Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I'd like to call this meeting of the July 9th El Dorado County Planning Commission meeting to order. Okay, can we get a roll call, please? Yeah, can we get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Williams? Here. Commissioner Hanson? Here. Chair Fraga?

Here.

Commissioner Costello? Here. Commissioner Sklar?

Mostly here.

Let the record show that all are present.

Commissioner Williams, would you like to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, 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, Okay. Okay, do we have any announcements regarding the agenda for today?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Rob Peters with planning. I just wanted to acknowledge that there was an item that had been on the agenda. We it was failed to be properly noticed, and so we are continue or moving that item for consideration to the next planning Commission meeting on the 23rd and because it wasn't properly noticed we can't hear the item.

And that item was for the.

item to for the cavalry Chapel.

All right, let's go on to the approval of the consent calendar. So public comment? OK, we have any public comment on 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.

Chair, I have one item I'd like to bring up, if I could.

A consent calendar?

Well, it is actually an item that I had requested to be put on the consent calendar. And because of vacations, whatever else that request was not properly noticed. And so just it had to do with the minority report I made on the M5 project. And so I would like to be able to just note that I would like to bring that forward so we enter this into the official records at the next meeting so we can complete for the new...

I'm a little bit confused. According to this, the consent calendar would be the approval of the agenda for today.

That is correct.

And the minutes of the May 28th meeting.

I agree that that's what is printed. I'm saying that there was a request to have an item put on the consent calendar by a commissioner that was sent to the director. And we did have a conversation with Rob the other day. And we indicated the fact that perhaps the best way to handle this, because we are now dealing with under our new rules of bylaws rather, minority reports can be entered into the official records of the Commission. I'm just saying that a request was made because of no fault of anybody. It wasn't put on the calendar. And I just wanted to have that noted. And I'm going to recommend that we input it on the following agenda, consent calendar, so we can address it appropriately and then bring this into closure. That's all I'm saying.

Is it appropriate to do it now or under to's and from's to bring something up for the next?

I would defer to council on that one. So chair, if there's a request to agendize an item, I think you could bring it up under twos and from this one specific to these minutes. And I could share my comments on the request because it'll, it's not a regular request, there'll be some procedural issues and some comments, but that would be under the twos and from.

So we deal with it under twos and from? Okay. So let's go to, there is no public comment on the consent calendar.

Yeah, that would work. We have approval of the consent calendar. We're at second.

We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the consent calendar? And it would be the approval of the agenda as amended, right? Correct?

That was the motion, yes.

Because we're agendizing.

It's the agenda as posted, which does not have item two on it.

Was that posted? I didn't. OK. So we don't have to do it as amended. OK. So we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? We take a vote.

Commissioner Williams, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Hanson?

Aye.

Chair Fraga?

Aye.

Commissioner Costello?

I abstain. I was not present.

And Commissioner Spahr?

Aye.

The motion passes 4-0 with Commissioner Costello abstaining.

Next would be open forum. This is the public's opportunity to come and make any presentations they'd like and speak to the Commission on any item that is not on today's agenda.

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. No public comment.

OK. So next on the agenda would be item number two is canceled. So we'll deal with item number three.

Item number three. Hearing to consider Planning and Building Department Long Range Planning Unit proposed amendments to chapter 130.36 of the zoning ordinance to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Chair, can you please open the hearing?

OK. Public hearing is now open. We have staff report.

Thank you. I'll wait for the presentation to load here. okay good morning chair frega and commissioners i'm thea graybill and the planning manager for the long-range planning unit within the department of planning and building i'm going to be presenting a fairly narrow package of zoning ordinance amendments related specifically to digital signs and just digital signs in el dorado hills community region City Council Chambers, In the package of materials, you will find a staff presentation in attachment a draft er addendum and attachment be a red line of the zoning ordinance amendments attachment see. the clean copy of the zoning ordinance amendments in attachment D, the staff memo in attachment E, and public noticing in attachment F. So quite a bit of materials. We did have about two public comments, one from Linda Campbell and one or maybe two from the International Sign Association. So just wanted to bring those public comments, written public comments to your attention. Next slide. So as you may recall, the board recently adopted a broader signs zoning ordinance amendments package with a ban on most digital signs with a few limited exceptions. After adoption, staff realized that the digital sign limitations were just too narrowly tailored, and we've been working to remedy that issue based on board direction over the past several months. Most recently, the board adopted an ROI that provided staff with the ability to open up the zoning ordinance, and with some specific direction in that meeting. And then the board formed, a while back, formed a signed ad hoc committee. That signed ad hoc committee City Council Chambers, approve the very recommendations before you today as presented by staff, of course, the signage ad hoc committee does not make up the full board of supervisors. City Council Chambers, But it does make up of supervisors beer camp and parlin so just wanted to note that so what is before you today has been approved by that signage ad hoc committee. City Council Chambers, Next slide. This slide summarizes the specific direction to staff for the focused amendments to Chapter 130.36 with key project objectives. As noted previously, general direction was provided to staff through the resolution of intention process, the ROI, and then this exact recommendation was approved by the Board Sign Ad Hoc Committee. Next slide. So the proposed amendments before the Planning Commission today are to allow digital signs in El Dorado Hills community region just in zones, commercial zones. and with the following additional limitations listed here on this slide. Prohibiting digital signs visible from US Highway 50, requiring freestanding digital signs to be oriented to minimize visibility outside a commercial center, and requiring digital directory signs to not be legible from adjacent residential areas. Again, the sign had all committee felt like, you know, we needed to allow some digital signs in El Dorado Hills community region in the commercial zones, given that that is our county's more populated area. It has more commercial activity there, but still balancing our rural community character and not wanting to affect nearby residences with these signs. So next slide. The proposed El Dorado Hills digital sign amendments also include other limitations, such as restrictions on sign type. so freestanding and directory signs only, and restrictions on the size and maximum number allowed based on the floor area of a specific commercial or retail center, excluding parking. You can see the details on this slide, or they're also available in Attachment C, Table 130.36.070H1. Next slide. So we're also amending another portion of the zoning ordinance, basically to just ensure that it doesn't conflict with the previously described amendments and to just ensure that those two sections are consistent with one another. And so this slide summarizes those proposed amendments. Next slide. So upon the outcome of today's planning commission hearing, our anticipated plan is to advance this set of amendments in front of the board on August 25th, 2026. And upon board approval, the ordinance will be effective on September 24th, 2026. We're trying to move this pretty quickly, and that is to um, comport with, um, a potential applicant in town centers, um, proposed digital sign package, um, to ensure that they can move forward as, as quickly as, as possible. Um, next slide. Oh, okay. Oh, it seems we're having some technical difficulties. This, yeah, there we go. In conclusion, staff is recommending the adoption of the sign ordinance update EIR addendum and approval of the amendments to chapter 130.36 as presented today. Of course, I'd be happy to answer any questions or receive your feedback and comments today. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Sparks, since this is would you like to kick off the questioning?

Sure, absolutely. I agree that we don't want sign pollution throughout the county and along Highway 50. But would this make the sign at Missouri Flat for the shopping center there non-conforming?

This is Rob Peters. I that may have already happened because they approved that sign with the crossings project. Subsequently, the sign package that you saw before prohibited those Us. Fifty digital signs. So I believe that action has already taken place. Okay.

And so this would fit only for Eldorado Hills community. And since we only have one large shopping center town center that's also an entertainment zone, this would help direction and information for that entertainment zone.

Not the entertainment zone.

I can speak to that one too, Rob Peters again. So we are actively working with the town center group to bring to the board a request for an entertainment zone. So that is part of that scenario. It hasn't been approved yet, but it is sort of in the works and we did get a resolution of intent to proceed with that item. But yes, it would be, you know, those freestanding monument signs at the entrances to those, that would be an example of where they would like to put one.

Well, then I'd like to compliment staff. I think you did a good job, and I think we're heading in the right direction.

Thank you. Thank you.

Commissioner Costello, do you have any questions?

Yeah, thank you, Chair. first a disclosure i met with planning staff early last week to discuss the agenda items for today and i do have a few few questions and again i go back we i had asked in our meeting about what constitutes a site the way this is written it's based on a site floor area does that mean the entire shopping center linda campbell in her public letter noted that if you have a different owner in the shopping center? Maybe they own a big building. Would that then be segregated? They would be allowed their signs and then the balance of the site would be allowed theirs? Or is it parcel by parcel? Or how do you envision this working?

My understanding is it's not based on ownership. It's not parcel by parcel. It would be the entire town center site. Site, I believe, is defined in our zoning ordinance

Yeah, in that particular example, the town center has a planned development over the entirety of it, and so there are separate ownership within that, but we would consider that the site. There would be other potential shopping centers in the El Dorado Hills area based on those square footages, but it was not intended to have every business of a certain size. It was more these larger centers, if you will.

And so to just to note, and this is Commissioner Spahr kind of brought this up in his comment, which is, you know, this is a very narrow package. This is to allow town center to do, you know, comport with their proposed digital sign package. It's also to allow for potential future town centers, you know, in that area, large commercial development.

Correct. A couple of others here, just a moment. So the freestanding signs. They're going to be oriented to minimize visibility from outside the commercial retail center. But aren't they designed to maximize visibility like from the roadways? I don't understand that. So they have a freestanding sign to advertise their businesses, but we want to minimize the visibility from outside the center. So they're going to be oriented inside? That doesn't make sense to me.

I mean, so that recommendation specifically came from the sign ad hoc committee. I think they're trying to balance, you know, allowing town center again to do what they want to do within their sign package. But, you know, there is a very firm belief on the sign ad hoc committee that, you know, they don't want light pollution. They don't want, you know, distraction from nearby neighbors. They don't want our communities to be flooded with digital signs.

Yeah, I would just add, I would just add, I think the intent of that was, yeah, it wasn't so that they would be internally directed. I think it was so that they were so big and so bright and so far reaching that as an example, two blocks down, you're able to read that thing. And, you know, it's for more localized, but you're absolutely right to catch the people. It's not, it's going to be directed towards the roadways, not internally.

I mean, the owner is going to want to maximize the visibility. The other stuff is handled by the existing limitation on brightness and on size. That helps. And the directory not visible from a resonance. I just didn't understand why you want to minimize the visibility when you want to maximize the visibility.

Yeah, and point taken, and we can maybe clarify that language a little bit to ensure that

know the intent is is there okay thanks um so the directory signs they can't be legible from adjacent residential uses but the freestanding signs can be what i mean it it's interesting that they the text City Council Chambers, calls out the directory signs for not being legible from adjacent residences, but not the larger freestanding ones.

I think the intent of the directory signs and I was also in the ad hoc meetings are much smaller. But the intent is that they would not have sort of huge fault on them, they would be an actual directory sign so you couldn't use your directory sign. To essentially be like a monument sign to just have one big block of text on it, so it would actually be smaller text with a directory of what is inside the shopping Center.

City Council Chambers, But they'll be able to see the directory signs potentially i'm sorry not the director, but the freestanding signs, yes, correct just so so the directory sign does not turn into basically an advertising so all right. Okay. City Council Chambers, The digital. In the existing ordinance, the digital display is limited to half the allowable display face area of the sign. The directory, so this ordinance changed, allows for the directory to use 100% of the area, but not the freestanding sign, correct? I didn't see that. So in other words, we have a table here that lists the size, of the freestanding signs so, for example, between 110 500,000 we've got 150 square square feet allowable but only 75 square feet illuminated is that correct.

I think that's correct yes okay.

So the maximum sign is the sign, not just the illuminated area in the table. Correct yeah yeah I just want to confirm yep all right, because those are big, but when you cut them in half and not as big. Oh, and then, lastly, the comment from Linda Campbell. asking whether the statement that signs can have blinking, flashing, emitting lights, or other illumination devices that have a changing light, brightness, or color, that text is existing in the current ordinance in terms of signs facing Highway 50. And that's the only place I saw it, but would it be a good idea to include that as well?

So my understanding is that that language comply, you have to all signs have to comply with that language that applies to all signs.

Okay.

So there's no need to repeat it throughout the apartments.

The only place I saw it was in 130.36.J.6, which is for Highway 50 green and signs. And they've already been in there, or may have been in there in a different area, but I didn't see them.

So we can check on that, Commissioner Costello. But there's also the restriction of the signs can't change more than every eight seconds. They can't blink under that provision either, but we can make sure it's clear.

Very good. Yeah, that's all I have. Thanks.

Thank you. I did my best without Tom here.

Good pinch hitting job. As the other commissioner from Eldorado Hills, I'm running through my own mind how many properties we're really talking about that would be impacted by the sign. I know that this thing was prompted by some pretty hefty lobbying, which is appropriate. Lobbying sometimes is a good thing, sort of ungrown, but on the town center people, and I think that the intent originally was, at least from my understanding historically, was to allow them to have more visible signage to that very well-used area. But if I look through my own mind and try to look at the various areas where this thing could also apply, I'm looking at the shopping center there at Bass Lake in Green Valley. I see the Green Valley at Francesco. I can see two signs on either side. Actually, all three corners could have digital signs, quite frankly, at Frisco. Coming on down the way, we have... a number of little shopping malls, but we also have a large supermarket that also would apply. And across from that supermarket, there's also another commercial zone that could also have additional signs applied based upon this ordinance uh crossing the freeway we'll obviously the town center but we also have town center west we have the uh the whole corner there white rock and uh and uh and uh latrobe uh all three of those corners are are subject to these signs uh we are also going to be talking uh very soon uh the commission will have an informational uh discussion about the uh mixed use gateway project that will also have it. You know, in my own mind, I can easily calculate 1520 additional signs we are now approving for a region where the intent was really initially to address the concerns and the interest of town center. I'm also concerned about the one-off kind of attack that we're only addressing El Dorado Hills. Since I also support and represent Cameron Park, I would see that there are also areas that might have interest in doing a similar kind of situation. I want to also remind the Commission that we approved not too long ago digital signs for an R&D or a RV park also recently. So I think the staff did a good job of trying to address the concerns and the limitations and actually a very, very good job. I'm just concerned that there are too many loose ends approve at this point i i i i am concerned that uh while we're trying to address the primary application which is the uh interest of the town center folks uh we're now not addressing the broader issue of digital science per se and so i'm i'm i'm troubled i don't know how i'm gonna vote yet on this thing but i uh just want to know uh do you have any uh any idea for from a staff perspective, how many properties might be impacted in El Dorado Hills and might be eligible for these kinds of things?

So Commissioner Williams, I was in the ad hoc meetings too and spoke with Tom. There's different grit and as a first comment staff did not draft an ordinance specific for town center. Okay, it's drafted to be more broadly, but it is broken down by size. And when we talked about this, the smaller sort of strip malls. City Council Chambers, Under 110,000 no digital signs are allowed there's kind of a mid grade, where you would get. City Council Chambers, Potentially to freestanding science and then the very large as far as the shopping centers that could potentially add the freeze the freestanding signs, it was probably Montalvo in the shopping Center you mentioned off green valley, but those smaller ones will allow best lake there's also a.

the release shopping center there you know there's a number of other ones that are large well it will depend on the unless there are certain size they'll only be allowed the directory digital signs not the freestanding signs but that's what i recall well i guess i guess my that's my i'm just trying to have a better understanding of what what areas are are earmarked specifically in el dorado hills that this might apply to and i and uh i don't see a clear definition of Mayor Mrakas, Pacific which properties would be impacted and to be eligible for this and then that's my real question we talking six we talking 20 we talking. Mayor Mrakas, One I I don't know that at this stage.

Yeah, I just pulled this table up that Jefferson was referencing when he was speaking about the sizing and what is allowed and what is not allowed. So just wanted to allow the planning commissioners to be able to reference that table.

So they have one quick question so the item before us today is just geared solely towards the commercial area in the other auto hills town center area correct community center. Community that would extend into some of the. Properties and parcels that commissioner Williams is referring to.

Yes, I believe so yeah okay.

The commercial zoning and the size are sort of the limitations. But yeah, there are other available opportunities. We did not go through and measure all the, you know, the sizes of the buildings. And we didn't determine every single location. But yes, it would be allowed to be in other areas.

And I do want to make note on the Cameron Park comment. That was, you know, the signage ad hoc committee was not supportive of allowing, you know, this package to apply to Cameron Park Community Region. They wanted this to only apply to El Dorado Hills. That was the sign ad hoc committee's direction to us.

Thank you. Commissioner Williams, do you have any other questions for staff right now? No. Commissioner Sparrow, you had another question.

Yes, I did speak with Supervisor Ferraro about this, and he did educate me that churches can be exempt. Red Hot Casino can be exempt. We have schools that are exempt. Silver Valley has light signs. I'm not a fan of light signs. I think they're distracting when you're driving. If I'm not a fan of billboards on highways, freeways, and roadways. So if you were to eliminate billboards and replace it maybe two for one, three for one, or four for one for one digital sign, if it wasn't obnoxious, but it's very difficult to write an ordinance on what is obnoxious and what is not obnoxious. All digital signs are obnoxious to me. And trying to use square footage and limit it to just El Dorado Hills community. That's an amoeba to me. And I can see more science and areas wanting them. So Very difficult for staff to do i'm just glad i'm not staff writing this and trying to work through this, so it may come back to us for another area in the county and it could be revised I think there's a huge concern here of we have a visual corridor. Within El Dorado county to lake Tahoe and we want it to look and appear rural. And what that committee tried to do is. direct the signs away from residential views if you put apartments up around town center or an el dorado community those are new residents and the signs are already in place how are you going to direct it so you know commissioner costello had some very good points linda campbell has some very good points we could send this back to ad hoc committee and make some recommendations and changes it is never going to meet my standards of what I don't want. I think it's a good attempt. And I think it could come back and be modified at another time. So I'm supportive of this as a good attempt and think we should move forward with it.

Thank you. Commissioner Hanson? Can I ask for clarification by moving forward, approving this as presented or moving forward with recommendations to the ad hoc that we ask them to revise or review this again?

Good question, Commissioner. I think it's one bite at the apple. We would move forward as it's presented today. And I think in the future, it may come back and be revised by staff again.

Commissioner Hanson, do you have any questions, staff?

You know, I just had one. It's a process question. I don't disagree with really. I remember being early on thinking that, you know, zero digital signs is you know the way to go in this community but but I also see what the adult committee was was you know they're struggling with um did that committee uh we also have this letter from the sign Association I'll call them and one of the things they're saying is that gee you know that it is the the most valuable Dave Kuntz, view is the view from 50 because of the number of cars that are on 50, so my question is did the ad hoc committee, and this is sort of a follow up, I believe the Commissioner costo. Dave Kuntz, kind of just at least go through that issue and say yeah we know that's a that's a valuable view corridor. Dave Kuntz, But. Dave Kuntz, that's that's too bad that's not that we still want. you know, multiple digital signs in this community. But I'm focusing specifically on the Highway 50 view aspect of it. Just want to make sure they discuss that and that you as staff are comfortable that, you know, they covered that and we see that in their recommendations.

Yes, they did discuss that very issue and grappled with, you know, weighing those considerations. And I'll say that recommendation did not come from staff. That specifically came from the sign ad hoc committee members.

Do we have any other questions? Okay. We'll entertain public comment.

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. And now taking public comment from the room. Now taking public comment from Zoom. And now taking public comment from Nina Watkins.

Hi all, thank you so much. My name is Nina Watkins and I'm speaking on behalf of El Dorado Hills Town Center in support of matter 26-110. Thank you for your time, especially Thea for putting in her efforts and everyone on the ad hoc committee that has gone into discussing this ordinance further. Town Center is more than a shopping center. It's where our community comes together. Through our partnership with El Dorado Hills Arts and Entertainment Foundation, a nonprofit, we host concerts, farmers markets, holiday celebrations, nonprofit fundraisers, art exhibits, and community events throughout the year. Today, we rely heavily on printed banners that require constant replacement as events change. Digital signage would allow us to keep information current, reduce material waste, and better communicate the many community events taking place at Town Center. They also help us to celebrate community milestones, recognize local achievements, and support nonprofit events and share important public safety information. We support the county's goal of preserving El Dorado County's rural community character as we move into our planned development process. We would also appreciate clarification on how the standard that was mentioned earlier, quote unquote, minimize visibility from an outside specific commercial center will be applied. We do have locations on our monument signage, which are on Latrobe Road, Vine Street, as well as White Rock Road that are where we put our banners for events at this time. And we also would like, you know, to... specifically address internal signage on our property for directory signage so that we could easily update if we have a business move in or out directory signage for the community as they look for maps on how to get from point A to point B. I did want to also reiterate that our large intention is not to use these for advertising. I think in the conversation before we did mention we would try to keep it under 20%. But our goal is basically to, you know, we know that the community services district has some signs and schools have some signs. We view ourselves as being a commercial center. We also are a public service entity and we want to advocate for ourselves as well as other people who may want to also get the word out there. You know, we feel like we want to be responsible for community connections and also responsible economic growth. We believe that this ordinance provides a thoughtful framework that can benefit Town Center, and we're approved by the county, other projects that may serve their community locally while respecting the county's planning goals. We respectfully ask for your support, and we appreciate your time. Thank you.

Now taking public comment from James Carpenter. James? All right, we'll move on to- Okay, sorry.

I didn't, I just saw the unmute button. You hear me now?

Yes, go ahead.

Great. Hello, Chair Friege and the El Dorado County Planning Commission. I am James Carpentier, here on behalf of the California Sign Association and the International Sign Association, representing the on-premises sign industry. And we truly appreciate the county's efforts to create a framework for electronic message centers. As you all know, that's not an easy thing to do. We respectfully offer the following comments, which really follows a letter which you should have received The first thing I want to mention is the commercial floor area thresholds. The net effect of that is It appears to be set at levels that only allows a very limited number of commercial centers within the region that it can meet. And I know it's been designed that way. And as a result, very few businesses may ever qualify for the signs that are useful because the ones that are only 12 square feet for the smaller square footages are not very functional in relation to providing identity for a business. The recommendation is just to really take a look at those thresholds and possibly open it up a little bit. That can be done clearly by regulating size, location, brightness, operational characteristics. You can have brightness limitations that right now they're great. You can even have them greater. You can have moratoriums at night where it's not on. There's all kinds of things you can do from a code perspective that regulates these signs so it fits in the county. The second issue is the Highway 50 visibility kind of reduces the whole purpose of having an EMC when it's not visible from Highway 50, the major thoroughfare through the county. So, and really, it doesn't appear to have a nexus between this restriction and the regulations themselves. So we just ask that you take a look at that. And really, the way that, you know, the impacts that have been talked about, like brightness, etc., can all be addressed through how they operate and what you allow them to do or not to do. And You know, and the other issue is kind of administrative concern. It's been mentioned that minimized visibility, very hard to administer because it allows for too much subjectivity. We would suggest that... be dealt with once again with objective criteria on regulating EMC so that they will fit in with the county in relation to the concerns that have been already talked about. And that's very easy to do and we're more than happy to help in any way in that aspect. And we believe that the ordinance would be strengthened by establishing more achievable eligibility thresholds and allowing some visibility from Highway 50. Therefore, we respectfully request that the commission refer the proposed ordinance back to staff and ad hoc committee. And we appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you. Thank you, James.

Great. Now taking public comment from Debbie's iPhone. I'm sorry, Debbie, it's very difficult to hear you.

Can you hear me now? Kind of. Okay. Can you hear me now?

That's much better.

That's better. I'm going to talk really loud.

No, we can't hear you.

You can?

No, it's very muffled.

Okay, hang on just one more second, okay?

Okay, can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay, you can hear me. I'm sorry. Good thing I don't have much to say. Debbie Manning, El Dorado Hills Chamber of Commerce. I do echo Nina Watkins' comments. While I appreciate the gentleman who just spoke, I think right now that considering the ad hoc committee has sent this. And we don't want to do analysis by paralysis. We would also support staff recommendation as moving this forward. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Debbie.

And now taking public comment from Jennifer.

Hello, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Jennifer Stevens. I serve as the Facilities Manager for El Dorado Hills Town Center. My role is to oversee the day-to-day operations of the property, including maintenance, signage, safety, and supporting our tenants and visitors. From an operational standpoint, digital monument signs are a practical improvement. Today, we rely on printed banners, as Nina said, temporary signage that require frequent installation and removal. replacement and disposal as events business information and seasonal programming change digital signage would allow us to update information immediately while reducing material waste maintenance time and visual credit clutter created by temporary banners these signs would also improve communication during special events by providing real-time information on parking traffic event schedules weather advisories and emergency notification when needed Our request is limited to digital monument signage at White Rock and Vine Street, Post Street, and Latrobe entrances, along with internal digital directory signage. We're not requesting digital signage be visible from highway 50, and our intent is to design signage that complements town center and respects the surrounding community. As we move through the plan development process, we look forward to working with county staff to ensure these signs meet the county's design expectations and continue to enhance the experience for our businesses, residents, and visitors. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Jennifer.

There is no further public comment.

Okay, so since there's no further public comment, we'll bring us back to the Commission for deliberation. Mr. Spahr?

I'm ready to make a motion after the Commissioners have made any additional comments or changes.

We can discuss that under, if there's a motion we can discuss it. Any changes to

i move that we adopt the addendum county's 2015 sign ordinance update final environmental impact report and number two approve the addendum amendments to chapter 130.36 as presented this will never be perfect but it's a good attempt to move forward thank you commissioner spar just to clarify you would recommend that the board do those two things correct okay thank you okay we have a motion do we have a second a second mr hansen seconds

Okay, now the discussion of emotion any question or seven.

Yes. I'm apprehensive. About approving this it's camel's nose in the tent it lead to unintended proliferation. However, the sizes are relatively small, I think, especially the directory. That doesn't appear to be an issue. The freestanding ones, only half of them will be lit. So rather than a 10 by 20 foot lit sign, it's gonna be 10 by 10, some other similar size. So while still large, they're limited in number. I agree with Commissioner Williams' comment about these things are going to be, will be a town center, but they'll go across the street, across White Rock, down La Trobe Road to that shopping center and then up El Dorado Hills Boulevard as well. So I don't think in any way it's limited to the town center. But I'm prepared to support it as written.

even though i don't want to okay commissioner williams i want to echo commissioner costello so i uh agree with the fact that i think staff has prepared a well-intentioned uh amendment uh and uh that uh had this just been uh defined for town center And narrowed in the scope and I have no reluctance at all and supporting this 100% I am really concerned about the proliferation out, I think the camel now has its nose under the tent and that we're sending a wrong message. So really comes down to. Wayne, which evil is the greatest? And so I will reluctantly support this thing, but with great hesitation.

Yeah, I think it seems like there's a consensus developing along the lines of, is it a one camel or two? And how big is the tent? So sit here and have to talk about metaphors all morning. But yeah, I mean, I, it is a it's a, well, let's get another metaphor being on the horns to dilemma of seeing that there has to be some accommodation given to this new kind of technology and business model. Yet, we do want to preserve the rural character of the county. So as with my other commissioners, I will support it. We're elective.

Okay. And my comments are very brief. In my experience, signs are controversial. No matter what you decide or how you want to work, somebody's going to love them and somebody's going to hate them. Okay, it's subjective. Digital signs, they have benefits and detriments. I like the idea of, you know, directional signs or an emergency or, you know, things like parking full uses. So they have they have some benefits. I am very sensitive to light pollution. Okay. On the other hand, we have an ad hoc committee from the Board of Supervisors that has worked on this. And that's two supervisors in the likelihood of a third supervisor seeing their work and agreeing with it is probably pretty strong. And since I get the impression that they're in support of this. I can support the the item before us. So there are no further comments.

Can we take a vote, please? Chair, if I may offer one comment. If the motion will pass, I've spoken with staff. It's our intention. Some of the comments were well taken to try to clarify some of that language about minimizing visibility and present that to the board. So we do want to clarify some of those issues that weren't clear. But that usually is broken out separately with colors. Tom loves colors. And then the board can see what has changed.

Thank you. You can roll call, please.

Commissioner Williams, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Hanson?

Aye.

Chair Praga?

Aye.

Commissioner Costello?

Aye.

And Commissioner Spahr?

Aye.

Motion passes 5-0. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Thea, and you guys did a great job.

I'm just here in place of Tom, so I want to thank Tom. He did a lot of this work. I'm just the pretty face right here.

Get home safe. We're just going to be a lot of traffic.

Good job, Dean.

Okay. The next item is item number four.

Item number four, hearing to consider revisions to cannabis setbacks reductions for parcels owned or leased prior to November 6, 2018.

Okay. Mr. Chair, if I may, can we just have a second so staff can get a swap? Yes, we can. Thank you.

And while they're getting settled in, we'll open the publication. Mm.

Thank you Planning Commissioners, Evan Mattis, Senior Planner. So what we're looking at today is a Commercial Cannabis Ordinance update or amendment. And we are looking for Planning Commission's review and recommendation on this amendment. So this was originally brought up at the Board of Supervisors May 13th, 2025 meeting. At that meeting, the Board discussed the Ability for commercial cannabis projects to amend setbacks through the CCUP process, primarily in regards to outdoor mixed light cultivation projects. Board directed staff to return with a resolution of intent to review removal options for setback reductions identified in the commercial cannabis ordinance. That ROI returned to the board on January 13th of this year. The staff presented the item along with information regarding the applicability of the different setbacks across different commercial cannabis use types. The board ultimately determined for staff to remove the ability to amend cannabis setbacks across all commercial cannabis uses. So the Roi was adopted by a four to one vote directing staff to bring the following planning Commission for consideration. To men section 13041 104 C of the Eldorado county zoning ordinance to remove or modify the ability for any setback from a commercial canvas activity to be reduced and a CCP. So long as the applicant demonstrates that the actual setback will be substantially achieved the purpose of the required setback and at the parcel was under released. by the applicant before voter approval of the ordinance from which The section was derived on November 6th, 2018. So what that would actually look like is the following slide. So the ability to amend commercial cannabis setbacks comes from the second sentence of this section of the cannabis ordinance. So the way to remove the ability to amend cannabis setbacks is pretty simple. It's just to strike out that second sentence that talks about know, the ability to actually amend those setbacks. I'd like to go over the different cannabis uses and the separate requirements briefly. So on the left side of this table, you can see the different cannabis uses. So we have retail storefronts, retail delivery, laboratories, distribution, manufacturing, indoor cultivation, and then outdoor mixed light cultivation. And then going across the top of the table, we have the different special cannabis setbacks. So we have the 300-foot wetland setback, which is only applicable to outdoor mixed-light cultivation. There's the 800-foot property line or public right-of-way setback, so that's an interior buffer. And that is only applicable to outdoor mixed-light cultivation. There is a 1,500-foot... sensitive use setback buffer. And so that's going to be school bus stops, youth oriented facilities, things of that nature. And that is measured property line to property line. So it's measured from the property of the site that has the cannabis grow to the property that has that sensitive use. And then there's also, and that's applicable to all cannabis uses. And then there's also a 500 foot residential use or residential zone setback buffer, that's also property line to property line. And that is applicable to all cannabis uses with the exception of outdoor mixed light cultivation. So we kind of put together an example of a cultivation setback for outdoor cultivation. So you can see the 300 foot setback from the river, that's the blue line. The 800 foot setback from the property line And then the 1,500-foot buffer from the property on the right that has the little bus stop on the road right there.

Evan, real quick. So if you're looking at the bus stop on this diagram, so it's not 1,500 foot from the bus stop itself, it's from the property line of the parcel, which is adjacent to the bus stop.

That is correct. A good example.

It could be 3,000 feet. It could be 1,501 foot.

A good example of that is previously there was the Green Gables project, which was a cultivation grow project. out in the Latrobe area, I want to say. And they didn't have the ability to reduce the setback because they purchased the property after the voter initiated. There was a school bus stop on an adjacent parcel, but being the parcels were so large, the actual bus stop was several thousand feet away from the The grow area, but because it's parcel line to parcel line, it was technically a zero foot setback kind of a real life example of how that works. So we went ahead and kind of did a preliminary analysis of trying to map out the different setback uses and their buffers throughout the county. So on this map, you can see in purple is, as best we could, the 1,500 foot sensitive uses. So those are going to be bus stops, parks, schools, churches, things of that nature. The red is the 500 foot residential zones. That setback is also applicable to residential uses. But just for our analysis, we only mapped out the residential zones. Because you can still have residential uses on rural zoning, agricultural zoning. You can have a legal nonconforming house on a commercial zone, that sort of thing. So that's only showing the residential parcels. So that's actually probably going to be much larger. The 300-foot riparian buffers. So these are just some of the major water sources. Again, that's not going to include intermittent streams, that sort of thing. But it does kind of give you a good idea of what that might look like. And then also just included the cities of Placerville and South Lake Tahoe, as well as the federal lands, just to kind of give you an idea of, you know, where these buffers are going to be impacting. All right. And so I'd also like to kind of just go over the different use types and how these buffers would affect the different use types within the cannabis ordinance. So outdoor mixed light cultivation. So this cannabis use is allowed within the rural lands, planned agriculture, limited agriculture, and agricultural grazing zoning designations, and has a setback requirement of 800 feet from all property lines, 1500 feet from sensitive uses, and then 300 feet from riparian resources. The maximum amount of cultivators allowed in the county is capped at 150, To date, five CCUPs for outdoor cultivation have been approved, with one of those approvals has expired, and then two CCUPs for cultivation have been denied. Our preliminary analysis on the effect of the setback reductions on cultivation, we based it on the assumption of a 60-acre square parcel to support a 10,000-square-foot parcel on the interior. Technically, the ordinance requires a minimum of 10 acres based upon zoning and growth size. But with the 800 foot setbacks, that's really just not even feasible. Looking at that parcel width, the zoning, the setbacks, we came back that there's approximately 130 parcels in the entire county that would be eligible for cannabis outdoor mixed light cultivation within El Dorado County without setback reductions. And I do want to point out that in my memo, I do sometimes say mixed use instead of mixed light. So I just want to point that out briefly. Indoor cultivation. Indoor cultivation is going to be a little different from mixed light. Mixed light is going to be your greenhouses, hoop houses, that sort of thing. Indoor cultivation is cultivation completely within a permanent structure using artificial light. That is allowed within general commercial, industrial high, industrial low, research and development, and Meijer's industrial zoning designations. It has the 1500 setback from sensitive uses, and then the 500 foot setback from residential zones and uses. That's also subject to the 150 maximum amount of cultivators in the county. To date, we haven't received an application for an indoor cultivator. And based upon our preliminary analysis with the zoning and the setbacks from those sensitive uses, there are no parcels in the county that would be able to meet the eligibility without a setback reduction. Distribution facilities, this is for commercial distribution of cannabis products. That's allowed within general commercial, high industrial, low industrial, research and development, and Meyers Community Center and Meyers Industrial Zoning designations. has setback requirements, again, of 1500 feet from sensitive uses and 500 feet from residential uses. There is no limit on the amount of distribution facilities allowed in the ordinance. Today, we haven't received any applications for a distribution facility. And again, based on our analysis, there are no parcels in the county that meet the ability to meet all the setbacks for a distribution facility. commercial cannabis retail still storefront. So that's going to be your, what you kind of think of when you think of a dispensary, this is going to be open to the public where people can come and purchase cannabis products. That is allowed within community commercial, regional commercial, general commercial, industrial light, and Myers community. And again has the setback requirements of 1500 feet from sensitive uses and 500 feet from residential zones, there is a limit of seven. storefronts with one storefront allowed additional storefront allowed and myers all these use permits have either been approved or in process. All the all storefronts have requested a setback reduction in some form or another. There is one storefront that is still currently processing. It has been deemed complete. So should this ordinance go into effect, it would be vested in the rules and regulations at the time that it was deemed complete. So they would still be able to request the setback reduction moving forward. However, based on our analysis, if a new storefront was to move forward that wasn't deemed complete, There are no parcels that are eligible without the setback reductions in El Dorado County. Retail sale and delivery. So that's different from the storefront. A lot of times they're grouped together, but you can't have a standalone delivery facility. This is effectively delivering cannabis products directly to consumers. This is allowed within general commercial, high industrial, low industrial research and development and Myers industrial zoning designations. Again, they have the 1500 feet from sensitive uses and 500 feet from residential uses us to date, we have one delivery service standalone delivery service that has been approved within the county, they did request a setback reduction. However, any new ones moving forward. We don't see based on our analysis, any parcels would be able to meet the setback requirements without a setback reduction request. TESTING LABORATORIES, THOSE ARE ALLOWED WITHIN GENERAL COMMERCIAL, HIGH INDUSTRIAL, LOW INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND MYERS INDUSTRIAL ZONINGS AND AGAIN THEY HAVE THE 1500 FOOT SETBACK AND 500 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THERE IS NO LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT OF TESTING LABORATORIES. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR TESTING LABORATORY AND BASED UPON OUR ANALYSIS THERE AREN'T ANY PARCELS THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SETBACKS. All right, and commercial cannabis manufacturing. So those also have the 1500 foot setback from sensitive uses and 500 feet from residential uses. To date, we haven't received an application for a standalone manufacturing facility. Manufacturing facilities are though, they are broken down a little bit further by the different manufacturing types. So we have type seven manufacturing, which allows for volatile solvent extraction, Then Type 6 manufacturing, which allows for non-volatile solvent manufacturing. Both of those are really limited to the commercial and the industrial zones. And again, based upon our analysis, we wouldn't be able to meet any of the setbacks. Type N and Type P manufacturing. So Type N manufacturing allows for the infusion of products and the packaging and labeling of cannabis. And Type P manufacturing allows for only the packaging and labeling of cannabis products. Type N and Type P manufacturing licenses are permitted in community commercial, regional commercial, general commercial, high industrial, low industrial, research and development, planned agricultural, limited agricultural, and agricultural grazing zoning designations. The agricultural zones does require a minimum of 10 acres. Based on preliminary analysis, only 40 parcels would be eligible for Type N or Type P manufacturing. All of those are located within those agricultural zones. We do have some of the outdoor cultivators do have Type P manufacturing, so they can do onsite packaging and labeling of their product. And then type as manufacturers for shared facilities, so it needs to be attached to one of those previous manufacturing facilities. Planning staff also has prepared an alternative zoning ordinance update to show the direction of the board change, ultimately. The alternative A that was attached to the memo would retain the ability for commercial campus projects for reduced setbacks, with the exception of outdoor mixed light. So that alternative would allow for those, you know, delivery, manufacturing, testing laboratory, that sort of thing to have the reduced setbacks, but not outdoor mixed light, but that's at the discretion of the board. So with that, staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the board to take the following actions. To find the amendment of Section 13041-104C exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Sections 15060C2 and 15378 of the CEQA guidelines and approve the amendments of Section 13041-104C of Title 130, El Dorado County. ordinance related to removing the ability to reduce the effects for any commercial cannabis activity. And that concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

If I could, I'd like to add a few comments to that. Thank you, Evan. Great job. This predates Evan's involvement in the cannabis program. There was one distribution facility that was approved and initiated, but there was not enough product being produced in the county and so they did have to shut down their business because there's not enough growers that have been approved. Another fact I want to make clear as there has not been any code enforcement cases opened against any of the legal uses that are allowed by the cannabis policies and there has been no complaints received about outdoor cultivation. And then lastly, just want to make clear that the measures that were voted upon by the public were word for word that what is, excuse me, they're word for word for what is in our ordinance, except for a couple of revisions that allowed labs and some background check issues. So just want to add those. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Do we have any questions of staff? Commissioner Wayne, did you want to?

Questions? No specific questions, just a general observation of my position. I have, over the period of time that I have been on this commission, I have found myself, because of the wording of the curtain, current ordinance and the the subject paragraph that uh we're talking about uh meeting today i found myself having to uh approve disapprove and even abstain from applications that's a very uncomfortable position for commissioner uh have to take a look at when uh there is that uh area of greatness in terms of what does that really, really say in terms of the wording. And so I think striking this makes a lot of sense. It will help clarify exactly what latitude we have as a commission. And so that's my observation. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Hanson, do you have any questions? Where's this from?

Thank you, Chair. Staff, you have a list of setbacks and requirements, but with wetlands, you don't have a requirement for manufacturing that can have volatiles that we would not want or chemicals we would not want in a wetlands. Why is there no setback for manufacturing in regards to wetlands?

For manufacturing, that would wholly be within a structure. So it'd be just same as a lab, R&D, you know, there's state requirements that, you know, the manufacturing process does not leave the confines of the building.

So I would agree with you on that. And I have toured many manufacturing facilities and grow houses in Colusa County, Mendocino County, and in Monterey County. And all of them wish, desire, and work very hard to keep everything contained within their building. So why do we have these setbacks in the first place? And why are we requested to review the setbacks today?

At the request of the board. The board requested this action. Why we have the setbacks, the writing of the policies by Creighton, at Creighton-Avila and Bree, Mobius, predate all of us here. I was only involved in the program post-adoption of the measures and adoption of the policies.

And what is the Board of Supervisors' desire?

What's the Board of Supervisors' desire? To review these issues that come about at hearings.

Thank you.

So Commissioner Spahr, if I might add. Please. The board gave... sort of broad that they wanted these reviewed and sort of they wanted the exception gotten rid of. What wasn't entirely clear was, is it for cultivation? Is it for every type of product? That's why you see there's a staff recommendation and there's an alternative. The board didn't really weigh on if this process should go away for everything or just for cultivation. So that was an item where it's really up for your commission to discuss and see what you think.

Yeah, thank you, Jefferson. Yeah, they originally, I mean, I believe at the hearing, the board hearing in Tahoe that initiated this process, they wanted to focus on cultivation. But at the resolution of intention hearing, they opened it up to all uses within the cannabis ordinances.

Thank you for that clarification. That's important. I am not in favor of cultivation on Ag property or outside of a building, a grow house, or any land being used as a resource for cultivation. So I appreciate that. Thank you.

Commissioner Hansen? Me? Costello? And you had an extra half hour of sleep.

I was thinking of something else.

Yeah, a couple of questions. Thank you for the presentation. Well, maybe I'll preface it by saying these setbacks, in my opinion, are egregious when it goes property line to property line. And the result is, in our county, City Council Chambers, It negates any indoor cultivation any distribution any retail storefronts any delivery any any testing lens so that's a moratorium. City Council Chambers, So i'm just sort of taken aback by by that in a specifically a question why have setbacks for a laboratory so we have the business park. And they want R&D, and labs are a perfect fit for something like that. A testing lab for cannabis where they test for pesticides and other things. I don't know, but I don't think it's any different than any other lab.

I can confirm it's not. We actually had one lab approach us about establishing here. David Price- requires a PhD to head the lab and you know certifications and. David Price- Like lots of.

David Price- yeah correct requirements and i've been to a lot of labs those i've collected samples throughout my career and getting the light delivered in the labs and got to know their operations it's a perfect fit for the business park. yeah. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Because of the setbacks and I don't know which one triggers it none, none of those parcels are available for a lab that allowed to sort of a business. I think we want to welcome into the county. It provides jobs needed for this industry. From delivering you mean? Because the samples are small.

Samples are very small, but what a lab does is provide health and safety precautions for consumers.

Correct.

Yeah.

Correct. The state requires the stuff to be tested before it could be sold. They're concerned about residues and other potential contaminants. and potential contaminants in the product. And we're saying, well, we can't have one of those in our county. And to me, I can't believe that. I mean, is it because of the school down there in the business park? I mean, what triggers the setback?

So, I mean, there's a variety of different, you know, triggers for that 1500 foot setback. Youth oriented facility is very broad. So there's plenty of schools within the business park. There's churches as well. Churches are also considered within that 1500 foot setback. There's day cares, things of that nature.

Do these setback requirements pertain to other laboratories? Not to my knowledge yeah so what's the so my point is there's no difference. From a cannabis lab to any other lab is analyzing for volatile organic compounds pesticides. You name you know heavy metals gas and oil, you name it in fact that stuff. In my opinion, is more toxic and potentially dangerous than in cannabis so. We're being asked to approve no exemptions to setbacks, knowing that if we do so, you're eliminating almost every category in this table. But the voters voted for the right to have these grows. And the county is saying, fine, that's so good. We're going to enact these setbacks and kill it. Anyway, is that a question? I'm not sure. The lab was a question. Why pick on the lab when it's no different than any other lab? I don't like that. And so I like the alternative, potential alternative for our vote today for this to pertain only to outdoor grows. In my conversation with, brief conversation with Supervisor Parlin, I think it was the outdoor grow that was sort of the impetus of this. However, even the outdoor grows. When you go property line to property line, always, you know, you end up with however many X number of a lot, you know, available properties in the county. It's still pretty, pretty egregious. It's difficult to cite.

So that's actually one thing I wanted to add earlier is that the evaluation that it's limited down to 130 parcels. We have over a hundred thousand parcels in the county.

Yeah. So it's a small number. Yeah. So our role today, we can't Maybe we could recommend we take a look at these setbacks, but that's not in front of us today.

So Commissioner Costello, the ROI was fairly targeted, and it was, I would not say it was a pro-cannabis ROI. Of course, you can make a recommendation to look at these setbacks, but I would add these setbacks were in the voter initiative. They haven't been changed by staff. That's what was in there.

I didn't go back and check. Thank you.

No, no, none of that has changed. That's all what the voters saw and what was approved. Very including for laboratories.

I'm sorry, what was that last part of the laboratory change was laboratories were added after the measures that was the only substantial change. And so there was some changes for a background check process.

So perhaps laboratories weren't considered as part of the validation.

Thank you. That's that's important.

John Potter, yeah I would just add maybe thanks again rob Peters, that is why sort of staff, you know we were asked to take a look at this we're trying to bring all the information forward so that. John Potter, You guys can make informed decisions and the board as well, and so, when we saw these prohibitions to some degree, based on these scenarios that's why staff felt compelled to bring an alternative that at least gave you some options that sir.

All.

I just want to follow up on that. So that's a very good point, because I was going to ask Council about the consistency of this proposed ordinance amendment and the voter approved initiative. If you could opine on that. I think you just did, but I just for all of our benefit, because the enforceability of something that some might say is draconian was a question that was developing in my mind, but it sounds like it was before the voters.

So Commissioner Hanson, each of the separate initiatives had the same sort of preamble that allows the board to tweak the regulations regarding cannabis. I won't weigh in on the issue of if it gets tweaked so far so it's not available, but that is something you could consider when you're looking at your range of options and how that may relate to what the voters intended when they approved the measures.

I have a few. So can you define for me where you refer to Outdoor and mixed use cultivation. What do you consider mixed use cultivation? Is that indoor and outdoor?

So mixed light cultivation is going to be cultivation that's not going to be within necessarily a permanent structure. So it's going to be kind of your hoop houses, greenhouses, that sort of thing. whereas the indoor cultivation is within an actual permitted indoor structure utilizing almost exclusively artificial light.

All right.

Real quick. Yeah. So they, you know, outdoor cultivation is in the rural regions and, you know, similar to agricultural commodities. So you have purely outdoor, which have no covers. And then you have mixed light, which use supplemental lighting to kind of extend the photo period so they can have more crops during the year. But it's all considered outdoor by the state definition.

Okay. Just explain that. So when you're referring to the setbacks, property line to property line. So 1,500 feet from sensitive uses, bus stops, schools, churches, that type of thing. And then you refer to the 800-foot setback. So it's conceivable from property line to property line that the setback would be 1,500 plus 800, correct? So it could be at least 2,300.

and then from the exterior down

So the 800 foot would not be included in the 1500. It would be in addition to. So it's conceivable that it could be at least 2300 feet, which is almost half a mile.

from the cultivation area to that sensitive use, correct? Well, sensitive property lines.

Yeah, yeah. All right. Yes. And if you look at the exhibit I just put up, I mean, you can see the 1,500 feet, you know, goes across this property right here, and then you have the 800-foot interior buffer, and that's kind of delineated by that dashed line right there. And, you know, this is being shown on an approximate 400-acre parcel.

and it could even exceed the 2300 because it's property line to property line and that sensitive use could be however many feet from the property line.

Yeah, that's the point Evan was making as shown on that exhibit. The bus stop could be on the far end of that adjacent parcel, correct?

Okay. Sounds a little draconian to me, but let's go to the next one. When you're referring to mixed use, and this is just for public, can you define what's included in the mixed use designations? Just so it's on record for public so they can understand.

Mr. Chair, I think, as Evan acknowledged at the beginning, there was some typos where we conflated mixed light with use. So when we talk about mixed use, that was an error. It should be mixed light.

Okay. And we don't need that. and city of south wisconsin and city of plasterville they could have their own their own right requirements correct yeah that's correct okay and i want to refer to the maximum number of commercial cannabis cultivation operations including indoor cameras cultivation is limited to 150. so that's the maximum amount of uh permits that can be issued, correct?

And that's actually operators. So it could be that that results in less conditional use permit approvals because a large operation could have, you know, multiple, you know, processors or what's the word? Operators. Operators. Thank you.

And then according to your report, it said based on preliminary analysis, without the ability to reduce setbacks, no parcels are eligible for commercial cannabis indoor cultivation within the county. Is that correct?

That is correct.

So the voters, I just want to clarify this myself. The voters said that they want to be able to do this. But if we implement, the county implements these setbacks, we're in essence saying we're overruling what the people voted for because there are no parcels that would be eligible. Am I reading that correctly?

I mean, our analysis, you know, looking at the zoning, setback requirements, you know, doing the GIS analysis, the attributes, we couldn't find any parcels.

For indoor cultivation.

For indoor cultivation, that's correct.

So, Chair, that's the reason why Alternative A is offered. If you just remove the exception for cultivation, there would still be 130 parcels available and you would not make changes for the other uses.

Because I'm trying to clarify this in my own mind. There are There are parcels where they would be eligible for outdoor cultivation, correct? Correct. Yes. So I'm trying to wrap my head around the logic. If it's OK to do them outside, but we can't do them inside because of the zoning, I'm trying to wrap my head around this. It's okay to do it outside, but we're saying it's not okay for them to do it inside a structure on St. Parks.

That was the direction of the ROI. If I may, I think, you know, and I presented that item in May to the board and was there at the ROI. You know, I think This is a reaction to many of the cannabis projects being appealed to the Board of Supervisors and then ultimately having to make the decision. Most of those appeals were related to, and I can't say all, but probably Evan and Erin know that exactly, but related to outdoor mixed light cultivation. And so, again, when they said, look at the whole thing and removal of that sentence, we're identifying what the outcomes of that based on staff's preliminary review looks like. So I think... You know, again, the intent or the trouble, if you will, that the board was experiencing was related to appeals related to the mixed light cultivation. And so that was sort of the targeted. But they said, take a look at everything. So that's what we're here.

And I'm trying to try to clarify. So the footprint of the ground. If we do this, if the footprint of the grow would be if it's outdoor, it would be okay. But if they can find it inside walls with a roof, it's not okay. It could be on the same footprint.

It's also based upon the zoning. Indoor cultivation isn't allowed within the agricultural zones, whereas outdoor cultivation is. Indoor cultivation is really confined to the industrial zones and commercial zones.

then so based upon the preliminary analysis that you made without the ability to reduce setbacks there are no parcels in the county that are eligible for commercial cannabis distribution facilities that is also correct yes okay and following up on that based there is without the ability to reduce setbacks There are no parcels that are eligible for commercial cannibals retail storefronts in the county. Is that correct?

That is also correct. So I'd like to add, if I may, so the existing locations, right, that have conditional use permits or CCUPs, cannabis commercial use permits, you know, those are legal as they exist today. And if you remove the setbacks, those locations could be transferred to new owners. But say one of those closed and wasn't replaced, that would be difficult to relocate it based on this provision.

And I would also like to add that there is one storefront, I mentioned this briefly earlier, that is currently processing. And because it was at the time it was deemed complete the know this ordinance is still in effect, the ability to amend setbacks, so they would still be able to amend setbacks should. That ability to be removed.

Okay. And I want to go there, because I still don't laboratories. All right. Manufacturing, there are no parcels. No parcels for manufacturing. Alternatives.

And if I could add something real quick, I just got confirmation from the surveyor's office that we currently have 117,000 parcels in the county.

Okay. Just give me a couple seconds here because I have a lot of notes. All right. All right. Okay. When you refer to mixed light cultivation, you're referring to cannabis that's grown in greenhouses, hoop houses, glass houses, that type of thing, correct?

Correct. And I would also like to add that there is a limit on the artificial light that they're allowed to use when they have the

light deprivation up they are limited to six watts per square foot or less so um i think you addressed this earlier where uh but can you just reiterate what was the rationale for striking out the uh the language which referred to parcels that were owned prior to 2018 when the initiative was approved and uh what was the rationale for not allowing those people who owned the property prior to um not being able to apply for setback reduction uh we couldn't come into the rationale because this is a request by the board okay I think that are my question. So commercial cannabis operating permits, they're not transferable, correct? If there's a change or ownership.

Yeah, so the commercial cannabis use permit runs with the land, but the operating permit, correct. You have to apply for a new operating permit if there's new ownership.

So it's conceivable that even though the grow would be permitted, there's a possibility that the new owners may not be granted a permit.

Well, the operating permit's connected to the use permit, which has rights because it's been approved.

So the parcel could...

So the operation could continue as long as they meet the background check for the new operating permit, because those are separate entitlements. So we have the discretionary approval by the planning commissioner of the board, which is the commercial cannabis use permit. And then we have a bi-yearly operating permit, which ensures the continued operation is meeting our requirements.

It requires a renewal every two years.

Yeah.

Okay. All right. Now, this deals with just the unincorporated portions of the county, is that correct?

That is correct.

All right. So if Hypothetically, an area of the county, say a lower hills, camera park, whatever, decides to incorporate and become a city like Placerville and South Lake Tahoe. Would they then in turn be able to have their own ordinance or would these setback requirements be

So, Title 130, which is where this ordinance comes from, these setbacks come from, is not applicable to any incorporated cities, so they would effectively enact their own zoning ordinance so they could have their own setbacks, or they could either allow or disallow. That is up to the discretion of that city.

Okay.

They already answered that one. All right. So is it correct that before a grow can be approved, it has to go before the Agricultural Commission too? Is that correct?

That is correct. Based upon the zoning for outdoor cultivation, there's general plan policies that effectively kick in that requires agricultural commission review based off of the zoning, rural regions, that sort of thing.

Yeah, I want to deal with this. So the maximum number of commercial cannabis operations in the unincorporated portions of the county shall be limited to 150 correct. That is correct yes okay and. You said earlier that, but for all practical purposes, there are only 130 that would meet the criteria would be feasible, yes, okay parcels yeah parcels approximately that means we approve these setbacks the ways proposed. that would mean that we're automatically taking 20 away because you're allowed 150 but you can't because you only have 130 so well that's where i explained that uh the 150 is operation so one of those parcels could have multiple operators within the parcel okay so the max permits are 150. and And it's fire and self explanatory. As you can see, I read the whole thing every word.

No, we do appreciate the feedback is exactly what we're looking for.

All right. Those are all my questions. So It's quarter to 11. The sense of the commission that before we open this, the public comment that we take a few minute break and then come back at 11 o'clock? Or do you want to power through this? Power through a public comment?

Is that what we're thinking?

What about staff?

So, Chair, I see one person in the audience. And as of now, I don't see anyone with their hand raised. So I don't know that it'll be extensive. And we'll open this up for public comment. But everyone may raise their hand now. I don't know.

All right. Well, we'll open it up for public comment then.

All right. 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.

Good morning. Good morning, commissioners. I speak to you through the lens of a retail cannabis operator.

Excuse me. So if I don't have to refer to you by, hey, you, can you just let me know your name?

Jacob Schmidt. James? Jacob Schmidt. James Schmidt? Jacob.

Yes, sir.

I want to propose a potential dispensary to dispensary. Buffer or grandfathering all legal established existing dispensaries Similar to most jurisdictions. That's what they do Canvas business require significant investment due to heavy local state and federal regulations Without separation clustering and oversaturation create an environment where landlords can possibly take advantage of of the current code, compressing margins, driving down prices, and ultimately reducing taxable revenue for the county and reducing jobs in those locations. Most jurisdictions wouldn't allow cigarette stores next to each other, liquor stores next to each other. Kind of similar. buffer protections exist to protect investment, supports legal cannabis markets, and protects the community and also the county's revenue. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Now taking public comment from Zoom. There's no public comment.

Since there's no further public comment, we can bring this back to the Commission.

Commissioner Spahr. Thank you. It seems as though there's a lot of consternation about the setbacks. What if we eliminated all the setbacks except for wetlands? Make it easier for staff to process and the businesses to live or die in the free market.

The. The owners associated with the after grows, I think, was initially concerned. So. setbacks make sense and that's the.

Confusion on them on the mix light and mix you so I understand there's not a mix us, it is a mix light, the problem I have with the mix light is that it's an outdoor grow and not an indoor grow or it's a combination of both. And I don't want to set back that would eliminate or prevent or deter that. City Council Chambers, I would just require all gross have to be contained within a building and all odors must be contained within that building.

City Council Chambers, We, we have an alternative here that's presented, which would be to. City Council Chambers, agree to removing any alternate setback for the outdoor grows. City Council Chambers, But not for anything else, in other words, the other uses could have some discretion on the setbacks, but not the outdoor grow. City Council Chambers, that's.

City Council Chambers, that's all. No, no. City Council Chambers, Oh, from your.

I stated it correctly.

You stated it correctly. And for my logic, I would apply the opposite and have the restrictions on the outdoor grows and be more lenient on all other uses.

That's the way it is. There's leniency. The alternate, my understanding is all the other uses, we would not restrict the opportunity to have variance on the setbacks.

Is that true, Seth? Yes.

So the alternative is less restrictive than the recommendation. Keeping in mind that staff has prepared this pursuant to the Board ROI, which was to examine removing the exemption. The alternative is removing, just targeting that to cultivation, but There is sort of the parameters of the ROI. It sounds like some of the commissioners have issues with sort of the setbacks in general. Perhaps that could be a separate motion to the board, but staff is sort of confined by the board direction.

Right. Okay. Thank you.

But the alternative before us, that's a valid alternative for us to rule on?

When the board issued the ROI, all these items are sort of vetted, but the board didn't weigh in on them. So staff thinks that that is within the ROI. I mean, it would be explained, but it still is removing a portion. And as Mr. Peters said, almost all the contentious hearings that have landed with the board have been cultivation and neighbor issues and setback issues.

City Council Chambers with the outdoor grounds yes correct which makes sense then for the alternative it would allow for or doing away with those alternative setbacks to the outdoors where the contention is yes for the other uses if someone had the property prior to the 2018 date they could still apply for the setback exemption right exactly

No. Mr. Hanson?

No. OK. Might I make a motion? Yeah, go right ahead. I would like to make a motion that we approve the recommendations as presented by the staff.

Is that the one with the alternative or not with the alternative?

Not with that. The motion. As presented. Not without the alternative.

We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? They'll say no, that motion will not pass. That will fail. Now I will accept, it's time I think we accept the second. Is there an alternative motion? And Evan, can you? put up on the screen again uh the verbiage for the alternative yes just give me a quick second yeah i looked at it and

chair i put up mine i had it open it's on the screen okay so that would be c yes it's only removing the exemption possibility for outdoor mixed light cultivation the others would remain eligible for to apply for the setback exemption so the exception of outdoor mix by commercial cannabis cultivation so if it's an outdoor grow

they cannot apply, it's my own mind. If it's an outdoor grow, they would not be able to apply for a setback reduction.

That is correct. It would only be applicable to the other cannabis uses.

And for all practical purposes, there are no parcels where you can have an indoor grow.

Not without a setback reduction.

And if it wasn't indoor grow, they could apply for setback reduction.

As that alternative reads, yes. It could. Yes.

Okay. So that clarification helps. Okay. I'll keep my remarks to myself until we have a motion. I'll give it a try. Commissioner Custell will go right ahead.

So I move that we find the amendment to the applicable sections of California Environmental Equality Act. Find that the amendment, I'm sorry. We find that the amendment of section 130, 41, 100, 4C exempt from CEQA. And that we approve the alternate City Council Chambers, language, whereby the setback requirements could be adjusted for every use other than outdoor growth.

City Council Chambers, So cautioner costello just to be clear that's your recommendation to the board, thank you and you're recommending alternative a, which is what was on the screen, yes, thank you.

City Council Chambers, i'll second that.

So to be clear, the motion is to recommend to the board alternative A, which is preclude setback reductions for outdoor grills, but not for any other types of uses.

Is that correct, the motion? That was my intent, yes. That's correct.

I just want to be clear for everybody.

Are there any other suggestions for the Board of Supervisors we would want to send to them attached to this?

Thank you.

I would like to make one recommendation in particular, and that is re-evaluating the setback requirement for laboratories.

Would that have to be a separate motion, or could that be part of the recommendation?

If the seconder agrees, that could be a second recommendation of the board.

So we'd have to do another motion for that. We'd have to do a motion. Well, we have a motion first, and then we can come back for another motion.

OK. OK. OK, two separate motions. That would end up being two.

Or chair, if the seconder agrees, it could just be amended to include.

I would agree as a second.

That would be the third item would be that the board reevaluate lab setbacks, cannabis lab setbacks.

OK. All right. So I just have some issues with the voter approval. The voters said they want to do something. And now, for all practical purposes, the restrictions that are being placed in the ordinance are precluding what the intent of the voters was, which is that they wanted us to be able to do these things. And when we read through the ordinance and we find out from the staff report that there are no parcels that would meet the criteria, it sounds to me like it's an end run on the intent of what the voters said they wanted us to do. So I have a problem with overturning the route, the intent of what the voters said that they wanted. So I think some of these setback requirements are in my mind. But we can call for a vote.

Well, how about I make a comment? Go ahead, Commissioner Hanson. You know, I've been, you know, conflicted about this really, you know, off and on, ever since the voters approved these measures. But the voters did approve these measures by a comfortable margin, as I recall. I don't think that's relevant to anything. It would be by one vote. So, you know, it's –

It was.

I appreciate your motion, Commissioner Williams, because I just do. So I'm going to support this motion, but very reluctantly and only really not because of what, just to be honest, what the ROI said from the board or anything, but because the voters authorized us and council earlier had That the issue of setbacks was in the measures, right? So how do you implement something you don't really like in the first place? It's kind of like digital signs in the last item. It's our day of we don't like these.

Could we have another motion? the setbacks be congruent with what was approved by the voters as a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for consideration?

I think they are, yes.

You know, the setbacks have not changed since voter approval. They've remained the same.

But in fact, you know, I didn't support it because the way I interpret the motion is that only for outdoor grows there'll be no recourse they can't apply for setback reductions. Any other uses, they can apply for setback reductions. So then the intent of the voters would still be met because people, they can't apply.

They can be granted or not granted.

All right. My other issue is Well, it's a moot point because people that own the property prior to 2018 will still be able to apply for setback reductions as long as it's not an outdoor grow. Is that correct interpretation? That's how the exemption reads. We're doing alternative A. Yes. Which means that we would take away the right of people who owned the property prior to 2018 to apply for a setback reduction. Only for conservation. But if they wanted to have an indoor grow, they could, but for all practical purposes, there are no parcels that would allow for an indoor grow. Correct. So we're saying basically you can have a grow if it's an indoor grow.

Mr. Sheriff, I mean, I think so. There's the two things. The original... City Council Chambers, Information provided by staff, removing the opportunity to amend setbacks does exactly what I think you just said. City Council Chambers, The alternative that was proposed by staff only addresses or modifies the ability for setback modification for mixed light so everything else stays the same as it was.

City Council Chambers, So for all practical purposes, we cannot have any indoor grows in the sky.

Chair, no, they could apply for a setback reduction.

Alternative A. They could apply for a setback? Yes.

The numbers in the staff report were based on staff recommendation where the exemption was removed for all types.

Okay. All right, I get it. Because to me, I don't. Maybe it's me and I can't wrap my head around it. If you have a footprint, somebody wants to have an outdoor grow, and it meets all the setback requirements, you can do it. But if you want to enclose it in the roof and the wall, you can't do it. And that, to me, just doesn't make any sense. I don't know why we would not want to have indoor grows because you can confine any runoff or anything to a structure. I'm just having a little bit of difficulty trying to figure out how that is consistent.

So chair again, the Roi was very targeted. Staff said, examine removing the exemption. Alternative A is sort of the most lenient version of that indoor cultivation. If they could find a parcel with the correct ownership, they could apply for the exemption. If the exemption wasn't there, as staff said, no parcels would be available.

I would just add that I think what you're getting at is we don't allow The construction of a building in those agricultural zones to do indoor cultivation so in those zones where most of the opportunity is. Outdoors what's allowed or that mixed light, and so I think that's where that that the build inside the building grows only allowed another zone so they're not both allowed in ag and I think that's where the differences.

yeah Thank you rob yeah. The intention for the indoor grows is that they need to be in areas that have utilities that are energy intensive. We need to have fully outfitted fire departments. That's the intention.

I get it. All right. Are there any other comments? Well, we have a motion and a second. Can we get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Williams, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Hanson?

Aye.

Chair Frager?

Aye.

Commissioner Costello? Aye. And Commissioner Spahr?

Aye.

Motion passes five to zero.

Why did we all sound like Johnny Depp? We all sounded like Pirates of the Caribbean.

Aye. My hope was for Commissioner Hanson to come up with an alternative motion.

Okay. Thank you.

It was a pretty good staff report. Thank you. Chair, the recommendation for the board to look at the setback for the lab. Oh, yes. We need to do that right now.

That's right. We have another.

Thank you. Thank you. All right.

So staff and commissioner updates. Let's start with. Well, since I'm working this way, there's no score.

You have anything you want to I mean, staff updates first staff. Sure, I could do that. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So since we didn't have any items in or any planning Commission meetings in June, I'll run over. There were three Board of Supervisors items or hearings, and so I just wanted to quickly touch on some of the hearings that were done that came from the Planning Commission. So the Wilson rezone and tentative map, if you recall, in the Placerville area, that was approved by the Board of Supervisors. The COOL conditional use permit request for the home up in the TPZ area, that appeal from Mr. COOL was Denied, and so the project was denied, and that was on June ninth on June sixteenth. The board heard the three appeals to the M. Five project. The the direction to staff was to come back prior to September. I think it's twenty-ninth, and with some supplemental traffic information and some follow-up with the Csd related to the parks. So that'll be coming back to the Board of Supervisors in late September. And so that was on June 16th. And then on June 23rd, the appeal of the open storage lot and business drive in the Barnett Business Park, that appeal was denied and the Planning Commission's recommendation to include the landscaping was upheld. And so that project was approved. And that we will be having our next meeting, 7-23-26, to include the item that was removed from the agenda today. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Spahr, do you have any reports?

Yeah, several comments and members of Elrata Hills community are driving around construction that's taking place on Silver Valley by the intersection. They believe the construction is for Costco to go in there, and it's actually for a water line improvement for a project higher up involving Serrano. Costco's not come before the Planning Commission, so they have no permits or authority to start construction, so it's just a misconception of worried and anticipating homeowners.

Okay, Commissioner Costello?

yeah uh thank you chair i'd like to mention i did attend an outreach meeting that the county provided for communities of cool and georgetown and other communities for the building design It was held in Georgetown. Dia came down from Tahoe. Tom put it on. It was well attended, as I had anticipated, and the community members were super engaged, and it was positive. Lori Parlin was there, Supervisor Parlin was there, and she helped calm the crowd on a couple of occasions, and it was a positive experience.

um that'll be moving forward a second meeting will be held in the community of cool they're coming up shortly i think within the next month or so thank you thank you for that okay i only have one thing real quick before we get to commissioner williams um director garner can you give us a quick update on My favorite white building. I heard there's something going on in the bad side of it.

But you're not the district of India.

Good morning, Karen Garner, Planning and Building Director. So with the Whitehall building, we were prepared to abate that. We had, of course, been communicating with the property owner. And sort of at the 11th hour, they did what we asked them to do. They hired their own engineer with plans to move forward with construction. the engineer's recommendations. In the case of their engineer, rather than remove the entire building, it was to remove the back half of the building, which was an addition to the original historic structure. And they have now started doing that demolition. I just received an email this morning from code enforcement and some photos, and Their observation was that dude, they did not see any equipment on site. So it appears that they're doing the demolition basically by hand. But we'll be just removing the back half of the building, then boarding it up and securing it is the plan. Code enforcement has a schedule with them, they have been meeting those deadlines to ensure that this work gets done, you know, during this season, so it doesn't go into the winter season.

Thank you so much. Glad to see something is positively happening before it goes into the river. Okay. I just read it. 4,000? 4,500? Something like that. Okay, Commissioner Williams.

Yeah, I want to just go ahead and close the loop from the earlier comments that made it up. while we're reviewing the consent calendar. Commissioner, can I ask you, Chairman, could you please pass this?

Oh, before you. One second. I just remembered something before we get to this. Sure. Just for staff's information, going forward, there are going to be projects that are coming up before us going into the late summer and the fall. If anybody has any information that they would like to share about they're going to be on vacation or out of town that way staff when they agendize things for us we know that we're going to have full full commissions i know for example uh september 10 11 12 13 that weekend from thursday on uh from the afternoon of i think september 10th i will be unavailable for about a week i'm going away um can probably do a couple hours in the morning but nothing in the afternoon if anybody else knows they're going to be away anyway the staff know that way yeah we're happy to send a prompt to the commissioners just to get over the next few months any uh availability issues that way in case something comes before us the applicants can have a full commission whenever possible instead of three or four.

Chairman, could you please hand that to the clerk? What that is, so everybody will know what I'm speaking of, that's a copy of the minority report I submitted on the MPI. Because I am bound by the Bound Act, I could not distribute that to you individually and hopefully now that uh the clerk does have a copy that she can make that available uh to all the members uh oh do you okay no well you just said that the uh is that the thing that you submitted to the board of supervisors on the public comment yes yes all right because i already read that thank you i have coffee Thank you for doing that. I know that we had talked about that on the phone, so thank you for making that happen. Basically, what I'm trying to do right now is just close the loop because of the new bylaws. We do have a provision where minority reports can be presented to the board. I took advantage of that. I'm presuming that other commissioners now and in the future will probably may be doing the same thing the question is then how do we uh tie those minority reports back to the commission's records and what i had requested that uh that we uh officially put this report in our minutes just as a matter of records not to endorse not to make a comment but just to have it as our as our record a a copy of uh any action that pertains to actions to be sent to the board and the board in turn reacted to. And so my desire is, because we didn't really well define how that loop got closed, that I would ask that either staff make recommendations on how we would need to handle that in the future Or that we actually put an agenda item in the future to feature agenda, so we as commission can again talk about the best way to handle our own internal. Communication of information that because of the brown act we just can't really distribute and so. That's what I'm bringing for the board right now. How do we like to proceed? Obviously, because it has been distributed, it's now part of the record in terms of my minority report. I would, just a little, just an aside, I would ask that everybody take a look at what I wrote. I would also ask everybody to take a look very seriously at the three appeals that were presented on M5. It does not come back to us at this stage, although it might. But the supervisors right now have decided to continue that under their own agenda and make some determinations. But it's really kind of unprecedented that you had three appeals on the same item. And so I think we need to, I just hope that everybody take a look at it and consider what that might mean. Anyway, any questions? comments, any questions? Again, my ask is that one of two things happen, either that staff agree to come back to us with a recommendation or a process on how we handle entering minority reports back into our records, or that we set a time in the future agenda to advise this item in the future so the commission itself can how we handle all future minority reports.

So Chair, I'll offer a brief response. I don't want to get into Brown Act issues. So under the bylaws, essentially how this works is when you vote in minority, you would then state on the record for the minutes why you're voting no, and that is presented to the board. If this is the document that went to the board as a public comment and you now want to attach to the minutes, if you're interested, I could discuss the process by that, but that would require some procedural moves. But essentially, I don't know where the term minority report, but if you vote no, and this was the rule before it was in the minutes, you just say, I'd like the record to reflect why I'm voting no, and then it will be attached to the minutes and it will go to the board.

I just have a question for you. I read these because I read them. OK. Foreign supervisors. Item agenda. This is the document that you submitted under public comment to the Board of Supervisors. So it's already part of the public record for the county. I just wanted to clarify that. So it's already part of public comment.

Yeah, but it's not part of the commission's records. No, but it's part of the county's public records. Trey's trying to close the loop so that the commission's records reflect everything. That's all. That's all.

So is this a process question?

I can give a process response. The minutes for that meeting have been approved. So technically you're talking about reconsidering the motion that approved the minutes. You use Rosenberg's rules, it kind of describes this. That motion is supposed to be made at the meeting, at the same meeting to reconsider it. So to reopen something that's closed requires a majority vote. You could take a majority vote to discuss this item at a future meeting. You could decide that today.

Dipper with your interpretation. the object of having an ability to make a minority report is that when staff presents information in terms of what staff perceived took place during the planning commission, and if that information is not adequately presented, than any staff member, any member of the commission say, that's not exactly our interpretation of what took place. The purpose of my minority report was saying, no, I do not believe that what was presented by staff to the board of supervisors reflected at least my view at the time, and these are the items. And so this basically was to underscore, it would be impossible to make a minority report at the time of that, because I had no, At the time we voted, it was impossible for me at that stage to not know that you would not be fully articulating what took place here. And so I'm basically saying the minority report is to set the record straight, at least from a commissioner's point of view, that what you reported to the super advisors may not have appropriately reflected at least the minority member's view of what took place, and that's all.

I can go back to what you were saying. Can you just keep?

Well, the minutes came to your commission for approval. They were approved. If something was unclear in the minutes, that would have been the time to address it. The item is closed. The hearing is closed. There is a procedural way to do this. And that's if you want to take a majority vote, this could be agendized in the future. I would add one caveat. I don't really want to if you want to agenda is that I can I can talk more. I don't want to have a discussion on an item that isn't on the agenda.

I just want to know what the procedure would be. So in my own mind, clarify. We would have. We can move to agendize. At the next for, say, the next meeting. Discussion. on to procedure to submit a minority report.

Correct? Well, that would be a regular vote. But I believe what Commissioner Williams is asking is about reopening the minutes and having this letter attached to the minutes of the meeting. That would be a forfeits vote because that item is closed.

For clarification, I thought about that too. And I am not asking at this stage. to have previous minutes amended. I just wanted to be able to, in some form, attach it to our official records. And we've just done that. So I withdraw that previous request to amend the previous minutes.

So I'm still confused. Are you asking us to take a vote to agendize a process request so that how we go about submitting?

No, no, no, no, no. I think that, you know, any commissioner still has the right to exercise, which I have, in public comment, the reasons why I believe that staff do not properly represent at least my position on this item. And all I'm saying is, do we need to have a process by which we then bring this back to the commission? Not for action, but just as a matter of entering this stuff back into our records, or whether or not it should automatically just be part of our records. right everyone's confused at this point i i think we effectively entered what i uh today we've already accomplished what my my goal was was to enter my minority report in into the the records of the commission if uh there's no objection to that i think we just let the whole thing die right here and then anytime anybody has a minority report that wants to then make sure that part of the commission records they bring it back and submit it as i have today at a matter of course.

I think we missed an opportunity, and that would have been to not approve the minutes, to have the minutes amended and add this report to it. And that would have been faster, simpler, and more efficient.

Right. So what we've been trying to follow what we would want to do, because technically, if I'm interpreting this right, This minority report is already part of the county records. That is correct. Okay. For the Board of Supervisors.

And now it is part of the commission report.

Well, but it's not attached to the minutes because we'd have to go back and agendize

For the next meeting, not the previous mess, but in the minutes of this meeting it is so such.

If you want to attach something to the minutes for that prior meeting, I think you need to vote. This is turning into quite a discussion. So if you want to agendize it, I think the bylaws are clear how this process works, but perhaps they're not. But if you want to agendize that for a discussion, again, for this, if you want to amend the minutes, this item has been submitted, but it's not attached to the M5 hearing. That's over. It would be attached as a letter that was submitted during to's and from's. But again, we're kind of veering into a discussion here. So if you want to have a discussion to talk about you know, how you share your dissenting vote, that could be agendized for the next meeting, or if you want, if Commissioner Williams wants to have this actually attached to the minutes, that's reopening an item, that's a forfeits vote, and I would have further comments when that item goes, but this is turning into kind of an extended discussion that I'm not very comfortable with.

So, and that was not the intent, Councilor. So,

if i know how we proceed if we just wanted to attach this to twos and froms we don't need to agendize no correct no that that will happen now and it's attached to the to the board hearing item okay so we don't need to know that and then if we want to agendize for a future date discussion on process of how TO ATTACH A MINORITY REPORT TO MINUTES THAT MIGHT BE APPROVED ON ANY GIVEN ITEM AT ANY GIVEN MEETING, WE CAN AGENDIZE DISCUSSION FOR A LATER DATE.

YOU COULD AGENDIZE THAT, ALTHOUGH I DID DESCRIBE THE PROCESS AND IT TYPICALLY WOULD NOT INVOLVE A WRITTEN REPORT. YOU VOTE NO AND YOU SAY WHY YOU'RE VOTING NO AND THAT GOES INTO MINUTES.

But if you want to elaborate and clarify something, instead of being here for 20 minutes discussing something, you know. If your commission wants to add that item. And then go through four pages of why you're voting no. I can go either way. Just tell me what we want to do.

It's already attached.

It's already attached. I withdraw all my other requests. OK.

One comment I want to make here, and that is I just want to kind of remind everybody that the so-called minority report, and this has nothing to do with your commission, it's just a process, is not a time to re-litigate the previous item. That is what it is not. So unless we somehow go back and re-agendize that, let's pick on M5 for now. But it's so how are this minority position is captured as it's now authorized by the bylaws. It's just a matter that the document just gets submitted, which you've done. But what I'm concerned about is we're going to be re-agendizing and attaching things, is that we're bordering on going back and kind of buy fiat. relitigating or reconsidering what created the minority vote report in the first place. So I hope I'm making some semblance of sense. No, you are.

And again, you're right. I don't think the intent has been to relitigate it by the commission. We only get involved if the supervisors send it back to us. The question is that, and in my, the reason I was prompted to write this was I did not believe that what the staff had presented to the Board of Supervisors adequately presented my position. And so it's just a matter of clarification, not a good question, really. So anyway, it's almost noon, so.

Is there anything else? I'll go to adjourn.

It's adjourned.