Affordable Housing Task Force - Regular Meeting

Do we

Right.

Alright.

So we'll call the meeting order. 10:08, it looks like the Colorado affordable housing task force Call to order. Roll call.

Member Gerard? Here. Member Kate? Member Roby?

Here.

Member Wesley?

Here.

Alright. We have a floor.

Alright. So adoption of the agenda and approval of the consent calendar, item number one twenty five dash one nine three eight. Staff recommended task force through the Affordable Housing Task Force meeting minutes from 09/17/2025. Move to approve.

I second. Do I have

to do individual vote, or can we just

And we we need to make public comment too.

Alright. Any public comment?

Yep.

Any online? Alright. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. So the consent calendar has been approved. Open forum is an update for members of the public to address the task force on subject matter that is not on their meeting agenda and within their jurisdiction. Public comments during the open forum are limited three minutes per person. The task force chair may limit public comment during the open forum. Is there any, open well, any comments from the public? Go ahead.

I'd just like to briefly revisit the letter I submitted at the hearing that happened before a supervisor. I think Rob has that those comments in writing, but just to highlight things that I I know that it may be out of the scope for your your your work as that total hospital, of course. But I think it's sort of a low lying proof that I hope you'll take advantage of that is that, again, April is the time the annual progress report is due. It's a key moment procedurally, maybe outside of the scope of this this group, but certainly, it's been in staff's review. If you use that opportunity to highlight where you where we are with achieving the affordable housing goals, Because as we all know, we're behind on that.

It's significantly behind. We're halfway through the the cycle on the housing element on '29. This is a perfect time opportunity to give my view to say where we are. Be candid about that. Here we are. Here's what we've gotten done so far. Here's the barriers. Could you there's a lot of stuff that you put out on the table during the course of your during your meetings that isn't in the report that's going to the board. And good conversations about, you know, what are the barriers? Where are we doing well?

Where are we not doing well? So I I would encourage you to to somehow along the way see that so the board uses that as an annual accountability moment because our key problem in our accounting is we have wonderful plans. Your housing element has also we have wonderful plans there. But for various reasons, they, you know, they don't necessarily get executed on or delivered fully. And there are some that are working, and I think you know which one they are. You've done the analysis of staff tests. And so what how can you highlight those and say, hey. We're gonna amp up our efforts in this this measure of the 40 measures you have in your housing element. These six or seven are really yielding results. Here's what we got so far.

Here's how we're gonna push because we wanna get our goal. You know? But I don't think we are. But I I think at least you wanna strive for that. At least you wanna drive forward to make commitments because it's one thing to adopt an ordinance, another thing to actually implement it well and follow through on it just like the housing law. One thing we can deliver on that. So that's my comment, but I hope you'll use that. The the benefits of the good discussion you've had the other ones about where we are and why we're here.

Alright. Thank you. Any additional comments? Any online?

We have no online.

No online. Okay. Alright. So we'll just move forward then. Again, item number two, twenty five dash one nine three nine. That recommending pass over selected vice chair with deflection. Mean, you'll back to the next meeting. Do we have any nominations? I was gonna nominate Vance here.

I was gonna nominate Vance too.

So was I.

I'm gonna fail

for the fun of it. No. I I will take it if that will.

Yeah. I guess, just from a staff perspective, I would add that, you know, generally, I think in the the coming year, especially at the next side, I'm just talking about replacement of a vacancy, but, we'll take another look at it. So, you know, you may decide to continue it or change it or what happened, but we'll take another look, you know, early in the the calendar year just to get a a sense once

we have a full group. Alright. Do we we need a vote on this?

Motion. A motion. A motion to vote for the to approve Vance as vice chair. I second.

All those in favor? Aye. Alright. That passed. Oh, public comment.

Public

comment is could you please speak up?

Oh, sorry.

We couldn't hear what you're saying.

Okay. Absolutely. We nominate Advanta, the vice chair position that's open. So I I can give

you a wonderful job of graph with this.

I'll play it. That's my book. Okay. Alright. No online still. So alright. So item number 325Dash1940. Staff recommended the task force receive a brief discussion on the current vacancy.

Yeah. So, again, so we had a vacancy here at the in the last couple months, and we have a five member committee. And so it is our intent to put out a request for applications and create a a pretty basic application. I don't know that that happened, the first time around in the the initial, initiation, but, we thought just something that we could, distribute and make it open to, folks with, maybe a preference to replace. We can discuss this further, you know, a similar experience that of a of a homebuilder in in this scenario.

So our our intent is to kind of put that, information out for, a time period so people can apply if they're interested, and then we would, consider those applications and then make a recommendation which to the committee.

Yeah. I think it would be good to have somebody like Sean Lewis from the market rate side of it. I mean, Ben writes a lot of background as well, but I think it would kinda offset the affordable side that me and Bill and I bring to it. So I think having that would bring a lot of information to it and be worthwhile on that side of it. I know it's hard to focus to that, but see what get for application, I guess.

Yeah. I think maybe what we were thinking was to put an application out and maybe identify a preference, and then we'll we'll have to look at what the responses were and who the the are

Usually, there'll be home builders So my developers that I

have to leave for after the is a meeting with my Eldorado members. So I'm gonna put it out there that this vacancy exists and encourage them to express interest. I'm looking at the resolution here, and it looks like officially the authority for selection goes to the director of building and planning. Correct. But I do appreciate the application process. That way we kinda cast a wide net, and the the director gets to then really evaluate who would be the best to to slide in there. But definitely agree. I think the the market rate builder is an important component to bring in here, especially because so much of what we're building is going to be Yes. Based on Yeah. But but the market builder does here.

So yeah.

My only question on that is that is there any prohibitions about a developer that's maybe building in Eldorado that would submit a application to Eldorado County and because of this position. I just wanna make sure there's no conflicts or at least that stated so that there isn't a challenge for Vince finding a good person to fill that seat.

Alright. I mean, being kinda like you or I do have a project But I mean,

it's okay. So as long as that's,

like, a conflict of interest. Yeah. Just, yeah,

ourselves from something True. You were

to vote something specific. I think

what could also be good is, I mean, we have plenty of members and market rate builders who have built here, who have just wrapped up and and may not have projects in the pipeline, and I think they could still bring a good perspective. Absolutely.

Yeah. I mean, I get my understanding. You know? So during his tenure, if you wanna call it that, that, you know, mister McNearney, was doing projects in the county, so I would assume that we crossed that hurdle. Okay. But I can certainly be mindful of that. And, yeah, I guess, as staff, we would we would love, when we put that out, we'll share it with all of the members. And if you have a a circle that you could, you know, distribute it to, we would be happy to try to get it as light as we could and try to put something out on the county's website afterward thing, make it a little more, approachable for folks. Yeah. I didn't I so as far as the update to you all is just that we intend to build the vacancy here.

We I imagine if we put this application together and then we put it out for a certain amount of time, we're probably looking at early in the New Year to try to get, you know, a response, hopefully. And so, you know, we we anticipate it probably being at the new calendar year that

we could have with that one.

We don't wanna do it too hastily, but we also don't wanna let it lag, and that'll kind of coincide with maybe looking at the the next round or consideration of chair, vice chair, and all that. It's alright.

Oh, no. Oh, yeah. Yep. Any public comment on the open vacancy? Okay. Nobody online either. So alright. Item number four twenty five dash one nine four one. Staff recommending the task force analyze the board's direction provided on 11/04/2025 and discuss appropriate next steps for implementation of the resolution of contention.

Alright. Thank you again. So Rob Peters again. You know, I just wanted to maybe highlight I know that, you all were in attendance and that but I'm not sure if everyone you know, the members of, the public that are here today were in attendance, but we had a good conversation. We provided our table of of sort of our backbone or the bones of a what a housing task or a housing ordinance might look like, affordable housing ordinance.

There was some good conversations. There was a, two things I wanted to highlight because there was a lot in that conversation. But one was that there was a, a goal statement that was read out by supervisor Lane. And so I just maybe to remind everybody or to throw that out, and and she tried to look for sort of the task force and staff to confirm that that was one of our goals. And and so it and it read, like, Throw the affordable housing trust fund in order to provide funding to incentivize building and or sustaining affordable housing for low, very low, and moderate income.

And so I think that aligns with, you know, the goals of this, group. I think I responded in the meeting that we also wanted to have a program that allowed for someone to actually develop, you know, affordable units. And so we that was that second component of what we were trying to, put in there, and we wanna continue to sort of explore that. But I think that was one of our main targets. And so that goal statement, I thought maybe because in the moment, it's a little bit hard to react to, if you guys had any thoughts or any you know, and we we could solidify something like that.

It should be task force choose, but that was sort of read to the record. The second piece was that in the res or the recommendation that was read by supervisor Merkamp and super and seconded by supervisor Terbu was to adopt our resolution of intent with direction staff under the incentive section to remove reductions in development of design standards reductions in developing design standards. I think that's a tricky one for us, you know, when I'm contemplating that recommendation because that, is one of the major incentives in a sort of an incentive based voluntary program. And so maybe, we'll have to discuss that further and what all we thought was included in that, and we can always get additional confirmation. But I think the the what I took from that was that we're working really hard in the county to do design standards for community, for multifamily, and and commercial.

And we, you know, there is a a concern that if we make too many deviations to standards that later we'll have some sort of, you know, buyers or more. So we won't like the output. So maybe we can discuss that further. So isn't that, sorry to interrupt. No.

Go ahead. Isn't the design standards? I thought it was more for the single family builders. And you just said that you you guys have standards for only the multifamily and the commercial.

That's correct. So our community design standard project that our long range planning team is working on Right. Is for multifamily and commercial. So their requirement was to remove the design standards. Had just I spread that was the part for the incentives,

which the incentives are for a market rate developer to because I think that was some of the and I talked to Jennifer about this the other day was I think that was some of the loss was we're providing incentives. The incentives are for the market rate developers by providing some type of land donation or something else to get these extra incentives. I don't think it was very clear to the board that those incentives only went to a market rate, not to an affordable developer because they already have different incentives already that they're

they're allowed by law. Right. I was gonna say something about maybe pursuant to state law.

Right. So even though they stated that, I just wanna make sure it's clear that, you know, you already don't have a standard for the market rate developers. So by not completing that, I don't see where that's a problem because that incentive part of of that table was only for market rate. Are

are we talking about design standards?

I I think the category was sort of broad, and that's where I think maybe some of the work we need to do is to further define those. And and maybe we didn't articulate that well enough in the meeting. But, yeah, we're in that development and design standards, we're talking I think in the examples in the table that I provided, it was things like landscaping, parking, and the idea you know? And and so, you know, we don't have a lot of design standards related to single family. And so it sounds like maybe we need to clarify what our intent in those statements was because I think the idea was that trying to incentivize it by design standards and development standards, you know, streamlining of projects and removing sort of barriers and things like that were sort of the the incentive based components.

But that supervisor, Parlin, particularly, and the motion from the board was that they they wanted us to, you know, not include that. But I think there's an opportunity if we, you know, didn't hammer home the point, or we can always come back in an in an update or something and say, hey.

We categorize this. I don't see why it's an issue removing it. Because if you go farther up in that

You mean removing it from the table?

Yeah. Because it it it was only four. Oh. As I understood, this was for the market.

Up in the table?

Hold on.

So so it's in two places. One is under b there, and you see it as a policy consideration. Do we want to, as a policy consideration, allow for deviation from these standards and develop? So So if you go down to k I think it's page four, in the blue, there's another section which identifies what we meant by or what we thought were in that incentive category. So, parking landscaping setbacks, storm drains, building standards, all those types of things to consider to, you know, incentivize a builder to want to drink. And so, maybe it wasn't clear what the target You

know, what I'm saying is that blue was basically an incentive for a market rate dissolver if they do something like land donation or something. So what I'm hearing from you is there is no buildings there's no, design standards or anything else for single family. So why do they get

Well, there there are some. I guess, I mean to say, so you have, like, setbacks and you have things like that. You know, you do have a required parking requirement. Right. We have But they're very basic.

They're not that clarify that report and that the way we were understanding that that was an incentive for the market rate developers if they did x, y, and z. I think this is

a little bit more complex Okay. With around, like, design standards. There's community groups that have spent an enormous amount of time developing design standards for the community. I live in Shingles Springs. There's a community group that has been working for years on design standards version of those ways. I like my same way. TRPA is going to have design standards for Tahoe. So it's not as simple, I think, as it sounds. It's community is gonna have input into what the design, at least they they would like to.

Well and so the efforts to do for the design center, I think and maybe that's the clarity that was neat. What I think what what you're saying, and I don't wanna speak for anybody, but is that the incentive was on the single family units. Right. And and as opposed to, I think, what maybe supervisor Parlin's target was not to, and just like you're saying, not to affect those community based standards that are being addressed and and reduce the standards for multifamily development.

Right? Supervisor Parnell's the the one leading community standards.

In in my shop so I'm responsible for the long range planning division, which is creating the community design standards. So I've been in some of the recent meetings, and I'm aware of the exercise.

And so drill down a little bit further than that, that only includes the community development zones within each jurisdiction. So in Shingle Springs, there's a community development zone that you cannot develop outside of that zone.

Yeah. It's for the commercial and multifamily zones. Yes. Correct. So in this instance, I think it it seems like even amongst us, some clarification will be good, and and maybe some of that is, my responsibility in case that we're trying to get just a recommendation to get some motion on these items. But I think, you're absolutely right. So in commercial and multifamily zones, those, design standards apply. When you're talking about trying to bring in maybe a a large specific plan that's largely residential, those are generally single family, and they might have components of mixed multifamily and commercial. But, you know or or even just a standard subdivision is largely all residential. And so those that piece wouldn't affect the community design standards

Right. Being done at Sheath Springs. Right.

But they have you know, and we would actually

It just needs to be architected.

I'll check the link. Yeah.

Yeah. Just bear clarify to everybody.

Quite frankly, our design standards address sort of the streamlined ministerial affordable housing all the way through the multifamily, just general affordable housing. So we want those to apply to the affordable housing projects. Yeah.

Yeah. I think just clarification on that. And that would help you get past the issue, I think. Well, that that what they put into that, motion there.

Yeah. And that was a big part of I mean, so that was one of the the few things that was specifically called out to address, you know, in the motion. Right? Other than that, they were generally, I think, supportive of the approach and where we were headed. But I do think that, you know, that was a very general, statement, and and a little more specificity would have helped the board members tackle that that topic.

And, Rob, it probably makes sense to define then from so separate from single family market rate that affordable housing, if you're using density bonus, you have waivers that you can reduce.

If you go state density

by Exactly. And they just need to understand that that supersedes a local importance. So if and, you know, and and the reality is when you create standards, it's everything on the kitchen sink. It's everyone's wish list. And then the reality is that doesn't work. You know, the site's too small. We can't do that. We can't do this. Oh, we don't have enough space. We can't do a 150 feet for the design standards. We can only do a 125. But then instead of, oh, that's fine. It becomes, no. Now it's a big variance and da da da da da. So, I mean, that's the kind of stuff where I don't know.

It gets bogged down.

Yeah. Like, there needs to be some sort of, like, release valve that says this is reasonable. Like, that doesn't make sense. We anticipated a different type of project.

Should it

be a a percentage if you're within I'm just looking at Right.

Pitfall in here. It's like,

to avoid that sort of blockage, is there some sort of avenue they can go down that paves the way and speeds things up? Instead of taking six months, it takes

No. I I have 100% of that.

Of our incentives is expedited processing in another category. Right. So that is that that want to sort of, maybe remove But

the thing is if we're doing a portable project, I can get that you get a waiver on those, yeah, on those setbacks. So there's not you don't even have to worry about percentage if you need to use that.

It's almost like it'd be great if you could just adopt that, you know, like a county. Like, if it's a county density, but, you know, like or maybe if your market rate gone, you're trying to do x y z. I don't know. It's just when you run into when you're trying to build, you know, a square peg and a round hole, things just don't fit. So it's just you if you can build in some level of flexibility where director can approve so many times somehow the directors can't approve because the ordinance says blah blah blah. So, like, in my personal opinion, you need just some sort of, like, director approval for this because it's it's for the greater good. You know? I don't I don't

know exactly. Within the scope. Within the scope

or something like that where you just have one you just need one one ability to just quickly say yes to this change rather than make it go through CEQUA and take six months to

get that to the end.

So I don't know if that's possible, but I strongly encourage. Because we just don't know if we don't know. You know? And we could sit here and pretty

buy case by case base? Yeah. Going through the h one.

We gotta build in some flexibility and for somebody to make a determination, that's gonna be fine. You know? That

That'll be so interest in our design standard discussion, that is a big piece that, has a lot of interest from the members of the public. In our interim design standards, we, offer the streamline ministerial stuff, the stuff that falls under, you know, state streamlining provisions, so things like it does allow for director, decisions to be made, and that has, a lot of interest. And, there's some pushback on that, but, it it was an attempt. Those a lot of those programs are intended to be ministerial, and so, you know, putting in front of a decision maker that has no, discretion is a is kind of a tough one. And now some of them even include, you know, the required notices to, like, board of supervisors' meetings and things like that.

So that is a hot topic of discussion of what is the right and appropriate approval level is, you know, for certain types of projects. So that's certainly something that fits right within that expedited process. What do at what point and which ones do you want to do that? Which one to them? Should that be supervisor determined? For the interim, yeah, the board of supervisor.

Oh, I mean He's telling me the determination. No.

Director today. I think it would have to come from the board likely if, you know, especially if we were preparing out. So to be to be clear, the any ordinance that we create here, yeah. Any ordinance we create here has to go through our planning commission

Yeah.

On a recommendation to the board of supervisors. And so that example I gave on the interim standards, yeah, it was absolutely put in front of the board of supervisors. Is this the way you want, you know, that that decision making to go? So I think that would be a component of what we put together if we were trying to, streamline it in a way or reduce decision making.

I think that needs to be flushed out a little bit. As anytime you take something to the board saying, you're gonna be left out of this decision making process, you know, run into some persistence. So the the the reasoning why is gonna really need to be articulated. Some conversation. It's just

a timing issue. Mhmm. I mean, just to get a simple resolution to the board takes two months to three months. So I mean

allegation. You have seasoned professionals who are in charge of reviewing plans and, you know, they just you know, I think that's also why the state's taking out all these little nuanced, you know, determinations. Because every time you go to a vote, you know, it's it's it's toss a coin. You know? And that that level of certainty doesn't build trust.

Yeah.

You know, you got a developer who's got a time flop, who's got money on the table, who's gotta do all this stuff, and they're like, oh, I need to change stuff up, and that's gonna take six months. Maybe I can turn process, so the whole thing depends on that. Like, that's not setting up the stage for success. It's you know? And I guess what I also wanna say conceptually is that ultimately, at the end of the day, it's like now you have this tension of developer wants to build housing, county wants to extract what they can out of it. Period. Right? Like, because we're we're all so worried that this is gonna cause all this stuff. We've gotta make sure we have one shot at the apple to get us everything. So under that premise, there's always a little tension.

Can there be a premise where the county says yes to housing because they're gonna get all the stuff out of it? And it's all gonna be good stuff because it's gonna mean housing and new people and new taxes and new and new jobs and these things. And and for that, we're getting this kind of quali without every single time opening up the the decision to add more stuff. Because it's human nature to say, oh, I forgot. What about this? It's human nature to keep adding. And I think at some point, you need some certainty to say, here's the transaction. If you do these three things, we're gonna say yes. It almost needs to be that simple. I don't know.

There's also and then, I think an important component that makes us more appealing to the board, which is the less steps in the process, the less money the county is spending to support that process. So the more staff level decision making, the fewer commission meetings that have to take place, the less the county has to put into it.

And The cheaper the housing is to build. Exactly. So

let's throw that into the conversation because I think that the county really needs to start looking at that just across the board.

Yeah. Endless years of process will completely drain the project, period.

Thank you. I I appreciate the conversation. Took a lot of notes there, and I do agree that this is a a focus area for us in in moving forward, how we have it. How we're gonna address this, how we're gonna redefine it, and what we do or don't, you know, recommend moving forward. So those and so those are the pieces that I hope to get from you all.

Is there informational pieces or are there county regulations or are there other, examples that you feel like we need to bring to the table for your, task force to help? Are are there some informational needs related to this topic, or how can we bring some information for you all to consider that would be meaningful, in this in this discussion? Do you guys have any ideas of what what's outstanding or what we could do to help, you know, foster that that discussion?

One for me was from the supervisor's meeting and a question from supervisor on the CFD and whether the county would have to hold bond if the county does not. So that needs to be clarified.

That that was gonna be my next topic of discussion, CFD discussion. So I've been having some conversations internally about that. There's a lot of, there are some restrictions related to the use of monies associated with CFDs. And so, oops. But they're different vehicles.

You know, there's different alphabet vehicles. Right. Right. Yeah. To

It's not just have the CFP paid for it. It's it's the actual, fees that are associated with the CFP. So I think there's a separation of that. And that's kinda what me as first start the conversation was. There's already the standard fees that come in on an annual basis. The percentage of that is a possibility instead of saying a use of CFD funds. Correct.

So county collects it, then county chooses to spend it how they Right.

So if you charge a higher fee, I don't know, say it's 3%, you charge three and a half percent, then maybe that additional half percent goes to the affordable housing fund. I'm just throwing that out. Yeah. And I just

make the modification that it doesn't go directly to the county, but it goes to, a land trust or a foundation because they can there take the money and buy T bills and make interest on the funds as well. And plus you're bringing another stream, which is donors and land. So I did have a conversation with Amy at Belvala Community Foundation about how that might work. So you have three different streams falling, flowing into one river, which is donors, land, and funding.

So to me, that brings up a good point that I think for me, even even in all of this, I think what would be really helpful is to model something off of a certain application to you know, that's maybe in the works or is very typical of what people want to build an account so that we understand scale.

Right. Understand recently done a shutdown, the breakdown of the CFD fees and everything else.

And where the opportunity know, 200

homes, what what was that structure so you could get an idea of what you would be talking about.

Right. And then I think you could model, you know, what Bill was saying about here's here's one option of how you can do this. Right? And here's another option of how you can take the funds and do something else. But you know what I mean? So, like, then at least we're because right now, it's all very hypothetical. So I think it's really gonna help us as we're beginning to dive into the details to really model it out, see what it looks like, see how it affects things, and see where the opportunities are.

I can say the county's funds right now are in an interest bearing account. Oh, yeah. We do. Yeah. Okay. So we do have interest on those accounts. I have also seen donations be made to other county departments like cemeteries. Oh, really? You know? So we can't accept donations, you know, we do get land donations on top of money monetary, and we do have loads of our funds and interest bearing. Yeah.

So Yeah. Would I would

be just kinda worried if

funds didn't go to the county because the county is also providing the incentives. And so they'd be providing incentives, but then the money would be going to a nonprofit or something else, and the nonprofit really is not providing those incentives for the developer to do that. I think there's a kind of a disconnect from that

Yeah.

That the county needs to be involved with that.

You build the nonprofit? Because I assume we're talking about a nonprofit that officially doesn't exist yet, Ryan. We wouldn't be able to

do it externally. There are ones that exist. That do exist? Yes. Could we build

a new one, though, that has county representation built into it? Yes. Okay. Because I think that might solve that problem. If the county has an active voice on the board consistently, then they are direct.

So it sounds like exploring a couple models on that. I know. I I I recognize that these

have We gotta And and the first model is figuring out to see if these structures, see if there There might not be any room within it, and I think it's also talking to legal counsel on that. Yeah. And I think it's gonna be outside of county counsel on that because they're not gonna have much knowledge about what's allowed or not into CFD to figure out, you know, can you charge an additional fee or percentage on top of that annual basis to figure out it may be an avenue we may not be able to do. We may have just ended.

Or do in hand infrastructure finance districts instead.

Right. Huge fan of. I'm gonna

I was gonna say because I know sometimes, yeah, there it's it's it's you know, the the area the CFD had a boundary, and so there's Right. You know, generally, I think the use of funds can be might be, required to be in and around that area. So you could

But we're not talking about the use of those funds. So I think the department is just the fee to service those funds.

Understood. Yeah. Yeah. So then

that could be used outside of that CFD boundaries.

Yeah. This is definitely one that we we look into. And Right. And, again, this is one of those items where, you know, I looked again at the, resolution that the board created. We we are, we can and, and have the ability to bring in experts and have discussions with them in this forum. And so if if anybody

I have some recommendations.

Yeah. We would love to get some folks in here.

Does all the EIFDs, CFDs.

I wanna go back. No.

The other guy. He's a smaller guy. I'll get his name. It's what my

Let me go back to the conversation about the difference between the county holding funds and a foundation or a land trust. Individuals that are donors in the community are not establishing estate county. They're establishing them with foundations or land trust. And a lot of those estate plans include funding and or mining. So that makes a big difference.

So it creates something when the county has a seat on it, a foundation that actually can hold the state plans. That makes sense or has a seat on that committee. I'm just leery about creating something brand new, and it's really easy to create a fund, have a a board that oversees that fund, and county members are part of it. So it's not creating a whole separate track of something that already exists.

Now, Rob, we're kinda jumping ahead, though, into the second part of this part because that first, we gotta do the organs. Correct?

I mean, we need to there's a few things. We would need the ordinance needs to outline what the program looks like. Right? So we I think we do need to kind of nail down all the Okay. The loose ends. I think it also, needs to be, you know, one of the key components that we'll have to work on, and we've already started to kind of look at what other jurisdictions are doing and and what the costs are is the feasibility and nexus related to the the any fee that would be established. Right. And so I think that's a huge component too because, you know, in that goal statement of, you know, making sure that there was a fee that could be utilized in whatever version it ends up looking like structurally, you know, we need to make sure that it's based on you know, what is that what is that nexus based on? What is our what is our goal and how

do work backwards to a fee? That made the board miss was that it wasn't a nexus study. I think Everybody was describing it as a Feasibility.

Of both, really. Yeah.

Yeah. The studies for affordable housing fees, it's it's a special little hybrid where they really do look at what does what is the creation or need the creation of the need for affordable housing that is associated with market rate housing, and then what is the amount of money that's needed to create that new housing, and then what is

the feasibility of creating a fee that that. Yeah. So it's I mean, that could be scary. I mean, you know, as we heard earlier, we're not meeting the numbers. And if you take those numbers, which could be thousands of units into the county and you then say, okay. We got 3,000 units we need to produce in the next four years, that b could be astronomical then to try to

meet that target. It will absolutely be astronomical. Every study that I've seen come out in the past couple months, they come up with this ridiculously high justifiable e level. But every single jurisdiction is then smart enough to look at that and go, we're not gonna charge that. We're gonna charge this number that keeps market rate housing feasible still, then and we're gonna put it into something that we can then manipulate and grow it. Leverage it. It. Exactly. So it's it's gonna give us a very scary number at the end of it. Okay. Now we're just gonna have to have the the faith in the board to look at that and say that's not the number we're gonna pick. Otherwise, we're

But then how's numb how do they pick that number? So say that number is 15,000 a unit. How do they go down to 5,000 a unit? Every jurisdiction The next study doesn't state that.

Every jurisdiction does it a little bit different. So I'll give you an example of Elk Grove. Literally, just yesterday, was in a meeting with their staff. Their study just came out. The justifiable fee is something like $49.7 per square foot or something crazy like that, which amounts to essentially a $100,000 per market rate unit. Right. Never gonna work. Right? Right. And so they said they presented this initially to us a month ago. Even yesterday, they said, I'm sorry. We don't have numbers for you because we are still really trying to pin down how we are gonna calculate a justifiable, legally defensible, feasible fee level that works for everybody. And so it's it's a science mixed with an art how they come up with that number. And

But so staff is doing that then?

Staff is doing that based off of the study that was done separate.

Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, most of the I've been starting to look at some of those.

Is the county staff gonna be able to do that same type of analysis and to dwell down from a fee like he was describing, going from, like, $50 per foot to some

other

Something else is saying people knew is $50 a square foot on every single new residential unit?

If that's what would be the justifiable fee. Yeah.

Based upon their needs that they had to produce x units.

Correct. I will I will clarify, though. Yes. Staff is doing it, but they're doing it in association with the consultant that did the study.

So Mhmm.

Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. So hopefully, we'll do

that. Okay. I didn't wanna say that we're just gonna turn

this back over. Oh, yeah.

Rob Rob number. And then if we're gonna say, okay. You come up with this number, and then we're like, should just pull it out of the hat. We can link

started looking at what it would take to work with the consultant to get costs of what other jurisdictions are paying for feasibility studies. Like you mentioned, I mean, I'm looking at a title of one from, NAPA right now, and it's saying, linkage impact fee study and financial feasibility analysis. They're they're almost all titled in that way. A lot of most of them that I'm seeing are square foot based instead of, like, total cost amount. Mhmm. And and some include commercial and some don't. And so there's a lot of variability that I'm seeing out there. But I you know? I think we should put that

commercial as well onto that.

Oh, yeah. A lot a lot of head folks include commercial, and they calculate

the fee completely differently. Right.

But they do include it. Right. It just it really breaks down back to that feasibility component, though, because some units, some jurisdictions will charge this fee on multifamily and some won't because it makes multifamily feasible if they add a fee. So Right. I definitely think it should

be included in the study.

I think the other challenge too is it's an upfront amount before the impacts are there. Right? So this is a fee that's that's collected at the building permit side of it, which is expensive. You know? So then, you know, if anything, maybe there's financing to it, you know, where after all the housing's delivered and sold, you pay the fees or something like that. Right? So that you're incentivized. Get a vacancy. Yeah. And then they have more resources after they sell the homes to be able pay the fee, and then you can count on the money because you're inspecting it.

I'm just it's just flexibility. There's too much. You gotta do all this before you even put a shovel in the ground is is is a is a difficult, you know, equation to solve for when you're trying to get something done.

I think that was another component of our, you know, sort of, consideration here was fee waiver deferral, those types of things. So as we're talking about establishing these, certainly, that's part of the conversation is, at what point do you want to because I know a lot of the state legislation is pushing that further and further out from submittal to occupancy. And so what what is the right mix, and what's the right timing to try to take those things in,

actually. We've also had success in in other jurisdictions, specifically Sacramento County, where they wanted I think it was for the the water district. They wanted the full amount upfront, but the same exact problem was described to them. So what they ended up doing and what I've thrown out here in El Dorado County and successfully multiple times is cap how much you pay up front. We will give you a little bit of seed money, and then once the project's complete, we'll pay

you the rest of it.

And that seems to work very well, so you've adopted that.

But I think what what we're hearing is flexibility. Yes. So, like, we spend a lot of time coming up with all these rules and frameworks and all these things,

but at the end of

the day, until it's tested, you don't know what you don't know yet. You know what I mean? And I think that you know? But I think some people get so rigid on, oh, no. It says this. We must. Right. And so I just wanna offer that there needs to be this idea, at least maybe in the beginning too, that it's almost like you're learning, you know, that that you're allowing for adjustments and changes so that you better you know, everybody gets for everybody? Yeah. So that we get to yes easier, you know, instead of just a constant boxing match, bringing your stuff on the ropes and can't get off. That that's just the way it is till the deal dies. Why do keep up the boxing? Well,

and, again, that's that's sort of another goal of this whole exercise is to then feed into and the board's resolution would be, you know, our second responsibility, which would be the strategic planning that helps, you know, fill in the yeah. You know, some of the information related to the next housing element update and all the efforts that need to go into that. So, you know, we're like, the public commenter said, we're halfway through this one, and we need to, you know, already be thinking about not only how we finish out this one, but what the next one looks like and setting ourselves up for, success. And so those strategic discussions are gonna be important. So whatever we do here, you know, sort of holds into that as well.

Right. I guess so those were the highlight topics that I was prepared to sort of just go over. Did you guys have any other ones or any thoughts from that meeting? And then maybe we can talk about what next steps are and what we wanna see delivered in the in the coming meetings. And and based on that, you know, our discussion with the board of supervisors at that time, I will say that, you know, I think in the subsequent conversations I've had with lots of different folks, there's a lot of ideas out there and folks that I think wanna be supportive of our effort.

It's just trying to find the right mix and the right, you know, approach that is that doesn't end up in a we have a policy, but it's not successful or isn't, you know, bringing anything to the table. We really want it to be something that that works.

Well, I think unless everybody else has their comments, I think we've looked at next steps, figure out how to keep this moving along, and where are our time frames, I guess, to have the next step for the resolution back to the board, or or we do we have a study done for that? Or

Well, I since the board meeting, I haven't had a chance to put that all to sort of, you know, we started looking at, again, what other jurisdictions are doing, what those costs are so we could start figuring out how we would, you know, collectively pay it, where that money will come from for, like, a feasibility Nexus study. You know? And then I think as we start to scope that, we would wanna, you know, kind of check-in with this group, particularly say, like, is the scope of that feasibility study making sense? And before we go, you know, get all the way down to where we're reinitiating the work. But, yeah, I guess I wanted to get a sense of where we landed after that meeting, and then, you know, Jen and I, Patricia will start working on, you know, a a plan a strategic plan for this effort that we can share with you all and kind of and we wanted to make sure that we were, capturing all the outstanding informations that are needed or anything that you guys would like us to try to bring to the table to discuss in this in this arena so that we, you know, move forward efficiently.

I do have a question on

the CFD and modeling that out. Within the, housing element plan, there's the appendix b residential land inventory. Can that possibly be used to model out what a CFD would generate at one or 2%.

I'm wondering if we can model that out with a real project.

Right. Okay. Because otherwise because then I'll have the actual IDs.

My understanding was that I thought these were real projects.

Oh. Those are that's our vacant land inventory. Those are Okay. Yeah. Those are the locations that are currently undeveloped that have the zoning to allow for multifamily. If my if I'm looking I don't have it in front of me, but that's

my Typically, those are available sites that the county's designated. Okay. That could be for my family. You wanna look at it? Yeah. Right. Well,

and I can say that go ahead.

And it's part of every housing element that the counties are or jurisdictions are required to to have that list of properties so that they know that they have available not available land to meet their goals.

And I think you're exercise.

You'll see well, and you'll see on that that, you know, our our, multifamily zoning designation allow or general plan designation allows for five to 24 units per acre. You'll see on most of those sites, it's I think it's a 13 unit per acre sort of right in the middle of that range is kind of what that expectation is on those. And so that is intended to have enough available land like the chair was saying to meet your arena targets. Because in other jurisdictions, I think they have to rezone land if they're short. Right. Correct.

With this the Sanistino project, because the numbers are all there. Does that work? I had That was Talked

about ants, you know, in the long time.

So I've been really It was improved. So

it never through. Yeah. All the numbers are there. Well, I

think what Mia was talking about is if we could get one that's actually closed so we could it'd be like an escrow statement. You would have a breakdown of what their fees are. If there's more benefits.

Yeah. Let me look current one. So staff can look at that and see if there's a a reasonable sized budget.

Could tell us if the CFDs for 20,000,000, it was, like, for a 185 lots or whatever that numbers are. And then we could look through and see what the fees are that they're attributing for that number of units. Would that give us kind of a breakdown? Mhmm. Is there some opportunity? And then have that discussion with a, basically, a CFD attorney that has specialized

Or consultant. Or consultant

to figure out, is there any room that the county can do on those fees? Can they increase them or add an additional fee into a CFD So that is so we're not tied to just that CFG boundary. It's just the fee that's generated from it.

Would Robert would then Town and Country, be a model for that since it's actually approved? It came out of

Oh, we're wanting market rate. They were not proposing mark wanting market rate.

Yeah. I

think that that one also doesn't have a CFT.

No. It's not. I don't think it needs to have a CFT. Okay. They're

just looking

for it.

What about, like, something

I don't think can Maybe just say I would be

with a CFT.

I would say that we'll have to get if

you if you're you'd have to get someone who'd be willing to share. Right. Yeah. And I don't know that Okay. Yeah.

I I would say that my, my response would be I don't want to review a project that's currently under process Yes. Account. Okay. Because I think we, you know, those decisions haven't been made, and we don't want to add or, to a, an administrative record outside of those public meetings. Right? And so I would just be a little bit cautious about I think it needs be something close.

I think it'll happen. It's public.

It's already public. Yeah. Yeah.

I'm glad we drilled down

Yeah. Either it's a public

reach back for ten years.

Yeah. We can look at what's been done. Yeah. But we can look at what's been done and where a good model and and maybe bring a couple options, and then we can whittle that down or something

like that.

Because my gut sense is when you hire so, ultimately, you're gonna find some money to hire a consultant to do the real study, whatever it is. But we have to hopefully give him direction as to this is how we want you to study it. Don't just give us your generic $50 a square foot number, you know, and and cut and paste from some other jurisdiction. Because I feel like we wanna approach this a little different and then really kind of give them, here's how we want you to look at it and examine this and value that, you know, and maybe even taking these recommendations. So, hopefully, it's gonna be a little different and that maybe evenly offer up. Alright. Let's look at some financing because we know debt on arrival is gonna be a $100,000. Right. So don't give us that. You know? Like

I think we have to have some good parameters so that the the cost is clear. Right? We're all Yeah. Yeah. What Rob was talking about. Can't have an open check.

Have us look at that scope that where they put it out to them and help, help them redefine that scope and narrow it down like you're talking about so that then the consultants know basically in a general reality which way we're going with that.

And that's gonna help the board Right.

Because that's what they're looking for.

Yeah. We don't wanna pay for this code that's not

aligned with what we're trying to do. Right. Right.

I'm also thinking so there there's a consultant who I still can't find the name of. He's down in LA. He does a lot of puts a lot of CFDs, EIFDs together, very well skilled working with local governments. He has always a good perspective. I talked to him with state legislation. And, you know, like, he does a lot of, you know, presentations, PowerPoints, or whatever. Like, I'm sure he would be willing to, like, do a presentation, for example, and kind of lay out the sort of nuts and bolts. Maybe and so maybe could we invite for free some people to give us a presentation to give us education to think about things

as we

begin to dive in.

Yeah. So on the on page three of the resolution Larry Kosmok.

That's really nice.

I think you know him.

Well, I and and I and I kinda opened that up to all of the members. Think on the didn't looking at the resolution that formed this affordable housing task force. And in section three of that, it says subject matter experts. Specialists in affordable housing will be invited and encouraged to supply information. So I think that could be a broad sort of, you know, anything related to what we're trying to do. If, yeah, we know members of that are willing to come speak to us that are provide, you know, some of the what they their experiences, what they think works and doesn't, I think it can only help us. So Right. There's folks out there we would love to hear from.

Yeah. If

we can make that a priority for whenever our next meeting's gonna be, I think that's definitely the way we should go because I really I wanna get this create these presentations, get this information, get that going. Yeah. Exactly. So we can tell you, yeah, this is

what the study's gonna be.

And in the background, we'll be looking at yeah. Again, we're looking at what other jurisdictions are doing, what they're paying, where our potential sources of income for this study are. And so we're doing that behind the scenes, and we'll certainly bring that back, you know, to the task force.

Other one I think is important to understand too is the finance side. So, you know, whether it's a public lender or someone who issues these bonds, just go in eyes open. Yeah. Like, you know, because we talk about risk and all of that.

Think want something from Skip or Bold, Skip and or Bold?

Do they issue a lot of these? Yeah. I think that would be great. Someone who issues these kinds of bonds around the state, I think, would be super helpful. Let's just hear from them and see how we can, you know, avoid the pitfalls.

Well, maybe we could check back with, the members individually in a week or two and see if there's any ideas or any conversations we had, any and then we can try to schedule of those upcoming meetings to have some of those press appointments.

But I think what you also want is to sell. So remember, everybody who was gonna do something for free wants to know that they maybe there's some possibility somewhere. You know? Mhmm. So I think you need to frighten us. Like, you know, as as as Bill has the, you know, opportunity to help me all of it, I've I've identified almost 3,000 new units. We wanna figure out a way to boost this. You know? Like, here is the opportunity. Like, we're getting engaged on this on a very, you know, formative level, and, you know, we have the potential for x.

That's really it. You know? Like, whether it's privately held land that you know is gonna move in this direction, whether it's public land or your support because, ultimately, that's you're you're framing up a system that's going to then hopefully employ a lot of new people and, you know, create the the sorts of financing revenue streams that are gonna initiate this so that you could begin to prime and chum the waters what you're doing here.

I'm not sure about chum. That's not good.

You kinda brought up a bad empathy. Sorry. Sorry.

Well, he's gonna get Future.

I like that. See, Robert, is there a plan for the foundation to do the presentation to the advisory committee on the community outreach that they've done? Or is that just the We

we met regularly with them, and we are trying to put that together. To give to give an update on that, that time. Okay.

Yeah. They're still collecting data right now Yep. For the end of this year. So it might be I don't need to pull. Try to see when's a good time to Yeah. Yeah. No.

Absolutely. We've had, conversations with Amy about the potential to have her come give an update again. Other items? Didn't say we could open

up for public comment. Was like, final No. Deliberation up. We need

to share a comment. And

and maybe if you could if you want to, you either speak up or you could come closer. Something's closer. Or

We can turn it Okay.

So thank you. Yeah.

Couple of things. First of all, one of the things that, you know, I spend way too much time in housing elements, so I studied the one in South Lake County, one in Placerville, and, of course, I have. One of the things that class and by the way, just a little sidebar that I mentioned before. So both of the incorporated cities in our county are are on their target pathway to meeting their regional housing goals. They are because of you know, they've been either they're planned or they're on track to do that much more so, And they're they've made progress. So I say that because, one, it's proof that it can be done. Right? It's difficult. Let's use

Be mindful. What? Classical. Classical. Classical. Oh, okay. That's alright.

They're all the only two

incorporated in this county. Yeah. You're And, yeah, you're,

I And I got

the two in. Yeah. So Like

I said, I I I know my team or the the group here. So, yeah, so it can be done. I I mentioned that not to blame or anything, just say it can be done. One of the things that Placerville did is they did an overlay on you know, instead of the inventory list that we had, they actually took the inventory list, and they hired a consultant. And they came in and did an overlay that provided much more detail about and analyzed these perspective properties and put put together a list, I think, 12, and essentially shopped that with developers.

And I think it had a really positive effect. Think it accelerated things. I think also it dealt with a lot of what I hear at the board meetings oftentimes is we didn't know well, if we'd only known that this land was even being considered, you know, x y z problem, x y z misinception where it brings out the the nimbies have more to bite into if there hasn't been that preliminary kind of the planning agency has blessed this list of 20 properties or 50 brought whatever the number is. And so you've done you've done some homework ahead of time to help the developers. So I would suggest thinking about is that something you wanna recommend?

The other one is, again, I just think that the the we're gonna work keep I'm just telling you, we're gonna keep working on the advocacy part. That's a role we we play, and we're gonna play it respectfully and and in margin because, again, I think we have to deal with the attitudes of the public about what why this housing is necessary or or both it's not economic prosperity as a county and how it's, you know, bleeding population, how some people leave the county, so on and so on and so on. We just we need to get better about messaging about that. So that's something that, we're gonna

be doing in Canada. So thank you.

Comment. Hi, Rhonda. Jimenez. I was was realizing that, from my lifetime. I've lived in three different areas that were the result of, the housing crisis in the nineteen fifties after the war And three areas that I'm familiar with, all in California, are still beautiful neighborhoods that were maintained after after they were first built.

I'd love to see whether any knowledge of the this is not a criticism, but because I just thought of myself. Any knowledge that comes out of how those got built. I know there's a lot of technical money in FHA and not knowing how worked. But some what what were the things that made that happen so quickly and so well done? Part of it is the public really realized we needed housing and all the evidence come back.

Public doesn't realize exactly why we need housing for folks who don't have a lot of money, and that's an educational thing as Frank was mentioning. And and there's an attitude thing going on across the country too. But within this county, we none of my children stayed. None of my grandchildren lived here because they can't afford it, and they don't wanna be here in a place where they can't afford it. So I I think many others are experiencing that kind of thing.

Probably workers for the county and for the city and a lot of the businesses have the same thing going. People who work here don't live here, and that's a terrible drain on a whole lot of different services, including air pollution. So I just like to see if history tells us anything that would be a real. You Yeah. I'm dancing. That's my

I asked would only be you you said three places. Could you tell us which those Could you tell us which those places are?

The three places.

The examples that you were thinking?

Yeah. Actually, one of them is out of state. Lodi. Lodi? Concord and Lafayette, Indiana.

Thank you. And my parents were part of that wave in Concord.

In Concord? They all They

purchased, and the VA left. Okay.

So I

think a lot of that building

Yeah. My dad was a veteran who built his own house too.

Veterans that were retiring. I mean, home from the war, and that's when the building took home. So There's a lot of VA loans.

There was a good attitude about people who needed those houses. It was not necessarily that because of for education that we need right now. So that's another element to think about.

Any additional comments? That'll be helpful. Any comments online?

Okay. So

should we talk about when the next meeting

would occur? Yeah.

I mean, I guess we so we have a we have a pretty good I mean, I feel like we have, quite a few topics to look at, and we'll try to, work with the chair to bring some items for the next hearing. We'll certainly try to reach out to you all and maybe, see about what the opportunities are for having additional folks come in, some subject matter experts speak to us. So that gives us a, and then again, behind the scenes, we're looking at other jurisdictions and feasibility studies and costs and what consultants we have that are, you know, that we work with that can use this type of work. And so, yeah, all we're committed to bringing back information on those pieces. Okay. So next week, it looks like

it's the seventeenth right now. So Yeah.

You mean, you don't have to close that number or vote now? Okay. Just so

you should

I think it was just

the December 17. Yeah.

So, yeah, the next week should be December 17 at 10AM. And then right the week before Christmas. Don't know if scheduled. Or

I've been canceling a lot of December meetings. I'm happy to keep that going. But, really, on a serious note, we just

gave you guys a lot. Right. That's yeah.

Yeah. And I I wanna give you enough time.

That's only four weeks. Yeah.

So a good substantive meeting, I think, is more beneficial than a sooner meeting.

Generally, our you know, the materials are needed to be done kind kind of a week in advance, because it gives us three weeks. So that is a pretty expedited time frame with a lot

of folks out. To January?

We moved into January. We certainly I think we could do a lot of the, you know, the outreach we're trying to do to get interest from a new member in that time frame too. And maybe we'd have a good update on that piece

the whole day

first. Yes. It'll be January 21 at 10AM. And if we do a thirty day posting for a job, I mean, it might be close enough to where that new member might be able to attend that meeting the January 1. Since

the position officially can be appointed by the director That should be early. There's really no official timeline we have to follow. Right?

It's a I think thirty day noticing. They're public noticing for the, like, for the application time period.

That's the thirty day. Board clerk does that for a lot of the board appointed committees and things like that, so we're not trying to get with that as sort of the normal parameter. But I don't think there is any time frame specifically in that.

Once we get them in, yeah, we think probably within a week, pick somebody, which yeah. So I'll have some for the next meeting.

Well, if we felt like we had a ton of applications and and director felt like they need some input, we could always bring it. Yeah. Yeah. Cool.

So are we So we're canceling the December meeting, seventeenth.

So we can have time together.

So you have time together all this information, maybe talk to the guy you were talking about Yeah. Barry and see if there's possibly somebody could do

What and I I just wanna say from a staff perspective, we understand that we don't want to create delays unintentionally and, like, slow play this thing. So we appreciate the time to put the materials together, but we will take that time and try to, you know, bring something meaningful to the next one.

Will you be able to kind of, do the framework of how many units, you know, future units are in the pipeline and kind of kind of so we have an order of magnitude of what we potentially can bring forward?

I I think, you mean as far as, like, how we're, how we're performing on the

housing element? What Frank was talking about for the housing element. Basically, where the goals are from the housing element.

You Is that what I'm Market rate.

Market rate. I think I'm looking at what

They So

we can model what we can think we can do and find and also What's in the pipeline?

They could have I mean, you you should be able to use basically the same growth projections that they've used to base their TIFF off of. Right? The Okay. They they they know essentially how many units they're expecting in each part of

the county. Okay. So you already have that long term.

Yeah. We can provide that. I mean, that'd be good.

Yeah. Just I I

think you have twenty year, projection, and then they update it every five years with a major update. So

That would be kinda good to know.

Yep. Okay. Here's the other thing I would like to ask too. Where is what's your infrastructure like in these areas? Like, because you've already projected, so we now know you're doing x here x here, north, south, east, west. But, you know, somebody has to know, oh, that water pipe's really old. It's gonna have to be upgraded. Right? Because that starts to feed into them what you need as far as infrastructure to service all this housing. Right? So then you can kinda because otherwise, we're just talking. You know what I mean? Like, I just I personally wanna solve

for problems.

I I will say that that is something, and that they're sort of in line with Porter's comment. We have that list of, you know, the, undeveloped lanes. What we're trying to do internally with staff is to, get a better understanding and working with DOT and and EID of where the traffic issues are and where the infrastructure is so that when we do the next one, we have a little more meat on the bone, and we're talking about those locations. So that is sort of going on in the background. I don't know that it's been all the way vetted, but that is something that we're and I believe one of our housing element policies or objectives speaks to doing that sort of thing. And so, you know, that is something that we're

And let me kind

of run away, but we

The VMT mitigation fees. There's a BMT bank now that the state established.

I don't know. My my sense is Eldorado might fit into these categories, and I don't know if that's The BMT the mitigation fees is still optional for the jurisdiction to be used a way of coming into compliance with CEQA, don't do it. Let's put that out there. Don't use it. The money goes to the state. It does not come back to the community. No. I thought

this part, you could be rolled into the community.

Yeah. They could if the state decides to, but no. Got it. Yeah. Yeah. We'd be sending money to LA. Sorry about that.

Headed to mitigation fees as a foundation in the stages.

Yeah. Because you talk trip traffic, and I know traffic is a big plus too.

You know? I just we wanna we wanna make sure that we're we're, like, if we're exploring opportunity areas or something like that, that it's not somewhere that has a a major traffic, issue that would have to be resolved by a project. Right?

Well, that would be every over crossing from Cameron Park through Kosovo. Because they're all impacted. Honduras is probably the worst. Mass at 03:00. It's a mess all day. So and so there there may

be opportunities to because I'm not the most well versed on all of those. We can bring maybe representatives from our DOT to come speak. So we'll explore some of those opportunities too. I think

Yeah. I just think we just need to go and eyes open what the challenges are. Otherwise, you're solving for all these problems yet without these other problems what the problems are. Exactly. So just put them on the table.

What are the what are

the two measures that were passed?

Years ago? No.

Both the measures. County. So measure was it a? For transportation? E.

E. Measure e?

That that's one of them.

And what's the other one? I don't know. But they're both yeah. Measure f. They both impact development. So it'd be really beneficial for us to take a look at those as well, I think, is they really do impact. It's very true.

Put it all on the table. We got to. Otherwise, we're fooling ourselves. Yeah. You know?

I mean, at this point, we have the ROI, and now let's just keep making sure we are making every best step possible to get to the ordinance because

Right.

We've got our direction. Let's just keep guiding ourselves. Yeah.

Great. Alright. Very much. Turn. Second. I'll be there. Bye.

I wanted to thank everybody for coming. I I appreciate the interest. Yep. Thank you.

Thank you. Great call. There's concentration out there.

Thank you.

Pleasure to watch you guys work.