MOOSE MANLEY LLP. September 30, 2015

MOOSE MANLEY LLP n U U 0 Sabrina V. Teller steller@rmmenvirolaw.com September 30, 2015 VIA ELECTRONIC & OVERNIGHT MAIL Mendocino County Board of Supervisors c/o Carmel J. Angelo, Clerk of the Board 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1010 Ukiah, CA 95482 bos@co.mendocino.ca.us Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of AA 2015-0002 regarding the Building Permit for Dollar General Store (BU2015-0104) Dear Supervisors Brown, Gjerde, Hamburg, McCowen, and Woodhouse: Founded in 1982 by Michael H. Remy, my firm, now Remy Moose Manley, T I P, is a law partnership focused on providing a wide variety of expert legal environmental and land use services to public and private clients, including cities and counties, state agencies, environmental consultants, project applicants, and environmental organizations located throughout California. Throughout its history, the firm has been involved in major environmental cases, including hundreds of California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions. The firm also periodically publishes the Guide to CEQA, which has been cited by numerous courts as an authoritative treatise on the California Environmental Quality Act. We represent Cross Development, LLC, with regard to the approved Dollar General store at 8451 East Road, Redwood Valley, in Mendocino County. This letter refutes the arguments made in the June 24, 2015 letter from Carter, Momsen 8z Knight, PC, that are relevant to the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of AA 2015-0002 regarding the County's approval of a building permit for the Dollar General store. As explained in more detail below, the Planning Commission properly denied the administrative appeal filed by Alex and Anthony Chehada, the owners of Redwood Valley Store, because the County's issuance of the building permit is a ministerial action that is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.). Moreover, the approved Dollar General store is entirely consistent with the General Plan and County zoning code. Thus, the County Department of Planning and Building Services properly approved the permit on June 8, 2015, in a ministerial action without any CEQA review. 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800 Sacramento CA 95814 I Phone: (916)443-2745 Fax: (916)443-9017 1 www.rmmenvirolaw.com

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors September 30, 2015 Page 2 of 8 The discussion below demonstrates that the only legally defensible action the Board may take here is to deny the appeal. In addition to the substantive reasons detailed below, we also ask the Board to consider how the Dollar General store will contribute to the community of Redwood Valley and to the County. First, the Dollar General store will create approximately 6 to 10 locally-hired jobs. Second, the store will generate thousands of dollars in sales tax and property tax revenue for the County each year. Finally, Dollar General has a proven track record of investing in local communities through charitable contributions to high schools, libraries, and non-profit organizations that promote literacy in the communities served by Dollar General stores.1 The Dollar General Literacy Foundation has given over $100 million in grants to assist nearly six million people since the foundation's inception in 1993. Most Dollar General stores, including this one, are approximately the same size as a modern drugstore, such as Rite-Aid. They are not "big box" stores or "superstores" like Wal-Mart or Target. While the Chehadas are entitled to their own opinion about their ability to successfully compete with a new retail store in their community, CEQA is not intended to protect existing businesses from new competition, as the Chehadas transparently attempt to wield it in service of here. (Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. v. County of Alameda (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1233-1234.) A. The June 8, 2015 approval of the building permit was a ministerial action that was not subject to CEQA. The Chehada appeal argues that the County's issuance of the building permit violated both CEQA and the County's General Plan. But the appellants failed to provide any evidence or reasonable arguments as to why the County's approval of a building permit is discretionary and not ministerial. Instead, the June 24, 2015 letter makes several unsupported assumptions about the likelihood that a Superior Court would "interpret CEQA liberally" and choose to ignore established guidance in the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit1.14, 15000 et seq.) and CEQA case law. CEQA applies to "discretionary projects." CEQA does not apply to projects that are purely "ministerial." (Pub. Resources Code, 21080, subds. (a), (b)(1); CEQA Guidelines, 15268, 15357, 15369.) A "discretionary project" is one that "requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the public agency or body merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations." (CEQA Guidelines, 15357.) "Ministerial projects," on the other hand, "involve[ ] only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements, and the public official cannot use personal, subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should be carried out." (CEQA Guidelines, 'See Exhibit 3 [news stories regarding Dollar General Literacy Foundation's community grants].

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors September 30, 2015 Page 3 of 8 15369.) A ministerial decision involves "little or no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project" because the "public official merely applies the law to the facts as presented but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision." (Ibid.) As the CEQA Guidelines explain, the "determination of what is 'ministerial' can most appropriately be made by the particular agency involved based upon its analysis of its own laws." (CEQA Guidelines, 15268, subd. (a).) Here, the County has explicitly concluded that building permits are ministerial. (April 1998, Mendocino County Environmental Review Guidelines, Appendix K, p. 39 [excerpts attached as Exhibit 1].) Moreover, the CEQA Guidelines provide that the issuance of building permits are "presumed to be ministerial" in the "absence of any discretionary provision contained in the local ordinance or other law establishing the requirements for the permit." (CEQA Guidelines, 15268, subd. (b).) In other words, the issuance of a building permit is ministerial where the ordinance requiring the permit limits public officials' review to determining whether (a) the zoning allows the structure to be built in the requested location, (b) the structure would meet the strength requirements of the Uniform Building Code, and (c) the applicant has paid his fee. (CEQA Guidelines, 15369.) As explained further below, the County Code does not include any discretionary provisions relating to the approval of a building permit for a land use that is permitted by right. The Dollar General store is proposed on a site in Redwood Valley that is zoned "C-2 General Commercial District." According to the County Municipal Code, the C-2 zone "is intended to create and enhance commercial areas where complete retail sales and services are available and desirable for public service... and convenience." (Mendocino County Code, 20.092.005.) The County Code provides three categories of uses: (a) "Permitted Uses" ( 20.092.010); (b) "Uses Subject to a Minor Use Permit" ( 20.092.015); and (c) "Uses Subject to a Major Use Permit" ( 20.092.020). In other sections, the County Code provides for discretionary approval of minor use permits and major use permits. (County Code, 20.196.005-20.196.075 [governing minor and major use permits].) By definition, a "use permit" is a "permit which may be granted by the appropriate Mendocino County authority... for the accommodation of land uses... which are not permitted by right but which may be approved upon completion of a review process. (County Code, 20.008.056, subd. (H), italics added.) Therefore, uses that are permitted by right do not require a discretionary use permit. The approved store is such a "permitted by right" land use in the C-2 zone. A Dollar General store is a daily needs general retail provider. Dollar General stores typically serve rural communities and sell a range of goods, such as commonly used household supplies, dry goods, and prepackaged frozen foods. There is no fresh produce, no deli, and no bakery department. The type of use proposed for the site clearly fits within the "Retail Sales, General" use type set forth in County Code section 20.024.120:

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors September 30, 2015 Page 4 of 8 "Retail sales, general" means sale or rental of commonly used goods, and merchandise for personal or household use.... Typical uses include department stores, apparel stores, furniture stores, or establishments providing the following products or services: household cleaning and maintenance products; drugs, cards, and stationery, notions, books, tobacco products, cosmetics, and specialty items; flowers, plants, hobby materials, toys, and handcrafted items; apparel, jewelry, fabrics, and like items; cameras, photography services, household electronic equipment, records, sporting equipment, kitchen utensils, home furnishing and appliances, art supplies and framing, arts and antiques, paint and wallpaper, carpeting and floor covering, interior decorating services, office supplies; bicycles; automotive parts and accessories (excluding service and installation) or hardware stores (excluding lumber storage or sales). The C-2 commercial zone lists the "Retail Sales, General" use type under "Permitted Uses" that do not require a minor or major use permit. (County Code, 20.092.010, subd. (C) ["food and beverage retail sales" are also listed under "Permitted Uses"].) The ministerial nature of the issuance of a building permit by the Planning and Building Services Department is also evident from the "Application for Building Permit" and "Building Permit Checklist" provided on the County's website. (See http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/plarming/apps.htm [last visited September 28, 2015].) All the information requested by the application and list of supporting documents required at "the time of submittal" are relevant to determining whether: a) the zoning allows the structure to be built in the requested location, (b) the structure would meet the strength requirements of the Uniform Building Code, and (c) the applicant has paid his fee. (See CEQA Guidelines, 15369 [describing ministerial building permits].) Thus, the County Code, the County Environmental Review Guidelines, and the building permit application itself establish that the County's issuance of a building permit is ministerial. B. The Appellant's argument that the approval of the building permit is subject to CEQA even if the approval was ministerial is not supported by CEQA law. Citing the 40-year-old Day v. City of Glendale (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 817, 824, the Chehadas argue that even if the approval here is ministerial, CEQA review may be required if the approval "is the only point at which the environmental impact of the project may be publically considered." This argument fails for several reasons. First, Day v. City of Glendale involved a grading permit that authorized "grading and movement of 343,000 cubic yards of material to be cut from a ridge" so that 70 acres of canyons could be filled, which is clearly not comparable to the issuance of a building permit here for a 9,000-square-foot retail store on 1.49 acres. (Id. at p. 820.) Second, the impacts of the approved store and other similarly permitted commercial uses were publicly considered when the County approved the 2009 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors September 30, 2015 Page 5 of 8 (EIR). All of the impacts of full buildout in the County per the General Plan land use designations were analyzed and disclosed in that EIR. In particular, the Chehada appeal focuses on traffic and water use. The General Plan Update EIR analyzed these impacts and concluded that: Impacts on Local Roadways (Impact 4.13.2) would be less than significant (pp. 4.13-15 to 4.13-16); impacts related to Increased Demand for Water Supplies and Services (Impact 4.14.1.1) would be significant and unavoidable (pp. 4.14-9 to 4.14-12); and impacts related to Groundwater Level Overdraft (Impact 4.8.4) would be significant and unavoidable (pp. 4.8-30 to 4.8-31). Under CEQA, the analysis in the previously certified General Plan Update EIR is now presumed adequate. (See Pub. Resources Code, 21167.2; CEQA Guidelines, 15231.) As the California Supreme Court explained: In the case of a certified EIR,... section 21167.2 mandates that the EIR be conclusively presumed valid unless a lawsuit has been timely brought to contest the validity of the EIR. This presumption acts to preclude reopening of the CEQA process even if the initial EIR is discovered to have been fundamentally inaccurate and misleading in the description of a significant effect or the severity of its consequences. After certification, the interests of finality are favored over the policy of encouraging public comment. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1112, 1130.) While the Chehadas may wish to "reopen" the CEQA process to attack the analysis in the 2009 General Plan Update EIR, CEQA favors the interests of finality over encouraging endless public comment on previously certified EIRs. (See Melom v. City of Madera (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 41, 49.) Third, the argument that, regardless of whether the building permit approval is ministerial or discretionary, CEQA review is required here fails because the Chehadas have provided no evidence that the Dollar General store will result in new or more severe significant environmental and physical impacts that were not disclosed in the previously certified General Plan Update EIR. Instead of evidence, the Chehada appeal contains vague insinuations that the proposed store will result in "blight or urban decay" and will cause water supply impacts. As explained below, these attacks fall flat. In regards to potential blight or urban decay impacts, the Chehada appeal seems to be under the false impression that every proposal of a nation-wide retail store requires new analysis of urban decay impacts. This is incorrect. Even the proposal of "supercenter" stores that are twenty times larger than the approved 9,100-square-foot (sf) Dollar General store here do not automatically require analysis of urban decay impacts and new CEQA review. (See Melom v. City of Madera (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 41, 49 [rejecting "the proposition that the addition of a [198,000 sf] so-called supercenter to the project

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors September 30, 2015 Page 6 of 8 automatically requires an analysis of potential urban decay effects"]; Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1018-1020 [holding that social and economic effects of a nation-wide retail chain store did not constitute potentially significant change in environment warranting additional review under CEQA, where those social and economic effects were not accompanied by any direct physical change in environment].) In regards to potential water supply impacts, the Chehada appeal notes that Redwood Valley County Water District "has had a water hook-up moratorium since 1989." This comment is a red herring. The water source for the Dollar General store is on-site well water, not the Water District. The County's Environmental Health Division approved the site's water well permit on June 16, 2015. The well driller has agreed to "comply with all of the regulations of the Mendocino County Well Ordinance... and the State of California as they pertain to water well construction." (See http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/hhsa/pdf/ph eh lu waterwell app.pdf [last visited September 28, 2015].) Besides, the General Plan Update EIR acknowledged and adequately discussed the Redwood Valley County Water District's moratorium and water supply challenges. (pp. 4.14-4 to 4.14-5). Moreover, the store's annual water use, which will be limited to the two onsite public restrooms and a drinking fountain, will be less than or equal to the average annual water use of just one single-family home. The developer of the Dollar General store is sensitive to the water concerns of the Redwood Valley community and has ensured that the store will not need a new domestic service connection from the Water District. C. The proposed Dollar General store is consistent with the General Plan's stated policies for Redwood Valley. The Chehada appeal also contends that the Dollar General store would be inconsistent with the General Plan's community-specific policies for Redwood Valley (citing Goal CP- RV-1 and Policies CP-RV-1, CP-RV-3, CP-RV-7). But these arguments merely boil down to the fact that appellants disagree with the County's reasonable conclusions that the proposed store is consistent with these policies regarding smart growth, aesthetics, and sustainable business practices. Moreover, as demonstrated below, the Chehada appeal takes quotes out of context and conveniently interprets the General Plan to support the arguments advanced by the Redwood Valley store owners. For example, the Chehada appeal neglects to acknowledge or quote a significant portion of Goal CP-RV-1 because it would undermine their arguments. Goal CP-RV-1 states in full: Focus new commercial development in the established downtown Redwood Valley area (along East Road), and new commercial and industrial development north and south of School Way. All new development should be located where public services and infrastructure are available.

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors September 30, 2015 Page 7 of 8 (2009 Mendocino County General Plan, p. 6-38, italics added.) As the Chehada appeal admits, the approved Dollar General store "is located in the downtown commercial area of Redwood Valley." And, as explained above, there are no outstanding controversies regarding water supply infrastructure or the provision of any other public services. For example, the attached site plan shows that the project will retain all stormwater onsite. (See Exhibit 2 [site plan].) Therefore, the County can reasonably conclude that the approval of the building permit is consistent with General Plan Goal CP-RV-1. Elsewhere, citing Action Item CP-RV-3.2, the Chehada appeal argues that the General Plan requires commercial developments on East Road to "have a consistent architectural theme and be compatible with the character of Redwood Valley." Again, this argument misrepresents the language in the General Plan. Action Item CP-RV-3.2 states: Improve the aesthetics of areas surrounding the downtown, extending to State Route 20. Potential strategies include: Planting screening landscaping to reduce the visual impacts of the electric substation southeast of the downtown. Establishing a consistent architectural theme, compatible with the character of Redwood Valley, for commercial development south of the downtown. (2009 Mendocino County General Plan, p. 6-39, italics added.) The Chehada appeal conveniently ignores the words "potential strategies" and instead asserts that establishing a consistent architectural theme is a mandatory requirement in the General Plan. At this time, a general aesthetic guideline is not available, but the County could develop one for the area to achieve the desired look mentioned by the appellant for future development in this area. The Chehada appeal also overlooks the focus of this potential strategy on commercial development outside of and south of the downtown area. As indicated above, appellants do not dispute the fact that the site of the Dollar General store is in the downtown commercial area of Redwood Valley. Therefore, the County can also reasonably conclude that the approval of the building permit is consistent with General Plan Policy CP-RV-3 and Action Item CP-RV-3.2. While the Chehadas are entitled to their own opinion about their ability to successfully compete with a new retail store in their market, these differences in opinion do not demonstrate that the Dollar General store is inconsistent with the County's General Plan policies. Thus, the appeal letter's citation to Ideal Boat & Camper Storage v. County of Alameda (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 301, is unavailing. (Id. at p. 316 [involving the proposed expansion of an existing storage facility, which was a legal nonconforming use that existed lawfully before a local initiative was passed and a zoning restriction became effective].)

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors September 30, 2015 Page 8 of 8 D. The recently adopted Urgency Ordinance Establishing Interim Restrictions on the Establishment of Formula Businesses is not applicable here because the building permit was deemed complete and approved several months prior to the adoption of the ordinance. On September 22, 2015, the Board of Supervisors adopted a 45-day urgency ordinance that bars the County and its departments from approving any application for a use permit, building permit, or other entitlement required by the County's zoning ordinances for prohibited uses of a "formula restaurant" or "formula retail" establishment. Appellants argue that this new urgency ordinance should influence the Board's decision here. We respectfully disagree. The plain language of the urgency ordinance establishes that its restrictions do not apply to "those applications for land use entitlements or determinations which were deemed complete prior to the adoption of this ordinance." Because the building permit at issue here was deemed complete and approved months ago, applying the new urgency ordinance retroactively to the June 2015 approval would be improper, a violation of the applicant's due process rights, and a compensable regulatory taking of private property. The applicant submitted building permit application BU2015-0104 on February 24, 2015, along with all required fees. In a ministerial decision that merely involved determining whether the application included all necessary information and fees, the County's Planning and Building Services Department approved the permit on June 8, 2015. The subsequent appeals of the Department's administrative decision and of the Planning Commission's denial of that appeal do not somehow call into question the "completeness" of the original application. Indeed, even the appellants do not contest the completeness of the application. Therefore, the new urgency ordinance is neither applicable nor relevant to the decision that the Board must make in this appeal. * * * For all the reasons above, we respectfully ask that the Chehada appeal be denied. Very truly yours, Enclosures Sabrina V. Teller

Exhibit 1 MENDOCINO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES

RESOLUTION NO. q8.-183 RESOLUTION REPEALING PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MENDOCINO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES AND ADOPTING TER STATE CEQA GUIDELINES THROUGH INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE WHEREAS the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 79-141 enacting the Mendocino County Environmental Review Guidelines on May 8, 1979; WHEREAS the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 80-416 on December 30, 1980 and Resolution No. 81-350 on December 14, 1981 amending the Mendocino County Environmental Review Guidelines; WHEREAS the Mendocino County Environmental Review Guidelines are based on the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations; WHEREAS The Mendocino County Environmental Review Guidelines have not been amended since 1981; WHEREAS; the Board of Supervisors finds that periodic amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines result in the need for continuous effort by the County to amend the County Environmental Review Guidelines to keep current with the State Guidelines; WHEREAS; the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15022(d), provides that local agencies may adopt the State CEQA Guidelines by reference with specific provisions which are necessary to tailor the general provisions of the Guidelines to the specific operations of the local agencies; WHEREAS; the Board of Supervisors finds that adopting the State CEQA Guidelines by reference will provide the necessary framework for conducting environmental review processes for projects within the County's jurisdiction consistent with State law while eliminating the need for staff time and expenses to maintain separate County Environmental Review Guidelines which essentially duplicate the State CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS; the Board of Supervisors finds it necessary to tailor certain guidelines to address specific operations applicable to Mendocino County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby resolves as follows: Resolution No. 79-141 enacting the Mendocino County Environmental Review Guidelines, and Resolutions No. 80-416 and 81-350 amending those guidelines are repealed in their entirety. The State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3 are hereby adopted by reference, with specific modifications attached hereto as Exhibit "A."

The foregoing resolution was introduced by Supervisor Peterson, seconded by Supervisor Sh"maker and carried this 2-6th day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Del bar, Shoemaker Campbell, Peterson, Pinches NOES: None ABSENT: None WHEREUPON, the Chairman declared said Resolution PASSED AND ADOPTED AND SO ORDERED. Chairman, 1 oard of Supervisors ATTEST: JOYCE A. BEARD k of the Board certify that according to the 1 hereby provisions of Government Code Section 25103, delivery of this document has been made. JOYCE A. B CI r of h 8y:

Mendocino County - Addendum to State CEQA Guidelines Exhibit A A. General. In adopting the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines by reference, as supplemented by this Addendum, pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15022(d), the Board of Supervisors declares its intent to implement CEQA of 1970, as amended, to ensure that consideration is given to the environmental effects of projects subject thereto. Whenever this Addendum does not cover or is in direct conflict with a provision of CEQA, the State regulations shall govern. Copies of the California Environmental Quality Act and State CEQA Guidelines are available for review at the Department of Planning and Building Services. B. Purpose. The primary purposes of CEQA are to: (1) inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the environmental effects of proposed activities; (2) involve the public in the decisionmaking process; (3) identify ways that damage to the environment can be avoided by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures. The purpose of this addendum is to add to the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines, which are adopted by reference, specific provisions that are tailored to the methods and operations of Mendocino County. C. Definitions. In addition to the definitions in the State CEQA Guidelines, the following definitions are provided for County use: 1. Board. Mendocino County Board of Supervisors. 2. Commission. Mendocino County Planning Commission. 3. County. County of Mendocino including all governmental sub-units thereof. 4. Environmental Impact Report (EIR). An informational document which shall be considered by every public agency prior to its approval or disapproval of a project. The purpose of an EIR is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project. 5. Lead Denartment. The County department, department head, officer, employee, board, commission or district having the principal responsibility for carrying out a project. The Mendocino Historical Review Board, shall be a Lead Department only when its action is the sole discretionary action taken by any County agency. 6. Ministerial Project. Project for which a decision to approve or deny is based upon a given state of facts in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority. A Ministerial decision involves only the use of fixed standards or objective Page 1 April, 1998

Mendocino County - Addendum to State CEQA Guidelines Exhibit A measurements without personal judgment or opinion as to the wisdom or propriety of the project. 7. Negative Declaration. A written statement briefly describing the reasons that a proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and does not require the preparation of an environmental impact.report. 8. PBS. The Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building Services. 9. Responsible Depal (went. Any County department having discretionary permit authority for a project, but not having the primary or broadest authority over project activities. D. County Departmental Responsibilities. 1. General. This section is provided to establish a general suggested delegation of responsibility to County agencies who are regularly involved in environmental review activities. This listing is not presented as an absolute delegation of responsibility, and each agency should review its activities in light of the State CEQA Guidelines prior to determining agency responsibility. 2. Board of Supervisors: a. Set a schedule of fees for the required preparation and review of environmental documents for private projects. b. Conduct public hearings on Ems. c. Be the ultimate decision maker for all private projects subject to County jurisdiction, and for public projects which require the allocation and expenditure of County funds and/or manpower, or the negotiation of a legal contract or other instrument. d. Be the ultimate appeal body for appeals of environmental determinations. e. Revise this Addendum as may be necessary. f. Review and revise County agency environmental consultant selection criteria as may be necessary. g. Execute contracts to retain consultants for the preparation of EIRs. 3. Planning Commission: a. Conduct public hearings on EIRs. b. Hold public hearings on and adopt, certify, amend or disapprove environmental documents on projects under its jurisdiction. Page 2 April, 1998

Mendocino County - Addendum to State CEQA Guidelines Exhibit A c. Make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors concerning environmental documents. 4. Department of Planning and Building Services (PBS): a. Provide environmental review services to County agencies as time permits. Requests for environmental review services shall be in writing if services include document preparation or inter-agency review. b. Screen categorically exempt and discretionary public and private projects subject to County approval for potential significant effects on the environment, including preparation of initial studies. c. Provide a County clearinghouse to receive and process requests from County departments and decision makers for assessing the environmental effects of projects not otherwise subject to review by PBS, the Commission or the Board (see Item D-6). d. Provide a County clearinghouse for County environmental documents and for documents forwarded to the County by other Lead Agencies for review and comment (see Item D-6). e. Prepare, cause to be prepared, make recommendations, initiate the public hearing process, and issue environmental documents for projects. f. Charge and collect fees involved in the preparation, review and distribution of County environmental documents. g Evaluate draft EIR' s for projects subject to County approval through a public review process. h. Request technical assistance from other County departments, public agencies and individuals in areas of their area of expertise as may be appropriate in the preparation and review of County environmental documents. i. Conduct scoping sessions and require studies and other documentation necessary to determine the environmental effects of projects. j. Conduct a process to select a consultant for the preparation of EIRs. k. Carry out all other activities assigned to the planning agency as appropriate pursuant to CEQA. I. Recommend revisions to this Addendum to the Board. 5. County Clerk: a. Maintain a file for all environmental notices and documents which require filing with that office. Page 3 April, 1998

Mendocino County - Addendum to State CEQA Guidelines Exhibit A 6. Other County Departments:. a. Other County Departments or agencies acting as the Lead Department shall carry out the duties assigned to PBS under 4 (e-1) and issue its own environmental documents in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and this Addendum, if the Lead Department does not desire to use the PBS review process. b. Alternatively, for projects not otherwise reviewed by PBS, the department head or decision-maker may verify the categorical exemption, ministerial or discretionary status of the project, and submit the project to PBS for the issuance of appropriate environmental documents. c. When projects are referred by Lead Agencies/Departments for review and comment, County departments shall prepare comments in relation to that department's function or area of expertise. Reviewers should focus on the sufficiency of the environmental documents in discussing possible impacts on the environment, ways in which adverse impacts might be reduced, and alternatives to the project, in light of the intent of CEQA to provide decisionmakers with useful information about such factors. In reviewing projects, departments should explain the basis for their comments and, whenever possible, should submit data or references in support of such comments. Upon completing the review of a project or environmental document, each department should provide the Lead Agency/Department with the name of a contact person for future consultation should this prove necessary. d. Upon receiving a Notice of Preparation for a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), each Responsible Department shall provide the Lead Agency/Department with specific detail about the scope and content of the environmental information related to the Responsible Department's area of statutory responsibility which must be included in the DEIR. The response at a minimum shall identify the significant environmental issues and possible alternatives and mitigations which must be explored in the DEIR so it will be adequate for the Responsible Department to utilize for the issuance of its permits.. E. Selecting a Consultant. Consultants may be hired by the County to prepare environmental documents requiring efforts beyond the available time, expertise or capability of permanent staff. Hiring an established consulting firm that has dealt with a variety of pertinent projects can provide the County with experience and objectivity. The following guidelines will assist staff in creating a fair and efficient consultant selection process. 1. Overview: The County employs a competitive consultant selection process designed to select a consultant with the expertise, experience, available time and staff to prepare an environmental document that evaluates the environmental impacts, mitigations and alternatives at a competitive price. Although consultant selection is normally made from Page 4 April, 1998

Mendocino County - Addendum to State CEQA Guidelines Exhibit A a list of consultants maintained by the County, single-source procurement may also be used in some cases. a. Selection From a List of Prequalified Consultants: This procedure involves reviewing an established list of consultants whose qualifications are known to the County prior to selection. This approach typically includes the following: 1. A small group (typically 3-5) consultants are selected by staff from the established list of qualified consulting firms. The project applicant is permitted to submit the name of one or more consulting firms that they wish to be considered. 2. Upon verification of qualifications, the consulting firms may be informally contacted to ascertain their interest and availability. 3. The Lead Department prepares a Request for Proposals (RFP) and distributes copies of the RFP to the interested consultants. The RFP should contain a scope of work, a schedule for report preparation, an indication of who will be required to attend which meetings and public hearings, a breakdown of all costs for report preparation, an indication of the number and type of graphics to be provided, and a statement of information needed by the consultant prior to initiation of report preparation, including any maps, reports, files or surveys and sample contract (see Appendix H for Sample RFP). 4. Following distribution of the RFP to consulting firms, the Lead Department may hold a presubmittal conference to assure that all respondents have a thorough understanding of the project. This is especially useful for complex projects. 5. Lead Department staff evaluates each proposal utilizing the standard Evaluation Criteria Matrix (see Appendix I for example of Evaluation Criteria Matrix). The Lead Department staff may invite staff from other Responsible Departments to participate in the evaluation process. The project applicant is also permitted to evaluate the proposals and submit comments for consideration by the Lead Department staff. In situations where a clear choice can not be made from reviewing the proposals, staff may invite the top two or three firms to a formal interview. Following this process, the consultant would be selected by the Lead Department. a. Single-Source Procurement. With this approach, the County only contacts one consultant for a given project or retains the same consultant on an on-going basis. This process allows the County to maintain a long-standing relationship with a consultant who is familiar with the community. Single-source procurement may be used when: 1. A consultant is already on board who is familiar with the project, is capable of handling the work, and has a solid record of good performance; Page 5 April, 1998

Mendocino County - Addendum to State CEQA Guidelines Exhibit A 2. There is only one qualified consulting firm; 3. A highly specialized consultant is needed; 4. There is not sufficient time to establish a formal search procedure; or, 5. Significant cost savings can be achieved by using a consultant who is already familiar with the community, the staff, and their procedures. If single-source procurement is chosen, the County should document its reasons for doing so, to avoid any discriminatory practice claims by other consultants. Contracting procedures shall be in compliance with the County Administrative Manual and County Policy Manual. c. Execution of Contract: To facilitate and expedite the contracting process, a standard contract form has been developed for consultant services: This form contains standard terms and conditions that apply to the majority of contracting situations (see Appendix J for example). The standard contract form used for a particular project often requires some modification. Should this be the case, the contract must be reviewed and approved as to form by County Counsel before it is finalized and approved by the Board of Supervisors. It is the responsibility of each department to draft and administer its contracts. Contract execution and administration shall comply with the County Administrative Manual and the County Procedures Manual. The consultant shall not be authorized to begin work until the applicant has deposited the total contract amount with the County. Said funds shall be segregated from other moneys in a separate fund. d. Compensation: Payments to the consultant may be based on monthly or less frequent billings, with documentation of tasks, personnel, hours and rates. Compensation may not exceed the following: 60% of the contract amount upon acceptance of the Draft FIR by the Lead Department. 25% of the contract upon acceptance of the Final FIR by the Lead Department. 15% of the contract amount upon certification of the Final FIR by the approving body or the appellate body upon appeal. In the event that the County is unable to certify the FIR based on stated inadequacy of the information in the FIR, the Consultant shall revise the Final FIR if such work is within the scope of the contract. If the inadequacies are outside the scope of the contract, the 15% payment to the Consultant shall be paid. Page 6 April, 1998

Mendocino County - Addendum to State CEQA Guidelines Exhibit A Should contract termination occur for any other reason, the Consultant shall be paid for work authorized, performed and documented to date, not to exceed the limits in this section. F. Appeals. NOTE: The above payment schedule is offered as a guideline. In unusual circumstances, the Lead Department may specify an alternative payment schedule. 1. Administrative Appeals: A decision to require an EIR may be administratively appealed by any person or agency. The appeal shall be in writing and shall be submitted along with the required appeal fee to the Department of Planning and Building Services within ten (10) days from the notice of the EIR requirement to the project applicant. The appeal shall be processed in accordance with procedures for administrative appeals as outlined in Title 20 of the Mendocino County Code. 2. Other Appeals: The decision of the Lead Agency to adopt a Negative Declaration or certify a Final MR may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors up to, and including the tenth day after the document has been adopted or certified. Where the Lead Agency is the Board of Supervisors, the Board's decision is final and without appeal. All appeals shall be in writing, shall include the appropriate appeal fee, and shall contain environmental grounds which are substantiated. Appeals without substantiated environmental grounds may be rejected by the Board of Supervisors. G. Appendices. The Appendices contain samples or examples of the following forms and documents which are commonly used in conducting environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The forms contained in the following appendices are examples which are suggested for CEQA compliance. Lead Departments are free to use these forms or those forms offered in the appendices of the CEQA Guidelines, or to develop their own formats provided that the necessary information is provided consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, 1. Appendix A: Notice of Exemption. 2. Appendix B: Initial Study and Environmental Review Checklist. 3. Appendix C: Proposed Negative Declaration. 4. Appendix D:. Notice of Public Hearing and Availability of Draft Negative Declaration for Public Review. 5. Appendix E: Notice of Determination 6. Appendix F: Notice of Preparation. 7. Appendix G: Notice of Completion. Page 7 April, 1998

Mendocino County - Addendum to State CEQA Guidelines Exhibit A 8. Appendix H: Request for Proposal (RFP). 9. Appendix I: Evaluation Criteria Matrix. 10. Appendix J: Agreement for Professional Services. 11. Appendix K: Glossary of Terms. Page 8 April, 1998

Mendocino County - Addendum to State CEQA Guidelines Appendix K - Glossary of Terms GLOSSARY OF TERMS Adverse Impact. A negative consequence for the physical, social, or economic environment resulting from an action. Alquist-Priolo Act, Seismic Hazard Zone. A seismic hazard zone designated by the state within which specialized geologic investigations must be prepared before approving certain new projects. Applicant. A person who proposes to carry out a project which needs a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use or financial assistance from the County when that person applies for approval or assistance. Approval. A decision by the County that commits it to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by any person. Buffer Zone. An area of land separating two distinct land uses which acts to soften or mitigate the effects of one land use on the other. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A State law composed of two parts; Statutes (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.) and Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.) requiring State and local agencies to regulate activities with consideration for environmental protection. If a proposed activity has the potential for a significant adverse environmental impact, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared and certified as to its adequacy before taking action on the proposed project. Categorical Exemption. An exemption from CEQA for several classes of projects, based on a finding by the California Secretary for Resources that they do not have significant effects on the environment. Please refer to Article 19 in the CEQA Guidelines for a complete list of Categorical Exemptions. County. County, with a capital "C," generally refers to the government or administration of Mendocino County. Cumulative Impact. Two or more individual effects, which when considered together, are considerable, or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. (a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. (b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. Discretionary Project. A project that requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when deciding to approve or disapprove a particular activity; as distinguished from merely determining whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations. Effects, Direct or Primary. Effects that are caused by the project and occur at the same time and place. Effects, Indirect or Secondary. Effects that are caused by the project and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but reasonably. foreseeable. Environmental Documents. Initial Studies, Negative Declarations, draft and final EIRs, documents prepared as substitutes for EIRs and Negative Declarations under a program certified pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.5, and documents prepared under NEPA and used by the County in the place of an Initial Study, Negative Declaration, or EIR. Page 38 April, 1998

Mendocino County - Addendum to State CEQA Guidelines Appendix K - Glossary of Terms Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A detailed statement prepared under CEQA describing and analyzing the significant environmental effects of a project, discussing ways to mitigate or avoid the effects and identifying alternatives to the project as proposed. Environmental Impact Statement. An environmental impact document, similar to an ElR, prepared pursuant to the National Environmental policy Act (NEPA). Flood, 100 Year. The magnitude of a flood expected to occur on the average every 100 years, based on historical data. The 100-year flood has a 1/100, or one percent, chance of occurring in any given year. Floodway. The channel of a watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the "base flood" without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. No development is allowed in floodways. Flood Plain. Relatively level land on either side of stream banks regularly subject to flooding. General Plan. A compendium of the County's policies regarding its long-term development. The General Plan is a legal document required of each local agency by the State of California and adopted by the Board of Supervisors. General Plan shave seven required elements: Circulation, Conservation, Housing, Land Use, Noise, Open Space, and Safety. Habitat. A physical location or environment in which an organism or biological population lives or occurs. Hearing Body. Any person or group of people within the County permitted by ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove a project. Impact. Effect of any direct man-made actions or indirect repercussions of man-made actions on existing physical, social, or economic conditions. Initial Study. A preliminary analysis prepared by the County to determine whether an EIR or a Negative Declaration must be prepared, or to identify the significant environmental effects to be analyzed in an EIR. The Initial Study form is included in Appendix B. Land Use. The occupation or utilization of land or water area for any human activity or any purpose defined in the General Plan. Lead Agency. The public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The Lead Agency will decide whether an EIR or a Negative Declaration is required for a project and will cause that document to be prepared. Criteria for determining which agency will be the lead agency is contained in CEQA Section 15051. Local Agency. Any public agency other than a State agency, board, or commission. Local agencies include cities, counties, special districts, school districts, redevelopment agencies, and local agency formation commissions. An expanded list of local agencies is included in Appendix E in the CEQA Guidelines. Ministerial. A County decision involving little or no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project. The public official merely applies the law to the facts as presented, but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision. A ministerial decision involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements and the public official cannot use personal, subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should be carried out. Common examples of ministerial permits include building permits, business licenses, and final subdivision maps. Page 39 April, 1998

Exhibit 2 CONSTRUCTION ISSUE DATE MAY 15,2015 MURROOMIEVENIEU:A4Mg 401100 217... C2 (MOW 014.14,4) SOF :. a far 5.4 - PER. a/00/.100 - JO 5.4C0 Sok..9701.09, - JO SokSEJ!"PsnrOlfraTh\I r FLA 1..- einfei 1. {WM., StArn Mor 1,1ner. Ng...FM. 2.f. Se OV..--...,..40.0AVer WIN De VOLOSFIJA Matreli. ; / 1 EX SOSO ll I f PROoPS'T OrOLAX Sol, Mira,...J...,_. '.I AM-Mar MI LOOM LaSo,ove ALMS NYE 9OLL SF..._ j...co a. 6 a r a g s.arfiva OLE NOV, Mr COX SOWS.. I/I-- i..."----- PagrAtiar SCOa G 17 NOE OIO insios HO imam, SOU St. PON. SO the MVO WOO GOT a' (NA sm.) LOADWG NO? War LESIMS fr10 MS NA. Ir ClOSnr.)1.04 ASO 1.0.1TECT SO I.0 our To IS Wolfe fp ni.1..c.fome.5vr 0...L1 i z _ C 404101001?,^CEI-37,t1M77711:::4:- GOY VOW, FE.f. rente ToOTa s.arr Aff.:50f4C nr. R I I e, I 17, er. cir.m Raw 0 T-ONSIRIILIION NO?, COVSISVCr Ito. WOO 2 S.W. C6.2 fronict.e3.9. -.1f. SO. AS PO COON, Ea co+ offae DOLLAR GENERAL 9,100 $F. AP4)16.3-U2-fe 1.49 ACRES Cat.TVCr APE/P.64 Cf... COMM S VOIOS covs.cratac 4.5f.1 Mee fr/. OEM.. 2 scum, 'FFEWAiEfEESF 7"- 014I1*4..fC4110100 TINTO mu.", As De TREE nu. Oar EMOOSOS SSE AROCIFOROSAL 9411 Ma =van:: TAP:7 a COYSIVOrrADIO AO., Sada0V Gs, o- osw000r S oo, WM. 2 SOX Oaf sovstota GOMM, sous. AS Os -Ita 4. RUT Ca, 6.D a VIE MOS 10, wcrecw.e mu a.m.. PS.1:0,4SMO,12 -"E VP. ON sun SIO. COMO AS NSIOLL St1O VIM= COOR.V.41 CLECTO. AAP SCE one OSIONO otaola str pfeer fre vow 1010 01 ROVJOTT POW", Oar WOO RORIE LOYSISVCr 1.004NOPOON AS MT OEM 4 AEU GS.2 NSIALL TWO Rs, J0.40. SM. v FLO C4floO.On '14SfrigtOWS'WSTSWNASIT'' ta NO, COM...12=fg,t PAO LOC.010V. COSOCOVATE COSSISTKO MOO fieltaos AS MS OEMS a Ssak, SO COWRIE/ 6 - ifpf 6.4.0.7 AS Win STIXO Oil GOVS/Mer.R612.MG P,/,2.0i fem., SKr, os Za rat& C.S. WIER.0ealtArE LOO..00. S4.51Of atalf, 22 caliclawr ors TO =SOW MOSS ORAN AS PER 24 4MISItliVAreff C=SOLA AZT/ 0(10f0 1004 -Tmaxtmmrm=ux. 2 DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG CALL USA TOLL FREE 1-800-227-2600 SITE PLAN SCALE: 20,1r

Foundation to bridge gap in County literacy I The Foothills Sun-Gazette http://www.thesungazette.com/article/business/2015/05/20/foundation-to-... Exhibit 3 THE FOOTHILLS Sun-Gazette Serving the foothill communities of Exeter, Farmersville, Ivanhoe, Lemon Cove, Lindsay, Plainview, Strathmore, Three Rivers and Woodlake. Foundation to bridge gap in County literacy print A national discount retailer has donated a portion of its foundation's literacy fund right here in Tulare County. The Dollar General Literacy Foundation awarded Tulare County Library Foundation in Visalia a literacy grant in the amount of $1,350 to support local literacy programs. This local grant award is part of over $5.8 million in grants awarded May 15 to approximately 720 schools, nonprofits and organizations across the 43 states the company serves. Today's grant announcements also bring the total impact of the Dollar General Literacy Foundation's to over $100 million in grants to assist nearly six million people improve their lives through literacy and education since the foundation's inception in 1993. "It is exciting to see the impact grants from the Dollar General Literacy Foundation make throughout the country, especially as we cross the $100 million threshold in overall donations and the difference it has to nearly six million people," said Rick Dreiling, Dollar General's chairman and CEO. "The Dollar General Literacy Foundation truly embodies the company's mission of serving others throughout the communities we serve." Recipients of the grants will use the funds to support programs aimed at enhancing summer, family and adult literacy programs. Grants will be used to help promote childhood summer reading or help adults learn to read, prepare for the high school equivalency exam or learn English. The Dollar General Literacy Foundation is also currently accepting applications for youth literacy grants through Thursday, May 21, 2015. Youth literacy grants provide funding to schools, public libraries and nonprofit organizations to help students below grade level or who experience difficulty reading by providing funding to implement new or expanding literacy programs, purchase new technology or equipment or purchase books, materials or software to enhance literacy programs. Applications are available online at www.dgliteracy.org. The Dollar General Literacy Foundation is proud to support initiatives that help others improve their lives through literacy and education as part of the company's mission of Serving Others for over 20 years. Since its inception in 1993, the Dollar General Literacy Foundation has awarded more than $100 million in grants to nonprofit organizations, helping nearly six million individuals take their first steps toward literacy or continued education. For more information about the Dollar General Literacy Foundation and its grant programs, visit www.dgliteracy.org. Dollar General Corporation has been delivering value to shoppers for over 75 years. Dollar General helps shoppers "Save time. Save money. Every day! " by offering products that are frequently used and replenished, such as food, snacks, health and beauty aids, cleaning supplies, basic apparel, house wares and seasonal items at low everyday prices in convenient neighborhood locations. With more than 11,950 stores in 43 states including Exeter, Farmersville and Woodlake Dollar General has more retail locations than any retailer in America. In addition to high quality private brands, Dollar General sells products from America's most-trusted manufacturers such as Clorox, Energizer, Procter & Gamble, Hanes, Coca-Cola, Mars, Unilever, Nestle, Kimberly-Clark, Kellogg's, General Mills, and PepsiCo. Please visit www.dollargeneral.com. Copyright 2015 The Foothills Sun-Gazette 1 of 1 9/28/2015 3:38 PM

Los Banos store donates 40K to school I Education I Los Banos Enterprise http://www.losbanosenterprise.com/2015/04/23/223516_los-banos-store... Los Banos Enterprise Los Banos store donates 40K to school April 23, 2015 Facebook Twitter o Tweet o Follow Google Plus More O Linkedin O Reddit O YouTube O E-mail o Print Los Banos Dollar General Manager Bob Morris, District Manager Liz Tedesco and other personnel pose with Los Banos Junior High School Principal Deolinda Brazil, the school mascot and Mathematics, Engineering and Science Achievement students inside the school's library on Thursday.. 1 of 3 9/28/2015 3:46 PM