Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah. I'd like to call this May 14 meeting of the Eldorado County Planning Commission to order. Commissioner Williams, would you like to lead us in the pledge, please?

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 every heathen justice for all. Okay. Next on the agenda will be the adoption of the agenda.

I move we adopt the agenda as presented to us today.

Oh, yes. Let's do a roll call first.

Commissioner Williams?

Here.

Commissioner Hanson?

Here.

Chair Frege?

Here.

Commissioner Spar?

Here.

And commissioner Costello? Here. Let the record show all commissioners are present.

Thank you. Okay. Next on the agenda would be the adoption of the agenda. I so move. K. Commissioner Spar moves adoption of the agenda, and commissioner Hanson seconds. Then we have to do the agenda first. It says adoption of the agenda then same calendar.

Jared, I believe we've been doing that as a combined item.

Is it? Adoption of

the agenda and the consent calendar.

Okay. Alright. Well, let's is that what you wanna do commissions for? Adopt the agenda and the consent calendar both or separate?

Let's do it separate.

K. So we have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. Is there any public comment on adopting a new agenda as Clarification. I have minutes. No. That's consent calendar. Okay. Thank you. Alright. Seeing none. Can we take a look? Good job to the agenda since that's what he wants to do.

Commissioner Williams? Is that a yes? Commissioner Hansen? Chair Fraga?

Aye.

Commissioner Spar?

Aye.

And Commissioner Castello?

Yes.

And who seconded it? Oh, thank you.

Okay. Next would be the approval of the consent calendar.

I would move that we approve the consent calendar as presented to us today.

K. Second.

We have a motion in the second. I'm gonna do it right now. First. Okay. Is there any public comment on the consent calendar?

Now taking public comments specifically regarding the consent calendar. Individuals will have three minutes to address I the Us meeting by phone, press 9 to indicate a desire to comment. Today. Please voluntarily state your name for the record. Now taking public comment from the room. And now taking public comment from Zoom. Oh, come on up to the podium.

So this

is about anything that we can discuss today?

On the consent calendar only.

What's that?

The the only item on the consent today is the minutes from the last meeting. So if you have a comment on that. Open forum is later.

Yes. That's next. K.

Okay. There is no further public comments.

Alright. We have no comment on the consent calendar. Do we have a motion? So move. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? K. Let's take a vote.

Right. Mister Williams, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Hanson? Aye. Chair Fraga?

Aye.

Commissioner Spar?

Aye.

And commissioner Costello? Aye. Motion passes five to zero.

K. Next on the agenda would be open forum, which is the opportunity for the public to speak on any item that is not on today's agenda.

Okay? Now taking public comment in public forum, individuals will have three minutes to address the planning commission about items that are not on today's agenda. The timer will notify you when you have thirty seconds remaining and when your time is up. Public comment will be taken first from those in the planning commission hearing room and then from those on Zoom. For those participating via Zoom, use the raise hand button. If you are joining the meeting by phone, press 9 to indicate a desire to comment. Please voluntarily state your name for the record. Now taking public comment from the room.

Good morning. My name is Fred Mazur, and, I live over in Village G in Serrano. I've been a real estate appraiser for thirty eight years, and I've worked in LA, the Bay Area, and now Sacramento. I've never once seen a gas station proposed or being built next to an elementary school. I I don't understand why this commission or the county would be considering such a thing.

There's already parents when they go to pick up their kids that are parked out on Silva. And what's gonna happen when there's a 32 pump gas station next to that? I mean, what you know, there's there's gonna be accidents, and people that are getting in those accidents are gonna come back and sue the county for coming up with such a stupid idea. And all the traffic the the people gonna be going to this Costco gas station are gonna be coming down Bass Lake Road, turning right on Serrano, and Serrano is gonna now have Serrano Parkway now gonna have a lot of traffic. Is the county considering what they're gonna do about that at all?

And then another thing, the property values of all these houses around that, commercial area, they're gonna go down. As soon as these people lose their view and now they're gonna be looking down at a gas station and a Costco, their property taxes should go down when they do tax appeals to the county saying my property just went down in value because you guys allowed a commercial development, especially the 32 pump gas station right next to elementary school. That's all I need to say. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Marshall.

Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Dean Goetz. By way of introduction, I have successfully overturned the Elvorado County Superior Court now twice. One is a published Supreme Court decision for use by all residents in all counties. I bring that same standard of scrutiny to the planning commission today.

I'm entering into evidence of planning, commission memo from 2019. I'll hand it to the clerk here for the record. The document I refer to is to identify the systemic oversight, not of this particular board today, but of the commission as a whole. Specifically the failure to audit development agreements needs to be brought to your attention because there's an opportunity to exploit the public in a double dipping fashion. In July 2019, former CAO, Dawn Ashton admitted on the public record on video that compliance auditing with the development agreements is nonexistent in the county.

We are operating multimillion dollar public mitigations on an honor system. Because of this regulatory vacuum, developers who are profit centers are able to actively exploit the public through this sort of double dip loophole. For example, they can receive fee credits from decades ago, fee credits for, say, park impact fees, keeping the cash in their wallet in exchange for legally binding promises to deliver turnkey parks. That double dip in Serrano, for example, could amount to many millions of dollars, even arguably tens of millions of dollars because $5,000 in fee credits or more per rooftop with 4,700 rooftops having been roughly installed to this day would amount to approximately $30,000,000 in credits. At the same time, there have arguably been relieved of responsibilities to put those very same parks in fulfilling the obligations under CEQA.

The document I just handed to you proves the commission would have known about these sorts of shortfalls because there was a 2020 agreement to mitigate that very last park that hasn't been installed to this day. It gets worse because the property wasn't deeded to the government. It actually has a ransom note attached to it whereby the developer has a reversionary clause if conditions aren't met. I wanted to bring this oversight to the commission because it must be better administered. Thank you very much.

Thank you, mister Gertz.

Alright. Now taking public comment from online. Now taking public comment from Ivan.

Hi. Thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. I hope, you're all doing well, everyone in the room as well. My name is Ivan, and I live in Eldorado Hills.

I've been looking in the draft environmental impact report for the proposed Costco in Eldorado Hills. And I noticed that in the environmental settings section, in the part that mentioned schools, it says that Oak Ridge and Oak Meadow are the schools that are near the project site, and I assume it's because they would be impacted by the project. But there's no mention of Rolling Hills Middle or Silver Valley Elementary even though they're directly adjacent to Oak Ridge. I also noticed that Harvard Way was not studied in the traffic impact analysis, despite it running along the north part of Oak Ridge High School. And this road is used by students on scooters and bicycles from Silver Valley, by students from Silver Valley Elementary and Rolling Hills Middle as well as Oak Ridge.

A student was struck by a vehicle on this road in 2023, and this road is part of the route that would be used by Costco customers from the North and Northwest of El Hills. Harvard Way and Silver Valley Elementary or Silver Valley Parkway, sorry, have a high concentration of student drivers and new drivers, and I imagine it might be one of the highest concentrations in the county. It's definitely in El Dorado Hills. And all of these students or many, many of these students park along Silver Valley Parkway. And in the afternoon, they park along Silver Valley Parkway when, for this team like, the baseball teams and the softball teams, you'll see cars parked along.

And there's barely any room between, where they park, parallel parking, and the cars that drive past. So it's very dangerous. And sometimes students will just cross the road in the middle of that. So, yes, we have children on bicycles as well, and they're not good at riding their bikes. They fall down sometimes. I've noticed this. And and, yeah, I just hope that the planning commission recognizes this, and and I'm just curious why Harvard Way was not included in the study. And, yeah, it kinda makes me wonder if, you know, if these two two entire schools are left out of the study, I wonder what else has been kind of overlooked. But, anyway, thank you very much for your time. I hope you have a nice day.

Thank you, Ivan.

Now taking comment from Gauri Kausa.

Good morning. Good morning. My name is Gauri Kauta. I live in El Dorado Hills. At this point, I'd like to comment about the new Costco coming in to Eldorado Hills.

I voiced a similar opinion that the previous two speakers expressed. I believe it is not a sound concept to have Costco two exits away from its existing store in Folsom along with the huge impacts it has. Costco is being shoved down El Dorado Hills' throat because Placerville and other communities in Cameron Park rejected Costco. I don't think it's fair for Eldorado Hills to be the recipient of what's being rejected elsewhere. I would really request the planning commission to reconsider Costco's presence in Eldorado Hills. Thank you.

Thank you, Gary.

Now taking comment from Linda Campbell.

Morning, everybody. Linda Campbell, Eldorado Hills. I wasn't gonna bring anything up, but, I thought I would say something in regards to the the comments about Costco. First of all, thank you to the citizens that are willing to speak up and voice their concerns. I I think this just highlights again some of the challenges around the planning with applications. First of all, an applicant can apply for what they want to try to do with the property based on their zoning. So Costco applied for that. It's not the county saying, hey, come and do this here. It's not the Planning Commission saying, hey, come and do this here. It's the applicant.

But then it falls on us to evaluate if it fits within the standards for the county. So what it highlights to me is the fact that we as citizens, and you of course as the Planning Commission, we have time restrictions to review things as they come up, but the applicant doesn't. So this is everybody knows we provided input on the draft EIR. Now they go back, they review all of our questions and comments, and they do a response and produce a final EIR. There's no timeline for them to deliver that final EIR, which I think is really detrimental, and that's what's kinda contributing to some of the concerns from citizens.

So potentially maybe having more transparency from the planning department, regular update statuses, targets, anything like that could be very helpful. In the meantime, Eldorado Hills Area Planning Advisory Committee, EDH APAC, is available and meets monthly. We don't always talk about every single project because we're also waiting, but that's an opportunity and a forum for us as citizens to all gather together and get updates and chat about things and also participate in the feedback process. So then I guess the other thing because Mr. Goetz brought up development agreements, Recently, I went through the Eldorado Hills specific plan again, and it was kinda interesting because I always find new things because I don't have it devoted to memory.

But I found it interesting that, in fact, in that specific plan, it stated that White Rock Road from Latrobe up to Silva Valley would be done at the same time, widened to four lanes with the interchange. Of course, that wasn't done, and now we're having to pay for that. So the fact that this specific plan is forty years old, and I don't know if a new development agreement was done when the yellow one expired, but I think anything that we can do to push for the benefit of the citizens rather than leaving these things hanging forever to whatever changes the developer wants to do would be super helpful in the future. Thank you.

Thank you, Linda.

There's no further public comment.

Okay. Well, thank you, everyone, for your comments. And next on the agenda will be item number two.

Item number two, hearing to consider tentative subdivision map, plan development permit TM25Dash0003SlashPD25Dash0005 Serrano Village M 5. Chair, can you please open the hearing?

I wanna open public hearing. Do we have a staff report?

Before chairman, before we get the staff report, can we make disclosures? Absolutely. Alright. I I will go ahead and meet him on that's permissible. Two things, actually, that I wanna report out.

I was approached by the Eldorado Hills community services district's new director of planning who you'll have an opportunity to meet today. And he asked me to see if I could help him guide through guide him through the information that's before us today, and I was happy to do that. I appreciate the fact that that you'd reach out and and and and ask for that kind of guidance. That that resulted in a in a letter that I I appreciate, Cameron, that you included as a package from from CSD as part of the public comment. And that that I'm also pleased to note that the new director of planning, the general manager of CSD, and and, actually, two directors of CSD are here this morning.

And when we get around to talking about the infrastructure aspects of this proposal that we want to invite them to make their comments as as appropriate. And I certainly have some questions I'd like to define further. I also received independent of that, I received a call at home the other day from the applicant to Kurt Bone. And probably knowing how how thorough a thorough, Kirk can be, she probably reached out to other members of the commission. I appreciate the, the, the fact that he, did reach out and asked whether or not I had additional questions.

And I I I said that, as a commissioner, and this is only my personal take, that I prefer to have any detailed information or discussions out in public during the their hearing itself as opposed to anything else. But I did submit three questions to him. One basically was related to wanting to see to what degree he concurred and corporate development concurred with the staff report, if there was any issues, clarifications or admissions that they'd like to address when we get it actually into that segment of the discussion. I'll ask him to go ahead and address those at that point. I also took the liberty of providing him, because it wasn't a matter of public record there, a copy of the CST letter and asked him to also directly respond.

And he, point of fact, did do that, and we received copies of his response yesterday. And so we'll all get further clarification. So that's the primary disclosures I have. Thank you.

Anyone else have any disclosures? Commissioner Hans? Sure. I I was contacted by and had a very brief conversation with the applicant's representative, mister Bohn.

Mister Costello?

Yes. Thank you. I too was contacted by Kurt Bohn and ran into him in the grocery store. So we've had a couple opportunities to talk about the four way stop sign and the opposition in my neighborhood. I happen to be married to the HOA president.

I'm a very lucky man. And my neighbors approached me at the park, all opposed to the four way stop sign. So I will wait till we get into the full discussion to talk about that any further. I did have a conversation with supervisor Ferrero, and he reminded me that CHP had reviewed this when he was sitting on a traffic committee for the county, and they recommended against a four way stop at time. So I wanted to share that. Thank you.

Now, commissioner.

You, chair. I too was contacted by the representative of the applicant, mister. Earlier this week, we had a I returned this call. We had a brief conversation.

And I also was in contact with a representative for the applicant, mister Bohn. We had a brief conversation, asked if I had any clarifying questions, and we talked about it, and they would be directed, to him today. Okay. So now do we have staff report? K.

Good morning, mister chairman and planning commissioners. My name is Cameron Welch, senior planner in the planning and building services department. This item before you is Serrano Village M 5 tentative subdivision map TM 25Dash0003 and plan development permit PD25Dash0005. This is actually a repeat request that would subdivide an existing 8.42 acre lot into set into 10 residential lots ranging in size from 20,018 square feet to 73,063 square feet and four landscaping lots ranging in size from 435 to 3,484 square feet with multiple phases prevented for final map filing to create 10 single family residential units. This exact same subdivision was approved by the Eldorado Planning Commission on 07/12/2007.

The approved tentative map did not expire until 2023, but it did expire. Design waivers for this project are requested from the county design and improvement standards manual, DISM, for modification of standard plan one zero one b roadway right of roadway right of way and improvement widths and standard plan one ten to allow for an entry gate and landscape being median. These waivers are typical for subdivisions within the Eldorado specific plan. The plan development request is to ensure consistency with the existing specific plan, that being the Eldorado Hills specific plan. The site is located on the West Side of Appian Way at the intersection with San Giovesque Drive in the Eldorado Hills area.

The site was rough graded and stabilized in 2022 for previously approved on-site grading and improvement plans. The project site is otherwise sloped ranging from 5% to 40% slope with the primary vegetation on-site being native grasses while there is a small while there is a cluster of small oak trees located at the southern end of the property. Surrounding uses in the immediate vicinity of the site consists primarily of single family residential houses in all directions with open space and vacant land to the south and west of the project site. The project site is within the El Dorado Hills specific plan, so the general plan designation is approved plan or AP. The zoning for the project site is single use unit residential with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet planned development or r 20 k p d.

Last year, a different proposal for the same site was reviewed by the PC on March 13 by the Planning Commission on March 2025, excuse me, that consisted of a rezone and subdivision to allow for 20 residential lots instead of 10. That proposal was denied by the Board of Supervisors on 07/29/2025 without prejudice. This project does not include a rezone and only consists of the 10 residential lots allowed by current zoning, which was adopted with the specific plan. Access to the proposed lots and units would be by new roads into the subdivision beginning with an extension of Sangio Vessey Drive from Appian Way and two cul de sac streets providing access to the individual lots and units. While new street names are determined by the county surveyor's office, it is noted that the new streets per the tentative map are proposed to be named Shelbourne Court and McCormick Hill Court.

Water and sewer service for the project will be provided by EID, and it is noted that a facility improvement letter from EID dated 06/23/2023 has been provided and is valid for three years. Electricity and gas will be provided by PG and E. For CEQA, has this project is a residential project and part of an adopted specific plan. This project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to section one five one eight two, projects pursuant to a specific plan, stating that a residential project is exempt where a public agency has prepared an EIR on a specific plan after 01/01/1980. Per section one five one eight two c one paragraph two of CEQUA, residential projects covered by this section include, but are not limited to, land subdivisions, zoning changes and residential planned unit developments.

Since the publishing of this agenda, many of the public comments received relate to CEQUA, which was just discussed, and traffic, evacuation and the four way stop sign. Related to this is DOT condition of approval number 30 for a four way stop at the intersection of Appian and Sangiovese, which must be installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the first constructed building. Another another topic raised with public comments has been in the form of questions about how this project relates to park agreements and dedication specifically for Village J, Lot H. Staff has reviewed documentation of Parkland dedication for the specific plan in preparation for this presentation and recommendation of approval. We find the conditions of approval appropriate for the subdivision request.

Further information can be found with exhibit l, the Executed Lot H Park agreement with signatures from the county, Serrano, the applicants, and the Eldorado Hills Community Services District. That freeway agreement acknowledges that Serrano is complete with their dedications for Eldorado for the Eldorado Hills specific plan project and that the El Dorado Hills Community Services District is responsible for constructing park improvements for the Village J Park. Also, the project notice was distributed to all applicable local and state agencies for review and comment. Comments were received from Buckeye Union School District, Cal Fire, Caltrans, County Air Quality Management District, County DOT, El Dorado Hills Fire, Environmental Management Department, County Stormwater, County Surveyor's Office, and PG and E. Agency recommended conditions have been incorporated into the project as applicable.

In conclusion, staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the Eldorado Hills specific plan, the zoning ordinance and the subdivision map act. Therefore, staff recommends the planning commission take the following actions. One, find that the project is statutorily exempt pursuant to section one five one eight two of the SECUA guidelines and two, approve tentative subdivision map TM 25 Dash 0003, planned development permit PD25Dash0005, the requested design waivers based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval as presented herein. This concludes staff's presentation at this time and is available to answer any questions the commissioners may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Howard. Commissioner Spar, do you have any questions for staff?

There's a condition for a four way stop. Is that, a request by the applicant, or is that a requirement placed, by the planning department or transportation department?

That can that condition came from the Department of Transportation.

Okay. Thank you.

Would you like Department of Transportation to elaborate?

Absolutely.

Hi, Zach. Good morning, commissioners. Zach Oates. I'm a civil engineer with the Department of Transportation. So the the the origin of that condition is, as Cameron mentioned, previous iteration of this project included 20 units.

The the traffic study for that project that was heard before your commission last spring, analyzed that intersection, performed mostly a a site distance analysis to determine if there was adequate site distance. During that hearing, we heard a lot of public comments with concerns over the site distance at that intersection with the addition of some project traffic. So when this version of the project came back forward, we asked the applicant's traffic engineer to do slightly more involved analysis of that location. And as a result of that analysis, the recommendation and the traffic memo did recommend inclusion of the all way stop intersection. Now when they analyzed it, they looked at what we call warrants.

They did a warrant analysis to determine if the all way stop was warranted. There are a few different things they look at. First of all, they look at traffic volumes. If the traffic volumes are high enough, that will satisfy a warrant to install an always stop controlled intersection. At this location, the volumes are not high enough.

So this recommendation for an all way stop is not because we met volume warrants. They looked at stopping sight distance, which is the minimum distance allowed at a certain speed that will allow a vehicle to come to a complete stop should there be an obstacle in the roadway or a car entering the roadway. For this location, at a design speed of 35 miles an hour, the stopping sight distance for California or Caltrans Highway Design Manual is 250 feet. We've for vehicles entering Appian Way at the at the new intersection, there's slightly I I believe it's approximately 275 feet of sight distance. So they do meet the stopping sight distance.

There's another sight distance we look at called corner sight distance or intersection sight distance, and that looks at allowing vehicles entering a roadway from either a driveway or an intersection to enter and accelerate the in a way that will result in minimal slowing of traffic on the through or major road. Based on, again, the design speed of 35 miles an hour on Appian Way, we do not meet that intersection or corner site distance requirement. I wanna say that it for for vehicles making a left turn is just under 400 feet. For vehicles making a right turn on Appian Way, it's it's less than that. I wanna say it's just under 350 feet.

And so, again, we've got about 275 feet. So based on that criteria of not achieving adequate corner site distance, the recommendation was included, and the condition was included to install an all way stop controlled intersection.

Okay. Did your analysis also include the stacking to turn right into Sangiovosi Gate

at

peak rush hour?

It did not. And the reason for that is that, that is not a result of the current project. We understand that there is an issue there. We've had some recent communications with the Serrano Homeowners Association. And from our understanding, there is a new process that's being implemented to allow contractors and landscapers who routinely access within the gates there and do routine work. Preapproval.

I had that discussion with your phone, and he said it's not the applicant who Correct.

It's It's the homeowners

association that does the road improvements, so that was a good clarification.

Correct.

But our residents in Highland View, 242 residents, do complain about the traffic backup of contractors because residents have a pass, they go through a congruent gate at the same location. But the others are stacking up, and it does propose a hazard when those coming up the hill to enter our subdivision pass those that are stopped along the side of the road. The wits aren't there to permit that. And the fear was with a four way stop, this is gonna happen all day long at all times during the day, not just at rush hour or peak times. And so they're opposed to a four way stop, and some are opposed to the entire project because of the four way stop.

I think the applicant's entitled to the 10 lots and the 10 units, but the four way stop must be conditioned to be a traffic circle or be be conditioned conditioned to be analyzed at a later date than being included in approval of this project. It's just too much of a hazard for us. Okay.

I got a quick question. Sure. To dovetail on what commissioner Spar just mentioned, was a roundabout or small traffic circle examined to try

and as an alternative to the four way stop? It was not at this point in time. And the main reason for that has to do with the topography and just the roadway geometrics out there. The location of the existing gate is too close to Appian Way to allow for for for a roundabout or a traffic circle there. And I would imagine that the access into the project we're hearing today would need some fairly significant modifications or revisions to allow for that as well.

Because I do know in East for example, in East Sacramento, they have small little roundabouts that, are very, very small. So just wanna throw that out there.

Could I also ask dovetail a little bit on Go right ahead. If I might. My, my question actually steps back even further because the the question really underlined the fact that we're talking about 10 units 10 additional units that is part of VHM, which is broken down interestingly enough, into five different segments at this point. And they and they've been incrementally changed, lots have been within the Pacific plan have been moved around conveniently up to this point. And then now in this particular five, we suddenly need to have another exit on the streets.

To the best of your knowledge, two two questions. One, what how is M 5 connected internally in terms of roads? Is there basically, what I'm trying to get is a exit even necessary, and how are the other four segments of Village M V M 1, M 2, M 3, M 4, do they have exits, or can we anticipate a request for additional exits also for those four?

When you say exits, are you talking about encroachments onto the onto the the county maintained roads?

Or What what what what Well,

so whole

the whole having a four

way So M 5.

So exit. Correct? And it may have serviced primarily 10 homes?

Correct.

Correct? Now are those 10 homes connected internally where maybe

Oh, yeah. I believe the site plan that was shared earlier has, the main entrance off of Appian Way, and there are two cul de sacs that, allow access to each of the the 10 lots via private driveways onto those two private privately maintained cul de sacs. Okay. There there are no other accesses being or encroachments onto Appian Way being proposed as part of this project that would be used on a daily basis by the residents. I believe there is a maintenance entrance, a gated main maintenance entrance for a retention basin that would be accessed extremely infrequently for maintenance activities.

I I'm not aware of any other encroachments being proposed Okay.

Well, I guess it it again, I'm not I'm I'm just trying to understand the the the prep internal traffic flow in Village M.

So I I believe the existing

one, 23, And 4 did not request for those build outs and for those small

Correct. They were all internal to the the

And and why can't this also be treated internally?

Well, because it's on the other side of Appian Way, and it's not able to access I'm gonna get the name of

the road. Is it Greenview? Thank you. Yes. Okay.

Thank you. Anybody else with any questions for staff? Seeing none. So

there seems to be some controversy over Parkland and Parkland dedication. Staff, have you reviewed that? And is the applicant in compliance with park dedications, right of way dedications, and all those conditions have been met?

As previously stated, there was actually, let me pull this up here.

You could say yes.

That would be really

Yes.

The the short answer is yes. We are very convinced. I if don't wanna hear details right now. Thank you. K.

I just have one clarifying question. So according to what you mentioned in the staff report, this project, as it sits, was approved by in 2007, and the permits have expired. So currently, they're not there. So are we just is our charge today to review and issue issue a the same thing that expired?

That is pretty much the charge. Yes.

That's right. So, Chair, if I could clarify. Go ahead. The main request is for a tentative map, but this although one was previously approved, it has expired. This isn't a new project for you to review.

K. So it's just not re same thing. Okay.

Alright. Can I also then dovetail? Go around here. Alright. To commissioner Spar's question about consistency. The staff report says that Toronto has fulfilled, this is page, 10 of the of the report. Serrano has fulfilled all Parkland dedication and Parkland improvement obligations imposed upon it by the El Dorado Hills Hills Pacific plan. And that's still your your your belief.

That is that is correct.

Okay. One of the questions I had asked the applicant whether or not they also concur, and also I'd like to ask the community services district to also come forward and to make comments. But, mister Bowman, can you

Well, he I'm gonna we can ask him those questions in a second because I'm gonna ask him to come up and make a presentation.

That Toronto has fulfilled all Parkland dedication and all Parkland improvement obligations, period. Correct? Correct. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So Excuse me, chair.

I I I do have one one question of staff. Absolutely. Thank you. The design waiver requests, the request number two, page eight of the findings, regarding an entry gate. The waiver would not be detrimental to the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the public.

And in regard to the community's concern about queuing at these gates, My question, I guess, is would the the the new gate for this 10 unit development exasperate a queuing problem on a on Appian Way? And if so, that certainly would be detrimental to the health and safety of the community. Now I know that the existing entrance across the street has a guard shack, and the guys I went I went by there yesterday, and the guy's out there talking to someone in a car, and there's three vehicles backed up. It was about 05:30. And I'm like, what?

You know? What's going on here? I mean, I could I could see the potential. So I know there's concern from the community about a second one now opt directly opposite. Would that exasperate a tuning issue?

I don't believe so. Again, in the traffic analysis, they estimate the number of vehicular trips that this project would generate as we do with any project that comes forward. It's it's 10 lots based on Institute of Transportation engineers and their trip generation data that's collected nationwide and is an industry standard in in estimating how many trips any given project will generate. In in the AM peak hour, in the busiest hour in the morning, the project's estimated to generate a total of seven trips, and that's broken down further in that two of those seven trips will be trips that are arriving into the subdivision, five of those trips will be vehicles leaving the site. So during that busiest hour in the morning, we estimate two cars turning into the proposed M 5 Subdivision over the course of that that sixty minutes.

So I don't anticipate that that would exacerbate the existing queuing problem in addition to this new FastPass system that the HOA seems to be in the process of implementing to get those contractors in in a more efficient manner.

Very good. Thank you, sir.

Yeah. Thanks, sir. Good. So before we open this up to public comment, would the applicant like to come up and make presentation? One second, Mr. Wong. We have more questions for staff? Oh, I thought we were all questioning staff. Pardon me? We were just all questioning staff.

Let's go ahead and continue. I'll I'll come back. Reserve the right to come back. Absolutely. Thank you.

Good morning, commissioners. Nice to talk to all of you again, in person, like, other than my friend Dave Spar, the way I ran into at the grocery store Friday evening. First of all, we do concur with all the recommendations in the staff report. It's a very well written report. There is a lot of history associated with the overall Serrano project that dates back almost forty years, including some of the complexities associated with the density transfer and things like that.

But the staff did a very good job of providing you, very good information on that. I could probably fill in a few blanks if if you'd like me to, but I don't I don't know that we need it. I'll I'll I'll take that in the form of a question if you need me to. I do apologize for the long letter that I got that I sent really at the request of commissioner Williams. To commissioner Williams and commissioner Spar, and then Andy decided he distributed out.

We did not get that letter from the CSD until Monday. Generally, from affected agencies appear at attack meeting, which I think for this project was sometime in January. That doesn't mean and I'm not alike. I I didn't wanna send you a lot of stuff, but on the other hand, I thought that there was some important information that need needed some emphasis. I just don't have anything else to add, and I'm I'm perfectly happy to answer any other questions you may have on this particular thing.

But I think you've covered it. DOT's covered it. I know, commissioner Williams had a question that I think would be best answered by chief Hall, who's here today. But I I just don't I don't think I have anything else to add at this point. The staff report and the staff presentation, our traffic engineer, I think, is on a panel, Dave Robinson, but I but my my impression is is that from what I've heard, Zach has answered all your questions on that. I'm not sure that Dave could add anything more to, the traffic discussion than has already been mentioned.

Mission support. Yes.

And by the way, I'm glad to be back. I was just checking with Andrew. We were here in March on this 20 unit project. Bad glad to be back with the 10 unit project. Wanna thank the staff for moving this forward as quickly as possible in response really to what you asked us to do a year ago in your denial and what the board directed us to do later in the year. So we're back basically doing with what you what you pretty much asked us to do or what you said you could go along with.

Thank you. And thank you for modifying the project from 20 units to 10 units, which is much more accommodating and in compliance with our HOA and our standards for the Highland View subdivision. My question to you is is can your project live without a four way stop put in and conditioned at the time of construction and maybe at a later date?

Commissioner Spar, I would say we don't care about the four way stop, to be perfect. I mean, just to be perfectly honest with you, we would we defer to, you know, then CHP member Ferraro and your staff and our traffic engineers, but we are not we we have we will do whatever you ask us to do on the four way stop, whatever everybody concludes that they can live with or like. But we don't have a we don't have a strong opinion other than, you know, we think we go along with what staff is recommending. Right? We're not driving that. We're not driving that conversation.

The addition of seven trips in the morning, and that is that is Yeah. Insignificant.

Yeah. Yeah. And if remember, those trips are heading

convenience and the danger it might impose. Yeah.

Those trips are leaving and going south towards Silver Valley and actually making the left hand turn into the subdivision. So I don't think that I don't think our project will have any impact on the queuing that you folks are concerned about. But as you said, that's a problem we have no control over at all.

Yeah. I would have to agree. Okay. Thank you.

Mister Costello? Thank you. Good morning. I have a just a a general question. I think I may have touched on it in our brief conversation. I believe it was on Monday. And that is looking over the specific plan for Village M. As we know, it it was originally intended as 37 lots. Now it's up to a 156. And with approval of a 10, a 166 lots. So and I know in a specific plan, you know, specific plans are intended to be specific by nature. This is general plan's too broad. Area plan's too broad. Let's do specific plan. This is how we're gonna do it.

There's this one sentence in there that says number of units may vary specific plan. It's and that's like the out, and now we have instead of 37 a lot. What was the thinking and I know some of the villages have been reduced, but what's the thinking of behind adding all those units in in any of that plan?

Village. Yeah. I'm I'm I'm glad you asked that question. I I'm I'm and I'm prepared to answer it. And we need to go back in time. You know? Right. In in time. But when the original Serrano approvals were granted nearly four years ago, the land north of us, like where commissioner Sparle is, was zoned agricultural agricultural preserve, that that type of zoning. So the specific plan had had had a reference that we kinda had to we had to we had to respect what was happening at our boundary.

Right. So Village M and really most of the North Uplands, which is one which I'll get to in a second, was backing up to or adjacent ag property. And I think the only piece that's left in ag is is the Dixon Ranch property. Maybe maybe that's that, you know, that's the main piece that we're all focused on. So what what the specific plan provided for that was in within the four is it it's four.

Right? Four four four residential neighborhoods, North Uplands, South Uplands, like it this is in the North Uplands. It said that that as long as and and and you have to understand the predicate is you have to respect what's going on north of or adjacent to you. As as long as you could meet certain criteria, which this did, you could transfer density within not village m, but within the North Uplands, which is which which includes a whole series of villages. And the staffs detailed those out for you Right.

In in that you you could you could transfer the densities as long as you didn't exceed that which was approved. I got Gavin Newsom disease here waving my arms around. As long as you didn't exceed the density in the North Uplands that was approved by in the specific plan. We're under it. We're we are under it overall.

So to to kind of focus on m is okay, but that's not what the plan allows for. I will say that once the zoning was changed, again, up in Highland Hills in that general area, we began to move forward with a series of tentative maps that reflected the change up there in in the Highland Hills area. And those applications began in 2002. They came in front of, maybe not you folks, but this body and board of supervisors, and ran through 2008. This and this the previous approval that we that you asked about, was, I think, 2007.

So we we began to modify the land uses in the North Uplands within the rules that were established, which is you could transfer density as long as you met certain criteria, and they were subject to hearings like this as as as far back as twenty three years ago. So I hope I answered your question. That's kind of a long story, but but it's been it it tracks what's allowed in the specific plan. And I know there's been some comment that, well, maybe to do this, you need to change the specific plan. But the specific plan allowed for the transfer of density within the North Uplands and all the all the other four major communities within the specific plan as long as at the end of the day, you met certain criteria, which we did, and you didn't exceed that which was allowed in the secret document for that particular area.

Kind of a long answer to a short question, but and the staff has given you plenty of information on that. But I I wanted to go back even further and talk about what was happening, what up up up in the North area before. Right.

Right. So it does appear if I can summarize it, it was more in response to changes in land use to the North. Yeah. It no longer had to match the lower Well Yep. Number of lots because that the land use to the north changed.

And we match what's up north of us now with generally with the 20,000 square foot lots. I mean, just a little bit more complicated. And over up against Green Springs, which is further around, we we continue to respect what was happening in Green Springs with our lots, which are adjacent to Green Springs.

Very good. Thank you. So k. Commissioner Williams, do you have any questions for

Department of questions. Yes.

Okay.

Thank you. Well, let me first of all, you you referenced a the the reason why we have the chief call there. I wanna address that so we don't occupy his his valuable time today. Appreciate you coming in today, chief, on this. The question I had earlier to to mister Hulks a few minutes ago about the the roadway requirements and four way stop issues we've been talking about.

These four lots are what? It'll be these 10 lots rather. A pretty much landlocked than I understand. They're really not connected internally. To? To the rest of Toronto or any way apart Well, no.

Because the Appian Way cuts cuts it off.

Okay. But that that that's

They're they're not part of it.

That that's the connection. Okay. Yeah. Alright. I just wanna get get that clarified. And I also as part of that, I had, you know, suggested that I needed to understand whether or not we had dealt with emergency fire emergency evacuation issues, and I presume that's why you had asked the chief to come in. And I subsequently got my my questions answered already, but if the the chief would like to say anything, maybe we could have have you come come forward? If you'd like to say anything, you're not required to. I have no no specific questions with regard to that further.

Good morning, commissioners. Dustin Hall, fire marshal for Eldorado Hills Fire Department. Specific to this project in Village M regarding emergency access because the limited lots that are going to be in this neighborhood because we have Appian Way, there isn't in our perception and is what we put in our COAs. There's no issues as we see it relative to emergency access. I know there were some questions regarding what our beliefs were as far as a four way stop versus a two way stop, that that's not in our purview.

We don't care either way. We're gonna be able to make access either way. But relative to emergency access and for the general population to get out of there, should something an emergency occur, we don't perceive that there's gonna be any issues with the limited amount of lots that are being developed. Thank

you. You you you thoroughly answered my my question. Okay. Keith, thank you. Anything else? Anybody anybody else want to ask, Keith, anything? Okay. Thank you so much. Have a good day. Thank you.

You better get your questions out to chief Hall because he's on a glide path to retirement.

So Yes. Yes.

Indeed. Which is good for him, but unfortunate for the community. We'll we'll miss him for sure. The let's go let's go back to the original statement that you made about the fact that you are could you concur with with the staff analysis in total and report, which should also include the the statement regarding the fact that Serrano has fulfilled all Parkland indication and Parkland improvement obligations. Correct?

Yes. Okay. Tell me about the the the Lulu started a couple of of pork lamps that that are within the original thirty eight eight thirty eight year old Pacific plan.

Mhmm.

And let let let let maybe begin by the the most commonly referenced item, by members of the community, including one made today, regarding Lot J Lot H. That part still have not been built. Correct.

I think you should ask the CSC because it's their obligation to construct it. The answer is it's not built. Yeah. But if

they We

They've in the agreement, they assumed the obligation for the construction of that park, and that's what they asked for, by the way.

Well, yeah, in your packet yesterday that you submitted, you also provided us deeds, copy of deeds that that gave you rights to rescind those deeds if certain, issues were not, fulfilled, which I assume is the construction of the park, which has not occurred. Correct?

Well, you are correct in saying that the park has not

been constructed. Not to rescind.

Yeah. Yeah.

Correct?

Yeah. You are correct in saying the park has not been constructed, but everything we've granted at the CSD in Serrano has reversionary rights for for for mutual protection, but we're not we're not proposing to exercise those anytime soon as it relates to that particular part. We'd like to see us to get that part built sooner rather than later. That's they they they wanna build it, so that's fine with us.

Well, yeah. Yeah. I I I guess the whole premise of of what's moving forward, and the staff report that you concurred with is that we're we're doing it based upon a specific plan. That specific plan included the development of certain park plans of which lot h Park J, it is part of that, and it has not been completed. So it had not completed. The my my contention is that through somebody's fault I'm not saying it was Sorano's, but all I'm saying but through somebody's fault, that has not occurred. Correct?

I I would I would yeah.

It has not been fulfilled.

Yeah. I'm not exactly following your line of questioning, but what I will say again is that as part of the discussion related to the JLOD h agreement on multiple occasions, the CSD requested that we deed them the property, which we did, and that they wanted to construct the park. And it's it it you know, the But in your deed, you also had a clause where you had

the right to rescind. If we're gonna if you're you're saying that your your whole premise of moving forward is the protection of Pacific plan, And if that Pacific plan obligation has not been fulfilled, there there there there there's a they disconnected. I'm having real problem putting together. So let let let me let me move from lot j because I don't don't believe that part of the the the plan in any stretch of imagination. So it's still a a piece of dirt, you know, has not been fulfilled.

Also within the, the area, you have two trail two public trails, k one, k two.

Mhmm.

Correct?

Yes. Okay. And that's a public? Yeah. And and there is an easement that that was created in favor of the county. Mike Cook had actually responded to that because he worked with Dave Williams on that issue was raised and been resolved.

It it went before the supervisors. Correct? Yeah.

They approved. Yep.

And and during that hearing, can I just repeat that hearing again, it was stated that these trails were easily accessible to the public? Now I've I've tried a couple times going to your gates and asking whether or not I can get access to, and I know other people have done the same thing. Uh-huh. Are are you saying that that they're they're that those trails really are accessible?

Yes. They are. From a variety of from a variety of points, but not through the gates.

And and how is that known to the public? And

We see cars we see cars parked at those access points all the time and people ex entering the entering the entering the park.

So I I guess I can only, based upon my own personal experience in trying to get access, I have been denied. So okay. Listen. I mean, I'd

be I'd be happy to meet you at any one of those three or four trail points tomorrow and show you how you can access the K 1 K 2 Trail, and I'll walk you up there.

I'm happy to do that.

I'll get it. I'm just trying to can point to do that.

But we're still trying to deal with consistency Yeah. And whether or not the, the parkland, issues have all been resolved and are consistent with the Pacific plan that we're basing our entire review here on. Let's move to you your Toronto Park Development and Toronto HOA headquarters offices are nicely situated right next to and adjacent to a a lovely park Uh-huh. Center that is what? A public park?

I'm sorry. I didn't what?

The park that you that where your your officers are located.

Yes. And your question is I'm sorry. I didn't hear

you, Bob. Is is is that part also part of the Pacific plan?

Parts of it are. Yes. I mean, everything is part of the Pacific plan, but I've the answer is yes. It's all part of the Pacific. Okay.

And how does Toronto and what's the relationship of Toronto in terms of the maintenance of of that park? Do you have any obligations to it?

The part of the Village Green area to which I think you're referring is the maintenance obligation is is the responsibility of the CSD Okay. Which, by the way, was contemplated by the specific plan. Okay. Although there was an agreement that existed for about twenty years, that allowed the owners association to maintain that facility under a contract, and the CSD contributed what they would otherwise spend to maintain that part. Mhmm.

Again, specific language in the specific plan that contemplated that would happen ten, ten, twelve year I can't remember how many years ago. But for some for a while ago, the CSG decided they didn't wanna renew that agreement, and they have assumed they have assumed maintenance of

the area I think you're talking about. Okay. Right. Well, I I get get I I guess we're we're also talking about, again, Pacific Plan, the the the streets and lighting issues. You there there's no community that that does a better job, quite frankly, in terms of lighting street maintenance than Toronto does, quite frankly. Yet we have that that park right in the center that is not part of any LLAD. I understand there there was a designation for an LAD, but, you somehow, are not paying for that. How did that come about?

Well, it came about because of the specific plan, and specific plan contemplated that either the CSD and or the owners association would maintain that facility. I think I think that's what you're talking about. And for many years, there was an agreement that was approved by the CSD board and actually by the developer and the HOA board that, as I described, provided or allowed for this the owners association to maintain that part at whatever level they chose. And the the the the CSD contributed what they would otherwise spend to maintain the park. Five or six or seven years ago, the CSD decided they didn't wanna renew that agreement, and they're they're maintaining it now.

I mean, it's in the specific plan. I I I wish I had it here. I could I could probably have Andrea pull out the language, but it's it's as it's as clear as day in the specific plan that that's what was contemplated for the what you're referring to it what what what we refer to as the village.

I just have a quick question. Not to alright. I don't wanna interrupt. But although I I understand that you have specific questions about parks. But when I'm listening to where this is going, I'm finding it difficult to see where discussing the parkland is germane to us dealing with the subdivision that's before us.

What what what what's before us is, again, the the the sequel exemption that we're asking to deal with based upon that a specific plan exists. Part of that specific plan and and part of the the statements made by by staff that the applicant has concurred with indicates that all of those things have been fulfilled. I guess I'm trying to see whether or not those things have been pointed back been fulfilled. If they had not been fulfilled, then our ability to to move forward and and and approve something and granted, it it is four lots or 10 lots, what we're we're talking about here. And but, again, we're looking for exemptions based upon a specific plan that elements of it, I believe, arguably, certainly, have not been fulfilled or to to satisfy.

The reason I'm asking this is I wanna make sure that we understand all the implications since staff brought forward those issues in this report and made spent several pages in this report. And those could be based upon that and built their arguments upon the the fulfillment of these obligations. That that that's why I'm asking these questions. Okay. Okay?

So I will ask and I'm I'm I'm actually winding down my questions so so you can move forward. We are looking at a, again, a specific plan that's thirty eight years old. There's no question that I have, and and I'll let commissioner Spar say what he wants to do, but there's no question in my mind that we'll have real problems with a specific plan that lasts forever, that, in this particular case, Pacific plan that has morphed over time, and that, we are, moving forward with, without the benefit of a an evaluation of of of the EIR or anything else based upon an EIR that that's probably about forty years old. And somehow we have to believe that in forty years, there hadn't been significant changes. We just simply go ahead and approve new lots because we have a plan that is in place.

There's there there there are there's inherent dangers associated with having state plans that go on for wherever, and this is in one of those cases. And and for better or for worse, we just took the county has approved yet another specific plan, and we have others coming forward. So it's important for us to to really understand, you know, if we're going to go ahead and exempt CEQUA based upon something that's 40 old, and we're making the assumptions in this saying that there had not been any changes made and updates to the environmental impact in forty years,

think Is there a question today? I'm making get to. Thank you. Yeah. But we discussed that when it comes back to us.

I understand that, but I'm getting to to my other question of of you asked me a question. I'm trying to respond in Yeah. In fashion, and so I am. So, let's get back to, the issues at hand. Okay?

And the the the issue again is Can we move forward legitimately? And we're talking again about the lots. Move forward based upon an exemption, a sequel exemption on things that, to my mind, have not been fulfilled. Certainly, it was not me that brought forward the the issues of Parkland. It it was staff, and the applicant concurs.

And so we need to be able to say whether or not that this big plan really is a valid plan. And if it hadn't been fulfilled, then why are we going ahead and going forward and moving forward with the additional approvals until we, go back and maybe take another another stab at it. Okay? So, I think that concludes my my my questions with, mister Bowen. I do have some additional questions that stay up.

I'll get back to that. Thank you, mister. Mister commissioner Hansen, do you have any questions? Just have one real quick. All of these lots, are they gonna be market rate? Are any of them gonna be addressed for what I like to refer to as

the finishing middle? Yeah. I wish I could give you the other answer, but they'll be market rate lots. Just

Okay.

Great. If if I may, mister chair, if if if I'd like to reserve the ability to come back and to respond

to I'm sure there's gonna be a lot of comment.

And I'm sure I'll have a chance

to do sure we're gonna have a lot of questions for you.

Thank you. Thank you for your time.

Okay. I'm sure we're gonna have a lot of public comment. So

and that I still have, I still have my questions. I'm

For staff? Because I was gonna open it up to public comment.

I know I have a I'll actually, we have a party of interest here that and then since the again, the questions I'm talking about here are Parkland, and we invited the community services district to attend this meeting. I would like to ask them to step forward and and and say whether or they concur since they are a party of interest in this whole thing.

I was gonna bring them up during public comment,

but I like it as part of the the

The staff report? They they are

not just public. They are they are a party of interest. Are They party of interest. Very common folks.

Well, good morning, chairman Fraga and members of the commission. I would like to ask either your permission or consideration as I do have our new principal planner here who did draft the letter, relative to public comment. And if you would like the CSD to keep this to three minutes, I would probably just defer to our principal planner at this point. If you are willing to let us split the time, I can make a couple of comments. I just wanna honor, the time here that you are giving to the community in service. Well,

normally, what we do is we give the staff presentation, the proponent project proponent of presentation Yes. And then we open it up to public comment. But

Chairman, I defer to your direction here.

Major chair. Trying to We we we provide on a regular basis members of governmental agencies. Right.

And we since

We've had If

you let me finish my statement.

The fire department That's what I

was just gonna say. Alright.

Thank you. We allowed Thank you.

Fire chief to come up. So don't you make your presentation, please?

I'm gonna be very brief because I would like you to hear from our principal planner.

Okay.

This is a very old plan, and I think all I wanted us to consider, and, again, I will have Daniel address this more specifically, is that I'm not going to argue facts. There's a lot of history here. There are passports that served on the CSD that made decisions at point in time, and we have a current board that is making decisions and asking questions at this current point in time. I think the concern that I have as a community services district now that is responsible for parks recreation services along with other services is that as we continue to see the impacts of a growing community, we are concerned about the amount of developable parkland that we have. In other words, to continue to develop whether it's parks or sports fields.

And my concern is thirty years, forty years, a lot happens. How much has the world changed between the time you were born and today? And so what Daniel will be talking about, and I would like to defer time back to him, is what has changed in our community, those population changes against considerations that were made thirty, forty years ago relative to that, and is the district getting the parkland that we need as a service provider. We literally formed by the county to provide parks and recreation services, and I'm getting more and more concerned about the amount of population we have. We're nearing 55,000 people against parks that have been deeded as mitigation, that we also know that we do have impacts to a growing community.

Again, I wanna defer back to Daniel, but, chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. And thank you, commissioner.

Appreciate

it. He's coming up.

It's a straightforward

question. Yeah.

Yeah. Commissioner Williams, I will address the fact that this item has not been an agenda item on our board's agenda. In my position as interim general manager, the board has also entrusted me to come make public comment, whether it be before the board of supervisors or before you. But from a formality perspective, commissioner Williams, that is accurate. So today, I'm speaking in my position, but I'm not speaking on behalf of a five member elected board of directors who all have differing opinions, quite frankly, this as well.

Appreciate that.

My question then would be and thank you. Again, the statement made by staff and concurred by the applicant, Serrano has fulfilled all Parkland dedication and Parkland improvement obligations. Do you have questions, issues, concerns, or any any kind of other comment you'd like to

make

on Thank your you, commissioner Williams. I'm going to let mister speak to that. But what I will say is I believe at the point in time that that answer would be yes. My concern is the changes in some of the density and the new lives that live there and the services that we have to provide. And, again, I would like to defer to our new principal planner because that's why we hired him. He's outstanding at what he does. So if I may, did that answer your questions, commissioner?

I I I I I would refer to

I'll be here. If you need me to come back up, I'm happy to come back up. Thank you.

Jay?

Thank you. Good morning.

Could I ask that you please post the, the map of the, sorry. May I ask that you put up the map of the Sirona plant, please? Good morning, chair Frega, commissioners. My name is Daniel Savala. I am, the new principal planner at the Eldorado Hills Community Service District.

And some great questions that we're having a great discussion. And mister Costello, I think you brought up an excellent point in your question of lot m. So as that's brought up, and we and we're referring to the specific plan. I've heard one common denominator today is that the specific plan is really old. And just like our general plans that will get reviewed every five years and are sometimes amended, the same practice, is done amongst planning commissioners and and councils and whatnot when you look at significant changes in land use and land use patterns.

And so when I initially read this staff report, in the letter that I wrote was in that context. It was not to, try and stop this project or to to, refute any of the staff's facts that they've laid out relative to park dedication and adequacy. It is what it is. This is where we are. As my director mentioned, there have been a series of decisions made over the last twenty, thirty years that we deal with today.

Can we bring up the map, please? It was up a few moments ago. But to your point, commissioner Costello, you just take a look at Lot M, for example, that in the specific plan was designated for a maximum of 37 lots. In addition to it just be 37 lots, it was also designated as a buffer. It was a reason there was intention why these lots were supposed to be so large.

So here we are today in at looking at a 166 lots. I would argue that that is a significant change to the old the local density. And I agree with the the applicant, and I agree with the staff report that there is no net debt no net gain in density, but there is a significant transition of density in people and where services are delivered. And what that brings up is a series of challenges. We're having discussions today about four way stops and traffic impacts.

We're having real discussions about public safety infrastructure, like fire and and and access, and park service delivery. When we allow a plan that's thirty, forty years old to continue to lead us down a path and during these incremental entitlements, entitlements, we don't analyze a document and recommend specific plan amendments with these entitlements, which is the standard practice. We get these series of problems that we have to face in real time when we're trying to deliver park services. So we have, thirty years ago, a set a lot of assumptions that were made about a a beautiful community that was planned. Over time, you have incremental development and entitlements and you don't revisit the specific plan and amend it in any way, you're going to have real time challenges at some point.

And that's where we are today. And my hope for my letter was to bring that up, not to stop or slow this project particularly, but to take a moment in time and recognize that this is one this is a serious challenge that we're facing as a CSD with levels of service for our parks and see that we continue to move down a better path where we're having a more open dialogue about long term sustainable planning and some of the best practices that exist more specifically with the general plan amendments that should have happened, several times a few years ago. And those are my comments, and I'll stay here if there's any more specific questions about, what I brought up today. But I appreciate your time, and I look forward to coming before you many more times in the future and having robust discussion again about land use planning. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Yeah. We're gonna need to open this up to public comment, but it is almost 10:00.

One more follow-up with mister Jensen, if I could.

Go right ahead. One question.

We have 10 additional lots being considered today. Currently, Toronto pays park impact fees. Correct? Yes. At a, is it fair to say, deeply discounted compared to other

Based on past decisions. Yes.

Like, percent discounted?

They're discounted. Yes. They're they're less than. That was an agreed that was an agreed upon amount. Okay. Yeah.

And it's agreed upon based upon what a development agreement Right. Okay. And and so in approving this, we're approving a loss that would provide you approximately half the park impact fees

Yes.

That any other developer or a or a single Mhmm. Homeowner who are gonna build in your community would pay.

Yes. Correct? Yes.

And you're good with that?

Commissioner Williams, I'm not suggesting I'm great with anything. I'm saying that there have been decisions made in the past that I do not have the legal ability to go back and relitigate. We are continually concerned about park impact fees, remain concerned as the state of California is, and the legislature is actually looking at changing the park impact fee schedule and pulling away some of those fees and directing them towards housing. So our future is of deep concern to me right now.

Indeed.

Yes. You're welcome, sir. Anything else? Thank you.

Okay. Would the other one of the two, excuse me, two setting directors just like to come up. Is that okay?

Mister Williams, I'm gonna break, till 10:15 so we can have Good. Public comment. Thank you. Okay? We'll start public comment at 10:15.

I have not finished my my questions to staff, though. Understand before

we I'll bring that back to 10:15. K. We're gonna reconvene this, meeting of the El Dorado County Planning Commission. Yeah. We have a lot of folks here, I would like to make public comment.

So since staff's gonna be here all day, I'm gonna open this up to public comment now. And if we have any other questions for staff, we can direct that when we do our deliberations later on. K. We open up public comment, please.

Now taking public comments specifically on item number two. Individuals will have three minutes to address the planning commission. The timer will notify you when you have thirty seconds remaining and again when your time is up. Public comment will be taken first from those in the planning commission hearing room and then from those on Zoom. For those participating by Zoom, press the raise hand button and make sure to unmute yourself when called upon. If you are joining the meeting by phone, press 9 to indicate a desire to comment. Please voluntarily state your name for the record. Now taking public comment from the room.

Hello. Good to see

you again. My name is Bobby McFarland. I was here last year when, Serrano was moving the the 10 units into into 20. That the property that they're developing is right behind my house. And so I've seen it from the very beginning of when they they graded the hill, and I've been looking at that eyesore for the last couple years now.

So in my I have just a a couple of issues with this. One is just from my perspective, I really appreciate everything that you guys do. I you can tell that you guys really do care about this specific development and the impact that it's had that it does have and that it will have if it goes through. I had told the story last year when, because our property sits over the hill that we actually we have a a part of our yard. You can see the entrance into Serrano.

And, I told the story that we're there, and you could see it around 05:30 at night. And you have cars going all the way down down the street, all the way down Appian. And, it's it's just a really bad situation because cars are cutting out, and they're cruising up the hill. And it's a really dangerous situation, and that's one of the things that is really concerning to me is that they're just gonna make it worse. They already made it worse by installing the gate to which everybody has to sit at, wait to get approved to go into Serrano, which drags it down.

But then you're going to have potentially another stop, roundabout, whatever it is. I live there. I see the traffic every day. It is really bad. I know they don't care exactly what happens with the street, but all of the neighbors around me, they all do. Because one of the things is that it's getting it's getting so bad there that people are actually starting to say that they're gonna start cutting through the Highland Hills neighborhood to try and get back to some of the other neighborhoods back there. Highland Hills doesn't have a single sidewalk. So all of our kids are out on the street. They're walking on the street. Their bikes are on the street.

And if you're starting to direct traffic that direction, that that's a really big problem for us. The other comment I I just wanna have is last year when this they were denied, on this application, and they've come again with from going from 10 to 20 now back to ten and seemingly grateful to do that. My concern is just about the use of that land. Thank you very much for bringing up all of the issues around just making sure that the land is treated properly. Again, that land was graded several years ago.

They took a really beautiful hill and made it into a dirt pile that I've been looking at for the last couple years now. So, my comment is thank you so much for actually really understanding there is a true impact. There really are kids out on bikes over there. There really are kids walking around out there after school, and it will become an issue if, they continue to develop on the other side of Serrano separate from where Serrano is today. Appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners, Dean Goetz again. I'm I'm addressing the 10 additional units and tying that to my earlier comments about your oversight. Specifically, I formally submitted the 2019 administrative record of Serrano Associates actively enjoying a double dip. That is they're sitting on unearned fee credits for a turnkey park they never built, having instead dumped that dirt on the public with a ver reversionary clause that equates to a ransom note. That ransom note really is, you know, do it our way.

It's not deeded to you, which was one of the provisions that's been purported to meet the mitigation, that the land would be deeded, the 12 and a half acres. It's not deeded. It's not a capital asset when you don't own and control the land. I anticipated that the county staff would attempt to defend this missing mitigation pointing out the 2020 agreement, but I'm putting you on notice that not only that, that 3 and a half million dollars isn't available under the Mello Roos. The Mello Roos was limited to $2,000,000 adjusted for the Caltrans index of inflation, and mister Harn has already acknowledged in written public records request that that calculation was not appropriately done, and therefore, the money isn't actually there.

Now you don't take my word for it. We can get to the bottom of that with an audit. I'm putting the county and the county councils on notice that the defense is legally void, that the 2020 agreement somehow bound the CSD. The CSD isn't the CEQA administrator here. They're not the lead agency. They have legal authority over the land use in El Dorado County. No. They do not. The county has the mandated mitigation, and the 2020 agreement was void on its face beyond your authority to give away. You cannot legally bail out a CEQA compliance requirement with the CSD signature.

Before you approve the village m five today or any other additional maps, a condition of approval should be placed on any additional approvals that an independent audit be done of the developers compliance to the specific plan development agreement, that is the concerns about fee credits juxtaposed against what was delivered. There is no reason that this would fall back on to the public, and it has been complained to the attorney general's false claims unit, the SEC, because the SEC oversees Belarus, and the IRS for public benefit, private benefit annulment, you need to get to the bottom of these issues and put a conditional approval on exactly how this works or not.

Thank you, mister Getz.

Good morning, board. My name is Steve Ferry. I'm a, director at the Eldorado Hills CSD. I am not here today to represent them. I'm representing myself, period. And I have just a little history here that I think the public is gonna wanna know about what's going on with Serrano. It was started back 1992 or so. It was, 3,500 acres to be turned into 6,000 units, roughly. And for that, we started getting parks. That was part of the deal. So we got Allen Lindsay Park. It's one field, one soccer field, one baseball diamond. No parking, no restrooms, nothing else. We got the the Village Green Park, which is a dog bone park. It's got one part here and one part up behind the the Administration Building.

The, the issue there is we still have some land there that we could build some pickleball courts on. And if we were to do that, then we'd have to maintain them. But our our management and our board back twenty five years ago gave up the ability to get maintenance fees by giving up the LLAD 17 and allowing this agreement to happen where the, quote, HOA would take over these issues, but we ended up taking on the maintenance issue totally out of our general fund. So we're not building the pickleball courts there either at this time because we couldn't maintain them. We have Bass Lake Road with with was supposed to be improved somewhere along the line and by the developers who built along there, which included Serrano.

It's not been improved. It's never been touched. Why not? Well, you gotta ask that question of yourselves and the and the Board of Soups. Bass Lake and Sienna Ridge, there's a a little parcel there that is all landscape. It looks real pretty. And that has not been deeded and fee simple to the CSD. The fee simple part of all of this is that we get the CSD gets fee simple title stuff, and we end up negotiating our way through giving away those those titles. For instance, with streetscapes on Serrano Parkway, acres of land are deeded partially to us as as I understand it. These are kind of my opinions and so forth.

But as I understand it, that's been deeded to us in partiality. But when Comcast went in there and put in their lines and so forth, did we get paid for that? I don't believe so. You can ask staff here. They'd be more than happy to tell you. So we have all the private parks inside of Toronto that, in fact, Toronto can't use. Pardon me. The CSD cannot use. We can't go in there and run, soccer teams and all that kind of stuff. We have 3,400 kids or so in our soccer program. We got 450 kids in our swimming program. We got all kinds of things that should have been paid for with the money that was supposed to come into us, and we never got it. And our board gave these things away. And why these boards gave these things away, I don't know. But we gave away this stuff.

When the $10,000,000 and there's one last statement here. We gave $10,000,000 to the developer in exchange for this land. At that point, we were supposed to go to the public and get them to pay a $100,000,000 to pay for a park. I don't think the public would do that. Thank you, mister Ferry. Thank you.

Now taking public comment from online. Now taking comment from tear oh,

I guess not.

Go ahead, Tara. Tara, are you there? Now taking comment from Linda Campbell.

Hey, everyone. Linda Campbell, Eldorado Hills. So first, I wanna I wanna thank, DOT for pursuing the site distance analysis that we were discussing last year and including it in this particular update. So I appreciate that we took that and took the action on it. Two, I think that maybe we reconsidered the design waiver from the county standards on 01/2001.

Although the gate, in fact, will be privately owned, Appian Way is public, as we all know. Currently, anytime you go through Serrano, I personally regularly see people use the gated areas as turnarounds. I would imagine the same thing would happen with this. So I think I don't know if that was considered as a factor of impact, but just something to evaluate. And then also in regards to the idea of an EIR update, even though the redistribution of the housing units is allowed in the specific plan, a lot of changes have occurred in the surrounding area, the gate on Sangiovese.

I think it's a disservice to residents to say no new review is required when in fact a lot of incremental changes have taken place impacting a public roadway. In particular, Village L And M, the dwelling units have doubled from the original plan. So even though the expanse of the specific plan is pretty large, so even though it's you know, we can say, oh, you can redistribute, we're we're looking at a particular area. And in this area, there's been a significant increase, in dwelling units and in personnel people that are there, but yet no roadway improvements. And that's clearly what the focus is for most people that are speaking on this today.

So, I just leave those for your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you, Linda.

Right.

There's no further public comment.

Go ahead.

Thank you, chair. I appreciate the second opportunity. I just wanted to kinda bring home my letter because I know it's a lot, and I'm hearing the comments. And, when it comes to the the the total footprint of Toronto, when there is no net gain in units, we use that as a a kind of an excuse to say, oh, well, there's no new density. There's no, it's not an impact.

It's something that shouldn't be evaluated. But when you transfer densities amongst the communities, you consolidate density in certain parts of areas where you create traffic impact problems, where you create emergency vehicle access problems. The same is said for levels of service for parks that we wanna develop in the future and an obligation to deliver park services. That is the, probably the foundational point of my my letter and my request to planning staff at the county is that we are paying today for a failure previously to look at the general the specific plan and apply general plan specific plan amendments over the last ten, fifteen years. And so while there may not be a net gain of units or or lots to this overall specific plan, the movement of the transfers of density represents significant increases in density that are localized and have real local impacts that we're discussing today.

And so that's evidence that moving forward, we need to really evaluate specific plan amendments that are twenty, thirty years old and beyond. So thank you again for the second opportunity.

Thank you, missus Vollard.

Okay. Sorry. There's one more. Now taking public comment from Tara McCann. Tara?

Are you there, Tara? I'm sorry. It's I we can't hear you, Tara, if you're there.

Not working?

She's yeah. She's not responding. K.

Is there any other public comment from the room before we bring it back to the commission? Mister Rohn?

Thank you, commissioner Friga. Couple comments. First of all, from from from a broader sequence standpoint, project was approved for and all the impacts were mitigated based on a build out of about 6,100 units. I don't wanna beat that horse to death. We'll end up with 4,800 and impacts even related to parts were based upon the 6,100 as opposed to the 48 that we're gonna we're gonna get to.

There was some kind of a mention of fee credits. I did provide to you in my letter. We had a dispute with the CSD in 2019. That dispute was dealt with by the county who was ultimately in charge of the collection and and the amount of impact fees that are paid, that that recognizes the contributions that we made to construct parks, you know, in it you know, opposed to paying a fee and having the CSD done. So that that issue, I don't the county resolved that issue in 2019.

The 2020 JLOT h agreement, it says in several locations, we've satisfied all our construction and dedication requirements. It was what the c s if that agreement reflects what the CSD asked for. A couple other, minor points. Again, I wanna emphasize, as I shared with commissioner Sparth, the operation of the gate on San Jovisi is not us, not the development company. It's the owner's association.

We can't we have no control over that gate at all. We can make suggestions, but that's as far as it goes. There's been some mention of a reversionary clause. And if you'd like a little clarification on that, I can ask Mike Cook to respond. If you have if you'd like to hear from him, I don't wanna take any more time than we've already taken.

I'll leave that up to you. And then the third point I wanna make is that the specific plan provides that the larger parks of which the J Lot H is one and the Village Green is another as shall be maintained by the CSD, period. No LLAD per maintained by the CSD, period. And that's what's in the specific plan, and that's what was agreed to a while ago. So, again, if you have any other questions or if you'd like some clarification on the reversionary clause, Mike's happy to step up, and I'll that's more in his world than in my world.

K. Thank you, mister Moe. But thanks for your time, and sorry all these other issues got dragged into this thing. But I guess that's the nature of democracy. Thank you. Thank you for your time. And we would appreciate an approval, by the way.

Okay. No more further problem comment? I'm gonna bring it back to the commission as she can

Tara's got her hand up again. Can

we get her?

Now taking public comment from Tara. Are you there?

I'm on This meeting is being I'm unmuted. Can you can you hear me? Yes.

There's a bit of

unmuted. Can you hear me? Okay. On. You're with me. Can you hear me now?

K. Go ahead.

Planning commission, can you hear me now?

Yeah. We can hear you now.

Planning commission, let me log in again.

No. You're fine.

Let me log in again. Hold on. Bear with me. I'm trying to log in again.

You're fine.

Go ahead. You're still getting the feedback that I'm getting.

No. No.

Go ahead. Thing in progress.

Okay. Okay. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Sorry.

Now the feedback is returned. Alright. Are you there? Sarah?

Yes. Can you hear me? Alright. How about now? Is it still Is it? Yeah. Alright. Alright. Alright. Alright. Alright. Try that.

Would you like

Alright. Can you I'm trying to access the how about now? Can you

You're good.

I'm gonna call in. What's the phone number you're gonna call in?

Let's do it that way.

What you're doing, do

right now.

Gonna be easier. What's the phone number?

Tara?

Can you message her? It's like, just talk. Can you message us? No?

No. No. Okay. Too many technical difficulties. Yeah. So we'll bring this back to the commission since there's no more public comment.

What is the phone number?

Alright. Wait. I like to give her a you know, it'd be nice and give her a chance to talk and take her comments, but we're having too many technical difficulties. Yeah. We're gonna acknowledge your written statement, and, we're gonna close public comment. Gonna bring it back to the commission. Commissioner Spar?

Yes. I do have concerns over the specific plan being old and possibly outdated and needing revision to accommodate Western Sierra being higher density, 137 lots from what would be rural residential similar to Island View being half acre parcels. And, of course, the general plan, which I believe is outdated. However, looking at nutshell and land use laws, I'm not so sure that we can hold this project hostage for pass inefficiencies or what we might call sins. So I'd like to ask county council, is it possible for a planning commission to use this project as a negotiating point for past efficiencies or other projects that haven't been completed or completed the way we want them completed.

Is that legal?

So commissioner Spar, and when every project is evaluated, any conditions you put on it have to meet the constitutional requirements of nexus and rough personality. If you're conditioning it on some other project or some other item, it it would be very hard to make those kinds of findings. Specific to this project, there was a lot of discussion about the the unbuilt park. I I think staff addressed that well, but I I think it's helpful to point out that that wasn't staff's view. Staff was quoting from the agreement that has been, signed by all the parties.

It's officially it's valid agreement. It's been acted upon. So that wasn't that wasn't a a staff opinion. Now that's what the agreement says, and that agreement was signed by the CSD, the county, and the developer.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Chair, I'm I'm supportive of the 10 lots, but the homeowner association, my neighbors, and myself are not supportive of condition 30, item a. I as Appian Way, San Givosi Drive Intersection, it states the project shall construct all way stop control of the existing intersection at Appian Way and San Jovosse Drive at Village M 5 Access. If that could be eliminated, deleted, removed, I could go forward.

Okay. Somebody from transportation that would like to address this?

Good morning. Adam Bain with the Department of Transportation. We evaluated, the project and additionally some additional traffic study work that was done and came to the determination that a stop sign there would be appropriate. It is a judgment call. It's subjective to certain elements. But because we had been notified of the concerns out there, we took another look at it. This was the recommendation of the traffic engineer who provided the report, very well respected. And we've come to the determination that a stop sign there is appropriate. It meets one of the warrants. It doesn't meet them all.

However, this is part of the public process, and the piting commission certainly has their, ability to make a recommendation of the board, and then we can, evaluate where we're gonna go from there. We wanna make sure that it's safe and functional for everyone. And so that was our determination. That's why it was created.

Thank you for that.

Chair, if I might, unless appeal this the final decision works with with the planning commission on

this side.

So I apologize. Before you go, so would it be appropriate if we wanted to amend that condition of approval to raise in such a manner to say that that intersection, that condition of approval for that intersection would be subject to a traffic calming mechanism not to include the four way stop.

So if the concept is a roundabout or a signal or some other alternative means there, I'm not sure that we would have the nexus to require a roundabout or something more substantial, than just a stop controlled intersection. So it's a little bit of a judgment call, but that's where we've landed on this based on the comments we were seeing.

For you something to amend that condition of approval to say that some type of traffic calming alternative would be appropriate excluding a four way stop?

I don't know. Thank you very much for that. I don't know if traffic calming is what we are looking for right now. I think evaluation in the future would be appropriate at this time for me to approve the project. I need condition 30, to be eliminated. So, chair, may I offer a comment?

Adam, if you could stay. Sorry. When when you discussed the stop sign, it it seemed like the one sort of gray area was the corner sight distance. So I I was wondering if perhaps if that's gonna come out, if there could be an alternative condition that could address that potential concern that

could be swapped in to deal with the corner site. The corner site distance is a difficult issue because it deals with the vertical grade of Appian Way and the site distance around the corner. So it's a difficult alternative to come up with. Flattening out the top of that hill would be a a difficult endeavor because of the utilities that are there and all the other great controls that would be required. So we're really limited on the number of options we have. So Could there

be a limitation on vegetation?

Or

There there are. There are other things that can be done to to remove vegetation and cause additional clear zones and, you know, various other other elements to try and help that, but it won't get rid of the basic fundamental geometry. Perhaps I'm being too proactive. I we'd we'd love to we'd love to have a solution for the community, everybody involved. We hear their comments from the Highland Hills folks, and they're absolutely relevant and appropriate. And and we wanna make sure that we're trying to do the best we can when it comes to a safety issue. That's obviously a sensitive subject, and we try to take that very seriously.

Adam, when you leave the entrance in ingress, egress of Highland View and you're approaching San Givosia coming up hill, there is a yellow sign that says there's an intersection. That will probably be changed from a t to a four way sign. I mean, a flashing light or something could be used, but I'm not recommending that because they'll probably come back and beat me up on, well, this yellow light's flashing at me all the time. I hate it. So I'm just thinking, you know, if we could just eliminate it for today and in the future, we can analyze it.

I know there's a traffic signal that's been added to the CIP at, Silva Valley and Appian Way. That's not something that they like either. So, that's for a discussion of a later date. But, for today, if if we could modify condition 30 by eliminating the always stop, we would be very happy.

We understand your cons your your point there. The planning commission can make the recommendation, and then we can adjust from there.

Thank you. Commissioner Spardy, anything else?

I think I'd like to hear from the other commissioners, first.

Commissioner Costello. Thank you.

So if the issue the hesitancy with the four way stop, it's a safety issue, right, as far as going on and off at 8PM. I mean, communities commonly have speed bumps if you wanna slow the traffic down. I'm sure your community may not want to go over a bump, but they're effective if if the issue is speed to allow people to get on to AP and to hang in that left hand turn out of that gate safer. That that might be something that can be evaluated down the road as opposed to a stop sign. And regarding the park, I I I would like to say, in my in my opinion, this agreement, this 2020 agreement, it's black and white.

I mean, the CSD wanted the property. There's a signed agreement that they have the property, that they shall exert best efforts to commence construction of the park as soon as practical, and nothing's happened. So I don't see much controversy there. It's the responsibility of the of the community services district to get the park done. That's what they took on. That's what they wanted. That's what they got.

That's all I have. Commissioner Hans?

I I kinda concur that that maybe a middle ground that might work would be because, I mean, the basic project is fine with me as it appears to be with maybe a couple others, commissioners. But the the idea of a traffic calming device, perhaps a speed bump or some device other than what the original app the original write up has proposed that the community is not too fond of, apparently. So,

you know,

I I don't know. Wiser people come up with, you know, creative ideas. There's seems to me there's there's not so much at play here that it can't be creatively solved in some middle ground somewhere. And I mean that to include Parker and,

you

know, everybody else involved. So

Okay. Commissioner Williams.

Give you just a couple of very, very brief, clarification questions. The CLIPIC plan, again, thirty eight years, has there been any formal amendments to that plan in that thirty eight years? I don't I don't see anything, so I assume there has not been. Am I alright?

Is that a question of staff? I apologize.

Okay. Yes. We I'm sorry.

Maybe give us a moment to respond, because we would have to go look. There could be administrative modifications or other things that have happened historically, but, we would have to go, look at that information to answer definitively.

Knowledge and nothing that involve the commission or or the, board of supervisors in terms of performance limit.

What I'll say is and so Rob Peters, deputy director of planning, related to the specific plan, you know, they they do once you create a specific plan, it's it's the sort of land use guiding document. This particular specific plan relies on county zoning and county, standards related to, like, plan developments and other things. It allows this transfer of development densities within the plan, but it has in each of those instances where the modifications have happened, it's had a rezone application that goes along with it that has gone to the board of supervisors. So when we talk about the just the changes to the m, area as an example, you know, those were revisions re rezones within the specific plan found to be consistent with the specific plan that the board adopted. And so, you know, that is my sort of response to this the way that this particular specific plan was built was to allow this flexibility, but the, approval process included rezone applications being required to go forward in front of the board of supervisors, which would have come on recommendation of the planning commission.

So each of those projects would have been distributed just like we do now to each of the CSDs, and that's why you see over time, you know, agreements and, parkland dedication agreements. And our subdivision ordinance allows for, those parking loo fees to or park, dedication agreements or in loo fees to meet the requirements of our Quimby Act requirements and that they'd be paid or directed directly to the lead agency or the that provides parks. So, you know, in all this scenario, it wasn't like these happened outside of all the parties. Each of these instances has been reviewed by the planning commission, brought to the board of supervisors, and then, you know, these dedication agreements have been, as we discussed, approved. So, you know, it while there may not be a a whole sales specific plan for, the village m, it would have been considered as part of those tentative maps and those reasons.

Yeah. Again, I'm just I'm just trying to establish a a baseline since we're we're basing our statements based upon these agreements and if there's anything else. And so thank you on that. Development The agreement

I think Andy wants to address. I'm sorry, Andy.

Commissioner Williams, on your screen, you'll see there have been at least four amendments to the to this specific plan.

Alright.

And they're available online.

Alright.

And so so nothing else amendment, I assume, wouldn't impact what's what's before us today. Okay? The developer agreement, we're we're we that that's referred to a number of times in in in the staff report. Is that is that agreement still in play? Is it has it have expired? How how many years is that agreement too good for? I'm just I'm just curious. I'm just trying to find my own mind what what we're looking at here. Do you have any idea?

I I believe, and and I I could confirm for certain, but I believe it was approximately a 1998 agreement that expired in 2018.

Okay. And developer agreements are good for typically how many years?

I think the county ordinance allows twenty years.

Twenty years. So based upon that, the the agreement is really not in effect. It's it's it's just a guide it's just a guideline.

It's no longer in place. Yes. I mean, those, there was, terms that, you know, were to be met during the course of that, but the actual agreement itself has expired.

Yeah. And, okay. I wanna go back to page six of the of the staff report. And, again, for for clarification purposes, the second full paragraph, second sentence, it refers to what took place in the in the board of supervisors meeting. And it says a the current project after after the the project was denied, a a separate application, was filed and presented.

Did that application ever come before the commission? Was it ever talked about what commission?

The the subsequent application? Yes. That's what's in front of you today. So if you look at the

But but I guess my question is, you you asked, at that point, the board of supervisors to approve an application that was not before us in advance.

No. So there was a recommendation of the planning commission to the board of supervisors.

Correct.

Correct. And those as you can see on, number two on page six, the tentative map number was twenty four dash one, the zoning number twenty four dash one, and the PD number twenty four dash one. On the same page in the top, you can see that there are new tentative map numbers and PD numbers that have a twenty five year. That is the new application file numbers.

Correct. I understand that. I well, again, I'm I'm just trying to parse together and make sure that the public record reflects everything that that took place then and as it goes forward to their supervisors after our recommendation today, that that that's properly captured. But my question again is when was that agreement developed, the new development agreement? I know it's before us today, but you asked the supervisors to approve something at that point, and they they they split two by two.

Now the the government code six five three five six defines very clearly the the relationship of the the supervisors and and and the commission. And it very clearly gives the supervisors the right to approve, modify, or deny whatever we might bring forward to them. But it also states that there is a mandatory requirement that when items that are new and not before the the commission should automatically be remanded at that point directly back to to the commission without a a vote. But yet a vote took place, and it was based upon a a plan that really hadn't been vetted. How did that occur?

I didn't find no. Hold on. I'll just.

Yes, please. Yeah. Because I'm confused.

The board could reach a decision. So it essentially that offers us denial because of the fact that your information is. They have the project. That's what happened. And

Well, I I again, I maybe I'm not articulating my my question correctly. I went back and and and reviewed the the the video of of the the the meeting. And there was a point at which once the it was it was clear that the board of supervisors was not was going to deny that original application, that there was a pivot that took place and say, oh, by the way, we have this new agreement that we wanna put before you today. Now that agreement was never ever brought before the commission. Correct?

Or or or what was that agreement ever considered when we first met?

What agreement?

Yeah. I'm assuming There was an agreement, a two by two vote by the by the, supervisors.

Are you talking about disposition agreement or just people agreeing? I can clarify. Please. The board

was not able to reach an incentive. They did not take action. That deferred back

to your point of commission. So so you you you so you you okay. That's not to my interpretation of what took place, but that's fine. If that is if that's the official statement, I'll just have to, accept it and move move forward. I am just concerned that, again, when there are there are items that are being brought forth from the commission, that once it goes to the board of supervisors, that new wrinkles or new alternatives are are just not presented at that point to court supervisors that and point of fact, when there's new issue new new issues and new new agreements being discussed, it should be rematted immediately back by by statute back to the back to the commissioner.

So I wanted to make sure that in the future that we're mindful of that. Sarah, I have no

no other questions. No other questions? Okay. We'll bring this back to the commission because as I as I look at this, I have a similar similar views to commissioner Costello in regards to the park. To me, the arrangements were made.

People signed off on it. So to me, it's a moot point. Just because one entity didn't you know, one the developer said they were required to do something. Another arrangement was made. And just because some other governmental agency did not complete it, I don't think the developers should be held responsible for that because they met their obligation. So that's where I stand on that, and I can concur with commissioner Spar. So at this point, I'll entertain some type of motion.

Thank you. I'll make a

motion. K.

I move we find the project as statutory exempt pursuant section fifteen eighteen two of the CEQA guidelines. And number two, approved tentative subdivision map TM 25 Dash 0003, land development permit, PD 25 Dash 0005, and request design waivers based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval, not as presented herein, but modified. With the modification of item 30 to be replaced, eliminate the always stop at Appian Way in San Givosie, and sometime in the future, analyze and apply traffic calming measures.

K. So we have a motion to approve when it changed to condition 30. And we have a second.

I'll second.

Good. So we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on this motion? Anyone can take a roll call, please?

Commissioner Williams, how do you vote? No. Commissioner Hanson?

Aye. Chair Williams

oh, Fraga. Sorry. Aye. Commissioner Spar?

Aye.

And commissioner Costello?

Aye.

Motion passes four zero.

K. Thank you, everyone. So, chair, if you could make the ten day appeal announcement.

Yeah. We have the, just as Tersten mentioned, this, motion can be appealed to board of supervisors with in attendance. Okay. Next on the agenda is item number three. Just give me a second.

Would you like to read this? No. Jefferson. So since we continue this, the public hearing is still open. Correct? So we're gonna reopen it as we continue this item.

Yes. And I I I there's some new information, so I imagine you want to retake public testimony on the site. Okay.

So we're gonna reopen public hearing. And does the project opponent have something they'd like to address

to us?

Staff.

Staff, you want to go first? Go ahead.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Michelle Drehobel, assistant planner for Eldorado County. I present the proposed project from the previous planning commission hearing on 04/23/2022.

Excuse me, Michelle. Can you bring the microphone closer to you?

Thank you. Sorry.

Is this better?

Much.

I present the proposed project from the previous planning commission hearing on 04/23/2026 with a minor adjustment to the project plans requested by the property owner. The telecommunications tower owner American Tower Corporation and the parcel owner have agreed to amend the location of the tower to ensure that branches with the faux foliage are contained within the leased area. The amended equipment plan on sheet a dash 1.4, which demonstrates up on the screen, proposed the tower location closer to the center of the leased area. This adjustment also requires a generator to be relocated to the east of the new tower location within the leased area. This change these changes do not propose any new impacts.

Staff recommends the planning commission take the following actions and find the project to be categorically exempt pursuant to section 15,302 replacement of reconstruction of the CEQA guidelines and approved conditional use permit CUP R25-five based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval with COA number five removed remembering the remaining conditions and approve the amended plans with the tower relocated closer to the center of the lease area. This concludes the staff's presentation and I will be happy to answer any of the the commissioner's questions. The project applicant, Melissa, Ofina with, Epic Wireless Group and representatives from American Tower Corp are also available for questions on the proposed project.

Commissioner Hanson? Thank you. So the property there there was a disconnect the first time around. That's what we're doing here today to, you know, disconnect that hopefully been connected. So the property owner is in accord with these revisions and and the recommendation you just presented. Can you represent that to us?

That is our understanding, and she is here today as well.

K. Alright.

So I'll leave that to you, Greg. You'll leave that to me. Yeah. Sure.

Okay. That's all the question I had.

That's it. So before we bring them up, does anybody else have any questions? So can you both come up and just let us know for the record that you've agreed to?

Oh, you won't catch

Might as well do it all at once.

Melissa Ophina with Epic Wireless on behalf of Verizon and the tower company or tower owner, American Tower. And as Michelle mentioned, American Tower, Jen Castro specifically has been in conversations with Deborah about the changes to the design to ensure that the pole itself is more toward the center of the compound, and all of the branches are completely concealed within the fence line.

Yeah. My my driveway is right on the other side of the fence, and what they were putting up didn't fit. And the branches have a tendency to fall. And if it fell on my driveway, I mean, I'd be stuck.

So you agree with me?

Needs And to fit in the area.

So you both agreed to the new changes?