e go you e e e e e good morning everyone I'd like to open our meeting today on Tuesday February 13th 2024 we'll have the flag salute today by supervisor Holmes our pledge alance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all thank you for that okay next item is the consent agenda all items on the consent agenda have been recommended for approval by the county executive department all items will be
approved by a single roll call vote anyone may ask to address consent items prior to the board taking action and the item may be moved for discussion as anybody would like to remove anything from the consent agenda I have none no anyone in the public like to remove something from the consent agenda okay hearing none do I online oh online hands are raised Liz are you calling to remove something from consent or did you want to give public comment on an item public comment okay thank you caller wer
e you looking to have an item removed from consent or waiting to give public comment on an item caller with the phone ending in 7296 did you want to remove an item from consent or did you want to provide public comment on an item uh this is Mike with a public comment I'm s with an item 13A consent calendar which one you want to remove 13A 13A B ran okay so we will remove 13A for discussion uh first I'll make a motion for to approve the remaining items second okay I guess we need a roll call on t
his Gore I Landon yes Holmes I gustofson I Jones hi I all right moving on to 13A then Community Development resource agency good morning H good morning Michael gavian B Penny tomorrow am I on board now Michael did you want to wait for staff to give a presentation prior to giving your comments I no I have a uh a consent calendar item 13A to comment on yes staff is going to give a quick presentation on this item and then you can give your comments thank you uh thank you uh chair Jones uh Board of
Supervisors B Bar auction County Surveyor uh this item 13A is a request for approval of uh uh bigford Ranch um subdivision ldr1 13A a small lot subdivision final M consisting of 35 residential lots um ranging in size from 9,500 ft to 12,800 square ft on a um parcel of land 12.9 Acres um the request is to uh approve the subdivision map and the subdivision Improvement agreement and determine that the proposed actions are consistent with the 2015 addendum with the rata to the bigford ranch final Im
provement impact report adopted by the Board of Supervisors December 8 2015 with that I can take any questions no I have none but we let Mr G Bean ask his questions or make his statement thank you thank you Mike your obedian am I on board now yes you are oh thanks so much um the the the report indicates that the county would not have any fiscal responsibility for this so my question has to do with their being about a half billion dollars in Municipal bonding for this project I think believe it's
the meel rof bonding and so my question is under what circumstances could the county come to have responsibility either cost wise or for managing the subdivision even uh in the case of some kind of lapse or failure or something like that so uh I if if there is no possibility of fiscal impact to the county it would be good to know that but it seems like there could be some circumstances in the future where there might be County Fiscal responsibility and that's what I'm inquiring about right so r
egarding the um um County facilities District established for the bigford Ranch Community itself self uh the assessments are uh on each lot and the assessments are for the lifetime of the subdivision entitlement so to the extent that um failures uh would be corrected by uh the assessments um there's no net impact to the budget uh itself okay great thank you okay Madam chair may I go ahead and move approval of the item you certainly may I'll second all right Motion in a second you need roll call
no okay just all those in favor hi any opposed hearing none motion passes thank you moving on to public comment persons May address the board on items not on the agenda please limit comments to 3 minutes per person since the time allocated for public comment is 15 minutes if all comments cannot be heard within the 15minute time limit the public comment period will be taken up at the end of the regular session the board is not permitted to take any action on items addressed under the public comme
nt if you are here to speak about the housing element item you'll you will be that will be heard at 2m and so you will not we will not take public comments on that item we will take public on public comments on that item during during the time we're hearing that item okay anyone hi Jennifer I don't there you go there you go okay good morning Jennifer cler County uh I'll start with my quote a false conclusion once arrived at and widely accepted is not easily dislodged and the less that it is unde
rstood the more tenaciously it is held so a lot of things have been happening in the news lately Wyoming legislator is asking for Co blood to be separated from vaccinated and unvaccinated they're trying to pass a bill there um to keep people healthy since we don't know the effects of TR blood transfers are on people who haven't been vaccinated or mixing the vaccines um as some stuff about electric cars are a little bit interesting uh BMW is now pulling out the electric car market and they're mov
ing to hydrogen and I think um if we look at our history of being green and saving the planet first we were all going to die of acid rain then we were going to go through an ice age now we're going through global warming we had windmill wind wind time turbines going that we're going to save the world and give us all electricity that didn't happen those are very toxic to dispose of and there's huge graveyards of those everywhere because they didn't do what they were supposed to um so are these el
ectric cars going to do that and as we update our 2050 plan putting in a bunch of electrical charging stations and spending a lot of our tax dollars to do that for a product that may end up by the wayside when they're already starting the next thing may not be really the best option for plaster County another interesting thing is that um there's a researcher named detr kingart and after so he did some mold experiments and he said after um these Petri dishes are exposed to electromagnetic ambient
electromagnetic EMF radiation Productions of the biotoxins and the mold cultures increased more than 600 times so if we have mold in our body and a a while back I bored us saw a bunch about how we eat mold how citric acid is made out of black mold and we are eating all this stuff and we had mold in our body and we're sitting by these 5G Towers we're sitting by our Wi-Fi we're sitting by these emfs we're sitting in the EMF cars we're charging the cars for 11 hours at a stop we may be actually in
ducing mold growth inside our bodies inside children's B bodes and inside adult bodies of elderly people which is going to create a lot of health issues that we aren't looking at so I hope we start looking at other reports about electric cars and emfs to make sure we're keeping everybody healthy here in pler County thank you thank you good morning hi good morning my name is Lynette it has come to my attention that sheriff Wayne Woo is collecting retirement benefits as a retiree of pler County an
d a salary as Sheriff of pler County I have received information through public records request PR dated September 21st of 2023 that confirms pler County Sheriff Wayne woo retired from pler County on December 15th of 2022 I have also received through a p request dated October 3rd of 23 documentation that states Wayne Woo is collecting monthly retirement Ben benefits in the amount of $2,923 per month from Cal Pur earned as an employee at pler County in addition to receiving Cowper's retirement mo
nthly Wayne Woo is also collecting a salary of $22,300 per month according to the pler County Human Resources website as the current Sheriff of pler County it appears from the above that Wayne Woo is receiving his retirement benefits and his share of salary in the total monthly amount of 44 $242 per month which translates to if you serve without reinstatement and part or all of your retirement allowance is based on service in that elected or appointed office the portion of your allowance based o
n service in that office must be suspended Wayne woo to my knowledge never had a break in service in his employment with pler County since it began in 1994 accordingly I have asked calers and appropriate agencies conducted to conduct a formal investigation to determine if Sheriff Woo is in fact receiving retirement benefits from calers in addition to his salary as pler County sheriff and if so the legality of him doing so again I have enclosed several documents which was handed to you in support
of my request to investigate that was obtained through several PR additionally I request I have requested several follow-up documents from pler County Council the Board of Supervisors and thus far they have failed to provide further relevant information hopefully you the board will be able to obtain this information and shed light on the truth I am asking this board to review the attached documents and information I have provided and determine how it is under Cowper's rule that Wayne Woo is all
owed to collect both retirement and salary when it appears no other elected official in plaster county has been able to do so currently or in the past it is incumbent upon this board as the protector of plaster County's funds to ensure that they are used in an appropriate and most importantly legal manner thank you thank you okay hi good morning my name is Anette Tomlin I'd like to U thank Governor Nome for um putting his ear to the microphone when it comes to listening in on this meeting I'd al
so like to uh thank my action team at Granite Wellness as well as legal services of Northern California um take note Auburn residents and elected officials I'll hope you join me in hearing the truth about the Gathering in TGI and apparently certain things are not to do with the county now it was not physically logistically operationally or otherwise an intelligent move to put them in charge of tent city first step now they had what was going on they were doing it the right way did you have anybo
dy show up to your meetings and complain about them no I don't believe so okay they knew what was needed in assisting individuals as far as helping them move forward what track record does TGI have with low barrier shelters none they can't even run mid classer properly here's a quote from um that my friend Jay had found it is no measure of Health to be well adjusted to a profanely sick Society this is what they have created they forced the residents to be part of this while beating them down no
more I was hoping the board could look Beyond politics and money the Gathering in should not have a monopoly on running all the shelters in this County between misappropriations of funds Abus of residence and lies at this point I am begging Governor Newsome to come and do an official investigation these people need to be treated with kindness humanity and you know just let's have some common sense here all right let's be good to one another now I'm tired of watching the employees also being hurt
who work for this organization to those I speak of I would like to thank you all for showing me your hearts I can't begin to thank you enough this is something that I needed to move forward also um if anybody needs any other information uh somebody can find you for me I'm sure now Governor news he asked for uh and one of his speeches kind of crack me up um well let me know if you have an idea or you know how to do something better go on ahead while I'm letting you know you need to come here it'
s on the front line so to speak this is the information you need Lynette you'll have to wrap up your comments because your time no I'm sorry I'm sorry I apologize my that's your one minute beep apologize I'm all like oh wait a minute I'm watching it right now I'm used to doing that actually I've spoken here a few times before now uh once again uh going to the flags so certainly we are one nation under God I am here for liberty and justice a quote from reev The Book of Revelations verse 13 I am t
he Alpha and Omega the first the last the beginning and end and it is done um you know I think maybe if we listen to some of those words a little more intently we'd all be doing a little bit better and I very much thank you for your time thank you so much I apologize for trying to catch you off yeah hey I'm happy to see you there woman power hello my name is Dr Cameron Thompson I live in the North uh Christian Valley area of Auburn uh I wanted to thank you all for your service I know how much uh
it work it is actually to serve in public office um I just wanted to call attention to and I know this is out of place I'm sorry I didn't have time to take off uh for my job for the appointment later at 2 uh but I would like to call attention to the resoning of the site 58 I'm sorry we can't we can't address I'll just submit this and then I'll uh just submit it yeah we can't address that until 2:00 so sorry that's okay thank you Wendy fman this is my third public comment dealing with election i
ntegrity and the alarming erosion of local control in our election process I thank each of you who have been willing to meet with me one onone to hear my concerns today I set those concerns aside if the Lord Wills we shall escape from the state mandate to use election machines we shall have local control of our voter roles we shall have single day voting with a picture ID we'll have all this because the people will demand it elections will be a celebration of Civic engagement ideally voters will
vote in their neighborhood precincts when the polls close an army of volunteers will tally the votes most of these volunteers could be adolescents who are too young to vote but who will be eager to begin voting when they come of age every ballot will be recorded on video that is posted publicly so anyone can double check the results election observers will be able to track election results from ballot to tally sheet to mathematical outcome Precinct results will be finalized in the precinct on E
lection night to put it simply hand counting of ballots should capture our imaginations why do we settle for less why do we cut our children out of the process when they could assist why do we choose a voting count a vote count counting process that is not observable because it takes place inside a computer in pler County we have gotten used to the convenience of mailin voting so few of us vote on Election Day that it is that it no longer makes sense for us to maintain voting in local precincts
and so we have switched to using voting centers instead we are making it harder to adopt hand counting on the precinct level we need a to turn us back back to voting in person on Election Day while we still have a choice we should reject Mass mailin voting if you value verifiable voter participation all of you on the board should contemplate this vision and this warning the vision that in person same day voting with ballots hand counted on the precinct level could energize our entire electorate
and the warning that if we continue in the current mode because we are lazy and apathetic we will continue to lose leverage over our elections and all power to affect change for our children and our children's children thank you thank you good morning good morning uh thank you board I am here this morning uh to address quite a few issues but the first and foremost Cynthia Connor is can you tell us your name Cynthia Connor yes I'm sorry um there's there's no more time for for hiding behind lies e
verybody the evidence is already in so anybody willingly and still participating in the lies and cover up and Corruption um you all sit on a board where you continue to tell the county of pler and the people that you're standing with them and that you're for them when that could not be further from the truth with the except of exception of Suzanne Jones I've not seen any one of you truly truly stand by the people whether it's the citizens or your public employees whether that means the the the d
eputies that go to protect us on the on the daily basis our our teachers our you know First Responders um you have you know a a a county that Prides himself on oh conservative this conservative that I don't see any of that um we don't have free and fair elections and you all know that and you participate in it so I'm just here to tell you that the people see through you and in the time of of you know accountability is coming for you so you still have the chance to repent and you still have the c
hance to do what's right you've been given that opportunity and and and just know that that every single person that you the the small percentage of people that have been trying to control this world for so long they've lost the power the devil has no power I see you looking at me shant you you pride yourself and and and talk about your children and this and that do the right thing they're looking at you they're watching you the lies that you're hiding behind and the money that you're hiding beh
ind the dirty money if you truly care do the right thing you still have time so the world's watching and accountability is coming thank you good morning morning Wayne nater chair Jones supervisors uh Jane and Karan as you're probably aware on Friday a lawsuit was filed against the Tahoe Regional planning agency better known as trpa and uh by extension uh I believe that there was also a rebuke against pler County for its recently adopted amendments to the Tahoe base and area plan the issue uh tha
t this lawsuit has is that there has not been a uh environmental impact statement on Eis since 2012 the world has changed drastically since 2012 and it should have been taken into consideration uh an increase in visitation liberation of short-term rental uh vacation rentals escalation of population and adjacent cities such as Reno and the Roseville greater Roseville area obviously are accessing more of the Tahoe than it was certainly done back in 201 12 I think it's important to remember what tr
pa was originally formed for 55 years ago and that was to ensure that new development will not exceed or impede environmental thresholds carrying capacities adopted to protect water quality air quality Scenic views and other extraordinary Tahoe resources I think we will all admit that the world again has changed drastically in the last last five years as I said earlier and the adoption of the Amendments that trpa has done and also that uh that pler county has done I believe are detrimental and s
hould have been identified through an updated EI Eis I also am calling on pler County to do an an eir for the the Basin area in particular because it's badly needed because of all of these impacts are not being recognized and the community I think is suffering already and long term will suffer even more so I would encourage the county uh to do also their responsibility outside of what trpa is doing and to an eir to make sure that we account for the actual impacts that are happening to Tahoe the
detrimental impacts that are happening now thank you thank you good morning good morning boor how are you out today my name is John Davenport and uh I know all of you guys are running for elected officials good luck for all of you except for three of you three of you who are behind the dirty money and for the changes that will not be happening at the TGI locations because you guys don't care what we say you care about what they say you three I hope I never get back on here because this is a very
serious issue you know that prob the homeless people and US created That Homeless Camp the new one that is now the T City we created that and do you know know that probation alone for each each probation officer they have 25 uh criminals waiting to get in has no place to go they go right back out on the streets due to TGI do you know I was sitting at Safeway the other day there's one plug in there and we're not allowed to go in there to use a restroom anymore because you know why I look over an
d there are two 290s I hope you know what that is sexual incriminator who are not at that encampment anymore who used to be at that encampment safe away from the public do you know how many public criminals are getting out on that street these streets due to what TGI is doing on their own account not account for what we designed it for to keep the serious criminals and for everybody who needs a place to be every day no they're making a residential for what they want and for the monies that's bee
n squandered we have no money over there to do anything shade provide electricity in the hint the ents whether it be a uh a tent buddy that tips over automatically and cuts off we have no heat they're freezing to death over there you know I haven't been there in 90 days due to me standing up here speaking because my dog had no leash on and one of those employees went to a tent and said you need to go and get your dog and walk through the there so John can get thrown out for 30 days Shannon one o
f your counselors they make packs with these people the good ones go out and the bad ones stay and it's not cool there's criminal activity going on with Shannon and TGI not only do we have some other civil lawsuits going on I'm waiting for a man in a wheelchair who cannot get to a shower there because he's got a lesion he's had to go to the hospital twice and they threw his stuff in the trash after 3 days because he's in a hospital they knew he's coming back everybody stuff goes into a trash bec
ause they steal stuff and you never get your stuff back in three days homeless people were they going to take their stuff they're waiting to get their stuff back but no they DJ has been doing it for years throwing it away making us homeless people more homeless kick us when we're down that much more you three folks who are not doing anything about what we're com up and speaking about there needs to be some somebody overseeing These Guys these guys have been messing with this population and makin
g it grow for a long time now I hope you three do not get reelected unless you can do something about this but you're on the board you're CEOs you know where the money's going thank you thank you you have any more Megan do we have anybody online we have uh a few online okay Nicole were you wanting to give public comment on item not on the agenda Nicole can you unmute your mic and give your comments Liz were you looking to give comments on an item that was not on today's agenda no my public comme
nt is for the housing element at 2 p.m. okay thank you I see no other comments chair okay so we will move on to board member and County Executive reports board members I okay see you all right we're going to reserve our time for all of you all right we're going to move on to our 9:15 item Health and Human Services good morning good morning it up all right uh thank you chair Jones and members of of the board Katie Colmes Pritchard here with our HHS Office of the director and I oversee the two-on-
one program in partnership with our contractors at Connecting Point who are also here today along with my colleague R Martinez should you have any questions so in conjunction with 211 day which was this past Sunday February 11th or 211 uh not just the Super Bowl we're here to provide a very brief performance-based update on a service that originally developed in response to strong Community interest and advoc see in conjunction with 2 on1 day I want to highlight the value that 2on one has shown
despite lacking ongoing state and federal funding so just a quick recap 211 is a 247 multilingual service a available by calling texting or going online as you'll remember we launched 211 plaster in July 2020 uh basically diving right into the deep end with extremely high call volume related to the pandemic surprisingly though we've maintained annual call and text volume levels even as the pandemic subsided so that meant over 26,000 calls or texts last calendar year providing over 35,000 resourc
es top needs from our residents included housing and utility assistance so for some perspective when folks were first dreaming of having 211 here in pler around 15 years ago they envisioned maybe 5,000 calls per year so we far exceeded that 211 has been able to support us through natural disasters like the river and mosquito fire diverting non-emergency calls away from 911 and even stepped in for special programs like helping enroll folks in our free tax help program that's going on right now so
at the time we launched 211 pler in 2020 we had been the largest county without 211 service yet despite being relatively new in the space what we see when we periodically get snapshots of Statewide data from the California 211 network is that 211 pler has already made its Mark we're regularly in the top 10 counties in terms of call volume per capita you'll see here that 211 San Diego is sort of the the gold standard of 2on ons in the state but plaster is stacking up quite nicely compared to lar
ger counties and even compared to counties where 2on one has been around much longer as you may have heard one County in our region recently terminated their two-on-one contract citing low volume so I'd like to stress that that is not a problem we have here in Placer I'll also note on this slide that consistently High caller satisfaction metrics we receive and our typically solid weight times so those are all data points that we've begun to track more regularly and deepen some of our data collec
tion methods over the last year and a half in particular what that's resulted in is a shift in this current fiscal year to performance-based contract based on key metrics like weight times volume and incentives for color satisfaction and website enhancements this work has also been informed by our 2one Advisory Group which meets twice a year and is composed of nonprofits and governmental Partners this week timed with two in1 day we were also very pleased to launch a new public 211 data dashboard
something we've not had before uh this is a data dashboard that updates in real time and lets you drill down on call data by region by need category um by referred agencies which is very useful information for both the county for city jurisdictions and any others who might be looking to try to understand constituent needs or who may be undergoing planning processes so that's now available at 211 pl.org so as we ask your board to consider this Proclamation recognizing 211 day I also wanted to ca
ll out the funding landscape we're operating in unlike many other programs that we touch in HHS 211 doesn't currently have federal or state funding streams and unlike many 211s across California 211 plaster does not receive core funding from United Way instead instead relying on grants and contribution from contributions from public and private Partners our core funding Partners like Kaiser Permanente and our colleagues who work with the mental health services act have been with us since the beg
inning but we've also lost some original local funding Partners recently some of whom have faced fiscal constraints or are choosing to invest in different priorities and in that context your board's support of 211 has been key to building and strengthening this performance-based service to be as successful as it is to today uh so with that I'd like to thank you for your consideration of this Proclamation and formally request the action of to approve a proclamation declaring that February 11th 20
24 was 211 day in Placer happy to answer any questions and I'll just say may maybe before question so uh uh good morning I'm Raul Martinez assistant director of Health and Human Services uh so uh thanks so much for giving us um a bit of time today um maybe before questions I also just want to thank a few people one is I want to thank uh connecting points since they were sort of the original operator that's been with us they've been really uh responsive um I want to thank uh Katie I also want to
thank your uh uh board as well I just want to go back to Katie for a second because she does uh more than just uh manage this contract she provides a lot of leadership and operationalizes a couple of HHS values uh into this work so one of those is around collaboration so she's actually worked for a couple of years with a cross- sector Advisory Group to solicit feedback all along the way which has led to enhancements uh in Service delivery and then I I think the second value is around evidence ri
ght so when we started this uh contract back in July of 2020 this was a time and materials contract we've actually moved this to a performance-based contract and now now um Katie talked about a publicly available dashboard where you can see sort of key metrics so it's not just uh so it's certainly uh transparency but uh uh we take very seriously this community defined uh priority uh the local investment that's being made and want to make sure that it's backed up uh with uh data so again I want t
o thank her uh very much for uh not just her management but for uh her leadership uh in particular so thanks for giving me a 30 extra seconds here I know you've got a a busy schedule but happy to take any questions at this time thank you okay Bo yes super Professor Guston good morning well thank you so much for this program and all the effort that's gone into it I was interested in the statistics um per 100,000 of calls we're doing really well what is San Diego doing because they're outperformin
g everybody the way it looks like and is there is it duration or disas disasters I don't know yeah so 211 San Diego I think are they one of the longest you guys are more familiar with the landscape but one of the longest two-on ons in pler and or in the state of California and um have really built out their capacity to um you know they have their own in-house technology streams they have kind of everything built inhouse um so they've been able to really create a different Dynamic but absolutely
there I think uh everybody a lot of other 2on ons do look to to San Diego is kind of the the gold standard but uh yeah well I'm glad that we're right up there in the silver category for silver but but they really you know that was a amazing chart and I was so proud of how we were doing compared to Los Angeles and other areas where I would think there'd be more need and and more calls so great job and I think it's outstanding to also see the the nature of the calls and I would assume that that he
lps inform other decisions we're making on resource deployment for some of those issues yes and I'll say this new data dashboard since it updates in real time will may be particularly helpful during disasters when we're trying to track needs in that that real-time environment and and assess what what other resources may need to be deployed to great thank you and I'll just add too um as you explore sort of the data dashboard as I'm sure you'll do immediately after this meeting but uh you'll see t
hat uh we have that information also um available by jur jurisdiction so jurisdictions can also go in and filter out for not just the number of calls but the types of calls uh that they receive too so hopefully this informs this is a benefit to them and informs their own uh planning processes uh as well okay other questions supervisor Holmes yes thank you chair uh I I can't U go any longer without recognizing someone that was with their Dogg determination to get this done over many years and tha
t was be Anderson uh she met with me several times during my U time on the board and we finally got it over the finish line and it uh it's not it's very acceptable that we've all in our new Health and Human Services building that there is a room dedicated to her and so I just can't go any further without re recognizing be Anderson for her leadership and again do good determination to get this done so thank you any other questions just a quick comment no questions but just want to say well first
of all I agree Katie is great so A+ and then um just want to say thank you for all of your great work and um for the team that helps keep 211 running I have heard from a number of people over the last couple years who have utilized 211 and um really felt like they had um a safety net when they didn't think they had one and so I appreciate the work they you're doing thanks anyone else um I would like to make the comment that when I served on the older Delta visory commission we worked very hard t
o get two and one stood up and um so it was a great day great day and it's a great service to people and we refer them my office refers people there often very often um okay so now we need to public comment oh I'm sorry Megan public comment public comment yes please come forward hi yes I just had some questions in regards to 211 she said that it's not um funded by state or federal grants so it's funded by private organizations and public organizations other than Kaiser Permanente what are the la
rgest donors who are the largest donors to this 211 program and how is 211 connected to the CMS 9115f which is the centers for Medicaid and medic care services which is a state and federal program thank you um we'll we'll answer all the questions after we take public anyone else in the audience online no okay for two o'clock okay do you guys want to answer that question yes so um County general fund is is the primary um support of of 211 following after aside from our two uh remaining key donors
Kaiser and mhsa dollars um so again we appreciate your board's uh investment and contributions to 211 and then do you have any idea on the the other question no we'd have to look in a little bit more into the second part of that question around sort of new 911 I will say that 211 is proven to be a a diversion to 911 services particularly during times of emergency I will say um there are some there is a bit of movement sort of Statewide and nationally to look at um uh State and uh ongoing sort o
f state and federal funds given uh I think folks recognize the importance of 211 not just for general information and Resource Services but see the value of 211 particularly during times of emergency so there appears to be a little bit of uh policy and sort of advocacy activity uh uh to look for more sustainable state and federal funds in the in the long term and it's something that uh we're we also tracking as well were you able to answer who's your largest donor so those are doners and then ge
neral fund is is the primary investment otherwise not a private fund fun okay all right thank you for that did well can can you ask him after the meeting could well it's in in regards to this funding the okay well can can R can you address after your after you finish with your your um after we finish with this item because we've yeah we've closed public comment on that so okay I need to bring it back to the board uh for an approve the proclamation approval second all those in favor I I any oppos
ed hearing none the motion passes so I would like to read the proclamation for you in the matter of a proclamation to recognize that February 11 2024 was 211 day whereas every hour of every day people need access to essential Services requiring reliable access to a range of supports including but not limited to housing health care and food and whereas 211 pler launched in July of 2022 and has helped provide a 247 One-Stop shop for referrals to lifechanging resources including food Transportation
Senior Care Employment Services housing assistant mental health support and much more and whereas 211 is a free and easy to remember telephone number and 211 pler is also easily accessible via texting or online database with TTY and language interpretation available and whereas 2 onone systems are also beneficial in e mercies and allow for the quick dissemination of information regarding evacuations shelter and aid while reducing call Volume 2 911 and whereas in its first three years of operati
on 211 plaster often outperformed many larger and more established 211s across California in terms of calls per capita and has deepened its data and Reporting whereas the county of pla recognizes the the importance of this information and referral platforms its partnership with local community-based organizations and its success with 100% of callers in the past year saying they would recommend the service to others now therefore be it proclaimed that the above Proclamation was duly passed by the
Board of Supervisors of the county of pler on behalf of the citizens of pler County at a regular meeting held February 13 2024 to Pro to Proclaim that February 11 2024 was to11 day um signed by the board chair me Suzanne Jones okay let me present to you would you would the board like to join me in presenting it from the board would you like this okay we there yeah over I'm sorry I showed my chair right in your face this one follow my face okay moving forward we will be going to the 920 item the
county executive office um let see Gloria Sterns good morning good morning everybody Gloria Sterns pler County Economic Development um I respectfully request that this item be continued and we will be publishing a notice as to when we intend to bring it back to the Board of Supervisors again in the future okay there are any public comments are there any public comments in the audience any public comments online okay hearing none need a motion I will move approval to continue the item as request
ed second okay motion and a second all those in favor I I any opposed hearing none the motion passes thank you Gloria thank you all okay so now we are going to okay we're we're going to move to our supplemental agenda item 6.5 the sheriff's department we have someone to come forward good morning uh good morning chair members of the board M uh Christensen Mr swab my name is Jerry Rogers with the pler County Sheriff's Office and here with me today is Sheriff woo and Captain Silva and sergeant hiny
and two representatives from the nag forensic PC and before I begin I would like to thank the CER of the board County Council CEO's office uh procur as well as the sheriff staff uh that work together to put this in front of you today so we are here requesting to please approve material terms for a proposed forensic pathology service agreement with nag forensic PC of San Diego California and authorize the plaster County sheriff or designate to negotiate prepare and execute a forensic pathology S
ervices agreement with nag forensic PC in an amount not to exceed 1 Milli 56,000 for the first year with a maximum contract increase of 5% annually for subsequent years for a 5-year term consistent with the approved material terms subject to County Council and risk management uh concurrence pler County Sheriff's Corners unit has the unique and imperative responsibility to conduct complete and objective medical legal investigations surrounding reportable deaths within pler County the purpose bein
g to determine the circumstances cause and the manner of death additionally the corner unit is tasked with determining the identity of the deceased locating and notifying the elect uh legal NEX ofkin and safeguarding personal property it is critical that the uh cornner unit have the ability to provide forensic pathology services in order to fulfill the responsibilities of the coroner the pler county sheriff's corers unit completes on average 800 exams a year the sheriff's office has two forensic
pathologist allocations and Dr ry's retirement has created vacancy for one of the two Sheriff forensic pathologist allocations in partnership with County Human Resource Department the Sheriff's Office began recruiting for the classification of forensic pathologist in July of 2023 nationally there's a significant shortage of board certified forensic pathologist as of February 2024 this recruitment has only yielded four qualified candidates and the position remains unfilled your board recently ap
proved authorization for the Sheriff's Office to offer Dr ryber postretirement employment prior to the expiration of the Cel per 180-day waiting period as a retiree Dr ryber is limited to 960 hours per year which is less than part-time while the authorization has assisted in fulfilling these responsibilities the requested forensic pathology Services agreement is necessary to meet existing statutory and contractual obligations nag forensic PC of San Diego California is a professional medical grou
p that provides detailed post motm examinations Advanced organ and tissue testing analysis and Reporting comprehensive reporting with clear conclusions professional evidentiary photography and prompt turnaround time for time- sensitive cases significantly nag will provide a service a state-of-the-art CT scanner valued at approximately $500,000 this will allow these services to be performed in-house and will significantly expedite the turnaround time for certain cases these services are exempt fr
om competitive bidding in accordance with procurement policy section 3.5 B which allows an exception for expert and professional level services the total annual cost of the contract is $156,000 funding is available within fiscal year 2023 24 Sheriff's Corners unit budget in cost center 20003 under program 200032 and will be included in subsequent budgets there is no additional impact to the general fund and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have thank you board members
questions no questions yes supervisor G I have one question thank you very very much and and the question really is this is a San Diego based forensic person correct it's with the it's a a company based L seeing so how is it that how do you do your business um getting the items to them Etc do can you just explain that because I understand how we assist local folks right in our more but us utilizing services in San Diego how does that work I didn't hear the whole question because I was sitting ov
er there can you pleasee repeat it Wayne woo happy to be here just curious how you utilize the services of a firm based in San Diego do you have somebody come up here or are you sending items to San Diego yes uh happy to answer that question first of all Wayne woo plaster County Sheriff thank you uh I want to reiterate Jerry's comments thanking everybody that was involved Megan her team Jane your team County Council uh to get this in front of you guys in in somewhat short order um right now we a
re currently in contract with nag because we just can't keep up with demand and they do fly forensic pathologist here their goal is to eventually hire people within our region so they're not flying people up here on a daily basis they plan on with this contract providing 7-Day a week service which we currently don't have when you look at our current model with uh two allocations for forensic Pathologists justifiably we could ask for three and when you look at the projections of growth in pler Co
unty we will quickly need four unfortunately there are less than 400 certified forensic Pathologists in the entire United States and this shortage isn't just limited to the United States it's a worldwide shortage and when you look at the amount of Education the 13-year process to get certified um and the attrition rates that number is only going to go down so um we really felt like we weren't going to have a choice um we even incentivized the salary package over the last year thanks to your boar
d to try to fill some of these vacancies and we've been unsuccessful but going to this contract model is um really going to be necessary for the future of these operations and quite frankly uh we were very hesitant to to release control um and finally with nag and uh the services they've provided over the last couple months um I believe we've found somebody that is consistent with our core values and our expectations of the Sheriff's Office to serve this community in such a difficult time uh whe
n the cornner unit has to become involved so so um they will come on site um until they can hire people at a much more competitive wage than plaster County can quite frankly compete with that is their ultimate uh goal is to have people within our region but in the meantime they do fly people up and there's a couple of representatives from nag here as well that can answer any questions well and that and that's really very helpful I appreciate it and at the same time we're still as a coin's office
providing services to other counties who need it correct yes and that will uh that will not change I've been in contact with the other sheriffs we provide uh Contract Services for five other counties and in fact uh when you talk to Representatives atag they hold us up as the flagship example of what everybody in the country should move to is more of a regional Hub model with contract forensic pathology Services because there's not enough doctors to go around in the United States so um the those
services are wrapped into this contract that we will negotiate with nag to where our regional Partners will not be impacted and those contracts also come with offsetting cost to pler County to lower the impact uh to provide this contract thank you any other questions no would the the representative like to say something for us to us did you say we have yeah please please come forward and just tell us a little tiny bit about yourself and how you will work with pler County my name is Muriel James
on I'm the chief administrative officer for nag um basically because there has been such a shortage and continues to be a shortage of forensic Pathologists our company has a model set up that really expedites the whole s the whole plan of when there's a decedent to the autopsy and to the final report so right now we have a process that can have the results without pending toxicology in about 7 days and with the introduction of CT scans it also provides us an opportunity to decide in the moment i
f the decedent needs to have a full autopsy or if they can um discern the cause and manner of death with just a CT scanner so we will be putting in a CT scanner which will um expedite the um amount of numbers that actually have to have a a cut autopsy okay thank you so much that's very helpful anything else okay so we need to uh public comment have public comment on this anyone in the audience would like to make a comment making anyone online okay hearing none then we need to take action I'll se
cond okay all righty all those in favor please say I I I any opposed hearing none motion is passed thank you very much thank you thank you okay we are going to move on to is it look like 10:01 so we're going to move to the 10 o'clock item item three County Executive this is about the forensic Services Laboratory okay good morning good morning chair Jones members of your board Miss Christenson Miss Schwab I'm Amanda Flo from the county executive office and joined with me today is district attorne
y Morgan guy and we are here to provide a presentation on the potential construction of a forensic Services laboratory building at the Sacramento State cler Center we also are here to request approval to enter into a common interest agreement with the Board of Trustees of the California State University to evaluate the proposed forensic laboratory building and to allocate design and preconstruction costs in an amount not to seed exceed 2.5 million before I begin I would like to take the opportun
ity to thank all of our Partnerships and the people that have gotten us this far this has been a tremendous undertaking and if I may speak on behalf of the many people involved in this process we're excited to be here I would also like to introduce those that have taken time out of their day to be here to show support for this project and this next step in no particular order joining me today is Sheriff Wayne woo Chief assistant district attorney Dave telman Bill Mueller uh partner at integrated
communication strategies incorporated Jonathan Bowman vice president for administration and chief executive officer for Sacramento State Dr vaja Watson senior associate vice president for classer Center and professor of educational leadership and policy studies Tanya Nunes project manager Facilities Management from Sacramento State Paulie ta consultant for classer 1 Clayton cook supervising Deputy County Council and Michelle Kingsbury deputy director zedra I will begin my portion of this presen
tation by providing some information about the why the forensics lab laboratory is necessary a brief history of where we have been and what has transpired recently and then we'll um end with what we are requesting from your board today I will then turn the presentation to district attorney Morgan guy for additional comments the District Attorney's office is responsible for the review and prosecution of all criminal cases within the county many of the cases reviewed for prosecution include forens
ic evidence such as blood fluid and trace evidence forensic evidence is also the sole evidence that links a suspect to a crime or is an essential element of prosecution forensic evidence can also conclusively establish a person's innocence successful prosecutions depend on the timely receipt of drug analysis and DNA results currently the District Attorney's Office contracts with California Department of Justice the doj to analy their blood samples for the presence of drugs and or alcohol primari
ly for suspected DUIs as well as forensic chemistry to analyze suspected Controlled Substances the DA's office also relies on the D doj to conduct forensic DNA testing on cases with severity raging from sexual assault to murder despite the fact that the DA's office pays doj to have a dedicated analyst for their blood samples doj processing time for confirmatory drug tests can range from 9 to 12 12 months or more this delay can prohibit the DA's office from filing criminal charges in a timely man
ner and result in numerous court continuances before case resolution Additionally the backlog in doj DNA testing has resulted in severe restriction in DNA testing and in linkly delays in criminal case filing in essence the backlog in testing by doj prevents and delays access to justice for both the victims as well as the accused on February 24th 2015 your board received a presentation from the pler County Superior Court and the county executive office on the pler County criminal justice master p
lan the master plan highlighted the ongoing challenges related to case processing timelines due to delays in receiving these Laboratory test results creation of a crime lab to service the citizens of pler County was identified as a top system priority for streamlining and improving the investigation and prosecution of crime and for resolving cases more expeditiously in 2015 and again in 2016 your board authorized a fe feasibility study for both a pler County Crime Lab as well as a Coroner's faci
lity the studies concluded that pler county is not realizing the advances made in forensic science over the last 15 to 20 years and that a pler County Crime Lab could serve as a regional resource to surrounding counties with the potential for partnering with local universities in development of Professionals in the criminology field on August 20 August 15th 2017 your board approved a series of capital Improvement projects one of which is the new South classer Justice Center Corner facility and f
ast forward a few years that facility is now open and operating and discussions of the potential crime lad have been resurrected in July 2022 staff retained integrated communication strategies to revisit and clarify the County's crime lab objectives needs and potential fin Financial contributions through internal and external stakeholder engagement and data Gathering outcomes from this engagement have included uniform agreement among the DA's office the county executive office and the sheriff's
office for an updated list of prioritized forensic Crime Lab Services additionally IC facilitated discussions and achieved High Lev agreement between County stakeholders and key pler one decision makers at California state University Sacramento on Key activities and Milestones required for development of a plan for construction and what is now as for what is now being referred to as the forensic Services laboratory preliminary discussions have concluded that this forensic laboratory would be loc
ated in pler Center this is a 301 Acre Site located in pler 1 and is designed to be a comprehensive off-campus center that is sustainable Visionary and that has the potential to grow into an independent CSU Campus in the long term with higher education Partners at Sierra College with the county and outside industry pler Center has planned to exemplify a new model of Education Innovation and Community engagement for higher education while discussions amongst all partners are still ongoing uh the
group anticipates that if construction of the B building proceeds the county would operate and administer the forensic lab including Contracting of services for the benefit of the lab preliminarily the parties are contemplating that the CSUS would own the building and the county would leave all or a portion of the building from CSUS at either no cost or a reduced cost the university would be responsible for the design construction and inspection services for all improvements for the building whi
ch includes administering contracts related to the design and construction the lab also has significant benefit to the university as it would provide a student engagement and learning opportunity ities related to criminal justice and academic administrative space so then why are we here before your board today two weeks ago the Board of Trustees of the CSU approve approved the long- awaited plaster Center master plan which sets forth the master planning document for Sacramento State Center campu
s again congratulations to all those involved for getting to that point I'm sure it was a huge undertaking this plaster Center master plan includes the location of the potential forensics lab building the county and the board of the trustees now wish to enter into a non-binding common interest agreement otherwise known as the CSA to evaluate the proposed forensic laboratory building and to allocate design and preconstruction costs upon Upon A determination that the county intends to pursue const
ruction of the building the CIA does not commit the board to a definite course of action and does not obligate the county to enter into any sort of transaction preliminary research suggests the total cost for con construction of the potential lab ranges from $30 million to $50 million operation and maintenance costs are undetermined at this point and will be until the scope of services are finalized it is anticipated that the construction cost would need to be covered by general fund reserves de
bt or a combination of both the county intends to allocate 60% of the designed preconstruction fees for the forensic lab based on direct cost of construction for purposes of design and pre-construction costs specifically what we're here today to ask is one approve and authorize the chair to execute a common interest agreement with the Board of Trustees of the California State University to evaluate the proposed forensic laboratory building and to allocate design and preconstruction costs in an a
mount not to exceed 2.5 million Upon A determination that the county intends to pursue construction of the building two determine that action requested is consistent with previously certified Environmental impact report for Sacramento State plaster Center and is not a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality act guidelines section 5378 action three determine that the action requested is consistent with a previously certified environmental I have that on here T you just read that
one Megan do you have action three in front of you actually I have it action two is approve and authorize theair to execute a common interest agreement with the Board of Trustees of the California State University to evaluate the proposed forensic laboratory building and to allocate design and preconstruction costs in amount not to to 2.5 million if approved and the proposed actions require a financial commitment from the board to allocate up to 2.5 million as I just mentioned of to design for t
he design and preconstruction cost of a forensic Services lab any budget amendment mend Ms or agreements required to appropriate and spend the funds will be brought to back to the board for approval any cost commitments above the 2.5 million authorized here would also be brought back to the board for approval upon determination that the county intends to pursue construction of the building that concludes my portion of the presentation and I will now turn it over to district attorney Morgan guy f
or additional comments thank you good morning thank you good morning Morgan guy your pler County District Attorney um I want to thank Amanda for her hard work in the board uh memo and for introducing the team that was going to be my first order of business good morning to all of you and thank you for the opportunity to address the board about this exciting project uh we have a powerful team behind me um that is helping move this project along um Amanda went through the names I want to express pe
rsonally my appreciation to all of them for their hard work and their effort in this project um I'm going to be try and be very brief I I'll be lawyer brief how about that um but I want to give you a little bit of History a little bit of context and then just a few remarks um the history most of you are more familiar with the history of this project than I am most of you have been working on it since long before I became the district attorney uh and you have seen the various fits and starts and
Es and flows of this project um but we are excited to be here at this step um as trial attorneys we always like to find themes and I think the theme couldn't have been any better than with the um with the coroners uh issue right before us um a problem is presented usually by the state of California or some larger issue uh and it is left to pler County and its stakeholders and its Partners to solve the problem um we've seen that with our forensic pathology we've seen it with all of our issues tha
t we faced in the criminal justice system in pler county and this is no exception um the need for the lab is there we've talked about that endlessly um I have all had conversations with you about the need for forensic services in a time when the state is diminishing the resources devoted to forensic Services we are riant upon them more than ever before uh and what that really means as Amanda said is access to Justice it means people's lives are on hold pending our ability to test forensic items
for evidence that means people who are accused have to wait wait before whether or not they find out their life moves on Crime Victims have to wait to determine whether or not they will ever see Justice based on the state's allocation of resources we are subject to their prioritization we're subject to the cues that we get put in and we are subject to their priorities and that is not how we like to operate here in pler County we like to solve problems and we solve them through collaboration and
Innovation and this project represents both of those um that access to justice is critical and we have an opportunity here to both provide access to Justice to our citizens here in a manner that is innovative and exciting and allows for students to get real life experience in forensic science it allows people to further their education it allows research opportunities and it allows for plaster to do it the pler way and not in the way that is dictated by the state of California so I'm going to in
troduce uh a key member of our team I would call him the uh in reference to this weekend the quarterback of the sack State Side uh of the equation here Jonathan Bowman who is the uh vice president for administration and the Chief Financial Officer he and his team have been unbelievable Partners in this process to try and bring this lab to fruition and it's my pleasure to have him introduce some of his team and talk about sort of his perspective and Sack State's perspective of of this crime lab a
nd then when he's finished you'll hear from me one more time as well so don't get too comfortable now that I'm leaving um but it's my great pleasure to introduce uh Jonathan Bowman thank you thank you welcome Mr Bowman thank you very much I feel like I need some walkup music um good morning I'll try not to be too reminiscent and also try to be lawyer short uh but in December of 2019 I presented to this board the possibility of a Sacramento State Off Campus Center in plaster County this Center wo
uld Encompass 300 acres and over the next 15 years contemplates 12,000 students I was back again in front of the board here in June of 2020 and I'm honored to be here today so thank you very much I'm Jonathan Bowman I'm the vice president of the university and the Chief Financial Officer at your board meeting in 2019 and I quote cler County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an updated area plan for the sunset area in West pler County we have come a long way since that moment and even uh
getting to that approval in 2019 was 20 years in the making as mentioned earlier we've reached another important Milestone at our most recent California State University Board of Trustees meeting we received unanimous approval for both the plaster plaster Center master plan and the final environmental impact report and very importantly the approval of the conceptual Public public partnership for the pler county forensic science laboratory I want to emphasize the unanimous approval and the palpab
le excitement expressed by the CSU Board of Trustees regarding our project I've attended and listened to many of the Board of Trustees meetings and receiving unanimous approval is not typical in fact it's very atypical this only underscores the significance and promise of the plaster Center and the forensic science laboratory while the county retains control of the size the budget and the time frame of the plaster County forensic science laboratory sacur state stands ready to facilitate and supp
ort ensuring the project becomes a reality sacon State's excellent planning design and construction department is primed to support the buildout of a state-of-the-art facility and we're prepared to leverage our strengths and expertise in design build projects the collaboration between pler County and Sacramento State University exemplifies the power of partnership in realizing shared goals for the betterment of our Community I'm pleased to share that Taylor Builders is already hard at work const
ructing the necessary infrastructure to access the campus anticipated construction of the campus could commence as early as late 2015 sorry 2025 2015 would be very fast 2015 right crucially our partnership with Sierra College remains uh Central to the Suess success of the plaster Center we're committed to the hard work of integrating Sacramento State and Sia College in all facets in facilities in academics and in student services this will ensure a seamless and enriching educational experience f
or all students I want to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the county staff and the Board of Supervisors for their unwavering partnership and support throughout this process the establishment of a forensics lab as the inaugural building symbolizes the strength and depth of our collaboration setting stage for future activities I'd like to now introduce my colleague senior associate vice president for the plaster Center Dr vajra Watson for additional comments thank you very much th
ank you hello good morning good morning it is such an honor and privilege to be here um to address all of you alongside my partners um as mentioned my name is Dr vaja Watson I am the senior associate VP for the pler center and over the um past semester I've been working um very closely with faculty and student Support Services to really operationalize what this is going to look like on the academic side of the house um and so we have been putting together a vision for a plaster Innovation Hub wh
at 301 acres really means where students can go from an associates degree to an applied doctorate all at one site um this is truly a a a kind of game Cher in higher education to what it means to embody a communiversity and the first kind of step towards that is this idea of a new school of forensic science where we have a pedagogical opportunity for collocation where students can have internships where you teach a class and can go right um over to the lab to get real world experience some of the
ideas that are coming from our faculty revolve around cyber forensics and chemical tracing agricultural forensics geophysical methods and of course criminal justice I would like to mention that our current criminal justice program is actually the largest criminal justice uh division of west of the Mississippi so there's a tremendous need of students coming from all across the country into our Criminal Justice program we have attorneys teaching the law classes phds who have worked in policing te
aching policing classes so really wanting to have this Hands-On model that we can expand uh through our partnership um collaboration and Innovation with the forensics lab um so with that I'm happy to answer more questions if they come up but sax state is very excited our faculty are ready to lead the kind of intellectual Endeavor of this work and I really appreciate um all of the Partnerships that have made this possible and specific mention to work and guy and Wayne woo who have really been hel
ping carry this forward so thank you so much and I'm happy to answer additional questions if you have them thank you thank you very much I am muting my excitement but the amount of energy for this project is is is pretty incredible uh if you can imagine just what Dr Watson was saying imagine that happening right here in pler County all the while while fulfilling a need for our criminal justice system as well I get I literally get goosebumps just thinking about the idea that this could come to fr
uition um there are a few people on the county side that I want to thank specifically um our CEO Jane Christensen and our finance officer Dan chatney Have Been instrumental in helping us navigate and asking good tough questions that need to be asked for this project um as a Steward of County dollars I appreciate um the questions that are being asked uh and I and I hope to continue those conversations because this is a big bold undertaking um so I appreciate our their help um Clayton cook has bee
n instrumental uh and tasked with an enormous project uh with little time to be able to develop this common interest agreement that really hashes out um basically the framework of this project so uh and of course our partners Bill and Jerry at ICF and um Philip Hess who uh is on the staff excuse me on the faculty at saak State who has been instrumental with some technical uh advice as well so with that um this this is our hope that we can get these design and preconstruction ideas hashed out so
we can come to you with a full-fledged crime lab that is something that will be a flagship uh in this state if not um if not in the country because this is something that um presents a unique opportunity um and as Dr Watson expressed everyone loves CSI everyone everyone watches the shows but more importantly our victims people involved in the criminal justice system they deserve the truth and that's what this is designed to do the forensic crime lab part is designed to search for the truth in a
way that makes our community vibrant and makes everyone just a little more intelligent in the process um so that that is the essence of this project um uh I wouldn't be standing up here today as far as we have come without the assistance of our Sheriff Wayne woo uh he is my partner in the criminal justice system uh and and he is uh the quintessential Problem Solver uh when it comes to criminal justice issues alongside me so I would like to introduce him to say a few words uh in support of this p
roject as well thank you I'm back good morning again um you know I I couldn't be more excited and honored to stand up here and help support this project and be involved in this project um maybe not as Sheriff but I have been around in part of Sheriff's leadership since this was discussed and of course everything like this gets brought up out of a need and we had a demand for this service and over the years of the fits and starts that the district attorney referred to that demand has only grown u
m you know timing is everything didn't know that we were going to be coming up with a forensic pathology contract uh 20 minutes before this item but I would love to stand here as your corner and discuss um an issue that's uh critical to our community right now and that's the number of fental overdoses we've had but I can't give you that number in mid-February I cannot provide that number to you I can tell you we have 38 um so far confirmed but I have 10 other cases waiting for Toxicology results
uh so not only will it impact our criminal justice side of the house um you know the district attorney and I have a passion for solving some old cold cases we're having a contract with private Laboratories right now to capitalize on all the advances in technology when it comes to DNA we're Contracting I am with other counties on fee for service um projects uh to get some of this evidence processed so as technology continues to advance the need is there for plaster County and I couldn't be more
excited to support this project quite frankly I'm I'm humbled and honored uh to be part of the criminal justice team here and to have uh Morgan as my partner and um as as I really look at what we do here in pler County when it comes to criminal justice we do so many things very well and I'm honored to be a part of the team but this is one of those things missing this forensic laboratory component that truly is our Achilles heel and I think I've said it and I know I've almost heard every one of y
ou say it many times uh in this room or in the board Chambers how thankful we were to those that came before us from making smart Visionary investments in pler County's future and I'm very confident in the decades to come that the people that F in our footsteps will look back and they will point to this project as something that was a game Cher for pler County and criminal justice and keeping this community safe so thank you thank you I won't to say anything more I don't think I could say it any
better than that but we're happy to answer questions I'm happy to put any one of our team members on the spot uh at a moment's notice if there are any questions um but other than that we would just request uh the items that that Amanda described thank you very much thank you Morgan okay supervisor guson we'll start down there and I don't have any questions I just think back to the adoption of the sunset area master plan and the vision that it took um for my predecessors to get us to the point w
here we had a vision for that development to be holistic and look at jobs and education and community and and I love the community communiversity thank you I've got a new term to try to remember and not stumble on you know but as we move forward I think about the skepticism we Face from many residents at that adoption hearing that Sacramento State wouldn't come forward and talk about our unwavering support you had to go through a lot with us to get to a point where we could free your hands to re
ally get to work and I was making notes because it's two-sided on what was going where and what was around the crime lab and and just that vision is going to be incredible um as Sheriff woo and and district attorney Guyer said not only for our residents today and solving crimes with the crime lab but our future of training Professionals in our community and giving those opportunities to um our future so I just I want to thank you for your unwavering support and belief that we could pull this off
and continue forward in a great partnership When government works together we all Ben benefit so thank you okay supervisor G thank you all it is this is the first step right but I think about back 2015 where there was a need right and the fact that fast forward we have an opportunity actually not only provide a need but actually be the basis of a university um and this whole idea of a school of friends ex science like that's wonderfully exciting especially when we heard from the sheriff and the
challenges that we have and you know somebody mentioned today that we don't stand up for our residents but the reality is this community we stand up for our residents especially when it comes to Justice and so I I do thank you Morgan and our Sheriff um because this is about Justice for our residents when there are crimes and and victims have to wait for crimes to be solved that's that's a terrible thing to happen and so as we move forward with this I am thankful to our sack State Partners um th
e fact that we can actually provide a service that yes we teach um young people um and give them a future but really making sure that our residents have Justice um a lot faster and so this is really exciting I mean it's going to take a lot more right this is the planning and now we've got to find the funds so if there's any private Partners out there who want to help pay for this on that would be great I was thinking of the film Cruise right can't Gloria can't we get some film C but you know and
this is not this is not an inexpensive um process or project right but I think that we are fortunate that maybe there are some private entities that might want to partner and I really do appreciate that our our CEO and our um Finance CFO um are doing their due diligence and asking the questions because yes we want this to be a flagship but it's also taxpayer dollars and how do we be really efficient with these dollars to make sure this project comes in at a reasonable cost so that we can provid
e for all the equipment that needs to be purchased right um so that we have the best quality forensic Center there so I know that you all will put your heads together um and help us keep the costs down as much as possible but it really is a very exciting opportunity and I really do thank you all and and couple of folks on the back who um saw this Vision a long time ago we are making progress to having that Sac State satellite campus here in plaster County really appreciate it thank you superviso
r landed sorry do I have to mute my enthusiasm to no you don't um well I mean obviously great work and I think we're just we're so blessed here in pler County to have both you and Sheriff woo Who were work collaboratively together that are looking at a long-term vision for what Justice is going to look like in plaster County and so I just want to say thank you first to both of you um as well as the sax State team because I know this has been a heavy lift for a very long time with some volatility
along the way and so uh just knowing that you had the tenacity and the commitment to really just stick with it and I I think too just in the our culture I mean I think in pler County we're really also fortunate to have citizens who support our law enforcement uh but that's not how it is in a lot of other places and being this is such a great opportunity to help to build and maintain trust in the justice system I um I know I've mentioned before in uh comments that I've been on the other end of b
eing a crime victim and having to wait for those results and um so it it's uh just near and dear to my heart to be able to provide a very high quality of service to people in our community who are on both ends whether they're being accused of something or whether they're um a victim so um I think I think with that I'm done so thank you thank you supervisor Holmes well I'm overwhelmed with the comments from the board um you know I've been involved at this uh for several years and actually your pr
edecessor never took the opportunity to remind the board the the need for this facility but when you came on board you were able to put the pieces together working with our sheriff and sax State it's uh there's no reason why we shouldn't do this and I can see the future uh future generations and leaders that'll have the benefits of uh moving this forward it's bold but that's what pler county does we do bold things so congratulations you are and I am excited as well thank you thank you sir and an
d last but not least um I would say that had this been 30 years earlier my undergrad and human biology I might have taken a different career path but and and as far as the excitement goes if it's anything near the excitement we had at the ribbon cutting for the new HHS building which I kind of Imagine will surpass that excitement um Kudos and thank you to all of you for all your hard work it's it's going to be totally amazing when we see the end product any but thank you for your for your persev
erance and everything thank you okay all right now we need to bring it back to the board any anything else let's will um public comment hi County again um just hearing the last few meetings how we don't have enough forensic scientists and doctors I mean I think this is essential and I think this is a project that really captures what plaster county is about being so Innovative um also I don't think it's too early to start planning for student housing around that area and Zoning it appropriately
um to make sure that people can afford to live in the county and live near the school and not have to travel far um so I think that would also help with some other issues we're dealing with at this time thank you thank you for your comments anyone else in the audience anyone online no okay bring this back to the board then I will move approval I will second okay have a motion in a second all those in favor please say I I of course no opposition the motion passes thank you okay so I think uh we h
ave to move to a department item we do have one okay item six on the department items County Executive Federal fiscal year 20125 directed Congressional spending requests Mr Joyce speaking of funding requests segue um good morning Madame chair members of your board Jane Karen Joel Joyce the county executive office uh I'm here today as I have been the past few years to seek your board's Direction on projects to submit for Congressional directed spending otherwise known as earmarks at the federal l
evel previously mentioned earmarks have been brought back for a few years now um we're now going on possibly the fourth year uh the county has been successful in two of the previous years is your time almost up okay um however we do have two two projects currently awaiting the finalization of the Appropriations projects projects which I'm hopefully uh will be finalized here in the coming weeks in mid-march any projects your board selects today would be for federal fiscal year 2025 which doesn't
begin until October 1st 2024 um just to note uh Congress has not passed a budget on time in a decade plus so the expectation is uh should your board choose any projects today should the county be successful you're probably looking at uh early December mid December 2024 um as the earliest uh for funding um and that's because Congress will change over in January after the November elections uh please note that as of today February 13th the rules and guidelines of project submittal have not been re
leased by The Appropriations Committee both on the Senate and the house side also because of this should your board rather choose categories of projects rather than specific projects I'll use Trails an example that's easy staff can work um myself and and departments can work together to find the most appropriate project depending on on those rules and guidelines and when they get released uh when they do get released um there's usually about a two to three three week turnaround time which is ver
y difficult for staff to bring forward to the board um based on uh when board meetings occur Etc uh for project s to be selected after the rules and guidelines have been released attached to your staff report today are a handful of projects that departments have submitted over the past few weeks as a discussion point that are shovel ready and for the most part fall within guidelines from previous years this is not a comprehensive list of all projects that the county could uh apply for and I do w
ant to point out a few major guidelines that these projects uh do hit and for your board's consideration uh projects that have the most success are projects up to the $3 million range that have some type of non-federal match the bigger projects if the board chooses to go above the $3 million range are your typical type of larger infrastructure projects Transportation sewer Etc but that Congress would like to see that whatever they provide if successful would close that funding Gap to finish the
project and typically they like to see those those high cost projects be Regional in nature additionally uh Congress would like to to see the money spent uh within 12 to 18 months post award so back to the timeline you know December 2025 uh the county would probably receive the money uh a few months after you're looking at early 2026 for the for the funds to be spent um and that is for honestly political purposes election purposes they like to get out in the community and make sure the community
knows money's coming to them um Additionally the projects that have seen success over the past three years are really on the public health and safety realm this not only includes your typical law enforcement projects but other types of health and safety projects water transportation Emergency Services Etc last I do want to point out uh I think as everyone is aware here um with Senator Feinstein's passing we do have a new Senator um I have reached out to se Senator Butler's staff on any projects
that uh she would like to see uh submitted and all I heard back was good projects will do well good in quote so um you know F SS on the Appropriations Committee it's a huge loss uh Senator Butler Senator Pia did not take her spot on the Appropriations Committee uh so we'll be a little tougher um going forward at least projects out of California in terms of of overall dollar amount uh earmarks should they stay the same as previous years will take up about 1% of the discretionary federal budget u
h looking at about 1.6 trillion total so 16 billion in total earmarks split evenly between the Senate and the house side um what that comes down to is at the Senate side you have about $80 million per Senator and $18 million per representative um I do know um last year was about $16 million per representative um Senator uh Congressman Kylie I think received over $100 million worth of requests and moved forward about $40 million worth of requests um to the Appropriations Committee so not not ever
y Senator not every uh congressional representative uh does earmark submits ear marks so some of that money is then uh moved to other offices um with that I know it's a it's a pretty open-ended discussion so I'll I'll open the floor up to your board for any questions um you have of me and then uh any discussion on projects or requests board members supervisor guson sorry thank you um chair and uh I did send an email to Jane and Joel over the weekend with a couple other suggestions that weren't o
n the list um one that is that maybe could be combined uh with u some of these is the cad toad presentation we saw at lafco I know that uh supervisor Landon saw that as well it had strong support from our other fire uh coordinated districts and I just thought uh if it could be uh part of the communication that we talked about with fire and adding that CAD toad program into that I don't know of that works or not um but that's only a couple hundred, request and it would be a great uh boom to both
our city fire and our pler County Fire and our other fire uh special district agencies I also suggested the biomass at Eastern Regional Landfill I know it's further out from being shovel ready but you're never shovel ready ready until you secure some funding and given the magnitude of Forest Products coming out of the US Forest Service in the Tahoe Basin and needing a place to go we're hauling that all over the place and so being able to treat it and use it there makes sense to me and a Nexus to
the federal uh delegation because it can serve California and Nevada and we might have help from both sides and then passenger rail anything on passenger rail there were some initial work there was some initial work done on Capital Corridor that said that there were needed uh some uh I can't remember improvements I think at both at Auburn and kfax at The Rail stations in order to have more frequent rail service up further up the hill and maybe those would qualify so again it's not necessarily d
irectly on County staff's radar yet because they have many other projects but they may attract uh more attention uh from the federal delegation because of their Nexus with u Nevada as well thank you supervisor Court would you like to say anything yeah um thank you Joel Just you mentioned it earlier in your presentation right we had a couple of requests I don't know if they're on this list that went to the government um for this upcoming fiscal year do you anticip I mean do you actually anticipat
e them getting funded so for the fy2 24 requests that were approved which is the Blas County Sheriff's Office radios as well as a wildfire defense planning project uh in and around Forest Hill um the expectation is that should go forward in mid-march um the Appropriations bills they how the process works is they have to agree on a Topline spending number and then each Appropriations Bill gets a a secondary number assigned to that their Top Line those numbers have been agreed to which is the hard
est step in the process and then it's just a matter of getting all the language right and then obviously passing the bill um you know at this point I think they're finalizing the Appropriations bills the quote unquote shutdown would occur in mid-march if it's not passed um if if a the budget isn't passed what I'm hearing is that the earmarks that went forward would actually be uh written within the contending resolution um so you I'm fairly confident that those are just going to get through it's
just a matter of patience at this point great um thank you and so um just a couple of things which I appreciate supervisor Gus and focusing on District Five that's her job um I think you have a lot of good suggestions here and I did send you an email I think yesterday along with um Kevin B about in district one it's really Baseline Road where we need improvements um and yes one day it'll be a four-lane road but until then we need to do some stop lights to address the traffic um the congestion a
nd that's actually a regional project right it's the City of Roseville it's plaster County and Suter County so I we may not have an opportunity right now but I want to put that on your list of huge needs for South claster when you're talking health and safety and air quality and traffic Baseline Road has to be addressed way before um plaster Parkway so I just want to keep that on your radar screen and then as we're looking at submitting these I think it is really important to look back on some o
f our Senator Pia's interests and really find out what matters to them it's a little bit more tougher with Senator Butler right now um and she won't be along for a whole lot longer but I really do think it's important that you take a look at what they value so that we can match our requests to what's important to them and oh and I just I wanted to add to that because yes absolutely I think having a menu of projects my at least my work with legislators is having a menu of projects that then can b
e matched to their interests or this idea for parts of District 5 that Nevada Senators May pick up and and match those are the things that I think um I absolutely agree we have needs throughout the county and it's just making sure we have a list where you can pick from that meets their goals supervisor Holmes would you like to make a comment yeah looking at the list um I know we um as for the Sheridan Wastewater reliability 1.6 million has there been any movement on that or is that will that be
moved into so that was requested last year as well that actually didn't move forward uh Senator Padia moved that one forward uh however it was not approved by the Appropriations Committee so what happens when when we when the county applies for a project Hall in a night myself staff will meet with Congressional staff Senator staff uh quote unquote do some lobbying and then once it's beyond the Senator's office or the Congressional office into the Appropriations Committee um by law we can we can
no longer Lobby the Appropriations Committee and they just select what what they think is the best project um now our Representatives can Lobby for their projects uh however the county and our and our contracted lobbyists cannot so it did move forward to answer your question so it is a quote unquote good project okay and then of course the highway 49 Wastewater capacity improvements are critical for growth in North Auburn so uh we'll keep that on the list and push forward is that uh if it's a re
commendation of your board yeah right so yeah that's all that's all my comments supervisor Landing um not no new stuff I would just say I would Echo what supervisor Guston said about the cad system I think that could be some low hanging fruit because it's not super high cost but it would benefit the whole region um and then the Baseline item that supervisor Gore mentioned I would also um support so that's it thank you Joel I have a couple for you um I will kind of chime on with the traffic light
issues and bas light because Douglas Boulevard and as you know Douglas Boulevard and Auburn fulam Road are like the highway between fulam and Roseville our roads those roads carry between 40 and 55,000 cars daily and um for whatever reason our traffic our traffic accidents are increasing in Granite Bay so we would be interested in adding a couple of traffic lights on to those areas but also as a member of pcpa I also would like to advocate for the uh I8 Highway 65 interchange because I think th
at's not only Regional but it's also Statewide that people travel across the entire State and converge there and it is becoming very very dangerous and I think improvements on that interchange would be huge and I know I'll always be asking for somebody to pay attention to that I think for that project should pcpa go out for that uh the plaster County would would completely support uh their Your Mark effort in that project yeah I know you would and I appreciate that thank you okay do we have any
comments from the public anyone online like to comment can if I may chair you bet you bet just kind of clarify what I hear to to bring it back um so I I hear no objection to the to the cad to CAD SL dispatch projects and Baseline Road projects I think that's fairly I'm fairly confident and I heard that um supervisor homes you had mentioned the sharid and water Highway 49 Wastewater and and uh supervisor G he mentioned uh a few projects in your District um if the board's amable to that I I we can
go after that and then what I can do is when the guidelines get released figure out which of those projects fit best um with each of our representatives and then go forth and apply uh through those um so if if I'm if I hear correctly and I just repeat it correctly let me know anyone have anything to add to that no I I just agree with Joel's approach that the projects that are on the list we've already identified and I was you know just giving a menu because sometimes legislators have particular
interests that you know having a variety of those projects helps so anything you can do and I last I will say the caveat is Co Congress always has the right to not go after he marks uh so um you know that hasn't the expectation is that that will it will be open this year but they do have the right to not go go for them hopefully they won't decide that this year okay well I think you have your your marching orders from us um don't think we have any action on our part thank you so much Joel for t
he presentation it was great and for looking out for us thank you okay so we have a few minutes to take a break to 11 okay we will since our next agenda item is not until 11 o' we will just take a few minute break few minutes break okay e e e e e e e for e e e e e e e e e e e voice we call this meeting back to order thank you everyone for for attending today we're moving on to our 11:00 item number four Community Development resource agency this is an appeal of the planning commission's decision
related to setback variance request for the Simpson water feature supervisorial District 4 good morning morning oh wait a minute I need to say something before we go any further I apologize item four is an appeal hearing the board will conduct a hearing denovo which means on this matter which means we will start from the very beginning as if we haven't heard anything on the on the issue uh the board will consider and render its own decision consistent with county code and based on evidence fact
s testimony written and oral as well as written and oral reports and comments presented here the board will first hear from staff it will be you Jennifer um and then uh the appellant will be given equal time to present their case then the property owner will be given 10 minutes afterwards uh afterwards I will call for public testimony each member of the public will have three minutes to comment please stay to the three minutes and if someone before you has stated what you want to say just please
don't repeat it just please state that you agree with the prior statement please begin Jennifer good morning Jennifer bias here to present the water Simpson water feature variance which is a third party appeal of the Planning Commission decisions related to the setback variance also here today is Tim Wagner um our chief building official um the purpose of the hearing again this is an appeal of the planning commission's decision that the existing water feature does not meet the definition of a s
tructure the structural setback is not required and the setback variance requested is not applicable as discussed um the actions being requested is conduct a public hearing ing staff is also requesting the board deny the appeal filed by Shannon and Mary Moore and uphold the planning decis planning commission's decision from November 9th 2023 as well as determine that the project is exempt from squa the project is located in Granite Bay at 8395 West hinen Lakes Drive approximately one mile southe
ast of the intersection of Douglas and Auburn folon Boulevard it's located within the Hidden Lake subdivision Lot 23 the zoning and land use are low density residential um 10,000 squ ft building minimum the parcel size is 36 acres and it's developed with a single family residence and as well as backs onto open space which contains two man-made Lakes shown there in the highlighted blue with the Red Dot on your screen I'll give you a little bit of background the initial request came from the appli
cant John Milburn on behalf of the property over owner Bob Simpson for a variance to reduce the rear setback the East property line to a zero feet where the minimum is 5 ft normally required for an existing water feature that was built with the reflecting pond and a water fountain with electrical connection kind of going back a little bit in history of what's gone on with this property in February of 2021 the property owner began improvements to his backyard which did include kitchen gazebo as w
ell as this water feature we're discussing here today in March of 2022 the county received complaints regarding the structure being built and the county subsequently investigated and issued a courtesy notice that after the fact building permit would be required dialogue began uh between March and September of 2022 uh with County staff regarding the permits necessary for this feature alterations were made to the feature uh to reduce the height ultimately August 1st 2022 and after the fact buildin
g application was submitted and uh building permit was also issued on August 30th an email was sent stating that the variance would be needed that the structure um would need to meet setback requirements for the planning manager and I apologize my slide has an a here September 2nd that should actually be September 21st the planning manager issued a summary letter stating um the requirements for permitting of this structure that's included in your staff report as attachment G and included in that
planning manager letter was the definition and clarification of the structure um was required to meet uh the setbacks based on our zoning ordin ordinance definition um of a setback shown here on the or excuse me of a structure shown here on the screen highlighting in Gray any man-made artifact over 120 square F feet and then the last sentence underlined or any artifact that requires a building permit I'm emphasizing this because the building permit here that is required was for an electrical co
nnection and there are some distinctions between our building code and our zoning code this definition and the determination that the setbacks were required comes straight from and was included in that planning manager's determination that it's the zoning code not the building code that's requiring this structure this to be a structure because it needed a building permit I also want to point out the second part or the last sentence of this definition does have a note that says any man-made artif
act not categorized as a structure that the planning director can determine that setback need to be met so when we looked into this definition and when there was clarification and Direction given we were solely relying on the building permit portion of this definition again getting into some additional background in November 2022 the property owner stated that he would remove the electrical connection thus we would not require a building permit however then in March of 2023 an application for th
e variance was made for relief from the standards for a 5-ft setback to allow the structure to remain at zero feet where 5T are required would be required the site plan that was submitted is shown here on the screen again 5 feet um was the required setback this setback is determined based on pool and related equipment uh when you put a pool in or with the water fountain or your pumps they all need to be at least 5T for this zoning um and then the dimensions I think a few people have asked me the
dimension on the structure it's incredibly hard to see from this detail but the structure um is 30 ft long by 2 9 in wide and is about 5 ft tall and the next couple slides are some photographs again here's some views facing Northwest and Northeast of the feature that was constructed again this is looking from the open space back at the um back side of the feature including the cabinet which has contains the pump and electrical components this is looking um behind the property at um at the pump
house that is the um Brown building here is the pump house that runs the pumps for the man-made water features in the open space which is behind behind the structure or excuse me behind the water feature the Planning Commission held a hearing on November 9th 2023 um eight members of the public provided comments at that hearing three in support four in opposition and one that was neutral ultimately the Planning Commission did determine that the water feature was not a structure and that setbacks
would not be required since the water feature did not require building permit they also took action to deny the variance application on the basis that the variance is not needed since the water feature is not a structure the vote for that was three yeses two Nos and two absences in addition they also recommended that staff clarify the definition of setbacks for the for water features and water fountains wall fountains in our zoning ordinance on November 17th and an appeal was filed from Shannon
and Mary Moore um their points of the appeal was that the water feature was is a structure they disagree with the Planning Commission that the pond and wall are one structure and therefore met the definition and should be required to meet the setbacks they also contended that the because it was a Structure again it needed to adhere to the setbacks and that there are no grounds necessary to meet the findings for variance or the structure the water feature staff's response to the appeal um that th
e appell and asserts it's not a it is a structure um standard practices for walls fences and many other landscape features is that they are allowed to include electrical components and because the components are electrical does not necess necessitate it to become a a structure and thus requiring a building permit that only an electrical permit in this this case would be needed so if you build a fence and connect an electrical outlet you only need an electrical permit by connecting the fence and
the outlet together does not make the fence a structure the appellant also asserts again the water feature was not safe and staff's response is that building clode code classifies walls or fences that are less than 7 ft as n structural and therefore the construction of this wall is deemed safe and does not need to adhere to or pose any risks to any community members and then also the appellant asserted that findings for the variants cannot be made and staff's response is that no variance is need
ed this is not a structure it's not required to meet structural setbacks we have received some public comments I believe they were provided to you this morning um on this item there were six letters of support included in your packet of information that should have came to you this morning regarding this feature staff's recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal and determine that the water feature is not a structure and that
setbacks are not required since the water feature did not require a building permit and to deny the variance application on the basis that a variance is not necessary since the water feature is not a structure so again we are here the actions being requested conduct a hearing deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission's decision from November 9th as well as make a determination that this action is exempt from squa and I'm available for any questions board members do you have questions so
far we com okay we have no questions at this time okay okay now we have time for the appellants and I guess the county staff took 10 minutes so hopefully you'll be able to squeeze your presentation into 10 minutes good morning um my name as you know is Mary Moore this is my husband Shannon Moore we live at 860 West tin lakes and we are here um very appreciative of your time and attention to this um complex and at time convoluted um issue um many people ask why are we appealing the decision by t
he commission um first off we were unfortunately unable to attend the hearing on the 9th we were out of the country prior to that we were able to secure 33 individual home um signatures on a petition that was in support of not granting um any variances or uh um allowing uh not requiring permits um because they also agreed that the process by which this homeowner has proceeded through um has been um somewhat questionable um uh has been somewhat questionable so um you'll see many times we say afte
r the fact or you'll see after the fact and that is in regards to everything that has been submitted to the county and the planning department for approval and for permission has been done after the build was done um adhering to the adage that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is for for permission um it's really not about what was built people will argue it's beautiful it Blends in it adds to topography our issues are not solely with what was built it was how it was built it was what w
as originally approved to be built and what was ultimately built you'll see three um of the eight pieces that I want to focus on one um Jennifer alluded to is the um code that allows the planning administrator the latitude to determine that something is a structure without adhering to the um necessary um size requirements um the uh the squa uh that the planning staff determined uh all six need to be met and the planning department had determined that two were not met and also because this was al
l after the fact there was no time for discretionary um time by the county office office to work with the homeowner on this um we feel as homeowners and people in the community the people that signed the document were all held to the same level of accountability by the county for the things that we build and that we should all be held to the same level for adherence to what is required um I would ask that at the end if there's any need for for time to come back for any clarification um some of t
hese slides you will already seen this is the property in question um oh it does work okay uh this is the pump house in question that Mr Simpson had requested uh to build a wall to to block and this uh you can see uh there are 22 homes that surround the community Lake and this property around the lake is actually community property with which you can walk um so it is open um to topography and it's this is the entrance to the development in July of 2021 the HOA granted Mr Simpson approval for a 6
'8 wall 6x8 wall with a setback um frequent and consistent communication from Mr Simpson to the HOA board indicated that although engineering had commenced no work would begin until all applicable permits were required this is also clearly written and included in the arc um Architectural Review Committee um application um the hoac cnrs uh as you can see uh do have further restrictions on the home surrounding the lake to preserve the open topography and the natural look um an an exception was gra
nted for Mr Simpson in order to block the pump house that um facilitates the community Lakes as you saw um on the Google Earth slide the pump house was fairly hidden by privets and shrubs and there is no indication that alternatives to a 6X foot uh 6X 8T wall were ever discussed this is what was built this is since been finished with stone but this is the cinder block ver version of what was built this is 7 ft by 27 ft x 3 ft deep it is 7 ft on the HOA property side it has been graded on the hom
eowner side so that is 5 ft um in February um as Jennifer um said 14 compliance complaints were filed with the county when the residents were seeing what was built versus what was approved um at this time um through our own research of the county there were no permits requested or applied for at this time in April of 2022 Mr rasco the former planning administrator with 26 years of experience used the latitude granted him under County Code 17 by 54 uh1 40 to determine that was indeed a structure
and therefore subject to County codes regulations and setback requirements between July 21 July of 2021 when he stated no construction would commence until appro rate permits were obtained in April of 2022 Mr Simpson served as president of the HOA thereby fully aware at a minimum of the change orders required by the ARC approval although this says March of 2022 um this was the planning uh the plan submitted to the planning department in August of 2022 um and as you knowe there are no Dimensions
given this is uh this again goes back to U Mr Rosco's ability to use his latitude in 17. 54.1 140 to determine something is a structure even if as Mr Milbourne will argue that it doesn't meet the 120 foot um uh requirement of a uh footprint this is a superimposed uh slide of what was approved versus what was built uh Maryann Calhoun who's unfortunately out of the country was on the arc committee at the time and went on record at the variance hearing that no change orders were submitted back to t
he back to the arc for approval as required by The Arc guidelines during this time um Shannon and I were told by the board of which Mr Simpson was president that our only recourse within the the um development or uh neighborhood was to file and submit a an IDR which is an internal dispute resolution which we did and in doing so um unpeeled some layers that further prompted us to continue this um appeal um as uh the HOA approval was not in fact what was built Mr Simpson also mailed a 19-page docu
ment to every household in the development under his title of HOA president supporting his project included in that document and also submitted to the planning department the Planning Commission and the board of Supervisors were emails purported to be written by then HOA board vice president Paul kuna Mr kuna went on record at the variant hearing and is here today to say in fact he did not write those emails also included in the documents that you have received was a favorable legal legal opinio
n that Mr Simpson sought to support his project when shown what Mr Simpson included in that document versus what he wrote the attorney who authored that opinion stat that his opinion is now irrelevant due to the fact that Mr Simpson 1 shared the document publicly when it was considered confidential but more egregiously he substantially altered the content of the opinion to fit his narrative the original legal opinion for 6 by the original legal opinion that he s was for a 6X 8ot wool to include
a setback sorry and take a breath this is an a view of the neighbor to Mr Simpson's left um she lived there for 35 years and had a clear view oh I don't know what I just did sorry um she did have a clear view of the community Lake and this is her view from her backyard now again this is the community Lake get my flickers right um this is her home back in here and uh it is now blocked by Mr Simpson's water structure this is the neighbor on the other side he did include a letter this morning that
um Jennifer referenced in support of Mr Simpson however he is a new homeowner and did not have um perview to the view um prior to the structure being built this is a view from our community park again um no structures are supposed to be built around the lake that will impede or uh interfere with with views um I don't know I'll talk fast uh this is um a slide indicating the zero lot line that Mr Simpson um built it on even though uh the approval from the HOA and the legal opinion both included a
setback would be included this is the pool equipment access to that pool equipment is now on community property so any maintenance of repair to and access to is now on community property and therefore subject to our liability for whatever would happen on that property what we're asking the board to do is negate um or vacate the 3-2 vote that the Planning Commission did as we feel that um although we respect the Planning Commission we feel their decision was at least partially made on false or mi
sleading information this is the document that was provided to the planning department in support um of the hearing on the 9th it includes the emails that were not written by Mr kuna and it it includes the altered um decision by the attorney um we we are asking that uh you return to the to the decision that the planning uh administration had made that it is indeed a structure and not um and does require and is should be held accountable to uh any County setbacks um permits and um regulations Mr
Simpson would argue that this is a neighborly dispute and that he has suffered harassment because of it his claims of tres passing flashlights shown in his backyard and rod iron fence damage have all been refuted and clarified the trespassing was a resident similar in stature to Shannon who was standing in Mr Simpson's neighbor's yard looking at the project because it is open topography and open land back there it would be easy to construe that this might be trespassing the flashlights were this
resident's wife retrieving her dogs in the open property while visiting the same neighbor at night and the rod iron fence were squirrels sharpening their teeth and they were not discriminatory as several houses around the lake also suffered rod iron um damage to their fencing um although these have been refuted and corrected and clarified Mr Simpson holds on to that narrative as it fits his view so again we're asking the Board of Supervisors to negate the decision made by the Planning Commissio
n because it was based on false and misleading information and deem that this structure is a structure and therefore should be held compliant to any permits setbacks and code requirements thank you thank you for your report um board members do you have questions for okay all right we are going to wait until after we hear more information now uh Mr Simpson good morning good morning my name is John Milburn I'm the architect I'm representing uh Mr Simpson in this matter today he's not able to atten
d due to um fairly significant serious medical issues um so that's why I'm speaking here in his on his his behalf again thank you for the opportunity to uh to uh clarify a few things I um I guess what I want to start with is it's been said uh numerous times it's no there's no um a 6ot by 8ot wall was never the project the the original and I would have brought a large version of this if I'd known I'd have to present it but I did ask Bob you have a drawing of what was submitted to the HOA Board of
what you wanted to do and it's a small drawing but and there's there's Dimensions but there's small this wall was always it started out as a 27 in 27t long wall 2 feet wide never ever uh uh 8 ft wide and 6 feet High during construction we we figured out that the rear of the property which is a picture you see here uh had been graded because they flattened it out to make space for the for the foundations and I advised as well as one of the planners uh oh shoot I don't have her name but I can get
it it's in one of the emails said you know um you might want to lower the wall I mean it looks like it's right at six feet at the back of the property line um you don't want to have any questions about it if someone questions the grade so the wall is 5 feet high now the finished wall and you saw pictures before this is grossly misleading because that's not what is built out there right now um if you go back to the one of the very first photos that um that was shown it's a beautiful wall not thi
s and I would agree this is a nice or if that was a finished product yeah I would be have a big pretty big problem with it too so that's my first dispute is the project was never 6 feet high 8 feet long ever and I if you interested in seeing what was submitted to the to the um uh HOA you can he has pictures of the planting materials and the landscaping and it I mean it's just to see that it's not that and you know what it looks like now cuz it's built there was uh I do it didn't come up too much
in the presentations by the planning staff but we did take a little bit different route in having this dispute we no one disagrees that Mr rosasco uh made a determination that this project needed a build what needed to have a variance because it was a structure and um it was a although never spelled out in his letter that you have uh he did have a discretion to decide that it was a Structure even though it didn't meet the definition of a structure in the zoning code we Mr Simpson attempted to h
ave a meeting with Mr rosasco and uh was unsuccessful we realized we even went above Mr rasco's uh position and and met with the planning director gosh and I can't remember his name off the top of my head Jennifer do you anyway higher up than that Chris anyway it doesn't matter we had a meeting onsite with the director of planning saying and looking at the building at our wall the way it was shown in as it's finished and uh we said we think Mr rosasco is biased against us because he won't talk t
o us I wrote numerous letters explaining our position of why the the wall wasn't a structure and it met with a hey I say it's a structure we were going to appeal the first appeal is to the uh zoning administrator well Mr rosasco was a zoning administrator so we didn't feel we were going to get a really uh evenhanded uh hearing there at the Council of the planning director he uh facilitated us to go skip over the zoning administrator and go directly to the Planning Commission so that's how we got
to the Planning Commission without going through the zoning administrator first uh as as was described the zoning uh the the Planning Commission reviewed our project spent just about an hour and a half or so on reviewing our project and listening to the uh comments and um they determined that the the wall was not a structure as not being a structure I'm just repeating the you know the findings from the planning department this is not a structure um there was some distinction made in the uh appe
llants comments of and in the writings um in their uh application that there's a difference between building permits and zoning and planning permits and that we should consider planning as being the the uh the definition which is that definition you saw before except that if you have to apply for a building permit well planning doesn't issue building permits so if we if we went to the building department for a building permit they say well you don't need a building permit that's the reason that
the content going back a little bit the contention that this P we've been calling it a pond there is no zoning requirements for ponds they're calling it a water feature the setbacks actually are 10 ft at the rear of this type of property but it's reduced to 5T for swimming pools except we don't have a swimming pool so uh my point is being whether you consider the wall and the pond the same structure they weren't built separately they were built by two different contractors one was a Contractor B
uilding the wall the other was a landscape Contractor Building the the Landscaping they're not integral they're not connected structurally uh the pond is 18 in deep it has there are no requirements for permits for the pond I've been an architect for over 30 years and it was mentioned we never got permits for the wall well I could read The Zone I could read the building code as well as anybody else I go this doesn't require building permits but it did require an electrical permit and we didn't di
spute that and we received the the electrical permit after the fact we applied for the permit and we got the permit for the electrical in order for the building department to issue a building permit they had to see that the planning planning had already approved our project and this is not in the beginning before all the controversy you you're hearing right now this was back in I don't know the exact dates but was the middle of the summer 2023 we were in the middle of discussions with whether um
this thing needed a permit or not whether it needed a variance or not planning staff wrote on the app on the permit planning is okay or I don't know the words but they approved it otherwise building would never have given us a permit for the electrical now subsequently no the permit was issued the the work was inspected and approved and finaled then the planners came back that we made a mistake and we shouldn't have issued you shouldn't have issued this permit because there's a controversy abou
t whether this is a needs a variance well It ultimately it didn't need a doesn't need a variance as uh deemed by the planning uh Planning Commission um I'm sure there's going to be more things I'd want to say oh I do want to say this this is an HOA matter okay the HOA governs these walls it governs what people do with their property we planning never had anything to say really didn't have any opinion about this it was governed by the HOA the applicant was had a hearing with the HOA I I I'm sure
the paperwork can be produced they approved of this project themselves they had a uh res you might know what I'm talking about you probably have it it's a a dispute resolution she mentioned the dispute resolution that occurred and the dispute was resolved and the Moors signed the resolution so Mr Simpson did go through all the necessary steps to get this wall built in accordance with the HOA rules and plaster County Planning rules and plaster County building codes every change that was made and
there were changes made dur along the way uh was ratified by the HOA I don't want to beat a dead horse so if something comes up that I can respond I'd be happy to thank you very much for your time thank you where it go from here now yes um Chris um chair Jones if you if if you will um I did want to respond to just one of the comments that was made um and provide a little bit of clarification so um as was mentioned uh by Mr Milburn the determination that was made was by Mr rosasco back in 2022 uh
importantly that determination was based on the electrical permit um and making a determination that it was a Structure because of the electrical permit importantly there was a direction provided to the applicant at the time that if they were to remove all of the electrical um conduits that it would no longer um no longer meet the determination of a structure and therefore not need to meet setbacks uh the visit from the planning director that was mentioned I did go out and visit the site um las
t year at some point um and indicated there was concern that was brought up about the uh zoning administrator um George rosasco serving as the hearing Authority for the item did indicate that we would Elevate the um Elevate the the determination or the consideration to the Planning Commission as is provided for in the county code and that's how that uh review occurred at the Planning Commission uh at the Planning Commission hearing they did make a determination as was laid out in Miss bias's uh
presentation that the um that the object was not a structure and that uh the variance requirements did not apply setbacks did not apply and therefore a variance did not apply and so that's what brings us to today thank you for that Chris actually if I could just add one brief thing please that determination by the Planning Commission that this item was not a structure essentially supersedes the statement by Mr rosasco in his letter that it was a Structure um as the Planning Commission has author
ity to um to issue matters of interpretation when directed by the planning director public comment okay um we're going to go to public comment now my name is Paul kuna and chair Jones members of the board thank you for letting me to just a make a brief presentation um we've seen all the technical things here but again I'll bring up I came to the same conclusion that several other people in our neighborhood did it's been a very divisive issue and uh that thing is you know sometimes it's better to
ask for forgiveness as opposed to uh looking for permission um and that's what this really is about um I was the fellow that did the Architectural Review walked the project um I initialed every page of the plan which did not include anything that looked like that again I'm not going to get into detail um that certainly would have set off a problem uh at the time I did talk with Mr Simpson he understood construction I I seem to remember his saying he had some uh experience in that one of the con
ditions of approval was to get a permit and I would expect he would seek a permit and get something in writing that said he didn't need a permit based on the plan in the Planning Commission documents there is a site PL that does not show the wall and it's dated about the time I did the review with him there are also several documents in there several emails reportedly from me that he forged because I did not write them and my the the company that I was with uh we had a a header and a footer on t
hem it's not on there he made those things up um I have never seen the the the pages of plan I don't know that he even submitted them properly to the board which he became president of um but anyway there was no sight plan no wall I wouldn't be here in opposition if I thought Mr Simpson was misled in this process and somehow this wasn't fair to him I feel that he GED this all the way through and I was shocked to see my name on documents and this just isn't right he's now now asking for forgivene
ss I think it's a very bad precedent any questions good so thank you thank you for comments anyone else like to comment please good morning my name is Cindy Carlson I live across the street for Bob and Jamie Carlson and I'm here today as a member in good standing of the community just really concerned as to why we're even here today um 50ft view is uh from my standpoint as a member of the community is uh I'm wondering why the appellant and what the appellant's role is in today's um session is he
here as an individual who lives way across the neighborhood from um The Simpsons or is he here as a member of the board because he is a current member of the board and has been a member of the board so as a member of the community I'm looking at this as uh is this is this the perception of impropriety is this is this appropriate that this even be done uh and I'm concerned uh I'm very concerned I know for a fact that at least two of the emails you got um are from people around the lake why are p
eople across the neighborhood so concerned about this in my mind it's a vendetta against Bob and Jamie Simpson and that's what it has appeared to be all along a vendetta Bob got the project approved by the HOA a couple months later he's the president of the board he tried to make um improvements on the lake uh that that were long needed uh these improvements were going to cause assessments to be made to each household that were not small assessments uh this group of homeowners got together and R
ose up professional people got up and Rose up I was in board meetings I attended board meetings where the vindictiveness was so vile and I just uh I just can't seem to um think that that has changed at all and so I just I as a member of the community I had to put this forward that this uh has been um I have questions about this I have questions that the board should probably answer are they supporting this have they approved this or um is this something that the appellant is doing on his own and
if he is doing it on his own perhaps he should have resigned from the board and then filed the appeal these are this is a question I've got as a homeowner in good standing in our community thank you thank you for your comments I do need to correct the record um this that I have opened a public hearing uh versus public comment so this is actually public hearing would anyone else in the audience like to speak to this good morning my name is Dave Carlson I'm uh living across the street from Bob an
d Jamie and we've been in the neighborhood for about five years now and so um you know after attending and speaking at the previous meeting and reflecting on the history of their backyard improvements over the past few years this has nothing to do with really the improvements but it's really more of u a personal attack and harassment against the Simpson family that continues to this day which is why we're here you know the project was initiated to improve the backyard appearance you know looking
at that pump house hearing the pump house run you know some of the landscaping around it got trimmed down so it's even more evident so Bob had talked to me you prior of this project even getting started it's like I need to do something someday to cover up that the pump house that I look at and see every day when I look out my kitchen window or sit on the patio so this is really you know as he looked at this project and trying to decide it wasn't something he did immediately it's like you what's
it going to take cuz you could see from those pictures that back in behind the pump house was really kind of a disarray it dirt and rocks and it wasn't even kept up really from a landscaping perspective you know on the common area of the of the homeowners area so trying to cover that up would be you know makes a lot of sense so hopefully this can be finalized today and I fully support the recommendation that has been put forth that the Board of Supervisors deny this appeal thank you thank you f
or your comments any other public I mean any other anybody else like to speak to this issue or no if it's a rebuttal you have to wait for your your turn on that thank you have it online that one hand up is not okay okay all right so now I will close the public hearing Ing and then I am going to ask the county staff if you would like to respond first to some of these I think other than the other than the response that I made earlier I I don't think we have any further further comments at this tim
e but happy to answer questions from the board okay thank board questions I do yes uh supervisor Landon um well I have a number of I'm so sorry uh first I think I want to say there's some pretty serious allegations of Nefarious activities whether it's uh dishonesty or forgery and I think it's important that we focus on the question at hand which is is this a structure or is it a fence and I mean I hope that there isn't any nefarious activity going on on either side because that's extremely disap
pointing but anyway I just just wanted to say that at the beginning of my comments because um I think eventually I'll get to my decision but um okay so one question is I think this is for Tim Tim can you explain to me the difference between an electrical permit and a building permit yes certainly hi my my name is Tim Wagner I'm the Chief Building official here for pler County and supervisor ATL I'm glad to answer that question for you um so yes we we Issue four types of permits actually in the c
ounty one is a building permit one could be an electrical permit one could be a plumbing permit and one could be a mechanical permit so each of those are for the different types of codes that we have So within the building code we typically issue building permits for things that are structural in nature they have vertical walls they're usually used for human occupancy and things to that effect we getting the plumbing mechanical electrical um I'm grouping those because those are systems that are
typically complimentary or provide services within the building that's cons constructed uh so we can have structures that are issued with a building permit that have no systems in them so no Plumbing mechanical electrical and that would get a standalone building permit we could have a existing structure that had a building permit obtain an electrical permit let's say to add additional lighting or Heating and Air Mechanical permit to add a heating and air system or to replace a heating air system
for example um we can also have a building permit that could have all of those so like a new home we title a building permit but within that we also issue Plumbing mechanical and electrical permits to authorize the applicant to construct not only the vertical structure but all the systems within that structure so we do have four distinguished types of permits some can be Blended again like it's a building with the systems within them or they could be Standalone if they're building like a shed w
ith no electric pluming or mechanical within those okay and then follow-up question for you sure so uh in Mr milburn's letter that's included in our staff report he cites the California building code and so I wanted to find out did does pler County did we adopt the State Building Code or have we amended the building code here so yes good question so we're mandated by the state uh to adopt the state's code um as published um and we do that every 3 year so we adopted the most recent version last J
anuary um but within that the state also provides authority to the local um agencies cities counties and so forth uh to amend the code now when we amend the code the authorties only granted to the amendment to be a more restrictive approach to the code and not lessen the code Authority so for example we have a requirement that sheds and playhouses uh do not require permit if there 120 sare ft or smaller we in the county could um reduce that to say sheds and playhouses built for 90 square fet and
smaller would not require a building permit but we could not expand that to say something larger than that so yes we are allowed to amend the code and most of the time those not most of the time all of the time those amendments are based upon findings due to topography climatic or geological conditions within the county uh so really is for us to provide conditions that are really relative to our build environment so as you can imagine down in the valley is a certain is a is is definitely a diff
erent type of soil condition than we would find up in our High Country in Tahoe so California doesn't take a broad brush and paint standards Statewide they allow us to amend for conditions relative to our environment okay okay thank you and then I guess this would be for Chris or Jennifer um I just wanted to confirm the pump that for the pond or the water feature that's still there right which is why they were applying for the variance initially that's correct okay and then I didn't notice but I
just wanted to make sure I didn't miss it did the HOA board submit any type of letter whether it was for or against that they chime in on this at all or that you're aware of okay I didn't see it either I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss it um okay and then so just so I can wrap my head around this so if the definition of a structure is any artifact that any artifact that requires a building permit and this did not require a building permit correct it required an electrical permit yeah tha
t that's correct I think we um we explained in the in the report package that when when when a um and Tim can probably speak to this as well uh when when a um an applicant applies for a um electrical permit or a mechanical permit it's issued under the in under the header of a building permit okay but as as Tim pointed out uh there is a differentiation between the four types of permits uh that he mentioned okay if I may again Tim Wagner so we from a nomenclature standpoint point we in the county
just use one form called a building permit so all of our product comes out under a title plaster County building permit but in the description it would describe to you if it was a plumbing mechanical or electrical permit so just from a nclat standpoint it's just the way we title our permit it doesn't actually have any um real meaning as it would tie to the code application to that header if you will okay okay and maybe just to further that a little bit on the slide that Jennifer had up earlier i
n the presentation um it did indicate um that that if a permit a building permit is issued but didn't provide further clarification about what type of permit and therefore that was part of the action of the Planning Commission that was recommended on a a unanimous vote was to provide some for staff to work on providing some clarification in the zoning ordinance so that uh that's a a little bit more defined mhm okay um and then my last thing is so in July of 2021 it said the property owner asked
the county about the need for a permit and was told no originally that they didn't need one um but then he was told eventually that he was going to need a permit how much time had passed and he I'm assuming he already had started construction by the time he was told yeah and I think you're referring back to some email exchanges between our planning technicians at the front counter it's always hard to um you know armchair quarterback that unless you have your plan set in front of you to actually
see what is getting built um I and and for them to have gotten clarification on what the permitting requirements would have been from building for this I think the the request was what are my setbacks and if I do this do I need to meet the setbacks and the the standard answers were given right what are setbacks and if you build a fence or if you build a pond right or you build a water feature you're probably going to get the you only have to get an electrical permit right um so that was kind of
again if somebody was at the front counter with the plans that we now have as the building permit would that same um email been provided possibly or possibly not MH okay all right thank you other questions you ready for yours yet so much fun um so a fence by right does not need a permit correct if it's under a certain height it does not need a permit so I'm going to build a fence on my lot line at zero at the zero lot line it doesn't need a permit correct in general under 7 ft in height under 7t
right and this is under 7t um The Challenge came in with because there was power and so as a result of this structure or wall fence having power that triggered an electrical permit um if I Ram Power like I have a wall right and I have a actually a would don't get in trouble but I have a waterfall um that is built out of rocks and it comes down on the side of my my my wall behind my house and I had power brought to it I didn't act the power is outside of the structure or out of my waterfall righ
t so the power doesn't um the power source is not in that waterfall if the power source is separate from that fence does it need a permit to go into that fence for that wall if I may supervisor gorg and Tim Wagner um maybe I'll approach it in this way um yes if you were to run a what we would call a new circuit either connecting to your existing wiring within your home or we'd call it a home run where you would run from there all the way back to your electrical panel and add a new circuit all of
that type of work would require a building an electrical permit for clarity um and so yes if that's the type of water feature you have in your backyard pre-fabricated or you fabricated a rock feature with a pump that needed to connect to the house wiring then yes that would require an electrical permit sometimes however those prefabricated features or even even on-site built features like that can have a plug-in pump so if you had a a GFI outlet on the back of your house and you could just use
the cord that came with the pump and plug that in that would not require an electrical permit you are not attaching to physically the per electrical system in the house what our intent really is with electrical permit is to make sure that we're not overloading an existing circuitry that how we're connecting to that existing circuitry is it done in a safe fashion and is it in a junction box that if a fire does start in there remains in there or if they're making a home run back to the main panel
does the main panel have the space for that is it Siz enough for the additional loading um how did they run the electrical to that through an attic through a wall through a conduit do it what means did they do that because there's a lot of provision and standard safety standard around that um so yes connecting to the permanent system would require that under government and I I have no idea if we got a perit my husband did it so I'm just gonna say sa a long time ago but what you're what you're sa
ying though is um if power if somebody ran uh power from a wall to another Outlet extension core then a permit would not be required correct um and there's some discrepancies right about timing of the permit permit permits um but if we didn't have power it would just be considered a wall correct um and it could and that's in line with the determination that was made by Mr rosasco as the planning manager and this the um and to define the structure the structure is the length by the depth correct
so 27 or 30 ft by about 3 ft which is under the 120 square ft so the applicant is looking at the 120 square ft less than it's not it it's not a structure and so therefore it's a fence considered it a fence that's the description but let me provide some clarity around the 120 square fet um building permits can be let in many ways we can look at the square footage of the structure we can look at just the definition of the structure meaning if it's a fence or a wall so something a vertical built st
ructure that's over 120 ft in size that is a building um would would necess necessitate a building permit a fence that's under 6 ft in height but may have massing to it is not measured from a square footage standpoint to to breach that 120t threshold it's still a fence or a wall so we'd be looking for a height differential telling us when a building print would come in the next would be a swimming pool which doesn't have a square footage calculation and it doesn't have a height calculation but i
t has a depth calculation so if it's greater than 18 in deep the water is greater than 18 in deep then we Define that as a swimming pool by California law so really it's three Provisions in this case we would see something that looks like a wall uh a fence that's what staff would look at for the height of that is it over 7 ft yes that would require a permit is it under 7 feet no we wouldn't require a permit for that but they would not do a square footage calculation on something that looked like
a fence or wall thank you thank you um no questions I don't think I have any questions thank you thank you yes thank you ch um first of all I wanted to know that I did go view the site with Mr Moore I've deliberate reviewed the deliberation from the Planning Commission uh they were having you know 3 to2 vote over whether it's a structure or structure or not um so just getting to the bottom of this if we Grant the appeal what does Mr Simpson required to do I think there's a couple of options dep
ending on on where you head with the the appeal um and the determination but um if you were to not Grant the the appeal um and determine that it is indeed a structure because of the electrical permit uh the option for Mr Simpson would be to um would be to remove the Electrical uh conduit to the property and or to the object and then it would there therefore not be considered a structure and so it can remain in place if that's what they chose to do albeit without any of the electrical um electric
al connections to it so that's if we do not Grant the appeal that's if you grant the appeal and um and do not Grant the variance okay so there's a couple options here and it it gets a little murky so U maybe I can help map it out a little bit for you probably the first decision is whether or not this is a structure um if it is a structure then the next question to you is do you are their findings supporting the need for a variance um and so you would if you go the route of saying it to structure
then you decide do you grant the variance or not and there's statutory requirements for findings for a variance you can also determine that this is not a structure if you make that determination then you have a decision after that to determine whether or not to impose the setbacks or not um our definition of a structure in our zoning code which is slightly different from that in the building code does have a note section at the bottom and it was referenced in one of the appeals it basically say
s even if you've got a man-made feature that is not defined as a structure that is subject to a determination by the planning director as to whether it whether or not it needs to meet the setback requirements you have a Planning Commission decision that said not a structure and no need for a setback so it's within your board's perview to say it's not a structure but we can impose the setbacks if we want based on that provision so first decision is structure no structure and then depending on whe
re you go from that you also have a second decision to make if you go yes it is a structure then you're deciding whether or not to impose a variance if you're saying it's not a structure then you're deciding still whether or not to impose a setback requirement does that help is that clear as M okay thank you anyone else have any other questions no I don't have any questions I just have comments so oh please make comments I'll I'll I'll comment after you if You' like you know I I re I too reviewe
d the plan commission uh meeting on this and and if I'm correct I guess I do have a question if um what is the rear setback that we would have potentially required for a structure a t a 10 foot um setback for a a structure what we were applying in this instance was that it was similar to a pool so we were applying a five foot set whether it was five or 10 foot in it could have still been this size correct structure or not and and potentially had an impact on views if that is the case and and wha
t I see is and I agree with the Planning Commission trying to clean up this discussion is very important because we're taking a lot of time and energy from a lot of folks to decide structure no structure really the debate is at the HOA because we've had evidence produced here that says maybe the plans that were submitted weren't actually what was approved and so the debate to me is within the HOA as to whether it was approved or not or people were misled or not but um I'm I'm clear as clear as I
can be that this is not a structure and and would tend to lean with what the Planning Commission did on this um I do think we need to clean up that language to be more clear but that's that's where I lean okay so um my questions are what kind of a structure or when somebody comes to you they want to build something how do you determine whether they're going to be requiring a building permit yeah chair Jones so glad to answer the question again Tim Wagner so we again refer to the building code o
r the plumbing or mechanical electrical codes and each of those have distinct um criteria in there what requires a building permit Plumbing mechanical or electrical permit in this this case if I were to look at the building code there are sections that are exempt from permits um let's flip to that really quick for you and so under building it just says uh work exempt for permit so in it's exclusionary so whether or not if if it's not listed here then a permit would apply so one story detached ac
cessory structures uses twool and storage sheds playhouses and similar uses provided the floor a does not exceed 120 square ft fences not over 7 feet in height boil dcks retaining walls that are not over 4 feet and a height measured from the bottom of the footing and I won't read the entire but it give you enough to understand what it says water tank supported directly on the on grade if capacity is not greater than 5,000 gallons sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 in above adjacent grade p
ainting papering tiling carpeting cabinets countertops and similar finishes temporary Motion Picture television and theater stages preab prefabricated swimming pools accessory to an R3 meaning a residence not a public prefabricated pool uh as long as the water is not greater than 24 in deep uh shade cloth structures constructed for nursery or agricultural purposes swings and other playground equipments window awnings for R3 residences non-fixed movable fixtures like cases racks counters and so f
orth otherwise what we would look to is what type of occupancy and that's what the building bu would be used for the structure would be used for and that's what we would identify whether it's a a retail space we're doing sales add up that the public has has access to it whether it's a residence um whether it's a manufacturing storage building uh but as you can see here there aren't exclusions for occupancy types it's only for these specific uses that may be found uh associated with those occupan
cy types okay um I know we've been working with this issue my district and my uh Chief of Staff since the very very very very beginning of this whole thing and there was some kind of fishy conduct going between the um Mr Simpson and our members at the counter at the Planning Commission I mean at the planning at the planning department and so I asked that because I don't hear anything in there that gives exception this is a very long structure but the thing that concerns me is it houses pool equi
pment you don't have anything on there that gives that an exception exception so wouldn't that need a wouldn't that need a building permit it and the depth too the concern that I have is that we don't take into consideration the depth because you're describing if it's the height and the width and that's that is a wall or a fence if we don't take into consideration the depth then how can we consider whether it's a wall or a structure I mean it's it's clearly not off fence those very good question
s um so the building codes really based upon risk and safety right and so one of the things that uh we we're trained when uh learning how to administer the building code is to not Venture off into um nonrisk areas and so what I mean by that is many times folks build things uh personally around their property um that we do not issue building permits for um they're not they're not at risk they're again they might fall under if it was a if it was a vertical structure under the 120 sare ft that we w
ould deem would not require permit uh so what you describe I mean my interpretation of that would be if somebody built a uh 8 by8 or even a 10x10 vertical structure that H housed pump equipment in it we would still not require a building permit for that um in this case even how I uh kind of was able to view a little the construction here it looked like the the walls were constructed independent and just left as kind of a slot if you will where the pump house was um so you know my interpretation
of this would be an 8 by8 or whatever size area that would be would not require a building permit to house pump equipment like that uh in reference to the wall uh massing um that's another very good question uh although here we don't see anything that talks about massing it just says fence is not over 7 feet in height um and so while we don't have I'm not familiar with although if I really think about it maybe I am uh we have in subdivisions and many other communities uh 7 foot or 6t masonry wal
ls that are built of sound barriers Incorporated in those are plant and other type of features uh it would get pretty complicated for us to start um considering that wall sound barrier wall with Landscaping that might have the subdivisions name on it as being a structure that would then have to meet setbacks and a variety of of other things so um that's a very good question although at this point my uh my interpretation of the code simply would be that there isn't a massing requirement to the fe
nces okay uh now it is something that your board could direct staff and we could come back and amend the fence section to say if a fence were to have a um width dimension greater than whatever your board might like uh then we could certainly add something to that to preclude uh things that start to look like a structure but are really used in a fashion of a screening I agree with that because um for me a fence is this is associated with the pond and the waterfall it's for me it's a water feature
it's not a wall and a and a pond independent of each other hence the electrical and the lighting for the water pump and lighting um so your exception set a fence for me this is not a fence so you know we're we're struggling with this if it was determined by the county staff that it was a structure and it was within your purview to determine that it was a structure rure um we don't have to in this instance pay attention to what the Planning Commission said because we're reviewing this to noo so
see where I'm struggling with this thing I do I do one of the one of the kind of slippery slopes here is that we have a lot of existing built um objects I will say that are out there today right and and many of those might look and feel like like what we're talking about today um now this has some sensitivities because of proximity on the property and and several other things and so we just want to caution about trying to constrain similar features like this uh because they are pretty widespread
across the county now at many entering ways to subdivisions and even in our recent review of some of our pretty nice homes in Granite Bay have very unique water features in their entrance way of their Drive driveways um that have power run to them and have walls and water yeah um so we'd have to be pretty crafty you know for me I just have to be careful about modifying the building code in a way as opposed to maybe there's other Provisions like in the zoning ordinance where an interpretation mi
ght be let more appropriately than in the building code but I leave that leave that to council so my other question would be um can we make the findings to Grant a variance right I think based on our Planning Commission report staff was not recommending that the variance findings uh could be met and so that would continue to be our position if you headed down that route that the variance findings could not be met so we could not make the findings to Grant a variance again if that's the route tha
t you had is determining that it's a structure okay well even at that um in the structural setback standards that apply to all structures we're saying it's a structure and not a I mean the note says any man-made artifact which is not categorized as a structure in this definition and is less than the requirements 120 ft square feet and um is subject to determination by the planning director as to whether it needs to meet setback requirements so that is something we can look to you for correct I t
hink as is that would have been a decision that would have been within my purview at the at the time or my predecessor's purview at the time um however now as this item has moved on to the Planning Commission a decision has been made and now is in front of the board as a denovo action it would be um um appropriate for the board to make that determination okay so denovo means we don't have to pay attention to the planning commission's decision corre so therefore that's what I'm I'm put putting fo
rward to us now even though it was not categorized as a structure all HOAs have setback requirements for anything but a fence you build a fence on the property line um in all HOAs when you live on the Water Edge you have heightened requirements as to how you're you take care of your your property and how you build things and um I think that there was a complete disregard for the HOA I know the HOA has setbacks we as a county also have setbacks so I think that the fact that that this person built
without inquiring as to whether they were required to have a a setback that again we're going for you know uh forgiveness instead of permission when the gentleman had been in and out of the the planning commission's counter asking these questions for months and months and then found out that the county said well if you're not going to bring electric or power to it then you don't need need a permit and then he said oh no no no I'm not going to have electric or power and then he turns around and
he puts Electric in power he was always intent to do that and so I don't think that we were ever uh paid attention to or listened to the the gentleman just found out what he had to say to circumvent what our rules were it it appeared to be that way and I only know that because we dealt with this thing like I said from day one and we even had the Mr Simpson and his wife over to our office we met with them we met with them we met with County we went to gr links to help uh this person get his proje
ct done the way he wanted it done but with less than honest information so I would say that uh we should um see if we can make the findings if we can't make the findings which you've already said we can't make the findings to Grant a variance then he should be required a setback just like anybody else would be because it's not offense it houses pool equipment so it's and in order for him to access the pool equipment he has to go on the HOA property he cannot even access his pool equipment from h
is own property well Madam chair I don't disagree I mean this is why I said I think we need to tighten up what is the structure and what isn't but there are many many many properties in my district with large walls with power with for lighting for water features for Planters and so I can see the slippery slope I I do think there's an issue here between the HOA it sounds as if there might be an issue between the property owner and the HOA on their guidelines but from the county if we're going to
start saying every one of these is a structure or we need to work on our code to make sure it's very clear I mean that's clear to me right well yes because look at we're we're all debating and I think the Planning Commission had a very lengthy discussion on is this a structure or not and right and it was a split vote and and that you know is quite a challenge but I I'm I'm struggling with the County's role here versus the hoa's role and I um from a practical standpoint if we're if our staff here
is saying we can make the decision that this is not a structure then I'm going to you know air on that side but I understand your position and certainly understand both sides of this and see the debate right well it did become a county issue a long time ago um well I like I said it says right here that even even though it's not characterized as a structure so I I'm not even basing it on whether it's a structure or it isn't and and the uh Planning Commission board was short to people so we can't
really even be certain if that would have been the decision of the full board not that it matters here yes supervis I don't want to if you still have some okay no I'm fine thank you um well I asked yesterday I asked staff for the definition of a fence and a wall to to help and so the definition of a solid fence means a barrier constructed of wood or other materials which form an opaque screen which it obviously does um and the definition of a wall is um a barrier fence constructed of concrete s
tone brick tile or similar type solid material which I think it also qualifies under and then reading the definition of a structure any man-made artifact that's constructed or erected or built I think we all could recite this by heart probably uh any artifact that requires a building permit um I think to me you know when I came into this and initially thought about it and looked at it I was like oh that's a structure no doubt to me but really when I dig down to the actual definition and just rem
ove my own personal definition of what I would again looking at it it looks like a structure to me but looking at the actual legal definition I would have to say that it can qualify as a fence or a wall and not a structure since it didn't require a building permit and I do know the note that you're mentioning that that could be a determination but knowing that there's a recommendation from the Planning Commission that also fell on that side um I would say I will I would lean towards supporting t
he Planning Commission decision because of that and I'll chime in if I may um I hear your point and I appreciate that point and as I look at I I drove up there as well and from the outside it looks like a wall right if you are facing U from the lake it looks like a wall it only may look like a structure from Mr simpsons's property but it looks like a wall um and this is really frustrating to be in between residents right he said she said we don't know uh we're only looking at what's in front of
us and I understand that if the power is taken away it's a wall and if you move the if you move the wall which is approved by the HOA back another 5T it's still a wall and it's allowed by the HOA which they allowed it and so I'm at the place where I would um prefer to just uphold the planning commission's um decision so I'll I'll make a motion wait a anyway unless there's any other conversation I see Mr Holmes is light on so I'll wait just so everybody's aware we have to first close the public h
earing before there's a motion so I won't um yes um but I think Mr did you have other than a motion any comments yeah I just want to make a motion and I guess I'll reframe my no we have to wait on the motion I'm not making well we have to we have to have rebuttal we have we're not done yet uh making comments okay comments good no motion I have a question okay may I proceed you certain me I forgot so let me reframe my question if the County Board of Supervisors up holds the planning commission's
determination what happens next if you were to uphold the planning commission's determination then the the object um can stay in place with its electrical connection okay thank you okay so now I need to um close the public hearing and then allow the appellant if uh if you want to uh make a rebuttal we'll we'll allow you 5 minutes to make a rebuttal and make sure your microphone is on there just touch the it's on now oh now it's off it'll be green it'll turn green when you're on okay so my name i
s Shannon Moore uh my wife and I we live at 860 West Hidden Lakes um in Granite Bay can you find him oh okay sorry um yeah yeah I think maybe uh that hopefully that'll pop up and we can take a look at it but on just one clarification from Mr milburn's comment about 6x8 was never ever mentioned if they go back and look at a June 9th email from Mr Simpson it's there and then it follows the attorney opinion and it's pretty consistent 6 by8 so you know that's where that goes uh the 7 by 27 was never
approved and I think when Mr rosasco walked up on that thing it didn't look like a wall it looked like a structure and there was pool equipment in there full-on pool equipment on the zero property line and that puts the HOA at risk when you have somebody there um so I I just think and also the height we're looking at the height back on the HOA side is 7 ft if we go to the sub concrete and Tim you mentioned I think 7 feet if you go to the bottom of the footing we might be over 7 feet if we dig d
ig in the dirt there that might be something you know that might change that 7 ft um and what do I have the block right the planning just as far as the planning department goes they made the determination they were very consistent that this is a structure there was no wavering they knew exactly what they were looking looking at and it may be things within Granite Bay that you see these things but this was pretty clear what George after 26 years he knew that that was a Structure there was no ques
tion about it on a zero property line you might have the other structures in a driveway and there's a fountain but that driveway is probably set back a little bit I don't know if they put it on the curb um so I think it's right on the zero property line I only have two pieces to rebut um when the Carlson got up uh I wanted to chuckle when she inferred that Shannon is on the board now he's the finance person on the board and was he using his position on the board for this appeal I take great offe
nse at that um and I chuckled because Mr Simpson in his role as president of the board at the homeowners uh Association expense had a legal document made which he then altered significantly and again the homeowners association expense um distributed this to every homeowner under his title as HOA president Shannon has never utilized his position on the board and I really take offense to that to support move forward um this appeal in fact Mr Simpson even called the HOA management company to ask ho
w has Shannon used the HOA management company to further this appeal they said he hasn't he's never contacted us we are doing this as Citizens and residents of pler County as residents of Hidden Lakes states and I am offended that it would be inferred that he would use his position on the board to further this appeal can we not have a position on the board and also be an individual homeowner Mr Simpson should have dis disseminated this information as a private homeowner on his project not presid
ent of the board the other piece that I want to make was the point that the gentleman on the far left I believe is legal council that um he said you can indeed as a board because we're getting all mucker up in definition of a structure you as board members can find that this indeed is not a structure but still require a very setback that removes that litigation possibility from the homeowners because again access to that pump which is not going away if he takes that away it does became become a
wall he'd have to take both the electrical and the pump away in order to fit that on a zero lot line so you can find that it is not a structure but still require a variance and that is what we ask you to do a setback requirement thank you thank you for that does the county staff have any more any more comments no okay thank you well I guess it's back to the board we will need individual motions on this can can the uh okay so we'll need individual motions for each item okay the first was we condu
cted a public hearing uh the second one is to deny the appeal filed by Shannon and Mary Moore and the third is to uphold the planning commission's November 9 2023 decision that the water feature does not meet the definition of a structure and a structural setback is not required so the setback variance request is not applicable and the fourth is to determine the actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality act pursuant to section 15270 of the SQL guidelines l blah blah blah say a
ll the words to to clarify for the record what the chair has just read is if the board wishes to support staff recommendation and uphold what the Planning Commission determined um as Clayton has mentioned there are other options so I'm going to move approval of the item is listed and just read by chair Jones and if you want I can start with deny the appeal filed by Shannon Mary Moore I'll start there I make that a motion I'll second do we need a roll call or just a okay roll call Landon yes Holm
es yes Guston yes Gore yes Jones I will abstain because of my personal um involvement in this thing since the getg go then I'll move to uphold the planning commission's November 9th 23 decision that the water feature does not meet the definition of the structure and a structural setback is not requir so the setback variance requested is not applicable I'll second Holmes Guston I Gore I Landon yes Jones abstain for the same reason and then the fourth is to make a motion to determine the the actio
ns are exempt from squ dot dot dot second gson yes Gore yes Landon yes Holmes yes Jones yes okay so I think we've now ready for a closed session I'm just wondering um the Planning Commission did have a mo did direct staff to um take back and look at this issue of structure and what it is determined and I don't know if we need a motion or just a knot of our heads that we agree with the commission that yes not as good yeah it would be great if you could tighten that up and uh take into considerati
on I think that we need to take into consideration the depth of something because a fence or a wall I should say a fence especially since they equated it to a fence so much building it on the Zero lot line um maybe a fence shouldn't be 3 feet deep you could actually put a grill on top of that yeah we'll we'll do when we when we brought forward our long range work program and a tuneup package to the zoning ordinance it was included in that so that would be great thank you so much okay we are goin
g to adjourn now to close session the board will adjourn to close session to consider two items of anticipated litigation and one item of public employment okay for all of you we'll be back at 2 o'clock e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e for e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e for e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e for e e e e for e e e e e for e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e for e for e for e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
e for e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e hello ladies and Gentlemen Just want to let you all know that we have more chairs coming um so we're going to try to get most of you seated um sorry for the delay um but we will be will be beginning here very shortly e e e e for e e e e e e e e e e e e good afternoon everyone we are going to uh reconvene our board meeting um we will be moving on I need to report Out close session first uh the board meant in close session to consider two items of
anticipated litigation uh in both uh the board heard a report in one potential case the board authorized settlement in the second potential case no action was requested or taken the board started the uh public employment interviews and they have continued this until after this particular item is done we'll go back to close session thank you okay we're going to be moving on to item five um item five is the second workshop on the County's housing element program one residential land inventory reo
ne program first we will hear a report from the planning staff then I will ask for questions and comments from the board members afterwards I will open up public comment each member of the public will be given 3 minutes to comment in order to provide the opportunity for each member of the public to speak I ask that you adhere to the three-minute rule please don't repeat what has already been been said if you have questions of Staff please direct those questions to the board and I will ask planni
ng to respond after the public comment is completed after all members of the public have had the opportunity to speak I will close the public comment and ask planning to respond to questions asked by the public then I will ask for questions and comments from the board members then the board will consider staff's recommendation recommended actions um please all of you if you have chairs or I think we have do we have more chairs coming um we'll have more chairs coming but those of you who have bro
ught your own chairs or whatever just make sure you don't block the aisles okay so Chris Mr poui okay good afternoon chair Jones board members Chris bahuli plaster County planning director uh the purpose of today's item is to present staff's recommendations for the housing reone program in compliance with the plaster County Housing element today's presentation is a followup to a November 27th board Workshop where the rezone program was discussed contemplated and Direction provided by the board s
ince then our team has worked to prepare a package of recommendations for the board's consideration which include finalizing the rezone program property list directing staff to submit the list and draft housing element Amendment draft a housing element Amendment uh to the state and initiating amendments to the sunset area plan to encourage future Workforce housing opportunities on county-owned properties these steps aim to ensure the timely completion of programs outlined in the housing element
thereby maintaining our state certification I'll acknowledge that getting to this point has been a challenge uh we've worked on developing a program and list of properties based on guidelines and feedback from the state and along the way engaged property owners and the community complicating matters is our Collective desire to only include Property Owners willing to rezone voluntarily avoiding involuntary rezoning um now I should note at the top of our presentation uh there have been a few chang
es to the staff proposed rezone list since the publication of the package uh there are changes to uh attachment a uh those changes have been delivered to the board members they are also um outside of our room here for members of the public that would like to get a copy as well as on the table U to my right uh over here uh so anyone that wants to have a copy of the revised staff proposal uh please please do grab grab a copy um these changes are the result of further communication with property ow
ners including staff requesting owners sign an acknowledgement indicating their desire to participate in the rezone program you will hear more about the revision later in the presentation but the upshot is that of the 22 sites included in the staff proposal we have received confirmation from 62 or I'm sorry 16 sites representing 98.9% of the shortfall goal additionally we have received confirmation from Property Owners on the other lists included in your report package representing over 400 unit
s of capacity therefore despite these changes we are presenting a proposal with options for the board to form a final rezone list through voluntary uh voluntary participation so with today's presentation uh it'll be led by myself and by Cali keninger Cecil senior planner and she's been uh the lead uh planner working on this rezone effort uh we know that this is likely to be a uh long hearing and we want to ensure that there's ample time for board questions public testimony and deliberations we n
oted that there were roughly 200 uh public comment letters received um uh prior to the meeting so there is considerable interest as demonstrated by the number of people in this room today um however over the course of the past few months there has been significant confusion and misinformation surrounding the program so we will spend some time uh providing background to explain how we reached this point of needing a rezone program and how the list of properties was developed I'll also speak to th
e draft residential multifamily 30 designation including the uses that are permitted and restricted in the district and then C will present the proposed rezone list discuss the process to amend the housing element and we'll conclude by uh going over next steps to meet the miday 2024 statutory deadline for the conclusion of the program so as I mentioned I'm going to start with uh the background on how we arrived at the program and the the proposed rezone list back in 2017 the board approved an in
itial housing work plan aimed at implementing the County's uh strategic housing goals in 2019 a housing strategy and development plan was completed by a Consulting team working with County staff this plan provided numerous recommendations that were eventually incorporated into the housing element importantly the plan included a land Supply assessment which reviewed existing inventory of both publicly owned land as well as of uh vacant and under utiliz sites that would be appropriate for multif f
amily use the plan included an evaluation tool which was used to rank all of these properties and a total of 104 sites were identified as being potentially appropriate for multifam housing many of those sites that were identified through that process found their way into the housing element so while the um County was developing that 2019 plan the state was working to approve the 6 County Regional Housing needs assessment or Arena the arena is a major component of housing element updates and incl
udes a Quantified amount of housing that jurisdictions including the county must plan for during the 8-year housing element cycle the first step in the process is that the state through the Housing and Community Development Department or hcd provides Regional Council of councils of government in our case seog uh with the regional or with the arena determination and then seog applies a methodology to all of the jurisdictions within its plan area this was completed in uh March of 2020 by the seog
board of directors and it's important to know that all jurisdictions within the seog region have their own Arena that has to be met the cities have their own um obligation as well as the counties so this this slide here comes directly from our housing element and includes the County's Reena numbers as provided by seog and they are broken down by income so the arena is divided into four income categories very low and low which makes up our lower income obligation and then moderate and above uh ab
ove moderate the County's total housing need that we must plan for over that 8-year cycle is nearly 8,000 units with the total lower income allocation of 349 units this table also comes from our housing element and demonstrates the County's capacity to AC um to accommodate those um housing units that are planned for with the Reena as shown the county has an excess of land available to accommodate projected growth at the moderate and above moderate income levels however there was a shortfall of c
apacity at the lower income levels of 1100 7 units this shortfall is derived from taking the total lower income obligation and netting out approved and planned projects so anticipated development in the specific plans which as you can see on the slide amounts to about 1,200 units that were planned in the specific plans at those lower income units development of the government center so where we stand now of over 400 units and an aggressive approach with accessory dwelling units so we've indicate
d that we will produce over 300 or 390 units over that 8year 8year cycle so uh despite all of those anticipated developments um which account for about 23s of what our Arena um uh obligation are at those lower income uh requirement levels there was still a shortfall identified in our housing element so to address this shortfall uh housing element program one or what I'll refer to uh during the rest of the presentation is H1 uh was included in that housing element H1 requires that the county rezo
ne Pro uh properties through an overlay Zone by May 15th 2024 and that the rezone will result in a minimum of 20 units per acre and a maximum of 30 units per acre on those subject sites uh in the approved housing element the residential land inventory is included as appendix a uh this inventory encompasses all Sites earmarked to meet the County's Arena across all income levels not just the lower income levels notably it identified 32 candidate sites for rezoning as outlined in the previous housi
ng strategy report so initially staff was proposing to move forward with uh H1 however a court decision in early 2023 ruled that overlay zones as were not viable for fulfilling lower income Rena requirements as a result the county shifted towards a multif family housing rezone approach necess uh necessitating an amendment to our housing element we Revisited the housing strategy and identified additional properties uh for potential rezoning uh we also heard from a handful of property owners that
wanted to be included in a future rezone effort and that resulted in an updated list from 32 to 74 properties during the evaluation process staff assessed properties based on state criteria uh which stipulates that uh sizes ranging from roughly a half acre to 10 acres should be considered uh with some exceptions preference was given to vacant or underutilized sites with access to infrastructure additionally sites were reviewed using a fair housing tool related to segregation and access to opport
unity um staff also considered restrictions imposed by airport overflight zones as well as good planning practices such as proximity to Services grocery stores and uh eventual Transit so the graph uh graphic on this slide illustrates the evolution of the sites under consideration for the rezone program uh as I noted initially we identified 32 sites as identified in the housing element which was approved in 2021 uh the list expanded to 74 properties which was later adjusted due to uh to 72 proper
ties uh due to environmental constraints following initial property owner feedback we recommended for further consideration of 45 properties uh prioritizing voluntary participation but also including property owners where we hadn't yet heard from them so that's what was uh brought forward to the board in November of 2023 uh based on the direction from the board at that hearing and I'll talk a little bit more about the 20 uh the November meeting and the uh feedback from the board that was reduced
to 202 uh 22 properties uh and lastly as I mentioned uh at the top of the presentation the number has been further refined to 16 sites total ing 126 units of capacity so the table on this slide illustrates a revised Reena capacity shortfall it's been adjusted from 117 units to 129 units and this adjustment is a result of a decrease in the number of units attributed to approved and planned projects therefore the minimum number of units that we will need to meet with the Capac capacity effort is
12219 sorry is there a question okay so the adjustment uh details are outlined on this slide indicating uh indicating anticipated reductions in several planned affordable housing projects in the Tahoe area I should mention that the um the change to the schafers meal project is because it actually was counted in the pre housing element and that's why we had to make an adjustment adjustment here um alongside an increase in anticipated units with the saber city project in the Dry Creek area so as I
previously mentioned uh our housing element in state law mandate the completion of the rezone program by May 15th it's important to note that the state does allow for a limited option for a one-year EX extension under very specific conditions to qualify for an extension a jurisdiction must have uh rezoned 75% of the shortfall properties and the governing board must adopt a resolution demonstrating evidence that circumstances outside of your control um necessitated the need for an extension ther
e were some infrastructure conflicts or constraints um due to regulations or financial factors and lastly that the program would require a major revision to the general plan to be accomplished uh failure to complete the rezone program by May 15th would likely prompt action from the state we've seen this across the state where they have taken proactive action against jurisdictions that have not complied uh that failure to comply could lead to various enforcement actions including legal action Fin
ancial penalties loss of permit Authority uh the Builder remedy which we've talked about before and loss of local permit review not saying that they would do all of those things but those are options that are available to the state um uh for non non-compliance um it's important to further provide some context on the state's non net L loss law as it impacts our discussion today about the number of properties to be conclud included and a potential back stop uh to to the number of properties so acc
ording to government uh the state government code jurisdictions are mandated to uphold uh sufficient capacity on our inventory over that 8-year um 8-year housing element cycle uh should a site on the list be developed uh with a non-residential use or market rate development uh the county must show that the inventory maintains adequate capacity um or if we can't show that there's adequate capacity that we have to rezone additional properties and include them on our uh residential land inventory w
ithin 180 days um hence the state recommends including a buffer of about 15 to 30% in the inventory to accommodate for such scenarios that may arise uh as we discussed the reone list and additional properties it'll be important for us to keep uh the no net loss process uh in mind I'm going to come back to that slide in a in a moment but I'm going to start with this one here the uh rn30 um so as I noted at the beginning of the uh presentation staff have filled it a number of emails and calls expr
essing concern and confusion about the program so I wanted to use these next two slides to uh provide some information about the proposed uh rm30 designation I also wanted to note that the rezone program does not mandate uh that any of the properties be used for homeless housing or very lowincome apartments in fact with the exception of a pre-application that's been submitted for two of the sites on uh hopeway there are no applications that have been filed for any of the other sites that are inc
luded in the uh in the rezone list having said that uh eventual development projects U will be subject to the County's inclusion Ary housing ordinance um and that states that projects with 99 or fewer units um must pay an inlo fee while projects that are 100 units or greater must allocate a minimum of 10% of the units to be affordable uh regarding the rm30 district it's important to clear up some misunderstandings uh one property owners are not precluded from subdividing their properties provide
d that they meet development standards and comply with uh the California Environmental Quality act the existing uses that are on the properties that would be rezoned would be able to be uh would be permitted to remain as legal non-conforming uses and although the zoning designation does not in and of itself create some Financial incentive for prospective developers we do intend to work with our County Housing team to incentivize and promote these sites for Workforce housing opportunities uh what
the rm30 designation does do is it does uh allow for multif family development with zoning clearance only um or uh potentially through a design uh review agreement subject to recently approved multifamily and mixed juice design guidelines uh it does allow for mixed juuse live work cluster lot development um housing and movable tiny home communities multif family residential and senior housing developments these types of projects uh uh at the 20 to 30 units per acre are similar in scale to multi
f family developments um such as the one that's across the street from us here the Mercy Housing Development which falls in that 20 to 30 unit range uh there are also multiple examples throughout the Sacramento region of higher density um single family uh lot development in a cluster format uh that would also fall in this 20 to 30 range uh including some of the pictures that are here that include town homes and higher uh density as I said small lot single family uh development um it does not all
ow for high-rise development or skyscraper development um as has been as has been mentioned uh there are also I should note that there are uh there are non-residential units or uses I should say allowed in the district that would require a discretionary use permit um be approved prior to proceeding so I'm going to go back to the workshop um let's see so moving on to the board Workshop held on November 27th uh staff presented three options at that meeting for the board's consideration uh again at
that meeting we were emphasizing uh cooperation with willing Property Owners uh we received over 36 comments I believe at the uh meeting addressing concerns regarding the concentration of sites uh particularly in penin North Auburn and Granite Bay um as well as potential impacts on property values crime rates uh the rural character of neighborhoods uh and the public notification adequacy in in addition to other uh concerns that were brought up so following deliberations the board provided speci
fic direction to staff at that meeting uh to return with a proposal featuring a very small or negligible uh buffer uh fewer sites in pinin and there was a specific call out for a couple of sites including the Edgewood Road um um sites in North Auburn and the Florence Lane property as uh sites that uh should be removed from consideration uh there were comment about exploring other programs to boost affordable unit production including accessory dwelling units and investigation of rezoning um othe
r county-owned properties uh and then lastly again there was a uh there was over um staff believes overwhelming sentiment to work with willing Property Owners uh only and not uh be in a situation of of uh forced Reon so I'll move on to the last slide that all be presenting before I hand it over to cie um so as I mentioned again at the at the beginning uh the staff proposal has been revised to reflect recent Communications and commitments from Property Owners um as it stands The Proposal includes
16 sites from all districts reflecting 126 units of capacity which is just 13 units short from our minimum requirement to ensure compliance with our housing element requirement uh the proposal includes nine sites that were previously included in the adopted 2021 housing element and seven new additions which are all um within the dry creek and Dr and Granite Bay communities those new addition sites the seven addition addition sites this proposal reflects the feedback re received from the Novembe
r Workshop uh including working with willing owners on uh willing owners only removal of the suggested sites that came up during that workshop and at this point um no buffer right we're 13 um 13 units short um I'd also like to highlight and CI will go into more detail that staff has re-evaluated County own sites uh with input from the CEO's office and has an action item in this package to initiate amendments in the sunset area plan for a site on Cincinnati Avenue if approved the site could be re
zoned in the near future uh following review environmental analysis and advisory reviews and be available for inclusion in the housing element should it be needed through an additional Amendment at a later date uh with that I'll turn the Reigns over to C to walk through the rest of the presentation um and then we'll get going with questions thank you director Puli good afternoon supervisors my name is Cali kinger Cecil senior planner with the planning Services Division I thank you for your time
today as we go through the uh proposed site list all right so on uh the table we have here we have the units that were identified in the housing element compared with the units that are identified on the proposed staff list so I'm going to walk through this uh slowly so that we all understand what is going on here so this sorry new pointer okay this column here is the existing units that were identified in the housing element there were 406 units identified in the AUB Bowman community plan more
specifically those units were identified within the plaster County Government Center here there was 1,190 units identified in the specific plans there were initially 206 units identified on the approved and planned list and as Mr Puli pointed out that has been adjusted down to 94 units 390 units in the housing element are accounted for adus and 110 units are accounted for in the housing element for mobile homes and manufactured homes with the uh units on the staff proposed list which sorry is th
is list here um that brings the community plan percentage of the shortfall which again is 3,49 units to 47.3% specific plans account for 35% of the Arena approved and planned projects account for 2.7% adus account for 11.4% and mobile homes and manufactured homes account for 3.2% as mentioned earlier the shortfall is obtained by sub subtracting the residential capacity identified in the housing element from the Reena so that would be the Rena 3,49 subtracting 2,190 which were the units identifie
d in the housing element which gives us our shortfall of 1,219 units as noted we are 13 units below our Reena obligation but we do have a pathway to get to our unit total here we have the housing element land inventory and candidate reson sites broken down by District uh we wanted to show what was already identified in the housing element in each and every supervisorial District as well as that information on the staff proposed list the housing element identified 1,190 units in the specific plan
s and that accounts breaks down to 753 units in District 1 437 units in District District 2 uh and as I noted on the slide previous there were 406 units identified in the AUB Bowman community plan and those units are here on the government center there were no lower income units identified in districts three or four in the housing element we've received a lot of feedback from the community about trying to have um an equal amount of sites in each district and what this uh third column here is sho
wing is the staff proposed list as it's broken down by the districts so in District One our list has 284 units in District Two we have just one site yielding approximately 16 units in District three 292 units in District 4 392 units in District 5 222 units the total unit breakdown by district is shown in the fourth column here and we do have the percentage here I do want to know um the numbers for for districts 1 and two um are incorrect and the correct percentage for District 1 is 30% and for d
istrict 2 133% um district one has the most sites followed by District 5 District Two and District Four and District three has the lowest percentage in addition to the staff proposed sites we have um other lists know in the staff report included with that list is or with those lists are the reone but not added to inventory list as well as the other sites list the reone but not added to the inventory list included properties that we either identified as wanting to rezone but needed additional um
amendments to accomplish the uh rm30 Zone District such as the Cincinnati Avenue properties which I will get into in a moment and it also include other sites that had substantial development on them and would require additional back and forth with the with the state in order to include them on the inventory so we have a list that's other sites but not added to the inventory However if those sites are developed with lower income units then we could count those on the inventory however because uh
since the staff report was published our site list has changed we have pulled in some of those other units on those other sites including site 74 on Bell Road I would like to note that the acreage is 15.8 Acres um but if you nut out the Stream area because there is some some environmental constraints potentially on the site then that results in a net building area of 11 acres and the reason why we have this information included is because um as I'll discuss later sites that are greater than 10 a
cres require additional analysis and programs in the housing element so that having said all of that is to say that the amount of units we are showing here is based on the potential net building area once you account for those environmental constraints I'd also like to note that we have received quite a bit of public feedback on these sites um we've received a lot of letters and calls uh specifically regarding opposition to the site I would note however um it does appear that much of that opposi
tion was generated from a flyer that was um handed out to the community that did include some blatant misin information um the other sites that staff is proposing that the board can pull from in order to meet Our obligation is site 53 on mil Pond Road this is a 1.9 Acre Site that would yield 38 units this is located near the Spring Hill Suite Estates hotel and then sites 71 and 72 on LinkedIn way and then also not included on this slide uh we also are proposing to include site 73 which is uh loc
ated at 920 Blitz Lane in Auburn which is just south of Edgewood Road that site is 10 acres and could also yield more than 13 units which again is that shortfall that we need to close still so next I'm going to go through each of the proposed sites in detail um these Maps I acknowledge are small but we do have maps at the very end of the presentation that show greater detail including location of amenities and things like sewer lines and hospitals stores Etc so in district one uh there are four
sites that are being proposed on our list and that includes sites 78 9 and 10 site 7 is 2.7 acres and is located north of Vineyard Road Site 8 is 6.9 acres and could yield 138 units and I don't think I mentioned the unit yield here um based on the minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre this site could yield 54 units sites 9 and 10 are located east of cooko Road these sites are 2.2 acres and 2.4 acres for a total acreage of 4.6 acres and could yield 92 units on this map we have sites that
I really don't like this pointer um so used to the laser pointer that we used to have uh so what this map is showing here are are sites that we're not recommending to move forward and um initially these sites 3 four and five we had included on the not recommended because we had not heard from the property owner uh however I did hear from the property owner on Friday and spoke with him today to clarify that he does not want to be included on the rone program the other unwilling property owners ar
e uh one and two and then site six is actually located in between site 3 and bra Lane I believe it's incorrectly shown on this map but that is another site that is not moving forward or recommended on our list in District 2 there were um initially two sites that that were included on our list um including number 12 uh sorry numbers 11 and 12 both of these sites are in Sheridan um site number 12 the property owner would like the existing commercial zoning to remain and on site 11 that property ow
ner is amenable to participating in the program sites zero and double Zer are the Cincinnati Avenue sites um I will talk to these sites a bit later but just for um a little bit of additional information these two sites total 26.4 Acres they are located just west of Highway 65 and are in the sunset area plan I will get I'll talk about these sites more and the Amendments that would be required in order to reson them and enable multif family residential development um the last thing I'd like to not
e about the site in Sheridan that we are um proposing is uh 0.8 acres and would yield 16 units here we have the maps for District 3 uh in District 3 sites 13 17 and 18 are included on the proposed list sites 17 and 18 are the location of uh a proposed project we do have a pre-application in for a project that would have 240 units and the adjacent property to the north is also on our proposed list that adjacent property to the north is 2.6 acres and could yield approximately 52 units the um prope
rties 14 15 and 16 on the map to the left those are also not included on staff's list um property 15 had a property owner who who did not want to participate and then I did hear from the property owner uh for sites 14 and 16 subsequent to publication of the report and he confirmed that he would also like his existing zoning to maintain to be maintained sorry so he's does not want to participate in the rezone program and we are not proposing these sites to be rezoned so again in District 3 we are
proposing to include sites 13 17 and 18 here we have the maps for District 4 um similar to the previous District Maps we have the maps that have the unwilling Property Owners or the sites not recommended for reone and then the proposed list the ones that we are not recommending move forward include sites um 19 20 21 22 27 28 20 and number 31 because those were not um they did not have property owners who wanted to parti participate in the program the ones that we are proposing to move forward i
n District 4 include um sites 23 25 26 and 29 site 23 is located on Sierra College Boulevard in Cavit stalman and that site is 2.3 acres and could yield 64 units Callie if I may sorry over here um the I've just been informed that the folks outside um aren't able to see the unless you magnify them with the pointer so if you can do that and then maybe um uh indicate the address as well thank you absolutely yes okay so site 23 is located in between Sarah college and cavitt stalman I don't recall th
e address off the top of my head but this is um located between those two roads that I mentioned and is 3.2 acres and could yield 64 units and we also have site 29 um this site is 4.8 acres and could yield 96 units and it's on the north side of Old Auburn Road it's uh just next to the plaster retirement residence project on the corner of Sarah College in Old Auburn and then over here uh we have site 25 which is moving forward um it is 1.7 acres and would yield 34 units we are also proposing site
26 which is 17 .6 Acres on the inventory we've noted it as 9.9 Acres um and yielding 198 units and we will be working with the Consultants to develop a program to address the sites that are larger than 10 acres site 24 weed final confirmation this morning that the property owner does not want to participate in the razon program and the map has not been updated but these are the uh the sites that we are proposing in District 4 so again that would be site 23 uh in between between Sarah college an
d cavat stalman site 29 on the north side of Old Auburn site 26 at the intersection of Auburn fulam Road and Fuller Drive and then site 25 with which is just North of the intersection of Auburn fulam and Eureka Road all right uh District Five we have um some changes to the map again because we've had changes since the um since the report was published the sites that we are proposing to move forward in District 5 include site 34 42 and 43 and 51 so I will use the handy magnifying glass site 34 is
located here its address is noted as Canal Street does not have a numerical address this site is 12.8 acres and on the inventory we have um included approximately 5.6 Acres there are some potential environmental considerations and with those netted out that's that's the approximate acreage uh on our inventory we show that 5.6 Acres would yield 112 units and again this is one of the sites that we will be working with the Consultants on to develop a program to address sites that are greater than
10 acres the other property we are looking at is sites 42 and 43 these are west of Highway 49 and uh adjacent to um Grey Eagle Lane these sites are uh they total 2.4 acres and could yield um 48 units the other site is uh site number 51 on plaz away this is uh just south of the um Brier patch and um Old Navy shopping center and this site could yield 36 units and is 1.8 Acres um and those are the four sites we have proposed right now so I mentioned a couple sides back that because we are short we
are are proposing four other sites that the board could could consider to include those sites are all in District 5 and they include site 74 South of Bell Road um that site is 15.8 Acres um I have 11 acres noted on slide number 21 as I mentioned uh 220 units and because this is a site that's greater than 10 acres this is a site we would be working with Consultants on to develop a program in our amended housing element uh we are also looking at site uh 53 which is um on milpond road and adjacent
to Spring Hill Suites this property is 1.9 acres and could yield 38 units and then we are also uh proposing to include forri your consideration sites 71 and 72 on Lincoln Way these sites total 7.4 Acres with a potential unit yield of 148 units and then lastly we have site 73 which is 10.1 Acres located at 920 blitzway in Auburn and this is uh the other site that would require a program because it is greater than 10 acres um and then over here we have sites that we are proposing to rezone but not
add to the inventory that includes sites 68 and 69 site 45 these sites are located uh just outside of trucky and south of the County Line PL Nevada counties to the north plaster to the South and then uh site 45 this is located in Alpine Meadows and then other sites that we are not proposing to move forward include 67 and 58 three sites on the east side of highway 49 these sites uh around the uh Foothills motel and um Foothill Bowl we have these sites around Ry and then the other sites that were
near Spring Hill Suites these sites have had unwilling Property Owners these are two properties in Applegate and then one property just south of the pler Nevada County Line in unincorporated trucky so we did get a lot of feedback from the community regarding County owned properties in a desire to include more county-owned properties in our inventory the plaster County Government Center does have 46 lower income units identified in the housing element and in addition we have also looked at the t
wo sites that I mentioned earlier on Cincinnati Avenue these sites total 26.4 acres and as currently zoned they do not permit multif family residential as a primary use in this current Zone District you can only do multif family residential if it's a secondary use to an industrial or commercial project so in order to allow multif family residential would require an amendment to the sunset area plan I'd also like to note that these sites were initially contemplated as the site for Acres of Hope a
nd that project did not Material materialize and the county facilities division has also explored developing the site as a solar field and that could result in a significant energy cost savings for the county the site would require costly remediation for residential development however staff recommends further exploring resoning the sites for high density residential if so directed staff would draft amendments to the sunset area plan and return to the board for further action as I noted uh just
a moment ago the sunsi area plan does not currently enable residential multif family use as a primary use in that zone District a key consideration of why this site has been included on that list that's called rezone but not add to inventory is because in order to amend the sunset area plan that will require additional time and we do not have that time before we have to achieve this deadline by May um if we were able to do so we we would unfortunately with that timing um because again in order t
o add these to the inventory they would have to be rezoned to the rm30 to be rezoned to the rm30 requires an amendment of the sunsi area plan there's just simply not time between now and may to achieve that um so Mr bahuli talked a bit about the uh residential multif family Zone district and the mixed use of multif family design manual I'd like to get into that a little bit fur talk a bit about what this manual would and would not allow um and what the rm30 Zone District would allow so the rm30
Zone district is going to or we are proposing that it establishes a minimum residential density of 20 dwelling units per acre and a maximum residential density of 30 dwelling units per acre um if a site is non vacant those sites could continue as non-conforming sites and if development is per proposed then that development would be subject to the allowable land use table of the proposed rm30 ordinance and just for reference the draft uh rm30 ordinance is included with the report as attachment B
the uh allowable uses in the multif family mixed use design guidelines are uh varied and they do include non-residential uses but the intent is to facilitate multif family residential development and accordingly the draft Zone ordinance includes includes multif family residential live work mixed use cluster lot development uh mobile home parks and senior housing with a zoning clearance this image is showing what different development patterns look like on one acre I thought that this would be he
lpful uh to visualize what this would be so for a um one dwelling unit per acre this is what it typically looks like uh when you have three dwelling units per acre this is a good visual rep representation um 10 dwelling units per acre here we have some um some duplexes and then here on the 20 dwelling units per acre we have a mix of um some small apartment buildings and additional duplexes so these are just different examples and visual representations of what different densities look like per a
cre so 30 oh I do not have a 30 um I should have included one though you're right um so here we also have some additional uh examples of what could be allowed here we have a photo of the mercy housing project which is just right over here across the street that project is 7 9 units on 3 acres which is roughly 26 units per acre and then we also have here in Auburn quartz Ridge which is 64 units on 6.2 Acres that one's a little less dense at just 10 units per acre but the design itself is a good e
xample of what would be permissible under the mixed use of multif family design guidelines uh an another example of what could be allowed is um Standalone row houses such as what is found in Metro Square in Sacramento this uh sub or this project includes 45 homes on 2.2 Acres which is uh it works out to 21 units per acre so again these are just some visual examples of what could be constructed under the new Zone District in compliance with the adopted design guidelines some examples of what woul
d not be allowed include um very very tall housing with little articulation no out door space um very Bland coloring these are examples of what would not be allowed on these sites um I'm not sure uh regarding public and property owner Outreach uh we have been doing quite a bit of Outreach since we initiated this in June that is when our first mail out to the property owners on the original list was sent out we also sent a letter out in July to notify property owners of the workshop and then we s
ent a second mail out to property owners in August and that was sent certified mail in an attempt to reach those owners that we had not heard from we've also discussed uh the program with not just the property owners but with members of the public who have called and inquired with staff we have also had meetings for the Project's notice of preparation which is a component of the Project's environmental impact report report process we also held a workshop on November 27th and we also received a n
otification from the property owners to install signs on their properties all told we've had 11 Mac meetings two workshops one town hall one e scoping meeting and we've also had one meeting at the South pler Fire District board so we've been uh meeting with people whoever would like to meet we have been um honoring that request and attempting to provide as much information and clarification as possible as noted earlier in the presentation we will need an um an amendment to the housing element th
is amendment is required to revise program H1 to adjust the change from an overlay to a rezone also to change the shortfall that is acknowledged in program H1 to include the sites on the inventory that were not previously identified and to include any other revisions as required by the state this amendment does require a 7-Day public review period so we will be posting that to our website so that the public can see what is being amended and provide comments accordingly and then once that 7-Day r
eview period is over then we send the amendment and any comments received to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for a 60-day review period so I've received a lot of calls about why we aren't limiting our proposed reone sites to the Incorporated cities and the reason for that is because every jurisdiction in California whether it's an incorporated city or or an unincorporated county has a Reena obligation and so these are just some of the Arena obligations of our um Incorpo
rated towns and cities the town of Lumis has 35 units assigned to it brockland has 3,543 and Roseville has 6 6,178 units so as I mentioned each jurisdiction has its own obligation and much like the the counties cannot use sites in Incorporated cities to count towards their Arena obligation nor can the cities use County Land outside of their city limits for their obligations in order to achieve this program we are requesting a general plan amendment that would establish the new land use to facili
tate the new Zone District a zoning text amendment to establish the new rm30 Zone district and amend the allowable land use tables we would also um ask for approval of a housing element amendment to revise the residential land inventory as I described and then reone the sites that are ultimately selected from their existing Zone districts to residential multif family and again that deadline that we have to achieve this is May 15th 2024 next steps include preparing the housing element Amendment a
nd posting that to our web page for the 7-Day public review period we also have a draft e meeting next Thursday February 22nd in this room we uh have released the draft e for public comment and that public comment closes March 18th at 5:00 p.m. we also have a Planning Commission hearing tent tentatively scheduled in April and then a final action uh in May for the adoption of the reone program and then returning shortly thereafter um more likely in in the fall with an amendment to the sunset area
plan so with that I will go over our requested actions we are asking your board to conduct and receive a presentation on our proposed rezone properties to comply with housing element program one to approve a list of the rezoned properties to direct staff to submit rezoned property list and related amendments to hcd and finally to direct staff to prepare amendments to the sunset area plan to enable multif family housing on count county-owned properties and bring amendments back to the board for
consideration with that I conclude my presentation and I'm available for any questions thank you okay does the board have questions at this time I do supervisor gu is thank you chair um C and it may be for Chris as well um what is the current zoning on the Bell Road site that site has three different Zone districts on it the Western portion is zoned residential agriculture with a 100,000 square foot minimum the central portion is zoned open space with an aircraft overflight Zone and then the ext
reme Eastern and Southeastern portion is zoned industrial park with a combining design Corridor okay and then on the handout we received today uh well I I have more to say on B road but I want to hear the Public's comments on that when that comes forward um on the uh site number 45 Alpine Meadows Road it is now crossed off um what happened there we have not heard back from that property owner they were initially on board we had um written correspondence from them and then we have not been able t
o get subsequent contact with that property owner because I do know they were interested in Workforce housing so I I hate to take up any site off the list if they are proceeding with that but I recognize if you haven't heard back I don't want to and supervisor gusen is is that property is not in um recommended to be included in the um in the inventory we can continue to outreach to that property owner um and if they are interested they could be a rezone but not add to the inventory list well I t
hink that's the challenge if we're short and we're thinking about adding other sites and here's one where we know there was some uh desire yeah uh to to develop that for Workforce housing I'd want to solidify that and be able to include that on our list because then we wouldn't impact other areas of the district as much because as you see I'm I'm very pleased that District Five has been reduced significantly but then all the added properties are in District Five so here's one in District Five th
at potentially could um help us get to the 13 that we're looking for as I understand it um and then the other the other question broadly for the community to understand is once the zoning once we determine and make final action um later this spring on rezoning the these properties if additional properties if we have interest and we can substitute properties what is the process to substitute a property in question one and question two is then can we take the zoning up zoning back down because I t
hink that's what two two separate um um processes um so the first as it relates to adding sites in and therefore taking sites off of the inventory it would be following the same process so we would have to open back up the housing element to add sites and that's where Cali was mentioning the um site on Cincinnati in order to add it to the inventory we will have to go back through this process with hcd um in Opening Our housing element and adding a site to the inventory um at that point we would
be able to request so we could make multiple changes at that that point we could since we're reopening it anyway we could the thing I mean I know none of us want want to put everybody through this pain again but if there's better sites I think yeah I think the other um the other thing just to note from a um full disclosure standpoint is that once you open back up your housing element um the state has an opportunity to relook at your entire housing element and should there be any policy Direction
changes that the state would like to make um in adding programs requesting additional analysis they are able to do that uh we've had numerous conversations with hcd and with our consultant staff about these changes that uh what hcd has indicated to us is that they are looking at this as a very limited review um to just add properties to the list um however it does open up a full review of our housing element in which case they could um ask for additional programs additional policies be added to
our housing element and every time that we do that um it it provides hcd another opportunity or the state another opportunity to make changes to our hous to push us to do things corre that they want us to do correct um and then I think on the uh on the rezone or a down zoning um I understand that these are willing participants but but their neighbors may not be willing participants in that change in zoning no surprise and so my concern is if we can find because Property Owners change people's d
esires change there may be great sites out there that we want to add and reduce some of those impacts uh in other areas I guess I'm struggling with how do we get there or do we can we we find kind of disincentives to those those opportunities so if we got to a point where the property was no longer on the inventory and there was a desire to rezone it or down Zone the property it is able to be done as long as there is a concurrent rezone that happens that up zones another property and I I believe
and Clayton or Karen can can correct me if I'm wrong but that that concurrency provision is that it has to happen at the same hearing um to upzone a property at the same time that a property is down zoned so concurrently and I understand the concern a property owner might have when we take away potential development rights but if we've met our needs in other ways we want that flexibility I think to protect our communities so okay those are my only questions at this point thank you okay other qu
estions yes supervisor G thank you I I just want to confirm what I heard so everybody else hears it in the room so whereas we had a staff report that had more sites identified um your team has crossed off a number of additional sites and reduced the sites to well 16 16 um so I think that that's I don't anticipate our board actually um adding the ones that have been taken off on this list so want to share that with all of you like if something I don't know the Master's Court one has been taken of
f we don't anticipate putting that one back on correct correct okay so I share that because there might be a number of you here looking at this list which might relieve you um of sitting here through this long hearing and I appreciate that we'll have some conversations about some of the other sites of course but um these were these are property owners that didn't want to utilize their proper property correct that's why they've been taken off or they never provided a response back we asked you kn
ow we would like to clarify our understanding that you would like to be on the list right mtip calls they just never got back to us last thing we want to do is for us a reasone when we do not have a willing property owner okay thank you very much anyone else yes supervisor Landon I have a couple questions um first I wanted to ask on the penin sites are all three of those included with the housing Tres Plasser site um or is that third number 13 is that separate from the HTP okay that's correct tw
o two properties make up the the Housing Trust plaster um site okay um and just so that I'm clear that HTP sites are already by right right yeah so those those two properties are zoned commercial they could um they could develop out with multif family residential um to go to the density that they are proposing they could utilize the state housing density bonus program um so the inclusion in this in this program um really benefits the county um in meeting those um in in in meeting our inventory r
equirements as well as should that project not proceed for some reason then it will um allow us to continue to count it okay and then I wanted to ask some clarification on school fees and fire fees um are are if a lowincome project were to come in are they exempt from school and fire fees only if they only if they were to get approval from the State Board of Equalization a welfare tax exemption it's my understanding in order to obtain this exemption the applicant has to be a nonprofit or a chch
and then there's other additional requirements that they have to adhere to um only those projects would be exempt from paying those kinds of fees okay um and then on the amending the sunset area plan I know right now you have kind of have it on the calendar for fall winter if that were something that started today how long would that would that process take six months or I think that's what we're at least internally that we've been talking about as as you all may recall when we came to the board
in January with our long range work program we had the sensit area plan amendments on there so we're starting to it'll be part of a a larger package of cleanups uh but we're thinking it's probably about six six to eight months out from now okay and then um I know I asked St you all this question um but thought maybe it would be good to ask here as well on whether it's possible to zon specifically for senior veteran housing what we've done in our proposed ordinance is initially as it is currentl
y required in other Zone districts senior housing projects were allowed with a conditional use permit the draft that is before you now has changed that to allow that sort of development with a zoning clearance however it's my understanding you would not be able to have a Zone District that is specific to an age restriction and I don't know if Clayton or Chris would like to clarify or add anything further but that is my understanding that you couldn't zone for a specific age group and is that sta
te law or is I think I I don't know if County Council may want to weigh in but I believe that limiting a Zone District to a very specific age group may be seen as discriminatory by the state I don't know that you could do that but if someone can weigh in or add I can speak to that there has I've seen some districts that have reson for senior housing specific specifically um yeah so I think it would be possible if there was an interest in it um um but yeah um it is not something our county has do
ne before thank you Clayton and thank you for that correction and I think if we were to head I think if we were to head down that right route we'd have to include that in our package to the state and have the state review it as part of our housing element Amendment uh knowing that they may have some concern about it from a fair housing standpoint okay um and then I was just going to mention um I did have a call at a meeting with hcd last week and I know I talked to you all about this and to ask
if we could get an extension and what by what means we could apply for an extension and they um were pretty clear Chris kind of T tou touched on the bullet points that there were uh three criteria one of three criteria that we would have to meet one was that uh we were not able to meet the deadline because of circumstances beyond our control um which I don't think applies in this situation there are infrastructure constraints due to regulation or financial factors which maybe I don't know I don'
t know if that applies to us or not yeah I I I would say that you know we we have had conversations about those three criteria we've talked with um the Consultants that we've been working with as part of the general Plan update uh they do not believe that we would qualify for any of those um those criteria to request an extension I think based on their experience and um and conversations with the state I don't think the state's aware of any extensions that have actually been granted um um for fo
r this purpose and again as a prerequisite we would have to get to a 75% rezone before requesting that one-year extension so in our case we'd have to get get up to you know 900 or so units through the rezone and then request an extension to just get to that extra 300 or so units and I just would like to touch on one of those points it hasn't been tested yet but that uh that one element unable to complete the rezoning because of action or inaction beyond the control of the local government I do t
hink there at least is room for an argument that potentially because this was originally going to be an overlay district and until that court case came out and that court case came out I believe uh midp part of last year while we were already enrolled in our three-year program that we may be able to point to that potentially this is untested but potentially as an as an instance that has delayed us in getting to this process because what was originally an overlay now has become a full rezone base
d on that court case um well I would be very interested in knowing if that's a possibility I think um just to kind of throw this out there before the public comment I obviously have not made a decision yet but I um really struggle with this topic from a philosophical perspective I fundamentally disagree with what the state is doing and um personally would feel more inclined to push the envelope a little bit um um I I really believe that I'm thankful that it has been whittel down to 16 property s
o I'm feeling much more comfortable than where I felt coming into the hearing um but I this issue to me is it really will change the landscape of pler County forever so it's not something that I want to rush into and it's even though we've been considering it since last summer we are rushed to make a decision just by the fact that we can't amend the sunset area plan first um and try and find other properties that might be more fitting even out in my district on that western side of pler County a
nd so um I'm very much struggling with being able to support something that really goes against like the core of who I am and what I believe is best for pler County um I again I think seeing this Whittle down I'll be very curious in the public comment to hear um how you all are feeling about this new revised list um I think it's much much better I wish we could take that Sunset area piece that's 200 plus units and pull that from some of these units and um again I personally would feel more comfo
rtable pushing it to pushing the envelope maybe even a little bit over the line just and you know if the state comes back at us well then you know we answer that at that moment but um I'm hesitant right now but still open um depending on public comment and obviously want to be supportive of Staff because I know you have put so much time into doing this and um so that's kind of just I just wanted to throw out that before public comment question thank you supervisor Gore thank you and I just have
a follow-up question which I heard you say something Chris which was if we were to rezone 75% we might be able to reduce some because I really do think that that Cincinnati site because it's County owned and closer to um development already existing development that that's a really um unique site that we could reone so is there a way to do 75% with the caveat that we're planning to look at resoning the sunset Industrial Area plan there there's a potential um you know under the provision that we
talked about um for requesting an extension you'd have to get to that 75% and then you'd have to make one of those requested or make one of those findings through a resolution um and see how that um I guess well then plays out and Yeah potentially we could use CL what um Clayton had suggested that we'd gone from an overlay to a rezone and we have a site and we're underway if we can demonstrate we're underway with rezoning the sunset area master plan amendments to rezone Cincinnati Avenue yeah th
at that could provide an option for you that that option would not provide obviously much of a back stop um so just pointing that out I think when we originally put the list together and and put a 1200 what's being um um laid out with this meeting is 126 is to get to that minimum number understanding that Cincinnati might provide you with a back stop because we um if we don't have any back stop it's likely that we would be going through this process again because we're only three years into our
eight-year housing cycle and with no back stop we might be back at this point of updating your housing element again finding additional properties that need to be res zoned so um just something to to keep in mind as we go through the process yeah and a couple of points on that U and Chris had mentioned it before hcd I think is not approved any extensions yet or one so this is this is relatively unchartered territory in terms of granting the extension and the extension only buys you one year so i
n May of 2025 you have to be at that 100% level if you were to go with the 75% for May 2024 so my question would be how long would it take to amend the sunset area plan yeah as I um as I mentioned I think we could be able could be in a position to amend it within 6 to8 months or so so we're basically not even in a position to amend it that's what you're saying right now we we've started the the Pro Staff has started the process of of updating it we have not yet included this property into that A
mendment package that we're working on but that's something that can be done and that that we have included in the recommendations for your action today so the fact that we have to um do amendments to our CET area plan and such would that not qualify as kind of extenuating circumstances because no uh no and I should have introduced myself earlier Clayton cook uh supervising Deputy County Council that that wouldn't count as one of the circumstances here because that is within the County's control
it would have to be a circumstance outside of the County's control to get the extension okay well I should also note for the Cincinnati Avenue site um there is a environmental impact report that's being prepared with all of these sites and it Cincinnati wasn't included in that so you would also have to look at the environmental impact analysis for that site as well right that's just that I know that the the count the Board of Supervisors recommended adding the Cincinnati two Parcels in the Nove
mber Workshop which was almost three months ago no just to just to clarify that the Cincinnati Pro the direction from the board at the November meeting was to eval other County owned properties the Cincinnati Avenue property came up after the November uh board Workshop okay okay so did did you look at other county-owned properties we we did we we met um we evaluated the list of properties that we previously had is part of that um uh housing inventory that I mentioned and then we worked with the
CEO's office and that's how that Cincinnati Avenue property came to light those were the only that was the only uh County owned proper properties that Rose to the occasion of being included in this that that's correct as I mentioned when we prepared the housing element back in 2021 there was an extensive review uh tearing off of that 2019 um assessment of properties that looked at county-owned properties um that could be suitable for uh multif family housing and I should just note that a lot of
the sites that are on the inventory currently are county-owned properties particularly the ones in the Tahoe area area so dollar Creek um a number of those other sites are actually county-owned properties uh that we are working on uh developing affordable housing projects on and if I could I would like to add that chapter 12 of the draft eir is the projects Alternatives analysis and there is a discussion about county-owned properties as one of the project Alternatives and discusses why we were n
ot able to rely upon solely county-owned properties to achieve our Arena obligations okay okay because it just it appears that if we could have gotten the Cincinnati property that would be nearly half of our requirement at 528 so it would have been lucky if we could have done that I I would say that um that through a further refinement of that and evaluation of that site it's very likely that that number is going to reduce significantly um you know we did a s simple calculation for purposes of t
his um of this meeting and in the report package but um you know there are numerous constraints on the site it's likely that it's going to be a fraction of that of that overall number that's included in your report package interesting okay and then one other question I have you've got the rm30 for uh 30 housing units for is there going to be an rm20 the rm30 zoning designation language establishes a density range that has a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 30 dwelling units
per acre but the name of the Zone District would be rm30 okay seems kind of contradictory if we don't say 20 to mean it could be 20 or more we are saying it's 30 but it could be less we could absolutely talk about having a different name for that if we're directed we could certainly come back with a different name okay okay other further questions supervisor Holmes yes thank you uh chair um got three questions um getting to supervis supervisor lon's question about husing Tres plaster and applyi
ng for uh exemption from uh School tax and fire tax or fire assessment would they still qualify for that if they accepted Public Funding I really can't speak to that um what I do know about the welfare tax exemption is relatively Limited in that it's something that an applicant would have to request from the State Board of Equalization and the applicant would have to be a nonprofit or um or a church I believe is the other parameter I'm not sure if by receiving public funds if that changes their
ability to obtain a welfare tax exemption but it's something we could certainly look into okay and then uh I want to just thank staff for working hard to cut down the amount the amount of uh properties on the list particularly some of the ones that I was concerned about I appreciate that I know it's a lot of work to do that and then uh regarding the Bell Road property that's across the street from the ridge is that correct and I don't think there's access off of Bill Francis drive into that prop
erty is there at this point there is no active development proposal so where a future access point is is unknown however as part of the programs that we would be working with our consultants for our 10 plus acre sites we would be looking at access so it may be we may look at what access would look like from Bill Francis or what that would look like from B Road at this point that remains to be seen well the Bell Road access would be problematic because they'll only be right right in and right out
so I think that would be problematic as well so again it's it's something that remains to be seen when a development proposal is submitted well I'm not really excited about that that site just you know thank you chair I had one yes please supervisor I'm sorry I had one more question Chris so we theoretically complete this zoning exercise uh while I agree with supervisor Landon um if if we were to move forward um a project comes forward on pick any of these sites and is proposing something other
than affordable housing they still have the right to move forward with that project correct you're nodding but I want you to yes yes and then when our housing element comes back up and we haven't produced housing there we then have to theoretically make find another location is that correct yeah so it happens before that so going back to the example that you mentioned and I I should have been a little bit more clear in my in my response so um if a project moves forward uh or is proposed and it
is allowed by right um then staff will have to prepare a non net loss analysis so we'll have to prove out that at that time uh the project can move forward with and we have excess capacity so there's been let's say development that's occurred outside of the sites on the inventory that are um that are netting out that we have that we're in the positive uh then that project moves forward if we get to a point where it's negative then we have 18 180 days from that approval to um rezone another prope
rty and include it in our housing element going back through the same type of process to include it in our housing element there is a little bit of a uh of a distinction between projects that would be coming forward that need a discretionary entitlement if it needed a discretionary entitlement that no net loss analysis will be accompanied um by a report package to the hearing body whichever hearing body that might be and a decision will need to be made by that hearing body for that discretionary
entitlement and again if it's approved we will then the county have 180 days to uh find an alternative site to be rezoned um and included in the inventory and and I know I'm I'm getting into the weeds here but I do want the public to to be very clear if if a property owner comes forward and wants to build 40 units of moderate regular market rate apartments and 10 of affordable we get credit for the 10 on the moderate or market rate do we get any credit for those because we're we're short yeah a
t every level of housing yeah so we we get credit in the sense of when we prepare our annual report will show will demonstrate that we have 10 units of low or very low or whatever income they are the other 40 would go in the moderate bucket so we do report that out as part of your annual uh progress report that we bring before you um but in terms of how that no net loss analysis is is worked out if it was on the the inventory for 50 units we'll have to show that we can still accommodate those 40
that are not being developed and if we can't we'll have to find additional sites okay thank you other questions um correct me if I'm wrong it was my understanding that we had to build 50% of these as affordable or or low is there some requirement as to a percentage of how many of these that we're identifying um no um the the the the sites that are will be included are all going to be included uded at the lower income level on our inventory at least on our inventory we do have um as the board is
aware we have an inclusionary housing requirement so 10% of development would need to be affordable unless they meet certain exemptions um but uh there isn't a requirement that 50% or some number be developed as affordable but it looks like they have a requirement that we build so many low and very low income houses out of these Reena numbers we have to plan for um we have to plan for land that's zoned appropriately to accommodate that number of units and we have to continue to maintain a list
of of properties that have that zoning to accommodate it over that eight-year housing element cycle so my concern is that if we don't if we build more market rate um in Arena numbers that we're proposing then in a couple years the state it's going to come back and say you didn't build what we told you to build in the low and very low income is that correct we'll be back into this process in 2029 or before um 2029 will be the start of our new housing element um as part of our general Plan update
I think it will be part of that process to be thinking about how we want to um accommodate future future growth and future development right well my concern is that the county the developers of large Parcels have requirements to build 10% affordable housing and the county allows them to um not build their affordable housing allotment by allowing them to pay $3 a square foot at in L fee in lie of building so I think that I believe that over the last 10 years or so that we have not pressed our dev
elopers to build their required affordable housing and therefore now we're at a deficit I will just clarify that that in that some of our specific plan areas do indeed have an inclusionary build requirement so plaster Vineyards um plaster one plaster Ranch they do have a build requirement of 10% at the very low low and moderate income levels uh it is true that there are some of the specific plans Bickford being one of them where where they do have a fee option uh but I just want to clarify that
that some of the specific plans do have a build requirement okay will they be required to rezone to the 20 20 and 30 units per acre uh many of those sites are located or identified as high density residential and so they are already as we went through the slides and indicated that there are specific plan sites identified they are already um anticipated to develop um you'll hear more about this when we bring forward the housing work plan and I believe April or so but there are a number of um affo
rdable housing projects that are being uh processed right now in um plaster Vineyard specifically so something to keep in mind but that's a lot of the houses potentially in those um specific plan areas and I know you say their potential to build affordable but without them being forced to into the rezone like those of our Parcels in unincorporated areas what's our guarantee that they will build 20 to 30 per acre like we will be required because once we rezone those we will never be able to unre
Zone them yeah I would say just the difference in the specific plans is that they are under a development agreement as well that requires that they actually build those units so there actually is more teeth in the specific plans that have the build requirement than than would be on these sites that are just rezoned and they could be developed as market rate okay thank you for for that any any other any other questions now are we ready for the public okay I'm going to open up the public uh hearin
g so if you would I want to make an announcement please try to adhere to your three minutes because that allows more people to be heard if you run over into five or six minutes you're basically cutting off somebody else from the ability to to express their their concerns so come on and uh I think or do have a process let me refer to the board clerk here okay so if we could have everyone signed up in group one if you could just come and line up in the isway please good after good good afternoon u
m jar Jones supervisors and Karen and Jean uh Wayne nater um I've been really disappointed with this process from the very beginning um as you saw earlier uh this hold uh started back back in 2019 and here we are in 2024 pushing this to a date of May 15 Without Really processing it as I think we should have to have the community weigh in I was as you know I was on the Planning Commission for eight years and and I always valued the max input and unfortunately the max only heard this when the NOP
was done back in October and that's when they gave some input to it it never came back to the max since then and I think that was a a big Miss in getting the opportunity for the public to weigh in you know the max meet at night it's easier for people who work to be there you wouldn't have a massive crowd like this at a Mac where you could spread out people to be able to give input I'm just uh disappointed in the process that because we're in such a hurry we're having to cut out some important pa
rts of this process with our community I uh am glad that again the list has been cut down I am concerned that there's some additional uh Parcels is going to be added to District 5 here in North Auburn and I'm particularly concerned about B road because of that large acreage that could end up to be a pretty big complex for our our community and I concerned about the concentration here I mean do we need affordable housing absolutely but do we need to have it concentrated in particular areas and I
I'm really glad that you Dro that the planning dropped Florence Road that was absurd I mean from a planning perspective is absolutely absurd U but there's still too much concentration in uh especially if those Parcels are added that were mentioned there's too much concentration here so that's my comments thank you thank you for your [Applause] comments thank you Wayne my theer hi I'm Al Ashbrook and I'm number 74 we're the neighbors and um we were never asked I would like to share with you we we
re never asked um back I attended to the August meeting and when I'm in Princeton Club and there's approximately 200 100 homes there maybe 200 250 people I think uh Cali has said that there're short 222 sites right now B road is 220 so they're on the list but they're going to be rezoned but they're not on the list so they're going to have to find these sites I came to the August meeting with my neighbors and by the way there's a lot of us from from um Sullivan and Princeton in here right now and
even though there was a fly that was out that was very misleading I have no idea about it somebody cut and paste it I'd like to share with you the real facts in the August session I came up here and I asked my first question was does low income include the homeless and the answer was yes and it's on your recordings so they've talked about the homeless being part of this they need help they really need help but if you put six or 700 people in sight 74 CU if it's 220 what is it what's the average
uh number of people in one of those units two three if it's three that's 6 that's 660 people that's double triple what we have we have a very beautiful little Community I've been here for 20 years we I brought the same question up to Cali and Cali was very good very helpful I said it does not make sense if you have a freeway coming from 80 to 4 9 on Bell Road you're not going to take transportation of 4 700 people in and on a on Bell Road they will come down she said it's not in the plan but it
's reasonable to ask I'll try to make it quick it's reasonable to say that they would create an easement on uh Bill Francis Road for all those people to come in so we would have 6 700 people coming out of there you have the County buses go through there you have some private businesses down there all very upset about this you have County uh locations there and now you're going to have all this traffic coming out to that one little Road in Sullivan Ranch by the way is only another quarter of a mi
le down these people are this this that site 74 is probably a quarter of a mile from ours it's beautiful please take a drive in there it's country I I I had to retire early 19 in 200000 we came up we bought a home we bought bought the last lot we built on it we're not to rich people from the bay area we have a lot of our life savings into that home this will destroy that value for everybody there it's not a place and they don't have the facilities for the people these people have no facilities t
here so I'm asking you what Wayne is talking about please give us a chance this was our first chance to talk because we knew nothing about the November meeting we in August I can show you in August site7 Bell Road was not even on your map it was not there and they snuck it in the day after Monday after Thanksgiving with that meeting and I only found about it because I went to your websites and saw that they were planning to do that that they pushed Us in because the people that protested in keni
n you listen to them the homeowners the uh neighbors protested not just the property owner the neighbors protested and you took them off there's a lot of people in here that would really like you to take it permanently off the list thank you hello Madam chair and Board of Supervisors I'm Amber Beckler I live in Granite Bay um I had a couple of comments just emphasizing some comments I sent yesterday I completely agree with the need to re-evaluate the sunset area plan in the updated tables which
I had to cross reference with the staff report there's about 1,200 units that specific plans are accounting for um I believe that was the number but now we're talking about 1,200 units to be rezoned it doesn't seem um Equitable considering the sunset area plan is uh there are no residents there and that to me seems like a opportunity to actually get more units including those two county-owned properties I really think you should pursue including the county-owned properties not on the other list
table seven but in the inventory and potentially delay the process as supervisor um land in had mentioned um getting to uh the Granite Bay Area um so in Granite Bay and District 4 based on the new numbers um it looks like D4 comprises 392 units of the 1,200 that's 33% of the units over five districts it seems also inequitable for District 4 that we have to take on the biggest burden um especially since we have existing communities um so my recommendation is to remove the uh property site 26 um 8
989 pulam Road not only is the property already Zone commercial which allows mixed use residential which is appropriate for that site and the Granite Bay Area in the community plan that so many work so hard to put in place to establish the Premier Community that we all love and know um in addition I still don't understand how the county was able to include that parcel because it is 18.1 acres in the government section code 65583 .2 says you can only include Parcels that are under 10 acres um so
again um remove 8989 Auburn fome Road um include the county-owned properties and also re-evaluate the specific plans um to actually account for a higher um number of units and to the planning director's Point development Agreements are negotiated all the time for those that have been around the block um we see them negotiate out units um on a regular basis um so just in closing um I want to just thank the board for um your courage you don't have to just say yes to this inventory um and the commu
nity would stand behind you and we really appreciate your support on this so thank you very [Applause] much hi my name is John Jaden I'm a resident in North Auburn like to thank the board for giving us the opportunity to address you um I had a lot of comments on the initial November report that staff sent to you and a lot of issues I've sent in comments via email on that many of those have been addressed in this presentation however I also read the draft environmental impact report and they have
a recommended option for least environmental impact that I think that could be a good fit if it was overlaid with the current staff recommendations and I think that should be looked at in Incorporation ated um number of issues that I see in this I really feel like this is an issue that's being rushed because of the deadline and I am very pragmatic about things I think the approach should be to do the minimum units as you've instructed staff to do but continue the evaluation process keep the doo
r open fine-tune what's the good fit that will let you bring in the sunset Area Properties as they come in be willing to down de down zone areas if you don't need it one of the things I noticed is there's 59 units 59 acres to come up at 1,6 units I do 30 units an acre I'm at almost 1,800 units so it feels like there's a buffer built in there we don't see further looking at the rezoned but not in inventory it's completely out of balance it's all in District 5 they make all the effort to balance a
mong zones then throw everything in District 5 at the end site 74 at the end staff evaluated as a 78 and their other cut off they didn't look at anything was lower than an 80 that site is a quarter of a mile from Bowman schools it's on a major thorough fair and I've been told that there was a homeless Community behind the bus area there five six years ago and with seever a couple hundred people there and there were continual crime and other issues in the areas along new airport road as people we
nt from there to the uh shopping center so I thank you for your time and your consideration thank you thank for your comments good afternoon hello uh my name is Scott arson and I'm here with jod Timmons and we are uh I'm the managing partner of Auburn here of viws which is lot 71 and 72 I've listened to uh all the different things and I understand you know the challenges but these two lots I think are are very strong uh locations for to to help with your problem so we are in full support of reso
ning this initiative and looking forward to working with the county on developing very high quality project that is not low-income housing but that will contribute to all the services the school districts the fire department all those sort of things that some of the folks are are worried about and our plans are to Leverage The terrific view not only supports the local schools Emergency Services market rate products but also contributes to the local downtown Auburn business Community by bringing
upscale clients to the restaurants wine bars and small businesses our intentions are to develop a project that is focused on fire resistant construction strategies sustainable construction solar power generation and each home will have access to the incredible views while still maintaining local neighbor views as this project scales down the hill in addition our project will manage some of the inherent design issues in the current road and allow for Safer travel through that area so I submitted
this to the board as part of the minutes thank you thank you for your comments thank you good afternoon good afternoon my name is David Kion I am the principal of Pine Hills Adventist Academy uh we are a K12 school off of Bell Road uh Old Airport Richards Lane um my comments are in regards to Zone 74 um it was mentioned that a flyer was handed out that was uh blatantly misinformed it would have been nice to have some information that was accurate and correct today um I think that uh the the over
all concern is that if it's going to be reson but not added to the list is there some point down the road that it would be added to the inventory and that it would be developed for lowincome housing or even homeless uh housing in in my case with my families uh if my families felt it was unsafe to have this sort of community in this proximity to our school this would impact our enrollment and it would have an adverse impact on our school um so that's my first concern but uh secondly about 12 year
s ago our school in response to an inquiry was told that we could not increase our footprint because of our proximity to the airport so if this property 74 is being Zone and if we're looking at building on that does that mean that we as a school can increase our footprint uh and place extra classrooms on our property a after all the questions planning will answer all the questions thank you thank you good afternoon good [Applause] afternoon I want to use up too much of my time I want to thank yo
u for the opportunity to increase my spiritual growth by remaining patient and learning how to um she be politically correct for probably the first time in my life would you mind would you mind giving us your name for the record I'm Pam asai Suzanne is also my name any legal name okay so I live in penin um I I'm going to try to keep this succinct number one I can you hear me okay oh yes okay number one I think that um as evidenced by the number of people here today um I think that uh the way of
communicating to the residents of our beautiful area um could use some revisions I know that um staff works really hard to get it done but I think changes are warranted so we know what's going on before it's right in front of our face and we're frightened and then it causes you know chaos and um and you know fear so that's my first point my second point is thank you so much uh supervisor Jones for bringing up the um fact that by going through all of this work it does not guarantee that we will b
e meeting the needs of the state and um like you go through all this work for rezoning and then develop ERS come in and put in you know 1 to $1.5 million homes with just a few $600,000 homes then down the road we're going to be doing the same thing it sounds like and we're going to cut this County up into pieces and we're going to look like orang Veil or you know horrible horrible stuff oh so thank you very much one more thing this might not be appropriate but for for anyone who's in supervisor
Jones District I know there have been a couple of um people um making recommendations for her um competitor and I would encourage you to um look deeply into that competitor who has um significantly uh chopped up Granite Bay and had to be stopped by the state in the process of decimating designated wildlands and he the cease and assist order was um required for them to stop ruining the area that's the person running against Suzanne Jones please do your homework thank you good afternoon good after
noon um Jennifer way plaster County um I just wanted to bring up some points that might really affect area five and all the areas going through the resoning but um one thing is insurance for fire Insurance um what will happen if um fire insurance rates keep going up which they do um and um that will increase rent that will also make affordable homes unaffordable to live in and I don't think we're looking I believe it's called Wildlife Urban interface the wooi so District 5 has a lot of that we h
ave that in the penin area too and we are going to be assigning um these types of properties in areas where it may not be affordable to Ure them and pay a mortgage or and pay rent um I think U another thing too is the sewer lines because we are really um bent on hooking up to the sewers not being on septic and a lot of the sewer lines in these areas aren't up to date and can't even hold capacity of where they are now and where is the funding going to come from that and it usually seems to take y
ears to get something like that even going to create that to go to Max Capacity also water um are we going to be able to deliver water into these areas are we going to be able to deliver electricity especially with all this ridiculous electric car stuff coming in and all this 2050 plan coming in I mean electric cars can't even survive in most areas in District 5 because of the cold and so how are we also going to be able to have enough electricity for these homes since we're not allowed to have
gas anymore to cook on how are people going to be able to make dinner and I'm not trying to make this funny but the these are things that we I don't think are really looking at for long term um a couple of other things are you know we've said the culture of the community but traffic our freeway onramps and off-ramps up in those areas are usually pretty short it's going to cause probably a lot of accidents in that area are we going to have enough police fire paramedics to take care of these types
of accidents because they're going to happen I don't know if we'll have bus lines up there I don't know if people will have cars to go to different places and then also if we could possibly get an accounting of these funds that all the developers paid in that were not um so they weren't building the houses they had to pay into a fund if we could get a transparent um accounting for people to see what we have for that maybe we could use that to get other um Parcels that make more sense thank you
thank you for your comments good afternoon hi um I'm Laura berer and I actually own properties in uh two areas one is the Sheridan area um and then the second one is in the Dry Creek area which is the area that I grew up in and my my 93-year-old mother still lives in you guys currently are proposing 800 freaking apartments or whatever like less than a a football field away from her house I'm a little concerned okay and I'm even more con and first of all thank those of you who have uh said hey ma
ybe we need to stop and and take a a a a look at this or whatever which I'm going to talk about in a minute cuz don't believe that everybody's been uh incorporated into the discussion in regards to what needs to happen and to look fully at the the ramifications of some of these developments or whatever um and I'm also concerned about the idea that um developers could come in and go hey let's rezone so we're going to build that housing and then oh just kidding okay that is problematic okay um I s
ent an email or whatever regarding the resoning on East Drive in the Dry Creek community yesterday and hope that you'll take the time to actually take a look at it actually has some things about restructuring I brought copies if you'd like a copy a physical copy of it um in addition um you've received a protest letter or whatever from members of my community or whatever who um all a sudden heard about this by the way on Sunday or actually I should say on Friday uh by a cute little uh 3x5 foot si
gn or whatever that was posted and that was the first time they had heard about it and within 24 hours they were able to get over 120 signatures protesting this particular move to to redevelop East Drive okay that's an extreme concern um I implore that you reject the proposal to develop the 800 apartments or whatever on that uh area that are again within yards um of our community is it's going to destroy the lifestyle of that Community this is a longstanding cohesive community that is zoned for
one to two acres okay this is a community in which uh young teenagers ride their horses around the block this is a community in which people you know block their dogs and young families have moved back in so that they can raise their children in that environment to suddenly now walk down the block where I ride my horse and have a freaking 800 Apartments is a little bit of a problem okay the other problem is that we have not been directly informed or whatever the proposal okay um I shouldn't find
out about it from a little freaking uh sign or whatever that's 3x5 foot uh posted on Baseline and there's incredible structural or infrastructure problems or whatever in regards to that I'm an AP we used to be I'm a retired now thank goodness I'm an AP government uh teacher and I taught my students or whatever that the US government was meant to be collaborative discussion of issues to bring about the best solution for the people this I believe that you guys have negated you made it look like o
h yeah there's all kinds of meetings but unless I'm sitting at every governmental meeting every Mac meeting every whatever I wouldn't even know about this I shouldn't find out three days before this particular uh meeting is happening so again I would urge your rejection of the part of The resoning Proposal that effects e Drive but it looks like we actually need to actually look at more of this because we really haven't done a good job and actually gotten freaking you know public input on this ok
ay we need to do that that's what our governmental process is about do not let down my kids okay my students that I taught to to believe in government cuz this is a bunch of bullpucky thank you thank you for your comments good afternoon hi I'm Ruth Tinker pardon I'm Ruth Tinker Ruth I'm Renee Ras we're with the Westlake Estates board located off Auburn fulam and Granite Bay okay um the reason we're coming forward we agree with everything Amber said so we won't touch on all those that she had sai
d earlier um we agree with what she said the notifications we haven't had any it's been by flyers and Word of Mouth which is not okay but our other concern we're going to touch on is granite Bays being burdened with majority of this and the lot most importantly that we're looking at is 25 that is next to a school okay that is not okay because what's going to happen is a kid is going to get run over and you guys are going to hurt a child there is also Wildlife around there that's a community that
Cycles mountain bikes you're going to take that away okay the infrastructure is lacking in the area already it is there's not even a freeway within a 10-minute radio to already put that much extra pressure on a two-lane road um next to a junior high where there is not even a man crosswalk at this point is is an a burden that this this affluent city is not willing to take on and that is one of the main reasons why people move to affluent cities such as this specifically to avoid the lowincome ho
using that is being proposed uh we've worked really hard to try to get to that point to keep our school ratings intact which is one of the other most desirable things that will be affected drastically by this change by people moving into this type of a housing um it would basically pose a threat to our our our schools don't have the infrastructure as well because if you put in you're proposing they say 10 acres it's almost 20 acres so the proposal is possibly 500 units where are they going to go
to school the school classroom size is already 32 to 35 there's no room to build any more schools as well so that's an issue the schools have worked very hard to have a 10 plus rating that's going to ffect our schools the other issue is um along with the other ones every parcel of land in Granite Bay lately they they're building they're building affordable housing so they have been building left and right so now you're going to propose more there's no freeways nearby so there's no room for in a
ndout and then the lake if you guys know on the weekends it is bumper to bumper traffic everybody coming in trying to get into the lake you're going to add 500 units with occupancy of more than one person per unit we can only imagine so you can imagine at least another thousand there's going be no entrances into the lake that everybody uses in the community and all of Sacramento so you're going to affect that as well you're going to affect the wildlife but the biggest thing is the safety of the
kids there is no no room to put this many units in whereas children they don't even have a sidewalk they don't even have a cross guard that is not okay thank you for your comments good afternoon board members I'm Sarah Rose from Rockland and um hearing all the complaints and listening or reading some of the um emails that came in there's a lot of dots that need to be connected this is a um a globalist plan to take down California take down our nation it's United Nations Agenda 21 2030 zero carbi
ng destroy our Farmers still public land still uh private land and I I get um offended when I hear uh presentators um saying mandates you're going to be fine if you don't obey I think um we need to get back to our constitution we need to we need to realize that our public servants work for us and I still have to see anybody's legal organic oath of office on file that even gives you the right right to be dictating over us what we're going to do to our property and for for cities and states and co
unties to say County owned the public lands belong to We the People they do not belong to the government and if you connect the dots to the four families of California the newams the Browns the Gettys and the Pelosi Mafia Family um and then you connect um San Francisco where where Gavin Nome was mayor and then he was lieutenant governor and now he's governor and he lost the 21 election no one's going to tell me otherwise because our elections are rigged and they're installing corrupt politicians
to take down our state and how in the hell can you come up with numbers for population to build affordable housing which is a bunch of bull how do you come up with those numbers when our borders are wide open and they're tearing down our state in our nation who in the hell are going to be living in these houses and why are you destroying communities so you look at C40 C40 the Mayors in in our nation that sold out to the globalist organizations the World Health Organization the United Nations th
e world economic Forum that trained our little globalist Hitler Gavin Newsome has an office in San Francisco that was opened up in 2017 nobody here is going to tell me that our representatives are representing us it is these Global organizations that are tearing down our sovereignty it's in their damn websites it's been going on ever since post World War II and it needs to stop and people better wake up we're losing our country and we need to get our Civic County grand juries and our militia goi
ng and we need to take back our County our country one County at a time thank thank you for your comments good afternoon good afternoon my name is Liz Ray and I'm from District 1 although I'm extremely thankful to the property owners of number three four and five on East Drive for not willing to participate in this program I am concerned regarding property number eight which is the strawberry field on East Drive when considering sites pler county has to conclude that they can provide social emer
gency and transportation services which are currently lacking or completely non-existent in District One Additionally the board should and clearly and hasn't consider the impact on Baseline Road impact on our rural streets the school schol capacity which is already full impact on property values Public Safety and whether the sites are consistent with the comprehensive plan in surrounding properties in District 1 the City of Roseville has the burden to provide all the businesses for district one
jobs retail Emergency Services education overflow and medical services pler county is not equipped to provide services in District One for high density lowincome population I listened this morning to Miss Bonnie Gore state in the meeting that she stands up for the residents I challenge that statement it is disheartening to find out about the sites on each East Drive by one yard posting in the strawberry field four days ago additionally only one neighbor received a letter from the county and she
received it last Thursday we hit the pavement this weekend and we submitted to the board a petition of 115 members that have signed we are missing work today made lastman arrangements in 4 days to come here to tell you what does that mean okay to tell you that we want to protect our neighborhood our investment and our quality of life I am new to this process first day I've ever spoken however it was apparent this morning that you guys will spend more time consideration and resources on a wall fe
ature on one resident in Granite Bay than on rezoning properties to high density I strongly oppose the rezoning on East Drive that's all I have to say thank you for your comments let let me let me take this minute to let the speakers know when the light the yellow light goes off and it beeps at you it does mean you have one more minute okay thank you very much for that my name is Professor ameritus Joe Armstrong uh and this is kind of a retirement community for me I've only been here two years s
o I don't speak for a lot of people but I do speak about a lot of people and it is a wonderful place thank you for it one one of the things that that was so interesting about this presentation was how much time was spent on these most beautiful houses and what they are and what they're not and there also didn't been a lot of work in the yards and the cars out front I mean it was a lot of time spent on that and somebody needs to be thanked for that much work but there is another side of that stor
y that I didn't hear anything about out something about lowincome people I'm sorry I don't know what that means and I don't think this community knows what it means and they need to and somebody needs to spend as much time as you did on doing that beautiful presentation of those beautiful houses and let's put these beautiful people on display unless we're ashamed of them then let's still hide it it and OBS ficate that the way we're doing right here low lowincome people think about that I mean th
is is a loving Community I can't believe it I mean people walk up to you on the street and say hello you wonder are you talking to me who is this this is a beautiful community so we need to look at not environmental impact but Community impact and we need to spend a little bit of time on it and see how it would impact our community what what language do these low-income people speak that'd be important what what what kind of schools do they need built here and who's going to pay for it I didn't
hear anything about that how much are we going to pay more in taxes for the new surage plant that's going to H handle the Overflow how much taxes are we going to have to pay to build the L roads a little bit wider so it will be more comfortable for people to drive that kind of impact needs to be looked at and understood and I'm very sorry I just didn't hear it maybe I missed something uh you know but if if I did I apologize for that but I do hope that you will take a look at it from that point o
f view thank you very much thank you for your comments oh can we hold good afternoon my name is galic I'm a resident of Princeton Club Gary hang on just one second 1995 we started looking around in the Foothills for a place to live and finally decided well we're going to move up here into the Auburn area couldn't afford to live in Sullivan Ranch but fortunately somebody pointed out a nice little development called Princeton Club it's a little bit of Heaven the density there for is is quite low w
e still have owls in the area deer in the area uh coyotes roam through red fox and we have a small pond which is a Flyway for ducks and geese and we love it we absolutely love it my wife and I are both I'm retired law enforcement my wife was a deputy for a few years for Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office and when you talk about high density uh housing lowincome housing there are tended issues that um require additional law enforcement take care of those problems a few years ago there was a hom
eless encampment uh just at the far end of um uh the name that street here anyway homeless and they were um able to get into Princeton Club in the evening it broke into a lot of cars I don't know if they got any residences I think the sheriff's department finally cleared them out and restored some some kind of order but um as far as 74 goes uh area 74 I'd encourage the board please look elsewhere you have plenty of property that you have out in Lincoln in Roseville in Rockland build out there pl
ease leave 74 alone thank you thank you for your comments good afternoon oh yes let's take a minute to let our board C if we could have everyone in group two and three please stand up and line up great thank you okay you go ahead sir I went out of order I'll come back no oh no no no you're you're here now go ahead sorry about that just my name is Rick cicis and I live in solivan ranch uh this probably going on 28 years not probably I'm going on 28 years living there so a couple more years I gues
s I'll be considered an arbonite and uh okay uh this does feel as if it's rushed we've had since 2017 to today now we have three months to make a decision and as one prior uh person said I'm I'm and I'm going to speak specifically to to number 74 off of Bell Road that's one prior person said it's like this was put in after the fact and irregardless of that the uh increase in uh residency there would uh put a great burden on the area got all the infrastructure to do the sewage electricity Etc let
alone access as I noted there is no access except for Bell Road which is 55 M hour road and the flyer they said misinformation was on there it said vli housing and I'm not sure if that is specific to that c74 that to me indicates that you would have people who don't have transportation there's no public transportation out there uh they'll have access to shopping center they'll be walking down Bell Road which is unsafe uh they'll be if they have to go walk get down to the hospital if an ambulanc
e is not available that's that's at least a mile from there down Bell Road um it's just uh it just doesn't make any sense to to put this property there and uh I understand the need for housing but since 2017 and then we have three months I was going to go before the yellow light we' been then three months left to make a decision on this it's I I'm not saying anything to anybody but as a saying goes poor planning doesn't constitute an emergency on our part so thank you thank you for your comments
good afternoon hello um my name's John Wilkinson I'm a a resident of Sullivan Ranch and here to um strongly oppose the inclusion of site 74 in this plan um when I was reading the literature I I came across where uh a point where it was talking about the site and it was talking about a 450t Scenic easement running a bellroad and what I this was something put out by by your offices uh and they were talking about that out of that whole 15 Acres maybe one and a half acres would be developable devel
oped um because of the scenic eement and there's just a lot of um kind of confusion um I'm a recent Resident of Sullivan Ranch I just moved in few months ago um when I bought my house in October there was no talk of this going on this was a recent development and one of the things I'm hearing from the staff here every time they mention these properties it's the property owner has agreed and I think the emphasis needs to be on the neighborhood and the community um it's not about it's not about on
e property owner it sounds to me like whoever owns this property has some problems it's it has it has you know uh he he can't develop it there's no access it's it's got Creeks running through it it's environmental issues and so I you know I can see maybe that property owner willing to jump at a chance to sell his property and and pack in 300 uh Apartments it's interesting on the on the uh presentation here we're talking about 30 units per acre and there wasn't a single example given of what 30 u
nits per acre looks like the closest was 27 units per acre and that's what you can see right across the street a big block a big block of of apartments and that does not fit with the area Bell Road is a Scenic Parkway it and I think it's under your responsibility to protect the sense of community and and what it looks like and not throw these things out in these places where they don't deserve to belong thank you very much thank you for your comments good afternoon hi I'm John frus a plaster res
ident and um Mr uh pahu Puli Puli Puli uh three minutes of your time please I just want to acknowledge something you said that I keyed on and that was full disclosure full disclosure I completely agree if you I was going to say if you would direct your comments here but they are taking notes and they will answer your questions later to be honest I'd like to stand right here and talk to everyone well but you want to appe you want to okay yeah he said in his Icebreaker we must have 8,000 units tha
t's his words he continued to acknowledge that there's a minimum of this 1216 or 12 something and then on the word we he said County at the direction of the state we include the board the Planning Commission and residents of pler County we too are residents of the State of California so when I hear the words we must we that's all of us who in here said we must have 8,000 units none of it I where's the state is my my end point today's presentation was one-sided I who here unless I don't know is s
omebody here representing the states directive of why it's so important that we push this through and then about these dates the gentlemen before yeah so the day comes it could be next week who cares it should be a consistent progress of growth controlled it it's clearly at an pass in November there were 20 plus comments submitted from the public today I understand there's 200 plus comments I I I don't think they're positive um so in today's presentation not including the time of the board askin
g of the Planning Commission the word we was used 53 times I don't associate with that Wei and I don't think anybody here including members of the Planning Commission and the board and I would even say the residents of California one could even go further with that why just the border of California enjoy your day D thank you for your comments good afternoon hi I'll be short um my name's Nancy Joe rxy I live actually in North Auburn microphone down little I live in North but I'm going to speak to
all the districts um I was a longrange planner for 30 years your name one more time Nancy Joe rxy I was a long range planner um in the Bay Area for 30 years building buildings for most of the large corporations there one of my projects was in Rockland and Roseville and I have to tell you that the infrastructure was the most important thing we talked about no matter where we went and it was the first thing put in place there's no infrastructure here at all and that's one of the things that you s
hould put together to present to your constituents before ever letting them vote on it that was what was a that was what I had to do and that's what the planning department needs to do but on bottom line for District 5 we have a serious School issue and if you put any more kids there we're not going to have we we can't house them Rock Creek's already closed where are our kids going to go to school and what quality are they going to get the pandemic was bad enough and now you know but what I was
told was it's a state problem not a county problem well give some of that money that you guys have to all of those fundraisers and give it to the schools to fix their toilets fix their ceilings fix their hbac give the kids a chance thank you for your comments good afternoon yes ma'am uh Robert Dixon Granite Bays local um concerned with uh site 26 in District 4 I built on Auburn Fon Road in 1999 half a mile from your site I've seen five people die in between Joe Rogers Road in the Down Road three
people that I know I watched a 15-year-old girl from Granite Bay High in 2012 die in my driveway in my 14-year-old son's arms you're going to plop 500 Apartments units in the middle of Grant and Bay off of Auburn fome Road that is absolutely ludicrous 250 kids walk to school and ride their bikes every day and you're going to back it right up to that school you're going to have a th000 cars in andout movement day I guarantee you children will get hit people will die on that road you can't put a
th cars on their day coming and going whoever they are whether it's lowincome whether it's affordable housing whether they're million dooll homes you can't put 500 vehicles on that corner Auburn folon is a highway I come out of my drive and they're doing 70 mph I watched my friend not watched him die in front of The Farmhouse getting his mail getting killed I saw a guy on a bicycle hit this is how many how many people have died in between the damn road and C stallman in the last 20 years can any
body answer that I'll tell you one thing it's double digits and you do this project and you're going to double it in the next 10 years I guarantee you kids will get hit you got one way in and one way out AU fome 55 miles an hour 60 miles an hour you hit Douglas you can't even it's absolutely ludicrous to build there absolutely crazy there is no infrastructure 50s 10 miles away 80s another 10 miles away if you do that project kids will be harmed people will be harmed pedestrians people on bicycle
s you can't add a thousand cars to a neighborhood like that it's absolutely ludicrous and if any of you vote on that that's crazy and I got a question for Suzanne Jones do you support the project on Auburn Fon Road in your District district 4 500 units 17 Acres on the corner Faller backed up to C stowman do you support that I just asking if you don't then maybe you should take your 4x8 sign down from in the middle of the corner on that site cuz every time I drive by I think you support it no I c
an't answer your question right now but my chief of staff right there raise your hand give him our cards and then we will it is AB you you build that site and children will be affected they will get hit you can't put a thousand cars on a corner it's absolutely crazy kids will die I guarantee you mark my words I've been there for 20 years I've seen people die in my driveway on the corner at the light on a bicycle at the damn road I've seen double digits in 20 you're going to double that if you bu
ild that site very much thank you for coming today right okay thank you for your comments and for com apprciate all of you that came today my goodness good good um my name is Donna Hogue I am a 37-year homeowner resident of Granite Bay also a business own owner I too am going to speak about the property the parcel number 26 that Robert Dixon just so eloquently and passionately spoke about the danger of that I have my concerns as well since I live on Fuller Fuller is a two lane quiet street that
the junior high is is AED to I made myself some notes so I don't Veer but here we go uh while I understand that this there is a need for this type of housing this parcel is not appropriate for this type of project and for the following reasons these reasons must be considered lack of services this area of unincorporated plaster County does not have public transportation and is situated 5 miles from the nearest freeway the nearest nonpremium grocery store Walmart is almost four miles away raes wh
ich is walkable to this project is a premium market and hardly affordable for Citizens on a lowbudget income Medical Care the nearest non-private medical facility is Kaiser again almost 5 miles down the road Granite Bay is now lacking our fire station the fire station that was closed at Eureka and Auburn fulam impact on our property values this rural area of pler county is surrounded by long-established single family beautiful homes a project of this size and scope does not fit into the nature o
f the area this area of Granite Bay was developed with the Quiet of rural but the convenience of a suburb high density units are not a distinguishing desire for current or future residents of this beautiful space right next to fulsome Lake population impact as as Robert said 500 units 1500 people uh the the cabin is right next to the parcel traffic is already impacted during the school year with students and parents outside of school hours and year round is the use of access through cavat Junior
High the very popular trail system at fulam Lake introducing this many more residents will only add to the degradation of the school the trails and our resources I respectfully urge this board to find a better suited location for your projects in an area equipped with services needed by low and very lwi income citizens some of who do not have cars thank you thank you for your comment good good afternoon my name is Tiffany Latino and I live in district one so I I got a little bit of relief from
the meeting today because some of the parcels were removed that were directly across the street from my home I'm the one person in my whole area that re that received the letter for the rezoning program um my family has lived there for 31 years we worked hard our whole lives to own this property in a rural neighborhood we love it here because it's a small peaceful country area with livestock Wildlife trees and Open Spaces many of the residents in this area are multi-generational owners of the pr
operty we have an abundance of wild life that visits our property including deer Fox raccoon possum skunk squirrel coyote and more you wouldn't believe this in this little tucked in area where we are we have the strawberry patch on the corner that you want to build on but the rest of that is all Wildlife rezoning this area for residential multif family will destroy our quality of life I can't even imagine the impact of adding well it was 881 units but today you have cut that down of housing to t
he traffic schools Emergency Services air quality and noise to this quiet community everybody who lives there have been long-term residents and their children are taking over the properties it it's that beautiful it's our little piece of heaven and I can't imagine this happening so please continue to work on your Sunset area project thank you for your [Applause] comments welcome good afternoon good afternoon my name is Karen Caulkins c a l k i ns thank you to the board and staff for taking time
to listen today thank you also for your hard work to make pler County a beautiful place to live and to work in 1990 we used our savings as a young married couple to purchase a little house on an acre in Central Avenue in the rural Dry Creek area of Roseville where we still live we spent our careers working for pler County Schools as Educators and administrators saved our money by creating the additions to our home ourselves raised our children and continue to give back to the citizens of pler Co
unty especially children at the end of the day we're grateful to be able to come home to our little house in the country we oppose the proposed resoning on and near East Drive in Roseville in rural Dry Creek District 1 that will include high density Parcels housing here are our four oppositions and questions one we were shocked to see a sign on the corner of East in Baseline on February 8th with a QR code and a website this notice is in adequate communication why didn't our rural community recei
ve ongoing letters addressed to each of our homes far in advance two the community of Dry Creek is rural and each of us purchased our homes and land to live this way under the promise of this zoning we love our quiet Rule and Country setting can you please help us keep it this way three the rezoning in order to create high density housing will only create a myriad of challenges that neither the county nor the Dry Creek community are able to support including traffic overload damage to the rural
area roads pollution noise pollution lack of services including law enforcement and Fire And as it is pg& cannot sustain the power here during storms we all depend on well water Additionally the property values of our homes and land will be marketly decreased with this resoning can you study other areas for high density housing that are larger than our tiny Dry Creek community last we are styed that any study of the land proposed for rezoning allows for any anything other than the rural farming
and Wildlife land that it is this land is not underutilized currently the land holds vegetable and fruit crops beekeeping livestock and many homes for wildlife the creek that runs across this property is home and sust sustenance for ducks geese frogs deer fish coyote foxes raccoons birds and Hawks how on Earth literally does the environmental impact report permit destroying this land and Creek we're devastated and heartbroken to know that rezoning to prevent high density housing is being conside
red we'll do anything to help our hardworking leaders and staff we just want to come home at the end of the day to our peace of the country and have peace in the country thank you for your comments good afternoon good afternoon board thank you for uh being here today and I know it's a tough job uh my name is Richard malale I'm a kofax I've lived up in this area for almost 24 years now I love it up here you cannot get me to go back to the Central Valley even if you put a gun to my head and threat
en to shoot my whole family I will not go what is happening up here that I see in the Auburn area and not only in coax kofax has been Incorporated since 1850 I believe it was it's one mile square one mile of an incorporated city but it does have Incorporated on the outside and I fought tooth and nail excuse me for a lot of apartment complex that came there when they came in they said oh we have nine acres you know so we can put 12 1/2 dpus there okay they put 12 and 1 half dpus which required ab
out 82 units which turned out to be that hey they don't have to build on the full nine acres they can only build on the three acres that they're on now so you have this big cluster of homes same goes with uh the rm30 the rm20 they may have uh 10 acres to build on okay so they're allowed 30 units per dpu what happens up here we live in a topography area where sometime it's up it's down sometimes you can't build flat all the way you can't grade all the way due to grade conditions so what they're d
oing is they will stick if you have a 100 units and you have 30 units per acre and you can only develop on 10 what's that going to look like picture it in your mind now here's another thing I'd like to get on to have you heard of 15minute cities anybody okay 15minute City there is a woman up in Sebastapol her name is Christine eply I recommend that you find her on YouTube and listen to her a 47-minute presentation that she did on 15minute cities it will awaken you open your eyes and the only one
s that seem to benefit from these projects are the developers and Builders not the community the subsidized housing when I hear affordable and lowincome housing like the gentleman said before what what the heck is that what does that require they're going to be subsidized like the 10% when you say you got 100 units uh units 10% of that's got to be low income well you have low income was one what's affordable that's another so what's the difference between affordable and low income I hope the pla
nning commissioner can uh explain that at some point in time because seems that those of us who are layman in this are completely ignorant about it I've tried to research it and all I come up with is what they have here is very low and low what is that very low and low and then what we have with those 50 minute cities they want to make everything within 15 minutes of where you live such as the housing that you had on here especially those Rouses that they showed in Sacramento there's no garages
there's no parking areas you look at the greens there's no garages there you look at the residence there there's probably more than a half a dozen in each house where all the cars parked all along street so it just not happening think it over like the gentleman said 2017 is when s sp35 went into effect signed by Governor Brown it's been seven years and like you said now we got three months to make up our minds thank you for your comments good afternoon hi good afternoon board uh thank you for do
ing this my name is abos gotam I'm a concerned resident of District 3 and I'm really concerned that a part of this County that never has had low-income housing as shown in the charts is now going to have hundreds of low-income housing units and I'm really quite frankly disappointed by today's presentation because this was really a business pitch if you really look at it I heard the presenters say that these units are not going to have you know drab color so painting it pink makes it okay I guess
right it it's just not true and there's a myth in this County that we need more housing no matter what I disagree I think we need to stop importing the problems of the rest of the state into our County we don't have enough infrastructure to deal with the people here in the first place we need to look at our growth we need to maintain our growth in a responsible Manner and we need a County Board of Supervisors that fights the state what's the point of a County Council if you're never going to su
e Gavin Nome what's the point of anybody here if you're not going to do anything for we the people and that's what I don't understand and this right here is the biggest cash grab in plaster County History because the moment you rezone it thanks to S SP 423 which assemblyman Joe Patterson voted with Scott weiner for immediately when you rezone it low-income housing is going to be built on all of these I don't appreciate that some members of the board want to mislead the public into thinking that
these are not going to be low-income housing units they will be I promise you because that is the easiest thing to build in the state of California right now you get to go around every single squel regulation because of s SP 423 and that's where we're at right now where where are these people supposed to go to school where are they supposed to drive their cars you can't get on 65 without it looking like the 405 at 2 p.m. and what disappoints me is everybody here it's 2: p.m. on a workday we can'
t monitor you guys all the time you need to be fighting for us in these closed door meetings you need to be fighting for us when we're not here and that just doesn't happen that doesn't happen and it hasn't happened for a long time in this County and tell everyone in attendance why it's because this is all lip service if you if you open up several of your form 460s you've raised not just thousands of dollars but hundreds of thousands of dollars from developers around this region from kulak's fam
ily that's what's going on you don't care you want this to go through and you're doing this because you have to but if we didn't show up today you would have snuck this by and we'd be looking at thousands of who knows coming into our County pretty soon I really implore you please start fighting Gavin Newsome why can't you take the county property on side 28 and why can't you just say that 1300 housing units are going to be built there why don't you tell Gavin Nome that what's he going to do if h
e sues you why don't you counter sue him there's no fighting going on because you're just laying there you're rolling on your back to make this happen and we don't appreciate it thank you thank you thank you for your comments good afternoon Jeff afternoon chair Jones members of the Board of Supervisors Jeff short with the North State Bia uh want to thank staff for very thorough presentation and acknowledge the incredibly difficult position that you've been put in uh I also want to thank you for
uh keeping the sites uh uh on a voluntary only basis not every Community has done that when they've been put in this position uh so I want to thank you for for standing up for property rights um we don't want the state to take away your land use Authority that is the uh potential ramification of a fail failure of a housing element uh hcd is not in the practice of granting extensions and frankly The Proposal in front of you already pushes the envelope to an extreme degree I can't say that I'm not
concerned with the lack of a buffer in The Proposal um but I think that through continued communication uh with the county and through the development of of carrot and not stick uh programs we can encourage the kind of high high density affordable house housing uh uh that we need to find in areas where it makes sense and hopefully reduce some of the pressure uh on some of the areas identified so thank you for continuing to work with us uh thank you thank you for your comments good afternoon my
name is John nastl I'm a resident of District 4 Granite Bay have been a resident for well over 30 years seen a lot happen Douglas used to be a two lane road with one traffic light now now it's different it's the only main thoroughfare between 50 and 80 if you've driven anywhere near that intersection of Auburn and Auburn fulam and Douglas especially in the afternoon it's jam-packed adding what started out as 18 Acres magically reduced to 9.9 so that it can pass a certain parameter still it's goi
ng to be 18 Acres well the comments regarding infrastructure effect on kids traffic patterns and the like are all appropriate I have another level and that level is this the state of California is fiscally bankrupt everybody knows it they're not going to help you with the things you do that require more investment from the the county they're not going to help you so when you do things remember these guys are broke and what do they do they attract more needy people there are more needs out there
than there are resources to take care of them so they keep attracting more for whatever reason I don't know but they do it so you can expect more it's coming so the more you make it attra AC active the more you're going to get I don't know how else to describe it so just this one last message is California won't help you they may issue Grand academic studies that say we have needs and the local guys are going to say yeah we know how to do those needs they take a pen and a spreadsheet and we'll f
igure it out now the problem is in your laps it's nowhere or else you can't kick the ball down the road it's now that's all I have to say thank you thank you for your comments appreciate it good afternoon good afternoon my name is uh Dan Fulmer I've uh lived in Granite Bay for 21 years I raised three daughters I own a business and best I can count I paid over $350,000 of County taxes so this is my first time here not going to be my last no So and I've probably written a few of you checks Maybe h
ere's an idea I mean I've been listening to this go back and forth I mean why don't you just declare pler County a sanctuary County for Patriots how about that I mean and stop wasting our time with all this I mean it's back and forth back and forth and we all know that people running the state are a bunch of losers from the lowest on up sorry they are they're part of a corrupt system the whole process is a disaster uh not only for us individually but for the People by the people no doubt okay I'
ll get on to some specifics I'm here to strongly oppose the 8950 Auburn Pome Road Project I think anybody really looking at that objectively can see that that's flawed in many many ways uh I mean I'm still here I'm looking for what the building elevation the property is going to be I mean I can look at it based on the way it's been described looks like probably 50 plus feet if I had to guess um waiting for an answer in terms of is it 9.4 Acres 17.9 acres is it 192 people or is it 510 people and
we're here at the end of the process right we got a couple months which is nothing in your environment so but I did want to bring up uh one fact that uh that I did as I was sitting here waiting to to talk and that is that I looked at the average density and I took it at the 198 the average density at 198 means that there's going to be 047 home I mean a home on 047 Acres which is 34 times the amount of density in Granite Bay which is a 22 Mile Square area now if that doesn't look like a pig tryin
g to find a counter with lipstick I don't know what does so anyway thank you for your than appreciate it good afternoon hi um I'm Scott Johnson I live in District 5 I'm not a nimi I'm a yimi yes in my backyard I'd like to see the board and uh work with the district attorney to provide free legal representation for people who are being evicted uh you can commit a crime and the public defender will go to court with you but if you um if you're being evicted you have to take time off work and if you
can't afford Child Care bring your kids with you to court and try and defend yourself in a very uh sticky legal position um people in need of Workforce housing people are paying more than half it used to be a third now it's a half of their income um uh they're not here they're at work so there's that now the seog arena compliance um is not enough as uh Cindy guson said uh there's no real I mean these properties aren't necessarily going to have uh Workforce housing built on them they're more tha
n likely as Kelly said in another hearing here uh going to have uh market rate housing built on them uh so it's up to the county and as the chair said uh the county has been woefully absent and being Advocates or making sure that Workforce housing is built in this County uh you're going to have to uh do something uh I only have time to give you one suggestion but there's lots of them you could increase the impact fees on million dooll homes and use that money to uh wave the impact fees on uh Wor
kforce units uh inclusionary units must be built not turn into mitigation fees no housing has been built with those mitigation fees that you've collected um and you need a mix of price points in a community you can't put all the affordable housing in the sunset area you you need to make some of those 800 units that are being built in pler one um subsidized units that are built there the reason for this is is the success of poor fam families exiting poverty permanently is much higher if they're l
iving in high opportunity neighborhoods and one last thing I'd like to see a vacant commercial properties like the nine units that are over here in the ba Air Shopping Center that have been vacant for well over a year converted to uh Workforce housing thank you for your comments good afternoon good afternoon thank you for being brave enough to represent the needs of the people to the state of California I don't have a prepared speech because frankly I had no notice I saw uh a Facebook post about
the supervisor meeting my name is Cynthia litco I am a property owner I live on Eureka Road I have one acre and I live in the original low income house of, 1400 Square ft now as far as prop the area 26 that is um on Auburn fome Road is just a quite ridiculous idea to put 198 units I believe it is right now it could change soon I remember going to Mac meetings for the developments on Eureka Road currently they're still being built behind me right now you've got 33 houses being built I think the
lowest price on those houses is 700,000 Blue Mountain communities where is the low-income housing going in there what did they pay in fees why aren't those fees being used we knew this was coming right I mean I didn't know it was coming that's why I'm here with an unprepared speech unfortunately but if we've known about these housing needs why on Eureka Road there's 22 duet homes brand new fire station 33 houses houses that aren't even done yet why has there been no consideration for affordable
housing and I won't use low income I'll say affordable because it's really not affordable to live in this area so please fight back against the state this is crazy I live less than a block from that lot and I heard nothing at all no notice and I'm a property owner on Eureka Road in Granite Bay thank you for your time [Applause] yes good afternoon hi good afternoon my name is brda Sanchez and I'm a property owner on B Road and I'm just wanting to express my opposition to 74 um because I know that
with low-income housing comes crime and um I think that we we should oppose to that it's my first time doing this but I I felt very strongly about this so I wanted to give my input on that thank you for your comments and thank you for coming good afternoon hi my name is BJ Coleman and I live in plaster County all of the districts if you want to um District 74 I disagree with because I again everybody has already mentioned the traffic the accidents that people get hurt there's no I mean it's it'
s just a ludicrous place to put this why don't we look at the fact that it's not just low low income as you want to put it it is for homeless we already have a lot of homeless we have homeless um subsidized here we have um across the street and a few others um I really don't believe that we should open another encampment if you will apartment uh homes whatever you want to call them them I don't believe we should open more because we're going to have more homeless coming into the area that we alr
eady have what we have and we should House of them what we have we shouldn't open a whole another building for a lot more to come into this area I moved here because it was out of the Bay Area where all of that is there I saw what it did to neighborhoods I saw what it did to families saw what it did to businesses and none of it's good we all know that and maybe we won't speak about it or you know it's not a comfortable thing to talk about but I really believe that it should be looked at more thr
ough California State or the federal government if you will because the federal government the states have closed so many mental institutions and they're left abandoned and empty perhaps we should look at that and start putting people back into institutions for the ill because that's the majority of our homeless people they can't afford their meds and if they had an institution to go to they would be able to afford the care and the help that they need instead of opening new places in these count
ies or cities that were supposed to be mandated but we can oppose them so I really hope you guys stick to it and don't allow it to happen thank you thank you for your comments good afternoon good afternoon I'm Taylor Alexander from North Auburn I first want to thank supervisors Holmes and gustofson for coming out and doing a site visit on site 58 I really do think it's important uh to see the actual sites that we're talking about not sure that the Planning Commission has even visited these sites
um anyway I've poured through the draft eir and today's agenda and while I appreciate that a few of the major properties are no longer being recommended for rezoning there's still a ton of work to do there's fundamental flaws in these reports that have left us asking even more questions I'd like to know from the Planning Commission why all three properties in the Tahoe Basin were completely removed as you know unincorporated Tahoe Basin has a certain number of low-income housing units that need
to be built aside from un unincorporated pler County but all under the pler county umbrella since there's no longer any Taho Basin properties proposed to be rezoned how's Tahoe Basin going to meet their rhna requirement they're not five developments it's in their report five developments in Tahoe Basin under produced what they promised for low income to make up for this the Planning Commission is adding more properties to pler County specifically Auburn District 5 to make up for the shortfall f
rom Tahoe Basin properties need to be identified in in Tahoe Basin so that they meet their requirement don't make Auburn pick up more slack now we come to my favorite part of the speech I had all these numbers prepared last night luckily I brought my computer to the meeting because I had a feeling the Planning Commission would sneak in a little last minute change uh due to their lack of transparency um anyway I'm going to speak in uh terms of cities and not districts because I think it's also im
portant to acknowledge that I've researched the population of each City involved in this program and have compared them to the allocation of the housing burden that the Planning Commission is proposing and tables for five and seven did you know that Roseville accounts for 41% of the overall population of these affected cities yet the Planning Commission only wants to put 19% of the housing burden in Roseville and how about Lincoln Lincoln accounts for 14% of the population yet there's no propert
ies being proposed in Lincoln here's the best one Auburn accounts for only 4% of the overall population of all these affected cities yet the Planning Commission wants to put 49% of the housing burden in Auburn let's work on making this a little less skewed last Point here the Planning Commission says they've eliminated the buffer no they haven't tables 5 and seven that is your buffer they've just moved properties around changed some words if we include the properties in tables 5 and 7 which we s
hould because they do the buffers actually increased to 59% thank you thank you for your comments good afternoon hi my name is Jim Katie um I live in Princeton Estates HOA and I'm here to talk about number 74 if you look at Princeton Estates where I'm also a board member of the HOA for Princeton Estates if you look at it put it in relation so everybody understands it we own 6.7 Acres of open space from our houses that go towards Bill Francis Road after that the railroad owns open space then ther
e's the railroad tracks then there's Bill Francis then there's B road so Bill Francis parallels B road so let's talk Bill Francis Bill Francis is somewhere between I I imagine mostly you haven't been on it because it's about half a mile a quarter to a half a mile long it is a strip of asphal there is no signage on it there's no lines on it the only people who drive on it are that's where the pler bus depot is they drive on it also there are some businesses back there and there's some pler educat
ion buildings what we were worried about is the railroad when we went to we went to the railroad the HOA and we said you own open open space we're concerned a spark from the railroad turns your your open space property on fire turns our place on fire and here we go we're going to spend by the end of this year we'll have spent $25,000 on our open space we've gone to the railroad we've tried to get them to do their portion good luck um you get referred to Omaha you don't get an answer back on Bill
Francis again it's only a quarter to a half mile one of the people within the HOA and and I haven't seen this but what they tell us that there's a county document that says the gim's issue of how you going to get out of there on Bell Road that there's already a county document saying they're going to get out of it by going down to Bill Francis Bill Francis can't handle it when you get to Bill Francis it comes into new Airport Road there's a stop sign if you you go right you go about 100 150 yar
ds and you're on Bell Road there ain't a whole lot of room there if you go left now you go towards Sullivan Ranch and there's been some people from Sullivan Ranch tell you there's a big bend there at 2 o'l in the afternoon on Wednesday if I'm pulling out of there I'm really careful because everybody's picking up speed they can't see me coming this way so from a fire from a safety issue you know don't do it and if you are going to do it you got to find a way not to try to use Bill Francis Road it
's the wrong way to go what we're really worried about is if that railroad kicks up a spark and something catches fire the bad news is we got a fire the good news from our HOA standpoint is it's going that way okay that way is a thing called the pler County school bus depot whole bunch of school buses and they all use fuel that's where you're storing fuel now you want to put hous is on the other side of them so from a you know safy issue don't do it thank you so much for your comments good after
noon good afternoon my name is Holly Tomas I'm uh born and raised Roseville Granite Bay so I've been here for 60 years and I actually live on AUB pulam one of the last developments before you get to the lake and I that's one thing I want to go over I mean I actually really appreciate all the work you guys are trying to do it's not easy we have to come up with a solution in some way but I have to agree to put hover and you've defined it in a very generic nebulous term very low to low income I thi
nk those terms should be defined very clearly so we understand exactly what's going in there having affordable housing is very important however putting it next to C stallman junior high on Auburn fulam which is a two-lane road now I work at the very end of Douglas and I live at the other end of Douglas in Granite Bay on Friday if I leave my office at 2:00 that's a 40-minute drive now I start work at 6:00 a.m. so it's a 15minute drive to get there now you're going to impact it with you know what
is that 109 189 so basically let say 200 246 600 people in there and also the educational system I mean I don't know what what you you know that is very unreasonable I would truly look look at the developments in District 4 that are even remotely or on Old close to Auburn fulam Road the infrastructure cannot handle it the schools cannot handle it and certainly um just the per capita versus how many residents we have there now how many new residents you want to put in there is not going to work
that's actually second there's been a lot of great comments but when this was coming out you were saying in 2017 and uh was it 2017 you started this based on laws okay you started A Five-Year Plan for senior citizens and one of the biggest concerns was housing also in your report you said that senior citizens 60 years and older make up approximately 177% Now 60 years and older are going to take up 147% of the population as it's growing 85 people on older are going to take up 447 per. so I think
it was you right you're the City attorney is that correct or not somebody did anyway we were looking at and I believe it was you Jane Christensen about veterans senior citizen veterans which I applaud um I think we should really look at places like Mr Aron with the Beautiful View at what is that going to look like in 20 to 30 years the majority of the lowincome people that actually meet this standard are going to be 60 years and older and they need services and your main services are Transportat
ion they be able to get medical care services and housing I would strongly urge that yes we're going to have to do low income housing let's start looking looking at senior citizen housing as low-income housing and I think that might kill two birds with one stone and I think the community would Embrace that thank you thank you for your comments yeah you going announce the next one okay hold just one second hold just one second sure if we could get everyone from group four and five to stand up and
line up please okay good afternoon good afternoon uh I'm Bob Peterson I've been a resident of Auburn since 1988 my only previous venture into plaster politics was losing a uh School Board election to Jim Holmes um but I'm here to represent the Mountain Shadows Homeowner Association looking at the plan and and watching what happened to 49 since 1988 great Improvement but the congestion hasn't been really managed it's still there and now you want to add over 700 units and that same Four Mile Stre
tch it's it's just ludicrous I just don't get it the other question I was coming to mind after reading through all the documents and and uh supervisor guson you brought this up is there's no guarantee that the developers will meet the objectives that simple Point alone undermines all the professional due diligence that you've done a total waste of your time unacceptable unacceptable okay got a plan put some guardrails on it when I think about our community and sustainable growth I like to think
of it as more important to have sustainable quality of life when I moved down here from Oregon in 1988 I worked at HP in Roseville so I ZIP down 80 ZIP down 65 nothing but open field and look at 65 today we are not very far from being that same miserable Corridor that used to be beautiful open land if we let projects like this go and get proposed and move forward without the right checks and balances so when I think about government what I see is lacking Common Sense lacking accountability and l
acking a true understanding of the consequences of all the stuff that you legislate okay so get it together um again I really do want to thank the supervisors for holding this and the Planning Commission I know it's hard work um but listening to everybody here I mean I just have my two points but obviously this just won't work so let's uh [Applause] reset hi my name is Robbie Thompson I live in Auburn good afternoon and I have many many years of experience with HUD Housing lowincome section 8 an
d voucher type tenants many years of that seen everything and I do believe there is a need for lowincome housing in all areas but it's got to be done correctly as you all know and that's why we're here um in my experience most uh voucher tenants have little or no credit they've usually had a financial hardship and the process of vetting them has to be done correctly it takes time it takes investigation the voucher program always worked for me before for vetting and inside of those voucher progra
ms we found good tenants we did uh but many years ago um the voucher program used to work as we could vet the tenants with their past job history their B past ATT rental history but a few years ago as we all know the state opened up the voucher program to the homeless to try and help with this homeless situation which is rampant right the problem um with most vouchers homeless people is that you cannot vet them uh let me just give you an example of a recent open house that I had um at one of my
rental properties a woman came in with two of her five children um they were living in a tent all six of them the two children that came with um her were 14 and 16 and both of them were pregnant the woman's speech was and behavior was loud and erratic and her daughter said oh yeah my mom's a a crackhead so on paper this family had a huge need right on paper but in reality housing was not the biggest problem for this family having a house does not protect the children from drugs and abuse or help
the mother to get clean what about vetting someone that's a hoarder I believe that someone should live the way they want but it affects a whole Community like you're building these big high r highrises with 300 people you know if you get CAU roaches and bed bugs in there guess what you can't get those out so how do we vet that type of person um in a large building like that the the question is how does the city keep the people that live in the complex the complex that you're building and the co
mmunity around the area safe in my experience most applicants that are voucher type in my experience a lot of them put incorrect information that's not correct like their past tenant I mean it takes a lot to V that a vouchered person not that they're bad not that they're it's just it takes more time to make sure everybody's safe inside the community California is a tenant right State it's very hard to remove a tenant once it's in place if you give that person that tenant a notice to vacate they'
re considered displaced and you will have to pay a large sum of money per person to vacate that person you can't just give them a notice that's called displacement it can cost from $5,000 to $8,000 per tenant living the unit the only way to remove them if they if they breach their lease the gentleman talked about eviction a tenant only if they breach their lease they can be EV evicted if you have a good tenant in there they're not going to breach their lease they're going to be a good tenant can
you wrap up your comments I'm sorry your time is expired oh okay thank you but thank you for your comments and thank you for coming good afternoon good afternoon supervisors Pete Davidson from Florence Court yes I'm uh very very pleased that Florence seems to be a behind us issue I hope that's the case I hope we're not waiting for more California nonsense to come our way and oh we have that property over there in Florence boy that would be a a great choice what I'm disappointed at hearing is th
at and I think you brought it up super uh chairperson uh on November 27th it was suggested that Florence goes off the list what a great time to talk about sunset in Cincinnati at that time yet that seemed to been sat on for a couple months and I know I I could hear it back there where I was like what happened there so anyway um I do appreciate so much the supervisors that came out and physically inspected Florence and really took a look at it it was a ridiculous proposition from the get-go I don
't know why it took two full months to actually come off the list I mean that was just anyway so one of the things that I did uh is I got to know who the owner of the Florence property was and I went and talked with him a few times in the phone and we actually met and had coffee for an hour I asked for 20 minutes we got an hour and one of the things he told me and we'll never forget is like I don't know why they chose Florence I've got other properties that make a lot more sense so please tell m
e he said I have 80 acres this is B Road here this is Richardson over here he has 80 acres if you continue Richardson to Atwood people know where Atwood is 80 acres that actually adjoins the pler county jail so it's right on the property it could actually be called a dit addendum 80 acres he said I've tried to talk to people about it and nobody seems to want to go there oh it's too big it doesn't make sense what do you mean it's too big and it doesn't make sense now we've got some issues I know
what somebody said it's it's going to come up another in another 5 years we're going to need more property we're going to need more to do I think people identify up here this is the county seat why don't you take a look at that 80 acres apparently there's another 20 acres next to that that would be 100 acres there's your growth right there instead of invading these neighborhoods and disrupting these neighborhoods and putting these what you consider to be beautiful buildings th that is an affront
to a rural neighborhood let me tell you that really is so the benefits of that 80 plus acres you could provide health care services within there counseling daycare ease of Transportation it's in here where Services actually exist unlike Florence and parking close to jobs I I just you know sometimes we get too complex maybe even showing off that oh gosh we're going to select all these properties and look what you did select and look what's been finally put away thank you very much thank you for
your comments good afternoon good afternoon my name is Jeff Pettit I live on Blitz Lane and I just want to get a little raise hands of all the blitz slain people that are here today um there's about three or four more that were outside that had to leave but uh it's great to be here and thank you for having us um I if you haven't already I would like to invite any of you but especially supervisor gust ofon and supervisor Holmes to drive out to Blitz Lane and walk along the PG canal and imagine in
your mind even the most beautiful 20 to 30 unit per acre building in the world to be on that particular site so um I'm was glad to hear all the people from property 74 raising their voices so prop property 73 needs to get a little action here anyway thank you for that um I want to know whether the supervisors are going to when I suppose we have a meeting next Thursday but are you going to um what is that how does this current list of properties match up with the the list with the properties on
the draft environmental impact report is there a match um um I was just I just want to read briefly from page 12-4 I think it is sorry I wasn't quite prepared the selection of the environmentally Superior alternative is focused on which alternative would reduce the project project significant impacts by the greatest level of intensity because the reduced SES smaller unit buffer alternative would reduce the residential development potential of the proposed project for approximately 65% this alter
native has the ability to reduce the intensity of the project significant impact to the greatest degree therefore the reduced sights smaller unit buffer which um I see here does not include property 74 or 73 would be considered the environmentally Superior Alterna ative so I hope you will consider that yes and the planning department they're taking notes and they will answer your questions when all the comments are finished thank you thank you for your comments good afternoon good afternoon uh m
y name is Ryan Brown I also live on Blitz Lane uh so North Auburn District 5 I just uh want to express my uh frustration with the matter I'm sure every everyone here can attest to that uh thank you for your help with the matter as well um just a couple things to uh touch on so we said that the spot on Blitz Lane is 10 acres it's actually 10.1 and then you I think you did address that um later on that it is over 10 acres so that would change I think the category that it's in um but just a couple
things it doesn't seem like we're really prepared for the change um with the influx of how many people these these uh communities or these uh buildings will um house and I think it's already been touched on a lot today I just wanted to represent our our small area for uh uh 73 um the change and what did would affect as far as with the 9911 system our small hospital here in Auburn uh our water the crime rate will go up uh this low income houses uh I work in Sacramento and I've seen them firsthand
and it changes the community it will change Auburn uh I hope all of you live in Auburn so you take that to your core that this this boat and this this change will affect this small city um drugs and everything else that comes with this small these small uh low-income places um uh schools was already touched on but we already had a school closed in Auburn uh that's another concern um I have two small kids that's a big concern for me uh for the well-being um the cost of this do a and that was tou
ched on earlier as well but our taxes what what will change with that um and then also in putting in large 20 to 30 units in this 10 acres and I agree with Jeff I I really think you guys need to come out and see where this is proposed to be it's not a convenient spot there's one way in one way out so it's already a fire danger it's as far as egress goes it's below grade from the water canal which doesn't make any sense it doesn't make sense to put a giant Community there in the backyards of acre
Parcels already there so it takes country and it turns into City immediately so it drops our property values and that's already a headache and a half so um thank you for listening and I appreciate your time thank you for your comments good afternoon hi good afternoon supervisors um I I wanted to Second what amber Beckler mentioned about the 33% in Granite Bay um we've had an influx previous to our current supervisor we had a whole influx of um development of senior housing car washes I mean it
it exploded in the in the last four years I think that Kirk guler was there um I I think that we have a contract with you with our community plans so I know the specific plans have contracts but we have zoning contracts with you we build our community plans for high medium and low density we have trailer parks we have um plenty of opportunity for people to do that the reality is it's not affordable just because it's dense it will never be affordable and we know that because the ones on the corne
r of Eureka are 1.3 mil 700,000 to that I did want to talk about accountability um we're here today under two falsely promoted assumptions one is that the state is now coming up with this new requirement that plaster must show arena numbers for low-income housing that could be met throughout the current um housing element the second is that plaster unincorporated residents should pick up the shortfall I don't believe they should pick up the shortfall and what I would like to address is from 2013
to 2017 the the actual housing element was 2013 to 2021 from 2013 to 2017 the housing report showed zero progress on low and very low income so we already knew that then comes along December 2019 supervisors Gore weant Holmes uler and gustofson three of you are sitting up there now approved the sunset area plan with only 10% you knew you had 0% Reena were low and very low yet you approved a plan where new development was going in that wouldn't impact existing residents and yet you approve that
I I find that problematic you gave huge entitlements to special interests huge we're talking some of the largest development owners in even the United States thousands of acres and then the alliance for environmental leadership alternative was presented and the board at that time rejected more affordable housing deeming it too dense and that came directly from Bonnie Gore too dense so pler County decided to be the developer for Sunset area plan yet they're not managing the plan so you should be
able to easily go back and amend your own plan that you created and um the uh transfer to RNA uh to rural residents shouldn't be happening at all so it's great that we have large uh slid sets in tons of detail with thousands of pages but really it shouldn't even be happening we're here under false pre pretense actually um the uh the other thing I wanted to bring up was the social justice aspect having all your lowincome and putting services in Auburn and the rural areas where we don't have infra
structure um isn't fair to the low-income people that you're putting there but also having a low density High income residents where you put tons of millions of dollars there um there's a disparity in social justice and that should be addressed even at the Attorney General level because hcd is should not be qualifying your projects when you um put desperate communities um I I don't think that's right and I think that um the we should be saying no when asking for extensions and the county should
be picking up the tab for their default through hybrid Solutions with County owned property specific plans and you can just tell them no when they want a new new project or something you can just say as soon as you put your rhna in there we will do it so that I I don't buy that argument at all so I think if the sunset area plan should be first not last the county should ask for an extension and the county should pay their own bills not put them on Rural residents thank [Applause] [Music] [Applau
se] you hi my name is Keno I live on Blitz Lane um I just want to reiterate what uh uh Jeff and Ryan said um and I want I don't know if you have actually gone and looked at that area but Blitz Lane is a very um compact Community it's bordered on one side by the canal on the other side by another development it's all fenced in it's 11 no 14 houses 14 properties one acre zoning and uh with the uh property number 73 three which is 10 acres at 30 units per acre that's 300 units that's a th000 people
or more on an area right now that contains you know 50 or 100 people not even that many so you really need to look at that it's not really a viable place the other thing is is the entrance and exit from that area is very small there's a house a piece of property on this side and a canal on the other side and it's about as wide as half of your desk there so you can imagine trying to get thousands of people in and out of there not going to be a a viable thing so uh I would appreciate it if you do
not include that in this uh rezone uh rezoning thank you thank you for your comments appreciate it um after the two of you before we go on to our next group we're going to take a f minute break for necessity okay hi my name's um Christy xran I figured showing up today wasn't enough I wanted to get up and say my opposer for the B road project um I was trying to think of points that other people haven't brought up because everybody's brought up great points I live on Old Airport which is on the s
ame side as the golf course so I'm on a single Street there's 10 of us and the only people that use our street are homeowners and anybody body wants me to sleep in their car so my opposition to the Bell Road Project is not only my insurance myself has went up in the last seven years from 1,500 to now 12,000 a year what are they going to do when their insurance increases every year they're going to start living in their cars on our rural streets not only that my daughter attended Bowman elementar
y I live walking distance I would never allow her to walk to my house because there's no sidewalks there's no Crossings so everybody in this Bell Road Project how are they going to get to Bowman which would be their school district now my daughter goes to pler and you've canceled all the buses I am a taxpaying citizen who works a full-time job and I have to alter my schedule every day to get my daughter to school and home from school who's a freshman because I have no buses and I live off of Bel
l Road so what are they going to do luckily I have a sustained career that I can adjust my hours I don't know that they would be in the same position that I would so those are my key elements of why I'm opposed to the Bell Road Project thank you for your comments good afternoon good afternoon um I know you guys have necessity so good news is this is going to be quick uh my name is Dan how and I live in Granite Bay off of Fuller Drive just a couple hundred yards away from one of the sites there a
re multitud of reasons why I vly opposed site 26 8989 op fulson Road for this program many others showed great passion in their comments today and I agree with the vast majority of what was said to expand upon what was touched on a number of times I'd like to review with you with some of the data I downloaded from the plaster County website today regarding traffic the second most traffic congested area in plaster county is listed on the website and updated in September of 2023 is the Willow Cree
k Drive area with an average annual daily flow of 7,830 cars per day the area directly influenced by site 26 which is Auburn folman Douglas Area has an average annual daily flow of approximately 38,000 cars per day which is five and a half times of congestion of the second closest adding an additional thousand plus cars directly in the middle of this would be an increase of another 5 a half% of the traffic congestion that is insane inequitable and flat out unsafe especially considering cavat Mid
dle School right next door the community of kids that ride their bikes and walk not only to school but at the shopping centers the lake Etc please remove site 26 from consideration is a terrible idea and nowhere near what is in the best interest of our community thank you thank you for your comments good afternoon hi my name is Linda Christensen and I live uh next to the Sullivan Ranch and I'm I I'm so it's uh parcel 74 that I am really concerned about that number of units there is going to crea
te a huge mess it's the part of the people will go out onto Bell Road the other ones are going to go on Bill Francis Bill Francis goes right into new Airport Road New Airport Road can't sustain the kind of traffic that is going to create there's already a low-income unit down below my house people are walking down to Bell Road that is so dangerous there's no sidewalks those people are crowding into the road and somebody's going to get really hurt because there's all kinds of people that are walk
ing down new Airport Road ready you put a lowincome fac you know units up there and there's going to be a lot more people walking plus all the traffic that's coming down the the the speed limit is 25 nobody goes 25 on that road nobody it's just it's insane and there's quite a few accidents because there's curves on the road and stuff and people want to I don't know what they want to do they want to adjust the um the rate or something car speed and stuff but anyway but that's one of my concerns b
ut the other one is um it's low income have any of you lived in Auburn greens have you lived in uh Gateway Oaks have you spent any time in there do you know what kind of people those are I live 13 years in Auburn greens it's awful it's terrible I was afraid for my life at times and it was that was 20 years ago have you driven through there that's what's going to happen in our area that's what's going to happen and that is so wrong that is just wrong to put that we have a lovely a lovely Communit
y up here we have a lovely Community I retired here and I don't feel that I should have to worry about people that are walking down my street and being crazy and that's what lowincome housing brings into our lovely Community um I I just have one more thing I understood that it was 11 acres that's going to be looked at I heard another I got an email from a friend today said it was oh only one acre that's going to be looked at I don't understand the difference CU if it's one acre that's not going
to sustain any housing if it's 11 acres that makes a huge amount of difference and I just think I'm against the 74 so thank you thank you for your comments okay we'll be taking a 5 minute break and uh so what time does that put us back here Megan at 550 550 okay we will be back at 550 e for for for for for for e for for for for e for for e for for for for times three or four people 1500 people in a little town where we close the library yeah anyway thank you thank you for your time appreciate it
and again if I had a chance okay thank you and you too okay everyone can we get your attention again um Megan did you want to make an announcement about more people if we can have all the remaining people signed up for public comment that are in the room line up now that would be much appreciated yeah please come and line up if you want to make public comment we're trying to measure how many more people we have before we go to the online commenters okay just the three of you please come forward
good afternoon or good evening maybe is her microphone ondon good there you go my concern is for 178 and 13 it seems unbelievable to me that the town of penan has a plus 35 that they only have to find people for 35 but yet penan who has nothing and by way of infrastructure unless you and grocery stores unless you come the fast pack um you're planning on putting 8% of the units in penin on 15 Acres or whatever that acreage is I don't even know I know what NA means but I don't know how how many r
esidents that is but anyway you're talking about putting over 300 units and 300 people and a in penin and that and that seems unreal that we get 10% or eight eight or % of the amount of homes that you're talking about anyway we have no infrastructure our schools is yada yada yada everybody says has said stuff about the sidewalks and whatever we don't have anything and the easements on to the freeways have you seen how short those onramps are and I went to the Mac meeting and uh there was a plann
ing guy there and we said well what about our aqi we're one of the worst well that could be overridden because it's low lwi income housing well what about our schools oh that could be overridden well what about about traffic they said over a thousand I think was over a th car trips and they said oh that could be overridden the one thing in um I'm I've been there forever and the Penman Parkway was never meant for apartment houses I don't know how it's getting through I don't know why you're sitti
ng here saying that it's commercial it was never planned that way and I was part of that penin Parkway 25 years ago and the other thing uh back in I believe uh 2006 the state of California voted on a proposition that if we didn't like what the super supervisors did that we could put it up for a referendum and I hate to put myself and the queue above everybody else but I'd like an answer to that can we have a referendum on a development like this can we get it on the ballot because I do have live
stock that I have to go feed and I have a dog that's outside in an area where there is a mountain lion so I'd like to get home and do that so I hate to put myself above the queue but I'd like to know if we can get a referendum against this thank you I'm thinking Megan can you get her email address and and maybe reach out to her afterwards because we can't give you an answer right now but we can get one to you and thank you for coming and making comments okay hi my name's Janice petet and I live
on Blitz Lane in North Auburn and I know you've heard from a few of us but I have a few other points I would address Blitz Lane in specifics but also the general project of it so um this property lays along the ditch I call it the ditch Trail um the PG ditch water and there is a trail that runs along that and it is a problem area in the evenings for people who like to do drugs and things like that so we already have that and in this Forest area of the 10 acres um they have problems with homeless
encampment and that's one of the problems that this homeowner is trying to um solve but it's a little ironic that we would solve it with people that are probably doing some of the same things so it's not actually a solution to that problem um there's also an extensive amount of wildlife in there the uh ditch goes to the P Pond which feeds a lot of wildlife so it is a very strong Wildlife Area and could be Des designated a wildlife sanctuary or even a public park or or something like that becaus
e of the good water source for the animals um the um sorry I getting all my points one question I have that has been asked before is the traffic of course on Edgewood Road we've talked about that of adding traffic to Edgewood Road but we're talking about all of these projects for Highway 49 which you guys all know is already becoming a disaster all of these projects are going to be adding to the traffic on Highway 49 and it's going to have to have a bypass or something which is going to totally
change the face of this community um so as a project as a whole this North Auburn part has to address the traffic first and foremost um the uh next question I have is this population that the state is asking for us to absorb where is this coming from our state is losing population it had a net population loss so how is the state demanding that we are increasing all this population yet California is losing population so I don't even understand this decision by the state we do ask you to support u
s at the state level to talk back to the state level and I thank all of you that are here today still to talk to your state Representatives about this issue that's where it's coming from so get on them and um last one is that uh the lawsuit that changed the overlay that is a problem that is why everybody's feeling boxed into a corner and suddenly finding out about that that is legitimate for you to ask for a delay so that the public can get their things said and that so you can do this right or
that we can talk to the state and get this change before you have to do something you wish you never did thank you very much thank you for your [Applause] comments good evening Hi how are you um my name is Marissa Canalis and I wasn't really planning on coming up here today and I just want to thank you for your time I know it's been a really long day for you guys um but I couldn't let tonight end without just saying something my um house is in between what was 3 4 and five and 8 smack dab in bet
ween this little space is my home um we are very fortunate to be able to live in a rural community and my husband and I have poured our hearts and souls not only into our home but into buying our home and we take a lot of pride in our land we have cleaned up two 40 yard dumpsters worth of garbage on our land just to try to make our community a better place and I I can only speak for myself but I know everybody in my community is also really like struggling with this um I watched my parents in th
e Central Valley get kicked out of their home and forced to move because of communities like this coming into their home and impacting their roadways so we had to move and I just don't want to see it happen again and I am very clear that all of us here love our community and what whether it's Roseville Auburn penan wherever it is I'm just heartbroken over all of it um so I just could not say something especially because my house is sandwiched in between this and all I can think about is the fact
that the reason we moved there is so that we can raise a family and be away from the city is going to be now taken from us and we're going to have cement walls put up around our house probably and um it's just a really unsettling feeling so I would just ask that you can take that into consideration when you're voting on eight please thank you thank you for your comments good evening number hi my name is Diana Newman I live in Granite Bay mobile home park I am the trailer trash that you're afrai
d of how to do um yes I recycle no I haven't stolen any of your catalytic converters uh well what I'd ask is um my mobile home park was bought out by a corporation about 5 years ago our rent has increased 10% every year on the dot since they took over my income has not paralleled that at all I am now low income kind of sucks um can you help the people that are already here is there a way to look look at those trailer parks and say you know you're already here we already know how to behave most o
f us um and perhaps look towards what we what we already have and take care of what we already have here before you build on rapidly build on something that maybe you don't we can't foresee the future I know but that you can't make good plans on I know you rush this I I it's not you rushing it know that um but I really think couple the other the last comments of the people saying that the state of California really isn't going to be to make you do anything because and I know you just raised your
my eyebrow your eyebrows at me at that but you know what they've got a lot of problems themselves and they've got no place telling you what to do with our community thank you for your [Applause] comments evening hi my name is Carrie fennick and I'm a resident of Penman and just going to make a couple of comments hopefully pretty brief but some themes that I've seen go through and hopefully you guys have seen the same ones a lot of lack of notice of what was going on um you know with all these c
hanges and so kind of a lack of trust or you know and that's not good when you're trying to interact with your community the other one that's been made a few times is around prior decisions that were done like not having any affordable housing in bigford ranch and other you know large developments has helped to drive the problem that we're having now and the communities are kind of being asked to swallow stuff we should never be had been in this position and then the other thing is if instead of
doing the inl payments which hopefully you guys aren't going to allow anymore um but if you had the developments as they are going in to put in the affordable housing so that it can be developed and the in infrastructure can be there and people can know what they're buying into and what's where and stuff to me is a whole lot better than trying to shove a bunch of stuff into existing communities and and I agree there was a comment made um earlier about looking at some of the um senior and Vetera
n housing as well cuz a large portion of our communities including me um are on that senior list and that's it thank you thank you for your comments good evening hi thank you for all of your time I appreciate it uh my name is delette zelman Jackson and a couple of things I'd like to clear up is there's been a lot of reference to the man who owns Belle property but let me tell you it's owned by two women and I'm one of them so anyway we are here to support the resoning of parcel 74 who are lowinc
ome people that's been a question so I've known supervisor home since I was about 11 or 12 I think I grew up here I went to pler high school and my father had a heating and air conditioning business that he developed here and it became very successful but I we were low-income people and I lived in a house that had torn up li lolium on the floor turn on the heater and we had termites my dad used to service your mob's restaurant and your mom was by herself and when times were tough money was tight
my dad gave you a break your mom many times we're the low-income people I don't live here anymore I live in peda Bay I live in a very expensive house but my family has had B Road for probably about 50 years we paid taxes on it every single year and if you're worried about development well when I lived here there was no North arburn so you've already let the cat out of the bag and you can't put the genie back in the bottle B bellroad is perfect to have low income housing I'm not talking homeless
in Camp that's just a downright lie that's not what it's for it's for people in your community that want to do better Auburn greens used to be like that my brother lived in Auburn greens it was affordable housing but there's a way to do this and there's a way to do it brilliantly you have the opportunity to do that and all the fear-mongering and Constitution stuff you have an obligation to follow the law the law says you have to do resoning or some way to get affordable housing that's your obli
gation not your personal feelings your obligation thank you thank you for your comments good evening hi Gary mappa Applegate I've only lived here since 1960 so I'm still feeling my way around so I appreciate everybody coming out and I appreciate the concern that a lot of the neighborhoods have and I agree with a lot of them too I look at what's happening here as first of all a requirement by the state of California and I look at these various properties and the reality in me says half of them or
a third or even more would probably never even get built or get to the county for planning so what we're doing is we're trying to satisfy the state but we're at the state because we let pler County down we didn't follow the housing element we didn't pay attention attention to the due dates when things are supposed to happen now's our chance to fix that now I was appointed to the plaster County Housing advisory task force two years ago and within a year we identified two properties one 290 units
another one nearly 40 units and less than a year year and a half and it's my understanding they're in for planning that's one 4 of the 12200 we need this board and I sent you each an email probably a couple months ago as a result of me coming to these meetings virtually every one of them except the Mac meetings asking you to Breathe new life back into the housing task force there was a successful group and the excuse was Staffing for the sake of Staffing we're all here right now trying to figur
e out how to put these puzzle pieces back together so my role here today is to implore you to Breathe new life back into the housing task force to be part of the tool to minimize the impacts of what we're going through now thank you thank you for your comments okay I'm going to close public comment in the chambers and we'll open public comment for those online and making how many people do we have online we have seven seven okay we will hear seven constituents online caller go ahead and unmute y
our mic and give your comments Patty can you unmute your mic and give your comments I didn't know I was gonna be first hi it's Patty knife for from penin um I had a couple of things I wanted to point out well obviously the first one is I'm in penin and it seems like some of the parcels got taken off but we are still well over um what a community of about 900 people would be able to accommodate with Services schools um for uh Apartments um we're looking at um 13.4 Acres um so that's over 400 uh a
partments and as cie pointed out penan is the only community Community where there is already a proposal there's a proposal for low income high density housing um about 324 units and then there's another 2.6 Acres that's also looking to be rezoned so if we're looking at even 400 units I don't know where the numbers came from originally in the in the presentation from Cali but that's 30% of all the units in penin a community with 900 people um you've already heard that the school is 100% impacted
in the lumus Unified School District and I really liked what uh Chris Puli said about that there should be good planning practices and that they've used good planning practices in where to place these sites well we're not in proximity of anything he mentioned grocery stores job sites public transportation um you've heard this before penin 400 units plus a density bonus which would give it another 50% higher than that is not a good idea and then I did look up I I worked in nonprofit for many yea
rs and I looked up us out um a properties and they are a 501c3 public in public interest nonprofit I have the 501c3 number I'll send that to the planning department so they do qualify for welfare tax exemption for the fact that they are a nonprofit running um the the apartments so there wouldn't be any money for schools fire traffic law enforcement that is a huge f a huge mistake um there's a fatal flaw in what you're doing and how you're resoning this and it kind of came up a little bit in one
of the developers that spoke you're rezoning for the purpose of meeting the arena requirements for affordable housing but there is no requirement that the affordable housing is what's going to be built um the developer that spoke um said he's going to build luxury apartments luxury condos that's what's going to be built there's nothing against doing that so if luxury apartments are built there then you have to reson more properties so what's happening is in rural plaster County you're going to c
ontinue rezoning but you're not rezoning for the real purpose of building affordable housing you're rezoning for luxury apartments high density and I don't know how to get around that there's no good solution but I see that as a huge flaw and I just want you to consider how many units you're putting into a small community um and how you're going to handle the affordable housing units when they come in um thank you for listening thank you for your comments Petty caller go ahead and unmute your mi
c and give your comments yes my name is Jeff Keith I'm a 30-year resident of uh South bler County and I I would like to see the uh parcel 29 at 3865 Old Auburn Road removed from the uh the list uh the reason being that since 2017 within a TW mile radius of my home there's been six uh property rezones from low density to high density one was 55 homes on 16 Acres another one was 114 residential units on 4 and a half acres 145 units on 8.9 Acres 72 homes on 20 acres 21 homes on 10 acres and 55 home
s on 33 Acres that's a total of 462 residential units rezoned uh within a 2 mile radius of my home within five miles there's been a number of other projects which I I won't mention um Old Auburn Road is already congested will be even more congested by what's being proposed for Lot 29 which as I understand it is 94 U Apartments so um I think I think we've had enough low density to high density rezones in this area I think uh parcel 29 should come off was purchased uh just a little over a couple o
f years ago by somebody who had the intention of not living there but developing it uh initially he proposed 23 single family residences on the 5 Acres now now I understand he's agreeing to something like 94 94 unit apartment building so again I would just like to you know for the sake of me and the sake of my neighbors propose that you take uh partial 29 off uh from from the uh the list there's been enough high density uh housing put in here thank you thank you for for your comments caller go a
head and unmute your mic and give your comments greetings can you hear me all right yes okay um my name is Dian Louis alessie I am the vice chair for Christian Valley Park Community Services district and um right from the start I would like to thank Cindy gusterson for coming to a special board meeting of ours and which was actually town hall meeting and she addressed um approximately 30 or 40 people if you count who was online and addressed these issues um I'm going to take this in a totally di
fferent um and I do very much appreciate you reaching out to us Cindy thank you um I agree with everything and have been on all day with you guys plus I have a board meeting here real shortly so I'm going to try to wrap this up quickly um I appreciate um that the the board is in a in a conundrum because of Arena and all of the subsequent laws that were attached to Reena and then the most recent one of course gave it teeth where it started going after um counties and cities and so on and so forth
to start San uh laying really Hefty sanctions so I'm going to propose um in the in the light of the facts that the state of California itself has laid out a graph where the there is going to be a decline a continued decline all the way out to 2060 for the numbers in the state we've already lost the two legislative seats as you know due to decline of numbers I would suggest that we um the board put councel on this and put to the state an administrative process for conditional acceptance upon pro
of of their claim do it in an affidavit form that requires them under penalty of perjury under wedding signature and seal with evidence to support what they put in Motion in 2018 signed in 2020 as being reliable data to support the numbers that they're doing there is a fact that the California auditor put out a public letter stating that hcd was using flawed data and that essentially the numbers that they are putting in the prediction and forcing hoisting upon counties and cities to um come up w
ith these Reon is almost double and that's actually an open letter that can be looked at on the Auditor's website so you have grounds for putting this out from the fact that Co started in 2020 carried on for three years many things were put on suspension or hold including filing taxes there's a myriad of things that got in the way and that could be cited in this conditional acceptance or qualified written request for substantiation of claim to the city the um she's done could you please um wrap
up your comments because your time has expired thank you okay so um I think what I would like to just say is you know have the state also demand um a foray how is this infrastructure going to be funded the state would have to increase or general fund bond which would increase taxes and my final comment would be for the County to initiate a veto referendum for Reena and all of its subsequent um ab and SB bills that give it the tea um send it to the attorney general the governor and all the legisl
ators that sponsored it and I appreciate your time thank you so much I wrap that up thank you for your comments caller go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments good evening my name is Troy alessie I've been a resident of pler County for over 30 years um I want to start off by saying I appreciate everyone's uh Vigor and enthusiasm by which they've approach this particular subject because um it obviously does take our voices to um ultimately funnel down into the alleged Representatives
that we have and we can only pray that our representative atives um do our bidding uh nonetheless you can probably tell based upon the tenor uh that there's like a lot of pressure that's built up at least in One Direction um from this in particular uh I do want to address uh one of the comments that seem to kind of brazenly uh brush off the idea that we are not a constitutional uh state but we are designed primarily through Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution as well as Articl
e 1 Section 8 of the California Constitution to um honor all contracts and so I have no problem with private property owners doing with their private property what they so wish but I don't support coercion duress unconscionable or unreasonable premises for the installation of law so I would hope that you guys will um demonstrate having a backbone and stand up to the state um because I believe as was just mentioned and I have seen and can corroborate that the auditor assessment that is on the Cal
ifornia State website um does confirm that there was essentially double counting going on to lead up to what was ultimately assessed to be the numbers assigned to each of the cities and counties So based upon that logic alone there's already a lot um a well-founded standing that would say that we're actually well over the number that would ultimately be needed based upon the auditor's assessment so from that standpoint I would think that you guys have a lot of opportunity here to reopen the elem
ent I it shouldn't be a scary proposition and I think it's been mentioned well stated here before that um the state isn't going to do anything they rely on us to be the creditors for everything that they do so all they can do is set up what is effectively one out of three branches creating a bill and we all know what bills are we get them every month so you handle it like a financial responsibility to the degree that it's reasonable cautionable it's not under coercion or duress and those allow f
or us to uh successfully exercise our rights I would hope and I do want to just finalize on stating that um it's it is unconscionable and unreasonable to um assign obligations to unincorporated areas of the state granted yes they might be under certain levels of fty to the overall County but nonetheless they are not Incorporated to what ultimately is that Financial bill that all of the other um Incorporated areas are obligated to so with that I do yield I thank you all for your time have a wonde
rful evening thank you for your comments caller go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments all right can you hear me yes hi my name is Josh Pedigo I'm a US Army veteran and Resident at Granite Bay in District 4 uh the proposed developments on Auburn fome and Old Auburn roads are absolutely ludicrous we don't have the infrastructure to support these proposed developments our school system is highly ranked and regarded despite being already highly impacted and simply cannot handle another
influx of 5 to 800 new students not to mention there's a high cover charge of us residents we pay to afford our children these opportunities so let's not mince words yet we want to degrade our school ratings and our student outcomes and in doing so our home values that we work our Collective butts off to afford which we're happy to do knowing that we are adding these additional benefits for our children if you sit back do nothing you are complicit in the degradation of our community specificall
y you Suzanne Jones in an election year no less not to mention I continually hear how there is no guarantee these will even all be allocated to low-income housing nor is there anything we can do to enforce it this is a simple developer land grab where we will be in an even larger deficit when it comes to reevaluate our position in 2029 great you converted 1,600 new homes made 160 of them low income now you need to make that 1440 deficit from last time oh by the way you new benchmark's 3200 go fi
nd some more land I think the woman that spoke from Meda Bay from her multi-million dollar home who no longer lives here and is looking to cash out on her worthless piece of property speaks volumes as to what's going on here you know where there's plenty of land in plaster County that's flat right for development and not in this discussion at all Lincoln get out of Granite Bay do your due diligence shift your focus to Lincoln also I loved how they deflected the comment about veteran housing to e
lderly housing and not worried about the zoning on age restrictions so can we get some more clarity on that thank you I Yi thank you for your comments caller go ahead and unmute your mic Mr garabedian can you unmute your mic caller can you unmute your mic can you hear me yes we can this is Brady Nations thank you very much for putting through a long session here I have a request in the theme of showing some background to the state I would like the board and staff to invite or better said mandate
a state employee to sit and look listen to this entire recording approaching 5 hours long and then have a meeting and let that person come and speak to us and address all of these concerns and I'd like to see that in the minutes and I'd like to see what effort goes into making that request thank you for your comments thank you very much thank you for your comments Michael again Mr caraban are you able to unmute your mic Mr gabian chair at this point we have no further public comment okay we wil
l close then the public comment via zoom and bring it back to well actually County would you like to answer some of those questions count if I might suggest another uh five minute break just for staff to get our comments in order and then um pair of response I guess we can do that okay we'll give you we'll give you five um okay five minutes that puts us at uh 6:38 what's e for for e e e for e for for e for e for for e e e for for e e for for e um that is from the staff report and it's also the i
nformation that's yeah we have the fers we yeah hello everyone we are back in session and so now it is our planning Department's turn yeah thank you chair Jones um first of all just wanted to start with acknowledging um all of the public comment that we received received um today we uh noted over 60 distinct public comments and uh I think that speaks to the level of interest in this item and we appreciate all of the all of the public comments uh we had a number of um items that came up that we f
elt like we should um provide some response to and then uh certainly answer questions from the from the board um on things that we may not have covered uh the first that we wanted to start with or that I I'd like to start with is just uh there was quite a bit of conversation and questions about um affordable housing um and uh affordable levels and so um just for the folks that are here in attendance we did have a number of Flyers that we um handed out they were in the front uh as you came in but
it had uh information on uh affordable housing and affordable income levels and we have a couple of slides that we can go through here too uh but the first is to indicate what is uh what what are the um income levels at these lower income uh lower income levels and so you'll see uh for a lower income family of four in plaster County uh that would be a family earning uh 85,00 and under um and then for what that would translate to in affordable rents um or affordable mortgage would be U 2,300 a m
onth uh the maximum home price price would be 267,000 so I think that information goes uh goes a long way in explaining uh what what we mean when we say providing opportunities for lower income families and that does break out um with the other uh stratification there with low income and extremely low income as well but gives you a good sense of what those uh what those numbers are um did want to also speak to the affordable housing requirement ments there were a number of of questions that came
up about our requirements and we we touched on that briefly during the presentation but just to um go back over that there there is a an inclusionary housing requirement um for the county again for developments that are 99 units and under there is a a fee option for those developments but over 99 units there is a build requirement and there is a 10% affordable um uh requirement for those types of developments so whereas it is true that there will not be uh there's not proposed to be any deed re
strictions on the properties that would be rezoned uh through this process uh they will need to comply with our um our affordable housing inclusionary obligation the 10% correct um moving on to uh to some other questions that came up there were comments about the um draft eir that's been released and what the process is around that as was um as was noted there is a Planning Commission hearing next week on the 22nd uh the draft e we in the public comment period the Planning Commission hearing is
a hearing to receive public comment on that draft eir it's important to note that all of the uh properties all 72 properties were included in the uh draft deir again that was done from a timing um standpoint that we needed to proceed with the draft eir and um disclose all of the environmental impacts and provide that notification uh but that um that uh the final action will occur when this gets brought back the properties that will be included in the rezone will be decided when this item comes b
ack first to the Planning Commission in April as was outlined and then on May 7th which would be our tenative date um to bring this back to the to the board for final uh final decision um that does lead into uh a number of questions that were brought up about noticing um and staff has um we did have a slide on this but just to reiterate um uh staff has done um done quite a bit of work to try to get the word out as much as as possible um we have had a number of um meetings with the max we've had
a town hall meeting uh we have gone through um all of the steps through the environmental document uh C has just done an outstanding job with doing a lot of Outreach to property owners and just interested people uh based on the board Direction in November we did um start to put signs up on properties those are courtesy signs that were put up on those properties the um we that has generated a fair number of uh of of questions and and comments that we've been responding to and um uh with uh with t
hat that signage when we do move forward for um uh for hearings at the Planning Commission and at the board there'll be additional disclosure um that will be done uh through mailings and so forth to property own are surrounding the subject sites that are uh scheduled for a rezone so there will be additional Outreach done at that point uh wanted to speak to the selection of the um of the sites in the program I know we spent some time going about how things have have progressed since uh the uh dev
elopment of the housing element and the sites that were considered as part of that effort uh but um in terms of the sites that were ultimately recommended um for for inclusion in your package today one again voluntary Property Owners we've we've wanted to and we've heard direction from the board that you've wanted us to um go about this with willing participants willing Property Owners uh so that was U of Paramount importance but a couple of things that also came up during this during the hearin
g were the um access to infrastructure as well as um uh comments of about uh them the sites being in high resource areas or areas of opportunity which is extremely important in terms of how these sites will be evaluated by uh by hcd um so one we do have um slides we do have uh additional maps that we didn't go through with our uh presentation but we do have access to them we can bring them up all of the sites that we've been looking at um and that are are being Rec recommended to you do have acc
ess to the infrastructure it's a requirement of Hud I'm I'm sorry hcd um to ensure that that that sites have access to infrastructure as I mentioned during my uh remarks uh nine of the sites have already been approved by hcd through your housing element and so that was part of their review to ensure that there was access to infrastructure in terms of um um inclusion on the on the inventory list and then also access or having sites that are in high resource areas so there were comments about um s
ites in um in areas that may be a little bit more affluent uh areas that had access to high- performing schools those are exactly the type of analysis that goes into our fair housing review that hcd is going to require they want to see sites that are not um uh concentrated in low resource areas or areas that don't have access to um you know High performing schools or in areas that have um have access to opportunity and so that does go into the calculus and is and once we submit this draft housin
g element with these sites to hcd they will be requiring a fair housing analysis to ensure that those um those um uh criteria are being met um two other um things that I wanted to note there were uh comments about other sites other sites that should be explored U there were sites about sunset uh sunset uh area plan uh as part of the package that's before you um it does include um um direction to move forward with a potential rezone for the Cincinnati property uh staff were not anticipating looki
ng at opening that up to all properties in the sunset area plan so perhaps when there's Direction provided uh that might be something to um to consider uh given that the area um as a whole was really intended to be a a Industrial and Commercial and entertainment area but if we are to include a multif family residential uh outside of just that Cincinnati property that would be helpful Direction um to to uh to have from from the board in addition to that there was comments about um sites approxima
te to this location here off of Atwood there was a comment about an 80 Acre Site and a 20 Acre Site I did want to note that we are aware of those properties those properties actually have approved um entitlements for those sites um and we have not heard from that uh that owner or applicant at this point but that could be something to consider in the future should they not proceed with the entitlements that have already been granted for their uh for their properties um the last thing that I'll I'
ll I'll note is that um you know ultimately the package that we have before the board is um it has been revised There are 16 16 properties those 16 properties uh account for 1,6 units which as I mentioned earlier uh creates a shortfall of about 13 13 units uh again those result or the composition of that th the list is nine properties that were previously included in your housing element and seven new sites uh that have been evaluated and recommended we do have um properties that we're talked ab
out today that are on other lists that could be included if that's the desire of the board that would be the Bell Road property that was talked about there were talks uh there were mentions about the Lin andn way property Blitz none of those properties are on our staff recommendation list currently but those are sites that certainly we have property owner interest in and the board could consider to either put those onto the proposed list move other sites off or um provide whatever uh Direction y
ou you see fit and so with that I will turn it back to the board to see if there are any additional questions thank you yes rore thank you Chris I really appreciate that wrap up very very helpful question for you about infrastructure I know that you showed you know some slides of these properties near services but when it comes to infrastructure like being able to accommodate um traffic on roads um access to water or power when a project comes forth so say a property gets rezoned if a property i
f a project comes forth wanting to put on multif family housing at that location what else do they need to do right I would think that you can't just do it without looking at providing a wider Road or sidewalks or access or all the other things that we would do with a normal project that we approve so what would have to happen that that that's exactly right all of that analysis would need to be done at the time of reviewing of a Project Specific um application or request it's very likely that um
that these may come in with just a zoning clearance or a uh design review um uh application but all of those um all of those site specific uh requirements and issues would be evaluated as part of that process so if a property had a proposal for 75 units you would have to make sure that there was a road that was large enough to accommodate all those and that water was available that power was available and then that property owner could choose or not choose to um move forward because they have t
o mitigate for those um for that infrastructure correct that is so this isn't just sort of a d deal because I certainly understand the concerns about there not being infrastructure that is correct and that property owner would have to provide for that infrastructure in order to make that project work that's correct thank you the public comment period is over you could probably talk to them after the after the meeting um supervisor supervisor Guston would you like to include some comments yeah I
had oh I just wanted to follow up on a couple other questions I heard during public comment we had a lot of people throwing out a lot of numbers that don't match up with this chart but what this chart says is what you're discussing so when I heard people quoting numbers that I couldn't align to this we need to correct that because the I mean I with the members of the public that are Mis um understanding this so I just want to make sure that you can't just multiply the density per acre you've alr
eady looked at some of the restrictions on these properties is that correct yeah that is and that's why the numbers times acreage are what you've listed here yeah a couple of things as it relates to how the um realistic density is calculated on our um on on the um on the tables or hcd allows for a calculation at the minimum density level so we even though a site might be able to be developed at a greater density uh what we are able to include on on the uh inventory list is the minimum number of
units that would be built there so in most cases the what we've included on this list are at the 20 units per acre understanding that some um some may be a little bit higher than that when they are developed but in terms of what we are calculating um in terms of the list what we're able to to show is at the minimum density okay um and then with what supervisor gored asked the um project proponent comes back in with one of those larger projects obviously if it's a small project it may uh not have
as much review but any big project would have to come back before discretionary approvals and address some of those issues I think a lot of folks may think that hey this is it and they can go and that's yeah again it's going to depend on the type of project there could be discretionary entitlements um if if there's ambiguity I know we speak that speak y you do for sure but I try to but I don't always get it right but I think the public isn't clear what those discretionary approvals are and when
they would have a chance as a neighbor to say hey that's just too much on that site right right maybe they could go with 10 units but you know a 100 is too much and so I think that's some of what we've heard today is that frustration um with including myself not understanding exactly when it would trigger uh the opportunity for the public to be further notified if a project came forward and what those mitigations might be another question we had um Taylor had asked why the Tahoe sites were remo
ved I've already asked that but let's put it on the public record first the uh mobile home park at uh right by the edge of trucky there yeah so let's um we we were debating that one too there were a couple of comments that were made about it and as I recall the question was was about um why were there the sites in the Basin removed um first of all just want to mention none of the proposed rezone sites were actually in the Basin uh nor do we have ultimate land use Authority in the Basin I should
note however that there are sites included in our inventory that are in the Basin we mentioned the dollar Creek project as an example so there are sites that are outside of the Basin in the Tahoe area that we had made contact with uh two of the sites um one was one is a mobile home park um um just outside of the town of trucky uh the other one is near Alpine Meadows those two sites um are currently developed uh one is a mobile home park the other one has Workforce housing on it in initial conver
sations with those Property Owners they indicated they'd like to do some additional infill on those properties uh they seem to be very um interested in participating in the program however um you know a couple of reasons why we weren't recommending that they be included in the inventory is because um in conversations with hcd and in conversations with our Consulting team that we're working with they've indicated that hcd may have um concern about development at a mobile home park given the signi
ficant number of um might displace other individuals correct cor um and also the workforce Housing Development so um our initial um recommendation which was included in your package was to rezone those properties and hopefully encourage those uh Property Owners to do more development on their site that we could take credit for with our Arena calculations um however over the course of the last couple of months we have been unable to make contact with those owners so um that's why they've U Been o
n the list currently as as just removed okay and and I support both of those being rezoned just so you know I I think that is an opportunity if if the homeowner or if the property owners and the in the past had had been interested and they're currently serving Workforce housing um you know I think that we should consider those and and but I have another question on that in just a minute um and then uh when did the Reena numbers become clear to us as as the county that goals we had to achieve bec
ause that was another thing people said you've known for a long time and you haven't done anything I thought we just heard about these since 2020 2021 that's correct um as I mentioned um during the presentation the uh seog provided seo's board of directors took action on the arena numbers for all of the municipalities in believe it was March of 20120 um and so those numbers then influenced the development of the housing element which uh uh was adopted the board adopted in 2021 and then when did
the state uh give us notice that we had to do a rezone versus the overlay yeah so we we um caught word of the of the um appell at Court decision in I believe it was March or April of 2023 and uh promptly uh had good conversations and and uh noted to hcd that we were aware of the uh of the change um that would need to be made and started to head down that path um around that same time okay because and and I know that this doesn't make me popular with the public but I want to make sure we're all e
ducated that staff has been working on it thought you were in compliance with where the state wanted us to be until March of 2023 and up until then the state hadn't taken actions that were indicating that we were going to have to do what we're doing now so it isn't as if you knew this in 2017 or 29 some of the dates that were thrown out there and and I say that because we're all trying to satisfy these State mandates and the staff has worked really hard to come up with Solutions and they're frau
ght with issues I mean nobody wants I I I can't say that there's many in the room that have said we want this particular site but you've been working really hard since March to try to do that um I really do want to hear more about how we will notice the public before final decisions are made and I would say even immediately because we would typically mail um to people uh sooner than you know just seeing the sign up in their yard and so I'd like to plant that with the rest of the board that givin
g more opportunity for the public to understand this process and then finally on the on the actions you've requested today I had a couple questions um on item number two you want us to approve a list for further consideration for rezoning correct and and so once we do that How likely is it we can make change based on more people being noticed and more information on these sites yeah so a little bit more about what happens after the action and then and then on to number four or three we're going
to send this to hcd yeah I think those we back down from that yeah I think those are tied together in many ways so once we have a final um rezone list which is what we are are um seeking direction for uh from the board today then we have to prepare our housing element Amendment and there's work involved with that um so as I mentioned there's a fair housing analysis that our Consulting team will have to put together for each one of the sites that are being added it is of benefit that as I mention
ed nine of the sites have already been reviewed by hcd and so we don't believe that their review is going to be that significant on those sites but the new sites that would be added that analysis needs to be prepared and needs to um be complete we then have that 7-Day notice period that that cie mentioned and then it gets submitted to hcd and they have a 60-day review period they provide comments back to us then that sets us on a track to have the board approve the final rezone and the um and th
e housing element amendment that would ultimately um be be adopted um should there be changes from the time that the list is prepared and we do that work in um in putting the housing element Amendment um package together there would be need to be additional review of that list of the list and of the analysis and then we would resubmit it to hcd um depending on how significant those changes are That Could set us in another path of a 7-Day review period than a 60-day hcd review um depending again
on the um amount of changes that were made so so with that um let let me be clear on table five we heard today that um the property owner the land owners of 71 and 72 might be interested those weren't posted though is that correct uh that is correct those were those weren't posted are they subject of the eir yes okay so we could go out and post those absolutely we could notice the public and that would make up quite a bit and allow us to maybe remove portions are all of some of these more contro
versial sites that we heard public comment on today that that's absolutely the reason that we set it up this way is to give the board the ability to perhaps move some sites around so all of them all of the sites that are identified um are part of the the the eir the only ones that have actually had a sign posted on them are the ones that are identified in the staff proposal as well as the bell uh Bell Road site that actually has a site too but none of the other sites have have signs currently if
you did want to add them we would promptly go out and put signs on them well I I guess I'm yeah go ahead I did also just want to mention one thing with revised attachment a that's in front of you um table four is the staff proposed list and table seven is the sites proposed to be reson but not out of the inventory table five is also listed on there as other properties but that is that is simply for board consideration to add in uh staff's recommendation is just table four and table seven not ta
ble five well but we had a property owner say yes I'm interested and that they have a proposed project that may may be of interest and then then we could consider whether or not we remove um Bell uh from further consideration or or a reduced number because some of these were talking about upzoning properties but we're not counting them um and Alpine Meadows Road is another one that I feel like we we should post and notice and see if we get the property owners permission before we move forward to
give us more flexibility to address some of the more problematic sites um so I I'm sorry to take so much time anyway that that's kind of what I'm thinking board members on on that but but I I do do want to say I am concerned I hear that the public wants us to stand up to the state and and unfortunately I think the jobs that we took were to try to solve these problems rationally and reasonably and protect our community from the outcomes that could occur if we don't address the state and we haven
't talked much about Builders remedy and the Huntington Beach and Santa Monica lawsuits I have friends down there that said they're building 10 story apartment buildings without the city's approval to meet their needs and so I think the public needs that education too that once if we say no they can allow the Builder remedy which does that so I'd like to as much as we could drag this out I guess to some extent keeping the state at Bay until we really examine all these sites was just saying no to
day we'll get their wrath immediately maybe we can continue a path that gives us flexibility before we make our final decision that's that's what I'm thinking as one yeah okay supervisor Holmes yeah I agree with supervisor gustin's comments that we have to have some flexibil ability to work with the state if we say no they're going to tell us what we need to do and that's not a good good position to be in I want to thank staff for putting up the uh slide about the low income and very low income
because that was a question that a lot of people brought up uh and a lot of people are uninformed it's hard to you know figure all that out but I appreciate you bring putting that slide up um and I appreciate everyone that spoke today uh you know it was mostly u a good conversation and appreciate those of you that have are still here thank you I do had a couple comments about a couple of the properties uh the bellroad property that Miss Zigman talked about um I worked with her dad Frank and her
brother Richard who is a good friend of mine uh when that property in 1994 that property was zoned open space and somehow it slipped through uh the cracks and was not the property owner did not want that so I tried I worked tirelessly with him staff uh Tony lauff was working with me uh trying to get that property reson to no avail um but it comes down to the same issue uh that I've brought up before the access there's no access of um Bill Francis and that's problematic a right turn in and a righ
t turn out on that property so I would I would suggest that that be pulled off uh off the list and then U the prop uh property number 73 britz Blitz Lane that uh is a narrow Edgewood Road is a narrow road there's a mobile home park park there that's probably got what 200 uh mobile homes in there that is very busy coming out of there and what's happened now just in the last year we've got an AM PM coming right on that corner of um Nevada Street and then that little Y and that's going to be proble
matic it's already a mess and they're just doing the construction but when when you start to think about all the traffic that's going to go in and out of there the businesses along that that area where the where junky Joe's used to be uh and no nobody knows where that uh uh and the there's a couple of businesses there a body shop and a repair shop and there's a t company that has the property in the back that is really going to be problematic as it is so I I think that that I would recommend tha
t being Tak take off the list because of those those issues and uh other than that that's all I have to say right now and U I think uh I look forward to bringing this back and coming to a conclusion okay so supervisor Landon uh okay well um I don't have any questions I think first I just want to say thank you to staff for your patience and diligence and really great work um I think what this goes back to again for me is a philosophical disagreement with the implementation and uh feeling like we
are really being forced into doing something that we really don't want to do but I feel like we have to because we're fearful of the repercussions and I think that there are valid concerns about the repercussions because of Huntington Beach and some of the other jurisdictions that have had the state come in and take their land use Authority um I think I I did want to know I think I can't remember the G's name that made a public comment and she was um talking about the population of each City and
I did want to point out that uh as I think was maybe mentioned during the presentation that we can't count our numbers in the city and so we have to even though Roseville may be the largest population that's not part of our numbers so uh we can't can't take credit for that um so I um for the sunset area I don't know that I would be supportive of reopening the whole plan um I think it's important to me to protect the job creation that's supposed to happen and that's why that area was set aside i
n the first place but I I would be supportive of um looking into reaching out to those developers that we have development agreements with to see if there are methods by which we could incent incentivize them to increase the amount of affordable housing that they're willing to include in their projects um and uh let's see and also looking at specific plans as well um I think I uh I would it's just been too long of a day I don't even know what I'm thinking anymore um I I think it's fair to ask th
e state to to explain and justify why we have the numbers that we have um personally and I don't think I would get the support of my colleagues on this personally I would feel comfortable pushing this to the limit of uh what hcd said on their call with me was if we don't meet our deadline they would send us a letter we would have 30 days to respond they would send us another letter and then we would have another 30 days to respond um and I think I'm wanting to push that limit a little bit and no
t in a thumb my nose at the state kind of way I that's not my that's definitely not my personality I really just want them to be collaborative with us and I think I wrote down Morgan guy's quote this morning when he said solving Pro we solve problems in plaster County through collaboration and Innovation and that's really how I want to approach this and um I'm not exactly sure what the answer is to that I think I I don't know if I can support the current list if there were some fiddling around a
nd we removed some of these we would obviously come down further and we'd be at a greater shortfall um but I would be more open to supporting that with the intention that we are going to actively pursue getting justification from the state on why these numbers are still valid um also reopening potentially Das with developers who are willing to do that looking at our specific plans out in West cler to see if there are places where we might be able to do that and then of course the Cincinnati prop
erty as well um those are a few of my thoughts okay supervisor Guston it'll be really quick I just I wanted to say I I agree with you on pushing I just don't know if Now's the Time to push or before the final approval so that we keep at least trying to get to a a number so that's I just want to clarify my position on that okay so now you get to hear from me um first of all they talk about the rezone program proposed rm30 zoning district and I I don't trust the system because um in this it says t
hat noted above the proposed rm30 zoning District would increase the permissibility density and establish a minimum density of 20 dwellings I don't so if we have a a zoning in my district that says four to six houses per acre can I just assume that it can be two or three houses per acre I mean that's basically what they're saying rm30 means rm30 right so how can we say it's r that you can go to rm20 I don't know of any other dense any other zoning that you can go in and just say well I don't lik
e that it's 10 houses per acre we want it to be five houses per acre well actually in the in the current rm30 I'm sorry in the current multif family District the RM district there is there is no minimum um density and so that is um part of the challenge that hcd had with our um with our zoning designations and why we needed to establish an rm30 design uh rm30 district with a min minimum of 20 units per acre So currently in the RM District if you um built one home on the RM District you could you
could do that um and so again this this new designation will create a a um a uh a basement number of density that you can that that you would be required to build so 20 to 30 20 to 30 correct even though it says rm30 yep correct okay um then also too uh the purpose and the intent of the rm30 zoning uh to provide areas for residential neighborhoods of half plexus duplexes apartments and other multifam attached dwelling units such as Town Homes it it is intended that new development in this Distr
ict utilize Innovation site planning provide on-site recreational amenities and be located near major Community facilities business centers and or major streets I'm building my case so just bear with me here um um because it also goes on to say that um the criteria the criteria uh for selecting these sites were um identified in several ways first uh well I won't go through first and the second was staff identified candidate s sites based on criteria in state law which are size existing condition
existing zoning and proximity again to services including sewer water and Transit stops okay so the reason I'm building my case here is because none of those are applicable to the site 26 in Granite Bay we don't have Transit we don't have I'm not sure we even have sewer capacity because most of the residents in the Granite Bay portion of my district and I think perhaps penin and some of the other rural areas are on septic so when my residents who've lived there a long time when their septics ag
e out they will be required to go on sewer they won't have a choice they will have to go on sewer I want to make sure that our sewer capacity no one has addressed that not with DPW no one has addressed that although I've asked that question over and over again is will our sewer capacity handle something like this and the other thing too is those of us in the Granite Bay Area not the rest of my district but in the Granite Bay Area we rely on San water district and San Juan water only has above st
orage uh for water which is fome Lake and so will we have enough water we're we're going to we're going to increase the population I think we're right now at 2900 people in the Granite Bay Area and if we're talking about increasing that um over over a thousand that's going to be huge on on our services and as well as our schools our schools are maxed out in fact they're over maxed so we don't really have the capacity on the land that we have to build the schools larger and we don't have land to
build additional schools so there's that concern as well um I would um also ask why the um inconsistency you guys pulled um a parcel that was zoned I think it was 17 or 15.8 acres and on your chart you showed uh parcel I mean number 26 as 9.9 Acres but it is not actually 9.9 Acres how many acres is that site 17.6 okay so if you pulled the one that's 15.8 why haven't you pulled that one that's 17.6 so maybe I'll ask I'll I'll address that question first and then we'll go into Cali has a slide her
e here as well as some information on access to services and infrastructure as well but as it relates to your first question about um how we selected properties especially properties that were over the 10 acre limit um one thing that I've mentioned a couple times is that um we had sites that were already included in the housing element that was adopted in 2021 and hcd had already approved those sites um and 8989 Auburn fulsome is actually in the housing element that was adopted in 2021 and hcd h
as already reviewed that site and approved it as a candidate rezone site for um for inclusion in the rezone program but it doesn't fit the criteria it fit the criteria it fit their review and they had approved uh the the the the property um occasionally um or not occasionally but under some circumstances hcd has reviewed and approved larger sites in conversations with hcd uh they've indicated that they could consider larger sites they may add a program to our housing element uh that speaks to um
maybe prioritizing or streamlining a parcel map to to divide the property so that's something for us to consider with new sites that would be included like the Bell Road site if that were to be included in the uh in the rezone program and added onto the inventory so our initial thought was that for sites that were over 10 acres that had not had hcds review and approval that given our time constraints that it might make sense not to include them in the inventory and that's why the discrepancy be
tween the property um on Auburn fulam that's already been approved as part of the housing element and Bell Road which was a new site addition to the housing element okay I don't recall um that being brought to my attention of course at that time in 2021 I'd been on the board for five months it would have been nice if you'd pointed that out to me yes um I really appreciate the opportunity to clarify some of these points and one thing I I would like to note that I think is a really important thing
with the housing element is because it was initially looking at an overlay the allowable densities that were assigned into these sites were based on the existing per permissible densities in the community plan so in the case of of 8989 Auburn fome appendixa of the housing element which is the residential land inventory notes that with a maximum allow allowable density of 10 dwelling units per acre there was 175 maximum units associated with this however because the site had a base zoning that w
as commercial hcd says the the realistic density for that site is then multiplied by 50% therefore the number of units that were actually assigned to that site and the housing element was 88 units chapter four of the housing element is the residential land inventory and there's a section regarding size and it explains how the few sites in the housing element that were 10 acres how those units were assigned to them um as it relates to Services the map that that is in front of you here um the the
green line is the sewer line um I don't have the water line information here however the eir that um that is currently out for public comment does discuss water availability including the existing capacity of sand Juan water district as it relates to sewer the draft eir also notes that as a condition of approval um any of these sites when they come forward with development have to provide a will serve letter from the serving Sewer Department and if they um do not have capacity then then the deve
loper is obligated to make those those kinds of improvements to the system um I believe that captured everything you would ask but is there anything else well there's a couple I mean you're showing a very small area and these are are mostly um newer neighborhoods you're not really showing the rest of Granite Bay which is all Rural and does not have sewer and at some point in time in the future we'll have to connect to sewer all of those residents on septic will have to connect to sewer eventuall
y um so you can so we're going to earmark these properties but the property owners don't realize they may be liable for sewer water and all kinds of other things if that gets developed I would say that that's incorrect that the rezoning in and of itself does not necess or does not mean that a property owner doesn't have to demonstrate capacity and that the eir does lay out those things things very specifically which the property owners have received links to we've also been in discussions with p
roperty owners to talk about what may be required if a site is rezoned then and one other huge um problem that I see with adding this kind of high density development right there on Granite Bay is that as someone stated earlier Auburn fulam Road and Douglas Boulevard are a thoroughfare they're both currently um four lanes um Douglas possibly could be six Lanes uh in the future and we are a uh we're connector from everything in fome people that live and work in fulam people that live and work in
Roseville the Department of Public Works told me that we carry approximately 40 to 50,000 cars a day and to adding high density on this I I just don't think it's a good idea I would recommend we take that that parcel off 26 I just don't think it fits the bill in any way shape or form based on the things that I've just uh told you and and because it was how did it get identified back in 19 I mean back in 21 when the other Parcels up in Auburn were never identified I would have to say it probably
relates to the fact that at Granite Bay is in a high resource area uh we spoke a little bit to those High resource areas as they relate to school outcomes and other what the state calls I think it's positive outcomes the housing element discusses how sites were initially identified including those sites that are in the high resource areas so there are maps in the housing element that are they're called the um tax credit allocation maps and they are what the tax credit allocation committees on th
e state use to identify potential sites for for funding and what they look at is a high resource Area Granite Bay because it is a more affluent Community has what the state considers positive life outcomes compared to less affluent communities and therefore in the high resource area maps what you'll see is those correlate to the more affluent areas Granite Bay is more affluent the state recognizes that as a high resource area therefore the housing element identified sites in Granite Bay so high
resource is merely good schools uh no there's there's actually a number of what other resources do we have yeah can me just second here some of those are listed there I'm going to rebut so appendix e of the housing element is the affirmatively furthering fair housing maps and these are um what goes into building the resource opportunity maps and so this includes things like percent of population um where the income level in the past 12 months is below poverty there's a diversity index percent of
children and married coupled households um schools with a one mile buffer over payment by renters so there's a number of things that went into developing those um not just um good schools but that's perhaps one of the easier ones to remember so that's why I mentioned it okay it does say uh Pharmacy we we do have a pharmacy we have one grocery store that not many people can afford to shop at so I'm not sure how any of the lowincome houses or would be able to even I don't call those Services we h
ave schools but the schools are impacted um our fire department right now has two stations closed so we do not have ample fire coverage um and then Parks well we have some nice parks and we are currently trying to build on our Parks uh our bike lanes and trails so we don't I don't see how you're saying we have these these resources because we don't other than good schools we have good schools but they are high impacted like somebody just said the school um classrooms are like at 30 to 35 and I d
on't believe that's the state uh that's not where the state wants classrooms to be right so as properties are developed and pay property taxes those would presumably go to fund those Services the other thing I'd like to know as it relates to fire because you did bring up those two fire stations the draft does discuss extensively fire services and notes that through our disc with South classer Fire if they did have the appropriate funding they would be able to staff those stations and reopen them
which right now is an unknown because we did try to pass an assessment uh last year and it failed right um and the Granite Bay Area we've been paying $70 a year for our fire assessment and you cannot run a fire station or anything on $70 a year per household um so unless that gets fixed we get money from someplace from the the magic money people or you know we get our assessment improved that's not going to change and it's not going to change in the near future it's going to take us a while to
get something like that passed especially with everybody trying to pass other tax increases you know whether it's state or or whatever yeah so I just will argue that it is not I don't believe it fits any of the criteria uh to be on that to be on the list and I would I would recommend staff withdraw that parcel you heard all of the outcry with the with the mainly traffic accidents our accidents our fatal accidents are up for the first time in about five years we've probably had four or five fatal
ities in the last six months between Douglas Boulevard and Auburn fulam Road and this will just this will enhance the traffic it is already currently zoned commercial um/ multi-use which could be made you know with some commercial and Condominiums and and create into a really nice facility that doesn't accommodate you know three or 400 housing units so I mean uh you know it's there it's there and it could be developed that way so those are my comments I would uh I would like to have that one dra
w I haven't had a chance to make any comments so may I other than question you certainly may thank you um first of all I appreciate people showing up um um and staying um and I think that we we heard a lot of a lot of folks did not know that Parcels were being considered for this and you found out by a sign on property um and so you know I apologize for that um that I'm sure is extremely frustrating I know I heard from 15 plus residents that live um in the Dry Creek area um and concern about tha
t so absolutely hear you and and that's frustrating um and know that that was the intent was not to surprise you the intent is we're working through this challenging process that is not ideal um and no one likes this it's it's really clear no one likes this and quite frankly just building a multifamily housing in unincorporated parts of the county is not ideal um it it's not because there are beautiful rural parts throughout this County which people bought to enjoy you bought your home to enjoy
the more rural areas and and we have a housing crisis in the state of California throughout we do not have enough housing in plaster County it's not affordable here and the state is basically forcing us to address this issue um and so this is really challenging for us because I'm hearing you all and going gosh this is so frustrating um and that being said so we're having to make some challenging decisions um for really Workforce housing and we didn't talk about that enough uh we showed the slide
but what is Workforce housing Workforce housing is uh folks who are teachers um child care workers folks that serve Us in the restaurants clean our homes um provide daycare these are I was just talking to my staff member she goes if it was just me I would be considered moderate housing and I'd have a hard time finding a home I'm I'm thinking about my son who has a blue collor job 26 years old and really cannot find an affordable place to rent um I just heard it cost about $2,000 $2,200 for a on
e-bedroom apartment in the South pler area $2,200 for a one-bedroom apartment we don't have enough affordable Workforce housing for our kids for our children for the people that are going to work for us and I know that we worked hard to live where we live but we're expecting people to come mow our Lawns and clean our homes and work in our restaurants but we expect them to live in South Sacramento and we have concerns about air quality and and congestion on the roads but we're not looking at the
fact that we do want to also make sure this is a livable Community for our whole community so I share this because I hear your frustration and then on the other end as a policy maker who understands that a community is only as good as it can be if we have something for everyone um so I just want to share that with you all because I know that nobody wants a lot of multif family housing near their homes but I lived in an apartment um and I think we all lived in an apartment when we got out of scho
ol um and and people who live in apartments they're not bad people and this isn't all this isn't all low income the market will bear it out we need some lower income but we need places for our family members and our kids um to live um and and and I share somebody made a comment that was uh we need a neighborhood has to agree all the neighbors have to agree that's not going to happen because I have one group of people say we can't have housing next to a a highway and then I have another group of
people say the highway is five miles away from where this is so it's not it's not the right location every neighborhood is going to say it's not the right location even in Roseville when there is multif family housing we have folks screaming about the fact there are going to be Apartments next to single family homes and grocery stores within the City of Roseville so no one likes it um but that being said we as decision makers have to make some hard decisions um and I think that we have a list he
re um you know I heard my my heard the 115 people who don't like the location um on East over off of um East Drive I drove over there last night yesterday afternoon and it's a beautiful location uh rural area and then unfortunately it's also exactly across the road from the City of Roseville where there's a grocery store that's walkable and people are concerned that folks will drive through those rural areas more than likely they'll go to the schools and go across the street but I hear you and I
know you don't want it um but I'm also looking at all the residents in our community um so what i' I think what I'd like to see is adding the locations that supervisor G said um and having some flexibility to say yay and nay but maybe not all right now um and we have you know like if we don't hit that date in in may we might hit it in 30 days or another 30 days but I think we need to fared out some of these and I'd like I want to keep the numbers down but if we can add the the locations that yo
u sir recommended thank you um I think think we can work through this um and then there's the Cincinnati site which I would love to be able to include so that we can take off some of these sites um I don't know that's if we have time that to push it but the Cincinnati site could give us a lot more flexibility and I'd like to see if there's some way that we can push this long enough that we can include that those that site there um I on the Cincinnati sites I'm just curious are the Cincinnati sit
es included on the E no they're not okay thank you must be done separately supervisor guson I I was I was just going to try to craft a motion oh okay well before you do I'd like to say another thing um parcel 26 does not have a sign notifying the public at I was just told right now there is no sign there and if it's been um on the book since 21 why hasn't there been a sign there since 21 telling the rest of the community that it's um been on the state's radar so I believe the sign was installed
on Thursday I'm looking for the picture that staff sent me we did install a sign on it well somebody just went by there earlier today and said there's no sign there unless somebody stole it it's entirely possible they do steal signs check I know but what what was the length of time that we should have had those signs up notifying people any any kind of a 10 days 10 days 10 days well Thursday wasn't 10 days but well no but remember we're not at the point of taking action on R zones here okay righ
t and and so that's what I was going to try to do is craft a motion um before you do supervisor c um I'm assuming what you're trying to do is craft a motion for and I'm looking at the agenda for our requested actions um I assume what you're looking at is number two on number two okay and I um really quick sorry yeah I just have one more really quick comment that I forgot to mention the last time um that obviously we've talked a lot about State fixes and legislative this being a legislative issue
in many ways and so um our ledge department is working on a call with our state lobbyists so we can maybe work with our assemblymen and Senator to potentially make some fixes so that this isn't a problem in the future um you know I mean we're in California so we'll see what happens but I it's definitely worth trying and I just wanted you to know that we we are trying um and we'll see what happens with that that's it and and thank you and in trying to make this motion I'm aware we're going to tr
y everything we can to look at any other approaches I had an a woman in the front row here who asked me about what about other apartment can the county purchase other apartment buildings and things things like that so we've talked about adus so I want to be clear that there's many other approaches we might take so for purposes of today I don't want to approve the properties listed um I have an issue with some of the properties and we've heard a lot of concerns I'd rather say um that we will cont
inue attachment a and add properties 71 and 72 into the table four for further consideration and I'd like to further suggest that those be posted and that neighbors be notified within typically we have 300 ft is that correct um of all of those properties while we continue through the plan Planning Commission environmental documents all that so so I know my motion's long there so go ahead County Council the only suggestion I have is because we started today with the revised attachment a revised a
ttachment a adding properties 71 and 72 that haven't been signed yet and need to be signed and we need to notify everybody because we heard that over and over again today correct correct for further consideration so that's the first Mo okay I'd like to add something to that direction to the staff I get a second or should we have can you read that just so I know what ex one more time just so I know what the wording is on that what I suggested was that we would move revised attachment a adding pro
perties 71 and 72 for further consideration for rezoning with signage and notice to surrounding Property Owners if I going to revise it specify one thing the revised attachment a does have table five in it so we would not be including but I'm not going to include all those right we would just be adding property 71 and 72 table five I'm not I'm not supporting Blitz Lane moving forward and I'm not supporting B Ro that I was going to get there that's all that you would be working on for further con
sideration in my that's supervisor homes is that yeah you're you're not going to support the edge the these properties was 71 and 72 the rest would not move forward okay yeah can I ask one more point of clarification you said you didn't want to start the motion with approve yeah you wanted to start the motion with continue to consider yes something along those lines yeah can I maybe read this and and I'm going to look to um Clayton and that's why you get paid the big dollar make it sound better
I I want to make sure we get this correct so what I'm hearing is continue further consideration of revised attachment a and add parisel 71 and 72 for further consideration is what I heard um that what all you have heard but if we're going to revise it can we revise it with the extent of the revisions the the the the terminology that we started with today had changed some diff some parcel so we're starting with revised attachment a is the title of that that document now right and that's what we'r
e starting with right so my revision will be to withdraw property 26 I mean you're that when you add those two properties you have a net of a 12 additional okay if you but you do have a motion on the floor I don't you you probably should call with for a second can I can I correct something I'm sorry this is late I just want table four with 71 and 72 not this whole package you want table a includes these three pages so I just wanted table four yes not the full attachment with those two for furthe
r consideration for rezoning yeah I'd say that's how we were tracking it that's how we were tracking your coms yes and then I want to go on to those other tables is there a second I can go ahead and second um and and then that doesn't mean that I mean this is going to move forward consideration but it'll go my hope is we're going to faret it down back to a lower number yes I think as you go forward with the next recommendations we'll just want to be clear that again the next step on our end woul
d be that we have to package this together submit it to hcd and get comments back from them understanding and I I just want to make sure that that we're all aware um that if we do submit it and they provide comments they provide a recommendation that that they can that they can approve what we've provided to them that if we make further changes to it so if we remove other sites that that might put us back into another cycle of review with them so that's I know that we talked I heard the board me
ntion that that that if it gets us into a situation where we're getting a 30-day notice um of Correction and we're going through that that that's something that it sounded like the board was comfortable with but but that very well could happen um then then let's get more clarification Chris I think what we what I was looking for was we've heard a lot of public comment but there's still others don't even know about the process I want to make sure we notice all of these and if we start taking off
sites in our district I will tell you District 5 is going to fight back too and and then I'll pull back 71 and 72 I'm trying to collaborate here to say let's review all of these and make sure that the Planning Commission has has the ability to look at all of these sites and consider traffic every one of these has a traffic issue a sewer issue a fire district I don't think anyone here didn't recognize that there's issues with all of these sites but then it would go to the Planning Commission and
then back to us us for final decision in which we could further reduce that correct but if we start reducing now can we further reduce before we make our final approvals whenever that may be and it may be after May 15 you certainly can uh we are running up against that deadline with hcd so we will staff is asking for in item three that a certain list would be submitted at least at this point to hcd with the understanding that if there was a modification needed to it would take that 7 day but it
would have a larger buffer in it based on what I just did it has enough buffer that we could move things around correct right and my understanding with hcd is if you submitted a larger list it is is potentially less review for them to just remove a site off as opposed to try and add a whole new site than what you've already submitted so we want to have as many on that list so how can we confirm that Alpine Meadows couldn't be added to that list and we make that decision I mean you haven't heard
from the property owner but that's another one to add in to give us that additional capacity because adding later would be a problem yeah I I think that's a great suggestion that we add it to the list um and that we continue to work on getting the property owner um property owners's confirmation but we include it at this point and we can further remove as I understand it we could still remove properties later but this gives us the ability to at least keep the state at Bay until we make a final d
ecision which may be not to move any of them forward and that we want to can we also pursue the property owner who said that they wanted to rezone and had multiple properties no it was more it was more they weren't on any list that they talked about property owner had multiple Parcels those don't have an environmental document though right now true that's the problem and I think as I mentioned that one actually has precurrent entitlements um that that that might be or or that they they could pur
sue and we haven't even heard from that property owner well we won't be able to add to this list then except for those two pars at this to meet this timeline because of the environmental document which make make it more difficult though to withdraw of property if we're that close to meeting our right any edits to that list submitted hcd would be a 7-Day public review period and potentially add another 60 days of hc's review right which is why I'd still like to advocate for pulling property 26 we
are carrying 33% in Granite Bay so it's it's not a small portion onethird of of the numbers well that's but if if you remove yours and we add 210 in District 5 I but they're voluntary uh um owners yeah but we haven't notified their neighbors yet that this is what I'm saying is I still think there's neighbors and those two sites the neighbors haven't they haven't been posted and they don't know so I I think we need to do our due diligence and make sure everybody has the ability to weigh in on th
is the Planning Commission and the board I would agree on my parcel was not noticed until yeah four days Ag and if there is a sign missing we need to get those back even four day notices wasn't sufficient yeah uh Madam chair yes sir can someone repeat the motion is there a motion on the floor I can take a shot of repeating I believe the motion and and supervisor guson can correct me if I'm wrong uh the motion would be continue further consideration of the properties listed in table four of revis
ed attachment a including properties 71 and 72 for purposes of resoning okay so I just want to be clear that Blitz Lane is not on table four and the um B Road property is not on table for so I'm in agreement with that and I will support that motion just as a point of clarification I know supervisor Guston you mentioned site 45 as well was that a site that you wanted included I do okay I apologize that came I forgotten Alpine Meadows so then including property 71 72 and 45 yes call for the questi
on yes I did second the motion okay do we need a roll call Gore hi Landon I I would be a no vote on this whole package but since you rephrased it to consideration and not approval I will say yes Holmes yes Guston yes Jones for consideration yes will we have another opportunity then to have a new list I mean not a new list but a revised list with possible additions possible subtractions I would I would say as is uh Clayton mentioned earlier that deletions from the list um will be an easier path t
han additions to the list after we submit and get uh comments back from hcd so Madam chair oh I was gonna make just realized Cincinnati is um so that's the next thing I wanted to make it's a separate motion okay that's what I was that that's go go you do all right well then I want to go ahead and um ask staff to prepare amendments to the sunset area plan to allow for development of multifam housing on the county owned site at 4242 cincin Cincinnati Avenue and bring back those amendments to the b
oard for consideration second I'll second okay have a first and a second roll call Holmes all right gipson yes Gore I Landon yes forgot me Jones I don't forget me you need to go back to number three yes than okay um and I think the motion on number three mirrors what we did on two correct yes so if you want to include those three properties to table four then it would just be direct staff to submit the properties listed in table in Revis in table four as revised by the earlier motion to include
property 7172 and 45 uh of the staff report and related housing element amendments to the State Department of Housing and Community Development following the required public posting period for consideration so moved and I'll second okay motion second guson yes Gore I Landon yes Holmes yes Jones I and then there would be one last item recommended in that's number five before before we get there can I add a motion in here which is to direct staff to sign all those sites and send notices to Propert
y Owners within 300 feet of each of the sites ASAP yes please yes motion a motion second do we need a motion okay Direction okay and then Fin and to determine the proposed actions or not I move to determine the proposed actions or not project under squa guidelines section 15378 because they administrative activities second okay roll call Gore yes Landon yes Holmes yes gson yes Jones I okay so that wraps this item up right and then the Planning Commission I just want to be clear for the public be
cause so many have stayed here so long tonight the next step is Planning Commission on February February 22nd 22 at 10:00 a.m. and that is to receive uh comments on the draft e cor so okay so that wraps it up for that item um now we do have to address a Clos session County Council so as you recall several hours ago uh we continued uh the public employment close session item and the question I have for the board at this hour is do you want to adjourn the close session or would you prefer to conti
nue this item to the 20th of February adjourn I move we adjourn all right so I am going to report on the record that we are continuing the public employment it at on Clos session to the 20th of February I agree good thank you all Yes um thank you thank you all for for staying so late meeting is adjourned for for
Comments