Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

like to call this uh yeah this may 28th meeting of the elrond county planning commission to order vice vice chair anthony would you like to lead us Madam Burke, can we get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Williams? Here. Commissioner Hanson?

Here.

Commissioner Costello is absent today. And Commissioner Spahr? Here. And Chair Fraga?

Here.

Let the record show that Commissioner Costello is absent.

Okay. Commissioner Haynes. Okay, now to be next on the agenda is the approval of the consent calendar. Okay. Do we have any public comment on the consent calendar, approval of the consent calendar?

Now taking public comment specifically regarding the consent calendar. Individuals will have three minutes to address the planning commission. The timer will notify you when you have 30 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, use the raise hand button. If you are joining the meeting by phone, press star nine to indicate a desire to comment. Please voluntarily state your name for the record. Now taking public comment from the room. And now taking public comment from Zoom. There is no public comment.

OK, so we'll bring this back to the commission. Do we have a motion to approve the consent calendar?

Yes, sir. I do have a question on number two.

Number two.

I just wanted to just confirm whether or not there have been any objections to comments or concerns expressed by any person pulling permits or anything else of that nature.

Okay.

And if nothing, I'm willing to make a motion.

We received no public comment. I'm sorry, my mic was off. I'm sorry. We received no public comment.

Thank you so much. So with that, I would like to move to accept the consent calendar. OK. We have a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

No.

OK. Take a vote, please.

Commissioner Williams, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Hampson?

Aye.

Chair Fragar?

Aye.

And Commissioner Spahr?

Aye.

Motion passes 4-0.

Okay. Next would be open forum.

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 30 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 by Zoom, use the raise hand button. If you are joining the meeting by phone, press star nine to indicate a desire to comment. Please voluntarily state your name for the record. Now taking public comment from the room. And now taking public comment from Zoom. There is no public comment.

All right. Moving right along, item number three. Would you like to read that, Rhian?

Item number three, hearing to consider a determination of conformity with the El Dorado County 2004 general plan for a proposed land exchange with the California Tahoe Conservancy. Chair, can you please open the hearing?

I'd like to open the hearing. We have a staff report.

Yes, we do. I'll wait for the PowerPoint to be pulled up here before I dive in. okay hi chair and planning commissioners my name is the agribo i'm a planning manager with the long range planning unit with the planning and building department with the county and good morning i'm brendan ferry also with the planning and building department nice to see you we're here seeking a general plan determination of conformity for a land exchange which is just a procedural step that is required by California state law. Anytime the county acquires or disposes of real property, this commission must determine that that decision is consistent with the general plan. Next slide. So the county is proposing to acquire and dispose of real property that is part of a land exchange with the California Tahoe Conservancy, otherwise known as the Conservancy in the Tahoe Basin portion of the unincorporated county. The purpose of the land exchange is to facilitate a watercraft inspection station in Myers to prevent aquatic invasive species in Tahoe. preserve open space or environmentally sensitive properties that are surrounded by other conservancy parcels, creating management efficiencies for the conservancy, and provide developable non-sensitive land to the county in Myers. Essentially, the county will be getting developable non-sensitive land in Myers, and the Conservancy will be getting open space sensitive parcels surrounded by property they already own. So essentially, we're swapping parcels that are more in line with each other's missions and goals. As you can see from the figure on this slide, you might not actually be able to see it, but it is in exhibit A in the package of materials. But on this slide, the parcels outlined in red and blue, the bottom right by where 50 and 89 meet, those parcels are proposed to come to the county. They're currently owned by the Conservancy. City Council Chambers, The yellow or orange parcel in the upper. City Council Chambers, Right right and the pink parcels in the lower left are going are proposed to go to the conservancy. City Council Chambers, Again, this map is provided an exhibit a. City Council Chambers, Next slide. City Council Chambers, So the county would dispose of five parcels, so this is a little over three acres. One property is right by the Upper Truckee River off of Elks Club and again is surrounded by Conservancy land. This parcel is wet, definitely wet today. The four parcels off of West San Bernardino Avenue by North Upper Truckee are vacant lots beyond a gate on a paper road and so those parcels are also surrounded by conservancy and forest service parcels in exchange the county is proposing to acquire six parcels almost four and a half acres they are all cons have been considered or deemed asset lands by the Conservancy, which means they are developable and were set aside to meet the goals and policies of the county and other public agencies. They are all located in the Myers Town Center, in downtown Myers. There were development rights tied to the four parcels off of West San Bernardino, West Bernardino Avenue, but that the county is proposing to bank with TRPA and retain prior to transferring to the Conservancy. Appraisals have occurred on all the parcels, and we've deemed it an equal exchange monetarily. Next slide. So staff has determined that the land exchange is consistent with the county's general plan. The general plan points to the Lake Tahoe regional plan as the relevant approved plan. And that plan covers most topics important to Tahoe for the purposes of the county. The land exchange is consistent with the following regional plan policies. One, One policy is to eradicate and prevent the spread of invasive species. two to redevelop existing town centers three that environmentally sensitive lands should be maintained with no significant change four the goal is to prioritize acquisition and restore sensitive land and five the goal is to promote management practices in open space just to provide for long-term health and protection of sensitive resources. There are also, of course, a couple policies in the actual county's general plan that comply. One, the land use element has some goals or some policies that support preserving sensitive lands and developing non sensitive lands in town centers, as well as there is an objective in the conservation and open space element that directs the county to protect critical habitats in the basin from aquatic invasive species. Next slide. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission determine the land exchange is in conformity with the county's general plan. And I'd be happy, Brendan and I are here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.

Thank you, Sarah. First, I'd like to make a disclosure that I did... It wasn't a Zoom meeting. It was a Teams meeting, right? With Thea and Brendan last week to go over this. So overwhelmingly, my questions were answered then. Does anybody else have any disclosures they'd like to make? I, too, met with the same staff. Anybody else?

I did, but on a different item. Okay.

All right. I just have one. a couple of quick questions uh we did get public comment from commissioner costello who's not here today have you guys had a chance to review that public comment and yes because i was a little confused it sounded like uh those comments might not be germane to this

particular item because they were mentioning industrial uses on the west slope and this is a base in the chair i believe it was associated with item number four there were two yeah one that was um related to this item um his second was related to the what i believe is the next item on the agenda can you address this his comments real quick yeah Sure, yeah. So we, for the four parcels off of Pomo Street, we did do just your typical like environmental assessment work. And so we did, but there was no hazardous materials or soils found on those four Pomo parcels and nothing to indicate that we needed to do further investigation on the soils.

Just to elaborate a little on that, the consultant team did do some geotechnical investigations, some borings specifically, because they needed to pour some foundations there eventually, so they needed to look at soils. Also surveys for typical things like archaeological resources, your bugs and bunnies and plants, sensitive species, all those kind of things, right? Pretty thorough investigation was done on those four parcels and no indication that there were any hazardous materials found or present. and then i'll just keep going the other two parcels in downtown myers are completely undeveloped uh you probably are familiar with them commissioner um you know native vegetation on those we we did some research on the state's geo tracker website which is a really pretty thorough tool the state uses to track you know hazardous contamination on sites and Old gas station sites and things like that and there's no indication that there's any contamination or history of that type of use on these six parcels and then the counties are. Five parcels are in completely natural condition also so. Our best guess is that that is not a concern, but I do think that it was a good comment. And it is, you know, something that we potentially could look into further.

Thank you. The parcel that we're exchanging to the Conservancy, the one along Elks Club, that's adjacent to the river, correct?

Correct.

And the other parcels are primarily landlocked, or some of them.

they are they're behind there's a short little stub road off of north upper truckee which is west san bernardino that road actually does continue in the other direction over to tahoe paradise park where we built the pedestrian bridge that goes into the park a couple years ago but in this particular case there's a short stub road and then a gate and then just a a user path Like Thea said, it's a paper road. The county does still have a right-of-way up there, but these parcels are all off of that user trail, no public access, no utility connections, nothing like that. And they're surrounded by conservancy land and open space, and then it opens up into the back country right there.

Great, thank you. That paper road, because I just thought about this on the way down here, is there any plans to abandon it, so that it could be transferred to Conservancy at a later date?

That's a good question. We could certainly engage with DoT on that. I'm not aware of that at present. But, for instance, DoT is looking at some other paper roads on the West Shore, actually one in particular. that potentially could be utilized as like a trailhead development done by another entity. This area is not nearly as intensively visited for a recreation opportunity as that one is. This is more of a, you know, like the beauty of Tahoe, right? If it's in your neighborhood, that's where you go. And so this is a neighborhood type trail, not on any map.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else have any questions for staff? No. Okay. Is there any public comments?

Now taking public comments specifically on item number three. Individuals will have three minutes to address the Planning Commission. The timer will notify you when you have 30 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 star nine to indicate a desire to comment. Please voluntarily state your name for the record. Now taking public comment from the room. And now taking public comment from Zoom. No public comment.

Thank you. We'll bring this back to the Commission. I think you guys did a great job. In my mind, it's a great program. And it's going to be consistent with the proposed TED. So hopefully it'll spur some mixed-use development in the Myers Town Center. So, although I don't really like to make motions as a chair, I'd be honored to make a motion to moves staff recommendation that we find this plan's exchange in conformity with the general plan pursuant to the government code.

I would like to second that motion.

We have motion to second any discussion. Okay, roll call.

Commissioner Williams, how do you vote? Commissioner Hanson?

Aye.

Commissioner Spahr? Aye. And Chair Fragar?

Aye.

Motion passes 4-0.

Thank you. Appreciate your support. Yeah, thank you. Thank you.

Okay, next will be item number four.

Item number four, hearing to consider Planning and Building Department Long Range Planning Unit proposed amendments to Title 120 and Title 130 of the County Code to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Chair, can you please open the hearing?

Okay, I hope the hearing is open. Do we have a staff report?

Good morning.

We've got a... PowerPoint that I think we can bring up here. Good morning, Tim Pitt, Senior Planner with Long Range Planning Team. Today I will be presenting the 2026 Administrative Zoning Ordinance Update, or AZOU. This item is scheduled for your consideration with the goal of forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. All materials for this item, including the proposed edits and the full table of proposed changes, are available on the county's legislature. To date, we have received three public comments on this item, including one submitted by Commissioner Costello, who was not able to be in attendance for today's meeting. I didn't check to see if there were any more this morning. All right, next slide, please. As background on the azu project, the board adopted a resolution of intention in January of 2025 directing staff to prepare administrative amendments to the county code. The most recent azu cycle was completed in August of 2025 and we anticipate these updates to occur annually going forward next slide please. This year's proposed amendments fall into several ROI categories, minor corrections and clarifications, minor procedural changes, state law compliance, incorporation of directors' interpretations, consolidation and renumbering of existing regulations, and implementation of general plan measures. These categories help ensure the zoning ordinance stays accurate, consistent, and easy for both staff and the public to use. Next slide, please. To briefly refresh your memory on how the azu process works each year staff begin gathering suggestions and identifying new state laws during what we call the azu intake period. This is the time when we collect potential amendments for the upcoming cycle long range planning and then reviews and organizes these items into the appropriate roi categories. Once that initial review and sorting is complete, the proposed amendments are forwarded to the director to confirm that they qualify as administrative. Following the director's approval, the full amendment package comes to the planning commission for consideration and then moves on to the board for final action. Next slide, please. Over the next three slides, I will briefly summarize some of the highlights from this year's categories. Under minor corrections we're proposing to correct various typos omissions and errors were proposing the restructure of a couple sections for clarity. And we're removing references and sections of the code related to ordinance 5136 which sunset in December of 2023 and is no longer in effect. Next, we have state law requirements. The proposed changes to incorporate language to provide consistency with SB 234, which requires family daycare homes be allowed in all residential units when residential use is permitted in the zone. We're proposing several minor procedural changes. First, in the R&D zone, we are proposing a requirement for a conditional use permit for commercial recreation, indoor entertainment. This would allow the county to apply conditions on proposed indoor entertainment facilities for matters such as parking and noise. Next is a proposed update to parking requirements for parks, adjusting the standard from one space per 1,000 square feet of outdoor use area to one space per 10,000 square feet of outdoor use area. We believe this was a typo when that code section was adopted because after speaking to the parks division, and researching other similar jurisdictions and their standard practices, the 10,000 square feet is pretty common. We're also proposing the reduction of setbacks for small animal structures, adding a requirement for a physical signposting for new telecommunications facilities, requiring a CUP for the restoration of abandoned non-conforming uses, and removal of the term golf course from the commercial recreation outdoor sports and recreation section as golf course is already separately defined in the code. Lastly, we are proposing to codify three director's interpretations consistent with county code section 130.10.050, and as specifically directed in the board adopted ROI for administrative zoning ordinance updates. First is the addition of gates as a project type on table 130.51.050.1, which outlines the public notice requirements for administrative projects. Second is an amendment to the definition of self-storage to clarify that fully enclosed vehicle storage is permitted, although no sales or service on said vehicles would be permitted. Third is an amendment to the industrial slash specialized use type definition to limit logistics uses such as fulfillment centers, heavy distribution and parcel hub uses to only being allowed in industrial light and industrial heavy zones and keeping those types of uses out of the R&D zones. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to take the following actions. One, plan the 2026 AZOU statutorily and categorically exempt from sequa under sequel guidelines one five zero six one b three one five two seven four and one five three oh five and two approve the azou to amend titles 120 and 130 of the el dorado county code this concludes my presentation and as always staff is available to answer any questions you may have all right does anybody have any questions

um thank you both for talking to me on the phone yesterday about the r d zone and the specialized zone for light industrial and heavy industrial even though you guys categorize it as heavy and dust light reverse of everybody else in the world um under the r d zone you're gonna allow recreation uses in the R&D zone, how is that research and development categorized?

That's a great question. Schools are also allowed in that zone.

Why would you allow recreation in the R&D zone? Or is that because you have R&D overlaid or incorporated in the industrial zones, and you allow it in the industrial zones? I mean, I'm confused by that. And then would the zoning map be changed to reflect R&D zone overlay or parcels that allow recreation in it? And don't allow warehouse distribution, parcel hubs, so on and so on?

Many of those uses do require a conditional use permit. staff and the planning commission to have some oversight on what is and isn't consistent with the zone and would be wouldn't interfere with surrounding uses.

Right. And I don't mean to be an obstructionist. I actually want to make the county better and better and improve, continuous improvement. I don't like CUPs so much in the industrial zone. I like by right for business uses, so it's easier, faster, swifter, and more friendly to creating jobs and promoting economic development. I understand conditional use permits for messy, noisy, and hazardous items, even hospitals that have a lot of bio-waste. But recreation in an R&D zone? That doesn't fit the Specialized industrial I think that helps to clean up where distribution or logistics Would be and you have a definition of logistics But you're using parcel hub Spelling out parcel hub and other uses but not using the category of logistics Is there a definition or a reason for that?

I'm going to be honest, for this particular project, I didn't really research that deeply on that.

I know talking to theists, items in here are time sensitive, particularly on approving for cell towers and notifications and stuff. So I wouldn't want to hold this thing up. However, I do like Commissioner Costello's idea of having an ad hoc committee. review this and maybe make some recommendations i could try and make some recommendations today on what i'd like to see in there and what i wouldn't want to see in there like recreation in the rmd zone and personally i just have a problem with the rmd zone and how it's used in this county. So I'd like to see a little bit more cleanup in there, but I certainly wouldn't wanna hold this up, the rest of it, if we could separate that or if the other commissioners had any concerns. So I'd like to hear from the other commissioners before I say anything else.

I think your comments are well taken and are in line with some of the written comments. I think the issue is here is the azou is a rather discreet item, and then there seem to be general concerns about Rd and further flushing that out. I think that's a little beyond the scope of this. But if that is something your commission. City Council Chambers, is interested in I there can be a secondary recommendation, the board, you know they're stating there's public interest in better defining r&d. City Council Chambers, I think, typically, the board would you know if they want to open that up, they would direct that, but I think that's well within your discretion to say that the Commission recommends looking at these other items but. This is just a codification of a letter that actually because of some legal wrangling is a couple years old at this point. And I know a lot of people have been waiting to get codified. And with the approval of the Cree side project, the sort of pause on that is lifted. So that's why that's finally coming through.

You had to bring that up to me.

Sorry.

So I have a question for you. What was I thinking there? If we recommend this to the Board of Supervisors, I could make a recommendation that an ad hoc committee look at the R&D zone and the uses and the definition for us applying a definition to logistics. And if so, could we limit the size of logistics distribution warehouse hubs to say 200,000 square feet or 100,000 square feet in a particular zone?

So Commissioner Sparrow, if the Board opens up an ROI to look at this, it's wide open to define it, to examine all the issues. And this is an area where, frankly, it changes almost monthly with what kind of things are proposed. And it's technology and the economy are far outpacing code that was written quite a long time ago.

We do have a scientific high tech Ai and semiconductor company now located in the business part called blaze, which is very exciting and we would like to have more join them, and I think the r&d zone can help attract that as a marketing term, but how it's applied here is very. Dave Kuntz, loose and confusing and logistics, I think this does help put some parameters on the warehouse distribution and the hubs and specialize. Dave Kuntz, Just doesn't seem clear enough to me, though. Thank you.

Questions.

No? Yes? Okay.

First, I want to disclose that I did meet with Tim on that same team's meeting on this issue. One thing, one quick question to dovetail on what Commissioner Sparce said. You said schools are an allowable use in an R&D zone. Is that correct? So schools are an allowable use does that recreation component that he's referring to is that tied in because schools have recreation recreational. facilities attached to them is that why the recreation component is there, or is that for commercial recreation.

In this case, it's commercial recreation, such as in the code is defined as dance halls, whatever those are nowadays. Music venues, museums, things that would have been deemed a compatible use in the zone. So commercial recreation, technically.

Commissioner Hanson, do you have any questions?

I don't. I don't have any questions, but are there any current uses, whether for Commissioner Sparrow or for staff, that would be considered? Give me some examples that exist in this county today of that type of use, the recreation.

I don't know of any.

I'm not familiar enough with the uses, but in other counties, other jurisdictions I've worked in, you might have an indoor basketball tournament type of area or volleyball or... Yeah, that's pretty common. And that is actually... Why they look at industrial buildings for the high ceiling height, often when they have those types of uses pickleball is another one that's looking, you know, at several locations in the region I know for indoor space, maybe like golf simulations to stuff like that.

Yeah, I was gonna ask about swimming. Cool cool complex.

There are pools, then the main impetus for this this actual adjustment is in the code is listed as an a slash cup and there was no differentiation between what was allowed and what required a conditional use permit. So we're really just getting rid of the a be allowed and clarifying it, so you know people can understand what is and isn't allowed. And at that time, we're gonna use a conditional use permit so we can, if needed, apply some sort of conditions to the project.

And again, we're not saying that our zoning ordinance is perfect, right? We know that it needs to evolve with time. What Jefferson kind of alluded to before is we have sideboards here today. We have to follow what we outlined in the resolution of intention that was approved by the board, which I think it was slide... three of Tim's presentation, which kind of outlines the categories. And so we just as part of this administrative zoning ordinance update, we just try to clarify, you know, correct PB, Sarah Silver, inconsistencies clarify ambiguous language which TIM just provide an example to their six different categories, and so we can't really just open up the r&z r&z zone and like you know you know. Tinker with it. You can't make me happy.

Yes, I understand that. Not today, maybe. That's not the point here today. There is no perfect zoning ordinance.

Maybe months from now, we might be able to make you happy, but not today, unfortunately.

Thank you, Commissioner Williams. Do you have any questions?

Well, I too met with staff, just for a matter of disclosure. And I appreciate the time given to me on this. Questions were asked about what exists in terms of R&D. You look at the, again, the business park, the Colorado Hills Business Park is within District 2. So I've become very, very familiar with what exists there. And in point of fact, The question was pools. Yeah, there are already pools allowed in that. They exist. There are at least five gyms, maybe more, including indoor basketball that already exists. There are at least five to probably eight churches, equal number of schools. And so I look at what the charter says, what the general plan says. Dave Kuntz, The definition of general plan what r&d is I, of course, take a look at this and say how does that really correlate to the reality we've already seen. Dave Kuntz, In that in that particular area you couple that with the fact that a good hunk of the area was just recently resolved. For housing. Dave Kuntz, And. I think there's a much broader topic here that needs to be addressed in terms of R&D zoning and light industrial zoning. I would like to be able to, like Commissioner Spahr indicated, I'd like to bifurcate this decision or this question where we address all the other issues AGOU's request and separate out the R&D and light industrial and the Karen Gardner's director's determination letter. So I'd like to be able to not be able to, in the case, in the event that there are appeals to whatever is recommended today, that we're not going to hang up all the other issues while we take a look at the director's interpretation and those issues. So just moving forward in terms of practical matters, I would like to have my fellow commissioners consider again separating those two issues out. I personally have no issue with the other AZOU recommendations. I would hate not to let those things go forward. But in the event that there is an appeal to what we might recommend, and if we were to look at this thing as one approval, there is a conceivable situation where that will slow down the whole process. and have to be addressed again through an appeal process, which I would like to avoid again. But I think it's also important for us to put this whole thing in perspective. I mentioned the fact that right now, the reality of the El Dorado Hills Business Park and what's been allowed and what's been permitted and what's been going forward, again, It's nobody's fault in terms of the people that currently are members of the staff. You're trying to do your best to control a situation that has been ongoing for quite a long time. It's not anybody's fault except the fact that it is, that the things have kind of got, to my mind, out of control. And in terms of the difference between what the charter and the general plan defines as R&D and what the reality is here. I'm hearkened back to a matter that I... Excuse me, Bob. Yes.

Do you have a question for staff, or is this part of a discussion?

Well, no, no, I'm leading to it. Okay. And so my question is, specifically, where would, there was an application made by Northrop Grumman for a jet fuel, or a jet engine, facility in the business park that involved the use of jet fuel. That particular matter was evaluated and considered by the county's air quality management district. I guess my question is, this area and this item is within a stone's throw of large housing development with a stone's throw of a number of churches. In fact, it's right next to a church and right within 100 feet of schools. In light of what we experienced this way, we saw in Garden Grove, I think this last week, and we have to be really sensitive to having those places potential items allowed to exist. And I guess my question to staff is, at what point, and I guess I just need clarification more than anything else, how an item such as this could go as far as having the Air Quality Management District evaluate something that looks like to me to be more heavy industrial than R&D. Karen, could you help me with that one? Because I'm really struggling.

Yeah. When we do see requests that seem a little bit out of just standard type of uses, we'll, like in the case you're talking about, reach out to the applicant and ask additional questions. And asking those additional questions that then prompted conversations between planning and AQMD for the issues that you outlined. upon information that we learned. It was really a very, the way they do their testing, it's very small scale, very controlled environment. And, but we looked at, you know, what are the hazards? What are the potential for hazards? And determined that it was, you know, fine and certainly safe. not only was allowed by the zone but you know didn't pose any significant risk but you know the larger issue you bring up is is definitely again something uh if the board so directs staff to take a more comprehensive look at the r d industrial zoning those are the type of considerations that we would want to look at And there's a lot of different ways we could go about that. You may have some different zoning or overlays or restrictions on parcels that are closer to residential than you would more interior to a business park. That might be one way to handle it. But there are certainly a lot of different things we could consider. But again, I want to clarify that what is before you today, there isn't... Even if you were to hold back on some of these items, there's not a pathway with the items to get to what your desire is to look at industrial zoning on a holistic level. That has to come from a separate action from the board directing staff to look at that.

I have one other question. Given that, Of my recommendation is to try to bifurcate these two area areas where we deal with everything else in the proposal, they see you and the and the. directors interpretation slash. r&d matrix issues. Does staff have any director have. Any concerns about, in terms of our discussion and our motion, separating it out so we can just concentrate on the one item rather than the other?

I don't think that, well, go ahead, Jefferson.

So if I could offer two points. First, this is just a recommendation item. There won't be an appeal of this. You're just forwarding your recommendation to the board. But again, the confines of this are rather narrow. It's whether or not you want to codify the director's interpretation. That's all this before you. You can't expand the director's interpretation. None of that has been analyzed. All these discrete items have been analyzed to make sure they conform with CEQA and all those findings are made. To open up R&D is a separate consideration. If you believe the R&D director's interpretation shouldn't be codified, that's fine. But I don't know that you can sort of expand that to include all these other concerns. That's beyond the scope of the interpretation and the resolution of the board.

I think just to be very clear that, as everybody knows, I've been chomping a bit to get this thing codified now for three years. And I felt when this thing was delivered, Karen did it under any situation that was dynamic at best and and what she produced I think addressed what some some of the major concerns that were. boiling over, and I think that we also have to recognize that in the context of. project frontier, there's still some open wounds here. And I'm concerned that without at least stepping back after waiting three years for codification, without having a ad hoc take a look at the ramification would be a, a discredit to Karen's activity and her work on this thing. It'd be discredit to everybody that was involved in the Project Frontier situation. And quite frankly, I don't believe we lose anything by giving an ad hoc an opportunity to take a look at this further. I guess my question to the director is, is this codification absolutely a critical path at this point, knowing full well that I've been striving to get this thing done for some time.

It's still in effect. So director's interpretations can be applied, and it has been applied over the past three years. It is our code that says typically within a year, we try to codify the director's interpretation in this case. As Jefferson pointed out, there were some special circumstances there. City Council Chambers, However, and Jefferson correct me if i'm wrong. City Council Chambers, If you are wanting to create an ad hoc committee that is still just a motion, we will be in recommendation, we will be taking to the board. City Council Chambers, So I are, we would take this item still move forward going to the board saying here's what the planning Commission said that they recommend you know did. even if you pulled out that particular director's interpretation and did not approve that, that is just a recommendation that we would forward to the board.

Okay, then let me just narrow my question a little bit further. One thing we're being asked to do is to say that all these items are CEQA exempt. And I am not sure I can, for this item, without a further analysis, agree with that part of it. I can't agree with everything else. But I think we need to do a further analysis on it. And I want to get this done as soon as possible. But we need to look at it.

Can we put that as a question to staff and county council? Are these items CEQA exempt?

Yes.

Why?

So as Karen just described, and I'm assuming that Commissioner Williams is specifically referring to the director's interpretation on the industrial definition. So as Karen just explained, The director's interpretation has already been done. That was done several years ago. And what is before you today, the project before you today, is merely a paperwork exercise, which is codifying that director's interpretation. It's just a paperwork exercise. The director's interpretation is still in effect. We're merely codifying that director's interpretation.

What's the rule of AB 98 in this whole process?

Oh, God. That's a Southern California bill to expedite Amazon locations in San Bernardino and Riverside County. Even planners and economic developers in Southern California are opposed to that bill.

Yeah, well, but it is referenced in this documentation. It is. So I just wanted to... Mostly will not apply to us.

And I'm not staff, so I'll let staff answer.

AB 98 has further restrictions on sort of large warehouse facilities. Yes. And those would apply regardless of your actions today. You have to have certain distances, internal roads, and things like that. And that was passed a year or two ago in response to kind of the mushrooming of the distribution centers. I will say, although the director's interpretation is in force, if there is someone pushing forward, it is better for the county if this is codified into our code than just have the letter out there. We are supposed to codify. There's a timeline. Many times we don't make it, but this one has been a kind of long time delayed, sort of outside of our control.

Okay, Commissioner Sparrow, you have a question?

Yes, Council. What I'm hearing from and I think the Director's done a really good job on the interpretation and allowing the specialized uses to actually expedite, clean up, and make clear industrial light industrial rod and logistics so i wouldn't want to have to wait another year to address this again and they don't want to slow the process up and be disrespectful to the board of supervisors so would it make more sense and be more expeditious if we did approve this and made a request to the board of supervisors to do a resolution of intent for an ad hoc committee to look at the R&D zone, the light industrial zone, and the heavy industrial zone with respect to uses like recreation and logistics.

So Commissioner Spahr, I think that makes sense. I think the more precise you could be in what you're looking for in the board, if there's a desire to form an ad hoc either of the board or your commission, that doesn't involve an ROI. So I guess it depends. Do you want to, or are you seeking some kind of joint, something joint with the board to look at these items? Not necessarily. I think we're quicker than the board.

And I'll just clarify. A resolution of intention is required, and it's required any time before you even touch the zoning ordinance. So any time you want to amend a zoning ordinance, that's what an ROI is. And so what I'm hearing is there's a desire for an ad hoc, potentially. There's also a separate process, which is recommending a resolution of intention to do X, Y, and Z with the zoning ordinance. So I'm kind of hearing maybe two separate concepts, but I believe they are separate.

I would say that generally the way I would see the process working out is make a recommendation to the board. If the board approves that and says, yes, form this ad hoc committee, look at these things with R&D zoning, then that ad hoc committee would meet, come up with some initial recommendations. At that point, then we would go back to the board, request an ROI saying, you know, here's exactly what we're looking at changing and how we're changing it.

that is the point you do in our line she said it better than me I think that makes good sense because like you said you don't want to step on the and I for one don't want to direct the board of supervisors to do anything everything comes from them in my mind they're the electeds we're not okay but we can recommend to them that they take a look at it and if they so choose They so choose. If they want to squash it, they squash it. But I don't have a problem with adding a separate recommendation to this that they look at the board if they choose to. you know, sets up however they want to set it up, whether they want us to do an ad hoc committee or if they want to do the ad hoc committee, let them put the ball in their court and say, you know, we recommend that this be looked at. However they want to frame it is their role. I don't think it's ours to demand anything because they're the ones that stood for election, not us. Are there any other questions for staff? Okay, then I'm gonna open this up to public comment.

Now taking public comments specifically on item number four, individuals will have three minutes to address the planning commission. The timer will notify you when you have 30 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 star nine to indicate a desire to comment. Please voluntarily state your name for the record. Now taking public comment from the room. And now taking public comment from Zoom. No public comment.

Okay, then I'd like to bring this back to the Commission for discussion or possible action. Commissioner Sparks, since you've been heard, would you like to

I think most of the issues land in District 2. So, District 2 Commissioner, do you have a motion or do you want me to make a motion?

Again, I would like to bifurcate these issues in two separate motions.

I think if we did that, the Board would reject it. So, I'd like to not put in a possible impediment that might get knocked down and rather get more of a go, yes, from the Board of Supervisors to proceed than a no. What do you think?

I believe that there's been an ongoing request now to address this R&D issue at great length that's been generated by at least two supervisors over this a long period of time. Because of the tolling agreement, we have not been able to address this at all. I think that we lose nothing by giving us an opportunity to dive just a little bit deeper. Maybe the next meeting we have, we can dive into it again deeper and approve this thing, but I would like to not hold up all these other issues. So I still believe that we have That when it actually comes back before the supervisors that there's a chance that the supervisors will be making making at least one supervisors, perhaps more will be asking a similar question i'm making right now is.

Do you think they would approve an ad hoc and allows to do that.

The. Where we're at right now there's no restrictions on us. you know, doing an ad hoc ourselves. We're not, again, demanding they do anything. We're here to recommend, and that's our role is to recommend very, very clearly. If we feel uncomfortable with doing that, as I feel uncomfortable with calling our approval and codification let's call it a generic term, logistics, which is the director's interpretation plus state law, which is AB-98, as just an administrative approval. I'm uncomfortable with that without a deeper dive. If we have to... vote on all or nothing, I'd probably be inclined to say nothing. I'd prefer to be able to bifurcate it so we can move some of this stuff forward. And actually then address and provide the kind of dignity I believe this larger question really deserves. And so, you know.

My thought is we can't bifurcate it, so we can deny it. If we deny it, it goes to the Board of Supervisors and they approve it. The only way we can modify and improve to make a better county would be to approve this and recommend make a request to the Board of Supervisors to create an ad hoc committee to look specifically at R&D and logistics uses in the business park and industrial zones.

Because I know what I'm thinking is something similar. that I don't think, at least in my mind, that we should create our own ad hoc committee to delve into this because it's going to involve staff time and costs to the county that should only come from the board. And without them directing us to do that, then we're going to be allocating staff resources that I don't think is necessarily in our realm. And if it came from them, and they want us to do it, that's one thing. And then they're going to okay, whatever costs are going to be incurred by us dealing with an ad hoc committee. But that should come from them.

I would agree with you, but I don't see a lot of staff time. In today's world, we can do it in five minutes with AI. All the zoning and all the codes for us. But they do approve it.

They have to approve it. And they have to approve the exposure.

So, Chair, if I could offer some draft language. So with what's proposed now, you could either approve or deny it. But for the third item, it could be request the board direct an ad hoc committee of the planning commission to evaluate and analyze uses in the R&D zone and return to the board with a potential resolution of intention.

But I wouldn't just say an ad hoc committee of the planning commission. An ad hoc committee of their, they may choose that they want to be the ad hoc committee. City Council Chambers, You know what I mean that is a possibility is obviously some type of that our committee before and whether it's it can be supervisors and us, it could be however they they they choose.

City Council Chambers, Good we request ad hoc committee aboard a supervisor some planning Commissioners sure sure I you can make any requests you'd like.

City Council Chambers, You could request, it could be once a Commission one Commissioner, it could be or a joy they want to do it yeah I would prefer that. Does that make sense?

I think it's the best path forward.

So can you wordsmith that again for us in number three?

City Council Chambers, Thank you chair, so if you wanted to move forward, it would be approved stack staff recommendations and add item three. City Council Chambers, request that the board direct a joint ad hoc planning Commission board of supervisors committee to evaluate and analyze these analyze uses in the r&d zone and return to the board with a potential resolution of intention.

i would like to make that motion that we approve staff's reports item one and two and an additional item three as quoted by council okay so you want to make a motion that we do that we just did okay but before we do that bob will you did you make a motion prior to that no you did not

Okay, so we have a motion from Commissioner Spahr. Do we have a second? We have a motion from Commissioner Spahr and a second from Commissioner Hanson. Any discussion on this motion?

I'd like to suggest that I'm going to support the motion. I think that it's a... City Council Chambers, As as paths often go that are not clearly laid out and define at least give some definition that where this process is going, particularly as it relates to the industrial uses. City Council Chambers, I think that this approach that Council is recommending we look at as well looks at that. City Council Chambers, I think it's just the same animal kind of different different spots in terms of whether it's you know requesting that a. requesting that an ad hoc committee of some sort be formed versus a simple, you know, a full bifurcation of the entire subject. So I think this accomplishes what the commission is talking about for this item. And I'm prepared to support it.

Mr. Williams, do you have anything to add?

Yeah. I'm really, again, troubled I, you know, having been on the other side during project frontier, knowing the dynamics of this, when the new director who had just come board about this whole time, wrote this determination letter, it was a breakthrough. I congratulated her, I believe, very openly. on this, and I still believe that there are, I believe this was a good effort to address many of the issues, but some of the issues are still not addressed. And the fact that we still haven't really incorporated and identified the full implications of AB 98, as much as I really want to move this thing forward and get it codified, uh i'm not comfortable and saying that this this should be qualified until we've actually you know further analyzed and given this and this a full review and focused entirely on on this document and and av98 i just don't think we've done our job you know if we were to uh not address these issues. Again, I'm torn. I'm grateful that staff has taken initiative and done a good job. And we were also locked in for three years because of the point that we couldn't really address it. But now we're at a point where we can address it. This is an opportunity to do it and do it right. And just for the sake of expediency, I think that It would be improper for us to do this. So again, if we could bifurcate, and of course, as Commission, we can either accept or modify what staff's recommendation is. Right now, we're talking about their recommendation to us, and then our recommendation goes to supervisors, as it should be. And I would love to see the other things done, but that this issue really does least deserve an additional hearing or workshop or something. And so at this point, as much as I see your motion to be a path forward, it's a path that I can't follow at this stage, unfortunately. And again, I'm torn. I want to thank staff for attempting the director for attempting and then what she's done in this front but this r d issue again in my district looking at the uh um el dorado hills business park that's a mess undeniable and uh yes it's not staff current staff's fault but nevertheless it it's a mess and we have an opportunity right now To at least ask the questions and I believe that as a Commission we're here to do some deep diving and analysis. On issues of land use and and codification that's why they appointed us to ask these questions. To begin with, so. I guess all that's all I can say again. i'm torn. But I can't I can't go down that. discussion.

I'd rather have half of something than all of nothing.

So we take a roll call.

Commissioner Williams, how do you vote?

No.

Commissioner Hanson?

Aye.

Commissioner Spahr?

Aye.

And Chair Fraga?

Aye.

Motion passes 3 to 1.

OK. Next on the agenda would be item number 5.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you. Good job, folks.

Get home safely for you.

Item number five. The Executive Secretary of the Planning Commission recommends the Commission ratify the bylaws as approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 12, 2026.

Good morning, Chair. Do we have a staff report? Commissioners, we do not have a staff report. I'm standing in for Rob today, Andy Flower, Planning Manager. And on behalf of the Executive Secretary of the Planning Commission, staff recommends the commission ratify the bylaws as approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 12, 2026. Okay.

Do we have any questions of staff before we open up to public comment? No? I just have one quick comment, and that is I was able to be present when the Board of Supervisors approved our recommended bylaws. There was a lot of discussion about certain topics and things that were in our bylaws and what their ad hoc committee is recommending. And that's about all I have to say.

And they were, they were pretty awkward.

You know, what their concerns were and how, We should be open to the public and things like that. So since we don't have any questions of staff, let's open to public comment.

Now taking public comments specifically on item number five, individuals will have three minutes to address the planning commission. The timer will notify you when you have 30 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 were joining the meeting by phone, press star nine to indicate a desire to comment, please voluntarily state your name for the record. Now taking public comment from the room. And now taking public comment from Zoom. No public comment.

No public comments. We'll bring this back to the commission for our deliberations. Does anybody have anything they'd like to?

I would, since I guess I'm the member of the commission that pushed this thing on forward. And actually, my work was basically an extension of the work that former Chairman Neves started, going back to the idea that we wanted to better define the relationship, what could be and could not be an acceptable relationship, or basically helping to streamline the process. I'm going to be wanting to offer, if I could, Chairman, once we have your comments, I would like to have the honor of making a motion to approve this thing. But let me just also make a comment in general about how this process occurred. This commission had four different hearings in which this was discussed. that there was a significant amount of give and take with staff and meetings to try to refine these issues. I appreciated that effort. When we voted unanimously After negotiation and after fine tuning what was presented to the board. I was taken aback, quite frankly, when this was presented to the supervisors that the recommendation was to form an ad hoc. That certainly something within the scope of what supervisors can do. But nevertheless, to have staff make that recommendation, the give and take, and what I thought was an honest attempt by all parties to come up with the best possible bylaws, that didn't happen. I guess I'm just expressing some disappointment on how the process went. I have to recognize now that after Supervisors at all committee spent a year to define define what they have. And the fact that the supervisors have all approved it that I think our only option here is to prove it. And I do that, you know, wholeheartedly. But I guess I would like to hear from the other supervisor commissioners before I actually submit my motion.

That was a lengthy process for very few edits and changes. And our goal is continuous improvement, good government, and a better process for the public. Right.

things take a long time sometimes uh and you know local governments decide by those that show up so uh you know i i are these uh i think that the i let me take a step back how it got there is how it got there it being the process to that led to this ad hoc committee uniform i think that the product that resulting was worth probably worth the time it took to get there, but certainly worth what collaboration it was to produce it between the Commission and the Board of Supervisors. But, you know, they do get to write the rules in this county. So, I guess it's kind of pyrrhic, but that's the way it is. So, when Commissioner Williams makes his motion, I'll support it.

Okay.

Mr. Williams?

May I make a motion? Yes, you may. Okay.

With that, I would like to move that we accept the recommendation of the executive secretary to approve the supervisor's approved bylaws of the planning commission. Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second?

I would like to second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. In discussion, I'm just glad it's finally going to end. Yay. It's done. It's going to be complete.

We should thank Andy. Thank you. It was really Rob.

I'd also like to thank Andy Nevis for being part of this whole process.

And then our next meeting, if we ratify this, will be at 9 o'clock.

Yes. Yay. Okay.

So we have a motion and a second, Amy, for discussion. Take a vote.

Commissioner Williams, how do you vote?

Yes, fine.

Commissioner Hanson? Aye. Commissioner Spahr? Aye. And Chair Fraga? Aye. Motion passes 4-0.

Next on the agenda is Staff and Commissioner updates. Do you have any staff updates?

I do. It appears we will be canceling both meetings in June. Both? Both meetings in June. So we'll be meeting again in July. I'm not going to talk about any projects at that time because we're still on our internal deadlines. So until things are confirmed, I'd rather not speak of a project.

I spoke to Rob yesterday. He said definitely would be the first meeting in June. So we know for sure we're going to cancel the second meeting in June? Yes.

But in July, we'll be beginning at 9 a.m.

Okay, so no meetings. We don't need to take any action on those things. No.

I don't believe so, Chair. And I would just add, since Rob isn't here, there have been multiple appeals of the M5 decision, so that will go to the board shortly.

And prior to that, we have the COOL appeal, if you'll recall. It's been a little while. The appellant is also the applicant, because they're appealing the denial from the Planning Commission. So they have postponed that appeal until now. But it will be heard on June 9 at the board. and June 16th will be the multiple appeals for M5, and June 23rd will be the appeal for the Planning Commission approval of the Henry open storage project. Okay.

Board's going to be busy.

All right. I have one other just quick. And that's when I just wanted to let you know that Rob Peters actually has been promoted. He's now chief deputy director, but previously deputy director. With that, he gets to not only oversee the planning divisions, but also will be responsible for economic development and housing and our administrative functions. So. that's why he's off today because he took on that role and immediately had to take vacation no just kidding his son is uh graduating today so yeah and he should be there absolutely any other staff reports congressional reports i just uh i just want to bring everybody's attention to uh

a grand jury report that was released yesterday entitled, El Dorado County Code Compliance. I will refrain from commenting about this. I believe they were probably all over the place on this, but I think that I would recommend all commissioners to take a look at this report, just for your information, that's all.

Commissioner Hanson, do you have anything? Just that.

You know whether it wasn't real nice in the last day or two, but before that it sure was nice right well we're in Community up in our neck of the woods we're still there's still a lot of. damage going on tree damage in particular and there's there's a number of fair number of homes that are also so this you know we.

it's ironic, good work that their director has been doing with taking care of the people affected by the Calder fire, and their housing needs.

And, and now to see, you know, not from fire causes, this is wind and snow, but it takes a lot of time to return one's community to the way one saw it for this happened.

So

If you have any friends or whomever in that area, recognize that they're going to need our support.

I spoke briefly to Supervisor Ferro before he left for Italy about design guidelines for Costco, and I've looked at several other Costco stores within the region. They all pretty much look the same. So if we do develop and adopt design guidelines that are fitting and befitting of each community and region within the county, Certainly, we would like it to apply to that project as well. Thank you.

And I don't have anything except if you're driving up to the lake and you're hungry pretty soon, you may have a new restaurant in Whitehall.

In Whitehall?

yeah the old dante's restaurant has been sold to somebody new and hopefully pretty soon they'll they'll be open you know no i don't know i should stop on my way home and say hello and hopefully the my favorite white building is going to be taken care of soon other than that i don't have anything so if we don't have anything else we'll be adjourned Thank you everyone.

Thank you.