Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call this meeting of the August 27th El Dorado County Planning Commission meeting to order. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll, please?

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

Here.

Commissioner Costello? Here. And Commissioner Spahr?

Here.

Let the record show that all are present. Thank you.

OK. Commissioner Spahr, would you like to lead us in the pledge, please? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Okay, next item on our agenda would be public comment on today's first item, which is the consent calendar.

Now taking public comments 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. All right, now taking public comment from Zoom. There is no public comment.

Thank you. OK, next item on the agenda would be approval of the consent calendar, which is basically just a minute to the last minute.

I move that we approve the consent calendar and the minutes.

Second. All right. And I'll be abstaining from the minutes, as I wasn't here.

Welcome back.

Thank you.

OK. May I roll call, please? We have motion and a second.

All right. Commissioner Williams, how do you vote? Commissioner Hansen is abstaining. Chair Fragar?

Aye.

Commissioner Costello?

Aye.

And Commissioner Spahr?

Aye.

Motion passes four to zero.

Next on our agenda is open forum. This is an opportunity for anyone in the public to comment on anything 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're 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. All right, now taking public comment from Zoom and now taking public comment from Linda Campbell.

Good morning, everyone. Linda Campbell, El Dorado Hills. So I actually want to comment specifically on the format of the agenda that changed the public participation instructions to say Zoom participation provided for convenience only. That changed from the last agenda that referenced SB 707, providing the same opportunity to address as in-person attendees. The current text does not align with the Board of Supervisors agenda standard or the text under hearings on the Planning Commission website. Since the Planning Commission is considered a legislative body under the Brown Act, I recommend changing that section back to align with SB 707, Board Policy H4, and the Planning Commission website, including structuring the format with clarity for the numbers for ease of review and access. Thank you.

Thank you, Linda.

There is no further public comment.

Next item on the agenda is the El Dorado and Diamond Springs design standards item. Just a reminder, we opened this item at our last meeting and continue to today so the public hearing is still open. Do we have staff report?

Item number two, hearing to consider adoption of the El Dorado and Diamond Springs design standards and guidelines and zoning ordinance amendments to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

Do we have a presentation. Good morning, can you all hear me on the online. So I'm Tom Purcell, Senior Planner at the Long Range Planning Unit. As many of you know, also with me is Thea Graybill, the Long Range Planning Unit Manager. Before I start the formal presentation, I also wanted to give a big thanks to the staff of Mintier Harnish Consulting for their work in helping us develop the El Dorado and Diamond Springs design standards and guidelines, as well as many of our others. Mintier Harnish staff are also available via Zoom to answer any questions if needed. during this item. I'd also like, before we begin, I'd also like for the benefit of the viewers to give folks an update on the legislature attachments. So again, the staff's presentation, this one is attachment A. The draft environmental document and EIR addendum is attachment B. The draft zoning ordinance amendment to implement the standards is attachment C. The public review draft of the design standards and guidelines as attachment D. A summary table of revisions, comments and revisions regarding the guidelines is attachment E. And also we have a summary of community outreach materials for our two community workshops held in January and February of this year. Those are attached as attachment G. Also, as an important note, this is the second set of several community region design standards to be developed, and it will be followed by design standards for Cameron Park and El Dorado Hills, and then also by three more sets of standards for the county's rural centers. Next slide. So this timeline shows some of the main milestones from 2022 to the present. And it also includes the board's 2008 adoption of the Missouri flat design guidelines, which were based on previous community feedback. In 2024, the board adopted interim community design standards and also directed staff to customize those standards for each community, region, and rural center based on each community's design preferences. So these are the steps that bring us to today's hearing for public review and potential adoption, again, this month into the fall. and then for next steps the El Dorado and Diamond Springs design standards and guidelines is anticipated to go before the board on October 27th and would be effective three days after board approval so just a little bit later as a result of continuing the past the opening of this hearing next slide So these are the community's goals for the El Dorado and Diamond Springs design standards and guidelines, which are based on feedback received throughout the process. That includes specifically feedback from stakeholders, a former planning commissioner, as well as feedback from our El Dorado Diamond Community Advisory Committee. And that was all. And I will explain more of the details when we go over our public outreach and the various steps that we use throughout the process to engage the community and the public in general. So the image on this slide is from the area's first affordable housing project under the new state streamlining legislation. Although not required at the time of county approval, the developer of the project on this slide voluntarily chose to design the project with the Gold Rush architectural style or theme, which is consistent with one of the main design themes of the El Dorado and Diamond Springs design standards and guidelines. The design of this project demonstrates that affordable housing projects can meet community design requirements and still meet the affordability goals for our next generation. specifically the feedback received from stakeholders and public input was very strong in that the participants felt that our multifamily and other housing developments should be affordable for the next generation so that folks who grow up will also be able to live and work in El Dorado County rather than having to leave the county as many already have. Next slide. So I'll summarize the content areas of the design standards and guidelines and then dig deeper into some of the sections. We start with an introduction purpose and applicability section with a customized language as to how these design standards and guidelines came about and some of the specific history of the community that is reflected in this document. We go over the permitting process. That's the Section 2. We also go over required architectural styles and themes in Section 4, because there are quite a number of architectural mandates, if you will, for all projects that must be complied with. And those architectural standards break down the details, you know, window panes, doors. It gets into some pretty granular details as desired by the community. Then I'll go over some of the specific use-specific standards as well, such as fuel stations, multifamily standards, mixed-use standards, and commercial standards and guidelines. Next slide. So this slide shows the community's recommended framework for processing projects under the proposed design standards and guidelines. Staff will note that this is exactly the same as the process the board approved for the Shingle Springs design standards and guidelines. Only the name of the community has changed. This flow chart is not intended to capture every last step of our very detailed process, but to provide a brief summary. Projects that fully comply with all objective standards in the document, which are shown throughout the sections in blue boxes, in both Section 4, which is those architectural styles or themes, and the use-specific requirements we just referenced, would be eligible for a building permit. projects that deviate from those standards, even a little bit, even missing one, would require a discretionary design review permit, which would follow the existing permit process. That's typically a staff-level design review permit with appeals going to this commission. And that's as it's in the existing code, if folks want to refer to that. Also, staff wants to note that the ministerial permit process includes detailed review of all objective county and state standards, including the fire code, WUI code, building code, and all other zoning ordinance standards, among others. that would also include as applicable the transportation department's frontage improvement standards which are all objective measurable and absolutely required if they apply to a project and so there are details for that permitting process for folks that want to look behind the curtain actually in the document itself under the footnotes next slide So as many folks have become aware, we have new state laws such as SB35, AB2011, and now others, other legislation that now mandates streamlined ministerial processing, such as by building permit or an equivalent, for qualifying multifamily housing projects. And those are projects that meet state regulations. And the state has several page requirements that have to be met to qualify. For those projects, county design oversight is limited to compliance with existing objective or measurable site and building design standards that are in effect at the time of a formal permit application. So to ensure local control and community compatible design for these statewide and streamlined ministerial projects, the proposed standards and guidelines include many objective standards, which are again shown in those blue boxes with a high level of detail in both the architectural styles and the use specific requirements. So again, these standards are designed among other for other goal, among other goals. To protect the Community from poor design for those qualified streamline projects. Next slide. So developers must select an architectural style or theme for the new buildings in the Eldorado and Diamond Springs community region. These are the recommended architectural styles or themes based on extensive community feedback, and they display elements of community history and the geographic setting. Community members preferred that the historic districts of El Dorado Diamond Springs be regulated differently than the rest of the community. And therefore the Gold Rush architectural style was selected to be required for all properties within the historic town sites of El Dorado and Diamond Springs. Those are also the properties that are designated on the existing zoning maps as a historic design combining zone. And that's also shown as figure two in the draft standards and guidelines. For all other areas outside of those historic town sites, the rustic craftsman style on the right would also be an option from the remaining areas. So developers outside those cores would have a choice of one of those two, and they would look at those very specific standards and guidelines depending on the theme they choose. In addition, alternate architectural styles that we also call the off-ramp for different design themes that are on this slide are also allowed by discretionary design review permit to ensure quality design and neighborhood compatibility. That is, if a developer cannot or chooses not to comply with the mandatory blue items, if you will, then that developer would have that option as an off-ramp to propose an alternate style if they would feel like it would still be compatible with the neighborhood in which it's proposed. For example, a Victorian-style building. They would have the option to go through that process and potentially move forward with that path. Next slide. So I'll give a brief overview of the specific content. We have standards and guidelines from multi-unit projects. They used to be called multi-family. They're the same thing. We have detailed site and building design standards. Building standards include very specific details for wall form, massing, colors, and materials, very specific. Windows and doors and roofs and balconies. Next slide. We also have specific standards for mixed-use projects. Those are projects that contain a mix of commercial and residential uses, either in the same building or in different buildings on the same site. And those also have specific standards. Some of them include a ground floor transparency, cover building entries, a unified architectural design throughout the building or buildings, and minimum ground floor height. Next slide. And we have specific standards and guidelines for commercial uses. Those include frontage and sidewalk improvements, detailed requirements for screen parking or service areas. We also have that absolute requirement for a unified design theme among buildings. We also have specific stations for fuel stations in the design standards and guidelines. One of those standards requires matching the colors and materials for any main buildings for the fuel pump canopy and also fully enclosing the fuel canopy supports with a matching material to the main building. And that's shown in the photographs of examples in the design standards and guidelines. next slide so staff conducted extensive public outreach and received community feedback throughout the creation of these new standards that outreach included newspaper ads social media posts meeting flyers frequent web page updates county email subscriber notices that is to all long-range planning subscribers El Dorado and Diamond Springs subscribers and commercial multifamily subscriber lists in general. So staff broadcast all folks that might have an interest with frequent email updates with such things as hearing notices or meeting announcements. Staff also did phone outreach. And we also had the Standard Planning Commission notifications for this hearing. And as this hearing was re-noticed, that included the two notices that went out as well, as well as additional reminders. In addition to the general outreach, a stakeholder advisory team, which is shown in this image, was created from community members who live, work, own property, or do business in the community to participate in a community tour and provide feedback throughout the development of the standards. Those folks that met those criteria were selected to participate in the stakeholder advisory team, and those that did not meet those criteria were not, just to make it as simple and community-focused as possible. These criteria are also the same that we've used for other community regions and that we will also be using for each of the rural center groups. In addition, we had public workshops, as mentioned, in January and February of last year to perceive community input on the first drafts of these standards as they were unveiled. Materials for those workshops are included as Attachment G, those public outreach and engagement materials used in those workshops. So those would include detailed discussion questions and a design preference survey, among other things. And we also asked for specific input regarding the proposed permitting process from the community. So they had a very similar diagram to what you're seeing today for this item to give very specific feedback that fed into that. Public comments have been strongly encouraged throughout the process. To date, there have been two public comments submitted for this hearing, and those include one comment received this morning distributed to the commissioners for two in total for this item. Public comments are also welcome in advance of the upcoming Board of Supervisors hearing anticipated in October.

Next slide.

So based on public comments received and editorial comments from individual commissioners, staff do plan to make a few additional minor non-substantive grammatical and formatting edits to the document for better readability and ease of use. For example, correcting any typos or incorrect document references throughout the document so that it flows as intended. This slide also summarizes the exhibit with a summary of public comments and responses and how those comments were integrated into the document as appropriate. So again, the historical background or sketches were added based on community feedback. We did clarify applicability regarding zoning overlays and remodels and additions. One change was to require any significant remodels, meaning anything that's any significant external change to an existing building be required to match the comply with the colors and materials in these new standards. So, for example, re-riffs would not trigger compliance with the colors and materials, but any significant pop-outs, if you will, or changes to a building footprint would trigger compliance with the colors and materials. We can't require developers to change the whole site layout for an existing development, but we can definitely make sure, the community definitely wanted to make sure that the colors and materials are consistent whenever we have a significant change to an existing building. We also clarified the architectural and design standards for ease of use. We also clarified some of the design and infrastructure and also made some grammatical and formatting edits for ease of use. That will be an ongoing process, as staff mentioned, to make sure that the document is easy to read and flows smoothly and has correct internal references as well. Next slide. So staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the board to take the following actions. Number one, adopt the project's environmental document as read into the record. Number two, approve the El Dorado and Diamond Springs design standards and guidelines as presented. Staff would like to add to recommendation number two with additional non-substantive grammar and formatting edits as needed for better readability and ease of use. So staff recommends if the commission should recommend the board approve this item, that that language be added to the second piece of the recommendation so that staff can comb through the document and make sure that it is easy to read and we don't have any outstanding grammatical or formatting errors. And third, the staff recommends the planning commission approve the associated zoning ordinance amendment to implement the design standards and guidelines as well. so that concludes staff's formal presentation but we'd be happy to answer any questions at this time okay

since this most of this is in district three would you like to start commissioner hansen uh i just thank you questions i just just had a couple of points first tom um great job a tremendous amount of work it's very impressive body of work actually has gone into this over time and before us today the public outreach uh process was you mentioned i think it had to do with the uh the permitting slide about the permitting process and how it's basically an import from shingle springs effort was that true for the the outreach or were there were there any in other words was there any customization for out for public outreach in this product this area in diamond springs el dorado uh specifically regarding the permitting process or others the the design guidelines that we're talking about today

There were some customizations for El Dorado and Diamond Springs specifically. One of them was the architectural styles and themes. Those were tweaked, if you will, from Shingle Springs, especially with our gold rush and craftsman building history. That was the biggest change. If you look at the attachment, I believe it's attachment G as in George. the summary of comments and recommended revisions. I think that's the best way to look at what actually changed throughout the process. But to my previous comment, the permitting process did change hardly at all based on the actual preference of the Design Diamond Springs community. That was both expressed in the First workshop, which was hosted by the El Dorado and Diamond Springs Community Advisory Committee, and individual members of that committee, as well as expressed preferences by the stakeholders and the stakeholder advisory team, and other members of the public that commented throughout the process. So that was not changed in substance at all.

Thank you. I may have some more questions later. Yeah.

Commissioner Williams, do you have anything?

I do.

Questions for staff?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Thea, for being extremely cooperative and responsive throughout this whole process. I've had the privilege of actually attending a couple of your sessions in Cameron Park and also El Dorado hills, so I understand the process that i've seen in those two areas, I have not seen or enter air, you know interfaced specifically on the diamond springs and El Dorado. reviews it was there anything different that you could express that I might have observed in Cameron park and El Dorado hills in terms of your your outreach there versus what occurred here in this particular one.

I think Commissioner Williams, the biggest change was not in the material shared with the public because the questions and answers on the discussion questions attached to that exhibit were the same type of questions, answers and graphics that were shown and that were presented to the other outreach events. The main difference was the format. Folks expressed throughout our process that they would prefer to have an open house style because our schedules prohibited a lot of folks from staying for the full 45 minutes or an hour for a staff presentation and table discussions to follow. So the table discussion item was then put into poster boards. with comment cards with the very similar questions and responses next to each topic on poster boards. So basically the approach is the only the only piece that changed to allow even more flexibility with folks schedules to come and go as they needed.

And just one more thing to add. Obviously, we we were trying to involve the diamond Springs, El Dorado community advisory committee as much as possible. So, you know, obviously depending on each community, each community has different bodies like that.

Tell me about the advisory committee who, who, who, who participated, uh, uh, who, uh, approved them, appointed them, uh, or was it just a group that just kind of volunteered and. and put it into a formal?

So yes, Commissioner Williams, they are a board appointed committee, I believe established in 2012. And they have a broad brush to review new development projects in the Eldorado Diamond Springs community, even more than a standard design review committee. Okay. So the scope of their review allowed for them to review and provide detailed comments for the standards and guidelines.

You referenced, I believe you called it, the advisory committee. And you're talking about the older committee that's been around for a long time versus one that was specifically set up for these design.

Is that correct? Yeah, so there's two different committees here, and I just want to make sure for clarity purposes. There's the Diamond Springs El Dorado Community Advisory Committee. That's the board-appointed committee, the CAC. There's also for each design standards and guidelines effort, each of the efforts we formed, as Tom explained in his presentation, an SAT, stakeholder advisory team. For each community, we circulate an application. We advertise that application far and wide by all the means that Tom mentioned in his presentation. We bring those City Council Chambers, Applications to all of the workshops and then obvious we set a deadline for the applications to be submitted by staff reviews those internally and as Tom noted those Community members people that live work or do business. City Council Chambers, may apply those Those are the requirements. Anyone that meets those requirements have been accepted or selected to be part of the team. And that's how that process works for each community.

Okay.

So the only people that aren't accepted.

But ultimately the strike team, whatever you just call it, the specialized team.

The SAT.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you. was then approved by and the group sanctioned by officially by staff?

Just staff, yes.

All right. All right. Good. Okay. That helps me understand what was and was not done in terms of outreach. That helps. Can we call out the actual document, the actual design document for a second? I want to go to a couple of pages on that. Would that be possible?

Are you requesting that the actual design standards and guidelines be pulled up on the screen?

Yes. As you do that, you know, I... That's attachment D. Again, I'm just trying to clarify in my own mind what we're really talking about specifically. If you can go to page 10, which shows a map of the area. And I'm speaking totally naively, so please forgive me if there is no reason. How were those borders created? And what happens to those areas? Like some of the residential areas, I could just see outside of those boundaries and how would they be impacted by these standards

Correct. So I know it's a bit small on the screen, but the areas that are designated with purple hatch marks are the boundaries of the properties located in the historic design combining zone. Those lines match up exactly to the historic town sites from the Okay. 1890s or so based on the year of those recorded maps or the published maps, I should say, for those two communities. And so those areas also designate the boundary that the community wanted to see for the different to make a difference between the requirement for a gold rush style building only okay versus gold rush or craftsman so there is in that purple hatch mark under these standards and guidelines must comply with the gold rush architectural style or theme okay and i just want to note those were not determined by this effort okay um those were determined by

by a prior effort. And the red line is the community region boundary. Again, not determined by this effort at all. Again, we're not doing any zoning, land use decisions. That's not what we're doing here today. This map was created by the general plan and other previous efforts.

Okay. Again, I'm just trying to learn. Thank you. Can we go to page six? Because we're talking design standards. When I first participated on the interim standards review, I looked at that and asked or assumed that this was just what the word would indicate, design standards. And then I learned a few weeks later that it was really to be used for other purposes. And so what I'm trying to understand, what this will be used for ultimately. And I guess I want to go to section 1.3, A and B. And A basically indicates that One of the purposes of this thing is to develop affordable and workforce housing. God knows we need both of those things in the county. And the second thing is to create an economic incentive for developers. In a total scope of things, it's just really what we're talking about. It's just design standards or the design standards to facilitate affordable housing and workforce housing and provide incentives to developers. What are we really good at being asked to approve here?

So, Commissioner Williams, to your question, these statements are goal statements only, top level. The reason, and I know this question has come up many times, the reason that these goals apply is because when the all interested parties implement these standards, that's counter staff, members of the public that are interested in the building design, developers, all interested parties implement these standards which are clear, measurable, and with a predicted process and a predicted design outcome. The community wanted to reflect that these goal statements will happen. So in other words, these outcomes are listed in the goal statements. Those will be a result of successfully implementing these standards and guidelines as proposed. There are no specific policy statements here, but just as a reflection of if we do all of this, these goals will be met.

I hear what you're saying. Chair Williams. And I'm not going to make any, but I just want to ask some additional questions.

Commissioner Williams, I think I get the inference of your question if you may indulge me.

Yes.

I think there's community concern and I rightly understand it with sort of state streamlining and whether or not this process changes that process.

Right.

And it does not. Okay. The state streamlined revisions, we talk about SB 35, there's perhaps five or six now. There's a variety of state streamlining. Some of them are tied to funding that basically take discretion away from the county.

That's absolutely true.

If you don't adopt these standards, streamlining projects are not affected. They would just... they would be under the interim design standards. If you do adopt this and the board adopts it, then there's control of what these projects will look like. The design standards don't control whether or not state streamlining projects happen. Just what they look like.

OK. All right, I'm going to move on to my questions. And I'll go back to that when we actually get into discussions later on. How many, but this still ties into, since we are talking about affordable housing, you know, as part of the issue here, in terms of multifamily. You were very kind, Thea, to provide me some documentation. There are, what, 50, and so I'm trying to figure out, How many parcels, again, how impactful will this and how many parcels might be impacted by these standards? And you indicated to me that 56 multifamily parcels exist that could be used, I guess, as infills, is that right?

Yeah, so just for the benefit of the group, you know, Supervisor Williams, or sorry, Commissioner Williams. Sorry.

I don't want the other role.

I've been in front of the board a lot recently. So Commissioner Williams just asked kind of the number of people City Council Chambers, vacant multifamily zoned parcels in this area, I also just included the vacant or developed commercially zoned parcels in this area to be. City Council Chambers, Rather, inclusive, and so there are 56 vacant multifamily parcels in this area. There are 315 developed multifamily parcels in the community region. And just wanted to, you know, and I also just included that there have only been approximately three multifamily projects that have actually, you know, come to fruition. So just because land is zoned a certain way does not mean that, you know, a project actually occurs on that Does that answer your question?

Yeah, that's part one of the questions. The second part is, and I'm again trying, I'm going to talk and ask a question naively again. There have been discussions at supervisor meetings regarding allocations of, PSYCALG's allocation for low and very low income housing uh and uh they've been while necessary not necessarily locked into uh parameters that they're having some some general guidelines provided or instances uh uh stated that uh certain areas may end up with so many allocations in their area uh for for those kind of uh sb35 and uh

housing issues how many might be how many of those are allocated for the Diamond Springs and El Dorado area respectfully I'm not sure I know the answer to your question today that's quite it just in my view kind of outside the scope of what we're here to present in front of you And so I'm not prepared to answer that question today.

Okay, so we don't really know what the impact is. Okay, this is a tough nut to crack. It's a very complex series. I'm not trying to make light of this thing. I think it's very important that we're addressing these things. So thank you. Can we go, my last question is to go to page 12, if I could, of that document. The highlighted area, the darkened area. I wanted to say thank you for including a definition on what a ministerial project is with regard to the state streamlined provisions. The example I think is particularly important for us all to look at and not forget. I assume that you inserted this in a way to emphasize that this will be the, how the design standards would be used as applied to those standards, correct?

Correct. As it says in the paragraph above section 3.1 of the draft document, all items that are indicated in a blue font or below a blue box, those are the design standard mandates of which all qualifying state streamlined projects must adhere.

Okay. But we don't know how many people or how many How many sites might be targeted for this thing? Okay, thank you. That ends my questions right now.

Commissioner Williams, if I might add, the design guidelines aren't specific to state ministerial projects. If someone in Diamond Springs comes in with a commercial mixed use project that's zoning consistent, that's also ministerial. It's not state streamlined ministerial. But these guidelines are for any ministerial project. So it's not just the 35 projects. It's for anything that is zoning consistent and would otherwise just be coming in for building permits.

Okay, I have one quick question before we go to the other Commissioners was I can I hear you right when you said, even if. A project or streamlined and went to the ministerial process if it was appealed it could come before us that correct.

Well, to be clear, state streamlined ministerial projects have a different permit track on the state level as well. So as we said on the design slide, county does not have discretion for qualifying state streamlined ministerial projects. They are ministerial or by definition. And so they would not have an appeal process unless the state should adopt one. Commissioner Spahr?

Good morning. I like the design guidelines. I think design guidelines are very helpful for applicants to have a roadmap to point them in the right direction. And if it's coming from the community where the project's going to be located, we want the community input. We want it to fit that character and that style of that community. What seems awkward to me in the staff report and what's presented today is The mention of affordable housing and it feels like the sign guidelines is here to help streamline affordable housing to go into certain areas and we want to disperse widely throughout the county. We don't want it downloaded and concentrated one area design guidelines have nothing to do with that. But the way it's written and how it's presented feels as though you're trying to aid and streamline and push more affordable housing in the areas where we might not want affordable housing. But other than that, you've done a marvelous job on the design guidelines. Thank you.

And thank you for that comment. And we can certainly, if this is recommended to the board, we can certainly

change the tone of that um in the presentation materials so thank you thank you chair uh yeah commissioner spar you know i picked up the same vibe when i met with planning staff first of all thanks tom and thea great work on this sections 1.3 and 1.4 in the document are new as compared to the shingle springs document and that's where and commissioner williams mentioned it that's where the notion of supporting development of an afford of affordable and workforce housing is presented and then creating an incentive for developers to to do it and and that kind of to me came out of nowhere i mean So I think if you do present this in front of the board, you might want to tone that down a bit. When I asked Tom last week in my monthly meeting with planning staff why that was there, Tom, I think he mentioned that that came from the community. And I'm also all for workforce housing and low-income housing. City Council Chambers, But it is your Commission as far as concern, are we going to funnel that into within the Community regional and why can't you go, you know elsewhere, so is that really like from planning staff, I guess, my question long winning question is, is this a focus in this Community. City Council Chambers, To provide workforce and low income housing within Community regionally.

Like staff previously stated, these are added to the goal statements based on the purposes of the community. In fact, during the early engagement efforts, staff received specific feedback requesting that that developer incentive language be added as one of the goals, not as the intent of distributing or not distributing any future multifamily projects, but to let all interested parties understand that the community did not want this document to be misconstrued as a hurdle but rather to understand that these goals help all these different parties at once, but again, it would not affect the uses or distribution of those uses at all. Again, for the folks listening, this is for design only. These standards and guidelines have no bearing whatsoever on what comes across the counter and where it comes across or if it even does or doesn't.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Thank you. Um, a couple more. How was the, how was the community outreach. I mean, how would you characterize it was a robust or was like how many people are actually on the advisory team that who participated in this process.

Yes, so staff, we did the extensive outreach. We had about a 30-day notice for folks, actually a 35-day notice for folks to join the stakeholder advisory team, beginning with a kickoff in 2025. So it was announced to the whole community. In fact, the kickoff for this project was hosted by the Eldorado Diamond Springs Association. and Community Advisory Committee in 2025 to give folks an extra head start, extra lead time to find out all the different ways that they could participate and to make sure that we had a month, almost a month and a half or more of time to get the word out. Um, that being said, we did have a box that we did have, uh, four folks, um, that qualified to be members of our stakeholder advisory team. Uh, some of those folks are here today. If anyone has questions, they've been participating pretty much from the beginning. Um, and, and all along we invited folks, even if they weren't part of that stakeholder advisory team to please take advantage of all of the other methods for engaging with the project.

All right. Thanks. So, so four people were in the advisory team.

Okay.

And then regarding the public outreach, and Commissioner Hanson had asked a little bit about the outreach. For Shingle Springs, we had an extremely robust public outreach, and we had, what, 300 or so people show up. We did the outreach by printing up flyers and sticking them everywhere. And then some community members had signs on the John Kane- Along the roadways and stuff and we got a crew of you know people out there, you know with door to door with these flyers and that was very effective did you guys do the flyers did you put them in like a post office or you know grocery stores and stuff.

yes as a staff to distribute flyers um wherever appropriate we put them on we did put a few flyers on doorways we made sure that all of the email announcements included a copy of the flyer since uh folks do a lot of things digitally now um we have one of our community the second community workshop in the el dorado the old el dorado community hall that was Again, we put flyers everywhere we could find them. I think a couple of grocery, the grocery store in El Dorado had a copy. We reached out to the Poor Reds owner who was also on the stakeholder advisory team and he got the word out. Just engaging from the community from the beginning. So yes, flyers and posters and we're part of that.

Excellent. Thank you. And then I'll get to my biggest question or concern and that's regarding the ministerial approval process. And so, when a project comes forward and meets these design standards, the project proponent then does not have to do sequel and there's no public review. there's no vehicle for the public to appeal anything. So my understanding that's correct. I'm not talking about state projects. I'm talking about I go down and submit an application for whatever I want in downtown Diamond Springs.

So regarding the process again, the community looked at the proposed permit processing flowchart from Shingle Springs and We didn't, although there were no votes taken, the community, all the community input pretty much unanimously recommended that same permitting process chart and same process as was adopted by the board for Shingle Springs. That being said, the community felt, and they can express that here today if needed, they felt that if the design standards and guideline process front-loaded, let's just say there are a thousand points of contact, a thousand separate requirements, it's not quite that many perhaps, involved in the ministerial permit process. Most folks don't know what happens behind the curtain with building permit reviews. The community felt like once they understood that building permit reviews look at the entire kitchen sink of codes, policies, and regulations of both the state, county, different agencies of the county, and also other policies and codes that may come up as time to time. All of that's reviewed, including fire code, WUI code, that all of those touch points must be approved before a building permit can even get issued. So the community felt like by front-loading all design mandates, if you will, in blue font, making them abundantly clear, that would be good. That would be recommended for both the members of the public, for the development community, or for counter staff to understand what the future design of a building will look like. but also to understand what the future process will happen because the permitting process is very dialed in and has circulating reviews by every applicable agency and department that look at building permits. Fire district review must happen and look at all the most current fire codes applicable at the time the permit comes in. Will we code water storage fire sprinklers whatever those are those must be applied to any applicable permits, as they go through the process. The Community felt like with that front loading, including our stream on ministerial but all other commercial projects, for example. The Community felt like that would be satisfactory to them, they were actually recommending the ministerial process if all of the building permit requirements can be complied with yeah.

City Council Chambers, Traffic and compatibility with adjacent land uses it is an issue, so. City Council Chambers, I understand that has to abide by the general plan all the ordinances, including building height and setbacks. City Council Chambers, But if I came in and wanted to do a three, for example, a three story apartment building. My understanding is, I could I can go as as tall as the county will let me go, and I'll abide by the setback. But if the single family homes right next door, and I have a you know i'm thinking coking lane with the three story apartment building rather than like a two story, and then go up to three storey more in the interior of the project. That would be better to make it more compatible.

but the public in this scenario wouldn't have an opportunity to comment if i came in and said i'm going to make this thing this whatever i forget the building height 50 feet or 48 feet or something uh well commissioner costello i guess i would reflect back onto the county's first sv35 project that i helped bring before a previous commission um while that was for a state stream administrator project it's the one shown on the slide um We are a couple of points on that one of them is that we do we do post state streamline projects that come in on our projects in our web page so other folks can answer that better than I can, so the state streamline projects are are put out there. And even if those projects do not require public hearing, in all of the cases which I worked on, developers are very interested in finding out the desires of the community. And I think this document helps the developers understand specifically what those desires are and the mandates they have to meet.

Yeah, to some extent, or maybe to a large extent, I agree. But this doesn't require the developer to interact with the public.

in fact it allows them to exclude the public well i i would venture to say that that this again this is not establishing a ministerial like this is this is just the design and architectural styles of buildings agreed 100 it's just the design a document for a design of buildings but by meeting that the huge benefit is no public input and no sequence

And so for traffic, any amount of traffic, my question, Tom, last week or a couple of weeks ago is, well, what, you know, commonly the public are concerned about traffic. And I think your reply was with dot handles out the review it, and they'll make sure that level of service is acceptable in different years of history. But there's more to traffic than that there's Well, what if the building's on a corner or this poor sight line, or there's something else that contributes to the traffic, and the Arco example I brought up from Shingle Springs was that developer wanted to build this gas station, but it was on a corner that's impacted. And by public comment, the board approved the project but delayed the construction until traffic conditions were approved. Without that, we'd have a mess, even worse than we do this morning when it got stuck in traffic on the overpass. So I think public comment's important. Just because level of service is OK on the street doesn't mean there's no problem with traffic. And this is a document just for architectural design standards, it gives a huge incentive to a developer not having to do sequel or public comment and be delayed for a year is it is a huge benefit. And so. I just want to make that understood. I should probably hold off until we have a discussion. But I guess my question is, I just want confirmation. They don't have to do secret public meetings.

I just wanted to make note that line of sight is reviewed by Department of Transportation and fire. So some of these things like Tom's mentioned multiple times in this presentation, you know, We review the zoning ordinance. We review building code. We review fire code. And we, as in just like county staff and our partners. So it's not like those things aren't being looked at for individual projects that come across the front counter.

Yeah, and I didn't mean to come across it like that. No, I understand. I think the whole theme here is, hey, you're going to rigorously review it. And by the time it's done, there's no need for public input. That's because everything's all the boxes are checked.

Maybe that's a little extreme, but I think Commissioner Costello, if I could, I could add. I don't want this to veer off topic, but August 25th of last year, a project came through the Board because there is a wrinkle if you're in a certain economic area and you have a 35 project, it goes to the Board for a discussion and comment, not for any kind of review. So that area does cover a lot of this. But there was also a presentation on SB 35 and all those kind of requirements. But that's one of the ones where it's been modified over the year to specifically take out public participation, to take out the Board entirely, to give to mandate that the director does these kind of determinations. These aren't staff creations. If you watch that, you'll get more of my frustration with the process. The state only ratchets down. They do not get more generous on local authority. And that's what's happening here. And there's also timelines on these projects. If they're not processed within a certain time, they're just deemed approved and they move ahead. And then specific to the board has made the decision on streamlined projects that they're not appealable. And part of that is a function of time. There isn't time to hear appeals of these.

If I may also add that when we took this early on in front of the board to get direction before we started down this process, what you're talking about is feedback we got from the board that they do want to streamline, that the thought is we agree upon all these things we want to apply upfront rather than on a project by project basis. And so that there were, There is acknowledgement that it is an incentive, that rather than having to go through these extra steps, if a project, whether it's a streamlined project or a commercial project or any other type of project we're talking about today, that yes, if they comply with all these things that the community set up front that we want to see, then they would not have to also go through a discretionary process on that design and the architecture. All right.

Thanks, Karen. All right, that's all I have. I appreciate the time. Thank you for your work.

That was very pleasant.

I like your little music. Nice little interlude.

I just want to hone in real quick on design standards, because I think we've been getting off on some other topics. When I was looking through the packet, what I didn't see was a lot of discussion on signage. And I know signs can be very contentious, subjective. Can you take a few minutes and just elaborate on what the design standards are going to be for commercial signage, whether it be internally illuminated, down lighting, impermeable solid signage and that type of thing. Because I know signs are, they can be contentious.

Yes. So the reason that signage is not included specifically in this and some of the other sets of community design standards and guidelines is because our board directed staff to treat signage as a totally different process. So when the board adopted its recent sign ordinance update, what was it, about two years ago? The board wanted all assigned concerns to be handled in that ordinance update. We did have one that is assigned ordinance update that was just approved by the board for specific types of digital signs in El Dorado Hills. But otherwise the board has directed staff to treat signs as part of a separate effort. And those two efforts were within the last couple of years. The board also directed the scope of this project to be very specific to modifying the interim standards for commercial multifamily and mixed-use standards, the interim standards, and customize those for the communities, but to not look at signs.

And that is all true. That being said, though, there are provisions in the sign ordinance that require that all signs have to be compatible with the architectural styles of the corresponding structure. So the thought is, although they're separate efforts, separate maybe ordinances or documents, that they are supposed to work together. And there are those provisions built in that separate ordinance that speak to architectural and design compatibility um with buildings so you don't get a sign that doesn't fit within the community that's the intent so signs for commercial uh

projects, would they have to be made of similar materials, similar colors? I'm concerned about light pollution, whether they be internally illuminated or down lighting, that type of thing. And where in here will it be delineated so that we make sure that the signage is consistent with to design standards that are gonna be important?

Yes, so the answer is yes. And on page 22 of the design standards and guidelines, there's a reference. So again, the thought is that the two documents are speaking to each other, and it speaks to specifically architectural compatibility, compatible sign design, even goes on to speak to video display signs.

Yeah, because my concern is that, you know, signs are subjective. What I may think is compatible, someone else may not think is compatible. And in order to be fair to the public and to the developer, you know, as specific as it can get so that everybody knows what you're looking at, you know, to me might be beneficial so that there are less issues in the future.

Definitely. We agree.

Thank you.

Okay. There's no more. I have one additional question. Go ahead. Height limits. I didn't see that mentioned any place in the design document. You want to make a comment on that one? Yes.

Yeah. That would be covered in a different portion of the zoning ordinance. So that's not at issue in the design standards and guidelines packet.

The height is not part of the design?

It's similar to signs in that it is covered in another document. That general topic is covered in a different document. But it is supposed to be, again, compatible with this document.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So there are no more questions. Staff, I will open it up for public comment from the public.

Now taking public comments specifically on item number two, individuals will have three minutes to address the Planning Commission. The timer will notify you when you have 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.

I'm not ready for this in three minutes isn't enough to kind of this was done for planning because they felt like this was the one thing. That was keeping the projects from being streamlined and if they can get this in place they don't have to come to the public at all that was kind of how this presented the beginning. it's interesting this is. I look at the county hasn't met the SB 35 they've been allowing. They don't even meet objective or standards that we have that is required to be done by the state. So, you know, I gave you this stuff for Cokie Lane to show you all the things they ignored. They ignored the road capacity, the even Cal Transit. I try to get them invested and they care more about housing than road safety. And they told me that in the email. This project at Koki was approved on 144 apartments on a septic tank. Another one was allowed on a wetland that's not allowed by state law, and I tried to appeal that, and our director here denied allowing me to appeal. I think the people that got on the stakeholder group, I pushed them to do that. They're from the community alliance. When there was only a short amount of people, they asked me if I would apply, and I was denied the opportunity to do this. I started this project back in probably 2009-10 to push these. According to what the general plan says is that we can have you create a maintain and enhance character of existing rural and urban communities, emphasizing both the natural setting and built design elements which contribute to the quality of life, economic health, and community pride of county residents. What you're being presented is that the county, for community members wanted to have streamlined um projects coming through which is saying the purpose of this one for this community is to create an economic incentive for developers blah blah blah as um williams um mentioned and um I sent you this that has all of the purposes for design standards. And we started that in Shingle Springs. We went out and had it went. I think, Tim, what you're talking about is the private public community that got people together. And we brought 300 people to two meetings that we set up with stations explaining what all of these meant. The people that showed up to these meetings had no understanding of the scope of this project, that it was going to be that can now streamline these. There's so much. zoned for multifamily in the Missouri flat. They're already at level of service F. I can show you the In this manual, it talks about for historic, do the gold rush. And if you have an exemption, go to section 4.4. There's no 4.4. I looked at it again. I realized they're talking 4.3, which says you just have to write up a report. And it's still behind doors. Even when they're not meeting the criteria that we're asking for, they're still going to just do it in-house. So without eyes on this project, and I wish I could have more time because there's so much background I would like to give you, that this doesn't meet the You cannot approve the CEQA analysis of this on TPZOU because this project is not even mentioned the way they're doing it in the general plan. So to tear it off of a very targeted general plan back in 2015 is illegal. So I would not approve... They're asking you to approve the environmental today, which there's no analysis in order to do that to connect this project with our general plan or that TGZOU. And... I just got this group with phone calls. And this is more than anybody attended these. And the last thing I'll say is they need a truly better community-driven process. I'd be happy to help with. We brought 400 people into Diamond Springs around 2009 to start this. I have a whole book of what came out of that, a video and all kinds of stuff. I'm not allowed to participate. So this whole process is very suspect that the people in this community have no idea what's about to hit them. And this is basically... The fire department doesn't care. The planning doesn't care because they're getting fees for these projects. And I've already talked, I personally talked to them about this stuff. So I ask that you deny this. Ask them to, you want to see a true vetted process. You know, we brought 300 people to two meetings in one day.

I don't want to cut you off. All right, well, thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Karen Gutierrez, and I live in Diamond Springs, and I was part of the stakeholder team of four that dwindled to two at our last community meeting. So my thoughts on this was we did the... the tour in October. We went through El Dorado, Diamond Springs, down the Missouri Flat Corridor to the El Dorado County Community Health Center. And we all agreed, architecturally, there was good points. The shopping... center behind the post office was a great development that matched what we were looking for as far as projects in Diamond Springs, El Dorado. The my kind of representation of what we were trying to achieve, I thought was more design-wise. And of course, that's my background. But I don't think that we really hit anything that would... talking about the permit process. None of that was really discussed. It was more aesthetics. I'd like to see a little bit more about height limitations, as there was a project discussed for Racket Way and Pleasant Valley at one point for three stories. To me, that's ridiculous. Now, in my mind, as a Diamond Springs resident that's driving through Main Street, and I know the parkway's coming, but it's not going to alleviate all that traffic. In fact, it's going to bunch up right there on Missouri Flat by the Walmart and by the trail. I hope it helps because I had an aha moment the other day driving down Missouri flat road going, Oh my God, I hate this. I hate driving Missouri flat road. I want to go back to when we moved here, when it was a two lane highway or two lane road with stop signs. But of course, That's gone. And my point is, I think, and I'm not sure because I'm not as smart on these ideas, but I want to make sure that traffic, fire, CEQA, that we do have public input. And I'll tell you right now, Diamond Springs is going to be it's gonna be up in flames at some point in the near future. I don't wanna say that, but I live on top of the canyon that is probably gonna start it in Martinez Creek off North Circle. You got people that can't get through town already. What's going to happen when we're trying to evacuate? So that's my concerns. The design process went great. It's the other thing. So thank you for your time.

Thank you, Kara.

Good morning. My name is Sherry Souza. I took time off work to come here. Not happy about that. It would be nice if we had some of these meetings and some of the public notifications at a time where families can get off work and go meet in the afternoon or evening. I'm hearing this that this is being presented as a design only presentation to be bought before the commission to be approved. But then I'm hearing things about state line stream project is included in your package. Streamline zoning ordinance amendments are included in your package and incentives to developers. Why is this in a design package only? Why is this verbiage in there if we're focusing on paint and balconies and the aesthetics of our town? I'm confused and I would really like to get some clarification on that. I hear this a lot about public outreach. We did flyers, we did the website, we did the newspaper, we did social media. How many ads in the newspaper and what newspaper did you put it in? Was it in all the local newspaper? Or was it just in Mountain Democrat? As far as flyers, drive through town all the time, have a post box at Diamond Springs Post Office, never got a flyer, never got a mailer, never got anything. Go to Diamond Springs Double Diamond Feed Store, never saw a flyer there. Social media? Social media is where you go to look at pictures of your friend's vacation, not something that has an impact on our town for the future permanently. And to do social media and say, well, we put it on social media, that's not acceptable. That is not putting it out to the public. You said you had a lot of community feedback. how many how many people came to these meetings did you have five did you have seven did you have a hundred who is your community feedback i'm very i'm very in tune with the community i'm clueless i wasn't there i wasn't part of it i didn't hear about it and again the future developments without public input for a streamline for the developers and incentive to the developers, to me, is very dangerous. If it's written in this package and presented to the board, but you said, well, we'll modify the verbiage before it's presented to the board. No, please modify it before it goes to the board. Remove this language. Make it a design package only. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm completely out of my cover zone here. Can you hear me? I've been accused of not talking loud. So I agree with everything she just said. She said it so much better than I could ever say it. But I'm coming from a person who drives through Diamond Springs, at least once a day, sometimes twice a day, taking my grandson to school. More than once, I've sat in the traffic and thought, thank God we're not evacuating right now. And when I learned about these 35 projects and how they're not responsible for helping us with fire or police or the roads, last year i was just so bothered by that that they impact our community so much i am not against low-income housing as long as it fits with the community and that we have the infrastructure to handle it and we do not we do not have it i I go through this twice a day, every day. And as far as getting the community out, like she just said, I have not seen one thing. I just recently got back on Facebook because I felt like there was things going on that I didn't know about. I have to be on Facebook to know about what's happening in my community? That's how I got involved last week with this. I saw it on Facebook. There are so many people that have turned their back on that for so many reasons, and we're using that to reach out to the community. I don't think that that's the way we want to run Eldorado County. That's not the Eldorado County that I've lived in most of my life. I've tried to go with the flow. I remember when there was no traffic signals in this county. And every time I see one go up, I go, that's what happens when you live in somewhere for so long. I'm not fighting this. I'm fighting the fact that it's guidelines instead of standards. That bothers me as well. What I'm saying is we have to find a way to reach those people who are just trying to make a living, who are on that road every single morning and every night going through Missouri Flat to get back home. And they don't have time to be on Facebook. They probably don't even go in the post office where they could see a flyer. But if we would have known sooner, I would have been out on the side of the road, or I would have been putting up signs. I would have made my posters myself and let people know that this was going on. There is a way to reach the community if we knew what was going on in the beginning. I feel deceived. And I don't know... where the root of the deception is, but I think it's happening. These things are being pushed on us, and then all of a sudden they're happening, and there's nothing we can do about it. I don't know if that's true or not, but that's how I feel. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so I wasn't even here for this project today i'm here for the other project, but what it sounds like to me if I could just get a little clarification here is that the state has already passed a program is that what i'm understanding and then. So basically, the state's already passed it. It's going to happen regardless of what Eldorado County wants and what the people that live in Eldorado County want. And so all these folks are trying to do is to make sure that if we have any say whatsoever, that we can have some say over the design of what is going to happen. So it was the state that once again screwed us all up. It's the state, not the county. Am I wrong or right? I mean, am I saying something that's right? Because all of us talk about everything. If it's already mandated by the state.

Susan, this isn't a debate.

So I just would like a little bit of clarification on that because it is interesting to me. It does interest me because they are planning something like this out where I do live, and I really wasn't giving it much concern or anything like that because we kind of rely on the county to take care of us, basically. But it's not the county. It's not you. These folks are trying to make what we have to deal with because of what's been mandated by the state to be more applicable to our county and acceptable to our county. Is that what we're looking at? Is this true?

Has the state already mandated this?

Is this already like a streamlined go on these projects, even if we don't have a design committee?

So I will, but please, it's our time. Okay. Jefferson?

There's no back and forth.

There is no back and forth, so what we'll do is afterwards we can explain the process to you.

I'll go sit down.

If you wish. Sure. Thank you. We can explain the process to you later.

Hi, my name's Shelly Thanos and I live in Diamond Springs and I agree with quite a few of the ladies that have been up here. I feel like the design thing is important, but a lot of the underlying things that aren't being mentioned, fire, water, traffic are not being addressed and Again, we did when he says we did flyers and things like that I live here I shop here I eat here and drive in traffic here and I haven't seen any signs I haven't seen any kind of flyer that was hung up anywhere, so the only reason I knew there was even a meeting is that. Sue's, the Eldorado, her Eldorado site posted that there was this meeting today. I feel like we don't know. And a lot of people in our area don't do social media. We have bad internet where we live or whatever it is, you know. There's got to be a better way. And again, I'm happy to volunteer to make flyers to go out and hand at the post office or something where I know people live here and they're going to get the scoop and know that that um you know there should be a voice it shouldn't just be able to be a streamlined thing all of these important things in our community should be addressed especially the traffic when we have fires i mean family that was stuck in traffic gridlock during caldera fire is scary and you guys might have family and friends that were in it too we need to make sure that these affordable places that they're putting in, not that we shouldn't have it. I don't know that they're affordable for some of the people here, but we do need to address the growing in this area that we can't accommodate. Thanks. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. Gina Posey, candidate running for supervisor in District 4 in El Dorado is part of my district. So it's a little confusing what I'm hearing here today. For me, design standards are paint colors and textures and things like that. And then in this document, as was pointed out, now it starts to be different than the other design standard documents like Shingle Springs and starts to talk about things like incentives to developers, It starts to talk about affordable housing. It starts to talk about workforce housing. These are all important topics. But why are they in a design standards document? Now, if you're going to go down that route, then go down that route. And then make this a document that talks about height limitations or setbacks or open space or road capacity and all the issues that you're hearing from folks here about development in general. But if it's a design standard document, and let's make it a design standard document before it gets to the board. And I also would like to thank staff for all the hard work. I've been to numerous meetings at numerous locations and geographies about the design standards. And it's really critically important that we do get more folks involved in the room and that we have a greater breadth on these advisory committees. I don't think four is enough to truly represent any community. 15 would be closer to what I would have looked for. And I also want to thank all of you for your thoughtful questions. I'm reading this large document. It's very extensive, and I appreciate the hard work and your thoughtful questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Now taking public.

Are you coming? Yes.

Pat Hester Brown from Diamond Springs, and I appreciate all the hard work that you guys have been putting into this. I don't appreciate seven signals between Pleasant Valley Road and the highway, but mostly in listening to all of this, always I'm concerned about evacuation. I'm going to get burned out. I won't be able to get out. But I've come up to speak this moment to hear what our representative, Mr. Hansen, has to say. You've been very quiet. You haven't responded to any of these things. What's your point of view on what's being presented? Thank you.

Any further comment from the room? Now taking public comment from Zoom. Now taking public comment from Larry Rolla.

Good morning. So Larry Rolla, Diamond Springs. I was part of the stakeholder advisory team. So I did the tour. and went around and provided feedback. And I really appreciate it. It was a great exercise of looking at what has been done in the past, what resonates with us and what doesn't work with us. So I really appreciate the efforts that Tom and Tru put together and the time we spent going around looking at various buildings. So it was kind of a lipstick and rouge community effort is the way I looked at it. And so that was our primary focus was really aesthetics and how things look, what's pleasing to the eye, what do we want in our community. Never did we touch on the process. And that's my big concern. My big beef today is that we were somewhat of a captive audience. We volunteered for this. We submitted our request to be part of this process. And I was really shocked to see that we didn't really have a chance to sit down and go through what they were envisioning as far as how they wanted to speed up the process and make this kind of a fast track, very similar to what we see with SB35 projects in the community, which is also a concern. And so I think what the public really wants and desires is to know that their best interests are being considered. And I don't think that's the case today. I think we've eliminated the advisory committee, where the public can get engaged. We've eliminated the planning commission, where the public can get engaged. And we've eliminated CEQA, where emergency evacuation is evaluated and part of the process. And so it really concerns me as a citizen in Diamond Springs that we're streamlining this, which is good to some degree, but the public has been cut out. Some of our agencies that are protecting us have been cut out. And we're putting all of this responsibility now into the planning department. And And so what I'm hearing is, well, we'll do the due diligence. We'll protect you. We'll look out for your best interests. And I'm sorry, I just don't, I think one-stop shopping for emergency evacuation is a big problem. And I think the public, you owe it to the public to assure us that you do have our best interests in mind. And there should be public comment along the way, part of this process so that we can evaluate, so that we can express our concerns and be part of the process. You know, yes, we have elected officials. We have a planning department, but, but the public still needs to be part of the process. And that's my biggest beef today is that we're totally cut out and we're cutting out some of the agencies that are protecting us today. So I really hope that we could go back to the drawing board around the process and is my specific concern. Thank you.

Thank you, Larry.

Now taking public comment from Linda Campbell.

Hi, everyone. Linda Campbell, El Dorado Hills. I think probably one of my biggest concerns, I look at the map for the community region. I'm not sure it's clearly understood that these design standards are going to be throughout the community region, the whole community region, which means some of the areas that are south of 49 and then also go all the way up past north of Highway 50 and even north some of Green Valley Road. So I would ask what representative people do you have across the areas in the whole region? I think people actually really near Diamond Springs, especially the Pleasant Valley Road area, I think those are some of the most engaged. But what about all that other section? What was done for notification of that? I think of the big commercial centers that are North 50 up Missouri Flat, all of that. So what are the representatives that came and spoke from those particular areas? And do they really understand that they're going to be impacted by this? And I say that too, because I look at attachment E, which has some of the comments, and there's only one table. There's one table on some of it, and only one, two, three, four of the comments actually came from the public. The other ones are from staff. So I don't know. It just seems somewhat limited in the engagement and the interaction. And I'm not sure there's a clear understanding across the entire community region as to the implications of what this decision means for them. So that's what I have. Thank you.

Thank you, Linda.

There's no further public comments.

Okay, since there's no further public comment, why don't we bring this back to the Commission? Commissioner Spahr, you have something you'd like to start off with?

Yes, I'd like to recommend that the language be rewritten on page 6A, support the development of affordable workforce housing while ensuring new projects remain, blah, blah, blah, blah. This make it more about the design standards and. This is not about applying for an application and going through the process, this is about. What color is it what's the architectural style so if. A and B could be modified that'd be great, however, I like a and B, because I come from economic development and a manager of affordable housing so. It's how it's applied. Here we're not applying it. I wish we could follow the general plan and have stronger teeth in there. And these two items probably meet some of the goal and policy language of the general plan, and that's why it's here. So it makes it compatible. But you can still use the language. It's just rewrite it a little bit. So the public, so it reflects what we're hearing from the public today. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you.

The whole section 1.3 is awkward, in my opinion, and I expressed those views to the planning staff like a week or two ago. The title of 1.3 is a sentence that, you know, it's goal and objective. It maybe should be under a goal and objective heading rather than a thought as a heading. And then A and B underneath has nothing to do with the title of the section. anyway that's one comment i love the community design standards and i was involved a lot with the chino springs one and it's super positive um and so you know i love it my hesitation though is the um is eliminating public input entirely and the whole idea of ministerial approval that's a hard one to overcome you don't have to do sequa No public input. So the nuances, even though they have to meet every part of the general plan and all our ordinances, it's the nuances, the details that are important. Oh, they meet the height requirement, but maybe it's incompatible with the single family home next to it. Or they meet traffic, because the traffic is okay on the road, but due to the unique circumstance of the location of the parcel,

maybe we need to take a harder look at that and there's no opportunity to do so and that's um that's disappointing thank you um i just just wanted to jump in um you know i just want to emphasize again that section 1.3 came from the community members that participated in the process that did not come directly from staff Staff, though, would be happy to tweak the language while trying to ensure that the original intent behind the language is included. And so we'd be happy to do so prior to bringing this forward to the board.

Thanks, Theo. Can you share with us some of the intent from the group that wanted this language in there? What's coming from their heart? when they wanted this language put in there. So we better understand where they're coming from.

Sure. And I don't know if we have any members of the Eldorado Diamond Springs Advisory Committee that are on the call with us or have participated. We did reach out to all applicable members, so they should have received all the notices. One of the key points involving economic incentive came from the El Dorado Diamond Springs Advisory Committee because they felt like that piece was lacking. And so this language is essentially what they wanted us to include for that one of those goals.

Commissioner Hanson.

I agree with what a couple of the Commissioners have said about What i'll call the page six language would agree with that. I wonder if. Clearly, this needs to be directed towards being this. The guidelines that we have front of us today to be. very strictly design-related. And there's some mention about when design-related means what color the paint is and all that. The design of a building, a design of a project, is absolutely fundamental to a lot of things involved in that project, from potentially its community acceptance, its financial viability, a whole lot of a whole lot of issues like that. And so I but I'm a little i feel a frustration in the community i think i'd like to think that most folks really think that you guys are doing a great job but i'm i'm trying i'm trying to grasp and and kind of get a you know an epiphany here about how this can be not throwing the baby out of the bathwater but how we how we can go through and retool really go with a critical eye for the document and retool what we want to send to the porsche advisors So that it is design-related. And a lot of it's there. I mean, the content and the material is there, really. I mean, it was really that one slide about the permitting process. Again, there's a conundrum there, too, it seems to me, that it's the same permitting guidelines and process that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors as it relates to Shingle Springs, right? Yes. So I wish I had a kind of a magic, you know, potion to identify, but it's not really, I don't think it's my, my purview. I mean, I went for our purview. Ultimately some of the buck, maybe 30 or 40 cents of the buck stops here, but not all. And ultimately another thing that the staff is running into, if I'm hearing this correctly is Dave Kuntz, direction that the Board of Supervisors has issued. Dave Kuntz, So. Dave Kuntz, I don't know, maybe the staff could comment on my comments, I wish it was you know wish there was a clear path obviously that language on the page six language has got to go. Dave Kuntz, Just put it out there like that. Dave Kuntz, Another frustrating thing, of course, are the are the so called streamline projects, specifically those under Senate bill 35. Dave Kuntz, And we all were in the design function. Dave Kuntz, Unfortunately, our fine folks in sacramento have have in their wisdom said, well, now, when these were no need to look at people and we don't need to do this me that, but we can do design. Dave Kuntz, We can go after design but but really look to the design of the project aesthetics project presents. or where the project should go as a community facility or whatever you want to say. So I'm sorry to ramble like this, but it just seems like the perspective on the throughput, the deliverable, so that it, I think, would be more acceptable to the community, I hope so, is to focus on the design features.

And what I mean, maybe you can help me guess. That's 85% of the document and 90% of the document.

But the other offending 15% are pretty offensive.

Yeah.

So that's my spiel. Sorry.

City Council Chambers, Thank Thank you for those comments again I just say you know section 1.3 the the the planning Commission is welcome to direct us to you know or change that language, make a recommendation to the board to change that language so again we'd be happy to do so just on. City Council Chambers, The the comments around. City Council Chambers, This document focusing on design, or you know processing of of permits, I just did want to make note that. City Council Chambers, That section 3.1. City Council Chambers, tries to kind of clarify how this document should be used. It's on page 12 of the design standards and guidelines. Only affordable housing is streamlined via state law. So it states that projects that qualify for streamlined processing under state law are subject to the standards listed under the design standards, sections four and seven. Projects that do not qualify for streamlined processing must comply with both the standards and the guidelines. So I just wanted to make note of that.

Thank you, Pam. Commissioner Williams.

I came here today with a pretty what I thought was a pretty good concept of what we were actually talking about. I am not sure that I'm having the same conclusion at this stage. I have to go back to, you know, before we get into the Section 1.3 issue, I have to go back to when I first joined the Commission, the second meeting I had was when we adopted the interim standards. I adopted and voted for that on the basis and the concept that those design standards were being put forth for us for the express purpose of the states. What is it going to look like? What is it designed to reflect? What are some of the consistencies and guidelines that a developer can come in and say, okay, these are the basics I have to step over, all good things. I then realized that when our agreement was then submitted to the Board of Supervisors, there were a number of additions that didn't reflect what the commissions did and whether it was submitted to the supervisors. And among those was to include ministerial rights and the removal of appeals. I think that it behooves everybody to take a look at those exchanges back then. I'm not gonna try to rehash what was presented and and what is uh now existence uh as far as official guidelines but uh i'm sitting here now and and looking at yet another design document and i think a lot of our discussion we have had here from the public and also from my fellow commissioners is that We like the work done in terms of the aesthetics, the guidelines, the design function. But what we are troubled with is the fact that the interim standards at least have been used to approve ministerial and use ministerial decision-making to approve low-income housing. It was done with the Green Valley family apartments, for example, in Cameron Park just recently. And so you see one thing where you think you're voting for one thing, and suddenly you realize it's being implemented in a totally different direction. So to the point that all four of you meant in terms of The 1.3, I'm not, you know, should we strip that out, or do we make it stronger? I believe at point of fact that a design standard can be one of the good defense mechanisms to say we're not going to roll over entirely on state mandates. We recognize that mandates are there, We recognize that it's a tough nut to crack, and we've seen lots of different jurisdictions go anywhere from the position taken by Huntington Beach, where they're now being regularly fined for noncompliance, versus other areas have said, whatever the state has, we're gonna go ahead and streamline it, and that's the way it is. I think right now we have an opportunity to give, our good director and the instruments to continue to support our general plan and the essence of that general plan, also for the public to realize that their input will continue, but also provide the fact that in reality that we need affordable housing, we need workforce housing in this county. And right now, again, what took place at the supervisor meeting just Tuesday in terms of affordable housing, that whole discussion that took place in the afternoon, we're looking at a very disjointed effort. And even when I was asking about how many parcels were going to be impacted, We don't have really a good sense even in El Dorado and Diamond Springs. We don't know whether or not we should not be talking about creating zones or clustering the use of these properties together that will not impact the roads or the water or anything else. We're just going down the road in so many different directions. So I'm gonna try to get my distorted thoughts together one second. With the conclusion that I mistakenly voted for the interim standards based upon what I perceived was being deliberate to me. Right now I am being asked to approve for at least one section of the county, another set of standards that will be permanent And there's not a clear understanding of what the actual implementation will look like and how this will be used. I would say that in terms of 1.3, I think as a commission, we can make one of two decisions. One, remove it because it's not applicable to a quote unquote design document. Or two, we recognize the fact that the interim the objective standards is a very good and excellent tool to tell the state that that we have thought through our sequa requirements we thought through and understand what our general plan looks like and that we want to reinforce it so we added language that would reaffirm the general plan we added the language that would re-examine the whole appeals process. So there would be some kind of legitimate appeal and contact. If we also look at what ministerial decision-making really means in this context, then we might have something that's really something we could deliver with pride to the supervisors. But again, it's... either striking this area and just calling design or using this thing as an instrument that really has meaning positively. That's all I can say right now. Thank you.

Okay. This is the advantage of going last. First, I want to thank staff for the section, for all the hard work you did. Okay. the design standards I find that they're very well done. And I think our dynamics are multifaceted here. One, the overwhelming document deals with design. I have no issues with the design components at all, except a little bit about science, but that's OK. The other dynamic is the state has mandated, if I'm correct, a streamlining process that ties our hands in many regards. I don't like the idea of not being able for a project to be appealed. But Jefferson, you might be able to elaborate a little bit on that particular topic. So there is no appeal for a S for S. Thirty-five.

So the Board has adopted the resolution about how these projects are processed. It does not have a right of appeal. That is not in there. And it's not just one process. We talk about SB 35. There's at least six or seven, and there'll probably be more that come out this year. They're always expanding this sort of, I think they call it SMAP, the Stateline Ministerial Administrative Process. And again, I referenced the board meeting where I talked about it. i'll give you some insight i'm being diplomatic here because frankly when local agencies get in trouble hcd and the ag watch these meetings and they quote what you say and they put it in their pleadings so um i will generally say that um the majority of these streamlining processes were really envisioned to fit better in urban areas A lot of them don't really fit with our county. Parking can be waived. All kinds of things can be waived with the idea that there's transit, there's a store nearby. And often that just isn't the situation here. But we still have large areas in the county that fit the criteria for these kind of projects. So they come. And yes, our hands are sort of tied. Regarding 35, that's had the most sort of tinkering because it's the oldest. They took the board out. They made it clear that the director has to make the determination on whether or not it qualifies for SB 35. So yes, they keep tweaking and tweaking and tweaking. the same with the 2,011 projects that Commissioner Williams was talking about. There was one of those that was denied. Guess what? The law changed the next year, and then it came back, probably because the applicant is well aware that the law has changed. It is hard to fight battles with people that write the law. I'm probably saying too much now, so I will stop. But yes, it is ill-fitting, but in a lot of ways it has tied our hands. I really think the idea here is If we're going to have to have this project, can we decide what it looks like? And the only way we can decide what it looks like is if we have truly objective standards. We cannot apply anything objective. So the interim standards were sort of more generic about building massing. This is getting more into what it looks like. I hear talk about, well, maybe there should be a different process for one or the other. If you do that, what you're going to end up with is state-streamlined projects that come through, and then sort of regular projects would have a more onerous process. I mean, that is possible, but we can't remove state-streamlining here that the state has occupied that field.

So that's what I'm struggling with, all right? And I don't particularly want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, because the only thing we really have discretion over is what the projects are going to look like, OK? What they're going to look like. If the state says it's going to go, it's going to go. So what I'm going to suggest, because I hear what all what you guys were talking about with the verbiage um i would suggest we take maybe a 15-minute recess i have commissioner spar if you would talk with maybe jefferson and thea and see if we can change the language in that section you were talking about because i don't i don't like Well, I wouldn't prefer sending something or recommending something to the board without knowing exactly what we're recommending to the board. and saying to Jefferson or to Tom or to Thea, you guys deal with this language later. And then it go to the board and we not know what we voted on. So if we can sit down for maybe, if you can sit down for 15 minutes and come up with some different language in that section, we can change it now and then see where we go from there.

Chair Fraga, if I may, I wanted to provide some information that maybe would help get some feedback to that. So I want to, first of all, go back to in the presentation, there was the permitting process flow chart, if you will. I point that out because I want to be clear that when we're talking about streamline, we're talking about things that are eligible for state streamline. That is generally the affordable housing projects. That's one path, and that's that left-hand side of that flowchart. The right-hand side of that flowchart are all other projects. They're still subject to the standards and guidelines, but they are not straight streamlined. These are a commercial, mixed use, those types of projects. If you can say that what we're proposing here does streamline that process from what it currently exists today. It does take a step out. We're putting the standards of the design and architectural expectations up front rather than every single time one comes up that it's going to be debated about the design and the architecture. different type of streamlining. That's our own El Dorado County streamlining. Specific to the language, what I'm hearing is I think the one word that really seems to be bothering folks is developer. And I would say that particularly for the commercial mixed use things that are outside the state streamline process. I don't know that developer is the right word because we're talking about, you know, the owner of Red's who may want to open up another business next door. I don't think people think of that person as a developer that is a local business person that is buying and investing in the community. So maybe that's something to consider is that particular word. Yes, it is developers for some of the state streamlining affordable housing projects. Those aren't necessarily local people. Sometimes they are. But that is, again, that's a whole different path and one which we have very little say. And so hopefully that helps as you're thinking about that language and the process.

Thank you. All right. So I threw something out there, but I did neglect to offer Commissioner Hanson, since this is in your district, if you would want to participate in changing the verbiage.

That's fine, too. I mean, You can't have three of you.

No, you can have two.

So that'd be fine.

All right, so the few and commissioners can get with the staff. And can we come back in about 15 minutes?

Chairman, may I have a, I'd like to make a comment. So we're talking about changing this language. I think there's really two issues. One is this language, and the other is the lack of community input and SQL analysis for projects. City Council Chambers, And if I understand those are the two things we're kind of chewing on, and we can revise this language that's fine that's good. City Council Chambers, But it still leaves a question of visit appropriate for projects are not non state projects to be able to circumvent sequel and public review. City Council Chambers, And so that's still on the on the table.

City Council Chambers, Perhaps this will be helpful I. If a project comes in, and we're not talking about a low-income housing project, say a mixed use in Diamond Springs that comes in, is zoning general plan consistent? All they would apply for is a building permit. Now, a building permit is ministerial. Again, I'm using it in a different context. And under the county's CEQA resolution, ministerial projects, and it's the same in state law, don't have CEQA. It's ministerial. We don't. We don't edit building permits. So that's, I hope that helps, but it's only ministerial because there's no discretionary action in there. The only thing I think this is what Director Garner is getting at is if you wanted to retain design review, that would be a discretionary step, but then it's sort of, it would be more onerous for a regular project than for a streamlined project.

I think kind of the flip side of that is if someone comes in and they're proposing something that doesn't conform with the zoning or the land use, they're knocked out of this whole process. No, I understand.

My point, sorry to belabor this for my own benefit, I'm trying to get my arms around this. Someone comes in today without the guidelines and standards and submits an application for a project within the community region, they're going through CEQA, they're doing a traffic study, they're going before our board, or commission rather, and perhaps eventually the board. And that entails a lot of scrutiny once these are published don't do that as long as they meet the as long as they meet the architectural design standards they go right for the building permit. So that's that's the second part of them, as I look at the second part of the commander. Or at least I don't want that exactly accurate.

All the tests that.

I'm not sure I understand.

Items come to you when they require discussionary approvals, a map, a zone change, a general plan amendment, design review. But there are projects that come in that do not require those things. They go straight to building permits. Say you're adding a building in an existing business park or something. It's right to building permits. So I don't know that this process really changes any of that it does it does go from specific discretionary design review to objective design review i and hopefully stuff and have a little bit of a rob hat on here yeah what jefferson said is accurate i mean if it meets all the criteria in our

chair you you're asking you you're suggesting a uh a temporary recess so so we can have about 15 minutes okay uh did your the direction we're giving the staff is to do what look at these two and everybody so the those two things or perhaps two or perhaps to also expand those things to include a reaffirmation of the general plan. I'm not going to try and tell them anything.

I'm going to sit down and put two other commissioners together with staff to Give us an idea and change the verbiage on those items and then we can discuss what they come up with and see how we want to proceed and Mr handsome to suggested that we're sure comes down commissioners far be with that.

seems to have. I like the articulation. The other issues. So that works.

um i don't i don't want to speculate on what they're going to okay so you're wanting to create a temporary ad hoc just have them work on and see what we can come up with in 15 minutes because i don't like sending things to the board without knowing what without having the t's crossing i agree i totally agree with that one okay so if it's okay with everybody we'll recess for 15 minutes and if you guys want to work on that we'll come back and see what come up with

Thank you.

OK, I'd like to call this meeting of the El Dorado County Planning Commission back to order. Just before we left, we gave a couple of commissioners, Commissioner Spahr, Commissioner Costello and staff, some time to look over some of the verbiage in the proposed design standards. Commissioners, what do you guys want to chime in and say?

Thank you for the time. And staff, thank you for the time for looking at this and putting some effort into it. I just think there are some trigger words when you're working with the public that they might not understand them. And I find some words I like and I don't like as well. So we just wanted to make this as black and white as possible. Thank you.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, I feel worked out some language.

Do you want to PB, Sarah Silver, Yeah, president, I'd be happy to. I have it on the screen. PB, Sarah Silver, So I'll just walk folks through what we came up with. PB, Sarah Silver, um, Okay. No, it's okay. I just wanted to make sure everyone can see it. So what we decided in our meeting was to remove Section 1.3. So that header will completely go away. We will include the old Section 1.3a and b in Section 1.2. Um, and a will become C and B will become D. Um, and the new C will read, um, is proposed to read support the county's general plan housing element while ensuring that new projects remain consistent with community established design themes and architectural elements that reflect the local history and character. The old B and now the new D will read, encourage reinvestment in the El Dorado Diamond Springs community by establishing clear and predictable standards for development that reduces the price, time, and complexity of project review and approval.

Thank you. All right. So at this point, I'll entertain some type of a motion.

Commissioner Haynes. I will move to be approved as presented by staff with the modifications to page 6 to add a new C

I believe there's just some adding to recommendation two with additional non-substantive grammar and formatting edits as needed for better readability and ease of use. So basically editorial, minor editorial edits.

What was that again?

Okay, so we have a motion to adopt staff recommendation as amended. Correct? Any questions?

Is there a second? I'll second that motion along with the comment that We are stuck with the state mandated program that we don't like, and we like low control. So the change of language is to help clarify we're focusing on design guidelines here in our county process, and we are not focusing on the state process. Thank you.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Hanson, could you repeat your motion? Your microphone was not on in the public, not here.

My motion, I'm sorry, my motion was to approve staff's recommendation as presented with the modifications, adding new paragraph C and D, as were just read to us by staff, and

And with additional non-substantive grammar and formatting edits as needed for better readability and ease of use.

Acceptable. Second.

So we have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion on motion? I have one question and one comment. This submitted, what you submitted was the guidelines, correct? Is this going to be reflected, and how is this going to be reflected in the actual ordinance that we're passing? Or is that same language going to be reflected in any language in the ordinance?

Commissioner Williams, the ordinance change is rather generic, just saying that in this area, look to these guidelines. It doesn't have details in it.

I'm just trying to confirm that. Thank you, Councillor.

And I'll just further state that that is provided in attachment C in the legislature package. And you'll see the red line version that demonstrates what Jefferson just said.

Thank you.

The other thing is, as I look at the staff recommendation, number one is to adopt the addendum to the county's 2015 targeted general plan amendment and zoning ordinance update final environmental impact report. I have not seen any testimony in any discussion that we've even addressed the final environmental impact I have a problem passing something where we haven't even discussed the EIR. My comment, that's all.

Okay. Commissioner Williams, sorry to interrupt. Commissioner Williams? Yes. I know we've had the discussion about documenting for the record. So I think it'd be helpful on the assumption that you are going to vote negatively on this item. This would be the time to document for the clerk so that your comments can go through to the board. you ask questions about how that process works so i'm just in the moment explaining how it would work if you intend to vote no you could say right now on the record and the clerk will record it and it will go through the board with the reasons if you want the reasons why you're voting if i decide to vote no i i will reserve the right once you have preserved presented this information to the board my comments to make sure that it reflect

second to all the comments we've had today.

What I'm clarifying is how the bylaws work. If you're voting no, you would say now while you're voting no. You'd have to do it now, according to our bylaws.

Okay.

We can't submit something right next week.

Okay, so I'm going to declare this before I vote yes or no. I'm torn because I really respect what you folks just did in terms of adding some depth to that Section 1.2 as we looked at good progress on that front, excellent progress. I also believe that the effort and the amount of work done in terms of the design work has been nothing but outstanding. I, you know, get back to the fact that I have also looked at how the interim standards have been implemented with regard to a couple of of affordable housing actions and the fact that there's no appeal process at all. Again, I reserve the right to... to expand upon that in a formal written statement. But I probably will write a written statement and a minority report in that regard. So And you are interpreting what the bylaws say, and I would...

I will offer one last comment. The meeting minutes should reflect what happens at this meeting. So if you have your rationale, if you write a letter a week from now, it's after the meeting is over. So those won't be in the minutes. Of course, you can comment on the item, but...

I've made my comments, and I believe that there is a lot to recommend in this thing. But at the end of the day, I have my reservations. So ultimately, I've noted some of those reservations right now. Okay? So.

Is there any discussion?

Yeah. Thank you, Chair. City Council Chambers, Make a statement. City Council Chambers, As to how this document does not in any way. City Council Chambers, eliminate the need for a secret review. City Council Chambers, or public input. City Council Chambers, or projects that. City Council Chambers, or projects that.

come before us under this which it would need to do anyway and i'm not being very clear but just say what you said i don't know i've said a lot of things um but i'll try it and um maybe karen and jefferson or tom can jump in if i misspeak but um uh When the decision is made that something is ministerial or discretionary, that is determined not by what we've been talking about, the El Dorado Diamond Springs Design Standards and Guidelines document. That decision is made in other documents, CEQA law, county zoning codes, Board direction, board resolutions. The document before you does not determine that a project is ministerial or discretionary, doesn't determine the level of review that's required. Is that what I said?

Yes, that's exactly what you said, actually. Thank you.

So in a nutshell, existing ordinances in the general plan dictate that. This doesn't affect that.

Correct.

Thank you.

Any other discussion? Can you take the roll call, please?

Commissioner Williams, how do you vote?

No.

Commissioner Hampson?

Aye.

Chair Fraga? Aye.

Aye.

Commissioner Costello?

Aye.

And Commissioner Spahr?

Aye.

Motion passes 4 to 1.

Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Great job.

Chair, if I might, Commissioner Williams, did you want to document your concerns for the minutes?

I'm not going to be boxed into that, sir, right now.

OK.

So just so you're clear, the rationale for voting no will not be reflected in the minutes. But that does not preclude you from writing something to submit to the board.

The recorded documents today at this hearing is part of that documentation. So there.

OK. OK. Item number three. Next item on the agenda.

Item number three. Hearing to consider tentative subdivision map TM22-0004 Rancho Victoria subdivision. Chair, can you please open the hearing?

Yeah, I'd like to open this public hearing. We'll let staff settle in. And who is this new fella in the white shirt? He's in disguise. do we have a staff report while staff is getting ready i just want to try and see if we can get through this item before uh we decide if we want to break for lunch is that okay with staff see if we can give it a few minutes and if it goes if it seems like it's going to go too long then we'd have to break for lunch is that okay with the commission yes okay

Good morning, planning commissioners.

Bianca Dinkler, senior planner with El Dorado County Planning Department. It's nice to see everyone today. I would also like to thank our consultants that assisted the county with the environmental review of this project, Angela DeRosa and Nick Papani of Rainy Planning and Management. And they are on the call virtually. The project before you, as you see, is a proposed tentative subdivision map, TM22-0004 Rancho Victoria. The proposed project would subdivide a 513.93 acre parcel into eight parcels. Out of those eight proposed parcels, six of them would be 40 acres. or larger. Parcel A3 would be 54.18 acres. And then the largest parcel A5 would be 219.58 acres. And that parcel includes an existing residence and the oak preservation area. As shown on the aerial map, the project site is located on the west side of Latrobe Road, approximately 0.73 miles northwest of the intersection with Saushingle Road in the Latrobe rural region in the Latrobe area. The project site consists of rolling topography featuring a mosaic of grassland areas, oak woodlands, and wetlands consisting of six intermittent creeks, eight ephemeral creeks, 12 seeps, and a stock pond. Next slide. The general plan land use designation is rural residential. And as you can see on the slide, the adjacent general plan land uses to the north is agricultural lands. To the south is also rural residential, to the east is rural residential, and to the west is rural residential. Next slide. The zoning of the project site is our rural land 40 acres, RL 40. And as you can see here, the existing adjacent zoning to the north is also an agricultural zone, the agricultural grazing 40 acre zone. To the south is RL20 and RL40. To the east is RL40 and a little transportation corridor zoning. And to the west is our limited agricultural 40-acre, rural land 20-acre, and a rural land 10-acre zone. The surrounding existing uses include grazing land and oak woodland under a Williamson Act contract to the north, the Eldorado Trail Latrobe Cemetery and undeveloped land to the east, single unit residences and the Eldorado Hills Fire Department Station further to the east across Latrobe Road, single unit residences and Miller's Hill School to the south, and single unit residences as well as some undeveloped land to the west. Next slide. Due to the large project site, which is over 500 acres, we have created multiple exhibits that will show the tentative subdivision map with some different features. So on this slide, you can see we've added a gray area applied for context and the gray areas are not a part of this project. Also, I'd like to mention that all maps used in this presentation are found in Exhibit F, and we will have this open for further discussion following the presentation. Next slide. This is the main tentative subdivision map, and it shows all of the proposed parcels. Access to the project site would be provided from Victoria Way to the south and Settlers Trail to the west. Parcels A1, 2, 3, and 4 would take access from Settlers Trail, and parcels 5, 6, 7, and 8 would take access from Victoria Way. There is no development proposed at this time. Future residential development is anticipated on each of the parcels, including but not limited to primary residences, accessory dwelling units, also known as ADUs, accessory structures such as barns, garages, sheds, and installation of private on-site wells for both potable and emergency service for water, and private on-site septic systems. I would like to mention that parcel A5 is already developed with an existing residence, well, and septic system. Electrical service would be provided by connection to existing PG&E infrastructure in the project vicinity.

Next slide.

Here is the aerial exhibit of the tentative map. Oh, I think that's the topo. Okay, there we go. Okay. The project site, as you can see here on the aerial again, that consists primarily of open hillsides supporting annual grassland, vegetation, and blue oak woodland, as well as some aquatic features, including those intermittent creeks, a few hillside seeps, and the stock pond. There is cattle grazing and development of some farm roads and fire breaks and off-road vehicles that have somewhat modified that vegetation within the project vicinity. The majority of the existing on-site trees, which qualify as oak woodland, are located in the eastern portion of the site, which you can see here indicated with the blue lines. All right, next slide. This is the topo exhibit showing the steepness of some of the property, especially to the east of the project site. Next slide. This exhibit shows a zoomed in area of the oak preservation. With respect to these on-site oak woodlands, approximately 149 acres of the oak woodland habitat are located on that eastern boundary. Of that, 122.5 acres of the oak woodland habitat are within an oak preservation area that the eastern portion of the site, as you can see there, is from a north-south fashion. The oak preservation area on the site is called the preserve area and is identified pursuant to a declaration of restrictions for oak woodland habitat preservation filed by the previous owner in 2017. In response to comments that we received during the open period for the initial study regarding preservation of the Oak Woodland, additional information was discovered that pursuant to that 2017 declaration of restrictions for the Oak Woodland habitat preservation, approximately 47.80 acres of that Oak Woodland habitat would be protected in perpetuity as directed by the city of Folsom. whereas the restrictions for the remaining acreage shall no longer apply after 10 years, which would be in 2027, unless an annexation under management of the City of Folsom is processed through recordation of a declaration of annexation to incorporate that remaining acreage prior to that 2027 deadline. I would like to include that any future oak removal would be subject to the mitigation requirements of the county's Oak Resources Management Plan, the ORMP. I would also like to mention that in this area, the oak preservation area is very steep. The topography is in two-foot intervals, and at the base of Latrobe Road is approximately 730 feet, and as you travel uphill to the west, it's up to 900 feet. Next slide. For environmental review, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA staff prepared an initial study analyzing the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the project. Based on the initial study, a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared and was circulated for 30 days. Also, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, also known as an MMRP, was developed to implement those mitigation measures that were identified in the initial study MND.

Next slide.

In response to the CEQA public comments that we received, we prepared responses to comments and an errata to the ISMND. A notice of intent known as an NOI was published with a 30 day public review and comment period for the ISMND from March 12th, 2026 through April 10th of 2026. Those responses to comments and the errata to the ISMND are included in the staff report discussion as well as with our exhibits. So those are exhibits U and V. I would like to state that the errata of the initial study is intended to more accurately describe the details of that 2017 declaration of restrictions for the oak woodland habitat preservation. The changes were for clarification purposes only and do not alter the analysis or the conclusions of the CEQA document. And again, as mentioned, any future oak removal would be subject to the mitigation requirements of the county's ORMP. Next. Prior to reading staff's recommendation into the record, I would like to state that as of date, we have received two public comments. In response to the comment we received earlier in the week, which is uploaded as attachment 13 to the Legistar, we do have Zach Oates with our County Department of Transportation available to help answer any questions of that comment, which have to do with the drainage easement located on the west corner of Settlers Trail. So I believe Zach is online. So I will defer to Zach to, ah, wonderful, here's Zach.

Thank you, Bianca. Good morning, still planning commissioners. Good to be with you again today. We did review the public comment that was submitted concerning drainage concerns where the future access road will connect with settlers trail and believe that those concerns are adequately addressed within the conditions of approval as drafted. I believe it is condition number. Let's see. 26. Thank you. That discusses ensuring that all project improvement plans and grading plans conform to county standards, including our grading, excuse me, our drainage manual. And the drainage manual discusses all the standards that will have to be met, including not blocking existing drainage systems or networks. So where that access road meets settlers trail, it looks like there's an existing roadside ditch there that will have to be incorporated into their design and not obstructed in any way, shape or form there. we feel that that adequately addresses it as the project, if approved, moves into more detailed design work and those plans are submitted for plan check and review, that would be the time where we review their analysis, their drainage report to make sure that they're complying with our drainage manual. Happy to answer any questions or I can sit tight.

I have a question with regard to the obligations that we see presented in terms of the Rainbow Meadows POA responsible roadway maintenance responsibility. A question was asked in one of the public comments that they may not have the viability to conform or meet those requirements. Any thoughts either on a DOT front?

Sure, sure. So yeah, I would refer to condition of approval number 25 that requires prior to the filing of a final map the project will either have to form an entity or join an existing entity for the maintenance of private roads and drainage facilities. So that coincides also with an earlier condition of approval, I believe. Number 19, they'll have to provide proof that they have the ability to access those private roads. Then also they'll have to contribute to the maintenance of those via the existing maintenance entity. And then perhaps a new maintenance entity for any of their onsite roads as well. So I believe that's addressed.

Second question I have is regarding the expansion, the possible expansion, widening of the single Springs Road, which is a little trouble. Is there a CIP impact at all on that expansion?

No, there's a condition of approval. Number Number 15 that they'll need to widen South shingle to minimum 24 feet in width. But that is going to be an obligation of the project. It's a condition of approval. It's not a county CIP project. Okay, good. Thank you. Good clarity.

I have no more from Jack. Was the staff report finished before we get into any more questions?

Okay. Yes.

Any other questions? Yes.

I just want to ask that going going back to the declaration of restriction. So it grew a portion of it, there's a portion of the poke with them.

It's set aside in perpetuity. This document expires next year.

So is there is a two part number one, do you know of any activity to extend that declaration of restriction? And I don't believe it could be wrong, but I don't think I saw in the conditions of approval anything having to do with renewing that agreement. So what's kind of the latest and greatest on that?

Thank you. That's a great question. We do not have any indication from the applicant that they would extend that to do an additional annexation. So I'd have to defer to the applicant as far as if there is a nexus for us to require that in our conditions. We did consider that, but we determined that we did not have the regulatory authority to require that as a condition. So I'd have to defer to the applicant as far as future plans if they wanted to do that. And again, it would be with the coordination and management with the city of Folsom, who was the original applicant lead agency on that. It had to do with off-site mitigation. So there's kind of a lengthy history there that was brought to our attention as we explored that further.

That's interesting. OK.

Thank you. This is a District 2 thing. Let me go ahead and ask questions if I could. I've been to the property now three times over the last three weeks. beautiful piece of property. And obviously, anytime you're thinking about breaking up 519 acres, you say, well, I hope it's well thought out. I think it's laid out reasonably well for that purpose. So thank you for doing that. I was just thrown a few seconds ago about the possible annexation by the city of Folsom for that preserve area. How feasible is that?

I think it's highly unlikely. I think it's unlikely that is going to happen. We don't really know the genesis of where this came from, other than it's an offsite improvement. But unless the applicant has other plans, I think the assumption is that one portion that expires, that that restriction will terminate by its terms. And then the 40-acre portion will remain.

I'd love to keep that under control here at LRL. County, this is a ecological treasure that is a social site, an ecological treasure, and it needs to be really mindfully managed. And so I had an opportunity to chat with briefly the deputy chief of the fire department who had said through most of the day, he had some more pressing questions issues to deal with. But he did ask me to bring up two points with regard to the conditions of approval. And just minor changes. But on number 31, you have the response station being station 81 or 84. It's actually 91. And I can give you the address unless you It's 7660 South Singlet Springs is the address of that station. The second thing is that since Susan was written, that area has changed in terms of its designations, gone from moderate to high. So we have to make sure that that, especially in view of the new forestry department of state regulations now with regard to principal space and everything else that we want to make sure we somehow acknowledge those new regulations in terms of conditions of approval. The couple, just very original, I see the, Agricultural Commission opined on a couple of these things, indicating there could be impacts, but then ultimately did not give us any recommendations. And that, of course, puts you in a difficult position, certainly puts us in a position what was really in the back of their mind. Can you tell me what took place during those commission sessions and why they had reservations?

Yes, great questions. And I just want to confirm, I did also speak with Deputy Chief Landry about those changes. And we have those assurances that it does not change any of the analysis or conditions or their wildland fire safe plan. Everything is solid. Regarding the Agricultural Commission, I have to say at that time, our process wasn't clear. It wasn't as clear as it could be. So we're always improving and trying to improve that process. At that time, I mean, it was just I sent a memo up there and said, hey, we need you to review this project. Give us a recommendation. We didn't give specific guidance on which of those general plan policies we really needed that recommendation. clear feedback from. So at that time, it was almost more just like a deliberation about the project. It wasn't policy. We didn't go policy by policy like we would today. We have a really great process in place now that, yeah, we're excited about. It's just kind of rolling out this new process we have where we're going to give them those specific general plan policies that they can then let us know if it meets that criteria or not. And then that'll make it more clear for everyone. Yeah. So yeah, they weren't, yeah, they weren't concerned other than just wanting to make sure preserving the 40 acre grazing land, that's really important to them. And this project does also support that. And so all of the parcels are, are consistent with that, maintaining those 40-acre grazing land parcel sizes. So, yeah, we appreciate that the applicant put forward a project where they support that as well, like maintaining those parcel sizes.

All right. Excellent. That's all I have right now.

Any questions of staff?

Dave Kuntz, I don't have any questions I did visit the site yesterday in the vicinity, it is a beautiful wooded oakland area and a fire risk for sure thanks.

Thank you.

Yeah, I checked out the site as well. It's gorgeous. Regarding the oaks, there was a reference in the American River Conservancy's letter that talked about the Folsom plan area specific plan. And so my question was just, what in the heck is that all about? And was it a mitigation? I mean, the trees are mature.

yes that's thank you those are great questions as well we reached out to city of folsom as soon as we realized you know we wanted to better understand this document and we had multiple conversations with the city of folsom's planning department and they also were not sure of the genesis of of what occurred at that time we had some theories of what we think may have happened In the spirit of just trying to set aside some offsite mitigation, they thought, oh, this looks like beautiful land. As you've all noticed, it's incredible that the land out there is just beautiful. And so they chose that property to set aside that as some offsite mitigation. But yeah, we, the city of Folsom, the current staff is not clear on like who worked on that. They tried to look back in time and they just, they don't have any documents that really show how that came about.

City Council Chambers, All right, thank you. City Council Chambers, Next question is regarding road so maybe exactly the way in but. City Council Chambers, who's paying for the improvements on session goal.

City Council Chambers, So that goes with the ot again the South shingle improvements will be a responsibility of the project applicant okay cool and then.

City Council Chambers, Let me see condition of approval number three. The settler's trail improvement. Who's paying for that? All the owners? OF THE DEVELOPMENT OR THE DEVELOPER?

NO, THE WIDENING REQUIREMENTS IN CONDITIONS NUMBER 15 AND 16 ARE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THIS PROJECT APPLICANT.

OKAY. THE APPLICANT. ALL RIGHT. COOL. THANK YOU. YEAH. MY NEXT QUESTION TO STAFF ARE THE WELLS. THERE'S AN EXHIBIT O. THERE'S AN INCREDIBLE NUMBER OF WELLS OUT THERE. AND ON THIS PROPERTY, ON THIS PROPERTY, I COUNTED 24. And they're all over the place. Drilled between 2002 and 2013, 140 to 900 feet deep. And the yields at the time of drilling varied from dry to 100 GPM. I note that the school district was concerned about withdrawal of water from the private wells once the sites developed. So my first question is, why are there so many wells out here? Just curious.

I am. Yeah, it's a great question as well. I am aware of that issue. I'm just working with the applicant on this project that they did work really hard to get those well production reports. They had to do several wells on certain parcels. It varies. I probably have to defer to our environmental management department to further expand on that. But I know ultimately they did meet the LAMP, what are called the LAMP requirements for for those production rates and for their wells and septic systems. But I think they did have a few parcels where they had to do some more test drilling to find those production rates to meet the county's requirements. Ultimately, they did meet those requirements and county environmental health did provide those comments, which we have incorporated as conditions. So yes, but the water out there is, and it just has to do with the geology of the...

So once the site's developed and each home is on a well, there has been, environmental did take a look at that and conclude that it wouldn't impact the school's well? Okay. That's a big effort, by the way. Okay. That's a huge hydrologic evaluation. It's not a simple thing. So hopefully they didn't. Yes, they did. The fire department, they want an emergency water supply. And they refer to, I think it's condition 34A, to fire hydrants. Are there going to be fire hydrants?

This project will utilize that rural standard, the D003 rural standard, for those above ground water storage tanks.

Right, the ones I saw driving around, everyone had a big tank. There's no fire hydrants.

Right. In that area of the county, we just don't have the EID infrastructure out there.

I agree 100%. But take a look at 34A. OK, let's take a look.

You have a fire hydrant?

You want to come up? Because I'm going to ask you guys to, as soon as the question was done with staff, I was going to give you an opportunity to make a presentation.

You have a 5,000 gallon holding tank? Yeah. Okay. And then the county will require, say, 2,500 of that water has got to be reserved for the hydrant. And the hydrant is right there. And you can't build within 100 feet of that hydrant. And then there's all kinds of restrictions with the fire department with them getting their trucks up to it. So you don't see fire hydrants out there.

We all have our own. I got it. Thank you very much. That clarifies it. So then the fire department can use it, use the water that's in a tank rather than siphoning it out.

For all the newer homes that were built.

Very good. Thank you. Good catch.

They're all required to have sprinkler systems in their homes as well.

Let me see. Who's the owner? I mean, the owner's listed, but where are their offices? Are they local or are they in New York City?

Oh, I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?

Okay.

Okay. I strike that. We'll learn later. And then finally, just as a comment, I think the ad commission was concerned about the diminishing diminishment, potential diminishment of the grazing capability of the land. But again, there's 40 acres parcels. So hate to see it be subdivided, but it's still, I think, is consistent with what it needs to be out there. So all right, that's it.

OK. And final questions were already asked by other commissioners. So I'm going to give the project opponent a chance to come up and say anything and answer any questions if you'd like to come up.

I believe the applicant is available online to answer questions since they are, I believe they're online. Yes. Since they are out of, um, they live out of town and so they wanted to participate, but virtually, um, so we can ask for Jeff Kovacs.

Yeah. Is there a time for me to hear the commissioners, but I can hear you well, Bianca.

Okay. Would you like to make any character presentation or comments?

Jeff, I wonder, this is Peter Praz, the attorney. I wonder whether I might jump in here.

Yeah, go ahead.

Is that okay? Can you all hear me, planning commissioners? All right. Thank you. This is Peter Prowse. I'm the attorney for the applicant. All I really wanted to do today was thank the staff. They worked really hard on this project and the county's consultants. I think that their comments have improved the project over the planning process. And we've been really appreciative of the hard work they put into this and support the recommendation. We have our engineer here as well, if there are any engineering questions to be answered.

Okay, are there any commissioners that have any questions for the project proponent?

I do, just one. Who, I know the title, the name of the project proponent, where are they located? Just curious. Like, who's the owner? Are they local?

The owner doesn't live on site. It's a It's a vacation home for him.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last part. It's what?

It's a vacation home.

So the project proponent, the entity who's doing the subdivision, where are they located? Well, he lives in Florida.

So the company is in Florida? His company is actually based out in New York, but he lives in Florida. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for... Yeah, I want to ask. Go ahead, Commissioner. It probably goes to the attorney, I don't know. The declaration of restriction relating to the oak habitat. Earlier, we were told that the county has determined, well, let me take a step back. The project applicant, proponent, This quota is saying that they looked at this and were not interested in renewing or applying to renew that declaration. Could you speak to that, please?

I don't have any information other than that. We concur with staff's conclusion that at least with respect to this subdivision project, there is not a nexus here to require a further dedication. If there is further development of this site, then, of course, there would need to be compliance with the county's oak policies at that time. And that may be something that comes up again at that time. But for this project, we agree with staff that there's not a nexus there.

I want to say something about how I've never met a lawyer yet for an applicant to love nexus analysis. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for the project?

Okay, then I'll open the public hearing. Public comment.

Now taking public comment specifically on item number three. Individuals will have three minutes to address the Planning Commission. The timer will notify you when you have 30 seconds remaining and again when your time is up. Public comment will be taken first from those in the Planning Commission hearing room and then from those on Zoom. For those participating by Zoom, press the raise hand button and make sure to unmute yourself when called upon. If you are joining the meeting by phone, press star nine to indicate a desire to comment. Please voluntarily state your name for the record. Now taking public comment from the room.

My name's Colleen Foley, and I'm the president of the Rainbow Meadows Property Owners Association. And my question is Settler's Trail, the road, the project is going to develop the road, apparently, or improve the road for the project. But our concern is, after the homes are built, projects completed, is the maintenance on the road. Now, I heard it mentioned that they're going to maintain and get involved with the other associations or whatever for the private roads. But Settlers Trail is actually a public road privately maintained by the homeowners along that road. So I just want to make sure that that public road is included in all of the plans that are made for the private roads that may be accessing these homes.

That's all.

Okay, thank you.

Now taking public comment from Zoom. Oh, you want to come up?

Hello, my name is Gail Simas. My family has been in the Latrobe area since the mid to late 1800s. I'm not that old. My concern with the project is traffic at the intersection of Latrobe Road and South Shingle. Of course, the traffic has increased so much in the 50 years that I've been there. There is only stop signs when you're going north or south on south shingle um many accidents have happened at that spot and my concern is mainly the traffic and the water too but mainly the traffic thank you thank you

Good afternoon. My name is Gretchen Dole, D-O-L-E, and I am the Secretary of Rainbow Meadows Property Association. I've been an officer throughout my 26 years of living on Settler's Trail. My main concern is traffic. Um, not only at the school, but on our road itself, but mostly, um, this development will impact not only our main road, which is settlers trail, but also South shingle road. Um, we haven't had any proper maintenance out there for quite some time because we are on the county line. They've often told us from DOT that since we are at the end of the county line, we are much ignored. So we have to call in a lot of the times some of our own maintenance on this road. My main concern is mostly the traffic that we've had incurred from the other residents that have moved into the area. in the last, I would say, 10 years. My last child graduated from high school at Ponderosa in 2016. So I was very familiar with driving up and down South Shingle Road. We've had a lot of accidents at that intersection of South Shingle Road and Latrobe. There's always debris left on the side of the road. And the impact that it has on the traffic that it has on the schools. We are having to move around the traffic at the school when we try to come home at school let out. The road is not wide enough. The bridge is not wide enough. We have to yield to the oncoming traffic. There isn't a whole lot of signage. And the road is not wide enough. They put in probably... an extra 10 inches, DOT did on the side of the road near the school to kind of alleviate the oncoming traffic so that we have a little bit more room. We do have a little bit of an outgrove now because of DOT and our complaints. In front of the Verosa Hotel. I'm concerned about the water because a lot of us don't have really good running wells. We also have a huge drainage problem at that intersection, what they're talking about. And I would like to know more of a... a plan that's going to be set forth on that drainage. The drainage is located about 7,400 Settlers Trail. The resident that moved in there a few years ago was totally flooded. He lives in a modular, but the water ran right underneath his house. There's a huge drainage creek that goes behind his house. and down to deer creek so um i would like to know a little bit more of um what's you know what's expected before we go to supervisors you know the board of supervisors so um we haven't had a whole lot of notice either the only notices unless we put ourselves on a pink slip the only notices that we've received is the people that live within a thousand feet so We'd like a little bit more cooperation with our association, with the owner of this project. Because when we've called him, we've got nothing but denial. He's, you know, as far as fire, him maintaining alongside of the roadway with, you know, tall grass. We have no cooperation. The guy's hung up on both Colleen and I. We have No communication with this owner.

Thank you, Gretchen.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Now taking public comment from Zoom. Now taking public comment from Linda Campbell.

Hey, everyone. Linda Campbell, El Dorado Hills. So... I'm really glad that the Homeowners Association was there because that was one of my big questions is how much have they fed into this and is there an agreement in place? Because settler's trail, I think, could probably be a little gap in regards to how it's being evaluated and pretty significant risk potentially. So it would be nice to know that actually that's all taken care of and covered and agreed to so that it supports them. I was also interested in some of the stormwater and drainage treatment. I know that there's some comments in there, but there doesn't really seem to be a really clear plan right now since this is only a zoning split, a parcel split, and there's no project proposed. So to me, that is always concerning because then All of this stuff is done down the road whenever things start coming up and happening. So anyways, a little bit concerning on that. Also, obviously for fire, making sure that everything's well planned out about evacuations and specifically aligning with the safety element. I think the biggest thing is the Agricultural Commission. I'm surprised they didn't actually say, but give a yay or nay. But their concern, as noted, it could create the potential to diminish or impair the grazing capabilities. And that includes potential impacts to agricultural operations caused by increased traffic and water impacts. So it seems like traffic and water impacts are a recurring theme. So I don't know what's been done to analyze what agricultural operations may be going on right now who potentially could be impacted. If this goes in, how significant will that be? And for all of those different wells, again, how's that going to impact the surrounding agricultural lands and operations? And then finally, in the findings, item 2.25 had to do with the requirement for agricultural fencing. It said it was supposed to be in the conditions of approval, but honestly, I did not see it in the conditions of approval. So it would be great if that would be reconciled. Thank you.

Thank you, Linda.

There is no further public comment.

Okay, seeing no further public comment, we'll bring it back to the Commission.

Is the staff having any reactions to the public comment? Or any expectations from staff?

Sure. Zach Oates with DOT again. I can respond to a couple of the comments and questions related to traffic and perhaps once more for the drainage. The comment that Settlers Trail is a public road is noted. It, however, as mentioned, is not a county maintained road. It is privately maintained by the Rainbow Meadows Property Owners Association. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, I would again refer to condition of approval number 25 that requires the project to join. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, An existing maintenance entity or create a new one, it goes on to say that when joining an existing facility, they must amend and modify the existing entity to equitable equitably incorporate maintenance a of any project improvements. So again, I feel like that is adequately addressed. If the condition if the Commission wish we could look at adding more specific language to specifically state joining that existing owners association. But again, I feel like that is adequately addressed. There were a couple of comments regarding safety issues and accidents at the South Shingle and Latrobe intersection. Every year, our traffic operations folks collect accident data for reported accidents countywide. And during that process, we identify the accident locations with the highest rates, most severe accidents with injuries or fatalities. And we identified those locations for potential safety improvements when grant opportunities present themselves. So we are constantly monitoring those locations. There are not any improvements at that intersection related to this project that were identified. Going on, there was a comment about wanting more of a plan for drainage improvements. Again, once the project, if approved, gets into its more detailed design process, those improvements would be identified as part of a drainage report that the applicants would have to prepare with their engineers. The necessary improvements to identify any drainage issues identified would be highlighted at that time. I would go back to our drainage manual, which says that subdivisions shall design their drainage such that water passing through will not result in injury to improvements, buildings, or building sites, and will not adversely impact or exceed capacity of any existing downstream drainage facilities. So again, that ties into that whole conversation that drainage report produced by the applicants and their design will address those issues and i believe that was all for traffic or dot

I can address a little bit about the grazing and ag. This is rural lands is the zoning designation. That is not changing. This is not a rezone. So definition in our zoning code, rural lands is intended to identify lands that are suitable for limited residential development based on topography, access, groundwater, or septic capability and other infrastructure requirements. later in that definition it says this zone is applied to lands to allow uses which supplement agricultural use. For special setback purposes, the RL zone is not considered to be an agricultural or timber zone. So in terms of the grazing that may or may not be occurring on there now that isn't allowed use, but it is not as protected, if you will, as if it were zoned agricultural grazing lands that that zoning designation gives more protection to the grazing. I will also note that if any surrounding properties that do have an ag zone, ag grazing or other type of ag zone, those have a right to farm and have protections through that right to farm so that even if there's residential here and someone doesn't like the fact that there is grazing or there is a tractor running at four in the morning next door, they have right to farm protections on those ag zoned lands.

Thank you. Okay. Are there any other questions? I only have one. Do you have a question? No, I don't. So before us is subdivision. Correct? To subdivide 500 acres into eight different parcels. And if this were to be approved, they would be able to put eight single-family homes. Correct? Potential.

Yes, that is correct.

Parcel 5 does have the existing house.

Right, that is correct.

And at this current time, all they're asking for is the subdivision. There is no project presented as right now.

That is correct.

That is correct. OK, and that troubles me. Why would someone want a subdivision if they don't have a plan? But that's just in my own head. Okay.

Well, I think the key there is that once a plan gets laid out, it's still going to be subject to staff review and everything else. So that's an important clarification.

If it's granted, they can build a single-family home with ADUs without it coming back to us or anything else. Right? Because it will be granted and they'll be able to do it by right.

Right. Right.

OK. But currently, they don't have any plans to do that. OK. All right. So now we'll bring you back to the Commission.

This is District 2. I would like to offer a motion, if I could, Chair. Absolutely. And my recommendation would be, my motion is very simple. I would move to accept the staff's three recommendations. As written.

Commissioner Williams, if I may, you pointed out two things that should be corrected that I think you should add to your motion. The condition of approval 31 should refer to station 91. And condition of approval 32 should refer to the high fire severity area. Excellent.

Thank you. My motion doesn't include those specifications. So thank you.

I'll second.

Okay. Is there any discussion on this motion?

No.

I have just one point. Go ahead. The proposal is consistent with the general plan. Consistent with zoning. That's all I want to say.

Okay. I'm just troubled by One little thing yeah and that's why would someone want tentative subdivision map with no plan in place, what do they have in mind for this parcel, what are they going to do I don't think that the. Water pressure has been adequately addressed and I don't think that the drainage on settlers trail has been adequately addressed so. And the other issue I have is with the Ag Commission. I don't think it can adequately address whether or not existing will intensify existing conflicts between adjacent residential and agricultural activities, whether it will create an island effect, and whether or not it would significantly reduce or destroy the buffering of existing large parcels. So I got a couple of issues where that's concerned at some points. You know, so I'm not prepared to vote yes on this for that reason, for those reasons.

I toured the property and it's evident there's a large subdivision with very large lots to the west in between Rancho Mura and this property. It's only a matter of time that this will be a rural residential area. It's not needed to provide any project plans at this time. They're just breaking up the land into parcels with a subdivision map. So everything else is to come later. It's consistent with the general plan. I think it's appropriate for the Ag Commission to point out this further loss of grazing land for future studies and future projects, but it is consistent. Thank you.

Any other comments, questions? We take a look.

Commissioner Williams, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Hanson? Aye. Chair Fraga?

For the reasons stipulated earlier, I'm going to vote no.

Commissioner Costello?

Aye.

And Commissioner Spahr?

Aye.

Motion passes four to one.

Thank you. Next. Chair, if you could just announce that that decision is appealable to the board within 10 working days.

OK. As we said, as usual, this decision is appealable to the board of supervisors within 10 working days. OK. Next. OK. Next would be staff and commissioner updates. Do we have any staff updates?

All right, I've got a few. So the 2026 administrative zoning ordinance updates that this commission saw that was approved by the board on August 18. Digital sign amendments package that was approved this week by the board. Also the South County mid foothill design standards and guidelines that kickoff meeting will be in Somerset or has that already occurred? Is that tomorrow?

It's tonight, I think. I think it's tonight.

Okay. My notes say tomorrow, and I don't know when this was written, so that was my confusion. And then the stakeholder advisory team, community tours for COOL, Georgetown, South County are in early to mid-October. Cameron Park Design Standards and Guidelines Planning Commission hearing will be on October September 24th. So yet another way we're trying to get the word out about all of our design and standards and guidelines efforts. Lastly, the resolution of intent to basically extend the existing caldor uh fire resiliency recovery uh ordinance was approved by the board uh on tuesday as well and that will be coming back that actual ordinance will be coming back to this commission before it returns to the board and there is a little bit of a sense of urgency. We're going to look at timing to see, but there is a little bit of sense of urgency because that does expire on December 31st. And when you back out, like for example, when the board adopts an ordinance, it's 30 days before it goes into effect. So I got to do the math and see if it's currently scheduled for the 10th of September to come here.

yeah we'll we'll see if if there's any ability because i know that's a single item yeah our next meeting on september 10th has one item and it's only the uh grizzly flats yeah caliber fire extension um so i just wanted to make all the other commissioners aware that it's going to be a one-item agenda and i will be out of state

So Commissioner Hanson, it'll be all yours. It'll be all yours.

You're it. Yes. Because I would hate to, I, for one, would hate to have anything negatively impact residents in Brisbane. It's been a long time.

So any other staff reports? I'll just add that at your last meeting, you heard the whitewater transfer permits and that has been appealed to the Board of Supervisors.

Okay. Okay.

And the commissioner reports just to get a quick note if you haven't already seen it 2 weekends ago CBS. Affiliate in Sacramento deal 1 hour special. There are written flats. 5 year anniversary, I believe is called forged in fire. I thought Karen came across beautifully as did a supervisor term who in terms of representing. Our County. And I think that if you have time, download it. It's educational. You'll also get a good feeling of what the people still are going through up there. And so please take the time. But nice job, Karen, in your interviews here. So that's all I have.

Apple Ranch is open as of this weekend. Go for it. I'm going to be there today. Thank you. I had something else in mind to bring. As a dead president.

Commissioner Costello. Nothing to report.

The only thing I have to report is, was it last week? I was able to attend the Tahoe Summit with Director Gardner and some other members of planning staff from Tahoe. It was very informative. Some of the speeches were lighthearted and others were a little droll, but we learned a lot and a lot of good things in the environmental improvement plan for the Laker are going to continue. So it was very well done.

And I hate to interrupt you, but I just want to point out that this was the 30th of the summits. And they did ask folks who had attended the first one or had attended all of them to stand up. And Commissioner Fraga was one of those.

I'll tell you how old I am. Older than 30. Other than that, we don't have anything else. So we returned.

Great.

Thank you.