Parks and Recreation Commission - Regular Meeting

Hi. We have a brief

for so many

time. Hi. We have a brief delay. The chair will be back just in one minute, and we'll start the meeting. Thank you.

Gave me that battery boost there. You were right.

Yeah. She bought the she bought the car four years ago, and the battery finally I said, one time, Molly, I got it right.

It took you four years to get it right. That's right. Was

when you got there?

White one out there with mine had shut up. I'm

driving a rental. Uh-oh. I didn't even know what to do when I got in. Maria's like, yeah. I said, I'll take the old Chevy. I'll take it.

Who knows what you got? Yeah.

Roll here now. It's a hip. It's on our road. She hit Maria on. Okay.

The chair is back now, so we will start our meeting. Thank you.

Yeah. Okay. Call the meeting to order. Myrna, will you start, and then we proceed to planning? Is you have a new procedure we're gonna do?

Yes. I do have I do have one item I need to read into the record. Bill Draper informed me that he's unable to attend today's meeting due to caregiving of a child, which is considered just cause. To allow for remote participation under AB two four four nine, government code 54953 f in order to comply with AB two four four nine. I would first like the record to reflect there is a quorum of the members physically present at the meeting. Next, I would like to Bill Draper to disclose whether any individuals 18 of age or older are present in the room with him.

No. There are not, Myrna.

Thank you. And finally, in accordance with a b two four four nine, I request that Bill Draper keep his camera on during the meeting.

Thank you.

Understood. Welcome, Bill. Thank you.

Yeah.

And then we're gonna go ahead just as usual with adoption of the agenda agenda and approval of the consent calendar. Okay.

Is there a motion to adopt the agenda and approve the Aye. Minutes? I

do. Second.

All those approved, say aye.

Aye. Okay.

And Bill Draper, how do you vote?

I abstain. I was not at last meeting.

Okay. Thank you. Hasn't it?

Is it too loud? No. I'm gonna make it. He needs to be a co host and have oh, I thought his camera's highlighted.

Yeah. He's on.

So Commissioner Draper, can you please accept the cohost invitation? Thank you.

Woah. Now we gotcha. Thank you, Bill. And then public forum, if there's any

public forum. So you've gone through all the other protocols?

Yeah. We'll go ahead and, I can read that in if you want me to. Just the public forum part.

Yeah. Sure. Yeah.

This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the commission on subject matter that is not on their meeting agenda and within their jurisdiction. Public comments during public forum are limited to three minutes per person. The commission chair may limit public comment during public forum.

Okay.

And

agenda. Mike, come on up.

Good

evening, agricultural commissioners. Take this opportunity for 2026 to thank you for your service in this capacity. Appreciate that very much. You know, I list I wasn't available for the last meeting that you had, but I did listen to the proceedings and thought that there might be some update on the, the ag lodging here tonight. And so I was disappointed when I saw the agenda and really no opportunity to have that discussion here tonight, and so I'm making my comments here.

It's been the action of this, commission to identify two of you to participate in a committee, along with two of the county's appointed, economic committee members, the seed members. And so I'm very anxious to hear how that is going forward. Perhaps there'll be an update at the end of tonight's, meeting, but there's no opportunity for comment as it's agendized. So, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mike.

Now taking public comment on the, public forum. Individuals will have three minutes to address the commission. Public comment will be taken first from the boardroom, which we did. And then for those participating by Zoom, please make sure you unmute yourself when called upon. If you're joining the meeting, by phone, press 9 to indicate a desire to comment. And I do have one hand up, and that is, Gordon Helm, and he wishes to speak. Okay?

Okay. Go ahead.

Go ahead, Gordon. Sure.

Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for giving me a a moment here to speak. I'm pretty much kinda on the same page with Michael with regards to the, the rural camping. I was actually had a meeting with Hip Camp, their government affairs people this morning, and kinda went over, you know, a b five one eight and how that might be implemented. It sounds like that was that the there's quite a bit of text in that initiative or in that bill that would allow the county to almost adopt the bill, directly to to use it to their benefit.

But, I'm I'm hoping that, that this rural camping, I guess, consideration can be can be considered or or bundled in with the ag lodging. So, I think that's all I really wanna say. So, thank you.

Thank you, Gordon. Appreciate it.

Is there anything And there are no other public comments at this time on Zoom.

Okay. And we've done everything else. Ready for action items?

Yes.

Okay. Go ahead, Myrna, if you're gonna read

it or Okay. This is item 226Dash0310P24Dash001. Dawson, tentative parcel map, assessor's parcel number 069150023. And at this time, we're gonna have planning come up and introduce the item.

Good

afternoon, commissioners. My name is Craig Osborne, an associate planner from the Eldorado County Planning and Building Department. The Planning Department requests the agricultural department to make a recommendation for the Dawson tentative parcel map P24Dash001. The project involves a tentative parcel map dividing an approximately 39.72 acre property into four parcels ranging between 9.4 acres to approximately 10.1 acres of total parcel area on a parcel located approximately 400 feet north of the intersection between Green Valley Road and Deer Valley Road. The project site is only partially within the Rescue Rural Center for the commercial zoned split of the parcel.

The project is adjacent to an agriculturally zoned parcel that is under oh, excuse me. Strike that. The parcel is in Supervisorial District Number 4. The project is not subject to general plan policy eight point one point two point two because the parcel is less than the 40 acre minimum, but is subject to and consistent with eight point one point three point five because it is not identified as having an existing or potential agricultural use. The proposed parcel is subject to general plan policy eight point one point four point one and is consistent with this policy because it meets requirements a through c in that policy.

Including the minimum 10 acre requirement associated with eight point one point three point one, the proposed parcel is adjacent to an, agriculture zone parcel. The agricultural department will now present their presentation, which includes all the pertinent information.

Thank you

for your time.

Need you, we can get back with you. Absolutely. Come back up. Okay?

Yes,

sir. I'm sure we may have questions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Who's who's got this?

Got this one this afternoon. Good afternoon. So as everybody's already stated, this is the Dawson tentative parcel map with the APN 069150023. Most of this has already been said. Planning Services requesting that the attached application for the tentative parcel map Dawson be placed on the commission's agenda.

As planning already stated, they're requesting agricultural recommendation pursuant to general plan policies eight point one point three point one, eight point one point three point five, eight point one point four point one and eight point one point two point two. And as already stated general plan policy eight point one point two point two project is not subject to this policy as the total site acreage is less than 40 acres. Most of this is already stated previously a 39.72 acre property splitting into four parcels between 9.4 And 10.1 acres at the corner of Deer Valley and Green Valley. Parcel description, again the parcel number and acreage 6.069150023, which is gonna be 39.72 acres. It is not in an agricultural district.

The land use designation is rural residential. The zoning is rural land 10, RL 10, and then small portion of community commercial. The soil types are RGE two, which is rescue extremely stony sandy loam three to 50% slopes eroded, as well as ANB, which is the argonaut clay loam, three to 9% slopes. Thank you. Again, this is the parcel number in acreage.

This is who we notified. We notified roughly 42 adjacent parcels. The map for the agricultural district, you can see the Williamson Act to the left of the parcel highlighted in the pink stripes, which it is not part of. Zoning is a split zoning as already stated RL10 and the community commercial as you see there the site is outlined in pink and RL10 in the light blue if you will and in the small commercial portion down there in the right hand corner that's red. Land use designation, rural residential.

Soil types, already covered that. You can see most of the site is the RGE 2, and then there's a small portion down there which is the argonaut clay, is in the lower portion of the site. The the topography varies from 12 to 1,600 feet. It is very I wouldn't say very steep, but it's steep site with few plateaus. You'll see here in a minute, you can see ranging there from the bottom right, slipping upwards up to the upper left hand corner.

This is a aerial site map of the existing site here in the it's not showing up, but they're in the somewhat middle to the right is the existing home. On the far right hand side are existing structures, a shop, and a small barn and storage. A little bit closer depiction, you can see the the existing house, the shop in the upper right hand corner, and then storage down in the lower left hand corner. This is the proposed tentative map you can see that there's 10.2 acres on the far left, 10.3 in the middle, another 10.1 acres in the middle, and then the far right will be 9.1 acres. Walking through the site here we're down in the bottom right hand corner and we're looking north up through up through Deer Creek Road.

You can see that the post office is on the right hand side. The parcel here is existing straight up on the left hand side, if you will. As we scroll to the right, we've got the rescue fire department across the street. Rolling further to the right, you can see the intersection of Deer Valley and Green Valley. Further to the right, coming onto the property.

And further right, you can see some of the shop the storage shed shop there. And then scrolling up again, you can see the shop up there on the plateau. And then we come back around here to where we were again looking north. As we move up to the middle of the site, this is looking up western westerly through the site near the property line. This would be where the two parcels are going to be split where the road would go.

Just wanted to give you a depiction of what that looked like. This would be looking where the two parcels again split more towards the middle of the site. You can see how it rolls and goes up to the top. I think I skipped that one. Again, just a little bit more of a pan so you can see where it rolls around.

I believe the road's gonna roll right underneath that slope there. This year we move up again a little bit further up the side into the second or third lot, one in the middle looking west along the property line you can see it's going up towards the next lot. This here is looking more north as you can see it's going steep covered with a lot of brush. This here is looking back down. Some of those previous pictures down where it was flat, were taken down there where you can see the dirt and the pavement, so you can see how steep it is.

This just pans around so you can see what the property line looks like adjacent to it with the brush and existing conditions and the lower lands down below. Again, just panning out so you can see the school over on the across the road. This is looking a little bit further down the property line and moving a little bit more forward. The Williamson Act is that green grazing land down below that you can see. The fence line is I'm assuming the property line or close to it.

And as we move closer down, this is just looking across, you can see the manzanita and the pine trees. This is moving down into the corner looking directly into the Williamson Act land if you will. You can see the grazing the grazing land there fenced. Moving around to our left looking back up to where we came from, you see the property line, the fence line, the existing conditions. Going left again uphill into the brush and trees.

Further left, more of the same. And this would be looking up the western property line, looking north up the hill towards where it ends. This is, again, would just be looking down into this Williamsonak property, existing conditions. This is the northern point up top. The existing condition, I believe, the existing point of the property is over there towards the pine tree.

There really wasn't access to that, so we took it where we could. Again, looking down the foreground, you can see where the, school and the Williamson Act land is below. A little bit different angle, just to give you a view of the existing conditions. This is looking back along the property line, back towards the eastern property line. So for discussion, a site visit was conducted on 01/26/2026 to assess the existing conditions regarding the proposed tenant of map parcel, Map 24 P24-one Dawson.

And as far as staff findings goes policy eight point one point three point one which is the agriculturally zone lands including Williamson act contract properties shall be buffered from increases in this density on adjacent lands by requiring a minimum of 10 acres for any parcel created adjacent to such lands. Parcels used to buffer agriculturally zone land should have a similar width to length ratio of other parcels when feasible. And the adjacent parcel to the Williamson Act contract properties is designed to be 10.2 acres and has a similar width to length ratio. Policy eight point one point three point five on any parcel 10 acres or larger is identified as having an existing or potential agricultural use. The Agricultural Commission must consider and provide a recommendation on the agricultural use except for parcels assigned urban or other non agricultural uses by the land use map for the 1996 general plan or potential of that parcel and whether the request will diminish or impair the existing or potential use prior to any discretionary permit being approved.

Staff believes the development of these four parcels one adjacent to the WAC Williams Sonat contract will not diminish the existing land uses in the area as most parcels to the north and west of the Williams Sonat contract are established at the 10 acre minimum and parcels existing to the east of the Williams Sonat contract and south of the Dawson tentative map are medium density residential. Policy eight point one point four point one of the agricultural commission shall review all discretionary development applications and location of the proposed public facilities involving land zone for or designated agriculture or lands adjacent to such lands, and shall make recommendations to the reviewing authority. Before granting approval, a determination shall be made by the approving authority of the proposed use. A will not intensify existing conflicts or add new conflicts between adjacent residential areas and agricultural activities, and b, will not create an island effect wherein agricultural lands located between the project site and other non agricultural lands will be negatively effective, And c, will not significantly reduce or destroy the buffering effect of existing large parcel sizes adjacent to agricultural lands. At this point, staff is not aware of any existing conflicts and believes the development of this tentative map will not add any new conflicts as the area is vastly built out to its designated use.

No island effect is created by the development of this tentative map. The development of this tentative map does not significantly reduce or destroy the buffering effects of existing Williamson Act contract parcel as it keeps the adjacent parcel above the 10 acre minimum. Policy eight point one point two point two. Some lands within rural regions have historically been used for commercial grazing of livestock and are currently capable of sustaining commercial grazing of livestock. If they can be demonstrated to be suitable land for grazing and if they were not assigned urban or other non agricultural uses in the land use map of the 1996 general plan, those lands shall be protected with a minimum 40 acres unless such lands already have smaller parcels or the Board of Supervisors determines that economic, social or other considerations justify the creation of smaller parcels for development or other non agricultural uses.

Where 40 acre minimum parcel sizes are maintained, planned developments may be considered, are consistent with the underlying land use designation. Before taking any actions to create parcels of less than 40 acres in areas subject to this policy, the Board of Supervisor and or Planning Commission shall solicit and consider input from the Agriculture Commission. And as already stated, this project is not subject to this policy as a toll site acreages less than 40 acres. At this point, staff recommends approval the tentative parcel map at P 24 Dash 001 Dawson, APN 069150023 with regards to general plan policies eight point one point three point one eight point one point three point five eight point one point four point one, and finally 8.1 2.2.

Questions? Very good.

Mean Here, get that guy a drink of water.

Any questions of the commission of staff? Of the planning So

the the lots that's joining the the Williamson Act will definitely be 10 acres, not

The one that's adjacent to the lot is designed to be 10.2, I mean. Okay. That's the beginning of beginning third of that, the tentative map.

And then all the new lots will remain the RL 10 zoning?

Yes. I got a lot of pictures you just pass it right there then one more down right there. So the adjacent to the lot on the left is going to be the 10.2 acres that will be lot one next to the Williamson Act. And then the other two lots in the middle are gonna be ten point three and ten point one, and then the last one will be 9.1 acres.

Okay. Alright.

On the the question of a one three five parcels 10 acre larger, existing or potential agricultural lose use. Looks like from the satellite map that it's pretty rocky and that that there's no grazing potential there or vineyard farming potential there.

There was some area there on historical grazing, but that's the corner that we went into in the bottom left hand corner on the eastern on the North Southeast Western side, that looked down into the Williamson Act, but because it is less than the 40 acres, it's not going

to be Not a viable grazing. Exactly.

Okay, anyone else have questions of staff? Is the applicant in the audience? Sure. Mod up.

I'm Bobby Leback with Leback Engineering representing the applicant. The property owner is also here if you have any questions. He's good friends with CJ Smith that owns the property to the West. Just it was a very thorough presentation, so I'm not sure what more I can add except to say that we're also adjacent to the rescue rural center to the East. The 0.6 to 6.4 acre parcels to the South and Southeast, 10 acre parcels to the North. So any questions?

Any questions? Okay. You. Is there anyone else in the audience to address this that has anything to say? Not?

I'll I'll just read this

just to be and make sure all

that. Good. Now taking public comment on item two six dash zero three one zero. Individuals will have three minutes to address the commission. Public comment will be taken first from those participating in the meeting room and then from those participating through Zoom. For those participating by Zoom, please make sure you unmute yourself when called upon. If you are joining, the meeting by phone, press 9 to indicate a desire to comment. If you are joining by Zoom, press the raise hand button to indicate a desire to comment. Please voluntarily state your name for the record. And I do not have any Zoom participants.

Okay.

Thank you.

Alright. If there's nothing else, we'll bring it back for a motion. If

I did have one last question. The, on on the zoning map, it looks like the, Southeast Corner, that very small corner of commercial, that was in existence. Correct?

Yes. That's in existence at this time.

Alright. Is there do I hear a motion?

Mister chairman, I move we accept staff's recommendation

to approve.

I'll second.

Okay. Very good. Alright. Myrna, please call the roll.

Commissioner Tong, how do you vote?

Aye. Commissioner Draper, how do you vote? Aye.

Commissioner Walker, how do you vote? Commissioner Nielsen, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Bolster, how

do you vote?

Aye. Commissioner Mansfield, how do you vote? Aye. And chair Boerger, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay.

We'll now go to item 260311P24Dash0008. It's Bursia tentative parcel map, assessor's parcel number 317Dash250Dash017. And now planning will introduce the item.

I like this new protocol. Get to see the planning department up here

and get to know you. Yes. Absolutely. Good

afternoon once again commissioners. My name is Craig Osborne, an associate planner from Eldorado County Planning and Building Department. The Planning Department requests the agricultural department to make a recommendation for the Burcia Tenants of Parcel Map P24008. The project involves a tenant of parcel map dividing an approximately 14.85 acre property into three parcels ranging between 4.85 acres to five acres of total parcel area on a project site located at the Northwest corner of the intersection between Green Valley Road and Campus Drive within the Diamond Springs, Eldorado community region. The proposed project is subject to general plan policy eight point one point four point one and is inconsistent with this policy because it does not meet the general plan policy eight point one point three point one buffering minimum of 10 acres for any parcel created adjacent to our agriculturally zoned lands including Williamson at contract properties.

The applicants are requesting a waiver to general plan policy eight point one point three point one, which is a mandatory and specific policy that does not allow for waivers or variances. The proposed creation of a five acre parcel adjacent to a parcel zone PA10 is inconsistent with general plan policy eight point one point three point one. The agricultural department will now present to you their presentation, which includes all the pertinent information. Again, thank you for your time and consideration.

K. Thank you, and we'll we'll get you back if we need you. Okay. Okay. Corey?

Yep. That's me this time. Corey Larson, assistant ag commissioner, presenting this one for you. So Craig was nice enough to read the planning request and project description for us. The parcel description, again, is Parcel number 317250017.

It is not in an agricultural district. The land use designation for this property is low density residential. The zoning is r e five residential estates five acres. It does contain choice soils, boomer gravelly loam and Sierra sandy loam. The original planning request to look at policy eight point one point three point five, We looked at this in a little bit more detail.

Since the land use designation is low density residential, we have determined that this policy does not apply to this parcel as it is not an existing or potential agricultural use based on the general plan policy map for 1996. We did notify all parcels within a thousand feet of this property regarding this tentative parcel map. The again, the zoning is residential estates for this parcel. The agricultural parcel to the west is PA 10. It's a 20 acre parcel.

It's a Christmas tree farm. The land use designation is low density residential as is all the adjacent parcels other than the elementary school and college on the east side. The majority of the parcel is choice soils, boomer gravelly loam, three to 15% slopes, 15 to 30% slopes, and Sierra sandy loam, nine to 15% slopes. Topography, it's gently sloping upwards from south to north going from about 1,500 feet to 1,540 feet. Here's an aerial view of the parcel.

There is an existing house on the bottom third of the parcel, and here is an overlay of the tentative parcel map on the aerial view of the parcel. So the proposed parcel map is the northern parcel would be 4.85 acres, and the two lower parcels are proposed at five acres each. Site visit photos. This is the northernmost boundary of the parcel standing on Greenwood Lane, which is the western border of the parcel looking towards the east. The property to the north is owned by the college, actually.

Just some more views of that. You can kinda see the school buses in the background. This is a Christmas tree farm that is to the west of the parcel across Greenwood Lane. And, again, the Christmas tree farm continues quite a ways down Greenwood Lane.

And the property subject parcel is to the left?

Yes. Okay.

Yes. On the other side of those oak trees.

Yep.

This is on the subject parcel, so I'm standing about along the where the first five acre split would be looking towards the west towards the Christmas tree farm. You can kinda see them through the oaks if you look really squint. And then another view, the Christmas trees are in the distance through there. And this is looking basically in the same spot, but towards the east. So the parcel line or the property line goes all the way towards Campus Drive on the east side.

And that's just pretty much the same view. And then this is a little bit farther north on the property, so this is where the other split between the parcels would be looking towards the east. There is a seasonal I think it's seasonal. Maybe they're year round stream that runs through the parcel right there between Campus Drive and middle of the parcel. And then this is looking back towards the west.

So this gateway in the distance was where I was standing when I took the very first photo. So the Christmas tree farm is along the road on the other side of the oaks here. And that's just a little panning back towards the south slightly. And then panning back north. So I conducted the site visit on January 21 and to review consistency with pertinent general plan policies.

We're looking at policy eight point one point three point one. Agriculturally zoned lands, including Williams and Knapp contract property, shall be buffered from increases in density on adjacent lands by requiring a minimum of 10 acres for any parcel created adjacent to such lands. Parcels used to buffer agriculturally zoned land should have a similar width to length ratio of parcels when feasible. So the parcel map breaking a 14.85 acre parcel into three parcels between four point eight five and five acres each is inconsistent with the general plan policy eight point one point three point one. Parcels created adjacent to agricultural lands are required to be a minimum of 10 acres per this policy.

And with this policy, it's not discretionary. We don't we can't make recommendations on it. It's a shall. It's mandatory. We're also looking at policy eight point one point four point one.

The County Agricultural Commission shall review all discretionary development applications and the location of proposed public facilities involving land zoned or designated agriculture or lands adjacent to such lands and shall make recommendations to the reviewing authority. Before granting approval, a determination shall be made by the approving authority that the proposed used. So there's three parts to this, and you have to meet all three of them. They're all ands. A, will not intensify existing conflicts or add new conflicts between adjacent residential areas.

I'm a skip ahead and then go back. B, will not create an island effect wherein agricultural lands located between project site and other nonagricultural lands will be negatively affected and will not significantly reduce or destroy the buffering effect of existing large parcel sizes adjacent to agricultural lands. Oh, so going back, a, will not intensify existing conflicts or add new conflicts between adjacent residential areas and agricultural activities. If it was not in conflict with 8.10.30.1, it wouldn't cause conflicts. It's got Greenwood Lane as where as well as large oaks between the two parcels, between the tentative parcel map and the Christmas tree farm.

B, it wouldn't create an island effect for the adjacent parcel. C, because of eight point one point three point one, it does reduce or destroy the buffering effect. Eight point one point eight point one point three point one makes it mandatory that the buffer is 10 acres. So the proposed parcel map would reduce the buffering effects of existing large parcels adjacent to agricultural lands. The minimum acreage of parcels created adjacent to agricultural lands is 10 acres for the purposes of buffering.

So staff recommendations. Staff recommends denial of p 24 Dash zero zero zero eight, Burcia tentative parcel map due to conflicts with general plan policy eight point one point three point one, which does not permit parcels to be created that are less than 10 acres adjacent to agriculturally zoned lands. This policy is mandatory and does not allow for waivers or discretionary approval. Any questions?

Okay. Questions of staff? I

would just I would just like to clarify. Corey pointed it out, but in her staff report. But in her recommendation,

I don't I don't think she clarifies it enough again, is

that because it doesn't meet eight one three one, it is not consistent with eight one four one, and therefore, that's why she's recommending denial.

Okay.

Does

planning have anything to add to this? Do you I I assume you also recommended non approval because of the general plan.

Yes, sir. And and Corey, I think, performed a very thorough review of of the situation here. And and my planning manager and I both spent quite a bit of time trying to see if there was some way to find some logic that would apply to this and allow us to, not ignore, but move past this policy. And It

doesn't No.

We couldn't find a way.

The only thing that could maybe be done on the main that's in the there be a 10 acre put to it and the 4.85 left is a down below? Is that another That would yeah.

There it could be, you know, both

make it compatible.

Yes. So the lines could be redrawn so that there's a 10 acre parcel adjacent to the agricultural agricultural parcel. Parcel.

That's the main thing.

Correct. That's that's the sticking point.

Right. Okay. Any

other I mean, it it is it is something to note that, it is, you know, low density residential all around this parcel, the the agricultural zone parcel. And so there's some logic that could be applied that, you know, not harmful or inconsistent with the general plan except for this one policy. And there's no way to

There's no way.

No way to take a Sharpie and scratch that out.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is the applicant in the

It's me again. Bobby Leveque, Leveque Engineering. Yeah. We didn't know that it wasn't discretionary, that eight point one point three point one policy, but we just wanted to point out some things if we could. This parcel is located in the community region boundary.

So the general plan states, for regarding community regions, objective two point one point one states that the community region boundary establishes the urban, limit line demarcating where urban and suburban land uses will be developed. Policy two point one point one point two states that establish community regions to define those areas which are appropriate for the highest intensity of self sustaining compact urban type development and suburban type development within the county based upon available availability of infrastructure, public services, or major transportation quarters and patterns. This property is adjacent to and north of Green Valley Road. It's located adjacent to Indian Creek School, the office of education to the East, as well-being adjacent to Campus Drive. It's located to the Southeast of Folsom Lake College owned by Los Rios Community College.

It should be noted the parcel, granted a road easement along its Easterly property line back when Campus Drive was I was around that time when we when, I worked at Jean Thorn and Associates, and we did Campus Drive, which allowed it to, construct Campus Drive. And as part of that transaction, they actually put curb cuts in the vertical curb along the east side because there was always a draft map that we are aware of at the time, for this to be three five acre parcels. It's located to the south of Eldorado County and superintendent of schools property as well as Los Rios Community College lot on a 4.4 acre parcel. To the Northwest is the Christmas Tree Farm located on the 20 acre parcel. The parcel zone P A 10, but it's an island parcel that has an underlying general plan land use designation of LDR.

It's an island surrounded by R E 5 and R L 10 zoning r l 10 zoning to the North, R E 5 to the South, west, and east. There are also two existing five acre parcels to its south, and we plan on providing a 200 foot building setback from the PA zone parcel. There's no ag preserve, no ag overlays in the surrounding parcels or in the whole surrounding area. It appears as though this property as well as the properties to the east and north have been included in the community region boundary most likely because of its proximity to the schools in Green Valley Road. We did prepare some exhibits.

Did these get crossed out?

Thank you.

Well, I didn't know about this. Sorry.

That's okay. We can give you mine. Okay. Thank you. If that's alright.

Yeah. So the community region text is the text that I was reading. The other exhibits just show the community region boundary for El Dorado Diamond Springs all in the dark green in the first exhibit. The second exhibit is the general plan land use that shows the most of the entire area as LDR, low density rents residential. On the existing zoning exhibit, you can see there's two island parcels that are PA 10 located within the entire vicinity with the area.

And then the last exhibit just being that there's no ag overlays around the property. So I don't know, if there's any way forward, with regard to that policy, any way to get an exception for this property, or not. If there is, if somebody has some suggestion, we'd be happy to hear it. We feel it's in keeping with, the rural character being that it's a these are five acre parcels. It's not we're not propose proposing some urban, development here.

It's, on Campus Drive where the school is. It's right on Green Valley Road. So, with that, I

can answer any questions you may have. Okay.

Unless Danny has some thoughts for them.

Yeah. Danny Venekuk, deputy county council. Morgan, you can't, like, provide you legal advice on the matter. I will say for this particular issue, we have to look at what the ad commission's role is. The ad commission's relatively limited. It's only what the general plan provides. So I think the thing that I would encourage the ad commissioners here is, really, your finding is end at eight point one point four point one. Staffs provide a recommendation on how that interrelates, but I don't think the ad commission has a role in determining whether 3.1 applies or not, really. And how to go forward, I really leave that to the sound judgment of planning of what other options there might have. I don't know if a general plan amendment or anything like that is an option. I would leave that to planning to determine.

Well, I don't think a general plan amendment because, obviously, we wanna protect other ag parcels

Yeah.

You know, providing that buffer. Yeah. But if there's any way in the general plan, if you would know to, request from the board of supervisors, an exception to the pause policy for a certain case.

I don't see anything in the general plan for this particular policy that offers that. So, you know, least when I was looking through this, it doesn't there are some policies that the board does have that say on. For example, on the grazing policy mentioned earlier on the last does have a role for the board too, even if the commission had made a finding, decide not to go with it. But that this particular policy on the 10 acres does not provide that. It just says 10 acres. So

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you.

Well, let's say anybody else have questions or No.

Okay. Well, thank you.

And Thank you.

Alright. Discussion or motion?

Mister chair, I'd probably encourage you to please call public comment on this matter. Sure. Oh,

yes. I'm sorry. Is there other public con comment?

Now taking public comment on on item two six dash zero three one one. Individuals will have three minutes to address the commission. Public comment will be taken first from those participating in the meeting room and then from those participating through Zoom. For those participating by Zoom, please make sure you unmute yourself when called upon. If you are joining the meeting by phone, press 9 to indicate a desire to comment. If you are joining by Zoom, press the raise hand button to indicate a desire to comment. Please voluntarily state your name for the record. And I do not have any hands raised in Zoom. Nothing on the Zoom. Nothing on Zoom.

Is there anyone in the audience here that cares to address this? If not, Thank you, Danny, for your comments. Worry. Anyway, is there a, do we have a motion or

I'll conversation? I'll make a motion that we take, staff's recommendation and deny due to the conflict with eight eight point one point four point one. Yeah.

I'll I'll second that. Alright. It's been moved and seconded. Bernadette, would you call the rule, please?

Commissioner Bolster, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Mansfield, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Walker, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Nielsen, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Tong, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Draper, how do you vote?

Aye.

Thank you. And chair Boger, how do you vote?

Aye. Thank you.

Alright. It's

The motion passes. The

motion passed.

And,

all right. Well, good luck with your pursuit of this at any rate. So Would staff like this for

Marna has one, I think.

Marna has one? Okay.

That's all we need.

That's all

we Thank you for getting I just want to say say thank you for getting the policy correct in your motion because ours probably wasn't on the radar. But I think from Corey's presentation, she did such a thorough job that you could

see what was going on. Okay.

Alright. So let's move on to staff update on legislation and regulatory issues and anything else you'd like to maybe what Mike referred to if you want to address that a little bit too.

So I I think I'll address the thing that, has has brought the comments here today. The ag lodging update. As of right now, there's no update. I, I don't have anything to update or we would have had a discussion. It would have been agendized. We, Karen in planning and I are working on it, and we'll have more to come. I think there's been some stuff that's happened that's kind of, made it, like, how do we make it all fit together? We've got the West Slope AG VHRs. We've got I mean, not AG VHRs. I'm sorry.

The West Slope VHRs. We've got AG lodging. There's camping. And so we're trying to be, thoughtful in how we put that all together. But there is no draft ordinance. There is no, there's nothing happened behind the scenes without AG. I think you guys know me well enough in my, other endeavors that I'm not ever gonna leave AG behind. So I promise you that as soon as I have something I will reach out and you know Karen and I will move forward with it. What I will say is Karen is scheduled. I just confirmed this with our CIO analyst today.

She is confirmed to go to the board with an update on AgVHR and it's my understanding that Ag lodging, kind of an update of where we're at, on March 24. But I'm hopeful to have a little bit more information prior to that, and if I do then, I will let you know.

Will there be any chance for Ag to comment or to work in a in a, like we have in in groups?

We are we are absolutely not going to move forward with this without agriculture weigh the ag community weighing in. This is not working on a vacuum. We will not come forward with, hey here's what we're gonna do and have it so that you're commenting at the board meeting. I just I don't have anything at this time for to even comment on. I do know that Karen was at a conference last week and happened to be looking at Santa Barbara so we're looking at other counties and what we're doing and how can we do this thoughtfully and then the best interests of the county the ag community you know all its constituents so that we have something that we're not having to bring back or, is not meeting the needs hopefully.

Would there be an opportunity to have like in other ones we've had members of the of the commission one or two work on a on a committee? Will there be or will it only be coming to us after the results of some other

I I so I can't I can't answer that definitively at this minute. I would assume we'll move forward like we did. Karen and I came with the first meeting with the ag community to get the ag community's comments. I would assume we'll move further that way. Okay. You know, it's planning planning is is I don't want to say the lead but they are the zoning code is is is theirs and you know we're working together but, that's where we're at. I understand your frustration. I in fact sent Karen a message and said we're gonna do something. So I get it. We're working on it.

We're trying. Because a a lot of stuff been thrown at the planning department, and we're trying to get it all done.

Okay. So that obviously, that'd be the ag community's concern is that we did we move forward as we started with that collaborative model, the working group model that's been that we've successfully used, I think, from the general plan update with Roger Trout when he started that. And then hemp and and the winery and and ranch marketing ordinances, that model seem to work well. So, obviously, that's you know, I think I'm sure that's the preferred approach that the the ad committee, and maybe a concern is that, you know, what point to the internal discussions get too far down the road before we get policy that seems to be starting to set up in concrete.

So I can assure you that we are not getting too far down the road. If anything, I think it's taking longer than we perhaps thought it it could. I'm gonna go back to planning has been a lot of stuff thrown at them and so you know doing the best we can to get there. I I hopefully can give you I will be out of town for the next Ag Commission meeting but hopefully Corey can give you some update or I might zoom in from my cruise ship, because I love to do that. But I I can assure you that, one, I'm still here as your Ag Commissioner, and I am not, my commitment to you has always been that I I pull you in and you're part of the conversation because I'm not I'm not putting this, you know, helping to put this this together without you, you know.

This is

it's kind of our thing, right, you know. So I can't really say more than that because I just I really need to get back to with Karen after the holidays and you know after everything that's been happening with them and and really get more of of a firm thought about where we're going. I mean, there's a lot of needs that if we just move forward and barrel through with ag lodging, we won't be meeting for what the ag community needs. I mean, you heard Gordon Gordon talk about camping. I can't tell you if we'll be even looking at that, but there's things out there that are have to address these other pieces, you know, ADUs.

And and and so we can't do this in a it's just taking longer than we thought it would. So more to come, and for sure she will just be it's not it's not she's not presenting any code she's not presenting any of that stuff any policy she is presenting an update about where we're at.

Okay And when will that be?

March 24. Oh, March 24. Okay.

Are you suggesting that at times government moves slowly? No. We'll be shocked. Shocked.

No.

We're creeping along in a snail's pace no matter what.

I remember those days. So the March 24, you I I I thought you said AGVHR?

No. No. I'm sorry. The V 8 West Slope that's what I'm telling you. There's a lot of stuff going on.

Oh, no. Something weird.

The West Slope v a VHR that I believe she's going to be giving an update on. And at that point, she talked about looping in an update on ag lodging. There's a you know? So it's pretty much all in her court. Is that what you're saying?

I mean

Karen and I are working together to move forward on this.

Okay. Okay. Alright. Okay. Right. Any other questions on that? If not, go ahead with your other.

I really don't have any other updates. There is no the only legislation right now that's going on is citrus and you know it's not anything that's going to affect us. I I think Cory could give you a quick GUIS update. She just updated the board and did a fabulous job so gave you a quick update on GWAS and where we're at. We're still moving forward with that.

There is one to allow more, wine tasting in farmers markets, I think. They expand

That the hasn't passed my desk yet.

That doesn't? Oh, I mean, it's it's there.

Sometimes you know Maybe they

don't send you that that that aspect. But

There's a lot of farmer's market drama going on, and I Yep. I try to let it settle before I

Now they're gonna add wine to that. Oh, boy.

Well, they already allow one now, but they're trying to give more ability for the for the manager of the farmers market to allow more than just one winery and more under different restrictions or different With tasting? With

at the market?

I think they allow it under certain conditions now, maybe with one.

You may be referring to AB two seventy from last year that did do various changes to licensing requirements for wine and just discussed concepts of wine event. So that might be what you're referring to, and that was passed last year.

There's another one to allow There might be. That's the one I'm aware of.

So yeah. Yeah. I will.

Greg and I just saw that article this week on the wine at farmer's markets. Oh, okay. It was this week.

Well, one of my very first farmer's markets that I did an inspection at was Tahoe. And I remember walking by and somebody bought couple bottles of Greg a Boga Winery wine and a big thing of seafood, and they were off to have a great dinner. Yeah. Yeah. So Good. Hopefully, you know, that that still continues.

Okay. Good.

Okay. I I think we can coerce Corey into just a really quick quiz. Sure. Go ahead, Corey. Yeah.

There's still a lot of in El Dorado Hills.

No. She's not in El Dorado.

No. We're resuming treatments, as of tomorrow. We have another 2,000,000 from the state in emergency funding, and we anticipate spending probably all of it by the end of the fiscal year. And, hopefully, we will be able to make really good headway on eradicating. We have treated 800 homes in Eldorado Hills at this point.

We have two new little pocket populations that I don't know if we've talked about before. One in the Blackstone community, which is off of Latrobe and one off of White Rock White Rock Road, in the 4 Seasons community. And, hopefully, those are very small populations that we can knock out really fast. Otherwise, Serrano is our big population right now. And so far, it's contained within Serrano, so, hopefully, we can keep it there and eradicate it within the next it'd probably take a couple years. Serrano took five years to eradicate their infestation.

Corey's been doing a a snow dance for El Dorado Hills. It's so far not working.

It's not working. Yes.

Getting better at it.

Don't don't go there.

Snow. Still the biggest

Just El Dorado Hills. Just over Serrano.

Yeah. Just over Serrano. Okay. Okay. I can live I can live with that.

Specific area. Biggest infestation in the state.

We are what?

The biggest

Biggest.

In the state.

We are? Yes.

Yeah. Woo hoo. Letters. We're number one. Well,

for the non infested areas, we are the biggest infestation.

For the non infested areas, we're the biggest Yes. Infested

We're special. We're a longer and Yeah.

I'd like to make a comment. I think you guys are doing a good job, especially when I read that in the Mountain Democrat, and I I wanna congratulate you folks on getting that out to the public. I think it'll help them understand it.

Oh, on the glassy winged sharpshooter? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I saw it in the end.

Well, I have to congratulate Corey because she's just done a phenomenal job managing it. To put it into perspective, like I told the board, she's been managing over $2,000,000 budget, and that's roughly what the the department's budget is. She's been doing a phenomenal job in getting all this work done.

Okay. Let's see. Anything else on the agenda? Correspondence?

None.

No? Do we have something maybe for our next

You do.

March meeting?

Our our next, ag commission meeting?

Yes.

You do have a couple items.

We have a couple. Okay. We'll get with you on those.

I'll be on the vote.

No. You'll be on it. Okay.

Cannabis items. Is that what you said?

Are you trying to take the winds out of my sales? No cannabis items.

They should be easy.

Alright.

It should be easy ones. Corey, I'll just rip them right through.

Okay. Good. Well, we'll be in touch. Yeah. Alright. Well, I think I'll close this meeting. It's good to see Bill out in Colorado. I I think we may be having a storm heading your way. I don't know, Bill. How's it out there?

Not very snowy. It is very, very dry and warm.

Okay. Yeah. We've heard Utah is drier than it's ever been. I just

Next week?

Yeah. Maybe next week. Okay. Yeah. But okay. Well, good to see you, Bill. We'll Thank you. Okay. Alright. If there's nothing else, close the meeting.