarding fire, life, and safety.

[6:14:33] I understand some of you have had an opportunity to visit the subject property.

[6:14:39] Please visualize again that narrow driveway is partially paved at a 45-degree ascent.

[6:14:50] and with no room for two vehicles to pass each other in opposite directions.

[6:14:55] The applicants are asking you to approve.

[6:15:00] 25 outdoor events a year with up to 150 gates, yes, and wave the requirements for secondary

[6:15:07] access route. Let's do the math. 25 events is roughly two per month. But we know that

[6:15:14] most events will be in the warmer months, the summer and fall, at the height of the

[6:15:20] driest and most fire prone parts of the year. That means nearly weekly events in the peak fire season.

[6:15:31] 150 guests. That's roughly averaging two per car that put 75 cars up on that upper parking lot.

[6:15:41] What could go wrong? Even a joyful events like weddings, accidents happen, somebody trips going down to their car.

[6:15:50] The sound or light wires cross and spark in the dry grass.

[6:15:56] A candle tips over, alcohol is involved and a cigarette bud is flicked into the dry shrubs.

[6:16:03] What is foreseeable is that at some point emergency vehicles are going to be needed.

[6:16:09] An ambulance is approximately 8 feet wide.

[6:16:12] A fire engine is 9 to 8 to 10 feet wide, and both require 12 feet of clearance to safely

[6:16:19] navigate hills and steep hills of terms.

[6:16:24] Now consider the math,

[6:16:30] sorry about that,

[6:16:35] okay, okay, what

[6:16:39] happened, okay basically what

[6:16:42] What we're talking about is why this point, Monty Brode, is 15 and a half feet wide.

[6:16:50] 12 feet of clearance only does not leave much room for any cars to pass by.

[6:16:56] Now, for Baron Canyon and Indy Nob, there is also, sorry, this has got me off.

[6:17:03] Okay.

[6:17:04] 75 guest vehicles attempting to exit in an emergency.

[6:17:08] emergency vehicles trying to enter a road to narrow.

[6:17:13] If an ambulance or fire truck is blocking the access, there is no alternative route out.

[6:17:19] This is where the palisase fire is instructive.

[6:17:22] Up in the upper left-hand corner that picture the palisase was narrowed called the Highlands.

[6:17:27] There is a three-mile narrow canyon road down to Sunset Boulevard, which is really the only

[6:17:34] access in and out of palisades.

[6:17:37] On January 7th, it has two lanes up and two lanes down, but on January 7th, panic.

[6:17:45] People drove down all four lanes, and then they were stopped as sensible of art because

[6:17:50] it was deadlocked.

[6:17:53] People were trapped, and they were frightened.

[6:17:55] They abandoned their vehicles and ran through their lives down to the ocean.

[6:18:00] The parallel for Bering Canyon in Indie Nod, there's also only one way out.

[6:18:05] Barron Canyon Road to Monty Road.

[6:18:08] There are 29 homes up in Barron Canyon and about 70 residents at 150 guests to that

[6:18:15] equation during a dry, windy day, foreseeability and risk.

[6:18:21] It is foreseeable that there will be an emergency situation.

[6:18:25] Lynn, I need to ask you to wrap it up, please.

[6:18:28] I'm sorry?

[6:18:28] Could you wrap it up, please?

[6:18:30] Yes, of course.

[6:18:31] Thank you.

[6:18:32] It is foreseeable that no one will be able to escape.

[6:18:36] The question before you today is not just about events, it is about foreseeability and

[6:18:41] risk.

[6:18:42] It is about whether approving this proposal exposes this community and this county to preventable

[6:18:49] danger.

[6:18:50] The emergency is foreseeable, the math does not work.

[6:18:54] We urge you to please follow the staff's recommendation to deny the application for

[6:19:00] the CUP.

[6:19:00] Thank you. Thank you. So we're going to go with Joanne Miller, followed by Patricia Hood. Good afternoon.

[6:19:08] Good afternoon. My name is Joanne Miller and my husband Richard and I live at 90 Baron Canyon Ranch Road in an incorporated San Luis Obispo.

[6:19:16] So we purchased a lot that we built upon in 2000, and then we built our home spending

[6:19:26] both extra time and money to conform to the environmental requirements of a rural

[6:19:33] residential area.

[6:19:36] We finally moved in nearly eight years later.

[6:19:41] So when we heard that there was a possibility of extended commercial activity in the area,

[6:19:47] we were quite concerned.

[6:19:51] As has already been mentioned, Monty Road is narrow.

[6:19:54] You really can hardly pass two cars, there are no shoulders.

[6:19:58] And it's a, you know, fire is our biggest, you know, is our biggest danger.

[6:20:02] But it's not, you know, but it's not our only danger.

[6:20:04] It is an agricultural area even though the subject property is not agricultural.

[6:20:10] And there are, you know, a number of cars that go by and Monty Road is no South Igera.

[6:20:18] And so the relevance of the out-of-gone barn is irrelevant, you know, the comparison.

[6:20:23] So these frequent events will generate trash, et cetera, et cetera.

[6:20:28] And it is a steep property.

[6:20:30] We already get flooding when it rains coming down from that 36-degree slope.

[6:20:36] And so we really, really hope that you will go ahead and follow staff recommendation and deny this conditional use permit.

[6:20:45] I have nothing more to say. Thank you very much.

[6:20:48] Thank you.

[6:20:49] So Patricia Hood is next followed by John Sexton.

[6:20:54] Hi, good afternoon commissioners.

[6:20:56] My name is Patricia Hood, and I've lived at 5820 on Ridgeway in Barron Canyon for almost 25 years, long time.

[6:21:04] This hearing is for you guys to consider that application by Richard Nolan for a conditional

[6:21:10] use permit for 25 annual events with up to 150 guests with amplified music for a 20 year

[6:21:17] period.

[6:21:18] I understand what you guys just said that kind of makes a lot of this irrelevant but still

[6:21:23] generally we have to go through because the truth is we will at some point and maybe you

[6:21:28] should consider it now, history

[6:21:34] is often the best way

[6:21:36] to judge the future.

[6:21:38] This applicant's history includes both misrepresentation

[6:21:41] and broken agreements.

[6:21:43] In October, 2022, after the county started receiving complaints

[6:21:48] from neighbors, Dan Nolan agreed to the county

[6:21:51] that no additional bookings would be made on that site.

[6:21:57] Now I lost the page, I'm fine, okay.

[6:22:01] Here you go,

[6:22:04] I'm not good at this, huh?

[6:22:06] In June 2024, the county confirmed that the Nolan's hat engaged in impermissible advertising

[6:22:13] and booked events in violation of the 2022 agreement. The county confirmed unpermitted events

[6:22:20] on the property on September 7, October 5, and October 26, of 2024. Dan Nolan has testified

[6:22:27] that he understood the 2022 citations and that no events were allowed, however, he continued

[6:22:34] to book on permitted very large events.

[6:22:38] Mr. Nolan has admitted that he had not followed the 2024 county guidance.

[6:22:44] Please note, I took this information directly from the San Luis Superior Court case, 25L-0294,

[6:22:52] which was dated 924th, 2025.

[6:22:55] More recently, the Nolan's obtained permits to build a single-family residence to serve

[6:23:00] as housing for their non-existent agricultural workers.

[6:23:03] As soon as the construction was complete, the Nolan submitted plans to change the property to a commercial V&D.

[6:23:10] That property has eight bedrooms and eight bathrooms and is extremely large.

[6:23:16] Events from at least 2022 have been held in defiance of an agreement with the county.

[6:23:22] Unpermitted large and lavish weddings and events are advertised and have been held.

[6:23:27] But the Nolan's have characterized the scale of events as small and private.

[6:23:30] it. Based on the Nolan's history, it's impossible to believe that they will adhere to any agreement.

[6:23:38] 25 events could easily become 50. 150 guests could become 200. The safety and lives of the

[6:23:46] entire area, not just barren canyon, square canyon, barren canyon, Monty Road and Bassey Ranch,

[6:23:51] it's all a bowl. Is it risk? Due to the foreseeable risk of fire, flooding, and road conditions.

[6:23:59] I think enforcement's only possible if all events are denied and

[6:24:04] complaints are handled as they come in.

[6:24:06] Therefore, I please ask you to agree with the staff recommendation to deny this.

[6:24:12] Thank you very much.

[6:24:13] Thank you.

[6:24:15] John Sexton, followed by Diane Gregory.

[6:24:19] Good afternoon, commission, wait a minute, I'm sorry, good afternoon, German.

[6:24:26] Members of the commission and staff.

[6:24:28] My name is John Sexton, and I live at 260 Rocky Creek Road in Barron Canyon.

[6:24:38] I have been a resident and business owner in San Luis Obispo for over 50 years.

[6:24:46] For the past 25 years, I have been a resident of Barron Canyon community.

[6:24:51] During my time in San Luis Obispo, I have built two residences and one commercial building.

[6:24:57] I have always played by the rules, and I've never tried to slip one over on the city or the county.

[6:25:04] A horse drawn carriage ride up to the castle does not constitute a viable agricultural endeavor.

[6:25:13] The project before you is nothing but a Trojan horse, one, in my opinion, that has been deviously conceived

[6:25:22] and plan from the start to be nothing other than the shell game that's before you.

[6:25:28] Our community of Baron Canyon takes the issue of fire preparedness very seriously.

[6:25:34] It is a topic of discussion at our regular meetings.

[6:25:39] How are the Chateau proprietors going to instruct 25 indulging event, 200 indulging event

[6:25:47] and attendees to act wisely and responsibly during a fire emergency.

[6:25:53] It's probably going to be trying to, like, heard a bunch of drunk cats.

[6:26:00] Baron Canyon recently upgraded and greatly expanded our water storage capacity.

[6:26:06] This will aid us in, us and responders if there is a fire.

[6:26:11] I know of no such resources at the Chateau.

[6:26:16] So, excuse me, I mean agricultural house.

[6:26:22] And what about the sewage?

[6:26:24] That many people will create quite a lot of it, and wonder if porta-potties are still

[6:26:29] invoked for upscale weddings.

[6:26:32] Please allow me to read a quote from Chief Deputy Nolan, a Nate Paul from November 6, 2024.

[6:26:43] A key concern of our office is the potential for noise complaints resulting from a project

[6:26:50] such as this.

[6:26:51] It has been our experience that members of the public expect a property right upon renting

[6:26:58] an event space to basically do what they want.

[6:27:02] This provision for uses of the space such as amplified noise levels.

[6:27:09] For example, the father of the bride will tell the DJ at her wedding reception to turn

[6:27:15] up the music because he has rented the facility, and this is her special day.

[6:27:21] The project will likely result in additional sheriff office calls for service, including

[6:27:27] alarm calls during all hours, noise complaints, as well as domestic violence, public intoxication,

[6:27:35] fight end of quote John if you could wrap your comments up please I will thank you I do not believe

[6:27:43] we would encounter these types of problems with a handful of agricultural work I'm asking to

[6:27:50] planning commission to agree with staff and deny this request thank you thank you we've got

[6:27:58] Diane Gregory in my last speaker slip is Steve and excuse me if I say fiend when it should be fine

[6:28:10] My name is Diane Gregory, my husband and I live at 5, 7, 7, 5.

[6:28:16] Baumrich, Wei and Baron Canyon.

[6:28:18] We have lived there for over 23 years.

[6:28:21] We hope to spend the rest of our lives there.

[6:28:24] For years, the Nolands have attempted to outsmart the county officials.

[6:28:28] We look at the string of changes.

[6:28:30] They have been made to the proposed use of the property.

[6:28:34] Is it a wedding venue? Or a bed and breakfast? I'm sorry. I must be mistaken. It was supposed

[6:28:40] to be agricultural work housing. Cesar Chavez would be truly proud. As a result of his hard

[6:28:47] work, agricultural workers would get to live in a multi-million dollar old French chateau.

[6:28:54] Now the Nolan say it is their dream home. Of course, that is subject to change based upon what they

[6:29:00] believe they can get away with them. Today, we are here, the small plot of land behind

[6:29:06] the Chateau for two horses to graze, consists of prostitutes, ag pro-agqualification, not primary

[6:29:17] agricultural use. As my friends and neighbors have so eloquently stated, the entire Avala

[6:29:23] Valley, Barron Canyon, Square Canyon, Bassey Ranch, and C. Canyon, is a potential powder

[6:29:28] just one spark from a careless and e-poriated wedding guest and poof.

[6:29:35] The entire area goes up in flames but don't worry the nollands have a plan.

[6:29:41] If the Planning Commission allows the nolland to use the property for anything more than their dream

[6:29:46] home, don't be surprised at the potential catastrophic outcome.

[6:29:52] Given their sterling reputation for honesty and integrity,

[6:29:55] It seems only fitting that the Planning Commission trust the Nolens what

[6:30:00] Could possibly go wrong.

[6:30:04] Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Steve Fient. I'm my San Luis little native. My family has lived in Squire Canyon since the mid-1960s. The property currently owned by the Nolans has never been used for agriculture. As described as too steep, it's covered in shrub brush and oak trees.

[6:30:30] One of the properties made

[6:30:32] Southerment was at one time used as a dairy, other than that, there's been no row crops, there's no wheat crops, nothing in the entire Monty Road area.

[6:30:46] Squire Canyon is zoned residential suburban.

[6:30:50] It was, I was told by the original developers of Squire Canyon that it was specifically zoned residential suburban to absolutely prevent.

[6:31:01] businesses from coming in, and Squire Canyon becoming like sea canyon, nothing wrong with sea

[6:31:08] canyon, but the residents at that time did not want apple farms and wine reasons, small businesses.

[6:31:16] It's a country, it's a very remote, secluded area.

[6:31:24] There's no signs on the freeway leading to Squire Canyon.

[6:31:27] We like it that way.

[6:31:29] We like our privacy, the events that have been held in the past at the Nolan property, do produce drunken partyers.

[6:31:43] It's not common, it's a very small percentage of the attendees.

[6:31:51] But those that are the problem, are huge problems to people trying to sleep at night,

[6:31:56] and maintain their peace of mind in a very peaceful remote area of San Luis Obispo.

[6:32:06] The secondary access issue is huge there because it is a box canyon.

[6:32:16] It affects me personally, I own a large piece of land and have been denied building future

[6:32:25] homes solely based on secondary access. The Toshera's over the hill have faced the same problem.

[6:32:35] Many other people have also. So I just want to keep things peaceful and quiet as they were

[6:32:43] designed in the beginning. And I understand growth, I understand things change over time,

[6:32:53] But not here, it needs to stay the way it is.

[6:32:57] And if I could have 10 more seconds, during lunch break, I had lunch at Luisa's downtown.

[6:33:06] Excellent sourdough pancakes, they have ruined me for all other pancakes.

[6:33:11] I highly recommend them.

[6:33:15] Do you happen to own Luisa's, Mr. Fian?

[6:33:18] No, okay, thank you.

[6:33:23] That is all of the public comment slips that I have in my possession.

[6:33:28] Was there anyone else for public communication?

[6:33:31] Seeing none, I'm closing public comment and asking staff.

[6:33:35] Do you have any comments clarifying information based on what we heard?

[6:33:43] I don't think we have anything specifically just the understanding that, of course,

[6:33:49] the project has not gone through the environmental analysis.

[6:33:51] This saw a lot of the things that were mentioned would be evaluated should the project move forward.

[6:33:58] May I ask you a follow-up question to that because there are some comments made.

[6:34:02] So if there was a project moving forward, things like drive way with an access,

[6:34:12] sewer, using portable restrooms, all those things would be addressed during that process.

[6:34:17] Yes, of course, access, egress, noise, traffic, all of those things.

[6:34:26] Okay.

[6:34:27] Very good. Thank you.

[6:34:31] I have a question.

[6:34:32] Could I just not to go into the history too much, but how did this all get...

[6:34:40] How did the original noise complaint get started?

[6:34:42] How many events were going on and were those permitted at all whatsoever?

[6:34:47] whatever or what happened, just the quick first.

[6:34:52] Yeah, well, in August of 2022, that's been the complaints were first submitted to our

[6:35:00] county code enforcement for events that were happening on site, and that case was closed

[6:35:09] because Mr. Nolan had ceased advertisements. That was part of the condition. It came back.

[6:35:20] Complaints resumed in May of 2024 for additional events were happening along with advertisements.

[6:35:29] And so that's kind of where we're, that's kind of how it all kind of started. And if you have any

[6:35:34] questions, I do have Tristanie waiting in the wings if you want to ask any additional questions.

[6:35:39] regarding those violations.

[6:35:41] Okay, thank you.

[6:35:43] Could I say my opinion on this

[6:35:47] and see just given the late hour

[6:35:49] and see if we can find any consensus

[6:35:52] or if we want to hash through everything?

[6:35:55] No, I think it looks as

[6:35:57] lower transitioning towards deliberation

[6:35:59] so I assume you're lead off.

[6:36:01] Okay, I will.

[6:36:03] What I would like to say is

[6:36:05] I would like to just follow staff's recommendation

[6:36:08] and deny, I think sometimes we do have to do things in an effort of efficiency for the staff's time and for everyone's time.

[6:36:19] And I don't take this lightly. I actually live next to one of these event places on my street.

[6:36:27] And we're just five acre lots. And I have it like two five acres away.

[6:36:33] I didn't even know how big the events were until I met someone at the hair salon who told

[6:36:37] me her wedding was 250 people. I was like, really? It does not bother us whatsoever.

[6:36:43] We, no traffic, no nothing. I think we saw a drunk guy throwing up like once. Nothing.

[6:36:51] So the fact that we already have this history and we have these neighbors showing up, I can

[6:36:57] can argue for agricultural land use here, but I just think then we're just going to be

[6:37:03] right back here hearing the exact same comments. It was not a good thing to do in 22 and then

[6:37:10] redo in 24. That's just not really proving a track record. I'm just apt to deny and save

[6:37:17] everybody's some heartache done.

[6:37:21] Well, thank you.

[6:37:24] Well, I understand what you're saying, but I think we're looking at stuff, we're trying

[6:37:30] to figure out so that the unique of the land is that it's zoned agriculture, but it's

[6:37:35] not able to be used as agriculture, which is where the part comes in that we're supposed

[6:37:40] to be looking at.

[6:37:42] So they can't use it for agriculture use because of various reasons, which is what we're supposed

[6:37:49] would be kind of looking at. I mean, it's, to me, that is the problem. If it can't be used as

[6:37:55] ag, but it's a zoned ag, and they can't use it as ag to get through the, so this is one of the

[6:38:01] unique case-by-case situations we should be looking at.

[6:38:07] I agree with the case-by-case basis, and

[6:38:11] unfortunately, I don't think you can just disregard history. But also, I'm going to look at the history

[6:38:16] that you just gave us on the outbound bar, and that it was a nonprofit, and people were putting

[6:38:19] money for a special piece of property.

[6:38:23] And so realistically this is going to get appealed.

[6:38:26] I say just efficiency, we deny it and let it get appealed to the board of supervisors

[6:38:31] and go from there if that's, that would be the way I would go forward with it.

[6:38:38] Right.

[6:38:39] You're realistic.

[6:38:40] You're still waiting.

[6:38:41] I'd like to go.

[6:38:41] I'd like to go last.

[6:38:43] Oh, okay.

[6:38:44] It was worth it.

[6:38:45] Try.

[6:38:45] So I'm agreeing I really appreciate the points on efficiency because sometimes there's something to it and I understand the applicant's frustration because as I understood it, discussing this with the agents, they didn't realize they were going to be in this position of a recommendation for denial until some way down this path.

[6:39:09] So I understand that's really frustrating.

[6:39:12] I also understand staff can't really review

[6:39:14] and make a recommendation.

[6:39:16] It's all of the departments have looked at the application

[6:39:20] and weighed in so it's not an easy one.

[6:39:23] So I would also concur that going with the denial.

[6:39:27] I was, as I mentioned on the commission

[6:39:28] and voted for the sort of straight application

[6:39:31] of the standards requiring the primary ag use.

[6:39:35] And that would be very narrow exceptions

[6:39:38] like the octagonal arm that had a lot of other things.

[6:39:42] They're like nonprofit public benefit use,

[6:39:45] and rehabilitation of historic structures

[6:39:49] that we don't see any of on this site.

[6:39:54] Thank you, and it's been a very interesting process

[6:39:58] learning about the site, learning that it was subdivided

[6:40:01] and that those tree groves that are between how we want to want

[6:40:06] a Monty were at one point part of this property which would have given it a different flavor.

[6:40:14] I actually spent a lot of time in the wedding industry and toured many of our rustic wedding

[6:40:19] venues throughout the county and based on what I've seen and actually officiated a wedding in

[6:40:25] your neighborhood. This one just doesn't have the feel of the others whether it's grazing land

[6:40:33] and or walking through vineyards and active ag production.

[6:40:37] So, sadly, I can't get there either.

[6:40:41] And I appreciate everyone's time and staff

[6:40:44] and applicants in helping to educate me on this.

[6:40:47] But I believe we're ready for a motion.

[6:40:50] And, Seth, would you mind putting the recommendation out please?

[6:40:55] As the motion comes from someone,

[6:40:58] I'd just like to add again that the applicants

[6:41:01] have other pathways. We have seen some requests for general plant changes and zone changes

[6:41:07] in this vicinity. So there are other avenues available. For this site or other sites, indeed we've

[6:41:15] heard reference to other sites in this position that aren't agriculturally viable. You know, it's not

[6:41:20] this pathway or none that maybe they might want to consider this own change option. If there's not

[6:41:28] how the egg happening?

[6:41:31] Before you make your, I just want to make one point.

[6:41:34] So what we're looking at is these unique properties

[6:41:37] that, which we just skipped over completely,

[6:41:40] that are egg-zoned, that can't be used for egg purposes

[6:41:43] and they're one, they can't, so therefore,

[6:41:45] they don't have a use of secondary

[6:41:47] because they never got a primary.

[6:41:49] And we're talking about one applicant,

[6:41:52] but this is gonna, you know, sit,

[6:41:55] tones now are precedent, so now I come along

[6:41:57] and I just want to do a different type of a venue that I have drunk people everywhere.

[6:42:02] I'm getting declined. So just keep that in mind. That's what I'm looking at.

[6:42:08] Well, I just say if you're in an ag zone, there's an assumption of some ag here. I mean,

[6:42:15] this is for a point. And this parcel was subdivided, and the ag was split off as chair Lieberman

[6:42:23] and suggested at some point, so the lot split there kind of created the situation of

[6:42:33] the smaller ag parcel that was an ag viable.

[6:42:37] And so maybe that's something for us to consider.

[6:42:39] If we're looking at lot splits, I think we're going to see a lot split.

[6:42:43] I think in agricultural zone, lot split, maybe at one of our next meetings, that we're creating

[6:42:50] this position, this problem, in our lot slit.

[6:42:59] Do we have a staff recommended motion there on the screen coming up?

[6:43:04] I'll make it, if no one else is.

[6:43:07] I move we deny the request for conditional use permit in DRC to 0240042 based on findings and

[6:43:15] exhibiting.

[6:43:16] I'll second.

[6:43:18] Clerk.

[6:43:19] Mr. Clerk.

[6:43:20] Commissioner Wyatt?

[6:43:21] Yep, Commissioner Lee-Rumin?

[6:43:23] Yes.

[6:43:23] Commissioner Beaconnett?

[6:43:25] Yes.

[6:43:26] Commissioner Shaw?

[6:43:28] Yes, and Commissioner Adela.

[6:43:32] Okay, thank you, everyone, for your participation on this item.

[6:43:37] Just moving through the agenda towards wrapping this meeting.

[6:43:39] Longest one in my history.

[6:43:41] Do we have any correspondence, Clerk?

[6:43:45] Yes, all the correspondence.

[6:43:47] We'll be part of the record.

[6:43:48] Correct.

[6:43:49] Okay, would someone like to make a move?

[6:43:50] No moved.

[6:43:52] Second.

[6:43:53] Second.

[6:43:56] Okay.

[6:43:57] The simple police vote is in order.

[6:43:59] Aye.

[6:44:00] We're adjourned.

[6:44:02] Next adjourned.

[6:44:04] Thank you.

[6:44:06] Next meeting is March 26th.

[6:44:09] Yes.

[6:44:10] Till then.

[6:44:12] March 12th.

[6:44:13] Sorry.

[6:44:13] March 12th.

[6:44:14] March 12th.

[6:44:17] 26, 26 I'm gone.

Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript