Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Megan, don't tell me that.

all right good morning everyone welcome to the tuesday august 26 20 20 25th 2026 board of supervisors meeting happy to have you here today we are going to start with our flag salute led by our treasurer tax collector tristan butcher Thank You mr. butcher we will now move to our consent agenda I know we have item 17 a requested to be pulled for discussion are there any other items that the board would like to pull and is there anyone here in the chambers who'd like to pull an item off of consent and anyone online we have one online chair

Caller, would you like to have an item removed from consent?

No, I actually want to speak in support of one, so I'll lower my hand.

Okay.

All right, then we will go to the remaining items, if I can get a motion.

I'll move approval.

Second. Moved by Jones, seconded by Gustafson. This is a roll call vote.

Supervisor Gore? Aye. Supervisor DeMattei? Yes. Supervisor Jones? Aye. Supervisor Gustafson? Aye. Chair Landon?

Yes. We will now move to item 17A.

Thank you for pulling this item. We did have a public request, so I asked the chairperson to pull this this morning, and I think Gloria is going to do this. Yes.

Thank you everyone. Gloria Stearns with Placer County Economic Development and Housing. I'd like to start first by reading the action requested into the record. Number one, adopt a resolution recommending Kings Beach census tract 06061020107, an eligible census tract for Opportunity Zone 2.0 be nominated by the state of California for designation into the federal Opportunity Zone 2.0 program. And number two, determine the proposed action is not a project pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15378. This program, Opportunity Zones are a rarely used economic incentive that provides certain qualified investments to receive federal tax benefits in an eligible designated area. Opportunity Zones were originally created in 2017 and the program was recently updated, resulting in new Opportunity Zones being nominated in July of 2026. Placer County nominated the eligible census tract that contains Kings Beach. The cities of Lincoln, Roseville, and Auburn also nominated census tracts. We are aware that less than 25% of nominated sites will be moved forward for federal consideration. The state government soon after said no to the Placer County nominated census tract. We in economic development believe that opportunity zones may be a useful tool for the area, so we are using the public comment period, which is currently open, and it ends on Friday, to garner support from the public. We have letters coming in, or already submitted, from TRPA, the Tahoe Prosperity Center, Sierra College, the North State BIA, and we have NTCA engaged, and they were one of our earliest supporters. If the support of the community somehow sways the state to reconsider the no and change it to recommended, we may still need a Board of Supervisors resolution to move forward. Today's action is simply for the Board to provide a resolution which would be required by the state if the state changes King's Beach from no to recommended. So my team and I are ready for your questions.

Great, thank you, Gloria. Supervisor Jones. Oh, I'm sorry. Supervisor Gustafson. Thank you.

Gloria, thanks for being here today. I know that in reading the public comments that we've received and a few phone calls I've had, there's some misunderstanding potentially. This is purely a funding mechanism if it were to take place. It doesn't change any land use zoning. It's not specific to any projects.

Is that correct? Correct. The word zone in this case just means a designated area. It is not what we would consider a zoning change.

At the summit last week, I was talking to one of our congressional representatives who said it is rarely used. They'd hoped it would have done more to generate financial investments. uh... we talked about the extremely high cost of development in the tahoe area and any opportunities there were for additional uh... funding for projects because of that otherwise uh... what we're finding is that word people are looking at the county to subsidize and so i think you know in my uh... reading of the concerns it was really specific to a project or two increasing land use zoning designations or something else. It wasn't about the actual tool of financing. So I appreciate the clarifications and hopefully those listening in will comment and can clarify if I missed any of their concerns.

And to be very clear, support of the Opportunity Zone designation does not bind the board to any support of projects known or unknown at this time. It just would allow us to try to move forward with the state in identifying another potential funding opportunity, and again, a rarely used one.

Right, through federal sources versus local sources. Correct. Correct, by those tax credits. Thank you.

Thank you. Supervisor DiMattei.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Gloria, for that presentation. Are we looking at all of Kings Beach, like the whole city of Kings Beach? Is that what this is for? Because I've, back in 2019, toured a lot of Opportunity Zones, and none of them look like Kings Beach. The ones I looked at were very distressed, very abandoned. So how do we think? I mean, it's a great opportunity. I love them. They're great. tax benefits to people who want to invest in our love to have more people invest up here but word from what i see and i see kings beach it's like completely different ends of the spectrum so how did we come up with kings beach to be opportunities because It just doesn't fit the criteria that I've walked through personally to invest in.

Yeah, Placer County staff did not make that choice. We received information from the state on eligible census tracts throughout the entire state. So they identified several, I think there were like 25,000 that will be identified of that. Only 6,000 will get moved forward. So at using the state selection criteria, they were the ones who decided that that was the only eligible track that we could nominate. So this project came up very shortly and with a very quick lead time, so staff simply submitted the one eligible track that we have. And so regardless of anybody's opinion on whether some areas are good or not, just remember it's a tool that could be used in rare cases, and it's very rare. Yeah?

It's a great tool, I've looked into it, and it just seems like some of the properties that you want to do that with, I mean it's a 10 year extension, right? You stay there for 10 years, you get to not pay capital gains tax if you keep your, it's a great tool, but it's just, When I saw it on Kings Beach and I'm like, where I've toured opportunity zones, they sure don't look like Kings Beach. So that's why I was asking how Kings Beach became eligible for.

It has to do with the census track data, right? The income levels as well as the vacancy factor and the blighted condition of just some of the buildings. So it wouldn't necessarily mean that somebody would tear down an existing good building, but some of the boarded up buildings, gated off buildings might be a place for investment. is my understanding.

Right. Disadvantaged, they call them disadvantaged communities. So they've identified the census tracts that they consider, that they, the state, consider to be disadvantaged based on their selection criteria. So remember, they went to GIS, they put in their criteria, and out popped their census tracts.

So they were ranked. What did Kings Beach come out ranked?

We don't know about a ranking. We were just given the list of eligible or not eligible. So it was eligible for the state when we applied. And then soon after, they told us they did not want it to move forward.

No, I think it's great. I'm all in favor of it. I just was shocked when I saw that this would be an opportunity zone, considering what I've seen in the past. But I guess things change. So thank you for that.

All right. Is there anyone here in the chambers who'd like to comment on this item?

Good morning, Chair Landon, board members, Daniel and Clayton, Wayne Nader. Tahoe, when I was younger, was a thriving community with lots of residents that lived there to support the business community. Unfortunately, that has changed pretty dramatically. They're now dependent on seasonal, which is certainly unpredictable and challenging, again, for them to navigate and be fiscally, hopefully, viable. I'd like to think that this would help that, and it may, but I think what you're looking at is investors who are gonna be looking at their best return. As you know, I've talked to you a lot about housing up there and the urgent need. I know you all know that. I know Supervisor Gustafson knows it intimately. But I think that as an investor, what they're gonna look at is where's my best return, and that could be more leaning towards development of condos, which again, have higher returns to them. I would like, if this thing, if this Opportunity Zone was just focused on the unmet needs of Kings Beach, which redevelopment is something we really need there as well, I would be an enthusiastic supporter of it, but I just don't believe that that's where those dollars are gonna end up. So I have real concerns about it. There's good and bad about it, yeah, absolutely. I think that there should have been further discussion on it. I think it should be extended. It shouldn't have been in a consent item in Auburn. It should have been up in Tahoe. You have a meeting coming up shortly that gives more opportunity for the community to give input about their concerns about it. is something I wanted to pass on to you. Those are my comments on that. I want to give you a byline just on something else real quick. It is way past time for Placer County Elections Office to take over all the elections in Placer County.

Oh, I don't think that's related. Sorry, we're not in public comment yet.

Understood.

Thank you. All right, anyone else here in the chambers who would like to comment on this item? And is there anyone online?

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

GREETINGS, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THIS LEAKS OUT BEYOND TAHOE IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE CRITERIA WHERE THERE WAS IDENTIFICATION, SAY, WITH THE SB 330 OVERLAYS THAT THE COUNTY WIDE HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED BASED OFF OF THE CENSUS FROM 2010. Which is ridiculous in my mind, but I just would like to see when you're doing these identifications, is that being played into it? Because obviously that was an HCD overlay and that got no pushback at all when that was introduced. So I yield. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Hi there, good morning chair and members of the board. My name is Christian Strobel. I'm a developer who's been developing in Tahoe for over 20 years.

I think we may have lost you.

Hello, can you hear me?

Now we can hear you.

I'm not sure what you missed, but I'm a local developer. I've been developing in Tahoe for 20 years. Um, and, uh, I'm calling in, in strong support, um, of this resolution, recognizing the census tract. I think a couple of things to clarify here, um, Kings beach was qualified because it's area median income is 41,000, which is 46% of plaza counties. Uh, median income, uh, when the census was taken. So it is a low income community. As a hotel owner and developer up there, most of my staff live in Kings Beach, and it's a community that could be extremely vibrant with a little bit more support. A couple of things I wanted to say. Crucially, it changes zero land use rules. It does not alter zoning. It grants no entitlement shortcuts. It doesn't provide a bypass to TRPA or CEQA. It leaves every public review process and legal right intact. What it does do is bridge the gap to redevelop some of these aging dilapidated properties in Kings Beach. Meeting Lake Tahoe's high environmental standards, as you all know, with state-of-the-art stormwater treatment, runoff capture, site coverage, not to mention the fire improvements when you renovate these old buildings, is extremely costly. And so this federal tool helps private capital absorb these high environmental building costs and develop higher quality community-focused projects. I did want to push back a little bit on the condo concept. When people are developing condos, they typically have to get out of those condos relatively quickly to make their returns. This program is very much encouraged for people to hold onto the property for 10 years plus, which is a long-term hold and exactly the kind of investment we need in this area. I wanted to be very specific, very direct here. The submission deadline is this Friday, August 28th. And the reason it's come up so quickly is we only found out that Kings Beach was not put forward by the state a few weeks ago. So we've scrambled to try and get some public support for it and get this resolution. So we really need the board to vote on this resolution today. And as mentioned, it doesn't change anything in terms of entitlements, approvals. It costs $0 to Placer County and gives a really great opportunity for Kings Beach to get the private investment it needs. And so deferring this resolution means leaving Kings Beach off the nomination list. And so I really encourage everyone to vote yes and pass the resolution today. Thank you.

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

Yeah, hi, Ann Nichols, North Tahoe Preservation Alliance. Please vote no on this. This is a completely inappropriate site. The average property value in Kings Beach is $700,000. This is for places like 4th Street in Reno, Detroit. This is a lever that you're trying to pull with TRPA that is very dangerous. What it is going to do is cause problems. higher land and housing prices, tax advantages, investors will be willing to pay more. You're subsidizing development that would happen anyway. There's a ton of interest in Kings Beach for development with all these projects, but they actually, they never pencil because it's a tourism economy. It's very, you know, high and low and it's, difficult because of that and it's difficult because of the constraints of the basin there's no guaranteed benefit to the community they can build whatever they want they can it doesn't change land use but they can just they don't have to build anything that benefits housing or uh fire they um the right real estate speculation will dominate the uh Gentrification and displacement will be rampant. The Urban Institute identifies this as the most potentially most harmful outcome of an opportunity zone. And I know you're desperate to get these bad investments that I guess actually we the people as Placer County have made off the books. But this is more wrong-headed solutions. and disappointed that TRPA, I've been a realtor for 50 years, Nevada and California, at Tahoe, this is not the way to do it. It's going to make everything more expensive, more difficult, and we need to have certain community benefits. There's no guarantee. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Yes, good morning Chair and Board. This is Patricia Orr, Kings Beach resident and strong North Tahoe leader. I submitted written comments and I really hope you look at many of the questions that I submitted for this discussion. In this comment, I want to focus more on the downstream effect of this. County used Kings Beach Center and Eastern Gateways as support and stated they are shovel ready and also said that the applications opportunity zones will help these qualifying projects become feasible. So my question in my Is this primarily a broader economic development strategy? Hopefully, yes. But is this also a feasibility strategy for Kings Beach Center and Eastern Gateway? And if that is the case, what makes this feasibility question even more important is, Last year, Supervisor Gustafson, I see you're talking, said to us as the public that transparency and financial records around these elements should be shown to the public before moving forward. A year later, we don't know where that is. YOU'RE MAKING DECISIONS ON DOLLAR HILL AND SO FORTH, BUT IF YOU'RE USING THESE TWO PROJECTS AS THE CATALYST FOR THE OPPORTUNITY ZONE, MY ASK IS ARE YOU LOOKING AT WHAT HAPPENS? IMAGINE IF THIS IS WHAT KEEPS ME OFF. IMAGINE IF YOU APPROVE THESE TWO SITES AS THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD OF APPROVALS. THE PROPERTY TRANSFERS AND THEN WE HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY ZONE DESIGNATION AVAILABLE. The development opportunity for this becomes more attractive. litigation happens financing shift you know conditions change the market changes and as we are waiting like palisades for ten years getting through litigation at kings beach center what happens this value of the land is so much more that the developer then decides the best interest is just to sell it without it ever coming so my question to you is what happens to kings beach then Could ownership change before the town center, workforce housing, public parking, and other community benefits even ever get delivered? And if so, if you move forward with Opportunity Zone, I hope you go back and look at what protections in place for the public properties that may transfer that are being used as incentives and stacked again to protect us. What's to guarantee that this developer will deliver after it closes escrow? There is no protections in place, and you're giving an opportunity zone designation for new developers to come in and do whatever they want, as Ann said. So my question is, will that happen? Thank you for your comments. Can you please wrap up your comments? yes you know and what will the county do while it still has leverage and choices or will you only decide after approvals and transfers to share anything with the community thank you thank you caller please unmute your mic and give your comments

Good morning. This is Samir Tuma. I'm in Kings Beach as we speak right now. And I appreciate the opportunity to talk on this. Address a few comments that have been made. You know, Kings Beach and some of the other communities in Tahoe, really there's sort of this dual economy. There's the economy of... the tourists who come here, the second homeowners who come here, enjoy the environment. But the economy of a lot of the locals in particular in Kings Beach is very different. And so Supervisor DeMattei, I hear what you're saying. It kind of, it doesn't look in some ways on the surface as you see in other opportunity zones. But I think when you look below the surface and you look at the economy of the locals, it's very challenging. And one of the previous callers was talking about the challenge of getting and retaining employees in the area and producing employee housing. This is really an opportunity to increase the ability of developers to put workforce housing into the community. Personally, I have a small parcel in Kings Beach that I've been trying for four years to make pencil to put four small workforce housing units on. It doesn't work. It doesn't pencil. This is an opportunity for funding, yes, but it's not funding coming from the local community. It's not coming from the county. It's not even coming from the state. It's coming in the form of tax breaks. And that's what makes it an opportunity to bridge the gap. Ms. Nichols made a comment that the projects don't, pencil. And she's absolutely right. They don't pencil. But this is a way to make them pencil and to get housing, workforce housing in particular, built on the ground. It's difficult to make workforce housing work because it costs fairly close to the same amount that it costs to build a for sale unit or a house that wouldn't be used for the workforce. But you don't get the rents that you would get with these other homes. And to, again, another previous caller's comment, these are 10-year holds. These are something that creates stability. So this isn't coming in, building units, flipping them, and getting them out. This is a long-term commitment by developers to produce workforce housing. So I strongly support this effort, and I think it'll make a big difference in bringing workforce housing to a community where a large portion of our workforce work. Thanks for your time this morning.

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

Hello, this is Jim Kaplan, a longtime community member and building owner and also developer in Kings Beach. And I think some of the points that are missed is this is going to bring so much outside funding that will bring down the costs of these projects that don't pencil. I mean, there's a reason why we have so much blight in Kings Beach. I don't know. if everybody's driven the Kings Beach Strip in a long time, but all these buildings are stuck in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and the ones that aren't, there's a lot of fenced-in areas that are just light and boarded-up buildings. And this is the type of invigoration that Kings Beach needs. It's been sitting there with some great infrastructure improvements that have been done by the government over 10 years ago, and there haven't been any new projects being delivered. So this will be the invigoration that is needed and shot in the arm of outside capital. Because the nice thing is capital comes from all around the country because they're all just chasing this tax-free or limited... capital gains. At some point, they have to pay capital gains, but there is a reduction in the capital gains. So it's just a cheaper way to be able to finance these projects. It doesn't change the land use. It doesn't change anything except for it brings in outside capital from across the country. So I think it is something that will be transformative for the Kings Beach area if it's even possible to get at this point because we're so late in the game. And it doesn't change from the scrutiny that everybody will be able to put on every project from within the community. Each project will still need to go through TRPA and through Placer County. in the ways that they're going to go through. It just brings in less expensive capital and infusion of money that isn't looking at Kings Beach now because nothing pencils and it doesn't give any type of return. And when you bring in people that are working with capital gains, that are trying to postpone in paying the capital gains tax that brings in a less discretionary and not so focused on the bottom line of what their return will be. So I would strongly urge if we're even able to get it at this point to vote yes on this. Thank you for your time. I really appreciate your efforts.

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

Good morning, Chair Landon and distinguished board members. This is Tony Kowalski, President and CEO of the North Tahoe Community Alliance, here to strongly support recommending the said Kings Beach Census tract for designation as an Opportunity Zone. For well over a decade, Placer County and its partners have invested in the environmental and economic revitalization in the North Lake Tahoe Basin area. We've made meaningful progress too, but to achieve the community's long-term vision, we need additional tools to attract and leverage private capital, not simply for economic development, but for environmental protection, infrastructure, housing, transportation, and the long-term sustainability of the Tahoe Basin. One of the previous callers, asked a question and hoped that this would be part of a broader economic development effort. And it certainly is. And Kings Beach is uniquely prepared for that investment. A healthy local economy creates jobs, supports small businesses, generates investment, and provides the tax base and resources necessary to sustain our community. But the economic vitality also depends on whether people can afford to live here, work here, and get jobs here whether businesses can attract and retain those employees and whether our infrastructure can support the visitors and residents who depend on it in kings beach these issues are deeply connected workforce housing transportation environmental infrastructure are all tied to economic development strategy The Kings Beach Commercial Core Project, as you remember, in 2017 gave us $50 million that was reinvested to make improvements in the commercial corridor, delivering modern sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, landscaping, parking, transit improvements, and critically important water quality infrastructure. Modern redevelopment provides an opportunity to correct existing infrastructure deficiencies, improve stormwater management, incorporate water quality improvements, and reduce sediment and polluted runoff from entering the lake. Those investments created a stronger platform for private economic activity, but the work's not finished. We need private investment to help us achieve both economic and environmental outcomes we're seeking in our community. And the same connection we can talk about housing to workforce housing isn't simply housing issue. It's an economic development issue is if teachers, hospitality workers, public employees and other workers can't afford to live in the communities where they work businesses struggle to recruit and train and retain those employees. And that affects the vitality of every business in Kings beach. Ultimately, that is what the community vitality means, a healthy economy that supports a healthy community while protecting the environment that makes Kings Beach such a special place to live, work and visit. Let's use this opportunity here today to leverage the investments we have already made, attract responsible private capital and build a stronger, more resilient and more vibrant Kings Beach for the next generation. Thanks for your leadership on this, your partnership and your consideration.

Thank you.

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

Good morning.

Ellie Waller.

This is a very confusing issue for many people. And it is not fair to the residents of Placer County not to have been involved at a unique level in Tahoe. using the AMI, the average median income for an area is a false lead. The problem in Placer County have been many, many years. To talk about Kings Beach now, how many developers, how much money did Placer County use to bail out? And now they don't want to be the funder of these failed projects. If we're going to be asking for federal funds, we need to be very cautious of what this looks like if they start digging into these failed projects. There are numerous. Tahoe City probably will never get identified as one of these zones. I'm not sure why Kings Beach should rise to the level at this point. And in the future, I'm hoping that Placer County will take into consideration that when you have meetings close, as it was brought up, that these things need to be discussed before you have an imminent deadline. I support the comments of Ann Nichols, Patricia Orr, Wayne Nader, and thank you, Supervisor Damadia, for identifying that this is an unusual request and it should not be responded to in the positive. Thank you.

Thank you.

No further callers.

all right i will go ahead and close public comment on this item and uh... i'm not sure if there were any direct questions that you needed to answer

We just had a little confab. First of all, this is a not federal funds. This would be like tax breaks for people that meet certain qualifying criteria in their project. Namely, holding the investment for a long period of time. What we've noticed is that tends to be smaller and more local developers rather than the big ones who can plunk a big name hotel somewhere in any community across the United States. So just to clarify that, another one that I would like to comment on is the question of shovel ready. And they asked about what we used as selection criteria for shovel ready projects. Placer County did not determine that term. We also did not determine which census tracts were eligible. The state has definitions for those and in fact the state definition can be found on the GO-Biz website for their business ready sites program that lists about five or six different selection criteria related to being shovel ready. In the Kings Beach census tract, the only qualifying projects were the 39 North one and the Eastern Gateway housing. which allowed us to even apply if we didn't even have those two projects we would not have even been able to apply for this consideration that does not mean that this is moving forward that does not mean that you're in favor of those projects it does not commit you to anything related to those this is simply asking for a resolution in case we can manage the long shot of getting the state to change us from a no to a yes

Thank you. Supervisor Gore. I appreciate that clarification. I appreciate the public's comment and I'd like to make a motion to approve the item.

And Supervisor Gustafson, I think, do you have a comment?

I will second it, and then I had a couple comments to make. Thank you. And I just, I want to, as in everything that we've been attempting to do for many decades in Tahoe, it generates a lot of concern and a lot of fear from the community and distrust, and you heard that. I want to go back to this as a potential financing mechanism, not an approval of a project. And that would still stay with all of the regulatory agencies that it would go through. You know, there's been a lack of new development. There's a lot of ideas, a lot of proposals, and then a lot of failed projects, as I think a couple of the callers spoke to. So this tool may help. But again, all of those decisions would be made through the public process as to whether to use these funds or not or reject the concept or not. So that is why I'm gonna second it to move it to the next stage. If it changes and a project development comes in that could use these tools, then we will have that debate in the chambers here and at the Planning Commission and at TRPA as to whether that project meets those criteria. But I wanna remind the public that We fought to uphold the area plan on the condos on the beach at La Lima when they brought that project forward. And we said, no, you can't do the condos on the beach. The area plan didn't call for that. When 39 North came with a height change, we said no to the height change. Go back to the drawing board and come in compliance. So we are upholding the area plan that was adopted by the community. And we're looking for tools to implement that. So thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we have a motion by Gore and a second by Gustafson. Supervisor DiMattei, did you have a comment?

Just one more comment to follow up on my first comment that the places that I did tour and now that I've seen them after they were rebuilt, a majority of them were all for housing and most of them were for affordable housing or workforce housing. So I don't want anybody to have that misperception that we're going to, you know, these are going to be giant hotels or what have you. It seems the opportunities that I've seen and have gone forward that have passed through were actually beneficial to the people who actually work in the community. They're rundown buildings. We don't have rundown buildings like that in Kings Beach, not to compare the two. But it seems like it was a great opportunity to invest in. You hold it there for 10 years plus, whatever you want to do. But it was actually beneficial to the people who actually work in that community that had a better place to stay. So this is just a recommendation. There's still a lot more that would have to come through. I mean, our biggest hurdles are still the county and TRPA to go build something if you go ask anybody. So we still have other hurdles besides this. But I think it's great to bring money in here and help get through those hurdles. So I would... That's it. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. So we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we will now move to public comment. This is the time for anyone here in the chambers and online to comment on items that are not on our agenda. And just as a reminder, at the conclusion of your three minutes, a timer will sound and the chair will ask you to conclude your remarks. If you haven't finished within 15 seconds of the timer sounding, your microphone will be turned off. And because we have a very important, well, we have a number of important items today, but we have a very important item coming up that was at 9.30. I am going to remind folks that if comments can't be heard within the 15-minute time frame, the public comment period will be taken up at the end of the meeting. So with that, Mr. Nader.

Morning again Wayne Nader. My apologies for bringing a subject up that was not related earlier. I have an obligation and I wasn't sure I was going to be here for public comment. I would just very briefly again say that it is way past time for Placer County Elections Office to take over the responsibilities of elections in Placer County. Right now it is with these various cities, it is within the clerk's office to do that. Well, the clerks are not as up to speed on a lot of the election laws as, obviously, Ryan Ronco, our election person. And so there's inconsistencies out there. There's actually, I would consider, abuse that is going on out there. So I think it's really time for us to have a serious conversation about that. the county taking over that responsibility i think you're going to hear more about that there is kind of a groundswell in the community about the frustrations with some of the elections offices that are being held in the cities thank you i appreciate your time thank you

Good morning, Gary McDonald, Executive Director of Stand Up Plaza. I first want to say, express my gratitude for the ARPA money that we received last year. We made some significant upgrades to our safe house. We increased our efficiencies and we finished the year with a small net profit, which is very positive. But the reason I'm here today is because, and I'm gonna pretend I'm 20 years younger and use my phone. Our service numbers for fiscal year 25-26 have been counted. Sadly, our numbers have increased significantly. Stand-up class are provided over 63,000 program services, engaging more than 34,000 residents. We responded to 993 law enforcement calls. Our emergency response teams responded to 157 strangulation exams. 856 domestic violence calls, 126 sexual assault calls. Sexual assaults were up 61%. Domestic violence calls averaged over 16 per week. We provided $838,000 in emergency support items, diapers, hygiene products, food, and more. We answered our crisis line 11,966 times. It's up 1,000 calls from the year before. Between a safe house with a wait list and an ongoing barrage of emergency requests for services, we divided our operations department into two departments to better address the need. In effect, we doubled our safe house staff and our crisis line staff. We provided 8,347 safe house bed nights, plus 29,458 housing bed nights. Added together, that's the equivalent of providing housing for more than 103 people every night of the year, 365 days. The majority, of course, are traumatized women and children. Domestic violence is one of the leading causes of homelessness for women with children. For comparison purposes only, the Gathering In runs a 100-bed emergency housing program on the DeWitt campus. The mobile church partner program typically accommodates 50 to 70 unhoused individuals per day. Again, we're at 103. Placer County's latest point in time count found homelessness decreased by 10% as compared with last year. Homelessness numbers are down. Our numbers are skyrocketing. In June 2025, the Board of Supervisors approved shelter operating contracts with the gathering in totaling over $7 million. Currently, Stand Up Placer has two contracts totaling 114,000. I'll hurry. Every 44 minutes, someone in Placer County reaches out to Stand Up Placer for help escaping domestic violence, sexual assault, or sex trafficking. The calls are not stopping. They're coming in faster and more frequently. I'm coming to you to ask for a discussion to have support for this year. Thank you so much, and sorry I went long.

I won't use my phone next time. Thank you. All right, anyone else here in the chambers who has a public comment?

Mark Hoffman from right here in Auburn. I'm pleased to represent as the Community Outreach and Civic Engagement Chair of Placer Repertory Theatre. Placer Repertory Theatre is a 501c3 nonprofit organization providing educational and professional theater in Placer County. We have no permanent performance and rehearsal space, but we do take our performances to all the communities in the area. through either rented space or space that is offered to us by the entities that contract with us. Our season opens next month with the show Dracula. There are three main stage shows in the season. In addition to those shows, which we provide, we also provide educational shows and services to schools and other entities. We have our children's theater, family theater, and other school programs. We are official vendors with several of the school districts in the area. And I just wanted to apprise you of our opening of our 26-27 season. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, is there anyone online?

Yes, Chair. Caller, please unmute your mic and give your comments.

Greetings again, Supervisors. Diane Louise Alessi, founder and director of Christian Valley Park Residents Coalition in Placer County for 60 years, District 5. CBPRC supports lawful residential care and equal treatment. However, our concern is not the identity of the residents. Our concern is whether Placer County will remove meaningful site review for facilities serving seven through 16 clients in rural communities with limited roads, constrained emergency access, wildfire evacuation risks, water limitations, septic constraints, and infrastructure built for existing residential parcel patterns. State law clearly protects qualifying facilities serving six or fewer persons, but the county's own housing element program, HE42, states that facilities serving seven or more clients in single family resident districts are to be allowed with a minor use permit. Please refrain or retain that safeguard. A minor use permit should require objective review of water and wastewater, capacity, fire protection, emergency access, evacuation, parking, traffic, staffing, operational intensity, and consultation with the affected districts such as our special districts and service providers. We ask that the ZTA until the county be continued until the ZTA identifies the exact legal authority for each change, demonstrates general plan consistency and completes appropriate sequel review and adopts enforceable safeguards for our rural communities. I'd also like to pivot to just briefly the expansion of surveillance cameras and warrantless surveillance. You have to be living under a rock to know that the nation is rejecting that. And FLOC is just a partner in an overarching reality of this surveillance. I oppose that. I know Cindy Gustafson is promoting it, wants more of it on Highway 80 for truckers, so on and so forth. I'm gonna tell you right now, when that CHP was doing what they call haloing, where they would do a whole string of them and just do a whole day and just chase all these guys down and sit on the overpasses, that limits the danger risk. We need to hire more people, not more cameras. That's what we need. We need more families fed through their labor and their efforts. And the visible, not the camera, is what's going to save us. So with that, I yield. Thank you.

Thank you. Looks like we have two more public comments, and then we will move on with our agenda.

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

Yeah, hi again, Ann Nichols, North Tahoe Preservation Alliance. I want you guys to think about complex systems. Tahoe is a complex system. Placer County is. And when complex systems fail, they do it spectacularly. And pulling levers and not looking at the whole situation, which is very difficult. I know it's hard. We are at... We are overwhelmed already. We are failing already. Example was the 4th of July, the fire in Reno, all the cars came through North Shore to get around on 80. So, okay. So you talk about, oh, there's nothing but built. It's so terrible. Well, Placer County, with your policy, has allowed 524 units in Tahoe Vista and Kings Beach to be lost by changing them to timeshares or to set projects with TRPA, going to Martis Camp. In fact, the Truckee developments have gotten many of our units. So, you know, that's the people that have money to pay the most for it. Now, so you have to think about, and these, oh, things look terrible. That's because TRPA monetized entitlements and made everything more expensive. And it's just been the Wild West free-for-all. It's policy that is failing us. and that's TRPA and that's county. We need to look at this holistically, the whole thing. What you're doing now is you've given them 100% coverage, you've given them unlimited density, you've given them more height, all that, none of it is working. We have a tourism economy. It's not like Detroit. It's not like Reno. Thanks, you guys.

Thank you.

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

Good morning, Chair and Board. Patricia Orr, Kings Beach resident, Strong North Tahoe. I want to follow up on two related questions, or requests, actually, out on 39 North. First is financial feasibility. I recently asked Supervisor Gustafson whether the county plans to provide a current assessment of 39 North similar to what the board received on Dollar Creek. At Dollar Creek, the county took a fresh look at economics, its investments, and the remaining challenges to delivery. I think King's Beach deserves the same level of current due diligence. Cindy has indicated that BAE has updated some economics. I followed up with staff to understand that question. Six weeks later, I still don't have insight. Before the next major decisions, I urge the board and the community to see a current objective of whether the project being proposed today is feasibly and financially and realistically deliverable. what is the gap that remains we keep stacking incentives what public support is assumed what is still needed and what gives the county confidence that this project can move forward from approvals to financing construction and actual delivery and that leads to my second question which is the largest larger one last year a dedicated 39 north session at netrack was announced AUGUST 14TH WE WERE TOLD THAT A BROADER COMMUNITY CONVERSATION WILL HAPPEN BUT THAT HAS NEVER OCCURRED EIGHT YEARS WE'RE INTO THIS KING I BELIEVE KINGS BEACH DESERVES A TRUE COMMUNITY FORUM NOT ANOTHER ADVISORY BOARD UPDATE OR A DEVELOPER PRESENTATION WHERE THE WE NEED TO SEE THE CURRENT FULL PICTURE BROUGHT TOGETHER YOU TALKED ABOUT FAILING PROJECTS PROVE TO US AS RESIDENTS THAT WE SHOULD TRUST WHAT'S HAPPENING AS What is the town center being proposed? Every time we see it, it consistently changes. How does this relate to the vision? Give Kings Beach a dedicated community process before final approvals. You've shared that you would give this to us in CEQA, but with CEQA not happening, find another way to provide a meaningful way to inform us. Please do not let our first real opportunity to see and discuss this complete project at just another line of when you're approving it. Thank you.

Okay, with that, we will close public comment. I know we have board member and county executive reports. If there's anything we could just go through very quickly if you have something, because again, very important items coming up.

Supervisor Jones. Yeah, I just wanted to mention a couple of kind of public service things that we did last week. We were invited by Silver Wishes to help deliver flowers to some of the senior citizens in my district. That's always an enjoyable thing to do. A lot of happy faces. And then in addition to that, the Friends of the Library invite me every year to give a chat to a group called the Boys Team Charity in Granite Bay. And they clean up the grounds around the Granite Bay Library every year. And so she invites me every year to talk to the boys about leadership and volunteerism and community service and those kind of things. So it's always a fun time.

Great. Supervisor Gustafson.

I just wanted to report that the Auburn Library is now reopened. Thank you all to the county staff and all of the hard work. The Friends of the Library did write a check that they presented at the ribbon cutting for over $138,000 to an endowment. That's community contributions that are so appreciated. and the patience that the community has had while the library hasn't been open. I really wanted to thank our facilities staff for the great job on the renovation of the library, so thank you. And then secondly, if you haven't heard, last night the Auburn City Council did appoint Bridget Powers to the vacant seat that Mike Holmes left.

Supervisor Gore. Thank you. Appreciate that. I wanted to let the public know 9-11 is coming. It will have been 25 years since that took place. And so I'm really pleased that the county, in conjunction with the city of Roseville, we're putting together location on Vernon Street in downtown Roseville 3,000 flags where the members of the community can just come and stop by and walk through the flags and just stop and remember and so that's on September 11th and I would encourage us all to bring our children and grandchildren because 25 years ago a lot of them weren't around and I think it's so important that we recognize those who lost their lives and recognize the importance of protecting our

country so i hope you all can stop by on september 11th thank you thank you okay with that we will now move to our 9 30 timed item thank you all for your patience this is a commendation in honor of robert k sandman so um i will go ahead and read the commendation And then we will all celebrate Mr. Sandman. In the matter of a commendation recognizing Robert K. Sandman for 27 years of dedicated public service to the county of Placer, whereas Robert K. Sandman served the county of Placer dutifully for over 27 years, during that time he demonstrated an exceptional combination of legal expertise, institutional knowledge, sound judgment, and dedication to public service. And whereas Mr. Sandman commenced his employment with the county of Placer on May 24th, 1999 as a deputy county council and was assigned to advise and represent the county in special districts and transactional real estate and intergovernmental matters after having worked at the Sacramento city attorney's office and in private practice. And whereas in May of 2017, Mr. Sandman was promoted by supervising deputy county council in November of 2021. He was promoted to Assistant County Counsel, and then in March of 2025, he was promoted to Chief Assistant County Counsel. And whereas Mr. Sandman also provided legal counsel for the Western Placer Waste Management Authority starting in June of 1999 and served as General Counsel from January 2012, through 2025, including counseling WAMPA staff through the 2006-2007 Materials Recovery Facility Expansion Project and the 2018 Master Plan Update, and whereas Mr. Sandman prepared and managed intergovernmental agreements and fostered a pivotal relationship with the United Auburn Indian Community, a sovereign Native American tribe. And whereas Mr. Sandman's advice and work were invaluable for countless projects that helped shape the county over the past three decades, including but certainly not limited to the Thunder Valley Casino and its expansion, the Bill Santucci Justice Center, the South Placer Jail, the Placer County Government Center, Hidden Falls Park, and Placer Parkway, and whereas Mr. Sandman used his encyclopedic knowledge of the county of Placer and the contracts that form the county to impart and train attorneys, staff, and interns within the county council's office, and has reviewed thousands of contracts, agreements, and memoranda of understanding, signing many with the designation approved as to form, And whereas when Mr. Sandman is not providing excellent service to his department clients, he spends time with his wife, Allison, daughter, Julia, and son, Jake, attends their garden, travels, attends Cal Bears, Go Bears games, Kings games, and rock concerts, or is at the neighborhood coffee shop reading a good book. And whereas Mr. Sandman has demonstrated the highest standards consistent with the California State Bar and has contributed monumentally to the County of Placer as an organization and to its residents. Now, therefore, let it be known that the above commendation was duly passed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Placer at a regular meeting held on August 25, 2026, on behalf of the citizens of Placer County. First, are there any comments from board members? Supervisor Gore.

I will just quickly say thank you, Rob. You have worked so very hard. I got to work with you a lot when it came to the WAPNA transition, but you are diligent, hardworking, and we just really appreciate all the things you have done for our community. You have served very well, and it's very clear that you've got a huge team of people that you've worked with for a number of years. And I see some faces in here who wanna acknowledge you, and that says a lot, community members who wanna acknowledge the work that you have done for our county. So thank you very much, Rob, and I wish you all the best as you retire. Supervisor DiMattei?

Just thank you, Rob. It's been great working with you, and I know you're looking forward to getting out of that suit and tie, so we won't keep you here very long, as I saw you incognito in shorts and a t-shirt at the library, and I didn't recognize him, and I'm like, who is this guy? Congratulations.

Supervisor Gustafson?

Congratulations, Rob. It's so well-deserved, and look at this outpouring to come for for you and for this recognition and i can't uh... articulating better than supervisor courted but thank you for your service incredible leadership in service to our county supervisor jones

Yes, I'd like to thank you, Rob, for all of your assistance over these last couple of years. You've helped us, or me especially, untangle a lot of many complicated issues that we've had to deal with here on the Board of Supervisors, and I really appreciate it. You and Karen ganged up and gave me a lot of help, so I really appreciate it very much. Thank you.

Mr. Shatney?

Thank you. Rob, I just want to say thank you for all your thoughtful guidance and counsel. So many transactions that we've worked on over just the last seven years of your 27 years here. I just want to wish you the best in retirement and just thank you from the bottom of my heart.

And I would just echo what everyone else said. I jotted down a couple words that came to mind of things that describe you, and I would say you're a quiet force, steady, you have subtle humor, you're committed, thoughtful, integrous, and diligent. And I would just say, Rob, you are such a joy to work with, and I knew I could go to you with any question, and you would give me a great answer. It may not have always been the answer that maybe I would want to hear, but you would give me The attorney answer, and I appreciate that. And I just want to thank you so much. What a well-deserved retirement. You really are leaving a legacy here and have done an incredible job. And Mr. Cook has a comment as well.

Thank you. 27 years. That's quite impressive. I think when you look at the projects... and challenges that Rob's been a part of over that past 27 years, the magnitude of his contribution to the county becomes much more clear. He's been through a period in which the county has changed dramatically. And his fingerprints can be seen on many of the projects and decisions that helped shape to where we are today. The county's population in 1999 was 225,900. That's roughly half of what it is now. Think of the needs of infrastructure, roads, wastewater, and trash that have changed in that amount of time. Rob's been at the forefront of most all of those. He's involved in hundreds, if not thousands, of the agreements involving public works and facilities during that time. He helped develop major regional wastewater infrastructure. He provided legal counsel to WAMPA, served as a pivotal representative with the UAIC. His work extended to long-term transportation and growth strategies, include Placer Parkway, major western Placer development. He addressed the legal issues involving all of that, and those things are going to influence the county for decades to come. He also, and I felt like this was worth mentioning, provided significant advice on a Mortis Camp Solar Ranch access issue, which resulted in a published Third District Court of Appeal opinion. that upheld his advice on a contentious road abandonment issue. And that case may actually come up later today in the meeting. But through all of those projects, Rob has been behind all of those movements. Quite frankly, he is probably one of the best transactional attorneys that I've come across in my career. That body of work is what makes his career so remarkable. He worked on the institutions, the infrastructure, the communities, and the public projects that have helped transform the county. These weren't just individual projects. This was setting the framework and the groundwork for our county moving into the future. His legacy includes more than the projects, though. He's been a mentor, a teacher, a colleague, and a friend to me. He has an extraordinary depth of knowledge, but perhaps more importantly, he's always been willing to share it with others. He's helped countless attorneys through difficult problems. He's offered perspectives when things became complicated. He's crafted contract language to resolve impossibly contentious issues and brought a calm and thoughtful approach to matters that were anything but calm or simple. There's something special about having a colleague who's been there long enough to remember not only the answer to the legal question, but why the county made that decision 10, 15, or 20 years ago. He's been one of those people. He's been a part of the institutional memory of the county council's office, and his departure will leave a void that cannot be filled. So for me personally, and for so many people who've had the privilege of working with him, this retirement is bittersweet. We're generally happy for him and excited that he gets to begin the new chapter, but we're gonna miss his wit, his humor, his perspective, his willingness to help, and simply knowing he was there if we needed someone to help figure something out. Or to remember us to stop typing and pick up a phone to discuss an issue. So Rob, after 27 years, you leave behind an impressive body of work, but more importantly, you leave behind people who are better lawyers and better public servants because they had the good fortune to work with you. Thank you for your service to Placer County. Thank you for your friendship, your mentorship, your wisdom, and your commitment to doing the job right. Ali, I also wanted to thank you and Julia and Jake for the support, the patience, the encouragement and the sacrifices that come with 27 years of public service. His role at the county simply would not have been possible without all of you. So with that, Rob, congratulations on an incredible career. Placer County is a better place because you were here and all of us who had the privilege of working alongside you are better for having known you. Enjoy that retirement, you certainly deserve it.

Rob, I know you're not someone to normally come up in public, but would you like to say anything?

Do you need a walk-up song from Metallica?

Beastie Boys. We missed one thing. Jeremy, any time you could play it. I certainly want to thank the board, Clayton, thank you so much, Daniel, and everyone else involved in our office. This recognition is very flattering, and I'm very grateful for it. It's been an honor working for Placer County. I can't, there's so many different people to thank, current and former colleagues. I have to start with my family. Allie, my wife, I'm so thankful that you're here today. Wonderful friends who came today, our son Jake, our daughter Julia, who are watching, I think, online right now. that folks in our office, there's so many different people to thank. Jenna, who's been wonderful in getting everything set up for today. I did want to thank and recognize the county councils that I've worked for and with over the years. Clayton, I'm so pleased and so happy you're up on the dais, and I'm really excited to see where the office goes. The office is in great hands. Very great future ahead, I think. I want to recognize Karen Schwab, my friend and colleague for many years, who I was very thankful to work with and really enjoyed that period of time as I transitioned into my current role. Jerry Carden for his undying support of me when he was in the office. I want to thank Tony LaBeouf, a special shout out to Tony. He took a chance on me back and brought me in the office back in a different century, and here we are today. And so many other folks who have made this a great ride, Megan, you and your staff, and just so many others I can't possibly help and thank everyone. And it's been a great ride, and thank you all very much.

All right, is there anyone here in the chambers who would like to comment on this item? Uh-oh, another attorney?

This is an expensive day.

Madam Chair, members of the board, Marcus LaDuca, 1508 Eureka Road in Roseville. I think I've worked with Rob ever since he joined the county. I can't even count the number of agreements and issues. People need to know he always zealously guarded the interests of Placer County and its residents, but he did so in 2017. a very courteous and kind and thoughtful manner. Clayton hit those points very, very well. Rob has always been the consummate professional, but even while he was zealously guarding the public's interest, he could work through complex issues, come up with solutions drafting, in agreements that protected the county, protected its residents, while at the same time achieving the board's policy goals, not only this board, but several boards before you. And what he put into place in terms of those agreements, protecting the county, but getting things done so they could actually be built, the residents of Placer County, we will all be able to benefit from those probably well until the next century. and a lot of it you don't see, some of it you do, but I work with him at WAPMA issues, county issues, lots of road agreements, and lots of projects. He truly is, as Clayton mentioned, one of the best transactional lawyers you'll come across, private or public. It's not just in a county council context, but as either the private or public sector, and he is the consummate professional. He is a lawyer's lawyer. Whenever you dealt with Rob, you actually learned from every conversation. I did. Not the brightest bulb in the chandelier by any stretch of the imagination, but I definitely learned things from him. and was able to say that's really where we need to go to protect both parties and get things done. Because the board set policy, they approve an agreement, but they want to see something going forward. Then it goes back to the lawyers to have to draft it and how do we actually get this done? And Rob is probably the best I've ever seen. So again, it's been a real honor to work with him. I wish him the very best in his retirement. And Rob, last thing, go Bears.

Thank you.

Good morning, members of the Board of Supervisors. So I'm, as some of you know, as most of you know, not all of you know, I represent the United Auburn Indian Community in Thunder Valley Casino, and I'm here with the Tribes Development Council, Chuck Traynor, and the Tribes Governance Council tribal attorney, Brian Guth, and I'm one of the only people in the room who's worked with Rob all 27 years since he came on board. And he really has been the glue in the implementation successfully of the historic so-called Memorandum of Understanding with Placer County. It was the first one in the state. I believe it was the first one in the nation. I think every single tribe with a tribal state compact now has one that's modeled after the first one that was negotiated directly with Tony LaBeouf in 99 or so. But Rob has made it work. There have been several times when there were bumps in the road, and he's worked invariably collaboratively to figure out ways to resolve the problems. Not only is he extremely wise, but he has been extremely conscientious. And I've worked with him and talked to him or see him every few weeks for 27 years. So I have a pretty good depth of knowledge of what he's done. And we'll never forget it. And the tribal council knows his name very, very well. and credits him with making this relationship work. So it's been a pleasure to work with him. And among his many good decisions over time was about, must be close to a year ago, that he told me he was thinking seriously about retirement and he thought there needed to be a succession plan for his relationship with the tribe. And there was one attorney who he thought would be very good at the time and that was Clayton Cook. This was before any thought about Clayton being the county council at some point. But he had the wisdom to understand that there had to be a transition, that whoever came in when Rob left had to be up to speed so that it would be seamless. And we've met, the three of us, and sometimes with Chuck Treanor, our development counsel, on a weekly basis for a long, long time in which Clayton's been involved in every single meeting. So there will be a seamless transition. But it's due to Rob Sandman thinking through what the future needed for Placer County and the need to have a collaborative lawyer who could think through problems. And we have that, and I think the tribe will always owe that to Rob. So thank you, Rob, and good luck on your retirement.

I'm going to be very quick. I haven't heard the word master of time management up here today. I'm Chuck Traynor and I'm one of the people who meets with Rob almost on a daily basis. Sometimes the list of items is 17, 16, 17 items on our agenda each week that we have to work on and resolve. and somehow he manages during that week with all the rest he has to do with the county to return back and have answers to us almost always the following week. It's just astounding to me all the people he has to coordinate with in order to get some of those answers but I'm gonna miss working with him but I wanna echo what Howard said about Clayton stepping in. He brought Clayton into the meetings, educated Clayton and educated us and it's just been a fabulous relationship. I've been like Howard, I've been 25 years, I'm two years behind Howard, but it's been a long relationship with Rob. Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Good morning, supervisors. I'm Steve Johns, and I'm here to recognize Rob on his retirement. Rob and I worked in the Sacramento City Attorney's Office together 28 years ago. And although we only overlapped for, I mean, I don't even think it was a year, my wife Pam and I became really close friends with Rob and his wife Allie. And we've spent numerous years with Christmases, Easters, family vacations that we go every year together. And it's a special relationship, much like the relationship Rob has with Placer County. And having seen him since his first day here, and now I get to see him on his last day here, it's great to hear that everybody appreciates Rob as much as my wife and I do. And I know for a fact that when he was in Sacramento, he was known as a diligent, intelligent, wise attorney, and that clearly has worked its way through here in Placer County. He's one of the most ethical attorneys I know, and I know that he's provided Placer with passionate service, and he cares deeply about doing the right thing. I'm always a willing listener to hear some sort of arcane legal trivia, and as soon as Rob could share it, he would tell me, and we know how much Rob likes the arcane legal trivia. Anyway, congratulations, Rob, on a wonderful career. I'm glad you're able to provide Placer with the service that I know that they deserve, and I appreciate that Placer appreciates Rob as much as my wife and I do. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, anyone else here in the chambers? And is there anyone online? Okay, oh, oops, sorry. The engineer.

The engineer, yes. So I've worked at the county for about 20 years now, and I've worked with Rob that entire time. He's maybe been the one constant that I've had here at the county is working with Rob. Started as an assistant engineer. I've learned a ton from Rob over the years. You talked about mentoring and training. That is not just in the county council's office, but for all the staff that he works with. And I thought about many stories that I could tell about things that I've worked on with Rob, but then realized that they're probably privileged and confidential. I can't. So I'll keep it boring and just say I appreciate all the time that I've had to work with Rob, all the education that I've gained and the knowledge that I've gained, the insight, the wisdom that I've gained from Rob. even talking about our families and vacations and soccer and sports and concerts and all the things that are part of real life. So from me and all the people in DPW, Rob, we appreciate you. You will be missed, and we wish you well in your retirement.

Thank you.

Good morning, board.

Stephanie Holloway, deputy CEO. I just wanted to come here today and bring a deep appreciation for Rob for so many years as somebody who grew up in this organization alongside Rob. He and I working side by side on public works projects as you heard from Kevin. And just the leadership that he has had with the employees, support for so many projects as you've heard today. Clayton, as you've echoed, you know, I think just that helping hand all the time, I think Rob, the culture that you have brought to this organization in that vein. You are, I will say, one of the hearts of this organization and the legacy. And so I just wanted to bring an appreciation not only for myself, from the people that have worked here for so many years, and also your presence in Tahoe, so many contracts so many conversations. As we know, that is a complicated and exciting place to work, as I know and as you know. And I just wanted to say thank you from everybody on the Tahoe team as well, because I know you touched so many projects up there and so many contracts. So congratulations. I am a little envious. We hope to see you around and stop by next time you're visiting Tahoe.

Thank you. Okay, I will close public comment and I don't think this will be very controversial, but we'll see if we have a motion.

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

Julia, we can't hear you.

Hello?

Oh, there we go.

Okay. Hi, I'm Julia Sandman, daughter of Rob, and I just want to say thank you all so much for appreciating him and doing this for him. I'm so proud of you, Dad, and you are just so impressive, and I feel so grateful to have both you and Mom as my parents and just how impressive you guys are in the... legacies you both have left at your jobs. It's very inspiring and thank you so much and thank you for introducing me specifically to working at a county. I truly enjoyed my short period at Placer County and you've helped show me kind of what I'm interested in and what I would wanna do with my life. And so I appreciate you so much and I'm so proud of you and so, so grateful to call you my dad.

Okay, if we weren't crying already. What a great note to end on.

On that note, I just wanted to note that the commendation is an amended commendation.

Oh, yes, that's right. There was an error in the original one. This is corrected, what I read out loud.

That means you can't retire yet, so you're sorry.

Yeah, there you go. All because of the commendation. I would proudly, proudly vote to approve this.

And I will second. It's been moved by Jones, seconded by Gore. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. We'll come down there and do a quick picture with you.

I'll let you guys hold that.

Thank you very much. Thank you all.

I know.

Come on.

Okay, we are a little behind, but for good reason. We will now move to our 9.40 timed item, a proclamation in honor of Hunger Action Month.

Great. Well, I have a proclamation here that I wanted to read into the record in honor of designating September as Hunger Action Month. So whereas Feeding America, the nation's largest hunger relief organization, has designated September 2026 as Hunger Action Month, to bring awareness to the critical issues of hunger and poverty impacting communities across the United States. And whereas individuals and families throughout Placer County face daily food insecurity forced to make difficult compromises between purchasing healthy food and paying for essential needs such as housing, utilities, transportation, and medical care, And whereas local hunger relief organizations face compounding challenges, including the recent loss of the federal Farms Together program, which previously funded fresh local produce, requiring an even greater reliance on food rescue efforts and local community generosity to fill the gap. And whereas Placer County commends the vital work of local organizations, including the Auburn Interfaith Food Closet, an agency partner of Feeding the Foothills, and Sierra Community House, the primary hunger relief and soul food recovery provider for North Lake Tahoe and Truckee, which rescues approximately 22,000 pounds of food monthly to serve 1,000 unique households monthly. And whereas community support remains vital as hunger relief providers host local initiatives throughout September, including the Auburn Interfaith Food Closet's Neighborhood Food Drive on Saturday, September 26th, and Sierra Community House's campaign inviting residents to join its 238 Plate Club monthly giving program to fund meals through food rescue. So we encourage our residents, businesses, and civic leaders to actively support these organizations through financial contributions, food donations, and volunteerism to build a stronger, more resilient community, and whereas the Placer County Board of Supervisors hereby recognize the month of September as Hunger Action Month in Placer County, and urges all citizens to join in supporting local food agencies and hunger relief initiatives. And with that, I just wanted to share some stats that were given to me in addition to that. The Auburn Interfaith Food Closet served 32,158 members of our community last year. 11,695 families delivered 429 meals to homes were signed up for the home delivery with over 381,000 meals provided. And volunteer hours of 36,877, 100% volunteer effort. Percent of funds spent on food was 94%. and the operating expense is only 6%. There's 19 supporting churches and groups of faith that help us with that. So we certainly understand that we can't fill all the gaps with government funding. We need your help and the community has stepped up through your efforts and we're so appreciative of that. And with that, I'm happy to take other board members' comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments right now from board members? Okay, would you like to come up and make a few comments?

Well, thank you, Supervisor Gustafson. Yes, first of all, this is my first year being president, but I've been with the Food Closet for five years as their communication director. And I just want to thank the Board of Supervisors, the County of Placer, all the different agencies within the county that we work with, HHS, the new WECS program, the Even the health inspectors, we appreciate their help and support to help us get along. As we said, I want to focus a little bit on our volunteers because that's what makes this organization run is our volunteers. I mean, we are 100% volunteers, and the people that work for us are mainly retired. They're retired doctors, lawyers, previous Board of Supervisors people from various counties that come up here to retire. I was thinking of Mr. Sandman, which he's probably already gone, but maybe if he's looking for something to do, he can always come visit us. We rely on the skills and talents of these retirees to help us stay 100% volunteer. I myself am a retired corporate banker, and this fills my time very well. And we appreciate all the help. You've already did the stats. That's usually half my speech, so... But we appreciate the help and the support and the financial support that we get from the county. I would say only about 20% of the funds that we raise come from grants. The other 80% come from the community donations. Whenever we've had a need, and I would just post it on Facebook or in the media or press release, our community steps up, especially when we had the funds were cut off in October and people did not get their paychecks, and we had a huge spike. We just put a word out to the communities and they brought checks, they brought food, they brought everything. We were able to meet that demand. So we rely heavily on both, both the county and our community, which is amazing. And I want to thank everybody for that.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in the chambers who would like to comment on this item? Okay, I would like to say the work that you do is so important, and I want to say thank you on just behalf of myself, and of course I'm sure other board members might have comments as well. But I, as a kid, there were a number of times where our family could not afford food, and I was fortunate enough to have grandparents that were nearby that could help fill that gap. But not everyone has that. And so it's wonderful to know that you are here and you're here to serve the community and that the broader community is supportive in contributing to the great work that you guys are doing. And just very much appreciate that you are committing your lives to giving up your time to do something that's important.

But it's for a good cause. And we're hitting about 80% of those who suffer from food insecurity in our county for the area we service. We've got about 80% that we're servicing. And we know things may change with the change in CalFresh, Medicare, you know, we're expecting, we're prepared and we're grateful that we have your support for that. You guys have been working very closely with us to help with that, especially the volunteer part. Thank you.

Supervisor Jones.

Yeah, I just want to say thank you for stepping up into that position. The food bank is an amazing place. It is. And the commercial kitchen and everything that you have that you offer even for the public to use, it's a great facility and it's wonderful. And so thank you for that. Thank you for stepping up.

Thank you. And that commercial kitchen is available to any nonprofit that has a need for no charge.

That's amazing.

Thank you for stepping up, we really appreciate it.

Supervisor DeMattei?

Thank you, and thank you guys for the work that you do. As a grower, we appreciate it because, you know, when we bring the food and you guys help us unload it and you guys get it to the people who need it, and it's actually, you know, we're bringing healthy stuff. A shout out to all my grower friends who do the same thing, that we are very appreciative of you guys, the gleaners and the shelters that help us bring that food to you guys. So thank you for your help.

And we work with other nonprofits. So when our growers come in, especially Mandarin time of the year, we share that with the other food closets, the other nonprofits in our community. We call them up and say, hey, we got access. And so they'll develop a very good relationship with the others in our community.

All right. Supervisor Gustafson.

I was just going to make a motion to approve the proclamation.

Second. I did public comment, right? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. That darn attorney. Okay. That's been moved by Gustafson, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions? We'll pop down there for a quick picture.

You need to lower it.

Let's lower it. I saw it.

You're going to look at the picture. Thank you. Yes, I'd love to do another tour.

Anytime. Anytime.

Should I wait then?

Do I need to wait? Both of these guys are gone.

At least this one.

Stand up in stress for a second if you need to stretch.

Just waiting for... Yeah. I'm going to stand up. It's a surprise. Everyone, I'm waiting for a call because our daughter-in-law is three days overdue with our first grandbaby. Still no call. Now you all can be on pins and needles with me. Okay, the attorney is back. All right, we will now move to our 950 timed item. Repeal of Placer County Code Chapter 15, Article 15.100.

Hi, good morning. Michelle Kingsbury, Deputy CEO with the CEO's Office here today as well with Rich Moorhead, our Deputy Director of Public Works. For time consideration, we will be very quick and brief, but we're happy to answer any questions if you have any. On June 30th, Rich and I were here doing a presentation with the board and seeking direction regarding our Tier 2 fee deferral program. As a result of that conversation, we were directed to come back with an item to repeal our Placer County Code Chapter 15, Article 15-100, which is our Tier 2 fee deferral program. In addition to that, we received direction to continue to work with two applicants that had fee deferral applications in and we are certainly doing that and communicating with them and waiting on some updated information from them. But based on that direction, we are here today and I'll read the action into the record. And again, we will be happy to answer any questions, but due to time, we'll keep it short. So the action today is to introduce and waive oral reading of an ordinance repealing Placer County Code chapter 15, article 15.100, which is the tier two development fee deferral program. In addition, item two is determine that the proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines 15321. And with that, Rich and I are here to answer any questions you may have.

All right, thank you. Any questions or comments from board members? Supervisor Gore?

I'm just gonna say thank you, and I know this is a challenge for some of the members of the development community, but we are in a place where we're actually building Placer Parkway, and that's a really good thing, and it was a tool that was really needed. When the recession happened, And I know it's still challenging to build, but we're really pleased that we can start moving forward with the building of the parkway. And so I just appreciate the hard work and the willingness of the folks who understand where we're at. So thank you, Michelle.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in the public who would like to comment on this item? Anyone online? All right, I'll close public comment and bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval, I guess.

I'll second. Move by Jones, seconded by Gore. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you. Thank you, Michelle. We will now move to our 10 a.m. timed item, State Community Development Block Grant Program Funds.

Good morning. Good morning. Standing in here for Mr. Darius Brown. Nikki Stregan with your Housing and Economic Development Division here today to present the State Community Development Block. grant program funds public hearing and program closeout report the action before your board is to conduct a public hearing to solicit comments on the submittal of the community development block grant closeout report two two cdbg h a one zero zero three three for the first time home buyer program to adopt a resolution acknowledging the accomplishments and confirming activity completion of the Community Development Block Grant 22CDBGHA10033 and accepting the documentation that follows as the Community Development Block Grant closeout report to approve the disencumbrance of $262,500 in 22CDBGHA10033 grant funds and determined that the proposed actions are each not a project pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15378. The item closes out the county's $500,000 grant award for CDBG dollars that supported our first time home buyer program. That grant was used to support down payment assistance for low income households purchasing homes in unincorporated Placer County. Throughout the program, we were able to, or rather, throughout the use of these grant funds, we were able to support two households, each receiving the maximum allowable CDBG assistance of $118,750. The grant originally anticipated assisting four households, but expired, and so because only $237,500 was used, the remaining $262,500 will be disencumbered as part of the closeout. Today's public hearing is a required component of CDBG's closeout process. Staff is asking the board to acknowledge these accomplishments, to accept the closeout report, and authorize submission of the final materials to HCD, and there is no impact to the general fund.

Thank you. Questions or comments from board members? Okay, I will open up the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the chambers who would like to comment on this item? Anyone online? Yes, Chair.

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

Greetings again, Supervisors, Diane Louise Alessi. The only real comment, and I'm going to expand upon this later, is that that whole 118,000 could have bought a tiny home on wheels and literally gave somebody equity in the stake completely and not the overhead. And I'm just going to kind of leave it there because literally it still ticks the box for housing somebody. But if it was put in a community land trust scenario, that would completely start making these people whole instead of being perpetually bound to these ridiculous mortgages and interest rates. So with that, I'm going to, like I said, expound later, and I have many documents to support my position that you hopefully have all read by now. So with that, I'm going to yield. Thank you.

Thank you.

No other commenters.

I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval of the item. I'll second.

Moved by Gore, seconded by Gustafson. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you. We will now move to our 10.05 timed item, abandonment of public vehicular access over a portion of Old Eureka Place in Granite Bay.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Board of Supervisors, Daniel, and Clayton. I'm Derek Gady, Public Works Director, and with me today are Kevin Bell, Assistant Director, Sarah Williams, our right-of-way agent, and Eric Brumfield from Council. Today we are presenting a request from four property owners who have a completed application and made a request to abandon public vehicular access over a portion of Old Eureka Place in Granite Bay, a dead-end road. Old Eureka Place is shown in this photo which is taken from Quail Road looking towards the proposed abandonment area. This item has been subject to lots of concerns from the applicants and the greater community for many years. Quickly I will share today's proposed requested actions relating to our recommendation to abandon a portion of Old Eureka Place and we will read these into the record at the end of the presentation. The proposed abandonment area is located in Granite Bay, just northwest of the intersections of Quail Lane and Eureka Road. Eureka Road runs from east to west. Eureka Road was previously aligned in a linear manner where Old Eureka Place is now. In around 1998, the Eureka Road Connector Project was undertaken by the county and it resulted in the realignment of Eureka Road and the creation of Wellington Way. This 1962 map shows the historic linear alignment of Eureka Road, which extends straight to Sierra College Boulevard, and you can see where old Eureka Place is now. On the top right, the aerial shows the 1998 realignment of Eureka Road, which curves towards the high school shown on the bottom right. The realigned road created a T intersection which connects to Wellington Way to the south and Eureka Road extends to the west, eventually reconnecting to the historic Eureka Road alignment. The project was implemented as part of the Granite Bay Community Plan. It created old Eureka Place, it removed it from the county's maintained mileage, and it retained the public road access rights. The board can decide to approve a road abandonment if certain findings are made. The required findings include The easement is not necessary for the present or prospective public use. The abandonment is in the public interest, and the abandonment is consistent with the county's general plan. DPW supports that these findings can be made based upon the record, but it will be up to the board to make this decision. Now I'll turn it over to Sarah Williams to walk through the proposed abandonment.

Thank you, Dirk. We will now review the proposed abandonment request in detail. We are aware that there have been concerns from the public regarding the preservation of trail access along this road stub, so we would like to clarify that this request for abandonment seeks only the relinquishment of public vehicular access rights. This means that only public vehicular travel will no longer be possible over the roadway. Equestrians, pedestrians, and cyclists will still be able to pass around the gate and use the roadway. The county's abandonment process will reserve multiple easement rights over the same area as that which is being abandoned. Those rights reserved include multi-purpose trail, emergency access, pedestrian, public support, and public utility easements. After reviewing the complete application package, staff makes the following recommendations. That the road stub is not needed, required, or essential for public vehicular use as it only serves for private adjoining lots and is a dead end. The road stub was removed from the county's maintained mileage in 1998. Public vehicular access is unnecessary for present or prospective public use over Old Eureka Place as it was purposely realigned, Eureka Road was purposely realigned by the county and the county has no current or future plans to utilize Old Eureka Place. The abandonment is in the public interest because the condition of the roadway surface is not guaranteed by county maintenance, will reduce nuisance behaviors on the unlit road stub and will reduce the possibility of conflicts between cars and pedestrians on the road stub. As discussed, the abandonment request as structured will preserve access for non-motorized users over the existing roadway. This reservation of rights will ensure conformance with the county's general plan and the Granite Bay community plan. This location is specifically identified in the Granite Bay community plan as part of the trail network, which you can see represented on the image at the bottom of this slide. The applicants submitted a complete application package which was reviewed by county staff for confirmation that the request was circulated to all relevant county departments and utility providers. County staff also confirmed the circulation to adjoining property owners. Conditional approvals were received and all conditions have been agreed to by the applicants. The conditions provided by various county departments and utility providers include maintenance of public equestrian, pedestrian, and cyclist access, maintenance of access to public utilities and emergency services, creation and maintenance of a public access pathway for non-motorized public users, installation of signage indicating right of public passage over the pathway, roadway surface maintenance, vegetation management, and pathway maintenance will be the responsibility of the private landowners adjoining the roadway. A Knox box will be maintained on the gate and gate codes will be made available to the appropriate parties to ensure passage for the users of the retained easements. These next few slides show aerial overviews of the proposed abandonment area, the relationship of the abandonment area to the existing physical features, the existing public easement rights, the proposed abandonment area, and the relationship of the abandonment area to the adjoining parcels. This first slide shows the proposed abandonment area as a blue outline and is intended to highlight its relation to existing physical features. The features outlined include, from left to right on this image, the existing pedestrian and equestrian easement which continues down a dirt path from the end of Old Eureka Place westerly to the existing decomposed granite pathway which travels past the Greyhawk subdivision. The private fencing of lot 104 is represented by the solid black line with squares at intervals. At the western end of the paved portion of Old Eureka Place there is a wooden barrier which is approximately the width of the paved surface and has reflective signs attached to it. The edge of the pavement is labeled in its approximate location, which is a little hard to see, it's in yellow. At the eastern end of Old Eureka, near the intersection with Quail Lane, the approximate location of the gate posts are represented as metal gate. You can also see the pathway around the north gate post. Metal bollards exist south of the gate post. Here, we see the existing public easement rights on the north half of the roadway, represented by the blue shaded rectangle. The adjoining parcels are also shown. The proposed abandonment area on the north half of the roadway is approximately 20 feet in width from the general center line of the roadway. This area covers the edge of the existing pavement and five to 13 feet off of the edge of the roadway. All of the easement reservations from the proposed abandonment will apply to this area. This slide depicts the proposed abandonment area on the south half of the roadway, which is also approximately 20 feet in width from the general center line of the roadway. The existing public rights were dedicated by recorded offers of dedication in 1998, which are represented by the shaded and hatched areas you see in this image. This area covers the edge of existing pavement and five to 11 feet off the edge of the roadway and a hammerhead turnaround area. All of the easement reservations from the proposed abandonment will apply to this area. This slide shows the proposed abandonment area as a whole reflected by the green shading. The total size of the proposed abandonment area is 17,298 square feet. All of the easement reservations from the proposed abandonment will apply to this entire area. This slide shows a section of the proposed abandonment area and its relation to the adjoining property along the northwest boundary of the abandonment area known as APN 048151016000. Old Eureka Place provides the main access point for this parcel. This parcel's secondary access supports emergency use as the private bridge from the main access on Old Eureka is not sufficient to support large vehicle crossings. This area and the areas shown in the following slides across adjacent private parcels would no longer be subject to public vehicular rights of passage, but would be subject to all of the retained easements for non-motorized uses and public services. The proposed abandonment will not enlarge the existing parcel as their fee title ownership extends to the center line of the road. The shaded area is approximately 3,763 square feet. A legal description and plat have been prepared by a licensed surveyor to describe and quantify this area, and they are included with the resolution of abandonment. This slide shows a section of the proposed abandonment area and its relation to the adjoining property along the north boundary of the abandonment area known as APN 048151014000. The proposed abandonment will not enlarge the existing parcel as their fee title ownership extends to the center line of the road. The shaded area is approximately 2,313 square feet. A legal description and plat have been prepared by a licensed surveyor to describe and quantify this area and they are included with the resolution of abandonment. This slide shows a section of the proposed abandonment area and its relation to the adjoining property along the northeast boundary of the abandonment area known as APN 048151024000. The proposed abandonment will not enlarge the existing parcel as their fee title ownership extends to the center line of the road. The shaded area is approximately 1,674 square feet. A legal description and plat have been prepared by a licensed surveyor to describe and quantify this area, and they are included with the resolution of abandonment. This slide shows a section of the proposed abandonment area and its relation to the adjoining property along the southern boundary of the abandonment area known as APN 466-570-023-000. Old Eureka Place provides this parcel's only legal access. The parcel's frontage along active sections of Eureka Road and Quail Lane are entirely access restricted. The proposed abandonment will not enlarge the existing parcel as their fee title ownership extends to the center line of the road. The shaded area is approximately 9,548 square feet. A legal description and plat have been prepared by a licensed surveyor to describe and quantify this area, and they are included with the resolution of abandonment. As you've heard me say throughout this presentation, the proposed abandonment seeks only to remove the right of public vehicular access. As structured, the request will reserve multiple easement and public rights. The rights that will still remain over Old Eureka Place and all of the legally described areas I've just presented include pedestrian access, bicycle access, equestrian access, public utility access, and emergency access. This means the public will still be able to utilize this area for non-motorized forms of travel. We have another map. This map shows the proposed abandonment area of easement reservations. Those easements convey the public rights I've just discussed, which include pedestrian access, bicycle access, equestrian access, public utility access, and emergency access across this entire area shaded in green. The next few slides contain a few photos of the area. This first slide shows the decomposed granite pathway the applicants installed at their own expense to allow public passage around the gate. This photo was taken in February of 2023 when the pathway was installed. The width between the fence post and the down guy anchor is approximately 8.5 feet. This width is more than adequate for typical county parks trail access. This photo shows the current condition of Old Eureka Place as viewed from Quail Lane facing west. Maintaining access around the gate is a condition of this abandonment.

Can I ask a quick question on that? Just looking at the public access pathway picture and then the second picture that you just showed, is that area on the left to where the gate was, is that where that decomposed granite pathway was?

The decomposed granite pathway was on the right.

Oh, okay.

Go back here. Got it. To the right of that gate post on the right.

Okay. Thank you.

Here we continue to travel west down Old Eureka Place and you can better observe the existing pavement condition and the areas off the edge of pavement. Cars must park outside of a travel lane and there are several limiting conditions present along the edge of the roadway. The south side has a slope drainage ditch and a private driveway and a slope below the fence line. The north side is hindered by vegetation growth and another private driveway. Continuing further west on Old Eureka Place, we can see to the left the Hammerhead Turnaround Area and private driveway of APN 466570023000. Old Eureka Place is the only legal access available to this parcel. And on this slide, we can begin to see the wooden barrier at the end of Old Eureka Place, the slope below the private fencing, and that vegetation off to the right. This photo further illustrates the inability of cars to park outside of the travel lane where the slope exists off the edge of roadway to the south and the hindrance created by the vegetation to the north. Reaching the end of Old Eureka Place, we can see the wooden barrier with reflective signs which demarcates the end of the roadway surface. The existing trail continues past this barrier and connects to the decomposed granite path along Eureka Road towards the Greyhawk subdivision. In this final slide of photos, we see the main access for APN 048151016000, which connects to Old Eureka Place. Shown here is the narrow bridge which crosses the stream that runs parallel to Old Eureka Place. This bridge cannot support large vehicles in the event of an emergency. This concludes this presentation. Derek will now read the requested actions into the record.

So the requested actions are to conduct a public hearing to consider abandoning public vehicular access over a portion of Old Eureka Place, adopt a resolution abandoning public vehicular access over a portion of Old Eureka Place and Granite Bay as described in exhibits to the resolution subject to the findings set forth therein, and finally determine the proposed actions are not projects pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15378. And alternatively, are each exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines sections 15061B3, 15301, and 15304. This completes our presentations. We're available to answer any questions.

Thank you. Questions or comments from board members at this time? OK, I will go ahead and open up this public hearing. Are there members of the public who would like to comment on this item? You can go ahead and feel free to line up in the center there.

Good morning, Chair and members of the board. My name's Karen Henson and I'm a resident of District 4. Supervisor Suzanne Jones is my elected supervisor. I'm here today to make a very specific request. I'm asking Supervisor Jones to recuse herself from voting on the abandonment matter before this board. I want to be very clear about why I'm making this request. In 2024, I ran against Supervisor Jones for the position of District 4 Supervisor. During that campaign, I heard from many numerous residents who told me about issues they brought to Supervisor Jones and had sought her assistance. This situation is just one of many. But this request today is not about my election against Supervisor Jones, it's about something much more important, the integrity and decision being made by this board. Supervisor Jones made a statement in writing to one of the homeowners, she said, there will be people who will not help me get elected if I vote yes. Those are her words. The statement raised a very serious concern for me. It suggests that potential political consequences of her vote may be consideration in how she approaches this decision. And that is precisely why I'm asking her to recuse herself. Supervisor Jones also acknowledged that the neighbors had done their due diligence and everything they needed to receive a yes vote from the other supervisors. So I have to ask, if this requirement have been made and other supervisors are prepared to consider a yes vote, based on the facts before them, why should political consideration enter into this decision at all? An elected supervisor has a responsibility to make decisions based on facts, the applications requirements, and the interest of the people being served, not on who will help them get reelected, not on who will support them politically, and not on who might oppose them in the next election. Supervisor Jones was elected by the residents of District 4. Her salary is paid with our tax dollars. Her responsibility to all of us, not to her reelection campaign. I'm not asking this board to decide this matter in favor of the neighbors simply because I'm asking for recusal. I'm asking for something more fundamental. I'm asking for a fair and impartial process. If Supervisor Jones believes that her vote is completely free of any personal political considerations, then she should be happy to do this. Thank you.

Thank you. And I should note, I should have mentioned at the beginning that the timer will go off at the three-minute mark, and then you will have an additional 15 seconds, and then the mic will automatically turn off. So just so you're aware.

Don't start it yet. This can be handed out. Okay.

This can be handed out to the staff.

Picture's gonna be first. You have some posters. Where would you like me to be when I show this?

You would have to be off to the side so as to not block any of the camera view or public view.

Thank you.

Yeah.

They're in stacks. Pictures first.

Thank you so much.

Hi there, Donna Ekwertzol, 8902 Quail Lane. I am a resident there on Quail Lane since 2013 when we purchased a property to be close to the high school so that we can impact kids within Placer County to help them reduce mental illness and drop the suicides rates. Heart's Landing Ranch is the name of the organization and while people want to make that about this, it's not. except for the fact that we've been driving carriages, horse-drawn carts, using that with our at-risk, mostly boys, to give them the ability to actually drive, and so it's unsafe to do it on Eureka Road, so we'd go down Quail Lane, turn right onto Old Eureka Place and do that. I found out about this particular gate that was implemented before any of this happened, and the way that it happened was because There were holes being dug and I said why and the reason why was because there was traffic and my suggestion was if you want to hold that up They were putting the gate over here. You want to show the supervisors. They don't have that one and right there and there's a guide wire as they described and it's very narrow where that guide wire is and so I said how about we you know push it back a little bit thinking that she had permit for this private gate. In fact I suggested because Quail Lane has the same amount of traffic that old Eureka Place does to actually move that blue line the gate Mike over on Quail so that the traffic wasn't using both Quail and Old Eureka Place. Those two suggestions were denied, so over time we have not been able to actually access that roadway when that gate was installed and if it's left where it is. So I have a question for you. Anyone can, well, how many people have to sign on the mortgage for those parcels to have this go through approval? Because we know that not all family members of all those parcels that were mentioned have not signed. So we know that for sure. Anyone can request an abandonment, but not every request should be allowed. The real issue is that there is a real need today. If there wasn't, they wouldn't want an abandonment. That road actually is the closest roadway publicly to Granite Bay High School. You have this picture, and so is Quail Lane, but that is a private, single-lane, narrow roadway. And if they're not turning around on Eureka Place or Eureka Road or somewhere in the middle of Wellington, they're turning around on Quail. Or they go down further and turn around on Bedecky. Or they go down further and turn around. So you can see this map here. It's not one particular issue that's having some impact from the cars. It's everyone in that area. So we need to have a comprehensive plan. So the number one thing for abandonment is, is this roadway not needed now? And is it not potentially needed in the future? So we have a lot of things about that that people will be sharing with you. Can you just show them the last, if you flip the page, car capacity for Quail Lane versus Old Eureka Place? Any questions for me? Thank you. Thank you. This is only one copy. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Donna Matthews. I'm a resident in the area. I am a friend of Donna's, but I'm also a parent or ex-parent from Granite Bay High School. My children attended there. I was coming because I have a deep concern that if this road is declared abandoned that there will not be public access. These people that would like to have this done have shown in the past that they will put up a gate illegally, denying public access. They've also posted signs for no parking, cameras that are videoing you, and that they will tow you away if you are to access their street and park. So their intimidation campaign has led to many people Not wanting to go down that street and this is actually a safe access for people that are walking their dogs taking a bike ride to Be able to cut through on that street and take the public path and so that they are safe there is not On the right side of the road on the current Eureka there the the pavement ends and there's maybe a foot of space that's paved that's considered the bike lane. And that's not a safe way to be walking on Eureka. So this street was provided as a safe access for the public and should continue to be that. As you can see on their own pictures to the left, they already put up gates to the left that are in black. Those are gonna block anybody from being able to walk and access the path. So again, they've already legally put up gates, and now they wanna put up more gates to block the public access to this road. So I'm very much against this. Again, the people have used intimidation. When I parked there personally years ago, I was asked to leave and told it was a private road. So they've been declaring this a private road that's a public road for over a decade. So I'm just a member of the public and would like to put my point of view forth. Thank you.

Thank you. Other members of the public who are here in the chambers who would like to comment on this item?

Hello, my name is Yvonne Tibbs and I am one of the property owners directly affected by this proposed abandonment of public vehicle access over Old Eureka Place. I wanted to briefly address some of the concerns that have recently been expressed publicly about this application.

Do you mind just moving the mic down just a few?

Thank you. Thank you. Old Riga Place has been described as a safe route, walkers and cyclists, and there has been suggestions that this proposed benefits only for us, for property owners, at the expects of the community. I disagree truthfully with that. My husband has addressed the county's findings and technical aspects of this proposal. I want to speak about what it is actually like to live there and the problems that we have experienced fourth hand. We have personally dealt with illegal dumping, vandalism, light fixtures, unauthorized overnight camping, and vehicles entering and blocking this area in. This is not a hypothetical concern. These are things that we have experienced as residents. Restricted and unrestricted public vehicle access will help address these problems and make this area cleaner, safer, and more predictable for everybody, more practical for everybody. And more importantly, this proposal does not eliminate pedestrians and non-motorized access. The county proposes to preserve pedestrian, equestrian, utilities, emergencies, and the existing pedestrian path that remains available. So this is not a closing of Old Eureka Place or taking away a route from pedestrians and cyclists. It's about ending the unrestricted public vehicle access to a dead end road that the county has not maintained since 1998 and does not consider necessary for public traffic circulation. I am also concerned that some of the information being shared publicly may give people the impression that this proposal is doing something it simply is not. And the road works can verify that. I fully respect anyone's right to oppose this application. Everyone has the right to express their opinion. But when these opinions are presented facts, particularly when it comes from somebody serving the municipal advisory committee, they are carrying additional weight And I simply ask that the board considers this actual proposal as a county's findings rather than assumptions about what abandonment would mean. We live here. We deal with this consequences and unrestricted vehicle access every day. The proposal allows us to access and actually needs to remain why addressing public access problems that has created ongoing safety and maintenance concerns. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the Board of Supervisors for the approval of this abandonment of public or vehicle over Old Eureka Place.

Thank you. Anyone else here in the chambers who'd like to comment?

Good morning. My name's Craig Beecham. I'm here today to represent homeowners that are on the street of 4520 and 4515 Old Eureka Place. I'm asking you to approve the abandonment of Old Eureka Place as a public vehicular roadway while retaining the public access for walking, bicycling, squaring rights, horse rights, utilities, and emergency access. I want to make something clear right from the beginning. We're not here asking you to close the trail. We're asking you to remove the motor vehicles from the trail. There's a tremendous amount of discussion In the community of closing the public road, but that's not the description that is here today the whole story Eureka places a dead-end roadway is not through through Street the people who live there people who have to deal with that happens when the dead end becomes overflow parking area, turnaround of placed vehicles associated with school activities and other events. What the roadway looks like, you've seen it before today, the photographs that you saw already, The cars parked on both sides of the street in my, you haven't, there's none of the pictures I haven't seen, but the cars are poked on both sides of the streets that's in my pictures there. Now imagine a homeowner trying to get out of your driveway where this is happening. This is not one car, this is an occasional visitor. This is a substantial number of vehicles at a dead end roadway. When their activities at the nearby high school becomes difficult on Eureka Road, vehicles to go on to your old Eureka place, they park, turn around, they wait, and homeowners are the ones who have to deal with the consequences. I got pictures there showing that they did make a place so people can walk away. A long time ago, you can look at the picture where the county already put up roadblocks The county has already restricted the roadway. The county itself physically restricted the portions of the roadway. That historical photo that I have there shows important because it demonstrates the county has previously used physical measures to control vehicle access. The issue before you is not whether Old Eureka Place should function like an ordinary through street. That does not. I also got a picture there where somebody dumped a trailer. Can't do it.

Thank you. Anyone else here in the chambers who would like to speak to this item? Going.

Okay, thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members of the Board. My name is Brian Tibbs and I'm here to speak in support of the proposed abandonment of the vehicular access over Old Eureka Place. I want to start by addressing some of the information that has been circulating because it is important that this decision be made based on what is actually proposed, not what people fear might happen. This is not an abandonment of access to Old Eureka Place. This is not closing the road to pedestrians, bicycles, equestrians, utilities, or emergency responders. The county's proposal specifically preserves emergency access, utility access, pedestrian access, and multipurpose trail. Fire and emergency vehicles will have access through the gate, and the four adjoining property owners will retain vehicular access. Those protections are written directly into the proposed resolution. What is being removed is public vehicular access at a dead-end road stub that the county itself stopped maintaining in 1998. This distinction matters. I have heard the argument that Old Eureka Place is necessary because of traffic congestion on Eureka Road and traffic associated with Granite Bay High School. But those numbers describe the traffic problem on the surrounding road system. They do not demonstrate that Old Eureka Place is a necessary public through road. Old Eureka Place does not connect those traffic routes. It is a dead end road stub. In fact, the county's own engineering analysis states that it is not needed for traffic circulation and that the county has no current future plans to use it as a roadway connection. The county also states that the reconnecting Old Eureka Place to Wellington Way would create hazardous traffic congestions and increase... conditions and increased congestion. So I respectfully disagree with the argument that we should keep a public vehicular right away simply because there is a congestion somewhere else in the community. If there is a legitimate plan to address the Eureka Road congestion or Granite Bay High School traffic, I support having that conversation. But Old Eureka Place should not be held open as a hypothetical solution to a problem it was not designed to solve. Access to other properties is not inhibited. The county staff report before you makes those findings. It states that only the four adjacent parcels require continued vehicular access and are no longer county plans for future vehicular public use. And that abandonment would help address problems including illegal dumping and abandoning vehicles. And importantly, this application has already gone through the county's process. Notices were provided. Utilities and county departments were consulted, conditions were established, and the county reports that no objections received through that process. So this decision does not have to be about personalities. It needs to be about the actual proposal and facts in front of the board. We can preserve pedestrian and non-motorized access. And we can eliminate unrestricted public vehicle access to a road the county has not maintained for nearly three decades and has no plans to use as a public roadway. So with that, I would like to ask the board to approve this motion. Thank you. Thank you.

How's it going? My name's Gary DeBlack here. I am one of the property owners that backs up to Old Eureka Place, and I have really tried to stay neutral on this for a number of years and watch this play out, but at this point, obviously, I want to get an opinion on this. As you can see in one of the pictures, they were given the okay to put the gate up, and at that point, everybody in the neighborhood was given codes and access if they ever needed to get through it, and it didn't seem like it was an issue until Ms. Eckwartzel and her program wanted to change taking that down. So I think going to a friendly board member at that time, they were able to get the basic gate put back down. And in my opinion, when that gate was up, the traffic flow was actually better. As far as people not being congested, they were doing illegal year turns on pickup and drop off during the school session and everything like that. I guess my big question is, when you abandon something like this why wouldn't you give the property owners the ability to secure it for health and safety purposes i mean i've seen some really weird stuff happen down there and it's not something you would want happening on your property whether it's blocking you in kids partying trash illegal dumping whatever it might be while at the same time you're not going to limit everybody's used to it Everybody still has access to it versus illegitimate traffic. What I also find interesting is at different points in this process, it has been recommended by the neighbor and also by member Jones that putting the gate actually on quail just off of Eureka would solve the solution and get our neighbor who doesn't want this to happen to be satisfied. And my understanding is that the county will not allow that. So the best possible situation is you put it on Old Eureka Place to limit the traffic as proposed. If you put it on Quail it would completely kill all the traffic during the school drop off and everything like that, the illegal turnarounds and everything like that, to be honest with you, is a whole separate issue that needs to be addressed. If any person owned either of those two properties down there and that was their primary access and you lived with it day to day, I guarantee you you would support this abandonment and getting it done. And that's all I've got to say.

Thank you.

Hello, Mike Fry, 8902 Quail Lane, Granite Bay. So my wife and I have been residents of Granite Bay since 94. We've been residents in this property since 12 or 13. So I think we're the longest ones in the neighborhood there. We're blessed to be able to call Granite Bay home. It's a beautiful community. So many things work so well. Just last evening, I was on the property and I was hearing the marching band or the bands over at the high school, whatever was going on. They were doing practice. And we love it. It makes us feel part of the community. The Granite Bay High School has those benefits. It also has significant traffic issues. They were there when we moved in. Hopefully they won't be there forever. But I guess it's been something that we have willingly shared the burden for it. I remain concerned if that road gets taken out, it will affect all the events that we see. We've shared the videos. We've shared the photos. So you have all that. You may have driven through there at the times of day. Somebody is going to get hurt there eventually. Hopefully it's just hurt. And eventually something will get done about the roads. I would respectfully submit that you hold the public access, the road rights that you have, the trail rights that you have at this point until such time that you have a better plan and something has been put into place and the conditions met before taking an abandonment action that gives no immediate benefit back to the county in terms of what they got for the rights that they gave up. So no benefit to give it away, possible future value, and, you know, so again, I strongly urge you to deny the application for abandonment. Thank you for the time.

Thank you. All right, looks like we don't have any more in the chambers. Do we have some online? We do, Chair.

Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments. Good morning. Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Awesome. Good morning, Chair Landon and members of the Board. I'm Amber Beckler, a resident of Granite Bay. I'm here speaking as a resident. I live off of Eureka Road. I'm not here to opine about the approval or denial, but I did wanted to share a few questions that I think are important to clarify for the public access protections. So the first piece in the photos that you saw, the eight and a half foot public access on the north side of the gate, it is relatively narrow. It sounds like staff said that is a standard for the county trails. I would just confirm that it is adequate for equestrian use. In addition, I did ride my bike down there yesterday and right now that side is impassable due to the weeds and overgrowth of bushes. So I would just clarify the plan if this were to be approved today to improve it back to a passable path. The other piece that I'd like to share, because e-bikes are really commonly used for pedestrians, I would make sure that you clarify that all types of bicycles would be allowed, not just road bikes or mountain bikes. And then for ongoing maintenance, obviously the staff presented the conditions of approval. I would just like to ask to make sure there's a pathway for the public if those conditions aren't met. What's the compliance pathway that the public has to report issues, et cetera, if it's not maintained or passable? And then finally, the last point I would make is that obviously this easement allows non-vehicular a passing in perpetuity I'm assuming for the entire area so that if the county decides to make improvements and put a larger bike bike trail or bike lane through there that that is preserved in the future so just making sure that the easement language clearly preserves those rights indefinitely so that the county has a future ability to establish a trail even if it doesn't happen for many years. So I just think these are important questions if you can help to resolve and clarify so that it doesn't unintentionally compromise future public access. Thank you so much for your time today.

Thanks, Amber.

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

Hi, this is Chris Johnson. Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

I also submitted a short present, some slides. Do you have those? Are you able to show those as I speak? Can you hear me?

Yes, we received them. Thank you.

Will you be able to display them as I speak?

No, we can't.

OK, well then I'll just have to talk to this. OK, first of all, and I think you did get handouts of it. So I've been a member of the Municipal Advisory Committee since 2021 and I serve as a volunteer for the community. Granite Bay is a small pass through community of 22,000 people, six miles long and three miles wide. traveling through our communities over 60,000 cars a day. And the problem with all of this is it makes it very challenging for people who live within the community. So in 2021, end of 2021, we received a presentation. We were given a presentation by Parks, and they talked about the number one thing people wanted in Granite Bay were multi-use trails. So after we heard that presentation, we formed a committee called the Granite Bay Trails Committee. I'm talking to you representing that committee and the work that they've done and the findings that they've made on this. Okay, I sent you... Well, one thing I'm sad that you cannot put up is what an actual safe route trail looks like. It doesn't look like eight and a half feet of gravel. It looks like 10 to 14 feet, hopefully of asphalt, but it could be stabilized granite. We won't get into that. I also sent you a photo of what our vision is for the Eureka Corridor. The Areva corridor is very important in terms of being able to have local kids and people be able to go to the schools, be able to go from the Roseville trails, which are very well made, to Folsom, which also has very good bike trails. So we've been working on this for four and a half years. We've been asking for help from the county, and they did do a survey. The Parks Department did do a preliminary road survey. of where we could be able to run that trail. And the key point that I'm trying to make here is that this has been part of the community plan for decades. It's written in our master plan since 2019 and even before 1989 when they did the first one. And now suddenly you want to take away the vital link that we need to be able to connect to the Roseville trails that keeps bicyclists and pedestrians safe and off of the very congested intersection of Eureka and Wellington Way. The applicants here say that they're going to maintain this thing. We've sent you pictures of all the damages that they've done over the years, how they've blocked the trail, and how they've actually harassed and continue to write very derogatory things online about the people in this committee. I'm sorry you're only giving me three minutes. We were planning to do a presentation to you of our overall plan. It's part of the county plaster alternative transportation plan, and now you want...

Thank you, Chris. Sorry we had to cut you off there. We just have to make sure everyone has equal time.

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

Good morning, Chair and members of the board. My name is Kula Kokulianakis. I'm a mother of three elementary-aged children, a Granite Bay High School alumna, and a longtime Granite Bay resident. Nearly 25 years ago, my parents moved our family here for the quality of life this community offered. I grew up here, and I chose to stay here and raise my own children here for those same reasons. I've watched Granite Bay grow tremendously, and that growth speaks to what makes this community so special. People want to live here. We want to raise our families here, and we want to enjoy our beautiful, open spaces. I live off Eureka Road. I walk and use our local trails every day, and I believe we have a responsibility to protect them. On old Eureka Place, residents have reported cars parked illegally along the trail and inappropriate and unlawful activity. Personally, I've encountered alcohol containers, vape pens, feminine hygiene products, cigarette products, and other concerning debris. And as a mother, that is deeply concerning. I strongly support abandoning the public vehicular access on Old Eureka Place. It needs to be clear that this does not close the trail or remove public access. People can still walk, bike, ride their horses. What it does is protect this space for the people it was intended to serve, not motor vehicles. I understand that the board must consider whether the public vehicular right is necessary for present or prospective public use, but this corridor already has very clear public value without motor vehicles, and a trail's value isn't defined by whether a vehicle can drive on it in the future. Its intended use matters too. I also understand the concerns about high school traffic, but Old Eureka Place is not the answer. Those issues require enforcement of illegal parking in bike lanes, illegal U-turns, and jaywalking, and abandonment isn't going to make those issues any better. Without vehicles, Old Eureka Place can provide the safe walking connection intended between Eureka Road and Quail Lane towards Wellington Way. In this community, we've already seen what happens when recreational trails become dominated by vehicles. If anyone remembers Barton Road, it went from an equestrian trail to essentially a mini-highway. And we cannot continue sacrificing the few non-vehicular spaces we have left. In Granite Bay, our motto is a great place to live, work, and play. And as some of our license plate frames proudly proclaim, live and play in Granite Bay. Those are not just slogans. They reflect the kind of community we want to preserve. So we should protect our recreational spaces as places to live and play and not turn them into more places to turn around and park. If every recreational amenity can be sacrificed for turnarounds and parking, we risk undermining exactly what makes Granite Bay a great place to live, work, and play. Some spaces are worth protecting because they are not for driving. I believe that reflects the true values of Placer County, protecting our quality of life, preserving our recreational spaces, and making decisions that serve both today's residents and future generations and for children like mine. I respectfully ask you to approve the abandonment and preserve Old Eureka Place as a safe, non-motorized public trail for pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrians. Thank you for your time. I appreciate your effort and your service to our community.

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

Yes, good morning. My name's Gary Flanagan. I live in Granite Bay. i've been involved with the community for many years most of you know me i believe that it is extremely important to look at the overall traffic pattern plan in granite bay this particular corridor on eureka road is east to west we only have basically two right now eureka and douglas We've tried to come up with creative solutions and in my opinion to abandon this as future viable roadway again is not looking out for the best community interests. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other? Alright, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for questions. Actually, there were a few public comment questions in there. I think Amber had a few, if you want to speak to those first.

Sure. I'm happy to try to do my best to address all the questions that came up. Maybe starting with parking. Again, Sarah did a great job of kind of explaining the impediments of parking there. There's vegetation up to the edge of the road. There's slopes. There's driveways. And what we've seen is... Some of the pictures of when cars park there, they're parking out in the traveled lane, and so that's not appropriate. So there's very limited access to any parking on the road based upon the things that were mentioned. In regards to some of the questions about the trail, about it currently having vegetation, we've talked to the property owners, and they said, look, before we put up any gate, we certainly would clear out that 8 1⁄2-foot section to the right of the gate. and make sure that's passable for trail access. In fact, in the resolution, we'll be putting up some signs that says public access at that location and on the other side at the end of the roadway. As far as questions about compliance, the resolution does give us some ability to do some code enforcement, for example, if maybe the vegetation wasn't maintained at the gate or something else was put up, so we'd have options from that after talking to council. And the easement, you know, as Sarah has shared, is preserved for whatever trail improvements we want to make from the Parks Department. And maybe I'll ask Erica if you'd come up just to talk about the eight and a half foot about it. being appropriately spaced and the questions about types of bikes that can use. OK.

Yes. So Ms. Beckler's question about equestrian access in 8 and 1 half feet, that is adequate. For example, at Hidden Falls, our equestrian gates are 5 feet wide. So that would meet our standards. And then in terms of access on the west end, it does tie into an equestrian path that's 150 feet in length that we do currently maintain parks as well. So we are monitoring the activity that happens with the various user groups in that area.

And then maybe just lastly, I mean, we're certainly aware that there's a lot of traffic from the school. So, you know, we're happy to reach out to the school. And I know Supervisor Jones has done that many times. We're happy to continue that discussion to talk to them about circulation and see if there's some additional things that we can do to help move families and kids better off through that corridor. Thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Gore.

Thank you. So a couple of questions. First, I completely understand concern about traffic and dumping and trash, right? Get that. You have two lanes. Both are privately maintained. Is that correct? They're both privately maintained.

Correct.

One of them asked to actually have it closed. Ask the county to abandon the husband and have it closed, right?

Correct.

So that's the option we're considering. Could the quail lane folks do the same thing?

The portion that has a public easement on Quail Lane is just there at the beginning. The rest of the Quail Road is private. So they could. They could come forward and look at areas that they want to abandon. There will be some setback requirements off of Eureka Road just so that we have shoulder space and so forth. But they certainly could come in and propose additional abandonments on Quail Lane.

And so that's helpful. I mean, any road that has a dead end where people walk through can be a problem for Challenges right whatever that might be I think that the concern I see and I and I asked you went out and took a look at the roads I went out last week. I asked you about traffic on in that area you said not many Vehicles are on old old Auburn place very few and there were a whole lot on quail And you know people saw the turnarounds right not a lot of room to negotiate when there's all that traffic on especially during drop-off. A little bit less in the morning, but there is a clear traffic issue. And what's interesting is it sounds like the traffic on Old Auburn Place is primarily during the graduations and the big events, because you said there were very few cars on Old Auburn Place when you went out the last couple of days. I didn't see any when I went out. Eureka Place, I keep doing that, Eureka Place. I didn't see any when I went out there. I saw a lot on quailing. So I can see the concerns that the residents have of that turnaround. I think the other thing I'm a little concerned about is this. When I asked about public notice, this was done in 2023, originally, the application. And then it was... denied or the application was abandoned um the county discontinued i think is the terminology used when did the gate go in when did that pedestrian gate go in because there was one that was illegal and then one got taken down can you help me out here there's a pedestrian main gate on the road when that went up for that period of time is there a gate there now

No.

There's nothing there.

There was there for a period of time.

So there's nothing there now. There was one, and then it was asked to be taken down. Correct. Got that. That's helpful. Back to the application in 2023. It was discontinued. The applicant obviously, or applicants, reapplied. But who got noticed about the... It sounds like it's a whole new process, right? If it was denied back in 2023... When did this application come forth and who was notified?

Certainly. Thank you, Supervisor Gore. So this abandonment application was circulated as appropriate to the procedures and process in the county's procedures, which includes the adjoining property owners. We also posted notices, as you saw in those photos, on the physical locations. within 300 feet of each other. There were three notices, five total signs placed out there. And then there was a circulation, two circulations within the SACB newspaper.

Yeah, I love the SACB newspaper. You're required, but that doesn't mean anything because nobody reads the B anymore. So our requirement is that they can have an application and you just post it around the area.

the rest the neighbors don't have to be might like that with planning we have to do you know three hundred feet or thirty residents that's right so that's not the same requirements correct in eric and correct me if i'm wrong but that is following the streets and highways code right so we did it was a problem can clarify the process uh... as it happened uh... when they realigned eureka uh... that left the old eureka place and that part of the parcels were not built yet. They were built afterwards. So then one day the gate goes up and of course the neighbors complained because it restricted some access. And so they had the county look into it. And because the road had not been abandoned, legally they couldn't put the gate up. So the county told them they would have to take the gate down until and if they were to receive an abandonment. So the whole process began. They applied for abandonment. went through several reiterations because applications were not complete until they got everything complete. And that's what brings us here now. The gate posts remain. They allowed them to keep the gate posts. So if we do not get the abandonment, the posts have to come down as well. So that's what gets us here where we are.

Thanks.

Appreciate that.

You bet.

Supervisor Gustafson?

Yes, I had a couple of questions. One is, in reading the resolution, I'm not clear who will maintain, who will be required to maintain the trail and in perpetuity.

So the easement still is privately maintained. And so again, part of the resolution as well, the access around the gate, they'll be required to, uh, uh, keep vegetation clear and free and it would remain that way until such time if the county ever decides to create a publicly maintained trail then at that point parks would likely be the maintainers of that perpetuity.

So those property owners benefiting from the abandonment who will have that abandoned will be required to maintain that. It didn't seem as explicit maybe as I would like to see it. And then my second question for county council is not present day owners, but 20 years from now, somebody buys a piece of property and starts to obstruct that. How do we, the County defend the public access right there? Or does it revert to neighbors having to sue neighbors or others?

Yeah, happy to address that.

So an easement like this is recorded on the title of the property, so it carries with the property if it's later sold. The buyers of that property would get notice of the existence of the easement. It is a county code requirement that property owners that have an easement on it, that they not obstruct the use of that easement. So trails or roads. So if they did something that would ultimately obstruct that easement, then there would be a code enforcement action that could be brought by the county. So that could be fine sites. A road commissioner could remove the hindrances to that access. All of the potential code enforcement options are viable.

Okay. I have a situation just in my own neighborhood where it is a county right-of-way and we have started a process that takes a very long time, as you know, um, to get enforcement from the property owner. Uh, and so I would just call that into question that we, as, as a board need to look at those situations and maybe give greater enforcement tools, uh, to encourage people to remove obstacles in the public right of way, or an easement like this to ensure that that moves forward.

Supervisor Dima take.

Thank you. I see people with their hands up. Public comments closed in case the chair didn't see it. Just wanted to give you guys a heads up. Questions on Quail Lane? It's a private road. It's not a public road, non-maintained public road. It's a private road, Quail Lane? You want to maybe answer? Correct. I just want to make sure I'm correct.

There is a small portion of Quail Lane at the south end, which is... encumbered by a public easement.

So is that about 50, 60, 100 feet past the stop sign? I can check this.

Yes, it's near the stop sign. I'll pull the map here and see if we can get a distance on that.

So if it's a public, I mean, if it's a private road, and now Old Eureka Road is going to be abandoned, now a private road as well. Can all those residents just move that gate 50, 60 feet off of Eureka Road so the whole thing is private and they don't have to have, I mean both roads are pretty narrow. I drove there the other day with my truck. There was no cars on the road but I couldn't imagine those people having cars parked there and there's a horse property there trying to get their horse trailers through there. So is it possible to just close off the whole thing and what would that take?

So, you know, additional area of the public easement could be considered for abandonment, but an application would have to come forward with all the appropriate legal documents to do anything additional on quail.

Okay. Even though it's in, but if we put the gate just past the public easement on the private part, does that give enough space for the people on quail to put their own gate up? If it's a private road, why are they restricted from putting a gate?

So I understand your question. So, you know, if you're saying if the, does the residents want to put a gate on the, the area that's outside the public easement. I've got Chris here. Maybe he could talk to gate requirements on private roads. That'd be helpful.

So that way they just don't have one on Old Eureka and then one on Quail to stop the traffic, but just have one so they all access it. And, of course, the Knox box would be for emergency use only.

Thank you, Commissioner DiMattei. Chris Pahuli, Placer County Planning Director. If there were to be a request to gate the road at Quell, that would be something that we would have to evaluate. in terms of gated, gating that road. You know, a gate for Old Eureka Place, I think that in staff's estimation, that would not, Would not trigger the community plan policies that are specific to subdivisions So we would have to evaluate a further or a gate on that On quail to determine whether or not that community plan policy applies So does the community plan hinder private roads I It could and has. A subdivision that is utilizing private roads has been evaluated in the past and determinations have made that that community plan policy does apply if it is a subdivision. Whether or not it's a public or private

I think about a year ago we had the Winchester situation, or two years ago now, where they wanted to gate, and the community plan had said no gates.

Yeah, but that also had emergency access vehicle. We're talking about two pieces of property that have dead ends, or two roads that have dead ends.

I'm just trying to point out that it's... What he's saying is correct. We made the findings that the community plan would have to be changed on that.

Yeah, we've also had some recent projects in the Granite Bay community where gates, again, private roads, but it's part of the entitlement package. There was consideration for gates or not to gate the community. Right. In one case, the gates were allowed to be provided. In the other, they were not allowed to be provided.

So as we do our community plan updates, we should look into that. Probably change a lot of languages throughout Placer County.

Yeah, there's been a lot of discussion about the community plan policies related to gated subdivisions in Granite Bay.

so i i'm i'm okay with this project but i'm also would like to have more information on what it would take to just close off that whole section i know that we don't have control over what the school does that's their problem the traffic is their problem but now it seems like it's impeding other people's problems to get in and out of their own homes so if we can just close off the whole thing for them i would like to have information on that because it seems like that's what the public has been at. Those 10, 20 people who live, it impedes them. So if we can get some, if I can, if the rest of the board agrees, that would be my ask to see if we can do that as well. So thank you for the info, appreciate it.

You're welcome.

Supervisor Jones?

Yes. I can chime in on that also as well, Anthony. But first of all, I want to start out by addressing the comments that were made about me and I said that so my comments were taken completely out of context by taking just a segment of a sentence out of several sentences that I addressed to the person I was emailing. Second, my comment was not an endorsement of the abandonment. What I said was, and I told everybody, that the proponents who had applied for the abandonment had done everything that was required for them. They submitted the application until they got it right. They did the survey work. They paid for survey work. They did everything they needed to in order for this step to be able to be granted an abandonment. That's all I meant. Didn't say that they were going to get the abandonment. I said they had crossed all their T's, dotted all their I's, so everything was in place in order for them to be given an abandonment. But, of course, it would have to be approved. The other thing is that both proponents and opponents were engaged in a very, very heated, controversial, angry exchanges on social media. And as a supervisor, it's my job to try to settle everybody. I don't take sides. I try to settle everybody. And so that was what I was dealing with on both sides. So now I want to address the gate at the opening. So I did propose it. This gate was purchased by the people on Old Quail, I mean on Old Eureka Place. So I had proposed to them the possibility of moving that gate out to the opening where you turn onto Quail so that both streets would be included. That way you'd have the free access with the horses and blah, blah, blah and all that kind of stuff and it would keep parking off of both private streets. But the proponents who own the gate opted not to do that. So that's where we stand. So if we were to put a gate there at the opening, somebody would have to pay for it, either all of the residents, because we can't buy them a gate.

Yeah, I'm aware we can't go put the gate up. That's why I asked. If they asked what I hear today, because they want both of them closed off, then it's up to them to put their application to close it off.

I don't know if the quail lane people want it blocked off. I just asked the question. They both have the right to and the ability to, but they're not asking for it. So I think the concern is, right, from the folks on quail is that they're concerned if you close old Eureka that it will affect the traffic on quail lane. That's the concern, right? You close one, it's going to impact

Right.

And they're not asking for their lane to be closed because then they have to pay for it and maintain it and the whole thing.

Well, it's private anyway, so they still have to maintain it.

They still have to maintain it.

They don't have to pay for it. I talked to somebody on the phone. They're like, we have asked to put the gate there, but we were denied by the county. So that's why I want to know why they were denied or if it was even denied. That's why I'm asking the question today is why can't we put it there if there was an ask for it in the past? Obviously, this is not the subject today is to close the whole thing. Ask today is just to close this. Yes, we can close this today, but if they come to us, why can't we put it there if they want the whole thing closed off?

Well, as I said, I had already investigated that option, and it was an option. So I asked the proponents if they would be willing to move that gate to the front, and they declined. Okay. Yeah.

There were comments raised about one of the first commenters had a request for recusal and I wanted to address that specifically. From the administrative record that I've looked at so far, I haven't identified any basis for recusal. For somebody to be required to recuse from a decision, there needs to be a showing of conflict of interest or bias. And in specific with that bias, that's gotta be established with concrete facts showing a probability of bias. In general, supervisors have a right to discuss and state their views on matters of public importance. And I haven't identified anything so far that's been provided that shows there's a conflict of interest or bias. So legally there is not a requirement for recusal from what I've seen so far. Thank you.

Supervisor Jones?

Okay, I do have more additional questions. So first of all, one of the questions that the constituents asked is if all of the pertinent parties' residents signed the abandonment application.

Yes, we've received signatures on all the forms from the applicants.

I'm just curious why they think that not everybody signed it. Are there residents, all of the parcels that bound the old Eureka Place, all those residents signed that application?

Yes, they've all provided letters indicating their no objection, and we have signatures on the application forms from those adjoiners.

I think she was asking if all the residents who live in each household had signed those, but it doesn't sound like that's a requirement. It's just the property owner?

Correct, it's not a requirement.

Yeah, legal owners. Okay, and then I have a question on the portion of the trail the one, the DG trail that goes from the road down and then eventually to Sierra College.

Okay, I'll introduce myself now. Erica Seward, Parks Administrator. So you're talking about the West End trail, correct? So in talking with our park staff just minutes ago, they verified 150 feet, DG path that parks maintains and then ties into the DG path that we're responsible for along the Greyhawk subdivision. Is that what you're referring to, Supervisor? Yes, that's right. Yes, so we do maintain that.

Okay. And so if it, when it gets degraded from rain or water or whatever, do you guys always go out and make repairs to it or, I mean, is it? Yes, we do. Okay. Okay. So I wasn't sure I heard some word about it not being a maintained trail.

Well, earlier this year we worked with Council to identify that the Greyhawk segment of trail is in fact our responsibility to maintain. So I think that's where some of the confusion lies and then we went out and cleaned up the path and dealt with the erosion issues.

Okay. Because that's where some concerns were that the trail would not be usable. Right. So I'm happy to know that it will be. So then I'm wondering, too, about there are, on that picture, there are a couple of big boulders. I notice there are stakes there and boulders. I didn't notice those stakes there previously, back when this whole thing began. There we go, okay. Okay.

Y'all get to participate. Matt Randall, Deputy Director with Public Works with Road Maintenance. So I think the boulders and the stakes, there were some issues with having vehicles, I think, going past the barricades. So I think those, they're road reflectors, really, I think is what you're referring to. So those were put in by the county.

So my question is, and the boulders as well, because it's in the pictures here where they've got the stakes and the boulders in front of it. So in the event that, let's do a yes or no. If it does get abandoned, do we remove the stakes and the boulders? Because now we're preserving that trail for people to go in and out. And it doesn't look to me like I wouldn't go through those big boulders on my bicycle.

I don't think we have any plans to remove them.

Well, I mean, if we abandon the road, I don't think we have to worry about any traffic or small vehicles going past that. So I just think it should be opened back up for bicycles and pedestrians.

Matt, do you remember what the clearance is between there?

Yeah, I want to say there is. I don't know if it's the full eight feet, but there's definitely clearance for bikes and pets. Okay.

Well, is it a possibility? Because they never used to be there until some people in vehicles decided to try it.

I think we certainly can look at it.

Yeah. Okay. Good. For sure. Good. I appreciate that. And then so some of the things that I'm kind of worried about. Supervisor Gustafson brought it up, is about the proponents agreed to maintain this, the trail area and the clearance on either side. So I think, as Council was saying, is if we can get something in writing that's signed by the parties and recorded, or however, so that it follows with the land, because let's say one of them sells their home and they're no longer living there, but whoever buys their home Will they feel like, well, it's not my responsibility. I don't have to take care of it. You know, is that a way that we can pass those responsibilities on?

Yeah, I can speak to that. And I think this is a point that needs some clarification, too. I mentioned earlier the county code has requirements about not obstructing a trail or roadway. That's different from an ongoing maintenance obligation. The resolution itself does go into some detail about the placement of the easement, but there is nothing in the resolution that requires the property owner to maintain the easement. We do have a county code enforcement mechanism if they obstruct it, which to me is more of an active requirement of obstruction. But if there is an interest in putting an affirmative obligation for maintenance of the easement on the property owner, that could be included as a condition imposed for the abandonment. I've got some language that's drafted here if the board is interested in that.

Yeah. Well, it's not so much for maintenance as it is they had agreed to keep it clear on the sides of the gate for pedestrians, bicyclists, and also horses as well if they think they can fit through there. Part of my question is so keeping those weeds away and also to kind of make sure that the dirt stays level. as it is right now on the other side of the road there are little small rocks at the end at the edge of the road which you couldn't even drive on that edge of the road with those small rocks in there i think that the rocks should be cleared out of that little Path right on the edge of the road where if they were to come out on the other side There is still a way for bicycles and pedestrians to come out on that side It's not as wide as the other one But my question too is also you thought the possibility maybe the possibility of them moving the guide wire a little bit so it makes that that's space a little wider

We certainly could ask PG&E if they'd be willing to entertain to do something like that. It could come at a cost, certainly. But it is a request that we could make.

Maybe we can get the cost out of my lighting and landscape district. I don't know. We'll have to look into it. But I think anything we could do to widen that would be most appreciated because I just don't think it's. I don't know much about horses, but I think that if they're put in narrow spaces, don't they get a little icky? I don't know. So I'm just trying to look out for the horse owners. But anyway, so those are the things to promise to keep them clear at all times. And then... I think that maybe Parks or DPW, if you guys could just go in and make sure at the beginning things are set the way you think they should be maintained into the future, like the ground being level and not rutted or anything like that, if you think you could. MR.

Certainly we can coordinate with the property owners as they're doing that work.

MS. Okay.

Thank you. Supervisor Augusta.

Thank you. I just wanted to continue this discussion. We've clearly excluded ourself from needing to maintain this trail. Somebody has to cut weeds. Somebody has to make sure something is done. And I would suggest the property owners be responsible for that. We'd be explicit about that. So I wanted to hear what Mr. Cook's suggestions were on that.

Sure. So if we were interested in adding some language to the resolution that would require the property owner have an affirmative obligation to maintain that trail, we could impose that as a condition. And one of the conditions I'm thinking is that we would add a requirement of a written agreement between the applicant and the county where the applicant would agree to maintain the multi-purpose trail easement and non-exclusive pedestrian easement. And in terms of adding that as language to the resolution, I can go through that, but I think it would be adding at the end of the resolution before all the exhibits to state, be it further resolved that this resolution will not be recorded until the following condition of abandonment has been fulfilled to the written satisfaction of the Placid County Director of Public Works and Placer County Council. One, execution of a written agreement between the applicant and the county with county council concurrence where the applicant agrees to maintain the multi-purpose trail easement and non-exclusive pedestrian easement for public access purposes, period.

Supervisor DiMattei?

Yeah, thank you, Chair. To be clear, if you're looking at the south side of Old Eureka is a drainage canal. The north side is the easement. Is that correct? The access easement?

The north side is where this cleared pathway would be that we're discussing, yes.

So we're not making anybody – the drainage is the drainage. That's not where people can walk. There's rocks there, whatever. We're not going to – that's not what we're talking about, right? The easement is only on the north side of Old Eureka Road.

So the easement, the reservations and everything that we will retain in the after condition go all the way down, but the pathway, the connection that we're discussing would be just at that north side past the north post.

There won't be access on the south side, only on the north side. Correct. Okay, just wanted to be clear. Thank you.

Can I ask a clarification with that? So there's a road there, right? If people walk through the pedestrian access, if it's closed off, can they walk on the road? Or do they only have to walk on the maintained road? pedestrian because it's a whole area right there so with the reservations over that entire area they can use the roadway they could use the road yes okay that is helpful but i still don't love this

okay i have a few questions first of all i think this is neighbor issues are always the worst i mean i think it's really just a bummer that neighbors can't can't come together to try and find a resolution and a solution and so i mean it would be great if all of you could come together and actually sit and share a meal together and find a pathway where maybe you would all don't get everything you want but maybe you get some of what you want and so I would just challenge you even whatever happens today maybe just sit down together for a meal and have like a real human conversation because these things are just really challenging and hard and we're all human you know so um that's my little pontificating but I um a couple questions so I know Derek I had reached out to you ahead of time and asked about how many property owners were notified. And as Supervisor Gore mentioned, there was kind of extensive extra outreach that was done in 2023 at the request for the public works director to do some more robust outreach. And at that time there were 75 responses that came in you noted that that was split almost exactly 50 50 so there were half of the 75 four and half against and that it went to the granite bay mac in june of 2023 one of the questions i have is when it went to the mac um were there concerns that were presented that then were resolved in the current application? Were there things that were changed, I guess, from the previous application to the current application?

Right, yeah, the initial application proposed removing vehicular access as well as bikes, peds, and equestrians. And so I think that's where many of the concerns of the community came up, especially with this route being shown on trail master plans. And so this When it was discontinued, the new application was just coming back forward to ask for vehicular access being removed.

Okay. So there was some concession on the original application to now include Bike Ped Equestrian in the new part, in the new application. Okay. And then is there a reason why it didn't go back to the MAC again this time around?

Again, I think we were just following standard noticing procedures for our abandonment process. I think because the initial request was much more substantial, I think there was a lot of interest taken to it, and that's why it was elevated and brought to the MAC. But again, I wasn't here at that time. That's just my assumption based upon reading the record and understanding of the initial application process.

OK. I think one of the things I've painfully learned myself is that sometimes just doing the bare minimum isn't always the best and sometimes we can do more and go above and beyond and i think this is this is probably one where we could have gone out and and more and and maybe some of these things could have been resolved maybe not maybe we sort of landed in the same that that optimistic person in me wants to say no would have been resolved that and but i do think i would i would request and recommend that in the future and i mean I can understand from a staff perspective why this time it may not have seemed as controversial because they had given up or they had allowed for the pedestrian equestrian and bicycles and so it would kind of make sense okay well now those things are resolved so we probably don't have much of an issue so I understand and it makes a little bit more sense to me now because originally coming into the hearing I really kind of felt like we shouldn't make a decision because that process needed to be followed. But I think I understand now why it wasn't. I think I would just personally, as one supervisor, ask for any opportunities that we do have to do extra outreach. I think the only thing it does is increase the amount of time for something. But I think it allows for some of those public consternation to vet itself, I guess I would say. Let me see if... I would agree with Supervisor Gustafson. I think it's really important that we have an ability to enforce if there isn't maintenance along that trail. And again, I think with the neighbor issues, I think this is an opportunity if... if this happens to go forward today, for you as the applicants to really work with your neighbors and for the neighbors to work with you to make it a joint community effort where it's something that the public can enjoy. But I think we have to have the ability to bring the hammer down if we need to if that's not happening. So I would definitely support that. I think those are my comments for now. Supervisor Gustafson?

I just wanted to bring into consideration, too, and I know we had some case law that we maybe may play a role here that you want to identify for us, Clayton. Sure. On a somewhat similar but different situation in my district.

Yes. So one of the requirements for making a finding of a road abandonment is that the board determined that the road is unnecessary for prospective public use. And that's a requirement in the streets and highway code. And I think there's a lot of confusion over this point. There actually was a court case that the county was involved in historically that involves that as well. That requirement for unnecessary for prospective public use, it does not mean a determination that there is no public use on the site. It instead means that the board has determined that the road is unnecessary for purposes of the entire roadway system within the county. So not necessary for the county's public transportation network is really the way it should be explained. Not that it's not necessary because people would use it if it's not abandoned. And I think that clarification's important. There's actually a third district court of appeal case Martis Camp Community Association versus County of Placer. That's a published opinion. It was published in 2020 that holds that proposition. And so we're familiar with the analysis of it, of course, because it involved us previously and our office was involved in both the findings leading up to that, which Mr. Sandman was involved in, and then the litigating of it afterwards.

May I ask a question? Yeah, I just want to thank him because I didn't want to try to Explain that there is precedent that we are within our legal rights to make the vehicular issue some roadway Yeah, and my point of clarification Clayton.

It's not necessary for transportation network What about parking how does parking play into that because that ultimately ends up being an area where people have parked and

Yeah, so the transportation network, I think, envisions more of roadway thoroughfares. I don't believe that it necessarily includes parking, but that is certainly a factor that the board could evaluate.

Thank you. I think that's my concern, is that you close this and it affects the parking on another lane. That's my biggest concern.

Yeah.

Yeah, but we, yeah, as I look at the roadway and the width and as I went out there, I mean, it's not adequate for the parking that was occurring. And so you're blocking, you're impeding if there was a claim, you could have a claim the other way, right? That you're impeding public access by the parking, so.

Supervisor Jones?

Yes, I want to address the part where you felt like it needed to go before the MAC. This has been an ongoing discussion. It's been heard in the court of public opinion on social media, next door, and everything else. So really, all interested parties have been opining both ways for better than two years while we wait to see if the abandonment might whether it could even be a possibility with the application and everything. But in addition to all that and the school traffic, it is a mess. It's a mess. And DPW has agreed to meet with me out there to see if there are any possibilities of easing some of that congestion around that intersection. Mothers delivering kids to school are the most aggressive people I've ever met. And so it's extremely difficult, but as well, and the CHP, I think we'll invite the CHP. And I hope most people understand that the county has absolutely no jurisdiction over schools. We cannot tell schools what to do, how to do it or anything. We have absolutely no jurisdiction over schools, but we'll do our best. I have been trying to examine 12 ways from Sunday, how we can establish more additional parking for that high school. There was a large lot in the back that the county owns that Derek has already investigated to find out that there are vernal pools out there. So there's probably zero chance of leveling that and providing additional parking for those students. Outside of that, I really don't know where else. I had asked the Chabad if they might work with the high school and rent their parking spaces. But instead, with all of the sentiment around the world, they put gates on their facility as well. And so that opportunity went out the window. And aside from that, there's really no other places to park. So, I mean, I have been working on it. I've been trying to find solutions, and Derek knows, because he's helped me, and so has Kevin, trying to find them. But we won't give up. We'll keep trying.

So it sounds like you're planning a meeting with the school and CHP. Is that what you were saying?

Derek and, yeah.

We're happy to. I mean, we talk to schools all the time, and if we can help and maybe even look at their on-site circulation and provide some suggestions, maybe there's other things that we can do to try to help.

Part of why they don't have enough parking is because what the school did with part of their proposed parking lot, they put in a soccer field. So that eliminated a whole bunch of parking spaces.

Supervisor DeMattei?

It seems like this is pretty wrapped up. I would like to make a motion to abandon this, go forward with a motion. the recommendation and also add in what Supervisor Gutherson has asked for as well. It was one of my notes as well, to make sure that the owners now maintain it so it's still accessible by the public. And how we put those words in, we'll leave it to the boss, Mr. Clayton. But I would like to make a motion to approve this project.

I'd be happy to second that motion.

So just for purposes of clarity, the motion would be to approve the actions requested that were read in by staff previously. Items one through three. But for item two, it would be adopt a resolution as amended and read into the record by council that is abandoning public vehicular access over a portion of old Eureka Place in Granite Bay, comma, as described in exhibits to the resolution, comma, subject to the findings set forth therein. Yes, correct. Thank you.

OK, and we have a motion by D Matea in a second by Gustafson. Before we take a roll call vote, I just want to say this is this has been a really challenging one and and I really understand both perspectives. I can. I feel both sides and I get it. I really do and. I think there are some valid concerns around what's going to happen when that road gets closed. Where are those people going to park? They're going to end up getting pushed out onto another road. There really is no perfect solution. I want you to know that clearly it was not an easy one. We've been going back and forth for a little while now. I do think that we at least have some methods in place to enforce and making sure that that trail is maintained the way that it said it's going to be maintained hopefully supervisor jones and derek and his team can have some successful conversations with the school Um, I know that there's still gonna be some other issues that arise as well. And, um, you know, I just, uh, there again, no perfect answer to this one. And so I just wanted to make sure I stated that before we take our roll call vote.

Supervisor Demonte. Yes. Supervisor Jones.

No.

Supervisor Gustafson. Yes. Supervisor Gore. No. Chair Landon.

Yes. Okay. go have lunch together please okay we are now going to move to and this is what the plan is and we're obviously way behind and so we are going to hear items six and seven then we're going to go through the department items we will then go to a short closed session and come back for our ADU item item 8a after closed session Okay, we might do maybe a portion and come back. We'll see what time it is.

Then we'll go back to closed session because it's a longer.

I think that's the plan.

Okay. Yeah.

All right, we will now move to item 6A, funding commitment letter for the Hopeway Apartments Phase 1 project.

Hello, good afternoon. My name is Marie Maniscalco. I'm your housing development project planner with the CEO's Office of Economic Development and Housing. And I'm here today to speak to the funding commitment letter for the Hopeway Apartments Phase 1 project. You heard something similar in January, but this is a revised proposal, same project, different scope. So phase one includes 132 apartments and associated on-site and off-site improvements. So what you're seeing here is the site plan, the grayed-out area is not included for funding at this time, and the developer is not proceeding with phase two at this time. The project was approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 26th of this year, including that the project is consistent with the previously certified Housing Needs Rezone Program programmatic EIR. And again, this is in Penryn, if that wasn't clear, at the intersection of Hopeway and Penryn Road. The proposed project funding sources include $7.26 million of county funding. This represents a total cost of 10% of the project development. The total per unit cost for the project is around $543,000. This is commensurate with averages across the region for tax credit affordable apartments. And the proposed county funding per unit is $55,420. Some of the material terms for the agreement, as are shown in the funding commitment letter, which is included as an attachment in the staff report, are for acquisition, site improvements, design, construction, and permit fees. The term of the loan is 55 years with 3% simple interest. This is a below market rate loan that's being proposed. And the reason for that is it provides a subsidy that enables the development of below market rate units. It is commensurate with the public benefit of providing affordable housing opportunities to Placer County citizens. The loan would be repaid at the end of the 55 years. If the project has additional cash after rents and all the operating expenses, that's what we call residual receipts, then 25% of any cash that's left over at the end would be used to pay back this loan. These are standard affordable housing loan terms as we see throughout the state. The agreement parties include a special purpose entity, which is PENRIN 721LP. Again, standard practice to have a limited partnership as a special entity for affordable housing projects. USA Properties, Housing Trust Placer, and a future tax credit equity investor would be members to that LP. Importantly, the source of funds that we're looking at to help support this project are exclusively from the Bickford Ranch affordable housing and lieu fees. Over the lifetime of Bickford Ranch, they are expected to contribute about $11 million in affordable housing and lieu fees. So this request is for the first 7.26. The county currently has a balance of just about $1.2 million. It's available now. The other thing that's unique about this deal is that the developer is actually proposing to contribute their own bridge loan, their own equity into the deal to help make sure they can start construction. And then over time, as Bickford Ranch fees are taken in by the county, the developer can then request to draw those fees down. Importantly, these fees are not advanced, nor are they guaranteed. So if for some reason, Bickford Ranch fails to move forward, or they're slow in their development, if we don't have the fees, if the county doesn't have the fees, the fees won't go out. there's no contribution from the general fund. These fees again as a reminder would also come back all of this loan plus interest comes back can be reinvested in future affordable housing as well as any fees generated in excess of the 7.26 will also be invested in affordable housing in the future. As I just mentioned again 3% interest coming back to the county no later than 55 years from the time of the first disbursement and there's no impact to the general fund. The actions that you'll see on this slide have been slightly edited, so I apologize, I'm gonna read them out loud. The version that's in the staff report is correct. The actions requested today are one, to approve and authorize the county executive officer or designee to execute a funding commitment letter with Penryn 721LP conditionally committing the county to enter into a future funding agreement for a loan with a principal balance of up to $7,260,000 to be repaid over a 55-year term at 3% interest per annum for the development of phase one of the Hope Way Apartments Project, subject to county council and risk management concurrence. Two, to authorize the county executive officer or designee to execute a future funding agreement, use deed restriction and deed of trust, inclusive of any related documents with Penryn 721LP that is consistent with the terms of the funding commitment letter, and to approve such terms and conditions within the funding agreement as are reasonably necessary to carry out and fulfill the purpose and authorization provided by the board, provided that such terms and conditions are consistent with the intent and scope of the board's authorization, subject to county council and risk management concurrence. And three, to determine that the requested action is not a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA guidelines section 15378. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Okay, questions or comments from board members? Supervisor DiMattei?

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Just one question on the request for funds later. Is there a, say there's only 250, what's the limit that would have to come to the board for approval? Or if we approve the whole 7 million today, county staff has the obligation just to give it to them without coming back to us?

Correct, the terms of the deal is that the first $7.26 million of Bickford Ranch and Lufi, affordable housing and Lufi's that come in, they're pledged to the project. So they would just become, as they become available, as the county collects them, the developer can then say, hey, we've had expenses, we'd like to put in a request to draw those down and take our own equity out of the deal.

Okay. Nothing that has to come back to us until it reaches? Correct.

This would be the only action between now and a funding agreement and those funds being released with lots of conditions. We negotiated most of a pretty full and complete funding agreement back in January, but this is a funding commitment letter. We would get all the final details and all the lawyerly things out.

Because there's only like a million plus or minus dollars there, right? Currently, yes. Okay. Perfect. Thank you.

Mr. Cook? Any other questions right now? Okay. I will open it up to the public for comments or questions.

Good afternoon. Madam Chair, Supervisors, my name is Milo Terzic. I'm with USA Properties Fund. Thank you for hearing me and having me here today. I want to focus on a few key elements of the agreement. First, the request before you today has resulted decades of planning by county staff, years of process by the board. The project is approved, CEQA is settled, and we are ready to move forward with 131 affordable homes. Importantly, this includes all of the critical offsite, roadway and utility improvements, the onsite infrastructure, for the full approved 240 units. If phase two is never built, those public improvements amenities are still delivered with phase one. Second, this request is not for tax dollars. Bigford Ranch affordable housing in lieu fees were paid specifically for affordable housing and are restricted to affordable housing purposes. This agreement stipulates that Bigford Ranch affordable housing in lieu fees are the sole funding source for the request. Third, it's been argued that developers have not contributed their fair share towards affordable housing, yet is also objected to sometimes when affordable housing fees paid by developers are proposed to be used for affordable housing. If affordable housing in lieu fees are not to be used to create affordable housing, then the purpose of that policy is defeated. So another significant public benefit that should not be overlooked Before any single resident moves into phase one, I'm sorry, before any single resident moves in, phase one generates approximately $6.3 million in county and agency fees, including funds for transportation improvements, parks, schools, fire protection, water systems, sewer infrastructure, and county facilities. Those fees are paid at permitting and construction milestones So the public infrastructure investment occurs first, and public agencies receive the impact fee benefits immediately. Finally, the public benefit of this funding commitment is substantial. Local commitment helps leverage $64 million in outside investment to Placer County, resulting in 131 affordable homes. So with that, we think that the public benefit is clear. The use of the funds is clear. Your policy says these funds should be used this way. Staff says these funds should be used this way. USA Properties, a constituent of this county, is putting their own money up to make sure that these funds are used appropriately. And most importantly, the 131 families who can't speak for themselves here yet because the homes are not built, they want these funds used for affordable housing. Thank you.

Thank you.

Some of us and senior members of our finance staff are here if you have questions for us later.

Thank you.

Good morning, Jennifer White, Placer County. I just wanted to ask a couple questions. One question is, is it covered that the loan may not be repaid for 55 years? And then my second question is, why is the per unit cost so much more for this loan versus the Placer Affordable One project? which was $543,577,000 versus $247,222,000 per unit. I've followed this project for a really long time. They're building less units now, so I'm not sure why they're coming here asking for money. I understand these in lieu unit fees for this process but as residents stated and many other of these talks we want those in lieu fees going to smaller projects that we support that aren't going to bring a three-story building into our area where our community plan doesn't call for it. You know, this company said you have to do it this way, we're gonna sue you, we're gonna sue you. Well, Penrhyn sued them. We went to court, or I didn't go to court, but they went to court, and there was things stopped on this project. And I just feel like, This development group has taken a lot of money from Penrhyn's community, from individuals, and threatened them, and now they're here asking for some fees. And I think it's really kind of disgusting. I know we need these houses built, but it's really sad that it's come to this. I hope that you'll keep these in lieu fees for the smaller projects that come in and want to work with the community, work with the community plan, and not try to just railroad and run over the residents and then cause the residents all this angst cause them to have to go to court, have them to contribute their money to pay for an attorney. So I'm just really sad that we're here again. I think the community really wants these houses built, but we're tired of just being run over and not heard, having our community plans not listened to or looked at, and I hope you will make decisions here today that will reflect the community for the people that lived there for a long time as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other comments here in the chambers? Okay, is there anyone online? Yes, there are a few.

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

Greetings again, Supervisors. I am Luis Alessi, founder and director of Christian Valley Park Residence Coalition. I urge you to reject both developer loan proposals. Diane, you are subsidiaries. Their units was and.

I'm sorry what we were having at your can you hear me now?

Oh shoot, OK. Is it still cutting in and out?

I know we can hear you now.

Hello, yeah, we can hear you OK. Alright, hopefully we can freeze. Oh good, can you reset some time for me please? Thank you. Okay, so hopefully I don't know where I left off for you to be able to hear. But anyways, if you came in due to a settlement deal with USA Properties at all, the reduction, and this is a timeline obviously, was to cut a backroom deal and attempted to put lipstick on a pig to make it look like pigs look like a different animal. Just to come back again for funding, you've already denied. If you approve either one or the other of these request commitments, you'd be setting a horrendous precedence for the shady side of tax dollars being sold and bought, which is adding to the out of control inflation, saddling debt on more than eight generations worth of citizens. And these are so-called legal subsidies for the needy populations, which is prejudicial under the hood, which the public does not support. I'm amalgamating the two agenda items because they are not mutually exclusive. Hopeway's affordability expires. Hopeway stated costs of $543,577 per unit. The affordable covenant expires in 2028 or 2081. After that, the developer can convert the market rate housing. County loses 131 affordable units permanently. This is not perpetual affordability. It is a temporary subsidy. the Destination Placer 1 project has no funding source cited. Disclose the sources. Name the buckets. What are the named, where are they named on the budget? Problem 2, Destination Placer 1 requests $8.9 million. The county admits it doesn't know where this money is going to come from. The memorandum states the ad hoc committee has not established a recommendation regarding a Dedicated funding source. You cannot approve an $8.9 million loan without identifying where the money is.

Diane, that item we haven't heard yet, so if you could wait to comment on that item until the next item, that would be great.

You're going to hear it twice then. Okay. Both serve the wrong population. County's housing element identifies 1,247 units needed for families earning $15,000 to $25,000 per year, 0% to 30% AMI. Both projects serve 80% AMI families. These projects address- Thank you, Diane.

Sorry that we had to cut your time. And there was a few more, right?

Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments. Caller, are you able to unmute your mic? This appears to not be.

We can come back. Maybe skip her and come back after the others.

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

Yes, can you hear me?

Yes.

OK, my name is Travis Travnikar. I'm from Penryn. I just have a couple questions. Regarding the funding request from USA Properties for the Hopeway project, is there still a question about the traffic situation, the roundabout, which means the roundabout, the left turn lane into 3M Center?

Has this been resolved?

And what exactly was the resolution as it appears it's still up in the air? Will you be able to make a left turn in and out of 3M Center? And as I've mentioned, the difference between 55,000 thousand per unit and twenty five thousand per unit seems to be a why is there such a big difference between those type of buildings it's interesting that we have two developers at the same board meeting both asking for large amounts of money we don't have does this raise a concern in your mind that it might be a trend where is the money coming from is it wise to commit to lending money we don't have if we approve these loans Where will the money be coming from for the remainder of the required housing projects when those developers ask for loans? At the January board meeting, you denied funding because you said we could not support the loan. What has really changed? Without answering these simple questions, I don't see how these loans can be considered and approved today. Please deny. Thank you very much.

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

Yes, my name is Sheila Travnikar. And again, USA Properties is asking for funding for the Hopeway project, but the circumstances regarding why the funding was originally denied have not changed. In January, you said we don't have any money. Also in January, it was stated Bickford is the only project that didn't Lua. Well, they've only paid a little over a million dollars. So where does the money come from that goes into this fund? We've asked this many times. We've never got an answer. Where does it come from and how much is actually in there? No developer proposes a project that they cannot afford. U.S. Properties is a for-profit company. Heck, they won't even paint the monstrosity to blend in with the community. It's going to be these ugly colors that are going to stand out like a sore thumb. And why won't they do that? Because they don't have to. They're not doing the county any favors here. Their goal is to make as much money as they can, and I don't deny them that. I was a business owner, but the fact remains we don't have the funds to support these projects, and you cannot start promising money that we cannot repay. We'll never be able to repay it, and we'll never get out of the hole that we did for ourselves. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Lexana, are you able to unmute your mic to give comment?

Okay.

We have one more. Okay. Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments.

Hi, I'm Pam Asai from Kenron. And I want to simply express my support of previous speakers and continue to tell you guys to please stand with your original decision. I also want to express my concern and dismay at backdoor deals. And It seems to be a ridiculous, you know, assumption that these developers can come here and use a valuable time to revisit a question that was already answered. I really resent having to rearrange my day, my time, my life to continually watch for the quality of life that I have earned and paid for so that I can make sure that this doesn't continue, this development. Yesterday I drove down Penryn Road to the very site that we're talking about and it's atrocious with regard to the traffic that is already there. I can't believe you guys approved this Project as is, but I know it's because of our state requirements, but please do not fund the atrocity. Thank you. Pass.

Thank you.

No further colors.

Alright, with that I will close the public comment and bring it back to the board for questions. Well, I have a few. So I sent these to you all ahead of time and, well, actually forgot again the public comment question. Some of mine were the same as theirs. So why don't you go ahead and answer. I know there was one around the loan and the cost of construction. I don't know if you want to speak to those. Sure.

Yeah, absolutely. When it comes to the cost of construction and noticing all projects have different costs of construction per unit. This project, when in comparison to a project you'll hear subsequent, is a smaller project, so there's less efficiency of scale. It also includes a pretty substantial amount of off-site improvements. When we look at the many projects that were funded in the region in 2025 with tax credits, the average cost per unit across the region was about $549,000. This project's just under that. They ranged from about 340 all the way up to nearly $700,000 per unit. So I think the construction costs here are within what the market is currently delivering. When it comes to the source of funds, As is correctly stated, about $1.1 million is currently sitting in the fund of Bickford affordable housing and lieu fees. And again, the remaining amount is going to be contributed from equity from the developer. So they're actually pulling into their own cash balance to activate this project. And if and when additional fees become available from Bickford Ranch affordable housing, they can then be invested into the project. The developer will swap out their equity for those fees.

Can I just ask, can you repeat that clearly? I mean, you're being very clear about the The public is still saying it's not transparent. I want to be very clear on this point for the public.

Absolutely. So this is very unusual for a developer to contribute their own equity into a deal. I have never seen it in my years working in affordable housing. And what they're doing is leveraging what's only $1.1 million of county funds at this time to help get these units built. So they are putting in over $6 million of their own money to ensure that construction can start. And then as Bickford Ranch continues to develop, continues to pull building permit fees over the next five, 10, 20 years, only then can those fees, those fees will then go into the deal. So we're really leveraging future fees now to get the housing that the community needs now.

Absolutely, and it's clear that the source of that funding, I just want to be clear for the public record, is Bickford Ranch development fees paid for to provide housing. So it is not tax dollars from any other source or any other mechanism. Correct. I want to be clear to the public because they still seem not certain about that, and sometimes we speak in language and terms that we all understand, and the public may need to be further educated. So we collect those fees, and the developer is taking the risk. Correct. Because if those stop, if Bickford stops developing, there's no fees generated to pay that back.

Correct. The county is not obligated to front or guarantee any of those Bickford Ranch fees. They only come in if and when those permits are pulled.

I know you explained it all, but you go very quickly, and I do think we need to be very clear for the public on that. Absolutely.

I think there was one question. I know it's not directly related to this, but there was one question on the roundabout conversation and where that is right now. I was wondering if you could speak to that.

My understanding, and I'll let the developer or the planning director, if they want to add additional color or perhaps counsel, but my understanding is the roundabout is part of the approved project and is being included in phase one as it's a required part of the project. There may have been additional terms that were negotiated in the settlement agreement that I'm not familiar with.

Looks like maybe Marcus is scooching up.

I would just ask, as Marcus is walking up, that that settlement agreement was not something the county was a party of, so that would be something that the applicant would have to bring forward in terms of a project modification.

I'm chair members of the board, Marcus LaDuca, on behalf of USA Properties Fund. As our understanding that staff, various departments, including planning and public works, have been looking to schedule a meeting, hopefully early next month, to discuss if there are any alternatives potentially to the roundabout and to examine those. So they've been working on that in terms of the all the technical issues that might be involved. But again, as the staff just mentioned, it's part of the approved project. We're required to put it in, but we are continuing those conversations with PCNR and staff to be able to see if there's anything, any other alternative that might be available.

Okay, thank you. So the other questions I had are, if the project doesn't have any residual income in any given year, Does the county receive no loan payment that year? And do we have a projection showing how much to realistically expect the county to receive each year?

Yeah, that's correct. So if the incomes that are generated from rents for the project are the same amount as what it costs to operate the project, then there would be no residual receipts and there would be no payment back to the county. If the rents are above and beyond what it costs to operate the project, and that includes all the basic things, all the insurance, maintenance, all the things we think of in addition to paying back their commercial loans, making sure that they're recouping their deferred developer fee. After that, the county will take 25% of whatever's left over. So they are looking out towards completing, I believe it was near 13, repayment of the deferred developer fee, at which point the county would start receiving some payments back. Those funds would be available immediately to be redistributed out into the community for other future projects. But the full payment, which would be expected to be a balloon payment at year 55, would be the far outside end of that. And I don't know if the developer wanted to provide any other comments on their financial model. They could do that.

Okay. And so could we theoretically go 5, 10, or 20 years without receiving any payments?

We could.

Okay. And then what happens if at year 55 the project hasn't generated enough residual receipts to repay the loan?

Yeah, there will be protections in the funding agreement that speak to this. It's a loan. It is due. It is not a forgivable loan. There would be recourse to recapture the county's investment. I don't know if council wants to add anything to that, but... Just as if you had a loan, like a mortgage on your house, right? There'd be recourse. What's more typical is that the tax credits for these programs are good for 15 years. So what's typical in the industry, again, can't speak specifically to this project, but would be for a refinance actually to happen in year 15. They'd often end up buying out loans that they've had in the past. So, but yeah, I don't know if there's anything else that council or the developer wants to speak to on that.

Council, I may just look at Chris McDermott, who was handling this for our office, to see if you want to add anything. Yeah, sure.

Good afternoon, Chris McDermott, Deputy County Council. So the funding agreement would be secured by the Affordable Housing Agreement. It would be secured by a deed of trust. And so to answer your question, at the end of 55 years, if there's just not enough money to pay our loan back, we would have a security interest in our deed of trust so we could foreclose on the property. And then we could also pursue non-foreclosure remedies, like initiating a lawsuit.

Okay, thank you. Supervisor DiMattei.

Thank you. Thank you guys for the presentation. Just to be clear, for those in Penryn who I've talked to, neighbors, in the settlement agreement that the Penryn group had, in their agreement was to... to support this funding. So for those who have called and talked to me and said not to support this funding, which doesn't swayed my decision here today, but you guys did agree to, um, to back that funding. Also, I have a question. If Bigford has given us money and, and so say the board, for example, doesn't approve funding for this project, are we in, um, in noncompliance with Bigford and the county for not providing funding? Is there a development agreement with Bigford and the county that we have to use this funding for? And if we don't use it, are we in trouble?

My understanding is that it's discretionary, that these funds are kept in a separate fund. They are limited to use for affordable housing. But it would be up to your board on how to invest those.

OK. Just to clarify.

Thank you. I would agree with that for what it's worth. The funds need to go to affordable housing, but they don't need to be used for this project.

Supervisor Gustafson?

Well, and that's to another question I think Jennifer raised is, are there other smaller projects that might be interested in using mitigation fees? And have you been approached for any other smaller projects in that vicinity?

We have not.

It's very challenging to do those smaller developments.

Okay, I don't see any additional questions at this time from board members. So now would be your time to chime in. Supervisor Gore.

Well, Madam Chair, I appreciate all the public comment. I appreciate the developer making a change coming back. I appreciate those who sued the developer working through this and wanting to support this, so I'll make a motion to move approval of the item. And I will second.

Okay, before we take a vote, I just had a couple of thoughts I wanted to share. So I voted no on the original request that came forward, and I think I was pretty clear for my reasons why it had everything to do with the density and the size of the project. And I still am not supportive of the larger project. Because of the lawsuit, this has now been broken into two phases. And so this phase is 131... 33? 31. 32. Okay.

It's 132 total, 131 affordable plus an on-site management.

To me, that's fair. I would be thrilled if that was the end of this project. I know that that probably isn't happy news for the developer of this, but to me that's appropriate. It's a little bigger than what I would hope for Penryn, but I think that's appropriate for the community of Penryn. And I would prefer no subsidies. I'm a free market person, but we don't live in a free market in California, unfortunately. And so we're in a position where we have some affordable housing dollars that are coming in from Bigford. They can be used for this project and I'm supportive of using the funds for this phase one. If and when a phase two comes back, I have a great deal and number of concerns. But I just wanted to make sure I stated that on the record before we had a final vote. Supervisor Jones?

Yeah, I'd like to say something as well. I did work with Placer Citizens for Neighborhood Rights as well, and he told me that part of that agreement was for us to be amicable towards the loan of money. Well, it's not really a loan, it's the fees, me and the fees that we're going to be giving them. I only had a question is, why 55 years to repay the loan? It seems crazy. I won't be here to see it.

Yeah, 55 years is commensurate with the length of the deed restriction. So the developer, in return for that, is promising that these units are going to be available for lower income households for 55 years.

OK, thank you.

All right, we had a motion by Gore and a second by, now I forget, Supervisor Gustafson. This is a roll call vote.

Supervisor Jones? Aye. Supervisor Gustafson? Aye. Supervisor Gorg? Aye. Supervisor DiMattei? Yes. Chair Landon?

Yes. Okay, thank you, Nikki, Marie.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. We will now move to Item 7A, Preliminary Funding Letter for Placer 1 Affordable Housing Project.

Good afternoon chair members of the board Nikki Strigan with your housing and economic development division By I'll start with some background here while this slide is up in a letter dated August 17th AmeriCorps development Inc submitted a funding request letter in the amount of eight point nine million dollars for 360 unit affordable housing development, 356 of those are identified as lower income affordable apartments, and four of those are manager units. Consistent with housing element program HEB 12, the Placer Ranch Specific Plan Development Agreement describes an affordable housing obligation specifying that affordable housing be developed on four specific sites, PR 41, 42, 44, and 48, and that across the entire specific plan, 10% of the total residential units within the property be affordable housing. Of that 10%, the affordability levels are broken out by 4% very low income, 4% low income, and 2% moderate income. In a letter dated August 19th, provided as attachment C in the staff report, Jen California, the main developer and property owner, Provided additional information on property 47. Property 47 was originally identified for market rate housing and is one of two sites proposed for construction of the destination at Placer 1 affordable housing project. The letter further states that GEN California would waive its right to transfer affordable housing obligations from sites 41, 42, and 44 to 47. And as a result, and a reason why your board is considering this request at this time, the affordable housing units constructed on Site 47 would be considered additive to, rather than credited toward, Gen California's existing affordable housing obligation. Gen California also confirms that it intends to satisfy its affordable housing obligations associated with those other sites I've mentioned. So up here on the screen, you'll see a description of the project. This is a 13.4 acre site. south of Sunset Boulevard and east of the destination drive in Roseville. I mentioned it's a 360 unit project comprised of varying affordability levels. You can see 36 extremely low income, 36 low income, 284 low income units, and then four unrestricted manager units. It's comprised of one, two, three, and four bedroom units targeting households with incomes between 30 and 80%, and the name, as you can see in the subject of the board memo, is the destination at Placid 1. This project was actually recently on the zoning administrator agenda. That's August 20th, this past August 20th, and the design review agreement associated entitlements and sequel review were supported by the zoning administrator. The total project cost is just over $148 million, broken out by unit is just over $412,000. You can see the capital stack to the left broken out very similarly to the item heard just before this one, showing the majority of funding coming from tax credit equity and tax exempt bonds. This project is aiming to go into a September 8th competition this coming next month in order to try to win that source, that funding source. The requested county funding is $8.9 million, as mentioned. I'll talk a little bit about where this 242 units associated with the public benefit comes from in just another slide. When we look at the requested funding per unit from the county, it's just over $36,000. Total cost, that comes to 6%, but when we just look at the affordable units and the associated dollar amount with those, it's actually an 11% contribution. The proposed loan terms, slightly different than the item you previously heard, it's a 21-year term, 3% simple annual interest. Same kind of structure, this typical affordable housing loan, a residual receipts loan, and consistent with what we measure the project against when we review these loans is consistent with the housing trust fund guidelines. Importantly here, what's being requested is a preliminary funding letter and not a final funding commitment. Any future funding commitment letter would return to the board for approval. At this time, there is no direct fiscal impact from today's action. A funding source must still be identified, and that is up for discussion with your board today. Any future $8.9 million loan does depend on some conditions that are outlined in the preliminary commitment letter. I had mentioned earlier that the Gen California letter at the beginning of the presentation, it notes that site 47 is an additive site to the four that are already named in the Placer Ranch Specific Plan Development Agreement. Importantly, this letter does not cite the exact number of units proposed on site 47 with this project. The project includes a total of 208 affordable apartments on site 47, as well as 34 excess affordable apartments on site 48 for a combined total of 242 additional affordable apartments. This 242 additive affordable, these 242 additive affordable units represent the county's identified public benefit described in the staff report. That is the affordable units proposed in excess of the developer's existing affordable housing obligation. And notably, units that cannot be credited toward any of their obligation. Uh, the conditions in the preliminary funding letter, which required the security of the public benefit must be recognized through board, um, future board consideration of a funding commitment letter, as I'd mentioned. At a high level, those conditions include completion of the county's application, showing consistency with the Housing Trust Fund guidelines. Staff received an application through a platform called Builder's Patch. That's a platform we use to manage funding agreements. And we'll continue to work with the AmeriCorps team to ensure the items needed to complete that application are submitted to the county. And then I think most notably, which I've mentioned a few times, the future board consideration on the funding commitment letter is still a requirement. So the action requested before your board today is to one, consider a request from AmeriCorps Development Inc. for county funding for the destination at Placer One affordable housing project in the amount of $8.9 million to be paid over 21 years at 3% simple interest per year for construction of 360 apartment units at Placer Ranch specific plan parcels PR 47 and PR 48. and authorize the county executive officer to execute a preliminary funding letter outlining preliminary loan terms to serve as the framework for future negotiations of a funding commitment letter. Two, direct staff to negotiate a funding commitment letter consistent with the preliminary funding letter for future board consideration. And three, determine that the requested action is not a project pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA guideline section 15378. And that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer questions.

Thanks, Nikki. Questions from board members?

I'll wait.

Okay. I see Mr. Taylor's here, and he has to leave quickly, so I will ask if he wants to come up really quick.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Clifton Taylor with Taylor Builders, master developer for the Placer One project. Just want to thank staff for all their hard work to accelerate this hearing so we can make the September 8th funding guideline. Appreciate the CEO and his efforts. Appreciate Shauna and her efforts and Nikki and her team in housing. for bringing this forward. I think, you know, we clearly believe that there's a strong public benefit of including additional affordable housing in one of the fastest growing parts of our community. We think it's a tremendous location for future residents to enjoy Placer County near schools, parks, transportation investments that the county is currently making. And so we're hoping we can get your support for this funding and move forward with the first affordable housing project in placer uh... but noted also accelerate some of the deeper affordability units significantly beyond what the development agreement calls for so uh... if you have any questions for me i'll try to hang out for another twenty minutes or so but i do have conflicts to get to and i know chris hawk is here for mere corn uh... to represent the project as well thank you and okay i will go ahead and open up public comment if you'd like to come forward

Good afternoon, Chairperson Ling and members of the board. My name's Chris Locke with AmeriCorps Development. I don't have any further comments to add at this point to what Nikki's presented to you in terms of her staff report. However, I did want to take a moment to just say how grateful we are with respect to staff and all of their efforts in helping bring forth our requests to the board at this time. They've been terrific to work with, including Daniel, Nikki, and Shauna, and we appreciate everything that they've done up to this point in helping us get here.

Thank you.

I'm available for any questions you might have.

Okay.

Hi, Veronica Blake, CEO at Placer Community Foundation. As affordable housing advocates, we're encouraged to see the developers and specific plans propose affordable housing units that exceed their requirements. Many of our residents have expressed that they prefer to see the affordable units constructed in the specific plans, and this matches. With another 15,000 units planned in the pipeline for Placer County over the next 20 years, we're going to need this kind of innovative thinking and a lot of money to make it happen, so appreciate your consideration of this project.

Thank you. Anyone else here in the chambers who'd like to comment on this item? Anyone online?

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

Okay. Supervisors Diane Louise Lissing, Christian Valley Park Community Services District and CDPRC. We went to great effort to outline an alternative to use of our housing funds, I encourage the public to go read what we submitted to the administrative record. It is a comprehensive written protest to the Board, an objection. We detail fiscal problems, equity issues, and we introduce the CLT, or Community Land Trust, plus the THRO solution. I urge you to, as a call to action, reject this developer's commitment letter. For this loan, direct staff to commission a feasibility study on community land trusts and tiny homes on wheels. Identify the county owned land for a CLT and THRW development. Establish a community advisory committee on affordable, real affordable housing, not the slant that you're putting on this. Key advantage, a family earning 22,000 a year can afford $550 a month in a tiny home. They cannot afford $1,300 a month in either the Hopeway project or this one. It says residents own homes and build equity. They don't rent forever. Affordability is perpetual, not 55-year expiration. County owns land asset and zero financial risk. Placer County can leave California really truly affordable or attainable housing innovation but only if you choose equity over developer profit only if you choose the poorest families first thank you any others no further all right i will go ahead and close public comment and bring it back to the board supervisor gustafson

Thank you. I wanted to thank seeing both of our development partners out here that we're moving forward on affordable housing. And this is such a challenge for all of us. Some are required in specific plans. Others, like Bickford, we didn't require it in a specific plan. We required fees in lieu. So we couldn't build it there. But we're making progress. And I'm just so heartened. that we are making progress toward those state mandates so that we can continue to move forward and serve our communities. It's not perfect and it probably never will be. We have such an equity in salaries and jobs and home equity and those of us that have had the opportunity to build that equity and those who haven't yet but we're trying to make progress and I'm just really pleased to support this especially because it is additive. to what the developer needed to do. So thank you.

Supervisor Gore? Yes, I appreciate the additional public benefit that comes with this, the additional 242 units. That makes a huge difference, especially some that are more affordable because the developer did not have to do that. And so there's a benefit of us providing these funds that actually get something built and get it built before homes are right in that area. because that's always a challenge, right? Areas are zoned for affordable and then apartment, three story apartment complexes go up and residents in the neighborhood just freak out. So I really appreciate this being done early and really appreciate how staff has worked with the developer and builder to really make this work. I'm really pleased to see additional units, 242 additional units other than what's required, so thank you. Supervisor DeMattei?

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation as well. I do agree that it's great that we're putting these projects before houses so we don't have to deal with what we've dealt with in the past and nobody else has to deal with that in the future. I guess we just have some money questions. If we're giving this out as a loan, is it coming from the general fund? How does this go on our books? Does it go as debt? How do we collect, you know, how are we collecting this? Is it coming from discretionary funds that we have? Because we have, as DPW came to us two weeks ago, that we have infrastructure for the people who already live here that we don't have enough money to go fix what we already have or construct what we need. I mean, I agree with funding projects, but we already have this deficit of stuff that we still have to fix, and it seems like we don't have enough money for that. But again, biggest question is how does this go on our books if we loan out this money?

I'll take this one. I'll start this one, actually. So as it states in the fiscal impacts section, there is no direct fiscal impact as a result of this action. approval of $8.9 million is dependent on identification of that funding source. We might look then to county leadership and your board to talk about what that funding source is.

Supervisor Jones.

Yes, thank you. Got some stuff here. So it addresses the project proposed, well, they're going to, resulting in 242 additional units beyond the affordable housing obligation. But I'm wondering what level of affordability are those 242? Do we know?

That's a very good question and something that we actually will need to further discuss as part of both a preliminary, both a funding commitment letter AND ANY ASSOCIATED AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND POTENTIALLY RELATED DA AMENDMENTS. SO I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE WILL NEED TO DISCUSS.

OKAY. AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, IT SAYS NO COUNTYWIDE POLICY EXISTS REGARDING QUANTIFIABLE PUBLIC BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE UNITS OR UNITS DELIVERED PRIOR TO STATED TIMING TRIGGERS. So under the HCF guidelines, a project may be eligible for up to $60,000 in assistance per extremely low income unit. So what's the, it says in assistance. What, where?

The housing trust fund guidelines speak to a threshold of $60,000 per unit. So we've been using that as sort of a guide here to say that the request here per unit is just over $36,000. We're well under that threshold. So that guidance is helping us make a determination here that we're consistent with county policy.

OK. And then so the loan isn't secured. Correct. I mean, just like any other normal loan, you have security. You secure the loan if you default.

So the same provision would be, as we discussed for the last agreement, would be included in a future funding agreement for this project as well. So just as Ms. McDermott spoke to earlier, there would be provisions for the county to ensure they're repaid, whether that's through foreclosure or lawsuit. Those terms would be negotiated and included in a future funding agreement. So again, today we're looking at a preliminary funding letter. We would come back to the board for a funding commitment letter, which would then authorize the county executive officer or the designee to get through all those details, one of which includes those provisions to make sure that the county is paid back and these dollars can be reinvested in future affordable housing projects.

So we have to identify a source, a funding source?

Correct. No source has been identified at this time.

What are our chances of figuring out a funding source? I mean, we don't have many options.

Yeah, Supervisor Jones, I mean, the likely scenario is that this is use of discretionary general funds in consideration to Supervisor DeMattei's point in consideration of the other projects and efforts that the county is undertaking including road projects, facility projects and the like. We do have capital reserves that could be utilized for this and then again the discretionary general fund.

I don't know, we're asking the whole county every time we do a budget to tighten our belts with regard to needs and wants and desires for facilities and personnel and everything. It's concerning to me. I did ask the treasurer tax collector his opinion on it, and it wasn't good. The other thing, too, I have concerns about, I really have concerns about setting a precedent because, you know, I understand 242 extra units, but the issue is any other affordable housing builders, you know,

And the way I would look at it is anyone else who came to us, there would have to be an additional public benefit for it. That's the only reason there's a willingness to say yes to this, because we're getting an additional $242,000. Otherwise, my first response is no way. I'm not just gonna give money to developers that are required to do 10% inclusionary and just help them do that because they already signed the deal knowing that there's a 10% inclusionary. But this is an additional, and it's not two or three units. It's a substantial number of units. And that's why I feel like I can justify it And then we're actually making progress towards it. And, and so I, I hear your concern and that was my first thought originally was like, unless we have some type of benefit, I'm not going to just.

Yeah. Say yes. But it even states in the, in the, uh, the report that there's no countywide policy in existence right now regarding quantifiable public benefits. with regard to additional affordable units or units delivered ahead of time.

Right, and I think that's a good point that I think the ad hoc is working on as part of how we come up with funding packages because I've been assured by staff they've looked at projects throughout the region. Everyone is taking local subsidy now. And that means to achieve our goals, to keep development moving forward and growth moving forward, we have to invest in affordable housing to some degree. So what is the appropriate amount? And that's going to vary, and that's what's so challenging. Project by project, in a specific plan, the infrastructure is already there and being paid for by those market rate units. In a standalone project, it isn't. We're struggling on, as I think we all know, on Dollar Creek and what we do with that project where we've already acquired land and have been sitting on vacant land for quite some time that the county put forward out of discretionary funds to acquire land. So it is not an easy solution. But we do, I'm looking forward to the ad hoc committee and some of your discussions as to how we fund this because to Supervisor DeMattei's point, we have all kinds of needs in our county today. We know we have deferred maintenance on buildings such as the one we choose to live in here that I fondly wish would go away at some point in time. But I hear your concerns and I share those concerns and I think our constituents share those concerns. How much is the right amount and how do we ensure we're moving things forward? into addressing our housing challenges so that the state doesn't shut us down. We went through all those debates, and I know some don't believe that'll happen, and that we can continue to ignore those requirements, but we've gotta make progress. That's why I'm willing to take that risk.

Right, I agree, but I think that we need to figure out a funding source first.

Well, since we're not, I think for clarification again, we're not voting on the actual funding today. So really quick to her, Supervisor Jones' question on the number of very low versus low. Are those not, were you just saying, because it was broken down on slide two, right? But you were just saying you don't know of the 242 how that breakdown, is that what you were saying? Correct, yeah.

Which ones would it claim? Got it, okay.

Well, I mean, my thoughts are I just I'm really thankful that we have an opportunity to get additional units. And I will say, you know, there's not very many opportunities where someone is coming forward and saying that they want to provide an additional benefit for affordable housing. And so that goes a really long way. And as Supervisor Gore said, this is not just five or 10 units, 242 additional units. And the biggest piece for me is that it's in an area where it makes sense, where we want affordable housing. We want it to be where there's transit and good infrastructure and the Sac State campus will be nearby. I mean, there are so many great things about this and now nine million dollars almost nine million dollars is a lot of money and by and i i think the ideal situation would be that we had a plan in place for these types of requests so that we had a pipeline and we knew how to you know priority and all those things that would be the ideal But sometimes we don't have the ideal. We have to work with what we have. And that's where we have an opportunity for a developer to apply for funding. If they don't get that funding, then all of this is moot anyway. If they do get that funding, then we have an opportunity to identify and to make a priority of that funding, whether it comes from reserves or not. So those are my thoughts. Any other additional questions or comments?

No.

Okay, I'll bring it back to the board for a motion.

I'll make a motion for the requested action considering this is only a consideration and it still has to come back to us for a final approval. The only other comment I had is a lot of people said, hey, we're making 4%, we're giving it to them at 3%, but I think a $90,000 haircut in our income might be a little bit beneficial, but that's it.

I'll second the motion. I think there's some sort of requirement about the 3%, right? Is that correct?

3% is industry standard. It's what the county has given in the past, as well as it's also spoken to in the Housing Trust Fund Guidelines.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, it's been moved by DiMattei, seconded by Gore, and this is a roll call.

Supervisor Gustafson? Yes. Supervisor Gore? Aye. Supervisor DiMattei? Yes. Supervisor Jones?

No.

Chair Landon?

Yes. All right, thank you. And I meant to say thank you also to Nikki, Marie, your whole team, Daniel, Shawna, everyone who really rallied to get this to the board quickly, because I know it wasn't expected. So thank you for your work on it. All right, we are going to now move to our first department item, item 9A, 2627, budget amendment to fund various code enforcement nuisance abatement activities. Yes, I agree.

100%. Yeah.

And members of the board, I'm Zach Sanders. I'm the manager of code enforcement. And the item before you right now is a request to establish a nuisance abatement fund to provide $175,000 in initial funding. These funds will allow code enforcement to complete county-initiated abatements and resolve several longstanding nuisance cases that have continued to affect surrounding communities despite prior enforcement efforts. As you recall, the need for dedicated enforcement funding was discussed with the board in December 2025. This was during Code Enforcement's progress report presentation. Today's request advances that discussion. Excuse me, I've been sitting so long. Since that time, code enforcement has been working with procurement services to establish a list of pre-qualified abatement contractors. This will streamline contractor selection and allow us to proceed promptly once funding is available. Should the board approve this request, code enforcement is prepared to move quickly. We have identified approximately eight high priority cases that are ready to proceed to abatement. These cases primarily involve significant accumulations of junk and debris. excessive outdoor storage, and inoperable vehicles. After the abatements are complete, I will return to the board with a consolidated request, or correction, a consolidated request for authority to place special assessments on the affected properties, secure tax bills, and record liens. This will allow the county to recover authorized abatement, administrative, and enforcement costs. Recovered funds will then be returned to the nuisance abatement fund, creating a revolving source of funding for future abatements. In closing, I'd like to read into the record the actions requested. Firstly, approve the creation of a nuisance abatement fund. Secondly, approve a fiscal year 26-27 budget amendment number AM-01361 to increase appropriations for the Community Development Resource Agency's nuisance abatement budget in the amount of $175,000. Thirdly, determine the proposed actions are not projects pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378 and alternatively are exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15061B3. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Questions or comments from board members? Anyone here?

Oh, I just think it's an excellent idea. Oh, thank you. We need it, so thank you.

Yes.

I would go higher.

Can we take bids on this? No.

And Supervisor Jones.

Yes, I agree. You've got plenty of those. You're going to spend a lot of money in our districts. But yes, yay. Let's get it done.

Anyone here in the chambers who'd like to comment on this item? Anyone online?

No, Chair.

All right, I'll bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval.

Second.

Wow, everyone is so excited. Move by Gore, seconded by DeMattei. All those in favor? No, just kidding. It's a roll call. Aye.