Parks and Recreation Commission - Regular Meeting

So

we have one commissioner that's gonna be zooming in because he's, I don't know, stuck in snow on Tahoe or just stuck in Tahoe.

Okay. So I don't see him if you were I just wanna start the meeting.

Okay. Start with roll call. I guess I called over already.

Okay. So commissioner Lowry? Here. Commissioner Dunnevant? Here. Commissioner Lowells Becker? Present. Commissioner Hospitalier?

Here.

And then Commissioner McLaughlin is

K. And I guess that takes us to pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The

United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Adoption of the agenda? So

I'll make a motion to adopt the agenda with the change that you move item

let

me get to it here. Item five and hear it after item six due to time constraints possibility of assumption. Sorry.

Everybody okay with that? So all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed to none. So it carries four. Four. What absent? So there's some chairs there.

Consent calendar. Anybody have any questions? Anybody in the audience have any issues with the consent calendars that you can pull an item off for discussion?

Now taking public comment on the consent calendar, evangelical have three minutes to address the commission. Public comment will be taken first from those participating in the room and then from those participating via Zoom. For those participating via Zoom, please make sure you unmute your cell phone called upon. If you are joining the meeting by phone, press 9 to indicate a desire to comment. If you're joining by Zoom, press the raise hand button to indicate a desire to comment. Please monitor and state your name for record. Is there any comment in the room? No

comment by the staff.

Okay. We have a motion.

I move. A second. All those in favor? Aye. No. No.

Now we go to open forum. This is matters I'll read it. Matters not on the agenda may be addressed by the general public during open forum. Public comments during open forum are limited to three minutes per person. The total amount of time reserved for open forum may be limited. So do Now

taking public comment on open forum, individuals will have three minutes to address submission. Public comment will be taken first from those participating in the room And then from those participating by Zoom, for those participating by Zoom, please make sure to unmute yourself when called upon. If you're joining the meeting by phone, press 9 to indicate a comment. If you're joining by Zoom, press the raise hand button to indicate a concern to comment. Please voluntarily state your name for your record. Write a comment. Or Go ahead. It's we can go here if you'd like, or you can That's okay. I'm Jenny McCormick. I'm president of Friends of the Elorado Trail.

And I just wanted to say a thank you to the Cal Fire group that came out and worked on the trail this past this this past month. They worked on the section starting in the town of El Dorado and going to the west on the natural trail, and it looks beautiful. If you have a chance, go out and look at it. And thanks to Zach for helping me set that up. Thanks,

Kitty. Anybody else? Yes, sir.

Chris Payne. I'm here representing Eldorado Western Railroad. Also, they helped with the

Yes. I'm sorry. Thank you.

They brought their That's why I'm here just to

augment. They brought their chipper out. Yes. Thank you.

And chipper is is critical to all of the operations along there because it's it's rail driven. So all you need to do is have a little motorized pickup. We do high rail urban, hook it up, and have somebody go down there and do it. And it they did it. You know, they're so good.

It looks beautiful. Thanks, Chris.

Anyone else? A comment?

So now take a look at Number 505.

505. You can unmute if you're ready to provide your comment.

Hello. I think I'm unmuted. Okay.

We can hear you.

Hi. I'm at the I'm at the South Lake Tahoe office for teleconference, but the office isn't open. So they're trying to do it by phone. And not really sure I have anything for the open forum. I'll wait for agenda items.

Is this Danny?

No. This is Emmett.

Oh, Emmett. Okay. Thank you. We're expecting

it. Okay.

Now we're going in the office.

Oh, okay.

Let's just open the door.

We can touch.

So transferring operations inside the office.

Thank you.

If there's nothing else, an open forum. We'll move on to our agenda items.

Other public comment?

Item three, Department of Transportation Engineering Division recommends commission receive a presentation of upcoming parks project.

What do have here? Yeah. You can move your slide

and show. Very good. Yes. Right

now. You can stand here. You can stand wherever you want.

It's a camera's plug right now.

Yep. Go ahead and start.

Good thing you can get rest up.

Thanks. I'm Matt Smeltzer, former transportation, deputy director of engineering. Been there quite a while. Worked on a lot of trail projects over the years, And we thought we'd come here with an update. We've seen your engineers here, Dustin Harrington and John Balzer, who both have accomplished a lot of successful projects along the Eldorado Trail and have more to go on their plate. And so we'd like to present some sidewalk and bikeway projects, pedestrian improvements, bicycle improvements. We have several of them through

the

county. Excuse me. Another, big important thing this year is we have great grant opportunities coming up this year, and we are out networking as much as we can, going to those grant meetings, going out for public outreach. We have surveys set up on our project websites. There are survey polls about the trails, whether they're needed or not.

The more support we get on these surveys and on these project websites, the better it'll help us in these competitive grants that are coming up this year. We have CMAT and there's a congestion mitigation and air quality grant, and we also have, ATP, active transportation program, which is a huge grant program at both the federal and state level. And so we have an agenda. If you wanna go to the next slide. Yeah.

So gonna update you on those, answer any questions you have, and receive your feedback. And then these next next slide, I think, is the projects we'll go over. And there they are. Eldorado Trail Extension in Shingle Springs is the first one. Dustin is gonna talk about that.

It's a trail project. El Dorado Trail, we're kinda skipping a piece of the El Dorado Trail. We've got this great 12 miles or so from El Dorado to Camino, and then the next viable feasible spot looked like going to Shingle Springs, and that's the one we're gonna be looking for a construction brand to get from. Motherload, Train Depot, down to where the Buckeye School is, and the other school and the church. Everything's down there. And Shingle Springs Drive is a great place to attend it at too. So I'll be connected for that. Oh, it does.

Yeah. Great. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, commission. Dustin Harrington, El Dorado County Department of Transportation, senior civil in Japan.

And so we've got a number of projects here we wanted to, like I mentioned, brief you on. We have been to your commission in the past talking about some of these projects, and it's good to, you know, keep you in the loop as to where we are. As you know, capital improvement projects do take a while to deliver, And so we appreciate everyone's patience and understanding that not only the process of getting the project shelf ready is can sometimes be a feat getting to environmental, and if we require any property or right of way, that can be time consuming. But, also, as Matt mentioned, the funding on it is increasingly becoming more of a challenge as resources and revenue gets tighter, and there are more there's more competition. Other agencies also wanna get piece of the pie.

Nothing new. You know, it's across all levels, so nothing new to anyone in terms of that. But it's just the reality of of what we we are facing and still trying to keep these projects, you know, within a reasonable time frame for delivery. So just kinda wanted to preface the presentation with that. So we've got six projects here.

The first two are focused on the El Dorado Trail extension. Two completely different segments, one down in Shingless Springs, the other one that we're continually looking for construction funding on up at the Camino area. We got the Hennings Of Bodice Road Trail that John will speak about here in a few minutes. And then Matt's gonna come back and just briefly touch on, even though these aren't really parks projects, a couple of pedestrian improvements that we are currently constructing and will be pursuing in the Diamond Springs area. And then finally, a quick word on the Missouri Flat POC.

Next slide, please. So the Shingle Springs El Dorado Trail extension talked about this in the past. Currently, we are in the middle of our environmental analysis. So the scope of the project is to construct a class one path from Shingles Creek Drive to South Shingle Road. And currently, we're completing most of the studies for environmental.

It goes into our our CEQUA document. So we'll be wrapping that up here probably in the next couple of months. We hope to bring this document to the board for adoption sometime this summer and have CEQUA met and so we can move forward with, you know, completing the design. Current estimate is about 1,400,000.0. Excuse me.

1,400,000.0. We received a CMEC grant for design right of way. That was a few years ago. Her estimate is about 6,700,000.0 for the entire project. We're looking at potentially phasing it, see if it it works out depending on on what construction funds are available and what makes the most sense given those scenarios.

So we would phase it in having Shingle Springs To Drive, and this could be in either order. Drive To South Drive would probably end up being phase one just because of the schools and other resources that we find in that. So that's kind of what we're looking at. There's still a lot of flexibility. This is a project that we are going to be submitting a active transportation program grant on this upcoming cycle.

And it is notable even though the program is very competitive. Our last two Eldorado Trail projects, which was the pedestrian over crossing and then the class one improvement from Eldorado to sort of flat were funded by ATP. So without ATP, it probably still wouldn't exist. So we can thank this program for having those improvements now in our inventory, and we're gonna do our best in preparing a very competitive application. So our you know, hopefully, you know, score very highly and be able to, you know, hopefully have a chance to be.

Next. It might be kinda hard to see, but these are just the two segments we have, the teal cyan white bean from that's how Shingle Drive to Muggle Mode, and the green one from Motherlode to Shields Creek Drive. We would utilize the existing at grade crossing there at the French Creek traffic signal across Motherlode Drive, so they used to say Missouri flat. And and continue north of the rails, I believe, on that northern side. So the environmental document will have, you know, a a very thorough exhibit of the proposed alignment, all of the impacts, any resources that may be potentially impacted.

And like I said, we plan on having that document circulated probably sometime this summer, and then it would be the draw point for adoption. So that's that's both the crux of the project. This would be similar to our last one where it's a rails with trails. So the class one would be built adjacent to the existing railroad, and we would have several at grade crossings just due to both topography and to some of the resources that have been identified as part of the environmental studies in ensuring that those impacted those resources are minimized. Next slide, please.

So this is a component that we proposed as part of this project. We're looking at coordinating with the Shingle Springs tribe at a connection from where this project would terminate at Shingles Creek Drive up to where the tribal land southern boundary is there, north near the US 50 and some of the facilities they have there, the gas station and other planned improvements, as well as Buckeye School, the school there. There's a church right there. And so we're looking at, you know, how can we tie in this improvement as a active transportation corridor with our existing roadway network. And since Shingle Springs Drive did recently have some improvements on it as a result of some of the tribal development and some other work that transportation has done, it would lead to self thought easily to develop class two bypass on both sides and providing that connection.

Although, you know, it's not sidewalk. It's not class one. It still is a recognized viable connection that we can demonstrate in our grant application to help increase our score and, again, promote that connection with the travel community as being a licensed resource. So that's something that we're also pursuing kind of on the side and engaging the tribe with, you know, that possible connection. Right. Right. So I'm gonna turn this over to John, and he'll talk about other projects. Thank you. Good afternoon. John Bolser. For those that I

don't know, also with Department

of Transportation, I'll briefly go over a couple of class one projects starting with the El Dorado Extension in Halcon, Colorado up in Camino. So, currently, this project so this will tie on for those that are familiar at Loestrat was where the paved trail ends. That will extend that up to another capital improvement project we have, which is Ponderado Road Extension. That's a shared away class three that will tie that ties into Camino Under Crossing with the stage is finished, And then it will carry that out. It'll provide some nexus for some of the residents there as a fire response, but it also provides a trail connection that this project ties into through the means of the under crossing.

This gives North South connection for users between North Of Highway 5th, South Of Highway 50, and ultimately ties that El Dorado Trail altogether. It it goes without saying, especially in today's day and age too, provides a lot more fire response for the folks that are up there. So there's a lot of other users that benefit from this project. Next slide, please. I apologize for the Wares Wallow exhibit up here.

But for those that are familiar with it, it's the upper end of that Eldorado Trail on the old rail. The rails aren't there anymore, but it's on that railroad corridor. And as I said, this it really sits all within the rail right away itself. It's a very similar project to the extension of the Los Trampas piece that was completed a few years back. And so this would provide that continuous paved class one path up to the Ponderosa Road extension project that ties into the.

Next slide, please. Here's a better view of it. It's just under a mile long. For those that haven't been up there, of course, I'm a little biased, but it's beautiful. So it's it's like it'll be a wonderful project, not just from a continuity standpoint, but for the users that do use it up there. For those that have seen the counts, there's quite a few bicyclists, pedestrians that use that area. That area has a lot to offer. So it'll be a really good project when it it's fun to construct. Next slide, please. So where we're at and where we're going, we got a CMEC grant a few years back.

So I'm sure some folks in here have heard remnants of this before. The project's currently shelf ready, so we have worked our way through design. We've got environmental clearances. It's within county right of way, and we've been pursuing some different grants. Like Dustin said, they can chart this project. The county's been fortunate with recreational trails program grants. That's what that with CMAT funding has been really helpful for the Corcoran. So we're in the process with this project of continuing to pursue those grants to ultimately build this hopefully in the next couple of years. Next slide, please. So that was a brief snapshot.

I know that was about an elevator pitch of the Camino Trail, but this one and I'm sure there's folks that are familiar with this one. I'll provide a brief update for those that have heard this earlier. It is the Henningston Lotus Trail project that's been talked about. I won't go through all of them anymore, but in a number of different studies from Henningston Lotus concept reports, active transportation programs, and some slides you'll see in your home mobility study. But in a in a very high level, this is a connection between the Hayes And Loews Park and going back to State Route 49.

Just a couple of things I'll touch on because that area has had a lot of attention and investment made by Caltrans. We've got a number of CIB projects there. This will be a very good class one trail. There's been a lot of community support back that's come out for it. It's about a half mile long, 2,300 feet.

Thereabouts, it connects, as I said, the par back in the fourth nine, and then ties into, as you'll see, the pedestrian bicycle facilities that are there. This project, as you're gonna see too, has got some really unique features. It's a very unique class one. For those that are familiar with Tahoe, about almost half of this project has a number of boardwalk systems to allow this project to sit within a shoulder of road that's there for part of it and and where it's lost. So it's it's a support system that will provide that connection. We've finished right away I'm sorry. Finished environmental from where we're at last. So Sequo Nimbus complete. It is within county right away. And much like the other projects, we're in the process of pursuing grants to to construct.

Next slide, please. This is a snapshot exhibit that you find in the Coloma mobility study. The point of this is just to show that this class one trail segment has been talked about in a number of studies that the for those that are familiar with the area, is something that's been expressed for a long time. And then next slide.

Excuse me. When it ties in and

this stick figure slide, the point of this is just to say that today, and I'm sure most here know this very well, the state put sidewalks, class two bike lanes, and a number of features down 49 as you go up to to the town of Kelowna. It there's also talk since this project has started of trying to extend that class one trail working with Caltrans and extend it back towards the park, back towards Mount Murphy Bridge, back towards the museum, and understand and I I can say I've been fortunate enough to to have been a part of these things. The the need for that area to have those of facilities, not just in parks, not just from couch fans, but with residents and the folks that are there. So this is one of those gaps building projects that provides a a real good need and a solution for any. But there's other projects that tie on to this hopeful.

That that need has been expressed in the reforms that has been heard by Caltrans and Violet Boggs. So next slide, This is what I alluded to. We have a a number, and I'm and I'm sure that for people that have been through Tahoe and and walked on some of those class one trails up there, this is just to give to express the idea of what support systems are like. So in the background, we've gone through a pretty extensive geothermal investigation out there. It goes without saying to those that are familiar, the slope drops off significantly off of this road down towards the river.

So this is a solution with some pretty tall columns that provides that boardwalk system where they don't have shoulder. And almost half of the trail will have the remnants of that. It also provides wonderful lookout, if you will, onto the river and onto the sources over there without impacting those fire alarm sources. Next slide.

So kinda where we're at, as I mentioned in

the beginning, we did get CMAT funding to get this shelf ready, if you will. We're in the process of pursuing construction funds. We did go through environmental clearances, and it's all within the county right away. So we're working with the state. So those tie ins are in the process of percent grants almost. ATP grants, CMEC grants, but but the opportunities to find that grant funding to ensure these permits. I'm gonna I'm gonna turn it over. So I know Matt wanted to go over some of what remains. Thank you.

Thanks, John. Matt's sponsor, Matt. And as John mentioned, Caltrans is seriously looking at making that connection from Lotus Road at 49 all the way down to the State Park where Mount Burpee Bridge is, where John is project manager on Mount Burpee Bridge, and it's gonna have an 80 foot wide sidewalk on it when it's done. So that'll be great. It'll be so nice to see all that tied together someday. So the next project we'll talk about is Chandra Jamere's project. He's another senior engineer. He's really busy and couldn't make it here today, but it's a really interesting project. It's about connectivity. Connectivity is a really important thing.

We talked about that. Trying to make sure our projects connect to something. So people aren't just dropped off. Like, oh, what do I do? Turn around the back now. You know, some destination or some connection to keep going. And this Diamond Springs pedestrian facility improvement fee is a great example of that. We're gonna do some bicycle and pedestrian improvements, sidewalks, I mean, ADA compliance. We have a grant right now, CMAQ, to get us through the design and environmental. Environmental's done, and we're a very small amount of right away to get on the project, and we're seeking the grant funds for construction.

The cool thing about this project, the next slide, is the connectivity is with a area of Diamond Springs. There you see that that's not a very good display, but the next one will be where it shows the sidewalk going in to the community of Bracket Way and Pearl Place, which is across from the Sinclair gas station and the bean store and all that. There is more condensed and affordable housing in that area, and there's gaps in their sidewalk. So this is a great safety improvement to fill in the gaps in that neighborhood sidewalk and then come down along Pleasant Valley Road through the business district there of Diamond Springs and connecting to 49 there, Highway 49. So this is an example of a really great connectivity project for the community.

We also have a a key some community service facilities down there in the area, and talking to that staff there at health and human services, they're very excited about this project because they know how many people walk in that area there. So that's gonna be a great connectivity project. And if you go to the next slide, it was in a mobility study too a long time ago of the Diamond Springs Eldorado mobility study. That sidewalk connectivity was in there. And now I just mentioned this is the Diamond Springs Parkway phase one b.

When this that sidewalk connects to 49, it's gonna connect to that golden yellow section there of well, Highway 9 of I mean, 49, that's Diamond Springs Parkway phase one a, and it's done. Best inherent in this project. It has sidewalk on it and class two shoulders for bikes, and he has the phase one b under construction right now, the blue section, and that's going to have class two shoulders, bicycle lanes on it, and sidewalk all the way down it. We're underground utilities, all kinds of stuff. And as you go to the end of the blue, that connects with the Old Depot Road Bike Park and just right next to the Old Depot Bike Park.

And that new parking lot that he's gonna put in as part of the Diamond Springs Parkway in front

of the Depot Bike Park.

It's a huge parking lot that'll also serve the Eldorado Trail, a much bigger and better parking lot facility for that with a traffic signal and everything at the intersection to access it. Now that's connectivity. That sidewalk is now gonna get the affordable housing type areas, the business areas connected all the way up to the interchange, all these great county facilities and businesses and so forth. So I just wanted to point that out. And next slide. And oh, so it leads to the Diamond Springs Missouri Flat pedestrian overcrossing. What a beautiful project. Can tell you. That was a Destiny Heritage project also. And this is an award winning project.

I take the opportunity to announce that. Last year, we did win two awards in the Sacramento region, the American Public Works Association and the American Society of Civil Engineers for Sacramento region, Sacramento Valley for bikeways and trails. And it

went all the way to

the state level, the California state level award of the American Civil Engineers down in 2025 for that project, a state level bikeway path award. It's a great. It was designed and constructed by Department of Transportation. This is part where people get kinda confused. We help parks and trails build these things, but we don't maintain them because we're DOT. Supposed to be streets from those vehicles and stuff by. So our maintenance doesn't work there, our dollars. So, main, maintenance is by the CEO of Parks and Trails Division. Bridges and trails. Sometimes I get asked that.

So I just wanted to find that out. Okay. Next slide. And there's a nice picture. That was during the ribbon cutting. I think that's

the editor of Mount Democrat right there. Noelle. Yeah. Next picture.

I just wanted to mention

it is a parks facility trail, and it has come up to us. And I think the diamond spread is capped, the advisory committee, that there is a a group of members of the public who would like to put a Diamond Spring sign on. They'll come to you probably on their own times and resent that, but I just thought I'd mention that's a nice idea they had. That's an idea that others welcome to or something. But, yeah, that's why I mentioned that they wanna recognize the community by putting that on the pedestrian bridge.

We would have to make sure that it wouldn't interrupt traffic and and anything like that or a payments issue. Structurally, it shouldn't be. But we'll check on that stuff. I think that's the last slide. Questions?

So that's it. Thank you. Any questions?

Yes? A general comment. Right? Yeah.

Right. Thank you. On behalf of the cycling community, I'd like to say a

great big thank you to the department for all of the bike and

pedestrian projects. The bridge is beautiful. It's great. I don't have the jay right here. But and I especially like the plan for the the Shingle Springs project, and you guys were nice enough to provide me with a a diagram showing the preliminary alignment. And I looked back quite closely, and it looks like of the two miles, it'll only be

a quarter to a third of

a mile where the existing unpaved natural problems paved over. So is that is that that about right? 85 or 90%? Yes. That's great because that's the opposite ratio from the prior project from Missouri flat down to Eldorado where 90% of

the unpaved failed didn't. But we were

able to rebuild it on

the other side. So I was glad

to see that. We can we

can we can deal with

a couple of short, you know, sections of. That's good. I do have a couple questions. The section from Missouri flat down to Colorado, it's a two mile section. It costs about $4,000,000 or $2,000,000 a mile. Shingle Spring section is another two mile section. Estimated cost 6,000,000, so that's $3,000,000 a mile. I imagine part of the increase is due to inflation, but is the another part of

the increase also due to the terrain being more challenging. Yeah. The this single space project, the corridor width is about 20 feet narrower. We have roughly about a 100 feet within the JPA. The other one in this was only about 80 feet, so we're only 40 feet at each side of center line of rail.

And it's as you you know, the corridor, it's a lot tighter, so there'll be a lot more earthwork and probably some several retaining walls put in there, try to avoid any kind of right of the acquisition. So that in conjunction with just the fact that inflation costs have gone up, that other project was bid in 2019. So we saw pretty good numbers then. It is encouraging. We have been seeing some relatively low bids this past year, lower than our estimates.

So think that, you know, some costs may be stabilized a little bit. There seems to be a lot, you know, a lot more contractors are able to look at the work, so that greatly influences you know, but not knowing when this product will be advertised and what the economy will be like at that time is the best that we can,

you know, predict at this point. One

more question. There are other sections of the. Maybe the cost in those sections would be 4 to $5,000,000 for on out or more. Is that a fair statement?

Yeah. I mean, at some point, we get to, you know, a breaking point where it it doesn't really make sense, you know, because it's just, you know, way too expensive per mile. And so, you know, those are gonna be you know, we're always looking at what can we get the most bangs for our buck. Right? And that's why we tackle, you know, some of these segments that are both widely used.

We have the right of way. There are a lot of destinations and entry points that we could tie to it, you know, especially the grant funding. So Missouri, was natural, you know, candidate and seem to check all those boxes and get a a fairly, you know, good return on, you know, what the cost was. Same with Single Springs. We think that'll still be a good segment near that community region.

But you're right. Just east of this segment on Shingles Springs Drive is the tunnel section. Know, there's been obviously a lot of desire to connect that to Eldorado, that segment for obvious reasons has been you know, it's it's a lot more difficult, challenging. So there may be some other options we can look at. There's been some talk about maybe in those really critical locations combining use I think, basically, the paving and corral at that location now that you combine just because it's you know, to mitigate those costs, especially since the rail use is fairly infrequent, and that could be mitigated for location of Belgrade Western and the other rail.

So that may be, you know, the best solution forward at some of those much more difficult locations that we have to do. You know? Everyone can we can get that project versus not having a project because we want to service where we want get a multiuse, you know, So Great.

Thank you.

And, John, I accept the challenge. Alright. The El Dorado, Detroit, hope it springs down in El Dorado, down in Shingle Springs on my mouth. But there we go. We'll start scoping that part out because I think that's gonna be a great connective for you to add next.

Yeah. Let's

do it. And get in shape. Right?

It's gonna

be downhill at the start

of the time.

Well, it's all downhill. I've been doing what? Corrections. Yeah.

And Jerry Mark.

All downhill and stuff. Yeah.

You know, you can open up public comment.

Yeah. Just make sure you have any questions or comments.

I'm gonna

just couple real quick. So I'm very excited to hear about, especially, the Shingle Springs Trail efforts, and I'm also the Shingle Springs drive plus too Sounds great. I guess, is there any discussion from other load as well? Such such a very fast and unsidewalked area, lots of businesses and things like that. Well, certainly, the trail can be an

access access point eventually, but sidewalks are also ideal at some point. Yeah. Outside of the limits of, you know, the the portion there that would just there'd be a French kind of along the south side of to where, basically, the JPA would be Saxon. It's where the French Creek signal is. That would all be improved and widened. Right. But outside of that, it would be a separate project.

Right. Do have another project. Ponderosa Interchange. Right. Right. On Ballston. Right. Gonna put sidewalks on Mother from South Shingle, not all the way down. Okay. Or whatever, but down to, like, the coffee shop. Oh, yeah. It looks like. Okay. Yeah. And and on both sides, you're improve the sidewalk too, that interchange project. So you're gonna improve the sidewalks. And, also, on both sides of the interchange, do the whole interchange. And then John has a project right now that just got awarded bid for the sidewalk connectivity in Shingle Springs from the health surface building down to the high school. Right. That's gonna get built this summer during school grade. The pool. Sidewalk right there.

Okay. Last two lanes. Right.

And last two lanes. Yeah.

And then like Natalie would do, that project gets tied into as well. Yeah.

So so last two might be playing as

a sidewalk. So go down on Road, South Shannon, basically, to Sunset, Virginia, Sunset. Trying to use those projects to test some of other great business and hopefully continue that effort.

And there'll be a meeting tomorrow night to discuss some of these things. Yep. You know? K.

Thanks, y'all. Open up for public comment.

Commissioner comments. Now that we can public comment on item number three, individual will have three minutes to address the commission. Public comment will be taken first from those participating in the room and then from those participating by Zoom. For those participating by Zoom, just make sure you unmute yourself when called upon. If you are joining the meeting by phone, press 9 to indicate a desired comment. If you are joining by Zoom, press the raise hand button to indicate a desired comment. Please at all, clearly state your name for the record. Comment in the room on item number three.

Oh, there's none of those.

Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. It wasn't intentional.

I don't know where to start. It's quite an extensive delivery. Obviously, you did get that awarded today, that project over by the high school in. Shingle Springs. Congratulations. That's taken a while to get that one. I guess, first, let's go back to Shingle Springs, that phase two that you have going over to South Shingle. As we know I was already cutting myself. That is a gap in the rail. Yes?

Yeah. Is that included in the project?

From Mother Lode to South Stingle?

I said phase two.

Yeah. It's it's covered in the environmental planning preliminary design part of it we have

with the funding right now.

As well as the the processing itself? The fenestrating processing. The.

Oh, no. We no. We don't have a plan to cross. Okay.

So I would say that you should have, and I'd be pushing any meetings to tell you to whoever wants to listen that you need to put a hot control system there. And I know that the hot control system functionally is great. It's a safe system. We have it at Blanchard. I would say move the one at Blanchard and move it down to some shingle.

If you didn't have any money, you might consider doing that. Now, also, I would look at the full transition so that you're transitioning from that paved section to the natural trail in a in a in a very positive and effective way, but a safe way. The the other thing I wanted to talk about was the the around that it springs. I saw that there's a lot of work still going on, and we talk about phase one b. I'm I'm interested in phase one a, the transition.

That has to be done in a very also safe way. We have signalized intersection at at

Pleasant Valley Road and And 49.

I would assume that that's gonna change the the signal controls at that intersection because you're gonna be adding different connective pedestrian movement, certainly tying it all the way down direct way to fix the ability of all that normally wouldn't go that way because it's unsafe to now start going that way. So I would look at the control system at or the traffic control system at at what is it? Fowler.

Fowler. Yeah. Or The the

phasing would stay the same. They may alter the timing because of the the movements, but there wouldn't be any changes to the phasing. Because all we're doing is just adding a second left.

Well, since I'm a user of that because I go to the post office, that that has to be fixed. The phasing there right now is it's not appropriate to a a modern intersection. And I'm just saying this is the time now to think about that that aspect. Yeah. Well, I'll bring

it up. It's it's technically a Caltrans signal. No. I realize

Yeah. That You you guys are so much involved with them because of Fowler. Right. That that will help help the discussion. Sure. The other thing is

Your your three minutes were up.

Even with all the

Yes. I let you I let you keep finishing, but it's up to the commission if they want to continue.

If you don't wanna hear anything more, that's okay.

It's up to the commission. I just wanted to let you know.

No. But I'm talking to the chair.

Oh, sorry.

You look like you're looking over my shoulder.

No. No.

I was talking

to you. So if it's something really quick, okay. Otherwise, maybe you guys could have a conversation. Well Yeah.

Now the thing that I want let me just finish with the last thing. I I got I could talk about all yes. You guys know a lot of things. But but I wanna get to the question of trails and rail. Pitch points are what we're talking about when we have places where the trail and the railroad, it's can't go through together. And this notion of putting a paving it out, putting some kind of control system in place, push button, whatever, to allow for safe movement in that same section and utilizing that same ground for multiple purposes. Tunnel cut. Perfect rotation for that. The only thing the other thing

I want I would just say, I mean, we could probably put a whole item together to just look for that. If you like, I mean, just reach out to me. I don't mind putting something No.

No. We're gonna talk about this further, but this is the mission. So they're they're gonna be involved. Obviously. Obviously. Yeah. But, anyway, yeah, I don't know where you guys are moving, but I don't want your food. Back back to this question of trails and rails. Chris. That We're

we're past three minutes, man. I'm sorry. I have to

I didn't know what you're doing. I thought it was the chair.

You know what? I'm gonna support Zach on that, if you don't mind, Chris. Because you brought us some good points, and I I'm really interested in the pinch points and those issues. But that's kinda beyond the scope of what we're trying to talk about today on the on the on the trail issue.

No. I hear you.

So thank you, Chris,

always.

Any other? Hi, everyone. My name is Natalie. Elko. Just want to thank you guys for coming out. We're doing the. We love everything. Thanks for your, you know, everything. Best treatment for your And I really, really support the HL community to Columbus, Warhawk. I think that's a great project. I think I've seen a lot of, like, happen there with the blocks there, and a great project. So thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Fiona, you can go ahead and talk.

Can you guys hear me?

Yes.

What section are we on?

We're on agenda item number three.

Number three. Okay. I'm sorry. I've been having problems getting on. I've actually been here the whole time, and and I have a guest here who wishes to speak on four. But we had problems getting even the microphone to work. Now that it works, I'll I'll try not to make too much noise.

I think we're about to go to item four.

Okay. Well, this gentleman would like to speak when you get a chance. His name is Emmett.

We'll make sure we get to him in public comment. Thank you. Thanks.

K. No other comments by Tim.

Okay. With that, thank you guys for the presentation.

Very thorough. It's very exciting. Think it's pretty.

Wait. I got the. A lot of the survey.

It's so funny.

I'd love to hear from you. Yes. That's all you have to do is disaster session. Think we could

Could you send us a link to that survey so we can comment it too? Because I haven't seen it. And we'll move on to agenda item number four. Parks division chief administrative office recommends the commission, one, receive a presentation of the river management plan updates, and two, discuss and provide input to staff on proposed updates to the a, draft twenty twenty five twenty six river management plan update, b, draft five year river management plan summary, and c, El Dorado County ordinance code five nine four, chapter 5.48, streams and rivers commercial boating. Code four five nine six, chapter 5.5 o, specific use regulations for the South Fork Of The American River ends.

Code three two seven four section one two point six four point o seven o use of personal quotation devices. Don't ever do that to me again.

And you just said I have four.

Well, know we have people in line, so I'm not sure they've got this in front

of them. Awesome.

Jess, you can go ahead and pull up the presentation. While she's doing that, I'll just introduce myself. My name is Zach Paris. I'm the parks manager here in El Dorado County, and I get the pleasure of overseeing the county's parks and trails division. So today, I'm gonna be giving you all a presentation about the proposed management plan.

We call it the RMP, and laying out the next steps in the process as we move forward. So that was kind of my preamble to go along with this slide. Jess, you can go ahead and advance it if you're ready. So just to orient the conversation and and those in the room that may not be familiar with the South Fork Of The American River, the map on the screen here depicts all of our major rapids. It also shows public land ownership, locations of critical facilities for people that are using the river, and it also breaks the river into two segments. So it has the upper section, which is Chili Bar, known as Chili Bar Run, and then the lower section that's commonly known as the gorge. You can advance the slide. Yes. So the river management plan. Right?

It's the primary governing governing document that county park staff uses to inform our operations and achieve our management goals on the 2.7 miles of the South Port that we're responsible for. It's intended to be an active and living document that allows for adaptive management. And as conditions change and needs change, the document is supposed to change. Right? And so that's kind of our approach to this. You're supposed to be able to change with the time. And the river management plan oversees both commercial and noncommercial uses on the Southward.

So it applies to everybody it's using.

You can go ahead and advance the chess. This one's pretty straightforward. It just gives a little bit of background and a timeline of the river management plan. You can see we had our first streams and rivers ordinance there in 1980, some time ago. It was recently it was followed pretty quickly thereafter after the by the first river management plan in 1984 with the ordinance three four six three. And then you can kind of go through all of the subsequent updates and revisions and things like that, and it brings us to today, our meeting, regarding the draft updates to the river management plan.

Go ahead.

So what's the process? It starts with annual reviews. Right? So this is our annual activities. And, essentially, our job and one of our duties is after the completion of each drafting season, we are required to present a summary of the year's management activities to the county parks and recreation commission in a public session. So we typically do that in December. Parks program coordinator, Tim Connivaro, typically presents the annual report to the parks commission, and that satisfies our obligation for annual reporting. When we get beyond the annual report, we get to a five year summary. And this is a much more robust report, and, really, its intent is to compile the counties. The past five years that we've kind of had in the annual report.

Right? So in those annual reports, we're identifying items that maybe we need to pay attention to or maybe potential recommendations for changes. If they're somewhat significant or maybe if, you know, the workflow of county staff at that time aren't able to incorporate those on an annual basis, they're kind of parked to the side to be incorporated in that five year review. So, really, it's it's a more robust review, and it it includes, you know, county staff comments, recommendations. It also includes comments and recommendations from the parks commission.

Once it goes through the parks commission, we go to the planning commission. All of these reviews are advisory and capacity, and ultimately, it goes to the board of supervisors, and only the board of supervisors has the authority to determine whether or not they wanna continue to implement the river management plan as it's existing. They would like to implement, minor modifications, or if they would like to do a more robust update to the river management plan. So I like to kind of pause for a second there and just let everybody know. All of these efforts that we're doing, everyone outside of the board of supervisors is working in an advisory capacity.

As much as I would love to have all, giving power, that's just not how government works. And so, as we have these conversations and we work together in refining these recommendations through this iterative process, the parks commission, the planning commission. Ultimately, that power who decides who makes the rules is with the board of supervisors. The last item here is the update, and that's kind of what I just said. Right?

It's approved by the board of supervisors based on recommendations from staff, parks commission, and the planning commission. So if we go through this process, this document is gonna morph. It will change based on the feedback and recommendations we're getting from each one of these governing bodies. Jesse, go ahead. So just a little bit more detail on the five year summary on this, slide here.

The top two bullets just kinda giving a little bit more information about what it's doing. So it provides the opportunity to review and adopt implemented management actions, kind of what I had said before. The middle section there in blue, it just gives a little bit of a sneak peek into, like, the time frame when this started and kind of where we're going with this process. So this started in this 2024. Right?

PRC reviewed and provided input, and then it was presented again in a parks update presentation to the board of supervisors. No action was taken, but just alluded to the fact that it's something that we're gonna be working on over the next couple of years. The bottom section, it just really discusses the outcomes of those discussions. Right? So staff in the Parks and Rec Commission had 13 recommendations.

Draft updates were incorporated into the river management plan, and then also the updates to the ordinance there as well. So the next several slides are gonna go over staff's recommendations. And so I just wanna take a second to let everyone know, like, we've received a lot of public input, and that's that's really what the process is for, and that's why we're here today. And so, you know, in receiving these comments, we've done our best to kinda catalog and provide information and input descriptions on why we're doing what we're doing. And these next couple slides will kind of have a high level of what some of those edits are.

But, I would just also say that, you know, I put this present to get presentation together, prior to the meeting being rescheduled between when our meeting was previously scheduled. And today, we received requests to have a more robust change matrix, which we were able to provide. And so, I will go through the next couple slides. What I would also make sure anyone interested in knowing what's being changed, you'd you'd wanna look at that matrix as well. This is a high level accounting of what is being recommended.

But if you want that granular, every single piece of what is being changed, that's what you're gonna find in the matrix. So I just wanted to preface a little bit before we get into the next couple slides. Go ahead, Jess. So we can kinda just work through these. Chapter one, pretty straightforward. Right? The transfer of chili bar dam from PG and E to SMUD. Wanna make sure that's reckon accurately presented in the river management plan. And then removing the county hosted preseason guide training and workshop. This is something that we heard in some of our conversations with guides.

They don't always hire everybody at the same time. So having a set county hosted training in the beginning of the season might not necessarily work for everybody because they kinda have a ebb and flow of guides coming in and out. It makes it a little bit easier for them to be nimble and and kinda doing that on their own. You go ahead and advance the slide. So recommendation. Update. So this we had some proposed updates to the ordinance. Those have been backed out. Recommendation number four, update to the flex permit language. So interestingly enough, we had some conflictions in, the river management plan.

We had sections that say, you cannot transfer a flex permit. And then or actually, no. That was for the user day transfer. The flex permit was more so just around not reducing your number of user days to create new flex permits. Right? So that's what we're doing in recommendation three. And for recommendation number five, clarify language around user day transfer. So that was the one we were saying, hey. You can't transfer user days, and then we go on to script out the user day transfer process. So cleaning that up to make sure it's clear that, yes, they can be, and this is the process you follow. You can go ahead, Jess.

Can you explain flex permits real quick? Flex permit

is a permit that is has a low count of user days. And because of that, I believe the number is 30. If you have less than 30 user days, it gives you more latitude on when you can go about using those days. Whereas if you have a larger number of user days, you have a weekday and a weekend allocation. And so it just gives you potentially a smaller outfitter that doesn't have as many user days, more ability to use them to accommodate their user flexibly. Yes. Okay. Sort of thing. So kinda continuing on here. So clarification of, you know, pod size and things like that.

So we received comments, that outfitters would like us to increase, from 56 to 63 people per group. Going to recommendation number nine, making it clear that, yes, paying your eMore is actually a part of the electronic monthly operating report and not just submitting your use, satisfies that requirement. You also have to submit the associated fee that goes along with it. And then just updates to clarify that, you know, fees are established by the board resolution. Penalties and fines are established by state law. Right? So just making sure all that information is clear when people are saying, hey. Where do these fees come from? What gives you the right to do that? That's kind of where they come from.

We wanna make sure that it's clear to people looking into it. This is where we get our authority. Recommendation number 11, this is getting after, I guess, you know, when I first saw this, I thought this was very lenient. We give, like, a four strike rule. I've never heard of that before.

So just kind of turning this up so that we can actually effectively respond if we have, an outfitter potentially that's repeatedly, having the same violation. It just gives us an ability to try to get compliance a little bit quicker. And then twelve and thirteen, these are changes to the appeal procedure. So, and looking into that, there are some kind of, I guess it could be clear. So we just went through that and made it, the process a little bit clear as well as put some actual positions to, the process so it's not, just like a general, term of using the term hearing officer.

Well, who is the hearing officer? There's no one at the county that has that job title. So making sure it's clear to anyone reading the plan, you know, who that person is that's gonna be, essentially having the final say in that appeal.

Go ahead.

So that's kind of going from the river management plan, and this one's more so around the ordinances. So, this is gonna be updates to chapter 5.48, 5.5, and then section twelve six four zero seven zero for PFDs or preferred personal flotation devices. As you can see here, 5.48, same thing, updating the staff positions. This goes back to the appeal process, making sure it's clear to the public who that hearing officer would be or placing that with an actual title of a a current county employee, and then making sure we have consistency between our ordinances and and subsequent chapters there. And then, obviously, updates including violation schedule, peer procedure, monthly operating report.

So some of those updates that are made in river management plan need to also be reflected in our ordinances here. 5.5, similar things, making sure we have consistency between 5.5 and chapter 1.24, and then same sort of deal, updating to include violation schedule in the appeal procedure. So making sure it's clear to people, you know, if I end up in a situation where I get a violation and I feel like it was unjust and I need to have an appeal, making sure it's a clear process for people to follow. And then the last one there is just making sure that PFDs are required on all device types. There's been some interesting language that we currently have in 12/1970, and, it could be more clear in stating that PFDs are required on all device types.

So that was pretty much what we had in the previous presentation, and and some of this is what we've kind of received over the last week, few days, that sort of thing. So we wanted to make sure we incorporated that to the best of our ability as well. And and it kind of goes back around some of the same items. Right? So update to remove text that is from the ordinance 5.5 and section 12.6407. I'm gonna pause here for a second. I wanna make sure people understand what I mean when I say that. So one thing that I've discovered in, you know, having to educate myself around this program is that we have a lot of documents that are dependent on one another. Right? This informs that.

That informs this. And if you start, transcribing, so, hey. We'll say something in an ordinance, and then if we say that same thing verbatim in a river management plan, it opens you up to potentially missing something. What I mean by that is someone might, you know, in good faith, go through the process of updating an ordinance, but not know that it is included verbatim in reference in another document. And so you're you're putting yourself in a position where you're opening yourself up to potential inconsistencies.

And so what you all are seeing in our river management plan is rather than including the language verbatim, we're including it by reference so that in updating an ordinance, you are then also updating the river management plan, and you're not putting yourself in a position where you have inconsistencies and we're calling out sections of an ordinance that maybe have changed. Maybe they don't say what they used to say, but we're we haven't updated that information in the river management plan. And so I know if someone's reading it, you probably see a lot of, you know, red here and red there and taking this out or incorporating by reference. And and that's really our our intent behind those corrections is to make sure that if and when someone is working on an ordinance update, we don't inadvertently impact another document by not having that updated as well. Right?

And so we spent a good amount of time over this last update trying to weed all that out, figure out where we're including these ordinances by reference, and then making sure we're we're having sound management practices by not duplicating the same language other places, but just saying, hey. If you're interested in this, reference section 5.5 because that's really where, for lack of a better term, the teeth are in in that sort of thing. Right? The power doesn't come from the river management plan. It comes from the order and then set back to the and the last one there is, including plaque in the five year review process.

So as of right now, the five year review process starts with the parks commission, kind like we're doing right now today, and then it goes to the planning commission and then to the board of supervisors. In my experience, most of our feedback comes from clack. Right? And so I can make you guys make the drive up to the county buildings here, and we could do it that way. But, I do think that we get most of our feedback, and it's good feedback from interacting with that group. And so, we received a recommendation from them that they get written back into the process, and I think it's reasonable. And so, we're incorporating that recommendation as well. Next step. So I kind of alluded to it a little bit before, but I like mapping things out so people know what to expect. Right?

So February 19, I didn't give this presentation. I'm giving it to you guys right now today. And, our intentions are to try to get back on track with this schedule. So, you know, contingent upon the outcome of this discussion, our next potential forum would be the planning commission on April 9. You know, depending on how that goes, we would take that information back, make subsequent updates, all those sort of things. And then the last, meeting would be at the board of supervisors. Right? And that's when someone actually has an opportunity to change this plan. Everything that we're doing right now, I will repeat it again, we are all operating in an advisory capacity. We're trying to work through proposed changes together, getting the brain trust together, and figuring out, are these good ideas?

Do we get it right? And that's why there's an iterative process before it gets to the board of supervisors so that when it gets to them, we all feel good about what's in these proposed edits. And, hopefully, they could just say, yep. Looks like you guys have done due diligence in this process. And, you know, they can weigh in if they like it or not, and then, we all get to move on.

So I went through that. I tried to be a little bit efficient because I know we're probably gonna have a good discussion on this item. And so I wanted to take a moment to just kind of, set the table, if you will. So I'm sure everybody has a lot of questions, and we have staff here to do our best to provide you any answers to those questions. If have questions that we don't have an answer to right now, we'll take them back, and we'll do our best to get you an answer as soon as possible.

There could be people here today that are somewhat new to this process and to public meetings. And so just to kind of let you know what to expect as soon as I finish talking, We'll give the the public an opportunity to speak. You will each get three minutes, and then it'll go to commissioner comments. The commission has the ability to say, Zach, I want you to answer all these people's comments, you know, or or I also have questions, or I like that question, or I already know the answer to that question, and I'm just I don't think I need more clarification. And so I just wanted to make sure you all are informed and kinda know how this works so that you can get get your desired outcome.

Once the process is complete, the commission will have an opportunity to make a recommendation to staff on how they would like us to proceed. With that, I turn it back over to Wayne.

Okay. So I was gonna ask the commissioner comments, but I think your suggestion is probably good. We'll let the public comment is there. So I have a couple questions, but I'll say

to them.

Okay. Now taking public comment on item number four. Individuals will have three minutes to address submission. Public comment will be taken first from those participating in the room and then from those participating via Zoom. For those participating via Zoom, make sure you unmute yourself and call upon. If you're joined and beaten by the bell, press star and I to indicate a desired comment. You're joining by Zoom, press the raise hand button to indicate a desired comment. Please voluntarily state your name for the record. Please have a comment.

Yes. Bye. Bye. Hi. My name is Nathan Rangao. I'm actually chairman of CLAC, chairperson of CLAC, but I'm I'm coming to you representing the American River Outfitters Association, which is a five zero one c six trade association that represents the majority of the outfitters on the South. But the American I'll try to do some three minutes. I'm in an outfitter. I started in '84. I was involved in all of the the revisions and the the and and and and the five year updates and stuff up to this, including this one.

And the the the association well, we worked with CLAC. I gotta say CLAC and the ad hoc committee of CLAC that were CLAC, they did a great job. There are some disagreements, but by and large, what we sent you and what was on the of the matrix that had the clinic suggestions, those were all agreed upon the consensus, basically, by by flat. So we we really supported that. I'm out there to support that.

There are some specific things I wanna go over real quick. And I sent I sent in our our our our our testimony on Friday, and I think it was attached to your to what you have on Monday. One was the the the discussion on density density and spacing. What I learned is that that's really important not just to commercial operators, but to the private voting community. When we made the specific proposals, you'll see that the county council said no.

They couldn't do that because that would be it would require a secret environmental process. We would like we respectfully request county council to take a quick look at that because I don't see it. We don't see it. And if you take a look at the testimony that I gave you, it specifies it shows from our perspective, at least, why it wouldn't have prevented. There is no specific specificity in the EIR document from 2018 and 2021 that deals with that that that specifies what you need. And it goes beyond that, but I won't, you know, take a look at that problem. Violations. It's unusual for an industry to come to a governing body and say, please charge us more. Don't do that. But we're doing that.

We recognize that our our our questions or our suggestions on dollar violations are not possible possibly, I guess, because of state law. But we we would like to to utilize the tools that we do have available, and we we know, I brought that up and that's something that I that I that would that we would have sent to you. One of the things that we talked about is we'd like to see and and Zach mentioned this, but I think what we'd like to see is instead of having I think you had four violations of one category for class one, we'd like to see the queue accumulative of a process where if you get three violations of any category, then on an application plus. There are other things that we'd

like to suggest in

violations. Yeah. Could I get another minute or two? Yes. Thank you. The violation schedule, we would like to suggest that violations under violation one, class two, and violations one and six not be a class one violation, but be a class two violation. One is that deals with unauthorized that deals with trespass. And second, number six is exceeding our permit capacities. That is absolutely basic to what we do on the river. So we feel the outfitters feel that we should move that into a class two.

The other side of that, though, is under class two violations of the operating board. If somebody turns into my friend and former partner, Jeremiah, what that means is if you were a day late, we're required to send in our our our our our reports on March 16 on March 15. And not all of us operate much. If somebody forgets to do that on March 16, boom. They got a class two violation.

So we'd like to move class that to a class one. That's what our suggestion is. Two more quick things. Section five forty eight one hundred involves verification denial or renewal or nonrenewable permit, and it specifies that. It used to be that the urban management advisory committee would would advise what to do with that and then it changed to planning commission with this this suggestion from staff.

We think that it makes sense for CLAC to be involved in that. For the same reason that you're using CLAC for the RMP update, it makes sense to have CLAC weigh in on, well, we gotta just put those to bed and not use them anymore. We can allow them to go out to the public or whatever. So that's one more. And then one last thing, element six two one two three, it talks about when you might require consolidation. And a question that we have is one of those items that said when when you you have to consolidate, it's it's when a transfer permit is proposed. We don't understand this. We I'd like to understand what what that's all about. Like, I don't understand the why I

wrote that part, but I

don't understand the reason. Other than that, just wanna thank you for your time, and really appreciate the work that the commission does. That comes does a lot. And appreciate working with staff, working with the new folks, and working with the planning commission. Looking forward to try to come to something that we can be somewhat comfortable with. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other comment?

Yeah. Go for it.

My name is Chad Richards. I don't work with Richards. Real quick. Couple questions about the group of clot size, the. Like, as far as the CEQUA raised the number of people allowed in the group size. We raised the number of the people allowed in the group size. That would seem more of a CEQUA issues than the language that we proposed was simply more tools to enforce violations of group size. So good question about that. As far as violation's concerned, I'm not a lawyer. I I he says I'm due to this whole criminal process thing, so it's kinda brought up.

And now you're good. We were informed at a meeting. I don't that mean we had HLP back in April. Yeah.

It was so ago. Yeah.

That one of the problems with issuing violations was it costs the county too much to actually write the the violations, so they don't do

it. But

my then?

No. That was The CAO, WCAO.

Okay. Alright. I was

like Yeah.

My I understand. I'm sorry. I I know what's I'm like,

I don't think I said I told you a lot. Sorry.

Didn't Go ahead. So So my understanding is you can only be charged a penalty to the amount that reimburses the county for their costs, basically. It would seem to me that you'd make a pretty quick easy line item and say, okay. It costs, you know, between right after the their their time, Zach's time, county council's time, you could get to a thousand dollar already darn quickly, would seem to me. So, anyways, that's just an idea as far as monetary penalties.

And, yeah, that makes sense. These are all the out bidders agreed to increasing our fees for being bad players tenfold. We want to see these things enforced. I mean, the ones I know is the big thing. So I accept my comment. That's it.

Thank you. Is there any other comment? Hi, everyone. My name is Natalie Taylor. I'm the nonprofessional board representative for CLAC and also the chair of the in regards to the RFP update. I just wanna echo what Denise and Chad said regards to we had requested some additional language in regards to odd size and spacing. And as a noncommercial photo, I just wanna agree that there definitely needs to be some more verbiage in that. There's some serious safety concerns involved with noncommercial users when commercial companies basically cluster up. They, you know, basically crowd each other. So we definitely need some more language on that.

Secondarily, in regards, I noticed on the RFP ordinance, page 11 of 12, there's actually some new violations for noncommercial revenues right now, and those appear to be copied and pasted in from commercial violations to noncommercial violations. So, basically, there's right now, how it's written is noncommercial users can get penalties for exceeding their permit capacity and operating after dark, and then just have some questions about how that's gonna be managed, how that's gonna who's gonna oversee that. Thank you. Was there any other comments? Yeah. Go for it.

Good afternoon. My name is James Anderson. I am the private landowner of the Donald Clarendon, and I'm also a participant or a member of the ad hoc committee. And so I'd like to thank the ad hoc committee for all the work that we've done. And great. My comment is just focused on one specific issue, and it has to do with a specific violation. So in April, had a commercial out there stopped my property for a number of hours, and they wouldn't leave despite me asking them to. They were doing some water rescue class there. I took photos. I reported to the county, and it took months and months

and months to work through the

county process. And to Zach's credit, I had lot of phone calls and a lot of emails. He took a lot of time out of his days to talk to me. So nothing against Zach. He was great to work with. But the ultimate resolution I did was that no violation was issued to the outbidder for on private property even though I believe they're required to get a violation. And the follow-up is that if they had gotten a violation, it would have been a $100 and nothing else. And so my push and my request would be to direct staff to make any, you know, land use violation or trespass to class two violation. It's really a base kind of the plan. The outfitter should not be allowed to stop on private property without permission from the landowner or if there's emergency situation in which they need to.

And the penalties for trust assets on private property really should be much higher. As you'll see right now, the class two penalties or class two violation, I should say, are all centered around the county's ability to flex user fees and reporting obligations, and none of the class two violations really relate to, you know, public welfare or private property rights, things like that. So I would really, really hope that that specific issue being a class violation could give a lot more security to private property owners on the river because outbidders who stopped on their properties would be potentially subject to a permanent revocation or suspension, which would be a huge shield. And I think it would provide a lot more security to the private copywriters. And I guess as all of that, just to echo what Dave Chad said is, you know, this isn't a off wall request that I make.

All the outfitters have agreed that I haven't seen a single outfitter who has said that should class one violation. I think I speak for most private property owners when I say, you'd like to see it. And so you'll I don't really understand why that change hasn't been made. So that'll be my only comment on that. That, I'll do the rest of my Thank you so much for that consideration and. Okay.

Is there any other comment on this item?

Hi. Jeremiah Copper. I'm tribute to Whitewater. Just a couple things kinda circling back onto the the violations. Skip into the class two. Is there a reason we didn't hang it? You know, the it says, you know, 100, 200, 300, and it's, like, 500 carrying on from there. We didn't hang that 500 price tag on a class two. For some reason, it seems like you could. Oh, They go once it goes to class two, it goes no monetary and may be considered for revocation, but it seems like you could keep hanging that 500 on there just for something.

It also says ten days. Right? So maybe considered for a ten day suspension. I think it's really important to define those ten days. Right? You go Wednesday to Wednesday, which is no water. On Wednesday, you only miss one weekend. You get two no water days. So being really clear about, like, it starts on Yeah. The first Monday or, like, how that how that works.

The flex permit, somebody asked about that. So just to help fill in a little bit of gap, there's a in the late eighties, they were concerned with overuse, so they reduced everybody's permit by 25%. It was the flex permit came into existence at that point. And it said if you if this reduction caused you to go under 30, you could flex up to 30. Or if you were already under 30 and got reduced more, you could go up to your original amount.

So it's only designed for either small or or ones that got small. And how it's happened now is that large outfitters have acquired those permits. And so now you have somebody with three REPs and hundreds of user paper. One of them is a flex permit, and they're still flexing. I I strongly disagree with the whole, like, just leave the flex permit the way it is.

It's it's incorrect, and it's not working. And it's it's not within the intent of the original why it came into existence. And then the last thing in this, there was a consensus in the ad hoc, which I was on. So I'm just presenting this with myself for myself. The original one of the original suggestion was to have outfitters with multiple REPs condense them or consolidate them.

The wording looks weird there. I don't understand the exact reason, but maybe for clerical or time. The the con I what I would like to see is the ability I have three RDPs personally. What I'd like to see is all the user days consolidated in one and the other two non opt for a lack of better word or zero down, just set aside. I guess the way to keep things in compliance and reduce administrative time, it, like, cleans everything up. It keeps me in compliance and lots of stuff. I'd like to see that at this first.

Yes. Go ahead.

Hi. My name is Arnie Hart from Whitewater. I wanted to go with the sentiments of Nate and

Jeremiah and and James for the department.

Totally support the. There's lot of things that need to be cleaned up. I think a lot of things were addressed. Fines will increase. Pretty much had unanimous consent for all authors. Density, language was added, so I had up when we did each other's on. We pretty much every author, including us, which makes us the most since we have poor reviews permits. So we really like to see that language book, like, again, what Slack recommended. I think they don't see how it was a SQL issue. There's a lot of other SQL issue that I'll bring up.

But I just don't see how that density lane could see more issues. So we'd love to see if the density language brought back in. And I go the same about the changes of the category one to category two finds. I mean, if an output goes over that. Perfect. I have 380 plus today. I know when I'm over or over or x less. It does not it cannot be a great one mileage. It should be pretty serious. Same in property private property.

I mean, I have an output of some of private property that is just that's ridiculous. It should not be a level one. It should be a level two. You know? So and I also agree with the categorizing of the three consecutive s up three times in your one category.

It should be 400 category. So, really, we felt we put a lot of teeth into the document with the client recommendations, and they seem to have been taken out, which is really we'd like to know why. But more importantly, if we go through have you guys I don't know if the the commission's gone through the red line, but there's there's some several structuring restructuring and framework structuring verbiage that have been added. And a lot of those, we feel, would trigger the. So we don't

wanna slow the process

down, but we definitely wanna question how the discretion word in front of improvement would change the scope of blood pressure. Our lineup would not trigger a sequel. We have some language. Oh, here we go. We have one of the red lines, an entire objective has been added to the scale. That is pretty serious change. That would I didn't require a

c 12. We've studied the c 12.

It would be something that would need a negative sequel. And then the other one was in another one of the the new version that was added for the fact that the county is about it. That's what we source for economic benefits for now and the future. I was adding in there. So that would be of the document, and it should be on the sequel. Or if it's on the sequel, it could be know, understanding as to one. And are you on that?

Thank you. Your comment. Is there any other comment at this time? Yeah. Okay. Hello. I'm a private citizen, Katie. I have the pleasure of working in the industry. I think I will reiterate what Natalie said. She mentioned about violations for noncommercial users being copied and pasted into the noncommercial user section copied and pasted from the commercial outfitter section.

The the concern here is that this seems to have been rapidly done together. So I presented a few different questions to staff, and they included some of those onto the change matrix. If you don't mind, I'm gonna hand this on over to you. I know your guys' version of the change matrix is a little smaller than that. I'd also like to present two of the changes that I presented to Zach.

It's the

bridge barrier that what Zach did.

I know. I'm sorry. I should have done better. So for that discretion one that I mentioned, staff did give an explanation. They said that they were trying to align with the 1995 lawsuit.

So that 1995 litigation, it established that characterizing the herd immunity process as discretionary has sequel consequences. So once again, it seems like another phase start was rapidly added in into I noted Zach's words, this robust change matrix with high level accounting. If you would notice on the change matrix that I passed to you, I have highlighted each and every concern I brought up. You will see that every single one of those were classified as it it's it's really hard to grapple with that classification. I would like to mention that we really want this to go through for many reasons.

The R and P and C, and we wanna support that. What I would really appreciate if you could recommend to staff that they please take it back to the adopted 2018 RNP and change what was presented to us in that presentation Zach gave to us today and what was decided and agreed upon amongst the ad hoc committee as well as. We would love to support this project, and we do not want to hang it up. So please remove all of the unnecessary red flags and proceed forward as thank you. Thank you for your comment.

Are any other comments on this item?

I Howard Penn, member of CLAC and business representative, president of the Republic of Business Council. First, in my day job, I did the work on resource and plans up down the state, and I have never seen the business association come and ask for their regulatory oversight to be forced and increased. So I wanna compliment the doctors, first of for their willingness to lean in this resource of. Second, I'm just gonna take a big picture view. I've been in the since the late eighties and several businesses there.

This is our guiding doctrine. It's the the ordinance is the law out of our constitution, and the river management plan, which is a resource management document, is kind of our, like, our bylaws. It's the principles by which we operate the entire valley. And I give a lot of credit to staff, both Zach, his team, CAO's office for tackling this valid contractor. This was originally presented to us way back previous with the manager was on staff as a simple update, something that was gonna be simple.

County doesn't have the money or time to do this. Let's keep this as simple as possible so we can just do our obligations, get it updated and done. There's really nothing major that we can change. Zach brought this to us in CLAC back in the '25 and started going through this process at which time we created our ad hoc committee and kinda gave all the suggestions. So we really initiated the process that we've done dozens of times for the last thirty five plus years.

Because this has gotten more complicated, I guess, you're sensing all these comments, we're kind of asking if it's possible to create the latest version and assimilate everything that we can and see if we can include the river again. We had a meeting down there at. It was a good give me the.

This the example of

the railing trust you have here is just a small subset of what goes on. How's this river management plan? It's so key to the residents, fund builders, businesses, commercial outbuilders, the tourists that come into town. I guess we just ask you for a little bit more time to to figure this out, work with staff, work with Zach, work with our community, get anyone behind us so that we bring it forward eventually to the board of supervisors. You know, we don't have pitchforks in the in the world.

That's what we're trying to avoid. We, as GLAD, try to bring forward the comments from the community as best we can, but I don't speak for them. You know, I don't speak for all the residents of business owners that I work with them. And it's it's a it's a big document. It's probably one of the most critical resource management documents that you guys oversee in this county because of the impacts it has to that. All the credit is not. But, you know, let's take the time necessary

to make this time work.

Thanks, Howard. Yep.

Thank you. Is there any other comments on this item? What else? No? Okay. Go to the online participant. Leona, go ahead.

Okay. This is Emmett.

Hey, Emmett. Hi.

Thank

you. I noticed some apparent red flags in the RMP setting to share. And first of all, land ownership and management have been quite confused in the planning and EIR, which I actually read. And I checked with BLM yesterday, and they confirm federal lands at Lotus adjacent to the county park are still withdrawn by reclamation for management by reclamation. And by the way, BLM had some serious concerns about the EIR and the RMP that have apparently not been addressed in the last twenty five years.

And we need to add California Department of Fish and Wildlife lands, which were given to them at Weber Creek State Lands Commission, apparently, for several miles, state parks, BLM reclamation at Folsom Lake. And it's interesting. There's only one short corner of private land between Greenwood Creek and Folsom Lake after all. So, basically, the county has less land jurisdiction than we thought, if any. And any manager or planner knows your program is only as good as your last environmental document.

In this case, twenty five years old and has not been adapted to cover the changes since then, it would be impossible. And the last matrix from the river community and RMAC looked in the appendix of the EIR looks a lot different than the one now. State parks plans to revise its concessions in the next year, and that has implications because they really can't give away their authority to manage lands at Folsom Lake under a managing partner agreement with reclamation. So that doesn't really work. Even though the county approved it, state parks has not approved it, it wouldn't hold water.

Data show rafting has not increased exponentially as originally feared, but leveled off or is decreasing. So the basic carrying capacity approach is not justified going forward. At the same time, capacity limits no longer make sense, no nor do flex permits and things like that. Specific changes to the county ordinance seem to do the opposite of what the stated result would be, but the actual result gives away public input opportunities such as by moving decisions from the planning commission to staff beyond the advisory commission advisory capacity of that, you know, you can't dismiss that. That's important.

Outfitters complain that the staff administration has been unequal and discriminate discriminatory with some private camps allowed to put in a takeout while others nearby are not for reasons unexplained. So there needs to be better coordination within the county of these things. Management of these valuable rights and privileges has gone beyond any understanding and recommend nonadoption at this time. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. There is no other comments.

K. Let's bring it back to the commissioners. Does staff have any comments to start with?

I

guess I guess the first thing that came to mind, there was a couple of comments around density spacing, that sort of thing. And that's one that I need to own. That was one that I was incorrect on, and and it is correctly stated. And just so everyone's on the same page, when we're talking about density thresholds, the only threshold that we currently have in the EIR is 300 boats in a two hour period based on a quarter hour increment and a rolling two hour period. So you all are correct. I mean, that is the provision that we are all working under. So, you know, we'll make sure that's reflected after this meeting, next updates, all that sort of thing. I'll be honest. My hope was you know, I guess I'll say this. I appreciate everybody's comment, and I feel like they're all valid.

I will also say, you know, I've spent a good amount of time interacting with these folks, and, you know, I've I've incorporated the recommendations, that I feel are warranted. I would also say that part of the commission's job is to inform my decisions and and, you know, the recommendations, yeah, part of them come from staff, but I would really like to hear what the commission feels about a handful of these items. Right? And, I mean, just looking through, you know, pot size is one. To me, I think that's that's realistically resolved just through clarity.

You know, 300 in the rolling two hour, that's pretty straightforward. I would be interested to hear, the commission's opinion on the violations. Right? I think that's the next item that really needs to be unpacked to get some direction on. What I heard was issues around violation fee schedule, and this is something that I've heard loud and clear from the outfitters, and it was something that, I I never thought I would be in a position to have to decline people trying to charge themselves more.

It's like that like, I don't know. As a government agency, it's just as it's uncommon. But, also, I like to follow the rules, and we have state law that requires or limits the amount that we can charge for these sorts of fees. I agree with Nate. I think there's other things that we could do if it's not a purely financial disincentive of people doing that. Maybe entertain other ways of maybe I can't charge you money but prevent you from doing business. Right? I mean, still working within those strict state thresholds, maybe they have a recommendation on, you know or kinda like what Arnie said, going from four to three or three of any it doesn't have to be three of the same. Three of any class one constitutes a class two. I think those would be reasonable recommendations, but I also don't like making those decisions in a vacuum.

Right? I mean, you guys are elected officials, and so I could have my opinion, and I'll express it to you. But at the same time, I also don't feel like that's my decision to make in a vacuum. And you guys are in a position to rent to weigh in on these sorts of things and have a say. I mean, it goes back to my presentation. All of our comments and feelings about this are advisory, but they should be informed. And I appreciate everybody coming out today because this is the brain trust out here. I've been doing this for two years. I cannot say I'm a river expert, and I would say I'm yeah. I guess I'll just stop there.

But, you know, let me just go back through my notes. I will say, you know, as far as, I guess, maybe time frame and then alluding to some of the sequencing, specifically discretionary permit, I I could tell that is unsettling to people. Right? And I don't, that's not something that I just cook up and and throw in a river management plan. I take it very seriously.

And just so we're all clear about where that comes from, and this is going back to what our intent is being consistent with what our ordinance says. I'll read it here verbatim. Section five four eight zero three zero definitions. Commercial river use permits means a discretionary permit issued pursuant to this chapter that entitles the permittees to engage in commercial river use. This is not me changing the terms of that permit or making a nondiscretionary permit discretionary.

Even if I wanted to, I don't have that authority. This is just making sure we're being accurate in the plans we're putting together and that we're reflecting the governing documents that do have authority. And so when we are putting that in there, it's not like a gotcha or I snuck some language in there. It's to be clear, and it's to be accurate with what it is we're presenting in that information. And so, I know this is probably near and dear to a lot of people's hearts because this is not just a a hobby for a lot of people in this room. It's your livelihood. It's your way of life. And, you know, I take that responsibility very seriously, but it's also my job to balance all of those opinions. And lucky for me, there's a lot of consistency among some of the authors. I mean, there's small little bits and pieces here where maybe you guys aren't completely there.

But I feel like what you all heard today is pretty representative of why what I've heard over the last year. Some things have been addressed, I think the items that they brought up are the are those last ones that still need to be discussed. Right? So anything that else any other items that have been brought up to me that I'm like, yep. I support it. I think it's a good idea. We just go ahead and do it. What you're hearing from the public today and what you guys will discuss are those items that I feel are pertinent and need your input.

That'd be my call. Okay. Commissioners.

Could you, Zach, give us a little background on the state law that governs as to what we can charge or what we can't? I think there is a little confusion there, and that might help us decide. Because I have to agree with the auditors. There has to be some kind of mechanism to keep people from finding ways to violate what you set into the RPM. And if it means putting extra cost on them, then that can be a big deterrent.

I understand that. But I would like to know how the state law reads and how does that influence it. Because if, in fact, we have to remain in that realm, I agree we should find other ways that maybe are not financially associated to have a violation that would keep us from doing the things or keep them from violating what we have sent forward. So having said that

Yeah. So our penalty for infraction reflects state law. So this is county code section 1.24 dot zero three zero penalty for infraction. Any person convicted of an infraction or violation of ordinance of the county is punishable by one, a not to exceed a $100 for a first violation. Two, a fine not to exceed $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year. Three, find not to exceed $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year. That is what we

are Well, that's what governs us in the way we set up our structure for fees. Okay. Well, I think that deserves a lot more conversation as to how we go about mitigating that and that's putting some teeth into violations. Couple of other things that I noted on mine was commercial versus noncommercial. I heard that come up and the fee structure there.

Should that be different? And what would we consider to make that differentiating with the two of them? I heard what the gentleman said in regards to private property violations and that it should be moved into the class two. Perhaps maybe that's true.

Can we do that?

I don't know if we can

or not. But The board of supervisors stand. If you wanna take We advise that. You would make a recommendation. We would incorporate it. It would go to the planning commission, so on and so forth.

Because there needs to be more teeth into that as well. Yeah. And then perhaps oh, and the other thing that came that struck my mind too was to to find the ten days start to finish. I I agree with that. You know? And and that makes sense. So, I mean, that totally makes sense.

Well, if we wanted to define, like it does define time of year. Right? So it's peak season. It's like Memorial Day. Ten days from Memorial Day to Labor Day. But I believe Jeremiah is correct. We don't specify what ten days. It's not ten weekend days. It's ten days in between. How do

we put the bite in?

Or Yeah. So, I mean, if we wanna be very particular about Well, some more to

make people will pay attention to it and listen to the violations. I think that I did have the pod size, but she's already covered that. And the density and that causes safety concerns, I I perhaps maybe there needs to be some language revision there. I'm not certain how that would look. But that's my take what I've heard today and what I've read. I I commend staff for taking breast milk. And so those are my thoughts.

Yeah. Is somebody in a rafting community? I know we're hard to deal with. So

I love you guys. You're a good dude.

So just one other little thing. Arnie mentioned the what sounds like the county motto, basically, being into the roof management plan. Like, this productivity blah blah blah, very red red county sort of thing to say. Right? That's just it's boilerplate language coming from the county to put it to the river plan.

Is that right?

Okay. It should stay.

Yeah. Perfect. So just wanna make sure that's right. So on violations, I think it's difficult for us to jump in here. Is it but it sounds like there's generally an agreement within BLAC and the Cradle River community to say, yes.

Let's we we may begrudgingly accept that there is state mandated thresholds that can't be exceeded, but there could be creative solutions to to make the violations have warranty. Is it possible that, you know, there can be like, the CLAC subcommittee, the committee could work together to lock that down between now and planning?

It's possible. I know Yeah. Let me

ask that that question first.

Well, I would say this. We're ragtag bunch of parks and rec. Right? And it's just kind of the nature of parks in El Dorado County. I don't have a robust staff. I wish I did, but that's just I'm I'm also very blessed to have the people that I have. The storm we had, when we were originally supposed to meet, it it impacted our time frame. Right? I mean, when we come up with our work plan to down to the hour a lot of the time, And having this meeting move really it dug into that time that we would we would have between, you know, having this meeting, taking in the feedback, getting things revised, and getting them prepared for the planning commission. We do still have time, not as much as I would like, but that's just the reality of our situation.

I would say if if we could get something together in short order and, I mean, it seems like we're really narrowing this down to a couple things. And so if we could get concurrence that we're talking about, you know, what else we can do outside of a class one, two, three, one hundred, 200, 500, and then getting land use issues into a class two. Mhmm. I mean, if that's really what we're talking about, I feel like we could flesh that out pretty quick. If if we're peeling back more layers of the onion than that or things that are are kind of bigger picture items that require multiple discussions, I would say that would impact our time frame.

If it's really just getting the language dialed in to address those two things, I think that would be doable, and we could keep our time frame. That would be my best guess.

And maybe this I mean, what Natalie brought up about commercial voter Yeah. Private voter. Sure.

Can I just ask I just have one thing on that? Just also a question. You're be overseeing and issuing violations for noncommercial river users? That'd be.

Yeah. It would be the same people that issue violations for commercial river. So all of and it's always our

river instructors on the river.

So Any of the I

think that I'm sorry. Talking about? Like,

There's some confusion between what is talked about as noncommercial. Is that institutional, or is it nonprofit? I don't know if it's a Technically commercial. Alright. I think the plan doesn't define Yeah. What they're talking about as noncommercial.

I see what you're saying.

Yeah. Private orders.

Yeah. That was the First time. I got this. Alright. I appreciate the clarification. Okay. Yeah. We could incorporate that into the discussion as well. And I appreciate the clarification factor now. That was I was assuming you're moving to private voters, so

I apologize for that.

So if you I mean, so, basically, I'm I'm just sort of flipping by unviolations. Yes.

No. She's talking about private.

I am talking about private voters, not not I don't. Not education.

Yeah. Private.

A private voters have a problem.

And that mean, so Natalie's question was statement or was there are rules that are impressed upon private voters that just doesn't make sense. Right?

Yeah. And the ordinance update on page eleven and twelve, it's, like, a whole class list of violations. And my question, like, the things that just don't apply to non virtual private voters, which is. So not talking about educational State private. Private. Yeah.

Yeah. Private. Okay.

So my question was, you know, how are who who's in the issue of the immigration with the private vote?

We'll have to look in that, and I can get a response back up. Yeah. It seems like maybe I'm not completely understanding it correctly. And so I don't wanna provide misinformation, but I you know, sometimes saying I don't have the right answer right now is the right answer. Right. And so for the sake of not providing misinformation, I can, you know, shoot you an email. You can give me more information. I can figure out exactly what it is we're trying to address. Make sure you get the right info.

K. That's one quick thing. I I appreciate that you are all looking at this and collectively, the changes. What I wanna point out is that what CLAC came up and what what what we sent and what the outliers sent in and mirrors that as the language that we we we came up with that would deal with the density. So that's there. And and the violation, the the alternate to the to the dollars, that's there. We we suggest three changes. So that stuff is there for you to to you you well, respectfully, you could save as that. Hey. Well, I'll leave it up.

But but I I think you have everything. I know it's I know it's confusing, but we can have the tools to make, you know, reasonable changes. So I appreciate it.

Zach, just I mean, so what if the association submitted doesn't seem to gel with what could be possible?

Yeah. Potentially. I mean, some version thereof. Yeah.

We can say, honestly, like, as a group of people that haven't spent a lot of time discussing this, it feels awkward for

us to be like,

oh, let's just jump in on violations right now. But if I could hear that the River community has consensus and you feel good about it, great. Like,

we're rocking the road with that.

Yeah. Yeah. I agree too.

Can just say something real quick? As far as the state parks, which governs the Middle Fork and Norfolk has great nonfinancial Great non con nonfinancial. So I think and that's obviously the same. So Yeah. Might have tested. So I think if we incorporate some of that language, that yields us very slow. Do

you have access to that kind of information?

Absolutely. Yeah. Have a contact at state parks for sure.

Chris? So I was just on with the board of supervisors. I just finished, and they were doing to and fronts. Laurie started with what you're doing down here. You're down here. You're working on this. She takes it very seriously by her comments, and I just wanted you to know that that schedule that you put up there, that was part of what they were trying to as she was speaking as to and from. So there's no control right now as to dates, but I just wanted you to know that that's on the plate right now.

Does that mean there's flexibility or that there

I can't I can't

say more than than she just mentioned that you were down here working on this topic and how important it was. Okay. So I can

Do we have the time element, Zach, where we could I'm saying. Right? Yeah. We take the recommendations from CLAC that have been brought forward, specifically in a lot of these different areas we just talked about, and you can put that into some kind of red line. And we could meet at our regular meeting that we're gonna have or should have had this March. I know. But I'm saying, could we bring it back so that we could review this one more time so it could go to the planning commission on the day that you're scheduled?

I don't think it would go to the planning commission the day we're scheduled. I think we probably have maybe a week to a week and a half before. Don't think it'd be submitted well in advance Yes. When it comes to a public meeting. I mean,

we're Yes.

It's usually several weeks. So,

I mean,

I would say if if we wanna keep the same schedule, time would be of the essence in that regard. But at the same time, you know, we wanna make sure we get it right. Right? And so I would just say, you guys need to decide how much consensus is enough consensus. Right? And that's not my choice to make. I feel like, yeah, what I said before is is pretty accurate. The comments you heard today is the consensus of the outstanding items that people feel still need to be fleshed out. Right? I mean, there's a handful of things that we all, like, yep. Yep. We all agree on this. Put them in there. But but what's left behind, these are the pieces that you there's you know, this is where the magic happens. Right?

So these are the things that we have to to work through together. And so what gets you to that level of comfortability? It's not necessarily for me to say. We're here to help out. We're here to support. If you need me to have you know, go down to Lotus and Coloma, have a meeting with the ad hoc, make sure we get solutions to these three things before it goes to the planning commission. That's direction you guys could provide. You know? But

I I feel like, for us, as a commission, just to say, yeah, put all that in there and follow your your what you stated as your are we comfortable with that without having seen that document or that revised document again? Are we comfortable with that?

Am I making sense? You you are making sense. I've been speaking for myself. I'm not. But I don't know how locked in the timeline is, but I understand the pressure you're under. Right. We could push this out another month, thirty days and and go to the board of supervisors in July instead of in June, then I would I would support doing that. But if we're if you've got direction that you're locked into, then we have a different situation.

I would say I'm not locked into direction. I would also say my intent was to have this update done before the river season started.

I I get that.

Just because trying to implement new rules and regulations or even just changes and updates. Right? Doing that same same response I got when we came down to CLAC when we presented to you guys. Why are you fiddling with the river management plan in the middle of the summer? We're out here working. I don't have the time and the capacity to go and address these sorts of things. But at the same time, we've gone summer, winter, fall, spring, and now we're back into a river season, and here we are with the same river management plan. So I think you need a commitment for more than me to get this done, to be honest. I mean, I'm there. I'm doing everything I can to get this I know you are.

And I will also say we've kinda gone beyond the call of duty with this one. I mean, realistically, if I was a c student, I would have brought it to Parks Commission, then we get a planning commission and beyond. We supported clack forming their ad hoc committee. We gave ample time for them to provide comments. We incorporated everything that felt was just a slam dunk, and what remains is those outstanding items for you all to weigh in on.

Can you run that back for me? So violations, what are the other outstanding items that are and I'm hearing I mean, there's a lot being discussed, but it feels like there are substantive issues. Is that a lot?

Well, the attendance started. It's just violating the violations.

It means a lot of it comes to violations. Private property was a big thing. It goes back to violations. No. The the density item, that's That is done. It's a nonstarter. Yeah. And so, really, we're we're talking about violations, violation schedule. Should it be a class one or class two? The group's aware. We're limited at the dollar amount we can charge. So what are those other things that we could do to help discourage bad behavior? So it's where the violation should end up. Is it a class one or a class two? And what else do we do to discourage bad behavior? Private votes. And then clarification on enforcement of

That's so Question.

You said the density was a nonstark.

I mean, it was a It's a nonissue.

It wasn't an issue.

Sorry about that. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

So I is it feasible, I guess, I'll look to if this group people for clack to come back together or a

or maybe that's not just be clack that hot, but the river community that feels they need

to be involved to hash out the violations elements. Make recommendations to Zai. We think we've already With blessing. We've already is that true? Yeah. It means a holy

trip. Yeah.

I I think that's what they're saying. Yeah. You have you have to both to share it. Yeah. The chair. You know? You're both, like, very.

Like,

I've all very. Okay.

But there are things Sorry.

I would say this.

Yeah.

I think what would probably get us to where we need to be is I would like to see maybe a member or two of the Parks Commission address these items with the ad hoc committee. Yep. They're correct. We've worked together, and maybe we don't see it the same way. I would like you guys to be able to have that conversation with them so that you guys can feel comfortable with your recommendation back to staff. And if it's, hey, we gotta put it on hold, and we'll bring it back into a month, I don't wanna waste their time. We've gone through the exercise, and there's still a gap that we need to close in this. Right? And it's those remaining items.

The gap that you're describing is because of statutory limits that you're talking about. Right?

Not necessarily. It's just the fines.

That's just the fines. That's just the fines.

So where do the where do the gaps exist? There's discomfort from the county to do certain things that

Yeah. And don't necessarily see it that way.

So the recommendations that would be, yeah, that'd be, you how to implement parts, spacing, sizing, something like But county

I won't say exact because I don't know.

Right. Yeah. County's not comfortable with it, so we just gotta hammer it out. Like this idea. There are two of

you who wanna come to that.

I'm happy to do this. I'm happy to be there, ma'am. Yeah.

It's good. I am too.

Yeah. I mean, my I would say speaking to my supervisor, staying on this timeline is ideal. Right? Let's get this to planning and planning commission by April, and let's get it before the board supervisors by June. Doesn't and it really I mean, like, coming today after all these emails and letters, I did not think we were gonna be this close. So I feel like that's very painful.

I would just really yeah. I don't know. I I think as long as you guys can make that commitment to each other to work through it and and have that united outcome and and the fact that everybody is not gonna get their way, but just understand that, like, you've got it as far as you can go, and everybody can live with it. Right? And I think having the park commissioners or a couple of the parks commissioners have that sort of exposure and interaction, I think, you know, whether we would like to admit it or not, we would have said we've turned over every stone.

Right? And and you've been able to talk to all of the elected officials and county staff that would have a vested interest in this. I think if it's something that you're not comfortable with right now, I would say that it's probably my next best recommendation.

The red flags I've been hearing when I read material before I came to the meeting, comments at this meeting, or this is a violation of CEQA. This is a you know, this may be violating certain laws. And I wonder if county council needs to be run through some of this

outside of our scope. Yeah. I will put it back out there to them. I mean, I I will say this. I don't do projects like this in a vacuum.

You

know? No. I We have imagine.

Consistent communication with county council. I'll make sure I bring up those specific items just to make sure they feel extra, extra solid that we're good. I don't mind doing that while you guys are, you know, having that one meeting with the ad hoc to get these last items kinda finished up. And I think, realistically, we should all be pretty good at that point, right, based on what I've heard in the discussion today. We've gotta narrow it down to just a couple things here.

In violations. All violations of it. Yeah. Okay?

Yeah. Yes. Okay.

So just real quick. We've got just over two weeks before our next regular meeting. So unless we're gonna change the date on that.

We don't have a meeting.

Yeah. Because the name was canceled.

Oh, that one was canceled? Yeah. Because we do this. Yeah. I thought this is our big hour meeting.

We could reconvene. Yeah.

But You could just call a special meeting. You could. Yeah. To keep us online on timeline.

Good. My recommendation is that we do agree that one or two, it can't be worth that, commissioners join up with CLAC, talk about these things. We can get some understanding of exact where those areas of states exist first because I don't understand that. So that's not in the matrix to me. I haven't heard of it heard it, really, besides just the secret stuff.

Did you guys submit all of your recommendations in the public comment as well? The committee. Ad Right? The ad hoc. Yes. Yeah. So

It's something. It

should be included in the item.

It's in the I guess I just what I don't understand is, like, we're hearing from them. We feel we have consensus to on violations, and it's been introduced. There's been a couple of things that have come from responses from the county that say it can't be done because of CEQUA, or that's really all I'm hearing. So there are areas where they're saying, let's what I heard you say is basically there's discomfort in certain things that are being proposed for violations changes, and I don't know why, I guess. Okay. Yeah. So if maybe that could be a conversation cloud going into a meeting cloud. Okay. And then I would propose we then just send that along by the commission if you don't come back to us just to abide the time the time of the calendar.

So I I think that's doable. But as you go through the process, you may decide it needs to come back to us.

I guess they're gonna be offering.

Yeah. Then you could still do

that. Yep.

And we could do

it for a special meeting. Yeah. I there's, like, I can

give the timeline. Yes. Yep.

I also want we we don't

you know, I've been on

the commission, what, five, six years now, and we don't get this many comments on any topic. So I went. Yeah. So stop it.

I won't. So

I I appreciate that. Just And I want to make sure we answer everything. How are you?

I I just offer this. This is great. Good suggestion back to bring the commissioners in the deep and. Triggering does not mean a full EIR. Right. There may be things that would be valuable for us at Declan and actually implement this river management plan. I'm not saying that's what we wanna do here, but we could also look at a immediate future in the next year or two to implement another update to the Nedbank so that we can and if we had a few you guys can park the rep to say, hey. Let's table this. Let's have a more robust conversation over the next year or two to do a neck back on something that does trigger a. And we'll go to county council to get direction on that.

That's an option. Because but is there is there a is there a step in between? Right? Because, basically No.

You gotta go you

gotta get solution here for a step in between.

Okay. Okay. Not maybe even for us

to just No. No. No. So I don't wanna take look at this, but, you know, there is an option. Alright. Possibly negotiate on it at you know, something doesn't fit into this now.

We're gonna we're here. It's fine. Take a little year

or two, and then we can do that on a med bag or something.

Okay. Right?

Yep. I think that.

I mean, actually, that was one of their question I had is this is, like, two or three years delayed on this.

Oh,

boy. Yeah. Yeah.

So does it do we does the clock start ticking on the next five years after we're done, or are we, like, actually gonna be two and a half

years down there? Was for '28 to '2.

Well, if you read

The next five year summary is gonna be a two year summary. That's five year timetable.

Yeah. The number of five year reviews, updates weren't even done.

It's gonna catch down somewhere.

Thank you for going my defense,

Nate. We

might be late, but at least we're good. You know?

Chance. No. We asked we asked to delay this initially. You're trying

to Zach to go over

the job. The previous manager didn't make sense to do it in the middle of summer. So

Oh, he would have been fine.

Yeah. He could have a few more great years. Yeah.

Okay. So are we come? Yeah, John.

Can I talk?

Thank you for bringing up. Okay.

So I, first of all, wanna thank everybody for being here. When I walked in the store today, I was not expecting us to be as close as we really are. And thank you for your participation. I wanna thank CLAC. Obviously, you spent a lot of hours involved in coming up with all this information and recommendations.

Getting to where we are right now, we're talking about going back to CLAC. I want everybody here in this room. I want everybody on the commission to understand. We don't wanna go backwards and be disrespectful to CLAC's time on this. So let's move forward together and continue to be as close together as we are with that in mind. As far as the private property issues, does the sheriff get involved in those?

Yeah. I mean, technically, yes. I think I think part of the issue with private property is or at least response to private property issues from the sheriff. It could just be their overall workload and prioritization of what it is

they're doing. Patrolling the river, aren't they?

They do they do have a sheriff's deputy on the river. He's not there full time, but he does patrol, and he partners up with our staff. And and we kind of do our best to communicate with him, and a lot of the time, our staff could almost be an extra set of eyes for for deputy Sandoval on the river. That said, it's 20.7 miles, and he's on a cat raft. So he can be everywhere at the same time.

But, know

There's there's patrol vehicles all over

the county. It's my point.

Yeah. So why why isn't part of this plan with private property issues? Is that the sheriff's call, and they deal with that rather than people who are experts in the river.

Yeah. I I think I think that does happen. I just think if we've seen lack of enforcement from the sheriff's deputies, it's because they have to prioritize that call with the the bank robbery or the, you know, person stealing from Safeway or something like that. Good. And I don't want it to be on their behalf. But in my experience with working with them, I mean, they get spread very thin. And when you get to more remote parts of the county, it's it takes time to respond.

Well, my recommendation would be that we develop a partnership when it comes to property private property issues and see if there's some way that the sheriff could be more involved because it's not really your deli wick when it comes to a private property issue. I support the group size issues that were discussed here today and trying to resolve those. It's curious to me why we would have the numbers we have for group size when when we are seeing a slight decline in in use of the river. So, you know, that's my thought on it. I mean, I think that group size is very doable knowing what we know about the the numbers on the river.

I support that, you know, individual raptors need to follow the same rules as our commercial raptors, and enforcement should be similar. And then as far as this document, I highly recommend the county council review this document so that we do know that the CEQA issues are addressed in their opinion. But once that is is done and it's vocalized to the group here and to black the the findings or or the recommendation by county council, it needs to be shared with all these people. So that the next time we come through this, that's either not brought up or we know, yes, on the timeline, county council needs to be brought into this right after CLAC reviews this. And that's all I had at this point.