City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the Tuesday, 05/12/2026 Board of Supervisors meeting. We are going to start our meeting with a flag salute led by Mr. Cook.

Thank you. Please join me.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We will now move to our consent agenda. All items on consent have been recommended for approval by the County Executive Department. The board will convene as the Placer County In Home Supported Services public authority for item 14 a. Is there anything anyone would like to pull from the consent agenda? And is there anyone in the public who would like to pull anything? Anyone online?

No, chair.

Alright. I'll bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval of the consent calendar.

And I'll second.

Moved by Gustafson, seconded by Jones. Roll call vote.

Supervisor Gore absent. Supervisor Demetay. Yes. Supervisor Jones.

Aye.

Supervisor Gustafson.

Aye.

Supervisor Landon.

Yes. We will now move into public comment. This is

a

time for any of you to comment on items that are not on the agenda. We ask that you limit your comments to three minutes and if all comments cannot be heard within a fifteen minute time frame this morning, the public comment period will be taken up at the end of the regular session since we have a number of items to get through today. And the board is not permitted to take any action on items addressed under public comment. Good morning. Hold on one second. I'm not sure if that mic

is

on. He's coming up to check. Thank you.

I'm here to talk about Garwood's public access or private commercial use of public lands. I believe in the 1980s, Placer County and Garwoods made a agreement to

Sorry, could you also state your name for the record?

Scott Schrepp.

Thank you.

Made an agreement to allow Garwoods to build a deck on Placer County land in front

of their restaurant. In exchange for that, they would build a public pier and

have

parking lot. Half that parking lot is Placer County, half is California Conservancy. For decades, that seemed to be a pretty good situation. Seemed like a win win. And Garwoods, I think if you just drive by, they seem like they're pretty darn successful.

In the last few years, Garwoods seems to have decided that they can use the pier and the beach and other public properties to serve their clients. So I just wanted to see if Placer County is aware of this. If Placer County has anything to say about that. California Conservancy has already been aware of this situation has taken

action.

So Placer County is next in line to step up or not. Garwoods has signs on the parking lot saying parking for Garwoods only. It's got 30 seats or so along the pier, which really restrict anybody trying to walk past them, go on the pier. They've got tables on the beach. I sent pictures of this and description to the clerk. I hope you've gotten it. Yeah.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, my name is Greg Price and my wife, Amy and I own 2280 Sunnyside Lane just south of Tahoe City. The clerk passed out a public letter that I shared. There's a map in there that I'll reference in a moment. I generally support the SDR program and its goals. A local family of four has lived in our property for a decade. In fact, their son Jackson is here. He grew up on the property and is a graduate of North Tahoe High. For fourteen years, Tahoe Luxury Properties has marketed and rent our main house and lake house together as a single unit. The County issued us one permit covering both dwellings under a single TOT account. We have passed every inspection and remain in good standing.

The November 2024 amendments to ordinance 9.42 had unintended consequences. My public letter to the clerk last week details options for the board's consideration to correct those. Last night, I reread every STR staff communication sent to us on this matter. A July 2024 email focused on condo hotel definitions and ADU builds after June 2020, neither applies to us. In November 2024 email states, this amendment proposes to allow more than one STR per property if the property demonstrates a history of renting multiple units per property.

Proposes to allow present tense, something new is being offered, not a restriction on something already permitted. We read that as the County creating a new pathway for condo hotel properties, not revoking already existing permits for properties like ours. No communication said existing dwelling unit permits are being revoked. No communication said existing multi dwelling permits need to reapply or lose their status. No targeted notice was sent to active multi dwelling permits that a big change was coming.

We didn't know we had a problem until mid November, twenty twenty five when we passed our inspections and were asked to choose which one of our two permitted STR dwellings we could keep renting. On my first call with Doug Jastow who manages the SDR program last December, he told us our timing was good because he was already working on cleanup language to this amendment. In support, Kristin Erickson, who's got my back literally at Tahoe Property Luxury's drafted a state language property. I reached out to Super Gustafson's office to let them know that this was coming. Doug's plan was to present that cleanup language at today's meeting.

Last week, that plan was set aside after five months of cooperative back and forth. And Doug directed me to start over with the SDR advisory group, which meets quarterly, has many competing priorities and may never support our one off issue. Staff has not shared that any other rental like ours has been impacted. In addition, the value of our property as a rental is that both dwellings come as a unit. The map I provided that you have in front of you shows the closeness of our Lake house and main house to each other.

If we separately rent our Lake house to a local, it would prohibit us from renting our main house. We support the intent of the lease to locals program, but this property would never be part of the program. We ask the board to consider the proposals in our public letter.

Thank you.

My name is Kristen Erickson. I am the STR permitting and compliance manager for Tahoe Luxury Properties. I'm here speaking in support of Greg Price at 2280 Sunnyside Lane and the broader issue affecting a very small category of estate properties. We're requesting a clear workable path forward through ordinance clarification or discretionary review. In 2024, there was an amendment that reinforced one unit per property framework, but it did include grandfathering in a path for properties with separately rented STR units, separate rental histories and separate STO documentation, or sorry, TOT documentation.

Our interpretation was that this amendment applied to separately operated multi unit STR properties, not estate properties operating as one rental experience. 2280 Sunnyside is a main house plus a lake house on over two acres of lakefront property. So historically rented as one STR permit, one TOT account and one guest group at a time. It's never operated as separate rentals, it's fully compliant and in good standings and its occupancy has already been docked from sixteen to ten. The core issue that we have is the ambiguity of the 2024 wording.

It did not clearly address the state style properties, even experienced STR professionals interpreted this as applying separately rented units. And it created an unintended restriction for a very small number of legacy properties. We understand and support housing goals for Placer County, including lease to locals and workforce housing. Unfortunately, the nightly rental values for state properties far exceeds the threshold and would never be viable and it would never be converted to long term housing for the community. Public benefit is generating a lot of STR,

oh,

sorry, TOT revenue, supporting tourism economy and supporting local jobs. We're not asking for expanded STR rights. We're not asking for increased density for STRs. We're requesting a state property classification and a discretionary review pathway. We would love if we could allow a case by case review for unique configured properties, such as the agency director already does for maximum occupancy.

We were advised to take this to the Placer STR Advisory Group. Their mission is comprehensive policies. This is such a niche, small subgroup that it doesn't so much apply to their agenda. So we would like a more narrow classification, not an expansion. We would also like our goal to align between the ordinance intent and real world application. We appreciate the board and your consideration on an ongoing adaptive management approach. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Board of Supervisors, County staff and members of the public. For the record, my name is Steve Teixeira. I'm here this morning on behalf of my colleagues on the Eastern Future Executive Committee and the thousands of other members of our community who are engaged in the quest to explore the opportunity to establish a town of North Tahoe. As you know, Eastern Placer Future is a community based five zero one c four nonprofit and we're all volunteers in this quest. Our informational website is easternplacerfuture.org.

We want to be clear, our work is not based on any dissatisfaction with the county. Yes, as partners over many decades, we've had points of disagreement, but those are not what has triggered our desire for greater locally based decision making. We can see the continued growth in Western Placer County. We recognize those areas demand increased county resources and focus. Meanwhile, here in Eastern Placer, our population either tends to be static or in slight decline.

We see the large geographic area of the county's 5th Supervisorial District and we know the district is only going to grow in size to the west as an outcome of the 2030 census. Supervisor Gustafson, we are really grateful for the many miles you travel, the many meetings, and the tireless commitment you have to represent such a large district with diverse perspectives and needs. Earlier this year, we reached a milestone when Eastern Placer Future formally submitted our incorporation application to the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission. We are now preparing to work with LAVCO staff and board with county management to scope and initiate a comprehensive fiscal analysis and other required studies. These analyses are necessary to determine if our goal of placing the question of incorporation before registered voters within the boundary of the proposed town can be realized.

We want to thank the County, all of you for your engagement in this pivotal process. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Morning Chair Landon, supervisors, Daniel and Clayton, Wayne Nader. I wanna take a moment to congratulate Clayton on his recent appointment to head up County Council. I was so grateful for him when I was on the planning commission for his wise guidance as we went through policies and law. And on top of that, and probably more importantly, he's just a really nice person. Supervisors should I'm be a very wise

sorry. As

you know, it's affordable housing month. So this is a favorite subject of mine. I'd like to talk about it for just a moment. We know that there's been quite an effort over the last few years and policies and regulations, relaxing regulations trying to get things done. But unfortunately, it hits up against application. Application seems to be a really big issue out there with all the challenges that are going on. And unfortunately, some of them are self inflicted as you go through the process. Probably most important is the fact that it is financially does not make sense. You're not going to find a developer who's going to step up and do that kind of thing on their own. So it has to be subsidized in some form or another, and sometimes pretty substantially.

But with those subsidies comes a lot of strings attached. Obviously, prevailing wage comes into it, other things as far as requirements of how that is to be constructed. That adds to the cost of the project making it even more unfeasible. There was a RAND study that came out last month that said that subsidized housing costs 50 percent more than regular market housing. So, that was just create all kinds of obstacles.

And we know that for a fact because obviously Mercy Housing that was done a few years ago in Auburn, that was over $5,000 a door for that. We're now hearing numbers of $1,000,000 a door to get some of these projects done. I mean, it's getting further and further out about realistically, can we do this? So what I And that's compounded in resort areas or coastal areas in California like Tahoe. And so we have to get creative.

We have to get really approach things differently and sometimes it's not gonna be popular. But if we're truly trying to get affordable housing, we've got to go down some of these roads. You can appreciate the fact that a lot of these communities, again, I'm not just pointing in Tahoe, the character of the community has changed drastically when homes were sold to the highest bidder. And unfortunately, the vibrancy of the community had changed. People who were invested in their community, they lived in their community, they were involved in their community, they supported businesses. That's gone. So my three minutes is up? Can I just wrap up real quick on it?

Sure, yeah, just wrap

up real I

appreciate it, thank you. I think we have to be honest that the STR probably had some issue on that. Especially when you consider that here we have a lot of STRs. We have more than LA County. There's, you know, even internationally, Barcelona, Spain is now banning them. And the coastal areas, they're really looking hard at how can we make these work for us instead of working against us on affordable housing. Monterey County, I just want to put that example out for you, has now just implemented thirty day minimums on their STRs. They even considered banning them.

Okay, I'm sorry, I'm gonna cut you off now.

Okay, all I'm saying is you have 3,000 STRs here versus anywhere else around and they are having an impact. And I would suggest that you look at what Monterey County has done. They've had lawsuits against it, but so far they're prevailing.

Thank you Wayne. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate it, thank you. Okay, I'm going to close public comment in the chambers and go, I think we have one public commenter online. So I'll move to our Zoom commenter.

Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments.

Greetings, Board of Supervisors. Diane Louise Alessi here. Spoke to you yesterday regarding housing. So I'm going to jump to another subject. Diane Louise Alessi here from and I'm the CVPRC representative in Crusher Valley Park District five, six decades in Placer County.

I'm speaking today in response to an alarming comment made by supervisor Cindy Gustafson during a supervisor's report a couple of months ago where it was casually stated that talks are underway to potentially site an AI data center somewhere in Western Platts County, presumably between Lincoln and Roseville. Since that statement, there has been no public follow-up, no disclosure, no opportunity for community input. The lack of is unacceptable given the scale of the impact of what's being discussed in private with planning. An AI data center is not, by any stretch, a minor project. It is a life altering major industrial use with significant demands on water, power, and land.

As a water purveyor board member, a 30 to 50,000,000 gallon a day requirement for an AI data center is not a and in is not a closed loop system. It goes evaporatively. It is an unattainable scenario. If conversations are already happening behind closed doors, especially if land is being evaluated or negotiated, then public is already being disadvantaged because we are excluded from the most consequential phase of the decision making process. Once the land is acquired, the public and county's leverage diminishes rapidly.

At that point, this board is no longer evaluating whether the project is appropriate. You are negotiating terms under pressure. Other states such as Florida, Nevada, Texas, and Arizona are in panic mode over water being drained from their public resources now are being put in a reactive mode. That is not how responsible land use policy should work. I'm calling upon the board to act immediately.

First, place a two to five year moratorium on any approvals related to AI data centers in Lincoln Roseville Corridor until a comprehensive community impact study is completed. Second, schedule a public board workshop within thirty days to fully disclose what has already occurred, who the developers are, which parcels are under consideration, and whether any pre application meetings have taken place. Third, direct staff to halt any private pre application discussion on this matter until the public has been fully formally notified and given a meaningful opportunity to participate. The community should not be learning about a project of this magnitude through a passing comment in the supervisor's report.

Thank you, Diane.

Is a basic obligation. Thank you for your Thank

you. Appreciate it.

Madam Chair, if I could, for the record, I believe the report she's discussing is an AI center that is located in Nevada that was driving potential energy prices and there was concern in the public. So we brought Liberty Energy to a town hall. It was not in Placer County, it was not in the state of California, it was in Nevada. And there was public concern about it. But I'll be happy to follow-up with Ms. Alessi. She lives in my district.

Thank you. Thanks for the clarification. We will now move to board member and county executive reports. Is there anything that anyone has any updates? Okay. Then it's not quite time for our 09:30 timed items. So we're gonna move to item 4A which is IT service desk support services. And I believe Richard is online.

Good morning, Board of Supervisors, Chair Landon, CEO Chatney, and Mr. Cook. My name is Richard Johnston, information technology manager for the Placer County Service Desk and Systems team. I am here today representing the information technology department to present a request for approval to renew our contract with NWN Solutions Corporation for managed service desk support. Since 2016, NWN has provided comprehensive first tier service desk support, including all call handling, staff management, reporting and robust infrastructure.

Their team resolves approximately 40% of customer issues at initial contact and efficiently manages ticket escalation and access requests. This managed service supports our operational goals and maintains consistent, reliable service for all county departments. The proposed contract totals $503,989 for the period from 05/16/2026 through 05/15/2027, including authorization for change orders up to 10% or $50,399 as per procurement policy. This renewal is essential to continuing to continue delivering high standard IT support services to nearly 3,000 county employees handling over 100 requests daily and ensuring timely responses according with defined service level agreements. With that, I ask this board to approve the following action items.

One, authorize renewal of a contract with NWN Solutions Corporation, a Delaware corporation for service that has support service in the amount of $503,989 for the period of 05/16/2026 through 05/15/2027. Secondly, authorize the purchasing manager or designee to sign all required documents subject to available funding and departmental concurrence. Third, authorize orders not to exceed 10% or $50,399 consistent with Placer County's procurement policy. I respectfully request your approval of these actions which will ensure continued excellence in IT service delivery throughout the county. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from board members? And is there anyone in the public who has a question on this item? Anyone online? All right, then I'll bring it back for a motion.

So moved.

Second.

Moved by Jones, seconded by Demetay. All those in favor? Aye. And none opposed and no abstentions. Okay we are actually because we have a number of sheriffs here we are going to go back to item three a and get that done. So we might be just a few minutes late for the 09:30 timed item but we'll go ahead and move to item three a National Weather Service emergency notification project.

Well good morning Chair Landon, members of the Board. I'm Placer County Sheriff Wayne Wu. Pleasure to be here and really give a overview of kind of a briefing on this project that we've been collaborating with Supervisor Gustafson on specifically in regards to evacuations and notification systems throughout our community, but especially in the rural areas where it can be more problematic. As you're all aware, statutorily, the responsibility falls on law enforcement and the sheriff to evacuate in cases like wildland fires. And as we've seen throughout the state and our country, notification systems aren't perfect.

And there is no magic silver bullet. So we're trying to be creative and find any other option to help fill some gaps that we think we might have, specifically up here in the Lake Tahoe Basin. So what we're proposing is to utilize the National Weather Service notification system and radio towers. For example, up here in the Lake Tahoe Basin, much of District 5, some rural areas, cellular service doesn't work well. Our main notification system that we use is Everbridge.

That is an opt in system. So in an area like Tahoe where we have a vast amount of tourism, those people probably aren't opted in to Everbridge. So we believe that this could help bridge that gap. We were talking about STR or somebody earlier, and the vision for this I think in the future is once we roll it out and it's successful, we would love to have the radio receivers which cost anywhere from $30 to $50 be mandated through our STR ordinance to be placed in every STR. That way when people are vacationing here in a catastrophic wildland fire and we need to make emergency evacuations, we can notify those people.

So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Lieutenant Jason Welsh from our Office of Emergency Management who's been working on this project, and he'll walk you through the more finer details of how it works and why we think it's appropriate and want to bring it to our community.

Hi, I'm Lieutenant Jason Walsh. I'm with the Sheriff's Office, and I'm assigned to the Office of Emergency Services as the law branch lead.

Alright, we're up here.

Okay, so I'm gonna walk you through some of the finer details of the system and then answer any questions that you might have. First of all, I'd like to go over our current system. So, what we primarily rely on is our Everbridge communication system. It's very robust system that we can draw very tight borders over certain communities that would need to have emergency messaging to shelter in place, to evacuate, to maybe be warned of a pending evacuation. Everbridge ties in with our social media and Placer Alert and just as a plug like we always do with Placer Alert, if you're not signed up, please sign up for your workplace, if you're visiting in Placer County or if you live in Placer County.

And then finally, our wireless emergency alert which is like a cell phone alert that uses towers that's a little bit more broad for an evacuation. Some of our low tech evacuation redundancies are door to door evacuations, that's our deputies going door to door and knocking on doors and asking them to evaluate or to evacuate. And our high low siren we've done a lot of public outreach on and that's us driving through communities with the high low kind of European style siren. And we've tried to get the messaging out as much as we can that that means that we need you to evacuate immediately if you're hearing that. So, the sheriff talked about, one of our operational challenges is that some of these cellular based alerts like Everbridge, they fail to reach to the residents in the rural and mountainous areas like the Tahoe Basin area and that's what we've worked with supervisor Gustafson to identify.

These are even more high risk during wildfires and storms where potential outages could take place and cell phone towers could shut down like we saw during the LA fires. So we recognize this this gap of residents not receiving time sensitive warnings and being able to evacuate in a timely manner. Kind of going in cooperation with this like the sheriff talked about is the expanded use of weather radios in the short term rentals. People that are visiting our county that may not sign up for a placer alert and may not get evacuation messages in any other way. So, talking about the capabilities, this system is meant not to be the primary evacuation system like Everbridge.

It's not replacing it. It's to augment it with NWS radio based towers which have a broader reach. And this integrates with Everbridge, so there's not our dispatcher signing into a separate system. They're using the same single point. They're just clicking an extra box for that area to be able to message out to that area.

And finally, it provides an alternative alert pathway that's independent of cellular communications just like I talked about if cell phone towers went down. This could be a secondary backup evacuation method. And it basically expands the coverage and it uses an FM band that can be picked up on vehicles and there's some specifics with that on the gear of the vehicle and whether they have that technology including it in them. But we can confirm that with weather radios like in the short term rentals that they would for sure receive these overriding bands and an alert in an evacuation. And the benefit is just increased reliability and it's a low tech warning method that was also cited in the the LA fires report as after those cell phone towers and regular infrastructure went down as a good way to get the messages out of the changing fire conditions.

I'm gonna kinda walk you through this map a little bit. So, the picture on the right is kinda like the T Mobile, Verizon signal areas. These are the areas that the NWS radio operators expect that it'll reach and you can see not everything is completely covered in the Basin, but it has pretty good coverage. And then on the left, it's kind of a mirrored picture with a general circle over the service area that it provides. Alright.

So, for this project, it's a very complex project with many different cooperators. So, I'm gonna try to explain that. We're gonna start out with the Ward Peak Tower that's county owned and has optimal coverage. That's the coverage map that I just showed you. After that's in place, the Placer County radio services can work to actually check different areas to make sure that there's good coverage and then we can install as a phase two option on the Mardis Tower, which would expand an overlap coverage and create more redundancy.

The installation is pretty simple. It's a radio unit that they would put a radio transmitter unit that they would put in the base of the tower and then they would route it to an antenna mast that's about a five foot antenna onto the tower. The responsibility for this project is primarily the sheriff's office. I've been working very closely with Placer County Radio Services on all the technical aspects of the job. So, the second after Placer County Radio Services installs the equipment, NWS would come in and install their equipment that lack of a better term hijacks the signal off of our transmitter and allows us to broadcast that message.

And then finally, Sheriff's IT will provide the final integration for Everbridge, which is is very simple and we will work on training with the dispatchers on how to use that if the need exists. So, some of the considerations. There is a risk of alerting unintended populations. A radio broadcast to anybody where the radio signal can reach. So radio signal can bounce, there's no way to contain it within to use a scalpel to contain it like we do with the Everbridge system.

So, we have to make sure that our messaging is very specific and pointed towards the residents that we intend to reach so that we're not miss alerting the public. The cost for the project is approximately $100,000 for the initial cost for the equipment and about $400 a month to maintain the equipment at the radio sites. The implementation timeline is a little bit a moving target. So we talking to the County Radio Services, we expect that within one to three months we should be able to install the Ward Tower. All these components are sourced from different vendors after they close RadioShack in the mall.

We can no longer go and just get all the equipment there. We were fairly confident that in a one to three month time frame that we can get it up and running and then as other components come in, it would just make the system more robust. So my recommendation is that we approve phase one of the development at Ward Peak and with that are there any questions?

All right, I will bring it back to the board. Questions? Supervisor Gustafson.

Thank you. I really appreciate the hard work. This has been about a four year or five year effort to identify what is the best technology to reach these outlying areas, especially when cell phones go out due to bad winter storms, floods, and of course, fires. And so I really appreciate the Sheriff's Office's hard work and diligence in pursuing this alternative. I know it hasn't been easy.

It seems easy, and I love the fact that it's actually lower technology. I can remember being a young person visiting my grandparents in Iowa and hearing the weather radio tell us tornado was coming our direction and heading to the cellar. So this is old technology, but is very effective once people get used to it. And I strongly support your efforts in getting this out and dispersed to so many of our visitors. Not only our tourists, but even our second homeowners often don't sign up for plaster alert, they're not aware of it.

And they're in residence during the busy summer months or in the winter. So great job, I want to get to phase two as quickly as possible. 267 Kings Beach, Mardis Valley is critically important as well, but I understand we've got a phase the approach, but thank you for all the efforts back at the back of the room and right here, Jason. Thank you.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Supervisor Demetay.

Thanks Jason. Thanks for the presentation. I am all in favor of whatever it takes to get it done yesterday. So you have my vote, so let's get it done and come back next week for phase two.

Supervisor Jones.

Yes, I'll say thank you for the presentation and thank you for working so diligently to include everybody. I know there are some issues even down in the other part of Placer County where people are having trouble getting their alerts and everything. Hopefully one day we get everybody covered very well.

Agree.

But very well done. Thank you all, appreciate it.

Agree. Thank you for bringing it forward. It's really exciting to see a, as Supervisor Gustafson said, low technology thing coming forward again. So thank you for your efforts and we appreciate it, support you guys.

You're welcome. Thank you.

Is there anyone in the public who would like to ask a question or make a comment on this item?

Wayne Nader, I obviously support it. I think this is excellent. The question I have is obviously you were dependent on those low tech units that people have. And I'm wondering if the battery goes dead and they don't realize it, is there gonna be any trigger to alert them to that? Because we obviously want those things live all the time to pick up that signal.

So that would be the concern again because of its low tech nature. I don't know if there's any alert to that. And I do absolutely support what the sheriff mentioned as far as requiring this and the STRs absolutely critical because I think our visitors are at the highest risk of not being aware of what's going on. Thank you.

Thank you. And any other questions before he comes up to answer? Anyone online or comments? Okay, why don't you come on up?

I appreciate the question. So, not to go too in-depth with the components that are listed in it, but part of the $400 a month maintenance is basically like checking the smoke detector batteries at home. We do have backup batteries at all of our radio towers that we operate within the county, and this will be no different. That's one of the components of it. So, Placer County Radio Services would maintain that equipment. They do periodic checks on it to make sure that it's in working order.

Great, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, with that, we will now move to our nine thirty timed item resolution honoring the lives lost in the Castle Peak Avalanche and recognizing and commending Tahoe Nordic Search and Rescue Team. Supervisor Gustafson.

Thank you Madam Chair and my fellow supervisors. In February, we had a tragedy here in our region that I know it went worldwide on the news, and we're all very aware of that tragedy that took the lives of nine individuals and impacted all of us in that tragedy. And today, we're here to recognize all the efforts that went into our cooperation with Nevada County. The incident occurred in Nevada County and they were the lead, But many in our community responded and risked their own lives in that response. I wanted to read a statement that I received from the Sheriff's Department, just to put in context how we work with Tahoe Nordic Search and Rescue, who we're here to honor today.

So the California State Sheriff's Agencies have the primary responsibility for all search and rescue operations within unincorporated areas of the county. These missions commonly involve lost or stranded persons. Additionally, upon requests from outside jurisdictions, Sheriff's search and rescue teams will respond to other counties within the state under a mutual aid system. Many of the search and rescue missions Placer's Sheriff responds to in the North Lake Tahoe area include, but are not limited to lost or stranded skiers, hunters, snowboarders, hikers, or backcountry enthusiasts who lose their way or become injured during their ski trip or outdoor excursion. Other search and rescue operations include locating lost children, assisting downed aircraft, or responding to natural disasters such as avalanches, mudslides, wildfires, flooding, and earthquakes.

Tahoe Nordic Search and Rescue members are an organized, experienced group of volunteers who respond quickly to many of these types of search and rescue operations under the direct oversight and authority of Placer County Sheriff's Office search and rescue deputies. The TENSAR, Tri Nordic Search and Rescue Team, is quickly deployed deploying a group of highly experienced skiers, snowmobilers, and snowcat operators who operate in the North Lake Tahoe area of Placer County in partnership with the authority that the Placer County Sheriff's Office provides them. Some of those members are nurses, medical technicians, doctors, ski patrollers, and firefighters, many of whom possess advanced levels of medical training, survival skill training, mapping skills, search techniques and skiing skills. The Placer County Sheriff's Office is proud to partner with such a highly skilled variety of search and rescue professionals to accomplish the Sheriff's search and rescue missions. And just by way of recognition of this group, many of whom are here today and you saw their equipment outside, They are approximately 100 strong.

I was able to attend their dinner last Monday night to present them gratitude, express our gratitude and present a draft resolution to them that of take action on today. And by way also of background, this is the fiftieth year that they've been organized and operating as a completely volunteer group under their partnership with the Sheriff's Office. They're incredibly dedicated individuals who risk their own lives in so many situations to help others in need. And we've seen them throughout this episode. And so I wanted to read the resolution into the record.

There's a short video that would show and demonstrate the conditions they often have to operate in. And then we can present the resolution if some clients. So the resolution. In a matter of a resolution honoring the lives lost in the Castle Peak Avalanche and recognizing and commending the Tahoe Search and Rescue team for their exceptional service, bravery and compassion during the response. Whereas Tahoe Search and Rescue founded in 1976 by Doug Reed and Larry Seveson is a highly trained all volunteer organization specializing in backcountry and winter rescue in the greater North Lake Tahoe and Truckee region, and has served the region for five decades.

And whereas on 02/17/2026, a tragic avalanche occurred near Castle Peak in neighboring Nevada County, resulting in the loss of multiple lives and deeply impacting the North Lake Tahoe, Truckee and broader regional community. And whereas Tahoe Nordic Search and Rescue played a critical role in supporting the overall recovery effort, working in close coordination with the Nevada County Sheriff's Office and the Placer County Sheriff's Office to recover survivors and locate victims to bring closure to their families. And whereas TNSAR responded swiftly and professionally, contributing to the operation 24 volunteers, approximately forty eight operational hours, and a total of six forty six volunteer hours, all while enduring challenging and hazardous winter conditions. And whereas the conditions faced by responders included dangerous avalanche terrain, severe weather and physically demanding backcountry travel requiring advanced training, coordination and unwavering commitment and were at times life threatening to the volunteers. And whereas the victims of this tragic event were members of a close knit mountain community with some residing in the Tahoe region and others traveling from the Bay Area, and whereas many of the volunteers involved in the response were members of the same community as the victims, and in some cases shared personal connections with those who were lost, making their service all the more courageous, selfless, and emotionally difficult.

And whereas the members of TNSAR demonstrated extraordinary dedication, compassion, and resilience in the face of tragedy, embodying the highest ideals of public service and volunteerism, and whereas their efforts not only supported a complex and sensitive recovery operation, but also ensured dignity for the victims and provided comfort to grieving families and the broader community. Now therefore be it resolved that the Placer County Board of Supervisors honors the lives lost in the Castle Peak Avalanche and extends its deepest condolences to all those impacted, and recognizes and commends the Tahoe Nordic Search And Rescue Team for their exceptional service, bravery and compassion during the response.

Thank you. And then there's a video, right? Is there someone here from Tahoe Nordic Search and Rescue who would like to come up and say a few words before we open it up for public comment. Just want to make sure I provide that opportunity.

Thank you very much. My name is Wes Moody. I'm one of the volunteers. We have a number of our volunteers with us here today. Maybe we could ask them all to stand for a moment.

And in particular, I'd like to recognize Doug Reed, who's one of our cofounders. Doug, would you stand alone, please?

And

our current president, and has been president and just recently reelected, is Sarah Craman. Sarah, would you stand? And on behalf of the team, I'd just like to thank the Board of Supervisors for this accommodation.

Thank you. Well, I know that we recognize particularly this incident that was so tragic this winter, but you also participate in many other incidents even this winter, other unfortunate deaths and plane crashes and other issues that you participate in, and so we can't thank you enough for your efforts in all of those situations. And then today we have both the action of this resolution, but also I'd like to request that we authorize the chair to pass this on to the governor and see if there's other recognition on a statewide basis. You know, communities are only strong because of the people who live here and the volunteers that them through such tragedies and also the positive times and we need to pass that. You're an example, a beacon of light for all of us to follow in your selfless endeavors for our communities.

Thank you.

With that, let's open it up for public comment. Is there anyone here in the room who would like to comment on this item?

Well, good morning again. Know, I first of all want to thank the board for this recognition. This team truly is made up of the best our community has to offer. And to echo Supervisor Gustafson's comments, while we're really highlighting the tragedy on Castle Peak, it's the work these men and women do all year long that is amazing. And this winter was more challenging. During the Castle Peak incident, this team was getting called out for other missing skiers

in the

middle of the night, blizzard conditions, under the cover of darkness. And they do it all year long, selflessly. And they truly are heroes. I couldn't be more proud as the sheriff to be partners with the group of people behind us and their whole team. And really, they truly are what make Placer County such a special community, is that we have citizens like this that step up and help their fellow man in a time of need at their own peril and many who they don't even know. And I'm always amazed and I just couldn't be more proud of them and the job they do in this community. So thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else who would like to comment on this item? And is there anyone online? Okay, comments from the board. Anyone have anything they'd like to say?

I would just echo what's been said. Your efforts are so very much appreciated. And I think in a culture and society now where it's hard to find people to volunteer for anything, whether it's a rotary club or something, you know, simple like that, all the way to the extreme of something like this where you're you're putting your lives on the line for perfect strangers. And that really speaks so highly to who you are as people and the character that you have and your commitment to your community. And so I just want to say thank you so much from the bottom of my heart. And Supervisor Jones looks like she has a comment as well.

Yes, thank you, thank you for that. I wanted to personally thank you all for the hardship that you endured to help people that you don't know, people who are in danger. And it's amazing to me, I've always thought about you know, how it would be nice to be able to be on a search and rescue team, but it's something that not many people can do. And thank you all for what you do. And I'd like to thank Supervisor Gustafson for bringing this to our attention and everything. And so, congratulations, job well done really.

With that, I'll have Mr. Cook read the actions into the record.

Thank you.

The actions requested to the board today are to adopt a resolution honoring the lives lost in the Castle Peak avalanche and recognizing and honoring the Tahoe Nordic Search and Rescue team for their exceptional service, bravery, and compassion during the response, and to authorize the chair to sign a letter to the governor recommending the Tahoe Nordic Search and Rescue Team for state level recognition of their extraordinary service during the Castle Peak Avalanche response. That letter is attached as attachment B, the staff report, and these items can be taken as one motion.

Like to move approval please.

I will second that.

It's been moved by supervisor Gustafson and seconded by supervisor Demetay. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed and no abstentions. And if the members of the team would like to come up, we'd love to take a picture as we present you with the resolution.

You have to all come up.

Yeah. Everybody's gonna have to get together somewhat.

All right, we are now going to move to an item I'm eagerly anticipating. Item 5A, donation of a support dog from Creme Brulee Goldens. And he's here if anyone needs some support from a support animal.

We may afterward.

Good morning everybody, thank you for allowing me to be here today. Absolutely, is

that better?

Yes.

Okay, good morning. My name is Lauren Maven, I am a probation officer with the Placer County Probation Department and this little guy next to me is Chance. So this morning, we are asking to adopt a resolution authorizing the chief probation officer or designee to accept a donation of a support dog from Creme Brulee Golden's, a local business, estimated value at $3,500 to the public benefit of residents in Placer County. The Placer County Probation Department proposes the creation of a support dog program to enhance emotional well-being, support de escalation, and strengthen positive engagement with the adult clients, juvenile clients in our juvenile hall, and the community. The proposal outlines the department's for a trained certified support dog paired with a sworn officer or designated staff to provide emotional regulation support, reduce stress, and promote communication during probation interaction.

Probation staff regularly interact with individuals experienced trauma, crisis, or emotional distress across multiple settings including court, pretrial services, field supervision, specialty courts, the juvenile hall, classes, and office appointments. The support dog will offer a calming nonjudgmental presence that reduces anxiety, supports de escalation, and encourages healthier communication. In the juvenile hall, the support dog will engage the youth during intake, transitions, counseling, court appearances, and rehabilitative programming, supporting emotional regulation, crisis de escalation, empathy building, accountability, and trauma recovery. The program will also enhance community outreach at events such as school presentations, coffee with a cop, national night out, and shop with a cop, humanizing probation services and promoting public trust. Costs associated with this action including ancillary supplies and services are available for the fiscal year budget for 2025 and 2026 for probation and have been included in the department's 2026 and 2027 requested budget.

If approved by your board, there may be additional costs associated with probation support canine pay which are included in the department's fiscal year 2026 and 2027 requested budget. There are no additional impacts to the general fund.

All right, thank you. Good boy, Chance. Or comments? Supervisor Jones.

I would just like to say he's adorable, so I can imagine he would be a great support to anyone who needs that kind of lovable fuzzy hug anyway. Maybe a little bit of training in order. Yes, we are in training. Congratulations. It's Thank wonderful that you guys are gonna get a support dog.

Thank you.

I know they come in very, very handy. Is

there anyone in the public who would like to comment on this item? And anyone online? All right, I'll bring

it back to the board for a vote. I'll move approval.

Second. Moved by Supervisor Jones, seconded by Supervisor Demetay. All those in favor? Aye. And of course none opposed. Thank you so much. We're so excited for

you guys.

Okay, just have a couple more department items until we get to our ten a. M. Timed item. We have item 6A, Placer County Probation Peace Officers Association Probation Support K-nine Pay. And Nicole is online.

Yeah. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board, the county council, and the CEO. Nicole Lopez, the assistant director of human resources. With the board's action just now approving the probation department's request to receive the donation of a support dog, this item serves to implement a pay provision for the staff member that will be paired with the dog and will be providing daily care, maintenance, and boarding of the support canine, which requires ongoing off duty time and responsibilities. Establishing the probation support canine pay will recognize the time and commitment required of an employee assigned the care maintenance and boarding similar to other canine assignments, but with its unique provisions.

Through the meet and confer process, Placer County Probation Peace Officers Association concurs with the new provision, which is documented in the proposed side letter agreement with the county. And the proposed ordinance serves to codify the addition of the new pay in Placer County code chapter three section three point one two point zero two zero. For the record, the action requested is to, one, approve a side letter agreement between the County of Placer and the Placer County Probation Peace Officers Association to update the provisions of the memorandum of understanding to add probation support canine pay. And two, introduce an ordinance waive oral reading amending Placer County code chapter three section three point one two point zero two zero to implement the provisions of the side letter between the County of Placer and the Placer County Probation Peace Officers Association to add probation support canine pay. I'm happy to address any questions regarding the recommended addition of the probation support canine pay.

Thank you. Questions or comments from board members? Supervisor DeMonte?

Oh no, sorry.

And anyone in the public who'd like to comment on this item? Anyone online? All right, I'll bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval of that motion and let probation take it away.

I'll second.

Moved by Jones, seconded by Demetay. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed and no abstentions? We will now move to item seven a, parking ordinance update, various county roadways.

All right, good morning board, Chair Landon. My name is Andy Dyken. I'm the engineering manager in DBW's Tahoe Engineering Division. We're here today to discuss some proposed changes to the county's parking ordinance. And with me here today is Octavio Diaz. I'd like to introduce him as one of our newer engineers in the Tahoe office. He's actually been with the county for about a year and a half, but hasn't yet had the privilege of coming to the board to present an item. Octavio is actually born and raised right here in Kings Beach, so we're really happy to have him as part of our Tahoe team. And with that, I'll pass it over to Octavio to discuss the proposed parking ordinance changes.

Great, welcome.

Thank you, Andy, and good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. I'm Octavio Diaz, and as Andy mentioned, I'm an engineer with the Department of Public Works, Tahoe Engineering Division, and I'm here to present my first item to the board which is an update to the county's parking ordinance. So, little bit of background before though, the Department of Public Works will periodically review parking conditions Countywide and will recommend modifications as needed permitted under section 22,507 of the California vehicle code. Today's proposed ordinance would amend chapter 10, article 10.12, section 10.12.120 of the Placer County code to formalize parking restrictions on roadway segments across the County. And that's six locations in East Placer and four in West Placer.

And I'll briefly touch on some of the more notable locations in East Placer. These include two that directly relate to school operations. So on Steelhead Avenue here in Kings Beach, vehicles parking near the intersection of Steelhead and C Cline, so that little corner there, vehicles parked for reducing sight distance and narrowing the travel way during drop off and pick up times for the students, which create conflicts in an area with high pedestrian activity. Then on Polaris Road, which services the North Tahoe Middle and High Schools, parked vehicles were restricting the turning space needed for school buses that were serving the North Tahoe Middle and High Schools. Beyond the school operations, the remaining locations address safety concerns, emergency access, and business needs across both regions.

So the action before the board today for the record would then be to introduce and waive oral reading of an ordinance to amend Placer County Code Chapter 10, Article 10 dot 12, Section 10.12.120 regarding parking restrictions on various county roadways. And I'm happy to answer any questions the board has. And I think Phil Vashin should be online to answer questions pertaining to West Plaster.

Okay, thank you. Great job on your first presentation.

Thank

you. Any questions or comments? And anyone in the public wanna comment on this item? Is there anyone online? All right, I'll bring it back to the board.

Before we approve anything, I just have one comment and this is off subject of this. Just on North Lake Tahoe Boulevard, this is just for your information to look into. In front of the Safeway there, there's a crosswalk. There is signs on both sides that say that's, but it's not lit up. And I was just wondering if it can possibly be just have warning lights put above those crosswalk signs.

I know you can't put them in the street because the snowplows would tear them up. But when I was there yesterday, it was very hard to see pedestrians coming across to stop just because of other traffic and the sun, the way it reflects off a windshield. So, I think it would be beneficial to have lights flashing or buttons so people can cross there more safely. So, off subject, sorry about that, but I saw it yesterday. So, before I forgot, I wanted to let you guys know.

I'll just speak to that really quickly. So, that is actually Caltrans territory. It's their highway, But they do have a project in the works to upgrade that crossing and it does include upgraded lighting as well.

Okay, great. Thank you for that.

I'll move approval. I'll second.

Moved by Jones, seconded by Gustafson. All those in favor? Aye. And none opposed and no abstentions. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And we will move to our last department item, item 8A umbrella contract for intensive residential mental health services. And I think we have Twila online.

You do. I'm here. Thank you so much. And I am going to say good morning to you. I am, terribly sorry that I have to find, follow such a fun item as parking ordinances and chance. That seems like a really fun time with, with him in there today. So this is our umbrella contract for intensive residential mental health services. I'm Twyla Abrahamson, for the record. And as you know, this is something that we bring to you every year. All counties in California, including Placer, are mandated by the State Department of Health Care Services to provide a range of mental health services, including psychiatry, counseling, and social skills training to children and youth, as well as intensive mental services, which are most often currently delivered in group homes, which can provide services 20 fourseven.

Continuum of care reform, which I've talked to you about over the past couple of years, has been in an implementation phase, and they have been reducing the overall numbers of children statewide who require these intensive residential services. However, during the continued transition to specially trained resource families, there is still a need for these intensive programs for very troubled youth, which resource families cannot manage safely in the community. These higher intensive programs, known as short term residential therapeutic programs, or STRTPs, are mandated to provide 20 fourseven specialty mental health services to children and youth in their programs, and they effectively served 19 plaster youth placed in these intensive services last year. So these contracts assure that timely and effective intensive mental health services are provided to youth in order to limit the time and duration of residential care and help them acquire the skills necessary to return home as quickly as possible. The STRTP providers responsible for these services are listed in attachment A, and all providers added to the annual list under director's amendment authority will be published to the board by inclusion on the fiscal year twenty seventwenty eight list.

Costs for these services are based upon negotiations between the department and the provider, and the budgeted amount for these mental health services is projected to be $1,500,000 So we are requesting your board to take the following actions. Approve an umbrella agreement to provide intensive specialized mental health services by an identified list of short term residential therapeutic program providers in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 for the period of July '26 through June '7. Second, I must approve the provider list and authorize the director of health and human services or designee to amend the list of providers as long as any amendments are reflected in the fiscal year 'twenty seven, 'twenty eight list. And third item, action to authorize the director of health and human services or designee to sign the agreements in any related documentation and to sign subsequent amendments consistent with the subject matter and scope of work with risk management and county council concurrence. And as I said, the total cost is $1,500,000 Funding for this umbrella agreement is available in the twenty six-twenty seven requested budget, and there is no additional impact to the general fund.

And I'd like to add, most often, we do not ever exceed this amount. This is something that covers us just in case we have multiple children in at multiple times in these STRTT providers. So thank you for your consideration and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thanks Twyla. Any questions? Supervisor Gustafson.

I just had a quick question Twyla. Thank you for the presentation. When we talk about short term, what is the duration that is considered short term?

Usually six months or less. In fact, we actually have to have an additional meeting in order to keep a child in there longer than six months. We have to have what's called a child and family team meeting with our partners.

Thank you.

Looks like no more questions. Any comments from the public on this item? And anyone online? Okay, I'll bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval.

I'll second.

Moved by Jones, seconded by Gustaf son. All those in favor? Aye. And none opposed? And no abstentions. Thanks Twyla.

Thank you.

We will now, thank you for your patience, move to item 2A, Community Development Resource Agency Village at Palisades Tahoe Specific Plan.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Supervisors. I'm Patrick Dobbs with the Planning Services Division. I'm here to present the proposed amendments to the previously approved Village At Palisades Tahoe specific plan as well as amendments to the specific plans appendix B, development standards and design guidelines. There's a large lot vesting tentative subdivision map and development agreement. The project is located in Eastern Placer County in the community of Olympic Valley.

Is within the 4,700 acre Olympic Valley General Plan and Land Use Ordinance, formerly the Squaw Valley General Plan. The specific plan was most recently approved in 2024 to develop a hospitality recreation based year round mountain resort community located on 93.3 acres of land in Olympic Valley. There are no changes to the specific plan project area with these proposed amendments. There are still two sites, the main village and the east parcel. The main village is outlined in that yellow dash line on the main part of the exhibit.

It is primarily surface parking lots today. You see the green strip, that's Washesho Creek that bisects the main village. The east parcel is there in the inset in the lower right of the exhibit. The east parcel was previously a rock quarry. It's been used for construction staging, so there's areas that are heavily disturbed.

Just taking a look at some photos of the main village, the main village is 84.5 acres. It's located at the existing resort base area at the West end of the valley. It is adjacent to other resort facilities to the West, such as the Intra West Village, Red Wolf Lodge, and Plumpjack. Surrounding development primarily includes single family residential to the North. There's a golf course and meadow to the East and ski runs and related facilities to the South.

The main village is approved for $14.93 medium and high density resort residential hotel condo bedrooms. It's approved for commercial and parking uses, pedestrian open space and recreation uses to transform the Palisades Village into a top quality year round destination resort. The East parcel is 8.8 acres. It's about a third of a mile west of the intersection of Olympic Valley Road and State Route 89 as the name indicates on the East End of the Valley. It is across the street from the Olympic Valley Public Service District and Fire Department and Tavern N.

It is primarily surrounded by single family residential development. The East Parcel is approved for employee housing, a shipping and receiving facility, neighbourhood market, and parking. There are no changes to the land uses proposed on the East Parcel. It's been a long process. There have been different iterations of the specific plan that have been proposed.

The specific plan has been approved and litigated and rescinded and reapproved and re sued. So with the investments to evolve the resort and benefit the community stalled for over a decade, today represents a different approach, progress, collaboration over opposition, and desire to find common ground and end this long running legal battle. In 2025, the plaintiffs at Altera settled their lawsuit. The proposed amendments before you today are reflective of that settlement agreement. It is a significantly smaller project with eight ninety six hospitality rooms and reduced commercial floor area, and that's where we're at today.

The 2024 approved specific plan is on pause while these amendments are being considered. It is a focused package of amendments and the requested entitlements include an addendum to the 2016 EIR and 2024 partially revised EIR. There are amendments to the specific plan itself, amendments to appendix B, the development standards and design guidelines. There's approval of this specific plan, large lot vesting tentative subdivision map and approval of the project's development agreement. There were two documents that are attachments to the specific plan that were updated.

Those include the master phasing plan and there were some updates to the emergency preparedness plan, but not all of the components that were previously approved require re approval because there are no changes to those documents. So those components that don't require re approval include the previous general or community plan text amendments, the rezone of the project area to SPL, VPTSP, and the water supply assessment. So although the project has with the amendments, the project's been reduced, the specific plan does retain its commitment to community benefits and mitigating impacts. So transitioning to the differences between the approved 2024 plan and the proposed 2026 amendments, the applicant has taken the opportunity to evolve and improve the plan. These proposed amendments are more reflective of the community voice in an effort to bring the base area back to life, create a more consolidated walkable plan area.

So this slide provides a way to visualize some of those changes starting from the top. The hospitality bedrooms have been reduced from fourteen ninety three to eight ninety six, a 40% reduction. The commercial area in the main village has been reduced from 278,000 down to 222,000 square feet, a 20% reduction. Lots 16 And 18, sometimes kind of referred to as the gateway To Shirley Canyon, those are currently approved as Village commercial Neighborhood and designated for about 20 fractional unit cabins. Lots 16 And 18 are now proposed to be redesignated to Village Forest Recreation Zoning that would allow trail and trail amenities in a potential school.

I'm going to talk about that more on Lot 16. The lot in blue on Lot 11 remains, it was previously approved as village parking and it would remain parking, but given the consolidation of some of the parking instead of a 20 height, foot those parking structure could go up to 35 feet on Lot 11. Lot 12, just to the West, to the left there of Lot 11, that was previously also approved for village parking with a 20 foot maximum height As part of this effort to concentrate the development in the village core area, Lot 12 is proposed to be redesignated from village parking to village commercial core with a 96 foot maximum building height. And finally down there at the Bottom Lot 8, where the Mountain Adventure Camp will be, this is the primary indoor activity and recreation area. It was previously approved at 90,000 square feet with a 96 foot maximum height with the proposed amendments that maximum square footage would be reduced to 72,000 square foot and a maximum height of 78 feet.

This is another change with the proposed amendments regarding subsequent land use permits for the allowed uses within the specific plan. The table on the left is an excerpt from the 2024 approved plan and it shows some of the uses in terms of subsequent land use permits, and you'll see a number of these uses with anticipated development like the timeshare condominiums would have previously required conditional use permits. In an effort to streamline implementation of the plan, the table on the right shows the proposed amendments. The range of uses themselves haven't changed, but there are fewer uses in the plan now that require a use permit. So instead, many of the uses now just require zoning clearance, conformity review, and design review.

This is consistent with the other specific plans that are approved in the County. Another change as regarding the building footprints and envelopes in the approved plan, it was very prescriptive. One of the proposed changes in the amendments would allow some more flexibility on the scale and the exact location of these future buildings. And there's a number of considerations that come into play when citing the location of a building. There's setbacks from property lines, there's potentially setbacks from the creek if you're in that proximity.

There are different pedestrian corridors, and depending on the type of pedestrian corridor you're fronting, there are setbacks from that. There are setbacks from other buildings. Many of these buildings don't even exist yet, so there are open space requirements. So in an effort to let this plan evolve, there is some flexibility for future building placement within the guardrails and these development standards that I've mentioned. This is looking at the open space plan, and this is an example of where the proposed amendments, it's not just a reduced plan, but it's a better plan.

That change on Lot 12, the proposed change from village parking to village commercial core, really provided an opportunity to expand that pedestrian network the Northwest there. And so the proposed amendments include this expanded pedestrian realm. There's more connections to areas like Washoe Creek. A build out the proposed twenty twenty six specific plan amendments are expected to generate approximately three ninety one new full time equivalent employees. The project is required to provide housing for a minimum of 50% of those FTE employees that it generates.

In addition, the project also includes removal of some existing structures in the main village that currently provides seasonal housing for 99 staff, they're called the courtside and the hostel. So as a result, the total employee housing obligation build out could increase to as many as two ninety six employees. Under the specific plan, a little over seven acres of the 8.8 acre east parcel is zoned entrance commercial. Employee housing will be constructed on the East parcel or within the main village for a minimum of 200 employees, 200 of the two ninety six will be constructed concurrent with the first phase of the hospitality development. By comparison, the 2024 specific plan required workforce housing for three eighty six employees reflecting the higher employee generation projected under the 2024 specific plan.

So where is everybody going to park? That's a question that we commonly receive. Podium level parking may be constructed beneath lodging and resort residential buildings primarily to serve the guests and owners. Surface and structured parking facilities will be developed in phases as the plan area builds out. So, each phase will be required to demonstrate that sufficient parking is provided to meet all of the parking demand generated by that phase of development, including no fewer than 3,000 one hundred day skier parking spaces provided within dedicated parking structures and or surface parking lots.

So the parking reservation system and shuttle programs will continue, and the plan establishes parking minimums. There's nothing that says there can't be more parking. The resort is focused on high occupancy vehicles, enhancing the guest experience, so the project includes a number of above and beyond measures to reduce vehicle miles travelled within the placer portion of the basin, and those include the TRPA mobility fee, the lodging fee, there are regional initiative contributions. The Olympic Valley Fire Department provides fire protection services for the plan area. CAL FIRE has responsibility for the surrounding state responsibility areas.

Olympic Valley is in a very high fire hazard severity zone, and an important component for providing fire protection to the main village would be establishment of a West Valley fire station, and that hasn't changed. The project still will contribute its fair share to construction, staffing, and equipping that West Valley fire station. The existing surface parking lots within the main village are currently identified by the Fire Department as a potential gathering point during emergency events. In the specific plan, shelter in place and temporary refuge areas will continue to be available for that purpose. The specific plan would allow construction of a dedicated emergency helipad within the main village for enhanced air ambulatory services.

There's been a lot of coordination between the developer and the Olympic Valley PSD and Olympic Valley Fire Department. There is general agreement in terms of the terms of service, but that agreement between the parties does still need to be finalized. There was an emergency preparedness plan

prepared for

the project. This was developed in consultation with the fire consultant experts, Deer Creek Resources, and that emergency preparedness plan includes discussion of how public safety information is disseminated, the resort employee and guest notification systems and procedures during emergency events, the annual staff training and emergency preparedness and evacuation procedures. So ultimately how this plan works in conjunction with the Olympic Valley Fire Department Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan, and more broadly the Placer Operational East Side Emergency Evacuation Plan. The project's large lot vesting tentative subdivision map would create a total of 51 lots across the 93.3 acres. This defines the general layout and location of land uses, backbone roadways and utility easements.

There are no development rights that carry with this large lot map. This is really primarily for financing purposes. To obtain the development rights, the applicant will need to apply for subsequent development phases and they will be subject to further environmental conformity review. They will be required to apply for small lot tentative subdivision maps in line with the implementation policies of the specific plan, and those small lot maps go to the Planning Commission, and prior to submitting those small lot subdivision maps, the applicant will still need to finalise these master plans that have been prepared for water, sewer, drainage, parking, and the implementation policies and procedurals manual. So subsequent development phases will be reviewed at public meetings the, depending on the bundle of the packet, but with the Planning Commission, the Olympic Valley MAC, and the Olympic Valley Citizens Design Review Committee.

The state minimum fire safe regulations are set by the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, CAL FIRE. These regulations require that dead end roads where development is located shall not exceed a cumulative length of 5,280 feet or one mile. These state minimum fire safe regulations are associated with the large lot vesting tentative map subdivision map I was just discussing to ensure that emergency access and egress within the state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones. So Olympic Valley Road exceeds one mile, and this is nothing new. There's only ever been one road in and out of Olympic Valley.

A secondary ingress and egress in Olympic Valley has been sought for decades, and it's just not feasible due to the physical, legal, and financial constraints. And these fire safe regulations aren't unique to the specific plan. When it's not possible for a project to comply with one or more standards, an exception can be provided by CAL FIRE if the project incorporates wildland fire protection and life safety measures that provide the same practical effect as those fire safe regulations themselves. And so the project under the proposed amendments does include the same wildfire safety components as the 2024 approved plan. In February 2025, CAL FIRE did approve the exception to the state minimum fire safe regulations for the dead end road limits for this project.

That exception is still valid. As I mentioned, there are no changes to the fire protection and public safety components proposed under the amendments. Under the 2024 approved specific plan, Lot 16 is designated as Village Commercial Neighborhood. And in Village Commercial Neighborhood in that zoning schools are an allowable use and were analyzed as a potential use in the project's environmental impact report. Under the 2024, the approved specific plan, development of a school on Lot 16 would only require ministerial zoning clearance in this design conformity review.

Under the proposed amendments and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, Lot 16 would instead be zoned village forest recreation. Under the village forest recreation zoning, a school would remain permissible on Lot 16. It would now require discretionary approval of a minor use permit in addition to the design conformity review. The amendments introduce a new limitation that would cap any future school on Lot 16 at a maximum building footprint of 20,000 square feet, So just to be very clear, there is no school proposed on Lot 16. This modification to retain schools as a permissible use on Lot 16 under the proposed village forest recreation zoning emerged through this public process in response to feedback that was received during earlier public meetings.

As I said, it was included in the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the amendments. I know it's something that's going to be discussed further today. So how's the plan going to be implemented? The specific plan establishes a framework for future development phases. The project is still anticipated to build out on and off over twenty five years, but there are a number of check-in points along the way as future phases come forward, there will be tentative subdivision maps, these small lot maps, again, that require approval from the Planning Commission.

There will be determination of the uses, whether those land uses or ministerial in terms of how the entitlements will be bundled. Future projects will require design review approval, so the projects will be presented to the Olympic Valley Citizens Design Review Committee who would evaluate the project against the specific plans, development standards, and design guidelines in Appendix B. So there will be subsequent conformity review of the individual project in phases against the specific plan in EIR. So future phases must be in compliance with the infrastructure phasing, the various master plans and improvement plans. And at each step, there's a conformity review application will be subject to and analyzed against all the mitigation measures, all the conditions of approval and all the development agreement requirements.

The proposed changes did require supplemental environmental analysis in accordance with CEQUA, the county, and working with our project EIR consultant, Ascent Environmental did prepare an addendum to the previous 2016 EIR and 2024 partially revised EIR. This addendum analyzed the proposed changes that have occurred since the previous approval from November 2024. All of the environmental topic areas were addressed. The focus of the addendum is those eight resource areas listed on the table, but with the proposed amendments, the density and the intensity of this specific plan has been substantially reduced. The 2026 amendments would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts.

So as I'm wrapping up, I would like to just go over some of the key terms of the development agreement. The project will deliver employee housing for two ninety six employees, and you see there I have with an asterisk and an underline, I mentioned that there's an errata that is part of your packet, And so following planning commission and then lead up to today's board meeting, there was some clarification that was needed in the DA regarding the timing of construction of this employee housing. So basically the developer needs to obtain certificates of occupancy for a minimum of 200 employee beds prior to or concurrent with the certificate of occupancy for the first lodging building. So that is in the errata that is part of your packet and will be mentioned in the actions for the development agreement. There's an additional $500,000 for regional employee housing contribution.

There's $800,000 regional initiative fund for environmental restoration, open space acquisition, public trails and safety improvements. Again, the West Valley Fire Station Alterra is going to provide their fair share in terms of constructing, staffing, and equipping that station. And a number of stream restoration elements really to slow the flow, reduce turbidity and sediment loading, create wetlands and improve flood plain areas. There are a number of on-site and off-site parks and recreation improvements that the project will pay into the park and recreation fees, the projects required to develop and dedicate active parkland, passive recreation areas and trails. There are many enhancements targeted addressing the transportation and transit challenges in the area, so there's the traffic management and parking plan that includes annual monitoring and adaptive management.

There's going to be a new transit station in the plan area. The project will pay into the county traffic fee program. There are one time and ongoing fees to TART, the Tahoe area rapid transit. There will be free bus passes for Palisades employees on TART and continued participation in support of the micro transit and business improvement district for the life of the project. This is outside of TRPA's jurisdiction, but the applicant is voluntarily paying a $2,000,000 fee to TRPA to again accelerate reduction of VMT in the Placer County portion of the basin.

This fee is still $2,000,000 It will just be spread out over a fewer number of units under the proposed amendments. The lodging fee remains at 2.5% on short term stays less than thirty days. This is estimated to generate an annual $1,000,000 of ongoing funding at build out. And finally, there will be a locals discount and non peak access privileges for full time Eastern Placer County residents. So still a very net positive fiscal project for the County to the tune of approximately 5,000,000 annually.

For the past six months, there's been a series of community meetings and public outreach. It started in early December with a virtual community meeting that was well attended. We went to the Olympic Valley Municipal Advisory Council the following week. We had two meetings in January with the Olympic Valley Citizens Design Review Committee. You see some of the screenshots that I have on the slide have some track changes.

Those are some changes that came out of those design review committee meetings, and the DRC did recommend that you approve the amendments to appendix B. There's been a lot of coordination with stakeholders and agencies, particularly the PSD. There's a letter of support from the town of Truckee, we've worked with TRPA closely, and so through this process, it really has been well received. There is general agreement and support for the amendments to advance, but these are some of the comments and the issues that have come up during some of those meetings, discussion on parking and traffic, how these changes would impact the Entre West Village, what the CEQA analysis looked at, the workforce housing changes, course, wildfire evacuation in the changes on Lot 12 and what that means for building height. In terms of the development agreement, the propane farm and the Creekside Charter School supporters were also at some of those meetings.

The planning commission heard the project on 04/16/2026, just last month. There were five written comments received focused primarily on traffic impacts, wildfire evacuation and changes on Lot 12 from the village parking to the commercial core. There were two virtual commenters that expressed support for the amendments, including the allowance for schools to remain permissible on Lot 16 under the village forest recreation zoning. There were eight public comments at the meeting and really applauding this collaborative agreement and this community developer compromise that reduced the overall density and intensity, but retained a lot of the key benefits from the 2024 approved plan. This has been a very divisive plan for the community, and so this is a good first step towards healing that division.

Some of the commenters supported this revised approach, again working together to reduce the scale while continuing the resort's commitment to supporting the local economy and stewarding the environment. There was support I think generally for the change on Lot 16 to village forest recreation, but there are some concerns about allowing a school on Lot 16 with that zone change. There were members from the local contractor labour unions that supported Al tera and Palisades' commitment to using a local workforce, but again concerns were raised regarding parking, the timing of the Washoe Shoe Creek restoration, some of the recreation improvements and maintenance, and then also pedestrian crossings across Olympic Valley Road, and that last one on the pedestrian crossings, that did lead to one change at the Planning Commission meeting. At the applicant's request, there was a revision to the development agreement into the master phasing plan. This would accelerate the timing of the Christie Hill pedestrian signal and basically swap that or delay the timing for the Olympic Valley Interpretive Park to better align with the improvements for the creek restoration.

So again, effectively a swap that occurred in terms of the timing of those improvements. That change was included in the Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation to the board for approval of the proposed amendments. The hearing today was properly noticed to adjacent properties and interested parties. The hearing notice was properly posted at the site. We have received a few comment letters.

I think when I counted maybe between twenty and twenty five in that ballpark. I think all of them are basically opposed to the school on Lot 16. They bring up some different issues. Some of the reasoning is regarding consistency with the purpose and intent of the Village Forest Recreation Zone District. There's an existing trail, the Granite Chief Trail that currently traverses Lot 16 on its way to the Shirley Canyon Trails, so there were concerns about trail relocation.

And then also the timing of when this came up in the process regarding it being late. And this school allowance on Lot 16 was something that was included in the planning commission's packet. There was an errata, but I mean, it's something that we wrote about in the staff report, it's something that we presented at the hearing, it's something that had been discussed to some degree at previous community meetings with the MAC and the DRC. So that is just to say yes, it is something that came out of the public process, but we did everything appropriately in terms of including it in the packet and the recommendation. We did also receive a letter from the plaintiff's law firm, Schutte Mahali and Weinberger.

That letter does also speak about lot sixteen and the school and how it relates to their settlement agreement. It discusses that there are some terms that they've agreed to that are kind of beyond those terms reflected in our development agreement. And before I read all the actions, there is one change requested here to the resolution by the applicant. Clayton, is this a good time to okay. So the first action here regarding the resolution to adopt the addendum, the applicant has requested two new sections of the resolution be added.

These are sections number two and three. You've all received copies of the red line version, and I believe I'm being asked to read it into the record. So new section two would say the 2024 EIR certification prior resolution twenty twenty four-two 24 is hereby modified to specify that the EIR is certified only for purposes of approving the revised VPTSP project as described in the addendum and subsequent approvals necessary to implement the revised VPTSP project and not for any other project, And new section number three, any future development project on the project site that exceeds the residential or commercial development allowed in the revised VPTSP project will be subject to independent additional environmental review, notwithstanding public resources code 21,166, CEQA guidelines section fifteen thousand one sixty two through 15,164 or any other CEQA provision allowing reliance on a prior certified EIR, and then it would go into section four.

Thank you. Patrick, I just wanted to note too, since those sections are added as two and three, then that changes the rest of the numbering and the resolution accordingly. So the following ones would be sections four, five, and six. Paper copies of those were provided to the board at the start of the meeting. There are also paper copies on the table here for members of the public. Because of the late request for addition, that is why I asked Patrick to read this into the record so that those following online would also be aware of the language.

And so, thank you. To conclude, staff forwards the 04/16/2026 Planning Commission recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and requests that you take the following five actions: Adopt a resolution as amended. Adopting the addendum to the previously certified village at Palisades Tahoe specific plan environmental impact report, a state clearinghouse number 2012102023, consisting of the twenty sixteen draft and final environmental impact report and the twenty twenty four draft and final partially revised environmental impact report, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopting an addendum to the findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations, and adopting the revised mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for the project. The second action is to adopt a resolution approving the amendments to the Village at Palisades Tahoe specific plan. Number three, adopt an ordinance approving the amendments to The Village at Palisades Tahoe specific plans Appendix B, development standards and design guidelines.

The fourth action is to approve The Village at Palisades Tahoe specific plan large lot vesting tentative subdivision map subject to the recommended conditions of approval, and finally to adopt an ordinance to approve the development agreement and errata related to The Village At Palisades Tahoe specific plan. I am joined with a number of colleagues here today. We have consultants online, we have representatives from the fire, Cal Fire and Sheriff, and the applicant team is here. So all are here today to answer your questions. So thank you Madam Chair, concludes staff's presentation. The applicant team does have a presentation.

Great, thank you. Any questions or comments before we go on to the applicant presentation? Supervisor Gesses?

I just wanted to say I do have some questions I think are gonna get answered through the public comment process, but if they're not, I'll raise them at the end. Thank you. All right, thank you. Thank you,

Patrick and county staff. Good morning, Chair Landon and supervisors. And thank you for your time today and your continued engagement throughout the timeline of the plan. I'm Amy O'Ran, President and Chief Operating Officer of Palisades Tahoe, and I'm joined today by Arden Hering, who is our head of real estate for Altara Mountain Company and Ryan Lovett with Lovett Planning and Design. And as has been said and as we all know, it's been a really long journey shaped by years of input, dialogue and at times, let's just be honest, some real tension and some real divisiveness.

And the timing was right to evolve the plan and to evolve the relationships around the plan. It's been eighteen months since we were last in front of the Board of Supervisors and reviewing the specific plan. This last eighteen months has been marked by significant focus and change and hard work and real progress. The plan presented today represents truly a new approach in effort to find new alignment and to find real alignment that has not existed in the past. This summer, we were happy to share that we had reached agreement with Sierra Watch and the League to Save Lake Tahoe, and we're also pleased to have received support from the Olympic Valley Municipal Advisory Council and design review committees.

And as we are seeing now, just new energy for the project that we have ahead. Over the past fifteen years, we've been guided by a vision for the plan that has been rooted in commitment to preserving the authentic spirit of Olympic Valley while continuing to shape a world class year round destination. We've been dedicated to sustainable, responsible growth that balances progress and preservation. Those are two truths that are hard to hold together, but they must exist for the future of our valley. These principles have shaped recent progress and amendments that we are sharing today.

This is a much smaller plan and it has a much bigger sense of place and we feel really good about that. As staff has thoroughly outlined, today's proposed amendment to the village at Palisades Tahoe's Pacific Plan represents the settlement agreement with the petitioners and significantly reduces the scope of the plan. Since the beginning of this project, we've listened really closely to community feedback and we've made significant commitments to address the concerns and mitigate the impacts of the project. As shown here, the 2026 amended reviewing plan that today, many of the commitments made with the adoption of the 2024 plan are still commitments. Starting with employee housing.

For 50% of our full time employees generated by the project as well as a $500,000 regional employee housing contribution. We remain committed, as Patrick has said, to providing employee housing as part of the first phase of the project. And with that in mind, and as has been mentioned, we are proposing a modification to our proposal that Planning Commission has previously considered. And this new proposal requires that workforce housing for 200 employees achieves a certificate of occupancy prior to or concurrent with the COO for the first lodging project. This modification would still require the workforce housing to proceed with the first phase, but it does give Palisades the flexibility to advance more than one lodging unit project alongside the workforce housing.

And we understand and we have listened to concerns about traffic and they really are a driver of some of the changes that you see in the revised plan. The reduction in size will reduce traffic impacts, and we are certainly not dismissing impacts. They're something that we design around and we have been solving to them. We'll continue to expand our effective operational measures that have taken thousands of cars off the road in the recent years. And this plan delivers comprehensive upfront and ongoing financial contributions to regional solutions, including a transit center in the village itself and Highway 89 turn lane and signals improvements.

Also want to just acknowledge the recent concerns that were voiced around pedestrian safety by several members of our community just ahead of the Planning Commission hearing last month. And in response to that feedback, we did find a way to pull forward the beaconed crosswalk at Christie Hill on Olympic Valley Road. And in addition, we are committed to several trip and VMT reduction measures including works that are delivered by the project and financial support through proceeds from the 2.5% lodging fee, the 2,000,000 TRPA fee that Patrick mentioned, and the $800,000 regional initiative contribution. As part of our settlement agreement, we've also committed to $150,000 towards the planning and engineering studies for a transit lane and intersection improvements on Highway 89 and Ovie Road. In the many years ahead, specific plan will maintain a minimum of 3,100 skier parking spaces at all phases throughout the plan through new garages and use of surface lots.

And you know as a resort operator, this was mentioned that this is a minimum and access is our highest priority and maintaining access for day skiers is a high priority for Palisades Tahoe. The specific plan a high level framework for build out and technology, our guest preferences will change, and there are provisions for us to refine our solutions to traffic, transportation, and parking on a phase by phase basis, honoring the commitment to our guests and to the county. Commitments to fire safety and emergency preparedness include additional fire personnel, equipment facilities, including the support of the West Valley Substation. Also included are the provisions for the emergency preparedness plan, such as evacuation protocols, shelter in place and temporary refugees, and coordination of emergency response roles between the resort and local agencies. We also at Palisades operate an annual dedicated team that manages fuels reduction and vegetation in the surrounding area.

And we're really happy in the spirit of alignment to report that we've had really productive engagement with Olympic Valley Public Service District and Fire Department. And the updated mitigation measure and EIR addendum reflect that positive collaboration. And lastly, a couple things on the slide here. We remain committed to the restoration of Washesho Creek in the Olympic Channel, as well as ensuring that subsequent projects would honor the mountain architecture of the surrounding village. And lastly, and it has been mentioned, during our project outreach, we received extensive feedback from our community and advisory committees about the potential displacement of Creekside School.

This is an organization that Palisades has proudly supported for over a decade. And based our engagement with the school, with the League to Save Lake Tahoe and Sierra Watch as one option for relocation, we have updated the specific plan to continue to allow for school use on Lot 16. We shared this proposal with the Olympic Valley Design Review Committee at our second meeting in January, and we received strong support for this provision. This does not mean that a school is planned to go on Lot 16. It's an accommodation as an option for Creekside to pursue as a conversation with the community.

As staff noted, a future school will be reviewed under the county's minor use permit process and includes opportunity for public input. The relocation of a school on Lot 16, it would also require the consent of the league to save Lake Tahoe and Sierra Watch. The move would likely require an offsetting the reduction in conservation area on Lot 16 with similar land within the village. And in conclusion, as Taf mentioned, our amended plan rezones Lot 12 from parking to village commercial corp, and Lot 16 And 18 from Village Commercial Neighborhood to Village Forest Recreation. We truly took heart the opportunity for this reduced plan to become a better plan.

It's smaller, and it has a deeper sense of place. And it's a model that we feel is the best version of itself. Improved integration into the existing village, pedestrian and walkable space that create the sense of place that we want for our resort. And to share more on that, I am excited to welcome Ryan Lovett with Lovett Planning and Design. So thank you for your time today.

Thank you.

Hello everyone and thank you Amy, thank you Patrick for the setup. I'm gonna very briefly go through some pretty pictures here, which most of you have probably seen, but just to bring home why we feel this alignment is so special that we really used it as an opportunity to do right by this valley, right for the community, and to come up with a better plan that people should feel really good about. So what you see there on the screen is a sketch of what the current adopted plan may have looked at like at full build out. And I always love going back and forth between these images because when you see the current 2026 plan, you see just how that reduction in bedrooms is not just a smaller project, but one that is really concentrated around the existing village. And then similarly, you can see just the extent of the disturbed areas in the Shirley Canyon area in the currently adopted plan and in the revised plan.

And similarly, the one that I get most excited about is really the way in which the pedestrian only area within the existing village is not only expanded to the east, but also to the north, creating this really amazing pedestrian connection where there was previously a large parking garage, this pedestrian connection between the existing village and Wusheshoe Creek. And you can see that here toggling between these two images that what was originally planned as a very, very, very large parking garage is now world class mixed use development and public realm nature all coming together. And then as you move along Olympic Valley Road, instead of being greeted in this extraordinary setting with a very large structured parking garage, you're greeted with world class mountain architecture. And that continuing really as sort of a marking as a gateway to this place, signaling that this is inviting, this is a place for people, you see world class architecture, not cars. And moving all the way around as you move further into down Olympic Valley Road, again, that transformation.

And this is the last slide just ending here, probably the most important one, which is looking on the north side of the existing village on Lot 12 where there's currently surface parking lots, where there was previously a large structured parking garage being planned. Instead, you get this amazing mix of old village, new development anchored by more nature, more green, all mixing together and really seamlessly allowing everyone and all through this space to Osheshoe Creek. So thank you.

Thank you. Is there still you're still going? Sorry. Didn't know if it was done or

We were just debating do we need to to stand up and close. Thank you, Ryan, for for sharing these images. I really love this last image that integrates and anchors the design that we're talking about. And I really appreciate your time and your consideration today. And this has been a really long journey and we've said it before and it's something we ground to a lot of this process wasn't about being right, it was about getting it right. And we feel really strongly with what we're presenting with you today. So thank you for your time and consideration of our project.

Thank you. And thanks for those before and after images. It was really helpful to be able to see the pretty stark differences between the two. With that, I will go ahead and open up the public hearing. Are there any questions or comments from board members before I ask for the public? Okay, this is the time for you in the public to comment on this item. If you wanna go ahead and line up, that would be great.

Looks like I'm first. Good morning, Madam Chair and respected county supervisors. My name is Doyle Radford. I'm the business manager of Construction and General Labors Local one hundred eighty five. We've been proudly building the Placer County community since 1929. Point of privilege, I am a lifelong citizen of Placer County. This is a gem. It was once Squaw Valley now. We know it as the Palisades, and here to really commend Amy and her team at Altera Mountain Company for breathing life back into this project. They've committed to building with local labor and we're proud to be a part of this project. And we like you to approve the staff's plan as a given. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Jeff Kranz. I'm the executive director of Creekside Charter School. Creekside is a public charter located on Palisades land currently. On behalf of hundreds of graduates, families, students, and educators, I'd like to share our collective gratitude for the generosity that Palisades Tahoe has shown us the past twelve years. The spirit of supporting the next generation of student athletes has continued over the last five months as Palisades and Altera leadership have supported our long term campus solution exploration.

One of these alternative locations is Lot 16. I applaud the Palisades leadership. In December, they heard the residents of Olympic Valley and the consensus of the MAC that finding a long term home for Creekside needed to be included in the vote today. They have worked with Sierra Watch and the league to save Lake Tahoe to alter the plan to allow for a potential spot for our school. Again, they did this after hearing the voice of our community.

I'd like the board of supervisors to know that Creekside with the support of Palisades continues to look at multiple options for a long term campus, and while we are appreciative of including an option to support a school on 16, we want the community to know that we are exploring multiple sites in and around Olympic Valley. We value our partnerships in the valley and believe in working as a community. If we did seek further development plans on Lot 16, we would do so in collaborative nature with the community residents, Palisades leadership, and conservation organizations. I'd urge the board to approve the vote with our commitment that Creekside will work with Palisades, the residents of Olympic Valley, and our stakeholders to find an appropriate long term campus solution. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Kirsten Gwyn. I'm the marketing director for North Tahoe Community Alliance, the destination management organization for the region. Thank you for the opportunity. As an organization dedicated to supporting both the economic vitality and the overall sustainability of our region, we would like to offer our support for the Palisades Tahoe specific plan and its significant potential benefits.

The Palisades Tahoe specific plan is a key piece of infrastructure investment for the future of North Lake Tahoe designed not only to enhance the visitor experience, but also to ensure that our community remains competitive in the rapidly changing tourism landscape. The plan takes a thoughtful approach to managing future visitation with an emphasis on tourism stewardship sustainable travel principles. By attracting visitors who prioritize responsible travel behaviors, which is one of the key tenets of our domestic marketing program, and then supporting them with adequate infrastructure, we can achieve balance between our visitors and our community. We're working hard to attract visitors who stay longer, who explore the region responsibly, and who support our local business community at a deeper level. But without adequate infrastructure, it's difficult to bring in this type of visitor, and we find ourselves relying on day visitors whose impact on our economy is minimal, but whose impact on our community is felt to the max.

Tourism is a competitive industry and our region is not immune to the pressures of nearby destinations As regions similar to ours continue to invest heavily in their own infrastructure focused on attracting visitors who stay longer and contribute to the local economy, North Lake Tahoe must do the same. So by supporting thoughtful infrastructure investment, we position ourselves to attract high quality destination visitors who contribute significantly to our economic growth while allowing us to steward our environment. If we choose not to invest, will simply be unprepared and unable to manage our destination with visitors in the long term. People are coming to North Lake Tahoe, but without this infrastructure investment they will continue to spill over onto our roadways and into our neighborhoods for lack of other options. The Palisades Tahoe specific plan is a critical tool in ensuring we are prepared for the future and that North Lake Tahoe remains a vibrant, thriving community and that we can protect and steward our region for generations to come.

So we urge your support of the plan today. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Alan Riley. I'm a long term resident of the Valley. And to say that this is a gem, I don't know if we'd quite say that. It has been a long journey.

I suspect a majority of the board is new since this journey started. I think we're on our fifth CEO since it started and our third director of real estate or development. So it has been a long road. I don't think we're too excited about 96 foot tall buildings in the Valley, but we are excited where they've come to at this point. Everything on the East development is the old disturbed site.

There's been commercial or industrial vehicles parked there at the snow storage area. The land has pretty much already been leveled, and it's a decent spot. On the West end of the valley, almost everything that's gonna be developed is already what they're saying. I think I wrote down here somewhere, basically hardscaped. It's been landscaped. It's leveled and landscaped. There's asphalt on top of there now. So it's not a big stretch to develop that area. Our big concerns are LARS 16 And 18. So by saying you're gonna change it to forest recreation, we wanna see it as forest recreation.

Lot 16 And 18 are to the parcels up there that are not paved over. And as soon as you step on them, they are sloping up into the hill, essentially into the gateway of Shirley Canyon, which is quite a spot. And we don't want to lose that character for that area. There's also talk and mention of a easement on Lot 16 briefly for a commercial development on a neighboring parcel. Going to the Planning Commission meetings, we learned that road is six forty feet long.

It's about a 55 foot wide easement to accommodate a 26 foot wide road, as well as a five foot paved sidewalk. So that's pretty substantial. And that also cuts across the entire parcel of that spot of that lot. And then as well, talking about putting a 20,000 square foot school on the property, that is not allowed anywhere in what's designated as forest recreation. So if we look in the village at Tahoe specific plan, what they call forest recreation, schools are not allowed in there.

Commercial products are not allowed in there. I see I'm running out of time. Another concern is putting a school in that easement there is gonna totally block off the Granite Chief Trail, which is also the major thoroughfare for thru hikers coming through on the PCT. So just to wrap this up real quick, this comes down to consistency integrity of your zoning network. So forest recreation should not be used to support higher intensity development elsewhere.

And I respectfully ask that you require that all uses on Lot 16 And 18 strictly conform to the forest recreation zoning, prohibit infrastructure serving off-site development and clearly define what is and not allowed on this plan.

Thank you.

Thank you. And we're not against the school.

Good morning. My name is Tom Morris. I am here with Sierra Watch and the movement to keep Tahoe Truckee true. We're very grateful to be here today to mark fifteen years of commitment to mountain values and a truly collaborative outcome. As we expressed in writing and staff read into the record, we do ask for that one correction to bring the proposed project into compliance with our collaborative resolution.

With that amendment, I get to say something quite remarkable. After fifteen years of conflict and a renewed spirit of collaboration, Sierra Watch urges approval of the revised village at Palisades Tahoe specific plan. And we take a moment to appreciate what got us here. The shared passion of the thousands of people, tens of thousands of people who got involved. People who love Olympic Valley, people who maintain our multigenerational commitment to Lake Tahoe, and who honor mountain culture.

Anyone who signed a petition,

came to a public hearing, made a financial contribution, everyone who sent a letter, planted a lawn sign, or paraded through the streets of Tahoe City in a purple T shirt. The people who stood up and made the movement to keep Tahoe Truckee true. So thank you to you for taking up this REVIVE project. Thank you to the county for its leadership. Thank you to Alterra and Palisades Tahoe for coming to the table and working collaboratively. But most of all, to everyone committed to keeping Tahoe Truckee true. Thank you.

Thank you.

Excuse me. Good morning. Gavin Feiger, policy director at Key Tahoe Blue, also known as Lead to Save Lake Tahoe. As with Tom and Amy and Arden, who didn't speak yet today, really excited to be here. After fifteen years of divisiveness, public meetings, not public meetings, where today is a really is a really meaningful day for our community.

The revised project shows that when people show up, speak up, stay engaged, that better outcomes are possible. And in this case, a better outcome is this revised project. As described by county, Mr. Dobbs and Amy and team today, it really is a better project. Modernization for the Valley, but protecting the environment that we all love and rely on for our enjoyment, our economics, and everything we love about Tahoe.

And this all didn't happen by accident. It really was. It was years, decades and years, the last couple years in particular of collaboration, persistence, and a belief that Tahoe deserves better. And here, today, we're happy to celebrate the legally binding protection that the Valley will have for at least the next twenty five years and hopefully generations to come. Yeah, a few minor details.

One, thanks for reading the CEQA correction into the record. It says, you know, very familiar with CEQA technicalities. Was a correction was necessary for the settlement agreement, you know, legally binding, but the purpose is really straightforward. It's to make sure that any future development still has to undergo a rigorous environmental review after these phases, this revised project is built out in the next twenty, twenty five years. Two other small points.

One, the $150,000 that Amy mentioned, there were a few things in the settlement agreement that didn't get into the development agreement. We'll keep working on those with with Palisades Tahoe, Alterra, Sierra Watch, and and team. And then the Lot 16. So road, we already traded some land on Lot 1819 at the head of Shirley Canyon there for the road easement. That was an oversight.

The school you know, Lot 16 is now conservation land. So placing a school on Lot 16 would violate the settlement agreement. We'd have to go back and renegotiate that. You know, maybe we'd look at it, but we'd have to have equal or greater conservation value somewhere else in the valley, and there's not a lot of areas where that's possible, but something for for the future. For today, with the safeguards in place, we really believe that this is a better project, And as with Tom, really happy to be here urging you to approve the project at Palisades Tahoe. So thanks for your time and and sticking with in there with us.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and respected supervisors. My name is Tom Johnson. I'm a business representative with Labors Local one hundred eighty five. I would also like to thank you all for your time and consideration regarding this project. I believe that come leaps and bounds since the beginning of this planning over a decade ago.

Hats off to Altera and Palisades team for showing the flexibility and accountability of the public's concerns. This project will not only bring in more local economy to the Valley, but will quite literally put food on the tables of my local membership. As stated before, the laborers are committed to local hire here as well as recruiting. So not only our local residents now, but the ones to come. It is an honor to be before you today representing my membership with the labors, the brothers and sisters who will have a hand in building this project. And say that on behalf of the labors, we are excited and in full support of this project. Thank you all.

Thank you.

Good morning, my name is July Anderson. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Three minutes is not a lot of time and it gets I'm so nervous. I hope you all have had a chance to an opportunity to look at the public comments that were sent in. My concerns are of course directly related to the newly designated Village Forest Recreation lots of 16 to 18.

Both the 1983 general plan and the amended village specific plan defined forest recreation as forested environments that are to be retained where recreational uses of facilities are permitted. They are located to accommodate access to recreational amenities like hiking trails, trailheads and ski lifts. The 1983 general plan includes a clear use table where the village plan does not. Appendix B also includes an unidentified use clause, which implies that staff can approve land uses not specifically defined. I attended the April 16 planning commission meeting just in full support because I was fired up about this 16 to 18 being forest recreation.

What concerns me now is the misinterpretation and misuse of forest recreation, how that manipulation could set a precedent. The late addition of Attachment L in that meeting was an example of this. It was labeled an errata. It was dated April 1 and was added after the amended plan was publicly posted. It was presented in the county slides rather than as an agenda item at the April 16 meeting.

Its purpose is to authorize a school up to 20,000 square feet on Lot 16, which is now proposed to be forest recreation conservation land. Document is no longer attached to the PDF that's in today's agenda, but it does say that it's subject to discretionary approval of minor use permit. Elsewhere in the text, says that the project would be subject to County approval, CEQA review, and updates to the VPTSP master plans as applicable. This is a substantial change and requires a formal amendment process and triggers a CEQA based on forest recreation zoning in my opinion. To be clear, I'm not against a public school.

I'm opposed to misuse of conservation land. I'm opposed to the rationale utilized to allow a school in Lot 16 based on the previous designation as village commercial zoning where a school is permissible and applying that to forest recreation. Mean, I you can see the contradiction in the use. If the plan is approved as proposed today, the board would be designating Lot 16 as forest recreation while simultaneously approving commercial use, which is inconsistent with forest recreation land use. I'm asking the board to remove the school errata from today's adoption package required to be processed as a formal amendment should a school be desired in the future and assure the forest recreation designation includes an explicit land use table modeled after the 1983 plan.

Finally, ask you to please respect and enforce forest recreation land use ordinance to provide conservation for public land in perpetuity as promised. Thank you.

Wow, just in the nick of time. Well

done.

Am I supposed to hit the green button? Oh, Hi, my name is Heidi Stontiner. I was born and raised in Olympic Valley. I'm here to fight for Lots 16 And 18. They both sit on untouched incredibly beautiful land at the gateway of Shirley Canyon, and I'm here to fight for that.

It's being proposed to be rezoned as Village Forest Recreation and let's keep it that. There was an agreement made with Altera and the Granite View luxury condominium project to provide an easement on Lot 16 to build a road to access their project. My argument is that this agreement was composed when Lot 16 was or is zoned as Village Commercial and it has not been reanalyzed as Village Forest Recreation. So I urge you to please do that. I also argue that this, 55 foot wide 650 foot long paved road has individual driveways, a massive retaining wall, 12,000 square feet for snow storage.

It will require 27,000 cubic yards of soil to be removed from slopes that exceed 30% grade. I argue that this is not just access to Granite View condominium project but part of their infrastructure and I don't feel that should be built on forest recreation land. As far as the school, it's all very confusing. They keep saying, oh no, school is not being not planned yet it's on their packet or it was on a packet that I saw and then suddenly it disappears. In general the proposed 20,000 square foot school was not on the agenda at the April 16 planning committee meeting.

This is a potential violation of the Brown Act. The Brown Act requires that the agenda itself must describe each item of business. Description must be sufficient to inform the public of the substance of the action. California courts and the Attorney General have consistently held that the public should not have to dig through staff reports or last minute documents to understand what is being decided. So please look into whether this was a violation of the Brown Act.

In general, on a personal note, I have two kids who attend our local Tahoe Truckee Unified School District. The charter school of Creekside is not part of TTUSD, it's part of the Newcastle School District and while it's convenient for some it's simply not necessary and I don't think it's important enough to dig into untouched land in Shirley Canyon. It takes away funds from our own local schools which do a very good job of supporting our kids even kids who are athletes and needing a specialized type of school. Thank you.

Thank you.

Wayne Nader, I'm obviously very familiar with this. I was on the planning commission when it came through in 2016. I'm disappointed to see that the 96 foot level is still in place. Mean, I want you to visualize an eight story or taller building in the valley and the visual impact of that. I'm not sure those pictures actually represented how much higher that's gonna be than some of the other structures.

But I wanted to talk about something that I think is even more of a flaw in this. And I think you're aware that I have a fire protection service background. So I'm speaking from a point of some understanding. As you heard from Patrick, there is a state minimum fire safety regulation, 1,173.08, that limits new and existing or expanding developments to, they're in high fire zones, if they only have one egress road, that it only can be a mile in length. And it's actually about two miles out to Highway 89.

Obviously, Palisade asked for the exception and it was given to them. I have a copy of it that I was given that he showed you. My concern is that it does not substantively really reflect why the exception is being given. It says everything looks okay, sort of, but I would hope that there would be something more substantial in it. The concern I have, or I believe that that, I'm gonna be somewhat blunt in some of my comments.

I believe that there's more of a political driven part of this decision than there is on facts on the ground. You may think, okay, two miles is not a big deal, but it is a big deal. And I believe it's because the reason for that distance, keeping the shorter the distance, the longer the distance, the greater the chance for that roadway to be cut off by a fire. And if it's cut off and you only have one access, then you're obviously going to be in peril behind that fire. In this case, that exposure is double.

So I'm concerned about that. Should blockage occur, the fallback position is for residents, visitors and employees to shelter in place, which is used as the last option for fire service because it holds the highest risk of public safety. I pray that a horrible fire never happens in Olympic Valley, but no one can tell me that it won't. Here's the blunt part, more blunt. There is clearly a reason for this restriction and to ignore it puts lives at high risk of injury or death.

Anyone in a position of authority that supports this exemption in the face of known risk makes them complicit in whatever tragedy may happen related to that decision.

Thank you Wayne.

Thank you.

Morning. Morning.

Morning. I'm Ed Heneveld, a forty eight year resident of the Valley. I've been concerned about this project and speaking with you and the planners, etcetera for the last fifteen, sixteen years. And now in the last twenty four, forty eight hours, we've got this controversy of Lot 16 and the Creekside School being allowed there. And it sounds like the default position if you approve the project is this will then be moved to a minor use permit approval, a discretionary approval.

And who oversees that, but the zoning administrator, it could be a categorical exemption, probably not given the controversy, but we're promised public input and how much and how robust. You heard from the leaks of cow folks, this school would violate the settlement agreement. So we're looking at some more divisiveness coming down the road. I don't think this should be a minor use permit approval if and when Lot 16 is allowing the school there and also tied into the Granite View condos that are coming in, as you heard from the last couple of speakers about the road and the easements. So I'd like the planning staff in the course of this meeting to go over in detail what exactly a minor use permit is and how robust that analysis will be.

And I really think you guys ought to be making the decision. Not that we have to appeal a zoning administrator's decision if we don't like it to go to the board. This should be a bigger deal. It is a big deal. It's the last business. Otherwise, I'm all in favor of this project, especially the way it's been downsized and we see the amendments as proposed. So thanks for

the opportunity.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, my name is Keith Fountain. I've been a homeowner in Olympic Valley for twenty five years. I'm on the board of Palisades Tahoe Lodge, board of the mountain air transit company and a member of the LVMAC. I'm proud of all of that. And sixteen years is a long time. I've been through it all with a number of my colleagues in the community.

Could you bring the mic up just a little bit? Sorry. Thank you.

Speaking to all of you. And I'm so heartened today. Progress and preservation was a theme of Palisades Tahoe presentation. I would say perseverance and practicality should be another part of it. Amazing to stand here, sit here today, and hear people as diverse as Tom Morrison at Hennefelt endorse this project.

It's about time. We want to see this thing move ahead, to have a village that's complete, that complements our mountain, fits in our community, adds to the prosperity of North Lake Tahoe. And I thank all of you. Maybe, hopefully, this is the last time that you say yes, and we move on, and we move quickly, very quickly, I hope. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Wish I got that greeting everywhere I went. Good morning, Stell, Kirk Euler Plaster Business Alliance. Seems like only a decade ago this board was here having a very similar conversation. From Olympic Valley to Mardis Valley, Kings Beach to Tahoma, the entirety of the Tahoe area is still trying to exist on infrastructure built in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. In a time when we didn't have the kind of environmental reviews that we have today, in a time that we had actually a thriving middle class up here that was able to supply most of the workforce needs that our local businesses had.

Obviously both of those have changed. We now have very strict environmental requirements when it comes to developing in this area, and we now have the additional challenge of having to find folks who can afford to live in the area in order to meet the business needs. This board recognized a long time ago the existing deficiencies in the basin and in the associated valleys can never be met with the public dollar. There simply are not enough public dollars to meet the existing deficiencies in the as built infrastructure and the changing requirements that we face. It's only through rewarding risk capital, inviting new investment into our valleys and into our basin, that we will be able to address the long term problems caused by infrastructure that is now fifty and sixty years old.

This is a great first step. We thought we took it a while ago, but this is a great first step. But as people, we are conditioned to recognize and respond. Capital markets are the same way. Capital markets will recognize the action taken by your board today, but they will recognize that this action was taken by this board a while ago, in subsequent actions just two years ago.

Capital markets will respond when stuff starts coming out of the ground. When we actually see things moving forward and reward to risk capital starting to be paid back, that's when additional capital will start to flow into this area and that's when working together with your business community, we can begin to meet the long term deficiencies that we have in the area. We encourage you to take this step today. We encourage you to stay engaged with your staff, stay engaged with project applicants and get this project built. Thank you.

Thank you. It'll start on its own. It's magic like that.

I'm Casey, excuse me, I'm Casey Jowers, a full time resident of Olympic Valley, raising my family there. I applaud the community's involvement over the last fifteen to sixteen years, and as they reached a settlement and moved forward with this plan, a lot of our community appreciation for the revised plan was protecting Shirley, building a gateway access to the Grand Chief Trailhead to be able to access the Pacific Crest Trail in a way that's unique for that entire section of the trail. And we sell, were a lot of emails sent out by various organizations that said we won. This was going be a success. The drawings that were shown with the revised are they're great, but they're lacking in a few things.

They're lacking with where is the Grand Chief Trailhead parking going to be? How is the community and guests going to access that? How does an easement that's nine tenths of an acre on Lot 16 on a three acre parcel that's gonna be paved for people's parking and snow removal, how is that gonna act? How are people going to access across that monstrosity and forest protected land? Also, was a comment that was made earlier that there some swapping done between Lot 18 And 19.

I'm not aware of what that is. It was alluded to that there was some trading of protected land. How's the community aware of what that is? I think in general terms, a lot of this project has moved forward in a very productive way, and yes, corporate America is gonna need to make more money, and they're gonna need to build, and they're building it somewhat responsibly, and the county needs the funds from the hotel occupancy. I understand that, but ultimately, it's up to you to understand if what's been proposed today is what the community has signed up for.

Is it really what we were supporting? And I think some of this is coming in kind of last minute, but I appreciate your time, and thank you for letting me address it, and I hope you spend the adequate time reviewing what's been proposed today and what's not been discussed. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments here in the chambers? And is I think there's a few online.

Yes, chair. Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments.

Hello, can you hear me? Yes.

Great. Good morning, my name is Mary Kate Baker and I am board president at Creekside Charter School. I just wanna thank you for the opportunity to comment and certainly wish I could be there in person today. Additionally, I wanna thank Palisades Tahoe, Altera, and the county for their partnership and for the support we we have received in exploring new sites for Creekside. As a lot of members have already, mentioned, we do have several options that we are pursuing around the valley, including Lot 16, and we're excited about continuing to build on this collaboration to find a permanent home for the school.

As mentioned, Creekside Charter School is a TK through eighth grade school. We receive funds directly from the state. We do not receive money from TTUSD. And our priority is that the school remains deeply connected to the community and the students we serve. When we do move forward with any of these potential options for a new location, we are committed to being an active partner with Palisades Tahoe, Alterra, and the county and the community in collaborating on finding the best solution. Thank you.

Thank you.

Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments.

Hi, everybody. Can you hear

me? Yes.

Yes. Great. Hi, supervisors. I'm Joshua Talb. I'm a seven year Olympic Valley resident, parent of two Creekside students, a one Creekside alum, and member of friends of Olympic Valley. I'll just echo what Mary Kate just said. Creekside does not take any funding away from TTUSD. On the contrary, Creekside is directly funded by the state. And if it were to disappear, TTUSD would need to absorb Creekside students without any additional funding. Creekside is a tremendous benefit to Olympic Valley and the entire North Tahoe region, I feel that it's of the utmost importance for the vitality and the nature and the character of the valley that we preserve its presence here.

Specifically regarding Lot 16, I don't know whether it's an appropriate option for a future school or not. We've heard Jeff and Mary Kate and others say that as well. It's one of multiple parcels, I guess, that are going to be looked at. However, I would like to point out that Lot 16 is essentially completely surrounded either by existing or proposed future development. On the north side, we'll have the forthcoming Granite View condos.

I have to think whether or not the easement is maintained that something will be built there given its commercial zoning. And then on the east and the south, we have existing residential. And on the West, we have the Olympic Village Event Center. So maintaining it as conservation land just does not seem logical to me. I agree. I do enjoy like the concept of forest recreation, but let's get real here. I think that it could easily be used for a school with minimal impact to the overall nature of that part of the valley. All that said, like at Hennenweld, I too would like to understand what a minor use approval entails. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments.

Thank you very much. My name is Eric Gario. I am a Creekside parent of three. You can see my picture there. I'm also a board member for Creekside supporting the pursuit of a future campus.

I'm a full time community member and partner of the community, and I also lead the ski and snowboard teams from Palisades Tahoe. Creekside is a public school, as you've all heard, in the California school system. We believe in our model and are committed to a partnership with the community as we look to multiple side options. We are students, teachers, parents who play soccer, lacrosse, little league, perform music, dance, everything under the sun in the Tahoe area with all of our fellow community members, students, and parents. We ski and snowboard together.

We bike. We hike. We play together. We are part of the full time residents population and part of the full time workforce in the community. Are more than two thirty students, TK through eight, in a location that it would be tough to, as somebody else mentioned, would be tough to absorb across our other public schools in the area if we were not successful in our pursuits.

What does success look like? It looks like an improved relationship with our surrounding community through the amazing partnership we already have with Palisades Tahoe and Placer County. In fact, I appreciate Palisades Tahoe's transparency and forthcomingness to name Creekside in most recent presentations. We are a community community to the stewardship and health of our surrounding environment and the Creekside community is not interested in blocking access to our outdoor spaces. We are grateful and deeply appreciative of the hard work Palisades Tahoe, Placer County, Sierra Watch, and many others continue to put in to make this community thrive in balance with our great mountains.

And thank you Board of Supervisors for taking a stake in our future.

Thank you. Any others on there?

No further comments.

Okay. With that, I will close the public hearing. And I know I had a few questions, but they were also included with the public comments. So are there any other questions that board members have? Current, what's that? Okay. And then I guess does staff need a few moments to gather their thoughts or okay.

I don't believe so.

Great. Then do you want to go ahead and address the public comments?

Yeah I'll go ahead and start and just for the record Chris Behooley, Placer County Planning Director. I want to thank everyone for being here today and for the public comments that were received. Just want to address a few of the questions and comments that came up. The first was related to the comment made about the rationale for granting the fire safe exemption. I know Patrick covered it as part of the staff presentation that the project, as well as the agreements that were in place had the same practical effect of the requirements that were required for that fire safe exception.

So wanted to note that we do have Chief Mertens here from CAL FIRE should there be questions that the board members have that want to go into a little bit more detail on that subject. There were also questions that I wanted to cover related to sort of the structure of the specific plan and its relationship to the Olympic Valley General Plan and Land Use Ordinance, and then there were questions about the Minor Use Permit as it relates to the proposed school in the Village Forest Recreation designation. So first, as it relates to the structure of the specific plan and its relationship to the Olympic Valley general plan and land use ordinance, The general plan land use ordinance is structured as two components. There's two sections. There's a general plan that really functions as a community plan, and then there's the land use ordinance section of that document.

This specific plan that's brought before you today would really supersede that land use ordinance for properties that are located within the specific plan. I know that there was a comment made that there are not any definitions related to village forest recreation and land use tables within the specific plan. That's not a true statement. Within the specific plan on page 24, there's a definition for the land use district of Village Forest Recreation. In that definition, it clearly defines uses that are allowed or within that designated area.

And furthermore, the specific plan also includes on Pages twenty eight and twenty nine and thirty land use tables for allowed uses in all of the designated areas within the specific plan including the Village Forest Recreation designated areas. I should note that there is a footnote within those tables that clearly defines that the schools would only be permitted in or on Lot 16 and would not be permissible in any area within the specific plan that is designated as Village Forest Recreation. I also wanted to provide a little bit more detail about the minor use permit process. As was noted during the presentation and as I'll follow-up on, the minor use permit is a discretionary entitlement. That means that it would be subject to a California Environmental Quality Act review as part of that discretionary process.

It would be heard ultimately by the zoning administrator following a public notice to property owners within 300 feet of the subject site, and of course any decision made by the zoning administrator is appealable to first the Planning Commission and that decision by the Planning Commission can be further appealed to the Board of Supervisors. So I wanted to provide those clarifications and then wanted to ask Mr. Cook if he wanted to respond to questions that came up about the Brown Act concerns.

Yeah. I would like to say something if now's a good time. There was a comment made about whether there the was a violation of the Brown Act because the listing of the school or the change to the school is not included on the agenda. For that, my determination is no, it's not a violation of the Brown Act, and I'll give you some of the methodology for that. The requirement for agendas is listed in the government code, and it requires that agendas list a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted, and that brief general description is generally needing not to exceed 20 words.

The agenda itself does identify the fact that the specific plan is being amended, specifically the Development Standards and Decide Guidelines are. So, that covers the requirement under the agenda. If the requirement was such that we needed to call out each of the amendments within the agenda, that would simply make the agenda basically the same as the staff report packet, and is not the intent of the legislature, which is to make the agenda a brief document that highlights the items that would be reviewed. So there's no violation of the Brown Act for purposes of that. Thank you, Chris.

Thank you, Mr. Cook. Chair Landon, staff does not have any further responses. However, as was noted during Mr. Dobbs' presentation, there are a number of county staff here that are available to answer questions that the board may have.

Thank you. I have one follow-up question on the zoning administrator hearing. I know that the notice goes out to the 300 foot radius. Does what is the opportunity for public input at that hearing? So if obviously I'm sure word would spread beyond the 300 feet. So if people outside of that area want to come to that hearing and make comment, are they allowed to do so?

Absolutely. It'll occur at a public hearing. There will be opportunity to provide written comments prior to the hearing that would be considered by the zoning administrator as well as attendance at the hearing and testimony provided there.

And then if a group or an individual wants to appeal that decision, what is the cost to have an appeal?

Good question, $7.54 ish. Somewhere you. Right around

Other questions, comments? Supervisor Gustafson?

I hadn't even turned my light on yet.

Why did you think? I could sense it.

Thank you. I wanted to follow-up on the issue of the school. And obviously we've heard it is subject to the settlement agreement. Would require both other parties to agree and agree with any offsets of additional conservation land if that were to happen. Then the County could potentially consider it through an MUP process.

One question I had is can we limit this to public schools? The charter school is a public school. I could see the concern spreading that this could be any kind of school, a private academy or others in this area. Is that something we can do here today to further refine that or would that require additional hearing? I'm looking at County Council and planning on that one.

Maybe I'll start off. That change could be made, it would be a matter of going through the document and finding the areas where it's identified, and then making that change, and I don't know if staff's prepared to look into the analysis. I would say at a minimum, it would need five, ten minutes for staff to discuss how that would be implemented. Certainly for purposes of implementation and for environmental review, the change between a public and private school doesn't impact the environmental review. So there is, I think that is possible if there's an interest, I just am not sure of the amount of work that it would take to get it done. And maybe I'd point to planning for that.

Yeah, thank you Mr. Cook. Staff would require some time to research it and make sure we've defined both public school and private school, differentiated those within the use tables and maybe even a definition. There are definitions in the plan as well. So if that's something that is requested, that's something that we can look into.

Yeah, clearly that's our intent. I trust that with all the parties' eyes on this situation, this is not our desired location. I think some of us are also working on alternatives with the charter school for additional sites for location that would not be in this vicinity. But once we approve these plans, I look at the long term impact that we can anticipate the needs or the desires of the community in ten or twenty years. And so I wanna make sure that we are considering that carefully as we look at.

We know there's a demonstrated need to relocate the school. We heard that loud and clear at the MAC meeting that we had Olympic Valley Municipal Advisory Committee meeting. We had many, many public comments on this item. So I was surprised when people said we haven't heard about this. Had they been at the MAC meeting, they would have heard very clearly that this was an issue that was yet to be resolved.

I think the flexibility in the language is fine for me because I know it is subject to that settlement agreement as well as minor use permit. And it provides one option of others that I think are probably more desirable. So I'm comfortable with that. One thing I'll say to the public is in my career, I found that shared use facilities bring shared infrastructure. So if you want a trailhead with restrooms, sharing it with a potential school could be a good win win for people.

But again, it's how it's designed and what does it take away and can we find replacement conservation land. So I think this preserves that flexibility for the school to find a good location. The road and the separate project, and maybe I'm forgetting my maps of the valley. Do we have a map that would indicate where some of the public comments we received were on the road access to the granite condominium project, granite view, the Carville property.

Is that Yeah, we don't have

an exhibit that shows it, but we could bring up a slide that shows Lot 16.

Right, so if you could show Lot 16 and then I think it's fair for the rest of the board because it's been to the MAC and we've heard about it but I don't know that the rest of the board has seen that project. It's a separate private project on separately owned commercial lands. But I think it was the subject of some of the comments we heard today.

We can ask that slide eight be brought up. And so, just to note, or Lot 16, that's, identified on the, on the map there, the project that's being referenced, is the Granite View condos project which is immediately to the north of Lot 16. It's important to note that that site is has multiple zoning designations but is partially zoned as village commercial, which allows ah, thank you. I don't think that's going to work quite well. It is village commercial and allows for development on it.

We are working through a current filed application that, as was noted by Supervisor Gustafson, project has gone to the Olympic Valley MAC for review. We've also just recently held a public hearing at the Planning Commission to receive comments on the draft and once the final EIR is prepared, it will go back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation before coming to the Board. And as it has been noted by commenters, the project features or is reliant on an easement for a driveway or roadway on Lot 16 that would provide access to the property. It's also important to note that within the specific plan, I mentioned that within the definitions of the districts, that there is a note that roads are allowed in the Village Forest Recreation designated areas. So again, that's a future project, but as was noted, it makes sense to bring it up here given the comments that we've received on it.

Thank you. And so the environmental document, Chris, for that project will need to address the road and the impacts of the road, the snow storage area that several of the commenters That's correct.

And those comments did come up.

Project will be a separate consideration.

But That's it's going correct and those comments did come up during the meeting as well. I should just provide a point of clarification. The Granite View condo project would stop at the Planning Commission. They are the decision body for that item unless it is appealed to the board.

Okay, thank you. And then I wanna thank all of the participants in the community on this issue, and especially the new commitment on the housing and delivering the housing. That was a change from the Planning Commission. I appreciate that very much in the assurance that we'll get that housing done simultaneous to the project opening, some of the units opening. And then also the pedestrian crossing and moving that up, that has certainly become a hot topic in our community of having a safe pedestrian crossing at that Christie Hill location.

So moving that forward also, I'm very pleased at. And also then, I believe that the letter we received from Shootmahali and was referenced by a few comments, that the revisions that we see today fully address their comments that they requested.

Yes, that's accurate.

Okay, so that's all been requested and addressed. So I appreciate that and I may have another comment at the end, but I'll leave it at that for now.

Supervisor Demetay.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you everybody for all your reports. As I wrap my head around this first, let's start with Lot 16. What is the size of Lot 16 and what is the percentage of village to forest recreation that will be taken up? Because I'm looking at this map and it looks like there's quite a few shared condominiums on there, roadways, sewer lines that go through there. And if it is forest recreation, how much of what's the percentage of that on that lot?

It's gonna take us a minute to find that.

That's fine. I have more questions, so I'll move on till you get to that one. Next, I guess pretty much the same thing with, well, my question about the school, and this is probably for the charter school itself. Not that I'm not in favor of charter schools, I took a risk and sent my kids to charter school, not knowing what a charter school was sixteen years ago, and they turned out pretty good. They get arrested and they're so far so good.

How many of the charter school attendees, how many of those kids and what is the maximum amount of attendees and how many of those kids actually live in the village or live outside of Olympic Valley that commute in there? And would this be a great location to put it at the very back of the village where you're gonna have to drive further in? So, I guess I'd wanna know that answer as well, If there's somebody in the audience who can give me that answer or call in. Also my concern for the There was a question that came up, I don't think it was addressed for the 96 foot tall building. When you guys showed those pictures up there, it just seemed like, seemed to look for me, it seemed a little bit too tall at 96 feet because it looks like from the renderings, it looks like it took up a lot of the landscape view if you're in the village and didn't wanna have to make it look like you're walking through New York City through the village and still kinda keep it a lower profile.

I don't know if that's manageable or if that is an option to do that. So I don't know if Palisades can answer that question. I just seemed a little tall from my perspective and looking at some of the concerns about the 96 foot tall buildings. Other than that, that's all I have. Yes, please. I don't care who answers.

Thanks for the question. About a third of our students live in the Olympic Valley area.

One third.

Which means that there certainly is quite a bit of traffic that comes in to our school every day.

What's the total attendance there?

This year we have two thirty five and next year we'll have two forty students.

Is that K through?

TK through eighth grade.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Demetay, to answer your question about Lot 16, we've just run some rough calculations. Lot 16 is about 3.65 acres. We don't have a developed the amount of land that would be developed if a school was to be requested and approved. However, the maximum size was 20,000 square feet, so a little under a half acre, and then you, if you factor into that parking and the driveway or easement, perhaps some additional acreage would be developed as part of that, so.

Okay, thank you. So approximately 158,000 square feet, and you're only looking at 20,000 square feet for a school. That doesn't seem like it's a huge land drop for that school. So I don't see how that would be affecting if it's designated as part of the village and not gonna impede any of the forest recreation, then I don't have a problem with the school being located there. So, that was my only concern of the 158,000 square feet, 20,000 square feet is a pretty small percentage.

So that answers my question there. I guess I just would like some clarification on that rendering that you had for the 96 foot tall building compared to the other renderings that you could have more of a view of Granite Chief and all the backside of that mountain.

Would you like, sorry, Arden, would you like an exhibit pulled up?

No, I was gonna keep it at a lay level for myself, if that's okay. Supervisor's Arden Hearing, Head of Real Estate Development for Alterra in Palisades. Thank you for the comments and the consideration. On the height, at Planning Commission, Lovett had some fancy images showing the grade change and total elevation. So you can imagine, first off, changes to Lot 12 were a big part of the theme of consolidating development in the village on disturbed area rather than on the hillside.

And yes, that means a little bit more density on that disturbed area. Pound for pound, the height difference is not that great. Currently, there's a slope from the creek up to the village of 15 or so feet. Right now, the top of the current village is about 90 feet in height, love it, about 90 feet. So it would be very close if you're looking out at the plane where we are down and then 96 feet.

So it's very close to plane as far as the ultimate height where we would be. We do not have flexibility on that because it is fundamental to the financial viability of a much reduced project. I just wanna remind everyone, we did not reduce Creek restoration. All of these fees we're paying to mitigate traffic. We kept a lot of these things in there because of items such as this particular height.

It's really critical to the overall development. If I could just touch on to the Lot 16 area with the league and Sierra Watch, the makeup area for the easement. So any square footage tied to the easement of a future project, the easement predates that project and myself. But for that area, we actually added conservation area adjacent to Lot 18 with the league a few months ago. So the total area to be protected in perpetuity is to remain constant. Just wanna clarify that.

Okay, great. Thank you for the clarification. That's all I have. Thank you.

Supervisor Jones.

Yes, questions that I have about the charter school. We were just told that only a third of the students are in the Valley and the ingress and egress is one lane road, I mean, the one road is Olympic Valley Road. So the concern I'm thinking about is the added traffic. I have several elementary schools in my district that traffic is just such a huge problem and the people who live there of course are the ones who have the problem. And so the school year which is quite long these days, think we only get two months off for summer.

I can't imagine what it's gonna be like when you add that to all of the tourist traffic that's trying to come and go during the winter months. During the winter months is when school is in session as well. So that's what I'm thinking. Two thirds of the students there are going to be coming from outside of the valley in. So that's just a concern I would have if I lived there.

Yeah, thank you, Supervisor Jones. I'll probably hand it over to Katie Jackson to respond, but I should note that it is an existing condition. The school is existing. And so I will hand it to Katie. Thank you.

Yeah, Katie Jackson, engineering manager with the Department of Public Works. As Chris noted, it is an existing school with the two thirty five to two forty students. And I think those numbers that we heard from the president were currently one third live in the Valley and two thirds commute from outside the Valley. So, know, off the top of my head, the effect of moving the school would just change where those school children are dropped off within the valley. But as we stated earlier, staff stated earlier, there would be further analysis that's needed.

And so that would include a traffic study, especially for anything as traffic intense as a school. As you noted, we have lots of schools all throughout the county and we have lots of traffic problems around our schools. Good news is they come and go quickly with drop off and pick up times, but that is certainly something that could be a concern and it would definitely raise to a level of additional analysis if the school was proposed at this location.

Thank you.

Supervisor Demetay.

Yeah, thank you. One more, I found the page I was looking for. So exhibit three point five and three point six, has there been any concern with the residents who actually live in Squaw Valley, Palisades, or whatever you wanna call it, about the height of this Olympic Valley, thank you. I'm dyslexic, so sometimes it changes in my head. So I'm gonna ask Amy or I would like to know, sure, Kurt, you can come up.

Keith, you can come up, sorry. I guess driving in there is a longtime skier going in there, people who live there. So I'm really concerned about the people who live here because that's my decisions are made by. Does this obviously doesn't seem to be a problem. Haven't heard it in public comment, but I guess now that I'm thinking about it and I see these pictures and I

see these renderings as an issue for anybody. I'm Keith Fountain. I'm a member of the community resident for twenty five years. And thank you for the opportunity to come back and answer. I'm sure there's others will have different opinions. That's been fifteen years worth of discussion. The mountain adventure center was gonna be 96 feet. It was gonna be higher up on the slope, and it was not liked by anybody, and it's gone. The 96 foot level now is down closer to the creek. As Arden pointed out, if it's built to 96 feet, it'll be about the same level of the tallest building in the village as it is now.

Palisades Tahoe Lodge where I live is sloped side adjacent to the village where we had the event last night. And when I look out at the village and the new village, I will see the height that's consistent with what's there should they do the 96.

Okay.

But the changes that have been made to bring it to 900 units from 1,300 units with the help of Lovett has opened up all the view sites and the walkways and the pedestrian gatherings. And that's all been considered in the context of potentially one of those buildings on being bigger hotel or there. And it's illustrated in a couple of the maps and renderings.

And when

you drive in, you do see it.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

I'm not going to open it up for more public comment. Was just a specific request.

I have other people who live in Olympic Valley who have Thank you.

I appreciate it.

And I heard you and I have all your notes written down. So that's why I asked the question because you asked that question. So I did comment on your stuff.

Supervisor Jim Mate, if I could

just add.

Yes. Obviously this is a point of contention, this whole project has been. And I do think the resolution that has been arrived at isn't perfect, isn't to everybody's desires as you've heard today, but we have made incredible progress. And consolidating that development in the village center reduces the visual impact in other areas. So I think both sides are valid, you're hearing that, and really it's up to us to consider all the parties, all the litigation that's gone on in making that decision. Thanks.

Okay. I'm good with all my answers. Thank you.

Any other questions, comments? I would just say I think it's been really refreshing to see so many positive comments and support. And clearly as supervisor Gustafson said, there there is no perfection in this project or really any project. You can try and perfect something to death. And I think there has been huge strides made in this project.

And you know, there are concerns about the potential future school, but as has been noted multiple times, there will be a process for that. And that's why those processes are in place. And so I am very supportive of moving forward. I'm content with the Planning Commission's recommendation and content with the answers from staff today. And Supervisor Gustafson.

Thank you, Chair. I didn't have a moment earlier to really thank everybody who's participated in this process and there's so many more that aren't here today, which is a testament to we have arrived at a compromise. And compromises, neither side gets fully what they want, but we all work together to move our community forward. I, being party, I was privileged enough to sit in on some of the settlement discussions led by our County Counsel, Clayton, who did an excellent job with the parties. And here, the very positive dialogue of reducing the project as significantly as it was done.

With the intent, on Lot 16 And 18, that those were not available for private development. That the changes that we, the small change on maybe allowing a school still has to go through a lot of public scrutiny and I'm confident of that and our environmental review process on that to ensure that if that is the desired location, it is still going to go through quite a bit of review and public process that will allow people to participate in that. None of us know what we're gonna need or want five years from now, ten years from now, but at this point in time, this settlement between the developer, Altera, and their leadership as well as with the League to Save Lake Tahoe and Sierra Watch was a monumental effort and I thank all the parties for the diligence in arriving at a solution that we can move forward proudly as a community and see a win win moving forward for this area. I think about moving here and my first home was on Olympic Valley Road many many many years ago. And I think about the age of that infrastructure as former supervisor Euler mentioned.

Most of it was built for the nineteen sixty Olympics, sixty six years ago. Much of it went into the ground in the late 50s. And what we know now, what we require now, and how we operate now is so dramatically different. And so I'm looking forward to seeing the improvements that will benefit all of our community here at the lake as well as in the valley and in our communities, surrounding communities to serve our communities. So thank you for that. And I would be happy to make the motions that were read into the record unless I need to reread I

think they need to be individual motions. Okay.

So they do need to be individual. And they could be one A, B, C, D, E. We have a recommendation slide.

Okay.

But I would just want to mention here for everyone's benefit that there were some changes that were read in by staff when they provided the recommendations that are different from what's listed on the agenda. That includes the amended resolution, which is attachment B, to include the language that was requested by the applicant, and also noted in the Schutte Mahali letter, And also to include the errata, which has that change to the workforce housing component, sorry, the errata to the development agreement that has the change to the workforce housing component timing. So those are the recommendations being provided by staff and those are noted in one A, B, C, D and E of the recommendations made by staff. Since they were read in, you don't need to do that other than to reference one A, B, C, D and E. Then

I would be happy to make a motion to approve item one A.

I will second.

Moved by Gustafson, seconded by DeMate. I don't need a roll call on that. Okay, all in favor? Aye. Aye. And none opposed? No abstentions.

I'll move approval of item one B.

Second. Moved by Gustafson, seconded by Demetay. All those in favor? Aye. None opposed, no abstentions.

I'll make a motion to approve item one C.

Second.

Moved by Gustafson, seconded by Demetay. All those in favor? Aye. None opposed and no abstentions.

Move approval of item one d. Second.

Moved by Gustafson, seconded by Demetay. All those in favor? Aye. None opposed and no abstentions.

And I'll move approval of item one E.

Second.

And moved by Gustafson, seconded by Demetay. All those in favor? Aye. And no opposed and no abstentions. All right, thank you for that.

I guess we're done. All right. With that, we are going to adjourn our meeting until our next scheduled meeting, which is on May 19. Thank you all for being here.